NationStates Jolt Archive

When people say Christians in this forum, and indead in most discussion groups and forums, people think of white Europeans or Americans of a middle class background. However the avarage Christian is not living in either of these countries/continents and speaks a non-European language. And more to the point, it is the single most persecuted religous group in the world. I would therefore ask if anyone can think

A. Of a good reason why this is the case
B. Of what should be done about it by other groups
C. Why it is being ignored by the Christian governments in America and Europe who are more concerned with abortion/gay marriage (I agree these are important issues but not nearly as important as the treatment of Christians throught the world)

http://www.persecution.org/newsite/index.php

http://www.christianpersecution.info/

http://www.greaterthings.com/News/Christian/Persecution/

For most citizens of Iraq, the invasion meant the end of tyranny. For one group, however, it meant a new start: the country’s historic Christian community. When the war stopped, persecution by Islamists, held in check by Saddam, started.

At a church in Basra I visited a month after the war ended, the women complained of attacks against them for not wearing the Islamic veil. I saw many Christian-owned shops that had been firebombed, with many of the owners killed for exercising their legal right to sell alcohol. Two years and many church attacks later, Iraq may still be occupied by Christian foreign powers, but the Islamist plan to ethnically cleanse Iraq of its nearly 2,000-year-old Assyrian and Armenian Christian communities is reaching fruition.

There is nothing unusual about the persecution of Iraqi Christians, or the unwillingness of other Christians to help them. Rising nationalism and fundamentalism around the world have meant that Christianity is going back to its roots as the religion of the persecuted. There are now more than 300 million Christians who are either threatened with violence or legally discriminated against simply because of their faith — more than any other religion. Christians are no longer, as far as I am aware, thrown to the lions. But from China, North Korea and Malaysia, through India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka to Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, they are subjected to legalised discrimination, violence, imprisonment, relocation and forced conversion. Even in supposedly Christian Europe, Christianity has become the most mocked religion, its followers treated with public suspicion and derision and sometimes — such as the would-be EU commissioner Rocco Buttiglione — hounded out of political office.

I am no Christian, but rather a godless atheist whose soul doesn’t want to be saved, thank you. I may not believe in the man with the white beard, but I do believe that all persecution is wrong. The trouble is that the trendies who normally champion human rights seem to think persecution is fine, so long as it’s only against Christians. While Muslims openly help other Muslims, Christians helping Christians has become as taboo as jingoistic nationalism.

On the face of it, the idea of Christians facing serious persecution seems as far-fetched as a carpenter saving humanity. Christianity is the world’s most followed religion, with two billion believers, and by far its most powerful. It is the most popular faith in six of the seven continents, and in both of the world’s two biggest economies, the US and Europe. Seven of the G8 richest industrial nations are majority Christian, as are four out of five permanent members of the UN Security Council. The cheek-turners control the vast majority of the world’s weapons of mass destruction.

When I bumped into George Bush in the breakfast room of the US embassy in Brussels last month, standing right behind me were two men in uniform carrying the little black ‘nuclear football’, containing the codes to enable the world’s most powerful Christian to unleash the world’s most powerful nuclear arsenal. Christians claiming persecution seem as credible as Bill Gates pleading poverty. But just as Christian-majority armies control Iraq as it ethnically cleanses itself of its Christian community, so the power of Christian countries is of little help to the Christian persecuted where most Christians now live: the Third World.

Across the Islamic world, Christians are systematically discriminated against and persecuted. Saudi Arabia — the global fountain of religious bigotry — bans churches, public Christian worship, the Bible and the sale of Christmas cards, and stops non-Muslims from entering Mecca. Christians are regularly imprisoned and tortured on trumped-up charges of drinking, blaspheming or Bible-bashing, as some British citizens have found. Just last month, furthermore, Saudi Arabia announced that only Muslims can become citizens.

The Copts of Egypt make up half the Christians in the Middle East, the cradle of Christianity. They inhabited the land before the Islamic conquest, and still make up a fifth of the population. By law they are banned from being president of the Islamic Republic of Egypt or attending Al Azhar University, and severely restricted from joining the police and army. By practice they are banned from holding any high political or commercial position. Under the 19th-century Hamayouni decrees, Copts must get permission from the president to build or repair churches — but he usually refuses. Mosques face no such controls.

Government-controlled TV broadcasts anti-Copt propaganda, while giving no airtime to Copts. It is illegal for Muslims to convert to Christianity, but legal for Christians to convert to Islam. Christian girls — and even the wives of Christian priests — are abducted and forcibly converted to Islam, recently prompting mass demonstrations. A report by Freedom House in Washington concludes: ‘The cumulative effect of these threats creates an atmosphere of persecution and raises fears that during the 21st century the Copts may have a vastly diminished presence in their homelands.’

Fr Drew Christiansen, an adviser to the US Conference of Bishops, recently conducted a study which stated that ‘all over the Middle East, Christians are under pressure. “The cradle of Christianity” is under enormous pressure from demographic decline, the growth of Islamic militancy, official and unofficial discrimination, the Iraq war, the Palestinian Intifada, failed peace policies and political manipulation.’

In the world’s most economically successful Muslim nation, Malaysia, the world’s only deliberate affirmative action programme for a majority population ensures that Muslims are given better access to jobs, housing and education. In the world’s most populous Muslim nation, Indonesia, some 10,000 Christians have been killed in the last few years by Muslims trying to Islamify the Moluccas.

In the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, most of the five million Christians live as an underclass, doing work such as toilet-cleaning. Under the Hudood ordinances, a Muslim can testify against a non-Muslim in court, but a non-Muslim cannot testify against a Muslim. Blasphemy laws are abused to persecute Christians. In the last few years, dozens of Christians have been killed in bomb and gun attacks on churches and Christian schools.

In Nigeria, 12 states have introduced Sharia law, which affects Christians as much as Muslims. Christian girls are forced to wear the Islamic veil at school, and Christians are banned from drinking alcohol. Thousands of Christians have been killed in the last few years in the ensuing violence.

Although persecution of Christians is greatest in Muslim countries, it happens in countries of all religions and none. In Buddhist-majority Sri Lanka, religious tension led to 44 churches being attacked in the first four months of 2004, with 140 churches being forced to close because of intimidation. In India, the rise of Hindu nationalism has lead to persecution not just of Muslims but of Christians. There have been hundreds of attacks against the Christian community, which has been in India since ad 100. The government’s affirmative action programme for untouchables guarantees jobs and loans for poor Hindus and Buddhists, but not for Christians.

Last year in China, which has about 70 million Christians, more than 100 ‘house churches’ were closed down, and dozens of priests imprisoned. If you join the Communist party, you get special privileges, but you can only join if you are atheist. In North Korea, Christians are persecuted as anti-communist elements, and dissidents claim they are not just imprisoned but used in chemical warfare experiments.

Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, director of the Barnabas Trust, which helps persecuted Christians, blames rising global religious tension. ‘More and more Christians are seen as the odd ones out — they are seen as transplants from the West, and not really trusted. It is getting very much worse.’

Even in what was, before multiculturalism, known as Christendom, Christians are persecuted. I have spoken to dozens of former Muslims who have converted to Christianity in Britain, and who are shunned by their community, subjected to mob violence, forced out of town, threatened with death and even kidnapped. The Barnabas Trust knows of 3,000 such Christians facing persecution in this country, but the police and government do nothing.

You get the gist. Dr Paul Marshall, senior fellow at the Centre for Religious Freedom in Washington, estimates that there are 200 million Christians who face violence because of their faith, and 350 million who face legally sanctioned discrimination in terms of access to jobs and housing. The World Evangelical Alliance wrote in a report to the UN Human Rights Commission last year that Christians are ‘the largest single group in the world which is being denied human rights on the basis of their faith’.

Part of the problem is old-style racism against non-whites; part of it is new-style guilt. If all this were happening to the world’s Sikhs or Muslims simply because of their faith, you can be sure it would lead the 10 O’Clock News and the front page of the Guardian on a regular basis. But the BBC, despite being mainly funded by Christians, is an organisation that promotes ridicule of the Bible, while banning criticism of the Koran. Dr Marshall said: ‘Christians are seen as Europeans and Americans, which means you get a lack of sympathy which you would not get if they were Tibetan Buddhists.’

Christians themselves are partly to blame for all this. Some get a masochistic kick out of being persecuted, believing it brings them closer to Jesus, crucified for His beliefs. Christianity uniquely defines itself by its persecution, and its forgiveness of its persecutors: the Christian symbol is the method of execution of its founder. Christianity was a persecuted religion for its first three centuries, until Emperor Constantine decided that worshipping Jesus was better for winning battles than worshipping the sun. In contrast, Mohammed was a soldier and ruler who led his people into victorious battle against their enemies. In the hundred years after the death of Mohammed, Islam conquered and converted most of North Africa and the Middle East in the most remarkable religious expansion in history.

To this day, while Muslims stick up for their co-religionists, Christians — beyond a few charities — have given up such forms of discrimination. Dr Sookhdeo said: ‘The Muslims have an Ummah [the worldwide Muslim community] whereas Christians do not have Christendom. There is no Christian country that says, “We are Christian and we will help Christians.”’

As a liberal democrat atheist, I believe all persecuted people should be helped equally, irrespective of their religion. But the guilt-ridden West is ignoring people because of their religion. If non-Christians like me can sense the nonsense, how does it make Christians feel? And how are they going to react? The Christophobes worried about rising Christian fundamentalism in Britain should understand that it is a reaction to our double standards. And as long as our double standards exist, Christian fundamentalism will grow.

This article is from the Spectator, which is not a Christian production. It is a current affairs magazine edited by Boris Johnson MP.

It's pretty much why the world likes to bash us Americans. Something against the majority rule...

Because they expect everyone to follow thier rules, and go to the goverment to make sure that they do.

That, and the whole thing is slightly silly anyway.

Do we really need more of this shit?

Seriously, come on...

It got a rather warm welcome in South Korea. Go figure.

Because they expect everyone to follow thier rules, and go to the goverment to make sure that they do.


To be fair thats a tiny, American minority

(Before anyone questions me on this, regarding my objection to abortion, thats based on ethics for me, not faith)

Stop whining about Christianity. Everything is persecuted. Judaism and Islam don't exactly have it easy you know? :rolleyes:

Do we really need more of this shit?

Seriously, come on...

Of course. Imagine if all religion, evolution and left vs right threads were banned? What a terrible, terrible place this forum would be.

http://pics.livejournal.com/quelconque/pic/000026dg

Stop whining about Christianity. Everything is persecuted. Judaism and Islam don't exactly have it easy you know? :rolleyes:

I was hoping for some intellegent discussion about this, but never mind.

Of course. Imagine if all religion, evolution and left vs right threads were banned? What a terrible, terrible place this forum would be.

Yeah, I mean, it'd be absolutely awful. Social threads are the work of satan, I say!

Yeah, I mean, it'd be absolutely awful. Social threads are the work of satan, I say!
Ah, good ol' dad.

To be fair thats a tiny, American minority

(Before anyone questions me on this, regarding my objection to abortion, thats based on ethics for me, not faith)


Indeed. But like the sucide bombers that get all Muslims painted with the same brush, these fundi's tarnish the reputation of all Christians worldwide.

Especially since they come from such a powerful country.

I was hoping for some intellegent discussion about this, but never mind.

Persecution is bad, but Christians aren't the only ones to suffer from it. Anything more to say?

Indeed. But like the sucide bombers that get all Muslims painted with the same brush, these fundi's tarnish the reputation of all Christians worldwide

But I sincerly doubt that the Amercian fundimental groups of Christans are the reason that the Saudi Arabian governemnt and many others in the Muslim world and elsewhere persecute Christianity.

Also, Christianity is a dying religion in Europe. People remember when the Church was in charge, and resent it.

But I sincerly doubt that the Amercian fundimental groups of Christans are the reason that the Saudi Arabian governemnt and many others in the Muslim world and elsewhere persecute Christianity.

Christians were the first to persecute the Muslims so many hundreds of years ago, so there. They brought on the Crusades and pretty much ruined their civilization, turning it into a hotbed for fundamentalism.

When people say Christians in this forum, and indead in most discussion groups and forums, people think of white Europeans or Americans of a middle class background. However the avarage Christian is not living in either of these countries/continents and speaks a non-European language. And more to the point, it is the single most persecuted religous group in the world. I would therefore ask if anyone can think

A. Of a good reason why this is the case
B. Of what should be done about it by other groups
C. Why it is being ignored by the Christian governments in America and Europe who are more concerned with abortion/gay marriage (I agree these are important issues but not nearly as important as the treatment of Christians throught the world)

http://www.persecution.org/newsite/index.php

http://www.christianpersecution.info/

http://www.greaterthings.com/News/Christian/Persecution/



This article is from the Spectator, which is not a Christian production. It is a current affairs magazine edited by Boris Johnson MP.

Wuh-buh-huh? Christians? Most persecuted??

Also, 'the treatment of christians is more important than abortion/gay marriage'? According to whom? Oh, right, I almost forgot who I was taking to.

I find it an interesting statement that Christians would want to be accepted by the world, and yet from christian texts it spoken that the world will hate christians, and that its a good sign, because it shows that the christians are set apart of this world, and are chosen for the next world.

I would say that the poor, uneducated child from a 3rd world country is the most bashed, pushed around, neglected demographic in the world. Through out the bible it speaks that the children should be upheld, that the defenseless should be defended, the orphan and widow taken care of....yet most 'christians' that speak up around the world are more worried about current events, and how they could be better off.

It seems to me the biggest reason Christianity is bashed the most is because it has willfully accepted that place in the world. That its a religion of change, and people resist change, its popular and widespread so it gets hit a lot in conversations, and because there are so many 'christians' that say some pretty stupid things, and a lot of them hold some pretty high offices or have some influencal 'friends'

I would go as far as to say, christians are picked on, because they pick on others.

But I sincerly doubt that the Amercian fundimental groups of Christans are the reason that the Saudi Arabian governemnt and many others in the Muslim world and elsewhere persecute Christianity.

Indeed. But it might explain why people are so slow to condemn the Saudis for doing that.

But I sincerly doubt that the Amercian fundimental groups of Christans are the reason that the Saudi Arabian governemnt and many others in the Muslim world and elsewhere persecute Christianity.

*timidly raises hand* Maybe it has something to do with the inherent intolerance of fundamentalists Christians and the slightly ugly history of the religion itself?

Hmm. Korean Christian...
http://www.baptiststandard.com/postnuke/pics/10_04/kim_billy.jpg
Kim, pastor of Central Baptist Church in Suwon, South Korea

Yeah, that Christianity is bashed all over...

Christians were the first to persecute the Muslims so many hundreds of years ago, so there. They brought on the Crusades and pretty much ruined their civilization, turning it into a hotbed for fundamentalism.

I think thats rather unfair. Part of the reason the Crusades started was because the Saracans refused to let European Pilgrims visit Jerusluem.

Christians in Egypt...
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/7/70/450px-Festival_1.jpg

*timidly raises hand* Maybe it has something to do with the inherent intolerance of fundamentalists Christians and the slightly ugly history of the religion itself?

Ugly history is true in the cases of many peoples. It doesnt explain why Christianity is so hard done by now.

The Crusades arguement is kind of flawed. They began as a result of Moorish and Saracan agression against Spain and Byzantium (respectively)

I think thats rather unfair. Part of the reason the Crusades started was because the Saracans refused to let European Pilgrims visit Jerusluem.

yes yes, I remember it now

Lord Pope, the Saracans have sent back our pilgrams, telling them that worship of the Sacrificed One is not permitted in their lands.

Yes Lord Pope, I shall stir up the people of Europe, and have them lead a bloody war to teach those Saracans the true meaning of Christiandom, God Wills it!.

and so to prove the point of a man that condemend even cutting an ear off an soldier that was arresting him, christian crusaders did what 'god willed' and slaughter man woman and child, and were shocked when the same was given to them.

Also, 'the treatment of christians is more important than abortion/gay marriage'? According to whom? Oh, right, I almost forgot who I was taking to.

They are more important Christian issues, IMHO. The Persecuted Church is the most important, followed by abortion and bioethics in general

*timidly raises hand* Maybe it has something to do with the inherent intolerance of fundamentalists Christians and the slightly ugly history of the religion itself?

No reason to be timid about it.

They are more important Christian issues, IMHO. The Persecuted Church is the most important, followed by abortion and bioethics in general

What about each person cultivating his own relationship with God?

Isn't that the most important issue?

I have far more important things to work on in that regard, than dealing with the issues you raise.

Besides, I'm a man, and I can't have an abortion.

yes yes, I remember it now

Lord Pope, the Saracans have sent back our pilgrams, telling them that worship of the Sacrificed One is not permitted in their lands.

Yes Lord Pope, I shall stir up the people of Europe, and have them lead a bloody war to teach those Saracans the true meaning of Christiandom, God Wills it!.

and so to prove the point of a man that condemend even cutting an ear off an soldier that was arresting him, christian crusaders did what 'god willed' and slaughter man woman and child, and were shocked when the same was given to them.

1. I dont in any sense condone the Crusaders or what they did

2. It is unreasonable to equate what European Christians did over 700 years ago and blame it on those suffering now

3. People drag out the Crusades all the time when it comes to discussing Christianity in a rather uneducated fashion, little realising there is plenty of blame to go around. The Moors invaded Spain, Muslims attacked Byzantium and so the Byzantines asked for Western help, which is how the first Crusade started.

They are more important Christian issues, IMHO. The Persecuted Church is the most important, followed by abortion and bioethics in general

For christians, you mean? Well, sure, that actually sounds more reasonable. Unless, of course, most christians disagree with you, but until they speak up, I won't complain about you (mis)representing their interests.

What about each person cultivating his own relationship with God?

Isn't that the most important issue?


I'm talking in terms of politics/world affairs.

Ugly history is true in the cases of many peoples. It doesnt explain why Christianity is so hard done by now.

The Crusades arguement is kind of flawed. They began as a result of Moorish and Saracan agression against Spain and Byzantium (respectively)

The crusades weren't entirely what I was thinking of. http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm. I'm not saying everything listed there is entirely the fault of Christianity. But a lot of it is.

They are more important Christian issues, IMHO. The Persecuted Church is the most important, followed by abortion and bioethics in general

I would say that from a christian stand point, that freedom of the press would be the first thing to concentrate on, for the entire world. Pushing that issue would make the most sense, because then it would allow for the freedom to spread the 'word of god' to the whole world, I think the bible talked about something like that, go and take the word to the world.

I think the last thing that christians should really worry about is how they are being treated, and how they should be treated better. Christ, that guy that started it all, kinda got whipped and killed and said that we all should be honored to follow in his steps.

Abortion is something to be considered, but isn't even really covered in biblical teachings. The closest you get is in the old testament when it talks about someone causing injury to a pregnant woman, and the unborn dieing because of it. Then a set amount of money took care of it. It wasn't even as bad as murder or causing a person to get killed by neglect of your land.

bioethics aren't in the bible I'm pretty sure, and there isn't really anything that connects to it in the bible to use it as something that should be carried by the Christian populace.

1. I dont in any sense condone the Crusaders or what they did

2. It is unreasonable to equate what European Christians did over 700 years ago and blame it on those suffering now

3. People drag out the Crusades all the time when it comes to discussing Christianity in a rather uneducated fashion, little realising there is plenty of blame to go around. The Moors invaded Spain, Muslims attacked Byzantium and so the Byzantines asked for Western help, which is how the first Crusade started.

Ok, I won't "drag" out the crusades. Let's instead go on to the Inquisition. Another, even darker chapter in the history of christianity. Then there's Cortez; an entire civilization nearly wiped out for not being christian. There's two among MANY examples not including the crusades. The thing is, christianity has been the persecutor more often than not.

Ok, I won't "drag" out the crusades. Let's instead go on to the Inquisition. Another, even darker chapter in the history of christianity. Then there's Cortez; an entire civilization nearly wiped out for not being christian. There's two among MANY examples not including the crusades. The thing is, christianity has been the persecutor more often than not.

True, and I wont deny that. I dont condone it either. But can you link that to current persecution of Christians?

True, and I wont deny that. I dont condone it either. But can you link that to current persecution of Christians?

You know, I hate to speak in ignorance, but isn't that like saying 'So I broke your legs and burned down your house, why the hell are you angry at me?'

It is my opinion that many of the people who are claimed to be persecuted by the originator of this thread are, in fact, being persecuted for reasons other than faith. Particularly culture.

For instance, one part of the article is "In Egypt Christians are prevented in effect from taking high public office".

In one country that claims to be Christian (The US) there has not been a non-Christian National Leader since the Deists right back at the nations founding. Does this mean that in the US non-Christians are prevented in effect from taking high public office? I would say that it is, and that this is not based on religeous bias, but instead based on ingrained culture.

More generally I would posit that the extremely aggressive international stance that most Christian nations have are tarring christianity with the same brush that is rightly condemning the aggressive nations.

In other words I claim that the persecution here is a cop-out. I believe that attributing to religeon the persecution that is in fact derived from nationalism and culture is misleading.

Cheers
Grantwold

You know, I hate to speak in ignorance, but isn't that like saying 'So I broke your legs and burned down your house, why the hell are you angry at me?'

The current persecution of Christians is not carried out by the Jews in most places, who the inquistion was directed against.

The Muslim world in general would seem to use the word Crusader a great deal, but Europe has managed to forgive modern Germany for a war that happend aproximately 60 years ago, so I think Muslims should be able to forgive Christians for a series of assults that happend 900 years ago. Espically since it was the Muslims who instigated the first Crusade by invading Spain and Byzantium.

And the Asian persecution of Christianity makes no sense in terms of Christian persectuion of Asians, as far as my record can see that never happened in the far east.

True, and I wont deny that. I dont condone it either. But can you link that to current persecution of Christians?

Well, in short, my bet is that grudges die hard, and the atrocities of this magnetude won't ever fade from memory. And, there's still a trainload of anger toward the church for these and other horrific things in the past.

Well, in short, my bet is that grudges die hard, and the atrocities of this magnetude won't ever fade from memory. And, there's still a trainload of anger toward the church for these and other horrific things in the past.

The Europeans and Jews have more or less entirely forgiven Germany for the Holocaust, and that only occured 60 years ago. Holding a grudge for a 900 year old event (or even 500, if you go back to Cortez) seems more like a cheap excuse for persecution rather than a real source of anger.

Well, in short, my bet is that grudges die hard, and the atrocities of this magnetude won't ever fade from memory. And, there's still a trainload of anger toward the church for these and other horrific things in the past.

Europe has forgiven Germany for WW1 and 2. We no longer hold the war against the modern German nation. I fail to see why the Church should not be forgiven by people now. Espicially given how much attention John Paul II gave them by constanly going round the world apologising for the Crusaded to everyone

first of all, I am a devout Christian so, I dunno if I may offend people (and I didnt read all the posts so I dont know where you guys are) but here are my thoughts:

First of all, Jesus said that 'many men would be persecuted because of him' so that explains why christianity and Christians are often the target of abuse...if your saved that is...if not i guess that isn't a reason at all cause you don't believe in all that Jesus crap! lol

I do have to agree that all religions are bashed though...and I hate to say it but most of the other religions are bashed by Christians...which isnt a very christ like attitude to have.

so the answer..
nobody can tolerate anyone else because obviously the person talking and debating is obviously right.

Like me...here...right now.
I'm so right.

:-P

It is my opinion that many of the people who are claimed to be persecuted by the originator of this thread are, in fact, being persecuted for reasons other than faith. Particularly culture.

For instance, one part of the article is "In Egypt Christians are prevented in effect from taking high public office".


In this example you may have a point. However the legal persecution of Christians around the world is not a cultural issue if a piece of legislation specifies that Christians cannot meet together in public or private to worship.

The current persecution of Christians is not carried out by the Jews in most places, who the inquistion was directed against.

The Muslim world in general would seem to use the word Crusader a great deal, but Europe has managed to forgive modern Germany for a war that happend aproximately 60 years ago, so I think Muslims should be able to forgive Christians for a series of assults that happend 900 years ago. Espically since it was the Muslims who instigated the first Crusade by invading Spain and Byzantium.

And the Asian persecution of Christianity makes no sense in terms of Christian persectuion of Asians, as far as my record can see that never happened in the far east.

I'm glad that Germany doesn't feel any more lasting effects from World War II. I wish the Muslim world would just forgive and forget, too; after all, it's not as if their long history with western Christians has had any effect on their current economic and social status. :rolleyes:

China is anti-religion in general. It doesn't have anything against Christianity personally as far as I know.

Btw, I suggest that you read the link I posted earlier.

The Europeans and Jews have more or less entirely forgiven Germany for the Holocaust, and that only occured 60 years ago. Holding a grudge for a 900 year old event (or even 500, if you go back to Cortez) seems more like a cheap excuse for persecution rather than a real source of anger.


But christianity is bigger than a single country. And Germany was almost leveled, and has since performed at least SOME acts of contrition. All christianity has to say about the crusades is "let it go, that was 900 years ago", instead of simply saying "we're sorry," and that's a big part of the problem.

I'm glad that Germany doesn't feel any more lasting effects from World War II. I wish the Muslim world would just forgive and forget, too; after all, it's not as if their long history with western Christians has had any effect on their current economic and social status. :rolleyes:.

