Persecution of Christians

[mikkel_the_dane]

I have a feeling your understanding of judgment is different than mine
Judgment in my understanding is to speak bad or speak down other people, to think er know better than others

Yes, you are right. But it goes deeper than that. We end here: "Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." - Protagoras. Measure meaning the subjective, relative, values, morality and so on.
So when we are presented individually with different measures, we all judge/measure whether to keep our own or to use the different one.

 

[firedragon]

Imagine how abused Muslims must feel. Everyone pointing to them in their burkas, hanging on their every cuss about how Americans have occupied and ravaged their territories in the middle east. So, what if they say that they want to murder the president of the United States, or see the US a burning cinder. They are understandably angry, and they are supposed to be bitter and dangerous.

Christians must be warm and welcoming, and make sure that Arab terrorists feel welcome in the United States, and treated as every other citizen. Sure, we must pay a money to guard every airport, and put in special ultrasound at airports to check for contraband. But, we can't racially profile.

So, if a 6 year old blonde, blue-eyed girl is trying to board a plane with her parents to get to a baptist convention, she should be scrutinized as a possible al Qaeda just as much as the Muslim who is screaming at the top of his lungs with a thick Arabic accent, "death to Americans" and trying to light his tennis shoe bomb on fire.

Ancient bibles were violent. Many bibles (even the Christian bible) have parts that suggest violence. Yet, look at all of the people who believe in peace.

PHILIPPINES:

Abu Sayyaf: Target of Philippine-U.S. Anti-Terrorism Cooperation

In the Philippines, many years ago, the al Qaeda came as peace-loving citizens. Then they took over politics as ruthless and violent dictators. They had trained Filipinos to hate Jews (though none had ever seen a Jew). As Christians, we can't discriminate, and must allow those who do discriminate to grow in power, spread discrimination, and kill us. This is the only way that we could rapture to heaven in the end times. Why harm those who are trying to kill us in order to rapture us to heaven?

TERRORISM IN ISRAEL:

Jewish teens were targeted by Arab terrorists. They wanted to kill those with a lot of promise and hope. Some would have become doctors, some would have been world leaders, working for peace. So, pizza parlors were a major focal point for Arab bombs. Sometimes Arabs would strap bombs to their own sons and send them in to blow themselves up and blow up others. The promise, of course, was eternal bliss with 72 virgins (anyone who is married knows that marriage isn't bliss).

Evangelical Christians Take Aim at Islam

Reverend Jerry Falwell: "I think Mohammed was a terrorist ." "he was about a violent man, a man of war."

Reverend Pat Robertson (founder of the Christian Coalition) said about Mohammad "He was a robber and a brigand" "This man was an absolute wild-eyed fanatic." "Adolph Hitler was bad, but what the Muslims want to do to the Jews is worse"

Reverend Jerry Vines: "Islam was founded by Mohammed, a demon possed pedophile who had 12 wives and his last one was a 9 year old girl."

Reverend Jimmy Swaggart: "We ought to take every single Muslim student in every college in this nation and ship them back to where they came from." (In Swaggart's defense, many Middle Eastern engineering students at George Tech were dancing in the streets celebrating 911 when the towers fell).

When Solman Rushdie wrote Satanic Verses, a fatwa was issued to murder him for insulting Muslims.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reac_ter18b.htm

Somethings to add.

The most dangerous terrorist group in the world are the LTTE, and they fathered the "suicide belt", and they carried out more suicide bombings targeting civilians and specific individuals like the "PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA" successfully. They killed over 180,000 innocent civilians. The leader and his family were Christians, the whole group were mixed Hindu's and Christians, with Leninist philosophy. No one seems to speak about them because of the Muslim obsession on TV.

All of this is great for a lame duck TV watcher in the west because they honestly have no clue whats going on around the world. Zilch. Very few people seem to do some honest research. In some areas in other countries people hate the west for their colonisation that shook the countries and plundered them for several centuries including Nederland, Portugal, England etc. I mean they hate their guts. Yet of course time has passed now and largely the old atrocities are forgotten. Not forgiven, but forgotten. Some people have written poems like "When do I chase away the English cow from the hill country? When do I kill all the stray whites on the ground of my motherland?". And this is not the Middle East, its Asia, and they are not Muslims. They are Buddhists.

