Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But of course those aren't *real* Christians, just like the Christians who burned a cross on my lawn, threw rocks through my windows, and tormented me for years weren't *real* Christians. However, if a handful of Muslims out of millions do horrific things, then ALL Muslims must be evil.
Honestly- Christians believe I am going to be tortured for eternity in hell while people like Tim McVeigh are golden because of their belief in Christ. How is that somehow OK? How are people who hold a belief in Hell not evil to their core?
EVER READ THIS ????
Quote:
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
Would Jesus have blown up the Federal Building?? I think you know the answer to that. If that's the case, what makes you keep harping on that same tired ol' argument?? Would Jesus have burned a cross in a black person's yard? Any record of him doing any of the things that some people have done in his name??
However, there is historical record of Muhammad murdering and stealing. He even married an 8 year old.
Quote:
After two years in Medina, the Muslims were not fairing too well financially and that, combined with mild persecution, prompted a revelation to come to Muhammad permitting him to raid passing caravans. This he did and the Muslim financial problems were solved. Soon afterward, there was then a significant battle at Badr where Muhammad, with 350 men, defeated an army of 1,000 men. This boost gave confidence to the Muslims, encouraged more converts, and made the Quraish even more uneasy.
In the fifth year of the Hegira, the Quraish tried to destroy the Muslims but failed. By now the Muslims were too strong so the Quraish never again tried to defeat them. Muhammad then set his sights on Mecca. At one point in 628, Muhammad took 10,000 men and entered Mecca unchallenged. The leader of the Quraish converted to Islam.
From there, Muhammad's movement gained further momentum. In 631 two tribes joined Muhammad. They were the Hijaz and Najd. From this time on, many battles ensured. In 625 there was the Battle of Uhud. In 627, the Battle of the Trench. In 628 Muhammad signs a treaty with Quraish. There is the Battle of Hunsin. In 630 Muhammad had conquered Mecca and he destroys all the idols in Mecca.
He stole and he murdered in Allah's name. His followers today are doing the same. So, are the "moderate/peaceful Muslims" emulating the character of their founder or is the Jihadist???
Jesus neither stole or murdered. So it goes to say that those that are doing so, that call themselves Christians , are not.
Last edited by citizenkane2; 11-11-2009 at 11:04 AM..
EVER READ THIS ????
[color=black]Would Jesus have blown up the Federal Building?? I think you know the answer to that. If that's the case, what makes you keep harping on that same tired ol' argument?? Would Jesus have burned a cross in a black person's yard? Any record of him doing any of the things that some people have done in his name??
You sure about that? Have you read the bible?
Leviticus 25:44-46 "" 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."
Numbers 31, "The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people." (Too long to post all of it)
Deuteronomy 13:6-16, "If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. 9 You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again."
I'm Christian but your ignorance about your own religion is astounding.
I honestly got tired of listing them all, heres just a few. Just because you believe in something doesn't mean its right and everyone else is wrong, it means your a bigot. And the whole blue thing, thats really cute, good for you.
So you list a group of fringe religions- none of which appear to preach death and destruction to non believers (innocents) and most with no indication of where one might find a Church where their doctrine is taught? And in your mind this is comparable to Wahhabism?
A few samples of what others believe Wahhabi preaches: 80 percent of US mosques have been radicalized by Saudis Wahhabis according to expert on terrorism
" over 80 percent of mosques in the US have been radicalized by the Wahhabi form of Islam." Shouldn't be hard to find a Mosque teaching death and destruction -ya think? Terrorism: Growing Wahhabi Influence in the United States
"I come before this body today to describe how adherents of Wahhabism, the most extreme, separatist, and violent form of Islam, and the official sect in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, have come to dominate Islam in the U.S."
FrontPage Magazine - Terrorism: Growing Wahhabi Influence in the United States (http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=17403 - broken link)
"Senator Jon Kyl, R-AZ, chaired hearings on "Terrorism: Growing Wahhabi Influence in the United States" last Thursday, June 26, before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security"
Who Is a Wahhabi? (http://www.semp.us/publications/biot_reader.php?BiotID=123 - broken link)
“The day of judgment will not arrive until Muslims fight Jews, and Muslims will kill Jews until the Jew hides behind a tree or a stone."
"Just because you believe in something doesn't mean its right and everyone else is wrong, it means your a bigot." I can only assume you were speaking of yourself- I have no problem with Islam other than Wahhabi. I've stayed in their houses as a guest, broken bread and shared philosophies. I have no problem with any religion that doesn't preach hate and death to others. I believe that any religion doing so has nothing to do with God (whatever they call Him). That includes fringe groups of any religion.
IMO it seems that you are blinded by your hatred of Christians and can't abide the thought that they might not be worse than all other religions.
