35 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
American help should become qualified
We'll help you against invaders if you want to become Christians, otherwise welcome your fellow religionist and all the "blessings" they bring to you.
Yeah, I'm sure Jewish Americans would go for that...
that would be fine, but...
...considering what seems the prevailing Muslim mindset against Jews, less than against Christians, I'd think the latter would be more acceptable to those willing to change. I'd be happy if they picked any other peaceful religion that doesn't follow such a person as that horrible Mohammed. If he was alive and in America today, he'd be locked away in some maximum security facility, if not already suffered the death penalty.
And while not as horrific as the Taliban justifying murder because of religion, it sounds just as intolerant.
I would have to think that, as these missionaries
were trying to convert Afghans, the solid Afghan Muslims were trying to convert Christians to Islam. I suppose that would be perfectly legal if not required in that country. I don't see why, in either case, that side of missionary work should be considered a threat. I don't know if Muslims engage in active missionary work but they'd certainly not find murder to be a hazard when visiting Christians.
Thanks for the illustration of christian bigotry....
Not to say that all Christians are bigoted but you've certainly illustrated your position very well. Thank you.
Always has been Steve, we've just forgotten.
China, Africa, Indonesia, New Zealand, Canada in the 17th Century (look up Pere Brebeuf, sorry about the absence of accents), the US at the same time.
Of course from their perspective, Islamic extremists see us as the ones causing the problems. They just want to proselytize and stamp out the existing religion wherever they choose.
The Taliban don't really care if the Americans
were proselytizing; they just want to control the lives of everyone around them and destroy those that toe the party line.
I often wondered about Muslims that are so unsure of their own religion that they are terrified of the possibility of someone else giving Muslims another way.
Agree and noted that (sort of) within this thread
One who holds a belief should expect to be challenged and tested. Those who can be persuaded to change, are not that strong in faith. Those who are not moved can find themselves to be strengthened. One who expresses a faith based on fear of reprisal is no more than a slave to the master. That's how early Christian "conversions" were too often done and that was surely a ***** in the armor of the faith.
Hmmm...we all know the phrase
so why is c-h-i-n-k banned? I wasn't referring to an Asian people.
That's true of all religious extremists....
they just want power and control at any cost
I have to wonder
what Missionaries are doing in places like Afghanistan. OK these were stated as a medical mission, but despite claims they were not proselytizing, I can't help but wonder.
Tom Little was known to the Taliban and had been expelled from the country in 2001, the article says.
Afghanistan is a fiercely Muslim nation, and even without the Taliban they are going to be openly hostile to any attempts by the Christian religion to drag them away from Islam.
I think this was a tragedy waiting to happen.
Oh, then that must make it OK
Only one side can speak of their beliefs?
I think you may have missed my point
Preaching Christianity in Afghanistan is likely to cause such reactions. As it just has.
Sorry you didn't understand that point.
And just to add..
I don't mean to start an argument here.
In an ideal world of course people should be free to talk about their beliefs. Sadly though, this world is not ideal yet, and I feel we have to be pragmatic. Islam is a relatively young religion and hasn't yet accepted the secular/non-secular differentiation that other religions have. To Muslims Islam is the only government and the only religion, and they do not accept any other form of identity. Whether they will do in some distant future only time will tell.
But to expect Christian Missionaries to be able to roam through Muslim nations without reprisal is a fundamental error I feel.
I don't make any comment on the 'rights or wrongs' of it. I'm saying that this tragedy was going to happen.
that gets back to my point
Qualified help. You want it, you gotta make concessions. No concessions, no help. The major concession should be freedom of religion, and make that the first and preeminent freedom. The second is anyone who attacks it, interferes with it within the bounds of peacefulness, pay a penalty. When it comes to Islam though, I don't see it so much a religion as a threatening world political movement hiding behind the facade of being a religion.
I didn't really
understand your first post to be truthful. I blame my slow mind.
But above you said, "You want it, you gotta make concessions". Who wants what? I doubt that many Afghans want to become Christians.
what is the root of the problem?
Their belief system. Are the Taliban an aberration? Are the Saudi Arabians and their form of justice and forbidding of conversion an aberration? When you look at what all these terrorist activities, female enslavements, suppression of rights, etc., they all come back to one main theme. Islam.
Yes, yes and yes.
But what does that have to do with the discussion?
you can lead a horse to water...
The Islam is some 600 years younger ...
than Christianity. Christians routinely burned witches 600 years ago. Moslims, as far as I know, don't now. So maybe their progress to civilisation (assuming you agree that burning witches can be called uncivilised or even an aberration) is more or less comparable with ours.