But if you go through this whole forum, it will show you that very very very few people know about any of this. And they will not accept it right at the outset of it.

You have quoted Jimmy Swaggart in your post. A hypocrite who was earning over a million dollars for his ministry a day, and was caught visiting prostitutes weekly, then he publicly apologised, pretended to cry and sob and repent, then got caught again. A dirty hypocrite. This is the type of people who use all of this nonsensical polemics to live a rich life.

And you quoted Reverend Jerry Vines who was famously quoting Ergun Caner and his book. This Ergun Caner was famously found to be an absolute fraud, a liar, a cheat, who spoke gibberish like "feethuru fathuru" and pretended that was arabic, and due to this embarrassment of him getting caught and sacked from his bogus appointment at the university his own son committed suicide. So this Jerry Vines should have known better than to be learning from a crook like that.

You quoted Pat Robertson who was doing business with convicted war criminals in Africa.

And you quoted Jerry Falwell who had done investment bonds which was only released based on their washing off their hands saying "we didnt know it was fraud".

I can keep going. I love your post. I just wished to make some comments. These people are crooks. Thats why they intentionally deceive people. They are not scholars. They have no knowledge on the subject. They are lying and deceiving. And its on the internet. Its on TV. People worship them.

When we live in the west we have no clue whats happening around the world. Im reiterating, that most dont have a clue. People are living a lie.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Somethings to add.

The most dangerous terrorist group in the world are the LTTE, and they fathered the "suicide belt", and they carried out more suicide bombings targeting civilians and specific individuals like the "PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA" successfully. They killed over 180,000 innocent civilians. The leader and his family were Christians, the whole group were mixed Hindu's and Christians, with Leninist philosophy. No one seems to speak about them because of the Muslim obsession on TV.

All of this is great for a lame duck TV watcher in the west because they honestly have no clue whats going on around the world. Zilch. Very few people seem to do some honest research. In some areas in other countries people hate the west for their colonisation that shook the countries and plundered them for several centuries including Nederland, Portugal, England etc. I mean they hate their guts. Yet of course time has passed now and largely the old atrocities are forgotten. Not forgiven, but forgotten. Some people have written poems like "When do I chase away the English cow from the hill country? When do I kill all the stray whites on the ground of my motherland?". And this is not the Middle East, its Asia, and they are not Muslims. They are Buddhists.

But if you go through this whole forum, it will show you that very very very few people know about any of this. And they will not accept it right at the outset of it.

You have quoted Jimmy Swaggart in your post. A hypocrite who was earning over a million dollars for his ministry a day, and was caught visiting prostitutes weekly, then he publicly apologised, pretended to cry and sob and repent, then got caught again. A dirty hypocrite. This is the type of people who use all of this nonsensical polemics to live a rich life.

And you quoted Reverend Jerry Vines who was famously quoting Ergun Caner and his book. This Ergun Caner was famously found to be an absolute fraud, a liar, a cheat, who spoke gibberish like "feethuru fathuru" and pretended that was arabic, and due to this embarrassment of him getting caught and sacked from his bogus appointment at the university his own son committed suicide. So this Jerry Vines should have known better than to be learning from a crook like that.

You quoted Pat Robertson who was doing business with convicted war criminals in Africa.

And you quoted Jerry Falwell who had done investment bonds which was only released based on their washing off their hands saying "we didnt know it was fraud".

I can keep going. I love your post. I just wished to make some comments. These people are crooks. Thats why they intentionally deceive people. They are not scholars. They have no knowledge on the subject. They are lying and deceiving. And its on the internet. Its on TV. People worship them.

When we live in the west we have no clue whats happening around the world. Im reiterating, that most dont have a clue. People are living a lie.

So which people are not living a lie?

 

[firedragon]

So which people are not living a lie?

