NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems, in the past few years, that it has become customary, dare I say trendy, to bemoan and besmirch Islam as an evil, violent, and fascist religion. But it is often forgotten that Christianity also has a smiliarly evil, violent, and fascist history of its own. Too often the lessons learned in the study of Christianity go unremembered when dealing with Islam. Lessons such as the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. Perhaps it would be better to grant Islam a bit of leeway when judging it. So, without further ado, a little history lesson on the shady past of the Christian faith.

CRUSADES

The Crusades were a series of wars by Western European Christians to recapture the Holy Land from the Muslims. The Crusades were first undertaken in 1096 and ended in the late 13th century. The term Crusade was originally applied solely to European efforts to retake from the Muslims the city of Jerusalem, which was sacred to Christians as the site of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. It was later used to designate any military effort by Europeans against non-Christians. And this is where the real purpose of my thread begins. I've always wondered how some people could make arguments on these boards when the evidence presented in previous posts points to the contrary. I wondered if it was because people did not read entire posts of length such as this. So I'm testing this fact. I bet there will be quite a few people to post on this thread based on the opening paragraph and the beginning of this paragraph. They won't see all this that I'm writing right here at all. And I will enjoy a good laugh. So, if you are reading this, please don't spoil it for me. Instead of posting and having a good laugh at my obnoxious trick, just simply reply with "I agree", and leave any private comments in my telegram box. And, if you are so inclined, make a similar post of your own, with it's own hidden message. Now back to the charade. Stick around through the next paragraph for another easter egg. In a broad sense the Crusades were an expression of militant Christianity and European expansion. They combined religious interests with secular and military enterprises. Christians learned to live in different cultures, which they learned and absorbed; they also imposed something of their own characteristics on these cultures. The Crusades strongly affected the imagination and aspirations of people at the time, and to this day they are among the most famous chapters of medieval history.

THE INQUISITION

The Inquisition was a judicial institution established by the papacy in the Middle Ages, charged with seeking out, trying, and sentencing persons guilty of heresy. In the early church the usual penalty for heresy was excommunication. With the establishment of Christianity as the state religion by the Roman emperors in the 4th century, heretics came to be considered enemies of the state, especially when violence and the disturbance of public order were involved. St. Augustine gave a somewhat reluctant approval to action by the state against heretics, but the church generally disapproved of coercion and physical penalties. And I'm back. I wonder how many people have even made it this far down even after reading the little message in the first paragraph. I imagine I've lost a few readers even though they knew I'd be back here. I think I will allow this thread to hover around like this for a while, depending on the amount of responses I get to the false subject compared to the responses concerning the actual intent. I know that this has probably been done before; I don't think I'm being particularly witty here, but I think this is going to be very amusing for me, to say the least. It is kind of like those tests you used to get in the first day of class in high school that told you to read through the entire instructions before starting, and in the instructions it told you to just answer the final question and hand it in. Then you could enjoy a little chuckle as you saw people struggle through the impossibly hard test, not realizing that a joke was being played upon them. At any rate, I've let this go on long enough, so I think I'm just about done. Just to recap, if you read all this, just respond with "I agree" so I know you got the joke without ruining the joke, and leave me a telegram with your reactions. Thanks. Oh, and check out the links I provide. And now back to your regularly scheduled broadcast. The grand inquisitor and his tribunal had jurisdiction over local tribunals in colonies such as Mexico and Peru, which were usually more concerned with sorcery than heresy. Holy Roman Emperor Charles V introduced the Inquisition into the Netherlands in 1522, where it failed to wipe out Protestantism. The Spanish established it in Sicily in 1517, but were unable to do so in Naples and Milan. Historians have noted that many Protestant lands had institutions as repressive as the Spanish Inquisition, such as the consistory in Geneva at the time of the French reformer John Calvin. The Inquisition was finally suppressed in Spain in 1834.

So, in conclusion, I think that Christians ought to approach their attitudes towards Islam with a little bit more civility, since Christianity has its own violent and unsavory past.

For some more information on the violent history of Christianity, I refer you to these sites.

www.time.com/archive/religion/christianity/h4587340293384673/article/hypocrisy/heylookifoundjimmyhoffabackhere/iamsuchajerk/4342328373593.html
www.newyorktimes.com/archive/scienceandreligion/article4328372639834/christianityandislam/ohmygod/bigfoot/iwonderifnessieisbackheretoo/234092347262983.html
www.english.aljazeera.net/culture/religion/NR/exeres/8b323237v23/thisiswhereameliaearhartcrashed/ibetalotofpeopleragonmeforincludinganaljazeeralink/7B09E3B6-0AED-496F-B5D8-39C7DCF65E44.htm

Hell, you're going back farther in history than you really need to. Look at the violence between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland for a more recent example. Hell--it was no accident when Bush used the word "crusade" in his first post-9/11 speech. If we keep it up, we'll be facing a caliphate in the Middle East, and there will be a return to the days of Muslim versus Christian, and nothing would make Bin Laden happier.

Good Christians recognize those acts as evil. Those same good Christians recognize Islam as a religion of peace just as quickly. Mistaking the Crusades and the Inquisition for spirituality and enlightenment is like mistaking popularity for friendship.

I agree

At first I was going to flame :gundge: but decided to just say:

I agree :D

Oh, I agree

I agree wholeheartedly. Pity something that had such promise became a wasteland so soon.

I am glad that so many people are able to see the wisdom in my words.

Well it's a complicated issue, and a lot could be said one or another,





.....so I think I'll restrict myself to commenting that "I agree".

Good Christians recognize those acts as evil. Those same good Christians recognize Islam as a religion of peace just as quickly. Mistaking the Crusades and the Inquisition for spirituality and enlightenment is like mistaking popularity for friendship.
That is correct. It is easy to forget sometimes, with all of the vocally opinionated Christian fundamentalists out there, that some Christians actually believe in the Christian values of love and tolerance. Some people wouldn't even believe that tolerance is a Christian value. Good Christians are out there, my friends, they just have a way of avoiding the spotlight.

I agree.

*groan*

You got me. I shamefully agree.

ALL religion is for people too afraid to have a real relationship with God

*groan*

You got me. I shamefully agree.

Not to sound arrogant, but I really don't see how anyone could disagree with what I said.

Not to sound arrogant, but I really don't see how anyone could disagree with what I said.

I'm annoyed that it took me more than one try.

Not to sound arrogant, but I really don't see how anyone could disagree with what I said.
Here's how I disagree:
You're referencing events that are thousands of years old! When Christians complain about Muslims, we refer to the fundamentalist branch, and to current events! How can you blame the actions of Christians that lived thousands of years ago on Christians that live today?

I'm annoyed that it took me more than one try.

The articles that I linked to are particularly persuasive.

Here's how I disagree:
You're referencing events that are thousands of years old! When Christians complain about Muslims, we refer to the fundamentalist branch, and to current events! How can you blame the actions of Christians that lived thousands of years ago on Christians that live today?

Well, to be fair, the Crusades were 1000-700 years ago and the Inquisition was merely 500 or so years ago, but I do understand your point. Perhaps you should re-read my initial post so you can get a greater understanding for what I am saying.

Here's how I disagree:
You're referencing events that are thousands of years old! When Christians complain about Muslims, we refer to the fundamentalist branch, and to current events! How can you blame the actions of Christians that lived thousands of years ago on Christians that live today?
christian fundies of today are no different and isnt Bush the christian fanatic on a crusade now in the middle east?

The articles that I linked to are particularly persuasive.

Indeed.

Here's how I disagree:
You're referencing events that are thousands of years old! When Christians complain about Muslims, we refer to the fundamentalist branch, and to current events! How can you blame the actions of Christians that lived thousands of years ago on Christians that live today?
Read my earlier reply--"christian" violence is hardly a thing of the far past. Hell, I didn't even get into the conversion by the sword of indigenous peoples throughout the Americas, Asia and Africa.

How long will they persist with their madness? Will they ever learn?

How long will they persist with their madness? Will they ever learn?

Unfortunately, some people never learn. I am just trying to reach out to as many people as I can.

How long will they persist with their madness? Will they ever learn?
As long as they are human, and as long as people have different opinions, this will continue in almost every religion. In other words, the madness will continue until the Apocolypse, and perhaps after.

I feel that we all need to re-read the opening post. Seriously, it's really profound. I'm sure you just glanced over it again you'd see why it's so easy to Agree.

I feel that we all need to re-read the opening post. Seriously, it's really profound. I'm sure you just glanced over it again you'd see why it's so easy to Agree.

Agreed. I really can't see a flaw in the logic I used in my original post. I find it hard to believe people can still disagree with what I said.

Agreed. I really can't see a flaw in the logic I used in my original post. I find it hard to believe people can still disagree with what I said.
It's simple: those who disagree are assuming that you are assuming that all Christians act that way.

It's simple: those who disagree are assuming that you are assuming that all Christians act that way.

After reading what I originally said, how could anyone assume that?

After reading what I originally said, how could anyone assume that?
I don't know. I just call them as I see them. It might help if I wasn't half-blind, though... fans are always yelling obscene things at me :D

Good Christians recognize those acts as evil. Those same good Christians recognize Islam as a religion of peace just as quickly. Mistaking the Crusades and the Inquisition for spirituality and enlightenment is like mistaking popularity for friendship.

Quite right.

Though I also agree that some people condemning another religion for violent history while belonging to a religion that has a violent history of its own is hypocritical. Oh, silliness. It's everywhere.

Unfortunately, some people never learn. I am just trying to reach out to as many people as I can.

Ah yes, it's a hard task but someone's got to do it. If atleast only for the pure entertainment value.

Quite right.

Though I also agree that some people condemning another religion for violent history while belonging to a religion that has a violent history of its own is hypocritical. Oh, silliness. It's everywhere.

Quite right. I'm actually quite fond of Islam. I'll even go as far to say that I'd convert to Islam over any other faith if I was somehow excommunicated from the Church. People sometimes fail to realize that Christians are very different from Bad Christians (like Bush, cough, cough)

Nevertheless, I was a bit too hasty in my original post. Sdaeriji's point is actually easy to agree to once you get down to it.

It's simple: those who disagree are assuming that you are assuming that all Christians act that way.
After reading what I originally said, how could anyone assume that?

Hmmm, I think we may need a few more responses but it may just be that reading the responses of Christians in light of what you have originally posted may lead to this assumption that all Christians act accordingly to the behaviour you have outlined, whether initially fallaciously observed or not, being true.
Hmmm....do you reckon you can get everyone to declare their religious beliefs so we can test this theory?

I'm atheist atleast...

Hmmm, I think we may need a few more responses but it may just be that reading the responses of Christians in light of what you have originally posted may lead to this assumption that all Christians act accordingly to the behaviour you have outlined, whether initially fallaciously observed or not, being true.
Hmmm....do you reckon you can get everyone to declare their religious beliefs so we can test this theory?

I'm atheist atleast...
Theory debunked: I'm a Christian, and have so far not acted in a militant way while on this thread. However, I will admit that I sometimes have a short temper, but then again I think even Ghandi got mad once in his life.

Theory debunked: I'm a Christian, and have so far not acted in a militant way while on this thread. However, I will admit that I sometimes have a short temper, but then again I think even Ghandi got mad once in his life.

I really think you need to re-read my post to get the full meaning of it.

I really think you need to re-read my post to get the full meaning of it.
I re-read it, and
... I agree

I re-read it, and
... I agree

Little by little I convert people to my side.

I'm glad one more person was able to see the truth.

Quite right. I'm actually quite fond of Islam. I'll even go as far to say that I'd convert to Islam over any other faith if I was somehow excommunicated from the Church. People sometimes fail to realize that Christians are very different from Bad Christians (like Bush, cough, cough)

Nevertheless, I was a bit too hasty in my original post. Sdaeriji's point is actually easy to agree to once you get down to it.

Me too. In fact, I'm pretty fond of most religions, though some of the more asshattish followers often give them a bad name.

Little by little I convert people to my side.

Hey, the best things in life are those that can be shared!

Me too. In fact, I'm pretty fond of most religions, though some of the more asshattish followers often give them a bad name.

So do you agree with everything I said?

Little by little I convert people to my side.
In my defense, I did say I was half-blind. I was so busy responding to responses I didn't even see your argument, really. But, to be fair, your argument can come across as convoluted to some readers (myself originally included).

In my defense, I did say I was half-blind. I was so busy responding to responses I didn't even see your argument, really. But, to be fair, your argument can come across as convoluted to some readers (myself originally included).

I understand. My statements do start off a bit dry, but I think the argument really comes across if you stick with it.

So do you agree with everything I said?

Yup.

LOL... I wholeheartedly agree. Anyone who doesn't is in dire need of some remedial reading comprehension courses. Just goes to show... no matter what your faith and no matter what your belief... everyone's got their share of boneheads.

Theory debunked: I'm a Christian, and have so far not acted in a militant way while on this thread. However, I will admit that I sometimes have a short temper, but then again I think even Ghandi got mad once in his life.
Even Jesus got angry, according to the Bible--it's called righteous indignation. You'd have to be one callous bastard to not get mad at injustice.

Even Jesus got angry, according to the Bible--it's called righteous indignation. You'd have to be one callous bastard to not get mad at injustice.

Incertonia, do you agree with what I said in the original post? I'd really like to get your opinion on what I wrote.

I agree. Frankly I don't understand how anyone could not agree!

I re-read it, and
... I agree
Once you fully examine it all, there is no other course. I am glad we could help you see your way to agreement.

Incertonia, do you agree with what I said in the original post? I'd really like to get your opinion on what I wrote.
Oh yeah--I backed it up in a post not long after yours, showing that Christianity's bloody past has continued even to the present day.

Oh yeah--I backed it up in a post not long after yours, showing that Christianity's bloody past has continued even to the present day.

You have a TG.

I agree
E!

I agree 100%. It really changed the way I look at things. And those Links. HOLY SHIT. your post changed my life.

Oh yeah--I backed it up in a post not long after yours, showing that Christianity's bloody past has continued even to the present day.
Incertonia, you totally missed the point of this thread. Even I, a devout evangelical Christian, even I can agree to most of what was written.

Incertonia, you totally missed the point of this thread. Even I, a devout evangelical Christian, even I can agree to most of what was written.
That I did. Anyone else want to join me at the moron table?

So... the objective here is to bash christianity, because it has moved on and stopped doing 700 years ago what islam is doing TODAY, right?

Anyone who thinks that should immediately move to a muslim nation. Put your money where your mouth is.

Your logic is impeccable. I agree.

We aren't allowed to act like idiots in the name of God/the Gods?
Damn :mad: :(

Why didn't you just title this post "exposing the fundamental hypocrisies of religion", especially mass/organised religion :D

Only an ignorant would ever claim that Islam is doing now what Christianity did 700 years ago. You essentially imply that Christianity used to be a religion of violence etc 700 years ago, but that it is peaceful/tolerant now and that Islam is now the religion of violence. Every level of those views is riddled with stereotypes and assumptions on your part. There is a larger fundamentalist movement in Christianity than Islam, the US has the most religious fundamentalists of any nation. You cannot try and link violent actions by a minority to the entire faith of Islam. You must have no historical or cultural context to make your generalised claims. I'm shocked that anyone could even attempt to make such a simple argument about Islam doing what Christianity did 700 years ago - the context, both globally and locally is incalculably different.

The idea that all Christians are now peace loving and have no problem with other religions is laughable. just look at the fundamentalist movement in the US and how Christian values are yet again being proposed as objectively superior, and the way others should be forced to live. Not to mention that Christian countries now have vast militaries to carry out their will. The Muslims have historically been very tolerant of other religions, especially the Jews while they were being killed off. The idea that there is some mass movement towards a replication of the Christian crusades can only have been thought up by people with no historical or cultural perspective and an unquestioning belief of modern day media reports.
To be honest I don't have the time or desire to write pages of text to discredit your claim.

Actually the reason there is no longer a great amount of violence in Christianity is because the purveyors of the religion have been "told" by the people who practice it that enough is enough and they will no longer tolerate such an oppressive force in their lives. It has taught Christianity to be much more humble than it was. Islam is argueably at the stage that Christianity was during the crusades. Some say it's at the point of Martin Luther and the 95 theses, but it's not, not quite. Invariably then there are those who would say we shouldn't interfere. The problem is we really can't afford not to interfere because otherwise you end up with shit like the 30 years war and that would not be a good scenario with todays weapons.

I'd suggest title this thread the hypocrisy of the church, because that is mainly who is behind the stuff you list, not the religion. Religion is inert. When added to people bad stuff can happen, but so can good. So let's lay off of these "exposing the hypocrisy of..." threats. Just because we don't believe in something doesn't mean we should ridicule it.

It seems, in the past few years, that it has become customary, dare I say trendy, to bemoan and besmirch Islam as an evil, violent, and fascist religion. But it is often forgotten that Christianity also has a smiliarly evil, violent, and fascist history of its own. Too often the lessons learned in the study of Christianity go unremembered when dealing with Islam. Lessons such as the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. Perhaps it would be better to grant Islam a bit of leeway when judging it. So, without further ado, a little history lesson on the shady past of the Christian faith.

CRUSADES

The Crusades were a series of wars by Western European Christians to recapture the Holy Land from the Muslims. The Crusades were first undertaken in 1096 and ended in the late 13th century. The term Crusade was originally applied solely to European efforts to retake from the Muslims the city of Jerusalem, which was sacred to Christians as the site of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. It was later used to designate any military effort by Europeans against non-Christians. And this is where the real purpose of my thread begins. I've always wondered how some people could make arguments on these boards when the evidence presented in previous posts points to the contrary. I wondered if it was because people did not read entire posts of length such as this. So I'm testing this fact. I bet there will be quite a few people to post on this thread based on the opening paragraph and the beginning of this paragraph. They won't see all this that I'm writing right here at all. And I will enjoy a good laugh. So, if you are reading this, please don't spoil it for me. Instead of posting and having a good laugh at my obnoxious trick, just simply reply with "I agree", and leave any private comments in my telegram box. And, if you are so inclined, make a similar post of your own, with it's own hidden message. Now back to the charade. Stick around through the next paragraph for another easter egg. In a broad sense the Crusades were an expression of militant Christianity and European expansion. They combined religious interests with secular and military enterprises. Christians learned to live in different cultures, which they learned and absorbed; they also imposed something of their own characteristics on these cultures. The Crusades strongly affected the imagination and aspirations of people at the time, and to this day they are among the most famous chapters of medieval history.

THE INQUISITION

The Inquisition was a judicial institution established by the papacy in the Middle Ages, charged with seeking out, trying, and sentencing persons guilty of heresy. In the early church the usual penalty for heresy was excommunication. With the establishment of Christianity as the state religion by the Roman emperors in the 4th century, heretics came to be considered enemies of the state, especially when violence and the disturbance of public order were involved. St. Augustine gave a somewhat reluctant approval to action by the state against heretics, but the church generally disapproved of coercion and physical penalties. And I'm back. I wonder how many people have even made it this far down even after reading the little message in the first paragraph. I imagine I've lost a few readers even though they knew I'd be back here. I think I will allow this thread to hover around like this for a while, depending on the amount of responses I get to the false subject compared to the responses concerning the actual intent. I know that this has probably been done before; I don't think I'm being particularly witty here, but I think this is going to be very amusing for me, to say the least. It is kind of like those tests you used to get in the first day of class in high school that told you to read through the entire instructions before starting, and in the instructions it told you to just answer the final question and hand it in. Then you could enjoy a little chuckle as you saw people struggle through the impossibly hard test, not realizing that a joke was being played upon them. At any rate, I've let this go on long enough, so I think I'm just about done. Just to recap, if you read all this, just respond with "I agree" so I know you got the joke without ruining the joke, and leave me a telegram with your reactions. Thanks. Oh, and check out the links I provide. And now back to your regularly scheduled broadcast. The grand inquisitor and his tribunal had jurisdiction over local tribunals in colonies such as Mexico and Peru, which were usually more concerned with sorcery than heresy. Holy Roman Emperor Charles V introduced the Inquisition into the Netherlands in 1522, where it failed to wipe out Protestantism. The Spanish established it in Sicily in 1517, but were unable to do so in Naples and Milan. Historians have noted that many Protestant lands had institutions as repressive as the Spanish Inquisition, such as the consistory in Geneva at the time of the French reformer John Calvin. The Inquisition was finally suppressed in Spain in 1834.

So, in conclusion, I think that Christians ought to approach their attitudes towards Islam with a little bit more civility, since Christianity has its own violent and unsavory past.

For some more information on the violent history of Christianity, I refer you to these sites.

www.time.com/archive/religion/christianity/h4587340293384673/article/hypocrisy/heylookifoundjimmyhoffabackhere/iamsuchajerk/4342328373593.html
www.newyorktimes.com/archive/scienceandreligion/article4328372639834/christianityandislam/ohmygod/bigfoot/iwonderifnessieisbackheretoo/234092347262983.html
www.english.aljazeera.net/culture/religion/NR/exeres/8b323237v23/thisiswhereameliaearhartcrashed/ibetalotofpeopleragonmeforincludinganaljazeeralink/7B09E3B6-0AED-496F-B5D8-39C7DCF65E44.htm

OH MY GOODNESS!!! :eek:

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU for this excellent and alarming expose! Why hasn't anybody told us about these things before? Crusades? Inquisition? Why wasn't I told??? We have obviously been the victims of a centuries-old cover-up!!! :eek:

Thank goodness that Sdaeriji is daring enough to reveal the truth to us all! :eek:

Atrocities have been committed in the name of the bible. But such acts were a total perversion of Rabbi Jesus ben Joseph's message. It is generally a message about love and redemption.

How about the religion of peace's great book?

Time for some facts.

The Prophet Muhammad urges Muslims to fight in the cause of Allah "O prophet Muhammad urge the believers (Muslims) to fight" (Surat Al-Anfal 8:65).

"Jihad (holy fighting in Allah's cause) is ordained for you" (Surat Al-Baqarah 2:216).

The Koran commands Muslims not to befriend Jews or Christians "O ye who believe (Muslims) take not the Jews or the Christians for your friends and protectors. They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he among you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them" (Surat Al-Maidah 5:51).

The Koran commands Muslims to fight Jews and Christians "Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Surah At-Taubah 9:29).

Jizyah is a special high tax to be paid only by Jews or Christians who do not want to renounce their religion and convert to Islam.

The Koran commands Muslims to fight non-Muslims until they exterminate all other religions and Islam would be the only religion in the world. "And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against As-Zatimun (the polytheists and wrong doers)" (Surat Al-Baqarah 2:193).

This verse is mentioned also in Surat Al-Anfal 8:39. Because of the misunderstanding and ignorance of Christianity, Muslims believe that Christians are polytheists, because they believe in a Triune God. Fundamentalists look at Jews and Christians and all non-Muslims as infidels who must be killed because they have no value as human beings and must be exterminated from the face of the earth.

The Koran divides the world into two camps, Dar Al-Harb (Camp of war) where Jews and Christians live, and Dar Al-Sallam (Camp of peace) where Muslims live. They believe that Holy war against those who live in the camp of war should continue until they are exterminated.

Fundamentalists dream of a global Islamic empire. They believe that if they destroy America and the western countries, that they will achieve this dream.

The Koran declares that Muslims who fight and die in battle are promised forgiveness and a sensual luxurious life in Paradise. "And if you are killed or die in the Way of Allah, forgiveness and mercy from Allah are far better than all that they amass (of worldly wealth)" (Surat Al-Imran 3:157). "Verily, Allah has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties for (the price) that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allah's Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him" (Surat At-Taubah 9:111).

What can martyrs expect in paradise? The Koran describes life in paradise in the following words: "Eat and drink with happiness because of what you used to do. They will recline (with ease) on thrones arranged in ranks. And We shall marry them to Hur (fair females) with wide lovely eyes. And We shall provide them with fruit and meat such as they desire" (Surat At-Tur 52:17-20,22).

"Water flowing constantly and fruit in plenty whose supply is not cut off and reclining on couches raised high, verily we have created them (women) of special creation and made them virgins of equal age" (Surat Al-Waqiah 56:31-37).

"Gardens and vineyards and young full-breasted virgins of equal age and a full cup of wine" (Surat An-Naba 78:32-34).

Some prominent Muslim clerics call the suicide bombers martyrs because in the Koran, a martyr is guaranteed total forgiveness of his sins and eternal life in paradise where he can drink wine and will be married to a great number of beautiful sensual virgins. While in fact, these martyrs are nothing more than murderers.

Nineteen educated Muslims committed suicide and killed thousands of innocent men, women and children in the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the four planes they flew on that black Tuesday. Those nineteen Muslims did that because of their deep conviction that they will go directly to paradise to enjoy sensual pleasures, and because of their terrible hatred for America; a country populated by a Christian majority.

Muhammad Atta, who flew the first plane into the World Trade Center, was a devout Muslim. He was born in Egypt to a lawyer and was a highly intelligent person who communicated with ease with children, old men, professors and people in government. As a student in Germany he was known to be quiet, and very religious. Atta regularly prayed on the floor of his office and founded an Islamic prayer and study group at the University in January 1999.

Atta lived and moved easily in Western society while secretly hating it. He was a man on a mission and on the front of his thesis, presented in October 1999, he wrote the following verse from the Koran: "My Prayer and my sacrifice and my life and my death belong to Allah, the Lord of the worlds" (Washington Post 09/22/01). The West needs to know that many other Muhammad Attas may quietly be living amongst us.


The Koran commands Muslims to terrorize and torture and kill anyone who disobeys Allah and the Prophet Muhammad: "(Remember) when your Lord revealed to the angels, "Verily I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks and smite over all their fingers and toes. This is because they defied and disobeyed Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad). And whoever defies and disobeys Allah and His Messenger, them verily, Allah is Severe in punishment. This is (the torment), so taste it; and surely, for the disbelievers is the torment of the Fire" (Surat Al-Anfal 8:12-14).

"The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad) and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter" (Surat Al-Maidah 5:33).


The Koran declares that Allah loves those who fight in His cause. "Verily, Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in rows as if they were solid structures" (Surat As-Saff 61:4).


The Koran commands Muslims to convert non-Muslims to Islam by force. "Kill the Mushrikun (polytheists, Christians and non-Muslims), wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But, if they repent and perform As-salat (public prayer with Muslims) and give Zakat (Islamic alms), then leave their way free. Allah is oft-forgiving, most merciful" (Surat At-Taubah 9:5).

Mathematician Blas Pascal who lived in 1670 said, "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." The heart of man is naturally evil. You can ignite that evil with religious gasoline. The Koran's verses ignited that evil in the hearts of those terrorists and will ignite evil in many more Muslims' hearts.

While violence committed by militant Muslims is sanctioned and commanded by the Koran, any atrocities committed by Christians were never sanctioned by the New Testament commandments. For Jesus Christ commanded His apostle Peter, "Put your sword in its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword" (Matthew 26:52).


Thanks, and please keep on arguing with the written evidence.

Atrocities have been committed in the name of the bible. But such acts were a total perversion of Rabbi Jesus ben Joseph's message. It is generally a message about love and redemption.

How about the religion of peace's great book?

Time for some facts.



Thanks, and please keep on arguing with the written evidence.