Dano
"And the whole blue thing" was an attempt to draw your attention to the parts of my post you evidently failed to read. You paid attention this time, good for you. D
In the aftermath of the recent mass murder of Americans by a Palestinian muslim with USA citizenship,
it is useful to have your comments on muslims in USA,either on visa status,or naturalised...
I feel much, much safer around Muslims than I do patriotic, flag waving conservative American teabaggers with guns. One Muslim who snapped in no way is representative of Muslims in the United States anymore than the abortion doctor shooter is representative of Christians
To answer the OP, my opinion is this...........If Muslims choose to immigrate to the United States they need to be willing to assimilate. What has happened in Europe is beyond the pale. Why should any country be willing to change its culture to accomodate immigrants?
They don't need or have to assimilate to a dominant culture if they don't want to. Would it be helpful, yes. But what good would assimilation do? Just my opinion.
Leviticus 25:44-46 "" 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."
Numbers 31, "The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people." (Too long to post all of it)
Deuteronomy 13:6-16, "If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. 9 You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again."
I'm Christian but your ignorance about your own religion is astounding.[/quote]
I guess I'm equally as astounded that, you being a Christian and all, don't know the difference between the Old Covenant with the Jews only and the New Covenant with all of Mankind. And that you would dare equate the faith of Christ to that of Muhammad. Jesus is the New Covenant.......He is the the way...the example to follow.
Quote:
To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. 1 Peter2:21
Some of the things in the Old Testament served a purpose for a time:
1. The Canaanites were morally corrupt.
There was a profound moral corruption amongst the Canaanites that called out for God’s justice, in keeping with His salvation historical purposes. The divine judgment enacted upon the nation was consistent with God’s oracles against other nation states that had crossed moral thresholds including child sacrifce. The Canaanite campaign is also, in a sense, anticipatory of the final judgment where justice will be firmly established on a cosmic scale. 2. The Canaanites were morally culpable.
God has made available moral ideals and insights through general revelation to Gentile nations such that they are sufficiently accountable. Prophetic warnings as in Amos 1 -2 demonstrate that God can hold other nations responsible for stifling compassion, suppressing their consciences, and carrying out particularly heinous acts. The language used in the New Testament of the Gentile population also confirms this (”disobedient” (Heb. 11:31)–a term indicating a moral awareness of wrongdoing but a refusal to turn from it and also Paul’s affirmation of those outside the Sinai covenant who possess the capacity (through conscience) to distinguish right from wrong (Rom. 2:14–15)) 3. The preservation of Rahab’s family demonstrated the possibility of amnesty.
Rahab’s embrace of Yahweh and discovery of salvation exhibited both the compassionate character of God and His to relent from judgment, whether Canaanite, Ninevite (Jon. 4:2) or those from any “nation” that “turns from its evil” (Jer. 18:7–8). It is Yahweh’s desire that the wicked turn rather than die (Ezek. 18:31–32; 33:11) but once a nation surpasses a point of no moral and spiritual return, God will intervene (as He did even upon Israel and Judah (2 Chron. 36:16; cp. 2 Kings 18:11–12; 1 Chron. 5:23) ). 4. Humanity is incapable of refereeing God’s actions.
Apart from God, we have no transcultural standpoint to assess the moralfitness of a culture, least of all, judge God Himself and His purposes in judgment. 5. The Canaanite campaign was not motivated by racial hatred or ethnic superiority.
God repeatedly commands Israel to show concern for strangers and aliens in their midst (for example, Lev. 19:34; Deut. 10:18–19) and throughout the Old Testament this theme is evident in the way enemies of Israel are shown as eventual objects of His salvation and are consequently incorporated into the people of God (Ps 87). God’s concern for the nations and His continual reminder that the taking of the land is not due to Israel’s intrinsic superiority (“indeed, the Israelites are “a stubborn people” (Deut. 9:4–6)”) hardly supports a Gentile-hating, arrogant ethnocentrism. 6. The religious dimension of Israel’s campaign cannot be equated with the sanctioning of human sacrifice.
The OT passages that treat Israel’s motivation for the campaign highlight punishment against idolaters (especially those who have lead Israel astray or committed injustice against her), the total destruction of warriors and the consecration to God of everything that was captured. Further, the OT strongly condemns child sacrifice as the epitome of anti-Yahwist and anti-social behavior. Even to take certain (dubious) readings as demonstrating the act of sacrifice is to forget that not all behavioral examples included in Scripture are good ones (cp. 1 Cor. 10:1–12) and in fact the theology of Judges emphasizes the nadir of Israelite morality and religion.
7. The rhetorical devices common to Ancient Near East (ANE) literature must be taken into account when understanding the passages that talk of total obliteration.
