Christian forums

[Snorri1234]

Look Iliad, it is quite simple, Christians (true Christians) are taught to follow the Bible and Jesus's teachings, and one of the main things that it teaches us, is NOT to murder. Doing so, means you throw out all of the correct teachings of the bible, and thus people make many mistakes about it, and the true meaning of being a Christian. Mohamed, whom is considered the true prophet of Islam, and the only one that had to do with the Koran, taught to either kill those who do not recognize Islam as the true religion, or pretty much make them to slaves. If you do not believe me, simply look it up.

I thought the whole idea behind christianity was that you forgave slip-ups? If you find yourself coveting your neighbors wife, are you not a christian anymore?

Point is, throwing around silly redefinitions of what a "true" follower is is just plain weak. Hitler might not have been a very good christian, but the fact that he thought of God and Jesus as his saviour and worshipped him does make him a christian. You can only argue that he did a bunch of un-christian things, but that's it.

[Napoleon Ier]

Post after post where you brand all Muslims as potential terrorists and yet refuse to accept the attrocities commited by nominal Christians.

Muslim - Potential terrorist or he is not a real Muslim !
Christian - If he has slaughtered and maimed he is not a real Christian !




So how about all your Catholic countrymen who are violently anti semitic to this day,the Vichy government which aided the hollocaust, those God fearing Colonialists who tortured and butchered their way through North Africa.

I SUPPOSE THEY WERE NOT CHRISTIAN EITHER !

Fanatics are Fanatics and the Christian World has spawned more than its fair share, to deny this is as I said before laughable.

Vichy government...yeah, 'cos they weren't puppets at all were they?
Catholic Colonialists....like Charles de Foucauld, you mean?
"Violently" anti-semitic french Catholics today...examples?

However all this is irrelevant, since it is not the issue at the heart of this debate, is it?

You really haven't quite grasped the concept of an ideology/parxis divide have you?

[Frigidus]

Post after post where you brand all Muslims as potential terrorists and yet refuse to accept the attrocities commited by nominal Christians.

Muslim - Potential terrorist or he is not a real Muslim !
Christian - If he has slaughtered and maimed he is not a real Christian !




So how about all your Catholic countrymen who are violently anti semitic to this day,the Vichy government which aided the hollocaust, those God fearing Colonialists who tortured and butchered their way through North Africa.

I SUPPOSE THEY WERE NOT CHRISTIAN EITHER !

Fanatics are Fanatics and the Christian World has spawned more than its fair share, to deny this is as I said before laughable.

Vichy government...yeah, 'cos they weren't puppets at all were they?
Catholic Colonialists....like Charles de Foucauld, you mean?
"Violently" anti-semitic french Catholics today...examples?

However all this is irrelevant, since it is not the issue at the heart of this debate, is it?

You really haven't quite grasped the concept of an ideology/parxis divide have you?

All of the Abrahamic faiths at their root can be considered violent because they all rely on the incredibly violent Old Testament. For some reason Christians seem to feel that they're above this because they also consider the New Testament to be true, but the fact remains that the Old Testament's preachings are still part of their faith. Any Christian that claims they don't believe the Old Testament to be true is not a Christian. Therefore Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all naturally violent religions.

[got tonkaed]

napoleon for what its worth you have yet to actually lay out a reasonable melding and seperation of praxis/doctrine divide.

Im not saying that its not doable, it just takes more time and more precision than youve had thus far.

[CrazyAnglican]

Hmmm. This all qualifies as propaganda and not truly debate now doesn't it? Some of you guys seem to want to besmirch the entire religion based on the actions of some of its adherents. Great so Adolf Hitler considered himself a Christian. It really says nothing about the religion itself unless you can show a doctrinal basis for his atrocities. It's all innuendo. I could easily bring up a few atheists that have done things as terrible, but that doesn't really say that atheism is wrong and should be snuffed out now does it?

Now let me be clear, I do not think of Muslims as terrorists. Frigidus *sorry Comic Boy*, however, thinks that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all violent religions. Let's put that to the test. The Old Testament shows the law as it was. Christ was the fulfillment of the law and the Old Testament took a back seat to the New Testament (Especially the Gospels). Please show where Christ advocated violence in the synoptic Gospels. If you cannot, then how can you justify stereotyping an entire religion based on the writings that most of the Christians I've spoken with agree do not contain the way to salvation? It is by following the teachings of Christ that one becomes a Christian. What exactly is it in Christ's teaching that you find violent and reprehensible?

[Napoleon Ier]

Bravo.