Germany was fucked over pretty badly for about 1000 years thanks to the Christian Holy Roman Empire; those endless wars of religion (especially the Thiry Year's War, which killed a full 1/3 of the German population) definitely affected their socioeconomic status in to the 19th century.

Btw, I suggest that you read the link I posted earlier.

I did. It saddens me because I too have studied such things and I know them to be true. However I believe that the people being persecuted now are in no way guilty of anything like what the people described. They are just Christians worshiping and living as Christians and they are being persecuted for it.

I'd say it's largely because Christianity is so widespread that it's the religion most often under public scrutiny. It also doesn't help that many Christians are vehemently, infuriatingly dogmatic.

Germany was fucked over pretty badly for about 1000 years thanks to the Christian Holy Roman Empire; those endless wars of religion (especially the Thiry Year's War, which killed a full 1/3 of the German population) definitely affected their socioeconomic status in to the 19th century.

He meant from World War II. I'm not saying any of that is wrong.

But christianity is bigger than a single country. And Germany was almost leveled, and has since performed at least SOME acts of contrition. All christianity has to say about the crusades is "let it go, that was 900 years ago", instead of simply saying "we're sorry," and that's a big part of the problem.

Not true. Pope John Paul II went around the Muslim world on many occations apologising greatly for the Crusades

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/674246.stm

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/14/story_1458_1.html

But christianity is bigger than a single country. And Germany was almost leveled, and has since performed at least SOME acts of contrition. All christianity has to say about the crusades is "let it go, that was 900 years ago", instead of simply saying "we're sorry," and that's a big part of the problem.

Well, the Pope did apologize for it on behalf of the Church.

However, it is also illogical to expect all Christians to apologize for the Crusades; that's tantamount to making all Muslims apologize for the massacres of Hindus in Kashmir, or the massacres of the Jews during the Crusades.

Christians were the first to persecute the Muslims so many hundreds of years ago, so there. They brought on the Crusades and pretty much ruined their civilization, turning it into a hotbed for fundamentalism.
Actually, here's how it goes:
Mohammed is born, claims to talk to god. Gets followers, takes over his city, starts the Muslim crusades, converts or kills untill he reaches Tours, Charles Martel beats his army back, Muslims retreat to Spain, Charle's, grandson Charlemange goes to Spain to try and finish the Muslims off, gets defeated in the Pyreenes mountains, becomes Holy Roman empire. Then the Christians start the crusades to reclaim Jerusalem.

He meant from World War II. I'm not saying any of that is wrong.

But the situation is the same; Germans were treated badly by of Christians for hundreds of years but were able to move on from the past, and rebuild in to a modern and tolerant nation.

just to make something clear...judaism is the most persecuted religion. dont flatter yourself. The reason why christian bashing is common is because the stereotypical christian is an ultra conservative who doesnt want to look farther than his nose.

Well basically the government wants to appease the religious nuts in America because the religious nuts are the vast majority and have the most power. Therefore the government kisses their ass to get their vote. Plus many powerful Washington politicians are Christians themselves and very closeminded by the way. I, unfortunately, live in America and I plan on moving to the Netherlands or Switzlerland. One of these days...

Not true. Pope John Paul II went around the Muslim world on many occations apologising greatly for the Crusades

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/674246.stm

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/14/story_1458_1.html

I greatly miss John Paul II. I don't like the new pope. Even though I am atheist I respected John Paul II greatly and I still do. He was a remarkable man.

But the situation is the same; Germans were treated badly by of Christians for hundreds of years but were able to move on from the past, and rebuild in to a modern and tolerant nation.

So are you saying that if Middle Eastern nations are third-world countries then it is their own fault?

just to make something clear...judaism is the most persecuted religion. dont flatter yourself. The reason why christian bashing is common is because the stereotypical christian is an ultra conservative who doesnt want to look farther than his nose.

1. Can you provide some evidence for your claim about Judaism? I would be interested to enter into a discussion

2. Can you somehow link the perception of all Christians as Neo-Conservatives as being linked to persecution in places in the world where Neo-Consevatism has no influence

Why does the world feel the need to bash us?

The same reason they don't bash Mother Theresa. We have not shown love like we were commanded to. Instead, we have shown arrogance, condecendence, unrepentent hypocracy, ignorance, intolerance (Tolerating something and accepting it are two different things, but for whatever reason, some Christians seem to show a lack of ability to make that distinction.), and all-out douchebaggedness. We've been ignorant assholes. We've been misinformed foundationalists. We've been self-refuting, as we change our beliefs to fit what we think they should be instead of letting Christianity say what it says and us simply following it. We've been reclusive at times.

Why does the world feel the need to bash Christians? Because we have given them almost every reason to do so.

So are you saying that if Middle Eastern nations are third-world countries then it is their own fault?

Yes and no. No, it is not the fault of the people that they are part of the Third World; the fault lies with the xenophobic and repressive leadership of many of these countries that has willingly kept its people uneducated and poor as a means of controlling them.

They can become something great, especially with the wealth that they posess in natural resources, but they have been stifled because of their leadership who places their own enrichment above the national interest.

Goddistan']Why does the world feel the need to bash us?

The same reason they don't bash Mother Theresa. We have not shown love like we were commanded to. Instead, we have shown arrogance, condecendence, unrepentent hypocracy, ignorance, intolerance (Tolerating something and accepting it are two different things, but for whatever reason, some Christians seem to show a lack of ability to make that distinction.), and all-out douchebaggedness. We've been ignorant assholes. We've been misinformed foundationalists. We've been self-refuting, as we change our beliefs to fit what we think they should be instead of letting Christianity say what it says and us simply following it. We've been reclusive at times.

Why does the world feel the need to bash Christians? Because we have given them almost every reason to do so.

I think we need to make a distinction here between intellectual elites attacks against Christianity and attacks and persecutions by governements in the Muslim world. I doubt that the reasons which the Saudi Arabian government use as their excuse to persecute Christians are those here stated

I, unfortunately, live in America and I plan on moving to the Netherlands or Switzlerland. One of these days...

I hope that Sweden or Norway could also be of interest. ;)

Goddistan']Why does the world feel the need to bash us?

The same reason they don't bash Mother Theresa. We have not shown love like we were commanded to. Instead, we have shown arrogance, condecendence, unrepentent hypocracy, ignorance, intolerance (Tolerating something and accepting it are two different things, but for whatever reason, some Christians seem to show a lack of ability to make that distinction.), and all-out douchebaggedness. We've been ignorant assholes. We've been misinformed foundationalists. We've been self-refuting, as we change our beliefs to fit what we think they should be instead of letting Christianity say what it says and us simply following it. We've been reclusive at times.

Why does the world feel the need to bash Christians? Because we have given them almost every reason to do so.
A christian with enough to sense to admit his or her's own religions wrongdoing? I commend you. Thank you for your rational and rather insightful post.

Stop whining about Christianity. Everything is persecuted. Judaism and Islam don't exactly have it easy you know? :rolleyes:

Actually, I've never seen someone bash a Muslim (Or even a Buddhist, or Hindu.) for their beliefs. Jews, though? That's kind of obvious. But still, my point stands.

Ever try to talk to an anti-religious person? You'll find after a little bit that most, if not all, of their angst is directed towards Christians.

Ignoring other religions is a bad thing in a supposed all-encompassing dissent? Oh well!

I hope that Sweden or Norway could also be of interest. ;)

Hmm....good thinking. I like those countries a lot. I love their government and their people. Thank God for Liberal Socialism. Even though there is no god. I shall call him Pagan God.

Well basically the government wants to appease the religious nuts in America because the religious nuts are the vast majority and have the most power. Therefore the government kisses their ass to get their vote. Plus many powerful Washington politicians are Christians themselves and very closeminded by the way. I, unfortunately, live in America and I plan on moving to the Netherlands or Switzlerland. One of these days...

All of that adds up to a cultural discrimination rather than a religous one, I'd say, thus those other countries that don't allow Christians in high office are also likely to be cultural rather than religously based.


Cheers
Grantwold

Hmm....good thinking. I like those countries a lot. I love their government and their people. Thank God for Liberal Socialism. Even though there is no god. I shall call him Pagan God.

Stay in the Scandinavian region. At least you can get a job there as easily as you can in the US.

Stay in the Scandinavian region. At least you can get a job there as easily as you can in the US.
I'm assuming you lot are playing here...?

Stay in the Scandinavian region. At least you can get a job there as easily as you can in the US.

Alright thanks for the advice. I appreciate it.

I'm assuming you lot are playing here...?

Maybe. Maybe not. I'm feeling rather cryptic tonight. :eek:

This is my answer to the first post. I do have a life (at least, I pretend I do) so I couldn't read the whole thread.

A. I think Christianity is so persecuted as a religion because there is the belief out there that Christianity persecutes every other religion, which does have some basis in truth, but not for the Christians as a whole. I think that to judge any group based on some extremists is wrong. But I also think that many other religions are persecuted as well, some more so that Christianity.
B. I don't really have a plan worked out; that would take long months of cooperation between many different people in order to come up with a solution to this problem. It's clear that something has to be done, but it is irrational to think this is an easy problem to solve because it affects so many people.
C. I think Christian Governments of America and Europe feel that they need to fight the battles on the home front before going out to face the world. I won't judge whether that's right or wrong, but that might be one reason. Another thing is that I don't believe that the governments themselves are the problem; it's the people in government positions that are the problems. And since they are elected by the people, these issues go much deeper than just the governments. So why aren't Christians in America and Europe trying to stop persecution of Christians around the world? Well, I bet some of them are, just like some Jews and Muslims are working on the same problems. But you can't *make* people do something, at least not ethically, and some Christians just don't care. But there are other people who just don't care as well, so to throw all Christians together under one heading is wrong, as well as *not* putting some people under that heading who aren't Christian.

Well, anyways, if that made any sense at all, I hope it's what you wanted by "educated discussion."

~Alexis

Ok, I won't "drag" out the crusades. Let's instead go on to the Inquisition. Another, even darker chapter in the history of christianity. Then there's Cortez; an entire civilization nearly wiped out for not being christian. There's two among MANY examples not including the crusades. The thing is, christianity has been the persecutor more often than not.
By the Inquisition, I assume you mean the Spanish Inquisition.
THAT was the result of one mans unfourtunate childhood, I beleive that it was mostly directed against Moors and Jews due to Torquemunda's (SP?) parentage, it was started due to the paranoia of the Spanish royalty of the time who gave it authority.

Cortez...you seriously dont think that Cortez had a serious religious motivation? Honestly?
Cortez was motivated by greed, easy as that. There may have been some little iota of religion involved, but frankly, when vast riches are involved, religion tends to get sidelined by many people. Religion may have been an excuse, but it was not a reason.
"Say, thats a nice giant golden statue you have there. Your not Christian, by chance? Say, thats nice, this Queztacoatle fellow, he doesnt happen to have a cross as his symbol, does he? Oh, and you practice human sacrifice? Well, darn, we'll just have to kill you and indicentally take all your valuables."

Do we really need more of this shit?

Seriously, come on...
Hmm. Weren't you one of those raising hell about condemning an entire faith ( Islam ) for the actions of a few? And weren't you one of those rasing hell about condemning an entire nation ( France ) for the actions of a few?

So what is it? You just don't think Christians rate the same considerations that other faiths are granted? Or perhaps you'd just rather not hear it?

A bit of explanation for your lack of concern, please.

Originally posted by Avalon II

I think we need to make a distinction here between intellectual elites attacks against Christianity and attacks and persecutions by governements in the Muslim world. I doubt that the reasons which the Saudi Arabian government use as their excuse to persecute Christians are those here stated

Fair enough. I was considering the intellectual attack. I really don't think that most of the Christians in the Western world have much to say on "persecution" as much as they have to say on attacks of other sorts. Your point is noted and I agree.

Originally posted by Baked Hippies

A christian with enough to sense to admit his or her's own religions wrongdoing? I commend you. Thank you for your rational and rather insightful post.

Just a realistic Christian that thinks we've done a really poor job of showing the love we profess to a world that needs it. It has gotten to the point that 'love' is not one of the words that ever enters the mind of anyone thinking of Christianity, dispite Jesus' most fundamental command:

[QUOTE]Luke 10:25-28:

[I]And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”
He said to him, “What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?”
So he answered and said, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and ‘your neighbor as yourself.’”
And He said to him, “You have answered rightly; do this and you will live.”[\I][\QUOTE]

Love God, by obeying His commands, and love others by treating them as you would be treated and as "esteeming them above yourself" (Philippians 2:4, I think. I know it's Philippians 2.).

That's just what I hope to try to do.

Hmm. Weren't you one of those raising hell about condemning an entire faith ( Islam ) for the actions of a few? And weren't you one of those rasing hell about condemning an entire nation ( France ) for the actions of a few?

Just for the hell of it... Hipo...hypo... oh damn! Forget about it.

*jogs away... yes! jogging is still hip*

Christians were the first to persecute the Muslims so many hundreds of years ago, so there. They brought on the Crusades and pretty much ruined their civilization, turning it into a hotbed for fundamentalism.
Totally incorrect. In fact, Muslims were first persecuted by polytheists for claiming that "God is one." However, a Christian King gave them sactuary in Abyssinia ( Ethiopia ).

1. Can you provide some evidence for your claim about Judaism? I would be interested to enter into a discussion

2. Can you somehow link the perception of all Christians as Neo-Conservatives as being linked to persecution in places in the world where Neo-Consevatism has no influence


1. Umm where should I start? really this shouldnt be news to you, Judaism is the most frequently persecuted surviving religon in World History. From enslavement in Egypt to the Inquisition to the Holocaust. Trying to list them all would be a waste of time. The claims of Christian and Muslim perscution is laughable considering the suffering inflicted on Jews.

I tip my hat off to you Avalon, but this thread can still be considered flamebait. I will take myself somewhere else now.

I think thats rather unfair. Part of the reason the Crusades started was because the Saracans refused to let European Pilgrims visit Jerusluem.
So they decided to start a war over the turism industry:rolleyes:

Christianity is bashed because it has been so successful at everything in the past few centuries. A third of everyone alive is a Christian, and around half of those belong to the Roman Catholic Church, the world's largest organized religion. Some of the great religious geniuses of late are Christian. C.S. Lewis, for instance, is regarded as the greatest Christian theologian since Thomas Acquinas. I can go on, but you get the point. Christianity is at the top. Islam is growing faster in absolute numbers, but it'd take a lot to beat Christianity.

1. Can you provide some evidence for your claim about Judaism? I would be interested to enter into a discussion

Why do you need a link? Look around. More people hate the jews than any other religion on the planet. Shakespere even hated jews, read The Merchant of Venice if you think that I'm wrong.

When people say Christians in this forum, and indead in most discussion groups and forums, people think of white Europeans or Americans of a middle class background. However the avarage Christian is not living in either of these countries/continents and speaks a non-European language. And more to the point, it is the single most persecuted religous group in the world. I would therefore ask if anyone can think

A. Of a good reason why this is the case
B. Of what should be done about it by other groups
C. Why it is being ignored by the Christian governments in America and Europe who are more concerned with abortion/gay marriage (I agree these are important issues but not nearly as important as the treatment of Christians throught the world)

http://www.persecution.org/newsite/index.php

http://www.christianpersecution.info/

http://www.greaterthings.com/News/Christian/Persecution/



This article is from the Spectator, which is not a Christian production. It is a current affairs magazine edited by Boris Johnson MP.

Christians are hated because they simply hate everyone else.

I think part of it might be BECAUSE most christians are non-white, non-european, non-european language... it was so brutally missionaried and used as a method of exploitation, corruption, and bigotry during the colonial period. Look at the Iraq war. The US is telling the Iraqis that they are there to do good, and the rest of the world is slamming them, because it is so obvious that they don't want anything to do with them.

goodnight.

Why forgive an ongoing act? If you look at fundi Christianity today. Which is just about the only Christianity visable enough to be seen and heard. You will notice that all the superstitios and delusional thinking that in the past cuased the witch hunts, the crusades, and the inquazitions is still there. They never changed. They will never change. And today we have are own modern day versions witch hunts, inquazitions, and crusades becuase of them.

By the Inquisition, I assume you mean the Spanish Inquisition.
THAT was the result of one mans unfourtunate childhood, I beleive that it was mostly directed against Moors and Jews due to Torquemunda's (SP?) parentage, it was started due to the paranoia of the Spanish royalty of the time who gave it authority.
There were three inquisitions - the first was the Dominican Inquisition which dealt with the Albigensian Crusade in the 12th century, then came the Spanish Inquisition, and then the Holy Office of the Inquisition in Rome, which still exists although it is now called the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Cardinal Ratzinger ran it until his election as Pope). They were all as bad as each other. Fortunately, the Sacred Congregation no longer tortures and burns people, but it still attempts to censor and control Catholics whom it believes have strayed from the true doctrine of the church.

Ever try to talk to an anti-religious person? You'll find after a little bit that most, if not all, of their angst is directed towards Christians.

Ignoring other religions is a bad thing in a supposed all-encompassing dissent? Oh well!
Inevitably, their criticism will be aimed mainly at the religion which they know best and has most influenced their lives. In the west, that means Christianity. In the Middle East, I'm sure you'll find that most Atheist fire is aimed at Islam (where you can find atheists who dare speak out).

Christianity also opens itself up to attack because it is often very pushy, trying to shove its message down the throats of people who don't want to hear it. Islam is similar, but a lot of other religions are not so evangelical.

Christians are hated because they simply hate everyone else.
Totally untrue, unkind and unwarranted.

Totally incorrect. In fact, Muslims were first persecuted by polytheists for claiming that "God is one." However, a Christian King gave them sactuary in Abyssinia ( Ethiopia ).
To some Muslim and Jewish eyes, Christianity is almost polytheistic, with it's three-in-one God of the Trinity, as opposed to their single, indivisible god.

To some Muslim and Jewish eyes, Christianity is almost polytheistic, with it's three-in-one God of the Trinity, as opposed to their single, indivisible god.
This is true. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity isn't an easy one to understand even for Christians.

This is true. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity isn't an easy one to understand even for Christians.
Nor is it necessarily followed throughout Christendom.

Nor is it necessarily followed throughout Christendom.
True. :)

Nor is it necessarily followed throughout Christendom.

The best metaphor I heard for the trinity was that of a flame. The flame itself being God and the light it produces being Jesus and the heat it produces being the Holy spirt. This basicly conveys the idea that Jesus and the Holy Spirt are one with God but God is the entity from which they both come.

The best metaphor I heard for the trinity was that of a flame. The flame itself being God and the light it produces being Jesus and the heat it produces being the Holy spirt. This basicly conveys the idea that Jesus and the Holy Spirt are one with God but God is the entity from which they both come.
Or it could just be that it was a convemient way to account for the inconsistensies (sp?) betwen the OT & NT

The best metaphor I heard for the trinity was that of a flame. The flame itself being God and the light it produces being Jesus and the heat it produces being the Holy spirt. This basicly conveys the idea that Jesus and the Holy Spirt are one with God but God is the entity from which they both come.
Nice idea, but it separates the light from the heat. It's not that Jesus is in any way lesser than God or likewise with the holy spirit in Christian ideas.

My own explanation is, of course, Systemic. It's far too convoluted for even me to really quite express, but a simplified analogy could be basically where you assume the universe is God's body, Jesus is the nervous system that acts as a conduit between God's consciousness and the various cells of the body and the Holy Spirit is the electrical pulse that actually carries/makes up the message.

From what I can tell, what you're really asking here is: Why do Muslims blow up Christians? A slightly veiled attempt at bringing more contempt for Muslims. I won't go into that, though, as it's completely preposterous and silly.

My answer: Frankly, you're "persecuted" because you won't keep your nose out of everyone's business. Every nation that is a "Christian" nation became so by being conquered. No nation was ever introduced to Christianity without its own culture and way of life first being decimated and demonized. Christianity conquered and was spread by the sword. For example, the destruction of native peoples in North and South America. No other religion in the world can be said to have done the same nor been so brutal in its spread ... not even Islam.

Once there, if quelled by the masses - such as in the case of the Constitution of the United States, guaranteeing freedom of religion for all - you eventually will find a way to drip your little bits of poison into the law that ensures your morality, and only your morality, is followed. I'm not talking about 600 years ago, either. I'm talking about right now, modern times, 2005. You prevent people from buying liquor on Sunday in certain States. Why? Because Sunday is *your* sabbath. You define marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman in certain States. Why? Because that is *your* definition.

When you learn to let grown people make their own desicions and live by their own morality, we will leave you alone. Until then, rest assured, many of us will continue to do everything in our power to ensure that you become the Universe's whipping boy. Not as an individual, mind you, but as a collective. I will not be satisfied until publicly admitting you're Christian is met with jeers and laughter all over the world. Do as your King commanded you and take your religion into the closet and leave us out of it, leave our laws out of it, leave my chosen lifestyle out of it, and leave my nature out of it. If I believed in your way, I would convert. Your daily attempts to legislate your Bible and, thus, imposing your will on me and my children only serves to make us hate you that much more.

As Leia said to Vader: The more you tighten your grip, the more systems will slip through your fingers.

From what I can tell, what you're really asking here is: Why do Muslims blow up Christians? A slightly veiled attempt at bringing more contempt for Muslims. I won't go into that, though, as it's completely preposterous and silly.

My answer: Frankly, you're "persecuted" because you won't keep your nose out of everyone's business. Every nation that is a "Christian" nation became so by being conquered. No nation was ever introduced to Christianity without its own culture and way of life first being decimated and demonized. Christianity conquered and was spread by the sword. For example, the destruction of native peoples in North and South America. No other religion in the world can be said to have done the same nor been so brutal in its spread ... not even Islam.
The past is different from the present. Christian societies and non-muslim societies are today, in 2005, far less fanatic and violent than Muslim ones. Dwelling on the past will not obscure that fact.

Once there, if quelled by the masses - such as in the case of the Constitution of the United States, guaranteeing freedom of religion for all - you eventually will find a way to drip your little bits of poison into the law that ensures your morality, and only your morality, is followed. I'm not talking about 600 years ago, either. I'm talking about right now, modern times, 2005. You prevent people from buying liquor on Sunday in certain States. Why? Because Sunday is *your* sabbath. You define marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman in certain States. Why? Because that is *your* definition.

When you learn to let grown people make their own desicions and live by their own morality, we will leave you alone.

Uh... your logic makes no sense here. Muslim nations are even more strict about prohibition of liquor and heterosexuality... the reason why Muslims are the catalyst for much of the world's violence is definitely not because Muslims are angry that liquor is banned on Sunday mornings in the American midwest, or that Americans are trying to get a anti-gay marriage amendment into their constitution. Surely there is a far more logical reason that Muslims can be attributed to disproportionate violence against Buddhists, Bahai, Chrsitians, Hindus, atheists, and pagans all over the world from Thailand to Sudan to China to India.

<snip>
Uh... your logic makes no sense here. Muslim nations are even more strict about prohibition of liquor and heterosexuality... the reason why Muslims are the catalyst for much of the world's violence is definitely not because Muslims are angry that liquor is banned on Sunday mornings in the American midwest, or that Americans are trying to get a anti-gay marriage amendment into their constitution. Surely there is a far more logical reason that Muslims can be attributed to disproportionate violence against Buddhists, Bahai, Chrsitians, Hindus, atheists, and pagans all over the world from Thailand to Sudan to China to India.
Because it says to in the Quran?
4:37 Who hoard their wealth and enjoin avarice on others, and hide that which Allah hath bestowed upon them of His bounty. For disbelievers We prepare a shameful doom;
2:7 Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom.
2:39 But they who disbelieve, and deny Our revelations, such are rightful Peoples of the Fire. They will abide therein.
2:90 Evil is that for which they sell their souls: that they should disbelieve in that which Allah hath revealed, grudging that Allah should reveal of His bounty unto whom He will of His slaves. They have incurred anger upon anger. For disbelievers is a shameful doom.
2:98 Who is an enemy to Allah, and His angels and His messengers, and Gabriel and Michael! Then, lo! Allah (Himself) is an enemy to the disbelievers.
2:99 Verily We have revealed unto thee clear tokens, and only miscreants will disbelieve in them.
2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

I'm talking in terms of politics/world affairs.
I suggest you find something better to do with your faith. You should remember to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's...

To be fair it must be noted that Christianity is no better on this:

Exodus 22:20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.
Exodus 23:13 And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth.
Exodus 23:24 Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images.
Exodus 31:14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

or the massacres of the Jews during the Crusades.

Which was largely done by Christians.

http://www.persecution.org/newsite/index.php

http://www.christianpersecution.info/

http://www.greaterthings.com/News/Christian/Persecution/





So, in the first site, you can report your own persecution! They ask you to provide some information that could be used to corroborate your story, but it's not necessary. Cool.

The second has a story index. The latest story is from January. Apparently some church in Minsk isn't allowed to use a cowshed for services. You know, if christians were the most persecuted peoplein the world, couldn't they find a more recent tale of woe? Or one that doesn't look like normal bureaucracy?

The third site has cool stuff like this:

The center of the city of Jerusalem (Yerushalayim) is 31° 47' 00 North, by 35° 13' 00 East.

