US Forces fighting Chrisitian Organisation in Uganda

[Charles Darwin]

[youtube][/youtube]

How dare he!?

Funny how christians are all for killing muslim terrorists but boy when the terrorists are christians..whole nother story!

[Adurumus]

I can go with Hitchens. Whilst he argues that Islam is inherently harmful, he does so for Christianity as well. Either all religions are bad by nature, or none are- and that doesn't stop people from "interpreting" things in a violent way.

I feel like my point is quickly becoming diluted here. My point is that yes, Christianity has been wielded incorrectly before. Just as Muslims are "bad" now, Christians (individuals, just as with Muslims) can be as well.

[East of Eden]

I can go with Hitchens. Whilst he argues that Islam is inherently harmful, he does so for Christianity as well.

In no way does he equate the two.

Either all religions are bad by nature, or none are- and that doesn't stop people from "interpreting" things in a violent way.

Or some religions are bad by nature (Islam) and some are not.

I feel like my point is quickly becoming diluted here. My point is that yes, Christianity has been wielded incorrectly before. Just as Muslims are "bad" now, Christians (individuals, just as with Muslims) can be as well.

I think the problem with Islam is the Koran and Prophet, not so with Jesus.

[JohnPaul]

East of Eden wrote:

Or some religions are bad by nature (Islam) and some are not.

From the context, I interpret that to mean that Islam is bad while Christianity is somehow "good."

Is there a hidden agreement in this thread to ignore history completely? I believe Islam served to keep learning and civilization alive during the centuries of Christian "Dark Ages" in Europe. The Christian invasion of Islamic lands during the Crusades was one bloody Christian atrocity after another. The Christian Inquisition and the Witch Hunts horribly murdered millions of innocent people. Christian clergymen even wrote textbooks on methods of torture to be used by the Church.

I don't know the exact statistics, but I believe Christian history is far more bloody than that of Islam.

John

[Adurumus]

Hitchens often speaks out against the Abrahamic religions, or what he calls "the three great monotheisms" (Judaism, Christianity and Islam). He said: "The real axis of evil is Christianity, Judaism, and Islam"

While he does say things in particular about Islam, such as holding some of the worst countries under its thumb, he says similar things about Christianity. Hitchens is not a particular fan of any religion.

Note that I'm speaking of "Yes, there can be evil", not degree. I think I can agree with you that Islam has inspired more damage than Christianity, on a physical level. However, I still believe that Christianity is not without its flaws in inspiring murder, intellectual repression and such. I mean inspire as in some people have looked at it and gone "Oh, I get it!" and proceeded to do harm. Do these guys count; they believed that Christianity taught them not to seek medical care, leading to the death of three.

[Adurumus]

Two apologies. One for the double post, second for letting an image speak for me. I saw this while browsing, and I'm sorry for the abrasive language at the end. But here:

[Choir Loft]

East of Eden wrote:

Or some religions are bad by nature (Islam) and some are not.

Is there a hidden agreement in this thread to ignore history completely? I believe Islam served to keep learning and civilization alive during the centuries of Christian "Dark Ages" in Europe. The Christian invasion of Islamic lands during the Crusades was one bloody Christian atrocity after another. The Christian Inquisition and the Witch Hunts horribly murdered millions of innocent people. Christian clergymen even wrote textbooks on methods of torture to be used by the Church.

I don't know the exact statistics, but I believe Christian history is far more bloody than that of Islam.

John

Is there a hidden agreement to ignore history completely?

Apparantly so, because the Crusades were a Christian response to Islamic invasion of their homelands. Contrary to your post, Christian Europe did not arbitrarily attack Muslim lands without provocation.

Go back and study. Who hit who first? Who reacted to save their homes from foreign influence and power. Is a man, Christian or otherwise, not entitled to protect what is his own?

The pope did not wake up one day and decide to start a fight with Islam. The fight was upon them and they reacted to it. In point of fact, every culture that has come into contact with the Muslim hoards has had a similar problem. Cough up a little history about Islamic wars with Hindu lands to the east, Buddhists in the far Asian lands and minor native religions in SouthEast Asia. They have even attacked the atheist government of Russia to the north.

It's always the same. Islam first, Islam by the sword and Islam by self-justified right to rule the planet by peace if possible by murder if necessary. Read the Qur'an and you will find their justification written there. Study history and you will find it written in blood. Read the posts written here and you will find their crimes hidden by lies.

Is there a hidden agreement to ignore history completely? Yes there is. The motive apparently is to denigrate Christianity by prejudice by the use of lies, propaganda, and any illogic that comes to hand.

Those that lump all religions into a single bundle of wickedness should consider this: that Islam is the only religion ON THE PLANET with a doctrine to justify lying.

Any dispassionate examination of history, socialization of nations, or the ideology of religions (or even the rejection of said religions) must take this into account - unless of course there is a predetermined agreement to mask the truth altogether.

That is the case here and no effort is made to hide it.

[chris_brown207]

East of Eden wrote:

Or some religions are bad by nature (Islam) and some are not.

