Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Yeager on July 13, 2005, 02:00:17 AM
-
See rule #5
-
I'd say its pretty much an even match.
Check Nigeria and Indonesia they seem to attack each other very regularly.
-
A Muslim man has been beaten to death outside a corner shop by a gang of youths who shouted anti-Islamic abuse at him, the Guardian has learned.
Kamal Raza Butt, 48, from Pakistan, was visiting Britain to see friends and family. On Sunday afternoon he went to a shop in Nottingham to buy cigarettes and was first called "Taliban" by the youths and then set upon.
Nottinghamshire police described the incident as racially aggravated, not as Islamophobic, angering Muslim groups and surprising some senior officers
from the guardian or drudge.
goes both ways my friend. Religion seems to just give some people a justification to murder. Its really a shame.
-
Sebernica. Christians slaughtered THOUSANDS of muslims under UN protection.
Religious intolerance kills millions. This planets greatest evil, period.
-
"Religious intolerance kills millions."
Religion is like a lot like alcohol. IMO it's not intolerance that's the killer. It's the over indulging in it that is.
-
religious or otherwise..."ignorance kills millions"
-
mp5 you could have at least left the link in. You went overboard in my opinion. My comments were not in violation of rule no. 5
====
I personaly condemn the killing of any human being for any reason other than immediate and direct seff defense.
I have a question: Were those young men yelling Christian taunts at the man being beaten to death? Did they kill that man in the name of Christ? Where those murderers even believers in Christ?
What makes some of you so quick to judge this as a religious execution?
-
Yeag, all I had to go on was the thread title.
Kinda hard to come to a diffrent conclusion, given that.
-
The link was to a news piece about the Van Gogh murderer
-
Sorry Guys, sometimes I just have to step back and say WHAT A LOAD OF UTTER BUNK!
Please, I beg you to tell me what fundamentalist, evangelical, Christian - you know the kind of deranged protestant like myself who believes every word of the bible and that Christ alone saves - would even consider doing something like this in the name of Christ?:
Bomber kills Iraqi children
By Qassim Abdul-Zahra
ASSOCIATED PRESS
July 14, 2005
BAGHDAD -- Tiny plastic sandals, some tattered and stained with blood, lay in a pile near a child's crushed bicycle. Mothers wailed and beat themselves after a suicide bomber killed 18 children and teenagers getting candy and toys from American soldiers.
One of the soldiers was among the up to 27 people killed in the blast yesterday in an impoverished Shi'ite Muslim neighborhood. At least 70 persons, including a newborn and three U.S. soldiers, were wounded.
Terrified parents who heard the explosion raced from their homes to the discover the worst -- children's mangled, bloodied bodies strewn on the street.
Twelve of the dead were 13 or younger, and six were 14 to 17, said police Lt. Mohammed Jassim Jabr. Among the wounded was 4-day-old Miriam Jabber, cut slightly by flying glass and debris.
"There were some American troops blocking the highway when a U.S. Humvee came near a gathering of children," said Karim Shukir, 42. The troops began handing out candy and smiley-face key chains.
"Suddenly, a speeding car bomb ... struck both the Humvee and the children," Mr. Shukir said.
An elderly woman dressed in black beat her chest in front of her house. Others meandered about in the broiling heat, seeming dazed.
The slaughter of so many Shi'ite children is likely to intensify tensions between the majority Shi'ites -- who dominate the government -- and the minority Sunni Arabs, the foundation of the insurgency.
At Kindi hospital, where many victims were taken, a distraught mother swathed in black sat cross-legged outside the operating room. "May God curse the mujahedeen and their leader," she cried, referring to the insurgents as she pounded her head with her fists in grief.
"The car bomber made a deliberate decision to attack one of our vehicles as the soldiers were engaged in a peaceful operation with Iraqi citizens," said Maj. Russ Goemaere, a spokesman for Task Force Baghdad.
"The terrorist undoubtedly saw the children," Maj. Goemaere said, calling the attack "absolutely abhorrent."
After the bombing, charred remains of an engine block wrapped in barbed wire sat on the road. U.S. and Iraqi troops broadcast messages by loudspeakers in Arabic, warning civilians not to approach military vehicles.
In Washington, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the bombing showed that insurgents "have no regard for innocent, human life, whether it's men, women or children."
In September, 35 Iraqi children were killed as bombs exploded while U.S. troops handed out candy at a government-sponsored celebration to inaugurate a Baghdad sewage plant. It marked the largest death toll of children in an insurgent attack since the Iraq conflict began.
Later yesterday, about 200 people turned out for the funeral of five victims, in keeping with the Muslim tradition of burying the dead quickly. The crowd shouted "Allahu akbar" -- "God is great" -- and some fired weapons in the air.
In another attack in Baghdad yesterday, a roadside bomb exploded near an American patrol, killing a 7-year-old and seriously wounding a woman, police said.
-
Seagoon if you really believe that because one see himself as a christian he can't commit atrocities, you're really brainwashed.
Easy examples are crusades and inquisition: they followed the bible (which hasn't been rewritten since btw), saw themselves as true christians and thought that they were accomplishing god's will.
Modern example? IRA maybe?
My point is: those people were and are not what christianity is about. Just like A-Q terrorists are not what Islam is about. Even if they yell Allah from the bottom of their lungs when they blow themselves up.
Edited for nuance and typos
-
Seagoon,
So it's a Muslim thing huh? Muslim bad, Christianity good?
That's a load of BS and I would hope that you would be able to differentiate between a Faith and a group of murders that are using the Faith as a sheild for their crimes.
If you say the muslim religion is represented by these murderers, than Christianity should also be viewed by how the murders that have used it's name to justify their crimes as well.
That's a pretty lame crack you are taking at the Muslim religion. And I say that because you asked what Christian would do this..... I know many many Muslims that wouldn't do it also.
-
Hi All,
First, please allow me to apologize somewhat. Sometimes the utter inequity of the statements made on this board gets to me in ways it shouldn't and for that I am very sorry.
I was asked to write a brief article by an online Christian magazine explaining the worldview of those committed to the Jihad and I'll try to excerpt a portion of that in a seperate thread, because I sincerely believe it would be useful to unpack why Christianity and Islam are so very different and why there currently isn't a problem with "radical fundamentalist Christian terrorists" seeking to advance the kingdom by blowing up airliners & buses.
But along those lines, just for a moment, stop to consider the following:
How many churches have terror cells in their midst? How many evangelical pastors preach sermons that all unbelievers must be put to the sword until only Christendom exists in the world? When there is a disaster in the Western world or what Muslims would consider "Christian nations" how eager are "fundamentalist" Muslims to rush in supplies and help? How many rather celebrate Allah's judgement on the infidels? Consider that the largest NGOs that rushed into the Tsunami ravaged areas of a fundamentalist Islamic nation (Indonesia) and earlier into the Earthquake ravaged areas of the worlds largest Islamic Theocracy (Iran), both of which do not permit the building of new church buildings or the propagation of non-Islamic religions, were evangelical Christian charities! My own denomination, small as it is, and "fundamentalist" as it is, sent in several teams all of whom were unfortunately forced to abide by a strictly enforced "NO EVANGELIZING" policy.
Let me put it to you this way, when a Christian kills in the name of Jesus (as was the case with Paul Hill), he usually does so alone, and the outcry against his actions from fundamentalist Christians is deafening. On the other hand, when groups that are part of the worldwide Pan-Islamist movement, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Abu Sayaf, etc. blow something up in a martyrdom operation how much outcry is there in the Islamic world? A few liberal Muslims say "Oh that isn't really Islam you know. " (such as Iqbal Sacranie) And then the response from many in the Ulema is to declare that those saying this "isn't Islam" are kafirs and issue Fatwas against them. Or to quote statements made by British Muslims about Sacranie and his MCB and their anti-terror, pro-democracy movement in April of this year:
"The above are all shayaateen (devils), crooks, criminals and false gods. Voting for any political party which has a policy of legislating a law is Kufr Akbar (a major apostasy) and will take you outside the fold of Islam. It will also nullify all your good deeds and guarantee your seat in hellfire for ever."
Actually, the majority message that comes out of the Muslim community following an atrocity (such as the murder of Van Gogh) is that western governments had better not allow an anti-Islamic backlash, and to press for greater laws protecting Muslims in the west while they simultaneously outlaw the spread of Christianity and institutionally oppress Christians in their own nations.
There is a world of difference between the teachings and practice of Christianity and Islam and while I can stomach any kind of attack on Christianity as Christianity, including allegations of stupidity, inconsistency, ignorance, and so on, I find it insulting and unfair beyond measure to say that Christianity and Islam are "just the same" especially regarding terrorism and aggressive violence.
- SEAGOON
-
.. I suspect your unable to see the forrest from the trees, Seagoon. With all respect, your focus remains the same.. 'we're good, they are evil'.
Secular definition changes not a whit the simple truth.. Holy Warriors kill millions.
Now, having clearly stated that your side is 'right' and their side is 'wrong', what's the church's next call to action? 'Turn the other cheek'? Or 'fire with fire'?
Solve the problem Seagoon.. WHAT makes your side, your principals 'holier' than theirs? How do you propose convincing the other team to play by 'your' rules? And, just what do YOU think the solution is?
Be honest.. and remember, this is NOT a personal attack.. it's a search for truth and a solution to the largest plauge on humanity. The world awaits the answer.
-
And, just what do YOU think the solution is?
Kill 'em, kill 'em all. There can be no peace with these people. Were I a muslim during the Crusades, I'd have said the same thing about the Crusaders.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Kill 'em, kill 'em all. There can be no peace with these people. Were I a muslim during the Crusades, I'd have said the same thing about the Crusaders.
You cant use the crusades in this comparison..... the crusades were sanctioned by the church.
-
You cant use the crusades in this comparison..... the crusades were sanctioned by the church.
Where is the rule that says I can't? Is it in the TOS? Sorry, I missed it.
Many Muslim religious leaders not only at least tacitly approve of the terrorists and their tactics, they call for "Jihad." Sounds sanctioned to me.
-
Originally posted by mosgood
You cant use the crusades in this comparison..... the crusades were sanctioned by the church.
The Crusades were used by the church to give the Europeans (my ancestors) someone to fight other than themselves. The idea was to stop them from killing each other and get them to kill Arabs/Muslims.
-
The two religions are significantly different, even though Jesus Christ appears in both holy books. These differences can be observed by anyone. It is a fact that the call to make war on unbelievers is repeated over and over in the Qu'ran. It is this aspect of Islam that is strictly interpreted by Islamists that allows Muslim extremists to commit terrorism to win favor with God. In fact, they do not actually interpret it, they take it literally as it is written - the word of Allah.
Islam is really a beautiful religion except for the calls to make war, the admonitions against any innovation, the admonitions against financial loans with interest (integeral in modern economies) condemning them as haraam, or against God, and other beliefs that do not fit in with today's family of man. You will never, ever, see a Muslim extremist astronaut. Or a Muslim extremist scientist who discovers a cure for some disease. Or a Muslim extremist win any nobel prize for a scientific achievement or the Peace Prize. Yet I can envision fundemental Christians doing this. Some already have. The Western Muslims who have adapted to our society interpret these things differently than the Islamists, which allows them to adapt Islam to modern life in the world community. In Islamist's eyes, this makes them no better than kufr, maybe worse.
There really are no parallels in the treatment of "nonbelievers" that I know of in the holy books of Christian, Buddist, Jewish, Hindu, or any other religeon. It is true that many people have been killed in the name of religion, but none of the holy books, except the Qu'ran, call on believers to either convert or kill non-believers.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Where is the rule that says I can't? Is it in the TOS? Sorry, I missed it.
Many Muslim religious leaders not only at least tacitly approve of the terrorists and their tactics, they call for "Jihad." Sounds sanctioned to me.
And if Seagoon decided that he has had enough and called for a crusade... that would also be sanctioned by the Church?
btw i was being sarcastic about using the comparison.....
-
Plenty of racists and bigots in this world and some are writing in this thread.
Remember that every religion has its nutcases and thinking only muslim extremists are the problem is naive.
They should be transferred to some distant island with extremist jews, hindus and christians so they could sort it out without interfering the lives of sane people.
-
Originally posted by Staga
Plenty of racists and bigots in this world and some are writing in this thread.
Remember that every religion has its nutcases and thinking only muslim extremists are the problem is naive.
They should be transferred to some distant island with extremist jews, hindus and christians so they could sort it out without interfering the lives of sane people.
If only that were possible!
-
And if Seagoon decided that he has had enough and called for a crusade... that would also be sanctioned by the Church?
I dunno, is Seagoon the Pope?
-
Remember that every religion has its nutcases and thinking only muslim extremists are the problem is naive.
Are you saying that Muslim religious extremists are not the numerically largest, most active, most damaging group of terrorists in the world?
-
Originally posted by deSelys
Seagoon if you really believe that because one see himself as a christian he can't commit atrocities, you're really brainwashed.
Modern example? IRA maybe?
better: abortion clinic bombings/murders right here in good ole america.
-
Originally posted by Steve
I dunno, is Seagoon the Pope?
solyentgoon is poepl!!
-
I agree with Staga.
BTW Staga. Nice skewering of DOC "over there" ;) !
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
.. I suspect your unable to see the forrest from the trees, Seagoon. With all respect, your focus remains the same.. 'we're good, they are evil'.
Secular definition changes not a whit the simple truth.. Holy Warriors kill millions.
Now, having clearly stated that your side is 'right' and their side is 'wrong', what's the church's next call to action? 'Turn the other cheek'? Or 'fire with fire'?
Solve the problem Seagoon.. WHAT makes your side, your principals 'holier' than theirs? How do you propose convincing the other team to play by 'your' rules? And, just what do YOU think the solution is?
Be honest.. and remember, this is NOT a personal attack.. it's a search for truth and a solution to the largest plauge on humanity. The world awaits the answer.
Hang,
Since you are our resident Anti Theist scholar, I'm more interested in reading your dissertation to this question you have posed. Seagoon as always is very obliging in his documented dissertations to most questions of this depth and in spirit I tend to agree with him, or on my own can research his sources. In your case, your off the cuff scholership tends to make for balanced reading of world views.
-
when lynchings was a cultural event for family portraits and postcards, was the christian outcry deafening?
-
The point is, the Bible does not call for lynching as a way to please God.
-
Funny. A lot of Muslems say the same about Islam. (In that it doesnt call for the violence and kiiling being doen by like Hammas and AlQueda)
As to where in the bible? I would have to ask which version you're refering to?
To aid my point do a google using the words "white supremacist bible" and you can clearly see just *ONE* group of self proclaimed "Christians" who use thier interpretation of the Bible to justify thier use of violence and hatred towards others.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
The point is, the Bible does not call for lynching as a way to please God.
true.. the suggested method is either stoning or burning.
-
Funny. A lot of Muslems say the same about Islam. (In that it doesnt call for the violence and kiiling being doen by like Hammas and AlQueda)
As to where in the bible? I would have to ask which version you're refering to? To aid my point do a google using the words "white supremacist bible" and you can clearly see just *ONE* group of self proclaimed "Christians" who use thier interpretation of the Bible to justify thier use of violence and hatred towards others.
To aid my point do a google using the words "white supremacist bible" and you can clearly see just *ONE* group of self proclaimed "Christians" who use thier interpretation of the Bible to justify thier use of violence and hatred towards others. - Westy
Westy, you havn't been paying attention. I've already said that most Muslims are part of a beautiful religion. I won't be basing my positions on "google searches" for a determination of truth.
You can read my position above. I believe the question was, "Compare Islam to Christianity." That is what I tried to describe.
-
true.. the suggested method is either stoning or burning.
I don't know the bible well enough to know whether the Bible exhorts its followers to do this. I only need ask you, when is the last time that you know of a Christian stoning or burning a human being for religious reasons? This thread is about the differences between two religions. Lets not deny that there are differnences.
__________________
-
Of course you don't have to use Google to determine the truth. It's just the most convenient tool available to help prove or assert ones opinion when discussing things online.
The truth is that there are groups like the White Supremists who raise thier banners of hate, call themselves "Christian" and justify thier sick thoughts and violence on thier own interpretation of the Bible. Just as the Islamic terrorists like the Taliban, AQ and Hammas do.
More truth? The vast majority of Muslims, Christians and Buddists etc are not hateful nor inspired to kill because thier neighbor believed man made stories about different men who lived thousands of years ago.
I'm on the outside looking in at the different groups. IMO you can't see the similarities because your not capable of being objective about it. Your "faith" doesn't permit it.
-
"a Christian stoning or burning a human being for religious reasons?"
What did they do that nun in Rumania recently? How many Christian "interventions" have left some poor kid dead because thier "born again" parents were convinced thier child was possessed by the devil.
All in the name of Jesus and God:
http://www.rickross.com/reference/attleboro/attleboro125.html
Religion can be a sickness that kills.
-
Again, this thread is about the differences between Islam and Christianity.
I've already said, many people of all different faiths have killed, tortured, and suppressed others in the name of God. Hopefully we can acknowledge that and move on...
-
I'm on the outside looking in at the different groups. IMO you can't see the similarities because your not capable of being objective about it. Your "faith" doesn't permit it.
You only think you are on the outside looking in. No one is truley objective.
BTW, how did you become aware of what "faith" I am? And what faith am I? I'd be curious to know that myself :)
-
Get real guys i have some
islamic friends.
They all good guys just humans like u and me.
I even catch myself ocasionaly labeling everthing into groups.
just plain stupid.
-
what you all have to remeber, is that christians have killed 1000 times more people in the name of christ. the crusades, killed an estimated 6.7 million people in total IIRC. many of these people were women, children, and the elderly, simply because they were muslims, and they were living in the supposed resting place of jesus, a guy who died 1350 years before, who hasnt even been proven to exist (this aint anti christianty or anything, its simply a fact).
truth is, its not religion that does it, but evil people who force their ideas on others through it. many muslims are great, peaceful guys, some my friends, and they all bow in disgust at terrorism and fanatical beliefs. all this crap is distorted by the media, that muslims are bad people. its just the same as whoever that guys was who formed some christian sect in the us 20 years ago, and held people hostage and stuff.
nothing to do with what religion it is, its the evil people who preach it who do damage. it is purely by coincidence that there are so many evil muslims...
-
I feel I am much more objective than someone who claims to be part of any branch of any religion.
And to answer your question on faith. I figured you for a Christian based on your reply "The point is, the Bible does not call for lynching as a way to please God." If you're not then I apologize for assuming.
And I so "Hopefully we can acknowledge that and move on..."
If the discussion can go back to "in general" and up from the "personal" level Seagoon brought it to.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
goes both ways my friend. Religion seems to just give some people a justification to murder. Its really a shame.
Thats why we invented secular state in europe.
-
Originally posted by Westy
To aid my point do a google using the words "white supremacist bible" and you can clearly see just *ONE* group of self proclaimed "Christians" who use thier interpretation of the Bible to justify thier use of violence and hatred towards others.
Try other languages and you will have more than one answer.
-
'I don't feel your pain,' suspect tells victim's mom
July 13, 2005
BY TOBY STERLING Advertisement
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands -- The Muslim extremist on trial in the slaying of filmmaker Theo van Gogh confessed Tuesday, saying he was driven by religious conviction. "I don't feel your pain," he told the victim's mother.
Mohammed Bouyeri stunned the courtroom when, in the final minutes of his two-day trial, he declared: "If I were released and would have the chance to do it again . . . I would do exactly the same thing.
"What moved me to do what I did was purely my faith. . . . I was motivated by the law that commands me to cut off the head of anyone who insults Allah and his prophet," he said.
Bouyeri, 27, faces life imprisonment in the Nov. 2 killing of Van Gogh, who was shot, stabbed and nearly beheaded on an Amsterdam street. A verdict is to be handed down this month.
Bouyeri glanced at notes, paused between sentences and chose his words carefully. Some spectators rose to their feet as he spoke, visibly stunned by his comments.
At one point, he addressed the victim's mother, Anneke, who was sitting in the public gallery. "I have to admit I don't have any sympathy for you," he said. "I can't feel for you because I think you're a nonbeliever.''
The killing is believed to have been an act of retribution for Van Gogh's film "Submission," which criticized the treatment of women under Islam.
Van Gogh was a distant relative of the painter Vincent van Gogh.
AP
-
There really are no parallels in the treatment of "nonbelievers" that I know of in the holy books of Christian, Buddist, Jewish, Hindu, or any other religeon. It is true that many people have been killed in the name of religion, but none of the holy books, except the Qu'ran, call on believers to either convert or kill non-believers.
You must kill those who worship another god. Exodus 22:20
Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own. Deuteronomy 13:6-10
Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you. Deuteronomy 13:12-16
Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. Deuteronomy 17:2-7
Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13
Kill any false prophets. Deuteronomy 18:20
Any city that doesn’t receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Mark 6:11
Jude reminds us that God destroys those who don’t believe in him. Jude 5
-
Originally posted by Pooface
a guy who died 1350 years before, who hasnt even been proven to exist (this aint anti christianty or anything, its simply a fact).
Just curious...what is your criteria for "proof" that someone existed?
-
Originally posted by AKH
You must kill those who worship another god. Exodus 22:20
Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own. Deuteronomy 13:6-10
Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you. Deuteronomy 13:12-16
Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. Deuteronomy 17:2-7
Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13
Kill any false prophets. Deuteronomy 18:20
Any city that doesn’t receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Mark 6:11
Jude reminds us that God destroys those who don’t believe in him. Jude 5
Ever read the New Testament?
Do you understand the diffenence between the Old and New Testaments?
Do you know what seperates them?
Hint: Christ.... as in Christain.
Everything you quoted was from the old Testament, except for the last two. They were from the New Testament. Notice that these two New Testament verses say nothing about anyone here on earth doing anything. Instead, they refer to God doing these things. There is no call for anyone to do anything in them.
-
Well, my apologies. I obviously didn't know that Christians only read, believe and follow the New Testament.
But that does make me wonder why they even bother to put the Old Testament in the bible. Maybe you can enlighten me?
-
Originally posted by Donzo
Just curious...what is your criteria for "proof" that someone existed?
im not meaning it in that sense, i do believe in god and jesus and all that, but there is no real proof of god, just your own experiences. real proof would of course have to be physical evidence. can you honestly say that you can prove that jesus lived, no. you can only feel and believe, like many others, including myself do. if you believe you can prove that jesus is real i would be very interested:aok
its the fact that all religions are thoughts and thoery's, and not solid facts that leads to fanatasism. some people believe that god told them to plant a bomb, and that is why we have problems with these extremists. they believe in somewhat different ideas than many muslims. blaming muslims for a fanatics beliefs is like blaming christianty with events like that hostage thingy??
how would you feel, if the world felt that you were a suspect terrorist for being a christian? itd be bloody annoying. its the same with muslims. essentially we believe in the same god, just a different name, and different principles and beliefs (of course in religious terms thats a big difference). moral of the story, dont prejudge people.
-
Originally posted by AKH
Well, my apologies. I obviously didn't know that Christians only read, believe and follow the New Testament.
But that does make me wonder why they even bother to put the Old Testament in the bible. Maybe you can enlighten me?
First of all Christians read the entire Bible...Old and New Testament.
Second, who are you referring to when you say "they even bother to put the Old Testament in the Bible"? You sound as if you think the Bible was put together at some publishing house.
The Bible is what it is...it is a history. The Old Testament was before the time of Christ...the New was after.
Christ came and the all of the old rules were replaced with a new summary of the laws of the Old Testament:
"HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD; AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH. The second is this, YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF. There is no other commandment greater than these." - Mark 12:29-31
When you love God completely and care for others as you care for yourself, you have fullfilled God's intent of the Ten Commandments and the other laws in the Old Testament. According to Jesus, these two commandments summarize all of God's laws.
So you see, this is the teaching of the Bible that Christians should live by. There is no call for killing anyone or anything of that sort.
Back to your "why they even bother to put the Old Testament in the bible" statement. Aside from what I said above pertaining to this let me ask you this:
Why is the history of slavery taught in America? Because it happened? Of course. Because it was a bad thing and should not be repeated? Of course. Do you see where I am going with this?
-
Originally posted by AKH
You must kill those who worship another god. Exodus 22:20
Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own. Deuteronomy 13:6-10
Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you. Deuteronomy 13:12-16
Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. Deuteronomy 17:2-7
Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13
Kill any false prophets. Deuteronomy 18:20
Any city that doesn’t receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Mark 6:11
Jude reminds us that God destroys those who don’t believe in him. Jude 5
Your scripture is out of text. I am curious where you got that? What version?
Deuteronomy 18:20 (King James Version)
20But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
As you can see, this is not a commandment, but a statement from God. It implies that judgement is from God, not man. Unlike the version you quote where it states it as an instruction. Very misleading. I advise to leave that alone.