Adding the grid points, we get:
31° 47' 00 N
+35° 13' 00 E
------------------
66° 60' 00

(666)

The Beast lives in downtown Jerusalem! These guys also like James Dobson and have a link about how you can prepare for Armageddon! Reality challenged. Definitely.

Exodus 22:20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

Thats God destorying him, not people.


Exodus 23:13 And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth.
Exodus 23:24 Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images.
Exodus 31:14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

Has anyone told you about the Crucifixtion and the old new covenet? Jesus comming to fufill the law?

Also a point of order. Pleas don't hijack. We arent discussing which religon is more vilonet here

Not to slam Christianity or anything, but have you even read your own Bible thoroughly? You have to see that almost EVERY word in the so-called "Good Book" contradicts itself. The Bible, for all intents and purposes, is a book of lies. I am just questioning Christian faith as a deist, a person who will not show faith in a god who has never shown his face. The Muslim Bible says to kill all non-believers, now we all know why they hate us and slaughter us like barbarians. I still wonder why people follow the teachings of a book that was written by HUMAN hands. Fallible, imperfect, human hands. All religions are based on blind faith. Simple as that. Has whatever god you serve ever shown himself to you? Has he ever shown you any proof of his existance? If not, then why do you follow him. You can call me an infidel, satanist, disbeliever, and someone who needs to see the light of God, that doesnt matter to me. You people who follow the teachings of a so-called omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God need to question why? Why do we follow, hoping that He will show his face to us? Why do we spend our time confined in a church when we could be making the world better with that time? Why do we have to do this? Why cant we have this, this and this?

That's all I want you people to do, is question your beliefs. Maybe you'll see why you shouldnt just follow blindly. You could be wasting your life slaving away just to get to a place that probably doesnt exist. Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, none of these places probably exist, so why waste your valuable time trying to get there, when you may never get your wish, to meet your precious "Lord."

I've said my piece for now, let's hear a rebuttal.

From what I can tell, what you're really asking here is: Why do Muslims blow up Christians? A slightly veiled attempt at bringing more contempt for Muslims. I won't go into that, though, as it's completely preposterous and silly.

My answer: Frankly, you're "persecuted" because you won't keep your nose out of everyone's business. Every nation that is a "Christian" nation became so by being conquered. No nation was ever introduced to Christianity without its own culture and way of life first being decimated and demonized. Christianity conquered and was spread by the sword. For example, the destruction of native peoples in North and South America. No other religion in the world can be said to have done the same nor been so brutal in its spread ... not even Islam.

Once there, if quelled by the masses - such as in the case of the Constitution of the United States, guaranteeing freedom of religion for all - you eventually will find a way to drip your little bits of poison into the law that ensures your morality, and only your morality, is followed. I'm not talking about 600 years ago, either. I'm talking about right now, modern times, 2005. You prevent people from buying liquor on Sunday in certain States. Why? Because Sunday is *your* sabbath. You define marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman in certain States. Why? Because that is *your* definition.

When you learn to let grown people make their own desicions and live by their own morality, we will leave you alone. Until then, rest assured, many of us will continue to do everything in our power to ensure that you become the Universe's whipping boy. Not as an individual, mind you, but as a collective. I will not be satisfied until publicly admitting you're Christian is met with jeers and laughter all over the world. Do as your King commanded you and take your religion into the closet and leave us out of it, leave our laws out of it, leave my chosen lifestyle out of it, and leave my nature out of it. If I believed in your way, I would convert. Your daily attempts to legislate your Bible and, thus, imposing your will on me and my children only serves to make us hate you that much more.

As Leia said to Vader: The more you tighten your grip, the more systems will slip through your fingers.

Terrific post. Christianity, as practised by so many of its followers is a religion of persecution. Never mind Muslim and Jew. How about single mothers in Ireland? How about the whitewashing of the perverse behaviour of certain priests in order to protect the image of the church at the expense of vulnerable children.


How about you just leave the rest of us alone, and we'll do the same?

I just thought that we should clear up a few things in this discussion.

A.My answer: Frankly, you're "persecuted" because you won't keep your nose out of everyone's business. Every nation that is a "Christian" nation became so by being conquered. No nation was ever introduced to Christianity without its own culture and way of life first being decimated and demonized. Christianity conquered and was spread by the sword. For example, the destruction of native peoples in North and South America. No other religion in the world can be said to have done the same nor been so brutal in its spread ... not even Islam.

Wow, it is amazing how little poeple seem to know about history and the world. This statement has so much wrong with it from a historical piont of view that I don't even knwo where to begin. First, let us remember that Christianity spread from the bottom of society up, wheras Islam was spread by conquering other peoples. The Crusades were about Christian pilgrims going to the Holy Land, which had been Christian until the Muslim armies came and conqquered them, were being sluaghered and tortured for two hundred years before the Christians in the East started asking for Western help to defend themselves from the constant attacks.
Also, has no one heard of Charles Martel and the Battle of Tours? This would be the decisive vistory in France when Islamic armies were invading and conquering into Europe, killing all that they found, until they had to be stopped. They were invading from the conquered kingdoms that they had set up in Spain already, which were invaded from the conquered African nations that had been set up, which were invaded from the conquered middle eastern territories. All these territories, you will notice had been Christian up until invading Islamic armies had attacked and conquered them. This is very similar to things like the Ottoman invasion of Europe in the 16th Century where the Islamic armies invaded and besieged as far as Vienna before they were finally driven back.
But them darn Christians! They oppress everyone.


Also, here is an article for everyone. But, I know the people that shoudl read it won't. It might shatter their ignorence.

A NEW CENTURY OF CHRISTIAN MARTYRDOM: THE UNTOLD MIDDLE EASTERN CRISIS
by Srdja Trifkovic
A book that relates the untold story of the murder of 45 million Christians in the 20th century alone has caused controversy in Italy. The author of The New Persecuted: Inquiries into Anti-Christian Intolerance in the New Century of Martyrs, Antonio Socci, has been accused that by raising the issue of Christian suffering in the Muslim world he "demonizes Islam."
Socci provides evidence that in the past 2,000 years some 70 million Christians have been killed primarily or exclusively for the reason of their faith, two-thirds in the past 100 years alone, with Joseph Stalin as the chief culprit. He says that an average of 160,000 Christians have been killed every year since 1990, the vast majority by Muslims in the Third World. Chronicling attacks, pogroms and wars in East Timor, Indonesia, Sudan, Egypt, Pakistan, India, and the Balkans, Socci identifies Islamic extremism as the main danger. And yet, says he, "This global persecution of Christianity is still in progress but in most cases is ignored by the mass media and Christians in the west."
Western indifference to Christian suffering, documented by Antonio Socci, is well illustrated by the recent standoff at the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, one of the holiest Christian sites in the Holy Land, which was re-consecrated last month after being occupied by Arab gunmen and besieged by the Israeli army for 38 days. While extensively covered because of its photogenic value and its potential for further bloodshed, the stand-off has caused hardly a ripple in the Western world on what should be the obvious grounds for media scrutiny and public concern: the misuse and abuse of a Christian shrine by warring non-Christians in pursuit of their political objectives. The Bethlehem episode is thus illustrative of two parallel processes overlooked in the current Middle Eastern crisis: the apparently terminal decline of the Christian remnant in the Middle East after two millennia of precarious and mostly painful existence, and the remarkable indifference of the post-Christian Western world to its impending demise.
Already by their choice of the stage for what soon became a propaganda exercise the Muslim gunmen who occupied the church desecrated the basilica built on the site of the grotto where Jesus Christ is believed to have been born. They ate the food they found on the premises until it ran out, while more than 150 civilians went hungry. They consumed alcoholic drinks that they found in priests' quarters, undeterred by the Islamic ban on drinking alcohol. They tore up Bibles up for toilet paper. They turned one corner of the ancient church into an impromptu mosque. They even attempted to bury seven of their comrades, who were subsequently killed by Israeli snipers, inside the church or on its grounds—obviously intending to turn one of the holiest Christian shrines into a place of Islamic pilgrimage to the fallen "martyrs."
It may be worth noting that when Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount, two years ago, the world reacted angrily to what was interpreted as a gesture calculated to inflame the Muslims, and Palestinians treated his mere presence near the al-Aqsa mosque as sufficiently provocative to justify a new intifada. Their double standards and cynicism are breathtaking, but they were not the only ones to treat Christian shrines with contempt.
Two weeks before the siege of the Church of the Nativity, as Israeli forces stormed into Bethlehem, an Israeli tank shell hit the facade of the nearby Holy Family Church, in a complex with an orphanage, hospital and hostel. The soldiers then fired, from fifty yards' distance, at the statue of the Virgin atop the Holy Family Church. The statue lost its left arm and its face was disfigured. The Israeli army expressed regret and promised investigation, but this did not look like an accidental shot: no terrorist could possibly hide behind the figure on the pinnacle of the hospital church. The story was reported by Reuters, and a picture taken by an AP photographer. It was available to the world media but ignored.
These two incidents illustrate the predicament of the dwindling Christian remnant in the Middle East. Once thriving Christian communities are now minorities squeezed between the warring Jews and Muslims who may hate each other but all too often share their aversion to Christianity. Within Israel the indigenous Christians, as Arabs, are regarded as indistinguishable from Palestinian Muslims, and have suffered accordingly. In 1948 two-thirds of the Palestinian Christians were driven from their homes with the creation of a Jewish state. Within Arafat's Palestinian Authority the Christians are viewed with distrust as non-Muslim. They resent Israeli incursions and occupation as much as their Muslim neighbors, but they also feel uncomfortable amid the tide of Islamic radicalism—symbolized in the rise of Hamas—that has engulfed the Palestinian community. They are also deliberately exposed to Israeli reprisals by their Muslim compatriots: in the West Bank city of Beit Jala Muslim gunmen chose the rooftops of Christian homes as sites from which to fire on neighboring Jerusalem.
Institutionalized or covert discrimination to which Christians are subjected in Syria, Israel, Egypt, and Lebanon, accompanied by occasional eruptions of anti-Christian violence by the Muslim majority in the last two countries, have contributed to an exodus that threatens to eradicate the believers in Christ in the lands of his birth and life.
At the outset of the Islamic conquests under Muhammad's successors all of these lands were 100 percent Christian. At the outset of the Ottoman rule they had a Christian plurality, and in Palestine and Lebanon the outright majority. Under the British Mandate, Palestine officially was a Christian country, with Bethlehem having a population that was 90 percent Christian. Today they are literally disappearing. Among almost three million Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, only 50,000 Christians remain. Within the pre-1967 borders of Israel there are six million people; only 2 percent are Christians. In the city of Jerusalem the Christian population has declined from 45,000 in 1940 to a few thousand today. At the current rate of decline, the Christian population will be a fraction of one percent in the year 2020 and there will be no living church in the land of Christ. It is a cruel irony that the plight of indigenous Christians remained invisible to hundreds of thousands of Christians from Europe and North America-from mainstream churches and fringe groups-who descended on the Holy Land to mark the 2,000th anniversary of their faith.
If the Jewish or Muslim population of America or Western Europe were to start declining at a similar rate, there would be an outcry from their co-religionists all over the world. There would be government-funded programs to establish the causes and provide remedies. The endangered minority would be awarded instant victim status and be celebrated as such by the media and the academe. By contrast, when the President of the United States visited Jerusalem in October 1994, he was steps away from the most sacred Christian shrines but did not visit any of them. He did not meet a single representative of the Christian community that remained invisible to him. Eight years later, as busloads of American evangelicals still come to the Western Wall in pursuit of their dream of a rebuilt temple that will provide an eschatological shortcut through history, the remnants of that community are on the verge of extinction.
UNDER THE PROPHET'S SWORD
At the time of Muhammad's birth Christianity had covered, outside Europe, the ancient Roman province of Asia extending across the Caucasus to the Caspian Sea, Syria with the Holy Land, and a wide belt of North Africa all the way to the Atlantic Ocean.
Christians numbered over thirty million by A.D. 311, in spite of imperial persecution that often entailed martyrdom. Most of them lived not in Europe but in Asia Minor and Africa, the home of many famous Christian fathers and martyrs, starting with St. Paul of Tarsus, such as St. Augustine, Polycarp of Smyrna, Tertullian of Carthage, Clement of Alexandria, Chrysostom of Antioch, Origen of Tyre, or Cyprian of Carthage. The Seven Churches of Revelation were all in Asia Minor. (Smyrna was the last of these, and kept her light burning until 1922, when the Turks destroyed it, along with its Christian population.)
Between Muhammad's death in 632 and the second siege of Vienna, just over a thousand years later, Islam expanded—at first rapidly, then intermittently—at the expense of everything and everyone in the way of its warriors. Unleashed as the militant faith of a nomadic war-band, Islam turned its boundary with the outside world into a perpetual war zone. When Muslims conquered the hitherto Christian lands of the Middle East in the 7th century the subject peoples were not immediately aware of the momentous quality of what had come to pass. For many dissident Christian groups that had been denounced as heretical in Europe, it seemed preferable at first to be ruled by largely absentee non-Christian overlords who cared only about taxes and did not feel strongly one way or another about the finer points of Christology.
Slaughters did occur in the initial wave of conquest: during the Muslim invasion of Syria in 634 thousands of Christians were massacred; in Mesopotamia between 635 and 642 monasteries were ransacked and the monks and villagers slain; while in Egypt the towns of Behnesa, Fayum, Nikiu and Aboit were put to the sword. The inhabitants of Cilicia were taken into captivity. In Armenia, the entire population of Euchaita was wiped out. The Muslim invaders sacked and pillaged Cyprus and then established their rule by a "great massacre." In North Africa Tripoli was pillaged in 643 by Amr, who forced the Jews and Christians to hand over their women and children as slaves to the Arab army. They were told that they could deduct the value of their enslaved family from the poll-tax, the jizya. Carthage was razed to the ground and most of its inhabitants killed. Nevertheless, since dead bodies paid no taxes, while the captives were an economic asset, once the conquerors' rule was firmly established a degree of normalcy was reestablished at the communal level.
For a long time the outcome of the early onslaught was in doubt. The first wave of attacks on Christendom almost captured Constantinople when that city was still far and away the important center of the Christian world. The Greeks stood their ground against Islam for another six centuries. But the Muslims also conquered Spain, and had they gone further the Kuran -in Gibbon's memorable phrase-might have been "taught in the schools of Oxford" to a circumcised people: the Muslims crossed the Pyrenees, promising to stable their horses in St. Peter's at Rome, but were at last defeated by Charles Martel at Tours, exactly a century after the prophet's death. This defeat arrested their western conquests and saved Europe.
The last attempt in pre-postmodern times, going through the Balkans, took the Sultan's janissaries more than halfway from Constantinople to Dover (1683). On both occasions the tide was checked, but its subsequent rolling back took decades, even centuries.
The Crusades were but a temporary setback to Islamic expansion, and the source of endless arguments that sought to establish some moral equivalence between Muslims and Christians at first, and eventually to elevate the former to victimhood and condemn the latter as aggressors. Far from being wars of aggression, the Crusades were a belated military response of Christian Europe to over three centuries of Muslim aggression against Christian lands, the systemic mistreatment of the indigenous Christian population of those lands, and harassment of Christian pilgrims. The postmodern myth, promoted by Islamic propagandists and supported by some self-hating Westerners-notably in the academe-claims that the peaceful Muslims, native to the Holy Land, were forced to take up arms in defense against European-Christian aggression. This myth takes AD 1095 as its starting point, but it ignores the preceding centuries, starting with the early caliphs, when Muslim armies swept through the Byzantine Empire, conquering about two-thirds of the Christian world of that time.
INTOLERANCE CODIFIED
On the eve of the First Crusade the prominent Islamic scholar Abu Ala Al-Mawardi prepared the formal blueprint for the Islamic government, based on the Kuran, the Tradition, and the practice of the previous four centuries of conquest. It reiterated the division the world into the House of Islam, where umma has been established, and the House of War inhabited by Harbis, that is, the rest of the world. The House of Islam is in a state of permanent war with the lands that surround it; it can be interrupted by temporary truces, but peace will only come with the completion of global conquest. The progression was from Dar al Sulh-when the Muslims are a minority community, and need to adopt temporarily a peaceful attitude in order to deceive their neighbors (Mecca before Muhammad's move to Medina is the model for which the Muslim diaspora in the Western world provides contemporary example)-to Dar al Harb, when the territory of the infidel becomes a war zone by definition. This happens as soon as the Muslim side feels strong enough to dispense with pretense.
The example was provided by Muhammad, who accepted a truce with Mecca when he was in an inferior position but broke it as soon as his recuperated strength allowed, and offered his pagan compatriots the choice of conversion or death. In Europe today the early signs of this forthcoming stage, amounting to a low-intensity civil war, are visible in ethnic disturbances in English and French cities, when young English-born Pakistanis or French-born North Africans venture out from their no-go areas. The final objective all along is Dar al Islam, where Muslims dominate and infidels are at best tolerated, at worst expelled or killed. This applies even to "the people of the book":
Declare war upon those to whom the Scriptures were revealed but believe neither in God nor the Last Day, and who do not forbid that which God and His Apostles have forbidden, and who refuse to acknowledge the true religion until they pay the poll-tax without reservation and are totally subjugated. The Jews claim that Ezra is a son of God, and the Christians say, 'the Messiah is a son of God.' Those are their claims that do indeed resemble the sayings of the Infidels of Old. May God do battle with them!
The Muslims are obliged to wage struggle against unbelievers and may contemplate tactical ceasefires, but never its complete abandonment short of the unbelievers' submission. This is the real meaning of Jihad. Indeed, in certain contexts and in certain times it may also signify "inner striving" and "spiritual struggle," but to generations of Muslims before our time-and to an overwhelming majority of believers who are our contemporaries-the meaning of Jihad as the obligatory and permanent war against non-Muslims has not changed since Al-Mawardi's time. At all times, according to Allah (i.e. Muhammad), "Those who believe fight in the cause of God." For the fallen and victorious alike, the rewards are instant and plentiful:
Let those fight in the cause of God who barter the life of this world for that which is to come; for whoever fights on God's path, whether he is killed or triumphs, we will give him a handsome reward.
The conquered peoples were "protected persons" only if they submitted to Islamic domination by a "Contract" (Dhimma), paid poll tax-jizya-and land tax-haraj-to their masters. Any failure to do so was the breach of contract, enabling the Muslims to kill or enslave them and confiscate their property. The cross could not be displayed in public, and the people of the book had to wear special clothing or a belt. Their men were not allowed to marry Muslim women, their slaves had to be sold to a Muslim if they converted, and they were not allowed to carry weapons. They had to take in Muslim travelers, especially soldiers on a campaign, but they had no right to the spoils of war. Since the income from the poll tax was mostly used to finance Jihad, Jews and Christians under Muslim rule were effectively forced to bankroll the subjugation of their co-religionists who were still free.
A host of additional petty rules were either enacted or adopted that were meant to humiliate non-Muslims. Some of them were summarized in the "Pact of Umar," imposed upon the vanquished by Muhammad's conquering successor and son-in-law, in which the Christians were forced to solemnly declare:
We shall not build in our cities or in their vicinity any new monasteries, churches, hermitages, or monks' cells. We shall not restore, by night or by day, any of them that have fallen into ruin or which are located in the Muslims' quarters. We shall keep our gates wide open for the passerby and travelers. We shall provide three days' food and lodging to any Muslims who pass our way. We shall not shelter any spy in our churches or in our homes, nor shall we hide him from the Muslims. We shall not teach our children the Koran. We shall not hold public religious ceremonies. We shall not seek to proselytize anyone. We shall not prevent any of our kin from embracing Islam if they so desire. We shall show deference to the Muslims and shall rise from our seats when they wish to seat down... We shall not ride on saddles. We shall not wear swords or bear weapons of any kind, or ever carry them with us. We shall not sell wines. We shall clip the forelocks of our head. We shall not display our crosses or our books anywhere in the Muslims' thoroughfares or in their marketplaces. We shall only beat our clappers in our churches very quietly. We shall not raise our voices when reciting the service in our churches, nor when in the presence of Muslims. Neither shall we raise our voices in our funeral processions. We shall not build our homes higher than theirs.
Umar told them that disobedience meant death: "Anyone who violates such terms will be unprotected. And it will be permissible for the Muslims to treat them as rebels or dissenters namely, it is permissible to kill them."
Al-Mawdudi adds that "Muslims have the right to confiscate places of worship in such towns as have been taken by storm," as has been done with St. John's in Damascus, the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, and countless others. The precedent is valid to this day. That "protection" was also abolished if the dhimmis resisted Islamic law, gave allegiance to non-Muslim power, enticed a Muslim from his faith; harmed a Muslim or his property; or committed blasphemy. "Blasphemy" included denigration of the Prophet Muhammad, the Kuran, the Muslim faith, the shari'a by suggesting that it has a defect, and by refusing the decision of the ijma—the consensus of the Islamic community or umma.
The moment the "pact of protection" is abolished, the jihad resumes, which means that the lives of the dhimmis and their property are forfeited. To this day those Islamists in Egypt who kill and pillage Copts claim that these Christians have forfeited their "protection" because they do not pay the jizya. This relationship, typical of a war-treaty between the conqueror and the vanquished, remains valid for Muslims because it is fixed in theological texts.
Islamic scholars assert that an Islamic state is by its very nature bound to distinguish between Muslims and non-Muslims:
In an honest and upright manner, [it] not only publicly declares this state of affairs but also precisely states what rights will be conferred upon its non-Muslim citizens and which of them will not be enjoyed by them... A Muslim is not to be put to death for (murdering) one of the people of the covenant [a Jew or a Christian] or an unbeliever, but a free Muslim must be killed for a free Muslim, regardless of the race.
Discrimination was universal, not only legal. Non-Muslims could not be employed in the upper echelons of the civil service, and in educating or in any way exercising authority over Muslims. Umar, the second caliph, refused to allow an exceptionally able Christian to continue in his post of the tax accountant in Syria, and attacked one of his aides with a whip who employed a Christian to oversee the accounts of Iraq. As Islamic scholars state, "Some who were less qualified than the Christians were appointed; that would be more useful to Muslims for their religion and earthly welfare. A little of what is lawful will be abundantly blessed, and abundance of what is unlawful will be wasted." No one but "a mature, sane Muslim should assume the office of judge" and no non-Muslim should ever "hold a position in which he can have power over a Muslim."
DECLINE INSTITUTIONALIZED
The resulting inequality of rights in all domains between Muslims and dhimmis was geared to a steady erosion of the latter communities by the attrition and conversion. The Greek Orthodox were suspected of loyalty to the Patriarch and the Emperor in Constantinople, which was the main symbol of the Christian enemy until its fall in 1453. All of them were regarded as natural would-be allies of Christendom, an assumption as natural in view of the captives' position under Islam as it was unjustified by their actual behavior. By the time Timur's invasions at the end of the 14th century the Christians became a minority in their own lands where no other religion had been known until the Muslim conquest.
Millions of Christians from Spain, Egypt, Syria, Greece and Armenia; Latins and Slavs in southern and central Europe; as well as Jews, henceforth lived under shari'a, forming what Bat Ye'or calls the civilization of dhimmitude.8 They endured for centuries the lives of quiet desperation interrupted by the regular pangs of acute agony. In all these societies the dynamics of Islamization were at work, different in form, perhaps, between Spain and Syria, but always following the same pattern determined by the ideology and laws of jihad and shari'a.
The objective in all cases, and the outcome in most, was also the same: to transform native Christian majorities into religious minorities. The initial choice of the vanquished was not "Islam or death" but "Islam or super-tax"; but over time Shari'a ensured the decline of Eastern Christianity, the sapping of the captives' vitality and capacity for renewal. Even in Moorish Spain oppression or anarchy were the rule, good order and civilized behavior a fondly remembered exception.
THE OTTOMAN NIGHTMARE
With the fall of Baghdad to the Tatars a sturdy race of converted barbarians saved the day for Islam. Arab historian Ibn Khaldoun hailed the rise of the Ottomans as the manifestation of Allah's mercy "when the Abbasid state was drowned in decadence and luxury" and overthrown by the heathen Tatars "because the people of the faith had become deficient in energy and reluctant to rally in defense." Allah "rescued the faith by reviving its dying breath and restoring the unity of the Muslims in the Egyptian realms." The Ottoman Empire became the standard bearer of Islam, "one intake comes after another and generation follows generation, and Islam rejoices in the benefit which it gains through them, and the branches of the kingdom flourish with the freshness of youth."
The bearers of the standard came to Anatolia at the turn of the second millennium as mercenary soldiers. Osman I, from whom the name Osmanli ("Ottoman") is derived, proclaimed the independence of his small principality in Sogut near Bursa, on the border of the declining Byzantine Empire, in the early 13th century. Within a century the Osman Dynasty had extended its domains into an empire stretching from the Balkans to Mesopotamia. Its growth was briefly disrupted by the Tatar invasion and Sultan Bayezit's defeat at the Battle of Ankara (1402). Under Mehmet I "the Restorer" the Turks were back in business and conquered a ruined and impoverished Constantinople under Mehmet II in 1453. For three days the conquerors indulged in murder, rape, and pillage.
Islam may have rejoiced, but there was precious little cause for rejoicing in Asia Minor and in the Balkans as further Christian communities came under Muslim rule. The conquered populations were subsequently subjected to the practice of devshirme. The annual "blood levy" of Christian boys in peacetime was a novelty even by the Arabian standards. In Arabia those families unable to pay the crushing jizya were obliged to hand over their children to be sold into slavery, and to deduct their value from their assessment. But Turkish "devshirme," introduced by Sultan Orkhan (1326-1359), consisted of the periodic taking of a fifth of all Christian boys in the conquered territories:
On a fixed date, all the fathers were ordered to appear with their children in the public square. The recruiting agents chose the most sturdy and handsome children in the presence of a Muslim judge... The devshirme was an obvious infringement of the rights of the dhimmis-a reminder that their rights were far from secure, once and for all.
Military expeditions made forays into Christian villages. Enslavement of the subject peoples was thus legitimized even if they did not rebel against their conquerors. The practice left a deep scar on the collective memory of the Christians. And yet contemporary Turkish propagandists present the tragedy of the kidnapped boys and their families as the Ottoman equivalent of a full scholarship to Harvard or Yale: "From the poor families' point of view, it was a great chance for their sons to be offered a high level of education especially in the palace which would provide good future prospects."
The difference between the crusaders' senseless debauchery and the Turks' calculated barbarism is visible in the treatment of both subjects by a great painter. While acknowledging the shame of the "Entry of the Crusaders into Constantinople," through his 1840 painting of the same name, it was Eugene Delacroix's depiction of a Turkish monstrosity that became the Guernica of the 19th century. "The Massacre at Chios: Greek families awaiting death or slavery" is a masterpiece of horror depicting the systematic extermination of the entire population of an Aegean island, graphically illustrated how being a Greek, Armenian, Serb, or indeed any other Christian in the Ottoman Empire meant living in daily fear of murder, rape, torture, kidnap of one's children, slavery, and genocide.
As for the Jews expelled from Spain, they were invited by the Sultan not because of any motivations involving tolerance but to replace the vast swathes of Christians that had been eliminated, and thus maintain the area's commerce and the Sultan's tax base. While the Ottoman Jews were also subjected to discrimination and periods of cruel persecution, that they held a favored status within the Empire over the subhuman giaours (infidel Christian dogs) is as much a reason for celebration of the Ottomans' "tolerance" as the fact that the Nazis were "tolerant" of occupied Slavs in comparison to their treatment of the Jews.
The weakening of Turkey enabled ascendant European powers first to take an interest in the destiny of the remaining Christian communities under Muslim rule, and next to try and alleviate their condition. The effort was conducted through bilateral agreements between the Ottomans and victorious European powers (Russia, Austria) or voluntary contacts with the friendly ones (Britain, France). Some improvement resulted from the granting of a Western style constitution in 1839, which eventually led to the abolishment of the old Millet system and at least nominal equalization of rights between the three main religious communities. In part these reforms were defensive in nature, as the Turkish government hoped to placate the Europeans and, by enacting desired legislation remove the grounds for interference. They did not have much effect on the ground, however.
The last century of Ottoman rule—from the defeat of Napoleon until the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War—witnessed a more thorough and tragic destruction of the Christian communities in the Middle East, Asia Minor, and the Caucasus, than at any prior period. Almost the entire Greek population of the island of Chios, tens of thousands of people, was massacred or enslaved in 1822 (as we have seen in reference to Delacroix). The following year the number of victims of the slaughter at Missolongi is known precisely: 8,750. Thousands of Assyrians were murdered in the province of Mossul in 1950, and in 1860 some 12,000 Christians were put to the sword in Lebanon. The butchery of 14,700 Bulgarians in 1876 was almost routine by Turkish standards. At the town of Batal five thousand out of seven thousand inhabitants were murdered, the fact that was unsuccessfully suppressed by the British government of Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli but nevertheless made public by private journalists.
In many cases the massacres of Christians resulted from local Muslim revolts against any decree granting them greater rights than those that were regarded as divinely ordained by Caliph Umar. At the same time the great Western powers, and Great Britain in particular, supported the Turkish subjugation of Christian Europeans on the grounds that their empire was a "stabilizing force" and a counterweight against Austria and Russia. The scandalous alliance with Turkey against Russia in the Crimean War reflected a pernicious frame of mind that has manifested itself more recently in the overt, covert, or de facto support of certain Western powers for the Muslim side in Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Chechnya, Cyprus, Sudan, East Timor, and Kashmir.
From many anti-Christian pogroms in the 19th century the "Bulgarian Atrocities" are remembered because they provoked a cry of indignation from Gladstone (to the chagrin of Disareli), who asserted, "No government ever has so sinned, none has proved itself so incorrigible in sin, or which is the same, so impotent in reformation." But Gladstone's opponents, the advocates of Turkophile policy at Westminster, went beyond Realpolitik in arguing for the lifeline to the Sick Man at the Bosphorus: they devised the theory that the Ottoman were in reality agreeable and tolerant, and only need a friendly, supportive nudge to become just, or almost, like other civilized people:
If, in the more remote past, Bourbon France had made common cause with the Sublime Porte (the scandalous union of the Lily and the Crescent) against Habsburg Austria, the arrangement at least had the virtue of cynical self-interest: Catholic France was hardly expected to praise the sultan's benevolence as part of the bargain. But by the 1870s, Disraeli's obsession with thwarting Russian ambitions in the Balkans prompted the Tories' unprecedented depiction of Turkey as tolerant and humane even in the face of the Bulgarian atrocities. Even so, Britain's Christian conscience, prodded by Gladstone's passionate words, was sufficient to bring down Beaconsfield's government in 1880.
In 1876, Gladstone told the Ottomans: "You shall retain your titular sovereignty, your empire shall not be invaded, but never again, as the years roll in their course, so far as it is in our power to determine, never again shall the hand of violence be raised by you, never again shall the flood gates of lust be opened to you." This was not to be. Regular slaughters of Armenians in Bayazid (1877), Alashgurd (1879), Sassun (1894), Constantinople (1896), Adana (1909) and Armenia itself (1895-96) claimed a total of two hundred thousand lives, but they were only rehearsals for the genocide of 1915. The slaughter of Christians in Alexandria in 1881 was only a rehearsal for the artifical famine induced by the Turks in 1915-16 that killed over a hundred thousand Maronite Christians in Lebanon and Syria. So imminent and ever-present was the peril, and so fresh the memory of these events in the minds of the non-Muslims, that illiterate Christian mothers dated events as so many years before or after "such and such a massacre."14 Across the Middle East, the bloodshed of 1915-1922 finally destroyed ancient Christian communities and cultures that had survived since Roman times-groups like the Jacobites, Nestorians, and Chaldaeans. The carnage peaked after World War I ended.
DUSK OF LEVANTINE CHRISTIANITY
"The attitude of the Muslims toward the Christians and the Jews is that of a master towards slaves," reported the British Vice Consul in Mosul, 1909, "whom he treats with a certain lordly tolerance so long as they keep their place. Any sign of pretension to equality is promptly repressed." It is ironic but unsurprising that the persecution of Christians culminated in their final expulsion from the newly founded Republic of Turkey in the early 1920s under Mustapha Kemal known as Attaturk, the same man who also abolished the Caliphate, and separated the mosque and state. The fact that this ethnic cleansing was carried out under the banner of resurgent Turkish nationalism, rather than Ottoman imperialism or Islamic intolerance, mattered but little to the victims. The end result was the same: churches demolished or converted into mosques, and communities that used to worship in them dispersed or dead.
The burning of Smyrna and the massacre and scattering of its three hundred thousand Christian inhabitants is one of the great crimes of all times. It marked the end of the Greek civilization in Asia Minor which at its height had also given the world the immortal cities of Pergamus, Philadelphia, and Ephesus. On the eve of its destruction Smyrna was a bustling port and commercial center. The seafront promenade, next to foreign consulates, boasted hotels modelled after Nice and elegant cafes. Yellowing postcards show its main business thoroughfare, the Rue Franque, with the great department and wholesale stores, crowded by the ladies in costumes of the latest fashion. American consul-general remembered a busy social life that included teas, dances, musical afternoons, games of tennis and bridge, and soirees given in the salons of the rich Armenians and Greeks:
In no city in the world did East and West mingle physically in so spectacular a manner as at Smyrna, while spiritually they always maintained the characteristics of oil and water. One of the common sights of the streets was the long camel caravans, the beasts passing in single file, attached to ropes and led by a driver on a donkey in red fez and rough white-woolen cloak. These caravans came in from the interior laden with sacks of figs, licorice root, raisins, wood, tobacco and rugs. While the foreigner is apt to be afraid of these ungainly beasts, one often saw a Greek or Armenian woman in high-heeled boots and elegant costume, stoop and lift the rope between two camels and pass under. At the north end of the city is a railroad station called "Caravan Bridge", because near by is an ancient stone bridge of that name over which the camel caravans arriving from as far away as Bagdad and Damascus, used to pass.
Sporadic killings of Christians, mostly Armenians, started immediately the Turks conquered it on September 9, 1922, and within days escalated to mass slaughter. It did not "get out of hand," however; the Turkish military authorities deliberately escalated it. Metropolitan Chrysostomos remained with his flock. "It is the tradition of the Greek Church and the duty of the priest to stay with his congregation," he replied to those begging him to flee. The Muslim mob fell upon him, uprooted his eyes and, as he was bleeding, dragged him by his beard through the streets of the Turkish quarter, beating and kicking him. Every now and then, when he had the strength to do so, he would raise his right hand and blessed his persecutors. A Turk got so furious at this gesture that he cut off the Metropolitan's hand with his sword. He fell to the ground, and was hacked to pieces by the angry mob.
The carnage culminated in the burning of Smyrna, which started on September 13 when the Turks put the Armenian quarter to torch and the conflagration engulfed the city. The remaining inhabitants were trapped at the seafront, from which there was no escaping the flames on one side, or Turkish bayonets on the other, but the spectacle remained invisible to the "Christian" West:
The Turks were glutting freely their racial and religious lust for slaughter, rape and plunder within a stone's throw of the Allied and American battle-ships because they had been systematically led to believe that they would not be interfered with. A united order from the commanders or from any two of them-one harmless shell thrown across the Turkish quarter-would have brought the Turks to their senses. And this, the presence of those battle-ships in Smyrna harbor, in the year of our Lord 1922, impotently watching the last great scene in the tragedy of the Christians of Turkey, was the saddest and most significant feature of the whole picture.