Hmm. See mate, when someone says "this person is a liar" in a court setting or something, a lawyer might ask "who is not". But that's not relevant. It is some kind of question that are not really worth engaging with.

No one knows who is living a lie or who is not. So at least one could have the humility to do some bottom up research rather than shallow surf. But if someone wishes to ask this question like "who is not living a lie" and go on with the pertinent ignorance then that's their prerogative I suppose.

Hope you understand.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Hmm. See mate, when someone says "this person is a liar" in a court setting or something, a lawyer might ask "who is not". But that's not relevant. It is some kind of question that are not really worth engaging with.

No one knows who is living a lie or who is not. So at least one could have the humility to do some bottom up research rather than shallow surf. But if someone wishes to ask this question like "who is not living a lie" and go on with the pertinent ignorance then that's their prerogative I suppose.

Hope you understand.

Yeah I get your point as me. I can do skepticism beyond folk true and false and I have learned from that.
So I know nothing about God or any other version of what reality really is. But I try even as an atheist to live with some kind of love for myself and my fellow humans. What that means to God, I don't worry about, because that is in the hands of God.

 

[firedragon]

Yeah I get your point as me. I can do skepticism beyond folk true and false and I have learned from that.
So I know nothing about God or any other version of what reality really is. But I try even as an atheist to live with some kind of love for myself and my fellow humans. What that means to God, I don't worry about, because that is in the hands of God.

By the way, there was an Atheist called Pangali Kittu who very very few people will know about. He probably was one of the most dangerous criminal murderer in the world. He orchestrated thousands and thousands of innocent civilian deaths. Maybe 50,000 or even 100,000. He was a very well known Atheist.

None of this means zilch. Atheist or theist, people will do what they came to do. But there are some who would blame it on something, and they will blame it on the thing their bias tells them to. Yet, mostly its not because of honest research.

God being true or not is not the question here. I hope you understand.

Cheers.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

By the way, there was an Atheist called Pangali Kittu who very very few people will know about. He probably was one of the most dangerous criminal murderer in the world. He orchestrated thousands and thousands of innocent civilian deaths. Maybe 50,000 or even 100,000. He was a very well known Atheist.

None of this means zilch. Atheist or theist, people will do what they came to do. But there are some who would blame it on something, and they will blame it on the thing their bias tells them to. Yet, mostly its not because of honest research.

God being true or not is not the question here. I hope you understand.

Cheers.

So you are without bias?

 

[wellwisher]

14 of the top 16 countries where Christians are most persecuted are muslim countries; could words like these be to blame?

Quran Surah 5, Verse 72
Those who say "Jesus is God" are disbelievers; they will not enter paradise, but hell. These evil people will have no helper!

Quran Surah 9, Verse 5
Kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, capture them, besiege them, and lie in wait for them on every way!

Sahih al-Bukhari 2476
Muhammad said, The Hour will not be established until Isa descends amongst you as a just ruler, he will break the cross and kill the pigs(Christians).


Romans 8:35-39
Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Tribulation or fear or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written, "For your sake we are killed all the day; as sheep for the slaughter we have been counted" But in all this we are more than overcomers through Him who loved us. For I am confident that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, will be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

It is very doubtful that many Muslims read or have read the bible out of fear of being considered a traitor. The same is true of many Christians and the Quran. So the reaction of Muslims, towardsChristians is not about the reading of the bible, but about their own teachings, which are acceptable to read.

Muhammad was born in 570AD, which was about 200 years or s after the merger of Christianity with Rome; Holy Roman Empire. Muhammad's beef, in his lifetime, may have been more with the tactics of Rome.

Before the merger, Christians were slaves of Rome, and had been persecuted for several hundred years. Earlier Muslims may have empathized with them since Rome did the same to them. But after the merger, Christianity, was modified and became a composite of two extremes, that included a powerful secular empire component. Muhammad faced a distortion of Christianity.

Since the split in Christianity in the 1400's; Age of Enlightenment and the Protestant movement, Christianity became softer, as the Roman aspects split off into other groups such as science, paganism, colonialism, etc.,

The old beef may not be appropriate any longer, since the context is different today. Christians are once again persecuted by the heathens. The secular bomb makers and politicians, who say they Christians more resemble the enemies of Muhammad. Muhammad would not approve of targeting the weak and helpless.