Exodus 22:20 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
20He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed
Deuteronomy 17:2-7 (King James Version)
2If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant,
3And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded;
4And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel:
5Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
6At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.
7The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.
-
Originally posted by -ammo-
As you can see, this is not a commandment, but a statement from God. It implies that judgement is from God, not man. Unlike the version you quote where it states it as an instruction. Very misleading.
Exactly.
This makes me wonder what the Koran actually says. It may just be that "Kill the infidels" is, like AKH's post, a gross mis-interpretation of what what actually written. Maybe the context was that Allah would do the deed in his time...not that everyone go out and do it for him.
Makes you wonder.
-
As you can see, this is not a commandment, but a statement from God. It implies that judgement is from God, not man. Unlike the version you quote where it states it as an instruction. Very misleading. I advise to leave that alone.
I never quoted the bible, or even claimed to have quoted it. These however are:
"But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death." Deuteronomy 18:20
Sure looks like a command to me.
"Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed." Exodus 22:20
Note the use of the word must, rather than will. Another command.
-
Originally posted by AKH
I never quoted the bible, or even claimed to have quoted it.
What exactly was your post with references after each line. You just make that up?
Why don't you read the Bible instead of just picking up things here and there?
Originally posted by AKH
These however are:
"But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death." Deuteronomy 18:20
Sure looks like a command to me.
"Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed." Exodus 22:20
Note the use of the word must, rather than will. Another command.
Go back and read my post about the difference between the Old and New Testament.
Look at it this way. The Old Testament was the evolution of God's Laws. Christ came and explained the Laws.
Anyone can take parts of a document and make it say whatever they want it to. This is wrong and unless you read the Bible as a whole, you miss the whole point.
You would have it that the Bible talks only of going out and killing in the name of God.
-
The word of God evolves?
My, what an interesting concept.
Brought to you by the folks that demand a strict interpetation of the Constitution.
;)
-
What exactly was your post with references after each line. You just make that up?
No, someone else did, I just copied them.
Why don't you read the Bible instead of just picking up things here and there?
How do you know that I haven't read the bible?
Go back and read my post about the difference between the Old and New Testament.
I did, but would like some clarification. Are you saying that the Old Testament is included more for historical reasons than religious doctrine?
Look at it this way. The Old Testament was the evolution of God's Laws. Christ came and explained the Laws.
Or are you saying that the Old Testament is the word of God, but is superceded by the Christian Gospel?
You would have it that the Bible talks only of going out and killing in the name of God.
Would I? What are you going to do next, deduce my religion? Why don't you just stick me in the Jihad pigeonhole. Oh, you already did that, didn't you?
Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
Matthew 7:1-5, NIV
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
The word of God evolves?
My, what an interesting concept.
Brought to you by the folks that demand a strict interpetation of the Constitution.
;)
First, how do I get grouped into "the folks that demand a strict interpetation of the Constitution" by what I said? Assumption on your part? :confused: I don't follow.
On the topic of a strict interpretation of the Constitution:
It can change or "evolve". But here's the thing: the founding fathers made it so that it could change...there is a way to change it. It called an amendment. Amendments that are voted on by the people.
-
Where in the old testement do we look for the amendments on the word of God? Did God indicate that his word was law, expect where it conflicts with the wishes of his son? Do we get to vote on the word of God? On the word of the holy ghost? The Pope?
Should we circulate petitions for amendment to the Koran or the Bible?
Or both?
I mean the whole concept of the 'word of god evolves' I find really interesting! Shazaam! Do we need a Supreme Court of Popes? A Theological Council of Religious Elders Representing All the Faiths of Man?
Hey.. that could work!
-
Hangtime, I think that the whole point of the new testament is that it is an amendment to the old.
-
Hang, alot of it all makes absolutely zero sense. That's why it takes faith. You're never gonna get a reasonable explanation that answers all of your questions about religion. It just ain't there.
-
There is plenty of history of religiously inspired violence in the Jewish, Christian and Muslim tradition dating back thousands of years now - that's clear to every objective observer.
It should be equally clear that very profound forces in the muslim world are now effectively fighting a global war against the western secular democracies.
-
Originally posted by AKH
1)No, someone else did, I just copied them.
2)How do you know that I haven't read the bible?
3)I did, but would like some clarification. Are you saying that the Old Testament is included more for historical reasons than religious doctrine?
4)Or are you saying that the Old Testament is the word of God, but is superceded by the Christian Gospel?
5)Would I? What are you going to do next, deduce my religion? Why don't you just stick me in the Jihad pigeonhole. Oh, you already did that, didn't you?
Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
WOW!
Where to start.
Let's see;
1 & 2) Someone else did and you copied them. I do not know for a fact that you have or have not read the Bible but given the fact that you cut and paste something someone else wrote and take it to be what is written in the Bible, I would bet you haven't read it. If you had, why would take something someone else wrote when it was off from what you had read? Trying to incite something?
3) No. The whole Bible is a history. That is what I said...The Bible, not the Old Testament. The Old Testament is not just "included", it is part of the whole Bible. Religious doctorine, yes...the religious doctorine prior to Christ.
4) Not saying that at all. It is all the Word of God.
(back to my earlier post...the one a referred you to):
"HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD; AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH. The second is this, YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF. There is no other commandment greater than these." - Mark 12:29-31
When you love God completely and care for others as you care for yourself, you have fullfilled God's intent of the Ten Commandments and the other laws in the Old Testament. According to Jesus, these two commandments summarize all of God's laws.
No superceding of anything here. Read it, understand it.
5)WHOAAAA!
Deduce your religion? Sir, I do not have any idea of what religion you are. I never asked, nor do I care in this context. I was responding to your reckless posting of Bible verses that were intended to show Christianity as a "go out and kill" religion.
Why else would you have posted as you did?
Originally posted by AKH
"Why don't you just stick me in the Jihad pigeonhole. Oh, you already did that, didn't you?"
:confused: Uh...what?
When did I do that, sir?
I have not judged you.
Plain and simple.
You seem to want to portray Christianity in a negative light and pick and choose verses that suit your view. I have, on more than one occasion, pointed out some of the differences between the two Testaments of the Bible.
Where have I attacked anyone or any religion?
-
Originally posted by SOB
Hang, alot of it all makes absolutely zero sense. That's why it takes faith. You're never gonna get a reasonable explanation that answers all of your questions about religion. It just ain't there.
Give the man a cigar. :)
Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there.
The sixty-four dollar question is why folks still roll their sleeves up and use it as a reason to lop off each others heads.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Where in the old testement do we look for the amendments on the word of God? Did God indicate that his word was law, expect where it conflicts with the wishes of his son? Do we get to vote on the word of God? On the word of the holy ghost? The Pope?
Should we circulate petitions for amendment to the Koran or the Bible?
Or both?
I mean the whole concept of the 'word of god evolves' I find really interesting! Shazaam! Do we need a Supreme Court of Popes? A Theological Council of Religious Elders Representing All the Faiths of Man?
Hey.. that could work!
:confused:
Focus please.
First I asked a question in my post...no answer.
Second I went on to comment on the Constitution and somehow you managed to combine my saying the Word of God evolved with amendments...strange.
When it comes to "evolves" I do not think you and I are on the same page. Let me ask you this: If someone is dictating something to someone, is that which they dictate evolving? It's all up in their head and to the person being dictated to it is evolving. The Bible was not written all at once. It was written over thousands of years. While the text may have changed over those thousands of years, the message has been pretty consistant. And the ultimate "amendment" (good analogy Holden :aok ) to His Word was the New Testament.
-
Oh, horsepucky.
The new testement was cobbled up by a council of church elders convened by a heathen roman emperor with nothing other than the control of his subjects as the motivation for it.
Focus? Whats YOUR agenda? Holy War? Retribution? Punishment? Reward for Fealty? Faith? How to honor thy Father?
Cripes, anybody can prove anything with that Tome.. or thiers.
Again.. Focus? Deal with this: Christianty vs Islam.
Neither side has the right to enforce it's religious precepts by violence on others.. Deal with this next.. sooner or later, the majority of folks on this planet will come to their senses and recognize that the disgusting behavior of Islamic AND Christian AND Jewish AND religious sectarians relieves the rest of us of any intellectual obligation to take the stuff spouted from their pieholes seriously. No amount of sanctimonious bible or koran thumping rationalization can make such lethal human behavior anything but pathological.
Religious violence; it a massive blight on society.
Focus.
ON THAT!
-
WOW!
Where to start.
Let's see;
1 & 2) Someone else did and you copied them. I do not know for a fact that you have or have not read the Bible but given the fact that you cut and paste something someone else wrote and take it to be what is written in the Bible, I would bet you haven't read it. If you had, why would take something someone else wrote when it was off from what you had read? Trying to incite something?
3) No. The whole Bible is a history. That is what I said...The Bible, not the Old Testament. The Old Testament is not just "included", it is part of the whole Bible. Religious doctorine, yes...the religious doctorine prior to Christ.
4) Not saying that at all. It is all the Word of God.
(back to my earlier post...the one a referred you to):
"HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD; AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH. The second is this, YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF. There is no other commandment greater than these." - Mark 12:29-31
When you love God completely and care for others as you care for yourself, you have fullfilled God's intent of the Ten Commandments and the other laws in the Old Testament. According to Jesus, these two commandments summarize all of God's laws.
No superceding of anything here. Read it, understand it.
5)WHOAAAA!
Deduce your religion? Sir, I do not have any idea of what religion you are. I never asked, nor do I care in this context. I was responding to your reckless posting of Bible verses that were intended to show Christianity as a "go out and kill" religion.
Why else would you have posted as you did?
Uh...what?
When did I do that, sir?
I have not judged you.
Plain and simple.
You seem to want to portray Christianity in a negative light and pick and choose verses that suit your view. I have, on more than one occasion, pointed out some of the differences between the two Testaments of the Bible.
Where have I attacked anyone or any religion?
1 & 2) If you did some research, you'd find that the statements in my original post are an accurate, concise and direct paraphrasing of the original verses as referenced. You will, of course, have to refer to the NIV bible.
Intended to incite discussion. Please refer back to my original post. Most specifically what I have quoted. Put that in context.
3) OK - Old Testament = old doctrine. Then I would like Christians to stop quoting the Old Testament to justify their position.
4) Love thy neighbour obviously contradicts all the "Burn or stone the sinner" laws from the Old Testament. So who do you obey, God or the son of God? As a Christian, I would imagine it would be the latter. I would say that many people would agree that the New Testament has indeed superceded the old on that issue, at least.
5) You've been making summary judgements about me right from the beginning. You're convinced that I haven't read the bible. You're wrong. You have decided that I want to paint Christianity in a negative light. Where have *I* attacked Christianity or any other religion?
Only Christians who don't practice what they preach put Christianity in a bad light. And that applies to all religions.
-
I feel I am much more objective than someone who claims to be part of any branch of any religion.
And to answer your question on faith. I figured you for a Christian based on your reply "The point is, the Bible does not call for lynching as a way to please God." If you're not then I apologize for assuming.
And I so "Hopefully we can acknowledge that and move on..."
If the discussion can go back to "in general" and up from the "personal" level Seagoon brought it to. - Westy
Well, I'm no expert. But both books say what they say, and its fairly undisputable no matter what faith we are.
Is there any doubt that the numbers of Muslim extremists who engage in terrorism far, far outnumber Christian extremists who commit terrorism?
-
"Is there any doubt that the numbers of Muslim extremists who engage in terrorism far, far outnumber Christian extremists who commit terrorism?"
Not at all IMO. Christianity has, for the most part, matured and grew out of it's "force our beliefs on others via murder and terrorism" phase. Thank Cod for liberals or we (those in the US) would be living in Puristania and burning witches publicly in the main square in the holy, capitol city of Salem.
Fortunately now the worst most of us have to fear are door-to-door religionware salesman, those that scream from street corners or the ones buying up old AM radio stations and filling the airwaves with spooky kids tales about monsters, infernal damnation and brimfire.
Unless you happen to be living within rifle or C4 range of Sid Fein, KKK, or White Supremacist group just to name a few of the most radical Christian extremist groups. Heck I'd seriously worry if I lived next door to a Planned Parenthood clinic.
p.s. read more of the posts made since last night and eh :) No matter how I try I really can't hold a candle to SOB and Hangtime. They say it so much better and with a lot fewer words.
-
yep... I don't care if your particular god states that you have to skin all dark haired people alive so long as it is just talk... you start doing it and we have to wipe you vermin out.
If the christians start another holy war or inquisition... put me down for some christian sniping.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Donzo
What exactly was your post with references after each line. You just make that up?
Why don't you read the Bible instead of just picking up things here and there?
Go back and read my post about the difference between the Old and New Testament.
Look at it this way. The Old Testament was the evolution of God's Laws. Christ came and explained the Laws.
Anyone can take parts of a document and make it say whatever they want it to. This is wrong and unless you read the Bible as a whole, you miss the whole point.
You would have it that the Bible talks only of going out and killing in the name of God.
Donzo,
thanks for the great posts you had on this thread. Good stuff.
I'd like to look at the existance of the Old Testiment for a minute.
If it was, at one time, the only Bible and explained the law of GOD as it was interpreted (before Christ came along and changed it), doesn't that open up the possiblity that the new testiment couild also be incorrect? It's kinda like saying.... "well... if it was set down incorrectly and interpreted incorrectly in the first place.... how can you trust it to be accurate now?" It's still done by men that certainly have a bias towards what it says.
-
If the christians start another holy war or inquisition... put me down for some christian sniping.
lazs
the best way to approach this would be to scatter a bunch of bibles in field then scramble up to high ground and wait.
Then again, its probably illegal to take Christians off a baited patch, or to use dynomite or snares.
-
[I keep seeing you guys say the "word of god" but isnt the bible just man's recollections and stories about what happened. As I recall only Qu'ran is the actual word of God and has been unchanged since it was written. The Torah might be too but I cant remember right now.
You might mean something different than what I am interpreting as your "word of God".
-
Unless God flew his hiney down to terra firma and sat at a table with pen and paper, anything written in any book is written by a human being.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Unless God flew his hiney down to terra firma and sat at a table with pen and paper, anything written in any book is written by a human being.
Not disagreeing with ya, just telling saying there is a difference.
-
How many of you have read the Quran?
-
Gentlemen,
When I pressed reply just now, I was of two minds, my initial and much stronger inclination was to essentially post a "farewell, I've had it" message, as nothing I say seems to do much more than stir the already seething pot. And if you truly view me and the vast majority of my sincere brothers and sisters in Christ with such utter contempt that you regard us as at best on par with men and women who saw off heads and blow up children and more likely far worse, then what really is the point of continuing on in this venue?
Then I thought back to how I would have treated me, and indeed how I did treat Christians with contempt and disdain, and how I exalted Islam and indeed most non-Christian religions, and I was truly humbled.
So I'll try again, although I have to admit to still being more than a little discouraged, especially because most of these are points that have already been made.
First off, let's deal with the Crusades issue in this post.
The Crusades
The first Crusade was launched in 1096 and the last one occurred in 1248. That is a span of 152 years. The first Crusade was launched when the Byzantine (Eastern Orthodox) Emperor appealed to the Pope as the Byzantines were being overrun by the Seljuks (Turkic Muslims) and had already lost the majority of their domain east of the Bosporus. While the reasons they were launched were ostensibly "religious" - pilgrims to the holy land came back spreading tales of abuse, interference, and robbery at the hands of the Seljuks who had taken Jerusalem and now controlled the pilgrimage routes, but were in large measure political, Europeans were afraid that the fall of the Byzantines would mean that the whole of Eastern Europe would be open to the Seljuks. The total death toll from the Crusades has been estimated as between 1 and 3 million (it is impossible to say).
The "theology" of the Crusades
The Crusades took place at perhaps the lowest point in the history of Christian theology. They were launched at the behest of the Pope, a man who had come to fill the political vacuum in the West created by the loss of the Roman emperors and so he fulfilled both a political and a religious role styling himself "the head of the church on earth" a title rejected as unbiblical by all non Roman Catholic Christians including the very Eastern Orthodox church that appealled to him for help.
Regarding the biblical basis for the Crusades as well as their causes in the West. There is no biblical warrant for the leaders of the church to assume the duties of the civil magistrate, neither are the pilgrimages that exascerbated tensions called for in the bible, nor are any blessings promised to those who go on pilgrimage, neither are they a good work (as would be the case for say the Hajj in Islam). Christians have no bilbical calling to wage violent religious wars of vengeance. The bible accepts and teaches that the civil magistrate has the power to use the sword to defend his people against evil-doers but the powers of the leaders of the church are strictly ministerial and declarative and the power of physical coercion has never been granted to them. The last God authorized offensive religious war was the conquest of Canaan, which we are told came after the Lord had given the occupants of the land many years to repent. The next authorized religious war will not be so much a war as a final judgment, and that is not scheduled to occur until the return of Christ.
Therefore, all attempts at calling for and waging religious war in the name of Christ, are explicitly denied in the Bible. In the New Testament, Christ's followers are explicitly told to be willing to die for their faith, but never to kill for it.
This is even more the case because the bible teaches that the conversion is a work of the Holy Spirit in the heart, and therefore cannot be coerced or forced by the sword. At the time of the Crusades however, biblical theology was at a very low ebb, and many simply considered baptism sufficient to count someone as a Christian. Therefore, the possibility of "forced conversion" was considered possible.
The Legitimacy of Appealing to the Crusades as evidence that Christianity is just as prone to violence as Modern Islam
When one asserts that the Crusades are "proof" of the equally violent nature of Christianity one is essentially comparing Modern Islam with Early Middle Ages Christianity. One is reaching back over 800 years to a period of Christian history that is decisively over and has been repudiated and excoriated by the Christian community. Additionally, few credible Christian theologians today attempt to create any biblical justification for these actions. The Crusades are considered contrary to biblical doctrine. Even the Vatican has formally apologized for them.
But let us quickly compare the Crusades to the Jihad.
The Quran teaches that conversion to Islam is a mental assent or "surrender" to the teachings of Allah as taught by his messenger the Prophet Muhammad. It is the duty of all men everywhere to surrender to Islam and only when this happens will the whole world be at peace. Until that time, the world is inevitably divided into the Dar-El-Islam (nation of surrender and therefore peace) and the Dar-El-Harb (the nation of war or rebellion against the will of Allah). It is the duty of all faithful Muslims to ensure that Dar-El-Islam continues to spread, both via teaching and when necessary force.
This first religious wars against those who refused to surrender to the message of Allah were lead directly by the prophet, and involved him personally leading the armies of Islam and fighting against the unbelievers. This involved for instance the massacre of the last Jewish tribe in Medinah, the Banu-Qurayza in 627 AD. When they refused to submit (surrender) to Islam the 900 or so males of the tribe were lined up before a trench, forced to kneel, and one by one their heads were cut off and their bodies were kicked into the trench. Muhammad personally oversaw the executions and took one of the new widows, Raihana Bint Amr who had just witnessed the brutal execution of her father and her husband, as his "wife."
The Jihad has continued since the 7th century (see the timeline in the next post), and indeed always must until the Dar-El-Islam fills the world and all antions are all at peace, observe Muslim (Sha'ria) law, and submit to the rule of the one Caliph (the inheritor of the mantle of the Prophet), liberal Muslims have attempted to revise the concept of Jihad, but as many have pointed out, the example of the prophet in how Muslims are to regard Jihad must be considered normative. Therefore this duty of Jihad by word and sword is fundamental to the charters of groups like Hamas and is to be found throughout the Islamic teaching material disseminated by Saudi Arabia (the primary producer of Arabic language Quranic teaching material worldwide) to masjids (Mosques) worldwide.
Therefore while "Crusading" was a foul and anti-Christian aberration, long since repudiated by Christians, and with no basis in Christian theology. The Jihad was started by the prophet, is fundamental to Islamic theology, is widely taught and endorsed in the Islamic world, and continues in the present day.
There simply is no contemporary Christian parallel to the pan-Islamic Jihad.
- SEAGOOON
PS: And yes, Karnak, I have read the Quran rather than simply googling it. I have a copy sitting on the lower shelf directly behind me in my office. For the sake of future discussions, I have also read most of the Hadiths, and many of the major religious works of other religions including the Talmud, the Vedas, the Teachings of the Compassionate Buddha, and the Book of Mormon, as well as various commentaries on these works by proponents of the religions they teach. This of course doesn't prove that I understand them, but I have tried to do so, and that from the point of view of those who believe them and regard them as true and authentic. Much of my study of Islam was done prior to becoming a Christian and included courses at University. I read Muslim blogs and theological works and watch Al-Jazeera on a regular basis.
-
Reposted from a prior Thread...
Here are some of the more important events in the military history of Islam, up to the advent of Wahabbi Islam, arranged on a timeline (all events are AD) I've drawn from several sources. Please note the events PRIOR to the first Crusades, such as the fact that Muslims sacked Rome hundreds of years prior to the Christian reconquest of Jerusalem in 1099:
570 Birth of Muhammad.
610 Muhammad claims to have received first vision in a cave near Mecca.
610-22 Muhammad preaches in Mecca.
622 Hijira - Muhammad and followers flee to Medina.
624 Muslims successfully attack Meccan caravans at Badr.
625 Muslims are defeated by Meccans at Uhud.
630 Muslims capture Mecca. Ka'ba is cleansed (360 gods reduced to one god - Allah), pilgrimage rites are Islamicized, tribes of Arabia vow allegiance to Muhammad
632 Death of Muhammad. Abu Bakr (Muhammad's Uncle) chosen as caliph.
632-33 Wars of ridda (apostasy) restore allegiance to Islam
633 Muslim conquests (Futuhat / Jihad) outside Arabia begin.
633 Muslims conquer Syria and Iraq.
634 - 0644 Umar (c. 0591 - 0644) reigns as the second caliph.
635 Muslims begin the conquest of Persia and Syria.
635 Arab Muslims capture the city of Damascus from the Byzantines.
637 The Arabs occupy the Persian capital of Ctesiphon. By 651, the entire Persian realm would come under the rule of Islam as it continued its westward expansion.
637 Syria is conquered by Muslim forces.
637 Jerusalem falls to invading Muslim forces.
639 Muslims conquer Egypt and Persia.
641 Under the leadership of Abd-al-Rahman, Muslims conquer southern areas of Azerbaijan, Daghestan, Georgia, and Armenia.
644 Muslim leader Umar dies and is succeeded by Caliph Uthman, a member of the Umayyad family that had rejected Muhammad's prophesies. Rallies arise to support Ali, Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law, as caliph. Uthman launches invasions to the west into North Africa.
649 Muawiya I, a member of the Umayyad family, leads a raid against Cyprus, sacking the capital
650 Caliph Uthman has the Qur'an written down.
652 Sicily is attacked by Muslims from Tunis
653 Muawiya I leads a raid against Rhodes
654 Muawiya I conquers Cyprus and stations a large garrison there
656 Uthman is murdered; Ali becomes fourth caliph.
657 Battle of Siffin. Mu'awiya, governor of Syria, claims the caliphate.
659 Arbitration at Adruh is opposed by Ali's supporters.
661 Ali is murdered; Mu'awiya becomes caliph. Beginning of Umayyad Caliphate (661-750).
668 First Siege of Constantinople
669 The Muslim conquest reaches to Morocco in North Africa
672 Muslims under Mauwiya I capture the island of Rhodes.
674 Arab Muslim conquests reach the Indus River
680 Death of Husayn marks beginning of the Shi'at Ali ("party of Ali") or Shi'a Muslim movement.
685-705 Reign of Abd al-Malik. Centralization of administration - Arabic becomes official written language (instead of Greek and Persian) and Arab coinage is established.
698 Muslims capture Carthage in North Africa.
711 - Beginning of the Muslim Conquest of Spain
711 Tariq ibn Malik, a Berber officer, crosses the strait separating Africa and Europe with a group of Muslims and enters Spain.
711 With the further conquest of Egypt, Spain and North Africa, Islam included all of the Persian empire and most of the old Roman world under Islamic rule. Muslims began the conquest of Sindh in Afghanistan
715 By this year just about all of Spain is in Muslim hands. The Muslim conquest of Spain only took around three years but the Christian reconquest would require around 460 years.
716 Lisbon is captured by Muslims.
717 Second Siege of Constantinople
719 Muslims attack Septimania in southern France
724 Muslim forces raid southern France and capture the cities of Carcassone and Nimes
730 Muslim forces occupy the French cities of Narbonne and Avignon.
732 Battle of Tours: With perhaps 1,500 soldiers, Charles Martel halts a Muslim force of around 40,000 to 60,000 cavalry under Abd el-Rahman Al Ghafiqi from moving farther into Europe.
732 Muslim empire reaches its furthest extent.
755 Abd ar-Rahman founds an Umayyad Dynasty in Cordoba, Spain.
800s Written collections of Hadith (sayings of the Prophet) are compiled. Sicily comes under Muslim rule.