And here is the second part of that article.




Elsewhere in the Muslim world following the end of World War I, and notably in the newly-independent or semi-dependent Arab states, European presence meant that it was no longer possible to enforce more drastic forms of discriminatory practices against the surviving Christian population. But this was merely a temporary improvement, not a permanent solution of their position:
But at the very time that Europe achieved its military and geopolitical advantage, the moral and religious decline that culminated in the autogenocides of 1914 and 1939 had become evident. Having found in their grasp places their Crusader predecessors had only dreamed of reclaiming Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople—effete and demoralized European governments made no effort to re-christianize them and, within a few decades, meekly abandoned them.
One notable exception to a brief era of imposed tolerance, even in the period of Western domination between two world wars, was Saudi Arabia, which remains to this day a fortress of stern Wahabbism, as determined to convert the western world to Islam as it is to decapitate any one of its own subjects who violates the tenets of the Faith.
ARAB NATIONALISM MEETS ISLAM
The perceived slight of infidel presence and direct or indirect dominance in the Arab world has created the backlash in the form of Islamic religious revival. Notably in the aftermath of the Arab defeats of 1967 and 1973, Christians were subjected to new restrictions. In Egypt the construction of new churches was obstructed, a quota system was instituted regarding university admissions, Christians were barred from high government positions, and they were even accused of complicity with Zionism on the grounds of conciliatory statements from the Vatican about the Jews. The process of Islamic resurgence reached a new peak with the fall of the Shah and the Islamic revolution in Iran 1979As late as 1955, Istanbul's Christians suffered the worst race riot in Europe since Kristallnacht. Further east, in Asia Minor and the Lepanto, some Christian communities survived but their numbers are a pale shadow of what they were only two centuries ago. Entire peoples have been obliterated since that time.
Egypt, supposedly a friend of the United States and the second largest recipient of the U.S. taxpayers' largesse, failed to convict a single murderer following the January 2000 massacre of 21 Coptic Christians in the village of Al-Kosheh, 300 miles south of Cairo. The court convicted only four of 96 defendants, and only on lesser charges. All four men convicted were Muslims; not one was convicted for murder, but two for "accidental homicide and illegal possession of a weapon" and the other two were each sentenced to one year in prison for damaging a private car.18 From the outset the government of Egypt had sought to cover up the gravity of the case and to avoid the political minefield of punishing Muslims for the murder of Christians. After the verdict Egypt's Christians may well have cause to fear for their lives.
Further up the Mediterranean coast, just how many Christians remain in Lebanon is in dispute: there are no official population figures. The last census was taken in 1932. The reluctance to complete a new one illustrates how explosive an issue population figures become when so many sects vie for power. It is widely believed that no more than one million residents, or 25 percent of the country, are Christian. This figure is less than half of the nearly 60 percent majority of the early 1970s. Among Christians, Maronites—who are in union with Rome—represent roughly two-thirds of the total. They take their name from a 4th century Syrian monk, St. Maron. The next two largest denominations are Greek Orthodox and Greek Catholic, and they are also in rapid numerical decline.
The Maronite patriarch, Cardinal Nasrallah Sfeir, says that most Maronites consider themselves Phoenicians, whose civilization dominated the eastern Mediterranean for centuries, not Arabs. "The Christian church has been here from the dawn of Christianity," says Cardinal Sfeir. "But what we see today is very sad for us. We see the Christian majority shrink to a minority. We fear it will shrink even more."
The Vatican acknowledges the Maronite flight as a profound threat to the future of the Catholic Church in the Mideast. Rome convened a synod on Lebanon prior to a visit by Pope John Paul II there in May of 1997. The council created a mechanism for reconciliation between Christians and Muslims, which church officials consider the first step to rebuilding the country and staunching the outflow of Christians.
It is remarkable that in this age of rampant victimology the persecutions of Christians by Muslims has become a taboo subject in the Western academe. A complex web of myths, outright lies, and deliberately imposed silence dominates it. Thirteen centuries of religious discrimination, causing suffering and death of countless millions, have been covered by the myth of Islamic "tolerance" that is as hurtful to the few descendants of the victims as it is useless as a means of appeasing latter-day jihadists. The silence and lies, perpetrated by the Western academe and media class, facilitates the perpetuation of religious discrimination and persecution even today.
The myth of tolerant Islam did not die with the collapse of the Turkish Empire. Rather it took another form: that of the national Arab movement, which promoted an Arab society where Christians and Muslims would live in perfect harmony. Once again this was the fabrication of European politicians and writers. In the same way as the myth of the Ottoman tolerance was created to block the independence of the Balkan nations, so the Arab multi-religious fraternity was an argument to destroy the national liberation of non-Arab peoples of the Middle East: Kurds, Armenians, Assyrians, Maronites, and Jews.19 The exact meaning of its "defensive" character is provided by the Traditions: Jihad "has its material and moral functions, i.e. self-preservation and the preservation of the moral order in the world... The sword has not been used recklessly by the Muslims; it has been wielded purely with humane feelings in the wider interest of humanity."20Those "wider interests" have been defined by Allah: "fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them and seize them, beleaguer them and lie in wait for them in every way." The famous Surra of the Sword leaves no room for ambiguity: "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day. Nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth (even if they are) of the People of the Book. Until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." This abrogates the often-quoted "Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error."
Recent attempts by Islamic apologists to assure the West that only the "spiritual" definition of Jihad really applies amount to distorting history and brushing up centuries of very physical "striving" by generations of Muslim warriors. It is true that "Muslims are called by the Qura'an and the example of the Prophet of Islam to strive for Peace through all available means," but the "Peace" that is called upon believers to implement is impossible unless it is established under Islamic rule.24 The author quite correctly admits that "in Qura'anic terms, peace does not only mean absence of war, it is also a positive state of security in which one is free from anxiety or fear." He does not specify, however, that this state of security is only available in Dar el-Islam, once Islam defeats its enemies and conquers their lands. This is exactly the same definition of "peace" as that used by the Soviet empire in the period of its external expansion (1944-1979): it is the objective, but it is fully attainable only after the defeat of "imperialism as the final stage of capitalism" and the triumph of the vanguard of the proletariat in the whole world.
What matters to non-Muslims today, and to non-Communists 60 years ago, is not the metaphysical meaning of "Peace" within the community of the believers, but the consequences of their definition for the rest of us. Those who invented Jihad in the 7th century intended it for particular purposes and are the authors of the concept and as such, they should be respected intellectually. "If some of their heirs wish to change the meaning of what was normal then, they should say so, and act upon it. In the Christian world, modern Christians outlawed Crusading; they did not rewrite history to legitimize themselves. Those who believe that the Jihad-Holy War is a sin today must have the courage to delegitimize it and outlaw it as well."
Islam is and always has been a religion of intolerance, a jihad without an end. Despite the way the apologists would like to depict it, Islam was spread by the sword and has been maintained by the sword throughout its history. William Muir, one of the greatest orientalists of all times (1819-1905), summed it up at the end of a long and distinguished career when he declared his conviction "that the sword of Muhammad and the Qur'an are the most fatal enemies of civilisation, liberty and truth which the world has yet known." They have combined to create the Arab empire, once described as "an unmitigated cultural disaster parading as God's will," but parading, in its modern metamorphosis, as the creed of equality:
This fiction has been presented as a fact with an unparalleled skill. In fact, the Prophet Muhammad divided humanity into two sections, the Arabs and the non-Arabs. According to this categorisation, the Arabs are the rulers and the non-Arabs are to be ruled through the yoke of Arab cultural imperialism: Islam is the means to realise this dream because its fundamentals raise superiority of Arabia sky-high, inflicting a corresponding inferiority on the national dignity of its non-Arab followers. From the Arabian point of view, this scheme looks marvellous, magnificent and mystifying . . . yet under its psychological impact the non-Arab Muslims rejoice in self-debasement, hoping to be rewarded by the Prophet with the luxuries of paradise. The Islamic love of mankind is a myth of even greater proportions. Hatred of non-Moslems is the pivot of Islamic existence. It not only declares all dissidents as the denizens of hell but also seeks to ignite a permanent fire of tension between Moslems and non-Moslems; it is far more lethal than Karl Marx's idea of social conflict which he hatched to keep his theory alive.
The Tradition is surprisingly modern when it describes wars of global conquests, slaughter and enslavement of countless millions as an activity with a "moral function" undertaken "in the interest of the humanity." Never are people killed more easily, and in greater numbers, than when it is done for their own good. The jihadi campaigns fought by the Muslims in Spain, France, India, Iran, throughout the Balkans, or at the very gates of Vienna, were as defensive as Stalin's winter war with Finland, or the "counterattack" against Poland by his illustrious German colleague.
CONCLUSION
The only distinction between Islamic terror through the centuries—against Medinan Jews, Arabian pagans, Greeks, Serbs, Persians, Hindus, Armenians, African Blacks, and countless others—and its 20th century totalitarian counterparts, as practiced in the workhouses of the Final Solution and the Gulag, concerned methods. Unlike Arabs, Turks, and their local collaborators through the centuries, the mass murderers in European totalitarian powers adopted the "style" of a developed industrial state. Their terror relied on complex equipment and intricate administrative network, while Islamic terror was "primitive" and "traditional." Nazis and Stalinists relied on coordinated plans, orders, reports, invoices, lists, cost-benefit calculations, statistics. On the other hand, from Muhammad and Usman to Abdul Hamid, Mustafa Kemal, and the Sudanese Army, the orders have been mostly oral, the apparatus of terror arbitrary, the selection of targets and methods of killing sometimes random. Nazi and Stalinist terror was for the most part depersonalized and bureaucratic, it was cold, abstract, objective; the warriors for Islam were direct, personal and "warm." Their terror was often directed against their first neighbors; it was passionate and subjective. The terror of the Reichkommissars and Politkommissars, with its somberness, discipline, bureaucratic pedantry, was "puritanical," while the Muslims in all ages and locations indulge literally in orgies of violence.
The Malaysian Islamist leader Anwar Ibrahim was unintentionally frank when he declared "We are not socialist, we are not capitalist, we are Islamic." The differentiation is vis-à-vis rival political systems and ideologies, not religions:
While fundamentalist Islam differs in its details from other utopian ideologies, it closely resembles them in scope and ambition. Like communism and fascism, it offers a vanguard ideology; a complete program to improve man and create a new society; complete control over that society; and cadres ready, even eager, to spill blood.
In all cases the lust for other people's lands, possessions, women, and sheer power over other people's lives have been justified by a self-justifying ideology that perverts meanings of words, stunts the sense of moral distinctions, and destroys souls.
Fourteen centuries after Muhammad the real question for the free world—and the term is more apt now than it had been at any time during the Cold War—the real question is not "why does a Muslim wage jihad." In a sane world such a question would concern nobody but social anthropologists. It is "what makes a jihad-minded Muslim hate the West so much that he is prepared to kill any number of Westerners, and himself for good measure, to make that point." It is certainly not jazz and rock and roll that he hates, as Orianna Fallaci has noted, not the usual stereotypes like chewing gum, hamburgers, Broadway or Hollywood. The "tangible" objects of that resentful hate are the skyscrapers, the science, the technology, the jumbo jets. Accustomed as the Westerners are to the double-cross, blinded as they are by myopia, they'd better understand that a war of religion is in progress:
A war that they call Jihad. Holy War. A war that might not seek to conquer our territory, but that certainly seeks to conquer our souls. That seeks the disappearance of our freedom and our civilization. That seeks to annihilate our way of living and dying, our way of praying or not praying, our way of eating and drinking and dressing and entertaining and informing ourselves. You don't understand or don't want to understand that if we don't oppose them, if we don't defend ourselves, if we don't fight, the Jihad will win. And it will destroy the world that for better or worse we've managed to build, to change, to improve, to render a little more intelligent, that is to say, less bigoted—or even not bigoted at all. And with that it will destroy our culture, our art, our science, our morals, our values, our pleasures.
Islam, a religion born of the desert, has created jihad and remains defined by jihad, its most important concept for the rest of the world. Through jihad Islam has emerged as a quasi-religious ideology of cultural and political imperialism that knows no natural limits to itself. Unlike the "just war" theory originated in Christian thinking, which has evolved into a secular concept instituted in international laws and codes, including the Geneva conventions, jihad is inherently religious as well as political: Islamic normative thinking does not separate the two. It has emerged from the desert and it perpetually creates new mental, psychic, spiritual, and literal deserts of whatever it touches.
Copyright 2002, www.ChroniclesMagazine.org
928 N. Main St., Rockford, IL 61103
BACK TO CHRONICLES EXTRA!


Tsar Wingert the Great.

Not to slam Christianity or anything, but have you even read your own Bible thoroughly? You have to see that almost EVERY word in the so-called "Good Book" contradicts itself. The Bible, for all intents and purposes, is a book of lies.

You cannot make such a claim and provide no examples. How can anyone rebut a point without any backup?


Has whatever god you serve ever shown himself to you? Has he ever shown you any proof of his existance? If not, then why do you follow him.

For a start, the Bible can be regarded as a proof. It is for all intents and purposes of a non-religious point of view, a historical document.


All religions are based on blind faith. Simple as that.

You clearly have never studied theology, apologetics or anchient history in any significent way then have you.


You people who follow the teachings of a so-called omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God need to question why?

The quote which best sums it up for the Christian faith is "God gave his all for my life, the apropriate response is to give all my life for him".


Why do we follow, hoping that He will show his face to us?

He has, in Jesus


Why do we spend our time confined in a church when we could be making the world better with that time?

Firstly, we dont spend all our time in Church. We spend a few hours there every week

Secondly, the Bible does have something very specific said to your point

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?

The Bible makes it clear. Faith without deeds is not real faith


Why do we have to do this? Why cant we have this, this and this?

That's all I want you people to do, is question your beliefs. Maybe you'll see why you shouldnt just follow blindly. You could be wasting your life slaving away just to get to a place that probably doesnt exist. Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, none of these places probably exist, so why waste your valuable time trying to get there, when you may never get your wish, to meet your precious "Lord."

I've said my piece for now, let's hear a rebuttal.

What would I be doing with my time in my faith. Volenteering for charity work, helping people out, working hard. A life lived in faith, even if the faith is misplaced is still a good life in most cases. No one would deny that what the Christian life commands you to do is a good life.

Terrific post. Christianity, as practised by so many of its followers is a religion of persecution. Never mind Muslim and Jew. How about single mothers in Ireland? How about the whitewashing of the perverse behaviour of certain priests in order to protect the image of the church at the expense of vulnerable children.


How about you just leave the rest of us alone, and we'll do the same?

Can you somehow link Conservative Christianity to the murder of over a 1000 Christians last year in North Korean prisons, who were arested for just being Christians. Or for the forced arrest of 10-11 Christians in Saudi Arabia for worshiping in private

From what I can tell, what you're really asking here is: Why do Muslims blow up Christians? A slightly veiled attempt at bringing more contempt for Muslims. I won't go into that, though, as it's completely preposterous and silly.