[F1fth]

Hmmm. This all qualifies as propaganda and not truly debate now doesn't it? Some of you guys seem to want to besmirch the entire religion based on the actions of some of its adherents. Great so Adolf Hitler considered himself a Christian. It really says nothing about the religion itself unless you can show a doctrinal basis for his atrocities. It's all innuendo. I could easily bring up a few atheists that have done things as terrible, but that doesn't really say that atheism is wrong and should be snuffed out now does it?

Now let me be clear, I do not think of Muslims as terrorists. Comic boy, however, thinks that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all violent religions. Let's put that to the test. The Old Testament shows the law as it was. Christ was the fulfillment of the law and the Old Testament took a back seat to the New Testament (Especially the Gospels). Please show where Christ advocated violence in the synoptic Gospels. If you cannot, then how can you justify stereotyping an entire religion based on the writings that most of the Christians I've spoken with agree do not contain the way to salvation? It is by following the teachings of Christ that one becomes a Christian. What exactly is it in Christ's teaching that you find violent and reprehensible?

It was Napoleon Ier who said that Islam is inherently violent. All we said was that Christianity was contextually just as violent. Take it for what you will.

[Snorri1234]

Hmmm. This all qualifies as propaganda and not truly debate now doesn't it? Some of you guys seem to want to besmirch the entire religion based on the actions of some of its adherents. Great so Adolf Hitler considered himself a Christian. It really says nothing about the religion itself unless you can show a doctrinal basis for his atrocities. It's all innuendo. I could easily bring up a few atheists that have done things as terrible, but that doesn't really say that atheism is wrong and should be snuffed out now does it?

I don't think anyone besides Nappy has argued for snuffing out any beliefsystem. The whole point is that actions of individuals don't mean the religion itself is bad. People find the silliest reasons to do bad things.
Oh, and hitler kinda justified his jew-hating on Jebus driving out the people from the temple with whips or something, and the fact that the jews killed Jesus.

The Old Testament shows the law as it was. Christ was the fulfillment of the law and the Old Testament took a back seat to the New Testament

Then why do soooooo many people use the old testament as a justification for thinking stupid things?
The fact is that you could easily justify all your actions on the bible, but that's because it's interpretable any way. I understand that you believe that Jesus was all for peace and love, and I fully agree with you, but that belief is only slightly more rational than thinking he was some war-mongering criminal. It's all interpretation.
And when every one of those religions includes the old testament, it really just comes down to semantics.

[Napoleon Ier]

Hmmm. This all qualifies as propaganda and not truly debate now doesn't it? Some of you guys seem to want to besmirch the entire religion based on the actions of some of its adherents. Great so Adolf Hitler considered himself a Christian. It really says nothing about the religion itself unless you can show a doctrinal basis for his atrocities. It's all innuendo. I could easily bring up a few atheists that have done things as terrible, but that doesn't really say that atheism is wrong and should be snuffed out now does it?

I don't think anyone besides Nappy has argued for snuffing out any beliefsystem. The whole point is that actions of individuals don't mean the religion itself is bad. People find the silliest reasons to do bad things.
Oh, and hitler kinda justified his jew-hating on Jebus driving out the people from the temple with whips or something, and the fact that the jews killed Jesus.

I've never argued that...only you and comicboy brought in Hitler (Oh noes!!111Godwin's law111!) as a Christian then started doctoring my words when I was clearly arguing from the viewpoint of muslim ideology. Only then did you and your magic circus of PC political clowns start whining about Hitler and the Klan.

[Napoleon Ier]

The Old Testament shows the law as it was. Christ was the fulfillment of the law and the Old Testament took a back seat to the New Testament

Then why do soooooo many people use the old testament as a justification for thinking stupid things?
The fact is that you could easily justify all your actions on the bible, but that's because it's interpretable any way. I understand that you believe that Jesus was all for peace and love, and I fully agree with you, but that belief is only slightly more rational than thinking he was some war-mongering criminal. It's all interpretation.
And when every one of those religions includes the old testament, it really just comes down to semantics.[/quote]

I won't insult you or anything, but can I just, not, again, to patronize, suggest you do some basic Bible Study and read up on some NT scholars.

[Snorri1234]

I've never argued that...only you and comicboy brought in Hitler (Oh noes!!111Godwin's law111!) as a Christian then started doctoring my words when I was clearly arguing from the viewpoint of muslim ideology. Only then did you and your magic circus of PC political clowns start whining about Hitler and the Klan.

Comicboy did it, I only responded when you said Hitler wasn't a christian.

