Religious Debates - come on in y'all!

[Saletsia]

@ cyadkuso:

Xtianity started with peaceful evangelization leading to the death of many missionaries who turned to be martyrs in Christendom. Forceful evangelization took place when Christianity was declared the official religion of the state and missionaries were still being killed by e.g. Germanic tribes (e.g.: the Saxons).
By that time: Christianity had the military support of the state, on the other hand Xtianity was made a useful tool for the state.
Now calling Jihad a state of "defense" against Christians can be negated by history itself: as I have stated: Christians originally did not even have any interest for Islam. Nor were they bothered about the new religion outside the boundaries of the 2 Roman Empires: it was until Islam started "defending" itself by actually attacking people outside their territories that Xtians used the sword against them: quite late if you ask me.

@ Eientei:
Now you use the "fanatic"/misuse by the state to protect Islam.
In order to understand what a religion is about one has to study its origin, its beginning.
Xtianity originated from Jesus: his life was peaceful and good.
Islam originated from Mohammed who founded it and used it directly as a political tool - used to wage wars against the "Kuffar".

Now if you still think that is the religion of "peace", well you are entitled to your opinion, but it's quite far away from what history tells us.

[Myroria]

The Crusades were not "defense". They were entirely "Can you believe they don't eat pigs and own the holy city? Attack them!" wars.

[Cyadkuso]

@Saletsia

Well they are calling it a jihad, which could mean anything from "defense of Islam" to "holy war." So its not neccesarilly that they are calling it a defense. They are calling it a jihad which has many meanings.

I said they are calling it a jihad. Which could mean defense or a holy war or I'm sure some other meanings I do not know of. So obviously it changes depending on the situation.

@ cyadkuso:
Xtianity started with peaceful evangelization leading to the death of many missionaries who turned to be martyrs in Christendom. Forceful evangelization took place when Christianity was declared the official religion of the state and missionaries were still being killed by e.g. Germanic tribes (e.g.: the Saxons).
By that time: Christianity had the military support of the state, on the other hand Xtianity was made a useful tool for the state.

Also, it does not matter when Christians started to attack other people. The fact of the matter is that one of the Christian faith attacked another human being. Same as how some people of Islamic faith are attacking people. They are both trying to get people that did/do not want to be a part of their faith to follow it anyways. It's kind of like having a murderer that committed his murder 30 years before saying that someone that is killing people now is a horrible person. They really do not have room to criticize someone for doing something that they themselves are guilty of, no matter the intention.

[Saletsia]

@ Myroria: Spare us from stupid comments without any truth.

@ Cyadkuso:
Well you have to differentiate between an attacker and the defender: you are now arguing like a muslim using the sharia who would rather punish the rape victim than the rapist.
No religion, no lack-of religion is free of blood. The question is: what reason has blood been shed for?
If someone were to kill in self.defense, would you put him in the same position as a notorious murderer?

[Cyadkuso]

@ Cyadkuso:
Well you have to differentiate between an attacker and the defender: you are now arguing like a muslim using the sharia who would rather punish the rape victim than the rapist.
No religion, no lack-of religion is free of blood. The question is: what reason has blood been shed for?
If someone were to kill in self.defense, would you put him in the same position as a notorious murderer?

No I would not condemn the victim to the same fate as the person that committed the crime. But the fact that someone killed the people that were sent to try to convert them would seem to send the message that they do not want the religion being preached. So the Christians lost some missionaries, and than killed the people that killed the missionaries(which is....alright). Unfortunately it also seems like the Christians continued on to either kill the rest of the people of that religion or in one way or another forced them to convert.

No religion, no lack-of religion is free of blood. The question is: what reason has blood been shed for?

I have never said that there is a religion totally free of bloodshed. I simply said that it is wrong for a religion to group the whole religion based on the actions of a few that have taken a more radical approach. I am sure that not all of the Christians supported the radical way that some were taking to carry out the Inquisition or the taking back of Jerusalem and the Holy Lands. Just like not all of those following the Islamic faith support the radicals that are killing others.
And before you try to say that Muslims have done many horrible things to other people again, 

But in the 1200s, shortly after the beginning of the crusades against the Muslims, wholly European crusades against Christian dissidents were enacted.

