The Barbarity of Christianity (as compared to Islam)

Hitler had 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra' issued to every soldier in the German army. Seems he wore his god on his sleeve....

Christians believe that everyone is bad - including them - so the reality is probably a little more subtle than this. There is a difference between righteousness/unrighteousness and good/bad Another fallacy (of the strawman variety I believe) which I'm surprised you, given your exposure here, should propagate. God isn't solely a God of love. He is equally wrathful and just. God exercising wrath is perfectly compatable with a God of wrath. And being just, his wrath is perfectly justified. Not that it would matter if he wasn't just and he simply felt like exercising wrath willy nilly.Love, wrath, justice - it's a package deal. It finds its singularity at the cross where wrath, justice, love crash together. No one or other dominating - all in perfect balance.This message has been edited by iano, 14-Feb-2006 02:55 PM

You omitted to include the attributes of that same God which make it perfectly acceptable to wage such a war. Had you chosen to include a complete God as opposed to a partial,pared down one, then your following sentence might have been different from what it was.This message has been edited by iano, 14-Feb-2006 03:27 PM

it would be interesting to see on which basis he finds it unacceptable. Unacceptable that a wrathful God exercises wrath according to the standards he sets doesn't offer any logical grounds for objection. We don't have to agree (yet) with the grounds God tells us are those by which he exercises wrath. Nonetheless, the objection is an empty one: not only is there any means to enforce such objection (other than the temporary satisfaction of having registered it) but there are no grounds on which to make a rational case for the objection in the first place

I think there is a vast difference. Jesus-influenced Christianity will not use violence to get its message across. Jesus-influenced Christians do not seek to dominate the world by force they seek to share the good news of the gospel. Non-Jesus-influenced people and Christians have and probably will continue to use violent means. That's their problem and they will face their saviour when they stand before him.When Jesus-influenced Christians say "join or die" they are telling you, not what they will do if you don't but what God will do if you don't. Not that they mean God will kill you and not the Christians. Everyone will die. But by "dying" we mean that you will be separated from God forever. And its not that God does this to you but that you are already that way and chose to remain your whole life that way and if you die that way then you will enter eternity that way. You will simply continue in eternity as you wanted to in life "Thy will be done" says God in effectThe Christian viewpoint is that all are born on a highway to hell. All. When we shout "repent" (turn away from your path) at you, we are shouting from a position of having been rescued by God from our sure destination and telling you that you, like us, can be rescued from that same sure destination too.Their cry isn't one of force - it is one of desperation and anguish. They want you to "join" not for their sakes (primarily) but for YOUR sake.Even a cursory knowledge of what hell will entail is sufficient not to want even your worst enemy to go thereThis message has been edited by iano, 14-Feb-2006 05:18 PM

For the purposes of discussion Crash seems to accept the existance of God. In that case he must accept that the point is indeed moot. Why does Crash think that his view matters to God. Would it not be logically consistant to simply accept that if God is there then he calls the shots and if that is so then the behaviour is objectively acceptable (for God would define objectivity). In that case, Crash might say he is confused by Gods behaviour because it clashes with his own moral framework. In that case he could spend time trying to seek what the lacks were in his moral framework which hauled it out of line with God. He might begin with recognising that the basis for his moral framework is that it is self-generated: aligning itself to a greater or lesser degree with the fluid, changing world-manufactured template. Or even aligning to some degree with Gods own unchanging standard in many cases"Unacceptable" would indeed be the right word to use - it is ones own view which is unacceptable and needs modificationPigs may fly. I pray that they do.

He may do any of these things but his rethoric would be self-defeating. For he could not point to one thing on which to anchor his views and beliefs which didn't originate from God. Moorings polluted and distorted by man along the way oftentimes but moorings originating from God nonetheless. God on the other hand can point to himself as that from which morality rolls down. He doesn't need to point to anything higher than himself for his anchor. Crash may attempt to dance up and down on God but he needs the muscles in his legs and the body, mind and intelligence God gave him in order to do so.

How do you figure that CP. We can say that humans chose arbitarily. In order to chose "arbitarily" we need to have a certain minimum set of circumstances. For man this would go something like:- selection of choices to be made
- free will to chose between the available options
- a point in time when those choices are madeCan we say that those conditions apply to God. And if so how? If not then how can we say he can choose arbitrarily. For instance, how can one even begin to fit a time-dependant concept such as 'arbitrarily chose' to a realm where there is no time.

As Faith points out, a Christ-influenced Christian won't carry out violence against you in the name of God - they will warn of what God will do to you as part of the positive ("its great")/negative ("it will be horrible")argument they put forth. In the case of such Christians is the distinction still nonsense and why? All will find out. Before you get a chance to present your case he will present his. It is not unreasonable to suppose that he will be in a position, through being able to call on every thought and word and deed you've ever had, to present you with a compelling case that you were wrong. Not a case reliant on his being able to force you to accept it - but simply one that is based on logic and justice. A case so compelling that you will turn and join the line of the millions of others whose mouths were silenced. A case so compelling that you will have none in return.From what I understand of the environment of Hell the inhabitants will not even have the comfort of being able to point the finger and blame God for their predicament. The finger will finally and everlastingly point to oneself. Everyone in Hell will agree with God that there is where they belongAn eternal, anguished "Duh!"

Hey Randman. Ever tried nailing jello to a wall?

I wouldn't call for suspensions either way. If you find a person to be wilfully evasive then there seems to be little reason to engage them.Its not compulsory that you do. As Jar so often says, the reader can decide for themselves. "Folk aren't THAT blind" is my own motto when I see the jello slide, yet again, down the wall..It really is as simple as that

I don't think you'll find that the Bible condones burning people who are suspected of being witches. And if truly a witch then I do not see the problem: it's not like they are an elite group for whom 'burning' will be the outcome.Define 'innocent'.