813-33 Reign of Ma'mun. Theological controversy over whether the Qur'an is created or uncreated and eternal. Center for translation of texts from Greek to Arabic founded in Baghdad.
813 Muslims attack the Civi Vecchia near Rome.
831 Muslim invaders capture the Sicilian city of Palermo and make it their capital.
838 Muslim raiders sack Marseille.
846 Muslim raiders sail a fleet of ships from Africa up the Tiber river and attack outlying areas around Ostia and Rome. Some manage to enter Rome and damage the churches of St. Peter and St. Paul. Not until Pope Leo IV promises a yearly tribute of 25,000 silver coins do the raiders leave. The Leonine Wall is built in order to fend off further attacks such as this.
859 Muslim invaders capture the Sicilian city of Castrogiovanni
869 Arabs capture the island of Malta
870 After a month-long siege, the Sicilian city of Syracuse is captured by Muslim invaders.
876 Muslims pillage Campagna in Italy.
884 Muslims invading Italy burn the monastery of Monte Cassino to the ground.
902 The Muslim conquest of Sicily is completed. Muslim rule of Sicily would last for 264 years
911 Muslims control all the passes in the Alps between France and Italy, cutting off passage between the two countries.
920 Muslim forces cross the Pyrenees, enter Gascony, and reach as far as the gates of Toulouse.
928 Umayyad Abd ar-Rahman III declares himself caliph in Cordoba.
939 Madrid is recaptured from Muslim forces.
969 Fatimids gain power in Egypt and attack Palestine, Syria, and Arabia.
985 Al-Mansur Ibn Abi Aamir sacks Barcelona
994 The monastery of Monte Cassino is destroyed a second time by Arabs.
996-1021 Reign of Fatimid al-Hakim. Hamza ibn Ali forms basis of esoteric Druze religion.
1004 Arab raiders sack the Italian city of Pisa
1009 The Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem is destroyed by Muslim armies.
1012 Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, founder of the Druze sect and sixth Fatimid Caliph in Egypt, orders the destruction of all Christian and Jewish houses of worship in his lands.
1012 Berber forces capture Cordova and order that half the population be executed.
1015 Arab Muslim forces conquer Sardinia.
1030 Umayyad caliphate in Cordoba defeated by the Christian Reconquista.
1042 The rise of the Seljuk Turks begins.
1055 Seljuk Turks take Baghdad
1064 The Seljuk Turks conquer Christian Armenia.
1071 Seljuk Turks defeat Byzantines at Battle of Manzikert.
1071 - 1085 Seljuk Turks conquer most of Syria and Palestine.
1073 Seljuk Turks conquer Ankara.
1088 Patzinak Turks begin forming settlements between the Danube and the Balkans.
1096 FIRST CRUSADE
1099 Christian Crusaders take Jerusalem.
1100-1200s Sufi orders (turuq) are founded.
1171 Fatimid power ends in Egypt with the conquests of Saladin.
1174 Saladin declares himself sultan of Egypt and Syria.
1193 Death of Saladin; most of Crusader states have returned to Islam.
1221 Genghis Khan and the Mongols enter Persia.
1241 Mongols take the Punjab.
1258 Mongols capture Baghdad; city is sacked and caliph is killed. End of Abbasid caliphate.
1281-1324 Reign of Uthman (Osman), who founds the Ottoman Empire. Muslim merchants and missionary Sufis settle in SE Asia.
mid-1300s Ottomans capture Bursa and Iznik and move into Europe.
late 1300s Ottomas take control of the Balkans.
1400s Islam reaches the Philippines.
1453 Mehmet Fatih (rules 1451-81) conquers Constantinople.
1492 Reconquista ends. All Muslims (and Jews) expelled from Spain.
1516 Ottomans conquer Syria and Egypt.
1517 Ottomans control Mecca and Medina.
1520-66 Reign of Suleyman the Magnificent; Ottoman Empire reaches its zenith. Hungary and coastlands of Algeria and Tunisia come under Ottoman rule.
1526 Babur (Mongolian) seizes the Delhi sultanate and takes control of northern India.
1556 Akbar founds the Mughal (Muslim) dynasty in northern India.
1625 Java comes under rule of Muslim kingdom of Mataram.
1699 Treaty of Karlowitz confirms first substantial losses of Ottoman Empire in Europe.
1700s Muhammad Abd al-Wahhab (Founder of Wahhabism) rejects Sufism and all innovation (bid'a). Founds what becomes the Saudi Arabian kingdom. Hindus regain power from Mughals in northern India.
-
Seagoon; sorry but I can't take your view to Quran as "official"; it would be same as accepting some Mullah's opinion about Bible as "truth".
No offence but I don't think You're qualified to tell the true meanings of the Quran.
We have a saying in here: "(someone) Reads the Bible like the devil" meaning trying to find only the bad sides and loopholes and when knowing Your professionality I can't believe you'd be totally neutral in this case.
-
Seagoon Said :
Gentlemen,
When I pressed reply just now, I was of two minds, my initial and much stronger inclination was to essentially post a "farewell, I've had it" message, as nothing I say seems to do much more than stir the already seething pot. And if you truly view me and the vast majority of my sincere brothers and sisters in Christ with such utter contempt that you regard us as at best on par with men and women who saw off heads and blow up children and more likely far worse, then what really is the point of continuing on in this venue?
Seagoon,
Have you ever thought that you truely live the words you speak with the conviction by which you beleive them? Add to this the depth of your scholarship in theology and diverse matters and the results on this board are to be expected.
You challenge and frighten those who do not beleive as you do. You scare some because your ministry and scholarship is seductive in it's logic, depth and your conviction. If they cannot refute your position or trap you into failing your own faith, well they may be finding themselves questioning their own.
Some simply cannot countenance your obvious command of your medium. They must challenge themselves against you as so they would in the MA against the likes of Shane because of his talents.
The anti-theists seem to be taking revenge on you for things that transpired at another time and place in their lives. Unfortunatly you are available and willing to interact with them. That is your calling to help those in pain or issue.
Then there are those who enjoy the anonimous nature of the internet and the freedom to stick it to people and pad their own ego. You just happen to make yourself a great big target by demonstrating your faith and christianity so well.
Please do not give up. You help others on this board because of your ability to communicate these complex issues in terms for all people to digest. I'm just sorry that at times you are obviously punished for being christian by members of this community.
Respectfully,
Keith H. Davis
-
Staga,
Would it help if I quoted directly from Imams, various portions of the Muslim brotherhood, the Hadith, official Saudi Materials, Islamic leaders, or the prophet? Or does my being a Pastor disqualify me from all commentary on every subject? Is my life experience, personal interaction, and reading nullified by my vocation?
Just out of interest, Why then is it that people who despise Christianity are allowed to pontificate as authorities on the subject of the Christian faith around here?
Vaguely Confused,
Seagoon
-
Seagoon you keep using the words "me" and "I" when most I see are essentially talking about whole creeds and cults.
I personally have nothing against you and your beliefs. They do not interfere or intrude on my life. Unless you belong to one of those Christian extremist groups of which a few have been mentioned here already.
But if you need to be feel like some Christian paladin and rally against some imagined Christian persecution here then have at it.
-
"You challenge and frighten those who do not beleive as you do."
Not there is some fine, knee deep, unadulterated horsedung.
You'd have told Don Quixote that the windmills were shaken to thier very foundations from fear of him.
-
Seagoon's unbiased opinion of Islam (http://www.providencepca.com/sermons/53004morn.mp3)
-
Seagoon, my apologies if you have taken from my commentary here that I have either disdain or contempt of chritianity or christians.
I do not disdain the good works done by any man, regardless of the motivation. It is my position that Religion is sometime a source of happiness, and I would not deprive anyone of happiness. But I must in honesty say I feel it is a comfort appropriate for the weak, not for the strong.
The great trouble with religion - any religion - is that a religionist, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence. One may bask at the warm fire of faith or choose to live in the bleak certainty of reason; but one cannot have both. I bhave made my choice.. I'd ask that you respect my right to live by it, as I respect your right to live by the choices you've made.
It is unfortunate that the truth, despite your faith; remains a simple one.. religious violence is wrong. It's what is deserving of disdain and contempt... not Christains or Moslems or Jews, etc.
I will not condem any man for his faith.[/i] I would however not hesitate a moment to condem him for his actions[/i] should they harm another. I do not hate muslims for what happened on 9/11.. what's happening now; the hacking of heads, the torture, the kidnappings, the bombings, the murders.. I do not hate muslims.
I hate violent religious fanatics and terrorists. The current flavor of terrorist happens to be 'islamic'. 10 years ago they were 'palestinian' terrorists, 20 years ago they were 'red terrorists', 40 years ago 'jewish terorists' and 60 years ago it was 'fascist terrorists'. Regardless of the current 'flavor'.. terrorists should be hunted, killed and the corpses quartered in their home villages.
As Bustr mentioned above, your walking off in a huff over discussion and commentary regarding your faith and how it's practiced would neither do you, this board or it's corrspondents any justice. I'm sure your as passoinite as I about bringing this evil to an end.. speak to that. But lets go after the terrorists for the acts of terror, for the violence.. not because they are muslims, because that's[/i] religious intolerance, and that's not acceptable behavior in a rational, moral world.
We are listening.
-
Hi AKH,
Originally posted by AKH
Seagoon's unbiased opinion of Islam (http://www.providencepca.com/sermons/53004morn.mp3)
I have never claimed to be unbiased regarding Islam. How could I be, given that I view the claims of Christ and the testimony of scripture to be absolutely true?
But then again, this is at root all about truth claims and their practical implications.
The Jihadi believes that the Quran and the Hadiths are absolutely true, that Christianity is a false religion, a blasphemous deception of Shaitan and something that, like all false ideologies (this includes democracy with its inherent contradiction of the absolute rule of the Caliph and the unchangeable nature of the Sharia), will ultimately be stamped out. He is willing to die in a martyrdom attack, not only because he is assured of salvation by doing so, but also because in so doing he is doing a good deed and advancing the final victory of the Dar-El-Islam. And indeed if Allah is God, and he has commanded men in his word to be willing to advance his word by the sword and by fighting and killing the infidel, as for instance Surah 9:29 commands:
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection"
then the Jihadi is right to do so, if that is what the God who created the universe, and continues to govern it, and who will in due time judge all men according to their deeds has commanded, then obeying his commands to fight the infidels and kill the apostates is right and indeed good and will be rewarded. Furthermore, if Islam is right, then Christianity is indeed a blasphemous religion and "Isa." as the Quran calls Jesus, was truly just a man who was sent by Allah to tell us the good news that Muhammad was coming:
[61.6] And when Isa son of Marium said: O children of Israel! surely I am the apostle of Allah to you, verifying that which is before me of the Taurat and giving the good news of an Apostle who will come after me, his name being Ahmad, but when he came to them with clear arguments they said: This is clear magic.
But of course I don't believe that the Quran is the Word of God, or that he gave instructions to Mohommed to launch a Jihad. In fact, I judge Islam via the truth claims of the Bible, and its practical outworkings via the ethics of the bible. So what it calls Jihad, I call evil and simply a violation of the 6th commandment prohibition "You shall not murder." I judge the Crusades by the same standard and find them wanting as well. The scriptures tell me to be willing to take up my cross and follow my Savior and die for the gospel. In fact they tell me to do the most difficult thing of all, to not hate my enemy but to love him and pray for him, and so I must be willing to do so, God helping me. They forbid me to revenge myself or to go out and attempt to advance the gospel by killing, so regardless of how angry I might become, I must not do so. The great example I am given is one of dying to save others not killing to advance the word. That practically is the great unavoidable difference between the two relligions, and what many call "weakness" I believe to be strength.
But if there really is no Allah, or no Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, if neither side is right and both wrong, then ultimately the terms "good and evil" are meaningless. All that is, are values created by men and agreed upon by consensus. In that case, the morals of cannibal society that judge strangers to be food, are unimpeachable. You go into their society and you become subject to their "law" and their "good" so the gospel that the Missionary brings them is no better or worse than they, and his message not one wit less or more moral, indeed he has no right to complain when he is served for dinner as he became subject to their laws and customs when he entered into their society.
That of course is where Western society stands, increasingly ethically adrift, unable to call anything really good or really evil. Our laws change now according to the whims of the intelligentsia. We may call the suicide bombers evil, but what we really mean is we don't personally approve of their actions and today's "evil" suicide bomber becomes a courageous insurgent when it suits the political aims of the person describing him.
- SEAGOON
-
If I may enter the fray.
This caught my eye from Gunthr
The Western Muslims who have adapted to our society interpret these things differently than the Islamists, which allows them to adapt Islam to modern life in the world community. In Islamist's eyes, this makes them no better than kufr, maybe worse.
This may have motivated the four suicide bombers in London. All of them were western Muslims. Lived typical lives of westerners. But somebody got to them made them realise their were ' no better than kufr'. How do they purge their sin? We saw the result last week.
You could probably say much the same thing for the 9/11 hijackers.
This from the Van Gogh attacker.
"What moved me to do what I did was purely my faith. . . . I was motivated by the law that commands me to cut off the head of anyone who insults Allah and his prophet," he said.
At one point, he addressed the victim's mother, Anneke, who was sitting in the public gallery. "I have to admit I don't have any sympathy for you," he said. "I can't feel for you because I think you're a nonbeliever.''
These people are the minority in Islam. But Islam is like Christianity in one sense. There are many variations of Islam. Just like there are many variations of Christianity. The difference is they exist more easily side by side than Christian faiths. (Except maybe Sunnis and Shias).
Whereas if the Presbyterians declared holy war against Islam or more likely Catholics. It would be very unlikely the the Methodists and the Baptists would line up alongside them.
Islam is different. It seems every Iman has his own version of the truth. No two mosques seem to be the same. But they all have a common thread which unites them.
As a result Al Qaeda is not so much an organisation as a version of Islam. That is a lot more dangerous than if they were simply a terrorist organisation. It's so much harder to kill an idea than a person.
The danger is that this version of Islam will spread out of control. It couldn't happen in Christianity.
-
Hi Hangtime,
Originally posted by Hangtime
Seagoon, my apologies if you have taken from my commentary here that I have either disdain or contempt of chritianity or christians.
As Bustr mentioned above, your walking off in a huff over discussion and commentary regarding your faith and how it's practiced would neither do you, this board or it's corrspondents any justice. I'm sure your as passoinite as I about bringing this evil to an end.. speak to that. But lets go after the terrorists for the acts of terror, for the violence.. not because they are muslims, because that's[/i] religious intolerance, and that's not acceptable behavior in a rational, moral world.
We are listening.
Hang, I do apologize if I am becoming thin-skinned. To tell the honest truth, I have had a much shorter fuse than normal of late, and a lot of it might well be that I am working towards burn-out. I have not had a real vacation in over a year now, and at present am getting about half-a-day off each week which is really grinding me down. Ah well, please forgive me therefore if I snap on occasion. I should be able to let most of this roll off like water off a duck's back.
While I appreciate what you say about the long-standing nature of terror, respectfully millitant Islam is not merely just the newest flavor on the market. This one is here to stay, and will continue to grow because it taps into the same processes that caused the original Jihads in the 7-9th centuries to grow. It is also not merely regional, it is worldwide, and as much as we don't want to admit it it, everywhere there is a substantial Muslim population, there are growing terror cells. We've seen that in Holland, Britain, Chechnya, America, the Phillipines, and so on.
The other difference is that this is a long haul process, there is no "magic answer" that will end the attacks. The West could even do what it cannot really do, namely pull out of the Middle East entirely, but removing every single infidel from the Dar-El-Islam and ending all support for Israel tomorrow wouldn't end this war or cause the various Pan-Islamic terror networks to shut down. This would be merely to encourage them to go to phase two:
“Moreover, we will not stop at this point, but will pursue this evil force to its own lands, invade its Western heartland, and struggle to overcome it until all the world shouts by the name of the Prophet and the teachings of Islam spread throughout the world. Only then will Muslims achieve their fundamental goal, and there will be no more ‘persecution’ and all religion will be exclusively for Allah….” [Yakun, Fathi. To Be a Muslim. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: International Islamic Publishing House, 1996. - Distributed to American Mosques by the Saudi Embassy]
Obviously, the fact that there are sections of Holland and France that are now essentially off limits to non-Muslims and that the Dutch can't even assure the safety of their own politicians should indicate that phase 2 is already actually well underway.
This is a struggle I'm not sure that the West can "win," because I am not sure we have the will or ability to do so. Moreover we are hopelessly hamstrung in that we cannot target and replace the ideology of militant Islam, its like trying to fight the Second World War while simultaneously bending over backwards to assure everyone that it wasn't a war against National Socialism per se, but rather a struggle to get a few bad people who had hijacked that political perspective. So Hitler and Himler have to go and maybe even the SS, but the Nazi party itself must be protected. Or in our current milleiu, we fight the Taliban, but we preserve the Masjids training new Taliban fighters just over the border in Pakistan.
Do you, Hangtime, believe that we can fight the war on terror in the current manner for 20 years or more? Do you seriously think that either the US and/or its allies won't buckle and go the route of "concession, concession, concession...." long before-hand. More to the point do you think we have any hope of keeping a single tactical nuclear device out of all of Europe and the USA for that long? Can our democratic societies withstand the pressure of the ridiculously universal laws to combat terror?
I think the situation is far more serious than most westerners want to admit.
- SEAGOON
-
Bustr,
I did want to say thank you to you and a number of other people for your words of support and encouragement, even though I in no way deserve them. All that I am in the end is a poor blind beggar who received bread from the hands of the King.
(1 Tim. 1:15-16) ;)
- SEAGOON
-
Do you, Hangtime, believe that we can fight the war on terror in the current manner for 20 years or more? Do you seriously think that either the US and/or its allies won't buckle and go the route of "concession, concession, concession...." long before-hand. More to the point do you think we have any hope of keeping a single tactical nuclear device out of all of Europe and the USA for that long? Can our democratic societies withstand the pressure of the ridiculously universal laws to combat terror?
Yah, I think the war is winnable. 50 years ago, the war against communism was considered 'unwinnable'. We'll win this one too.. but the moment we start a war on Islam we lose.
Will we be hurt again.. and again? Sure. My city might be the next one. Know what? It won't be enuff. London, NY, Paris, Stockholm.. doesn't matter how many they strike. They won't win. Why? Because we're free, we're not chained by religious dogma that preaches hate. We recognize that all people have a right to exsist.. and that we will fight for those rights. The right to practice and believe in whatever god or principals you care to, as long as those beliefs do not deny another of his.
As long as we go down THIS road, and not the road of religious hatred.. we WILL win.
-
As long as we go down THIS road, and not the road of religious hatred.. we WILL win.
It seems that the zealous Christians favour the hatred route.
-
Muslims and Christians lived in peace for centuries; I wonder what happened...
Seagoon; there are hundreds of millions Muslims around the world; I think You'll notice if they start up the jihad.
What you've seen is actions of few dozen extremists and their followers and it's not any worse than actions of some Jewish or Christian groups but if you want to think they're out there making plans to turn whole world to a one happy islamistic nation then go ahead.
-
Originally posted by Staga
What you've seen is actions of few dozen extremists...
Pew Global Attitudes Project
Support for acts of terrorism in defense of Islam has declined significantly in all majority-Muslim countries surveyed. Only in Jordan does a majority (57%) still find such acts justified. But opinion is divided over suicide bomber attacks on Americans and other Westerners in Iraq: Substantial majorities in Turkey, Pakistan and Indonesia find such attacks are not justifiable, but nearly half of Muslims in Lebanon and Jordan, and 56% in Morocco say they are.
Courier-Mail Aus
Research shows these clerics are finding a willing audience – an ICM poll revealed 13 per cent of Britain's 1.6 million Muslims support Al-Qaeda: a staggering 206,000 people.
a few dozen?
-
I live in a muslim country OMAN , i am a westerner (BRIT) and to be honest the Omani's are no different from me and you , they want the same thing's as we do .The fact that they worship a different god from the one we do , or that they dont eat pork or drink (though a lot of em do )makes no difference .
Another thing 99.9999% of muslims are peaceful people much like you or me , just because a very small percentage are crazies dont tar all muslims with the same brush ,i have had people come up to me in the street and apologise for what has happened in the US , UK and Spain , you will find that most of the muslim world is appauled by what is being done in the name of thier religion .If it wasnt religion the world was arguing over it would be somthing else , basically were all as bad as each other no matter who you pray too.
-
Originally posted by bob149
The fact that they worship a different god from the one we do , or that they dont eat pork or drink (though a lot of em do )makes no difference .
The God of Judism, Christianity and Islam is the God of Abraham. All three religions worship the same God.
-
Originally posted by Torque
when lynchings was a cultural event for family portraits and postcards, was the christian outcry deafening?
I'm new to the thread, so I just pulled this quote out as representative of many. Couple thoughts.
First, yes it was -- amoung people who really searched for "knowing God." A disturbingly high percentage of Christians down thru the ages have followed the forms of religion without letting it seep into their lives. Some then let the same selfish, desire driven behaviors present in the worst of us run rampant -- but under the banner of chrisitanity. They no more deserve to represent the faith than the Oklahoma City bombers represented American values (which they claimed as their motivation, BTW).
Most of the abolitionists during the 1800s were fervent Christians, who used Christian doctrine and principles to jsutify their passion. William Wilberforce, who led the drive for abolition in England, was a minister. Martin Luther King was a minister, and in pictures of his marches you'll see white ministers walking with him. They were motivated by desire for justice for a people not their own, at least in the worlds eyes.
Now about the Old Testament -- think about the seasons of life. What works well to teach a 12 year old, doesnt work as well when life develops further. Same as the Testaments.
Christians doctrine does not repudiate the Old Testament. The violence in the book was part of the context of ancient times, no doubt. In the specific instances cited -- about stoning guys -- the emphasis was on not compromising with paganism, which God told his people would generally mess up their lives. And realistically -- the dominant regional religions involved human and child sacrifice -- those compromises, like doing both religions as insurance, would have made things far worse for the people. Consequently, penalties matched the cultural norm for severe punishment. The point, even in the old testament, was on the internal realtionship with God -- Psalms says "you dont desire sacrifice; the sacrifices you want are a contrite heart"
In the New Testament, Jesus first upped the ante -- "You've heard it said, dont commit adultery. I now say, dont think about committing adultery -- its the same thing as doing it." He took the internal changes the law was about to their next level. He also took the emphasis off the law, and put it on the heart.
He said "put away your sword, peter." He said -- to a woman who earned death under law -- "I dont accuse you either -- jsut go, and sin no more."
No contradiction, further development.
Most anti- religion jabs on thiss board are jsut cheap shots, where someone who has made up his mind grabs any bit of evidence to "prove" what he already knows. Crusades were abused by men who demonstrably didnt live by Christian doctrine -- most basically, "do unto others." So why are they the #1 cited evidence how how bad christian religion is? The fact that the church bureacracy got behind them is irrelevant as a reflection of what Christianity teaches, because the actions that you guys deplore were not true reflections of what's in the book.
And some have set up parameters that guarantee no evidence for faith will be considered. In particular, by praising good deeds but hating what motivates many people to do them, Hang, you get the best of both cynical worlds, eh?
-
They dont see it that way , but i agree with you Holden, it's is pretty much the same thing .
-
Originally posted by Raider179
[I keep seeing you guys say the "word of god" but isnt the bible just man's recollections and stories about what happened. As I recall only Qu'ran is the actual word of God and has been unchanged since it was written. The Torah might be too but I cant remember right now.
You might mean something different than what I am interpreting as your "word of God".
The Bible claims to be written by the direct inspiration of God, working through men who were selcted -- for want of a better term -- to "channel" the specific message. Some were told to transmit their message orally as prophets, some by written record.
As far as accuracy goes, there is consistent reliability between manuscripts going way, way back for biblical texts.
And no, the new testament was not written by the church leaders who came to common agreement about the canon of "books in the bible." If nothing else, the dates are jsut off between the conference and teh oldest manuscripts available.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The God of Judism, Christianity and Islam is the God of Abraham. All three religions worship the same God.
Christianity and Judaism share the God of Abraham at its root. I kinda remember that Allah was originally one of the arab pantheon prior to mohammed, and after he forced renunciation of all the others and changed the Kaba to be holy only to allah instead of the whole team, he claimed that Allah and jehovah were the same.
Not sure we can ever tell whether the original version of allah was traceable to jehovah, though.
-
Islam branches from Genesis when Abraham's faith is tested by being asked to sacrifice his first born son.
Islam believes that Ishmail, the illegitimate son of Abraham and the handmaiden Hagar was the son who lay beneath Abraham's knife, while Judism and therefor Christianity believe it was Issac, the son of Abraham and his wife Sarah.