I have read both the original post and yours. I still agree with what was said earlier. At least you could give the other side a full hearing; it makes a lot of sense.

I was about to argue, but others urged me to re-read the initial post again. I did, and found that the logic is impeccable. It's written evidence. You can't argue with it. I must wholeheartedly agree.

I agree too.

It seems, in the past few years, that it has become customary, dare I say trendy, to bemoan and besmirch Islam as an evil, violent, and fascist religion. But it is often forgotten that Christianity also has a smiliarly evil, violent, and fascist history of its own. Too often the lessons learned in the study of Christianity go unremembered when dealing with Islam. Lessons such as the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. Perhaps it would be better to grant Islam a bit of leeway when judging it. So, without further ado, a little history lesson on the shady past of the Christian faith.

CRUSADES

The Crusades were a series of wars by Western European Christians to recapture the Holy Land from the Muslims. The Crusades were first undertaken in 1096 and ended in the late 13th century. The term Crusade was originally applied solely to European efforts to retake from the Muslims the city of Jerusalem, which was sacred to Christians as the site of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. It was later used to designate any military effort by Europeans against non-Christians. And this is where the real purpose of my thread begins. I've always wondered how some people could make arguments on these boards when the evidence presented in previous posts points to the contrary. I wondered if it was because people did not read entire posts of length such as this. So I'm testing this fact. I bet there will be quite a few people to post on this thread based on the opening paragraph and the beginning of this paragraph. They won't see all this that I'm writing right here at all. And I will enjoy a good laugh. So, if you are reading this, please don't spoil it for me. Instead of posting and having a good laugh at my obnoxious trick, just simply reply with "I agree", and leave any private comments in my telegram box. And, if you are so inclined, make a similar post of your own, with it's own hidden message. Now back to the charade. Stick around through the next paragraph for another easter egg. In a broad sense the Crusades were an expression of militant Christianity and European expansion. They combined religious interests with secular and military enterprises. Christians learned to live in different cultures, which they learned and absorbed; they also imposed something of their own characteristics on these cultures. The Crusades strongly affected the imagination and aspirations of people at the time, and to this day they are among the most famous chapters of medieval history.

THE INQUISITION

The Inquisition was a judicial institution established by the papacy in the Middle Ages, charged with seeking out, trying, and sentencing persons guilty of heresy. In the early church the usual penalty for heresy was excommunication. With the establishment of Christianity as the state religion by the Roman emperors in the 4th century, heretics came to be considered enemies of the state, especially when violence and the disturbance of public order were involved. St. Augustine gave a somewhat reluctant approval to action by the state against heretics, but the church generally disapproved of coercion and physical penalties. And I'm back. I wonder how many people have even made it this far down even after reading the little message in the first paragraph. I imagine I've lost a few readers even though they knew I'd be back here. I think I will allow this thread to hover around like this for a while, depending on the amount of responses I get to the false subject compared to the responses concerning the actual intent. I know that this has probably been done before; I don't think I'm being particularly witty here, but I think this is going to be very amusing for me, to say the least. It is kind of like those tests you used to get in the first day of class in high school that told you to read through the entire instructions before starting, and in the instructions it told you to just answer the final question and hand it in. Then you could enjoy a little chuckle as you saw people struggle through the impossibly hard test, not realizing that a joke was being played upon them. At any rate, I've let this go on long enough, so I think I'm just about done. Just to recap, if you read all this, just respond with "I agree" so I know you got the joke without ruining the joke, and leave me a telegram with your reactions. Thanks. Oh, and check out the links I provide. And now back to your regularly scheduled broadcast. The grand inquisitor and his tribunal had jurisdiction over local tribunals in colonies such as Mexico and Peru, which were usually more concerned with sorcery than heresy. Holy Roman Emperor Charles V introduced the Inquisition into the Netherlands in 1522, where it failed to wipe out Protestantism. The Spanish established it in Sicily in 1517, but were unable to do so in Naples and Milan. Historians have noted that many Protestant lands had institutions as repressive as the Spanish Inquisition, such as the consistory in Geneva at the time of the French reformer John Calvin. The Inquisition was finally suppressed in Spain in 1834.

So, in conclusion, I think that Christians ought to approach their attitudes towards Islam with a little bit more civility, since Christianity has its own violent and unsavory past.

For some more information on the violent history of Christianity, I refer you to these sites.

www.time.com/archive/religion/christianity/h4587340293384673/article/hypocrisy/heylookifoundjimmyhoffabackhere/iamsuchajerk/4342328373593.html
www.newyorktimes.com/archive/scienceandreligion/article4328372639834/christianityandislam/ohmygod/bigfoot/iwonderifnessieisbackheretoo/234092347262983.html
www.english.aljazeera.net/culture/religion/NR/exeres/8b323237v23/thisiswhereameliaearhartcrashed/ibetalotofpeopleragonmeforincludinganaljazeeralink/7B09E3B6-0AED-496F-B5D8-39C7DCF65E44.htm


Hey that's my job!

Spin it around all you want, that still means that islamists TODAY behave like roman catholics CENTURIES AGO.

Must I hammer that sentence again? :)

I am going to bump this thread and encourage people like Andaluciae and Tcherbeb to re-read my original post if they still disagree with what I said.

i don't think it is fair to insist that Christians continue to apologize for misdeeds of their religion's past, any more than all white Americans should continually apologize for the slavery that occured at one time in this country.

however, i do expect Christians to shut the hell up about the nasty bits in the Qu'ran...i keep hearing people quote violent passages from it and say, "look how violent Islam is!!!" do these people ever really look at the Bible?! there's all sorts of murder, rape, and abuse in that damn thing! God specifically orders His people to do unspeakable things, and saves or rewards some pretty awful people for doing some pretty awful stuff. the Bible is as nasty and violent as the Qu'ran, and in both cases you run into the most trouble with people who think they should blindly follow passages in ancient texts.

I am going to bump this thread and encourage people like Andaluciae and Tcherbeb to re-read my original post if they still disagree with what I said.
And now I see why it's so hard to argue with Bottle or Incertonia.

Wouldn't the world have been a better place if man hadn't invented religion at all?

Wouldn't the world have been a better place if man hadn't invented religion at all?
The problem with the world isn't religion, it's people who just read the surface of it and make erroneous judgments.

The problem with the world isn't religion, it's people who just read the surface of it and make erroneous judgments.

How true....

I agree.

The problem is that religion (any religion) is a man made invention devised to keep the masses in line. There are no Gods, there is no heaven and hell but there is a lot of heartache caused by the institutions that are religions.
(Yes there a lot of nice religious people but ultimately they are puting their faith into something devised by man as a means to control a lot of people and steer them away from the real issues)

The problem is that religion (any religion) is a man made invention devised to keep the masses in line. There are no Gods, there is no heaven and hell but there is a lot of heartache caused by the institutions that are religions.
(Yes there a lot of nice religious people but ultimately they are puting their faith into something devised by man as a means to control a lot of people and steer them away from the real issues)
You just assume there are no gods. But you make your assumptions without facts, maybe if you looked a little harder you could see the truth.

Tcherbeb loses, thanks for playing.

The problem is that religion (any religion) is a man made invention devised to keep the masses in line. There are no Gods, there is no heaven and hell but there is a lot of heartache caused by the institutions that are religions.
(Yes there a lot of nice religious people but ultimately they are puting their faith into something devised by man as a means to control a lot of people and steer them away from the real issues)

I believe I addressed that in my original post. Perhaps you should re-read it; it seems that you missed that particular point.

Hell, you're going back farther in history than you really need to. Look at the violence between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland for a more recent example. Hell--it was no accident when Bush used the word "crusade" in his first post-9/11 speech. If we keep it up, we'll be facing a caliphate in the Middle East, and there will be a return to the days of Muslim versus Christian, and nothing would make Bin Laden happier.

Or George Bush, though he probably would need Dick Cheney to explain why he should be happy about it.

Or George Bush, though he probably would need Dick Cheney to explain why he should be happy about it.
At least Bush looks at all the facts before making a decision. You could learn from him.

At least Bush looks at all the facts before making a decision. You could learn from him.

Now, now, we don't know how Bush would react to the facts presented in my original post; let's not jump to conclusions.

Now, now, we don't know how Bush would react to the facts presented in my original post; let's not jump to conclusions.
He would have at least read them all.

He would have at least read them all.

But how do we know for sure?

But how do we know for sure?
Because I read one of his posts on this message board ;)

He would have at least read them all.
now that's just ridiculous; Bush can't read.

Because I read one of his posts on this message board ;)

What George Bush posts on NS? LOL

now that's just ridiculous; Bush can't read.
You'd think, but he did graduate from Yale and Harvard. And he probably did a lot of reading between the lines in his stay there.

You'd think, but he did graduate from Yale and Harvard. And he probably did a lot of reading between the lines in his stay there.

You mean his tutors read between the lines for him now, surely.

You'd think, but he did graduate from Yale and Harvard. And he probably did a lot of reading between the lines in his stay there.

I think Bush had a lot of experience with "lines" while he was in college.

Oh, I agree.

I think Bush had a lot of experience with "lines" while he was in college.

haha

I think Bush had a lot of experience with "lines" while he was in college.

You mean white lines? Like on a road (to nowhere)?

LOL

....sigh....the translation of "fight" from the Koran is misleading, it does not speak of violence or killing, hence why 99% of the billion+ Muslims don't interpret the Koran in that ridiculous and simplistic manner

Every philosophy of any sort has those who profess to believe but don't act that way.

Athiestic Communism has butchered more people in less than one century than Christianity has in two thousand years.

So why don't you complain about the hypocrisy of Communism?

And it's easy not to be hypocritical when you have a lack of belief like in atheism.

Every philosophy of any sort has those who profess to believe but don't act that way.

Athiestic Communism has butchered more people in less than one century than Christianity has in two thousand years.

So why don't you complain about the hypocrisy of Communism?

And it's easy not to be hypocritical when you have a lack of belief like in atheism.

I addressed Communism in my original post. Perhaps you need to more thoroughly read it?

First off, Communism has only been achieved in small Christian Moastic communities. the Soviet Union and China are/where socialist. Communism gives everyone an equal share.

Islam is a religion of peace, not war.

Because I don't feel like reading all 6 pages (or however many there are)
Here are a few (a few being 147) answers to the same number of questions about Christianity. You're probably asking some of the same questions, and if you're not, oh well, you've hopefully learned something...

My answers are short, Aiera, my friend, went into more detail...and he's smarter than me...

1. Explain why your god's only son had to die so we can go to a land of happiness ("heaven") when we die.
Romans 6:23. I reference to this a lot, mostly about the first half. The meaning of this passage is twofold. One, it means that Jesus is a covenant between our God and us...God has been one of us, has lived among us in the person of Jesus. Where once humanity was seperated from God (Book of Genesis), we have now again been connected to him. Two, it explains Jesus' purpose. In order that humanity no longer be bound and chained by sin, Jesus took upon himself the sum weight of all sin and died with that burden, so that it might also die with him and no longer enslave us.
2. Did everyone who died before Jesus died go to Hell? Justify your answer.
Lot's of verses...First one that comes up is Genesis 37:35
The word "grave" is "Sheol" in hebrew, which seems to be the closest thing to purgatory. I’m not 100% about Sheol, see the questions about where hell is and what hell is like.
Also, remember in the Gospels, when Jesus goes to pray, he is visited by Moses and Elijah...obviously some people from the Old Testament went to Heaven, eh?
So, how to tackle this one? There is a covenant that accompanies the Old Testament, and a new Covenant that is in Jesus. In the old, salvation was achieved through ritual purity and cleanliness, following the laws God set that are outlined in Leviticus and other books. However, with the coming of Jesus, God is in a sense refuting these laws and saying that no longer are people bound to complex rituals to be washed clean of sin. In Jesus, we are already washed clean, without the need for dietary laws and ritual purity.
As far as I or anyone I know is concerned, there's really only two options...Heaven or NOT Heaven.
3. If a Catholic, justify the Inquisition and other persecutions of "heretics" throughout the centuries, concentrating on why the Pelagianists, the Priscillianists, and the Manichaeans were persecuted; if a Protestant, justify the witch trials and the way that Protestants constantly hunted down native Americans until they were almost entirely depopulated; if a member of an Eastern Orthodox church, justify the persecutions of the Old Believers after the seventeenth century reforms.
I don't justify it. It was wrong. People screw up. Romans 3:23. Again, I reference to this a lot. I'd almost group your answers to all these "jusfity" questions together, just quote all the questions together and answer them all. There is no justification for it, these actions were wrong. Christians sinned and abandoned the teaching of Christ - did UN-Christian deeds - and then attempted to justify it in the name of Christ. That is is still seen as a terrible thing merely proves that one cannot use the message of Christ to justify what are inherently evil actions.
It means that some of Christ's followers are sinners and don't listen to his message. It doesn't invalidate the message of Christ.
4. Explain why your sect (whether Catholic, Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox) pursued, tortured, and killed people who were not Christian.
See above. People screw up. Muslims do it to. Atheists do it do.
5. Explain why your sect (whether Catholic, Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox) pursued, tortured, and killed people who were Christians, but not members of your particular sect.
See above.
6. Explain why I should believe that your god is all-good when the only real information we have about him is the Bible, which clearly describes him as both good and evil. (See Isaiah 30:32, Luke 14:26, Numbers 31:17-18, Matthew 10:34, Amos 3:6, Deuteronomy 18:8, Deuteronomy 20:16, Exodus 20:5, Exodus 32:27, Isaiah 45:7, Psalms 52:5, Luke 22:36, and Jeremiah 18:11 for a small sample of Biblical passages which describe Jehovah as having an evil morality at times).
Ok, Deut. 18:8 and Luke 22:36 have nothing to do with this.
All of those demonstrate God's power. He can do anything. Notice in the last verse he tells them to turn away from evil, or be punished. He is no more evil than a parent who spanks their kid for doing something they've been told not to. Indeed, I'd think he's a better God for it, actually enforcing his rules instead of just saying, "Yeah, whatever, do whatever you want." See also #1. There are consequences for your actions, God is demostrating them.
7. Explain why, when racism is clearly wrong, Jesus was clearly a racist (see Mark 7:25-29).
The Israelites are God's children. He's asking why she would take God away from his chosen people. God's not racist, just particular.
Deut 7:6
2 Chronicles 6:6
More importantly, Jesus is testing the faith of the woman. It would probably be good to find some verses in which Jesus praises the Samaritans.
He tests her faith here, and knows by her intelligent, quick, and highly reasoned answer that she does indeed have faith in him. Remember, this woman was probably pagan. Jesus is saying to her "why do you ask this of me, when you believe in and worship that which is not my father?". But if he had asked this directly, as such, then it would have been easy for the woman to feign faith with a "but I've changed my mind". Jesus instead puts the question to her in a way that, by her answer, her sincerity can be instantly revealed (or refuted).
8. Explain why, when discrimination against women is clearly wrong, the Bible clearly supports the oppression of women. Refuting that entails refuting 1 Cor 11 and 1 Tim 2:11-15.
What I said was wrong and bad and I got yelled at by Mr. Aiera for it, so…yeah…
When we talk of what Paul has written, we must first remember that Paul sought to be a teacher. He never seeks to establish doctrine, and so we cannot typically say that Paul is telling us "they way things ought to be". In 1 Cor 11, Paul is using the established practice of Corinthian society (that men are the head of their wives) as an example of the relationship between Christ and the Church. He is saying to them "As you say man is the head of the wife (NOTE: he never says that this is the right or wrong way to view relations between the genders), so I say that Christ is the head of the Church." That's it. He's making an example.
With Timothy, Paul is drawing again on the husband/wife metaphor to explain the relationship of Christ and the Church. He is saying that the woman (Church) should not festoon itself with expensive baubles, gold and glitter, but should instead strive for humility in the Lord. He is saying that never should the woman (Church) have dominance over the man (Christ)...Christ must always come first in the Church. The Church cannot place itself before Christ. Lastly, he is saying that the woman (Church) should learn with submission - we should be attentive to Christ's word, hanging off every breath the Lord takes, and be in reverence and awe. Because Christ is awesome. What is vital to remember here is that in the time this letter was written, persecution of Christians was still wide-spread, and so it was often necessary to speak in a sort of "code" in order to communicate the message. Of course, as with any coded phrase, if you don't rea! lize the need for (or use of) the code, the message of course gets garbled.
9. Explain why, when slavery is clearly wrong, the Bible clearly supports slavery. Refuting that entails refuting 1 Peter 2:18.
This seems to be a popular one. God isn't saying that you should have slaves, just that if you are a slave, be humble, like Jesus was.
Ephesians 6:9
Colossians 4:1
Also, there are verses telling of how Christ came to help the downtrodden, set people free, etc.
these verses, in particular, motivated Abe Lincoln to pass certain laws, some of which started the American Civil War, to free slaves. In fact, many of the first movements to free slaves were driven by Christian principle...Battle Hymn of the Republic, anyone?
10. Explain why children should submit to their parents' decisions even when those decisions are clearly evil. Answering this question entails refuting Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Proverbs 13:24, and Hebrews 12:7-8.
None of those verses say that the parent is being evil. They show that the kid is the evil one. This goes with #8.
Pretty much. These are poorly chosen examples, and clearly speak of a child which is rebellious and possibly violent towards his parents. It is less about children submitting to their parents every whim, and more about children not spiting their parents with violent, drunken debauchery. I might also point out that in Hebrews, it talks of discipline. This can have several meanings (root word: disciple). We had parents as teachers, yes, and also to correct us (hopefully!) when we went astray...as Jesus did with his disciples many times.
11. Explain why, if your god loves us all, more than half of us are going to Hell after we die. Specifically, refute or explain the following words of Christ, as presented in the New Testament: "Many are called but few are chosen," and "Straight is the gate, and narrow is the way that leadeth unto salvation, and few there be that find it." If your god loves all of us, and is omnipotent and omniscient to boot, couldn't he have found a better way?
#1. Also, God is so perfect that we would die in his presence, but for Jesus' blood wiping away our sin. It's not God's fault. It's just like that. There are plenty of examples of people being blinded by his glory, priests that ventured into the Holy of Holies had to have a rope around their ankle in case they died.
More to it than that. Many are called, but few are chosen. Accompany this with another parable, the wedding banquet...you'll need to find the verses.
The kingdom of Heaven is by invitation only. BUT...everyone is invited. Not everyone will accept the invitation, and so not everyone will be there to enter the kingdom of Heaven. More to it, even all those who accept the invitation (profess faith in the salvation Jesus brings) will not be saved, because there are many who put on Christ as a justification for evil deeds. Referencing back to questions about the Inquisition and persecutions, it is clear that there have been people who have claimed to act for Christ and have instead done evil. So what is being said by Christ? Everyone is invited, called to salvation. Not everyone will accept the invitation, and not all of those who profess to accept the invitation will do it for good ends. That is why the road is narrow, and that is why not all will be saved.
That's right...people are sinners. This should not come as a surprise to any of us...we all do wrong, for selfish reasons. Anyone who claims not to is deluding themself.
Also, about what he said: that doesn’t mean that God has already decided whether you’re chosen or not. He calls you, and you decide whether you wish to be chosen or not.
12. Explain what type of offense could possibly justify eternal, unbearable torture in Hell; if your sect does not believe in Hell, then refute every passage in the Old and New Testaments which describes Hell (such as 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 and Revelation 20:15). Do not exceed 200 words, please.
#1. Sin has consequences. Keep in mind.
[AIERA]We are all sinful - this is beyond dispute. We all do things that hurt or degrade other people, often intentionally. If you can claim that you do not, you are either a newborn infant or deluding yourself. In Christ, we are washed free from sin, but as with any bath...we have to choose to get in the water. In taking sinful actions, we are setting ourselves with the Devil, choosing him as our ally. In doing so, we choose our own fate.
The wedding banquet metaphor is a relevant here as well. We are all given the invitation to be freed from our sin, but in order that we be freed from our sin (and thus our alliance with the Devil) we need to actually accept said invitation. It's not enough to merely claim to reject the Devil. We can reject the dirt that clings to our skin, but unless we also get in the bathtub, it's not coming off of us anytime soon.
13. Explain how your god can be both just and merciful, when these terms apparently contradict each other.
See #1. The other stuff I said wasn’t so good, which again is why I talked to Mr. Aiera before posting. Smart guy, he is.
There are two kinds of justice, the human and the divine. I think we can all agree that in many cases, our worldly justice is not just at all.
"Not JUST at all". It's that easy to illustrate. When we say "in a perfect world, such and such...", this is the divine justice to which we refer. Not the justice that is punishment, but the justice that is fairness, equality, and...yes, mercy.
14. Explain why possession by demons and/or other evil spirits was common during the time of Jesus, but hardly mentioned in the Old Testament, and apparently has been explained completely away today by things such as epilepsy and schizophrenia.
Actually, I have my own (not at all Biblical) explaination. Again, this is nowhere in the Bible, just a thought of my own. My idea is that epilepsy and schizophrenia are indeed demons, but because of modern medicine, we seem them as just the diseases. Mark 5:15 Many people had more than one demon. I think that we can actually see some demons in their true form, as viruses and such. Again this is not mentioned in the Bible, it's just my own personal thoughts.
Posession by demons is prevalent only in the New Testament because the New Testament chronicles Jesus' life and ministry as a healer. We can assume that posession also happens in the Old Testament, but since the Old Testament is such a sweeping historical epic, there is little room for such close personal details in it as there are in the New Testament. Remember, the Old Testaments happens over centuries. The Gospels have a 33 year (roughly) time-frame.
That said...I think posession occasionally happens, and even today we are occasionally reminded of it. Certainly, the Exorcist succeeded as a movie in part because there is some credence to it. There is an area of theological study called Demonology, and I've heard several sermons from a priest who held a Masters in Divinity (area: Demonology) on the subject. There are certainly a number of diseases/disorders, but I think that every so often there are also things that defy such easy explanation.
As well...what if in the Bible, many of those cured by Jesus are in fact epileptic/schizophrenic? I only recall one dialogue between Jesus and posessive demons, and yet I recall many times Jesus has "cast out demons" in the Gospels. Could it not be that in these other cases, he was curing diseases that the unscientific culture of the day had interpreted as posession?
15. Explain why, if the personality resides in the soul, things like drugs and brain damage can affect someone's personality.
Because they affect your soul. Your soul is your self. 1 Corinthians 6:19: When you screw with your body, especially your mind, you're screwing with your soul.
16. If heaven is a place where everyone is perfectly happy, then explain how I could be happy in heaven if I had loved ones in Hell.
Hmm...Not entirely sure how to word this. I know this sounds horrible, and I'm sorry, I wish I could make it sound better, but, it's their fault, you (hopefully) did everything you could do. I think that it's more of a deep happiness. Your self is happy. You wish you could have done something, but what's happened is happened. You're not sad, but...I don't know how to describe it.
The first thing to do here is to separate the human from the divine. It is human to think that we would pine and mourn for those lost to us. Certainly we do it when someone dies, especially in a tragic or horrific manner. But then too...my girlfriend, for example, has lost 5 friends in 2 separate car accidents...and while she misses them (and on April 4th, lights 5 candles for them), she is not consumed by grief for them. She's a happy person in spite of the loss.
We all lose loved ones, but we can usually move on about or lives and regain our happiness.
As I said, though, separate the human from the divine. It is human to think in terms of tragedy and loss. In the divine, it is not unheard of to weep for loss either...certainly, God weeps for all souls that do not choose salvation. So certainly, in Heaven, there is a sense of mourning. But there is also a sense of joy, a joy so eternal and overpowering. In Heaven, no worldly concern follows us...we are in Paradise with the Lord.
Moments of mourning in this world last for a time, and then pass, and we move on with life and regain our happiness...and we do so in spite of this often harsh world. How much more brief in heaven will our mourning be in a place of jubliation and perfect joy?
17. What is Heaven like?
Deuteronomy 28:12
Revelation 4, kind of.
Revelation 19, kind of.
And Revelation 21-22.
Heaven is Paradise. To each of us, that may have different meanings...thus, in addition to Scripture, I also think that much of Heaven is what we make it to be in our joy.
18. What is Hell like?
Luke 16:24
There are a lot of verses, mostly in Revelation, that talk about "wailing and gnashing of teeth". See also "Lake of Fire"
There's also the eternal torment of knowing you had the chance to be in perfection, to be with God, but you are forever separated from Him.
I've read a few...I guess they would be testimonies...from people who've had near-death experiences. Some talk of warmth, light, slendor...Heaven. Some talk of something different...and it isn't fire, and it isn't brimstone. One that moved me, in particular, was a person who spoke of how they felt they were floating alone in blackness, in a void. And they were truly alone...no sound, nothing to see, no sensation of touch, no feeling of being cold and yet a complete lack of warmth all the same. True nothingness...only the comtemplation of being cut off and alone from everything, trapped in perfect emptiness.
I wonder if perhaps that is not what Hell is like...the tales of fire and wailing being metaphors for the still greater suffereing of being totally alone in a place devoid of everything.
If you think about it in terms of boolean logic, it makes sense. In terms of binary opposites, what opposes Heaven (which is, essentially, everything)? Nothingness. What opposes joy and the eternal sense of belonging and togetherness that is in Heaven? Sorrow, despair, the overwhelming knowledge of being alone.
19. Explain why original sin exists. Why should I be eternally tortured for something that a pair of naked fruit-munching simpletons did in a garden over six thousand years ago? If you believe that children are born stained because they were conceived sexually, explain why I would be punished for something my parents did by your merciful and just god. If this does not apply to your sect, explain why.
Don't do original sin, me. I believe that children are innocent, until they grow old enough to know right from wrong, and then, when they choose wrong (which they inevitably do), then they have sin. I don't believe we are all born with sin, just that sin is in our nature, it is a part of us. You're not born condemned, you just inevitably end up that way, because of the diseas of sin inside of you. I'll get my Catholic friend to add some.
I don't put much credence in Original Sin either...I'm pretty sure that Jesus also washed us clean of that one. But just because we are not born in sin does not mean that we won't eventually sin. And we will, and we do.
This brings us back to the bathtub metaphor...to wash, one must actually get in the bathtub.
20. Explain why getting dunked in or sprinkled with water will prevent me from being eternally tortured for the actions of the naked fruit-munching simpletons mentioned in #19.
It doesn't. Baptism is not what saves you. 1 Peter 3:21. Baptism symbolizes your commitment to Christ by accepting him as your savior.
It was once symbolic of being washed clean of sin, and many still keep this idea. While this might seem less that necessary for an infant, it has great meaning for people who first get baptized at age 30. We get this symbolism, of course, from John the Baptist, for he did baptize for the forgiveness of sins. However, with the sacrifice of Jesus, this is unnecessary, and baptism has become a symbol of...a sort of "putting on" of Christ.

