Jump to content

London Underground Bombings


monsoon

Recommended Posts

It is not about comparing which religion is better. That is just not possible. But it is essential that we Christians are aware that it is not a war of evil against goodness. Christianity( if ur a history major, u should know) has commited a lot, a lot of attrocities. Do u know about IRA in Irelanda? Or the Inquisition? Or the Spanish colonization of America?Or many latinamerican massacres in the name of Christ? Or the Protestants-Catholic massacres in Great Britain centuries ago? :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

No one goes around killing on behalf of Christianity since there are no parts of the New Testament which advocate this. People who are nominally Christian have, of course, killed but this is not the same thing. And, the religious civil wars you refer to occurred hundreds of years ago and had non-religious components to them also. I also would say that the Northern Ireland situation resembles more a tribal conflict than anything else. The bottom line is today Christianity is a force for peace in the world not violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one goes around killing on behalf of Christianity since there are no parts of the New Testament which advocate this.  People who are nominally Christian have, of course, killed but this is not the same thing.  And, the religious civil wars you refer to occurred hundreds of years ago and had non-religious components to them also.  I also would say that the Northern Ireland situation resembles more a tribal conflict than anything else.  The bottom line is today Christianity is a force for peace in the world not violence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well aside from the Crusades in which there were a huge amount of killings in the name of Christ, there were the massacres of countless Native Americans in the name of the Church. And to answer your earlier question, one only has to look at N. Ireland if one wants to see modern bombings at the hands of the Christian religion. In this case it is one sect (Catholics) vs another sect. (Protestants). I know of no other religion that has had such a negative influence on humanity in the name of its God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

monsoon: Again, nowhere in the New Testament does it advocate killing nonbelievers or anyone else. If misguided people murder, this does not mean it is sanctioned by the Christianity of the Bible. And, as to South America, please do not confuse the corrupt Catholic Church of the 1500s with Christianity. By that time, the Church was far too corrupted by money and earthly pleasure to be considered a proper representation of Christianity. Hence the Protestant Reformation. And the Crusades were largey a response to Muslim invasions of the areas around Jerusalem.

With the Northern Ireland situation, there are Catholic Unionists and Protestants who favor a united Ireland. I am quite familiar with this situation and it is an ancient emnity which is not sanctioned by any Christian church. Again, the confusion stems from people who claim to be Christian but who do not act in accordance with Biblical mandates.

As for religions which have caused the most trouble, I would argue that it is atheism, which is in fact the religion involving the worship of man rather than God, which has caused the most trouble. Look at the Nazis and the Communists, who together murdered 100s of millions in the 20th century. What were they but the complete and utter rejection of Christianity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are misquoting me. I never said Christianity sanctioned killing to promote the religion. Nor do any of the other religions even though it has been implied here. However that does not change the fact that millions have been killed in the name of religion and it is my contention that Christianity was used as the justification more than any other religion on the planet. With full support of the various Churches that proport to spread "Gods Word". As I mentioned above the Crusades, the massacres of the heathen Native Americans, Japanese, Chinese, etc. are examples of it.

Last time I checked atheism is not a religion nor the worship of anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

monsoon: Atheism is certainly fervently believed by many and has assumed many of the characteristics of a religion. Call it secular humanism if you want. It is nothing more than the denial of the existence of God and the worship of man. This is perhaps the most harmful force on earth. See Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, et al.

As to your view of Christianity, I find it analogous to the intolerance of which Christians are sometimes accused. And, I think I will need more specific historical evidence than just vague references to China, Japan and the Crusades to be convinced that Christianity is such a negative force. I think what you fail to understand is that in the past people have acted in immoral ways, while motivated by greed or lust, but they were not acting out Christian philosophy. The Spanish conquest of South/Central America, for example, was motivated by greed, not religion. Kings sometimes used the Catholic Church, for example, as cover for their immoral, anti-Christian acts. Cant you see the distinction?

