"Jesus is loved... by Muslims and he's one of the most important prophets in (Islam)" [Archive]

jAZ

08-19-2007, 10:27 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0Hello - commatard on the loose.2151358,00.html

TV airing for Islam's story of Christ

Riazat Butt
Saturday August 18, 2007
The Guardian

There was no manger, Christ is not the Messiah, and the crucifixion never happened. A forthcoming ITV documentary will portray Jesus as Muslims see him.

With the Koran as a main source and drawing on interviews with scholars and historians, the Muslim Jesus explores how Islam honours Christ as a prophet but not as the son of God. According to the Koran the crucifixion was a divine illusion. Instead of dying on the cross, Jesus was rescued by angels and raised to heaven.

The one-hour special, commissioned and narrated by Melvyn Bragg, is thought to be the first time the subject has been dealt with on British television. Lord Bragg said: "I was fascinated by the idea ... Jesus was such a prominent figure in Islam but most people don't know that."

He denies the programme will divide communities. Raised as an Anglican, he describes the documentary as thoughtful and well researched. "I hope it will provoke among Muslims the feeling they are included in television."

The director and producer, Irshad Ashraf, said the film was an attempt to shift the focus away from extremism to the spiritual side of Islam. "Jesus is loved and respected by Muslims and he's one of the most important prophets in our religion." Representatives from mainstream Anglican and Catholic organisations were invited to take part in the film, to be broadcast on Sunday, but nobody was available, Mr Ashraf said.

Philip Lewis, the Bishop of Bradford's aide on inter-faith matters, urged believers on both sides to take advantage of a "worthwhile contribution to understanding a complex issue".

However, Patrick Sookhdeo, an Anglican canon and spokesman for the Barnabas Fund, which works with persecuted Christians, accused broadcasters of double standards. Mr Sookhdeo, who was born a Muslim and converted to Christianity in 1969, said: "How would the Muslim community respond if ITV made a programme challenging Muhammad as the last prophet?"

The Koran's denial of Jesus's divinity was "unacceptable". "On the last day the Koran says Jesus will destroy all the crosses. How can we praise that?"

Jenson71

08-19-2007, 10:31 PM

I'd like to see that come to America. Jews, Christians, Muslims - we are all brothers. We must see and cherish our similiarities in order for us to live in peace.

Donger

08-19-2007, 10:36 PM

StcChief

08-19-2007, 10:37 PM

F 'em.

Mr Luzcious

08-19-2007, 10:39 PM

Mooching off of Christianity! Well, not really. But mormons do.

SLAG

08-19-2007, 10:43 PM

Mr. Kotter

08-19-2007, 10:47 PM

HolmeZz

08-19-2007, 10:54 PM

jAZ

08-19-2007, 11:15 PM

"There was no manger, Christ is not the Messiah, and the crucifixion never happened. A forthcoming ITV documentary will portray Jesus as Muslims see him."

That's fine. I'm sure the Muslims are also fine with Christians (or even non-Muslims) portraying Mohammed in a light not mentioned in the Koran.

Oh, wait a moment.
Do Christians even have a written history of Mohammed like the Mulslims do Jesus?

Donger

08-19-2007, 11:19 PM

Do Christians even have a written history of Mohammed like the Mulslims do Jesus?

You mean other than the Koran?

jAZ

08-19-2007, 11:35 PM

You mean other than the Koran?
I said Christian's written history, not Muslim's written history. I thought I was crystal clear. Guess not.

SLAG

08-19-2007, 11:38 PM

I said Christian's written history, not Muslim's written history. I thought I was crystal clear. Guess not.
There are other Books on Mohammet other than the Quran
such as the Sunnah and Hadith

Ugly Duck

08-19-2007, 11:49 PM

Do Christians even have a written history of Mohammed like the Mulslims do Jesus?

I think Mohamed came after the Bible was written.... is that right?

Donger

08-20-2007, 12:01 AM

I said Christian's written history, not Muslim's written history. I thought I was crystal clear. Guess not.

I'm no biblical scholar, but I think that the New Testament came out before Mohammed was born.

Anyway, what does the timing matter? Obviously Mohammed wasn't mentioned on the NT since he was alive yet. Christians (and everyone else) has a written history of Mohammed through the Koran.

What's your point, jAZ?

mylittlepony

08-20-2007, 12:07 AM

Jenson71

08-20-2007, 12:26 AM

Its kinda wierd. In the hospital in Italy where my grandmothers sister works they removed all jesus on the cross for Holy Virgin Mary and the muslims where delighted (they werent forced to but thought it would a pc thing to do anyway). Apparently the muslims love Mary but dont have the same love for Jesus. I'm not really brought up around religion so I dont know but I thought it sounded strange to me.

It's interesting, isn't it? You could argue there's more focus on Mary in Islam than there is in some Christian denominations. There's actually a whole chapter on Mary in the Koran.

Jenson71

08-20-2007, 12:36 AM

I think Mohamed came after the Bible was written.... is that right?

Yes. If we say "put together" (and we go with the Council of Nicaea at 325 AD) instead of "written" it's about 250 years later.

elvomito

08-20-2007, 02:40 AM

Yes. If we say "put together" (and we go with the Council of Nicaea at 325 AD) instead of "written" it's about 250 years later.so, you're saying the bible was written in 575ad, 5 years after mohammed's birth?

chagrin

08-20-2007, 06:10 AM

I'm no biblical scholar, but I think that the New Testament came out before Mohammed was born.

Anyway, what does the timing matter? Obviously Mohammed wasn't mentioned on the NT since he was alive yet. Christians (and everyone else) has a written history of Mohammed through the Koran.

What's your point, jAZ?

not much he can say after that - hopefully he's retreated back to the confines of DC.

Jilly

08-20-2007, 06:22 AM

Christianity is older than Islam. Islam started with Muhammed around 650 CE. Islam uses all of the Abrahamic traditions in the Old Testament, it's the same story. Abraham had Isaac (the one born to him by Sarah) and Ishmael (the one born to him by his maid, basically). Muslims believe they are the descendants of Ishmael. They believe in Jesus, in fact, think he was one of the greatest prophets, just not the Son of God. And that after Jesus the next great prophet was Muhammed. And he was the last great prophet there was.
Muslims deny Jesus' divinity, which is our main source of departure from each other...but there are even some Christians who deny that. In fact, in early Christianity that was one of the earliest splits in the church.
There's a lot more in common with the two faiths than what the media would have us believe.

KC Kings

08-20-2007, 06:44 AM

so, you're saying the bible was written in 575ad, 5 years after mohammed's birth?

Nobody with any kind of historical knowledge believes that he Bible was writen in 575ad, or 325 at the council of Nicaea. The council of Nicaea was simply the first convention of Christian bishops. About 300 of them got together to discuss Christianity and offer thier oppinion on several topics such as the father/son being the same entity, whether or not to seperate Christian Easter from Jewish Passover, and they created 20 Church laws, (or Canons) to be adhered to. With most things in life there were some other motives, but the main purpose of the council was to get everybody on the same page and allow the Christian church to live in harmony.

There are no shortage of uneducted "athiest governements decision on what books made up the Bible", or what ever current day conspiracy theorist, popular though inaccurate, description of how the Bible was created. If you throw out religion and just look at it from a historical perspective there is a very good timeline to debunk most of these myths. The Gospels, or first 4 books of the NT were combined and called the Tetremorph, and historical references had been made about them as early as 160ad. A Christian scholar Origen was using a set of early books as the base of his studies and teaching in 220ad, and they just happened to be the same 27 books that make up the NT today. In 367 Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of the same 27 books and was the first one to use the term "canonized" while referring to them.

According to the Christian Bible, the only way that you can get to heaven is to believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, and that he was crucified for our sins. If you don't believe that, then you will not go to heaven. To put it more bluntly, there are 1.2 Billion Muslim men, women and children that are going to die and burn in hell for all of eternity because they think Jesus was a great prophet, but not the Messiah. . Doesn't exactly give you a warm and fuzzy feeling, and might help explain some of the tension between the religions.

petegz28

08-20-2007, 07:27 AM

Do Christians even have a written history of Mohammed like the Mulslims do Jesus?

Figures a Liberal would be here pimping this crap.

Do Christians run around kidnapping muslims and sawing their heads off? Do Christians hop on a bus and blow everything up cause Jews are there?
Do Christians walk into pizza joints and blow the crap out of them?

I am not Christian. I know Christians did bad things way back when. But when I turn on TV it is the muslims always rioting or whining about something. So as someone else said earlier F*CK EM'!!!

pikesome

08-20-2007, 07:39 AM

According to the Christian Bible, the only way that you can get to heaven is to believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, and that he was crucified for our sins. If you don't believe that, then you will not go to heaven. To put it more bluntly, there are 1.2 Billion Muslim men, women and children that are going to die and burn in hell for all of eternity because they think Jesus was a great prophet, but not the Messiah. . Doesn't exactly give you a warm and fuzzy feeling, and might help explain some of the tension between the religions.

I'm a bit rusty but what I remember being taught (3 years in Catholic school) is that non-believers who were basically good could go to Purgatory. I'd also suggest that, perhaps, not everything in the Bible is 100% accurate. I think the only opinion on who goes to the fiery pits and who doesn't is God's and he's been a bit vague on what the actual requirements are.

pikesome

08-20-2007, 07:43 AM

Frankie

08-20-2007, 07:46 AM

"There was no manger, Christ is not the Messiah, and the crucifixion never happened. A forthcoming ITV documentary will portray Jesus as Muslims see him."

That's fine. I'm sure the Muslims are also fine with Christians (or even non-Muslims) portraying Mohammed in a light not mentioned in the Koran.

Oh, wait a moment.Portraying a prophet as a devil with fangs and blood coming out of his eyes and mouth is a little different from saying the other never died on the cross and was saved by angels via a God-created illusion. Don't you think?

Frankie

08-20-2007, 07:47 AM

End of thread.

;)
See above.

Frankie

08-20-2007, 07:55 AM

Its kinda wierd. In the hospital in Italy where my grandmothers sister works they removed all jesus on the cross for Holy Virgin Mary and the muslims where delighted (they werent forced to but thought it would a pc thing to do anyway). Apparently the muslims love Mary but dont have the same love for Jesus. I'm not really brought up around religion so I dont know but I thought it sounded strange to me.
Wrong. Jusus is considered one of the five major prophets of Islam. Mohammad was simply the final one.

I'm not sure about the pictures. But in Islam worshipping pictures and statues of even real people is forbidden. It's considered idolatry. So the practice of bowing to a crucifix borders on that.

StcChief

08-20-2007, 07:56 AM

We don't know just let God sort it out in the end.
Trying to be right/wrong is not our call.

Donger

08-20-2007, 07:57 AM

Portraying a prophet as a devil with fangs and blood coming out of his eyes and mouth is a little different from saying the other never died on the cross and was saved by angels via a God-created illusion. Don't you think?

I don't know. I'll ask Salman Rushdie, if I can find him.

Brock

08-20-2007, 08:01 AM

Wouldn't be an issue if the muslim world wasn't 600 years behind the rest of us.

Lzen

08-20-2007, 08:04 AM

Wrong. Jusus is considered one of the five major prophets of Islam.

