The Barbarity of Christianity (as compared to Islam)

Hmmm. Really? Their belt buckles said "Gott mit uns." I've got one of them.

Gee, whaddya think about that? You think the devil is gonna just come right out and say "Satan mit uns?" Hardly. His job is to discredit God and put himself in God's place. He sure succeeds in his mission with a lot of people.

I think that if this "God" of yours had any power he'd do something to stop his adversary from posing as him.

---

If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

Oh he has that power, but as long as people are warped enough not to be able to tell the difference he'd just as soon leave them to their own ways and let them hang themselves. Why would he want worshipers who haven't a choice because they've been shown the truth, but who on their own can't tell the difference between good and evil?This message has been edited by Faith, 02-13-2006 11:05 PM

I've answered this before more than once so I'll repeat that Jesus, the (Prince Of Peace} said he would bring a sword in the context that the world would become so divided over him that many would be killed because of him, including him and his own desciples who were all martyred. The Bible depicts a warfare between good and evil. Because of the offense of the gospel of Christ much blood has been shed and a large amount of that blood has been that of the true Christians who harm nobody. War is bloody and the war between good and evil, true and false, et al is no exception. The last prophesied battle, i.e. Armageddon will be the final and bloodiest of all when Jesus, the Prince Of Peace destroys the forces of evil to usher in the one thousand year messianic age of peace headed by Jesus, the peace king. Satan the instigator of bloodshed will be chained in the bottomless pit at that time.Unlike Mohammed, Jesus or his apostles and adherants never harmed anyone physically. Those who call themselves Christians but advocate violence and forcible conversion as did the popes and bishops of Vatican City operated counter to what the New Testament teaches.

---

Gravity is God's glue that holds his universe together.

Well, great. So Jesus will bring the same armageddon that the Muslims believe in, but what's different is, the Christians believe that only the bad people will die.Oh, wait. That's exactly what the Muslims believe, too. So, your peaceful god of love brings the most destructive war the world will ever know. Gotcha. Hey, who cares, right? As long as Christians get theirs, who cares who else dies? They're just filthy heathens anyway.

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

But buz, it was not just the popes and bishops of Vatican City. The Protestants were every bit as violent and intolerant as the Roman Catholics. The Puritans and Pilgrims were violent and intolerant. The missionaries in the US that destroyed the Native American culture were violent and intolerant. Today's protestant evangelical ministers like Pat Robertson are violent and intolerant. The people that call Islam barbaric are intolerant and violent. The Christians today that support oppressing homosexuals are showing the same violence and intolerance.Christianity has been, and remains, a very intolerant religion.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

My statement would have to be wrong for that to be the case. Specifically which part of my statement do you challenge? I mean, if God isn't a god of love, that's fine. The only things I know about your god are what you tell me.

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

quote:

---

You omitted to include the attributes of that same God which make it perfectly acceptable to wage such a war.

---

Acceptable to whom? Maybe crash finds it unacceptable regardless of any possible additional attributes.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

I don't believe that any additional attributes would make such a war acceptable, but regardless, that's beyond the point.Is it the case, or is it not, that the peaceful future of Christianity involves the death of many, many millions? Yes or no?Should I accept as "peaceful" a religion that says "join us or face certain death?" Isn't that exactly the sort of conversion by threat that Islam is regularly criticised for?

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

Hi, iano."Acceptable" and "unacceptable" are purely subjective terms. If crashfrog finds the behavior of the deity to be unacceptable, then (as far as crashfrog is concerned) the behavior is unacceptable.It may very well be a moot point if the deity is omnipotent and doesn't much care what crashfrog thinks, but that is another discussion.So, if one were to try to convince crashfrog that the deity's behavior is acceptable, then one would have to figure out what crashfrog's feelings of morality and ethics were and then base the argument on that.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

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