Manchester next

[marinera]

....
Any suggestion that Tutsis look more European than Hutus is shaky at best...

So what? You are trying to fight facts - that the Roman Church espoused the view that Tutsi are more close to European than Hutsi and so endorsed genocide, which even the Pope acknowledged and apologized for - with your personal opinion that Tutsi are more african than Hutsi? What that is supposed to demonstrate? As Charls Kimball, a baptist minister and professor who studied the field, concluded, a strong case can be mad that history of christianity contains by far more violence than any other religion. Two good readings to inform yourself:

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/91379.When_Religion_Becomes_Evil

https://www.amazon.com/Christianity-Not-Great-Faith-Fails/dp/1616149566

 

[marinera]

In the name of which religious group did he claim to be carrying out the bombing? I guess I missed that.

In the name of people like you.

 

[deleted37010]

In the name of people like you.

Donald Trump was declared a born-again Christian by Dr James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family around June 25, 2016

 

[deleted37010]

False equivalences all.

southern white christian history

visit the website... read the postcards from the lynchings...see the pictures that were taken at the lynchings... read the newspaper articles taken out in advance... advertising an upcoming lynching
http://withoutsanctuary.org/

 

[ConanTheBarber]

And wasn't a christian named George W. Bush overthrowing a Muslim leader of a country mostly islamic? Weren't the christians Obama and Blair overthrowing the Muslim Gaddaffi? Where are you going with that?

I am saying that it is irrelevant. Those actions were not done in the name of Christianity.
The invasion of Iraq was probably as great an error as any in the history of American foreign policy.
Your example of Obama and Blair overthrowing the Muslim Gaddaffi is oddly one-eyed. There were Muslims lined up on all of the factions on the ground in Iraq. Many of them devoutly sought the overthrow of Gaddaffi.

That anti-balaka did the good thing killing and eating muslisms that didn't want to become christians?

I deplore the violence but my contention is merely that it was not essentially religious. There seems to be a great deal of agreement about that.
Do you have a link about the Antibalaka killing and eating muslims? I mean something that would suggest it was widespread enough to characterize the violence. There are nutbars everywhere.

That the Catholic church did right endorsing genocide?

The Catholic Church deplored the Rwanda genocide.

And how about the christian terrorists in India?

How about them? No one has said that no one can commit terrorism in the name of Christianity. But anyone who does, does not have the mandate, expressed again and again, of Christianity's holy book. Muslim extremists, on the other hand, are enjoined throughout the Quran to perform jihad.
Quran (8:59-60) - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy."
Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement."

You are applying two weights and two measures showing not much a different perspective than those of islamic extremists.

Islamic extremists have very few counterparts among other religions, and the Muslim public is growing increasingly sick of them.

 

[coopturn]

In the name of people like you.

I am not a religion. So I don't know where you're going with this.

 

[deleted37010]

I am saying that it is irrelevant. Those actions were not done in the name of Christianity.

that's wrong.... george w emphatically saw his actions as having religious implications/foundations... he called his actions a crusade for christ's sake!

 

[coopturn]

here's an example.... witnessed countless times
groups of catholic and protestant men in northern ireland throwing rocks and bottles at catholic or protestant elementary school aged children in the name of their religious group.... in no way does that mean those people who were claiming to be protestant or catholic as they were throwing the bottles and rocks actually represented anything truly protestant or truly catholic... if they are throwing rocks and bottles at children... they're not really acting christian.... we all accept that... even though the catholic and protestant men were doing it in the name of either being catholic or protestant!
do the same with the taliban, boko haram, or ISIL
they can claim to be islamic... but that doesn't mean they are...

No but I don't really think that specific example is relevant. Firstly, the "troubles" in Northern Ireland have ended for the most part. Secondly, the root of those problems were unionist vs. non-unionst, not religion. They didn't terrorize in the name of a religion. The Unionists were largely Protestant and the anti-unionists were mostly Catholic. They weren't motivated to fight each other over their faiths as much as they were by their loyalty to the crown, in the case of the unionists, or by their hatred of the British, in the case of the anti-unionists. I'm Catholic but I also believe in a liberal democracy and the majority of those in Northern Ireland consistently voted to remain part of the UK, and I tended to be more sympathetic to their cause than I did the other side. My denomination had nothing to do with my view on the subject.

 

[marinera]

I am saying that it is irrelevant. Those actions were not done in the name of Christianity.
....

I am saying it is relevant and anyone unbiased would acknowledge that.

The Catholic Church deplored the Rwanda genocide.

...

Many Imams deplored islamic terrorisms. You know, Islam doesn't have a Pope. Actually, ISIS is killing mostly Islamic people, and is armed by Saudi Arabia which is allied of the good, white, christian USA.