Who is Jusus?

pikesome

08-20-2007, 08:13 AM

Wouldn't be an issue if the muslim world wasn't 600 years behind the rest of us.

QFT. And you could argue that some of the provisions of Islam (I'm thinking the prohibition on loaning money) are part of the problem.

KC Kings

08-20-2007, 08:16 AM

I'm a bit rusty but what I remember being taught (3 years in Catholic school) is that non-believers who were basically good could go to Purgatory. I'd also suggest that, perhaps, not everything in the Bible is 100% accurate. I think the only opinion on who goes to the fiery pits and who doesn't is God's and he's been a bit vague on what the actual requirements are.

If you go by what the Bible says, the only way to get to heaven is through Jesus Christ. Catholiscm is a little bit different because new ideas and determinations have been added on top of the Bible, and been made religously accurate by the Catholic church. The word Purgatory is not found anywhere in the Bible. Many people, such as myself, wonder about the Native Americans that never had the opportunity to hear about Jesus. Do they all go to Hell? That is a question that is not answered by the Bible, so you can all have oppinions, or you can get together as a denomination and take an official position on the question and create pergatory. All of the non-scriptural positions and traditions is the reason for the protest of the Catholic church.

There are a lot of bits and pieces of the non-scriptural Catholic traditions that still exist in Protestant religions today. For example, look at all of the Protestant Christians that put up a Nativity Scene at Christmas time. Just about all of them have oxen and donkeys next to the manger. The oxen and donkeys never made it to the manger scene until the book of Psuedo-Matthew was written in the middle of the 6th century. This is an apocrophal book for the Catholics, but most Protestants consider it and the other infancy gospels fiction recreations to help fill the gaps of the Gospel and do not consider it any more religous than a modern day writting.

BucEyedPea

08-20-2007, 08:24 AM

They are behind the west...a sort of medievil mindset.
But the west did many of the things Islam does at one time too.
Including beheadings and killing over which religion would be dominant ( due to
official govt religions),death for heretics and forced conversions etc.

However, Islam, just like Christianity, has abrogated verses, different translations of the Koran, and splintered off groups with it's own inner factions, hostilities and battles. It is not a monolith...it is a mosaic of views just like Judaisim and Christianity.

I am reading a certain translation of the Koran right now.

Believe it or not, after WWII Islam was moving on a secular path...with the rise of Arab nationalism. After the loss in 1967 to Israel in conventional warfare, the fundamentalist jihad movement began its rise. Certain Muslims felt their turning away from Islam caused them to lose Israel.

KC Kings

08-20-2007, 08:28 AM

Wrong. Jusus is considered one of the five major prophets of Islam. Mohammad was simply the final one.

I'm not sure about the pictures. But in Islam worshipping pictures and statues of even real people is forbidden. It's considered idolatry. So the practice of bowing to a crucifix borders on that.

That is not wrong. Mary is held in a very high place with Muslims as well as Jesus. The Qur'an describes Mary as the most saintly, pious, chaste, and virtuous woman in the history of the world. She is a highly respected figure in Islam. The consider Jesus one of God's most beloved messengers and last prophet before Muhammad, so if you left it right there you would be correc tin saying that Jesus was held in a higher status than Mary.

However, Muslims do not believe that Jesus was God, or the Son of God. They also do not believe that he died, so from the Christian perspective the Muslim position of Mary kind of echo's what we believe, but differs greatly on Jesus. A Muslim would be offended at seeing Jesus dieing on the cross, but not offended at any Christian portrayal of Mary.

BucEyedPea

08-20-2007, 08:32 AM

If you go by what the Bible says, the only way to get to heaven is through Jesus Christ. Catholiscm is a little bit different because new ideas and determinations have been added on top of the Bible, and been made religously accurate by the Catholic church. The word Purgatory is not found anywhere in the Bible. Many people, such as myself, wonder about the Native Americans that never had the opportunity to hear about Jesus. Do they all go to Hell? That is a question that is not answered by the Bible, so you can all have oppinions, or you can get together as a denomination and take an official position on the question and create pergatory. All of the non-scriptural positions and traditions is the reason for the protest of the Catholic church.

Except that Jesus gave this authority to the Church He founded when he gave Peter the keys to it...because issues and teachings don't just end but continue. "I will give you (Peter) the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you (Peter) bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you (Peter) loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (Mat.16:18-19).

It's the only way to avoid a thousand different interpretations. I can see that on an intellectual level at least.

I'm not a practicing RC anymore and I respect what anyone wants to believe but this idea of Bible-only Christianity to me is illogical since there was no Bible ever for over 300 years. Christ, nor the early Christians, or the Church fathers used one.

StcChief

08-20-2007, 08:35 AM

BucEyedPea

08-20-2007, 08:39 AM

Sounds like the real beginning of Jihad against the Infidels....

Instead of accepting their lose as being out played by Isreali army.

Analogous to our deep rooted Confer ates believing "the south shall rise again"
That's why winning a war isn't enough. You have to also win the peace.
So this conflict has never ended and it never will. CIA calls it blowback.
Until both sides take full responsibility for their actions (settlements included) on the matter we can expect to live with endless war over there.
Myself, I prefer to stay out of it as much as possible.

cosmo20002

08-20-2007, 08:39 AM

Frankie

08-20-2007, 08:48 AM

I don't know. I'll ask Salman Rushdie, if I can find him.
Rushdie is alive and well. In fact he was lining up to pick up the latest Harry Potter book. That said, his book amounted to someone from the Moslem world righting a book depicting Christ as a drug addict child molester (+/-). I'm sure Christians (and most Moslems) would have found that to be insulting. What you are taking issue with is a totally respectful way the Moslem religion handles the crucifiction issue. Apples and oranges. THAT's thje point I'm trying to make.

Frankie

08-20-2007, 08:49 AM

Who is Jusus?
My bad. Typo.

Frankie

08-20-2007, 08:52 AM

That is not wrong. Mary is held in a very high place with Muslims as well as Jesus. The Qur'an describes Mary as the most saintly, pious, chaste, and virtuous woman in the history of the world. She is a highly respected figure in Islam. The consider Jesus one of God's most beloved messengers and last prophet before Muhammad, so if you left it right there you would be correc tin saying that Jesus was held in a higher status than Mary.

However, Muslims do not believe that Jesus was God, or the Son of God. They also do not believe that he died, so from the Christian perspective the Muslim position of Mary kind of echo's what we believe, but differs greatly on Jesus. A Muslim would be offended at seeing Jesus dieing on the cross, but not offended at any Christian portrayal of Mary.
"Wrong" was an unfortunate choice of word. My bad again.

Donger

08-20-2007, 08:52 AM

Rushdie is alive and well. In fact he was lining up to pick up the latest Harry Potter book. That said, his book amounted to someone from the Moslem world righting a book depicting Christ as a drug addict child molester (+/-). I'm sure Christians (and most Moslems) would have found that to be insulting. What you are taking issue with is a totally respectful way the Moslem religion handles the crucifiction issue. Apples and oranges. THAT's thje point I'm trying to make.

Only because Muslims seem to have very little sense of toleration when it comes to their religion. Sure, it appears that Christians don't like it when some 'artist' portrays their God in a glass of urine, but I didn't see the Christians call for that artists' head.

Did you?

KC Kings

08-20-2007, 08:57 AM

I'm not a practicing RC anymore and I respect what anyone wants to believe but this idea of Bible-only Christianity to me is illogical since there was no Bible ever for over 300 years. Christ, nor the early Christians, or the Church fathers used one.

There was no "Bible", but books of the current day Bible were used early in Christianity, and there are historical references to these books, such as the tetramorph was used and referenced as early as 160AD.

I agree that there are a lot of unanswered in the Bible, but the idea of Bible-only Christianty it much more logical than RC additions that are many time unfounded, based on uneducated oppinions, and sometime reflect alterior motives. Take the second Vatican Council for example. Pope John XXIII redefined many topics and deemed there definitions as religous. There are plenty of Tradionalist Catholics that were very upset with the definitions.

I won't say that Bible only is good enough, but I don't want a religous government interpretting the Bible and for me and creating religous rule that I must follow.

Jilly

08-20-2007, 08:57 AM

Nobody with any kind of historical knowledge believes that he Bible was writen in 575ad, or 325 at the council of Nicaea. The council of Nicaea was simply the first convention of Christian bishops. About 300 of them got together to discuss Christianity and offer thier oppinion on several topics such as the father/son being the same entity, whether or not to seperate Christian Easter from Jewish Passover, and they created 20 Church laws, (or Canons) to be adhered to. With most things in life there were some other motives, but the main purpose of the council was to get everybody on the same page and allow the Christian church to live in harmony.

There are no shortage of uneducted "athiest governements decision on what books made up the Bible", or what ever current day conspiracy theorist, popular though inaccurate, description of how the Bible was created. If you throw out religion and just look at it from a historical perspective there is a very good timeline to debunk most of these myths. The Gospels, or first 4 books of the NT were combined and called the Tetremorph, and historical references had been made about them as early as 160ad. A Christian scholar Origen was using a set of early books as the base of his studies and teaching in 220ad, and they just happened to be the same 27 books that make up the NT today. In 367 Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of the same 27 books and was the first one to use the term "canonized" while referring to them.

According to the Christian Bible, the only way that you can get to heaven is to believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, and that he was crucified for our sins. If you don't believe that, then you will not go to heaven. To put it more bluntly, there are 1.2 Billion Muslim men, women and children that are going to die and burn in hell for all of eternity because they think Jesus was a great prophet, but not the Messiah. . Doesn't exactly give you a warm and fuzzy feeling, and might help explain some of the tension between the religions.

Where does it say in the Bible, "The only way that you can get to heaven is to believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and that he was crucified for our sins"???

Frankie

08-20-2007, 09:00 AM

Sure, it appears that Christians don't like it when some 'artist' portrays their God in a glass of urine, but I didn't see the Christians call for that artists' head.

Did you?
I did not. And there are two reasons for that.

1- I did not know about that. That offends me deeply.
2- I am not a zealot and have always condemned zealotry in any form, be it Moslem, Christian, Jewish, Hinu, etc.

Not to in any way support the depiction you mentioned, but was that some cheap uninformed retaliation by some cheap minded 'artist' from the Moslem world? I can almost guarantee it was not the initiaing act in the vicious circle.

KC Kings

08-20-2007, 09:05 AM

Only because Muslims seem to have very little sense of toleration when it comes to their religion. Sure, it appears that Christians don't like it when some 'artist' portrays their God in a glass of urine, but I didn't see the Christians call for that artists' head.

Did you?

Unfortunately you are dead accurate.
You have Muslims that are blowing themselve up for their God. Those are hard core Muslims dedicated to their religion. If Christians today had even half the passion of these suicide bombers the world would be a much better place. Just take the second most important thing to do, according to Jesus. Love your neighbor as yourself. If Christians actually lived as Jesus would have us to live, America would be a much different place today.

Donger

08-20-2007, 09:07 AM

I did not. And there are two reasons for that.

1- I did not know about that. That offends me deeply.
2- I am not a zealot and have always condemned zealotry in any form, be it Moslem, Christian, Jewish, Hinu, etc.

Not to in any way support the depiction you mentioned, but was that some cheap uninformed retaliation by some cheap minded 'artist' from the Moslem world? I can almost guarantee it was not the initiaing act in the vicious circle.