Talking about suppression of rights (we just had the gay parade in Amsterdam this weekend, that's why think about it), how about the right for gay marriage? Muslims and Christians are on a par with that, I'd say.
Yes, it all comes back to one main theme: religion.
I don't remember
Christ, his disciples, nor a single apostle burning any witches. I do remember reading of Mohammed and his men murdering, raping, and even Mohammed taking a girl child to defile. The foundation of Islam is corrupt, from it's inception.
Got any links
According to this one there's a bit of disagreement over the origin of Islam. What makes your memory any more authoritative? Kind of hasty to just declare it corrupt without supporting your claim isn't it?
they want to have it both ways
Obviously, that's foolish.
Do you then deny
the early history of Christianity?
"Newborn girls, like Eve, ?were considered as full of dangerous pollution?and were therefore more often killed, exposed, abandoned, malnourished, raped, and neglected than boys.... As Christian girls grew up, they were constantly told of their worthlessness and sinful lustfulness. Women, said Tertullian... Teaching girls in schools was not allowed, Aelred said (1170).... Better that you should beat a child within an inch of its life than that they would be cast into the Lake of Fire for all eternity".
All in the name of God. It all seems quite horrific to me, and all this was happening after the time of Mohammed.
I'm glad to see that Christianity at least has moved on, even though it has taken centuries. Let's hope Islam moves on as well.
that were NOT in agreement with Christian teachings, and the same things practiced by those NOT Christians, are what you want to make some errant point with? I suppose the Christians are to blame for the unbalance in boy-girl population in China? China's one child policy which lead to abortions of female babies is Christian's fault?
St. Paul said that women had to cover their heads in church because otherwise ?lice-like demons would leap like sparks from female hair and poison the church.?
ROFLMBO!!!!! What made you even consider pulling up this piece of drivel as if it was something worthy of even reading?! Anyway, Paul never said that. Paul did address the question of a custom among the Jews requiring women wear a head covering, finally ending his argument quite cogently by saying Christians had no such "custom". Having hair is not a "custom", but covering it would be.
Considering the author's misquote of Paul, I discount all his other quotes too without confirmation by someone else. I find this author to be a deliberate liar.
You will not discover most of these horrible aspects about Christian misogyny from the hundreds of books written on medieval Christianity, since most of the authors are both male and believing Christians, and idealize Christianity regularly.
Probably because in the main they didn't happen. Also because most of what's written was done as lying slanders against Christians by others who weren't. This author probably also believes the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" was an accepted Jewish book.
The author seems to have personal issues, starts with a conclusion, finds tidbits here and there to try and support her particular prejudice. She puts "things in quotes" with absolutely no reference to what's being quoted. This is a very poor disertation and I am surprised you'd even reference it yourself.
Her "infanticide" concepts also are lacking since throughout history Christians have been foremost in taking in orphans, even as early as Rome itself. Very unlikely to take in orphans while killing one's own children. The author has a hate inside that is consuming her soul and will go the way of all such who do the same.
You deny the Inquisition and other practices in the early history of Christianity?
You never did religious history at school/college?
My bad, I thought US education was better than that.
Is he gay?
He mentions 3 children, but they could be adopted. I can find no record of him being married. He also is a supporter of gay "rights". He was left some money which he's used to basically create his own psuedo-scientific group, that is looked askance at by other psychologist, ignored completely by many. His works sound like the vile spew from the gay groups, Betty Bowers, or LandoverBaptist. He seems like a person very disturbed in how he views the world.
Lloyd deMause and others have argued that psychohistory is a field of scientific inquiry with its own peculiar methods, objectives and theories and that it is separate from history and anthropology. Some historians, social scientists and anthropologists have, however, argued that their disciplines already describe psychological motivation and that Psychohistory is not, therefore, a separate subject.
Others have dismissed deMause's theories and motives arguing that the emphasis given by Psychohistory to speculation on the psychological motivations of people in history make it a completely undisciplined field of study.
Mark, all gays are pedophiles
That is your approach. The assumption that some gays are pedophiles mean they all are. Just because you can find some hypocrisy and corruptions among those who call themselves Christian, you then want to paint all Christians with that? I didn't realize you suffered from such bigotry. Now I know.
RE:Just because you can find some hypocrisy and corruptions
Just because you can find some hypocrisy and corruptions among those who call themselves Christian, you then want to paint all Christians with that? I didn't realize you suffered from such bigotry. Now I know.
Just because you can find some hypocrisy and corruptions among those who call themselves Muslim, you then want to paint all Muslims with that? I didn't realize you suffered from such bigotry. Now I know.
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 2)