21. If your god did not want Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, why did he put the tree in the garden of Eden (and at the center, no less)? Was it for shade? If so, why use something so dangerous as a shade tree? If the purpose of the tree was to tempt Adam and Eve, explain why it's OK for your god to engage in a practice that is usually referred to as "entrapment."
1 Corinthians 10:13
I actually asked this very question to a youth minister once. While he didn't have all the answers, what he said was basically this: What's the point of having people who follow you and love you if they don't have a choice? They don't really love you, they have to love you: what kind of love is that? God gave them the choice. They chose wrongly. God gives everyone the same choice.
22. Explain why sex, potentially one of the most wonderful, beautiful things in human nature, is considered "bad" by your particular sect. If your sect does not consider sex to be "bad," then refute Matthew 19:12, 1 Corinthians 7 (particularly verses 1 and 9), Galatians 5:17, 1 Thessalonians 4:3, James 1:14-15, Matthew 24:38, Luke 17:27, and Revelation 14:4.
Mathew 19:12 refers to nuns and monks, which refers to 1 Corinthians 7.
Paul is saying that sex isn't a sin at all if your married to him/her, just that you can be closer to God if you don't have to worry about a wife or a husband. There's a verse I can't find at the moment that says that it's easier to focus on God when God is the only thing your focused on, as opposed to worrying about God and your wife/husband.
Galatians 5:17 has nothing to do with sex. That's any sin, not just sex.
1 Thessalonians 4:3 is sexual immorality, which would be premarrital sex, adultery, and (if you believe so; I'm not trying to argue this) homosexuality.
James 1:14-15 again has nothing to do with sex specifically.
Matthew 24:38: not sure...need help. Same for Luke 17:27
Revelation 14:4: See 1 Thessalonians 4:3
I think a lot of Christians get their well-known bad attitude towards sex from Paul, personally. Paul had a very dim view of sex...that was his personal opinion, and never intended as doctrine. But it's kind of become a doctrine regardless.
I might point out one of the most fun books in the Bible to read, the Song of Solomon. That is Kama-Sutra grade stuff in there - it's a very, very sexy, steamy book...it is all erotic love poetry. I think that, if anything, the message of the Bible is that sex is very fun, but as with anything else must be enjoyed responsibly. Sex is a unification of two persons, a complete giving of one's self to another. That's not something to take with a grain of salt. I think that the Bible rightly argues against sleeping around and having a dozen (or way more) partners over a month's (or a life's) time, because then this fun and highly unitive act of giving becomes a cheap, trashy thrill.

23. Explain why, if Jesus was perfect, he thought that the end of the world was coming soon, when it has clearly not come yet. See Matthew 16:27-28.
Matthew 16:27-28 may or may not refer to Revelation...Not sure...need help.
Also "soon" is a very relative term. For someone who's been around for all eternity, and will always be around, soon can mean anything.
24. Explain why some people (James, Peter, Paul, Thomas, etc.) should get convincing physical proof of miracles, while the rest of us are supposed to take these happenings on faith.
I referenced to #3. Not entirely sure why I did, but I’ll leave it. I think because those people screwed up.
I can't speculate on the reason, except that it is this: in those times, persecution was rampant, and there was a high probability that Christianity could have been wiped out (which, of course, God as Jesus has promised will not happen). So perhaps a more convincing proof was needed to keep the faith strong and despair in check in those dark, desperate times.
Paul is a special case, since he began his career as a persecutor of Christians.
25. Why are the stories of the resurrection inconsistent?
I didn’t know what you were talking about so…
There are two main "inconsistencies" that everyone points to...the number of women that come to visit the tomb, and the position of the stone upon their arrival.
In regards to the women...just because some Gospels don't mention as many of the women present as others do doesn't mean that all the women weren't there. Some Gospel authors give more attention to detail, while others focus only on the major players. It's all well and good to mention that Mary, the mother of Clopus, was at the tomb...but it's not necessary to mention her when it is only Mary Magdalene who actually says anything at the time.
In regards to the stone, it is always presented as open when the women arrive. In at least one account, there is mention of an angel rolling back the stone...but the angel does so chronologically prior to the arrival of the women at the tomb, and so the tomb is in fact open when the women get there.
26. If you are a Protestant or a member of an Eastern Orthodox church, explain why you are still using the Catholic Bible, which was formalized by a vote among (supposedly divinely inspired) cardinals and bishops in the fourth century CE, when you disagree with the idea that the Pope, who is higher in the Catholic hierarchy is divinely inspired; if a Catholic, explain why your church accepts the canonical Bible while rejecting the Apocrypha (do not use the "divinely inspired" argument: that is not logical, and cannot be accepted by those who aren't already religious).
Well, devine providence is the reason anyone believes any form of the Bible. We still use a Catholic version of the Bible because it's still the Bible. There's a verse I can't find right now about how the word of God cannot be added to or subtracted from: it's either the Bible or it's not. The Catholic Bible is still the Bible, nothing added, nothing subtracted.
Actually, the Catholic Bible now typically includes the Apocrypha, as well as numerous other small books, additions to Esther, and all sorts of other things like that. At least, the Bible at every Catholic Church I've ever been to (roughly a dozen different parishes) has had these additions.
It should be noted, though, that while these extra books make for interesting reading, the major weight of the Bible for Christians resides in precisely 4 books - Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Every Bible has these, so any Bible is as equally valid as the others.
I do, however, disagree with the last point. Just because it contains those books, I don’t think it means it’s the Bible. Plenty of people like to include that, but are very far from being Christian.
27. If your god is kind and gentle, why do some animals have to eat meat?
So? Never says God's a vegan. Besides, have you seen these animals? They are kinda cute ;)
This is sometimes called the "Darwinian Paradox". The world is a system, and each creature and plant is a part of that system. God placed animals and plants both as food for humanity, so it makes logical sense to think that he would not have forbade other animals from eating still other animals in turn...we're hardly the only creatures that need good sources of protein, after all.
More to it, I think everyone can agree that the existence of predator/prey relationships keeps the system in balance. It prevents animal species from overpopulating an area and depleting its resources, thus leading to massive deaths among the same population. This is a very smartly-implemented system.
28. If your god is kind and gentle, why did he create parasites?
Curse from Adam and Eve's sin. As for why parasites...Not a clue...
Parasites and bacteria play a vital role! We couldn't digest out food without certain micro-organisms, one of which is none other than the famed E-Coli. Some parasites play a similar role. Leeches, for example, can be used to clean out some wounds.
Much of this also goes back to regulating the system that is life on Earth. All creatures breed and reproduce, and all creatures are capable of overpopulating an area to an extreme level. Virii and parasites also serve to keep popluations in check, so that there are not massive epidemics of starvation.
29. If your god wants us to worship him through our own free will, why does he threaten us with Hell? If you have someone threatening you with a punishment, how is that free will?
He's not threatening. Just pointing out. Besides, you still have a choice. I know plenty of people who knowingly choose to go to Hell. Granted, I don't think they really know what they're getting into. You always have a choice. Yeah, eternal damnation's not a nice choice, but a choice all the same.
Also, if it's such an obvious choice, why do so many people choose hell? You'd think the idea of fire and brimestone and the stuff from #18 would make people choose God, but hey, obviously people still choose hell. See #21.
Everyone has a choice between Heaven and Hell, plain and simple. God is not threatening, but merely reminding us that both exist. We are free to choose between the two, and while the choice should be obvious...for whatever reason (pride, typically) choose that which is not Heaven.
30. Why would your god deliberately cause sinners to sin (cf. Romans 9:15-23 and numerous parts of the book of Exodus where Jehovah says, "I will harden Pharaoh's heart."). Are these sinners still responsible for the sins which your god forces them, against their will, to commit? Justify your answer.
God doesn't force, he allows. See #29 and 21
This is rather silly...the passage in Romans 9 pretty much explains God's rationale. God is acting as a parent again, permitting much but correcting the errant child when necessary. In a certain sense, this is also a reminder...God knows all, sees all, and rules all. God occasionally chooses to show this in spectacular example...but it should be noted that in doing so, God shows a greater mercy as well. The Egyptians were a pagan people, but they were an honourable and loyal people. Had God made them God's own, their faith would likely have been strong and rarely with fault (unlike the Israelites, who screwed up more times than most Bibles have pages)! And yet God chooses again the Israelites.
31. If Jesus did have to die, why did someone (specifically, Judas) have to be damned in order accomplish the death and resurrection of Jesus? At least Jesus was a volunteer for the cross; I doubt that your god asked Judas if he was willing to go to Hell so that the resurrection could be accomplished.
He wasn't damned. I believe that he probably didn't go to hell. The Bible never really says. On that note, Luke 22:3. It was Satan, not God.
Assuming Jesus had to die (which he did), how was anyone going to be able to convict him if not to betray him with falsehood? Jesus did no wrong, and no charge brought against him in truth would have stuck. So the Chief Priests and the Pharisees had to turn to falsehood in order to convict him...but they knew they would have to do this! Much like a rich man hires a hit man to kill someone because the rich man himself has a distaste for the task and doesn't want to be a killer himself, so the Chief Priests and the Pharisees hired Judas (who allowed himself to be bought) to betray Jesus.
A big part of this is that Judas allowed himself to be bought. Think of it this way: God knew that Judas would allow himself to be bought, and worked around this in his divine plan. NOT: God made his divine plan, and caused Judas to fit into it by being bought.

32. If Judas was willing to go to Hell for humanity (see #31), didn't he make more of a sacrifice than Jesus, who spent only three hours in pain? Shouldn't we then be worshipping Judas?
See #31. BTW, I believe that Jesus descended into hell. Time is relative, so three days on earth can be an eternity in hell.
33. Why should we accept the words of the gospel writers as truth when they are known to be liars? (See Romans 3:7).
See Romans 3:8. See also #30 and 26.
Because people can change and honestly repent their sin.
34. Do you believe that your god is anti-homosexual? If so, explain why he would create homosexuals in the first place. If not, refute or explain away Leviticus 20:13 and Romans 1:26-27.
Touchy subject...My answer (that I know my friend will disagree with): Satan made homosexuals. That's all I got. Rather, God made them, Satan made them gay.
Keep in mind that that is my own personal opinion. Don’t think that all Christians will think that. My own opinion, I don’t want to get in a flame war about it.
(he disagrees…thought so)
First, Leviticus. Few if any of the Levitical Laws are still in practice among Christians today, except the ones born of common-sense. In the transition from the Old Testament to the New, the need to follow the complex ritual and dietary laws of Leviticus and other books in order to attain salvation is eliminated. Most Christians today follow very few of the Levitical Laws, besides - as mentioned - common-sense things, like not having sexual relations with close relatives. It is nothing more than narrow-minded hypocrisy on the part of people attempting to sinfully hide behind the label of "Christian" while spreading a message (contrary to that of Jesus) of hate and exclusion that quote from Leviticus nowadays...and they probably eat shellfish, too (which carries an equal penalty to homosexuality in Leviticus).
Secondly, Romans. This actually references back to #30...if you read the passage before, the example people here are filled with every manner of wickedness at the beginning. God therefore says to them "so be it, have it your way" and lets them choose their course. There is a good deal of speculation that in this passage, the argument is being made against ritualistic sexual acts (i.e. as a part of pagan worship, an orgy)...and ONLY that.
35. Explain why prayer is OK, but spell casting is not, when both amount to the same thing: requesting that a superior supernatural force intercede in a way that would be impossible according to the normally accepted laws of physics.
A book I read has great response for this:
All power comes from God.
Magic is stolen power, stolen by Satan from God.
Spells are not a request, but a demand. No also that most of the "requesting" is not requesting of God, but of Satan in spell casting.
Matthew 26:42
36. According to the Gospels, from the Christian standpoint, Jesus was the most important person to ever live. From the Roman standpoint, Jesus was a huge pain because of his political activities. Explain why nothing was written about his life for over thirty years after his death, and nothing except the Gospels was written until the third century CE.
I'm sure most of us have heard of persecution, right? Think of the Diary of Anne Frank...that book took a few years to come to light, even with much more modern means of communication and publishing. In ancient times, there weren't radios and printing presses, so it comes as little surprise that it took a while for the message to "take off" as it did.
As well, let us not forget that for many years after the death of Jesus, the apostles went throughout the world teaching and spreading the message of Jesus. Only toward the end of their lives would they have found time, and probably the will, to actually record all that Jesus did and was...much as most celebrities today don't write their memoirs until they hit 60 or 70.
37. Explain why you believe a person whose life is so poorly documented (see #36) was even ever born.
There are numerous records from the Roman Empire that speak of Jesus. His crucifixion was noted in Roman records. There is historical basis for his existence.
38. Define the word "Christ," including references to the pagan origins and meaning of the word.
See #1. Also, I believe that many pagan rites and such came from a perversion of Biblical ideas and concepts. (not entirely sure why I referenced to #1.
Christ is the Anglican form of the Greek word "Christos" which is derived from the Hebrew word "Messiah."" Since Christ is synonymous with Messiah, it is logical that if we want to know the meaning of the word Christ then we need to know the definition of the word Messiah.
According to several years of Encyclopedia Brittanica, Encyclopedia Judaica and the Hebrew Dictionary, the definition of the word "Messiah" is:
An Anointed Male Lineal Descendant of King David
39. Explain why Jesus, who was anti-Gentile (see Mark 7:25-29) and anti-sex (see Luke 14:26 and Matthew 19:12), would want to be anointed with oil in a pagan sexual rite after his death (see your definition for #38).
Not anti-gentile, just pro-israelite. See #38.
I think you'd better share your research for the meaning of Christ, eh? Pagan sexual ritual? The annointing of the body was a common burial practice among the Israelites, and Christ was buried in the same fashion as any Jew of the day would have been.
We've addressed the anti-Gentile bit already.
Anti-sex? Luke 14:26 doesn't have a thing to do with sex - Christ is saying that we cannot value family above God, that's all. That's true of anything...money, our family, our own life. God is what we should value and strive for first, for as much as we love these other things they can (and do) pull us away from God. That is not to say we should not love other things...family, friends, and ourselves especially (money not so much) but it is to say that we should not be drawn away from God by these things. And if you could be bothered to make quotations in context, you'd see that Matt 19:12 finishes up a talk Jesus gives on divorce. Sex is not a bad thing here, although divorce is (except in cases of unchastity...cheating).
For the record, read the context for all this. You’re cherry-picking quite a bit.
40. In light of Matthew 10:34, explain why Jesus is called the Prince of Peace.
Because there will be peace in Heaven. Also, inner peace and calm.
Assuming we would quote the verse in context and include the next few lines of the passage, what Jesus is talking about here is precisely what we are engaged in...in this forum thread. Jesus is saying to all present that faith in him will not be easy, that it will set the Christians apart from others in the world and make us who profess our faith objects of scorn and derision. He also follows it up by saying, again, that if we love earthly things and people more than we love God, we risk being pulled away from God by these things and people.
41. The name "Jesus" has been anglicized. What was the original (Hebrew) name of Jesus? Where did you get this information?
In Hebrew texts of the Bible, the name is Yeshua (sic?). (meaning; Salvation - God Saves)
As to how "Jesus" came about, that was likely first because of a Latinization of the word, probably "Ieshua". And of course, the anglicanized Latin "I" is often a "J", so "Jeshua", "Joshua", and "Jesus".
42. Why is it that the life of Jesus was so similar to the lives of pagan Christs, particularly Herakles, Dionysios, and Asklepios?
See #38
Many religions have tales of saviours, it is true. To my knowledge, Jesus is the only one that has been documented as having actually arrived.
43. If your god requires that people believe in him and follow his orders through their own free will, why do Christians push their views on public policy?
Why make it easier for people? Set the example. Note also that you still have a choice, a choice to break the law. People tend to forget that you do have the choice to break the law, you just have to pay the concequences. See 1, 12, and 13.
Christians are told to go and preach to the world...HOWEVER, we are also instructed that if any place reject us, we are to turn from there and "shake the dust from our sandals as we go, as a testament against them". Which means that, as Christians, we are called to spread the message of Christ. But if anyone says "I don't want to listen", we are to respect that and move on.
This actually, indirectly, goes back to the questions about the persecutions. Not because this is a persecution, per se, but because Christians are forgetting a part of the message. They are within their right to express their beliefs in the public domain...that is their calling as Christians. Many Christians forget the second part of the directive, however...when people reject the message, move on to the next town.
44. Explain why being a good Christian requires you to push your beliefs on others. If you do not believe that you have to push your views on others (no matter how much this annoys them), explain why you do not believe this despite the fact that the New Testament suggests that you must do this to get to Heaven (for instance, in Matthew 28:19-20).
Matthew 28:19-20 doesn't say you have to do it to get in to heaven, just that you should.
Similarly, why am I forced to listen to Big Bang, allow gay marriage in certain states, and forbidden from praying in school?
See #43
45. Explain why spreading the "truth of Christ" requires you to spread lies about other religions, such as the idea that Pagans worship the Christian devil, this being a rumor which has been persistently spread by Christians since the second century CE.
See #3. People screw up. It’s not required. Also, people don’t do research before they say things.
The truth of Christ is that which is in the Gospels, no? What do the Gospels say?
There are many things that can be worshipped. Certainly in the Bible, there are many gods that the people worship that are not God. There is some evidence to support the conclusion that these other gods exist as God does, though they have vastly less power. I can't think of anywhere it is mentioned that Satan is behind them all. However, going back to the wedding banquet metaphor...
...the wedding banquet is held in but one hall in the city. There may be other banquet halls, but only one will house the banquet (Heaven). Anywhere else is not the banquet.
46. At no point in the four Gospels did Jesus claim to be the son of your god. (He said "son of man" quite frequently, and at one point referred to himself as "a son of god," but that was a common Hebrew expression at the time: someone who was "a son of god" was a Jew. This reflected the Israelites' belief that they were the chosen people of your god. See Job 1:6). Why, then, do you believe that Jesus was divine? If you don't believe that Jesus was divine, then why do you call yourself a Christian?
Matthew 27:43
John 3:16
John 19:7
Mark 14: 61-62...Jesus says he is the son of the 'Blessed One' (i.e. God). Also Matthew 16: 15-17
47. Given the fact that Jesus did not say anything original (the Golden Rule and the "turn the other cheek" idea were stolen from Buddhism; and the Beatitudes were common in the Jewish devotional literature at the time), why do you see Jesus as such a great thinker/ philosopher/ ethicist?
Buddhism stole the idea? That, and it's not like just because someone thought it, no one else can think it up on their own.
Indeed...I think that the fact that the idea appears in multiple philosophies speaks volumes about its universailty and its truth. Unless there is some unknown evidence that Jesus studied Buddhist principle?
With all due respect, it seems likely that Jesus did indeed reach these conclusions on his own. The example of the Beatitudes is interesting...I always think of Life of Brian, and the part where the people in the crowd are commenting on the Beatitudes.
"Did he say the Greek shall inherit the Earth?"
"What Greek??"
"No, he said the MEEK shall inherit the Earth!"
"Oh, that's nice...the meek should get something."
It's funny because it illustrates well that contemporary Judaism at the time had gotten away from these teachings. Where Jesus' true brilliance shows through, I think, is in the parables...2000 years on, there are still profound in both their simplicity (important, given the probably lack of education amongst the crowds Jesus would have preached to) and their potency.
48. When Jesus said, "Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also," why do you suppose that most Christians fight for their rights? To put it another way, why don't we, as a country of 85% Christians, let the government abuse us?
85%!? Right! Where'd you get that? Poll I heard was 66% claim to be Christian, and some 33% of that are actually Christian.
That's more of a command against revenge and such. Just because I turn my cheek, it doesn't mean I have to enjoy getting beat. See #3 also.
As one priest I know once quipped..."The Bible says 'turn the other cheek'. It doesn't say 'be a sucker'. It doesn't say 'after you turn the other cheek, come back next week to get slapped again'. We're supposed to bear the slurs and anger at the time, instead of lashing out for revenge. But that doesn't mean we're obligated to become the world's doormat...and we are within our rights to demand to be treated fairly and not abused just because.
49. Why are so many Christian holidays on the same day as Pagan holidays? Couldn't the early Church fathers have converted pagans only by appealing to their reason and/or faith if Christianity is the true religion?
See #3. People want their same old lives, don’t want to change the routine. And, people are stubborn. If they see that they can be Christian and still keep their age-old customs, they're more likely to be Christian. Also, the church at the time was quite corrupt. Part of it was trying to make it seem like they were doing better than they were.
Church was very good at outreach, and let us also not forget that those festival days were key points not only of the ritual year, but of local commerce as well...and indeed almost every facet of life for these pagan cultures. So it makes sense that the Church would have adopted these days...familiarity is a good thing, and it means that local commerce - and even crop cycles! - are not disrupted by the arrival of Christianity.
In a sense, it is an appeal to reason. There is a poetic signifigance to it...Christmas in winter (poetically, winter means the death of the world, dark times) so the light of the newborn Jesus can shine out and shatter the dark. Easter in Spring for the New Life in the Resurrection.
50. Explain how your god can be "just and merciful" in light of Exodus 20:5.
This is another of those metaphor things that some of us have heard of...why is it that atheists and militant anti-Christians are more literalist, it seems, in their interpretations of the Bible than Jerry Falwell?
God is speaking again of the choice all have...the choice that is in God (which bears eternal reward long after we pass from this Earth) or the choice that is not God.
Note also that there is a confusing element in what is said...a thousand generations of reward. Why not a thousand generations of suffering? Because God forgives. What this passage speaks to is repentance in God...and so it does speak of justice. God does not stay angry with us forever when we transgress. God's anger is not eternal. Only God's love.