I don't know who the artist was, or if he was a Muslim. That's not my point.

My point is that Islam does not tolerate ANY perceived slight. This is what happened in response to Rushdie's book:

In the name of God the Almighty. We belong to God and to Him we shall return. I would like to inform all intrepid Muslims in the world that the author of the book Satanic Verses, which has been compiled, printed, and published in opposition to Islam, the Prophet, and the Qor'an, and those publishers who were aware of its contents, are sentenced to death. I call on all zealous Muslims to execute them quickly, where they find them, so that no one will dare to insult the Islamic sanctities. Whoever is killed on this path will be regarded as a martyr, God willing. In addition, if anyone has access to the author of the book but does not possess the power to execute him, he should point him out to the people so that he may be punished for his actions. May God's blessing be on you all. Rullah Musavi al-Khomeini.

And, people acted on it. IIRC, there was at least one attempt on Rushdie's life.

Rushdie then apologized:

profoundly the distress the publication has occasioned to the sincere followers of Islam. Living as we do in a world of many faiths, this experience has served to remind us that we must all be conscious of the sensibilities of others.

The response?

This is denied 100%. Even if Salman Rushdie repents and become the most pious man of all time, it is incumbent on every Muslim to employ everything he has got, his life and wealth, to send him to Hell.

If a non-Muslim becomes aware of Rushdie's whereabouts and has the ability to execute him quicker than Muslims, it is incumbent on Muslims to pay a reward or a fee in return for this action.

This is over a book...

If some Muslims won't join the 21st century, it would be nice if they would at least take a peek at the 16th.

InChiefsHeaven

08-20-2007, 09:11 AM

I'm a bit rusty but what I remember being taught (3 years in Catholic school) is that non-believers who were basically good could go to Purgatory. I'd also suggest that, perhaps, not everything in the Bible is 100% accurate. I think the only opinion on who goes to the fiery pits and who doesn't is God's and he's been a bit vague on what the actual requirements are.

Well, that's not entirely accurate. Purgatory is a place of cleansing, we ALL go to Purgatory, because the bible says of heaven "Nothing unclean shall enter it". There are a ton of passages in the bible that elude to Purgatory, but the word itself is not found in the bible. Just like the word Trinity is not found in the bible, but it can be found to be defined there.

Regarding non-believers, or people who never were introduced to Jesus. The Church basically teaches that we humans were given a conscience, which is the voice of God telling us what is right from wrong. We cannot say what it is that is done with those who have never heard the Good News about Jesus Christ. The Church therefore defers to the mercy of God on that subject. Moreover, a person's salvation is ultimately between himself and God, so that at the very last moment, any person can be saved and go to heaven. It depends on what is in their hearts, and only God knows what is in the hearts of men.

KC Kings

08-20-2007, 09:23 AM

Where does it say in the Bible, "The only way that you can get to heaven is to believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and that he was crucified for our sins"???

Hmmm....why do I get the felling that I am being setup?
The idea that the way to heaven is through Jesus and pretty common throughout the protesant religions and found throughout the Bible. While simply "believing" is the first step, you can't just believe and live your life the same as before, or you don't really believe. Accepting Jesus is obviously the "first step", but there are plenty of scripture that says unless you walk the walk, all of your talk is worthless.

Here are a few scriptures that answer your question.

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
John 14:6

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him.
John 3:16-17

Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
Matthew 10:32-33

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Romans 6:23

And this is the way to have eternal life—to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, the one you sent to earth.
John 17:3

Yes, I am the gate. Those who come in through me will be saved.
John 10:9

And this is what God has testified: He has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have God’s Son does not have life.
1 John 5:11-12

Dave Lane

08-20-2007, 09:25 AM

Do Christians even have a written history of Mohammed like the Mulslims do Jesus?

Christians don't even have a written history of jesus. They have a loosely fitting series of tales written predominantly 150 years after the facts portrayed.

Dave

BigCatDaddy

08-20-2007, 09:42 AM

Christians don't even have a written history of jesus. They have a loosely fitting series of tales written predominantly 150 years after the facts portrayed.

Dave

Wow! No pimping of the website and book?

KC Kings

08-20-2007, 09:45 AM

Christians don't even have a written history of jesus. They have a loosely fitting series of tales written predominantly 150 years after the facts portrayed.

Dave
150 years? I have not seen any reputable scholar date the gospels written any later than 110, (John), and Mark being written as early as 50AD. Some think that the earliest Matthew was written in the 50's, and if it was based on the Q that would have been written even eariler.

I'll agree that there is no history, but what history we have is mostly found in the Gospels and was written well before 150AD.

BucEyedPea

08-20-2007, 09:53 AM

There was no "Bible", but books of the current day Bible were used early in Christianity, and there are historical references to these books, such as the tetramorph was used and referenced as early as 160AD.

I agree that there are a lot of unanswered in the Bible, but the idea of Bible-only Christianty it much more logical than RC additions that are many time unfounded, based on uneducated oppinions, and sometime reflect alterior motives. Take the second Vatican Council for example. Pope John XXIII redefined many topics and deemed there definitions as religous. There are plenty of Tradionalist Catholics that were very upset with the definitions.

I won't say that Bible only is good enough, but I don't want a religous government interpretting the Bible and for me and creating religous rule that I must follow.
Bold= that's funny as well as false. Just because they disagree with your intepretation does not make them uneducated. Sounds like someone has issues with the RC more than anything.

Besides, no one says you have to follow it. It's just that it was authorized to be done by Jesus Christ himself since he provided for a Vicar ( his representative) on earth. And don't forget it's only on faith and morals when the Pope speaks from his throne or what is called ex cathedra.

KC Kings

08-20-2007, 10:27 AM

Bold= that's funny as well as false. Just because they disagree with your intepretation does not make them uneducated. Sounds like someone has issues with the RC more than anything.

Besides, no one says you have to follow it. It's just that it was authorized to be done by Jesus Christ himself since he provided for a Vicar ( his representative) on earth. And don't forget it's only on faith and morals when the Pope speaks from his throne or what is called ex cathedra.

I have no issue with RC or any religion, as long as the religion does not harm others.

What part is false, that the RC church (as well as many other religions), were corrupt? Some of the early corruption I was talking about was Johann Tetzel charging people a price per sin to raise money to build St. Peter's Basilica. Actions condoned by the RC church until Martin Luther called him out.
Or the uneducated part? The RC church required that the bible be writen in Latin, and language that most of the world any many of the Priest could not read. In that sense, no matter how smart you were if you did not speak Latin you were uneducated, and had to rely only on what you were told, from the church. The Gutenberg press allowed people for the first time to read the Bible for themselves, and they quickly learned that much of what they were being taught and instructed was contained nowhere in the Bible.

Jilly

08-20-2007, 10:56 AM

Hmmm....why do I get the felling that I am being setup?
The idea that the way to heaven is through Jesus and pretty common throughout the protesant religions and found throughout the Bible. While simply "believing" is the first step, you can't just believe and live your life the same as before, or you don't really believe. Accepting Jesus is obviously the "first step", but there are plenty of scripture that says unless you walk the walk, all of your talk is worthless.

Here are a few scriptures that answer your question.

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
John 14:6

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him.
John 3:16-17

Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
Matthew 10:32-33

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Romans 6:23

And this is the way to have eternal life—to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, the one you sent to earth.
John 17:3

Yes, I am the gate. Those who come in through me will be saved.
John 10:9

And this is what God has testified: He has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have God’s Son does not have life.
1 John 5:11-12

Interpret those Scriptures and not one of them says exactly what you stated... The only one that comes close is the first one and that is debatable and it is also from the one Gospel written AFTER the church was already creating language for itself and theology. In fact, there are other Gospels not included in the Bible that were written before that one. And do any of those Scriptures say that those who don't believe in Jesus being the SON OF GOD are going to hell? And how many of them allude to people who believe something entirely different? And what, of those Scriptures, is the context of those Scriptures? Who was the author writing to, what community?

It's not that I don't believe Jesus was the Son of God or that I'm not Christian, in fact, all these Scripture support my belief...but they don't exclude other beliefs, they never address them.

I'm not trying to set you up, it's just that there are more layers to be addressed, especially if you are going to use them to condem 67% of the world.
And the reason statements like that, I feel have to be addressed, is because it is those exact same statements that lead to the "We're right and you're wrong" kind of attitudes.

Jilly

08-20-2007, 11:01 AM

And Jews. They take much the same postion as the Muslims, Christ was a great prophet but not the Son of God.

Most of the time theological debates between the three religions seem to boil down to "Nuh huh, we're right, your wrong." There's a lot of common ground.

Exactly true. But in my conversations with Muslims, Jews and Christians, there are a lot of moderates making headway to come to some common ground, which is encouraging.

BucEyedPea

08-20-2007, 11:19 AM

I have no issue with RC or any religion, as long as the religion does not harm others.

What part is false, that the RC church (as well as many other religions), were corrupt? Some of the early corruption I was talking about was Johann Tetzel charging people a price per sin to raise money to build St. Peter's Basilica. Actions condoned by the RC church until Martin Luther called him out.
Or the uneducated part? The RC church required that the bible be writen in Latin, and language that most of the world any many of the Priest could not read. In that sense, no matter how smart you were if you did not speak Latin you were uneducated, and had to rely only on what you were told, from the church. The Gutenberg press allowed people for the first time to read the Bible for themselves, and they quickly learned that much of what they were being taught and instructed was contained nowhere in the Bible.
That doesn't prove your point that they were uneducated though.
And Guttenberg reading the Bible for themselves....yeah well which version is all I can say. RCC compiled the first Bible by St Jerome and they allege Protestant versions have 50,000 errors. Some of this is based on how language was interpreted. You just can't say they were uneducated. You can say they were educated along a certain perspective or pov.

jAZ

08-20-2007, 11:20 AM

I'm no biblical scholar, but I think that the New Testament came out before Mohammed was born.

Anyway, what does the timing matter? Obviously Mohammed wasn't mentioned on the NT since he was alive yet. Christians (and everyone else) has a written history of Mohammed through the Koran.

What's your point, jAZ?
Muslims, as part of their faith's history, have a different story of Christ. As far as I know, as part of their faith's history Christian's haven't touched on the story of Mohammed.

Ultra Peanut

08-20-2007, 11:21 AM

Let's go ride bikes!

Jilly

08-20-2007, 11:21 AM

Donger

08-20-2007, 11:40 AM

Muslims, as part of their faith's history, have a different story of Christ. As far as I know, as part of their faith's history Christian's haven't touched on the story of Mohammed.

Why would Christians touch on the story of Mohammed?

Like I said, IMO, its a question of timing. Christians got their God before Muslims.

InChiefsHeaven

08-20-2007, 11:41 AM

Muslims, as part of their faith's history, have a different story of Christ. As far as I know, as part of their faith's history Christian's haven't touched on the story of Mohammed.

True, but that would be because Mohammed and Islam came around much later than Christianity, so it makes sense that the Christian Bible would make no mention of Muslims or Mohammed...neither existed at the time.

InChiefsHeaven

08-20-2007, 11:45 AM

I have no issue with RC or any religion, as long as the religion does not harm others.