 

[Wandering Monk]

No one is making excuses for Islam here that I've seen. What we've done is point out the glaring double standard of fundamentalist Christians complaining about fundamentalist Islam.

So, since there are double standard, we are free to ignore violence, even justify it because 'hey the other side does it too.'

 

[firedragon]

So you are without bias?

Again, when someone speaks of bias in general, asking the person if he is bias is not really a question. It is an attempt at a character attack knowing that no one will respond saying "I am bias" and if someone replies "I am not bias" the ready position taken by default is that "I dont believe it".

I would answer nevertheless to that kind of question saying "probably" yet "I dont know".

One could only do their best but at least could make an attempt.

Anyway, what you did was address the person and not the presentation. Twice.

 

[Left Coast]

So, since there are double standard, we are free to ignore violence, even justify it because 'hey the other side does it too.'

No one should ignore violence, IMO. The issue is selective outrage.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Again, when someone speaks of bias in general, asking the person if he is bias is not really a question. It is an attempt at a character attack knowing that no one will respond saying "I am bias" and if someone replies "I am not bias" the ready position taken by default is that "I dont believe it".

I would answer nevertheless to that kind of question saying "probably" yet "I dont know".

One could only do their best but at least could make an attempt.

Anyway, what you did was address the person and not the presentation. Twice.

Well, we agree. As individuals we can try to be as honest about being subjective. If that is your point?

 

[firedragon]

Well, we agree. As individuals we can try to be as honest about being subjective. If that is your point?

Thats a point that came up after a previous conversation that you replied to so maybe you could look that up.

Peace.

 

[Wandering Monk]

No one should ignore violence, IMO. The issue is selective outrage.

...which completely fails to address the problem.

 

[Left Coast]

...which completely fails to address the problem.

There are multiple problems at play. Violence and religious extremism is a problem. Selective outrage and hypocrisy, as well as a failure to understand historical context, is also a problem.

 

[firedragon]

So, since there are double standard, we are free to ignore violence, even justify it because 'hey the other side does it too.'

Addressing violence appropriately does not mean you should justify double standards because it is intellectual dishonesty to do so. To bring in an analogy of justification of violence when someone addresses a bias or double standard is an abusive analogy.

 

[Wandering Monk]

There are multiple problems at play. Violence and religious extremism is a problem. Selective outrage and hypocrisy, as well as a failure to understand historical context, is also a problem.

Of the two, which is the most immediately dangerous?

 

[halbhh]

Meanwhile, how about this from 2 Chronicles:
And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and with all their soul, but that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman.

Deuteronomy also has a number of passages exhorting people to kill those that follow other gods.

That law was an interior law only for Israel: that for Israelites idol worshipping of other 'gods' would be a capital crime (at least for a time). Notably, idol worship was at that time quite a lot more....dramatic than merely having an idol and believing in that lifeless stone/wood thing or empty rituals --
Instead, here we can see (one of several) places we learn what the actual practice of worshipping such 'gods' entailed, precisely:
"You shall not worship the LORD your God in that way, for every abominable thing that the LORD hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods." (or better all 3 verses: Deuteronomy 12:29–31 ESV - “When the LORD… | Biblia

This was the precise reason (according to the text as a whole) those Canaanite cities were to be destroyed in a way akin to erasing (at times even the animals and all goods of all kinds were destroyed also!): I think to entirely remove any lingering influence of that culture of burning children in fires to 'gods'. ( We understand that God would separate the innocent from the guilty in the afterlife, and even give them salvation (1rst Peter 3:18-20 and chapter 4).)

 

[Left Coast]

Of the two, which is the most immediately dangerous?

Most immediately dangerous to whom? Both are quite dangerous, depending on who you are.

What is your point here? Just come out with it already.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of the two, which is the most immediately dangerous?

The 3rd one: A failure to understand historical context?
I.e. that you think you and your world view are the most important in history?