-
Holden; what could be the common nominator between Lebanon, Jordan and Morocco?
-
the temperature :)
-
so there are only a few dozen of these muslim extremists?
lazs
-
Maybe there's as many as christian, jewish and hindu extremists.
-
Originally posted by Staga
Maybe there's as many as christian, jewish and hindu extremists.
Dont even try BS like that..
(http://www.mirrors.org/historical/2001-09-11-World-Trade_Center/wtc/wtc_005.jpg)
-
what would you say that the average amount of christian suicide bombers a month is?
What is the death toll a month from christian suicide bombers?
lazs
-
AKH,
Originally posted by AKH
It seems that the zealous Christians favour the hatred route.
A couple of questions. What do you mean by this and what evidence do you have for this?
Also, exactly how was the hatred of Muslims manifested by the zealous bible believing Christian groups who went in to Aceh, Indonesia, an almost entirely Muslim principality, to remove and bury decomposing bodies from the beaches and villages, to distribute food and clothing sent by Christian congregations, to provide free medical assistance, to set up shelters, and so on? This included, for instance, the brother of one of the members of our own congregation (same denom).
I'm awaiting your answer.
- SEAGOON
-
One thing that has driven me a little batty that I would love to at least nail down in this thread.
Neither the Sinn Fein political party nor the IRA (in any of its permutations) are in any sense "Christian Terrorist Organizations." While the membership of both organizations is heavily Roman Catholic (at least nominally) they both contain a good number of avowed atheists, agnostics, communists, and so on. Neither group acknowledges that they are fighting or working as a Christian group. In fact, those familiar with the history of the IRA will remember that the main split in the organization (that resulted in the fracture into the "Real IRA" and "Provisional IRA") was over Marxism and whether they were fighting to establish an explicitly Socialist Republic. Those of you familiar with the Christian faith will realize that Marxism and "funadmentalist Christianity" are at heart incompatible.
They are profoundly different from the many affiliated Islamic terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Hamas etc. which state that they are specifically Islamic.
For instance, Hamas explicitly states things like the following in its charter:
Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.
[Hamas Charter, 1988, Article 8. Entire Charter available online here (http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm)
Note also that almost all of these Islamic terror organizations (including the Chechens) acknowledge a general linkage via the Pan-Islamic (Wahabbi) ideals of Hasan Al-Banni and the Muslim brotherhood. Total membership in these organizations together is in the hundreds of thousands, and thats not counting supporters in the Umma.
I would challenge you to find anything similar amongst bible believing Christians - i.e. a huge and well funded and supported modern world wide terror network devoted to defending and advancing "Christendom" by violent attacks.
- SEAGOON
-
Grünhertz; how many terrorists did participate in 9/11?
-
Muhammad claimed to be the final prophet in the long line of Jewish and Christian prophets.
This was six centuries after the death and resurrection of Yeshua the Messiah – Jesus Christ.
Muhammad's "encounter" in the cave with the spiritual being (called Jabril =Gabriel) left him terrified. In spite of severe depression, his wife and Christian cousin convinced him his experiences were not from "Jinn" but from the Allah. (My regrets, but this is unlike divine encounters recorded in the Bible.) He then made his claims of prophethood to Arab tribes that had been awash in polytheism for many centuries.
This "prophetic superiority of Muhammad" is a key idea that Islam still promotes. Like it or not, Jews and Christians cannot just brush off the claims of the Quran. Knowledgeable humble Christians are the actual experts who can fairly judge the claims of the Muhammad, not Muslims who have no knowledge of the Bible. But that does imply a fair reading of the Quran by Christians.
Having read the Quran in English and Hebrew, I'd say that anyone with first-hand familiarity of the Bible will notice a significant difference between the two. Biblical accounts are retold differently in the Quran, and doubtful Jewish and Christian apocryphal material is considered trustworthy.
The Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) were written over many centuries by some two dozen authors and contain prophecies of many prophets. The Greek Scriptures (New Testament) cover a much shorter time period, but nevertheless contain the four gospel accounts and letters-epistles to various communities, from some ten authors. The collaborate testimony of multiple authors is absent in the Quran.
You read the Quran and you read, laboriously, one man's claims about what he says are God's revelations to him. Some "revelations" are completely self-serving. For example, Muhammad's deity revealed that he could take the wife of his adopted son away from him, for himself, because she caught his fancy, even though Muhammad was not short of wives. The Quran bears no sign of being a continuation of either Jewish or Christian revelation, even though it sprinkles in Jewish and Christian names and stories.
The written source of Christian faith (New Testament) promotes eagerness to love and forgive others, even in the face of antagonism and violence. So if Christian rule, or Christian groups, were corrupt and brutal at certain stages of history, it was directly contradictory to the express commandments of the New Testament. In contrast, the Quran does not repudiate coercion, violence and retribution for religious ends. Jews and Christians must live as Dhimmis and pay a special tax. Recalcitrant polytheists may be slain on the spot. "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do," is not found in the Quran. So while homicide bombing of non-combatants is not explicit in the Quran, there is little to restrain such an idea. And while modern elements within Islam courageously repudiate such brutal ideas, it is more in spite of the Quran rather than because of it.
Nevertheless, the anti-religion Fascists and Communists of the last century who spilled the blood of multiplied tens of millions were, to this point, a far worse blot on humanity than any Jihad or Crusade. Religion does not necessarily generate violence. Sinful humans, religious or atheist, do.
Re: Bible written by humans
As a technical writer in telecommunications, I can tell you that it is no astonishing feat for humans to produce flawless written works on technical subjects. The potential for error may hang like the sword of Damocles, but that doesn't mean humanity can only produce erroneous written works. So concerning the Bible, or any other religious works, you cannot reject it out-of-hand just because it was penned by humans. Written accounts of human beings who claim to have had experiences with the Living God must be judged fairly on their own merits.
Best regards.
Cement
-
Seagoon:
[Quran 60:8]
"GOD does not enjoin you from befriending those who do not fight you because of religion, and do not evict you from your homes. You may befriend them and be equitable towards them. GOD loves the equitable."
[Quran 5:32]
"......, we decreed for the Children of Israel that anyone who murders any person who had not committed murder or horrendous crimes, it shall be as if he murdered all the people. And anyone who spares a life, it shall be as if he spared the lives of all the people. .............."
[Quran 6:151]
"...... You shall not kill - GOD has made life sacred - except in the course of justice. These are His commandments to you, that you may understand."
[Quran17:33] "You shall not kill any person - for GOD has made life sacred - except in the course of justice. ....."
More in here:
http://www.submission.org/terrorism.html
Whoa what was that? Muslims against terrorists?
Next they say man has been walking in the moon.
-
Seagoon; could it be that you've read Quran like devil reads the bible?
Not with open mind but with a goal that you wanted to find something which would support your stance?
-
so let me see..christians havent done things as bad as 9/11...bloody hell yr all bad history studnets...now what was that little thing called the inquesition(forgive the spelling !) we also have the goings on in the former yugoslavia.....the blinders some of u have is amazing .... not to mention that every war we have had in modern times ...we had god on our side.....and so do they!!!! you just dont get it ...as far as religions is concerned there is no innocent party ... and that dont matter how far you go back in time.... This isnt a case of they are wrong n u are right ....yr all boody wrong !!!!! if there was no religion the world would be a fer better place
oh and gurnherz..try adding up all the people killed by the IRA in all the years they have been around ..and they started in 1918 i think , and the biggest fundraiser they ever had was NORAID which was based where ?
so please stop with the 9/11 pictures like yr the only country that has ever had the nightmare of terrorism hit them.........ok rant over ...
-
seagoon
Take it from me the IRA are a catholic terroist organisation , to think otherwise is like saying ALQUIEDA are tree huggers !!!!
Tell it to the people thease murderers have killed , please tell thier relatives what it is you have to say .......pretty sure you will get told ...to go away in short jerky movements ....please keep your sermons to somthing you know.......
-
Originally posted by Staga
Grünhertz; how many terrorists did participate in 9/11?
A worldwide network of thousands of islamic terrorists. Ever heard of al qaeda?
Or are you really trying to say it was all planned, financed, throught out and executed by the 19 individuals on the planes? You couldnt be, right?
-
Hi Staga,
Originally posted by Staga
Seagoon; could it be that you've read Quran like devil reads the bible?
Not with open mind but with a goal that you wanted to find something which would support your stance?
You pose a fair question. Let me try to answer it.
I try to weigh all religions by their truth claims, and the most authentic reading of the texts in light of the founders life and teachings rather than passing them through my own "what I want to find grid."
Using this methodology, you will notice that I have never claimed that Buddhism is at heart an aggressively violent religion advocating conversion by force, or that the life of it's founder Siddharta, was marked by violent attempts to spread his religious beliefs, or that he taught that Buddhists must fight and kill to establish Buddhism world wide. The life and teachings of the Gautama Buddha simply do not bear that kind of "interpretation."
So when, for instance, Buddhists persecute Christians in Sri Lanka and burn churches, I do not blame the teachings of Buddhism, but say this is action contrary to what they claim to believe.
Islam on the other hand, has never been a "peaceful religion" neither was the life of Muhammad one of peace. He agressively fought and killed those who did not accept his revelations and then after his death his followers continued the fight.
Staga if you refuse to accept this, please take just one incident from the life of Muhammad, the massacre of the Jewish Banu-Qurayza tribe in 627 AD and give me your apologetic explaining it. Then just answer me one thing, is this action more in keeping with the "interpretation" of Islam held by say the current President of Iran or the "interpretation" of Islam held by liberal Muslims? Ultimately I believe that the life and teachings of the founder of a religion should provide the overriding hermeneutic for our interpretation of it.
One last thought, I started studying Islam long before I became a Christian and I once briefly considered becoming a Muslim, my essential understanding of Islam did not change upon becoming a Christian.
- SEAGOON
PS: Hacksaw, made some excellent points regarding the origin and content of the Quran.
-
Is the real question here regarding Islam & Christianity 'Who's Worse?', or 'Who's more of a threat to America'?
-
exactly hang...
also.. I would imagine that jews have some insight as to who they fear more... muslims or christians... Americans or euros..
lazs
-
You know, it doesnt sound like anyone is listening.....
How many times have we said
IT ISNT WHETHER PEOPLE CLAIM TO BE FOLLOWERS OF A RELIGION. IT'S WHAT THE RELIGION REALLY TEACHES.
So, whether the IRA is catholic or not is irrelevant. "Which is worse for our culture" can only be answered by looking at the faiths themselves. Anything else is propoganda, twisting truth for (in this case) secular ends.
Real question: does Christianity teach principles of terror, or blood feud? Did Jesus teach rebellion against legally constituted powers? NO.
Did Mohammed? I've never read the Koran, so I only know what I'm told by others and what I read. However, a substantial minority believe violent revenge against nonbelievers is justified.
Another question: skeptics like Hang praise those who do good deeds, but deplore religious commitment. How many of these praiseworthy people DO their deeds BECAUSE oif their faith? These life effects of faith are being entirely overlooked by the anti-religionists who post here.
But it seems no one is really listening. When a person of faith posts a question that requires a thouhgful answer, when the rebuttal is hard for skeptics to come by, the topic shifts.
Is anyone really considering their opposite's points, or are we just venting prejudices? In short, is this a college dorm discussion or is it Archie Bunker's living room?
-
Another question: skeptics like Hang praise those who do good deeds, but deplore religious commitment. How many of these praiseworthy people DO their deeds BECAUSE oif their faith? These life effects of faith are being entirely overlooked by the anti-religionists who post here.
What? I could care less what color stripes are on your robe Sunday morning. Or any other day of the week. Do your good works in any name that makes yah feel good.
Pick up a rock, utter nosies like 'heritic' or 'unbeliever', you'll be dealt with like any other rabid nutcase... regardless of how may puppies, starving children or emotionally distraught folks your good works have accomplished. Nothing, NOTHING excuses religious extremist behavior.
Is anyone really considering their opposite's points, or are we just venting prejudices? In short, is this a college dorm discussion or is it Archie Bunker's living room?
I dunno.. you tell me. Seems like a reasonable discussion so far.. aside from the odd comments from the peanut gallery; to be expected in any public venue such as this. But, should your require some 'opposite points' that display the 'christiandom' the 'unbelievers' seem so annoyed about lets try a few of these..
House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) at the First Baptist Church of Pearland, Texas, on April 12, 2002: Ladies and gentlemen, Christianity offers the only viable, reasonable, definitive answer to the questions of 'Where did I come from?' 'Why am I here?' 'Where am I going?' 'Does life have any meaningful purpose?' Only Christianity offers a way to understand that physical and moral border. Only Christianity offers a comprehensive worldview that covers all areas of life and thought, every aspect of creation. Only Christianity offers a way to live in response to the realities that we find in this world -- only Christianity.
Jerry Falwell "Moral Majority Report," September, 1984: If we are going to save America and evangelize the world, we cannot accommodate secular philosophies that are diametrically opposed to Christian truth.
Jeff Fugate, Pastor of Clays Mill Road Baptist Church, Lexington, KY, July 3, 2002: If you don't want a Christian nation, then go to one of the many nations that are heathen already, rather than perverting ours. You're welcome to come, but leave your religions, your bibles, all your other things back where you came from. Islam and America are opposites. They hate us. They want to kill us. I'm not anti-Jewish or anti-Catholic. I'm anti-Islam because that religion right there is anti-American.
Jerry Falwell, "Sunday Live with Jerry Falwell," July 23, 1995: Most American children do not know that this is a Christian nation... Our Constitution won't work in Russia, won't work in Haiti, won't work in Iraq. It only works where the people believe in the Christ of the Bible. The United States of America.
D. James Kennedy, Character & Destiny: A Nation in Search of Its Soul (1994): This is our land. This is our world. This is our heritage, and with God's help, we shall reclaim this nation for Jesus Christ. And no power on earth can stop us.
Francis J. Lally, American Roman Catholic Monsignor. Interview with Mike Wallace: The Church doesn't believe in book-burning, but it believes in restricting the use of dangerous books among those whose minds are unprepared for them.
The Church has through the centuries, understood that ideas are really more dangerous than other weapons. Their use should be restricted.
Rev. Joseph Morecraft, Chalcedon Presbyterian Church, "Biblical Role of Civil Government" speech delivered on August 21, 1993 at the Biblical Worldview and Christian Education Conference: Nobody has the right to worship on this planet any other God than Jehovah. And therefore the state does not have the responsibility to defend anybody's pseudo-right to worship an idol.
Gary North, "The Intellectual Schizophrenia of the New Christian Right" in Christianity and Civilization: The Failure of the American Baptist Culture, No. 1 (Spring, 1982), p. 25 So let us be blunt about it: We must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will be get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.
Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (1989) This is God's world, not Satan's. Christians are the lawful heirs, not non-Christians. The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant - baptism and holy communion - must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel.
Bailey Smith, a founder of Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition, speaking during a Religious Roundtable briefing in Dallas, Texas, on June 26, 1994: With all due respect to those dear people, my friend, God Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew.
Jimmy Swaggart, The Evangelist, January 1988: The Media is ruled by Satan. But yet I wonder if many Christians fully understand that. Also, will they believe what the Media says, considering that its aim is to steal, kill, and destroy?
Randall Terry, Speech in Jackson, Mississippi, April 1992:
What this is coming down to is who runs the country. It's us against them. It's the good guys versus the bad guys. It's the God-fearing people against the pagans, and some of the pagans are going to church.
Randall Terry, The News Sentinel, (Fort Wayne, Indiana), August 16, 1993: I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called on by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism.
Randall Terry, Why Does a Nice Guy Like Me Keep Getting Thrown in Jail? (1993) The next step, if at all humanly possible (and in 90% of the cases it is), it is to get our children out of the humanistic, brianwashing institution called `public education.' Frankly, it is a mixture of insanity and irresponsibility to turn our children over to our adversaries and their curriculum in a God-less education system (i.e., a system that teaches history and science without God).
Randall Terry, Speech to "Cities of Refuge" campaign, Willoughby Hills, Ohio, July, 1993: America is under the judgment of God. And if we are ever going to rebuild this country, it must be under God's law. Our goal must be simple: We must have a Christian nation built on God's law, on the Ten Commandments. No apologies.
Randall Terry, Speech before the U.S. Taxpayers Alliance on doctors who perform abortions. August 8, 1995: When I, or people like me, are running the country, you'd better flee, because we will find you, we will try you, and we'll execute you. I mean every word of it. I will make it part of my mission to see to it that they are tried and executed.
Jerry Vines President of the Southern Baptist Convention, speaking at the June 2002 SBC convention: Islam was founded by Muhammad, a demon-possessed pedophile who had 12 wives, the last one of which was a 9-year-old girl. And I will tell you Allah is not Jehovah either. Jehovah’s not going to turn you into a terrorist that’ll try to bomb people and take the lives of thousands and thousands of people.
James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under Rondald Reagan. Washington Post, May 24, 1981: Responsibility is to follow the Scriptures which call upon us to occupy the land until Jesus returns. We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand.
It would seem to me that the diatribe of hate is not just an Islamic Exclusive. Neither is Arrogant Religious Stupidity. I've said it before, I'll say it again.. your sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics. In short, more of the same for this tired world lays down the paths your cult leaders or thiers would have us take.
Now, glance again at all the 'good works' of all religions, everywhere.. everywhen.. and tell us with a straight face it's worth the death, horror and destruction it brings along in the baggage train.
Neither side deserves to 'inherit' a damn thing. Take yer hate speach and murderous wars for religoius supremacy and stuff 'em where the sun never shines... and if the price for winning the war on terror stamping out ALL religious hate dogma, then so be it.
Again I ask.. who's the biggest threat to this nation? The Islamic Terrorists.. or the wolves in our midst preaching for Christ Supreme Uber Ales?
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
snip
It would seem to me that the diatribe of hate is not just an Islamic Exclusive. Neither is Arrogant Religious Stupidity. I've said it before, I'll say it again.. your sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics. In short, more of the same for this tired world lays down the paths your cult leaders or thiers would have us take.
Now, glance again at all the 'good works' of all religions, everywhere.. everywhen.. and tell us with a straight face it's worth the death, horror and destruction it brings along in the baggage train.
Neither side deserves to 'inherit' a damn thing. Take yer hate speach and murderous wars for religoius supremacy and stuff 'em where the sun never shines... and if the price for winning the war on terror stamping out ALL religious hate dogma, then so be it.
Again I ask.. who's the biggest threat to this nation? The Islamic Terrorists.. or the wolves in our midst preaching for Christ Supreme Uber Ales?
Hang, on the past you've implied that your beef is with religious phoneys, the self righteous people with no discernable change from their religion except the arrogance of being SURE they're right.
THis sounds more like you're against religion period.
In the past, power mongers have used anything -- including their religion (sincere or not) -- to increase their power. I do not doubt that men like that exist today.
I at first hoped that the reference to "your" cult was generic, but as I read further I see that its meant to be quite specific. I wonder if your antipathy to faith has warped your objectivity.
From reading this board, some think the religious right have already come to power. No cities (or heretics) burning, as far as I can see.
In any case, a few points for consideration:
1) Bigotry is not a christian value. Bigots are not following the teachigns of jesus, and do not represent the faith. My "cult" tells me to go the extra mile, to love those who hate me, to be kind to thsoe who want to hurt me, to pray for those who misuse me. Christians are commanded to pray for their political leaders on earth, even if they are pagan persucuters of the church. Although religious bureacracies have in times past taught that heretics should be killed, they did so in direct contradiction to the teachings of Christ.
2) My "cult" teaches me to live in peace with all around me, as much as it is in me to do so. That command came in a world of mutliple religions, in a region where soem religious practices woudl be repulsive to you. My "cult" teaches that if only one spouse believes, the believer should live the life we're taught so that the difference it makes in them becomes obvious to others. Not exactly religious warfare...
3) Jesus taught that his "kingdom was not of this world." Even when he was alive, his followers wanted to turn his work into a political movement, and he squashed the thought. The preachers and woudl be leaders you quote are making the same mistake, in contradiction to his teaching, when they imply religious doctirine should become political platform. If meaningful change comes, it will be one heart at a time -- not by compulsion.
4) My "cult" teaches that actions performed out of duty or by compulsion are worthless -- that the entire point is the change in internal life. Compelled compliance is both antithetic to Christian doctrine and counter productive, as history shows.
5) As to religious good works for that scale to coutnerbalance the "horror"... you have no idea. Neither do I.
Because -- my cult also teaches that if I want people to notice those deeds, I've completely missed the point. I should act so quietly that my left hand doesnt know what I'm doing with my right.
So very likely you're dramatically underestimating the good done by those who follow jesus -- as opposed to jsut using religion for their own ends.
As to the "really listening" question -- Hang, I've tried to call attention to the distinction between the teachings of the faith and the often messed up way believers behave, but the "rebuttals" people provide -- including yours, I might add -- show no acknowledgement of the difference. So, by inference, I have to ask -- is Archie around?
-
The world hasn't changed much since a group of just over 1,100 men convened to decide which stories were truth and gospel to be included in the new bible, and which were not. It was a close vote then, with only a few dozen votes putting the current collection over the top as the winning entries.
They had a hard time deciding then and the debate will continue forever because there are no clear answers - only interpretaion by those who think they know the answer.
Comparing Isalm to Christianity in the context of terroism is not correct, in my opinion. Religion is just a tool used by those who foment violence to advance a political and earthly revenge, cause or need to control by criminals who understand how to use religion.
Quote added:
"Almost everyone who has read history in a more than casual manner knows that when the great figure of God appears in a controversy, the shooting cannot be far off." -- Stewart H. Holbrook
-
well said rolex
-
Horsepucky again.. you require no armor of christ; your dodging skills are exquiste.
You asked for examples.. you got 'em.. and quoted more dogma with the usual 'tsk, tsk, you understand not our good intentions'.
Were those good old honest American Religious Leaders I quoted, or not? Who's gonna take responsibility for THEIR hate diatribe? Insteda focusing on 'non belivers' such as myself, why not weed the hate mongering pinheads outta yer cults instead?
Really.. what evils have the non-belivers foisted off on humanity that have ever even come close to taking as many lives as the violent ramifications of religious idolotry?
Ain't it about time you folks started NOT putting a christian label on what this nation stands for?
Hang, I've tried to call attention to the distinction between the teachings of the faith and the often messed up way believers behave, but the "rebuttals" people provide -- including yours, I might add -- show no acknowledgement of the difference. So, by inference, I have to ask -- is Archie around?
Again.. are not the qutoes above being uttered by promininent 'teachers of your faith'.. again.. dodge away, Frodo.
-
hang.. I read your examples and failed to see where any suicide bombers were being asked to do their thing.
I am not a christian. I think all organized religion is prone to wanting too much control over me.. If there is a sect of the christian church that starts suicide bombing then I want to find that sects church/meeting place/training ground and wipe em out to the last man.
I would like to find whatever muslim sect that promotes/belives in this and hunt down and kill every single one of em. Something tells me I won't be finding that many christian ones tho that are much of a threat in any way but spouting out intolereance.
lazs
-
Nope.. our Religious Extremists are a mite more obtuse.
So let us be blunt about it: We must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will be get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.
Chilling... first, the minds of our youth; then the lives of any who oppose Christ.
I have no beef with the Seagoons or Frodo's of this world as long as they stick to good deeds. Start calling for control of the government or Holy War, I get a bit antsy.
-
AKH,
quote:Originally posted by AKH
It seems that the zealous Christians favour the hatred route.
A couple of questions. What do you mean by this and what evidence do you have for this?
Also, exactly how was the hatred of Muslims manifested by the zealous bible believing Christian groups who went in to Aceh, Indonesia, an almost entirely Muslim principality, to remove and bury decomposing bodies from the beaches and villages, to distribute food and clothing sent by Christian congregations, to provide free medical assistance, to set up shelters, and so on? This included, for instance, the brother of one of the members of our own congregation (same denom).
I'm awaiting your answer.
- SEAGOON
Quite simply, religious intolerance.
You and others like you would have us believe that terrorist attacks like 9/11 are the doing of Islam, rather than an extreme militant sect. This is exactly the same as claiming that IRA atrocities were attributable to the the Catholic Church.
Your arguments about the IRA are spurious, since similar splits in doctrine exist within the Islamic community, yet you would still have us accept that Islam is the real IRA.
Likewise, your choice of quotes from Islamic scipture, when Christian scripture has many similar "kill the infidel" verses. As I am sure you well know, if it's in the book, someone will use it.
Is it a good thing to blame the majority for the actions of a minority?
We all commend the actions of a good Samaritan.
http://www.samaritanspurse.org
"Because the goal of all our work at Samaritan’s Purse is introducing lost souls to the Savior Jesus Christ, the prayers of God’s people are vital to the success of our projects around the world."
Strange mission statement. Nothing about helping people in need. I suppose its a question of priorites.
