There’s no problem.
No country realistically wants world peace. We’ve never had world peace, so why raise the bar now? 
I think they probably all want peace, on their own terms, which are not intercompatible.
Islam has a PR issue. This is evident in their slogan ‘the religion of peace’, for if it was truly such a religion then it would not need to be stated. Sure there are peaceful Muslims, but perhaps because they try to fit the ‘God desire’ of their hearts for peace into their religious upbringings, which will be for a time, but never works in the end. These people of God will break free of all religion, but will serve God in their religion till that time, as Jesus said you have to Love God with everything you have, and you don’t put new wine into old wine sacks.
You want to talk about the crusades or the conquistadors fine that would be fair and very honest, but it is dishonest and deceptive for you to put this one on Christianity, we are far removed from such a single minded christian state when it comes to the war on terror, and in some ways is a mass defense against the Islamic motivated people attacking the rest of the world along with the control of the resource.
Don’t enterbulate us, bro!
Well, Bush did have a “holy war” narrative going, kept saying he was on a mission from God and used the word crusade in his speeches. The invasion itself was far from religiously motivated of course, but I’m sure many Americans did see it as the sword of God driving at the Musselmen nevertheless.
(Wasn’t there also some humdrum about US soldiers and/or Blackwater goons trying to convert the locals during the early occupation period ? I distinctly remember a news story about this, but my Google Fu is failing me)
ETA: besides, I believe Der Trihs’ point is that since the OP is not being fair to Islam, he can be unfair to Christians too to show that brand of Islamophobia as the absurdity it is. If you feel that his example is complete bullshit, it just means it’s working.
kanicbird, That sounds suspiciously like a “no true Scotsman argument” to me. And it’s worth pointing out again that Islam is not a single, monolithic religion, as much as some of the extremists (and Islamophobes) would like it to be. There are as many different schools, sects, offshoots, branches and interpretations of Islam as there are of any other major religion, Christianity included. That fact is shown by the OP’s own link.
So when you say “Islam is cannot coexist with a peaceful world”, which Islam are you talking about?
I’m pretty sure Islam doesn’t have a “slogan”, and I’m not sure why “Religion of Peace” is intrinsically any different to “Prince of Peace” on a PR basis.
Ah, the old “if they’re peaceful, they’re not real Muslims” argument. That one never gets old. Alas.
With God the no ‘no true scotsmen’ defense does not apply. One can see in the Gospels and Acts that God sees the heart directly and judges the heart, you are either totally 100% for God, or your not. Giving 99% means you not. There is no shades of gray, and therefor no room for the Scotsmen argument defense. (note I’m not talking about 100% christian, but only 100% Love. I use the christian scriptures because that’s what God has used in my life and I know it better then others).
I am aware of this, and feel that it is a strength of Islam. There are dangerous sects of Christianity also, that I’m sure would be doing the same thing as Islam aggressors if placed in a similar situation. It is a function of oppression and misplaced aggression with the ability to act.
I didn’t say that, that was the OP, but will agree with it on the basis of religion can not coexist with a peaceful world and Islam is a religion.
I thought I’d seen it alongside their corporate logo sometime.
It was just above the Mission Statement on their last company prospectus.
‘Religion of peace’ is as close to a slogan as any religion has and is pretty much a slogan, I can not think of anything close to it. This doesn’t make it wrong to have a slogan, but lets call it for what it is. Prince of Peace is a title or another name for Jesus given in scriptures, Jesus as a King of peace and a Son of a King of peace, it is a appropriate title. It is the name and title of the deity, not a slogan for a religion.
kanicbird: This is actually a serious question. Are you aware that your interpretation of the New Testament is not the only interpretation?
Bush did appeal to the religious aspect, so yes I’ll give you that, but as you admit and I agree it appears that Bush’s motivation was perhaps less religiously motivated and other factors were involved.
I may have recalled such, but this was not done in mass, and my point was it was not just solely a christian war effort, but just a aspect of a much larger war effort.
Possibly, but it seems like DT has issues with Christianity from other postings. Taken in the way you state makes me wonder if the comparison is to a similar degree.
OK, so as a piece of homework, can you find a group of Muslims using that slogan, but not living by it?
God has a PR issue. For starters, He has too many accounts with to many agencies, leading to difficulties with brand identification.
I disagree, it applies beautifully. You ascribe things you like to God, and thing you don’t to not-God.
Was there an answer to this question?
You mean this one: http://www.islamicblog.co.in/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Islam_religion_of_peace_by_karbala_style.jpg
I’m relatively confident **kanicbird **is actually saying that moderate Muslims are on the right path, but not quite Christian yet. Which is obviously the one true path to peace and so forth.
That being said, it’s hard to figure out what the hell he’s talking about most of the time.
Absolutely, but that’s the point. Islamic terrorism is similarly just one aspect of a much larger Islam, and speaking as if it represents or speaks for the whole of the people who call themselves Muslim is just as unfair and ridiculous a characterization as saying Iraq was a Christian crusade. That’s DT’s position, if I understand him correctly.
Well, yes, our **Trihs **has a bit of a beef with religion in general. Can’t say I always disagree with him either. Doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a point in this particular case. If we are to assign the blame for Islamist extremists on the whole of Islam, then it’s only fair we assign the blame for any Christian wingnut to the whole of Christianity isn’t it ?
Or, to put it in less sarcastic terms, doing one is just as absurd as doing the other. People are just people, no matter where they come from or what they believe.
That’s what I believe at any rate. I may or may not be people 
Actually on the correct path to God, just as many Christians are.
As do I, as did Jesus in the gospels.
Fair enough
HA, shouldnt it have been *rein in *and not reiGn in. You slipped there, you Mahometan scum. I know the only thought harbored in your mind is that of my total submission. Oh yeah, I can totally imagine it already, me all strapped and tied, defenseless to your very evil ways.
You might have my body, but you want have my soul, man.
I have to say that I have learned a lot about the scriptures from debating here the learning is ongoing (which btw should answer your question).