Spartan: I understand this is what moderate Muslims argue and I am not an Islamic scholar so cannot disagree. I just hope they are able to control their more militant neighbors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

monsoon:  Atheism is certainly fervently believed by many and has assumed many of the characteristics of a religion.  Call it secular humanism if you want.  It is nothing more than the denial of the existence of God and the worship of man. .....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The fact that some people believe this so doesn't make it so. Some people still don't believe that mankind stepped onto the moon. The fact that some Christians want to characterize atheism as a religion is really doublespeak to cloud the possibility that people happily get by without religion. It doesn't compute if you are to believe the dogma. Atheism is not a religion, it is not organized, and I don't know of any atheists that advocate that Christians give up their religion.

The point of my statements in this thread is that you advocated keeping Muslems out of this country because of what has been done in the name of that religion. If that is the case, then you should do the same to immigrating Christians as well. It is my contention that anything that you could say to justify keeping Muslems out of this county can also be applied to Christians because just as many if not more atrocities have been committed in the name of that religion. In fact many in the Muslem world believe that Bush is committing his own Crusade against them, but again..... just because they believe it, doesn't make it so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

monsoon: Communism wasnt a religion? Nazism wasnt a religion? These philosophies represented the negation of Christianity and demanded absolute fidelity just like a religion and yet you refuse to acknowledge what they wrought. As to what I said about not admitting Islamic immigrants at this time, I think this is a wise policy. Christians arent going around trying to acquire deadly explosives, biological weapons or nukes to use against the US right now. This is the essential difference. Thus, this entire tangent regarding the past sins of long dead nominal Christians is not even relevant to the original point I made. And, citing instances of Christians behaving poorly in the past (although you have repeatedly failed to provide specifics as to how bad acts were called for in the Gospels) is not proof that Christianity itself was at fault for these bad acts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, enough religious wars y'all.  I am off to bed.  But, I will leave you to contemplate the following quote from Dostoevsy:  "without God, all things are possible."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So, I see ur a fervent believer. I respect that. But try to understand that it is not about attacking Christianity. I agree, the New testament does not promote violence. However, remember that the bible includes the old testament, and, also, includes a lot of extremely ambiguos phrases. Religion, as admirable as it might be, is very vulnerable to interpretation. Believe me, I know christians who promote violence. In kentucky, there were many who saw muslims as devils, and strongly believed that it was necessary to kill them in Iraq(for most, Ben Laden was Iraq's president, lol, they were very well informed :rofl: ). Here, you got your Catholic rich people who are sure that everybody is going to hell for not sharin their believes, who own gigantic pieces of land, and who are willing to kill indians, and others in order to maintain their power.

Either because of ignorance, or missinterpretation(is that how u say it?), Christianity has many times been used promote violence and death. Isn't the KKK a christian group? And yes, for you, and for me, christianity is not about abuses and terror, yet for many christians, it is. You see them as "outsiders", not real Christians, when in fact, they might see you as a man with little faith.Many of them might call you, or me, cowards for not fighting for Christianity. It is exactly the same thing with islam. All of them are muslims, yet they read their religion differently. Some might tell you that islam does not promote war, others might tell differently.

Regarding the spanish conquest of America, you are right, those were acts which involved much greed and hatred. You are describing them. But how did THEY describe and justify them? Were they made in the name of "greed"?? They were made in the name of God, of Christianity. Most natives were killed because they were seen as devilish animals. One of the main purposes was to eliminate evil from the new word. Most of my city's spanish colonial center were build over incaican, or native constructions, in order to force Christianity on the land. It was only after Bartholome de Las Casas( I hope you know about him) wrote his book that many christians accepted that the natives were humans. Nevertheless, they continued their massacres against those who did not accept the invaders' beliefs.