My answer: Frankly, you're "persecuted" because you won't keep your nose out of everyone's business. Every nation that is a "Christian" nation became so by being conquered. No nation was ever introduced to Christianity without its own culture and way of life first being decimated and demonized. Christianity conquered and was spread by the sword. For example, the destruction of native peoples in North and South America. No other religion in the world can be said to have done the same nor been so brutal in its spread ... not even Islam.

Once there, if quelled by the masses - such as in the case of the Constitution of the United States, guaranteeing freedom of religion for all - you eventually will find a way to drip your little bits of poison into the law that ensures your morality, and only your morality, is followed. I'm not talking about 600 years ago, either. I'm talking about right now, modern times, 2005. You prevent people from buying liquor on Sunday in certain States. Why? Because Sunday is *your* sabbath. You define marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman in certain States. Why? Because that is *your* definition.

When you learn to let grown people make their own desicions and live by their own morality, we will leave you alone. Until then, rest assured, many of us will continue to do everything in our power to ensure that you become the Universe's whipping boy. Not as an individual, mind you, but as a collective. I will not be satisfied until publicly admitting you're Christian is met with jeers and laughter all over the world. Do as your King commanded you and take your religion into the closet and leave us out of it, leave our laws out of it, leave my chosen lifestyle out of it, and leave my nature out of it. If I believed in your way, I would convert. Your daily attempts to legislate your Bible and, thus, imposing your will on me and my children only serves to make us hate you that much more.

As Leia said to Vader: The more you tighten your grip, the more systems will slip through your fingers.

Can you make any kind of historical link to Christian actions in the past, , and actions to Christians now in the prisons of North Korea, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Australia etc. Governments aresting Christians for being Christians. Rather than the rather hollow rhetorical link you have just shown.

I just thought that we should clear up a few things in this discussion.

A.My answer: Frankly, you're "persecuted" because you won't keep your nose out of everyone's business. Every nation that is a "Christian" nation became so by being conquered. No nation was ever introduced to Christianity without its own culture and way of life first being decimated and demonized. Christianity conquered and was spread by the sword. For example, the destruction of native peoples in North and South America. No other religion in the world can be said to have done the same nor been so brutal in its spread ... not even Islam.

But them darn Christians! They oppress everyone.
Um ... Rome, Great Britain, the US? This theory doesn't hold water at all.

You cannot make such a claim and provide no examples. How can anyone rebut a point without any backup?
Dislike having a taste of your own medicin?
For a start, the Bible can be regarded as a proof. It is for all intents and purposes of a non-religious point of view, a historical document.
?!
I should like to see you prove that.
You clearly have never studied theology, apologetics or anchient history in any significent way then have you.
Hmm.. Lemme see.. Would it be wrong to say that the 3 biggest monotheistic faiths have always revolved closely around the principle that true & honest faith springs from the heart and NOT from proof?
The quote which best sums it up for the Christian faith is "God gave his all for my life, the apropriate response is to give all my life for him".
Since you love talking about proof, how about you prove that statement?
He has, in Jesus
And you can show proof of Jesus being a real historical figure?
What would I be doing with my time in my faith. Volenteering for charity work, helping people out, working hard. A life lived in faith, even if the faith is misplaced is still a good life in most cases. No one would deny that what the Christian life commands you to do is a good life.
At least that's commendable, though I suspect I'd rather be grilled to death over a candle than getting help from a born-again.

Can you somehow link Conservative Christianity to the murder of over a 1000 Christians last year in North Korean prisons, who were arested for just being Christians. Or for the forced arrest of 10-11 Christians in Saudi Arabia for worshiping in private

No I'll leave twisting freedom of speech and thought to the religious and political extremists, thanks very much. Quite frankly, and " The Estenlands" posts not withstanding (to which I intend to reply after this), no one outdoes the religious zealoy quite like the political zealot. I'll grant you that secular political extremists have been worse over shorter periods of time, but frankly the point you fail to take on board is that they hated ALL religions equally, not only Christianity. To answer your question, I doubt if it has anything to do with NeoCons. What it has to do with is abuse of power. I'm sure that you will agree that not just Christians are being targetted in North Korea:

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news/press/13704.shtml

You might find this hard to believe , but I have every bit as much sympathy for the victims of oppression that you describe above as I do for homosexuals who are persecuted in many countries, and simply locked up for being who they are. Or for democrats, free speech advocates and religious minorities who were gunned down in Tianneman Square. Or for Sandanistas who were killed by Contras. The list, sadly, goes on and on.

But the trouble is Avalon, that Conservative Christianity, unlike the meek followers of Christ who are persecuted in the terms that you describe above, are part of the problem, not of the solution.
This can be proved by the attack on freedom of speech, freedom of association and repression of science advocated by the NeoCons in the "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave". They do not seek to destroy Islam, they seek to destroy opposition.

My own theory on this is that these people would be the Communists, Fascists or Muslim extremists in the countries where such extremism applies. Their beliefs are so dogmatic that provided they are supported by the powers that be, the actual strain of extremism becomes irrelevant.

Dislike having a taste of your own medicin?
t.
?!
I should like to see you prove that.

http://www.bigissueground.com/atheistground/minich-gospels.shtml

I dont really have time right now to go into detail, but this should give you something intersting to analysie. My problem with his post was that he put up the idea that the Bible is a book of lies and contrdictions without giving any examples or support for his point.

Um ... Rome, Great Britain, the US? This theory doesn't hold water at all.

I just wanted to piont out that the person that "quoted" me here completely misquoted. Or something. Or maybe just missed the piont. Or maybe I just don't understand why he posted such a strange repsonse to my writing after cutting much of out of context.

Tsar Wingert the Great.

I just wanted to piont out that the person that "quoted" me here completely misquoted. Or something. Or maybe just missed the piont. Or maybe I just don't understand why he posted such a strange repsonse to my writing after cutting much of out of context.

Tsar Wingert the Great.

You were quoting someone else and he quoted you quoting someone else, not realisng that you were quoting someone else. If you put the quote brackets around things, it would help. They look like this but remove the spaces

[ QUOTE=The name of the person your quoting ]

[ /QUOTE ]

Christians were the first to persecute the Muslims so many hundreds of years ago, so there. They brought on the Crusades and pretty much ruined their civilization, turning it into a hotbed for fundamentalism.

The above post contains only two sentences, but four lies.

It is up to the general members of the forum to identify the four lies.

Could be worse, you know.

I'm a fundamentalist Christian, and I feel I live a rather liberated lifestyle, and the people in my church don't go harass other people. Don't listen to Pat Robertson. Don't listen to Jerry Falwell.

We do a lot of good social work, both individually and as a group. And because we're quiet, you never hear about us. Which is ok by me.

You should be glad that so far, Christians aren't hijacking planes and flying them into buildings, or recruiting children as suicide bombers and paying their parents 25,000 dollars if the child succeeds in blowing up.

It takes an entirely different mindset to do something like that.

Could be worse, you know.

I'm a fundamentalist Christian, and I feel I live a rather liberated lifestyle, and the people in my church don't go harass other people. Don't listen to Pat Robertson. Don't listen to Jerry Falwell.

We do a lot of good social work, both individually and as a group. And because we're quiet, you never hear about us. Which is ok by me.

You should be glad that so far, Christians aren't hijacking planes and flying them into buildings, or recruiting children as suicide bombers and paying their parents 25,000 dollars if the child succeeds in blowing up.

It takes an entirely different mindset to do something like that.

No problems with any of that. Good on you. Unfortunately, as you say, this isn't the image of Christianity that people are familiar with. The very fact that you named Robertson and Falwell shows that, unfortunately, they are.

Wuh-buh-huh? Christians? Most persecuted??

Also, 'the treatment of christians is more important than abortion/gay marriage'? According to whom? Oh, right, I almost forgot who I was taking to.

1. Yes, Christianity suffers massive persecution through most of the Middle-East and Africa. More so than any other religion on the planet. While the European and American lot seem to have it easy (as does the lot of other religions in the same region), neither are actually representative of most of the rest of the planet.

2. If you were actually liberal, yes, the issue would be of a much higher importance. Ranking much closer to the concept of vehemence agaisnt old South African Aparteid... But your response is the normal response of someone who has been pampered in the cradle of western civilization; ignorant, oblivious, and uncaring of others outside of your home.

No problems with any of that. Good on you. Unfortunately, as you say, this isn't the image of Christianity that people are familiar with. The very fact that you named Robertson and Falwell shows that, unfortunately, they are.

Maybe you should learn that just because you see someone on TV or the news, doesn't mean they represent *all* of a certain group.

You were quoting someone else and he quoted you quoting someone else, not realisng that you were quoting someone else. If you put the quote brackets around things, it would help. They look like this but remove the spaces

[ QUOTE=The name of the person your quoting ]

[ /QUOTE ]

Thanx for clearing that up,

As for the two sentences, four lies thing, I am going to take a shot.

1.Christians were not the first to persecute Muslims, pagan Arabs were, and kicked Muhammed out of his home town of Medina for talking about his "crazy new faith."
2.The Crusades were brought on as a defense of Muslim encroachment of traditionally Christian lands, and slaughter of those people as well as Christian pilgrims, lands that had been nominally Christian for several centureis before Islam was invented.
3.Didn't ruin their civilization, didn't make much of a dent, really, and you may recall the Crusades weren't really that successful from a militray piont of view after the first one.
4.It was already a hotbed of fundamentalism, that is why they were slaughtering people of the pagan Arabic faiths in droves, and massacring Christians and Jews.


As for this idea that the Christians in other countries are somehow more "meek" than the "fundies that you talk about, have you even met them? I have, one of my best friends is from Sierra Leonne, where he was threatened with torture and death, as well as with having his wife and dughter taken into slavery and raped in front of his eyes, if he did not renouce Christ. He is one of the most unapolagetic and in your face Christians that there is. And almost everyone at the African church he attends is just as loud. He does not have the retraint of the average western Christian.


Tsar Wingert the Great.

Maybe you should learn that just because you see someone on TV or the news, doesn't mean they represent *all* of a certain group.

Woah there. I didn't say me. But unfortunately for you the likes of Falwell and Buchanan and Robertson tar your religion. Don't expect me to care about its reputation.
I'm not the one who's asking why the innocents are being persecuted. I actively campaign against torture and repression of anyone in the world, regardless of race, sex, religion or political persuasion. Ture, it's a matter for me of writing letters, taking part in marches and lobbying my MP. I'm sure I could do more.
Personally, they are all as valuable as each other. I wonder if the victim complex Christian right believe that?

As for this idea that the Christians in other countries are somehow more "meek" than the "fundies that you talk about, have you even met them? I have, one of my best friends is from Sierra Leonne, where he was threatened with torture and death, as well as with having his wife and dughter taken into slavery and raped in front of his eyes, if he did not renouce Christ. He is one of the most unapolagetic and in your face Christians that there is. And almost everyone at the African church he attends is just as loud. He does not have the retraint of the average western Christian.


Tsar Wingert the Great.

I assume this is directed at me.

By meek, I assumed that they followed the teachings of the book. Forgive my presumption.

It is interesting that you mention Sierra Leonne. My wife was raised there, and left only when the tribes started knocking seven bells out of each other. Again, I would say to you, have a look at the Amnesty website. I think you'll find that not only Christians are being persecuted in Freetown.

Woah there. I didn't say me. But unfortunately for you the likes of Falwell and Buchanan and Robertson tar your religion. Don't expect me to care about its reputation.
I'm not the one who's asking why the innocents are being persecuted. I actively campaign against torture and repression of anyone in the world, regardless of race, sex, religion or political persuasion. Ture, it's a matter for me of writing letters, taking part in marches and lobbying my MP. I'm sure I could do more.
Personally, they are all as valuable as each other. I wonder if the victim complex Christian right believe that?

I don't have a victim complex. I think that religions thrive despite persecution.

I don't have a victim complex. I think that religions thrive despite persecution.

I don't think for a minute that you do. But this is where these threads get extremely frustrating. The question relates to "why Christians are persecuted". I try to give a reason for why I don't beleive that Christians are persecuted more than other minorities in the countries where the are actively persecuted. I answer another question, specifically about the Christian right wing. I acknowledge that the way that you describe yourself would mean that (basically, to paraphrase, getting on with what you believe and allowing others to do the same), and you then tell me that you don't have a victim mentality?

This was a generalised question about Christians. I implied throughout my posts (with the exception of a response to Avalon) that Christianity differs widely in how it is taught and practiced. When I make a statement specifically about the victim complex Christian right, I assume (perhaps wrongly) that you know who I am refferring to. It was most certainly not you.

What about each person cultivating his own relationship with God?

Isn't that the most important issue?

It's connected to the issue. A religion suffering under persecution, contains people being denied this basic right (among others).

So, if you use this as an excuse to set the issue aside, it does not work.

Because they expect everyone to follow thier rules, and go to the goverment to make sure that they do.

That, and the whole thing is slightly silly anyway.

I don't. I'm a Christian, but I have a strong "to each his own" attitude.

More people have died in the name of religion throughout history. We laugh at the cavemen for worshipping the sun and moon but is modern religion any better? Our actions should be guided by a book written 2000 years ago? Would you want your doctor performing surgery based on a 2000 year old medical journal? Religion separates and causes more hate while each seems to profess love as its central core. Love for those who believe along the same lines and donate is how it is in reality. I say abolish all religion (not just Christianity) and we can all find other reasons to hate and persecute each other like eye color or taste in music (I'm gunning for you you blue-eyed country music fans).

http://www.bigissueground.com/atheistground/minich-gospels.shtml

I dont really have time right now to go into detail, but this should give you something intersting to analysie. My problem with his post was that he put up the idea that the Bible is a book of lies and contrdictions without giving any examples or support for his point.
I don't there's ever been any doubt that the Gospels were written when they were, or that the presence of Jesus in Jerusalem at that time was in any way a work of fiction on the part of writers. What has been called into question, however, is the sense in which the three Gospel writers approach the resurrection of Christ; which, according certainly to St Paul, is the defining moment of his career. There is inconsistency, vague allusion to other works and a distinct lack of content in the two synoptic discipular gospels on what could possibly be perceived as the most important moment of their careers.

What has also been called into question is the correlation between old and New testaments. Surely the only thing to define the Christian God explicitly as the Jewish one is the background into which Jesus was born and with which Paul viewed the Christ? The only reason to believe the Old testament has any relevance to the new is a purely cultural one, which is an interesting trait in a faith that doesn't claim to reject based on creed.

Yet another dubious aspect of the faith is the extent to which you deny the inherent human nature of NT scripture. According to many sections of the church, to claim something as Divinely inspired is to say the same thing as it is of direct Divine descent, and is therefore utterly flawless. So why aren't more biblical works written today? The second the LDS tried to come up with a few more, you accused them of debasing the value of the existing ones, as though the words of one divinely inspired human are of greater value than another's. The fact is that Paul in his writings had as much spiritual authority in his time as the Mormons do now. Some mormons might even argue less so, and they could even be right. Regardless of the origin of his spirituality, his works and ideas come as his personal response to God, and must be treated as thus rather than divine mandate. The same must go for John at least, and probably Matthew and Mark too, though there is evidence to suggest their motives to be based more on direct retelling rather than applied interpretation as in the later books.

Finally, of course, is the unfortunately open-ended nature of the tales. This might surprise you, but it is possible to generate all sorts of religio-political ideas from the three Synoptics. I have a way of demonstrating Jesus as a Systemist, in fact, that allows for both resurrection and lack of it. People have found ways to make Jesus stand for cultural oppression, people have found ways to make him stand for appeasement, people have found ways to make him stand for the Drink, Drugs and Rock 'n Roll lifestyle. So much can be formed from Gospel scripture that it really can put a dampener on anyone claiming to speak the truth in his name.

Don't get me wrong. I believe Jesus existed, and some of the things attributed to him are little pockets of wisdom that everyone should pay attention to. But there's more in Christianity to Jesus than that, and there just isn't enough rational backing even within scripture for many of those ideas.

Not to slam Christianity or anything, but have you even read your own Bible thoroughly?

Yes, I have.


You have to see that almost EVERY word in the so-called "Good Book" contradicts itself.

No, it doesn't.


The Bible, for all intents and purposes, is a book of lies.

Hmm, sounds like the rant of a fundamentalist.


I am just questioning Christian faith as a deist, a person who will not show faith in a god who has never shown his face.

You don't sound like much of a Deist then. More like an Atheist.


The Muslim Bible says to kill all non-believers, now we all know why they hate us and slaughter us like barbarians.

We know why some do, yes.


I still wonder why people follow the teachings of a book that was written by HUMAN hands. Fallible, imperfect, human hands.

This can be a charged levied upon more than the religious.


All religions are based on blind faith. Simple as that.

Faith yes, but not necessarily blind. Faith can be reasoned as well.


Has whatever god you serve ever shown himself to you?

Yes... Natural Revelation.


Has he ever shown you any proof of his existance?

Yes... Natural and Special Revelation.


You can call me an infidel, satanist, disbeliever, and someone who needs to see the light of God, that doesnt matter to me. You people who follow the teachings of a so-called omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God need to question why?

I have... I was not born into my faith.


Why do we follow, hoping that He will show his face to us? Why do we spend our time confined in a church when we could be making the world better with that time? Why do we have to do this? Why cant we have this, this and this?

Rhetorical....


That's all I want you people to do, is question your beliefs. Maybe you'll see why you shouldnt just follow blindly.

Questioning oneself can be a good thing. More people should so it often. You assume all religious is based upon blindness... Someone can be following not blindly.


You could be wasting your life slaving away just to get to a place that probably doesnt exist. Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, none of these places probably exist, so why waste your valuable time trying to get there, when you may never get your wish, to meet your precious "Lord."

If one "slaves" within their good works to get such reward, they likely will not receive it. My faith is not based upon the search for reward, but based upon love.

Could be worse, you know.

I'm a fundamentalist Christian, and I feel I live a rather liberated lifestyle, and the people in my church don't go harass other people. Don't listen to Pat Robertson. Don't listen to Jerry Falwell.

We do a lot of good social work, both individually and as a group. And because we're quiet, you never hear about us. Which is ok by me.

You should be glad that so far, Christians aren't hijacking planes and flying them into buildings, or recruiting children as suicide bombers and paying their parents 25,000 dollars if the child succeeds in blowing up.

It takes an entirely different mindset to do something like that.

You're a fundamentalist, though not a Fundamentalist... Unfortuneately the term has been hijacked; and in this regard I am sorry for you it has.

The fundamentalist movement, as it was born (and as you continue it); was very laudable. Though, a good chunk of it's initial force was abused for political gain in the form of modern Christian Fundamentalism (as found in the likes of Falwell and Robertson)... I am glad to see another old-order fundamentalist... You would make the second one I've seen over my years as a Christian.

You're a fundamentalist, though not a Fundamentalist... Unfortuneately the term has been hijacked; and in this regard I am sorry for you it has.

The fundamentalist movement, as it was born (and as you continue it); was very laudable. Though, a good chunk of it's initial force was abused for political gain in the form of modern Christian Fundamentalism (as found in the likes of Falwell and Robertson)... I am glad to see another old-order fundamentalist... You would make the second one I've seen over my years as a Christian.

I found through personal experience that handing out tracts and haranguing people about their lifestyle isn't the way to get the message across.

You have to be living proof that the message works. Living in Christ doesn't mean you have to live the life of an ascetic, nor does it mean that you are required to criticize and needle everyone else.

Here's a thought experiment for everyone, Christian or not.

As you walk through a public area (work, shopping area, metro, anywhere) and you see people, count them silently in your head until you've seen 100 faces.

If you're lucky, you probably didn't see anyone who was obviously down and out - just normal Western urban and suburban dwellers going about their lives.

But you can bet that a fair number of them are currently dealing with issues far beyond money or food - and are going through some of the hardest moments in their lives.

I figure if I can help one person who asks for help, I'm doing something good. They don't have to believe in God to get help from me - but if they ask, I can show them what a difference it has made to me.

Being a positive example works far better than shouting to be heard.

What has been called into question, however, is the sense in which the three Gospel writers approach the resurrection of Christ; which, according certainly to St Paul, is the defining moment of his career. There is inconsistency, vague allusion to other works and a distinct lack of content in the two synoptic discipular gospels on what could possibly be perceived as the most important moment of their careers.

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Andy/Resurrection/harmony.html

I think this site makes a clear point about the resurection, and what the Gospels say about it


What has also been called into question is the correlation between old and New testaments. Surely the only thing to define the Christian God explicitly as the Jewish one is the background into which Jesus was born and with which Paul viewed the Christ? The only reason to believe the Old testament has any relevance to the new is a purely cultural one, which is an interesting trait in a faith that doesn't claim to reject based on creed.

The Old Testement makes over 300 prophetic refrences to Jesus's arrival and all of them are fufilled in his life. And Jesus constantly refers back to the Old Testement in his teaching

http://biblia.com/jesusbible/prophecies.htm


Yet another dubious aspect of the faith is the extent to which you deny the inherent human nature of NT scripture. According to many sections of the church, to claim something as Divinely inspired is to say the same thing as it is of direct Divine descent, and is therefore utterly flawless. So why aren't more biblical works written today? The second the LDS tried to come up with a few more, you accused them of debasing the value of the existing ones, as though the words of one divinely inspired human are of greater value than another's. The fact is that Paul in his writings had as much spiritual authority in his time as the Mormons do now. Some mormons might even argue less so, and they could even be right. Regardless of the origin of his spirituality, his works and ideas come as his personal response to God, and must be treated as thus rather than divine mandate. The same must go for John at least, and probably Matthew and Mark too, though there is evidence to suggest their motives to be based more on direct retelling rather than applied interpretation as in the later books.

Firstly, there are 9 problems with LDS

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/decide2.html#musmon

1. Have we located any of the cities in the BOM ("Book of Mormon")? He answers "No".
2. Have we found any BOM names in New World inscriptions? He answers "No".
3. Have we found any Hebrew inscriptions in America? "No"
4. Well, have we found any Egyptian inscriptions in America? "No".
5. How about anything even resembling Egyptian? "Not really"
6. Did we find any ancient copies of the BOM? "Not so far".
7. Have anthropologists found any ancient Native American cultures who held Jewish or Christian beliefs? "No, but I am still optimistic".
8. Has ANY mention of previously unknown BOM persons, places, or nations been found ANYWHERE? "Not that I know of..."
9. Do we have any reason to believe that Native Americans are really of Semitic stock? "No."

And on your comments about Paul

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/musly1.html

http://www.brfwitness.org/Articles/1991v26n5.htm


Finally, of course, is the unfortunately open-ended nature of the tales. This might surprise you, but it is possible to generate all sorts of religio-political ideas from the three Synoptics. I have a way of demonstrating Jesus as a Systemist, in fact, that allows for both resurrection and lack of it. People have found ways to make Jesus stand for cultural oppression, people have found ways to make him stand for appeasement, people have found ways to make him stand for the Drink, Drugs and Rock 'n Roll lifestyle. So much can be formed from Gospel scripture that it really can put a dampener on anyone claiming to speak the truth in his name.

I'd like to see some of these interpretations of Jesus's words, it sounds interesting

i'll give you some intelligent discussion...i am a christian, and everybody who knows me knows it, but beyond some teasing and glibe remarks about my faith, and my unwillingness to "have fun" (i love having fun, i just don't think "fun" and "hot gay sex in a bathroom" are synonymous...eww), there isn't really any persecution...having said that, i have been on an international missions trip, and the persecution there was ridiculous...most countries that "are christian" (like costa rica for example, 98% catholic) aren't actually. the cesuses tend to lie about faith...you ask people on the street (in costa rica) "do you believe in God?" "ya, sure" "did you know jesus loves you?" "really? what are you smoking? *bam*" "*limps away* ow, my face!".....it's actually kinda funny/sad/depressing. anyways, whenever there's some guy who's openly muslim, people make a show of being politely interested and respecting his faith and all. whenever people find out i have a bible in my backpack, they "spill" their pop on it and dump it in the garbage. "oops, sorry, i defiled your bible...gues you won't be wanting this any more!" it's really depressing...and then of course, there's the NS forums, where you get mocked for believing a bunch of fairytales everytime people hear you're saved. that's all i really have to say right now...bye everybody!

<anti-christian rant>
This is great stuff, a muslim lecturing christians on persecution. At least christians have actually left the dark ages and tend not to go for full on persecution any more. Muslims on the other hand aren't content with ruling their own societies, they want to turn the western world into a giant taliban state.

This is great stuff, a muslim lecturing christians on persecution. At least christians have actually left the dark ages and tend not to go for full on persecution any more. Muslims on the other hand aren't content with ruling their own societies, they want to turn the western world into a giant taliban state.

A more precise way of saying it is that Christianity left the doctrine of "positive violence" - i.e., making war in the name of Christianity - in the dustbin of history.

It's alive, well, and strong in Islam. Not all Muslims, but more than enough to make it a big problem.