And I never actually said you thought actions of an individual made the religion bad. I said you were advocating snuffing out the islam. Noone can actually ever disagree with inviduals not determining if the religion is bad.

But, you did argue that muslim-terrorists clearly underlined your point. Which is faulty because what one small group does should have no bearing on determining whether the religion is bad.

I won't insult you or anything, but can I just, not, again, to patronize, suggest you do some basic Bible Study and read up on some NT scholars.

With it being religion, it has to be based on semantics. Ofcourse there is generally an agreement on what it means, but there are always groups who find some other meaning in it. And this holds true for Islam just as much as christianity. If the majority of muslims agree that Jihad really isn't a physical fight against infidels, then who are you to disagree? You're basically saying the terrorists have it right.

Besides the obvious problems with pointing out to 1,5 billion people that their religion is evil, the fact of the matter is you can't argue in favour of what literalists are saying without applying the same principle to the bible.

[CrazyAnglican]

Ya' see that's what I mean by propaganda techniques. The innuendo here. No matter what I believe; it's "only slightly more rational" You've done nothing to show how my statement was irrational at all only attempted to label at such.

I understand that you believe that Jesus was all for peace and love, and I fully agree with you, but that belief is only slightly more rational than thinking he was some war-mongering criminal. It's all interpretation.

Believeing that Christ is peace loving is "only, slightly more rational than thinking he was a war-mongering criminal"? It's all interpretation? Okay?

"He who lives by the sword dies by the sword" (in context as an admonition to Peter not to violently oppose those who would seize Him when his earthly life was on the line)

"Turn the other cheek"

"Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's"

"Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth"

How is it "only slightly more rational" to think that these are the words of a peaceful, rather than war-mongering, individual? I don't see another way to interpret them.

And when every one of those religions includes the old testament, it really just comes down to semantics.

If they do not place the same importance upon them than it is most assuredly not semantics. I've been accused many times of "picking and choosing" because I do not adhere to every law from the Old Testament or everything in the Epistles. The simple fact is that, in the Church I attend, they are not viewed as being as important as the Gospels. One need only attend a service and note that the lay ministers read the Old Testament readings and the Epistles, but the priest reads Gospel aloud. The difference between atheism and Christianity can be seen as semantics if you take this idea to the extreme. One believes that no gods exists while others believe in one or more gods. You can certainly attempt to lump all religions with some common scriptures into one groups, but to do so is to stereotyping. Isn't that what you guys were accusing Napoleon Ier of?

[got tonkaed]

i think the problem with this thread in many ways has been that those arguing against the individuals claiming their is an inherent fascist nature to islam have felt compelled to argue the wrong way about christianity.

The message of Jesus, in as far as ive come across it, certainly was a pretty positive message. You could argue it was a seditious message, but most religions in that sense are.

In many ways when you dont have an ideologically for lack of a better word, vested stance like napoleon its difficult to argue on these terms. Christianity in many senses is an empowering religion in the same way Islam is.

Dont allow napoleon to take some of his rather silly claims backed up by spotty history at best, to drag yourselves into positions that are relatively untenable.

[Napoleon Ier]

I really can though...it's a question of textual analysis, and looking at the actions of Mohammad :

Kills innocent traders and seizes their goods.
Marries 5 year old.
Perpetrates genocidal acts against Jews.
Destroys centres of Byzantine civilization.
Orders his followers to spread Islam by the sword to the "abode of war".

Mohammad actually followed his own command to Jihad.#
And guess what : wasn't a metaphor

[Iliad]

I really can though...it's a question of textual analysis, and looking at the actions of Mohammad :

Kills innocent traders and seizes their goods.
Marries 5 year old.
Perpetrates genocidal acts against Jews.
Destroys centres of Byzantine civilization.
Orders his followers to spread Islam by the sword to the "abode of war".

Mohammad actually followed his own command to Jihad.#
And guess what : wasn't a metaphor

And I guess all the stuff in the bible were a metaphor?

[got tonkaed]

I really can though...it's a question of textual analysis, and looking at the actions of Mohammad :

Kills innocent traders and seizes their goods.
Marries 5 year old.
Perpetrates genocidal acts against Jews.
Destroys centres of Byzantine civilization.
Orders his followers to spread Islam by the sword to the "abode of war".

Mohammad actually followed his own command to Jihad.#
And guess what : wasn't a metaphor

Outside of marrying the 5 year old, which in all likelyhood didnt involve relations tell me how anyone of those things, outside of the genocidal acts which werent true, are out of charcter with anyone in the region during the timeperiod or better yet, anyone through much of the world.