51. Do you believe that the Old Testament should be accepted as part of Christian theology? If so, explain how you can worship such a cruel, sadistic god (see Numbers 31:17-18, Deuteronomy 20:16, Proverbs 20:30, Amos 3:6, Deuteronomy 13:8, Psalms 3:7, Psalms 52:5, etc.); if not, explain how you can believe that Jesus is the promised savior sent by your god without the messianic prophecies and the ruling rights of the line of David, both of which are in the Old Testament in books such as Isaiah, Zechariah, Daniel, Psalms, etc. (as opposed to, say, believing that Jesus was an irritating nut wandering around saying things that people didn't like much).
Matthew 1.
Also, see #50.
The Old Testament is a part of Christian theology in the sense that it provides the account of how God spoke to the world and interacted with his chosen people before the coming of Jesus, as well as the prophecies that foretold of Jesus. There are many accounts in the Old Testament of God growing angry, this is true. And yet each time, it serves to note that God's wrath is short, and the outpouring of love and blessings that follow it is vastly larger.
All this changes when God finally comes among us as a person, and yet remains the same. God gives us the greatest outpouring of love possible...God. God, in the person of Jesus, becomes human, lives as a human, suffers as a human...and dies as a human. In doing so, God signals that no longer will there be an outpouring of power, no harsh discipline to correct the errant children. Instead, the children will already be cleansed, and need only to recognize this for themselves. The choice is truly theirs.
52. Explain why your "just and merciful" god sent bears to kill forty-two children who called his prophet Elija "baldhead." (See 2 Kings 2:23-24).
That would be a demonstration of his power. Notice that the entire nation was worshipping a false god, Baal, I believe, and refused to listen to Elija, despite many performed miracles. See 50.
53. If prostitution is wrong, why are there so many examples of it in Genesis? (For instance, Gen 19:8, where Lot offers his daughters to a mob so that his guests can avoid gang rape).
Notice that nowhere is Lot labelled as being "in the right" to offer his daughters to the mob. The only right actions in that whole scene are taken by the messengers...they blind the mob temporarily, take the family, and flee. They remove the (marginally) righteous family from the danger.
There are many examples of prostitution and other immoral sexual acts in the Bible, and I can't think of a-one of them that is presented as anything other than immoral. That's right, human beings sin. What...a...surprise...
54. What is the sin that people committed that is so incredibly bad that your god had to become flesh and die to correct?
Not any one sin, but the weight of all sin, and the way in which it stains us. Much as bathwater sacrifices its relatively pristine condition so that we can get the dirt off of our skin, so the sacrifice of Jesus that we might be cleansed from our sins and no longer bound by them.
I personally believe that any one sin can separate you from God. By that I mean, you are perfect and can get into heaven until you sin, once. But, it’s so easy to make yourself clean again. All you have to do is ask Jesus….
55. Are all members of all other faiths bad? Are they all damned to Hell? Justify your answer with quotes from the Bible.
John 14:6. They're not bad, per se, just lost.
56. Are all atheists/agnostics/humanists bad? Are they all damned to Hell? Justify your answer with quotes from the Bible.
See 55. BTW, I think that atheism is another faith...so...yeah...
This and #55 are addressed in the wedding banquet parable. If you don't accept the invitation, if you don't come to the banquet hall...will you be able to eat the wedding feast? The waiters certainly aren't going to bring it out to you if you stay in your house halfway across town.
57. What was your motive in proselytizing me?
While I admire your ability to use big words, there's no need to be loquacious. Nobody here has tried to convert you. We've answered your questions with direct answers. If at any point we've sounded rather preachy...well, I won't apologize, because we have nothing to apologize for. We have responded in the best way to answer each question you have posed.
If I have: How can I simply let you go to hell? If you are wrong, than I should tell you the truth, so that you can be right. If your best friend was drunk, would you let him walk out with the keys without even saying a word to him? Remember the banquet: you’re invited, I want to make sure you get the invitation.
58. Where is Heaven?
Not mentioned in the Bible. My guess? Outside the known universe (which is, in fact, finite. I forget how big it is, but it does end.)
The Kindom of Heaven is now! It's all around us! It is inside the Universe! It is outside the Universe! It is everywhere, and nowhere!
59. Where is Hell?
#58
Hell is where Heaven is not. This is answered better in a later question, so keep on reading! :)
A good, simple answer for both would be: Heaven is where God is, hell is where he isn’t.
60. Why don't animals go to heaven or hell when they die? What makes us so special?
Breath of life. That’s not just physical life, it’s metaphoric (like most of the Bible) to spiritual life as well. Animals don't have souls. Also, we were created in God's image.
61. Why does Satan try to get peoples' souls?
To try to beat God. Actually, he doesn't get them, I think, he just doesn't want them to go to Heaven.
Misery loves company...
62. Once Satan has someone's soul, what does he do with it?
#61. This also goes back to 59.
Depends. It may be that he tortures them. It may be that he abandons them to their own misery. I don't imagine it's anything pleasant.
This goes back to the question of where hell is. Depending on what someone answers for that, you’ll get a different answer for this.
63. Is your god perfect? Justify your answer.
See the one were I talked about people dying in his presence.
Yes. This is easiest exemplified through the life of Jesus (who was God enfleshed)...Jesus was without sin, without blemish or flaw. This fact is established again and again in the Gospels: for Jesus(=God) to be able to die for our sins, Jesus himself could have no sin about him. None but one who is perfect could attain this.
While this may be hard to accept, I see God’s being perfect as a simple fact. The sky is blue, and God is perfect.
64. Where does our soul stay while we are alive? Justify your answer, using quotes from the Bible if you can.
Body is a temple and such. 1 Corinthians 6:19
65. Explain how you can believe in Satan when your faith is directly descended from the Jewish faith, when the Jews did not even believe in Satan until they absorbed the Egyptian god Set while they were captives in Egypt.
Satan is but one name Christians attach to the Devil. We can believe in the Devil because in several places in the Gospels, Jesus has some very pointed conversations with ol' Lucy.
66. Why do evil people often prosper? Justify your answer.
Prosper on earth. They receive their reward in hell.
Precisely. This is why sin is so tempting, and is well illustrated by the Devil's temptation of Jesus in the desert. The Devil, and the wages of sin, promise great rewards, and in this world will often deliver them. For example, dishonesty, especially in the business world, can lead to huge profits for a company...why do you suppose companies like Nike still use what are basically sweatshops? It's dishonesty and greed...they don't have to pay these workers anything resembling an honest wage, which means more profits (which, out of greed, they desire).
That's just smashing great...until you die and the check arrives at your table. ;)
67. Why do good people often fail to prosper? Justify your answer.
They receive their reward in heaven.
Good people will typically sacrifice a part of themselves, whether it is time, wealth, or even health, for another person, or for many other people. They will resist sin (as much as is reasonable) and so not necessarily reap all the easy rewards that sin can bring. As an example...an honest person will pay a worker an honest wage, reserving fewer of the profits of a business for themselves.
68. When the end of the world comes, will your god raise our actual bodies, or just our souls? Explain.
Read "Left Behind" for a good idea of what it might be like.
Revelation 11:9-12 talks about how many will lay dead, and then have God breathe life into their bodies again and be called into heaven.
69. Explain why your god lets airplanes with sinless infants on board crash.
See my explaination of how I think children are sinless until they choose to sin. I believe they go to Heaven, which is way better than living out their lives on Earth, I'd think.
Luke 13:1-5. This is an ancient question...why does God let these things happen...were these people somehow worse sinners than other people? Of course not. But we cannot know the hour or the place in which God will call us home, and for some of us that is only a short time after our birth. It sounds cruel, but is it really? Our time is at an end...what of it? There is no need to fear death.
What the passage from Luke tells us is that the question is somewhat irrelevant. These things happen. Why does a plane crash? Any number of reasons...equipment failure, shoddy craftsmanship, a bomb goes off, hijackers, a drunken or fatigued pilot. The list is endless. Should we expect God to intervene? Or should we instead acknowledge that our lives are fragile things, inferior next to the sheer capacity we have to destroy that life? Should we ask God to intervene...or be ready to meet God when it's our time?
On that note, BE READY. You don’t know your time. Be ready, always, and this won’t be a problem.
70. What is sin, exactly?
Doing what God said not to.
A sin is an action in which a person harms another, causes hurt to another, or causes offence to another. A sin is the outcome of a choice - we must choose to contravene what we know to be right. This includes sins of omission, which is when we choose inaction where some form of action is actually the right action. Sins are also selfish actions, in which we choose to act in a manner that benefits us without a thought to whether it will hurt another.
It could be argued that not believing in God, which is also a sin, does not fall into this category. It sounds cheesy, but it's true...God is hurt when we choose a different path. Thus, if God is real, then this too is a sin.
71. If Jesus is perfect, justify the parable of the fig tree (Matthew 21:17-19, Mark 11:14-20).
Even Jesus has anger. Withering the fig tree did no harm to anyone. And how does this make him not perfect?
What Jesus is doing here is giving example, yet again (do try and remember that, in the beginning, the apostles were thick as bricks). The fig tree is a metaphor for us...all of us are given the opportunity to "bear fruit" (in good deeds, acts of charity, preaching the message, whatever). If we choose not to do this, we too shall wither.
72. Explain why Christians (yes, that includes all branches of Christianity) have spread the lie that Jews put Jesus to death when, in actuality, it was the Romans who put Jesus to death. (For a good example of New Testament anti-Semitism, see 1 Thessalonians 2:15).
The Jews were the ones who called for it. Now, I don't believe in any way that the Bible (and "The Passion of Christ") is anti-semetic, considering that the savior of the human race is also Jewish.
This lie has been spread under the same justification that the previously mentioned persecutions used. Once again, it is an example of people using the Christian label to spread a message of hate that is contrary to what is truly Christian.
However, it serves to note that Pilate did not want to crucify Jesus, and found no crime against him. Only to avoid a probable revolt by the people, to appease the crowd, did he finally hand Jesus over. And the only reason the crowd was so set against Jesus is because the religious authorities of the Jewish people stirred them up against him. That's right...the Bible is not anti-Jewish. It is anti-"hypocritical religious authorities".
And can you believe that the Catholic just said that? ;)
73. Explain why your god created humans as imperfect, then set his standards so high that no one could possibly live up to them, then punishes us for not living up to his standards. Doesn't this also constitute "entrapment?"
He made us perfect, we fell. See my explanation of Adam/Eve's sin.
We don't need to live up to the standards, though. The only standards we need to be able to live up to are:
- recognize that Jesus died to free us from the bonds of sin
- recognize that we have sinned
- ask forgiveness, in Jesus and of those we have wronged, for our sins
How very impossible.
74. If we are created in your god's image and likeness (Gen 1:27), how can we also be imperfect?
Satan. Sin. We were made in his image, we were not made to be Him.
75. Why was it OK for the ancient Israelites to sacrifice animals to their god, while it is wrong for modern religions to sacrifice animals to their gods? Justify your answer.
Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice. We no longer need to sacrifice animals. It's wrong because it means that you don't believe in Jesus' sacrifice. Now, if you sacrificed an animal to Jesus/God to show your love, knowing of Jesus' sacrifice, I see no problem/
Just about bang-on, except that Jesus doesn't want or ask for animal sacrifices as far as I know.
God sacrificed God for us...what sacrifice could we offer that would equal this? None. God knows this, and asks nothing of us.
Just to clarify what I meant as an acceptable sacrifice: A farmer wants to give to God. God does call us to give our time, our money, indeed, our whole lives to him. If the farmer were to sacrifice his best cow, that would be a gift of all three, money, time, and part of his life. It does nothing to save him, but it is an act of worship. It is symbolic only.
76. Why would your god confuse people? (See 1 Sam 7:10 and Gen 11:9). Isn't life confusing enough already?
1 Sam 7:10: he confused the bad-guys. He was helping the good guys.
Gen 11:9: They were making a tower to reach God. God said that you can't do that, but they tried anyway. See consequences of sin.
77. Why would your god cause blindness, deafness, and dumbness? (See Ex 4:11)
Talk to almost any deaf/blind/mute people. They will almost certainly tell you that it's not a curse at all. They don't think of themselves as handicapped. They accept it, so you should too.
In many cases, God does this because he wants to assist his chosen people against their persecutors. In other instances, God causes these effects somewhat inadvertently. For a non-Biblical example, think of Icarus. Blinded, because he flew too near the beautiful sun. So too with God...the sheer radiance and brilliance of God would definitely cause sensory overload.
Saul/Paul is a great example. Blinded by God’s brilliance, but because of it he was brought to Christ.
78. Why would your god want to damn people by making them believe false things? (See 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12).
See the verse about God tempting us, waaaaaaay up there.
This is God again intervening to preserve God's chosen. To prevent the deliberately wicked (note the part in this passage about "tak[ing] pleasure in their unrighteousness") from corrupting and attacking the faithful, God distracts them. They already believe, worship, and pursue that which is "false"...God is allowing them to continue in this, so that they might be distracted from spreading their corruption.
79. Should the book of Revelation be taken literally? Justify your answer.
I think it can be, though Mr. Aiera disagrees. But, if you do take it literally, you must also recognize the metaphors as well.
No. Let us think again of the day and age, and the persecution of Christians, and the need to occasionally speak in a sort of code. Revelation is a powerful metaphor for the Second Coming, but it is also a powerful message of hope to the Christians of the day enduring the suffering of persecution. It is saying..."see all that we shall suffer, but we shall be victorious and lifted up in the end".
80. Would it be good for men to castrate themselves? Justify your answer, taking Matthew 19:12 into account.
See the verses Paul wrote about marriage. Same concept.
On a related note, does anyone remember that passage "put out your eye if it causes you to sin"? Jesus is not there, nor is he in Matt 19:12, advocating any sort of self-mutilation. What he is advocating is faithfulness.
If you choose to give yourself (sexually) to one person, keep it to that one person. If for whatever reason that one person departs from you, or you from them, do not seek to become sexually active with another, for what you have given to one cannot again be given to another...in sex (which is great!) we are joined completely to another person (2 become 1, remember?), and we leave a part of ourselves with them that we cannot ever get back or give again.
And he's saying that if you choose instead to give yourself over completely to God, then do not give yourself to any other.
81. What exactly is faith?
OO! I love this one! I don't even have to use the Bible for this one!
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary
pg. 408
(1) faith: 2 b (1) firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) complete confidence 3 something that is believed esp with strong conviction; esp: a system of religious beliefs
(2) faith: BELIEVE, TRUST
Although, for something a little more poetic: Faith: is the assurance of things hoped for, the belief in things not yet seen

82. All of the various Christian sects ignore parts of the Bible, usually because those parts of the Bible are inconvenient. Explain which parts of the Bible your sect ignores, and explain why it is OK to ignore those parts of the Bible.
I don't ignore them, or at least, try not to. See #1. In any case, it's not OK, ever.
It's not a case of ignoring it. I don't think anyone I know ignores parts of the Bible. However, two things are worth noting:
- some parts of the Bible are more important. While the book of Amos is a good read, it's not nearly as important as, say, the Gospel of John to the Christian faith.
- interpretations between Christian denominations is often varied, and we might each view any particular part of the Bible in a vastly different manner. We might also ignore other interpretations (though I'd hope not!)
83. Why did your god allow Satan to do evil things to Job (Job 2:7 etc.)? Couldn't your god have better spent his time punishing unbelievers?
See God tempting us.
Also, freedom of choice, something God has given humanity from the placement of the Tree of Knowledge in Genesis onward. God allows us to choose between God and Satan, because that is what true faith involves - choice!
84. If Jesus and his father are one (John 10:30), then why does Jesus have to pray (i.e. Matthew 26:39)?
They are separate people, but part of one body. The Trinity is confusing, I don't get it completely...
St. Patrick explains the Trinity with a three-leaved clover, which is of course a misnomer. One clover, three leaves. The three leaves are one clover, and so are all one, but each leaf can also interact with the other two. Thus, Jesus can pray.
85. Explain your belief in heaven in light of Job 7:9 and Ecclesiastes 9:5.
Ecclesiastes 9:5…
This talks of spiritual and physical lives at once. The living (those who will be saved) know that they will die in this world (implicit: but be raised in the hereafter), wheras the dead (unsaved) will die in this world and not know life eternal in God.

Job 7:9...You have to read the whole story of Job. Also, I think he's refering to physical life, not spiritual life. Physical life is indeed, permanent, except for those few special times Jesus/God intervened.
I think here, what is being said is that those who make the worldly things their master will not return again to Heaven. If money, power, sex, and even people - indeed, all things of this world - get put before God, the one who embraces them will not have life beyond this world.
86. Christ giving himself up on the cross was a great gesture, true, but wouldn't it have been more sensible for him to continue spreading his message until he died a natural death? Answer this question in light of your answer to question #1.
But then it wouldn't have been a sacrifice, which would completely dissolve the whole thing. See answer to #1. Also, part of his death was a spiritual death as well.
Christ had to die in this manner in order that the full weight of sin might fall on him, so that it could perish along with him. He had to die in a manner rife with the sins of others so that the full burden would be there for him to absorb.
87. What is your interpretation of the temptation of Christ by Satan in the desert (Matthew 4:5-8, Luke 4:5-9)?
Jesus was tempted so that he would have gone through everything that man goes through.
This illustrates Jesus' sinless nature. It is perfectly reasonable to think that Jesus could have said yes to any one of the Devil's offers, and yet he consistently chose not to, thus remaining free from sin even while thirsty and starving.
88. In view of Matthew 6:5-6, shouldn't prayer in public schools be discouraged? Support your answer with scripture quotes.
People love to missuse this verse...
It means that when you pray, it should be about God, not about yourself. There's another verse that says when you pray to God (not for yourself), that you should do it in view of others, to set an example.In other words, when you pray, you should pray as if you were alone in your closet.
89. Do you feel that the last words of Christ were significant? If so, why do the four gospels attribute three different sentences to Christ as his last? (Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34: "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"; Luke 23:46: "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit"; John 19:30: "It is finished").
Different points of view:
It is likely that he said all three of these things...each author chose to include the most signifigant in their eyes.
Take "My God, My God...", for example. It's a powerful phrase, often confusing when you first think about it. But flip to Psalm 22. What Jesus is doing, even in death, is calling attention to the Scriptures, giving the opening line (they weren't numbered back then) to a Psalm that foretells all he was to endure, and for what purpose.
The other two have relatively obvious meaning. Jesus dies...he commends his spirit to God. His time on Earth, his mission and purpose, are finished.
90. Matthew and Mark say that the last words of Christ were, in Hebrew, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" This has traditionally been translated as, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" However, a more accurate translation would be, "My El, My El, why has thou forsaken me?" El is the name of a specific pagan god. Why would Jesus call out to a pagan god at the moment of his death?
Heard this before. Again, Eloi probably came first, and pagans perversed it.
I have a friend who speaks fluent Hebrew. He has no idea where you get your word of choice - El - from. This is a call to one of the (many) names of God. What website did your translation come from?
91. A commonly recited litany in many forms of Christianity is "The LORD is my shepherd." (Psalm 23:1). Given the fact that the only reasons that people raise sheep are to rob them of their clothes and to kill them for meat, and the fact that sheep will often follow the shepherd to their destruction, do you think that this is any appropriate image for your god? Justify your answer.
You're taking it too literally. That's a bad idea for the most part with the Bible. He is refering to the nature of sheep to wander off. Know also that a shepherd's life revolves around his sheep. David fought off lions and bears and such for his sheep. I think that's an appropriate image.
Precisely. The metaphor of shepherd and sheep refers exactly to the tendency of sheep to get very lost, and often stuck in bizarre situations. And it refers to the willingness of the shepherd to lay down his life for his sheep in order to protect and preserve them.
92. Why is the theory of the big bang any more (or less) likely that the idea that your god created the universe? Justify your answer.
It isn't. I just comes down to faith.
Actually, I take it back. Occam's (sp?) Razor, which is scientifically sound and proven (i think) and such says that the simplest answer, given two equally valid theories, is most often correct. Which is simpler? Matter condensed, forming a superheated mass of almost infinitely dense matter, which exploded outward, sending matter in all directions. Gravity pulled groups of matter together in swirling masses, where the lighter elements condensed in the middle forming stars, leaving the heavier elements to form planets (and that’s leaving out the origin of life); Or, God said so?
And who is to say that God creating the Universe wouldn't have happened with a whopping-big BANG?
93. If your god is omnipresent, and hell is the absence of (or separation from) your god, how can he be omnipresent? If he is not truly omnipresent, then how can he be omnipotent?
It's there in scripture - there is a divide between Heaven and Hell that none may cross. Hell is a complete seperation from God.
Now we're deep in the metaphysical swamp...hope you brought your boots. God is infinite, but if we can look to mathematics for a second, we find a number called aleph naught. This is a number that, for lack of a better explanation, exists outside infinity, without disrupting the concept of infinity. So too with Hell.
Also, something I thought about in light of Jesus descending to hell...since hell is timeless, Jesus is in hell...forever...so in a way, God is in hell...Metaphysics…couldn’t tell ya.
94. In the Genesis story, your god tells Adam and Eve that the day they eat from the tree of knowledge they will surely die (Gen 2:17). The devil tells them that they will not die, but that their eyes would be opened and they would know the difference between good and evil (Gen 3:5). Wasn't Satan telling the truth here? Is your god a liar? Justify your answer in light of Jeremiah 20:7 and Ezekiel 14:9.
Jeremiah 20:7 screwed up. Read the context. You're not supposed to say stuff like that to God.
Ezekiel 14:9 I think refers to false prophets.
And no, God didn't lie then. First off, when he sent them out of the garden, they no longer had access to the Tree of Life, which granted eternal life, so yes, they died, whereas they could have lived forever. Also, that's a metaphor for spiritual death, and decent into hell.
95. If Lucifer is not as powerful as your god, then how could he possibly have as many followers as most Christians seem to think he has?
I know this sounds horrible, and again, I wish I could make it sound better but: people are stupid. Just because Satan has followers, it doesn't mean he's more powerful. Indeed, remember that God doesn't force you to follow him. Satan will, or at least, try.
Pretty much. The thing is, most of us are "followers" of Satan in a sense. It's not like an organized conspiracy...we "follow" the Devil when we sin. Many are those who embrace sinful actions, of whatever form, and even attempt to corrupt others into doing the same. This could be a boss who asks an employee to fudge financial records, for example.
96. The Bible constantly describes your god as male. In view of the fact that your god supposedly created everything, and creation is very much a female function, isn't this at least a little bit absurd? Also, because your god is often referred to in the bible as both male and female (such as by the word `Elohim'), is it not more likely that your god is androgynous? Justify your answer.
I think it's mostly because calling God "It" wouldn't be very flattering. Also, while God may not have gender, Jesus certainly did. So instead of calling Him "It", He took the side he's closest to, male.
I think God is above concepts of gender. But let's remember the education level of the apostles and the crowds originally being preached to, and even the people of the first few (or several) centuries. It's better to have a concrete reference, such as a gender-specific pronoun, in order to fully communicate the "person-ness" of God. Why they chose male? Any number of reasons...and I don't think it makes a difference if people call God female, at all.
97. In light of the Trinity, angels, the Virgin Mary, etc., isn't Christianity polytheistic? If the Trinity is three who are one, why the three names? Justify your answer.
Again, the Trinity is confusing...
No, because the Trinity is one entity with three parts. Clover leaf. To make it as dumbed down as possible...there is only one clover. I only worship one clover.
As for Mary...we don't worship Mary. Mary is an intercessor...for lack of a better way to put it, we ask Mary to pray for us to her son (because, if you notice in several places in the Bible, she always seems to know just how to go about asking him to act...reference: the wedding at Cana). Do I really need to haul out my brief analysis of the "Hail Mary" again?
Hail Mary, Full of Grace - a greeting
The Lord is with thee - being that both Mary and Jesus are in heaven, this is a literal statement of fact
Blessed are thou among women
_and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus - Elizabeth's greeting to Mary
Holy Mary, Mother of God - statement of fact (Jesus = God)
Pray for us sinners - the meat of it...we're asking her to pray for us...
Now and at the hour of our death - ...and to KEEP praying for us (we need the help ;) )
Amen - should be obvious...
Saints follow the same concept...they are also intercessors. There is only one thing I worship: God
98. Have you read the entire Bible? If not, how can you be devoted enough to try and convert anyone to a religion that you don't know that much about? Isn't knowing as much as possible about something necessary to understanding it? Isn't understanding something necessary to being completely devoted to it?
Have you read every Atheistic theory and such? I don't claim to have read it all, nor do I claim to know all. But, I'll share what I do know. Why let people live in ignorance when they can get at least a bit of knowledge?
Yes. Over all the years - yes.
This is true, too. Yes, you should try to read the entire Bible. But is there any reason to withhold what I already know?
99. Why is 2 Kings 19 exactly identical to Isaiah 37?
There are plenty of verses that are repeated. I think this goes with the whole "people are stupid" thing. They won't listen the first time, so tell them again.
100. Is Jesus's three days in Hell really an ultimate sacrifice, when more than half of humanity going to spend eternity there (see question #11)?
See my explanation earlier...Hell is timeless.

Because I don't feel like reading all 6 pages (or however many there are)
Here are a few (a few being 147) answers to the same number of questions about Christianity. You're probably asking some of the same questions, and if you're not, oh well, you've hopefully learned something...



I believe you missed the salient point of my original post. Perhaps you should read it before commenting further.