I await your reply.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Nope.. our Religious Extremists are a mite more obtuse.
So let us be blunt about it: We must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will be get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.
This is sedition, pure and simple, is it not?
-
I doubt it.. like Laz sez, spouting intolerance and strapping a bomb to the idiot neighbors kid and sending him into a subway are not quite the same thing. Nor have I seen any Christian Insurgents rolling thru the hills surrounding Sebernica lately dragging Molems outta their homes and ventilating 'em.
I empathsize lately.
Meanwhile, I'd advise watching very carefully who gets on your local ballots, and check out who their sponsors are & where their funding comes from and what their agendas are. Vis a vis, the national level as well.
On the big picture; every single religious zealot terrorist, be he jew, arab, persian, indian, or amercan deserves to be forced to wear a bra and bark like a dog at guantanamo for the rest of his natural life.
At least.
-
Hello again Hoopy,
Originally posted by AKH
Quite simply, religious intolerance.
Religious intolerance? Because I don't believe that all religions are true - as opposed to the more socially acceptable belief that no religions are true and because in reviewing the history and teaching of Islam I happen to think that men like Hasan Al-Banna and the President of Iran have a more authentic understanding of the religion they profess than liberal Muslims?
How does this intolerance manifest itself exactly? Who am I, and people like me, encouraging people to fight and kill? In what ways am I telling people to go out and spread Christianity by the sword? Who am I oppressing, or forcing to pay an extra tax to stay in the country? Who am I forbidding to build new houses of worship or gather to pray? Who am I threatening with death if they apostatize? Whose religious literature am I banning, seizing, and destroying? In what way am I acting like the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?
In summary Hoopy, in what ways am I and Christians like me acting towards professors of other religions in the ways SHARIA LAW says professors of religions other than Islam are to be treated? Or is this some sort of secret message buried behind public statements saying our reaction should be to pray for them and witness to them?
In actuality Hoopy, my days of freely hating and wishing other men dead came before my conversion, and to tell the truth, I am glad they are behind me.
You and others like you would have us believe that terrorist attacks like 9/11 are the doing of Islam, rather than an extreme militant sect. This is exactly the same as claiming that IRA atrocities were attributable to the the Catholic Church.
Respectfully Hoopy, if I have claimed anything I have claimed that the current Jihad being waged by Muslim militants worldwide is simply the continuation of the greater Jihad that has been going on since 611 AD.
Your arguments about the IRA are spurious, since similar splits in doctrine exist within the Islamic community, yet you would still have us accept that Islam is the real IRA.
Alright then, let me simply ask you as well and perhaps we'll finally get an answer. Was Muhammad's massacre of the Jewish Banu-Qurayza tribe in 627 AD and his taking one of the widows as wife (bedding her that night) - something justified in the Quran and praised in the Hadiths - an act of "the real Islam" or was that a minority sect at work?
Likewise, your choice of quotes from Islamic scipture, when Christian scripture has many similar "kill the infidel" verses. As I am sure you well know, if it's in the book, someone will use it.
Quite so, any verse can be taken out of context. That is why I keep trying to frame those verses in their historical context. For instance, the "kill the infidel verses" in the Holy Bible are only to be found in the Old Testament passages relating to the Conquest of Canaan. That was a one time historical event now decisively over. There are no such verses in the NT and in fact when the disciples ask Jesus if they should call down fire from heaven on those who refuse his message he rebukes them. The overall message is that no such "killing of the infidel" will occur as long as we are in the age of grace and that age doesn't end till judgment day.
On the other hand, the "Kill the Infidel, kill the Apostate" passages in the Quran were penned while Muhammad himself was doing just that, and the termination of the Jihad commands only comes when Islam is worldwide.
Is it a good thing to blame the majority for the actions of a minority?
I sense you misunderstand me, I'm not blaming all Muslims nor asserting that all Muslims are terrorist or that all Muslims want to kill me. I am however asserting that Islam commands that I either be forced to convert, pay the Dhimmi tax and submit to third class citizenship, or die. Islam doesn't afford any other options. If you don't believe that, you need only check Sharia law. So do I blame Muslims? No. Do I blame Islamic doctrine? Ya sure you betcha.
We all commend the actions of a good Samaritan.
http://www.samaritanspurse.org
"Because the goal of all our work at Samaritan’s Purse is introducing lost souls to the Savior Jesus Christ, the prayers of God’s people are vital to the success of our projects around the world."
Strange mission statement. Nothing about helping people in need. I suppose its a question of priorites.
I await your reply. [/B]
Strange in what sense? Christ himself said "Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen." (Matt. 28:18-20)
Strange would be to claim to be a Christian organization and thus followers of Christ and to utterly ignore his great commission to his followers. Now as we go, we also feed the hungry, heal the sick, clothe the naked, visit the imprisoned, but that isn't our primary calling. Even Christ said that it was not to heal that he had come into the world but to preach the Good News.
As it happens Samaritans purse does an incredible amount of charitable work often under strict "no evangelizing" provisions.
But my question about the Tsunami still stands. If we are full of hate and intolerance why is it that we went into clear away corpses and to feed, heal, and help? Why didn't we "hate filled" Christians just dance in the streets as some did following 9/11? Also, where is the massive Islamic charitable assistance when non-Muslim nations have a disaster? Is the Sultan of Brunei skint?
- SEAGOON
-
I'm not blaming all Muslims nor asserting that all Muslims are terrorist or that all Muslims want to kill me. I am however asserting that Islam commands that I either be forced to convert, pay the Dhimmi tax and submit to third class citizenship, or die. Islam doesn't afford any other options. If you don't believe that, you need only check Sharia law. So do I blame Muslims? No. Do I blame Islamic doctrine? Ya sure you betcha.
A quick question.. something that's bugged me a bit about how I feel. I know I'd react violently when confronted with a muslim society that demanded I kowtow to their church or god or suffer death.. particularly knowing that I'd be killed out of hand before even being given the opportunity to convert and pay a tax.
I don't know if I'd react in quite the visceral way if confronted with the same choices from a christian group, yet I'm aware the chances of the latter are a lot higher than the former here in this country.
What's an appropriate, christian accepted reaction from your church when faced with a heretic that wished to be left in peace and continue to live his life as he saw fit, assuming that life in no way threatened the life of another?
Are we 'enemies' or am I just 'unenlightened' and as such not a threat to the church?
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
What's an appropriate, christian accepted reaction from your church when faced with a heretic that wished to be left in peace and continue to live his life as he saw fit, assuming that life in no way threatened the life of another?
Usually I am just given the "Awake" bulliten as they leave my front door after they waste a few minutes of my time.
Rarely am I beaten into submission.
-
LOL!
No red 'x' on the door? Better check with infared lamps.. ;)
-
(http://www.bustedtees.com/images/jesusshaves.353.home_thumb.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.
How many more times is it nessesary to repeat to every handsomehunk, like that bastards from Hamas, who, in fact, are not Moslims, that Jihad is the inner battle that you fight with yourself? They definetly lost that battle.
Damn. Read Koran. I can only read translations, to English or Russian, not the real Koran, but I also read some good comments.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
A quick question.. something that's bugged me a bit about how I feel. I know I'd react violently when confronted with a muslim society that demanded I kowtow to their church or god or suffer death.. particularly knowing that I'd be killed out of hand before even being given the opportunity to convert and pay a tax.
I don't know if I'd react in quite the visceral way if confronted with the same choices from a christian group, yet I'm aware the chances of the latter are a lot higher than the former here in this country.
What's an appropriate, christian accepted reaction from your church when faced with a heretic that wished to be left in peace and continue to live his life as he saw fit, assuming that life in no way threatened the life of another?
Are we 'enemies' or am I just 'unenlightened' and as such not a threat to the church?
I guess if I'm gonna use you're words, you'd be unenlightened. Jesus never taught conversion by conquest. Christians who practice (or talk) conversion by conquest are not following Jesus' teachings.
@Holden
Awake comes from jehova's Witnesses, who have very different teachings about who Jesus was and his relationship to God the father. They really arent even a denomination of christianity, differring on the central core of beliefs.
Not to say that soem Christians can ring doorbells too, but in my neighborhood its the Mormon and Jehovah's Witnesses that interrupt dinners...
And back @ Hang
Horsepucky yourself, dude. When I said "their opposite's points" I was talking about inside the thread. Nice dodge yourself; you still managed to avoid the question of christian teachings vs actions by people who call themselves christian. And your jibe about insurgents still shows you dont get the point -- those gunman may have been christian by birth, but they were in no sense Christian (ie christ-like) in action.
Since when does referring to the teachings of Christ amount to dogma, and quoting public speeches of national (and therefore political) religious figures amount to Christianity's "real" meaning? I'm talking about the faith, you're talking about politics -- and yet you use their politics, or fund raising ploys, or whatever to identify "what christians believe."
Those "Christian Leaders" you picked are leaders only to those who follow them. They are not Christ, and they are not what Chrsitianity is about. And we can no more "weed them out" than THEY can "weed you out" -- this being a country that has free speech, freedom of religion, and all that constitutional stuff.
Honestly, I ahve no more interest in limiting those freedoms than you -- maybe less, because my beliefs (follow Jesus. period.) place me in a minority of a minority. In the modern world, the people of faith are FAR more likely to get persecuted than the agnostic.
But, since the theme of the day seems to be quoting religious leaders, let me pick one for YOU:
"Of all the tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busibodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes be satiated; but hose who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -- C.S. Lewis
PS -- check the handles when yuu reply; you seem to have blended Frodo and me into one entity.
-
Hang... maybe it is because we are contemporaries but... I think we agree.
I am frieghtened of all religion in much the same way that I am afraid of very powerful governments or intrusive ones like socialism.
As soon as a religion or government gets so powerful that it has influence on those who want to be left alone... it get's ugly.
While I have nothing against governments or religions prohibitions for the most part... it is only because they are suggested for.... someone else.
Imagine a government so powerful it could tell you that you had no right to arm yourself...
Imagine a catholic church so powerful that it was illegal and punishable to eat meat on friday..
Imagine a mulim religion so powerful that you could no longer drink booze or eat pork...
Those are the ultimate problems with powerful entities...
For now tho... I am most concerned with wiping out a very violent sect of one particular intolerant religion.... the fanatical jihad suicide bomber terrorist wing of the muslims.
we will get to the others as they make themselves more obnoxious.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Simaril
I guess if I'm gonna use you're words, you'd be unenlightened. Jesus never taught conversion by conquest. Christians who practice (or talk) conversion by conquest are not following Jesus' teachings.
Excellent. Glad to hear conversion by conquest is off your personal agenda. Are you also speaking to the current Church policies, and are these policies consistent across all the various brands? I don't have an updated list on every Christians Agenda.. seems to be something of a 'moving target'. But thanks for the update.. I've already removed Seagoon from the list, I'll scratch your name off next. Only a billion or so to go.
Originally posted by Simaril
@Holden
Awake comes from jehova's Witnesses, who have very different teachings about who Jesus was and his relationship to God the father. They really arent even a denomination of christianity, differring on the central core of beliefs.
Not to say that soem Christians can ring doorbells too, but in my neighborhood its the Mormon and Jehovah's Witnesses that interrupt dinners...
Boy, wouldn't I like to be a fly on the wall at that encounter.. say, what DO you tell 'em anyway? You compare notes or anything? Is there a faternity handshake or something? ;)
Originally posted by Simaril
And back @ Hang
Horsepucky yourself, dude. When I said "their opposite's points" I was talking about inside the thread. Nice dodge yourself; you still managed to avoid the question of christian teachings vs actions by people who call themselves christian. And your jibe about insurgents still shows you dont get the point -- those gunman may have been christian by birth, but they were in no sense Christian (ie christ-like) in action.
Then since they are not Christlike in their actions, they are not Christian? How very convienient. Can we use the same dodge, or are their other special 'get off the hook' ploys available for Christians doing un-christlike things?
Originally posted by Simaril Since when does referring to the teachings of Christ amount to dogma, and quoting public speeches of national (and therefore political) religious figures amount to Christianity's "real" meaning? I'm talking about the faith, you're talking about politics -- and yet you use their politics, or fund raising ploys, or whatever to identify "what christians believe."
Those "Christian Leaders" you picked are leaders only to those who follow them. They are not Christ, and they are not what Chrsitianity is about. And we can no more "weed them out" than THEY can "weed you out" -- this being a country that has free speech, freedom of religion, and all that constitutional stuff. [/b]
Ahh. I see. So, this is pretty much the Peter Sellars 'Not my Dog' routine? Christianty's public oracles ain't spouting your particular brand of demogoggery?
Originally posted by Simaril Honestly, I ahve no more interest in limiting those freedoms than you -- maybe less, because my beliefs (follow Jesus. period.) place me in a minority of a minority. In the modern world, the people of faith are FAR more likely to get persecuted than the agnostic.[/b]
Interesting. So, when these louts get the keys to the National Franchise, I'm likely to have you in the cell next to mine?
It's refreshing to hear that you personally don't agree with the aknowledged national oracles of your 'faith', so I guess we're pals now.. but would you mind terribly if I went on shouting about the dangers of Religious Intolerance? and, just to help other, less enlightend Christians, don't you think that you, and other Christians like you should be pounding pulpits making this little point clear.. The Christian/Right Political Leadership of This Nation is Preaching Hate and get the heck off MY back for doing the same damn thing?
Originally posted by Simaril But, since the theme of the day seems to be quoting religious leaders, let me pick one for YOU:
"Of all the tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busibodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes be satiated; but hose who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -- C.S. Lewis[/B]
Umm.. I was trying to stay with the 'Live' ones, you know; the folks screwing with the politics of religion Today. Nonetheless, Bravo!! Ummm.. say Buddy, I had no idea CS Lewis was a 'religious leader'. But, I do tend to learn something new every day.
Thanks!
-
Originally posted by lazs2
For now tho... I am most concerned with wiping out a very violent sect of one particular intolerant religion.... the fanatical jihad suicide bomber terrorist wing of the muslims.
we will get to the others as they make themselves more obnoxious.
lazs
Yup. Nailed it. Priorities. Gotta keep an eye on the flanks, tho... would hate to discover we let on the team parties just as bad as what we're trying to defeat.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Excellent. Glad to hear conversion by conquest is off your personal agenda. Are you also speaking to the current Church policies, and are these policies consistent across all the various brands? ...snip
You seem to imply that there's some kind of Christian Illuminati that coordinate doctrine and plans. There is no "church policy", because the real "church" is made up of individuals who believe, whereever they live and however different they are. A policy comes from a committee, from a structure -- that essentially requires denominational organization. Those are men's creations. At best, they are affiliations of like minded believers who share common cause. At worst, they are political tools that can lose sight of what they profess to believe.
This is a critical distinction, not a "convenience." Christianity MEANS following Christ. If a doctrinally christian organization stops following Christ, it stops being christian (in the meaningful sense of the word) -- because it no longer is following Christ in that area. ANy other use is a semantic broadening sufficient in degree to realistically say that the term ceases to have meaning. (I.E., he's not muslim so he must be christian.) Same idea as "gentleman" used to mean someone with outright title to land, and now it means anything from how you dress to whether you cuss in mixed company.
And this, Hang, is something I've been trying to communicate for months. Christian MEANS follower of Christ. You rail against religion, and usually generalize from the political actions of the few to assume that you understand what christianity really is.
I've been tryijng to point out that by doing so, you use the same kind of broad brush you claim to hate in christian hands. Assuming that all members of a group think and act the same is bigotry, plain and simple.
So if you want to rag on political leaders who call on christianity to justify non-christlike behavior, I'm right with you. But I've seen you talk far more about the christian "cult", hammering away at Christians as if they were personally and morally responsible for the actions of everyone who uses Jesus name without cussing.
snip
Umm.. I was trying to stay with the 'Live' ones, you know; the folks screwing with the politics of religion Today. Nonetheless, Bravo!! Ummm.. say Buddy, I had no idea CS Lewis was a 'religious leader'. But, I do tend to learn something new every day.
Thanks!
Check out Mere Christianity, The Problem of Pain , Miracles , God in the Dock, The Screwtape Letters , and the allegorical Chronicles of Narnia .
In fact, if you have any interest in understanding why a brilliant scholar and Oxford Don like Lewis could leave atheism and believe in Christ, you might want to check out Mere Christianity. Its an adaptation of a series of radio talks Lewis gave in the '40s, and gives straighforward explanations of the intellectual foundations of the faith, and of the ethical stands christ took.
Course if you've already made up your mind, and already understand everything about us (see above) you probably wouldnt find it useful.
-
Hi Seagoon
Originally posted by Seagoon
Religious intolerance? Because I don't believe that all religions are true - as opposed to the more socially acceptable belief that no religions are true and because in reviewing the history and teaching of Islam I happen to think that men like Hasan Al-Banna and the President of Iran have a more authentic understanding of the religion they profess than liberal Muslims?
I could say to you that you are deceived by Satan, that your religion is false and, that I'm very sorry, but you are going to Hell. I could also point out that you will be able to redeem your soul if you convert to my religion.
That's offensive to someone like yourself who has strong faith. Yet, you seem to have no problem saying that to most of the human race.
Feel free to think and say what you like. You are entitled to have an opinion and voice it. That doesn't mean you are right, of course.
How does this intolerance manifest itself exactly? Who am I, and people like me, encouraging people to fight and kill? In what ways am I telling people to go out and spread Christianity by the sword? Who am I oppressing, or forcing to pay an extra tax to stay in the country? Who am I forbidding to build new houses of worship or gather to pray? Who am I threatening with death if they apostatize? Whose religious literature am I banning, seizing, and destroying? In what way am I acting like the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?
I've heard your opinion on Franklin Graham's statement following 9/11. I assume that you still support his viewpoint, despite the fact that even he had the good sense to retract it.
"It perpetuates this theology of hate, which is very dangerous. They are not violent people. But their level of intolerance can in fact feed violent actions... When people commit hate crimes, for example, against Muslims, and they happen to be Christian in background, one of the things you have to ask yourself is, Where does this come from? Where are they getting this sense of legitimacy?" John Esposito, Professor of Islam, Georgetown University
In summary Hoopy, in what ways am I and Christians like me acting towards professors of other religions in the ways SHARIA LAW says professors of religions other than Islam are to be treated? Or is this some sort of secret message buried behind public statements saying our reaction should be to pray for them and witness to them?
Where in the Gospel does it say that two wrongs make a right?
In actuality Hoopy, my days of freely hating and wishing other men dead came before my conversion, and to tell the truth, I am glad they are behind me.
Good - so you should appreciate that you do not have to be a Christian to understand and live by fundamental Truths.
Alright then, let me simply ask you as well and perhaps we'll finally get an answer. Was Muhammad's massacre of the Jewish Banu-Qurayza tribe in 627 AD and his taking one of the widows as wife (bedding her that night) - something justified in the Quran and praised in the Hadiths - an act of "the real Islam" or was that a minority sect at work?
Don't be so frugal with the truth, Seagoon. The Banu Qurayza were signatories to the Constitution of Medina, yet secretly allied themselves with the common enemy. Sure, the judgement was harsh, but it was made by a judge of their own choosing who, being a Jewish Moslem, judged them according to Jewish law:
"And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males ... And the children of Israel took [all] the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods." Numbers 31:7-9
Quite so, any verse can be taken out of context. That is why I keep trying to frame those verses in their historical context. For instance, the "kill the infidel verses" in the Holy Bible are only to be found in the Old Testament passages relating to the Conquest of Canaan. That was a one time historical event now decisively over. There are no such verses in the NT and in fact when the disciples ask Jesus if they should call down fire from heaven on those who refuse his message he rebukes them. The overall message is that no such "killing of the infidel" will occur as long as we are in the age of grace and that age doesn't end till judgment day.
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)
You don't say?
On the other hand, the "Kill the Infidel, kill the Apostate" passages in the Quran were penned while Muhammad himself was doing just that, and the termination of the Jihad commands only comes when Islam is worldwide.
"and when the unbelievers cease to threaten you, when they cease, then remember that God is [com]passionate and you have to stop fighting."
Not quite what you said. Maybe you confused it with this?:
"that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
As it happens Samaritans purse does an incredible amount of charitable work often under strict "no evangelizing" provisions.
So they give the Arabic Bibles to American troops to distribute to Muslims.
But my question about the Tsunami still stands. If we are full of hate and intolerance why is it that we went into clear away corpses and to feed, heal, and help? Why didn't we "hate filled" Christians just dance in the streets as some did following 9/11? Also, where is the massive Islamic charitable assistance when non-Muslim nations have a disaster? Is the Sultan of Brunei skint?
I'd like to say for humanitarian reasons only, just like the good Samaritan, but I don't think that is the case. Do you?
Who said you were "hate filled"?
As to the Islamic aid groups - maybe they are just too busy dealing with ongoing problems in Muslim areas. Maybe they think it is idiotic to wander into a disaster area with bandages in one hand and scripture in the other. Having said that, if they are so concerned with Islamic dominion over they Earth, why aren't they following the evangelical lead on this new form of Holy War?
Have you calculated the Sultans Zakat?
-
Simirail, Since you've pointed out several times that you are a 'Christian' which in your definition means being a follower of Christ, and then in virtually the same breath pointed at the Christians that are 'obviously' not Christians even though they say they are.. and have no qualms at all about professing they are, even though you say they are not.. you see how slippery your argument becomes? Dodge, weave.. utterly unconvincing due to the actions of others professing to be 'Christians'.
"monsouir, that is not my dog" just doesn't get it done.
Possibly you can understand why I kinda get annoyed when a True Follower of Christ takes umberage at an agnostic like me that simply speaks out against religious intolerance.. who knows what flavor you are? You SAY your a Christian, yet you spend more time trying to bend the ears of agnostics like myself , which are significantly less of a threat to your beliefs than the Christians that say they are, but ain't.
You need a new target.. go after 'False Christians'.. and you'll find the agnostics willing to give your agenda a fair hearing. As it stands now, 'Christianity' is just a mumbly morass of conflicting values that leave folks like me shaking their heads.
I profess no issue of any kind with your personal beliefs.. but your flavor and definition of a 'Christian' is obviously very much at odds with quite a few other 'flavors' of the same brand.. or am I entirely misunderstanding the folks that made the speaches and comments I've posted further up thread?
Please.. take yer campaign for "true christanity" up with the folks that pollute the message. I'm all for your version, it in no way interferes with my life and compliments my morals with regards to interaction between humans.
Dig?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Comparing Islam to Christianity
You can't.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Simirail, Since you've pointed out several times that you are a 'Christian' which in your definition means being a follower of Christ, and then in virtually the same breath pointed at the Christians that are 'obviously' not Christians even though they say they are.. and have no qualms at all about professing they are, even though you say they are not.. you see how slippery your argument becomes?
....
snip
I'm Ok with all that with a couple clarifications.
First, I havent meant to slam other christians' lives, and if what I thought was careful wording gave the impresson that I was saying they were "obviously" not christians, then I didn't communicate as well as I thought. What I meant to get across was that imperfect manifestations of christianity do not reflect the belief system. I fall short of my ideals on a daily basis. That doesnt mean the ideals are messed up -- it means I am. The reality of God's grace means I can be forgiven daily, and it also means that I should remember my frailty when looking at others. "The measure you use for others will be used for you" -- so I try to dole out big portions of grace to others.
Second, I guess I dont see whats slippery about saying that Christianity is about what Christ taught. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Some believing folks get tied up in one small part of the message, and that has consequences for themselves and others. I guess I dont see why you feel jsutified in slamming Christianity because you disagree with what some practictioners do.
Do you slam democracy when NeoNazis run for office? I think its the same idea -- the problem in that case isnt democracy, its the ideas being pushed by people using democracy.
Just dont say "Christians" when you mean "intolerant christians." Don't call me a cultist before you know what I believe and how I live. Dont assume you can speak for the good and evil caused by Christianity when you're really thinking about political actions done by christians. If you shouldnt tar all muslims with the terrorist brush because of the teachings and actions of a minority, then please dont tar all christians as political oppressors because of quotes like you posted.
My gripe with many of your postings really isnt about what you see as the "political extremism" of some Christians. It's that your language often implies that Christians as a whole are a blight on civilization.
And when you say stuff like that -- whether for dramatic effect or genuine conviction -- you're gunna get responses from people like me, who have very good reason to feel differently.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
I'm Ok with all that with a couple clarifications.
First, I havent meant to slam other christians' lives, and if what I thought was careful wording gave the impresson that I was saying they were "obviously" not christians, then I didn't communicate as well as I thought. What I meant to get across was that imperfect manifestations of christianity do not reflect the belief system. I fall short of my ideals on a daily basis. That doesnt mean the ideals are messed up -- it means I am. The reality of God's grace means I can be forgiven daily, and it also means that I should remember my frailty when looking at others. "The measure you use for others will be used for you" -- so I try to dole out big portions of grace to others.