Actually, I've never seen someone bash a Muslim (Or even a Buddhist, or Hindu.) for their beliefs. Jews, though? That's kind of obvious. But still, my point stands.
And I've never been bashed for being areligious by a muslim or a hindhu.
I'm agnostic, ok, and what I like to do boards is jump on the side of whichever side is under attack and point out crappy arguments on either side. I rarely find myself having to jump onto the christian side, more often than not, I'm defending atheism/agnosticism/buddhism/hindhuism (less often islam, I don't know enough about it to defend it properly) from the christians. Given the nature of the online world, people are going to fire back at such attacks and christians tend to scream persecution the second anyone does so. Meanwhile, 90% of the time, they're the ones who initiated the whole mudslinging campaign against someone else.
Now, I'm not saying that it's a good reason to attack anyone, I'm just saying that if you sit there and start to launch insults, you should expect some to be hurtled your way too. It just seems that the christians are fond of imagining themselves to be persecuted, so they go off about how they are personally persecuted for their beliefs.

Furthermore, in real life, I have discussed religion with many different groups of people, be they muslims, christians, jews, pagans et c (not so much hindhus and buddhists... they tend to be harder to draw into such lines of conversation and there are fewer of them around here anyways) and I have in my entire life encountered like two people who weren't christian who either put me down for my beleifs or tried to sway me to the other side... and they were atheists. Everyone else couldn't give a flying fuck or were interested in discussion rather than conversion.
That's not to say that every christian is out to convert, I've encountered many who are genuinely nice people and enjoy religious discussion without trying to persuade someone else to believe as they do. But they're not the ones screaming persecution either.

Ever try to talk to an anti-religious person? You'll find after a little bit that most, if not all, of their angst is directed towards Christians.
As I said, this is likely due to the fact that most other religious groups don't try to force their opinion on others.
I mean, you'll hear me rant about the jehovah's witnesses, but not the mormons. Why? Jehovahs go to your house and harass you and try to get you to go along with their religion even after you've politely declined their offers. The mormons wish you a nice day after you politely decline.

A more precise way of saying it is that Christianity left the doctrine of "positive violence" - i.e., making war in the name of Christianity - in the dustbin of history.

It's alive, well, and strong in Islam. Not all Muslims, but more than enough to make it a big problem.
I agree with you that only a tiny minority of muslims aim towards an all-out war against the west. But I personally consider the 'law-abiding' muslims in this country even more dangerous than the terrorists. The terrorists will kill only a few people, and it won't bring them any further in their objectives. The 'law abiding' muslims have the potential to destroy our society from within.

A more precise way of saying it is that Christianity left the doctrine of "positive violence" - i.e., making war in the name of Christianity - in the dustbin of history.

It's alive, well, and strong in Islam. Not all Muslims, but more than enough to make it a big problem.
I wouldn't say that it's strong in islam.
No more than I'd say the christians blowing up abortion clinics are representing the strong feelings of christianity. The majority of muslims are rational, sane and often nice people. Like the majority of christians. There is a small minority that goes to such extremes and they are generally condemned by the community at large, whether you choose to listen to their condemnations of such behaviour is however, up to you.

The 'law abiding' muslims have the potential to destroy our society from within.
Oh, I woudl love an explanation here...

I can't think of a religion that has done more harm and more evil in its own name than chrisitianity. to my (limited) knowledge no other religion has converted as many people by force nor has any other religion splintered into so many differnt sects over mostly minor disagreements. maybe this is the backlash that christianity has had coming.

Oh, I woudl love an explanation here...
I can't see Islam ever overrunning the west through brute force. Militarily, they could never succeed and we are easily capale of destroying them. All these terrorist attacks could do is increase hatred and resentment towards muslims. The law-abiding ones, one the other hand are a more elusive enemy. When they live alongside us and even be friends with us, it gives people are far less hostile view of them. They would be seen as normal people, and the general public would not realise the threat before them. This means that as the proportion of muslims in the population grows (As is happening now, through birth rates and uncontrolled immigration), they could eventually become a majority.

Muslims could make 51% of the population, and the indiginous population would have been too complacent, and too brainwashed with the ideas of multiculturalism and religious tolerance to have done anything about it. If that happens, then we can prepare for the Islamic Republic of Britain.

I think it's cute that when a Muslim says something about Christianity, the only way the Christians can respond is with incorrect, stereotyped, and completely ignorant statements against Islam.

Reason #785 why I hate Christians: It is impossible for them to talk about their religion without first pointing out how much another religion is worse.

You'll notice I didn't say thing one about the greatness of Islam, I merely answered the question and was met with typical Christian grotesqueries. Thank you for proving my point. Now, like I said: Do as your King commanded you and take your religion into the closet.

Muslims could make 51% of the population, and the indiginous population would have been too complacent, and too brainwashed with the ideas of multiculturalism and religious tolerance to have done anything about it. If that happens, then we can prepare for the Islamic Republic of Britain.

I don't understand what you're saying here ....

Are you saying Muslims shouldn't be allowed to breed? Are you saying that there's no such thing as a good and decent Muslim? Are you saying that there's no way to reconcile being Muslim in a Western society?

Maybe you should clarify.

I think it's cute that when a Muslim says something about Christianity, the only way the Christians can respond is with incorrect, stereotyped, and completely ignorant statements against Islam.

Reason #785 why I hate Christians: It is impossible for them to talk about their religion without first pointing out how much another religion is worse.

You'll notice I didn't say thing one about the greatness of Islam, I merely answered the question and was met with typical Christian grotesqueries. Thank you for proving my point. Now, like I said: Do as your King commanded you and take your religion into the closet.
Don't make presumptions that everybody who found your statement hypocritical has to be a christian. I'm an athiest but even I found that rant amusing.

I can't see Islam ever overrunning the west through brute force. Militarily, they could never succeed and we are easily capale of destroying them. All these terrorist attacks could do is increase hatred and resentment towards muslims. The law-abiding ones, one the other hand are a more elusive enemy. When they live alongside us and even be friends with us, it gives people are far less hostile view of them. They would be seen as normal people, and the general public would not realise the threat before them. This means that as the proportion of muslims in the population grows (As is happening now, through birth rates and uncontrolled immigration), they could eventually become a majority.
Perhaps because muslims are normal people?
Perhaps we are all human beings who deserve equal treatment and freedoms and rights?
See, you're a christian I wouldn't place in the "good, tolerant person" category. You're as bad as the assholes encouraging people to fly planes into buildings and blow themselves up on a crowded bus.

Muslims could make 51% of the population, and the indiginous population would have been too complacent, and too brainwashed with the ideas of multiculturalism and religious tolerance to have done anything about it. If that happens, then we can prepare for the Islamic Republic of Britain.
Which is why it's important to enforce a separation of religion from government as well as to hold high the values of tolerance and religious freedoms. If these are so enshrined in the culture, then no one would dare to take those away. Furthermore, seeing as religion is slowly dying off in the developped world, even among immigrants from less developped areas, I don't think you have to worry about muslims taking over britan... :rolleyes:

Can you somehow link Conservative Christianity to the murder of over a 1000 Christians last year in North Korean prisons, who were arested for just being Christians. Or for the forced arrest of 10-11 Christians in Saudi Arabia for worshiping in private
Can you provide some evidence that christianity is the only religion persecuted in either country?
It seems to me that in North Korea, all religions are persecuted, while in Saudi Arabia, all non-islamic religions are persecuted. Christianity isn't special in either instance.

I don't understand what you're saying here ....

Are you saying Muslims shouldn't be allowed to breed? Are you saying that there's no such thing as a good and decent Muslim? Are you saying that there's no way to reconcile being Muslim in a Western society?

Maybe you should clarify.
I don't think you can prohibit people from breeding, even if they are muslim. But yes, despite how decent a particular muslim may seen, I could never trust one to be a decent person. And I believe islam and the west will always be incompatible with each other.

Perhaps because muslims are normal people?
Perhaps we are all human beings who deserve equal treatment and freedoms and rights?
See, you're a christian I wouldn't place in the "good, tolerant person" category. You're as bad as the assholes encouraging people to fly planes into buildings and blow themselves up on a crowded bus.
I'm no christian, I'm an athiest. Don't make presumptions.

Which is why it's important to enforce a separation of religion from government as well as to hold high the values of tolerance and religious freedoms. If these are so enshrined in the culture, then no one would dare to take those away. Furthermore, seeing as religion is slowly dying off in the developped world, even among immigrants from less developped areas, I don't think you have to worry about muslims taking over britan... :rolleyes:
The ideas of secularism and religious tolerance will only be listened to by muslims when they're in the minority. As soon as they'd make up more than 50% of the population I'm sure they'd conveniently forget these principles. As for religion dying in the developed world, only christianity is. Militant islam has taken far more of a grip among muslims in Britain than decades ago, when the religion was more moderate.

When people say Christians in this forum, and indead in most discussion groups and forums, people think of white Europeans or Americans of a middle class background. However the avarage Christian is not living in either of these countries/continents and speaks a non-European language. And more to the point, it is the single most persecuted religous group in the world. I would therefore ask if anyone can think

The constant whining. Bohhoooohooo...we are persecuted....we never persecuted anyone....we are the victims.....bohooohoohoo....the same strategy makes the Jews and Muslims so immensly popular. (note my sarcasm.)
Furthermore. Lot's of X-tina's happen to live in central and south America. About 400+ million or so. And unless I'm mistaking they speak Spanish or Portugese for the most part.

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Andy/Resurrection/harmony.html

I think this site makes a clear point about the resurection, and what the Gospels say about it
It does indeed. Shockingly little, is the answer to that. Three chapters in the entire Synopsis? Check out Matthew 28 in the context of an entire pair of chapters discussing his arrest and execution. Check out that in parallel to Mark 16, looking at the similar context (which curiously enough has appeared in its earliest forms sans verses 9-20, and according to my NIV Study bible may have actually ended at verse 8 with the others tagged on at the end by other writers). While Luke goes into a little more detail, his account does seem to require placing Jesus in multiple locations at any given time and puts immense doubts as to this reborn Jesus's physicality. And as for John, well, he puts himself in the picture far more centrally than other witness would ignore and reports ideas that nobody else has. His claim to be the Disciple that Jesus loved doubly harms his case; he would be the most likely to either be lying or to believe stories of Jesus's resurrection without necessarily having evidence of them.

The thing is, if this meeting with him afterwards was so mindblowingly important, why does the retelling create these unusual contrasts? Something like that stays in memory. Why don't Mark and Matthew engage in what they're saying? The sheer abruptness of their Gospel is a cause for concern; did they really believe what was being said? Or were they just relating tales? It really does seem like the post-resurrection Jesus is little more than an afterthought to both of them.

The Old Testement makes over 300 prophetic refrences to Jesus's arrival and all of them are fufilled in his life. And Jesus constantly refers back to the Old Testement in his teaching

http://biblia.com/jesusbible/prophecies.htm
Of course Jesus would refer back to the Old Testament. That was his culture. People knew things in terms of the Jewish teachings. Were he to come into the middle east in the modern age, he would quote the Koran.

And as for the Prophets, while I'm sure there are others that are more convincing, a number of those you suggested surround either circumstances of Jesus's birth of which no great deal was made during his life and we only have discipular accounts, or of those with whom the Church would have had a beef anyway and could therefore include in spite, and of which we may therefore be skeptical. A number of those Jesus explicitly set out himself to fulfil (donkey, parablic oration and so on) and yet more weren't really prophecies; the Psalms are just works of art dedicated to the glory of God! While possibly inspiring, they're not prophetic, and were never supposed to be.

Firstly, there are 9 problems with LDS

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/decide2.html#musmon
Ooh, thanks. My point was supposed to illustrate how different things that seem divinely inspired by one group can seem like raw fabrications by another. Here we have a perfect case study. Just because the LDS feel strongly that their inspiration for their ideas was divine doesn't mean that their writings are of divine edict. Similarly, when someone writes a book, that book is of his own design, regardless of whether or not he was inspired by God to write it. It's just not reasonable to apply divine infalliability to human scripture, no matter what it's about.

And on your comments about Paul

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/musly1.html

http://www.brfwitness.org/Articles/1991v26n5.htm
Wow, I do have to read a lot of material to discuss these things with you, don't I? =P

Anyway, your second one is a shining example of realisation. It is only through the Epistles that you can derive the Christian message as it stands today. And yet, the author wears that banner with pride. Paul is as valid as Jesus, he claims and demands. As he has been inspired by God, his ideas and works are unquestionable and infalliable.

I've had to cut my answer to this one down a little, but I'll let you read my final piece some other time.

What it all boils down to is that Jesus made some immensely challenging assertions for his day that would have had the potential to really make people think about the nature of God and this Kingdom, and how people needed to form a relationship with God Himself rather than focusing on a representative identity of Religion on earth and devoting themselves to that. Paul? Took Jesus and made a Religion out of him. Not just any religion, but a religion based on the very faith that Jesus came to criticise; right down to the part about sucking up to God to be a part of a kingdom within which satanic oppression is no longer a problem, even going so far as to append a little section on what happens if you Don't make this kingdom. And not once did he ever consider what implications Jesus being the son of God had on the nature of God himself; not once did he ever wonder about the existence of the God that had previously driven him to lord over the stoning of Stephen.

If ever anyone could interpret Jesus in a more Ironic manner than that, I... would have to applaud their highly overactive imagination... >_>;

I'd like to see some of these interpretations of Jesus's words, it sounds interesting
I'm working on a paper of my own on that little idea; it should be done by Christmas, when I'll be able to take time to really focus on the issue. In the meantime, there're quite a few sources on the subject, but most of them are in novel form that are actually taken from a skeptical Atheist point of view. If you're keen, check out When Jesus Became God (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0156013150/104-3697771-8623108?v=glance&n=283155&%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance); it's an interesting insight into the necessity of human interpretation in order to arrive at the divinity solution currently accepted by the faith.

I don't think you can prohibit people from breeding, even if they are muslim. But yes, despite how decent a particular muslim may seen, I could never trust one to be a decent person. And I believe islam and the west will always be incompatible with each other.
Maybe militant islam is,but i doubt islam is.


The ideas of secularism and religious tolerance will only be listened to by muslims when they're in the minority. As soon as they'd make up more than 50% of the population I'm sure they'd conveniently forget these principles. As for religion dying in the developed world, only christianity is. Militant islam has taken far more of a grip among muslims in Britain than decades ago, when the religion was more moderate.

So muslims are slowly going to invade,breed and then take over.

does anyone else smell a parnoid delusion,or did i step in something nasty on my way in?

I stand by my earlier statement, and agree with another one posted earlier. I would like to see someone prove that Jesus Christ existed in history, using sources outside the Bible, which was written by humans. And again, all I want people to do, is question their beliefs. I do not want to incite religious rebellion, holy war, or anything that could result from such actions. I am merely suggesting that you take a look at your beliefs, and the beliefs of your ancestors and see where their beliefs got them. I dont believe in working toward a end which may not exist. I believe in living life to the fullest, not spending it confined by theological laws. Why follow so-called "God's Doctrines and Laws" when he may not exist or have the ability to punish you for not following his wishes to the letter?

And to all the zealots and others who want everyone to see their way of thinking, shut the fuck up. So many people have heard of my beliefs and for some reason that motivates them to come to my door, and try to shove their Bible, Quran, Jewish Bible, etc. into my house. I'm sorry, but it's the fault of people who think everyone needs to follow their god, their way of thinking, their way of life, that need to die. These zealots need to die, because they are the ones who cause problems, no one else. Muslim, Christian, Jew, Orthodox, Buddhist, Pagan, Atheist, anyone who believes the world is going to hell until they all follow their beliefs need to die. I am going to throw the next person who comes to my door trying to get me to convert to their religion out my 3 story window. I dont care if the cops come to my house. I'm Deist, I will not follow ANY faith blindly like sheep. Anyone who does, you are sheep. Pure and simple.

I stand by my earlier statement, and agree with another one posted earlier. I would like to see someone prove that Jesus Christ existed in history, using sources outside the Bible, which was written by humans.
While I don't think this was targetted at me, I do feel it worth noting that such evidence is intrinsically impossible to give for one simple reason. The second anything like it arises, the Church overplays it, engulfs it and canonises it, resulting in abject ridicule on the part of any external observer.

That's not saying it doesn't exist. Just that if it did, and people found out, it would suddenly cease to be historically valid evidence.

I stand by my earlier statement, and agree with another one posted earlier. I would like to see someone prove that Jesus Christ existed in history, using sources outside the Bible, which was written by humans. And again, all I want people to do, is question their beliefs. I do not want to incite religious rebellion, holy war, or anything that could result from such actions. I am merely suggesting that you take a look at your beliefs, and the beliefs of your ancestors and see where their beliefs got them.

Doubt is part of all religion. All the religious thinkers were doubters

I question my beliefs all the time. I analyise, I study, I learn. It only ultimately renforces what I know. I ask questions "why is Paul considered important", "Is the attitude to women out of date" etc but utlimately I have been shown the answers to these and many more in the bible, either by my own work, or through the help of my friends who had simmilar doubts.


I dont believe in working toward a end which may not exist. I believe in living life to the fullest, not spending it confined by theological laws. Why follow so-called "God's Doctrines and Laws" when he may not exist or have the ability to punish you for not following his wishes to the letter?

What exactly am I giving up by following God's rules, and his way of life. You dont understand the Christian belief system. Christians arn't employees in some kind of Corperation with God as the boss and we get paid with heaven at the end as a salary if we've done enough good deeds. The Christian belief system is a response of love. God loved us enough to send his son to die for us, so we (Christians) show our love for him by obeying his commands. "How is obeying his commands showing love for him?" you ask? Well how does a child show it loves its father. By buying him presents? By doing as he asks.


I will not follow ANY faith blindly like sheep. Anyone who does, you are sheep. Pure and simple.

Paul wrote this
1 Thesolonians: 5:21 "Critically examine everything, hold on to the good"

Any Christian who is blind about their faith is a poor Christian. God gave us minds to use and analyise things with. He invites us to analyise him, to look at him.

Christianity is complained about so much because, like the rest of the world and America, it is fun to have a group of people to blame for everything. The probem, of course, is that because there have been so many Christians, there are always going to be the bad ones who destroy the reputation of the rest of the religion.

When people say Christians in this forum, and indead in most discussion groups and forums, people think of white Europeans or Americans of a middle class background. However the avarage Christian is not living in either of these countries/continents and speaks a non-European language. And more to the point, it is the single most persecuted religous group in the world. I would therefore ask if anyone can think

A. Of a good reason why this is the case
B. Of what should be done about it by other groups
C. Why it is being ignored by the Christian governments in America and Europe who are more concerned with abortion/gay marriage (I agree these are important issues but not nearly as important as the treatment of Christians throught the world)

http://www.persecution.org/newsite/index.php

http://www.christianpersecution.info/

http://www.greaterthings.com/News/Christian/Persecution/



This article is from the Spectator, which is not a Christian production. It is a current affairs magazine edited by Boris Johnson MP.

They are the most persecuted only if you count any persecution against a person who counts themselves as Christian as persecution against Christians and if you count in such a way then Christians are the single most persecuting group in the world as well.

Here's my list of Christians persecuting others:

Christians force their rules on a population of 300 Million restricting religious freedom - freedom to marry, being forced to endorse Christianity (In God We Trust, One Nation Under God), not be allowed to be educated in science (Intelligent Design)

US Christians attack TWO Muslim countries and replace their government

Christians who sit on the UN refuse to help when millions of men, women and children are hacked to death by machetes

US President declares himself appointed by God



See how propaganda works both ways. Let's not be silly.

I question my beliefs all the time. I analyise, I study, I learn. It only ultimately renforces what I know. I ask questions "why is Paul considered important", "Is the attitude to women out of date" etc but utlimately I have been shown the answers to these and many more in the bible, either by my own work, or through the help of my friends who had simmilar doubts.



What exactly am I giving up by following God's rules, and his way of life. You dont understand the Christian belief system. Christians arn't employees in some kind of Corperation with God as the boss and we get paid with heaven at the end as a salary if we've done enough good deeds. The Christian belief system is a response of love. God loved us enough to send his son to die for us, so we (Christians) show our love for him by obeying his commands. "How is obeying his commands showing love for him?" you ask? Well how does a child show it loves its father. By buying him presents? By doing as he asks.



Paul wrote this
1 Thesolonians: 5:21 "Critically examine everything, hold on to the good"

Any Christian who is blind about their faith is a poor Christian. God gave us minds to use and analyise things with. He invites us to analyise him, to look at him.

You analyzed your faith and in it you found that you should be permitted to force your beliefs on others in law? Hmmmm... perhaps you should dig a little deeper.

<snip> Any Christian who is blind about their faith is a poor Christian. God gave us minds to use and analyise things with. He invites us to analyise him, to look at him.

I disagree. God gives some people the mind to question, study and explore their faith, and there are others who are given a predispostion to love God and believe in him from a "blind faith" point of view. I don't think you can say that someone who has never doubted, explored or analysed their faith, and still loves and believes in God unconditionally, can be called a poor Christian.

You analyzed your faith and in it you found that you should be permitted to force your beliefs on others in law? Hmmmm... perhaps you should dig a little deeper.

My beliefs on abortion come from an ethical standpoint not a religious one. But think about it for a second from my stand point. Suppose you do believe (as I do) that Abortion is murder. Can you see why I would want it enacted in law. But lets not turn this into an abortion thread

I'm no christian, I'm an athiest. Don't make presumptions.
Fine then, you're one of those asshole atheists that the christians bitch about, happy?

The ideas of secularism and religious tolerance will only be listened to by muslims when they're in the minority. As soon as they'd make up more than 50% of the population I'm sure they'd conveniently forget these principles. As for religion dying in the developed world, only christianity is. Militant islam has taken far more of a grip among muslims in Britain than decades ago, when the religion was more moderate.
Oh, woudl you fuck off with your bigotry, please.

I disagree. God gives some people the mind to question, study and explore their faith, and there are others who are given a predispostion to love God and believe in him from a "blind faith" point of view. I don't think you can say that someone who has never doubted, explored or analysed their faith, and still loves and believes in God unconditionally, can be called a poor Christian.

I dont think you apreicate my use of the word 'poor' in this context. I dont mean poor as in bad (IE good, fairly good, avarage, poor). I mean poor in the context of not rich. I believe you can have a much richer and fuller spiritual life if you doubt and question. I agree that some people are not given that predispostion but I think they can still go against their predispostion.

My beliefs on abortion come from an ethical standpoint not a religious one. But think about it for a second from my stand point. Suppose you do believe (as I do) that Abortion is murder. Can you see why I would want it enacted in law. But lets not turn this into an abortion thread

Actually, I wasn't talking solely about abortion. You believe in encasing your beliefs in law, not just abortion beliefs but all of them. And if you think YOUR beliefs belong in law you should probably study Jesus just a bit more. He wouldn't agree with you.

Either way I think it's amusing to complain about Christian persecution in a world that has been dominated by Christians for the last several hundred years.

Here's my list of Christians persecuting others:

Christians force their rules on a population of 300 Million restricting religious freedom - freedom to marry, being forced to endorse Christianity (In God We Trust, One Nation Under God), not be allowed to be educated in science (Intelligent Design).

Firstly, in the case's of "in God we trust" and "one nation, under God", you dont have to say them if you dont want to. You can just remain silent for that section of the pledge. Secondly, the phrase is "freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Thirdly, in the case of intellegent design, most people are asking for a parallel course to be run, not for it to be taught unilatrally. Fourthly, marriage arguably not a right, and people of any political/religious persuasion have the right to lobby the government on anything they want.


US Christians attack TWO Muslim countries and replace their government

Fifthly, both countries are remaining Muslim, they just arent dictatorships commiting terrible acts anymore, or helping those who do. Sixthly, do you seriously believe that Bush went to Iraq and Afghanistan to spread the Gospel?


Christians who sit on the UN refuse to help when millions of men, women and children are hacked to death by machetes

Seventhly, you would be making a simmilar criticism of the American government if they didnt go to war in Iraq. They would have been letting the Kurds die.


US President declares himself appointed by God.

Eigthly, have you seen him use this excuse to alter the democratic process to give himself more power? All the checks and balances of the American system are still intact as far as I can see.

Now you look at the persecution of Christians around the world in the article I presented. It hardly compares

I dont think you apreicate my use of the word 'poor' in this context. I dont mean poor as in bad (IE good, fairly good, avarage, poor). I mean poor in the context of not rich. I believe you can have a much richer and fuller spiritual life if you doubt and question. I agree that some people are not given that predispostion but I think they can still go against their predispostion.

Again, people like you and I might say that, but people like you and me have probably not experienced the richness od faith that comes from blind faith rather than from an intellectual one.

Actually, I wasn't talking solely about abortion. You believe in encasing your beliefs in law, not just abortion beliefs but all of them. And if you think YOUR beliefs belong in law you should probably study Jesus just a bit more. He wouldn't agree with you.

You dont know me. You dont know enough about what I believe. I dont believe that Christianity should be legislated. I believe that Christian morals are a good stand point to legislate from but I dont believe that it should be against the law to not be a Christian for example


Either way I think it's amusing to complain about Christian persecution in a world that has been dominated by Christians for the last several hundred years.

It is being peresecuted the most against, whether you find it ammusing or not.