101. If your sect considers the King James Bible to be the official and/or authoritative translation, justify this in light of the fact that when King James commissioned his translation to be poetic rather than accurate. How can you possibly use an inaccurate translation as your reference for what is/is not the word of your god? If your sect does not use the King James Bible, which translation do they use? Justify the use of that particular translation.
Um...I don't bother with translation issues...I don't think there is any one "official" version.
The KJV is highly riddled with translation errors, some of them deliberate (the good king wanted excuses to persecute the Catholic minority in England at the time). As for translations...the NRSV is regarded as the most accurate, from a literal text standpoint. Especially the Oxford-Annotated version. It was put together by a team of...what? 30 translators? However many, they were a blend of religious (and not just Christian) and secular scholars.
What is important to note is that while the literal text might be slightly different from version to version, the message (overall) has endured. That is because the message transcends language.
I also think that God is smart enough to keep his word from degrading. He’s God, why would he just let his word be screwed up permanently?
102. Assume that I do not believe that Jesus died for my sins, or that if he did, that necessarily means I will go to your heaven. With that in mind, name one thing that Jesus ever did for me.
He still died. Just because you don't believe he didn't do it, it doesn't mean he didn't do it. I could believe you never posted this all I want, but you still posted it. See Everyone (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=6774014&posted=1#post6774014)
"Ask not what Jesus can do for you. Ask what you can do for Jesus!"
Sorry...I just couldn't resist the opportunity to paraphrase Kennedy. Having said that...what did Jesus do for you? He died so that, should you choose to recognize this, you could be freed from sin. He died for all of us. What more can you ask of a person? Or did you want fries with that? ;)
I think Jesus has already done enough.
The better question to ask is "what have we done for Jesus?", though. What have we done for the one who died for us?
103. Before Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit/Ghost, she was never asked for her consent. (She was warned, but not asked; see Luke 1:31). Mary was also asleep when your god impregnated her; this strongly suggests that he didn't want her to protest. Does this mean that Mary was raped by your god?
Do you think rape is wrong? Justify your answer.
Did Mary object? Actually, she did, I think...But God convinced her. He didn't just say "Here's Jesus, Bye." He talked with her in her dream, not just to her.
I seem to recall that the angel came to Mary and said "Blessed are you, and here's the plan." Mary replied, after contemplation, with "Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word". She gives her consent. If she had no choice, why did she give consent?
She had the choice, it wasn't rape. She did discuss the matter with the angel ("How can this be, for I am a virgin?") and the angel explained the plan a little more in detail. See Luke 1.
104. If it was foretold that Jesus was to be crucified, and if he knew this, and if he was the son of your god, why did he do everything he could to avoid being crucified? (See, for instance, Matthew 26:39).
Would you want to be crucified? I certainly wouldn't. In any case, having fore-knowledge of it, having all opportunity to avoid it, and having the ultimate power to call upon legions of angels to smite everyone who tried it, he still went through with it. Doesn't that say so much more?
105. If the Holy Spirit/Ghost is the father of Jesus (Luke 1:35), then why is the central figure of your trinity called God the Father?
Again, Trinity. A pastor of my church did a great sermon on this. It boils down to what the three parts of the Trinity do:
God is the thinker. He plans, he knows, etc.
Jesus is the sayer. John 1:1 "the word", also "good news", etc. He tells what God wants to be done.
The Spirit is the doer. It saves, it acts, etc.
So the father is the start of all this. It all originates with him.
106. Mary and Jehovah were never joined in wedlock. Does it bother you that Jesus is technically a bastard?
Actually, some believe that Mary had sexual relations with God. (I do not).
Also, a bastard is technically a boy without a known father.
Lastly, since there was no sex (I believe), than there was no sin in Jesus' conception. The Bible doesn't say you can't have children out of wedlock, just no sex. And since it's hard (and impossible in Jesus' day) to have a child without sex, people have to assume that it is adultery.
107. If man's relation to animals is similar to god's relation to man, was god's impregnation of Mary therefore technically similar to bestiality?
Not gonna touch this one...
This is reaching...and getting quite comical. What website is this from? Getting back to Genesis...God's relation to man is similar to the relation of men to women (in the context of gender relations of the day). This is the same as Paul in Ephesians or Corinthians..."as man is the head of the wife (no commentary, note, on whether this is the "right way"...it's just a convenient example in the societal context of the day) so Christ (God) is the head of the Church". And who is the Church? People are.
108. The original Hebrew word for the Holy Ghost/Spirit includes the idea that the Holy Spirit/Ghost is female in gender. Isn't this rather silly when you consider the fact that the Holy Ghost/Spirit is actually the father of Jesus (Luke 1:35)?
Really? I thought we agreed that God has no gender...
The only member of the Trinity with gender is Jesus. Keep in mind, though, that while many languages (French, Latin, Hebrew ;) ) have male and female pronouns and descriptors, I can't think of many lauguages with androgynous terms to match. There could also be poetic reasons for this...in masculinizing God, perhaps it made sense poetically to feminize the Holy Spirit. thus creating the male/female parallel that most humans recognize as being associated with procreativity.
109. Matthew 28:11-15 contains an account of a conspiracy between the Jews and the Roman soldiers to spread the story that the disciples stole the body of Christ. How could Matthew have known about this, since no Jews or Romans would have admitted to it? If it was such a transparent conspiracy that an outsider could have seen it, why didn't the other three gospels mention it? Why didn't the Roman soldiers get into trouble?
I've heard this one before, too. Divine providence is one explanation. A much easier explanation: When Matthew heard such a rumor, he obviously knew that it wasn't true, so what else could it be but a conspiracy among the romans and jews?
Also, some of the earliest converts to Christianity were Roman soldiers...perhaps even a few who were "in the know" and felt bad about it?
110. Jews believe that people are basically good people and can work to overcome their sinful tendencies. Most Christian sects, following the teaching of Psalm 51:5, 1 Kings 8:46, Ezekiel 18:4, Isaiah 59:2, and Psalm 143:2, believe that people are completely debased and hopelessly lost in sin, and that only your god can lift us out of this state if he decides to bestow his gift of grace on us? Isn't this an incredibly negative view of people? Isn't Judaism a more mature faith just for this reason?
#1. Also, it's wrong, mature or not (rather, we believe it’s wrong). You can't apply Judaism to Christianity. They are different beliefs, even if they are born of the same origin. Know also that todays Judaism is not the Judaism of the Old Testament.
Apples and Oranges.
Salvation could be attained through ritual and dietary purity, prior to Jesus daeth and resurrection (i.e. through a convoluted set of rules outlined in books like Leviticus). Is this really more mature than the much simpler salvation of the New Testament?
111. How do you, as an individual, feel about Psalm 51:5?
It means that I am born with the ability to sin, that I will sin in my lifetime (which is a certainty...done it more than once already ;) ).
112. What does your sect teach about Psalm 51:5 (and 1 Kings 8:46, etc.), predestination, and similar matters?
I have no idea of the relevance of those verses, but:
Predestination as defined by Calvanism (or its modern equivalent) is wrong.
I believe God has a plan. You can be part of that plan, or you can choose not to. There's nothing more too it.
God gives us the choice. It's as simple as that. You can't have predestination if you have a choice. What the Psalm and other phrases refer to is human nature. We will do something, in our lifetimes, that deliberately causes hurt or grief to another person. That's certain. I've done it. You've done it. So what...there's something that can be done about it.
113. Don't you think that the idea that no matter what we do, we can never be good and righteous without help from your god (Isaiah 64:6) fosters an unnatural and unhealthy dependency on him?
Unhealthy? How? He's perfect? He is love! How is it unhealthy to be dependent on your creator, on love, etc.
We can be good people without God, but without God we cannot be cleansed from the stain of our inevitable sins. If that's cool with you, then you don't need God.
114. Revelation 22:16 says that Jesus is the "offspring of David." Mary was not descended from David, but Joseph was. Doesn't this mean that Jesus wasn't the son of your god at all, but the (mortal and not divine) son of Joseph?
I've heard this one too...Not sure. One explanation is adoption into the line...
Joseph took the child Jesus as his own, as his firstborn. This was intended by God, that the Messiah be (at least legally, according to the familial laws of the day) the son of the house of David (and thus "of" the House of David).
115. What would the correct thing to do be if your god gave you a command that was harmful and/or destructive to you? A common argument, which comes from Paul, states that because clay pots don't complain about what the potter does with them, people shouldn't complain about what their maker (supposedly, your god) does with them, but this completely ignores the vitally important argument that clay pots have no sense of self-awareness and cannot think or feel love, pain, anger, etc. If you want to make this argument, you have to deal with this difference.
God created us. We belong to him. He has the right to do whatever he wants with us, regardless of whether we like it or not. Be thankful he gives us the choice. Also, remember that you will receive your reward in heaven.
The question is flawed. God would not ask us to act in a manner that was sinful.
And again with the rabid literalism! "Sometimes an example is just an example". Sorry...couldn't resist the opportunity to paraphrase Nixon. ;) We are the clay pots, and God the potter, in the sense that it was God alone who fashioned us and gave us form, and God alone who can alter the form (in an intrinsic-to-our-nature way...not as in like losing an arm).
Also, while God may not tell us to sin, he may tell to do things that we don’t understand, such as giving up money, time, etc. This isn’t harmful at all. It’s all about perspective.
116. What (or who) does your sect believe the number 666 represents? Justify your answer.
Satan. Why? No idea. Just is. Supposedly the letters of some king that concurred the Israelites add up to 666 in greek or Hebrew or something…Still, symbolism.
666 is, in Revelation, the number of the beast. Personally, it's just a number that comes between 665 and 667. It probably had more meaning to the Christians of the day, whose persecution Revelation is metaphoric for.
117. If your god is "just and merciful," why would he take Solomon's kingdom away from Solomon's son while not punishing Solomon, when it was Solomon himself who committed the sin of idolatry? What did Solomon's son do to deserve punishment? (See 1 Kings 11:12).
A promise God made to David, that Solomon would complete the temple, I think...help.
That's basically it...he did it because of his promise to David. And notice that again, God shows restraint. While much of the kingdom is taken, a part of it is left, to symbolize that God's quarrel is not with Solomon's son (whom God does not wish to ruin) but with Solomon.
118. Why is Solomon commonly considered to be the paragon of wisdom by many Christians, when he constantly sinned against your god (1 Kings 11:4-10, etc.)? Personally, if I had a god talking to me, I'd do what he said.
Because Solomon was granted one "wish" (used lightly) from God. Solomon chose wisdom. He was the wisest person. See again #3. Just because you're smart, it doesn't mean you don't screw up. Know also that he was the smartest human. God is still far wiser.
119. Don't you think that an anti-sex position (see question #22) is a rather silly position for your sect to take when the biblical book "Song of Solomon" is a piece of erotic poetry? (For instance, in Song of Solomon 8:2, the bridegroom proposes to "drink of spiced wine of the juice of the pomegranate." The pomegranate was a symbol of the female genitalia, and the "spiced wine" represented menstrual blood).
See my #22. I don't think there's anything anti-sex about Christianity, with the caveat that, as any other good thing - wine, song, cookies, Chinese food - there is such a thing as too much. Sex is great. Being a slut or man-whore not so much. Surely we all recognize this?
120. Does it bother you that the cross, supposedly a Christian symbol, was actually stolen from the Egyptians? Why or why not? (The Egyptian cross, the Ankh (or Crux Ansata), was a male-female symbol similar in concept to the yin-yang. When the Christians stole the Ankh from the Egyptians, they removed the female symbol, or yoni, leaving only the masculine symbol-- a subtle way of reinforcing the idea that women are lesser beings).
Actually, no it wasn't. The cross came from the Roman punishment of Crucifiction. Despite what some people think, Jesus wasn't the first, nor the last, person crucified. This is similar to what I said about Jesus' ideas not being original. Maybe not the first time it was used, but still thought up originally.
As far as I know, I don't use a cross as a symbol. I use a CRUCIFIX (i.e. the instrument of crucifixion). And I use that symbol because Jesus was crucified on one. Egypt? Pffft!
This too. A cross is not a crucifix. We just call it a cross because someone said, “Hey look, it’s a cross” a long time ago, and it stuck.
121. How do you explain that Christians are twice as likely to have sadomasochistic tendencies as non-christians?
Because we recognize that you can have fun with sex? ;)
I couldn't guess. I'd ask for statistics...this sounds pretty hokey.
122. What is the incredibly important doctrinal difference that requires the fighting between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland?
#1. I don't justify it.
There is no difference, only the sinful form of pride.
123. Even if your god did create the universe, why does he want to be worshipped? Is your god an egomaniac?
That's his whole reason for creating our universe. Wouldn't you like to be worshipped and exalted? I know I would. It’s not that he’s an egomaniac. He was lonely, so he made companions. He’s also just looking for the same kind of love that most parents look for from their children. That’s not asking too much, is it?
124. If each soul is created anew by god at conception, and is *not* transmitted by the semen, then how is Original Sin transmitted? Why is god deliberately creating sinful souls?
Again, don't believe in original sin.
125. How do you explain the fact that the word "blood" occurs over 400 times in the Bible? Isn't this a rather savage way to write a book that is supposed to be at the center of an ethical system?
And love appears more than that, I think...
And, Jesus' blood is a good thing.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but blood is a symbol of life. That's a pretty good thing to include in the Bible ;)
126. Throughout the Bible, your god commands his followers to wage merciless war on unbelievers (Luke 22:36, Deuteronomy 13:8, Exodus 20:23-25, Deuteronomy 20:16, Matthew 10:34, Numbers 31:17-18, etc). If you are one of his followers, why aren't you out waging merciless war on unbelievers?
Simply? Because God didn't tell me to.
Referencing Luke, what Jesus is saying to his disciples is to be prepared for the trying times to come. He speaks of swords, but notice how quick he is to bring action to a grinding halt when...14 verses later...one of his apostles uses one.
I've already explained what he was talking about in Matthew.
In Deut 13, the faithful are being called to resist those who would actively seek to draw them away from the faith. In Deut 20, war is inevitable, and God is telling the priests how to rally the soldiers and keep their minds on their God in the coming battles. Notice too that before ever instructing to bring wrath and ruin, God commands the soldiers to offer terms of peace.
I don't see anything in the indicated passage from Exodus that talks about this...those passages deal with the construction of altars (God is saying "keep it simple").
As for Numbers...it looks to me that those orders are given by Moses (famous hardass). About verse 25, God seems to step in and say "Okay, but here's how you're going to deal with what you capture" and puts Moses in his place.
127. Numbers 23:21 says that your god "has not seen wickedness in Israel." If this is so, explain why your god burned Israelites for complaining (Num 11:1), sent a plague against them for eating the meat he had given them (Num 11:33), why he burned people for using incense (Num 16:35), why he sent a plague against the Israelites who accused Moses of wrongdoing (Num 16:44-49), and why he sent fiery snakes among the Israelites (Num 21:5). Was your god lying in the first instance, or in the others? Or was he just wrong?
My translation says "trouble," not wickedness.
It says "trouble" in the NRSV as well. I think what this passage means is that while the Israelites have themselves been occasionally wicked, as a whole they are free from trouble, for God has remained with them.
128. What was it that was so bad about eating an apple that death had to result from that act?
It wasn't an apple. It was the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Quite a lengthy title, yes, but true. First off, it was sin, and see #1. Secondly, until then, they had no idea that good and evil existed. That's a rather important discovery, no?
It's come to be called an apple because again, people need a point of reference.
"They ate of the fruit of..."
"What kind of fruit?"
"The fruit of the knowledge of good and evil!"
"Yes, but what kind of fruit was it?"
(repeat 50 times)
"Oh, fine...uh...an apple!"
129. What was it about humanity's torturing and killing of your god's only son that made your god so happy that he again promised eternal life to everyone who believed in him?
That would be the "merciful" half.
130. How do you explain that Matthew and Luke give different genealogies for Jesus?
I don't think they're any different...it's a question of one being more detailed.
131. Matthew says that the prophecy given in Matthew 27:9 was given by Jeremiah. How do you explain that this prophecy was not given by Jeremiah at all, but by Zechariah (in Zech 11:12)?
The NRSV mentions that there are three translations of this name - Jeremiah, Zecariah, and Isaiah. This is an issue of translation only, and evidently one that has been addressed.
132. Matthew says (in Matt 2:21) that Jesus dealt in Nazareth so that he could fulfill a prophecy stating that the Messiah would be called a Nazarene. Where is this prophecy in the Old Testament?
In most Bibles, it is written that:

A shoot shall come out from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots. (Isaiah 1:11). In the Hebrew idiom, this can also be read as: There shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse and a Nazarene shall grow from his root.
133. Matthew says that on the triumphant entry into Jerusalem, Jesus was riding on an ass and a colt (Matt 21:7). How do you explain that the original prophecy (Zech 9:9) stated that Jesus would be riding on only one ass, and the other gospel writers place Jesus only on one ass (Mark 11:7, Luke 19:35, and John 12:15)?
He did only ride one ass. And one colt. It never says that there wouldn't be anything else...just one ass. Do you think that Jesus would never ride a horse in his life?
How is is that Jesus rode two animals at once? The colt was the pack animal.
In other words, he didn’t ride the colt.
134. In Matthew 1:23, Matthew has the angel say that Jesus would be born of a virgin. However, the prophecy that Matthew is referring to, Isaiah 7:14, uses the Hebrew word almah, which simply means a young woman. It has nothing to do with sexual purity; the Hebrew word for virgin is bethulah. How do you explain this?
So what? Matthew was told it was a virgin, they were told a young woman...is there any reason why they can't both be true?
"Young" can mean many things, including "inexperienced". Nudge, wink, say no more, say no more! Besides, was Mary not also a young woman? And given the cultural context of the day, would not a young woman almost certainly be a virgin?
135. If Jesus could only have been born of a virgin, doesn't that place an unnecessarily high amount of virtue on virginity? Isn't that true that Judeo-Christian belief states that virgins are pure, and that non-virgins are not? Since the only way for a woman to remain pure is therefore to remain a virgin, doesn't purity therefore strike you as an unhealthy and unrealistic goal, and one which is therefore not necessarily desirable?
Again, Pauls teachings about marriage.
Why virginity is so valued, and not solely among Christians I might point out - in most religious cultures, it is a valued status prior to marriage - is the unitive nature of sex. Sex is great. Sex is really great. Sex is so great that it's a complete giving of one's self to another, and a complete spiritual (and physical) joining between two people...and the sort of gift that we can only 100% genuinely give once.
We do not lose our sexual purity by ceasing to be a virgin, and this goes for men and women. We lose our purity when we are not responsible with the use of this great gift we can give truly only once.
136. Isaiah 7:16 seems to say that before Jesus had reached the age of maturity, both of the Jewish countries would be destroyed. Where is the fulfillment of this prophecy in the New Testament?
Were they not made subject to the Romans? Isn't being conquered a form of destruction? That's certainly what some are saying about the current situation in Iraq
137. Matthew 1:23 says that Jesus would be called Immanuel, which means "God with us." Why does no one (not even his parents) call him Immanuel at any point in the New Testament?
First off, that Matthew says it is one example of them calling him that. Also, do you think that every minute of Jesus' life is writen down? I'm sure his mother called him that once or twice in that big gap of his childhood not written down.
There are many titles for Jesus, and many of them are similar. Yeshua, which means "God saves" is related to this...God is with us as God saves us
138. How many inconsistencies in the Bible, other than those mentioned in here, do you know of? Cite chapter and verse for as many as you have room for.
Not a one, including what you've mentioned. Despite many many...many...attempts to prove otherwise, I've never, never seen even one true inconsistency.
It's not the number of inconsistencies, but the topic. There are a few, probably errors of translation or transcription. Personally, the exact size of the Old Testament Hebrew army, or the number of baths of King David, aren't all that important to me in the "I am saved" sense of the word. ;)
I'm sure you could name several. Many would be actual inconsistencies. Many more (and I've seen the website too!) are nothing more than narrow-minded misinterpretations and out-of-context quotations.
I don’t consider minor inconsistencies. The message remains the same. Anything of any importance stays the same. Even then, I still haven’t heard any real inconsistency, minor or otherwise.

139. If even the contemplation of sinning is a sin (i.e. "sinning in your heart"; see, for example, Matthew 5:28) and if Jesus was tempted by Satan in the desert (Matthew 4:5-8, Luke 4:5-9), how can you say that Jesus was without sin?
Wanting sin and contemplating sin are different things. You can't help wanting it. But, you can keep your mind from thinking the "what ifs" kinda think. Example: Jesus probably thought, "Yeah, bread would be nice...can't, though", as opposed to "Hmm...it would be easy...I can do it. I suppose I shouldn't though, after all, Satan is tempting me."
Pretty much. There is a pronounced difference between acknowledging that sin exists, as Jesus does when he parlays with ol' Lucy, and formally contemplating it, planning to make it transpire.
also, the verse about thinking lustfully being a sin. It's the same as the diference between aknowledging that a woman has beauty and thinking about what the sex would be like.
140. Does your sect believe that the existence of your god can be established through a formal proof? Why or why not?
My sect never says either. I personally believe he can.
Since we treat the Gospels as historical documents...that's all the proof we really need. However, many famou Catholic theologians have come up with metaphysical proofs of God.
141. Pick a famous argument for the existence of your god, then criticize that argument, assuming that I mean the academic definition of criticize.
The proof of Thomas Aquinas:
Summa Theologia
Article II. Whether the existence of God is demonstrable:
Let us proceed to the second point. It is objected (1) that the existence of God is not demonstratable: that God's existence is an article of faith, and that articles of faith are not demonstratable, because the office of demonstration is to prove, but faith pertains (only) to things that are not to be proven, as is evident from the Epistle to the Hebrews, 11. Hence that God's existence is not demonstratable. Again, (2) that the subject matter of demonstration is that something exists, but in the case of God we cannot know what exists, but only what does not, as Damascenus says (Of the Orthodox Faith, I., 4.) Hence that we cannot demonstrate God's existence. Again, (3) that if God's existence is to be proved it must be from what He causes, and that what He effects is not sufficient for His supposed nature, since He is infinite, but the effects finite, and the finite is not proportional to the infinite. Since, therefore, a cause cannot be proved through an effect not proportional to itself, it is said that God's exisence cannot be proved.
But against this argument the apostle says (Rom. I., 20), "The unseen things of God are visible through His manifest works." But this would not be so unless it were possible to demonstrate God's existence through His works. What ought to be understood concerning anything, is first of all, whether it exists. Conclusion. It is possible to demonstrate God's existence, atthough not a priori (by pure reason), yet a posteriori from some work of His more surely known to us.
In answer I must say that the proof is double. One is through the nature of a cause and is called propter quid: this is through the nature of preceding events sirnply. The other is through the nature of the effect, and is called quia, and is through the nature of preceding things as respects us. Since the effect is better known to us than the cause, we proceed from the effect to the knowledge of the cause. From any effect whatsoever it can be proved that a corresponding cause exists, if only the effects of it are sufficiently known to us, for since effects depend on causes, the effect being given, it is necessary that a preceding cause exists. Whence, that God exists, although this is not itself known to us, is provable through effects that are known to us.
To the first objection above, I reply, therefore, that God's existence, and those other things of this nature that can be known through natural reason concerning God, as is said in Rom. I., are not articles of faith, but preambles to these articles. So faith presupposes natural knowledge, so grace nature, and perfection a perfectible thing. Nothing prevents a thing that is in itself demonstratable and knowable, from being accepted as an article of faith by someone that does not accept the proof of it.
To the second objection, I reply that, since the cause is proven from the effect, one must use the effect in the place of a definition of the cause in demonstrating that the cause exists; and that this applies especially in the case of God, because for proving that anything exists, it is necessary to accept in this method what the name signifies, not however that anything exists, because the question what it is is secondary to the question whether it exists at all. The characteristics of God are drawn from His works as shall be shown hereafter, (Question XIII). Whence by proving that God exists through His works as shall be shown hereafter, (Question XIII). Whence by proving that God exists through His works, we are able by this very method to see what the name God signifies.
To the third objection, I reply that, although a perfect knowledge of the cause cannot be had from inadequate effects, yet that from any effect manifest to us it can be shown that a cause does exist, as has been said. And thus from the works of God His existence can be proved, although we cannot in this way know Him perfectly in accordance with His own essence.
Article III. Whether God exists.
Let us proceed to the third article. It is objected (1) that God does not exist, because if one of two contradictory things is infinite, the other will be totally destroyed; that it is implied in the name God that there is a certain infinite goodness: if then God existed, no evil would be found. But evil is found in the world; therefore it is objected that God does not exist. Again, that what can be accomplished through a less number of principles will not be accomplished through more. It is objected that all things that appear on the earth can be accounted for through other principles, without supposing that God exists, since what is natural can be traced to a natural principle, and what proceeds from a proposition can be traced to the human reason or will. Therefore that there is no necessity to suppose that God exists. But as against this note what is said of the person of God (Exod. III., 14) I am that I am. Conclusion. There must be found in the nature of things one first immovable Being, a primary cause, necessarily existing, not created; existing the most widely, good, even the best possible; the first ruler through the intellect, and the ultimate end of all things, which is God.
I answer that it can be proved in five ways that God exists.
The first and plainest is the method that proceeds from the point of view of motion. It is certain and in accord with experience, that things on earth undergo change. Now, everything that is moved is moved by something; nothing, indeed, is changed, except it is changed to something which it is in potentiality. Moreover, anything moves in accordance with something actually existing; change itself, is nothing else than to bring forth something from potentiality into actuality. Now, nothing can be brought from potentiality to actual existence except through something actually existing: thus heat in action, as fire, makes fire-wood, which is hot in potentiality, to be hot actually, and through this process, changes itself. The same thing cannot at the same time be actually and potentially the same thing, but only in regard to different things. What is actually hot cannot be at the same time potentially hot, but it is possible for it at the same time to be potentially cold. It is impossible, then, that anything should be both mover and the thing moved, in regard to the same thing and in the same way, or that it should move itself. Everything, therefore, is moved by something else. If, then, that by which it is moved, is also moved, this must be moved by something still different, and this, again, by something else. But this process cannot go on to infinity because there would not be any first mover, nor, because of this fact, anything else in motion, as the succeeding things would not move except because of what is moved by the first mover, just as a stick is not moved except through what is moved from the hand. Therefore it is necessary to go back to some first mover, which is itself moved by nothing---and this all men know as God.

Essentially, what is being argued here is that all systems must necssarily be set in motion - no system can start spontaneously. This includes the Earth. Of course, Aquinas realizes that natural events could have created the Earth (the forming of the Solar System as swirling disks of gaseous matter). But that in itself is also a system and must have had some trigger. This begins a series of systems that ultimately traces back to the Big Bang (or whatever) and the birth of the Universe, which is also a system that must have been set in motion.

It could be argued that the Big Bang could have happened without the influence of a being such as God...a random event such as a quantum singularity could have been to blame.

However, this is inconsistent with a major tenet of physics - matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore, regardless of the theory (Big Bang, String, Quantum) the Universe was not subject to its own physical laws at time of creation, and necessarily violated those laws in those opening moments. This is mathematically unprovable, or seems to be, and is as much a leap of faith as saying that God was responsible.

Aquinas addresses this.
The second proof is from the nature of the efficient cause. We find in our experience that there is a chain of causes: nor is it found possible for anything to be the efficient cause of itself, since it would have to exist before itself, which is impossible. Nor in the case of efficient causes can the chain go back indefinitely, because in all chains of efficient causes, the first is the cause of the middle, and these of the last, whether they be one or many. If the cause is removed, the effect is removed. Hence if there is not a first cause, there will not be a last, nor a middle. But if the chain were to go back infinitely, there would be no first cause, and thus no ultimate effect, nor middle causes, which is admittedly false. Hence we must presuppose some first efficient cause---which all call God.

All nature is presupposed on cause-and-effect...each effect must have a cause. Aquinas here is remarking that all creation is a series of effects, each of which must be accounted for by a cause. But he takes it one step further. He argues that the Big Bang, or the moment of the Universe's birth, it also an effect of some cause (but what cause?)

Again, we can point to the other theories out there (Big Bang, String, Quantum) and say that there are valid causitive factors inherent in each theory...except that necessarily, these causes would had to have happened prior to the effect.

Which is scientifically nothing more than a leap of faith. There is no concept of time preceeding the creation of the Universe, the reference point from which all time is measured and has meaning. So it is likely impossible to scientifically demonstrate these causes, with the key unit that is time rendered invalid. Still, the argument can be made that other causes than God exist.

Moving along...
The third proof is taken from the natures of the merely possible and necessary. We find that certain things either may or may not exist, since they are found to come into being and be destroyed, and in consequence potentially, either existent or non-existent. But it is impossible for all things that are of this character to exist eternally, because what may not exist, at length will not. If, then, all things were merely possible (mere accidents), eventually nothing among things would exist. If this is true, even now there would be nothing, because what does not exist, does not take its beginning except through something that does exist. If then nothing existed, it would be impossible for anything to begin, and there would now be nothing existing, which is admittedly false. Hence not all things are mere accidents, but there must be one necessarily existing being. Now every necessary thing either has a cause of its necessary existence, or has not. In the case of necessary things that have a cause for their necessary existence, the chain of causes cannot go back infinitely, just as not in the case of efficient causes, as proved. Hence there must be presupposed something necessarily existing through its own nature, not having a cause elsewhere but being itself the cause of the necessary existence of other things---which all call God.

Here, it is argued that nothing can persist in its existence should it come about by a series of accidents, which are by nature temporary events that cease to exist as events mere moments after their occurrence. The argument is that something eternal must exist to sustain what comes about, even that which comes about apparently by accident, because the lack of some eternal "anchor point" would otherwise render existence as temporary and fleeting as that of a momentary accident.

It is relatively easy to call this hogwash. A coffee spill is an accident, we can argue, and if left uncleaned will persist for a great time. Breaking an arm is an accident, and the effects can linger for weeks, months, or for the rest of our lives.

But these are not counterpoints at all. A coffee spill will not persist forever, even if left uncleaned. It will evaporate, and the stain will fade. A broken arm will heal, and even if we carry a scar from a compound fracture to our grave, once we are dead the accident and its lingering effects will be gone. There is no permanence, and no accident lasts one iota of time longer than that which caused it.
The fourth proof arises from the degrees that are found in things. For there is found a greater and a less degree of goodness, truth, nobility, and the like. But more or less are terms spoken of various things as they approach in diverse ways toward something that is the greatest, just as in the case of hotter (more hot) which approaches nearer the greatest heat. There exists therefore something that is the truest, and best, and most noble, and in consequence, the greatest being. For what are the greatest truths are the greatest beings, as is said in the Metaphysics Bk. II. 2. What moreover is the greatest in its way, in another way is the cause of all things of its own kind (or genus); thus fire, which is the greatest heat, is the cause of all heat, as is said in the same book (cf. Plato and Aristotle). Therefore there exists something that is the cause of the existence of all things and of the goodness and of every perfection whatsoever---and this we call God.

Aquinas is arguing in degrees here. He is saying that as the sun is hotter than a candle, so there are things that are more true and less true, more good and less good. And as there is an absolute limit to temperature so too there is an absolute truth. But since all things in this world are temporary and die, they are not posessed of this absolute...yet it must exist.

It could be argued that there is no absolute temperature. Most scientists will tell you this, and in a certain sense it is true. Even though there are temperatures that will make atoms and subatomic particles fly apart, adding yet more energy to the system will make things fly apart all the faster, and this appears to have no limit.

But there is a limit (temperature being limited in the upper end by the limitation of available energy in the Universe). Since the Universe is finite, so too there is a finite maximum temperature that is attainable, when ALL EXISTANT ENERGY (a finite quantity) has been fed into a system.
The fifth proof arises from the ordering of things for we see that some things which lack reason, such as natural bodies, are operated in accordance with a plan. It appears from this that they are operated always or the more frequently in this same way the closer they follow what is the Highest; whence it is clear that they do not arrive at the result by chance but because of a purpose. The things, moreover, that do not have intelligence do not tend toward a result unless directed by some one knowing and intelligent; just as an arrow is sent by an archer. Therefore there is something intelligent by which all natural things are arranged in accordance with a plan---and this we call God.

Here is is being argued that, essentially, all that is about us could not have arisen randomly. The system is too efficient, the level of sophistication too complex to have arisen without design.

This argument is easiest refuted by simply gainsaying it. Yes, it is possible that all these things arose by accident.

But mathematically, that's absurd. Even assuming 50/50 probability on the outcome of any event, even assuming 90% probability on the outcome of any one event, the sheer number of events that would be required to happen in proper sequence would cause a 10-digit scientific calculator to default its result to zero when multiplied together.
In response to the first objection, then, I reply what Augustine says; that since God is entirely good, He would permit evil to exist in His works only if He were so good and omnipotent that He might bring forth good even from the evil. It therefore pertains to the infinite goodness of God that he permits evil to exist and from this brings forth good.
My reply to the second objection is that since nature is ordered in accordance with some defined purpose by the direction of some superior agent, those things that spring from nature must be dependent upon God, just as upon a first cause. Likewise, what springs from a proposition must be traceable to some higher cause which is not the human reason or will, because this is changeable and defective and everything changeable and liable to non-existence is dependent upon some unchangeable first principle that is necessarily self-existent as has been shown.
142. Pick an argument against the existence of your god. If it is not a famous argument, copy it down here. Criticize this argument, once again assuming I mean the academic definition of the word criticize.
"There is no proof of God, therefore he can't exist"
Love this one because no one ever really thinks about it before they say it.
First off, there is proof, though most people don't think it's concrete.
Secondly, there's very very VERY little proof for Big Bang.
Lastly, absence of proof is not proof of absence.
In my experience, any argument made against the existence of God that at any point relies on a lack of empirical evidence to prove its point is inherently flawed...how can you use the physical to prove the metaphysical, the spiritual? It is absurd. For example:
The proof that there is no god:


The assumptions of god:

1. It has a personality or consciousness.
2. It is all-powerful and all knowing.
3. It controls all reality including the laws of matter or nature.
4. It has always existed.

Assumption 1 and 2 are critical in the proof that there is no god. In order to have consciousness and be all knowing requires a fundamental ability called memory. God must have some means to store information. Memory is a very definitive attribute; memory is the ability to sense information. In order to do that some state of something that functions as memory changes so as when acted on information can be determined. There is no other definition of memory and in fact the concept of memory is like the concept of a circle. The definition of a circle is all points along the arc are equaly distant from a common center. The circumference of the circle divided by it's diameter is always equal to pi. No matter how big or small the circle, no matter what type of universe you may find yourself in, the character of a circle remains.