What part is false, that the RC church (as well as many other religions), were corrupt? Some of the early corruption I was talking about was Johann Tetzel charging people a price per sin to raise money to build St. Peter's Basilica. Actions condoned by the RC church until Martin Luther called him out.
Or the uneducated part? The RC church required that the bible be writen in Latin, and language that most of the world any many of the Priest could not read. In that sense, no matter how smart you were if you did not speak Latin you were uneducated, and had to rely only on what you were told, from the church. The Gutenberg press allowed people for the first time to read the Bible for themselves, and they quickly learned that much of what they were being taught and instructed was contained nowhere in the Bible.

Latin was the number one language of the Roman Empire, so it made sense to standardize in Latin, for one thing. And most people, unless they were wealthy or in a Monastery, could not read anyway. The Church's mission was to go forth and baptize all the nations in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, TEACHING all that Christ commanded them. There mission was not to "Go write a book and give it to them and let them figure all this stuff out for themselves."

Iowanian

08-20-2007, 12:00 PM

I'd like a Southpark episode to respond about Mohamed and Islam.....Narrated by Cartman.

Muslims have proven themselves Soooooo Open to interpretations of Mohamed and Islam.

ANyone remember, way back in the day, before Jaz went off the deep end and actually posted about football once in a while?

BigCatDaddy

08-20-2007, 12:06 PM

Actually Christianity does address Mohammed. I believe he falls under the category of false prophetes right next to Joseph Smith.

pikesome

08-20-2007, 12:09 PM

Actually Christianity does address Mohammed. I believe he falls under the category of false prophetes right next to Joseph Smith.

I must have missed that lesson in Catholic school. :rolleyes:

BigCatDaddy

08-20-2007, 12:16 PM

I must have missed that lesson in Catholic school. :rolleyes:

Sure here is a link, but unfortunately there is much to be missed in a Catholic School/Church.

http://biblelight.net/false-prophets.htm

pikesome

08-20-2007, 12:21 PM

Sure here is a link, but unfortunately there is much to be missed in a Catholic School/Church.

http://biblelight.net/false-prophets.htm

I can find justification for anything I want to do if I look hard enough. The Sacred Blood priest who I learned most from in school took much the same tack as others here, Mohammed was probably a prophet but not the Big Kahuna. Using Christanity to belittle others isn't what I think God would want even if the Muslims are completely wrong.

BigCatDaddy

08-20-2007, 12:24 PM

I can find justification for anything I want to do if I look hard enough. The Sacred Blood priest who I learned most from in school took much the same tack as others here, Mohammed was probably a prophet but not the Big Kahuna. Using Christanity to belittle others isn't what I think God would want even if the Muslims are completely wrong.

There is a Catholic sect that teaches Mohammed was a prophet? I don't mean to belittle, but I find that very amazing.

plbrdude

08-20-2007, 12:25 PM

Where does it say in the Bible, "The only way that you can get to heaven is to believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and that he was crucified for our sins"???

it doesn't. there is a little more to it than that.

InChiefsHeaven

08-20-2007, 12:27 PM

There is a Catholic sect that teaches Mohammed was a prophet? I don't mean to belittle, but I find that very amazing.

Indeed. I'd say it is not Catholic, if that's the case.

pikesome

08-20-2007, 12:31 PM

There is a Catholic sect that teaches Mohammed was a prophet? I don't mean to belittle, but I find that very amazing.

Teaches, no. But I hit him up with this very question once and he gave me the open hands and said something to the effect of "I'm not sure, God doesn't tell us everything, just what we need to know." If the Jews can cut Christians some slack on Jesus I don't see why we couldn't on Mohammed. He was kind of weird as a priest, very open minded on some things but a regular throw back to pre-Vatican 2 on others. Was also one of the best people I've ever known. Too bad the Catholic church is against cloning. (that's a bit of a joke :))

Chieficus

08-20-2007, 12:34 PM

Interpret those Scriptures and not one of them says exactly what you stated... The only one that comes close is the first one and that is debatable and it is also from the one Gospel written AFTER the church was already creating language for itself and theology. In fact, there are other Gospels not included in the Bible that were written before that one. And do any of those Scriptures say that those who don't believe in Jesus being the SON OF GOD are going to hell? And how many of them allude to people who believe something entirely different? And what, of those Scriptures, is the context of those Scriptures? Who was the author writing to, what community?

It's not that I don't believe Jesus was the Son of God or that I'm not Christian, in fact, all these Scripture support my belief...but they don't exclude other beliefs, they never address them.

I'm not trying to set you up, it's just that there are more layers to be addressed, especially if you are going to use them to condem 67% of the world.
And the reason statements like that, I feel have to be addressed, is because it is those exact same statements that lead to the "We're right and you're wrong" kind of attitudes.

The first point you make is actually a bit of a misnomer--all the NT books were written after the church had began shaping a theology and language for itself. And not counting Matthew, Mark, and Luke, I would like to hear the name of one "gospel" written before John. (I am of the camp that John was written before 100 AD, but even if one wants to argue a later date, there has to be a recognition that John was written, and widely known, by around the mid-second century due to it's quotation in Justin Martry's works and the P52 manuscript which is typically dated around 120-130 AD). There aren't many non-canonical gospels that are given dates that early even by secular scholars--one perhaps would be the Gospel of Thomas, but most tend to date that to the late 2nd C or after; and if you read it, it is on many points contrary not just to the other Gospels but the whole canon of Christianity.

But that aside--as to the exclusivity of Christ, beside the John 14 passage that was named; you have the fact that Jesus in Matthew 25:31ff divided all people into one of two groups: sheep or goats. The goats "go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous (sheep) to eternal life." Now in context some might say: well, Jesus here mentions the works they do and not faith--which is true, but in Scripture good works are never the basis for salvation (see, esp. Paul), but they cannot be separated from faith and salvation (Ephesians 2, James 2, 1 John 2-3, etc.). Also in John 10 Jesus speaks to some Jews about His sheep--and how He is making one flock from the Jews and Gentiles, and after some protestation, Jesus tells them that they do not believe becaues they are not His sheep, linking faith back with the whole sheep/goats thing.

All that to say: The Bible teaches one of two destines for mankind: Salvation or damnation. If you're not saved, you're damned. In Luke 13 Jesus is asked the question, "Lord, are there just a few who are being saved?" And Jesus replies, "Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able." And He says once the door is shut no one will enter and they will be told, "Depart from me all you evildoers, in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth"--a phrase used for the place of the "wicked" and described as also being a furnace of fire in Matthew 13:49-50.

Peter in Acts 4:12 says (of Jesus--in the context) "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is not other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."

Then Paul in Romans 10:9-10 "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and beleive in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation." But then in 10:14 "How will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? How will they hear without a pastor."

Now, I'm not saying that you're one of these--but I know (as a pastor and a seminary graduate) I have seen my fill of "Christians" who want to soften what the Bible says and debate passages, question passages--all in the name of "tolerance" so we don't offend some other person's religion and sense of self-worth. Well, dang it, if we just let the Bible be the Bible we can't get away from the picture that if you aren't trusting in Christ as the 'way the truth and the life' then you're going to hell. Instead of trying to justify a more "tolerant" message, why don't we just get out there with the Gospel of hope, love, and forgiveness and "have mercy on some, who are doubting, save others, snatching them out of the fire" (Jude 22-23)?

Don't get me wrong--education is good (if it's not, I sepnt way too much time and money), debate can be fun (or stressful, depending on your temperment), but I think at times we Christians have become "too smart" for our own good and the good of others...

InChiefsHeaven

08-20-2007, 12:42 PM

As they said to Paul in Acts..."Much learning has made you mad..."

Jilly

08-20-2007, 12:58 PM

The first point you make is actually a bit of a misnomer--all the NT books were written after the church had began shaping a theology and language for itself. And not counting Matthew, Mark, and Luke, I would like to hear the name of one "gospel" written before John. (I am of the camp that John was written before 100 AD, but even if one wants to argue a later date, there has to be a recognition that John was written, and widely known, by around the mid-second century due to it's quotation in Justin Martry's works and the P52 manuscript which is typically dated around 120-130 AD). There aren't many non-canonical gospels that are given dates that early even by secular scholars--one perhaps would be the Gospel of Thomas, but most tend to date that to the late 2nd C or after; and if you read it, it is on many points contrary not just to the other Gospels but the whole canon of Christianity.

It is contrary because it was from a completely different sect of early Christ followers. And I am of the camp that the Gospel of Thomas was written earlier and in fact, some say it was written right at the time Mark was written. John, imo, written around 90ce.

But that aside--as to the exclusivity of Christ, beside the John 14 passage that was named; you have the fact that Jesus in Matthew 25:31ff divided all people into one of two groups: sheep or goats. The goats "go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous (sheep) to eternal life." Now in context some might say: well, Jesus here mentions the works they do and not faith--which is true, but in Scripture good works are never the basis for salvation (see, esp. Paul), but they cannot be separated from faith and salvation (Ephesians 2, James 2, 1 John 2-3, etc.). Also in John 10 Jesus speaks to some Jews about His sheep--and how He is making one flock from the Jews and Gentiles, and after some protestation, Jesus tells them that they do not believe becaues they are not His sheep, linking faith back with the whole sheep/goats thing.

The story by Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew can be separate from what was written by Paul. One is Jesus' story, the other is an intepretation on Jesus' life. There's a difference. And I'm not as apt to say that Paul was completely right in all of his writings.

All that to say: The Bible teaches one of two destines for mankind: Salvation or damnation. If you're not saved, you're damned. In Luke 13 Jesus is asked the question, "Lord, are there just a few who are being saved?" And Jesus replies, "Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able." And He says once the door is shut no one will enter and they will be told, "Depart from me all you evildoers, in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth"--a phrase used for the place of the "wicked" and described as also being a furnace of fire in Matthew 13:49-50.

Peter in Acts 4:12 says (of Jesus--in the context) "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is not other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."

Then Paul in Romans 10:9-10 "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and beleive in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation." But then in 10:14 "How will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? How will they hear without a pastor."

Now, I'm not saying that you're one of these--but I know (as a pastor and a seminary graduate) I have seen my fill of "Christians" who want to soften what the Bible says and debate passages, question passages--all in the name of "tolerance" so we don't offend some other person's religion and sense of self-worth. Well, dang it, if we just let the Bible be the Bible we can't get away from the picture that if you aren't trusting in Christ as the 'way the truth and the life' then you're going to hell. Instead of trying to justify a more "tolerant" message, why don't we just get out there with the Gospel of hope, love, and forgiveness and "have mercy on some, who are doubting, save others, snatching them out of the fire" (Jude 22-23)?

And here's a point of departure for me...what do we mean by salvation, what do we mean by belief? So concerned with what the words of Scripture are and less concerned with how Jesus lived his life. I think you have a point in getting out there with a message of forgiveness and love....but your definition of "Salvation" is completely different from mine. Scriptures about hell, damnation are less concrete than what they are quoted here...and more symbolic of a greater truth.

Don't get me wrong--education is good (if it's not, I sepnt way too much time and money), debate can be fun (or stressful, depending on your temperment), but I think at times we Christians have become "too smart" for our own good and the good of others...