There's a whole buncha problems with that.. all of em swing around the 'I'm forgiven daily' stuff. Goes to the continuing Great Dodge, but thats another semantics debate.
Originally posted by Simaril
Second, I guess I dont see whats slippery about saying that Christianity is about what Christ taught. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
It WOULD be, if Christianity didn't have more than 1 flavor. Can you POSSIBLY comprehend that just like a non-car 'enthusiast' seeing a parking lot of filled with red cars, one might not easily discern that some have 2 doors others 4 and all of 'em were built by different manufacturers? In the future, maybe it'd be a good idea if Christians came with model markings.. so we'd know which ones not to buy.
Originally posted by Simaril
Some believing folks get tied up in one small part of the message, and that has consequences for themselves and others. I guess I dont see why you feel jsutified in slamming Christianity because you disagree with what some practictioners do.
Really? I don't give a tinkers damn who's driving the red cars.. if the red ones are known to be built missing components and proven to be dangerous, dontcha think maybe the resta the motorists might tend to stay the hell away from 'em, period?
Originally posted by Simaril
Do you slam democracy when NeoNazis run for office? I think its the same idea -- the problem in that case isnt democracy, its the ideas being pushed by people using democracy.
Clean miss there, my true believer friend. Read upthread.. I clearly call for folks to check their ballots carefully rather than chuck democracy.
Originally posted by Simaril
Just dont say "Christians" when you mean "intolerant christians."
Enh? How's that again? I do believe I have been rather critical of intolerant commentary from any religious source.. again, don't care what religious flavor or color it comes in... religious intolerance, for the umptennth time, is a massive blight on society. Don't waste yer breath trying to convince me it's 'not christian' to be intolerant, when there's a whole pile of Christian Intolernace being spewed forth every cottin picken day.. go after THEM, not me.
Originally posted by Simaril
Don't call me a cultist before you know what I believe and how I live.
Back atcha, there my Christian Aplogogist friend! As I have repeated often and loudly.. and you flat refuse to accept, I have no gripes whatsoever with folks that do good works.. conversely, reagrdless of the quantity or qualaity of those good works there is no, repeat NO excuse or reprieve for acts of Religious Intolerance that either threaten or deny ANY other human of his rights to live peacefully.
Originally posted by Simaril
Dont assume you can speak for the good and evil caused by Christianity when you're really thinking about political actions done by christians.
Ah.. they get a 'wave off' for being bigots, since they can obtain forgiveness after the fact? Bactk to the slippery semantics again? Or do all Christian Politicans get a 'Get outta purgatory free' card for their political activities?
Originally posted by Simaril
If you shouldnt tar all muslims with the terrorist brush because of the teachings and actions of a minority, then please dont tar all christians as political oppressors because of quotes like you posted.
About a half a dozen times now I clearly, using small words even Political Activist Christians can understand, that I have no beef with 'live and let live' religionists. Now, we coulda avoided pages of back-and-forth if yah just posted "Hey, he's not from my church, and I don't believe in that ugly policy; the guy should have his Get Outta Purgatory Pass Revoked".
How we wound up in this adverserial back in forth may relate to your incorrect conviction that I'm an enemy of your faith. I am not the enemy of any man's faith, till he picks up a rock and starts using that faith to pass mortal judgement upon others. Instead, you pulled the Boroda Style Apologist/Redirect dodge in an attempt to obfuscate 'True Christianity vs Political Chrisianity'.. don't work fer him, ain't in the cards fer you, either.
Originally posted by Simaril
My gripe with many of your postings really isnt about what you see as the "political extremism" of some Christians. It's that your language often implies that Christians as a whole are a blight on civilization.
Change that to Religious Intolerance is a blight on civilization.. Political, Christian, Muslim, Jewish.. use any label yah like.. and it goes like this: (once more for the slow folks)
"Religious Intolerance is a Blight on Civilization."
You with the program yet?
-
Originally posted by Simaril
And when you say stuff like that -- whether for dramatic effect or genuine conviction -- you're gunna get responses from people like me, who have very good reason to feel differently.
Whups.. didn't get to this in the last post. It's absolutely imperative that a free discussion of ideas and concepts get passed back and forth.. and a subject like this is charged with all kinds of potential for misunderstanding and/or ill will
I do hope that we can continue to exchange ideas without denegrating your faith or my beliefs.. I try to maintain an open mind; there are no closed doors to rational discussion on my end.
Lastly, I do NOT 'hate' religion.. I feel no contempt for those of faith.. and as I've said before, religion is sometime a source of happiness, and I would not deprive anyone of happiness. But it is a comfort appropriate for the weak, not for the strong. The great trouble in my eyes with religion; any religion, is that a religionist, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence. One may bask at the warm fire of faith or choose to live in the bleak certainty of reason; but one cannot have both.
A reasonable man must view Religious Intolerance as evil.. and it absolves a sane man from any intellectual or moral obligation to take that religion seriously. No amount of sanctimonious rationalization can make such behavior anything but pathological.
With respect...
-
Hangtime, I have the impression that you are among those that have, in comparing Islam to Christianity, attempted to minimize numerical differences between Muslim extremists and Christian extremists, as well as the relative damage that has been done by them.
You seem a bit too quick to raise caveats - not as obvious as Staga - but very quick to take onus from Islamists and put it on religion in general - or Christian extremists, as though they are the group killing by far the most innocents, not Islamists.
Halfway through this thread I realized that you have an axe to grind - and correct me if I'm wrong, you fear the "religeous right", and your feelings about it may be political. I may be wrong - but that is how it sounds.
I strongly support the seperation of church and state, and the laws are being enforced.
-
OK, so which religious group is blowing up things all over the world right now for the greater glory of their god?
There seems to be one clear difference between Islamic and Chrisitan extremists right now. Might as well admit it it.... one side blows things up the other side blows things out of proportion. Which would you prefer?
There might be something about Islam (http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_8745.shtml)
...To their credit, Muslim organizations are swift to condemn each new terrorist attack. They also are quick to point out that fanatics are a tiny minority and account for only about 1 percent of Muslims worldwide.
These are comforting thoughts, unless you happen to be riding the bus with a constituent of that 1 percent. Or unless you're mathematically inclined, in which case you easily see -- as Arnaud de Borchgrave recently pointed out -- that 1 percent of the world's estimated 1.2 billion Muslims is 12 million Muslim fanatics who consider the U.S. and other Westerners operatives of Satan.
That's roughly the population of Ohio. If everyone in Ohio adhered to radical Islam, we'd likely conclude that we have more than a small problem, and we also might observe that Islam is closely associated with that problem.
For our second disclaimer, we note that Islam doesn't have a corner on fanaticism. Sometime next year, South Carolinians can look forward to an influx of "conservative Christians" who intend to migrate and saturate the state with voters whose aim is to replace the U.S. Constitution with the Ten Commandments. Or urge secession.
Leader Cory Burnell (christianexodus.org) has conceded that "People are going to call us crazy," and he's right. But so far, he's only urging that followers adhere to the Ten Commandments, which among other things forbids killing other people. When he starts urging teens to strap on bombs and blow up children, we'll get back to you.
Meanwhile, he's unlikely to have much effect, as Americans -- even South Carolinians who, admittedly, have a higher-than-average threshold for eccentricity -- don't hesitate to call a wacko a wacko. "Sit down and shut up" rolls off the tongue in our self-correcting culture, especially when the targets are white Christians...
-
Disagree.. If anybody here is clear on what motivetes me in this it's me, myself and I... and here's the straight deal: my beef is with any group that would seek to deny any other of peaceful religious expression, life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.
I also take pains to whack any mole that pops up with religious ideology as an excuse for such behavior.
As Laz said, "I would like to find whatever muslim sect that promotes/belives in this and hunt down and kill every single one of em. Something tells me I won't be finding that many christian ones tho that are much of a threat in any way but spouting out intolereance."
And I agree most wholeheartedly.. as long as there are no Christian Extremists are on the hit team. This must NOT be a 'holy war'.. if by chance our forces are seen to be expousing 'for god' diatribes in the pursuit of Muslim Extremists we lose outright.. becoming just what they are.
We need to establish a solid footing for this war on terrorists.. there's no place for 'holy retribution' in this fight.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
exactly hang...
also.. I would imagine that jews have some insight as to who they fear more... muslims or christians... Americans or euros..
lazs
Well the Christians in the US didnt stand up until Pearl Harbor even though they knew of the atrocities. So I guess its all about the time frame.
-
They both think they practice the right religion and everyone else is mislead.
-
All I know is, you guys better make sure you are saved. Just think what going to hell with Hangtime there would be like.:D
Just joking Hangtime.
Les
-
Just think what going to hell with Hangtime there would be like.
Oh I think Hangtime would be able to quickly shift gears and adapt down there ... if you can call "sizzling and sputtering like a plump chorizo in a hot skillet" shifting gears...
j/k Hang :D
-
Originally posted by Silat
Well the Christians in the US didnt stand up until Pearl Harbor even though they knew of the atrocities. So I guess its all about the time frame.
"The Christians"???
Take it easy guys! We are not a uniform block!
While the majority of americans -- who happened to be christians -- were against intervention, thinking a european war was a worse option than nonintervention, there were many who felt Hitler had to be stopped. War and immigratoin policy were political decisions, made in the context of the worst worldwide depression in modern history.
Slamming the American "christians" of 65 years ago because they didnt stop Hitler is a bit disingenuous, by the way , since the easiest most efficient interventions were ignored by the europeans....After all, the US couldnt have re-occupied the Rhineland from the Germans with a single division in 36 -- and prevented the entire horror of the 40s. And we never signed a nonaggression pact with the Axis....
Lastly, why is it that you can slam the US for intervening in Iraq's internal atrocities (mass murder with chemical weapons, you know) and slam us again for NOT intervening against Hitler?
-
Battle of the Bulge was the deciding factor of world war two for the US.
Les
-
silat and a few other anti christians seem to equate intolerance with suicide bombings... intelectual masterbation for children who have no life experiance and never had anything real to worry about in my opinion. Sheesh... equating not getting into the war soon enough to the anti semitism that is radical muslim today? silliness.
My neighbor is a jehova witness and he is friendly but intolerant of just about anything I would do...
I have no fear that a radical wing of his religion will send a suicide bomber over to my house tho. I find him and his group mildly anoying.. as hang says.. I will keep an eye on him..
In the mean time... lets hunt down the radical jihad sects of the muslims and kill every single man woman and child of em.
lazs
-
If that's an attempt at humor Lazs, you need to start drinking.
Les
-
Did the Banu-Qurayza Jewish tribe break a treaty with Muhammad?
Here is an examination of the fate of the Banu-Qurayza that does not lead one to believe they broke any treaty with Muhammad.
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Muhammad/Jews/BQurayza/treaty.html (http://answering-islam.org.uk/Muhammad/Jews/BQurayza/treaty.html)
Best Regards,
Cement
-
Is it just "religions" that are bad?
Marx said religion was the opiate of the masses. Communist leaders saw religion as an impediment to the worker's "revolution" and to the promised utopia of world Communism.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/bates051305.htm (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/bates051305.htm)
"The authoritative "Black Book of Communism – Crimes, Terror and Repression" provides the following Communist death toll estimates:
USSR – 20 million deaths
China – 65 million deaths
Vietnam – 1 million
North Korea – 2 million deaths
Cambodia – 2 million deaths
Eastern Europe – 1 million deaths
Latin America – 150,000 deaths
Africa – 1.7 million deaths
Afghanistan – 1.5 million deaths
Man-made famines and slave labor camp confinements were common causes of death, with Lenin and Stalin killing millions that way. In Chairman Mao’s China, some people were reduced to cannibalism. Other methods used by Communist tyrants were hanging, poisoning, gassing, drowning and that old standby, firing squads."
Cement
-
Terrorism: Questions & Answers
Terrorist Groups
http://www.terrorismanswers.com/home/ (http://www.terrorismanswers.com/home/)
I've arranged the list of terror groups according to goals.
Sorry, I didn't find listed the "Methodist Ladies Chili-bean Supper and Terrorism for the promotion of Christianity Club."
Islamist means the group is promoting the cause of Islam through acts of terror.
Some of the groups listed are either quite small, or else are fading from the scene (Abu Nidal, PFLP, et al).
The Catholic IRA groups are not promoting Catholicism, but are in a conflict about the governance of Ireland, specifically Northern Ireland.
• Al-Qaeda (Afghanistan, Islamists)
• Jemaah Islamiyah (Southeast Asia, Islamists)
• Jamaat al-Islamiyya, Egyptian Islamic Jihad (Egypt, Islamists)
• Armed Islamic Group (Algeria, Islamists)
• Hezbollah (Lebanon, Islamists)
• Hamas (Palestinian Islamists)
• Islamic Jihad (Palestinian Islamists)
• Kashmir Militant Extremists (Kashmir, Islamists)
• Abu Sayyaf Group (Philippines, Islamist separatists)
• East Turkestan Islamic Movement (China, separatists)
• Chechnya-based Terrorists (Russia, separatists)
• Ansar al Islam (Iraq, Islamists/Kurdish Separatists)
• Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (Palestinian nationalists)
• Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (Iranian rebels)
• Kurdistan Workers' Party (Turkey, separatists)
• Abu Nidal Organization (Iraq, extremists)
• PFLP, DFLP, PFLP-GC (Palestinian leftists)
• Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (Sri Lanka, separatists)
• Irish Republican Army (U.K., separatists)
• IRA Splinter Groups (U.K., separatists)
• Northern Ireland Loyalist Paramilitaries (U.K., extremists)
• Basque Fatherland and Liberty (Spain, separatists)
• November 17, Revolutionary People's Struggle (Greece, leftists)
• FARC, ELN, AUC (Colombia, rebels)
• Shining Path, Tupac Amaru (Peru, leftists)
• Aum Shinrikyo (Japan, cultists)
• Kach, Kahane Chai (Israel, extremists)
• American Militant Extremists (United States, radicals)
Regards,
Cement
-
I read an interesting blog (lost the link long ago) back in the first few months after 9-11 that espoused a theory which held that all western religions have undergone a violent period in their history. it seems to happen 800-1100 years after their founding. The Jews were guilty of great massacres of innocents and the razing of cities in their time. Christianity had the Crusades, and now it is just the turn for the newest religion on the block to spend their enegies lashing out at their neighbors.
The bad news is we have another few hundred years or so to go before the Islamicists outgrow this period in their evolution.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
"The Christians"???
Take it easy guys! We are not a uniform block!
The christians were and are the majority. Who do you think was being quiet?
And of course I didnt mean each and every one of them:)
-
Originally posted by Simaril
"The Christians"???
Lastly, why is it that you can slam the US for intervening in Iraq's internal atrocities (mass murder with chemical weapons, you know) and slam us again for NOT intervening against Hitler?
The question was asked mentioning Jews and I answered. It is history.
And I personally slam Bush and company for lying to us about the war and other things. Integrity my behind:(
I support our troops and I dont support mass murder.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
silat and a few other anti christians seem to equate intolerance with suicide bombings... intelectual masterbation for children who have no life experiance and never had anything real to worry about in my opinion. Sheesh... equating not getting into the war soon enough to the anti semitism that is radical muslim today? silliness.
My neighbor is a jehova witness and he is friendly but intolerant of just about anything I would do...
I have no fear that a radical wing of his religion will send a suicide bomber over to my house tho. I find him and his group mildly annoying.. as hang says.. I will keep an eye on him..
In the mean time... lets hunt down the radical jihad sects of the muslims and kill every single man woman and child of em.
lazs
Im not anti Christian. I am anti fanatic. They come in all groups and sizes:)
And of course intolerance is related to the murderers who blow themselves up. Are you kidding me? They are intolerant of us. Are you saying you dont see that?
If you want to argue whether the genocide of the Nazis is equal to the fanatics of today Im ready for you. :)
We can start with the numbers of those killed by the Nazi fanatics as compared to the Islamic fanatics.
Hate and violence comes in all forms Laz.
Speaking softly from the pulpit but preaching forms of intolerance based on your religion is a form of violence in my opinion. It incites people to hate which ultimately leads to violence. History shows this over and over again.
In this country there just happen to be more intolerant Christians than any other group. Of course this has to do with numbers but it is still the facts.
-
silat is a fanatical anti fanatic :D
-
Silat,
And being an anti-finatic you then become a "Finatic" against finatics....... Hang's diatrabes in this thread started sounding similare round about his last post.
Religion or personal Philosophy are both the same in that it is a person's identity and how that person cope's with life and eternity.
Unfortunatly we kill each other over the differences in these philosophy's. And just like the polorized positions in this thred, each beleive our personal philoshopy is the better answer to getting through life to eternity. Some quietly, and others very loud and hostile. And some even with bombs strapped to their belly's.
Even if you do not belong to an established faith with established traditions of Prosilitation and conversion, arguing against those faiths by using the evidence of your personal philosophy or way of life is absolutly no different. Your personal differences and distaste which motivates your confrontation is as much a form of intolerance as the intolerance you accuse those faiths of expressing as the core of thier tradition. (I'm thinking this is were casting the speck from your eye comes in to play.)
And so the same when you function in all aspects of your life including how you vote. You cannot separate your personal philosophy from how you choose to vote, act at work, or live your life. If you become the leader of your country, your leadership will be a reflection of your personal philosophy.
-
silat... are you saying that you see no difference in someone being intolerant of your behavior or beliefs and someone suicide bombing you and yours because of your beliefs?
What does hitler killing jews have to do with suicide bombers and christians... you are all over the map here.. as someone pointed out... you are incensed because we are interfering in the torture and murder of iraqis yet... in the same breath.. appaled that we didn't rise up as christians or whatever to... do... do something about hitler earlier because he may have been slaughtering jews?
lazs
-
"being an anti-finatic you then become a "Finatic" against finatic"
If I am an anti-Nazi that makes me a Nazi against Nazi's?
lol. Gotta love that logic.
"you can slam the US for intervening in Iraq's internal atrocities (mass murder with chemical weapons, you know)"
I bet he's not slamming the intervention. Perhaps it's the 20 years it took to intervene?
-
Silat is obviously trying to diminish and minimize the significance of Ilsamic terrorism, just like the other political "progressives", by attempting to compare it to religious intolerance in general, or to other lesser phenomena.
Many "political progressives" say that "Bush knew" about 911, and even questioned the existance of Islamic terrorists, implying it was our own government who perpetrated 911.
Political "progressives" originally referred to our efforts against terrorism as "the phoney war on terror." Or they say, as Silat has said, "Bush lied" without providing evidence to proove it, insinuating that the failure to find WMD is proof that Bush lied.
If I'm wrong about you Silat, I apologise.
-
Originally posted by Westy
"being an anti-finatic you then become a "Finatic" against finatic"
If I am an anti-Nazi that makes me a Nazi against Nazi's?
lol. Gotta love that logic.
In the middle of the high moral ground that justifies your actions against a perceived or real evil, one has to be concerned with crossing the line of becoming the evil. The western culture that fought WW2 had a more christian moral foundation than todays. But that did not mean some individuals on the march to Berlin from the Alies did not act as Natzi's to their Natzi foes in the heat of the moment.
The logic is aimed at our conditional weakness to justify our actions against a percieved evil or threat while ignoring our own conduct or logic process.
I suppose if ever one of the followers of the current Jihad sets off a portable nuke in New York or London, the unimaginable toll on life and distruction of property will cause the west to tempraroly as a body slip it's mental critical factor and act like Natzi's to a portion of the planets population in response. So then do we become anti-finatic finatics to save our civilization?
-
Originally posted by bustr
In the middle of the high moral ground that justifies your actions against a perceived or real evil, one has to be concerned with crossing the line of becoming the evil. The western culture that fought WW2 had a more christian moral foundation than todays. But that did not mean some individuals on the march to Berlin from the Alies did not act as Natzi's to their Natzi foes in the heat of the moment.
The logic is aimed at our conditional weakness to justify our actions against a percieved evil or threat while ignoring our own conduct or logic process.
I suppose if ever one of the followers of the current Jihad sets off a portable nuke in New York or London, the unimaginable toll on life and distruction of property will cause the west to tempraroly as a body slip it's mental critical factor and act like Natzi's to a portion of the planets population in response. So then do we become anti-finatic finatics to save our civilization?
And herin lies the cusp. Will we round up Islamics and pack 'em in concentration camps? Start triggering nukes in Ridyah, Tehran and Damascus?
If we've got the wrong (or depending on your religious tolerance) right guy in Washington.. you bet we will.
Frankly, it's a lose - lose deal. Now ask me why I get itchy when anybody preaches religious intolerance.. anybody. any religion.
Then ask yourselves, should Bustr's scenario play out.. what good has religion done for the world, and would we have all just been a heckuva lot better off without ANY of it.
-
Originally posted by hacksaw1
Is it just "religions" that are bad?
Marx said religion was the opiate of the masses. Communist leaders saw religion as an impediment to the worker's "revolution" and to the promised utopia of world Communism.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/bates051305.htm (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/bates051305.htm)
"The authoritative "Black Book of Communism – Crimes, Terror and Repression" provides the following Communist death toll estimates:
USSR – 20 million deaths
China – 65 million deaths
Vietnam – 1 million
North Korea – 2 million deaths
Cambodia – 2 million deaths
Eastern Europe – 1 million deaths
Latin America – 150,000 deaths
Africa – 1.7 million deaths
Afghanistan – 1.5 million deaths
Man-made famines and slave labor camp confinements were common causes of death, with Lenin and Stalin killing millions that way. In Chairman Mao’s China, some people were reduced to cannibalism. Other methods used by Communist tyrants were hanging, poisoning, gassing, drowning and that old standby, firing squads."
Cement
Why don't you compare on a longuer period ?
I bet you will also find 100 million deaths in 2000 year period.
Not that I defend comunism but it will be more fair IMO.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
silat... are you saying that you see no difference in someone being intolerant of your behavior or beliefs and someone suicide bombing you and yours because of your beliefs?
What does hitler killing jews have to do with suicide bombers and christians... you are all over the map here.. as someone pointed out... you are incensed because we are interfering in the torture and murder of iraqis yet... in the same breath.. appaled that we didn't rise up as christians or whatever to... do... do something about hitler earlier because he may have been slaughtering jews?
lazs
<>
The Jew thing was a response to someone who brought it up first. You can go back thru the messages and find it. :)
Nazis are and were fanatics.
What does this mean:
First off I dont even understand the sentence. Second if I did Id say "Huh?":)
Oh I get it, you are trying to lay the Rightwing talking points on me:)
Of course I think Sadamm is a bad man and killing his people was wrong. Where did I ever say differently?
<>
Yes there is a difference in degree.One is killing now and one is leading towards hate and violence.
I am pointing out that intolerance starts somewhere. It usually starts with someone preaching a point of view that incites others to violence. You know like preaching that gays are bad in your gods book.
"your" not meaning you personally unless the shoe fits.
<>
May have been?? He was and the christians in this country were shamefully quiet. Im willing to let that discussion go for another day. OK?
-
Originally posted by straffo
Why don't you compare on a longuer period ?
I bet you will also find 100 million deaths in 2000 year period.
Not so sure about that. Population density being what it was before the 17th century boom.
If you mean that another of the 19 different centuries could be counted for another 100 million deaths to barbarism (ruling out plagues etc.).
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
Silat is obviously trying to diminish and minimize the significance of Ilsamic terrorism, just like the other political "progressives", by attempting to compare it to religious intolerance in general, or to other lesser phenomena.
Many "political progressives" say that "Bush knew" about 911, and even questioned the existance of Islamic terrorists, implying it was our own government who perpetrated 911.
Political "progressives" originally referred to our efforts against terrorism as "the phoney war on terror." Or they say, as Silat has said, "Bush lied" without providing evidence to proove it, insinuating that the failure to find WMD is proof that Bush lied.
If I'm wrong about you Silat, I apologise.
I never tried to diminish the significance of Islamic terrorism. Please back that statement up. It sounds like typical rightwing talk. If I disagree with you then I am somehow not against the terrorists? It is not I who is unpatriotic.
Are you really saying that the fanatics are not intolerant of the wests religions? Please explain yourself.
Whether you believe Bush lied or not has nothing to do with this conversation. And trying to associate me with the TIN HAT BRIGADE is a very poor comeback.
And you are wrong about alot of things:)
I want the Islamic fanatics dead. I want all religious fanatics taken to task.Christian or otherwise. Is that clear enough for you?
Bush lied about alot of things.
Sadaam is a bad man.
Westy I am anti everything:)
-
Originally posted by Edbert
Not so sure about that. Population density being what it was before the 17th century boom.
If you mean that another of the 19 different centuries could be counted for another 100 million deaths to barbarism (ruling out plagues etc.).
well ... you're more than probably right.