[

...
Your example of Obama and Blair overthrowing the Muslim Gaddaffi is oddly one-eyed. There were Muslims lined up on all of the factions on the ground in Iraq. Many of them devoutly sought the overthrow of Gaddaffi.
....

You don't like your own medicine? That there were other muslims trying to overthrow Gaddaffi doesn't change a thing, christians presidents did what you said only islamic terrorists do. If its muslims, than it demosntrates that Islam is the evil, if western christian presidents do the same, then hell, it was just a mistake, let's keep going and hate muslims.


QUOTE="ConanTheBarber, post: 6496835, member: 721841"]
...

No one has said that no one can commit terrorism in the name of Christianity. But anyone who does, does not have the mandate, expressed again and again, of Christianity's holy book. Muslim extremists, on the other hand, are enjoined throughout the Quran to perform jihad.
Quran (8:59-60) - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy."
Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement."
....[/QUOTE]
You should read the Holy Bible sometimes, so you wouldn't make such stupid statements. Maybe.

 

[coopturn]

southern white christian history

visit the website... read the postcards from the lynchings...see the pictures that were taken at the lynchings... read the newspaper articles taken out in advance... advertising an upcoming lynching
http://withoutsanctuary.org/

You don't need to tell me about Southern white Christian history. I'm Southern, white and Christian. I know the history better than most. I lived it or had relatives who did. But how many of those folks left these shores and bombed arenas in the name of Southern white Christianity? How many of them flew airplanes into buildings in the name of Southern white Christianity? How many of them tried to conquer foreign nations in the name of Southern white Christianity?

 

[coopturn]

that's wrong.... george w emphatically saw his actions as having religious implications/foundations... he called his actions a crusade for christ's sake!

No he did not. Furthermore, one of his first acts after the 11 September terrorist acts was to visit a mosque and declare his view that Islam was a "religion of peace."

 

[ConanTheBarber]

So what? You are trying to fight facts - that the Roman Church espoused the view that Tutsi are more close to European than Hutsi and so endorsed genocide, which even the Pope acknowledged and apologized for - with your personal opinion that Tutsi are more african than Hutsi? What that is supposed to demonstrate? As Charls Kimball, a baptist minister and professor who studied the field, concluded, a strong case can be mad that history of christianity contains by far more violence than any other religion. Two good readings to inform yourself:

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/91379.When_Religion_Becomes_Evil

https://www.amazon.com/Christianity-Not-Great-Faith-Fails/dp/1616149566

I am not a Christian and would welcome the decline of all religion.
I asked you for a link proving that "the Roman Church espoused the view that Tutsi are more close to European than Hutsi and so endorsed genocide." Do you have one?
The fact is that links between the Catholic Church and Hutus were far closer than those with Tutsis, a fact a group of Rwandan bishops acknowledged when apologizing for the complicity of certain priests in the violence.
A report by the Organisation of African Unity said the Rwandan church had offered "indispensable support" to the Hutu regime.
You have stood things precisely on their head.
Pope Francis said nothing about Tutsis being supported in genocide by the Church — partly because the genocide was against them and against moderate Hutus, and not committed by them.
He asked forgiveness for the fact that some Catholic priests and nuns had "succumbed to hatred and violence" by participating in the genocide.


The links you gave to Kimball's book doesn't tell much about the book at all. You say Kimball concluded that "a strong case can be made that the history of Christianity contains far more violence than any other religion."
Where do you see this? (It's quite possible that that is exactly what he says. I'm not doubting it.)
Does he mean that forces led by people who were in fact Christian have done great harm in human history? I'm sure that's true. But were they acting in the name of Christianity? If they were, they were in most cases living many centuries ago.
The Christian wars are basically long past.

 

[marinera]

I am not a religion. So I don't know where you're going with this.

Religion exists only in the mind of people. In your mind exists christian religion and you think it makes you morally superior to muslims, despite history saying the adverse. Reagan, Bush, Obama, Trump, all of them did what ISIS is doing in the name of people like you. Don't try to hide behind a finger.

 

[Jason]

... it is by no means as obvious that the extremist Muslim groups are betraying true Islam. They can make an excellent case that they are the truest Muslims, closest to the mindset of Muhammad.

I would love to be able to say you are wrong. Unfortunately I cannot.

Christianity has three ways of modifying or changing beliefs:

• Church councils or similar, particularly common in the Roman Catholic church, but found in the Anglican church, the Orthodox, and doubtless others.
• Textual interpretation, particularly in the protestant tradition. Absolutely everything must be understood against the key statement "love God and love your neighbour". This method is common in protestant churches.
• Continuing revelation. This is particularly common in Quakers, charismatic churches.