And I'd rather be "too smart" and working for a world of tolerance and peace...than having everyone believe what I believe just how I believe it.... In my opinion, many of the world's religions are following in the way of Christ....just not getting up in front of a bunch of church goers and "accepting" christ into their hearts.

Mr. Laz

08-20-2007, 12:59 PM

pikesome

08-20-2007, 01:06 PM

.

This is exactly what this thread needs, thanks. :)

Jilly

08-20-2007, 01:13 PM

Jesus likes it when we laugh

Chieficus

08-20-2007, 01:14 PM

And I'd rather be "too smart" and working for a world of tolerance and peace...than having everyone believe what I believe just how I believe it.... In my opinion, many of the world's religions are following in the way of Christ....just not getting up in front of a bunch of church goers and "accepting" christ into their hearts.

I think the idea of "a world of tolerance and peace" might be at the core of our disagreement here. I have a very strong view of the depravity of man (Romans 3) and don't think that world peace is truly attainable through any human means.

Oh, I would love to see it--but I cannot separate true peace from the gospel of Christ. Certainly plenty have committed atrocities in the name of Christ (Crusades, abortion clinc bombings, pretty much every protest made by that wacko out in Kansas--okay, bad enough, but not as bad as killing someone), but that has always run contrary to the message of Scripture and not concording with it.

And it's not about getting up and "accepting"--there are plenty who have done that who I think are lost; it's about the change of life that comes by grace through faith--which only God brings, and only in accord to the Gospel--"The power of God for salvation" (Rom 1:17).

...and now I gotta get back to work...

Chief Faithful

08-20-2007, 01:17 PM

The Hindu's also list Jesus as one of their many Gods.

Jilly

08-20-2007, 01:19 PM

I think the idea of "a world of tolerance and peace" might be at the core of our disagreement here. I have a very strong view of the depravity of man (Romans 3) and don't think that world peace is truly attainable through any human means.

Oh, I would love to see it--but I cannot separate true peace from the gospel of Christ. Certainly plenty have committed atrocities in the name of Christ (Crusades, abortion clinc bombings, pretty much every protest made by that wacko out in Kansas--okay, bad enough, but not as bad as killing someone), but that has always run contrary to the message of Scripture and not concording with it.

And it's not about getting up and "accepting"--there are plenty who have done that who I think are lost; it's about the change of life that comes by grace through faith--which only God brings, and only in accord to the Gospel--"The power of God for salvation" (Rom 1:17).

...and now I gotta get back to work...

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just different from you in the way I interpret it. In fact, you have great thoughts....I'm just in a different Scriptural camp then you.....and a different understanding of grace and salvation.... doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong, just means we're different.

Jilly

08-20-2007, 01:20 PM

.

And No, Jesus, I'm not showing you my tits!!!!

jAZ

08-20-2007, 01:21 PM

Do Christians run around kidnapping muslims and sawing their heads off? Do Christians hop on a bus and blow everything up cause Jews are there?
Do Christians walk into pizza joints and blow the crap out of them?

Terrorism is a tactic of war commited against easy, unfortified targets (citizens) by those who are reltively weak... so they seek easy targets.

Christians have about 2000 years of expanding power. In the modern era, they don't often need terrorism.

But there is nothing about Christianity that makes it any different than Islam when it comes to it's followers using or not using violence, terrorism, ethnic cleansing, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Liberation_Front_of_Tripura

National Liberation Front of Tripura

Formed on March 12 1989[1], the National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT)is an Indian militant group demanding in order to create an independent state of Tripura.

It has conducted a violent campaign, and was declared an illegal organization under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in 1997. Five years later, it was declared a terrorist organisation under the newly-coined Prevention of Terrorism Act.[2]

Mr. Laz

08-20-2007, 01:23 PM

And No, Jesus, I'm not showing you my tits!!!!
sorry .... you're going to Hell then

chasedude

08-20-2007, 01:26 PM

Lt. Dan: Have you found Jesus yet Gump?

Forrest Gump: I didn't know I supposed to be looking for him Lt. Dan.

pikesome

08-20-2007, 01:29 PM

Terrorism is a tactic of war commited against easy, unfortified targets (citizens) by those who are reltively weak... so they seek easy targets.

Christians have about 2000 years of expanding power. In the modern era, they don't often need terrorism.

But there is nothing about Christianity that makes it any different than Islam when it comes to it's followers using or not using violence, terrorism, ethnic cleansing, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Liberation_Front_of_Tripura

National Liberation Front of Tripura

Formed on March 12 1989[1], the National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT)is an Indian militant group demanding in order to create an independent state of Tripura.

It has conducted a violent campaign, and was declared an illegal organization under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in 1997. Five years later, it was declared a terrorist organisation under the newly-coined Prevention of Terrorism Act.[2]

In some ways hearing about Christian terrorist upsets me more. One of the basic tenants is "turning the other cheek". That doesn't really jive well with terrorism.

jAZ

08-20-2007, 01:31 PM

In some ways hearing about Christian terrorist upsets me more. One of the basic tenants is "turning the other cheek". That doesn't really jive well with terrorism.
The same is true of Islam. Both are twisted by "followers" who abuse the religion for their own power and their own motives.

King_Chief_Fan

08-20-2007, 01:37 PM

chasedude

08-20-2007, 01:45 PM

The same is true of Islam. Both are twisted by "followers" who abuse the religion for their own power and their own motives.

So is the KKK twisting the bible to their own means,

Brock

08-20-2007, 02:49 PM

Christians have about 2000 years of expanding power. In the modern era, they don't often need terrorism.

if that's another way of saying Christians got tired of pointless beheadings and bloodfeuds centuries ago, agreed.

Donger

08-20-2007, 02:52 PM

The same is true of Islam. Both are twisted by "followers" who abuse the religion for their own power and their own motives.

I would agree with that. However, I challenge anyone to read that fatwa that was issued about a book of fiction and convince me that Islam is anywhere near as tolerant as Christianity.

pikesome

08-20-2007, 03:19 PM

jAZ

08-20-2007, 03:21 PM

jAZ

08-20-2007, 03:24 PM

I would agree with that. However, I challenge anyone to read that fatwa that was issued about a book of fiction and convince me that Islam is anywhere near as tolerant as Christianity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_God

* We the undersigned, declare the justice of taking all Godly action necessary, including the use of force, to defend innocent human life (born and unborn). We proclaim that whatever force is legitimate to defend the life of a born child is legitimate to defend the life of an unborn child.

* We declare and affirm that if in fact Paul Hill did kill or wound abortionist John Britton, and accomplices James Barrett and Mrs. Barrett, his actions are morally justified if they were necessary for the purpose of defending innocent human life. Under these conditions, Paul Hill should be acquitted of all charges against him.

Donger

08-20-2007, 03:26 PM

You are conflating the practitioners with the religion.

Well, considering that a religion isn't anything without practitioners, you'll forgive that conflation.

jAZ

08-20-2007, 03:27 PM

if that's another way of saying Christians got tired of pointless beheadings and bloodfeuds centuries ago, agreed.
I think not...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_God

Iowanian

08-20-2007, 03:27 PM

Islam cannot Rest until Salmon Rushdie has been slain!!!! ....or the jihadists are distracted by the subtle buttock of a naked, preteen boy, or the rectum of a vagrant farm animal.

jAZ

08-20-2007, 03:30 PM

Well, considering that a religion isn't anything without practitioners, you'll forgive that conflation.
In that sense, there is no one thing called "Christianity" or "Islam". Each seperate practitioner invokes a seperate religion by their individual practices and under the common brand of either term.

Iowanian

08-20-2007, 03:31 PM

Jaz....relax.

You don't have to defend Islam to pimp Borat Osama for President.

Brock

08-20-2007, 03:33 PM

I think not...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_God

No comparison, but keep trying.

Donger

08-20-2007, 03:34 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_God

* We the undersigned, declare the justice of taking all Godly action necessary, including the use of force, to defend innocent human life (born and unborn). We proclaim that whatever force is legitimate to defend the life of a born child is legitimate to defend the life of an unborn child.

* We declare and affirm that if in fact Paul Hill did kill or wound abortionist John Britton, and accomplices James Barrett and Mrs. Barrett, his actions are morally justified if they were necessary for the purpose of defending innocent human life. Under these conditions, Paul Hill should be acquitted of all charges against him.

Let's see...

1) These 'Christian' nutjobs are reacting to what they perceive as murder. Regardless whether or not you agree that abortion is murder, surely you can see the difference, yes? The 'Muslim' nutjobs were reacting to a book of fiction.

2) IIRC, many Christian leaders have come out against folks like Army of God and other 'Christian' nutjob organizations. That fatwa was issued by the Ayatollah Khomeini, a Shia scholar and spiritual leader of Muslims. Did you hear any Muslims condemn that fatwa?

Surely even you can see the differences.

Donger

08-20-2007, 03:36 PM

In that sense, there is no one thing called "Christianity" or "Islam". Each seperate practitioner invokes a seperate religion by their individual practices and under the common brand of either term.

I disagree.

Religions have leaders. One religion has a recent history of its leaders demanding death to those who they feel have slighted its faith.

Guess which one.

Jilly

08-20-2007, 03:40 PM

I disagree.

Religions have leaders. One religion has a recent history of its leaders demanding death to those who they feel have slighted its faith.

Guess which one.

In all honesty, it is not the "religion's" leaders that are demanding death...it is the leaders of the radical extremist version of that "religion", if I'm reading this correctly.

Calcountry

08-20-2007, 03:44 PM

Donger

08-20-2007, 03:48 PM

In all honesty, it is not the "religion's" leaders that are demanding death...it is the leaders of the radical extremist version of that "religion", if I'm reading this correctly.

Ayatollah Khomeini was a leader of the Shia branch of Islam. And, IIRC, even Muslim moderates at the time still called for Rushdie's trial, with death as punishment if found guilty.

Calcountry

08-20-2007, 03:49 PM

Jilly

08-20-2007, 03:59 PM

Ayatollah Khomeini was a leader of the Shia branch of Islam. And, IIRC, even Muslim moderates at the time still called for Rushdie's trial, with death as punishment if found guilty.

More of the Shiites are the radicals than the Sunni's and that's dated way back (and as a side note, the shiite branch of Islam makes up I think like only 12%, while the Islam majority are Sunni's, it just happens that the highest concentration of Shiite's are in Iraq and Iran)....and I'm not as familiar with this incident as you are...so I'd have to do research!! :)
In any case, I'm not saying Islam isn't violent and that it is and always has been a completely peaceful religion...it is linked, very closely, to a culture that is violent...and the way that Islam arose was out of violence. Muhammed, himself, was violent. But, as in Christianity, different Muslims are starting to interpret things on different levels and today, the more moderate Muslims are learning what it means to live out Peace/Shalom, but their voices are often being drowned out.

Donger

08-20-2007, 04:07 PM

the more moderate Muslims are learning what it means to live out Peace/Shalom, but their voices are often being drowned out.

Yes, that's the key for me. It's the exact opposite of what would, and has, happened with Christianity now. Why are the moderate voices being drowned out? If Muslims are such a tolerant bunch, surely that wouldn't be the case, right?

I don't dispute that Christianity has a bloody past full of extreme intolerance that was promoted, let alone tolerated, by Christian leadership.