[Napoleon Ier]

He's meant to be a Holy Man not some Machiavelli. However he obviously tends toward the latter. Compare him with the example of Our Lord...
Sure people did these things, but that doesn't justify them, and actually, a lot of enlightened rulers didn't do the kind of thinge Mohammad did. He was just a particularly vile terrorist amongst many other such characters who gave himself a divine justification.

Why exactly are you defending Islam tonky anyhow?

[got tonkaed]

well thats just because your using clouded perceptions of what holy men are.

I think the more important point of all of this debate, is you are using clouded actions of one man over 1400 years ago to justify prejudices and quite nearly racism against entire groups of people.

That is the sad issue of this entire debate. The fact that it isnt brought up more often is probably only to cushion the fact that many hope you are simply misguided in your views.

[Napoleon Ier]

Racism? When did that ever come into it?

[got tonkaed]

Racism? When did that ever come into it?

if you cant see the development between the way to deride islam as a religion in general to your comments about arabs degrading French culture, into the race elements that are behind it....then frankly in many ways it is of little use trying to explain it to you, because your mind will not be open enough yet to be able to tell the difference.

[Iliad]

Racism? When did that ever come into it?

if you cant see the development between the way to deride islam as a religion in general to your comments about arabs degrading French culture, into the race elements that are behind it....then frankly in many ways it is of little use trying to explain it to you, because your mind will not be open enough yet to be able to tell the difference.

Case closed debate over

[Napoleon Ier]

Racism? When did that ever come into it?

if you cant see the development between the way to deride islam as a religion in general to your comments about arabs degrading French culture, into the race elements that are behind it....then frankly in many ways it is of little use trying to explain it to you, because your mind will not be open enough yet to be able to tell the difference.

Yes. I believe Islam, thanks to the masochistic dhimmitudinism which has been inflicted on our people, is able to degrade our culture.
But guess what? Wanting to defend your roots, your nation and your culture isn't racist : it's the healthy red-blooded reaction of the patriotic Gallic warrior. Yes, the modern system has tried to take our virility, our pride, our identity, to emasculate us yes, we've all been to some degree broken down by it.
But I'll tell you this : You may be more intelligent, better read than me, and you may think yourself enlightened, and take a patronizing tone, calling me backward, outdated, reactionnary, hell, even racist.
But for one minute think that your superior leftist intellectual psycho-babble will extinguish the desire to believe in an identity, and to defend it, you're mistaken. And with all due respect tonk, I suggest you stop with the whiny PC racist allegations and understand that I'm driven only by blind love for my country, not hatred of others. And that you find an idenity in the great nation you're lucky the Lord Our God has graced you with citizenship of, and decide to protect it, cherish it, and and pass it on to your progeny.

I'll leave you with one quote :

Toute la France est occupée : Toute?
NON!
Une petite bande d'irréductibles Gaulois résistent encore et toujours à l'envahisseur...

[got tonkaed]

i didnt say i judged you. I dont agree with your stance about, but ive recognized it is what you believe. Nor did i outright call you a racist, i said there are elements of racism in it. Personally i feel your a bit of a timid bigot, the ones who can say a big game, but really would never consider acting on it...on a personal level thats preferable to someone who would take action against someone on the basis of their race.

People are what they choose to be. If you want to be someone who holds the virtues you hold high up and attempt to defend them, im not here to judge you for it. Ill disagree with you, probably be offended by you, but i am detached from judging. Its annoying at times certainly, but everyone has things they say or do that can be aggravating after a while (i certainly have my own).

Blindness leads to ignorance, ignorance leads to prejudice, prejudice leads to hate. Its all very star wars esque i know, but its a reasonable enough progression. No one really has a problem with you wanting to hold up the values of "french culture". I think we are all fortunate that you in all likelyhood will remain as someone whose bark is worse than their bite.

I dont want to "change you" either. If you wanted to live the rest of your life with different values than i have, that obviously would be your choice. Forgive me for not seeing the value in views that had a home 2 centuries ago.

[Napoleon Ier]

I'm someone proud of my religion, my heritage, of where I came from, and what my ancestors lived and died for, and ready to defend those things I love.
That doesn't make me a bigot. I'm sorry you can't see that. I genuinely am.

[got tonkaed]

I'm someone proud of my religion, my heritage, of where I came from, and what my ancestors lived and died for.
I'm sorry you can't see that. I genuinely am.

i certainly can see that. I guess the whole paragraphs about we are who we choose to be, not wanting to change you were skipped in order to read the blindness paragraph.

When you look at the world in absolutes you not only fail to see an incredible amount of material, but you betray the best of the things youve turned into absolutes.