Given that god must have memory and that part of god is a component of god which it did not create since god was not created and that component of god is governed by processes that abide by the definition of memory, then god is subject to elements that are governed by their nature and not the will of god! God ends up being a product of components one of which is memory.
This is actually the first flaw.
Flaw #1: attempting to attach emprical attributes to the supernatural-in-nature. While it is relatively certain that God is in fact posessed of "a" memory, the manner of its storage is not emprically quantifiable. A poor example is a computer...there are two main methods of data storage in a computer: hard drives and RAM (we'll ignore disks and CDs this time around). As the RAM is external to the hard drive, so is what could be termed "Godly memory" outside the realm of normal "memory". As I said, this is a poor example, because RAM can also be quantified empirically. Regardless, the whole concept of God is that God exists above and beyond the empirically observable and quantifiable, and therein lies the first error - the merely empirical is insufficient to describe God, or any "component" thereof, accurately or completely.
Flaw #1.5: the assumption that certain components of God are not in fact eternal, or capable of so being. To use the poor example of a computer again, consider a newly manufactured computer. The "memory" of the computer, its hard drive and RAM, are totally blank. Does this mean the computer has no memory? No, of course not. Considering the completed computer as unit whole as one entity, this entity that is the computer has always had memory, even if there is no content to it at the outset.
To summarize: while God has memory, yes, it is not possible to accurately describe this part of God, or any part of God, in purely empirical terms, or subject it to purely empirical analysis. Additionally, memory can in fact exist at all times in an entity under certain circumstances. As God is eternal, so too can individual components of God be eternal...including memory.


This analysis from assumption 1 and 2 is an unavoidable conclusion, god is subject to the physics of the elements that it is composed of that are the governing processes of it's components. This truth disproves assumption 3 which states that god controls all reality including nature, since it's components govern how god operates on information and therefore is a form of nature that god does not control but is being controlled by.

Flaw #2: attempting to subject God to physics. Physics is an empirical ruleset, affecting only the physical universe and subject to it. The functioning of the Universe is governed by the laws of physics, but the nature and boundaries of the Universe define what those physical laws are...physics is a subset of the Universe. And assuming 1, 2, and 3, then the Universe is a subset of God. The physical laws do not therefore bind or control God, and God is not subject to them. God is the one in control of the physical laws, and they are subject to God's whim.

Since god is controlled by elements that it is composed of it is not all-powerful and would suffer from problems of the uncertainty principle, which are based on whatever contraints of its nature, making it not all knowing!

Because god is composed of components and is therefore a subject of nature, it must devise methods to avoid destruction or entropy, so it must repair itself and must replenish energy.

Finally the elements god is made of had to exist first before they could compose into god, therefore god did not always exist.
The rest of the argument falls apart from here. In the erroneous assumption that God is necessarily limited by the physical confines, and subject to the physical laws, of the Universe, it mistakenly is able to say that God is not eternal, that there is a limit to God's power, and that there is a limit to God's knowledge.
But since God is not in fact so limited, and is in fact the one who controls the supposed "limiting factors", all these conclusions are necessarily invalid.

If you prove that a being created life on earth you still haven't proved that the being is a god. It's not that there is no evidence of a god, the concept of god is a nonsensical notion based on naive assumptions. [!:)]

143. What does your sect think of the government? Read Paul's letter to the Romans, chapter 13. Now what do you think of the government? If necessary, reconcile the two views.
Follow it unless it's against God. Rather, tolerate it unless it forces you to go against God.
On that note, you should also do everything in your power to make the gov't be with God.
Jesus said it best: "Render unto Caesar..."
144. What is your definition of the word Christian?
Someone who believes the following.
Jesus is God's son.
Jesus died.
Jesus rose again.
And freed us from the bonds of sin
145. Why do you think it is that the ancient Greeks, who had a very liberal sexual morality, had many fewer sex crimes (compared to the population) than the United States, which is 85% Christian?
Again, 85%? No.
Also, define crime. The greeks probably did everything we do, they just didn't call it a crime. Yeah, there were fewer "crimes" but just because it's legal it doesn't make it right.
Also, you'll notice that our society today again has a much more liberal sexual morality coming into play...and sex crimes are still prevalent.
146. If someone accepts Jesus, and is "saved," but then turns away from Jesus, is that person still saved?
Yes. But, the Bible says Jesus/God won't let that happen. So, either you haven't turned completely away from God, only fallen (see #1), or you were never truely saved to begin with.
Even in accepting Jesus, we may not be saved...we are totally able to turn away and fall into sin again, as sure as it is difficult to beat any addiction. But the person can turn back to Jesus and find welcome, and so be saved again.
I see a difference in turning away and falling. I think that God will not allow us to turn completely away (the verse about God never giving us to Satan once we're his), but we fall all the time. Like I said, if something like that happens, you need to stop and think about whether you were truely saved or not. Mr. Aiera believes that you can still go to hell as a Christian, I do not.
147. What are the requirements for being saved? Some sects say that faith alone is enough; others say that faith without works is dead. The Bible supports both these viewpoints. What does your sect think?
See the verse about Jesus being the way the truth and the light.
I think I covered this in response to the assertion that God was trying to "entrap" us.
having seen a completely different thread addressing this specifically: Faith saves, work proves your faith. You must have faith, you should have works.
Interesting thought...what are sins? Sins are evil works we do on Earth. So works do directly affect our salvation.

I believe you missed the salient point of my original post. Perhaps you should read it before commenting further.
Too late.

Besides, a lot of people need to see that anyway.

AND, Christianity is not hypocritical, it's followers are, which is true of any religion. The only time you can ever be 100% not hypocritical is if you never believe anything about anything, which very few people do.

Too late.

Besides, a lot of people need to see that anyway.

AND, Christianity is not hypocritical, it's followers are, which is true of any religion. The only time you can ever be 100% not hypocritical is if you never believe anything about anything, which very few people do.

Maybe now you can go back and read what I wrote.

*snicker* I agree with the orignal post! :eek: :D ;)

I agree! (Good idea, ya knucklehead!) :-)

All religions have a past that they are unhappy with. Come to think of that most nations do, and indeed people. That doesnt mean you should discount them for what they are.

Talking of Islam though, I found this very interesting article in the Spectator during the summer.

The triumph of the East
There’s no plot, says Anthony Browne: Islam really does want to conquer the world. That’s because Muslims, unlike many Christians, actually believe they are right, and that their religion is the path to salvation for all

A year ago I had lunch with an eminent figure who asked if I thought she was mad. ‘No,’ I said politely, while thinking, ‘Yup.’ She had said she thought there was a secret plot by Muslims to take over the West. I have never been into conspiracy theories, and this one was definitely of the little-green-men variety. It is the sort of thing BNP thugs claim to justify their racial hatred.
Obviously, we all know about Osama bin Laden’s ambitions. And we are all aware of the loons of al-Muhajiroun waving placards saying ‘Islam is the future of Britain’. But these are all on the extremist fringe, representative of no one but themselves. Surely no one in Islam takes this sort of thing seriously? I started surfing the Islamic media.
Take Dr Al-Qaradawi, the controversial Egyptian imam who was recently fawned over by the Mayor of London even though he promotes the execution of homosexuals, the right of men to indulge in domestic violence, and the murder of innocent Jews. During the brouhaha it went unnoticed that he also wants to conquer Europe. Don’t take my word for it, just listen to him on his popular al-Jazeera TV show, Sharia and Life.
‘Islam will return to Europe. The conquest need not necessarily be by the sword. Perhaps we will conquer these lands without armies. We want an army of preachers and teachers who will present Islam in all languages and in all dialects,’ he broadcast in 1999, according to the Middle East Media Research Institute, which translates his programmes. On another programme he declared, ‘Europe will see that it suffers from a materialist culture, and it will seek a way out, it will seek a lifeboat. It will seek no life-saver but the message of Islam.’
Far from being on the fringe, his immensely popular programmes are watched by millions across the Middle East and Europe. The BBC cooed that he has ‘star’ status among the world’s Muslims.
Dr Al-Qaradawi, who is based in Qatar, is also the spiritual guide of the hardline Muslim Brotherhood, which is growing across Europe, and whose leader Muhammad Mahdi Othman ’Akef declared recently, ‘I have complete faith that Islam will invade Europe and America, because Islam has logic and a mission.’
In the most sacred mosque in Islam, Sheikh Abd al-Rahman al-Sudais of the Grand Mosque in Mecca uses his sermons to call for Jews to be ‘annihilated’ and to urge the overthrow of Western civilisation. ‘The most noble civilisation ever known to mankind is our Islamic civilisation. Today, Western civilisation is nothing more than the product of its encounter with our Islamic civilisation in Andalusia [mediaeval Spain]. The reason for [Western civilisation’s] bankruptcy is its reliance on the materialistic approach, and its detachment from religion and values. [This approach] has been one reason for the misery of the human race, for the proliferation of suicide, mental problems and for moral perversion. Only one nation is capable of resuscitating global civilisation, and that is the nation [of Islam].’
Al-Sudais is the highest imam appointed by our Saudi government ally, and his sermons are widely listened to across the Middle East. When he came to the UK in June to open the London Islamic Centre, thousands of British Muslims flocked to see him, our so-called race relations minister Fiona Mactaggart shared the platform, and Prince Charles sent a video message. He is probably the closest thing in Islam to the Pope, but I haven’t recently heard the Pope call for the overthrow of all other faiths.
Saudi Arabia, whose flag shows a sword, seems unabashed about its desire for Islam to take over the world. Its embassy in Washington recommends the home page of its Islamic affairs department, where it declares, ‘The Muslims are required to raise the banner of jihad in order to make the Word of Allah supreme in this world.’ Saudi Arabia has used billions of its petrodollars to export its particularly harsh form of Islam, Wahabism, paying for mosques and Islamic schools across the West. About 80 per cent of the US’s mosques are thought to be under Wahabi control.
Saudi Arabia’s education ministry encourages schoolchildren to despise Christianity and Judaism. A new schoolbook in the kingdom’s curriculum tells six-year-olds: ‘All religions other than Islam are false.’ A note for teachers says they should ‘ensure to explain’ this point. In Egypt, the schoolbook Studies in Theology: Traditions and Morals explains that a particularly ‘noble’ bit of the Koran is ‘encouraging the faithful to perform jihad in God’s cause, to behead the infidels, take them prisoner, break their power — all that in a style which contains the highest examples of urging to fight’.
A popular topic for discussion on Arabic TV channels is the best strategy for conquering the West. It seems to be agreed that since the West has overwhelming economic, military and scientific power, it could take some time, and a full frontal assault could prove counterproductive. Muslim immigration and conversion are seen as the best path.
Saudi Professor Nasser bin Suleiman al-Omar declared on al-Majd TV last month, ‘Islam is advancing according to a steady plan, to the point that tens of thousands of Muslims have joined the American army and Islam is the second largest religion in America. America will be destroyed. But we must be patient.’
Islam is now the second religion not just in the US but in Europe and Australia. Europe has 15 million Muslims, accounting for one in ten of the population in France, where the government now estimates 50,000 Christians are converting to Islam every year. In Brussels, Mohammed has been the most popular name for boy babies for the last four years. In Britain, attendance at mosques is now higher than it is in the Church of England.
Al-Qa’eda is criticised for being impatient, and waking the West up. Saudi preacher Sheikh Said al-Qahtani said on the Iqraa TV satellite channel, ‘We did not occupy the US, with eight million Muslims, using bombings. Had we been patient and let time take its course, instead of the eight million there could have been 80 million [Muslims], and 50 years later perhaps the US would have become Muslim.’
It is difficult to brush this off as an aberration of Islam, which is normally just tickety-boo letting the rest of the world indulge in its false beliefs. Dr Zaki Badawi, the moderate former director of the Islamic Cultural Centre in London, admitted, ‘Islam endeavours to expand in Britain. Islam is a universal religion. It aims to bring its message to all corners of the earth. It hopes that one day the whole of humanity will be one Muslim community.’
In Muslim tradition, the world is divided into Dar al-Islam, where Muslims rule, and Dar al-Harb, the ‘field of war’ where the infidels live. ‘The presumption is that the duty of jihad will continue, interrupted only by truces, until all the world either adopts the Muslim faith or submits to Muslim rule,’ wrote Professor Bernard Lewis in his bestseller The Crisis of Islam.’

The first jihad was in ad 630, when Mohammed led his army to conquer Mecca. He made a prediction that Islam would conquer the two most powerful Christian centres at the time, Constantinople and Rome. Within 100 years of his death, Muslim armies had conquered the previously Christian provinces of Syria, Palestine, Egypt and the rest of North Africa, as well as Spain, Portugal and southern Italy, until they were stopped at Poitiers in central France in ad 732. Muslim armies overthrew the ancient Zoroastrian empire of Persia, and conquered much of central Asia and Hindu India.
Ibn Warraq, a Pakistani who lost his Islamic faith, wrote in his book Why I am not a Muslim, ‘Although Europeans are constantly castigated for having imposed their insidious decadent values, culture and language on the Third World, no one cares to point out that Islam colonised lands that were the homes of advanced and ancient civilisations.’
It took 700 years for the Spanish to get their country back in the prolonged ‘Reconquista’. In the meantime the Turks, a central Asian people, had been converted to Islam and had conquered the ancient Christian land of Anatolia (now called Turkey). In 1453 they captured Constantinople — fulfilling Mohammed’s first prediction — which was the centre of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The glorious Hagia Sophia, which had been one of the most important churches in Christendom for nearly 1,000 years after it was built in ad 537, was turned into a mosque, and minarets were added. The Turks went on to occupy Greece and much of the Balkans for four centuries, turning the Parthenon into a mosque and besieging Vienna, before retreating as their power waned.
In the Middle East, there are regular calls for Mohammed’s second prediction to come true. Sheikh Muhammad bin Abd al-Rahman al-’Arifi, imam of the mosque of the Saudi government’s King Fahd Defence Academy, wrote recently, ‘We will control the land of the Vatican; we will control Rome and introduce Islam in it.’
Not all conversion has been by the sword. Muslim traders peaceably converted Indonesia, now the most populous Islamic nation. But nor have the conquests stopped. Islam has continued spreading in sub-Saharan Africa, most notably in Nigeria and Sudan. Abyssinia — Ethiopia — is an ancient Christian land where Muslims have come to outnumber Christians only in the last 100 years. Just 50 years ago, Lebanon was still predominantly Christian; it is now predominantly Muslim.
Of course, Christianity has been just as much a conquering religion. Spanish armies ruthlessly destroyed ancient civilisations in Central and South America to spread the message of love. Christians colonised the Americas and Australia, committing genocide as they went, while missionaries such as Livingstone converted most of Africa.
But the difference is that Christendom has — by and large — stopped conquering and converting, and indeed in Europe simply stopped believing. Even President Bush’s most trenchant critics don’t believe he conquered Afghanistan and Iraq to spread the word of Jesus. It is ironic that by deposing Saddam, who ran the most secular of Arab regimes, the US actually transferred power to the imams.
I believe in a free market in religions, and it is inevitable that if you believe your religion is true, then you believe others are false. But this market is seriously rigged. In Saudi Arabia the government bans all churches, while in Europe governments pay to build Islamic cultural centres. While in many Islamic countries preaching Christianity is banned, in Western Christian countries the right to preach Islam is enshrined in law. Christians are free to convert to Islam, while Muslims who convert to Christianity can expect either death threats or a death sentence. The Pope keeps apologising for the Crusades (even though they were just attempts to get back former Christian lands) while his opposite numbers call for the overthrow of Christendom.
In Christian countries, those who warn about Islamification, such as the film star Brigitte Bardot, are prosecuted, while in Muslim countries those who call for the Islamification of the world are turned into TV celebrities. In the West, schools teach comparative religion, while in Muslim countries schools teach that Islam is the only true faith. David Blunkett in effect wants to ban criticism of Islam, a protection not enjoyed by Christianity in Muslim countries. Millions of Muslims move to Christian countries, but virtually no Christians move to Muslim ones.
In the last century some Christians justified the persecution and mass murder of Jews by claiming that Jews wanted to take over the world. But these fascist fantasies were based on deliberate lies, such as the notorious fake book The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Now, many in the Muslim world are open about their desire for Islam to conquer the West.

end of article

Bumping so that maybe people can see the errors of their ways.

It seems, in the past few years, that it has become customary, dare I say trendy, to bemoan and besmirch Islam as an evil, violent, and fascist religion.

I think it has become just as trendy to ridicule the Christian religion, their beliefs, and their followers. If I had a buck for every fanatical liberal who roasted Christianity on this board, I'd have so much money it'd be coming out my frickin' ears.

But it is often forgotten that Christianity also has a smiliarly evil, violent, and fascist history of its own.

Not on this board it isn't.

Too often the lessons learned in the study of Christianity go unremembered when dealing with Islam. Lessons such as the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. Perhaps it would be better to grant Islam a bit of leeway when judging it. So, without further ado, a little history lesson on the shady past of the Christian faith.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps it'd be better to grant Christianity some leeway. I understand a majority of the posters in the general forum despise Christianity, but come on. We hear about it every day. Every religion has it's bad apples, and practically every religion has a history of blood and violence. What's in the past should stay in the past.

I think it has become just as trendy to ridicule the Christian religion, their beliefs, and their followers. If I had a buck for every fanatical liberal who roasted Christianity on this board, I'd have so much money it'd be coming out my frickin' ears.



Not on this board it isn't.

Too often the lessons learned in the study of Christianity go unremembered when dealing with Islam. Lessons such as the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. Perhaps it would be better to grant Islam a bit of leeway when judging it. So, without further ado, a little history lesson on the shady past of the Christian faith.

Perhaps it'd be better to grant Christianity some leeway. I understand a majority of the posters in the general forum despise Christianity, but come on. We hear about it every day. Every religion has it's bad apples, and practically every religion has a history of blood and violence. What's in the past should stay in the past.

Wow, you were doing so well, and then you just faltered. Maybe you should read my entire post.

Wow, thanks for making me feel like an idiot. My day was turning out so good too.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=363398

Read it.

Wow, thanks for making me feel like an idiot. My day was turning out so good too.

Glad to oblige.


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=363398

Read it.


http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7458960&postcount=1

Read it.

Unlike many others, I agree on MORE than one level.

Having first failed to see your point, I decided to carefully re-read your initial post and, what can I say?

I agree.

Ba-bump

Has no one actually read this, I'm posting it again now so that perhaps a few people may pay more attention

The triumph of the East
There’s no plot, says Anthony Browne: Islam really does want to conquer the world. That’s because Muslims, unlike many Christians, actually believe they are right, and that their religion is the path to salvation for all

A year ago I had lunch with an eminent figure who asked if I thought she was mad. ‘No,’ I said politely, while thinking, ‘Yup.’ She had said she thought there was a secret plot by Muslims to take over the West. I have never been into conspiracy theories, and this one was definitely of the little-green-men variety. It is the sort of thing BNP thugs claim to justify their racial hatred.
Obviously, we all know about Osama bin Laden’s ambitions. And we are all aware of the loons of al-Muhajiroun waving placards saying ‘Islam is the future of Britain’. But these are all on the extremist fringe, representative of no one but themselves. Surely no one in Islam takes this sort of thing seriously? I started surfing the Islamic media.
Take Dr Al-Qaradawi, the controversial Egyptian imam who was recently fawned over by the Mayor of London even though he promotes the execution of homosexuals, the right of men to indulge in domestic violence, and the murder of innocent Jews. During the brouhaha it went unnoticed that he also wants to conquer Europe. Don’t take my word for it, just listen to him on his popular al-Jazeera TV show, Sharia and Life.
‘Islam will return to Europe. The conquest need not necessarily be by the sword. Perhaps we will conquer these lands without armies. We want an army of preachers and teachers who will present Islam in all languages and in all dialects,’ he broadcast in 1999, according to the Middle East Media Research Institute, which translates his programmes. On another programme he declared, ‘Europe will see that it suffers from a materialist culture, and it will seek a way out, it will seek a lifeboat. It will seek no life-saver but the message of Islam.’
Far from being on the fringe, his immensely popular programmes are watched by millions across the Middle East and Europe. The BBC cooed that he has ‘star’ status among the world’s Muslims.
Dr Al-Qaradawi, who is based in Qatar, is also the spiritual guide of the hardline Muslim Brotherhood, which is growing across Europe, and whose leader Muhammad Mahdi Othman ’Akef declared recently, ‘I have complete faith that Islam will invade Europe and America, because Islam has logic and a mission.’
In the most sacred mosque in Islam, Sheikh Abd al-Rahman al-Sudais of the Grand Mosque in Mecca uses his sermons to call for Jews to be ‘annihilated’ and to urge the overthrow of Western civilisation. ‘The most noble civilisation ever known to mankind is our Islamic civilisation. Today, Western civilisation is nothing more than the product of its encounter with our Islamic civilisation in Andalusia [mediaeval Spain]. The reason for [Western civilisation’s] bankruptcy is its reliance on the materialistic approach, and its detachment from religion and values. [This approach] has been one reason for the misery of the human race, for the proliferation of suicide, mental problems and for moral perversion. Only one nation is capable of resuscitating global civilisation, and that is the nation [of Islam].’
Al-Sudais is the highest imam appointed by our Saudi government ally, and his sermons are widely listened to across the Middle East. When he came to the UK in June to open the London Islamic Centre, thousands of British Muslims flocked to see him, our so-called race relations minister Fiona Mactaggart shared the platform, and Prince Charles sent a video message. He is probably the closest thing in Islam to the Pope, but I haven’t recently heard the Pope call for the overthrow of all other faiths.
Saudi Arabia, whose flag shows a sword, seems unabashed about its desire for Islam to take over the world. Its embassy in Washington recommends the home page of its Islamic affairs department, where it declares, ‘The Muslims are required to raise the banner of jihad in order to make the Word of Allah supreme in this world.’ Saudi Arabia has used billions of its petrodollars to export its particularly harsh form of Islam, Wahabism, paying for mosques and Islamic schools across the West. About 80 per cent of the US’s mosques are thought to be under Wahabi control.
Saudi Arabia’s education ministry encourages schoolchildren to despise Christianity and Judaism. A new schoolbook in the kingdom’s curriculum tells six-year-olds: ‘All religions other than Islam are false.’ A note for teachers says they should ‘ensure to explain’ this point. In Egypt, the schoolbook Studies in Theology: Traditions and Morals explains that a particularly ‘noble’ bit of the Koran is ‘encouraging the faithful to perform jihad in God’s cause, to behead the infidels, take them prisoner, break their power — all that in a style which contains the highest examples of urging to fight’.
A popular topic for discussion on Arabic TV channels is the best strategy for conquering the West. It seems to be agreed that since the West has overwhelming economic, military and scientific power, it could take some time, and a full frontal assault could prove counterproductive. Muslim immigration and conversion are seen as the best path.
Saudi Professor Nasser bin Suleiman al-Omar declared on al-Majd TV last month, ‘Islam is advancing according to a steady plan, to the point that tens of thousands of Muslims have joined the American army and Islam is the second largest religion in America. America will be destroyed. But we must be patient.’
Islam is now the second religion not just in the US but in Europe and Australia. Europe has 15 million Muslims, accounting for one in ten of the population in France, where the government now estimates 50,000 Christians are converting to Islam every year. In Brussels, Mohammed has been the most popular name for boy babies for the last four years. In Britain, attendance at mosques is now higher than it is in the Church of England.
Al-Qa’eda is criticised for being impatient, and waking the West up. Saudi preacher Sheikh Said al-Qahtani said on the Iqraa TV satellite channel, ‘We did not occupy the US, with eight million Muslims, using bombings. Had we been patient and let time take its course, instead of the eight million there could have been 80 million [Muslims], and 50 years later perhaps the US would have become Muslim.’
It is difficult to brush this off as an aberration of Islam, which is normally just tickety-boo letting the rest of the world indulge in its false beliefs. Dr Zaki Badawi, the moderate former director of the Islamic Cultural Centre in London, admitted, ‘Islam endeavours to expand in Britain. Islam is a universal religion. It aims to bring its message to all corners of the earth. It hopes that one day the whole of humanity will be one Muslim community.’
In Muslim tradition, the world is divided into Dar al-Islam, where Muslims rule, and Dar al-Harb, the ‘field of war’ where the infidels live. ‘The presumption is that the duty of jihad will continue, interrupted only by truces, until all the world either adopts the Muslim faith or submits to Muslim rule,’ wrote Professor Bernard Lewis in his bestseller The Crisis of Islam.’

The first jihad was in ad 630, when Mohammed led his army to conquer Mecca. He made a prediction that Islam would conquer the two most powerful Christian centres at the time, Constantinople and Rome. Within 100 years of his death, Muslim armies had conquered the previously Christian provinces of Syria, Palestine, Egypt and the rest of North Africa, as well as Spain, Portugal and southern Italy, until they were stopped at Poitiers in central France in ad 732. Muslim armies overthrew the ancient Zoroastrian empire of Persia, and conquered much of central Asia and Hindu India.
Ibn Warraq, a Pakistani who lost his Islamic faith, wrote in his book Why I am not a Muslim, ‘Although Europeans are constantly castigated for having imposed their insidious decadent values, culture and language on the Third World, no one cares to point out that Islam colonised lands that were the homes of advanced and ancient civilisations.’
It took 700 years for the Spanish to get their country back in the prolonged ‘Reconquista’. In the meantime the Turks, a central Asian people, had been converted to Islam and had conquered the ancient Christian land of Anatolia (now called Turkey). In 1453 they captured Constantinople — fulfilling Mohammed’s first prediction — which was the centre of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The glorious Hagia Sophia, which had been one of the most important churches in Christendom for nearly 1,000 years after it was built in ad 537, was turned into a mosque, and minarets were added. The Turks went on to occupy Greece and much of the Balkans for four centuries, turning the Parthenon into a mosque and besieging Vienna, before retreating as their power waned.
In the Middle East, there are regular calls for Mohammed’s second prediction to come true. Sheikh Muhammad bin Abd al-Rahman al-’Arifi, imam of the mosque of the Saudi government’s King Fahd Defence Academy, wrote recently, ‘We will control the land of the Vatican; we will control Rome and introduce Islam in it.’
Not all conversion has been by the sword. Muslim traders peaceably converted Indonesia, now the most populous Islamic nation. But nor have the conquests stopped. Islam has continued spreading in sub-Saharan Africa, most notably in Nigeria and Sudan. Abyssinia — Ethiopia — is an ancient Christian land where Muslims have come to outnumber Christians only in the last 100 years. Just 50 years ago, Lebanon was still predominantly Christian; it is now predominantly Muslim.
Of course, Christianity has been just as much a conquering religion. Spanish armies ruthlessly destroyed ancient civilisations in Central and South America to spread the message of love. Christians colonised the Americas and Australia, committing genocide as they went, while missionaries such as Livingstone converted most of Africa.
But the difference is that Christendom has — by and large — stopped conquering and converting, and indeed in Europe simply stopped believing. Even President Bush’s most trenchant critics don’t believe he conquered Afghanistan and Iraq to spread the word of Jesus. It is ironic that by deposing Saddam, who ran the most secular of Arab regimes, the US actually transferred power to the imams.
I believe in a free market in religions, and it is inevitable that if you believe your religion is true, then you believe others are false. But this market is seriously rigged. In Saudi Arabia the government bans all churches, while in Europe governments pay to build Islamic cultural centres. While in many Islamic countries preaching Christianity is banned, in Western Christian countries the right to preach Islam is enshrined in law. Christians are free to convert to Islam, while Muslims who convert to Christianity can expect either death threats or a death sentence. The Pope keeps apologising for the Crusades (even though they were just attempts to get back former Christian lands) while his opposite numbers call for the overthrow of Christendom.
In Christian countries, those who warn about Islamification, such as the film star Brigitte Bardot, are prosecuted, while in Muslim countries those who call for the Islamification of the world are turned into TV celebrities. In the West, schools teach comparative religion, while in Muslim countries schools teach that Islam is the only true faith. David Blunkett in effect wants to ban criticism of Islam, a protection not enjoyed by Christianity in Muslim countries. Millions of Muslims move to Christian countries, but virtually no Christians move to Muslim ones.
In the last century some Christians justified the persecution and mass murder of Jews by claiming that Jews wanted to take over the world. But these fascist fantasies were based on deliberate lies, such as the notorious fake book The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Now, many in the Muslim world are open about their desire for Islam to conquer the West.