Religion is just too easy to change, and interpret based on different interest or needs. I also leave you with two quotes: "No one ever goes into battle thinking God is on the other side." Terry Goodkind

and the ever so popular: "Religion is the Opium of the masses"(Damn those stupid communists, that one they got right) :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just hope they are able to control their more militant neighbors.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed. A leader needs to step up in that region for any real change to occur. Saudi Arabia seems to be the logical leader, but they have shown no aspirations to do so on any significant level. None of the other countries over there are large/powerful enough to have any influence on anything. Iran could have potential, but being that it is a Shi'a country the rest of the region likely won't accept them as a leader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. A leader needs to step up in that region for any real change to occur. Saudi Arabia seems to be the logical leader, but they have shown no aspirations to do so on any significant level. None of the other countries over there are large/powerful enough to have any influence on anything. Iran could have potential, but being that it is a Shi'a country the rest of the region likely won't accept them as a leader.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Saudi Arabia is the big problem in the Middle East and it will never show leadership the Middle East until the Royal Family is thrown out. (a dictatorship BTW). And that won't happen because they are protected by the USA. This is the reason the terrorists don't like the USA. They don't care about our government, they don't care about our freedom, they don't even care about our Religions. What they do care about is the USA interferring in their Holy Land via support of the Royal Family and bases in Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia is home to the Wahabbist sect of Islam which does teach that all other sects of Islam are heretics, and the non-Islam people (such as Christians) are no better than dogs and should be treated as such. This is routinely taught in many religious schools in Saudi Arabia to the children there. The original King of Saudi Arabia on which the current Royal Family is based got control of the throne via support of the Wahabbists. However, the common person these days feels disinfranchised, there are no opportunites, and they view the Royal Family as traiters to the religion due to the excesses of the family and many who live a playboy life. This is a breeding ground for terrorism and it is directed at the USA who supports the status quo in Saudi Arabia. This is the reason that almost all of the 9/11 terrorist were from Saudi Arabia.

The situation is not going to change until the USA re-examines how it conducts its affairs in the Middle East. By continuing to support dictatorships, (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Pakistan, Egypt) so that millions of common Arabs stay in oppresson under these governments with no opportunities, expect more terrorists to be heading our way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

monsoon: I agree that the Saudis are a major problem and a source of both funding and manpower for terrorism. They have recently taken limited steps towards democracy though. We need to pressure them to transition into a constitutional monarchy on the order of Britain, in my opinion. They should also be made to stop supporting these wacko Wahhabi institutions around the world.

The situation is not going to change until the USA re-examines how it conducts its affairs in the Middle East. By continuing to support dictatorships, (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Pakistan, Egypt) so that millions of common Arabs stay in oppresson under these governments with no opportunities, expect more terrorists to be heading our way.

But, we took out Saddam, the most brutal dictator in the Middle East, and have set up a democratically elected government in Iraq and Bush gets endlessly criticised for this. If dictatorships breed terrorists, then democratic govts must breed satisfied citizens unwilling to blow themselves up. Sounds like you are coming around to my way of thinking. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

monsoon:  I agree that the Saudis are a major problem and a source of both funding and manpower for terrorism.  They have recently taken limited steps towards democracy though.  We need to pressure them to transition into a constitutional monarchy on the order of Britain, in my opinion.  They should also be made to stop supporting these wacko Wahhabi institutions around the world.

But, we took out Saddam, the most brutal dictator in the Middle East, and have set up a democratically elected government in Iraq and Bush gets endlessly criticised for this.  If dictatorships breed terrorists, then democratic govts must breed satisfied citizens unwilling to blow themselves up.  Sounds like you are coming around to my way of thinking.  ;)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Demcratic governments like the one with Pinochet, in Chile, installed by the CIA? And yes, "democratizacion" accoriding to the USA. Satisfied citizens? Muslims who see their families die, and ther cultural heritage destroyed, i assure you, are not satisfied. :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

monsoon:  I agree that the Saudis are a major problem and a source of both funding and manpower for terrorism.  They have recently taken limited steps towards democracy though.  We need to pressure them to transition into a constitutional monarchy on the order of Britain, in my opinion.  They should also be made to stop supporting these wacko Wahhabi institutions around the world.