Either way I think it's amusing to complain about Christian persecution in a world that has been dominated by Christians for the last several hundred years.

And two wrongs make a right?

Firstly, in the case's of "in God we trust" and "one nation, under God", you dont have to say them if you dont want to.
So you don't have to use currency if you don't want to?

Secondly, the phrase is "freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
I don't see how you can have one without the other. If people choose to have no religion, than they should be able to be free from religion.

[quoye]Thirdly, in the case of intellegent design, most people are asking for a parallel course to be run, not for it to be taught unilatrally. [/quote]
That is bullshit. They want to undermine the science. Intelligent design is religion, not science, it does not belong in a science classroom. End of story.

Seventhly, you would be making a simmilar criticism of the American government if they didnt go to war in Iraq. They would have been letting the Kurds die.
Right, because they're so much better off not.

Now you look at the persecution of Christians around the world in the article I presented. It hardly compares
It doesnt' change the fact that most religions are persecuted in the articles you presented, not just christianity.

What about the place in Africa where the christians went through and slaughtered a village full of muslims last year?

You dont know me. You dont know enough about what I believe. I dont believe that Christianity should be legislated. I believe that Christian morals are a good stand point to legislate from but I dont believe that it should be against the law to not be a Christian for example

That's not the only thing that could be legislated. I don't have to know you. Were you lying when you said the government should be permitted to force women to be incubators because of your personal beliefs that you've been struggling to encapsulate for 2000 posts? Were you lying when you said that the government should be allowed to force people to undergo surgery to donate organs to others because of YOUR personal beliefs? I don't believe you were. SO I don't have to know you in order to make a decision on the fact that you would like to have your beliefs forced upon others through law and if you think that can be found in your faith, you're wrong.

It is being peresecuted the most against, whether you find it ammusing or not.

One s and I find the idea amusing, I find the link to be propaganda which is really easy to produce when you're only trying to show people one side of the argument and skewing that side to your will. I gave you an example in my first post in the thread. Propaganda is hardly useful.

what comes to mind when u think about Christians? hmm i think about all of the hardcore bible tumping converters ive bumped into. the "god warriors". now to be blunt, they piss me right the hell off. what about thinking of the jews? holocaust. personal suffering. muslims? u think of those extremists. terrorists. mormons? that funny south park episode plus the small minded mini mormons running around my school proclaiming the american jesus. so to answer the question, why is Christianity being bashed worldwide? because of all the assholish extemists. stereotyping. fitting an entire race or religion under one banner. so all i got to say to this topic is come off your cross, we need the wood.

Yes, Christianity has appeared to dominate, but look at how the world is changing. The world today seems to be against everything Christian, morals and everything else that even hints at it. Christians are forbidden to speak of their faith or pray at school, yet Muslims or any other kind of religion can be freely talked about and if we say otherwise then we are not being constitutional. How then, can they forbid us to do so? Seems like a double standard to me.

what comes to mind when u think about Christians? hmm i think about all of the hardcore bible tumping converters ive bumped into. the "god warriors". now to be blunt, they piss me right the hell off. what about thinking of the jews? holocaust. personal suffering. muslims? u think of those extremists. terrorists. mormons? that funny south park episode plus the small minded mini mormons running around my school proclaiming the american jesus. so to answer the question, why is Christianity being bashed worldwide? because of all the assholish extemists. stereotyping. fitting an entire race or religion under one banner. so all i got to say to this topic is come off your cross, we need the wood.

:rolleyes: Words fail me.

Firstly, in the case's of "in God we trust" and "one nation, under God", you dont have to say them if you dont want to.

I do want to. I don't want our money and our pledge to. It's forcing people to endorse something they don't just by being American and it goes against the very purpose of the first amendment.

You can just remain silent for that section of the pledge. Secondly, the phrase is "freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Thirdly, in the case of intellegent design, most people are asking for a parallel course to be run, not for it to be taught unilatrally. Fourthly, marriage arguably not a right, and people of any political/religious persuasion have the right to lobby the government on anything they want.

Freedom of religion means all beliefs not just yours. Some beliefs don't believe in a single deity. You're aware of this, yes?

Um, thirdly, 'most people' is not all people and Intelligent Design is religion and has no place in a public school unless all relgious origins are taught which would take, oh, I don't know about a third of a child's high school career.

Fourthly, marriage is a right according to Loving v. Virginia over forty years ago and has been continually upheld. And people can lobby for whatever they want but the fourteenth amendment forbids denying people rights based on their sex.

From a paper I wrote on the subject -
"In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court of the United States found that “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” They called it “one of the basic civil rights of man.” They are further supported by Skinner v. Oklahoma and Maynard v. Hill, along with dozens of cases since. This was no isolated case. The right to marry has forty years of law behind it."

Fifthly, both countries are remaining Muslim, they just arent dictatorships commiting terrible acts anymore, or helping those who do. Sixthly, do you seriously believe that Bush went to Iraq and Afghanistan to spread the Gospel?

Hmmm... and nobody died? So long as they remain Muslim it's perfectly okay to kill them I suppose.

Sixthly, who said he did? He did call it God's war and suggest that God was behind us. For some, killing a few hundred thousand of 'them' is just as good as making more of 'us'.

Seventhly, you would be making a simmilar criticism of the American government if they didnt go to war in Iraq. They would have been letting the Kurds die.

Now you're getting it. See how propaganda works?

Eigthly, have you seen him use this excuse to alter the democratic process to give himself more power? All the checks and balances of the American system are still intact as far as I can see.

So what? He doesn't have the power to do what you're suggesting. He still said God made him President. Therefore all of his actions are acts of God.

Now you look at the persecution of Christians around the world in the article I presented. It hardly compares
The site you presented is full of propaganda. The articles in it are all about how everything that happens to a Christian amounts to persecution. They present a very slanted view in order to make a point that hardly holds.

And two wrongs make a right?

No, but a site that only worries about Christian persecution isn't really addressing the problem that makes people want to persecute us, now are they? I care about all persecution and the 'Christian persecution' will be right at the top of my list when no people in my country are denied personal rights that don't effect anyone else because some Christians think they're evil.

Yes, Christianity has appeared to dominate, but look at how the world is changing. The world today seems to be against everything Christian, morals and everything else that even hints at it. Christians are forbidden to speak of their faith or pray at school, yet Muslims or any other kind of religion can be freely talked about and if we say otherwise then we are not being constitutional. How then, can they forbid us to do so? Seems like a double standard to me.

Really? Can you please link me to some of the schools that have forbidden children from praying silently? I would like to protest their invasion the freedom of those children.

:rolleyes: Words fail me.
What?

Anyways, I completely agree with Gambla. I've run across way too many of the extremists to NOT bash Christianity. this isn't to say I run around yellong "FUCK GOD", but still, I can criticize. Plus, what right do they have to bitch? They haven't had it that bad at all. Have they been subject to GENOCIDE?
...?

Nope...

I was hoping for some intellegent discussion about this, but never mind.

Knowing you, intelligent discussion means "Agree that I'm right, or I'll say you're a religion-hating, science-worshipping athiest fascist who won't accept my point of view even though there is no empirical proof for it."

Yes, Christianity has appeared to dominate, but look at how the world is changing. The world today seems to be against everything Christian, morals and everything else that even hints at it. Christians are forbidden to speak of their faith or pray at school, yet Muslims or any other kind of religion can be freely talked about and if we say otherwise then we are not being constitutional. How then, can they forbid us to do so? Seems like a double standard to me.
Oh come off it. The biggest religion in the world is Christianity. Hardly anyone's speaking out against anything even remotely Christian in the public sphere, unless of course, you count America. However, you might want to keep in mind that if you do include America, the 'bashed' Christian minority have fuck-all to do with what the majority of the planet's Christians believe to be the religion, and it wouldn't be happening unless those twisted fucks were trying to clubber everyone with their damn bibles.

Perhaps you should ask yourself what you did to piss people off, if they're pissed at you. That's always a good place to start. All that Christian-bashing people keep talking about on here seems nothing more than little wannabe dictator peeps crying about people not submitting to their shite voluntarily.

Oh come off it. The biggest religion in the world is Christianity. Hardly anyone's speaking out against anything even remotely Christian in the public sphere, unless of course, you count America. However, you might want to keep in mind that if you do include America, the 'bashed' Christian minority have fuck-all to do with what the majority of the planet's Christians believe to be the religion, and it wouldn't be happening unless those twisted fucks were trying to clubber everyone with their damn bibles.

Perhaps you should ask yourself what you did to piss people off, if they're pissed at you. That's always a good place to start. All that Christian-bashing people keep talking about on here seems nothing more than little wannabe dictator peeps crying about people not submitting to their shite voluntarily.

TSW, come on, man. Calmly. Calmly. We can make our points calmly. Otherwise, the point your making sounds like the words out of that lady's mouth in the clip from the other thread (vague, yet everyone knows what I mean). I know you can do better. I've seen you do better. And by doing so, you get your point across to a heck of lot more people, yeah?

You dont know me. You dont know enough about what I believe. I dont believe that Christianity should be legislated. I believe that Christian morals are a good stand point to legislate from but I dont believe that it should be against the law to not be a Christian for example



It is being peresecuted the most against, whether you find it ammusing or not.

Oh, you don't believe Christianity should be legislated. Only its moral code. Gee, I'm sure that would make a lot of people feel better, knowing they aren't actually being forced to be Christian, just to abide by Christian rules.

Kinda reminds me of most totalinarianisms..."Doesn't matter if you really agree with Hitler or not, son, as long as you act like you do."

Sorry, but your entire post just left that sort of taste in my mouth.

As an aside, can you find any actual statistical evidence that it is, as you put it, "perEsecuted the most against, whether you find it amMusing or not."

Christianity, at least in the Western sphere, is not persecuted.

Honestly, we have nothing to complain about. If anyone wants a parallel, look at the Corinthian church in the New Testament of the Bible. That IS the American church.

The world today seems to be against everything Christian, morals ...
Notice how you imply that by rejecting Christianity, people reject moral behaviour. You just pointed out one thing that I dislike about Christians: they tend to see their beliefs as the (only) right thing to do.

Christians are forbidden to speak of their faith or pray at school
Oh yeah, that happens a lot. Especially on school, recent events really show us how schools is unpenetrable by christianity and it's beliefs.


yet Muslims or any other kind of religion can be freely talked about and if we say otherwise then we are not being constitutional.
Why would you want to say otherwise? ;)

TSW, come on, man. Calmly. Calmly. We can make our points calmly. Otherwise, the point your making sounds like the words out of that lady's mouth in the clip from the other thread (vague, yet everyone knows what I mean). I know you can do better. I've seen you do better. And by doing so, you get your point across to a heck of lot more people, yeah?
Ack! I'm gonna have nightmares over that :(

I didn't mean to come off as a raving loon. It's just slightly exasperating to see extremists complaining about persecution when all it really is, is refusal from everyone - their more balanced fellows as well - to conform to their way of life. It's not like anyone's actually preventing them from being extremists or even from complaining about how most of us aren't, so the point of it escapes me.

And.. I'm usually extremely polite on here (comparatively speaking). I guess that prior post was simply a doze of real me slipping by my self-cencorship.

Edit: Actually, lemme re-address that post I was responding to.

Christian moral teachings form the basis of every one of the first world countries. Claiming that we're rejecting the foundation of our entire social & legal systems seems nothing short of outrageous. I would very much like to see some sort of evidence of this.

The thing about Christians and public schools.. I wonder, can it really be true that Muslim children are allowed to hold loud, public prayer sessions, perhaps lead by the teachers, in the middle of classes?
In my corner of the world, both Christians, Muslims & everyone else are free to pray to whomever they want, as long as they do so privately or amongst themselves, and as long as it doesn't interfere with classes & doesn't intrude upon others.
Typically children will be allowed to use free classrooms for that purpose. All they have to do is ask. From what I've read in actual newspapers & the like, it's no different in America, so I'm wondering what exactly it is the Christians want? Special treatment? If so, the obvious answert would be to send their children to a private Christian school, instead of bothering others in the already crowded public schools.

And lastly, what's this about Muslims & whatnot? Is it that Muslims get beaten up, spat on & otherwise treated poorly, simply because our populations dread terrorism? Or do you actually feel they are somehow treated in a desirable manner?
If you truely believe followers of other religions or their religions & institutions themselves, enjoy more respect & acceptance in public space, I once again should like to see some sort of evidence. Because in the 1st world countries on my planet, pretty much all religions execpt Christianity, are regularly rediculed in public, often by Christians, whereas mainstream (ei non-fanatic) Christianity & Christians very rarely are. In fact, they enjoy enormous respect.

I don't think you can prohibit people from breeding, even if they are muslim. But yes, despite how decent a particular muslim may seen, I could never trust one to be a decent person. And I believe islam and the west will always be incompatible with each other.

Wow .... what a sad world you must live in. Have you considered joining the Klan? They share your view.

Wow .... what a sad world you must live in. Have you considered joining the Klan? They share your view.
It's not an unusually sad world I'm living in, just the real world. There's no point in pretending everything's fine when it's clearly all turning into shit. As for joining the Klan, they're a bunch of uneducated redneck fools. I have no time for their ideas of racial purity, and even if I wanted to lynch people I would realise that doing it would be counter-productive.

As an aside, it is impossible to definitively proove that Jesus or Julius Ceasar or Confucious or Plato or George Washington or Louis XIV or Lenin ever existed, so its not a big surprise that we can't prove that God (or gods, or whatever) exists or doesn't exist. All that we know about these individuals is based on our acceptance of what we are told by an authority. For all we can really prove, all of the historians are just trying to brainwash into believing that the Roman Empire existed, or some such thing...But this is going off topic now...

My personal belief is that modern civilization cares far too much about its religion and far too little about its morality. So there.

To answer your first question all i have to say its about Western culture clashing with eastern culture, the aggressive nature of christainty in converting others, and past events like the crusades.
The main ponts though are christianity tends to try to eliminate any other culture that doesnt agree with theres. Many see this as a threat to their government and society. Others still have events like the crusades, spanish invasion, and the attempted conversion of asia still fresh in their minds. Many atrosicities where committed and even after a couple hundred years the feelings dont fade. I for one am tired of hearing about their utopian ideas, how if they controlled the world war would cease, and everyone will live happily ever after. This hipocracy is a contributiong factor to their persecution.

Ack! I'm gonna have nightmares over that :(

I didn't mean to come off as a raving loon. It's just slightly exasperating to see extremists complaining about persecution when all it really is, is refusal from everyone - their more balanced fellows as well - to conform to their way of life. It's not like anyone's actually preventing them from being extremists or even from complaining about how most of us aren't, so the point of it escapes me.

And.. I'm usually extremely polite on here (comparatively speaking). I guess that prior post was simply a doze of real me slipping by my self-cencorship.

Edit: Actually, lemme re-address that post I was responding to.

Christian moral teachings form the basis of every one of the first world countries. Claiming that we're rejecting the foundation of our entire social & legal systems seems nothing short of outrageous. I would very much like to see some sort of evidence of this.

The thing about Christians and public schools.. I wonder, can it really be true that Muslim children are allowed to hold loud, public prayer sessions, perhaps lead by the teachers, in the middle of classes?
In my corner of the world, both Christians, Muslims & everyone else are free to pray to whomever they want, as long as they do so privately or amongst themselves, and as long as it doesn't interfere with classes & doesn't intrude upon others.
Typically children will be allowed to use free classrooms for that purpose. All they have to do is ask. From what I've read in actual newspapers & the like, it's no different in America, so I'm wondering what exactly it is the Christians want? Special treatment? If so, the obvious answert would be to send their children to a private Christian school, instead of bothering others in the already crowded public schools.

And lastly, what's this about Muslims & whatnot? Is it that Muslims get beaten up, spat on & otherwise treated poorly, simply because our populations dread terrorism? Or do you actually feel they are somehow treated in a desirable manner?
If you truely believe followers of other religions or their religions & institutions themselves, enjoy more respect & acceptance in public space, I once again should like to see some sort of evidence. Because in the 1st world countries on my planet, pretty much all religions execpt Christianity, are regularly rediculed in public, often by Christians, whereas mainstream (ei non-fanatic) Christianity & Christians very rarely are. In fact, they enjoy enormous respect.

I'm very impressed. I hope if I ever need it (and I will) you'll help me to post in such a reasonable manner.

As an aside, it is impossible to definitively proove that Jesus or Julius Ceasar or Confucious or Plato or George Washington or Louis XIV or Lenin ever existed, so its not a big surprise that we can't prove that God (or gods, or whatever) exists or doesn't exist. All that we know about these individuals is based on our acceptance of what we are told by an authority. For all we can really prove, all of the historians are just trying to brainwash into believing that the Roman Empire existed, or some such thing...But this is going off topic now...

My personal belief is that modern civilization cares far too much about its religion and far too little about its morality. So there.I disagree with your mentioning of the greatest western leaders, but i can understand what your saying (could have left Julius Ceaser out though hes my personal hero). I agree though your last statement, in america the most hypocrittical nation, we have these constant wars of religion. Yet the ones waging the moral crusade are some of the worst humans. Most are worst then their enemies they claim to be supperior to, all because they're God is better. We invented a new science that doesnt make their god mad, and fullfilling their religous needs. While moraly they let their country fall worse then those countries it condems as barbaric.

I agree with you that only a tiny minority of muslims aim towards an all-out war against the west. But I personally consider the 'law-abiding' muslims in this country even more dangerous than the terrorists. The terrorists will kill only a few people, and it won't bring them any further in their objectives. The 'law abiding' muslims have the potential to destroy our society from within.

Most people personally consider the 'law-abiding' bigots in this country than the hang-em-high kind. The hang-em-high kind will kill only a few people, and it won't bring them any further in their objectives. The 'law-abiding' bigots have the potential to destroy our society from within.

Fortunately, by teaching and by spreading understanding perhaps we can destroy the potential of them by preventing their hearts from hardening and becoming what we sometimes see in these types of threads. I know I'll never stop working toward that goal. I suspect I'll last longer than you will.

Ack! I'm gonna have nightmares over that :(

I didn't mean to come off as a raving loon. It's just slightly exasperating to see extremists complaining about persecution when all it really is, is refusal from everyone - their more balanced fellows as well - to conform to their way of life. It's not like anyone's actually preventing them from being extremists or even from complaining about how most of us aren't, so the point of it escapes me.

And.. I'm usually extremely polite on here (comparatively speaking). I guess that prior post was simply a doze of real me slipping by my self-cencorship.

Edit: Actually, lemme re-address that post I was responding to.

Christian moral teachings form the basis of every one of the first world countries. Claiming that we're rejecting the foundation of our entire social & legal systems seems nothing short of outrageous. I would very much like to see some sort of evidence of this.


Ya considering most western laws and societies, are modeled after Ancinet Greek and Roman ideals. Before christianity was even thought of, platos and soccrates were coming up with the basis of modern day thought. The most hated by most christians is Logic.

I find it horse shit in my school , we are forced to pray every morning, it's a PUBLIC SCHOOL. Religion should not be allowed in schools.

While I don't think this was targetted at me, I do feel it worth noting that such evidence is intrinsically impossible to give for one simple reason. The second anything like it arises, the Church overplays it, engulfs it and canonises it, resulting in abject ridicule on the part of any external observer.

That's not saying it doesn't exist. Just that if it did, and people found out, it would suddenly cease to be historically valid evidence.

Thats exactly my point. The Catholic Church is still too corrupt. Every time someone makes a discovery that could upset the Christian faith, the Church silences it, either by killing the man who made the discovery, or stealing his works so he cannot publish them. What we need to do, is instate government regulations on the Church, or make it so the press can investigate the Church as they see fit. (might take their minds off me and my friends for a bit) I understand this will probably never happen, but it would be helpful. The Church silences anything that could cause them to have to answer for what they say, or do. Have any of you read the article about a woman Jesus Christ supposedly knew, who is present at the table depicted in the famous portrait, "The Last Supper?"

I find it horse shit in my school , we are forced to pray every morning, it's a PUBLIC SCHOOL. Religion should not be allowed in schools.

Where is this school? Forced to pray? How do they do that?

It's not an unusually sad world I'm living in, just the real world.

Have you stopped to realise that every Muslim you know and interract with on a daily basis on these very forums are nothing like you are claiming us to be? Myself and Dakini alone give lie to your opinion that we cannot get along in Western society, aren't trying to impose our religion into law (like Christians do), and are actually some of the most liberal/leftist/tree huggers on these forums.

I suggest a moment of pause to re-examine your bigotry and maybe come to the realisation that 99% of the nuts who claim to be Muslim are Arabs and Arabs are a very small minority of the world's Muslims. There are more White Muslims than Arab Muslims, for pete's sake!

Thats exactly my point. The Catholic Church is still too corrupt. Every time someone makes a discovery that could upset the Christian faith, the Church silences it, either by killing the man who made the discovery, or stealing his works so he cannot publish them. What we need to do, is instate government regulations on the Church, or make it so the press can investigate the Church as they see fit. (might take their minds off me and my friends for a bit) I understand this will probably never happen, but it would be helpful. The Church silences anything that could cause them to have to answer for what they say, or do. Have any of you read the article about a woman Jesus Christ supposedly knew, who is present at the table depicted in the famous portrait, "The Last Supper?"
Not true. The Catholic Church is actually one of the most embracing of scientific discovery. Its the right-wing protestants who hate science. But getting back to topic, I think the reason why so many hate christianity is the same that in the West we seem to hate Islam so much. We just don't understand each other. From an early age we are thought "they" and "us" are somewhat intrinsically different. I think the whole religion war thing could be solved by learning more about each other. A vision that seems to escape farther away each day it seems, in light of what happens to France. And yes Christians did some atrocious things, but so did everyone else who was in power. That really is no reflection of the values or beliefs of a religion. Just like Al Qaeda is not representative of Islam, neither are those atrocities you mention characteristic of Christianity.

Where is this school? Forced to pray? How do they do that?

I go to the same school as Dyeria, and it's been an issue for years about our madatory prayer's. Our small school board is basically solely Christian, and they're actually attempting to put in their "constitution" that the prayer is to be continued when they are no longer on the school board. They feel that it is an important feature of our school, for we are one of the few left in the province who still cary on this "tradition". I for one, do not necessarily have a problem with prayrers being in schools, but the fact that we are forced to stand, and bow our heads no matter what our religious beliefs are...well, I find it really insulting. I was brought up a Christian, and I was taught that every person is free to worship God when the time suits them, not whenever we are TOLD to "bow our heads". School used to be my one place for salvation, not in a spiritual sense, but in a sense that there is a place where I can be myself, without having any debates on religion, but now there are several people, who I consider friends, who i cannot talk to during school, beause it is now the most common place where religious debates take place. Recently, I have spoken to our vice principal about the mandatory prayrer, and asked if we had a chocie to take place, and he gave me one of the most hated responses i could have imagined. he said "you do not have to participate, as long as you have a note from your parents saying it is alright." One thing I refuse to do, is ask anybody for my right to participate in ANY religious tradition. Everybody has a right to practice their religion anywhere they want, any time they want. I believe that is why Christianity is being "bashed all over the world" because there are people who are giving too many orders on how to practice your spirituality. I just find lately that geberally, Christioans are becoming more, and more confrontational, and people aren't just going to bend over and take what's coming to them.

Thats exactly my point. The Catholic Church is still too corrupt. Every time someone makes a discovery that could upset the Christian faith, the Church silences it, either by killing the man who made the discovery, or stealing his works so he cannot publish them. What we need to do, is instate government regulations on the Church, or make it so the press can investigate the Church as they see fit. (might take their minds off me and my friends for a bit) I understand this will probably never happen, but it would be helpful. The Church silences anything that could cause them to have to answer for what they say, or do. Have any of you read the article about a woman Jesus Christ supposedly knew, who is present at the table depicted in the famous portrait, "The Last Supper?"
I think you kinda missed my point. This isn't something on the corruption of the church; this is something about corruption of positive evidence in the eyes of an impartial observer. Something could be a decent scrap of evidence in the existence of Jesus, but because it is so, the church picks it up and interprets it for itself, which therefore invalidates the impartiality of the evidence to an observer. Regardless of legislation, anything that could potentially be seen as positive evidence is therefore negatable once the Church has been made aware of its existence. There's nothing whatsoever can be done about that for as long as the memory of the Church remains.

Ironic, huh? The Church's existence ultimately automatically questions any evidence put forward in favour of its ideas. This isn't necessarily a fault with the organisation; it's just a natural consequence of it being a human group with its own agenda.

Have you stopped to realise that every Muslim you know and interract with on a daily basis on these very forums are nothing like you are claiming us to be? Myself and Dakini alone give lie to your opinion that we cannot get along in Western society, aren't trying to impose our religion into law (like Christians do), and are actually some of the most liberal/leftist/tree huggers on these forums.

I suggest a moment of pause to re-examine your bigotry and maybe come to the realisation that 99% of the nuts who claim to be Muslim are Arabs and Arabs are a very small minority of the world's Muslims. There are more White Muslims than Arab Muslims, for pete's sake!
..I'm not muslim... I don't know much about the religion, to be honest, I know some muslims though, and I've never known one to be a bad person or someone who forces their opinion on others, for that matter. I remember having calmer discussions with muslim students in highschool than I did with other christian students who were of a different branch of christianity than I was. They called me a heretic. The muslim students I'd talk to would talk to would just talk to me like normal.