(end of article)

And as I have said, Christianity has its bad past. As does every religion, and every nation and in most cases people have past's they would like to forget. That doesnt mean that you should hold it against them now. What does God say about holding grudges? (Rhetorical question there) And also, besides from the usage of the word "Crusade" on occations by George.W.Bush, what evidence is there that America is on some kind of religious war?

Has no one actually read this, I'm posting it again now so that perhaps a few people may pay more attention

The triumph of the East
There’s no plot, says Anthony Browne: Islam really does want to conquer the world. That’s because Muslims, unlike many Christians, actually believe they are right, and that their religion is the path to salvation for all

A year ago I had lunch with an eminent figure who asked if I thought she was mad. ‘No,’ I said politely, while thinking, ‘Yup.’ She had said she thought there was a secret plot by Muslims to take over the West. I have never been into conspiracy theories, and this one was definitely of the little-green-men variety. It is the sort of thing BNP thugs claim to justify their racial hatred.
Obviously, we all know about Osama bin Laden’s ambitions. And we are all aware of the loons of al-Muhajiroun waving placards saying ‘Islam is the future of Britain’. But these are all on the extremist fringe, representative of no one but themselves. Surely no one in Islam takes this sort of thing seriously? I started surfing the Islamic media.
Take Dr Al-Qaradawi, the controversial Egyptian imam who was recently fawned over by the Mayor of London even though he promotes the execution of homosexuals, the right of men to indulge in domestic violence, and the murder of innocent Jews. During the brouhaha it went unnoticed that he also wants to conquer Europe. Don’t take my word for it, just listen to him on his popular al-Jazeera TV show, Sharia and Life.
‘Islam will return to Europe. The conquest need not necessarily be by the sword. Perhaps we will conquer these lands without armies. We want an army of preachers and teachers who will present Islam in all languages and in all dialects,’ he broadcast in 1999, according to the Middle East Media Research Institute, which translates his programmes. On another programme he declared, ‘Europe will see that it suffers from a materialist culture, and it will seek a way out, it will seek a lifeboat. It will seek no life-saver but the message of Islam.’
Far from being on the fringe, his immensely popular programmes are watched by millions across the Middle East and Europe. The BBC cooed that he has ‘star’ status among the world’s Muslims.
Dr Al-Qaradawi, who is based in Qatar, is also the spiritual guide of the hardline Muslim Brotherhood, which is growing across Europe, and whose leader Muhammad Mahdi Othman ’Akef declared recently, ‘I have complete faith that Islam will invade Europe and America, because Islam has logic and a mission.’
In the most sacred mosque in Islam, Sheikh Abd al-Rahman al-Sudais of the Grand Mosque in Mecca uses his sermons to call for Jews to be ‘annihilated’ and to urge the overthrow of Western civilisation. ‘The most noble civilisation ever known to mankind is our Islamic civilisation. Today, Western civilisation is nothing more than the product of its encounter with our Islamic civilisation in Andalusia [mediaeval Spain]. The reason for [Western civilisation’s] bankruptcy is its reliance on the materialistic approach, and its detachment from religion and values. [This approach] has been one reason for the misery of the human race, for the proliferation of suicide, mental problems and for moral perversion. Only one nation is capable of resuscitating global civilisation, and that is the nation [of Islam].’
Al-Sudais is the highest imam appointed by our Saudi government ally, and his sermons are widely listened to across the Middle East. When he came to the UK in June to open the London Islamic Centre, thousands of British Muslims flocked to see him, our so-called race relations minister Fiona Mactaggart shared the platform, and Prince Charles sent a video message. He is probably the closest thing in Islam to the Pope, but I haven’t recently heard the Pope call for the overthrow of all other faiths.
Saudi Arabia, whose flag shows a sword, seems unabashed about its desire for Islam to take over the world. Its embassy in Washington recommends the home page of its Islamic affairs department, where it declares, ‘The Muslims are required to raise the banner of jihad in order to make the Word of Allah supreme in this world.’ Saudi Arabia has used billions of its petrodollars to export its particularly harsh form of Islam, Wahabism, paying for mosques and Islamic schools across the West. About 80 per cent of the US’s mosques are thought to be under Wahabi control.
Saudi Arabia’s education ministry encourages schoolchildren to despise Christianity and Judaism. A new schoolbook in the kingdom’s curriculum tells six-year-olds: ‘All religions other than Islam are false.’ A note for teachers says they should ‘ensure to explain’ this point. In Egypt, the schoolbook Studies in Theology: Traditions and Morals explains that a particularly ‘noble’ bit of the Koran is ‘encouraging the faithful to perform jihad in God’s cause, to behead the infidels, take them prisoner, break their power — all that in a style which contains the highest examples of urging to fight’.
A popular topic for discussion on Arabic TV channels is the best strategy for conquering the West. It seems to be agreed that since the West has overwhelming economic, military and scientific power, it could take some time, and a full frontal assault could prove counterproductive. Muslim immigration and conversion are seen as the best path.
Saudi Professor Nasser bin Suleiman al-Omar declared on al-Majd TV last month, ‘Islam is advancing according to a steady plan, to the point that tens of thousands of Muslims have joined the American army and Islam is the second largest religion in America. America will be destroyed. But we must be patient.’
Islam is now the second religion not just in the US but in Europe and Australia. Europe has 15 million Muslims, accounting for one in ten of the population in France, where the government now estimates 50,000 Christians are converting to Islam every year. In Brussels, Mohammed has been the most popular name for boy babies for the last four years. In Britain, attendance at mosques is now higher than it is in the Church of England.
Al-Qa’eda is criticised for being impatient, and waking the West up. Saudi preacher Sheikh Said al-Qahtani said on the Iqraa TV satellite channel, ‘We did not occupy the US, with eight million Muslims, using bombings. Had we been patient and let time take its course, instead of the eight million there could have been 80 million [Muslims], and 50 years later perhaps the US would have become Muslim.’
It is difficult to brush this off as an aberration of Islam, which is normally just tickety-boo letting the rest of the world indulge in its false beliefs. Dr Zaki Badawi, the moderate former director of the Islamic Cultural Centre in London, admitted, ‘Islam endeavours to expand in Britain. Islam is a universal religion. It aims to bring its message to all corners of the earth. It hopes that one day the whole of humanity will be one Muslim community.’
In Muslim tradition, the world is divided into Dar al-Islam, where Muslims rule, and Dar al-Harb, the ‘field of war’ where the infidels live. ‘The presumption is that the duty of jihad will continue, interrupted only by truces, until all the world either adopts the Muslim faith or submits to Muslim rule,’ wrote Professor Bernard Lewis in his bestseller The Crisis of Islam.’

The first jihad was in ad 630, when Mohammed led his army to conquer Mecca. He made a prediction that Islam would conquer the two most powerful Christian centres at the time, Constantinople and Rome. Within 100 years of his death, Muslim armies had conquered the previously Christian provinces of Syria, Palestine, Egypt and the rest of North Africa, as well as Spain, Portugal and southern Italy, until they were stopped at Poitiers in central France in ad 732. Muslim armies overthrew the ancient Zoroastrian empire of Persia, and conquered much of central Asia and Hindu India.
Ibn Warraq, a Pakistani who lost his Islamic faith, wrote in his book Why I am not a Muslim, ‘Although Europeans are constantly castigated for having imposed their insidious decadent values, culture and language on the Third World, no one cares to point out that Islam colonised lands that were the homes of advanced and ancient civilisations.’
It took 700 years for the Spanish to get their country back in the prolonged ‘Reconquista’. In the meantime the Turks, a central Asian people, had been converted to Islam and had conquered the ancient Christian land of Anatolia (now called Turkey). In 1453 they captured Constantinople — fulfilling Mohammed’s first prediction — which was the centre of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The glorious Hagia Sophia, which had been one of the most important churches in Christendom for nearly 1,000 years after it was built in ad 537, was turned into a mosque, and minarets were added. The Turks went on to occupy Greece and much of the Balkans for four centuries, turning the Parthenon into a mosque and besieging Vienna, before retreating as their power waned.
In the Middle East, there are regular calls for Mohammed’s second prediction to come true. Sheikh Muhammad bin Abd al-Rahman al-’Arifi, imam of the mosque of the Saudi government’s King Fahd Defence Academy, wrote recently, ‘We will control the land of the Vatican; we will control Rome and introduce Islam in it.’
Not all conversion has been by the sword. Muslim traders peaceably converted Indonesia, now the most populous Islamic nation. But nor have the conquests stopped. Islam has continued spreading in sub-Saharan Africa, most notably in Nigeria and Sudan. Abyssinia — Ethiopia — is an ancient Christian land where Muslims have come to outnumber Christians only in the last 100 years. Just 50 years ago, Lebanon was still predominantly Christian; it is now predominantly Muslim.
Of course, Christianity has been just as much a conquering religion. Spanish armies ruthlessly destroyed ancient civilisations in Central and South America to spread the message of love. Christians colonised the Americas and Australia, committing genocide as they went, while missionaries such as Livingstone converted most of Africa.
But the difference is that Christendom has — by and large — stopped conquering and converting, and indeed in Europe simply stopped believing. Even President Bush’s most trenchant critics don’t believe he conquered Afghanistan and Iraq to spread the word of Jesus. It is ironic that by deposing Saddam, who ran the most secular of Arab regimes, the US actually transferred power to the imams.
I believe in a free market in religions, and it is inevitable that if you believe your religion is true, then you believe others are false. But this market is seriously rigged. In Saudi Arabia the government bans all churches, while in Europe governments pay to build Islamic cultural centres. While in many Islamic countries preaching Christianity is banned, in Western Christian countries the right to preach Islam is enshrined in law. Christians are free to convert to Islam, while Muslims who convert to Christianity can expect either death threats or a death sentence. The Pope keeps apologising for the Crusades (even though they were just attempts to get back former Christian lands) while his opposite numbers call for the overthrow of Christendom.
In Christian countries, those who warn about Islamification, such as the film star Brigitte Bardot, are prosecuted, while in Muslim countries those who call for the Islamification of the world are turned into TV celebrities. In the West, schools teach comparative religion, while in Muslim countries schools teach that Islam is the only true faith. David Blunkett in effect wants to ban criticism of Islam, a protection not enjoyed by Christianity in Muslim countries. Millions of Muslims move to Christian countries, but virtually no Christians move to Muslim ones.
In the last century some Christians justified the persecution and mass murder of Jews by claiming that Jews wanted to take over the world. But these fascist fantasies were based on deliberate lies, such as the notorious fake book The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Now, many in the Muslim world are open about their desire for Islam to conquer the West.

(end of article)

And as I have said, Christianity has its bad past. As does every religion, and every nation and in most cases people have past's they would like to forget. That doesnt mean that you should hold it against them now. What does God say about holding grudges? (Rhetorical question there) And also, besides from the usage of the word "Crusade" on occations by George.W.Bush, what evidence is there that America is on some kind of religious war?


Good post. I read it thouroughly. But it has not convinced me not to agree with the original post. Perhaps you should re-read the original post.

:eek:
I think the original post was quite cunning (read it and find out why). :rolleyes: I agree but don't think you've made me an apostate from my God... actually I'm getting Baptised tomorrow (very exciting).

It seems, in the past few years, that it has become customary, dare I say trendy, to bemoan and besmirch Islam as an evil, violent, and fascist religion. But it is often forgotten that Christianity also has a smiliarly evil, violent, and fascist history of its own. Too often the lessons learned in the study of Christianity go unremembered when dealing with Islam. Lessons such as the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. Perhaps it would be better to grant Islam a bit of leeway when judging it.

As said in my latter post

"I believe in a free market in religions, and it is inevitable that if you believe your religion is true, then you believe others are false. But this market is seriously rigged. In Saudi Arabia the government bans all churches, while in Europe governments pay to build Islamic cultural centres. While in many Islamic countries preaching Christianity is banned, in Western Christian countries the right to preach Islam is enshrined in law. Christians are free to convert to Islam, while Muslims who convert to Christianity can expect either death threats or a death sentence. The Pope keeps apologising for the Crusades (even though they were just attempts to get back former Christian lands) while his opposite numbers call for the overthrow of Christendom.
In Christian countries, those who warn about Islamification, such as the film star Brigitte Bardot, are prosecuted, while in Muslim countries those who call for the Islamification of the world are turned into TV celebrities. In the West, schools teach comparative religion, while in Muslim countries schools teach that Islam is the only true faith. David Blunkett in effect wants to ban criticism of Islam, a protection not enjoyed by Christianity in Muslim countries. Millions of Muslims move to Christian countries, but virtually no Christians move to Muslim ones.
In the last century some Christians justified the persecution and mass murder of Jews by claiming that Jews wanted to take over the world. But these fascist fantasies were based on deliberate lies, such as the notorious fake book The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Now, many in the Muslim world are open about their desire for Islam to conquer the West."

And the point here is that many Christian (or Post Christian in the case of the UK) nations have accepted the world climate of equality BUT many Muslim nations have not changed on this. They still revile Judaism and Christanity throught their nations.

actually I'm getting Baptised tomorrow (very exciting).

Good for you! I would love to be there but I supect we live poles apart

If you wish to know something hypocritical inherent in many singular god religions, here's one for you:

Premise 1: God has a plan for everyone.
Premise 2: God gave us free will, and that is why there is war and suffering in the world.

Conclusion: These two statements contradict one another. It is illogical to say we are following a plan of another yet are able to choose our destiny. Yet, fundamental Christians (and others) defend both to the death. If premise 1 is disproved, then it shows God has no interest in the events of the universe. If premise 2 is disproved (which Calvinism attempts to do), thne we're fucked regardless.

Thankyou Neo Cannon but I REALLY suggest you have a good read of the original post.

Oh yeah, and what's with all that hypocracy stuff that's being chucked around? Isn't the fact that Christians still sin an important part of the Christian faith? I sure WOULD like to be perfect like my savior but I sure appreciate His grace because quite simply, no matter how hard I try I'm allways going to fall down again in some way or another. This isn't a permission thing that Christians can do whatever they want cause the're saved thing either. Theres this guy at my school who believes that and it annoys me so much.

I just thought that I should point that out. No Christian is EVER going to be perfect on his own strength so don't expect us to be guys. Sure, there are some uber screwed up people who call themselves Christians but I really doubt that they actually are.

Thankyou Neo Cannon but I REALLY suggest you have a good read of the original post.


Its Neo Cannen and what exactly am I missing about the original post. Yes Christianity has a nasty past, but Islam seemingly has a nasty present (not inustling Muslims now but look at the facts) as I said.

"I believe in a free market in religions, and it is inevitable that if you believe your religion is true, then you believe others are false. But this market is seriously rigged. In Saudi Arabia the government bans all churches, while in Europe governments pay to build Islamic cultural centres. While in many Islamic countries preaching Christianity is banned, in Western Christian countries the right to preach Islam is enshrined in law. Christians are free to convert to Islam, while Muslims who convert to Christianity can expect either death threats or a death sentence. The Pope keeps apologising for the Crusades (even though they were just attempts to get back former Christian lands) while his opposite numbers call for the overthrow of Christendom.
In Christian countries, those who warn about Islamification, such as the film star Brigitte Bardot, are prosecuted, while in Muslim countries those who call for the Islamification of the world are turned into TV celebrities. In the West, schools teach comparative religion, while in Muslim countries schools teach that Islam is the only true faith. David Blunkett in effect wants to ban criticism of Islam, a protection not enjoyed by Christianity in Muslim countries. Millions of Muslims move to Christian countries, but virtually no Christians move to Muslim ones.
In the last century some Christians justified the persecution and mass murder of Jews by claiming that Jews wanted to take over the world. But these fascist fantasies were based on deliberate lies, such as the notorious fake book The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Now, many in the Muslim world are open about their desire for Islam to conquer the West."

What exactly is wrong with what I am saying and how does it not line up with the ideals of the original post?

I just thought that I should point that out. No Christian is EVER going to be perfect on his own strength so don't expect us to be guys. Sure, there are some uber screwed up people who call themselves Christians but I really doubt that they actually are.

"Not perfect just forgiven" is'nt that what it says on a fameous Christian American bumper sticker.

We have many sins in our past, as do other religious traditions (even Buddhism). We acknowledge and repent of these.

Where is the hypocrisy?

On the part of the smug humanist critics, I think. Who of course see themselves as without spot or blemish.

Its Neo Cannen and what exactly am I missing about the original post. Yes Christianity has a nasty past, but Islam seemingly has a nasty present (not inustling Muslims now but look at the facts) as I said.

What exactly is wrong with what I am saying and how does it not line up with the ideals of the original post?

You obviously haven't read my entire post.

Hey hey, whoever it was way back earlier that equated atheism with a lack of belief, that's really not at all true. I think what sets atheists apart is more the desire to gather verifiable evidence and draw sound conclusions based on everything before them...

I'm really quite astonished at the difficulty some posters are finding with the original argument. It's really quite impossible to disagree. Especially with the marvellous demonstration of the original claim occurring before our very eyes.

Hey hey, whoever it was way back earlier that equated atheism with a lack of belief, that's really not at all true. I think what sets atheists apart is more the desire to gather verifiable evidence and draw sound conclusions based on everything before them...

I'm really quite astonished at the difficulty some posters are finding with the original argument. It's really quite impossible to disagree. Especially with the marvellous demonstration of the original claim occurring before our very eyes.

I agree you really can't help but agree with the original post after reading it.

Eh, after reading the original post...I really have to apologize for what I said before. God...I feel like such an idiot...

Given the consensus that this thread has generated throughout NS I feel it should be nominated for memorialization.

Nice work Sdaeriji!

I agree - welldone lad :D

I've heard a catholic defend the crusades by something about muslim mauraders killing christians in the mid east. This doesnt explain the campaigns out of jerusalem once it was captured, does it?

I just dont think a true christian would authorize a fascist use of force to suppress the belief sets of others in france and elsewhere - in essence a catholic crusade against other christians took place just to consolidate power and not let the authority of the church slip away.

True Christians wouldn't draw swords under any circumstance - well not to draw the blood of thier fellow man. Jesus wasnt political in the modern sense, he rejected kingship of Israel when they wanted to make him king. I dont think Christians have any right to interfere in the governments of men. Care for your neighbor, your community, your family, and educate your enemies - but dont go for the reigns of power in this world - instead take after the example of your own leader, Jesus Christ who rejected the powers that no doubt were within his grasp if he so choose to get political.

Christians would do well to stay out of world affairs. As Jesus did.

none of you know what Christianity is all about. Read the nostre Atetae that was the document written during vatican II. THe Church of today has nothign to do with the Church of the inquisition and crusades.

none of you know what Christianity is all about. Read the nostre Atetae that was the document written during vatican II. THe Church of today has nothign to do with the Church of the inquisition and crusades.

Perhaps you should figure out what this thread is all about before you make such a generalised statement. Do you know what I know? Well, obviously you don't know what I know in the immediate situation. Are you prepared to find out? Look and ye shall find

Good Christians recognize those acts as evil. Those same good Christians recognize Islam as a religion of peace just as quickly. Mistaking the Crusades and the Inquisition for spirituality and enlightenment is like mistaking popularity for friendship.

Agreed.

We have many sins in our past, as do other religious traditions (even Buddhism). We acknowledge and repent of these.

Where is the hypocrisy?

On the part of the smug humanist critics, I think. Who of course see themselves as without spot or blemish.
I agree with that, too.

I agree - welldone lad :D

I've heard a catholic defend the crusades by something about muslim mauraders killing christians in the mid east. This doesnt explain the campaigns out of jerusalem once it was captured, does it?

I just dont think a true christian would authorize a fascist use of force to suppress the belief sets of others in france and elsewhere - in essence a catholic crusade against other christians took place just to consolidate power and not let the authority of the church slip away.

True Christians wouldn't draw swords under any circumstance - well not to draw the blood of thier fellow man. Jesus wasnt political in the modern sense, he rejected kingship of Israel when they wanted to make him king. I dont think Christians have any right to interfere in the governments of men. Care for your neighbor, your community, your family, and educate your enemies - but dont go for the reigns of power in this world - instead take after the example of your own leader, Jesus Christ who rejected the powers that no doubt were within his grasp if he so choose to get political.

Christians would do well to stay out of world affairs. As Jesus did.

I couldn't agree more. I have been waiting in the wings for months looking for exactly that statement from a Christian. I am not on about a Christian voting according to their lights. I am against professing Christian leadership involving themselves in the process as a means to have the entire population live according to their views. As you so adroitly point out, it is not what Jesus would have done and it is not what he taught. Not even Paul went this route. Certainly he sought to persuade all, including leaders. But the heart of Christianity is that it is personal and spiritual, not political and worldly.

John 18:36
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

By the way. Did you read all of Sdaeriji's post that started this thread? It is very revealing and refreshing.

Aye! Read the original post! :p

Given the consensus that this thread has generated throughout NS I feel it should be nominated for memorialization.

Nice work Sdaeriji!

I would be honored. I am very happy that my words have been able to draw the diverse NationStates crowd together in unison.

I have to agree with ya on this one.

Bump

"So, in conclusion, I think that Christians ought to approach their attitudes towards Islam with a little bit more civility, since Christianity has its own violent and unsavory past."

And vice versa. I'm all for tolerance and mutual respect.

"So, in conclusion, I think that Christians ought to approach their attitudes towards Islam with a little bit more civility, since Christianity has its own violent and unsavory past."

And vice versa. I'm all for tolerance and mutual respect.

What did you think of what I wrote?

Sir Sdaeriji, I agree wholeheartedly. You have enlightened me with your wisdom, I think.

- Jarylan Blackwell

I feel that this thread is to important to be kept at anything but the forefront of the forums. The first post is truly profound.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_pro_14071997_en.html

The link above shows that the situation is somewhat more complicated, but on the whole,

I agree.

I think that you underplay the resistance that the muslims gave against such crusades. Yes, religion was important to the knights in the Middle Ages. One of the results of the Crusades was the founding of new religious orders. Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity—and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion—has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. I suppose this is what you mean by content. Secret messages written in what is so death defyingly boring that no poor sole wants to read the content. I must admit I didn't do very well at history, it bored me to tears quoting all those dates like during 11th and 12th Century the king of and so on. So yes, I agree with your conclusion, and I'll try some for myself.When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.

Most of the monks were former knights who fought against each other in the Crusades. There were many castles built during the Crusades. The knights did capture Jersulsalem for a short period of time, but the Muslims kept on re-taking Jerusalem. The knights gained power and confidence in themselves, but lost many people during the deadly Crusades. Out of the Crusades the idea of chivalry was created. Chivalry means that a knight had to be courteous to all people including enemies. During the first Crusade (1095-1097) most of the knights died of hunger, thirst or disease.

So, much as the crusades were socially injust they spurred economic growth and a certain religious re-ordering. I wonder what will happen when the current spate of terrorism has come to an end?

Why the hypocrisy of Christianity and not the hypocrisy of Christians? Do you feel that you can discredit an ideal by showing its followers to be imperfect? I could easily start a thread about the hypocrisy of the Muslims or (gasp) the hypocrisy of the Jews, and I'd probably be called a racist and biggot. God forbid I made a thread entitled Exposing the hypocrisy of Judaism, I'd probably get deated for that. I'm not even sure why I'm writing this. It would seem sure that as a Christian my views have no currency on this forum, so why even bother? You may now call me various names.

If you would simply read the opneing post, as I'm sure you haven't done, you'd definitely come around to the writers point of view.

Just from seeing the first post I'd have to say that possibly a better title for this thread might be "Exposing the hypocrisy of some followers of Christianity". Christianity is a fairly inert thing. It doesn't go on crusades, it doesn't kill "heretics" followers do this. Christianity just kinda sits there and does a whole lot of nothing.

Of course the same goes for Islam. And any other religion out there. I'm just saying that you are being slightly...incorrect in your placing of the blame. I'll be the first to admit that Pope Innocent III wasn't a very good person and he perverted a perfectly good belief set for his own gain, but he's long dead, and the current Pope is a pretty nice guy. So are a lot of other people involved in all forms of Christianity.

Just from seeing the first post I'd have to say that possibly a better title for this thread might be "Exposing the hypocrisy of some followers of Christianity". Christianity is a fairly inert thing. It doesn't go on crusades, it doesn't kill "heretics" followers do this. Christianity just kinda sits there and does a whole lot of nothing.

Of course the same goes for Islam. And any other religion out there. I'm just saying that you are being slightly...incorrect in your placing of the blame. I'll be the first to admit that Pope Innocent III wasn't a very good person and he perverted a perfectly good belief set for his own gain, but he's long dead, and the current Pope is a pretty nice guy. So are a lot of other people involved in all forms of Christianity.

I believe wholeheartedly if you just read my original post in depth you'll find it very hard to disagree with what I have to say.

Why the hypocrisy of Christianity and not the hypocrisy of Christians? Do you feel that you can discredit an ideal by showing its followers to be imperfect? I could easily start a thread about the hypocrisy of the Muslims or (gasp) the hypocrisy of the Jews, and I'd probably be called a racist and biggot. God forbid I made a thread entitled Exposing the hypocrisy of Judaism, I'd probably get deated for that. I'm not even sure why I'm writing this. It would seem sure that as a Christian my views have no currency on this forum, so why even bother? You may now call me various names.

I do not wish to call you any names, but I humbly suggest you read my original statement before beginning your attacks on me and my motives.

On the whole exposing Christianity thing: It's been done for nearly 200 years now, if not longer. Nothing here is really new. Nothing here has been done before.

In effect, I've been there, done that, and I have the t-shirt to prove it.

to the original poster,

Like all things Christianity has had its good and bad leaders.

Germany, a great nation over the years has had some good, and not so good leaders. How many people here would agree that Hitler was a good leader.

Christianity is not evil, its leaders have been in the past. that was also during a time when a small few would controll what was "right" and wrong.

I find it funny how fast people are ready to flame Christians.

Its also funny how they are the only religion that does not stress war in anyway, and if their world view prevailed then you would not have to worry about war.

Oh yeah, keep persacuting them, that means they are doing something right. (thats what the New Testament says in places)

Its also funny how they are the only religion that does not stress war in anyway, and if their world view prevailed then you would not have to worry about war.