But, we took out Saddam, the most brutal dictator in the Middle East, and have set up a democratically elected government in Iraq and Bush gets endlessly criticised for this.  If dictatorships breed terrorists, then democratic govts must breed satisfied citizens unwilling to blow themselves up.  Sounds like you are coming around to my way of thinking.  ;)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not sure that you could rank Saddam as the most brutal dictator in the Middle East. Maybe the most notorious, but his atrocities are no worse than the funding that supported 9/11. And he did at least run a secular government that included Christians (the only government in the middle east to do so) and had a growing middle class until gulf war I. He was the wrong target if our goal was to end terrorism against the USA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, the "religion of peace" strikes again.

By continuing to support dictatorships, (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Pakistan, Egypt) so that millions of common Arabs stay in oppresson under these governments with no opportunities, expect more terrorists to be heading our way.

So, these countries are bad and Saddam's Iraq was good? I presume you support the overthrow of the governments of these countries then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FLOGGING MOLLY LYRICS

"Drunken Lullabies"

Must it take a life for hateful eyes

To glisten once again

Five hundred years like Gelignite

Have blown us all to hell

What savior rests while on his cross we die

Forgotten freedom burns

Has the Shepard led his lambs astray

to the bigot and the gun

Must it take a life for hateful eyes

To glisten once again

Cause we find ourselves in the same old mess

Singin' drunken lullabies

I watch and stare as Rosin's eyes

Turn a darker shade of red

And the bullet with this sniper lie

In their bloody gutless cell

Must we starve on crumbs from long ago

Through these bars of men made steel

Is it a great or little thing we fought

Knelt the conscience blessed to kill

Must it take a life for hateful eyes

To glisten once again

Cause we find ourselves in the same old mess

Singin' drunken lullabies

Ah, but maybe it's the way you were taught

Or maybe it's the way we fought

But a smile never grins without tears to begin

For each kiss is a cry we all lost

Though there is nothing left to gain

But for the banshee that stole the grave

Cause we find ourselves in the same old mess

Singin' drunken lullabies

I sit in and dwell on faces past

Like memories seem to fade

No colour left but black and white

And soon will all turn grey

But may these shadows rise to walk again

With lessons truly learnt

When the blossom flowers in each our hearts

Shall beat a new found flame

Must it take a life for hateful eyes

To glisten once again

Cause we find ourselves in the same old mess

Singin' drunken lullabies

Cause we find ourselves in the same old mess

Singin' drunken lullabies

Singin' drunken lullabies

:ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OH MY GOD!!!!PEACE IS HERE!!!!RUN!!!!!!!!

Am sorry, I thought Christianity was based on love and peace. For what I know Jesus Chrst did not attack any adversary. Maybe am wrong, if someone could please tell me, how much war did Jesus promote, I will be very grateful. It is  a shame nobody cares about the real ideals of this religion. Please dont reduce evrything to "good" and "bad". Iraq, as terrible as its government was, had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks. Al Qaeda was against Hussein. But those governments will not be overthrown as long as they act as USA's pets. It doesnt matter how "bad" their govs are, is not about morals, is about interests.  :ph34r:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good grief, I've got to say something here! :ph34r: It seems that people who know a little about Jesus always like to make Him out to be some sort of Roman-era hippie who just wanted the world to be one in peace, love, harmony. Check your Scriptures, please...

Jesus did become angry and even showed violence when it was justified. When He came to the Temple in Jerusalem and saw merchants using the Temple as an open-air market, he became furious, threw the merchants out and overturned their tables! Jesus did say to turn the other cheek, but He also taught that people are not to be doormats, either.

It feels like many people in this country and abroad would prefer to be doormats when it comes to fighting terrorism. -_-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think if Jesus had had a modern backpack bomb, he would have used that to destroy the marketplace instead? What about the poor people who depended and were using the market?

The Baptist Church down the road is having a fish fry tonight. Wonder if Jesus would have a fit about that too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.