I'd welcome the concept and practice of a tolerant Islam, personally.

petegz28

08-20-2007, 04:17 PM

History is history and now is now. And right now it's Muslims that are causing all the flipping problems in the middle-east with their Imams and brainwaishing. Those are who not considered "extreme" still tolerate extreme behavior.

For every 1 muslim that puts on a bomb and blows himslef up there are a million who smile when it happens though they wouldn't do it themselves

jAZ

08-20-2007, 05:14 PM

History is history and now is now.
And history demonstrates that there's nothing morally superior about the Christian faith. It's strength and it's weakness is defined by it's practitioners and their interpretations and actions.

The same goes for Islam.

petegz28

08-20-2007, 05:21 PM

And history demonstrates that there's nothing morally superior about the Christian faith. It's strength and it's weakness is defined by it's practitioners and their interpretations and actions.

The same goes for Islam.

Well we are going to agree to disagree here. To be frank I don't like any organized religions. But the last time I checked Christians weren't preaching hate and violence in our churches. Christians aren't encouraging people to go kill other innocent people in the name of Jesus or God.

The fact is the Muslim society does little to criminalize these people.

But you are a Liberal so I would expect you to find fault with modern-day Christianity rather than recognize modern-day Islam for what it is.

stevieray

08-20-2007, 05:23 PM

God shoots...he scores!!

Adept Havelock

08-20-2007, 05:26 PM

God shoots...he scores!!

.

jAZ

08-20-2007, 05:28 PM

But you are a Liberal so I would expect you to find fault with modern-day Christianity rather than recognize modern-day Islam for what it is.
Don't be a tool...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010917-11.html

"Islam is Peace" Says President
Remarks by the President at Islamic Center of Washington, D.C.
Washington, D.C.

3:12 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much for your hospitality. We've just had a -- wide-ranging discussions on the matter at hand. Like the good folks standing with me, the American people were appalled and outraged at last Tuesday's attacks. And so were Muslims all across the world. Both Americans and Muslim friends and citizens, tax-paying citizens, and Muslims in nations were just appalled and could not believe what we saw on our TV screens.

These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith. And it's important for my fellow Americans to understand that.

The English translation is not as eloquent as the original Arabic, but let me quote from the Koran, itself: In the long run, evil in the extreme will be the end of those who do evil. For that they rejected the signs of Allah and held them up to ridicule.

The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war.

When we think of Islam we think of a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. Billions of people find comfort and solace and peace. And that's made brothers and sisters out of every race -- out of every race.

America counts millions of Muslims amongst our citizens, and Muslims make an incredibly valuable contribution to our country. Muslims are doctors, lawyers, law professors, members of the military, entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, moms and dads. And they need to be treated with respect. In our anger and emotion, our fellow Americans must treat each other with respect.

Women who cover their heads in this country must feel comfortable going outside their homes. Moms who wear cover must be not intimidated in America. That's not the America I know. That's not the America I value.

I've been told that some fear to leave; some don't want to go shopping for their families; some don't want to go about their ordinary daily routines because, by wearing cover, they're afraid they'll be intimidated. That should not and that will not stand in America.

Those who feel like they can intimidate our fellow citizens to take out their anger don't represent the best of America, they represent the worst of humankind, and they should be ashamed of that kind of behavior.

This is a great country. It's a great country because we share the same values of respect and dignity and human worth. And it is my honor to be meeting with leaders who feel just the same way I do. They're outraged, they're sad. They love America just as much as I do.

I want to thank you all for giving me a chance to come by. And may God bless us all.

Donger

08-20-2007, 05:32 PM

And history demonstrates that there's nothing morally superior about the Christian faith. It's strength and it's weakness is defined by it's practitioners and their interpretations and actions.

The same goes for Islam.

jAz, are you of the opinion that as a general rule, Islam presently is less tolerant than is Christianity?

petegz28

08-20-2007, 05:35 PM

Don't be a tool...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010917-11.html

"Islam is Peace" Says President
Remarks by the President at Islamic Center of Washington, D.C.
Washington, D.C.

3:12 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much for your hospitality. We've just had a -- wide-ranging discussions on the matter at hand. Like the good folks standing with me, the American people were appalled and outraged at last Tuesday's attacks. And so were Muslims all across the world. Both Americans and Muslim friends and citizens, tax-paying citizens, and Muslims in nations were just appalled and could not believe what we saw on our TV screens.

These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith. And it's important for my fellow Americans to understand that.

The English translation is not as eloquent as the original Arabic, but let me quote from the Koran, itself: In the long run, evil in the extreme will be the end of those who do evil. For that they rejected the signs of Allah and held them up to ridicule.

The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war.

When we think of Islam we think of a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. Billions of people find comfort and solace and peace. And that's made brothers and sisters out of every race -- out of every race.

America counts millions of Muslims amongst our citizens, and Muslims make an incredibly valuable contribution to our country. Muslims are doctors, lawyers, law professors, members of the military, entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, moms and dads. And they need to be treated with respect. In our anger and emotion, our fellow Americans must treat each other with respect.

Women who cover their heads in this country must feel comfortable going outside their homes. Moms who wear cover must be not intimidated in America. That's not the America I know. That's not the America I value.

I've been told that some fear to leave; some don't want to go shopping for their families; some don't want to go about their ordinary daily routines because, by wearing cover, they're afraid they'll be intimidated. That should not and that will not stand in America.

Those who feel like they can intimidate our fellow citizens to take out their anger don't represent the best of America, they represent the worst of humankind, and they should be ashamed of that kind of behavior.

This is a great country. It's a great country because we share the same values of respect and dignity and human worth. And it is my honor to be meeting with leaders who feel just the same way I do. They're outraged, they're sad. They love America just as much as I do.

I want to thank you all for giving me a chance to come by. And may God bless us all.

Is this the same guy that said our troops would be welcomed with roses in Iraq? You can quote Bush as you pimp Obama all you want but that shit don't stick to this wall. The fact is the muslim countries, Saudi, Jordan, Egypt, UAE, Iran all do nothing to stop this crap and do everything to make it next to impossible for us to do anything about it.

Adept Havelock

08-20-2007, 05:39 PM

Is this the same guy that said our troops would be welcomed with roses in Iraq? You can quote Bush as you pimp Obama all you want but that shit don't stick to this wall. The fact is the muslim countries, Saudi, Jordan, Egypt, UAE, Iran all do nothing to stop this crap and do everything to make it next to impossible for us to do anything about it.

DC in 5....4.....3.....2....

petegz28

08-20-2007, 05:39 PM

AND might I add the Left in this country loves nothing more than to hug the terrorists and blame Bush for anything and everything under the sun.

BucEyedPea

08-20-2007, 05:43 PM

jAz, are you of the opinion that as a general rule, Islam presently is less tolerant than is Christianity?
Not when I hear some things Hagee says. Have you ever heard him?
I think the west went through its learning curve with this stuff during the Reformation and from having the Enlightenment.

That being said, I still think this problem with Islam is mainly political: politicially caused and motivated but wrapped in religious rhetoric because they are religious.

petegz28

08-20-2007, 05:49 PM

Not when I hear some things Hagee says. Have you ever heard him?
I think the west went through its learning curve with this stuff during the Reformation and from having the Enlightenment.

That being said, I still think this problem with Islam is mainly political: politicially caused and motivated but wrapped in religious rhetoric because they are religious.

Well politics and religion are one in the same with Muslims. They use their religion to governe the politcs applied to the masses. That is how the Imams are kept in charge behind the scenes and the "leaders" can appear to be civil and wanting to rid the world of such atrocities.

It's as simple a they talk nice to us in English then bash the crap out of us in Islamic tongues. The Imams keep the people brainwashed, convinced Jews are less than the worst animals on the planet, women are not far above Jews and the West is the great Infidel that must be taken down for they support the Jew and are not followers on Alah!

and I say it's alla bunch of f*cking hooey and we should just bomb the living crap out the mideast beyond anything anyone has ever seen before. And when it's done Bush or whoever is President should go stand on a pile of ruble that was once a mosque where innocent people had their head sawed and with a BIG, FAT, NASTY wad of chew in his cheek and spit on it and say "want to f*ck with us again there Haji?" In fact Lil' Bush would be great for that scene!!!

The world can be pissed all they want frankly I don't give a damn. I want to win the war and you win wars by kicking the ever-loving f*ck out of your enemy until he respects you. I can give a damn if he likes me.

jAZ

08-20-2007, 06:56 PM

jAz, are you of the opinion that as a general rule, Islam presently is less tolerant than is Christianity?
Again, you leave out the keyword.

Practitioners.

It's about the current practitioners of both. Their interpretations, decrees and actions are what you are witnessing. Not the underlying faiths directly.

In the end, I think both religions have a similar number of bad actors who absue their religion for their own ends and justifying that by distorting its doctrine. They just do it in different ways. Islam currently has me doing so by using violent, authoritarian means.

Christianity has evolved in the west in an atmosphere of liberal democracy, seperation of church and state, economic wealth reaching a broad slice of the public and benefits they bring.

Islam has evolved in the middle east in an atmosphere of authoritarian dictatorships, Islamic Law, widespread public poverty contrasted with concentrated wealth, and the warring over natural resources.

petegz28

08-20-2007, 06:58 PM

Again, you leave out the keyword.

Practitioners.

It's about the current practitioners of both. Their interpretations, decrees and actions are what you are witnessing. Not the underlying faiths directly.

In the end, I think both religions have a similar number of bad actors who absue their religion for their own ends and justifying that by distorting its doctrine. They just do it in different ways. Islam currently has me doing so by using violent, authoritarian means.

Christianity has evolved in the west in an atmosphere of liberal democracy, seperation of church and state, economic wealth reaching a broad slice of the public and benefits they bring.

Islam has evolved in the middle east in an atmosphere of authoritarian dictatorships, Islamic Law, widespread public poverty contrasted with concentrated wealth, and the warring over natural resources.

I agree. One cuts your head off or publicly stones you and the other just takes your $'s in the name of the good.

Call me silly but I would say the latter has the lest impact on my immediate health situation.

Donger

08-20-2007, 07:24 PM

Again, you leave out the keyword.

Practitioners.

It's about the current practitioners of both. Their interpretations, decrees and actions are what you are witnessing. Not the underlying faiths directly.

In the end, I think both religions have a similar number of bad actors who absue their religion for their own ends and justifying that by distorting its doctrine. They just do it in different ways. Islam currently has me doing so by using violent, authoritarian means.

Christianity has evolved in the west in an atmosphere of liberal democracy, seperation of church and state, economic wealth reaching a broad slice of the public and benefits they bring.

Islam has evolved in the middle east in an atmosphere of authoritarian dictatorships, Islamic Law, widespread public poverty contrasted with concentrated wealth, and the warring over natural resources.

Okay, that's fair. So, you're of the opinion that the practitioners of Islam are presently less tolerant than practitioners of Christianity?

CanadaKC

08-20-2007, 07:29 PM

read "God Is Not Great" by Christohper Hitchens and all religious topics will soon be a thing of the past.

Adept Havelock

08-20-2007, 07:38 PM

read "God Is Not Great" by Christohper Hitchens and all religious topics will soon be a thing of the past.