-
Originally posted by bustr
In the middle of the high moral ground that justifies your actions against a perceived or real evil, one has to be concerned with crossing the line of becoming the evil. The western culture that fought WW2 had a more christian moral foundation than todays. But that did not mean some individuals on the march to Berlin from the Alies did not act as Natzi's to their Natzi foes in the heat of the moment.
The logic is aimed at our conditional weakness to justify our actions against a percieved evil or threat while ignoring our own conduct or logic process.
I suppose if ever one of the followers of the current Jihad sets off a portable nuke in New York or London, the unimaginable toll on life and distruction of property will cause the west to tempraroly as a body slip it's mental critical factor and act like Natzi's to a portion of the planets population in response. So then do we become anti-finatic finatics to save our civilization?
Yes we need to be concerned with crossing that EVILLL line. I dont see where we disagree?
Yes we will be strong and march on our enemies as we do now.
But it shouldnt be in the name of someones GOD.
And it is NAZI's not NATZI's:)
And I would hope that we would never act as the NAZI's did. Killing the enemy is one thing but genocide is another.
-
"Westy I am anti everything"
Ah yes. Well then I say welcome aboard, bother.
"just been a heckuva lot better off without ANY of it."
AMEN!
-
Hang,
Human beings gravitate to what makes them feel good about thier life. Regardless of the dialogue some demigog is spouting to inflame the chosen, each chosen chose themselves to be there lapping it up. It's easier to let another speak the words you cannot put forth yourself. It becomes easier to take the seeming easy path of following soemone who talks like they know where they are going. (no disrespect Seagoon)
The demigog is easier for you to hate and hold up as the evil direction the cult can take. It's much easier than holding each member responsible for following. Eventually it's easier to hold the whole of the philosophy suspect at the gate.
It is in the human condition to seek something more than the power of their intellect as the ultimate answer to living life. If you take away all the current religions from the human race today, they would not suddenly wake up and become rugged self reliant moral individulists. They would have to face their "Seven Deadly Sin's" alone. You would be throwing them to the next new unknown bunch of demigogs peddeling hope, salvation, or nirvana.
You can no more remove the human tendancy to religion as you could yell at every single human on the planet to wake up and think for themselves. But, that might lead you to a pulpit with your own following to the "HangTime Way of Living". Human beings want to follow and be part of something. The strong opinions in this thread support this assertion.
You ever think of how strange this could turn if one of these philisophical rugby matches got visited by a real member of the Jihad? I wonder what he would say, and if the moderators would allow it? Would we rattel our sabers at him the way we do at each other, or would we sit in shock and disbelif that someone on this board could beleive in what he is saying? Probably the most talented of us at Blog challenge would try to discredit him as a fraud and troller......................
-
Originally posted by Silat
Yes we need to be concerned with crossing that EVILLL line. I dont see where we disagree?
Yes we will be strong and march on our enemies as we do now.
But it shouldnt be in the name of someones GOD.
And it is NAZI's not NATZI's:)
And I would hope that we would never act as the NAZI's did. Killing the enemy is one thing but genocide is another.
I truely fear that if the Jihadist's do have a portable nuke and set it off in a western population center, we as a moral culture will leap to the simplist course of action out of a uncontrolled horror at being so vulnderable to one lone madman and a suit case. Everyone of us can be pushed too far. Don't you think the population of New York or London will be the point at which the attacked group as a whole looses it?
You ever wondered if Japan has forgiven us? They plan business cycles out quite a few years farther than the west does. Seems like some in the Middle East do also.
-
LOL.. that would be about the only thing that could make a rugby match interesting for me. ;)
Thde gullability of the weak is the happy hunting ground of the religious cultists... much to the pain and anquish of those that have different ideas.
Darwin was a genius.
-
Hang,
I have to admit that I fall prey to my own arrogance towards the gullible weak. Which group affronts your sensabilities more, the weak for being weak, or the cultists for choosing to prey on them?
:)
-
bustr: demagogue is the traditional spelling. The new EZEnglish version is demagog. ;)
-
Originally posted by bustr
I truely fear that if the Jihadist's do have a portable nuke and set it off in a western population center, we as a moral culture will leap to the simplist course of action out of a uncontrolled horror at being so vulnderable to one lone madman and a suit case. Everyone of us can be pushed too far. Don't you think the population of New York or London will be the point at which the attacked group as a whole looses it?
You ever wondered if Japan has forgiven us? They plan business cycles out quite a few years farther than the west does. Seems like some in the Middle East do also.
Bustr I fear the thin veneer of civilization will be swept away by men on pulpits ( religious or political) when that moment comes. A deadly response will be appropriate. Whether we do it for the right reasons with proper restraint will be the issue.
And please dont misconstrue "proper restraint".:)
<>
I dont think the Japanese hold that grudge against us any longer.
But the ME/Islamist fanatics hold grudges (perceived or otherwise) forever. And it isnt just us they are against. Their warped view of Islam pits them against the whole world. They dont even like other Islamists. They arent content killing each other. They need to take the rest of us on also.
-
Here is a story on the father of Mohamed Atta.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/07/19/atta.father.terror/index.html
Unfortunately I think the old codger might be on to something....
-
Originally posted by bustr
Hang,
I have to admit that I fall prey to my own arrogance towards the gullible weak. Which group affronts your sensabilities more, the weak for being weak, or the cultists for choosing to prey on them?
:)
I'm not convinced that it's a 'weak' mind thing. Most folks from my generation learned religion at the end of a belt.. Sunday School was not 'optional'. A religious education goes a long way towards 'condtioning' a mind for life. Take those same young minds and educate them in an intellectual enviornment seperate from religious influence and THEN as young adults hand them a bible... anybodys bible.
I'd be willing to bet that the folks that buy into religious dogma under those circumstances would be a whole lot more inclined to live as true 'christians' than the ones force-fed it as children. Fewer 'churchies' that use religion as bigoted reason to pursue some rather unhealthy agendas.
As for the cult leaders... be pretty tuff to have 'cult leaders' in a true christian church, wouldn't it?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Here is a story on the father of Mohamed Atta.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/07/19/atta.father.terror/index.html
Unfortunately I think the old codger might be on to something....
Knowing what the bastard would use the money for..CNN probrably still paid him. Just to get the second interview.
Irresponsible of CNN to even publish that article.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Here is a story on the father of Mohamed Atta.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/07/19/atta.father.terror/index.html
Unfortunately I think the old codger might be on to something....
Just saw this on the news. Another fanatic that has to go. These types cannot be rehabbed.
-
Christianity had the Crusades
Those people who talk bad about the crusades raise two huge flags over their heads.
1.) They hate christians. It doesn't matter who.
2.) They've never cracked open a history book.
-
I never tried to diminish the significance of Islamic terrorism. - Silat
Otay :) I misunderstood.
-
well silat.. I think I agree with gunthr that you are trying to diminish the acts of the jihad terrorists by saying christians are intolerant too "its just a matter of degree."
Well yeah.. it is a matter of degree... like getting a mild tan and burning to death in a fiery wreck are both the same.... burned.. just a matter of degree. When you are talking about these murderous fanatics you can no more compare them to the guy next door to me with his intolerance of celebrating birthdays than in the burning example.
While I agree that all intolerance is bad to some degree.. not drinking caffiene say is not worth me getting upset about (till they get powerful enough to make it law) like a jihadist getting his murderous zealot hands on a suitcase nuke..
I most certainly do think that we should track down all jihadist sects of the muslim religion and wipe them out. I would prefer they be killed but jailed forever would be ok. They have a vowed agenda to kill inocent people... they need to die.
I had no problem with the brits wiping out the IRA cells. If that is considered wiping out a sect of the catholic church then so be it.
If the jehova witnesses form a group of murderous zealots we will deal with them.
hell... if a murderous splinter group of the UAW shows up then treat them the same.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Those people who talk bad about the crusades raise two huge flags over their heads.
1.) They hate christians. It doesn't matter who.
2.) They've never cracked open a history book.
I'm "christian" and I've always liked history and have read quite a bit about it.
And I'd say crusades weren't anything any christian should be proud of.
YMMV of course.
-
hell... if a murderous splinter group of the UAW shows up then treat them the same.
If Hammas was building chevy's would they be even more of a bomb?
-
The Catholic IRA groups are not promoting Catholicism, but are in a conflict about the governance of Ireland, specifically Northern Ireland.
I would comment that many Muslims believe the Islamic terrorists are not exactly promoting Islam either...
As for the IRA et al, you are wrong. It is entirely about creating a Catholic unified state - and if it is not about religion, why do they murder protestants and not hindus?
-
Hello Dowding,
Granted the IRA performs its deadly deeds against the Protestants of Northern Ireland, and non-combatants of any stripe in GB. I don't know anyone in the IRA, but it's my guess that if Northern Ireland had been invaded by Hindus instead of the Scots they would be attacking Hindus, not so much to spread Christianity, but but to free their island from outside invaders. Nevertheless, there's little doubt the IRA wants Catholic rule as well, and probably some Irish Catholics would prefer complete separation from the Roman communion. I don't think though that the IRA has gone to Calcutta and set off bombs to try to drive Hindus to Christianity. That I believe is the point. And Islamists may be considered outside the pale by other Muslims, but the sheer number of Islamist groups indicates large numbers of "Muslims" believe terror is a valid, moral tactic. I spoke with a friend today at work who is from GB and he said two of the recent homicide bombers lived within a few miles of him. We work in hi-tech and he said the area he lives in is not a poverty-stricken Muslim ghetto.
Best Regards
Cement
-
Hello Straffo,
Why don't you compare on a longer period ?
I bet you will also find 100 million deaths in 2000 year period.
Mon ami, my point about Communism was not that religions are necessarily better than Communism, rather that anti-religious attitudes can be just as deadly as any religious attitude. And if the international socialist Communist revolution had been fomented for 2000 years instead of about 85 would it still lead the murderous pack? My opinion would be yes.
Regards
Cement
-
Originally posted by lazs2
well silat.. I think I agree with gunthr that you are trying to diminish the acts of the jihad terrorists by saying christians are intolerant too "its just a matter of degree."
Well yeah.. it is a matter of degree... like getting a mild tan and burning to death in a fiery wreck are both the same.... burned.. just a matter of degree. When you are talking about these murderous fanatics you can no more compare them to the guy next door to me with his intolerance of celebrating birthdays than in the burning example.
While I agree that all intolerance is bad to some degree.. not drinking caffiene say is not worth me getting upset about (till they get powerful enough to make it law) like a jihadist getting his murderous zealot hands on a suitcase nuke..
I most certainly do think that we should track down all jihadist sects of the muslim religion and wipe them out. I would prefer they be killed but jailed forever would be ok. They have a vowed agenda to kill inocent people... they need to die.
I had no problem with the brits wiping out the IRA cells. If that is considered wiping out a sect of the catholic church then so be it.
If the jehova witnesses form a group of murderous zealots we will deal with them.
hell... if a murderous splinter group of the UAW shows up then treat them the same.
lazs
Well I think we agree more than we disagree LAZ:)
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
.. I suspect your unable to see the forrest from the trees, Seagoon. With all respect, your focus remains the same.. 'we're good, they are evil'.
Secular definition changes not a whit the simple truth.. Holy Warriors kill millions.
Now, having clearly stated that your side is 'right' and their side is 'wrong', what's the church's next call to action? 'Turn the other cheek'? Or 'fire with fire'?
Solve the problem Seagoon.. WHAT makes your side, your principals 'holier' than theirs? How do you propose convincing the other team to play by 'your' rules? And, just what do YOU think the solution is?
Be honest.. and remember, this is NOT a personal attack.. it's a search for truth and a solution to the largest plauge on humanity. The world awaits the answer.
I think you are missing the point, and YOU are not seeing through the surface of the problem. You probably are one of those that identify a religion exclusively with the human practice of that religious belief system.
Here's my take on it; the religion is not at fault. It's the people. If, however, the members of a church (whether christian, islamic, buddhist, or shinto, or WHATEVER) allow an evil group to flourish in their midst (can we all agree that blowing up children is evil?). then the CHURCH is evil. Not the God. Not the Faith. Not the sect, creed, or belief. The Church, a body of people who practice a faith together.
Focus on that thought. If a group of evil people espouse a belief system, no matter how "good" that system, and use it for evil purposes, they do not pollute the belief system. They do pollute the practice.
That being said, I come to this conclusion: If a Muslim (or christian, or shinto, or hindu) congregation does evil in the name of their religion, then THEY are evil. If the greater organization of that faith supports the evil, THEY are evil, too. If other members of that faith refuse to condemn the evil done by their brothers, THEY are also evil.
-
Originally posted by rshubert
That being said, I come to this conclusion: If a Muslim (or christian, or shinto, or hindu) congregation does evil in the name of their religion, then THEY are evil. If the greater organization of that faith supports the evil, THEY are evil, too. If other members of that faith refuse to condemn the evil done by their brothers, THEY are also evil.
Ok.. so what's that make this guy:
Ladies and gentlemen, Christianity offers the only viable, reasonable, definitive answer to the questions of 'Where did I come from?' 'Why am I here?' 'Where am I going?' 'Does life have any meaningful purpose?' Only Christianity offers a way to understand that physical and moral border. Only Christianity offers a comprehensive worldview that covers all areas of life and thought, every aspect of creation. Only Christianity offers a way to live in response to the realities that we find in this world -- only Christianity.
or This guy:
If we are going to save America and evangelize the world, we cannot accommodate secular philosophies that are diametrically opposed to Christian truth.
Hmmmmmm???
Would surely love to find some negative christian sourced commentary regarding these position statements.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Ok.. so what's that make this guy:
Ladies and gentlemen, Christianity offers the only viable, reasonable, definitive answer to the questions of 'Where did I come from?' 'Why am I here?' 'Where am I going?' 'Does life have any meaningful purpose?' Only Christianity offers a way to understand that physical and moral border. Only Christianity offers a comprehensive worldview that covers all areas of life and thought, every aspect of creation. Only Christianity offers a way to live in response to the realities that we find in this world -- only Christianity.
or This guy:
If we are going to save America and evangelize the world, we cannot accommodate secular philosophies that are diametrically opposed to Christian truth.
Hmmmmmm???
Would surely love to find some negative christian sourced commentary regarding these position statements.
Keep dreaming..........
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Ok.. so what's that make this guy:
Ladies and gentlemen, Christianity offers the only viable, reasonable, definitive answer to the questions of 'Where did I come from?' 'Why am I here?' 'Where am I going?' 'Does life have any meaningful purpose?' Only Christianity offers a way to understand that physical and moral border. Only Christianity offers a comprehensive worldview that covers all areas of life and thought, every aspect of creation. Only Christianity offers a way to live in response to the realities that we find in this world -- only Christianity.
or This guy:
If we are going to save America and evangelize the world, we cannot accommodate secular philosophies that are diametrically opposed to Christian truth.
Hmmmmmm???
Would surely love to find some negative christian sourced commentary regarding these position statements.
OK, first lets define intolerance as "preaching" hatred or violence towards those with different viewpoints. Intolerance is NOT the opposite of vacuous openmindedness; one can believe some things are true, and others are untrue, without being intolerant.
This distinction is very important, because the modern US culture has schizophrenic attitudes towards intolerance: on one hand the culture at large strongly condemns any negative speech about a wide variety of belief systems; on the other hand, it feels free to macerate anyone whose personal beliefs include intrinsic value judgements. As a side effect of this endemic nonjudgementalism, even intelligent people have become disturbingly comfortable in holding mutually contradictory beliefs. I find that when teaching postgraduate students how to analyse scientific literature, I have to spend a good amount of time just getting them used to applying simple logic -- what conclusions CAN and CAN'T be drawn from a specific set of data. They're jsut not used to saying something's wrong.
Now to the question at hand. Christianity has definite value judgements intrinsic to the core of the belief system. Some things are wrong, period -- including hatred, btw. Some things are true, whether you like them or not. So to believe in these non-relativistic Christian teachings, you instantly are going to run afoul of our culture.
This is not the same as being intolerant. If a someone really believes the core Christian teachings -- like "Jesus was God come to earth, and taught us the way we should live, and said He is the only way to be made right with God" -- then though many would call him intolerant, he hasnt been intolerant yet. The real question comes with what happens next. If the believer acts justly, loves mercy, and lives humbly with those around him there shouldnt be a problem. If the believer tries to exclude dissenters from the neighborhood, or to outlaw other groups or interfere with their worship -- then that's intolerance.
I cannot condemn those who believe that Jesus' claims are true. Jesus claimed to be the only way to heaven. This claim is internally consistent; if you allow the premise (that God found it necessary to confine himself to human form-- akin to my become a literal cockroach --, found it necessary to offer himself as a sacrifice, and to in doing so take on the penalty for all the wrong ever done on earth) it jsut makes sense that less traumatic methods couldnt have worked. Otherwise, why do it?
While that may sound "intolerant" it is not. I believe the fault is in the culture, not the claim.
If the second comment (about accomodating secular philosophies) referred to the internal life of the believer, then I agree with it fully. I cant expect to have my life remade in the image of Christ -- becoming less selfish, more loving, kinder, etc -- while still hoilding to the almost narcissistic western secular ideal. If he meant that Christians should root secularlism out of the culture, then he was not only wrong (Jesus taught that changing external behavior without internal heart change is worthless) but the guy was dancing near the line of idiocy. How can you de-secularize the secular?
I do condemn those who threaten violence, incite hatred, or make their philosophical differences a cause for personal animus. Randall Terry threatening to "execute" abortionists (who, right or wrong, were acting in accordance with US law) is unconscionably wrong, and may incite others to do wrongful violence.
-
Trying to follow this. It's pretty hard. I'm interested in this:
Ok.. so what's that make this guy:
Ladies and gentlemen, Christianity offers the only viable, reasonable, definitive answer to the questions of 'Where did I come from?' 'Why am I here?' 'Where am I going?' 'Does life have any meaningful purpose?' Only Christianity offers a way to understand that physical and moral border. Only Christianity offers a comprehensive worldview that covers all areas of life and thought, every aspect of creation. Only Christianity offers a way to live in response to the realities that we find in this world -- only Christianity.
or This guy:
If we are going to save America and evangelize the world, we cannot accommodate secular philosophies that are diametrically opposed to Christian truth.
Hmmmmmm???
Would surely love to find some negative christian sourced commentary regarding these position statements.
__________________
I think secular humanists might agree that other viewpoints are acceptable as long as they do not impinge on your belief of what liberty is.
-
I would like to hear more.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
Trying to follow this. It's pretty hard. I'm interested in this:
I think secular humanists might agree that other viewpoints are acceptable as long as they do not impinge on your belief of what liberty is.
Hi Gunthr!
'secular humanists' ?? Thats kinds slippery.. I guess I'm a secular humanist, yes?
The two quotes are quite specific, and clearly call for 'one religion'.. in this case; christianity. (there's a heap more like it, prostylized stuff from every major faith is out there, this ain't JUST a 'christian' problem.. it's a 'religion' problem) If you are a christian, I'd expect you'd not find anything 'wrong' with the quotes above. If your not, it's the equivelent of fingernails on a chalkboard.
It would seem that one of the most difficult propositions for a christian (or, insert whatever your favorite faith is here) is discerning where 'right' ends and 'wrong' begins when it comes to promoting their faith.. intolerance is just that: 'intolerant'. It can't be pared down any further than that. Considering the immense amount of angst associated with any religious debate, commentary that casts their favorite flavor in a controversial light tends to be the equivelent of handling nitro..
Back to the concept of religious intolerance.. It's just wrong. Now; how are we gonna fight the islamic extremists without committing religious warfare?
and lastly.. congrats to all involved so far.. this thread, this subject has exceeded my expectations in both quality and quantity of reasoned debate!
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Hi Gunthr!
snip...
If you are a christian, I'd expect you'd not find anything 'wrong' with the quotes above. If your not, it's the equivelent of fingernails on a chalkboard.
It would seem that one of the most difficult propositions for a christian (or, insert whatever your favorite faith is here) is discerning where 'right' ends and 'wrong' begins when it comes to promoting their faith.. intolerance is just that: 'intolerant'. It can't be pared down any further than that.
snip
paring is one thing; but how woudl you define intolerance, hang? Statements of disagreement, or suppression?
Promoting your beliefs is what democracy is all about. Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, we each have ideas about the best place to balance policy continuums. More freedom of action, or more protection fo the weak? More protection for individual rights, or more emphasis on the common good? The town square, or the porch in front of the dry goods store, was the traditional forum for those discussions. Are they now off limits in the name of diversity?
If not, then discussing, comparing, and sharing convictions -- including about faith -- should be freely allowed. The right to share and spread ideas should be protected, even if those ideas seem closed minded. When anybody says their way is best, the onus is on them to convince others. Just because they say "we're the best " doesnt mean they are oppressors.
I understand secularists' concerns, because religious fundamentalist governments have done the world a world of hurt. But even as a christian, I simply do not believe that such a government could be established in the USA, most basically because US christians have a long history of stubborn individualism. Those self anointed leaders who claim divine calling for this or that almsot immediately fade away in a wash of skepticism. The Moral Majority is gone, and Jerry Falwell is nationally marginalized. The leader of Promise Keepers saw his movement fade away not long after he publically said he thought his movement was God's last chance for redeeming America. Pat Robertson ran for president, had a political action group, but now mostly runs his tv shows. Those folks strive for IMPACT but cannot exert control over the political process.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
snip....
Now; how are we gonna fight the islamic extremists without committing religious warfare?
I'd suggest by going after the crime, and leaving the religion out of it.
You foment rebellion or violence? You steal, bomb, or terrorize? I dont care what your excuse is, you done did a crime and we can (try to) get you for it. Use legal channels, and stay in the limits you set for your own people. Blind retaliation jsut doesnt work -- look at Israel -- especially in cultures that still honor the tradition of blood feuds.
Meanwhile, work JUST AS HARD at cutting the legs out from under them by dealing with any legitimate gripes you possibly can. Make sure that as much as possible, you address the economic and political problems that plague the terror generating cultures. Dont coddle them, but dont give them excuses to go ballistic.
I personally am agast that we are holding people at Gitmo without any legal status. Some of the inmates may be terrorists, and more are doubtless anti-USA, anti- democracy. Are some jsut guys who fought because we invaded their country, and are some innocent people who got caught up in the net? They have no representation, they arent POWs, they arent protected by the same Geneva COnventions we would demand for our people because "We're fighting a war". Its been 3-4 years. It must be generating another population of friends and relatives with bitterness against us. It's wrong.
And I am a conservative who's voted republican in almost every election fo my life, out of policy belief and not party loyalty.
-
Hi All,
I think it might be valuable, instead of talking about the differences between Islam and Christianity, or even the subject of intolerance, to simply set out some basics presuppositions that Bible believing Christians have had for centuries. I'm not going to get into the nuances or minutia between denominations, I'm simply going to spell out 10 of the basic beliefs of what are today called "Christian Fundamentalists" because I believe that an understanding of these will ultimately be beneficial to undestanding what Christian "extremists" believe and how and why Christianity differs from other religions.
First off, a necessary introduction. Fundamentalism is not a new phenomenon in Christianity or America.
A belief in "the fundamental beliefs of the Christian faith" from which the nick-name is derived, has been shared by (among countless others) Paul, Tertullian, Athanasius, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Tyndale, Huss, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Knox, Cranmer, Wesley, Newton, Bacon, Witherspoon, Mason, Madison, Henry, Webster, Wilberforce, Kuyper, Spurgeon, Swindoll, Sproul, and so on.
But what are some of these fundamental beliefs, particularly those that impinge upon the current conversation?
Fundamentalist Christians believe:
1) That the Bible is the written word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit and without error in the original manuscripts. The Bible is the revelation of God’s truth and is infallible and authoritative in all matters of faith and practice. It provides for us an authentic testimony of the will and work of God.
2) There is only one God, who exists eternally in three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory.
3) That the Universe and everything in it was created out of nothing by God.
4) That sin is the transgression of (or want of conformity to) to God's law.
5) That shortly after the Creation, man who was created sinless, fell by sinning, and from that time on all men are born sinners, justly deserving the righteous judgment of God and unable to save themselves from God’s displeasure, except by His mercy. [This is why children do not need to be taught to lie or be selfish, they are born naturally inclined towards sin.]
6) That Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God, who through His perfect life and sacrificial death atoned for the sins of all who will trust in Him, alone, for salvation.
7) That regeneration, by which a person is brought to spiritual life (born again) is a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit and normally accompanies the preaching of the Gospel ("Good News").
8) That the Holy Spirit indwells God’s people and gives them the strength and wisdom to trust Christ and follow Him - although not perfectly in this lifetime.