The phrase “all that breathes” is a standard ANE expression of military bravado and refers to total victory and the crushing defeat over one’s enemies. The accounts made clear that many inhabitants remained in the land and prescriptions against alliances and intermarriage with them actually assumed this.
8. Following OT scholar Richard Hess, it can be argued that the Canaanites targeted for destruction were the political leaders and their armies rather than noncombatants. The language employed appears to be stereotypical for describing all the inhabitants of a town or region, without forcing the reader to conclude anything further about their ages or even their genders.
9. Both the language and archaeological evidence point to Jericho, Ai, and the other targeted cities in Canaan as military forts, lacking civilian populations. The actual battles in Joshua do not mention noncombatants and excavated physical evidence show that, for example, Jericho was a military settlement and therefore all those killed were warriors.
10. The methods of Israel’s warfare demonstrate restraint and lack the bloodthirsty fervor of similar ANE annals.
Many battles were defensive and in response to calculated assaults and attempts to lead Israel into immorality. God often prohibited Israel from conquering other neighbouring nations.
11. The Canaanite campaign did not set down a pattern or legitimize similar action for later Israel or even professing Christians.
The killing of the Canaanites was deliberately limited in scope and restricted to a specific period of time. Neither Deuteronomy nor Joshua imply the campaign as precedent-setting and successive OT leaders did not take it as such. We do not see Saul, David or the other leaders of Israel and Judah undertaking similar action against Assyria, Babylon, Persia, or the local equivalents of the Canaanites in the Second Temple period. Christians that have sought to justify their military campaigns with the killing of the Canaanites ignore Jesus clear own kingdom teaching (Matt 26:52; John 18:36).
Should women and children have been explicit targets of the campaign (scenairo 2): 1. For the Israelites, the killing of the Canaanites would have been a grim task but in the ANE, warfare was a way of life and a means of survival.
Combatant and noncombatant would not have been easily distinguished and in combination with the hardness of human hearts (Matt. 19:8) and human moral bluntedness in the ANE, would have likely rendered such actions considerably less psychologically damaging for the Israelite soldier.
2. The Canaanite campaign must be set within the context of God’s overarching goal to bring blessing and salvation to all the nations, including the Canaanites, through Abraham (Gen. 12:3; 22:17–18; cp. 28:13–14). The killing of the Canaanites is not the norm but a troubling exception, apart of a background of God’s enemy-loving character and worldwide salvific purposes. While simultaneously punishing a morally wicked people and seeking to establish Israel in the land, God was certainly willing to preserve any who acknowledged his evident lordship over the nations, which was very well known to the Canaanites (Josh. 2:8–11; 9:9–11, 24; cf. Exod. 15:14–17; Deut. 2:25).
3. We should expect God’s purposes to be often unclear and even baffling, but not let this eclipse the overwhelming revelation of God’s trustworthy character.
We cannot measure God by our own defective standards, but must remember both His “kindness and severity” (Rom. 11:22) and realize God’s unique cosmic authority will seek to correct our profoundly selfish human ways, even in civil contexts. Given the inadequacy of our “cognitive position”, and the recognition that even in human relationships there must be room for trust, the full picture of God’s purposes may not always be available to us.
Did God order genocide in the Old Testament against the Canaanites? : Thinking Matters Talk (http://talk.thinkingmatters.org.nz/2009/did-god-order-genocide-in-the-old-testament-against-the-canaanites/ - broken link)
______________________
The Koran has no Old Covenant. Everything in it is to be followed today. That includes the murder of the infidel.
So you list a group of fringe religions- none of which appear to preach death and destruction to non believers (innocents) and most with no indication of where one might find a Church where their doctrine is taught? And in your mind this is comparable to Wahhabism?
A few samples of what others believe Wahhabi preaches:
Did you even look at the links? All of them are Christian terrorists organizations that commit acts of violence against others because of their beliefs, ideology, and opinions, I would consider that a Christian sect who preaches violence and destruction, not only do the teach violence and destruction, they act upon it.
Locations of some, I'm not listing all, its provided right there in the link.
Army of God- USA
The Lambs of Christ-USA
Lord's Resistance Army-Uganda
Russian National Unity-Russia
Iron God and Lancieri-Romaina Etc.
I don't understand what the difference is between Wahhabi and the organizations I listed. The organizations I listed are sects of the Christian church, Wahhabi is a sect of Muslim.
I feel much, much safer around Muslims than I do patriotic, flag waving conservative American teabaggers with guns. One Muslim who snapped in no way is representative of Muslims in the United States anymore than the abortion doctor shooter is representative of Christians
Fort Dix??
Sears Tower???
Honor Killings of their own wives and daughters??
Patriot Act helped foil New York terror plot
Examiner Editorial
September 30, 2009
efforts in thwarting a planned terrorist attack on the city's subway system
Should I keep going??
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