After all, no one would ever disagree with Mr. Hitchens. :rolleyes:

petegz28

08-20-2007, 08:06 PM

The fact is none of us know who or what God is. People don't know shit and will make shit up to believe cause they can't stand not knowing shit.

Hey Adam where did we come from? I don't know Eve. I guess a God created us. Now put down the damn apple and give me some!!!

Mr. Kotter

08-20-2007, 08:16 PM

read "God Is Not Great" by Christohper Hitchens and all religious topics will soon be a thing of the past.

Hitchens is bright. But he's full of himself--and full of shit on this topic, at least.

Jilly

08-20-2007, 08:50 PM

Yes, that's the key for me. It's the exact opposite of what would, and has, happened with Christianity now. Why are the moderate voices being drowned out? If Muslims are such a tolerant bunch, surely that wouldn't be the case, right?

I don't dispute that Christianity has a bloody past full of extreme intolerance that was promoted, let alone tolerated, by Christian leadership.

I'd welcome the concept and practice of a tolerant Islam, personally.

Unfortunately one basic belief of the Muslim faith is that the key to peace is for everyone to be Muslim. They believe if all were following the way of Allah, then the world would be living in peace. Which makes it hard for moderate Muslims to figure out this paradox between getting along with the world and tolerance and faithfully practicing their beliefs. And so some radicals have taken it to this extreme of just getting rid of the people who don't believe like they do as the way to peace, interpreting Jihad in a different way, while Moderates are trying to figure out this problem of achieving peace without forcing people to believe like them and interpreting jihad as an internal struggle to be close to Allah.

Sully

08-20-2007, 08:59 PM

Unfortunately one basic belief of the Muslim faith is that the key to peace is for everyone to be Muslim.
Is that anything like, "Know Jesus, Know Peace?"

petegz28

08-20-2007, 09:04 PM

we jsut got hosed bad

BucEyedPea

08-20-2007, 09:38 PM

The world can be pissed all they want frankly I don't give a damn. I want to win the war and you win wars by kicking the ever-loving f*ck out of your enemy until he respects you. I can give a damn if he likes me.
Actually, I don't give a damn in a certain sense either. In fact, I feel that way more than you because you care so much that you feel we need to kick their ass. I'm fine on handling some of their complaints like getting our troops off their turf, like SA and not relocating them elsewhere on another turf. Afterall, why would someone want to associate that closely with them. This was Reagan's wisdom too. Let's just buy their own because they need buyers and let them settle their own issues with each other. That's a whole lot better for safety then social engineering the whole ME and getting blowback from it. Meanwhile, we can renew the war on AlQaeda and kick his group's butt.

petegz28

08-20-2007, 09:45 PM

Actually, I don't give a damn in a certain sense either. In fact, I feel that way more than you because you care so much that you feel we need to kick their ass. I'm fine on handling some of their complaints like getting our troops off their turf, like SA and not relocating them elsewhere on another turf. Afterall, why would someone want to associate that closely with them. This was Reagan's wisdom too. Let's just buy their own because they need buyers and let them settle their own issues with each other. That's a whole lot better for safety then social engineering the whole ME and getting blowback from it. Meanwhile, we can renew the war on AlQaeda and kick his group's butt.

WTF? The problem is not isolated to AlQaeda. If you believe that you are nothing more than a class A fool. The problem is that in general the Muslim population sees this country as evil and weak. They know they can outlast our microwave attention spans and our craving for video game style pwnage in 3 days or we should leave. The entire ME needs to be dealt a blow to let them know once and for all their bullshit games are over and we aren't going to take their crap. And if that means we drop our modernday bombs WWII style then we do it and let these f*ckers know never to come f*cking with us again.

You do that and THEY will go and get and stop a bin Laden before he makes trouble for thema nd we come back with our toys and make the world's largest beach.

jAZ

08-20-2007, 09:47 PM

Okay, that's fair. So, you're of the opinion that the practitioners of Islam are presently less tolerant than practitioners of Christianity?
I think the minority practitioners of fundamentalist radical Islam are far less tollerant, far more active, far less subtle, and far more violent than just about any group of western Christians.

But there are reasons for that, that are NOT based in some morally superior religion. It's based in the items I listed earlier... and largely influenced by (if not a product of) western (Christian) imperialism.

petegz28

08-20-2007, 09:50 PM

I think the minority practitioners of fundamentalist radical Islam are far less tollerant, far more active, far less subtle, and far more violent than just about any group of western Christians.

But there are reasons for that, that are NOT based in some morally superior religion. It's based in the items I listed earlier... and largely influenced by (if not a product of) western (Christian) imperialism.

WHAT? Where do you get this crap? Most of these people are taught in their mosques by the Imams to hate the West and Jews from day 1. Theya re more active cause they have nothing else in life to do honestly.

Most homicide bombers do it cause they are promised money or security for their family. I don't see wtf Christian Imperialism has to do with any of it. Considering we seem to care more about them than their own damn governments who govern via theor religion.

jAZ

08-20-2007, 09:50 PM

...in general the Muslim population sees this country as evil and weak.
Link?

Or do you mean in the same way Jerry Fallwell did?

Donger

08-20-2007, 09:53 PM

jAZ

08-20-2007, 09:53 PM

WHAT? Where do you get this crap? Most of these people are taught in their mosques by the Imams to hate the West and Jews from day 1. Theya re more active cause they have nothing else in life to do honestly.

Most homicide bombers do it cause they are promised money or security for their family. I don't see wtf Christian Imperialism has to do with any of it. Considering we seem to care more about them than their own damn governments who govern via theor religion.
If you aren't going to follow the conversation at each step, I'm not going to revisit each point each time you decide to jump in. Just read Donger's posts. You'll catch on over time, I think.

petegz28

08-20-2007, 09:54 PM

Link?

Or do you mean in the same way Jerry Fallwell did?

http://www.jfednepa.org/mark%20silverberg/papertiger.html

Take your liberal, haji-hugging crap elsewhere. and I have no idea wtf you are talking abotu with Fallwell granted I never saw him sawing off anyone's head or ramming air planes into buildings. He may have blown up a pizza joint or two but I doubt it.

jAZ

08-20-2007, 09:55 PM

Wow. Okay.
Do I have to walk you both though this?

BucEyedPea

08-20-2007, 09:55 PM

WTF? The problem is not isolated to AlQaeda. If you believe that you are nothing more than a class A fool.
Do you always talk about yourself. It's called projection.

The problem is that in general the Muslim population sees this country as evil and weak.
So what. Let them think it. Europeans think bad things about America too.
And South Americans.We think bad things about Putin and Europeans including the French.

The entire ME needs to be dealt a blow to let them know once and for all their bullshit games are over and we aren't going to take their crap.
What crap are we taking from the entire ME?
It was AlQaeda that attacked us.
The others do their dirty work in Israel.
And we've been meddling for years.

You do that and THEY will go and get and stop a bin Laden before he makes trouble for thema nd we come back with our toys and make the world's largest beach.
Yep! We have a Kool-Aid drinkin' Trotskyite here. Heyyou started it!
I think you need to read more about the area and it's history or at least Michael Sheuer's work. Ya' know the former chief of the CIA's binLaden counterrorism unit. CIA calls it blowback. We do not have to police the world like we're the freaking Roman or British empire. It's the cause of some of this stuff.

Donger

08-20-2007, 09:56 PM

Do I have to walk you both though this?

No, not me. I'd rather discuss 9/11 conspiracy theories with Taco.

jAZ

08-20-2007, 09:57 PM

http://www.jfednepa.org/mark%20silverberg/papertiger.html

Take your liberal, haji-hugging crap elsewhere. and I have no idea wtf you are talking abotu with Fallwell granted I never saw him sawing off anyone's head or ramming air planes into buildings. He may have blown up a pizza joint or two but I doubt it.
ROFL

I've not asked someone this question in 2-3 years, but how old are you?

jAZ

08-20-2007, 09:58 PM

No, not me. I'd rather discuss 9/11 conspiracy theories with Taco.
You have a funny way of showing disinterest in a subject.

petegz28

08-20-2007, 10:01 PM

Do you always talk about yourself. It's called projection.

So what. Let them think it. Europeans think bad things about America too.
And South Americans.We think bad things about Putin and Europeans including the French.

What crap are we taking from the entire ME?
It was AlQaeda that attacked us.
The others do their dirty work in Israel.
And we've been meddling for years.

Yep! We have a Kool-Aid drinkin' Trotskyite here. Heyyou started it!
I think you need to read more about the area and it's history or at least Michael Sheuer's work. Ya' know the former chief of the CIA's binLaden counterrorism unit. CIA calls it blowback.

Yea well the Euros don't slam palnes into buildings and randomly kill innocent people based on their perception of us now do they?

What crap are we taking? If you even have to ask that you need to go read a book now. I don't need to read anyone's work pal to explain what is as obvious as the nose on my face.

19 9/11 hi-jackers were from Saudi....we are finding countless Jordanians, Syrians and Iranians in Iraq. We can't go were we think bin Laden is cause it is in Pakistan but oh well it's a part of the country "they don't control".

Iran is flipping us off daily. AlQaeda is nothing more than a name of a club. You can pretend they are "the reason" for terrorism but I would beg to differ.

petegz28

08-20-2007, 10:02 PM

ROFL

I've not asked someone this question in 2-3 years, but how old are you?

Ok wellI can see you are upset cause you asked for a link and got one so now you must resort to the standard one-liner based attacks to make it appear you are so smart or whatever it is you are dealing with emotionaly.

Donger

08-20-2007, 10:02 PM

You have a funny way of showing disinterest in a subject.

I'm all for discussion, to a point. But, it's quite clear that you've become a poster boy for the fringe of political thought.

I'm not surprised really, just disappointed to a certain degree. I was hoping that the birth of your son would steer you in a different direction.

I truly wish you all the best. You have a keen mind, but you are clouded by the hatred that lies just beneath the surface. I know, trust me, I used to be the same.

BucEyedPea

08-20-2007, 10:04 PM

What crap are we taking? If you even have to ask that you need to go read a book now. I don't need to read anyone's work pal to explain what is as obvious as the nose on my face.
Well your nose didn't see which terrorist group attacked us. And we made the Iraqi border porous which drew them in. Dumb move.

You can pretend they are "the reason" for terrorism but I would beg to differ.
Point when over your head.

petegz28

08-20-2007, 10:05 PM

Wow. Okay.

Didn't ya know it was Western Christian Imperialism that makes these bastards treat women like shit and kill innocent people in the name of Allah?

petegz28

08-20-2007, 10:08 PM

Well your nose didn't see which terrorist group attacked us. And we made the Iraqi border porous which drew them in. Dumb move.

Point when over your head.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsover. And your self-proclomation of the flight path of your point speaks loudly. You remind me of the teenager that tells their parents how they "just don't get it" or "you just don't understand".

We didn't draw them in they came in cause they wanted too. You act like they were ants and we laid out a bunch if sugar to attract them. Did we make a dumb move? Yes. Did that "draw" anyone in? No. They came their to fight and they would of come regardless.

You would do good first to place blame where it lies. We can go from there.

BucEyedPea

08-20-2007, 10:14 PM

Of course they wanted to come here and do that. BL also openly states his reasons. I'll stick with the intel pros you can stick with the politicians.