The first victims were the Albigenses, sometimes called the Cathari, who were centered primarily in southern France. These poor freethinkers doubted the biblical story of Creation, thought that Jesus was an angel instead of God, rejected transubstantiation, and demanded strict celibacy...   

In 1208, Pope Innocent III raised an army of over 20,000 knights and peasants eager to kill and pillage their way through France. When the city of Beziers fell to the besieging armies of Christendom, soldiers asked papal legate Arnald Amalric how to tell the faithful apart from the infidels. He uttered his famous words: "Kill them all. God will know His own." Such depths of contempt and hatred are truly frightening, but they are only possible in the context of a religious doctrine of eternal punishment for unbelievers and eternal reward for believers.

So it would seem that both religions have and are going through a time when they kill many people. Its just that the Christians got it done before those of Islamic faith, and the fact that the world is now more concerned with such things.

[Delfos]

wow hold on, more people taking sides of religion? Saletsia i dare to say you have been tainted by an anti-islamic propaganda, can't blame you, "they don't have the fault, they are innocent", "BUT THEY THROWN AIRPLANES TO THE TWIN TOWERS!!! BASTARDS!" oh well...

To give you perspective noticed in Euronews:

http://www.euronews.net/index.php?page=mediterraneans&article=440191&lng=1 (oops wrong video)

they probably erased, but anyway, it was an interview with an Islamic woman and man that condemned the threats of Al Qaeda about bombings during the Ramadan. So you can surely say those are radicals...

[Saletsia]

To: Cyadkuso and Delfos:

Anti-Islamic "propaganda"racism/nazism is often the pathetic excuse used by muslims and Dhimmis in order to discredit those who see a threat in the spreading of this "peaceful religion".

Now, I never claimed any religion to be free of black sheep. BUT I dare claim that a religion in its essence can be born of a good or bad idea - be created for faith in God or be created to intentionally manipulate those who think they believe in God.

As I have said before, in order to see what a religion is about: study its beginning and its creation. Look at its founder.

No one can tell me Mohammed was a good man and I dare claim the right to base my opinion on Islam on the life of its founder <--- that is pure logic.

Delfos,
I am anti-islamic myself. Though is it me or you who is blinded by misinformation? I have my views from history, studying the Quran and dialogue with muslims.
You base your views on what the EU tells you?
I guess you don't even know of the Barcelona Declaration wherein islamic OPEC countries assure us Europeans oil in exchange for islamic immigration which I dare view as infiltration since it is what THEY THEMSELVES have revealed.
I am speaking about the speech of the Algerian president before the UN council in 1979 and quotes by Erdogan (Turkey's current leader).

Now do consider your position. I know I have checked both sides since I very often talk to my islamic counterparts. What have you done aside from listening to what our oil-greedy states tell you?

On a side not: a muslim is allowed to lie to Kuffar (infidels) for the sake of Islam: Taqiyya
so I do not trust them so much.

[Delfos]

That's all true and agreeable as your point of view, i just think you're too extreme, as you say, anti-Islamic. I like to think both sides have their base of truth or both are wrong, i try to moderate, but maybe as you say they are really guilty. Yes my view is tainted by EU, but let me tell you that your perspective of EU view is wrong, Iran wants to deal with EU for oil and other products, they use Euro as exterior reference and the most Iran imports from from EU, and we sure want their oil passing directly to EU, which doesn't happen, the oil goes around by American shipping. That's the main product of 'Syriana' (excellent movie, i suggest you). Yes oil greedy Europeans that want direct trade with Iran instead of buying from American shipping. But now the France Prime-Minister goes to TV saying lunatic stuff, but that's another story. But still, our view is directly imported by Tony Blair from USA of terrorist bastards in Middle East, they are all evil and will blow you if they can. That's a very popular view.

What i can say, don't fall on extremism, anti-Islamic is as extreme as Islamic-terrorism.

[Saletsia]

Did I speak of Iran in particular? Nej

Now I do have to vehemently disagree with your comparison of Anti-Islamic people to Islamic terrorists.
First of all being anti-Islam only means one is against it as an ideology and rather sees its claimed state of being a religion of "peace" as a disguise.
Have you ever seen any Christian start blowing Muslims up simply because he does not believe in what muslims say?
As a Christian, I am bound to my faith and have to oppose Islam since it is designed to be against Judaism and Xtianity (read the Quran). So if I were to be "moderate", I would actually kinda denounce my own faith in a "moderate" way - does that make any sense? Nej

If you see the opposing of a basic idea so extreme, then why do you not consider Islam already totally extreme without exception? The Quran literally offends and insults Judaism and Xtianity. So why not be against that then?