Hate to break it to all the right-wing Christian nutballs out there (not saying that all Christians are right-wing nutballs, however):

Just because you're Christian doesn't mean you're guaranteed a place in Heaven.

Just because someone else is Muslim doesn't mean that they are foreordained to eternal damnation.

Just wanted to point that out.

Have you stopped to realise that every Muslim you know and interract with on a daily basis on these very forums are nothing like you are claiming us to be? Myself and Dakini alone give lie to your opinion that we cannot get along in Western society, aren't trying to impose our religion into law (like Christians do), and are actually some of the most liberal/leftist/tree huggers on these forums.

I suggest a moment of pause to re-examine your bigotry and maybe come to the realisation that 99% of the nuts who claim to be Muslim are Arabs and Arabs are a very small minority of the world's Muslims. There are more White Muslims than Arab Muslims, for pete's sake!
I'd sooner forge my views through personal experience rather than the opinions of a muslim on the internet. I lived in a town that had a large muslim (Mostly Pakistani) population. The good thing about having lived there is that it's gave me a clear picture of just what they have planned for this society. I realise that a lot of muslims come out with the usual rhetoric about secularism, but they're only paying lip service. They might seem like good citizens when they're small enough in numbers, but as soon as they overrun a town things change rapidly. The French riots are a fine example of muslim behaviour.

I also realise that there are a lot of white muslims in the world, there are two kinds. There are the ones in Eastern Europe who I hate just the same as any other muslim. Then there are the western converts who I completely despise as they have made the conscious decision to stab their own people in the back.

I'm not going to suddenly do a u-turn on my views just on the say-so of a muslim. I'm fully aware of how this cancer is eating away at this country and I'm certainly not going to be fooled by all the multicultural bollocks that's getting pumped into us from cradle to grave.

<Snip>
I think you should take this up with a psychologist instead of hijacking the thread.

I can't think of a religion that has done more harm and more evil in its own name than chrisitianity. to my (limited) knowledge no other religion has converted as many people by force nor has any other religion splintered into so many differnt sects over mostly minor disagreements. maybe this is the backlash that christianity has had coming.

[notes the similarity to the "That bitch was asking to be raped, because she dresses so provocatively" mentality]

I'd sooner forge my views through personal experience rather than the opinions of a muslim on the internet. I lived in a town that had a large muslim (Mostly Pakistani) population. The good thing about having lived there is that it's gave me a clear picture of just what they have planned for this society. I realise that a lot of muslims come out with the usual rhetoric about secularism, but they're only paying lip service. They might seem like good citizens when they're small enough in numbers, but as soon as they overrun a town things change rapidly. The French riots are a fine example of muslim behaviour.

I also realise that there are a lot of white muslims in the world, there are two kinds. There are the ones in Eastern Europe who I hate just the same as any other muslim. Then there are the western converts who I completely despise as they have made the conscious decision to stab their own people in the back.

I'm not going to suddenly do a u-turn on my views just on the say-so of a muslim. I'm fully aware of how this cancer is eating away at this country and I'm certainly not going to be fooled by all the multicultural bollocks that's getting pumped into us from cradle to grave.

Oh my god, you are the epitome of the people I am describing. Its people like you who cause problems. You are religion-racist. I apologize, you need to be locked up before you cause another Holocaust. You and Adolf Hitler would get along just fine. He hated jews, you hate Muslims. Why? They believe differently then you do? White Muslims did not make the decision to stab their people in the back until they willingly participate in the terrorist activities of their Arabian counterparts. (religion-wise) Until they start killing others of their race for their choice of religion, they have not betrayed their race. It's people like you who need to shut up before they cause issues.

I go to the same school as Dyeria, and it's been an issue for years about our madatory prayer's. Our small school board is basically solely Christian, and they're actually attempting to put in their "constitution" that the prayer is to be continued when they are no longer on the school board. They feel that it is an important feature of our school, for we are one of the few left in the province who still cary on this "tradition". I for one, do not necessarily have a problem with prayrers being in schools, but the fact that we are forced to stand, and bow our heads no matter what our religious beliefs are...well, I find it really insulting. I was brought up a Christian, and I was taught that every person is free to worship God when the time suits them, not whenever we are TOLD to "bow our heads". School used to be my one place for salvation, not in a spiritual sense, but in a sense that there is a place where I can be myself, without having any debates on religion, but now there are several people, who I consider friends, who i cannot talk to during school, beause it is now the most common place where religious debates take place. Recently, I have spoken to our vice principal about the mandatory prayrer, and asked if we had a chocie to take place, and he gave me one of the most hated responses i could have imagined. he said "you do not have to participate, as long as you have a note from your parents saying it is alright." One thing I refuse to do, is ask anybody for my right to participate in ANY religious tradition. Everybody has a right to practice their religion anywhere they want, any time they want. I believe that is why Christianity is being "bashed all over the world" because there are people who are giving too many orders on how to practice your spirituality. I just find lately that geberally, Christioans are becoming more, and more confrontational, and people aren't just going to bend over and take what's coming to them.


Well said, sir. Couldn't have said it better muhself.

It's true, the faschist christians that run our school board and council FORCE you to bow, if you don't, you dare a suspension. IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL. Luckily, I have my first block, where the praying is, a spare.

All my life I have been raised a Christian, but as I matured, I realize the absurdity of so many things. We just read a book in English on the Jews in Auschwitz, Buna, and other camps. The question "Where is God?" Came up a few times in conversation, in the book. That's a good point. If the Jews were the Chosen People, and they were his First Followers, why was he allowing this suffering, and anguish to happen? Why was he not intervening? I feel the same way about Hell. There absolutely, positively Cannot be a Hell. Why would this all powerful, omnicient, loving, merciful God allow our souls to burn for all eternity? Why should we suffer FOREVER for petty sins we have commited on Earth?

I still... not believe per se, but... consider God's presence, when it comes to Creation, but you can't be sure. The only reason I can consider God's existence is because I live in a "thumping" town, raised in churches etc. My parents no longer force me to go, and I refuse to let someone tell me how I should live, and how I should let God run my life. I find school was my own kind of "salvation" back in the day, but now I can live a little more peacefully at home, with my family who doesn't pressure God unto me anymore, as opposed to school, because of all the Bible Thumpers, pressing their beliefs on you, and all that shit. I don't need it. Well said Gambla, GET OFF YOUR CROSS, WE NEED THE WOOD.

dont forget the mormons. they are just as bad in our school. all like "my god is from AMERICA, so were better than you in everyway because what this school believes in is someone from another continant". :mad:

dont forget the mormons. they are just as bad in our school. all like "my god is from AMERICA, so were better than you in everyway because what this school believes in is someone from another continant". :mad:

I was going to bring them up, but got bored. :rolleyes:

I go to the same school as Dyeria, and it's been an issue for years about our madatory prayer's. Our small school board is basically solely Christian, and they're actually attempting to put in their "constitution" that the prayer is to be continued when they are no longer on the school board. They feel that it is an important feature of our school, for we are one of the few left in the province who still cary on this "tradition". I for one, do not necessarily have a problem with prayrers being in schools, but the fact that we are forced to stand, and bow our heads no matter what our religious beliefs are...well, I find it really insulting. I was brought up a Christian, and I was taught that every person is free to worship God when the time suits them, not whenever we are TOLD to "bow our heads". School used to be my one place for salvation, not in a spiritual sense, but in a sense that there is a place where I can be myself, without having any debates on religion, but now there are several people, who I consider friends, who i cannot talk to during school, beause it is now the most common place where religious debates take place. Recently, I have spoken to our vice principal about the mandatory prayrer, and asked if we had a chocie to take place, and he gave me one of the most hated responses i could have imagined. he said "you do not have to participate, as long as you have a note from your parents saying it is alright." One thing I refuse to do, is ask anybody for my right to participate in ANY religious tradition. Everybody has a right to practice their religion anywhere they want, any time they want. I believe that is why Christianity is being "bashed all over the world" because there are people who are giving too many orders on how to practice your spirituality. I just find lately that geberally, Christioans are becoming more, and more confrontational, and people aren't just going to bend over and take what's coming to them.

What city and state is this in?

..I'm not muslim...

Oops! Thought you said you were at one point. I must've been thinkin' of someone else. :)

I also realise that there are a lot of white muslims in the world, there are two kinds. There are the ones in Eastern Europe who I hate just the same as any other muslim. Then there are the western converts who I completely despise as they have made the conscious decision to stab their own people in the back.


Wow .... just ..... wow. You're definately someone I'd come up to at a party and give a big hug and get my Muslim cooties all over you. We have magic powers, you know. I'm also a Jew, by birth. Got somethin' to say about that?

Oh, and for the record: ALL Muslims are converts. You cannot be born Muslim.

dont forget the mormons. they are just as bad in our school. all like "my god is from AMERICA, so were better than you in everyway because what this school believes in is someone from another continant". :mad:
The only mormons I've encountered have been rather nice. They were polite and didn't push it when I told them I wasn't interested in their religion.

I'd sooner forge my views through personal experience rather than the opinions of a muslim on the internet. I lived in a town that had a large muslim (Mostly Pakistani) population. The good thing about having lived there is that it's gave me a clear picture of just what they have planned for this society. I realise that a lot of muslims come out with the usual rhetoric about secularism, but they're only paying lip service. They might seem like good citizens when they're small enough in numbers, but as soon as they overrun a town things change rapidly. The French riots are a fine example of muslim behaviour.

I also realise that there are a lot of white muslims in the world, there are two kinds. There are the ones in Eastern Europe who I hate just the same as any other muslim. Then there are the western converts who I completely despise as they have made the conscious decision to stab their own people in the back.

I'm not going to suddenly do a u-turn on my views just on the say-so of a muslim. I'm fully aware of how this cancer is eating away at this country and I'm certainly not going to be fooled by all the multicultural bollocks that's getting pumped into us from cradle to grave.
*brings out a cuckoo clock*

I was hoping for some intellegent discussion about this, but never mind.

Basically I would say, I don't know who would or wouldn't agree with me, but I think Christianity gets bashed a lot because of their horrible history and hypocrisy of the religion. Then they claim moral high ground. When clearly they support things that clearly are forbidden in Christian teachings, like hate and wanting to kill and war etc.. death penalty.. etc..etc.. I think it's mostly because people don't like hypocrites.

That's just my guess.

Basically I would say, I don't know who would or wouldn't agree with me, but I think Christianity gets bashed a lot because of their horrible history and hypocrisy of the religion. Then they claim moral high ground. When clearly they support things that clearly are forbidden in Christian teachings, like hate and wanting to kill and war etc.. death penalty.. etc..etc.. I think it's mostly because people don't like hypocrites.

That's just my guess.
Yes, it's better to be a nihilist, because then no one can ever say you're a hypocrite.

Yes, it's better to be a nihilist, because then no one can ever say you're a hypocrite.

Well, I'm an atheist, so if I mess up I have only myself to blame.

ALL Muslims are converts. You cannot be born Muslim.
It's impossible to be born Muslim, or Christian, or Jewish ..., because we're all born atheists, and then get introduced (or not) to theism.

Well, I'm an atheist, so if I mess up I have only myself to blame.
You really should take it all the way, and emulate Bazarov, and be a nihilist.

That way, you're completely covered.

Well, I'm an atheist, so if I mess up I have only myself to blame.
So do you ever? Mess up, that is? :D

You really should take it all the way, and emulate Bazarov, and be a nihilist.

That way, you're completely covered.

Well, I personally don't believe in a god, or gods or anything like that. I however don't believe it's my right to push my views on others. If people wish to believe that is their right. It is after all a free country.. (well at least the one I live in)..lol

So do you ever? Mess up, that is? :D

Sometimes, more so in my youth then now.. but of course. :)

It's impossible to be born Muslim, or Christian, or Jewish ..., because we're all born atheists, and then get introduced (or not) to theism.

Agreed .... except for Jewish. You can be born Jewish. "Jewish" is not a religion, it's a cultural identity. You can be an Atheist Jew, a Buddhist Jew, a Muslim Jew, a Christian Jew, or a Pastafarian Jew. You can even be a Jewish soul born into a Gentile body - but we don't need to get into that.

The French riots are a fine example of muslim behaviour.
Whereas French (or British) Christians have never rioted, I suppose! Yeah, right.

Agreed .... except for Jewish. You can be born Jewish. "Jewish" is not a religion, it's a cultural identity.
Culture, like religion, is taught. You're not born with it.

What city and state is this in?


Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Well, I personally don't believe in a god, or gods or anything like that. I however don't believe it's my right to push my views on others.
True, but it is your right to make your views available to anyone who wants to read them, and to demand the same level of respect and attention as other beliefs enjoy.

Agreed .... except for Jewish.

That of course is debatable and has been debated for a long time. And of course is only backed up by the bible right? I mean being Jewish as a race is a self appointed thing, by Jews isn't it? Although people recognized it for the sake of argument, there really is no proof of it's validity from a purely secular point of view, is there? Are Jewish people not considered Semites? The same as most people in the region from a secular point of view? Well, actually isn't that another biblical view? lol Who knows. I'm a Canadian, it's a race, there. I said so, so it must be true..lol

That of course is debatable and has been debated for a long time. And of course is only backed up by the bible right? I mean being Jewish as a race is a self appointed thing, by Jews isn't it? Although people recognized it for the sake of argument, there really is no proof of it's validity from a purely secular point of view, is there? Are Jewish people not considered Semites? The same as most people in the region from a secular point of view? Well, actually isn't that another biblical view? lol Who knows. I'm a Canadian, it's a race, there. I said so, so it must be true..lol
It might be argued that Islam is not just a religion, but politics.

True, but it is your right to make your views available to anyone who wants to read them, and to demand the same level of respect and attention as other beliefs enjoy.

Right to demand? hmm, that's an interesting theory. one my 7 year old would agree with 100%..LOL

That of course is debatable and has been debated for a long time. And of course is only backed up by the bible right? I mean being Jewish as a race is a self appointed thing, by Jews isn't it?

I didn't say race, I said cultural identity. There are White Jews, Black Jews, Asian Jews, Arab Jews, etc etc. Huge difference.

Edit: Oh, and no, the Bible isn't the source of Jewish cultural identity. Everything from the Babylonian Talmud to the comedy of Jackie Mason comprise the Jewish cultural identity. There is no single source. It's a dynamic, living, breathing thing ... not a set of rules carved in stone by a long dead hand.

I didn't say race, I said cultural identity. There are White Jews, Black Jews, Asian Jews, Arab Jews, etc etc. Huge difference.

Ah, okay, the same as there are Canadian Jews, Canadian Asians, Canadian blacks.. got ya! :)

Ah, okay, the same as there are Canadian Jews, Canadian Asians, Canadian blacks.. got ya! :)

Bingo! You're all Canadian, so you share something in common regardless of your genetic heritage or religious beliefs. Same with Jews all over the world. I could meet a Black Christian Jew from Ethiopia and he and I (a White Muslim Jew) would still have plenty to talk about and would understand each other on a level deeper than our genetics and religion.

Bingo! You're all Canadian, so you share something in common regardless of your genetic heritage or religious beliefs. Same with Jews all over the world. I could meet a Black Christian Jew from Ethiopia and he and I (a White Muslim Jew) would still have plenty to talk about and would understand each other on a level deeper than our genetics and religion.


Yep, understand ya now.. which is good cause I like you , you see and I didn't want to have to argue with you. So I'm happy it all worked out well..lol :)

Yep, understand ya now.. which is good cause I like you , you see and I didn't want to have to argue with you. So I'm happy it all worked out well..lol :)

Lol ... well ... I'm sure we could find something to argue about, but I doubt it. From what I've seen on these forums, you and I pretty much jibe ... except that I believe in a magical sky fairy and you're a godless heathen. ;) :D

you're a godless heathen. ;) :D

You say that like it's a bad thing..lol :p

You say that like it's a bad thing..lol :p

Nah ... it is neither good nor bad. It merely is. Though ... and getting back to the thread topic:

Reason #412 I hate Christians: They refuse to recognize your right to be a godless heathen and condemn you for being so.

That of course is debatable and has been debated for a long time. And of course is only backed up by the bible right? I mean being Jewish as a race is a self appointed thing, by Jews isn't it? Although people recognized it for the sake of argument, there really is no proof of it's validity from a purely secular point of view, is there? Are Jewish people not considered Semites? The same as most people in the region from a secular point of view? Well, actually isn't that another biblical view? lol Who knows. I'm a Canadian, it's a race, there. I said so, so it must be true..lol

In truth, there is no proof of any "race" being valid, at least from a scientific view. Subsets of homo sapiens sapiens never seem to have gotten separated long enough to develop actual races. However, various ethnciities are generally recognized, and I would say that "Jewish" is one of them.


Reason #412 I hate Christians: They refuse to recognize your right to be a godless heathen and condemn you for being so.


But.....but.....I'm a Christian who is for all intents and purposes married to a godless heathen! Last I checked, I hadn't refused him his right to be so or condemned him for it. In fact, some of my most interesting religious discussions have been with my boyfriend....

In truth, there is no proof of any "race" being valid, at least from a scientific view. Subsets of homo sapiens sapiens never seem to have gotten separated long enough to develop actual races. However, various ethnciities are generally recognized, and I would say that "Jewish" is one of them.

I actually knew that. And really, wouldn't it make the world a lot less complicated if we simply seen everyone as a member of the human race. It could of stopped a lot of wars methinks.. but they probably would of found another reason.. *sigh*.

When people say Christians in this forum, and indead in most discussion groups and forums, people think of white Europeans or Americans of a middle class background. However the avarage Christian is not living in either of these countries/continents and speaks a non-European language. And more to the point, it is the single most persecuted religous group in the world. I would therefore ask if anyone can think

A. Of a good reason why this is the case
B. Of what should be done about it by other groups
C. Why it is being ignored by the Christian governments in America and Europe who are more concerned with abortion/gay marriage (I agree these are important issues but not nearly as important as the treatment of Christians throught the world)

http://www.persecution.org/newsite/index.php

http://www.christianpersecution.info/

http://www.greaterthings.com/News/Christian/Persecution/



This article is from the Spectator, which is not a Christian production. It is a current affairs magazine edited by Boris Johnson MP.
Point a: Christians are an exclusivist religion, i.e. "not only is MY sacred book right, it is the ONLY right book." While Christians are hardly alone in this, it does annoy others who disagree with Christian scripture, in whole or in part.

This is further aggrivated bt the idiocy of applying the Bible to subjects it was never meant to address, for example the current Creationist pseudoscientific, antirationalist bigots infesting school boards in Kansas. If you think about it for just a few seconds, it becomes obvious that the Bible cannot contain any scientific theory not generally understood by the shamans of a nation of bronze age herdsmen in the middle east, and yet Christian fundamentalists insist it contains ALL truth.

There is also a strong "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" element at work here. Christians are historically the most sucessful persecutors of other religions the world has ever seen. Many religions have been eliminated from world history entirely by Christian persecution, several as recently as the 17th century. Many Christians point this out proudly, as proof of the validity of their faith!

On a related note, Christianity was the religion of colonial oppressors all over the world. Most Colonial governments were enthusiastic about Christian missionaries saving the "benighted heathens," and most (not all) Christian sects would justify the most brutal of conquests as an opportunity to "save souls." This was going on well into the 20th century, and that means old men now alive can remember it personally. Several Southern Baptist groups were giving loud and very public praise for the opportunity to ram Christianity down the throarts of Iraqis and Afgans previously out of their reach. and whining in the public press about the general lack of military support of their mission just last year. Apparently, this constituted "anti-Christian persecution!"

Point b.

I'm afraid I can't find any solution between praying for better conditions and military intervention. This is very sad because in the nature of things, the obnoxious Christians are out of reach, and it's humble, vulnerable, local Christians who get persecuted. Locally born children of converts had nothing to do with colonial excesses personally, but those who did are safely out of reach. N.B. this situation is not helped by Christians in wealthy majority Christian nations screaming "persecution" every time they are not accorded unlimited priviledges not afforded to (or even contemplated for) any other faith, a frequent occurance in the U.S.

Point c.
This situation does not arise, because governing a nation with a majority of Christians is not the same as governing a Christian nation. The only real Christian nation in the sense the Saudi Arabia is a muslim nation is the Vatican, and I believe the Pope takes the matter quite seriously.

I actually knew that. And really, wouldn't it make the world a lot less complicated if we simply seen everyone as a member of the human race. It could of stopped a lot of wars methinks.. but they probably would of found another reason.. *sigh*.

Like differing religion? Or differing political views? Or the old, "My dad is better than your dad...."

I wish we could all get along too, but it seems that people will always find reasons to fight. =(

Because we, my friends, are guaranteed salvation, and all the non-christian nations are jealous. It ties in to U.S policy as well because we are highly sucessful and highly involved in international affairs, thus causing people to feel we're using a newer form of "manifest destiny" to exert our power over other nations. They see us as a highly imperialistic, evangelistic nation of hypocrites, which we are not, and they see our 85% christian majority (which brings me to the point that atheists do not run this nation and to cater to their whining is tantamount to giving in to a group that many of us, frankly, don't care about).

I'M A GOD WARRIORRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!

People like that need to be punched.

Allow me to quote mr J.

I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world.
John 17:14


Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, and he began to teach them saying:
"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

"You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men.
Matthew 5:1-13


As a fellow christian, excuse me for being frank, but please Avalon II, stop complaining, start rejoicing and go out and be salty!

Christianity is bashed all over the world because Christianity is all over the world, as like as not making a bloody nuisance of itself.
Has it really taken this long to establish that?

Abroad...couldn't agree more..the reward shall be great indeed.
Dyeria- at least we have somewhere to go when we die.

Because we, my friends, are guaranteed salvation, and all the non-christian nations are jealous.

Are you suggesting that the US is a "Christian nation"? Even those who founded it would have some words with you on that....

(as would many of us members of the "Christian majority")

and they see our 85% christian majority (which brings me to the point that atheists do not run this nation and to cater to their whining is tantamount to giving in to a group that many of us, frankly, don't care about).

How exactly is it Christ-like to pick out a group of people and state that you "don't care about" them?

Because they are at this moment attempting to get
1." Under god "removed from the pledge
2. Christmas removed from all school calenders as a holiday for students
3."In god we trust" removed from our money.
4. Disallow any form of religious anything in school.

They do not run our country. We do, and we will reclaim our power.

I am so fricken tired of the politicaly correct attitude of many people here. Why should we care about the few dissenters when we have in place a system that works for the overwealming majority? I see no reason to cater to the few.

(I am far right wing and proud of it...no one's gonna assault my religion or my rights and get away with it.)

They see us as a highly imperialistic, evangelistic nation of hypocrites, which we are not
Hehe... okay, so it's out of context, but looking at this one segment of your post alone makes me chuckle.

"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."
See, people don't insult you or falsely say evil about you because of Jesus. Everybody Loves Jesus. Jesus is Metal.

People insult you and accredit evil to you (not necessarily falsely) because of Yourselves. Or, rather, those among you who claim to represent you.

So that little excuse doesn't quite stand.

Because they are at this moment attempting to get
1." Under god "removed from the pledge

If a phrase was added to the pledge specifically to discriminate against you (long after the pledge began use), wouldn't you want it removed?

2. Christmas removed from all school calenders as a holiday for students

I have seen no one pushing for this.

3."In god we trust" removed from our money.

Again, added late in the history of our nation specifically to discriminate against atheists (and communists, since the idiots of the time couldn't tell the difference)

4. Disallow any form of religious anything in school.

That's already done, in public schools at least. You see, we have this crazy thing called the 1st Amendment.....

They do not run our country. We do, and we will reclaim our power.

Last I checked, our country is neither a theocracy nor some weird kind of dictatorship. This country belongs just as much to our atheists citizens as to the rest of us.


I am so fricken tired of the politicaly correct attitude of many people here. Why should we care about the few dissenters when we have in place a system that works for the overwealming majority? I see no reason to cater to the few.

Why should you care about anyone? Didn't Christ instruct us to care about everyone?

Meanwhile, your "dissenters" are simply asking that we use they system that has been put in place, rather than trying to get around it.

(I am far right wing and proud of it...no one's gonna assault my religion or my rights and get away with it.)

No one is trying to. In fact, it looks to be the other way around......

I'm not saying they don't have a right to their opinions, I'm just saying we shouldn't have to treat them in a special way just because they don't believe in god. I have plenty of athiest friends who don't care one way or another if Christian or other symbols are shown in public. They ignore them, and the other atheists can as well. You have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Not the right to never see anything that offends you. if you want that, move to a communist utopia somewhere,preferably, on another planet.

But.....but.....I'm a Christian who is for all intents and purposes married to a godless heathen! Last I checked, I hadn't refused him his right to be so or condemned him for it. In fact, some of my most interesting religious discussions have been with my boyfriend....

When I say "Christians", I mean collectively, not individuals. An individual can be a good and decent person who would never imagine stepping on anyone's personal liberties or allowing their chosen morality to become enforced upon all people. A collective is an asshole and you know it. ;)