Other than that, I don't believe in handling evil using disporportionate force on the wrong targets. You don't have to be evil to trump evil. Bad temper is not justice.

Mr Luzcious

08-20-2007, 10:17 PM

jAZ

08-20-2007, 10:19 PM

Ok wellI can see you are upset cause you asked for a link and got one so now you must resort to the standard one-liner based attacks to make it appear you are so smart or whatever it is you are dealing with emotionaly.
No, I haven't even read the link yet. You just seem to have no idea about some simple things. Age is my guess. How old are you?

BucEyedPea

08-20-2007, 10:19 PM

Yeah, but it's so much more fun to be evil.
...and dangerous. ;)

jAZ

08-20-2007, 10:20 PM

I'm all for discussion, to a point. But, it's quite clear that you've become a poster boy for the fringe of political thought.

I'm not surprised really, just disappointed to a certain degree. I was hoping that the birth of your son would steer you in a different direction.

I truly wish you all the best. You have a keen mind, but you are clouded by the hatred that lies just beneath the surface. I know, trust me, I used to be the same.
You seem to have fallen off some cliff in this conversation. I missed when that heppened though.

Donger

08-20-2007, 10:23 PM

You seem to have fallen off some cliff in this conversation. I missed when that heppened though.

That's not a surprise either.

petegz28

08-20-2007, 10:23 PM

No, I haven't even read the link yet. You just seem to have no idea about some simple things. Age is my guess. How old are you?

In other words you asked for a link, I gave you one and now like a typical liberal you have resorted to bullshit one liner attacks and haven't even read the thread. For all you know there was information in the thread that you could of used against me to make your point.

Go away liby

BucEyedPea

08-20-2007, 10:25 PM

petegz28

08-20-2007, 10:28 PM

What are you talking about?

Well considering I was talking to the liby and not you.....

Seriously though, I told him the Muslimes and terrorists for that matter see us as weak. He asked for a link so I gave him 1 of many 100's quoting the Asshat bin-Laden himself back to 1998 of how he stated we are a "paper tiger", "weak", "can fight a long war have to figh cold wars", etc..

And instead of reading the link he started spouting off BS about how old am I and shit.

So now you know what I was talking about. :)

ClevelandBronco

08-20-2007, 11:01 PM

It's an entirely pointless exercise to try to appear as if one is more intelligent than Donger. That's just the truth.

jAZ

08-21-2007, 12:33 AM

In other words you asked for a link, I gave you one and now like a typical liberal you have resorted to bullshit one liner attacks and haven't even read the thread. For all you know there was information in the thread that you could of used against me to make your point.

Go away liby
First... I promise, I'll read your link and get back on topic... but before that I'll be very clear...

This comment...

I have no idea wtf you are talking abotu with Fallwell ... He may have blown up a pizza joint or two but I doubt it.

Tells me you are new to this topic of a "population (that) sees this country (US) as evil and weak" and Fallwell's views on the subject.

petegz28

08-21-2007, 12:50 AM

First... I promise, I'll read your link and get back on topic... but before that I'll be very clear...

This comment...

I have no idea wtf you are talking abotu with Fallwell ... He may have blown up a pizza joint or two but I doubt it.

Tells me you are new to this topic of a "population (that) sees this country (US) as evil and weak" and Fallwell's views on the subject.

Fallwell isn't sawing people's heads off so WTF do I care what he thinks?

jAZ

08-21-2007, 12:50 AM

...in general the Muslim population sees this country as evil and weak.
Most of these people are taught in their mosques by the Imams to hate the West and Jews from day 1.
Link?
http://www.jfednepa.org/mark%20silverberg/papertiger.html

Ok... just to be sure... did you read anything about your linked book?

(Quick, click on the book photo and read about the author's opinion... so that you aren't caught off guard when you are made to look silly soon.)

Let me know, if you still want to try to stick with that link and it's author's thought's on the "Muslim population" "in general" or "most of these (Muslims).

I'll be waiting eagerly.

jAZ

08-21-2007, 12:51 AM

Fallwell isn't sawing people's heads off so WTF do I care what he thinks?
Oh, so it's not about hating America now. It's about sawing people's heads off. Ok... as long as you are scrambling around to change your statements, I just need to know.

petegz28

08-21-2007, 12:58 AM

Oh, so it's not about hating America now. It's about sawing people's heads off. Ok... as long as you are scrambling around to change your statements, I just need to know.

I haven't changed anything. You are the one trying to compare a Right Wing Bible thumper to terrorists.

jAZ

08-21-2007, 01:02 AM

I haven't changed anything. You are the one trying to compare a Right Wing Bible thumper to terrorists.
Did you read your author's views on the nature of the "Muslim population" "in general" or "most of these (Muslims)"?

Should I link and quote it directly for you?

jAZ

08-21-2007, 01:15 AM

I haven't changed anything. You are the one trying to compare a Right Wing Bible thumper to terrorists.
And to be clear...

You said... "...in general the Muslim population sees this country as evil"... and I asked if you meant that in the same way that Fallwell sees this country as evil.

I'm just asking you what you were saying.

So far, you've changed the statement from being about the seeing the US as evil (as Wahabists and Fallwell's do) to being about chopping people's heads off (which AFAIK, only the Wahabists... though not Muslims or Islam generally do these days).

You seem to have lost control of your language and rhetoric. I should just let you head to bed and start fresh tomorrow moning.

jAZ

08-21-2007, 01:36 AM

I don't expect a reply to this from petegz28, but here goes...

...in general the Muslim population sees this country as evil and weak.
Most of these people are taught in their mosques by the Imams to hate the West and Jews from day 1.
From your linked book...

http://quartermasters-of-terror.com/

For traditional Muslim believers (who comprise the overwhelming majority of the world’s Islamic population), terror is violence committed against non-military targets for political purposes. As such, those who commit murders, massacres and attacks against innocents in the name of “martyrdom” (ie: "suicide attacks") are deemed to be “terrorists” without any redeeming justification. Such actions are bereft of any moral justification because the values of the Quran hold a Muslim responsible for treating all people (whether Muslim or non-Muslim) kindly and justly; require them to protect the needy (through zakat - or charitable donations - which constitutes a religious obligation); to defend the innocent, and to prevent the dissemination of "mischief on the earth." (Quran 29:36)

But there is another side to this internal Islamic conflict and it has been evolving for centuries in the barren sands of Saudi Arabia. It is an ugly, distorted mirror image of traditional Islam called Wahhabism - a strict, fascistic, separatist, supremacist and violent interpretation of Islamic doctrine that has found its philosophical foundations in the writings of a few select radical Islamists (Ibn Taymiyah, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, Sayyid Qutb, Abu al-'Ala al-Maududi and Sheikh Yusef al Qaradawi to name only the most prominent), who speak of Islam as a dominating faith and condemn those who do not submit to its teachings as infidels or apostates who are subject to death. It is this version of Islam that is gaining prominence in the madrasses of the Middle East from Syria and Egypt to Pakistan and beyond to the Philippines, and is being “exported” throughout the world on the wings of Saudi largess.

jAZ

08-21-2007, 01:44 AM

If that was too much reading...

http://quartermasters-of-terror.com/

... traditional Muslim believers ... comprise the overwhelming majority of the world’s Islamic population...

... there is another side ... an ugly, distorted mirror image of traditional Islam called Wahhabism - a strict, fascistic, separatist, supremacist and violent interpretation of Islamic doctrine ...

... In the ... mosques that the Wahhabists control in America, their textbooks teach that the West is the source of all misfortunes of the Muslim world - it’s most dangerous effect being its cultural and intellectual influence in various fields including the spread of Western practices and habits - from Western democracy to Western influence in the fields of literature, art, music, the media, fashion, education and research - including Christian missionary work, Western humanitarian and medical aid, and even Western-invented computer games.

The point is that you need to learn the difference between "traditional Muslim believers ... comprise the overwhelming majority of the world’s Islamic population" and "an ugly, distorted mirror image of traditional Islam called Wahhabism".

Smed1065

08-21-2007, 03:21 AM

So we need to vote for Ur folks without checking the lounge?

Mark me down for the vote without checking.

LOL

Move.

petegz28

08-21-2007, 06:06 AM

Jilly

08-21-2007, 06:39 AM

Is that anything like, "Know Jesus, Know Peace?"

Someone listened in class!!! ;)

jAZ

08-21-2007, 11:21 AM

Thanks for proving my point ... (t)he Imams are the problem.
So are you trying to take back your assertions about the "general... Muslim population" and "most of these (Mulsims)"... and change your position to be in agreement with your linked author as he describes as not an "overwhelming majority of the world’s Islamic population", but rather only the "distorted mirror image of traditional Islam called Wahhabism"?

Say yes.

Dave Lane

08-31-2007, 03:05 PM

150 years? I have not seen any reputable scholar date the gospels written any later than 110, (John), and Mark being written as early as 50AD. Some think that the earliest Matthew was written in the 50's, and if it was based on the Q that would have been written even eariler.

I'll agree that there is no history, but what history we have is mostly found in the Gospels and was written well before 150AD.

For the most part, each of the two ‘testaments’ of the Bible is made up of chapters, grandly styled ‘books’, with each ‘book’ set out in groups of paragraphs, confusingly called ‘chapters.’ Some ‘books’ are very brief indeed. The book of Ruth, for example, is barely two pages, 2,578 words in fact. The longest, Jeremiah, at 42,659 words, would make a pamphlet of reasonable length. Authorship of the Old Testament was largely a fifth/sixth century BC affair (with the ‘Chronicler’ not writing until the mid-fourth century); authorship of the New Testament primarily occurred in the second century AD. With all the revisions and re-writes the effort involved a good many people. Arguably, some of them wrote inspiring words – but in no sense is that the same as the words being inspired by a deity. The total compendium, though impressive and at times entertaining, makes torturous reading.

The ‘books’ are arranged in a particular order, one that appears to be an unfolding story – from Jews to Jesus, from Jesus to Church, from birth of the Messiah to a vision of the Day of Judgement yet to come. It appears to be chronological. It is not. The order is largely reversed. Exodus was written before Genesis. ‘Prophesies’ written after events are reassigned to an earlier authorship in order to establish their veracity. An ancient and heroic ‘history’ reflects the contingencies of a much later time. The final book, the ‘Revelation of St. John’ is the earliest, not the latest, part of the New Testament, save for the correspondence of St Paul, which itself pre-dates all the gospels – and not one of the favoured gospels took on their present form before 150 AD.

Similar liberties have been taken within the individual books themselves, with later additions used to preface or addend the original work. Mark is earlier than Matthew, yet its ending has been extended by borrowings from the later work. The ‘Revelation of St. John’, in its original draft a composite of several Jewish apocalyptic dramas, was later Christianized by a preface of ‘letters to the churches of Asia’.

No more true is this process of time-reversal or ‘back projection’ than of the life and times of the Jesus character himself, who began his existence as a celestial superhero, acquired an earthly death; subsequently was given an adulthood; and completed his career with a spectacular nativity!

The Church, in the sense of organisation, authority, assets and membership preceded rather than followed the justifying doctrine. As the organisation and its needs changed so the ‘testament of god’ adapted accordingly. Shuffling the confused jigsaw of stories back into the chronology of authorship proves very revealing.