This "moderation" crap has also been used in the German Republic of 1930: SA-troopers were brutal. People also said: they do not represent the entire NSDAP - they seem to rather be peaceful. Let us tolerate them and not be extreme.

We all know where that ended, no?

Some people simply never learn from history.

[Eientei]

So, Saletsia, what's the solution?  How do you think you should oppose Islam?  I'm honestly curious, because I can't tell from your post.  The relationship between Christian and Islamic cultures are very complex, and they've been that way for a long time.

Oh, yeah - Happy Ramadan.   

[Delfos]

Because Islam isn't as extreme as you are trying to paint it. There are what some call moderate Islamic, trying to put Islamic extremists int he same bag as any other Islamic groups is inside in my opinion. It's like saying all Americans are stupid or such. btw, was GWBush flirting on Socrates?

[Saletsia]

@ Eintei:
educating people.
hoping islamic immigration stops.
protesting against the building of more mosques, protesting against things like: public pools being closed down on SUndays for Muslims-day, acting on political level against such stupidities.

@ Delfos:
Not so long ago a Mullah from Egypt issued a fatwa saying there is no such thing as a "moderate muslime": you either follow the QUran and the "Prophet" or you're not a muslim at all.
I rather be cautious than wake up in a similar situation as to when the Nazis seized power...

As Hitler once said: "They laughed before for they did not take things seriously. Now they are not laughing anymore!"

[Prydania]

btw, was GWBush flirting on Socrates?

George W Bush does a lot of stuff that doesn't make sense. Just accept that, and things like this won't seem surprising to you.

[Eientei]

@ Delfos:
Not so long ago a Mullah from Egypt issued a fatwa saying there is no such thing as a "moderate muslime": you either follow the QUran and the "Prophet" or you're not a muslim at all.
I rather be cautious than wake up in a similar situation as to when the Nazis seized power...

As Hitler once said: "They laughed before for they did not take things seriously. Now they are not laughing anymore!"

"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

That quote is attributed to our very own Pat Robertson.  What if I told you that because Robertson (an American dyed-in-the-wool ultraconservative Christian if you're not familiar) said the United States should strip all non-believers of citizenship, all American Christians believe the same?  You'd laugh at me, and rightly so, because that argument wouldn't make any sense.  He's an extremist, he represents a fringe of his faith's adherents.

Similarly, just because one Muslim scholar in Egypt said "there's no such thing as a moderate Muslim" doesn't make him right.  In fact, he sounds like just the kind of far right-wing religious fanatic prick that plagues the world these days.  In any case, if there's no such thing as a moderate Muslim, I'm either not moderate or I'm not a Muslim.  See, now I'm having an identity crisis.  Thanks a lot!

@ Eintei:
educating people.
hoping islamic immigration stops.
protesting against the building of more mosques, protesting against things like: public pools being closed down on SUndays for Muslims-day, acting on political level against such stupidities.

Where do you live, exactly?

[Cyadkuso]

Have you ever seen any Christian start blowing Muslims up simply because he does not believe in what muslims say?

lol, The Crusades. I brought it up before, but it stands here. Maybe not blowing them up, but taking back cities belonging to Muslims. Massacring the Muslims that were in no way related to the ones that invaded Europe except for the fact that they shared the same relgion. Killing the women and children of the Muslims in the city...so theres the killing innocents for what they believe in. And yes those Christians were radicals, just like the ones blowing themselves up are radicals.

Did I speak of Iran in particular? Nej

As a Christian, I am bound to my faith and have to oppose Islam since it is designed to be against Judaism and Xtianity (read the Quran).

The Quran literally offends and insults Judaism and Xtianity. So why not be against that then?

One of the first things taught in a Christian (at least in my Catholic school) was that you should be tolerant of all people and religions. "Do unto others as you wish done unto you." So by your declaration of being a Christian you are bound by your faith to be tolerant towards Islam. Not oppose it.

And where in the Qur'an does it state its against Judaism and Christianity? (I actually dint know if its in there that's why I'm asking)

And on last quote from the generally respected Gandhi

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.