9) They believe that Jesus will return, bodily and visibly, to judge all mankind and to receive His people to Himself. The time of his return is not known by any man, but it will signal the end of this "present evil age" and mark the final overthrow of sin and the devil and everything it has wrought upon the world, including death, disease, sorrow, etc.
10) They believe that all aspects of our lives are to be lived to the glory of God under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
Now, taking the above list, let me try to engage some of the main points currently under contention.
First, regarding the idea that Christianity offers the only viable worldview option, if one believes that the bible is literally the word of God, then that is an unavoidable conclusion. All of other worldviews, in so far as they deviate from or contradict the witness of the bible will necessarily be false. And worldviews that claim to offer salvation through any means but faith in Christ must be considered harmful.
Second, if one believes the Bible, then one will obey the command of Christ to go out into the world as an ambassador of Christ proclaiming only what Christ has commanded rather than making up rules as one goes along or teaching something else. Christ Himself declared that salvation was impossible through any other means but faith in Him and his Apostles taught the same. Therefore it is not "intolerant" to proclaim an exclusive Christian message but only logical - if one believes the bible. One can hardly claim to be a bible-believing follower of Christ and then contradict what he Himself taught and commanded in the Word.
Third, regarding "toleration" of other worldviews, if toleration means coexisting with those who hold worldviews one can live peaceably among, then Christians are certainly called to tolerance. However, if tolerance means accepting the truth claims of non-Christian worldview, then that kind of tolerance is not possible. In other words, I am called to live in peace, in so far as it is up to me, with say Zoroastrians. But if I am forced to believe and proclaim that Zoroastrianism is "true" or that one can go to heaven through some other means than faith in Christ, then I must deny that claim regardless of the consequences to me.
Fourth, it is not loving to leave someone in a burning building, or not attempt to turn someone away from walking off a cliff. In the same way, if one truly believes that only through faith in Christ can one have true peace with both God and man and avoid an eternity in hell, it is not loving to fail to preach the gospel, in fact if one is truly loving one will do so in the hopes that some will realize their peril and be saved. "Forcing" someone to convert is however totally pointless, because unless someone is really inwardly changed by the Holy Spirit, such a conversion is meaningless. It would be as pointless as bursting into my house and forcing me at gunpoint to confess to being a Martian. The forced confession doesn't make it true neither would painting me green or dressing me up. Therefore, as much as we might lament it, if someone stubbornly continues in their course off the cliff, there is no way we can forcibly turn them out of the way. All we can do is beg, exhort, and plead with them to turn before it is too late.
Now if there is an interest, I can compare and contrast the above with the teachings of Islam or answer questions, or whatever...
- SEAGOON
-
I remember when two American Christian women were imprisoned by the Taliban in Afganistan just prior to the 9/11 attacks for trying to convert Muslims to Christ, the taliban was threatening to execute them.
I remember thinking how pathetic it was that these two American women were going to be murdered for preaching the word of Christ in a muslim country yet this Christian nation fully supports the right to believe in the koran and to worship in a mosque.
I have little patience for that bass ackwards religion and if they ever manage to detonate a nuclear device in my country then Im afraid its John Wayne time.
Good by Mecca, and good riddance
-
You have to remember that the old testement - ancient judaism was a religion ment for the Hebrews ONLY - and this is the major point in which christianity (and later Islam) diverges from judaism.
Only jews have to worship god and follow his laws, other nation may do it but they do not have to. You can only be a sinner if you are a jew, and the punishments described in the old testement are for jews NOT for other nations - They can do what ever they like (under some basic moral limitation as was the case of Sodom).
The old testement discourage member of other nation from accepting judaism and pile difficulties for them - the major one is the bris. Imagine how successfull cristianity would have been if they tried to convert grown up people by telling them they have to cut some skin from their dicks.
To convert to judaism one have to show cencere willing. Becoming a jew becaused you married a jew is not considered good enough reason (although it is today)
The old testement have many specific laws for protecting non-jews living in the land of Israel. They are not to be converted to Judaism against their will.
I tried to read the new testement and I hope that nobody is offended if I say it's crap (I'm talking literature). On the other hand, when I read the bible in english it's much worse than the hebrew version of it so translations may be the problem.
Bozon
-
A bit off topic - I have my own religion - I had to invent it because I realize that while I believe in God and I pray, I have so many secular ideals that I don't fit in with any organized religion that I know of. I'm quite tolerent, and I believe anyone else's spiritual God or belief system is just as valid as mine.
I would have been happy just having my own religion and not bothering anybody else with it. I'm at the stage where I don't need answers to a lot of life's deep questions. The problem is, I have an inquisitive 10 year old child who keeps asking me questions, so I had to think about where I stand on some things.
I hate to post a link with a lot of reading, but there is a lot to chew on in this secular catechism. Read it, and you might be surprized about how you identify yourself:
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_watts/secularists_catechism.html
I still think Islamic intolerance is totally different than Christian intolerance, or religious intolerance in general. The Islamist kind will get you killed, the other kinds might get you labeled a lost soul condemned to hell, maybe an odd clinic bombing here and there, but not the wholesale targeting of innocents. I think this is where partisan politics creep into these discussions - and lead people to try to draw paralells. This is a disservice.
-
again... I agree with gunther and share a belief in god without a belief in any particular religion. While I think they all make good stories and one or another might even be true... I have no faith in any of em.
From time to time one of em gets powerful or full of murderous zealots tho and then they scare me... At this point I believe it is the muslim religion that is coddling these murderous zealots on a grand scale.
lazs
-
Hello Bozon,
Originally posted by bozon
You have to remember that the old testement - ancient judaism was a religion ment for the Hebrews ONLY - and this is the major point in which christianity (and later Islam) diverges from judaism.
Christianity views the Old and New Testaments as being two parts of one book. The Old Testament chronicling the fall of man, and the beginning and progress of God's work of redemption and looking forward to the coming of the Messiah/Redeemer. The New Testament hails the arrival of the Messiah Jesus and then presents His work of redemption, the spread of that gospel message via the church he established, and then points forward to the final completion of God's redeeming work in the second coming.
For example, read the specifically Messianic passages of Isaiah 53 or Malachi 3, or Psalm 22 with the constant refrain that the redeemer who is the Lord would come forth from Israel and that as a result someday all the nations would worship the Lord God.
"All the ends of the world Shall remember and turn to the LORD, And all the families of the nations Shall worship before You. For the kingdom is the LORD's, And He rules over the nations. (Psalm 22:28-29)
In the preaching of John the Baptist at the beginning of the New Testament one sees constant reference to these Old Testament prophecies of the coming of the Messiah, together with John's declaration that Jesus is the one those prophecies were pointing to, for example:
"The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! "This is He of whom I said, 'After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me.' "I did not know Him; but that He should be revealed to Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water." And John bore witness, saying, "I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and He remained upon Him. "I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.' "And I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God."" Again, the next day, John stood with two of his disciples. And looking at Jesus as He walked, he said, "Behold the Lamb of God!"
As far as the Law is concerned, the New Testament specifically states that it was because all men had broken God's law and were in danger of judgment that Jesus had to atone for sin on the cross.
What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin.
Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." (Romans 3:9;3:19-26)
Keep in mind that the above sections from Romans were written by Paul, a Jew and a Pharisee, and certainly a man with a solid working knowledge both theoretically and experimentally of the Law of God.
Regarding the Law of God itself, Christians hold that the Ceremonial provisions forshadowed and pointed forward to the coming of Christ, and that their requirements were fulfilled by him, the Moral requirements on the other hand are an eternal expression of the holiness of God and could only be kept perfectly by Christ, which he did on behalf of his sheep. Most Christians believe that the ten commandments are still an eternal rule and guide for our life however.
Orthodox Jews, of course, deny the claims of Christ to be the Messiah and hold that the Messiah has not yet come. Many Reform Jews, view Judaism as purely cultural and are not expecting a literal Messiah.
Muslims, on the other hand, believe that Jesus (known as Isa in the Quran) was merely a human prophet who came to prepare the way for the coming of the final prophet and the perfected religion - Muhammad and Islam. They deny both Christ's death on the cross and his resurrection.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Muslims, on the other hand, believe that Jesus (known as Isa in the Quran) was merely a human prophet who came to prepare the way for the coming of the final prophet and the perfected religion - Muhammad and Islam. They deny both Christ's death on the cross and his resurrection.
See, that is where I have a problem with the logical aspects of this. In my opinion there is no middle ground on the subject of Jesus. Anyone who says he was a wise man, a prophet, a teacher, or other such description is being intellectually dishonest.
If you disbeleive in the existance of Jesus, fine. If you beleive he was a false prophet, fine. If you beleive he was right, fine. All of those views hold water.
Jesus said he was the one God made flesh and walking on the earth. If he said that and was wrong then that makes him insane or a liar not wise or a teacher/prophet.
On the subject of Jesus there are only two outcomes assuming you acknowlege his physical existance as a man; one he was who he said he was, or two, he was a nutjob.
-
Originally posted by Edbert
On the subject of Jesus there are only two outcomes assuming you acknowlege his physical existance as a man; one he was who he said he was, or two, he was a nutjob.
Three... he did exist, but his lineage (and his life story) was grossly exaggerated by the men that knew him.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Three... he did exist, but his lineage (and his life story) was grossly exaggerated by the men that knew him.
Implying that he never said the things attributed to him?
-
Hangtime,
I'd like to issue a serious challenge, which I hope might help to put things in perspective. What I would like to challenge you to do is simply to list as many examples as you can FROM THIS YEAR (2005), of Christians persecuting, oppressing, or attacking Muslims merely because they happen to be faithful followers of Islam. I will endeavor to do the same on the other side. You may feel free to hold my feet to the fire, dispute the examples I use, and show how they are either bogus or not examples of Muslims persecuting Christians because of their faith.
The only restrictions that I would ask is that we not use examples that are clearly direct acts of revenge (i.e. Muslims attacking a Christian village because they themselves were attacked by that village the day before) or examples where the religion is clearly coincidental (i.e. a Muslim unaware of his victims religion mugs a Christian because he wants his watch).
If the thesis you seem to be advancing, that fundamentalist Christians are just as dangerous and prone to persecute as "fundamentalist" Muslims, then we should clearly be able to see multi-national parity between the two camps. In fact, we should see the most Christian violence and active oppression of Muslims in the countries with the highest percentage of fundamentalist evangelical protestants.
Anyway here are just a few examples of Muslims oppressing Christians from this year (I'm not doing any deep digging here):
1) Indonesia - Thursday June 23, 2005
THREE WOMEN ARRESTED, CHARGED
Leaders of ‘Happy Sunday’ program accused of attempted conversion.
A Muslim council has accused three Indonesian women of attempting to convert Muslim children under the guise of a Christian education program. Dr. Rebekka Zakaria, Eti Pangesti and Ratna Bangun were arrested on May 13 and eventually taken to the Indramayu State Prison in West Java, where they await trial. If convicted of breaching the Child Protection Law, they could each face a prison sentence of up to five years and a fine of up to 100,000,000 rupees ($103,600). A lawyer acting for the local Majelis Ulama Indonesia council asked that bail be refused for the women. Meanwhile, lawyers are preparing for a trial that could make headlines in a nation still clearly divided along religious lines.
You have to see the picture of these dangerous threats to Muslim safety (http://www.compassdirect.org/en/newslongen.php?idelement=3865)
2) Pakistan - Monday March 28, 2005
WORSHIPPERS ATTACKED ON EASTER SUNDAY
One Christian killed, seven injured in village church shooting.
Armed gunmen attacked Christian worshippers as they emerged from Easter services in a village church yesterday, killing one man and injuring seven other congregants. Irshad Masih, in his early 20s, died from a bullet that struck his head during a half hour of indiscriminate shooting by four attackers. Seven other victims suffering severe gunshot wounds were hospitalized at Lahore’s Jinnah Hospital. Two police guards were reportedly absent from their post at 10:30 a.m. yesterday, when attackers opened fire at Victory Church International in Khamba village near Lahore. Police later said they had arrested two of the four suspects in the shooting, and attributed the attack to a local land dispute. Local observers discounted that version of events. “Actually, it is terrorism,” one source told Compass. “They attacked people and started indiscriminate firing upon a congregation of some 150 people!”
3) Bangladesh - Monday April 04, 2005
LAY PASTOR BEHEADED
Widow fears reprisals from murderers as she struggles to support her family.
Sources have confirmed the murder by beheading on March 8 of Dulal Sarkar, a lay pastor and evangelist in Bangladesh. Sarkar worked with the Bangladesh Free Baptist Church in Jalalpur village as an evangelist and church planter. On the night of March 8 as he returned home, he was attacked and killed by Muslim extremists. His wife, Aruna, immediately filed a case against the killers, and three suspects were arrested. However, militants are now threatening Aruna and her children. The beheading is the second in the space of a year. Dr. Abdul Gani, a respected Christian leader, was decapitated by a gang of assailants in September 2004.
4) Iran - Thursday February 17, 2005
GOVERNMENT JAILS CHRISTIAN PASTOR FOR THREE YEARS
Military court claims convert’s documents were falsified.
February 17 (Compass) -- Yesterday a Tehran military court sentenced Iranian Christian pastor Hamid Pourmand to jail for three years, ordering his immediate transfer to a group prison cell in Tehran’s notorious Evin Prison. The former army colonel was found guilty of deceiving the armed forces by not declaring that he was a convert from Islam to Christianity. It is illegal for a non-Muslim to serve as a military officer in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Pourmand, a Christian for nearly 25 years, produced several original documents in which his military superiors had acknowledged years ago that he was a Christian. “But the court didn’t accept them," an Iranian source said. “They said these were false documents.” The verdict represented the maximum penalty for Pourmand’s alleged offense. As a consequence, the lay pastor of the Assemblies of God faces automatic discharge from the army and forfeits his entire income, pension and housing for his family.
[Pourmand was arrested with 80 other pastors when the General Conference meeting of the Assemblies of God denomination in Iran was raided by the authorities]
5) Pakistan - Monday April 11, 2005
PASTOR AND DRIVER MURDERED
Kidnapping followed threats for ‘converting Muslims.’
Unknown killers kidnapped and brutally killed Protestant pastor Babar Samsoun and his driver and fellow evangelist, Daniel Emmanuel, on April 7. One of Samsoun’s colleagues reported that the slain pastor was “accused of trying to convert Muslims to Christianity.” The two men had been receiving telephoned threats demanding that they stop their Christian activities. Police authorities blamed the killings on an alleged family dispute. “Protest marches are still continuing for the arrest of the culprits,” a local church leader confirmed today, noting that the Christian community was “fearful and demoralized, as they feel nothing is being done by the authorities to safeguard them from such barbarous attacks.” Samsoun, 37, pastored the congregation of the Jesus Pan Gospel Church in Yousafabad. He leaves behind a wife and three children. Emmanuel, also in his mid 30s, was unmarried.
6) Philippines - Friday December 03, 2004
A 24-year-old Christian man in Zamboanga City, Philippines, is recovering from serious injuries after being shot by Muslim activists on November 17. Friends and family have asked that the victim not be identified by name, as they believe the three men who attacked him and left him for dead are likely to come back to finish the job. In recent years, efforts to spread Islam among the majority Christian population have increased. Several Muslim terrorist organizations exist in the Philippines, such as the Abu Sayyaf and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, which have been linked to Al-Qaeda. According to police sources, the groups are attracting new converts to Islam in greater numbers than Muslims born into the faith. “Converts are ideal terrorists because they are eager to prove themselves worthy of their new faith,” Chief Superintendent of Police Rodolfo Mendoza recently told a journalist.
I'll stop there for lack of space, but if you find the above inconclusive, I can certainly provide a lot more...
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Edbert
See, that is where I have a problem with the logical aspects of this. In my opinion there is no middle ground on the subject of Jesus. Anyone who says he was a wise man, a prophet, a teacher, or other such description is being intellectually dishonest.
If you disbeleive in the existance of Jesus, fine. If you beleive he was a false prophet, fine. If you beleive he was right, fine. All of those views hold water.
Jesus said he was the one God made flesh and walking on the earth. If he said that and was wrong then that makes him insane or a liar not wise or a teacher/prophet.
On the subject of Jesus there are only two outcomes assuming you acknowlege his physical existance as a man; one he was who he said he was, or two, he was a nutjob.
Knowingly or not, you're referencing C.S. Lewis' classic quote:
....He told people their sins were forgiven, and never waited to consult all the other people whom their sins had undoubtedly injured....
A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic -- on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg -- or else he would be the devil of hell....You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit on him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord an God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. [/B][/COLOR]
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Three... he did exist, but his lineage (and his life story) was grossly exaggerated by the men that knew him.
Sandman,
This won't hold water as the apostles preached the gospel to people who knew Jesus and had watched him. Read the first 9 chapters of the book of Acts, the initial growth of the church came in Jerusalem only a few weeks after Christ's crucifixion. The apostles preached that He was the Messiah, that he had done signs and wonders, and that most importantly He had risen again, had these all been obvious lies, they would have been laughed out of the city. The very growth and existence of the early church in Palestine within living memory of the people who had listened to him militates against this conclusion. Plus, it simply moves the accusation to the apostles, that they were shameless con-men willing to endure persecution, to be tortured, and to die for what they knew to be lies.
The fact is, regardless of how we feel about it, the apostolic church believed these truth claims even though they were in a direct position to refute them. Even the contemporaries of Christ who opposed Him did not call his works exaggerations, they openly accused him of being an agent of Satan.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon snip
...Plus, it simply moves the accusation to the apostles, that they were shameless con-men willing to endure persecution, to be tortured, and to die for what they knew to be lies.
The fact is, regardless of how we feel about it, the apostolic church believed these truth claims even though they were in a direct position to refute them...
snip
- SEAGOON
This is a really important point. Most conspiracies fall apart as soon as things get a bit hot -- and the more people are involved, the less heat it takes for ONE of the group to break.
But if we consider those who supposedly were in on the supposed "scam" we find that they all underwent severe persecution, most commonly to the death.
How likely is that?
-
True enough, Seagoon. OTOH, some people see the Virgin Mary on a piece of toast.
;)
People are generally lousy observers of what is wondrous (or not).
Damn, I'm in a cynical mood. :)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
True enough, Seagoon. OTOH, some people see the Virgin Mary on a piece of toast.
;)
People are generally lousy observers of what is wondrous (or not).
Damn, I'm in a cynical mood. :)
Hi Sandman,
Sorry about your mood, I hope it improves. I'm just coming out of several days of crankiness myself.
Anywho, the difference between this and finding Mary on your toast, is that those things are issue of perception, "I think I see Mary!" However wiith Jesus what we have are public and deliberate miracles that were done specifically to prove that He and His message were authentic. As in Luke 5:23-26
"Which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven you,' or to say, 'Rise up and walk'? "But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins" -- He said to the man who was paralyzed, "I say to you, arise, take up your bed, and go to your house." Immediately he rose up before them, took up what he had been lying on, and departed to his own house, glorifying God. And they were all amazed, and they glorified God and were filled with fear, saying, "We have seen strange things today!"
Throughout the rest of the New Testament, the Apostles make mention of these unambiguous miracles in speeches and letters addressed to Christ's contemporaries, for instance, Peter's declaration before a crowd of thousands gathered to celebrate the feast of weeks:
"Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know --" (Acts 2:22)
Now this is also one of the areas where Christianity dramatically differs from many other religions such as Islam. Islam is closer to gnostic religions in that the claim of the leader, was to have "revealed knowledge" that he received secretly and was commissioned to impart to others. In the case of Muhammad it was secret revelation given to him by Gabriel in the wilderness. No confirmation of these claims was possible, even amongst his contemporaries - one either believed his account or one didn't. On the other hand, in the case of Christ and the Apostles we are talking about a church founded on public miracles and public teaching.
- SEAGOON
PS: Sorry for being so "toastless" :D
-
In other words, you have great faith in the observations made by the Apostles.
Occupational hazard... :D
I'm going to move on... consider me a heckler.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Ok.. so what's that make this guy:
Ladies and gentlemen, Christianity offers the only viable, reasonable, definitive answer to the questions of 'Where did I come from?' 'Why am I here?' 'Where am I going?' 'Does life have any meaningful purpose?' Only Christianity offers a way to understand that physical and moral border. Only Christianity offers a comprehensive worldview that covers all areas of life and thought, every aspect of creation. Only Christianity offers a way to live in response to the realities that we find in this world -- only Christianity.
or This guy:
If we are going to save America and evangelize the world, we cannot accommodate secular philosophies that are diametrically opposed to Christian truth.
Hmmmmmm???
Would surely love to find some negative christian sourced commentary regarding these position statements.
Did any of these guys suggest that the congregation put on a bomb vest and take a trip to Cairo, or did I miss something?
Why do you equate profession of a belief system--and claiming that the belief system is correct and provides answers--with the deliberate killing of innocents in the name of a belief system? Don't you see that you are falling into an intellectual trap?
Let's put it this way. Evaluate the following statements as either true, false, or indeterminate:
Some believers are dangerous fanatic.
X is a believer.
Therefore, X is a dangerous fanatic.
It doesn't hold water, logically. You can't lump all of any group together, can you? I don't lump all Muslims in the group of dangerous fanatic, just the ones who support or perform dangerous, fanatical acts.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Hi Gunthr!
'secular humanists' ?? Thats kinds slippery.. I guess I'm a secular humanist, yes?
The two quotes are quite specific, and clearly call for 'one religion'.. in this case; christianity. (there's a heap more like it, prostylized stuff from every major faith is out there, this ain't JUST a 'christian' problem.. it's a 'religion' problem) If you are a christian, I'd expect you'd not find anything 'wrong' with the quotes above. If your not, it's the equivelent of fingernails on a chalkboard.
It would seem that one of the most difficult propositions for a christian (or, insert whatever your favorite faith is here) is discerning where 'right' ends and 'wrong' begins when it comes to promoting their faith.. intolerance is just that: 'intolerant'. It can't be pared down any further than that. Considering the immense amount of angst associated with any religious debate, commentary that casts their favorite flavor in a controversial light tends to be the equivelent of handling nitro..
Back to the concept of religious intolerance.. It's just wrong. Now; how are we gonna fight the islamic extremists without committing religious warfare?
and lastly.. congrats to all involved so far.. this thread, this subject has exceeded my expectations in both quality and quantity of reasoned debate!
How can you equate "fingernails on a chalkboard" disagreement with someone's beliefs with terrorism? That is to say, don't you see the difference between espousing a belief and murder? You seem to be taking your distaste for Christianity, the fact that the terrorists we are fighting are Muslim, adding the two together and coming up with the idea that all religion is bad.
Religion isn't bad. Religion gives one a moral anchor. Religion provides a guide to the individual on how to live life.
Take the ten commandments, for example. Aside from the "obey God" stuff, there are rules in there about how to deal with other people, on this earth. Stuff like, "don't commit murder", and "don't steal".
What's wrong with that? Belief in God aside, what can you POSSIBLY find wrong with the moral code in the Old and New Testament, the Torah, the Quran, and any number of other religious texts?
You are confusing the PRACTICE of religion with the LESSONS of religion. People are imperfect. People have their own agendas. People form churches.
-
The New Testament canon and the Nicene Council
It's been alleged that the New Testament is not trustworthy because presumed self-serving religious leaders fixed the canon of Scripture at their discretion during the Nicene Council of 325.
But according to Eusebius (3rd-4th century) there was a firm, recognized corpus of accepted writings among Christian communities prior to the Nicene Council of 325. The accepted writings include the vast majority of what we know as the New Testament. If the disputed books were left out, the Gospel would nevertheless stand as firm as ever.
The info is found in Eusebius' ten book Ecclesiastical History. The tenth and final book was dedicated to Paulinus of Tyre who died at the end of 323 or in 324, i.e. before the Nicene Council was convened in 325. So Eusebius' third book containing the information in question is far earlier than 325.
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-08.htm#P1923_887432 (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-08.htm#P1923_887432)
Eusebius 3:3
Chapter XXV. The Divine Scriptures that are Accepted and Those that are Not.
1 …First then …the four Gospels; …following them the Acts of the Apostles.
2 … the epistles of Paul; … former epistle of John,…the epistle of Peter. After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John,…These then belong among the accepted writings.
3 …the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name.
4 … the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books.
5 And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books.
6 …we have felt compelled to give this catalogue in order that we might be able to know both these works and those that are cited by the heretics under the name of the apostles, including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles, which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical writers has deemed worthy of mention in his writings.
7 And further, the character of the style is at variance with apostolic usage, and both the thoughts and the purpose of the things that are related in them are so completely out of accord with true orthodoxy that they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious.
See also:
http://www.ntcanon.org/authorities.shtml (http://www.ntcanon.org/authorities.shtml)
By the way, this list of recognized trustworthy sources also strikes at the Muslim contention that the Gospel was corrupted, since there exist today many manuscripts of the NT prior to the Nicene Council.
Best regards,
Cement