That has already been disproven as fact by the histories of Christian nations.

Also, you are wrong about that blanket-statement of all other belief systems stressing war. Try Wicca, some forms of Satanism, and generally everything except the Judeo-Christian family in looking for religions that don't stress war. There are more than you think.

One final thing: Christianity does stress violence in the New Testament. Look it up.

prove it does, when you look at what the World view (not what countries and men do with it) of what Christianity is, then you would find that war and slavery would be solved. maybe not right away, but given a small amount of time it would.

Oh by the way, when you do try to prove me wrong, please make sure your context of any verses are correct, along with the authors intended meanings, otherwise you may look stupid.

Wow... like I haven't read this kind of argument 400 times before. :rolleyes:

~Smuj~

prove it does, when you look at what the World view (not what countries and men do with it) of what Christianity is, then you would find that war and slavery would be solved. maybe not right away, but given a small amount of time it would.

Oh by the way, when you do try to prove me wrong, please make sure your context of any verses are correct, along with the authors intended meanings, otherwise you may look stupid.

You might want to check who you are arguing with before you just attack, specifically what religious background they have. You're arguing with a Roman Catholic, but for this I'll use the NIV just in case you have more familiarity with it.

First, let's check the OT:

“[God says] Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys” (1 Sam 15:3); “If only you would slay the wicked, O God! Away from me, you bloodthirsty men! They speak of you with evil intent; your adversaries misuse your name. Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD, and abhor those who rise up against you? I have nothing but hatred for them; I count them my enemies” (Ps 139:19-22); “Appoint an evil man to oppose [my enemy]; let an accuser stand at his right hand. When he is tried, let him be found guilty, and may his prayers condemn him. May his days be few; may another take his place of leadership. May his children be fatherless and his wife a widow. May his children be wandering beggars; may they be driven from their ruined homes. May a creditor seize all he has; may strangers plunder the fruits of his labor. May no one extend kindness to him or take pity on his fatherless children. May his descendants be cut off, their names blotted out from the next generation. May the iniquity of his fathers be remembered before the LORD; may the sin of his mother never be blotted out. May their sins always remain before the LORD, that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth” (Ps 109:6-15); “Any man who worships a false idol shall be struck down by the might of the Lord's people.” (Ringo, 12:18) “Then Israel made this vow to the LORD: ‘If you will deliver these people into our hands, we will totally destroy their cities.’ The LORD listened to Israel’s plea and gave the Canaanites over to them. They completely destroyed them and their towns; so the place was named Hormah” (Num 21:2-3); “Any who displeases me is to be struck down, says the Lord.” (Steve 19:2) “When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations--the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you-- and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy” (Dt 7:1-2); “You must destroy all the peoples the LORD your God gives over to you. Do not look on them with pity” (Dt 7:16); “you will drive them [your enemies in war] out and annihilate them quickly, as the LORD has promised you” (Dt 9:3); “Completely destroy them--the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites--as the LORD your God has commanded you” (Dt 20:17); “Pursue your enemies, attack them from the rear and don’t let them reach their cities, for the LORD your God has given them into your hand” (Josh 10:19); “If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured” (Lev 24:19-20); “You must purge the evil from among you. The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you. Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Dt 19:19-21); But if [a person guilty of manslaughter] ever goes outside the limits of the city of refuge to which he has fled and the avenger of blood finds him outside the city, the avenger of blood may kill the accused without being guilty of murder. The accused must stay in his city of refuge until the death of the high priest; only after the death of the high priest may he return to his own property” (Num 35:26-28).

Pretty gory stuff. But that is just OT, most of which is supposed. Let's check NT:

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ." (Gal 6:5)

So much for the antislavery arguement. Now, let's turn to the idea of government. If you read Romans 13:1-5, it tells you to obey the government and that they are chosen by God. If you take that as is, the multitudes of wars commited by Christian governments are justified by the Bible with that passage. Therefore, all of those wars they pulled and all of those people killed are justified because God chose them to rule.

"As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be cursed!" (Galatians 1:9). This is by Paul, not Jesus.

There is a reason the NT has less: It was a less violent and more moderate view. But keep in mind that both Testaments are part of the Christian worldview, not just one or the other. Also note how the NT doesn't actually refute all of the OT, just small portions of it.

Admittedly, some of the above is taken out of context. But the context doesn't exactly improve it.

Wow... like I haven't read this kind of argument 400 times before. :rolleyes:

~Smuj~

Damn, it's the first time I've seen the argument. I thought it was pretty inciteful actually. Maybe you should look a little more indepth at what the original post actually claims. It's a bit of a different take on the Crusades and Inquisition than I've seen before....Nothing like what some subsequent posters seem to be assuming. But then they're not taking everything in. It really is difficult not to come around to his point of view once you consider all elements of the original post.

Damn, it's the first time I've seen the argument. I thought it was pretty inciteful actually. Maybe you should look a little more indepth at what the original post actually claims. It's a bit of a different take on the Crusades and Inquisition than I've seen before....Nothing like what some subsequent posters seem to be assuming. But then they're not taking everything in. It really is difficult not to come around to his point of view once you consider all elements of the original post.

Shush! I'm too busy having fun playing with a guy. I want him set up before I cause him to take the fall.

Just from seeing the first post I'd have to say that possibly a better title for this thread might be "Exposing the hypocrisy of some followers of Christianity". Christianity is a fairly inert thing. It doesn't go on crusades, it doesn't kill "heretics" followers do this. Christianity just kinda sits there and does a whole lot of nothing.

Of course the same goes for Islam. And any other religion out there. I'm just saying that you are being slightly...incorrect in your placing of the blame. I'll be the first to admit that Pope Innocent III wasn't a very good person and he perverted a perfectly good belief set for his own gain, but he's long dead, and the current Pope is a pretty nice guy. So are a lot of other people involved in all forms of Christianity.

Seeing a post just isn't the same as reading a post in its entireity is it?

Shush! I'm too busy having fun playing with a guy. I want him set up before I cause him to take the fall.


Carry on

Carry on

It'll be interesting to see how he walks into the trap.

If you would simply read the opneing post, as I'm sure you haven't done, you'd definitely come around to the writers point of view.

Yes Klonor, because I'm a moron, and its obvious that I don't read, is it not? I read the initial post, thank you very much, and I don't see how it disproves my reply. Please refrain from assuming that I am more ignorant, lazy, or naive than you are. We'll get along alot better that way.

The very subject of your post shows that you haven't completely read the opening post. Please, re-read.

Yes Klonor, because I'm a moron, and its obvious that I don't read, is it not? I read the initial post, thank you very much, and I don't see how it disproves my reply. Please refrain from assuming that I am more ignorant, lazy, or naive than you are. We'll get along alot better that way.

The evidence you haven't read it is in your arguement. If you had actually read the entire post instead of just portions, you would realize you are proving the author's point with your arguement and feel very foolish.

Yes Klonor, because I'm a moron, and its obvious that I don't read, is it not? I read the initial post, thank you very much, and I don't see how it disproves my reply. Please refrain from assuming that I am more ignorant, lazy, or naive than you are. We'll get along alot better that way.

It is apparent that you did not read the entire post; either that or you insist on arguing a non-point as it is impossible to disagree with what I said.

Why the hypocrisy of Christianity and not the hypocrisy of Christians? Do you feel that you can discredit an ideal by showing its followers to be imperfect?

I questioned your choice of words. Obviously, this is beyond your comprehension. I'm very sorry about that. I didn't know you have such poor reading and interpretation skills. Or perhaps you should take the time to actually read my post? Discrediting the Christian with a couple of arrogant lines rather than actually addressing the point of view presented in the post shows mental laziness, at best. I'll leave now, as I think that arguing any point with you is absolutly futile.

I questioned your choice of words. Obviously, this is beyond your comprehension. I'm very sorry about that. I didn't know you have such poor reading and interpretation skills. Or perhaps you should take the time to actually read my post? Discrediting the Christian with a couple of arrogant lines rather than actually addressing the point of view presented in the post shows mental laziness, at best. I'll leave now, as I think that arguing any point with you is absolutly futile.

You did not actually read my entire post. I know this to be fact. Please, stop acting so confrontational and just read the entire post before continuing your attacks.

Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. NKJV

As far as your pro-slavery that is one verse out of many, and context is king and you did not even list the correct book or the chapter.


1Ti 6:1 All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered.
1Ti 6:2 Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. These are the things you are to teach and urge on them.

1 Paul now has a word for servants or slaves. Their servitute is further emphasized by the phrase "under the yoke." About half the population of the Roman Empire in the first century was composed of slaves. This would undoubtedly have included Christian households (cf. the book of Philemon). Slaves are admonished to give full respect to their masters. Paul was always concerned that the conduct of Christians should be such as to bring glory to God and not bring reproach on his name and on the Gospel.

2 Not all Christian slaves had "believing masters." But those who did were not "to show less respect for them." Instead, they were to serve them even better, realizing that they were benefiting their brothers in Christ; their masters were "dear to them" (lit., "beloved"; ). This would give added incentive to their service.

You can aslo read the book of Philemon. Yes Christianity never comes out and says that Slavery is wrong, nor does any major world religion that i can think of off the top of my head. Though when you look at the fact that Christianity chooses to state mutual respect for the slave (by the master) and the slave to respect his master it would end up eventually like a employer/employee relationship. Then again that is just my and a few thousand others understanding.

Gov't is instituated by God, and the question arises daily, how far Should one follow the gov't? should we follow gov't to the letter of the law and believe everything they say? (middle ages/ R/C reign) OR, should we follow our gov't and respect them, give them what is due to them, and IF the gov't does something that goes against ones beliefs, they can go through the channels to try to change that or they can choose to follow God or they can choose to follow man.

Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. NKJV

As far as your pro-slavery that is one verse out of many, and context is king and you did not even list the correct book or the chapter.


1Ti 6:1 All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered.
1Ti 6:2 Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. These are the things you are to teach and urge on them.

1 Paul now has a word for servants or slaves. Their servitute is further emphasized by the phrase "under the yoke." About half the population of the Roman Empire in the first century was composed of slaves. This would undoubtedly have included Christian households (cf. the book of Philemon). Slaves are admonished to give full respect to their masters. Paul was always concerned that the conduct of Christians should be such as to bring glory to God and not bring reproach on his name and on the Gospel.

2 Not all Christian slaves had "believing masters." But those who did were not "to show less respect for them." Instead, they were to serve them even better, realizing that they were benefiting their brothers in Christ; their masters were "dear to them" (lit., "beloved"; ). This would give added incentive to their service.

You can aslo read the book of Philemon. Yes Christianity never comes out and says that Slavery is wrong, nor does any major world religion that i can think of off the top of my head. Though when you look at the fact that Christianity chooses to state mutual respect for the slave (by the master) and the slave to respect his master it would end up eventually like a employer/employee relationship. Then again that is just my and a few thousand others understanding.

Gov't is instituated by God, and the question arises daily, how far Should one follow the gov't? should we follow gov't to the letter of the law and believe everything they say? (middle ages/ R/C reign) OR, should we follow our gov't and respect them, give them what is due to them, and IF the gov't does something that goes against ones beliefs, they can go through the channels to try to change that or they can choose to follow God or they can choose to follow man.

I fail to see how this relates to my initial post.

Christianity has a bloody history. Islam has a bloody history, present, and if the moderates don't take over, a bloody (possibly short) future. Remember that the Crusades were in response to muslims massacring, enslaving and generally treating christians in the holy land as third class citizens. The laws regulating dhimmis were brutal and repressive. The crusaders came to liberate their co-religionists.

Christianity has a bloody history. Islam has a bloody history, present, and if the moderates don't take over, a bloody (possibly short) future. Remember that the Crusades were in response to muslims massacring, enslaving and generally treating christians in the holy land as third class citizens. The laws regulating dhimmis were brutal and repressive. The crusaders came to liberate their co-religionists.

Yes, I addressed this in my initial post. Perhaps you should return and re-read it more thoroughly.

Yes, I addressed this in my initial post. Perhaps you should return and re-read it more thoroughly.
You got me. I didn't read the whole post.

You got me. I didn't read the whole post.

I know. Neither has Presgrief. Or a lot of people still.

I must say that there is nothing more satisfying than being made to feel a total and utter fool. It is not only humbling, it does indeed teach one to pay attention, to think before opening ones big dumb, Greifan mouth, and to not take anything at face value. A life lesson learned. This is most probably the most enlightening thread I've ever come across on NS. Naty be the fool. I AGREE.

I must say that there is nothing more satisfying than being made to feel a total and utter fool. It is not only humbling, it does indeed teach one to pay attention, to think before opening ones big dumb, Greifan mouth, and to not take anything at face value. A life lesson learned. This is most probably the most enlightening thread I've ever come across on NS. Naty be the fool. I AGREE.

I am glad that you were finally able to see the wisdom in my words. I never gave up on you and your ability to see the truth.

Yes, you have indeed won yourself a loyal and faithful groupie, um, convert. :D

Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. NKJV

NKJV? I'm using NIV. Keep in mind that neither of us is posting the correct wording, as it wasn't actually written in English.

As far as your pro-slavery that is one verse out of many, and context is king and you did not even list the correct book or the chapter.

Actually, the chapter is correct. It is from Ephesians, not Galatians. They look about the same due to the length of Galatians. And remember I'm using NIV.

Also, it is not out of context, but actually taken in context. The context of that section is how a slave should act and is part of a series of sections on how people should act.

1Ti 6:1 All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered.
1Ti 6:2 Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. These are the things you are to teach and urge on them.

1 Paul now has a word for servants or slaves. Their servitute is further emphasized by the phrase "under the yoke." About half the population of the Roman Empire in the first century was composed of slaves. This would undoubtedly have included Christian households (cf. the book of Philemon). Slaves are admonished to give full respect to their masters. Paul was always concerned that the conduct of Christians should be such as to bring glory to God and not bring reproach on his name and on the Gospel.

2 Not all Christian slaves had "believing masters." But those who did were not "to show less respect for them." Instead, they were to serve them even better, realizing that they were benefiting their brothers in Christ; their masters were "dear to them" (lit., "beloved"; ). This would give added incentive to their service.

Congrats. You just were successfully fooled into arguing my point for me. In fact, you posted more evidence that supports it.

You can aslo read the book of Philemon. Yes Christianity never comes out and says that Slavery is wrong, nor does any major world religion that i can think of off the top of my head. Though when you look at the fact that Christianity chooses to state mutual respect for the slave (by the master) and the slave to respect his master it would end up eventually like a employer/employee relationship. Then again that is just my and a few thousand others understanding.

Which doesn't actually address the point. Slavery is still slavery, whether the slaves like it or not. Hell, I remember reading an article about a rebellion of slaves in Egypt against the pharoah because he wanted to free them. Whether or not that article is true doesn't matter. What does matter is that, despite them liking it, they were still slaves. So far, no real evidence that the slavery issue would have actually been resolved if the Christian viewpoint was truly dominant.

Gov't is instituated by God, and the question arises daily, how far Should one follow the gov't? should we follow gov't to the letter of the law and believe everything they say? (middle ages/ R/C reign) OR, should we follow our gov't and respect them, give them what is due to them, and IF the gov't does something that goes against ones beliefs, they can go through the channels to try to change that or they can choose to follow God or they can choose to follow man.

Going by the passage I quoted, one should follow it always. They are "chosen by God to rule" after all.

I see you ignored the mountain of stuff on the OT, which is also part of the Christian worldview.

I fail to see how this relates to my initial post.

He's the one I mentioned in the TG I sent you. Sit back and enjoy the show. Also, you might want to read the OT text for a couple of book names that are funny.

Bump.

It'll be interesting to see how he walks into the trap.

Sometimes it's just too easy...

Ah, LionOfjudah, tut tut tut. He complains about context...silly silly man. If you're gonna complain about context, you should not be using words from the Bible. The whole bible itself is from a context, you have to read everything it says in that context. The world of two thousand years ago, is not the world of today.

I really wish people would stop trying to take it literally.

What was the original post about again.... ;)

B
U
M
P

Heh heh. I notice you've picked up quite a following this week!

Heh heh. I notice you've picked up quite a following this week!

Yes. Someone recommended archiving this thread when it's run its course because of the unity it has created in the NS forums.

mmmmm, bumpalicious...

Bump

Could you please define what type of Christianity you are so openly bashing?
There are many types with differing beliefs. Thank you.

Could you please define what type of Christianity you are so openly bashing?
There are many types with differing beliefs. Thank you.

No, I disagree. You must read the initial post again. You will be enlightened, trust me.

No, I disagree. You must read the initial post again. You will be enlightened, trust me.
The idiots will not look. I believe 'christian' is one of the tread makers friends. DON'T MAKE THIS ANOTHER BLOODY RELIGIOUS DEBATE I JUST WANT TO TALK ABOUT TEA!!!!

*sobs at ignorance of people who refuse to look at what a thread is about before mindlessly filling the poor thread with propaganda and repetitive prose*

The idiots will not look. I believe 'christian' is one of the tread makers friends. DON'T MAKE THIS ANOTHER BLOODY RELIGIOUS DEBATE I JUST WANT TO TALK ABOUT TEA!!!!

*sobs at ignorance of people who refuse to look at what a thread is about before mindlessly filling the poor thread with propaganda and repetitive prose*

Wrong topic.

The idiots will not look. I believe 'christian' is one of the tread makers friends. DON'T MAKE THIS ANOTHER BLOODY RELIGIOUS DEBATE I JUST WANT TO TALK ABOUT TEA!!!!

*sobs at ignorance of people who refuse to look at what a thread is about before mindlessly filling the poor thread with propaganda and repetitive prose*

You want "Exposing the hypocrisy of Christian's Tea"

I am glad that so many people are able to see the wisdom in my words.Stop saying Fascist this and Fascist that in your first post in this thread!
Just because they went around killing loads of people and forcing them to adopt Christianity doesnt make them 'Fascists'
Democratic nations and Communist nations can be just as war-mongering and some times even more so and that doesnt make them 'Fascist nations'

But I do agree that some Christians were and are hypocrites.

Let's all become Buddists!!!

Stop saying Fascist this and Fascist that in your first post in this thread!
Just because they went around killing loads of people and forcing them to adopt Christianity doesnt make them 'Fascists'
Democratic nations and Communist nations can be just as war-mongering and some times even more so and that doesnt make them 'Fascist nations'

But I do agree that some Christians were and are hypocrites.

Perhaps you should read my initial post.

I agree

I'm wondering where Facism has played any part in this thread

I don't see how anyone, of any faith, could disagree with the original post. It is a thing of beauty! And I think it's one of the most brilliant things I've seen on the 'net, especially with the evidence this thread has provided.

I AGREE.

Bump for Shaed.

It seems, in the past few years, that it has become customary, dare I say trendy, to bemoan and besmirch Islam as an evil, violent, and fascist religion. But it is often forgotten that Christianity also has a smiliarly evil, violent, and fascist history of its own. Too often the lessons learned in the study of Christianity go unremembered when dealing with Islam. Lessons such as the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. Perhaps it would be better to grant Islam a bit of leeway when judging it. So, without further ado, a little history lesson on the shady past of the Christian faith. You said Christianity has a Fascist History. Elaborate on what you mean by that. Elaborate on how the Christians were 'Fascists'?
You cant say that any one or any person who is violent and murderous is a 'Fascist'. That was my point. Your post is good but dont just throw in the word 'Fascist' just because it sounds like a big word.

You said Christianity has a Fascist History. Elaborate on what you mean by that. Elaborate on how the Christians were 'Fascists'?
You cant say that any one or any person who is violent and murderous is a 'Fascist'. That was my point. Your post is good but dont just throw in the word 'Fascist' just because it sounds like a big word.

Maybe you should read my entire post, not just the first paragraph.

ALL religion is for people too afraid to have a real relationship with God
there is no such thing

I agree :rolleyes:

HA! ARGUE THAT!! :mp5:

study the whole cristian history after it came the roman oficial belief and you´l discover a cool series of murder,torture,thievery,mutilation,forgery...not to mention the nice way catholics tried to slow down scientific progress. Even know i would say cristian religion is a corrupt institute filled with decay. THe philosophy behind the religion is beautiful... but what happens in its name is nothing but a crime.
Islam is a beautiful idea as well... perhaps even more developped than cristianity... but what makes it seem like a facist cult is the fundamentalists who give a bad name to the whole thing.

You really need to re-read the first post

study the whole cristian history after it came the roman oficial belief and you´l discover a cool series of murder,torture,thievery,mutilation,forgery...not to mention the nice way catholics tried to slow down scientific progress. Even know i would say cristian religion is a corrupt institute filled with decay. THe philosophy behind the religion is beautiful... but what happens in its name is nothing but a crime.

1) Reread the first post.
2) For a few centuries, the Catholic Church was the driving force behind scientific advancement. This was mainly so they could prove to the locals they were the biggest badasses in the land. Some of their inventions remained advanced up until the middle of the 20th Century.
3) Not everyone is represented by the Catholic Church (which, contrary to popular belief, was not started by Jesus).
4) Christianity is also what lead to the rise of Deism and Theism, which were the founding religions of science. So, I guess Jesus is guilty of that lovely computer you are using to bash the religion he founded.

Islam is a beautiful idea as well... perhaps even more developped than cristianity... but what makes it seem like a facist cult is the fundamentalists who give a bad name to the whole thing.

Hypocrisy: Calling Christianity, a religion known to be plagued with fundementalists, the worst thing to happen to man and then stating Islam's problems are the fundies.

I concur...er, agree...whatever.

I am an atheist. SO i don't know if i should say agree or disagree. so pick for me.

As to Christaintiy's "PAST", I must say...

Here is a site that says it while sourcing its information!

www.jesusneverexisted.com

Even if you're an atheist you really need to read the opening post

Bumpity bump bump bump

I agree as well. But I think this thread targets people like me.

Bump

Well, it was fun while it lasted, but it seems like everyone's either gotten the joke or hasn't, since no one seems to reply to it anymore. So, I just thought I'd highlight the pertinent information in the original post that I made, for everyone who actually argued against my assertions. I hope that the people who didn't get it feel good and humiliated if they read this, because lord knows I had a hell of a good laugh. No hard feelings, mmkay?


It seems, in the past few years, that it has become customary, dare I say trendy, to bemoan and besmirch Islam as an evil, violent, and fascist religion. But it is often forgotten that Christianity also has a smiliarly evil, violent, and fascist history of its own. Too often the lessons learned in the study of Christianity go unremembered when dealing with Islam. Lessons such as the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. Perhaps it would be better to grant Islam a bit of leeway when judging it. So, without further ado, a little history lesson on the shady past of the Christian faith.

CRUSADES

The Crusades were a series of wars by Western European Christians to recapture the Holy Land from the Muslims. The Crusades were first undertaken in 1096 and ended in the late 13th century. The term Crusade was originally applied solely to European efforts to retake from the Muslims the city of Jerusalem, which was sacred to Christians as the site of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. It was later used to designate any military effort by Europeans against non-Christians. And this is where the real purpose of my thread begins. I've always wondered how some people could make arguments on these boards when the evidence presented in previous posts points to the contrary. I wondered if it was because people did not read entire posts of length such as this. So I'm testing this fact. I bet there will be quite a few people to post on this thread based on the opening paragraph and the beginning of this paragraph. They won't see all this that I'm writing right here at all. And I will enjoy a good laugh. So, if you are reading this, please don't spoil it for me. Instead of posting and having a good laugh at my obnoxious trick, just simply reply with "I agree", and leave any private comments in my telegram box. And, if you are so inclined, make a similar post of your own, with it's own hidden message. Now back to the charade. Stick around through the next paragraph for another easter egg. In a broad sense the Crusades were an expression of militant Christianity and European expansion. They combined religious interests with secular and military enterprises. Christians learned to live in different cultures, which they learned and absorbed; they also imposed something of their own characteristics on these cultures. The Crusades strongly affected the imagination and aspirations of people at the time, and to this day they are among the most famous chapters of medieval history.

THE INQUISITION

The Inquisition was a judicial institution established by the papacy in the Middle Ages, charged with seeking out, trying, and sentencing persons guilty of heresy. In the early church the usual penalty for heresy was excommunication. With the establishment of Christianity as the state religion by the Roman emperors in the 4th century, heretics came to be considered enemies of the state, especially when violence and the disturbance of public order were involved. St. Augustine gave a somewhat reluctant approval to action by the state against heretics, but the church generally disapproved of coercion and physical penalties. And I'm back. I wonder how many people have even made it this far down even after reading the little message in the first paragraph. I imagine I've lost a few readers even though they knew I'd be back here. I think I will allow this thread to hover around like this for a while, depending on the amount of responses I get to the false subject compared to the responses concerning the actual intent. I know that this has probably been done before; I don't think I'm being particularly witty here, but I think this is going to be very amusing for me, to say the least. It is kind of like those tests you used to get in the first day of class in high school that told you to read through the entire instructions before starting, and in the instructions it told you to just answer the final question and hand it in. Then you could enjoy a little chuckle as you saw people struggle through the impossibly hard test, not realizing that a joke was being played upon them. At any rate, I've let this go on long enough, so I think I'm just about done. Just to recap, if you read all this, just respond with "I agree" so I know you got the joke without ruining the joke, and leave me a telegram with your reactions. Thanks. Oh, and check out the links I provide. And now back to your regularly scheduled broadcast. The grand inquisitor and his tribunal had jurisdiction over local tribunals in colonies such as Mexico and Peru, which were usually more concerned with sorcery than heresy. Holy Roman Emperor Charles V introduced the Inquisition into the Netherlands in 1522, where it failed to wipe out Protestantism. The Spanish established it in Sicily in 1517, but were unable to do so in Naples and Milan. Historians have noted that many Protestant lands had institutions as repressive as the Spanish Inquisition, such as the consistory in Geneva at the time of the French reformer John Calvin. The Inquisition was finally suppressed in Spain in 1834.

So, in conclusion, I think that Christians ought to approach their attitudes towards Islam with a little bit more civility, since Christianity has its own violent and unsavory past.

For some more information on the violent history of Christianity, I refer you to these sites.

www.time.com/archive/religion/christianity/h4587340293384673/article/hypocrisy/heylookifoundjimmyhoffabackhere/iamsuchajerk/4342328373593.html
www.newyorktimes.com/archive/scienceandreligion/article4328372639834/christianityandislam/ohmygod/bigfoot/iwonderifnessieisbackheretoo/234092347262983.html
www.english.aljazeera.net/culture/religion/NR/exeres/8b323237v23/thisiswhereameliaearhartcrashed/ibetalotofpeopleragonmeforincludinganaljazeeralink/7B09E3B6-0AED-496F-B5D8-39C7DCF65E44.htm

If you followed the URLs far enough, the first one included "Hey look, I found Jimmy Hoffa back here; I am such a jerk", "Oh my god, Bigfoot; I wonder if Nessie is back here too", and "This is where Amelia Earhart crashed; I bet alot of people rag on me for including an Al-Jazeera link."

Well, that's that. Please leave any final comments here quickly, because I'm going to ask the mods to lock the thread shortly.

Locked at author's request.

Tactical Grace
Game Moderator