To some extent all Christian churches use all three. There are also inter-denominational organisations.

The Christian Church can and does change. The Church today is not the same as it was a century ago. It has adapted. It is also possible for the Christian Church to say that some organisations that claim they are Christian are not, or that Christians should have done more to stand against wrongs. I understand the Jewish faith has comparable mechanisms for change.

By contrast Islam does not have such mechanisms. This faith is regarded by its believers as incapable of change. The majority of Moslems have traditionally not been particularly well educated in their faith. The majority just don't know what their faith says. An issue is that we now have a young generation better educated than their parents who are discovering what their faith says.

The world desperately needs to see Islam modify its core beliefs. This is a challenge for Islam first of all, but it is something that Islam has to do. What we have now is a fudge: the majority of Islamic communities and mosques quietly ignore parts of what their faith says. While a fudge is better than nothing it is not adequate. Islam has to do better. I suppose the follow through is that the whole of humanity has to tell Islam that it has to sort out this mess. And it is Islam that has to budge.

The Quran is published in Russia (in a Russian translation) but is censored - the bad bits are taken out. From an academic perspective I have all sorts of issues about censorship. However the UK does have laws about inciting violence, and this does have impact on what can be put in print. If it wasn't a holy text it could not be published. Of course in a digital age there is no way of stopping access to a text, but I do wonder if in the UK we need a censored Quran, issued by and fully supported by mosques in the UK.

 

[marinera]

No he did not. Furthermore, one of his first acts after the 11 September terrorist acts was to visit a mosque and declare his view that Islam was a "religion of peace."

In denial?
George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq'
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

 

[deleted37010]

How about them? No one has said that no one can commit terrorism in the name of Christianity. But anyone who does, does not have the mandate, expressed again and again, of Christianity's holy book.

historically wrong
Killing unbelievers was actually declared by popes Leo IV and John VIII to be spiritually beneficial for Christian soldiers: Their sins could be erased if they killed in defense of the Church.

the bible itself does expressly not only allows for such violence, it is often recited with praise.... as it was commanded by god himself on several occasions

God demands purity and strict obedience, and idolatry and blasphemy were punishable by death (Exodus 20:3, 5)
God can justify the slaughter of entire communities (Deuteronomy 20:10-18).

"[Joshua's army killed everyone in Jericho], both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys.... Joshua defeated the whole land... he left no one remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded."
(Joshua 6:21 and 10:40)

"I will sing praise to your name, O Most High.... The enemies have vanished in everlasting ruins; their cities you have rooted out; the very memory of them has perished.... The LORD will swallow [up his enemies] in his wrath, and fire will consume them. [He] will destroy their offspring from the earth ... their children from ... humankind." (Psalms 9:2, 6, and 21:9-10)

"[Thousands of angels] proclaimed with loud voices: 'Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth, wisdom and might, honor and glory and praise!'... I saw heaven wide open, and a white horse appeared; its rider's name was Faithful and True, for he is just in judgment and just in war.... [H]e was robed in a garment dyed in blood, and he was called the Word of God. The armies of heaven followed him.... Out of his mouth came a sharp sword to smite the nations; for it is he who will rule them with a rod of iron, and tread the winepress of the fierce wrath of God the sovereign Lord." (Revelation 5:11-12 and 19:11, 13-15)

 

[coopturn]

In denial?
George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq'
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

That doesn't translate into his initiatives being done exclusively in the name of Christianity and at the expense of Islam and if it did, it stands in contrast to his constant claims that Islam is a religion of peace.

 

[coopturn]

Religion exists only in the mind of people. In your mind exists christian religion and you think it makes you morally superior to muslims, despite history saying the adverse. Reagan, Bush, Obama, Trump, all of them did what ISIS is doing in the name of people like you. Don't try to hide behind a finger.

I just love the way you presume to think for me and interpret my views. So typical. I never once said any such things as you claim.

 

[deleted37010]

No he did not. Furthermore, one of his first acts after the 11 September terrorist acts was to visit a mosque and declare his view that Islam was a "religion of peace."

 

[deleted37010]

That doesn't translate into his initiatives being done exclusively in the name of Christianity and at the expense of Islam and if it did, it stands in contrast to his constant claims that Islam is a religion of peace.

okay.. let me apologize.... i think we are on two different tracks
a) bush is christocentric and absolutely thinks he was placed in power to do the will of the lord jesus.... and bush totally buys into the jesus and end of the world apocalypse stuff....
b) bush thinks the majority of muslims in the world are peaceful