Is there a hidden agreement in this thread to ignore history completely? I believe Islam served to keep learning and civilization alive during the centuries of Christian "Dark Ages" in Europe. The Christian invasion of Islamic lands during the Crusades was one bloody Christian atrocity after another. The Christian Inquisition and the Witch Hunts horribly murdered millions of innocent people. Christian clergymen even wrote textbooks on methods of torture to be used by the Church.

I don't know the exact statistics, but I believe Christian history is far more bloody than that of Islam.

John

Is there a hidden agreement to ignore history completely?

Apparantly so, because the Crusades were a Christian response to Islamic invasion of their homelands. Contrary to your post, Christian Europe did not arbitrarily attack Muslim lands without provocation.

Go back and study. Who hit who first? Who reacted to save their homes from foreign influence and power. Is a man, Christian or otherwise, not entitled to protect what is his own?

The pope did not wake up one day and decide to start a fight with Islam. The fight was upon them and they reacted to it. In point of fact, every culture that has come into contact with the Muslim hoards has had a similar problem. Cough up a little history about Islamic wars with Hindu lands to the east, Buddhists in the far Asian lands and minor native religions in SouthEast Asia. They have even attacked the atheist government of Russia to the north.

It's always the same. Islam first, Islam by the sword and Islam by self-justified right to rule the planet by peace if possible by murder if necessary. Read the Qur'an and you will find their justification written there. Study history and you will find it written in blood. Read the posts written here and you will find their crimes hidden by lies.

Is there a hidden agreement to ignore history completely? Yes there is. The motive apparently is to denigrate Christianity by prejudice by the use of lies, propaganda, and any illogic that comes to hand.

Those that lump all religions into a single bundle of wickedness should consider this: that Islam is the only religion ON THE PLANET with a doctrine to justify lying.

Any dispassionate examination of history, socialization of nations, or the ideology of religions (or even the rejection of said religions) must take this into account - unless of course there is a predetermined agreement to mask the truth altogether.

That is the case here and no effort is made to hide it.

Notice how he focused on a point which is debatable, and historians still argue about - a point which was a small part of the discussion, yet he focused a large amount of time on? IMHO this is common of someone who is trying to ignore any wrongs that could have possibly been done by his group, and divert attention away by focusing on a single fault in the other persons logic.

Whether you feel they were justified or not, the Crusades were a very bloody war - done in the name of Christianity. And so were the Inquisition, and even in smaller part during Western Expansion - although not so overtly.

And even today - the tactics we fear overseas by insurgents were not tactics that were developed there. These were tactics used and perfected by terrorists in Ireland, Italy, Spain, Germany, etc. some 30-50 years ago - most of those terrorist groups being of Christian heritage. Decoy devices, secondary devices, roadside devices were all favorite tactics of the IRA.

I am certainly not trying to paint any religion as all bad - there are many good things being done in the name of religion every day. However, I am also not trying to paint religion as all good. There are many people that lurk behind the teachings of religion for their own evil intent - Christians, as well as Muslims. The problem is that it is easy to distance your religion from the evils within your own group using the "No True Scotsman" argument - all the while holding the other group's hand to the fire about extremists in theirs.

As Jesus would say "Let he without sin cast the first stone".

[East of Eden]

From the context, I interpret that to mean that Islam is bad while Christianity is somehow "good."

Crudely put, but yes. A committed Christian = Mother Theresa, a committed Muslim = Osama Bin Laden.

Is there a hidden agreement in this thread to ignore history completely? I believe Islam served to keep learning and civilization alive during the centuries of Christian "Dark Ages" in Europe.

Largely a myth. See
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/695095/posts

The Christian invasion of Islamic lands during the Crusades was one bloody Christian atrocity after another.

Nonsense, the Crusades were a legitimate counter offensive against Muslim agression. I wish they had been more successful. What were the Muslims doing in Spain anyway? Like any war, you can find abuses.

The Christian Inquisition and the Witch Hunts horribly murdered millions of innocent people.

Support or retract the 'millions' baloney.

Christian clergymen even wrote textbooks on methods of torture to be used by the Church.

Contrary to the teachings of Jesus, who harmed nobody. You don't judge a philosphy by it's misuse. The jihadists follow the word and deed of the 'prophet'.

I don't know the exact statistics, but I believe Christian history is far more bloody than that of Islam.

Baloney, do you not read the newspapers today?

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Who hit who first? Who reacted to save their homes from foreign influence and power. Is a man, Christian or otherwise, not entitled to protect what is his own?

I think doing so would be contrary to the teachings of Jesus. Jesus did not say "if someone hits you, hit them back." He said:

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Nonsense, the Crusades were a legitimate counter offensive against Muslim agression. I wish they had been more successful.

Isn't a bloody counter-offensive into your enemy's homeland "contrary to the teachings of Jesus, who harmed nobody"?

[JohnPaul]

East of Eden wrote:

Support or retract the 'millions' baloney.

I am not a believer and I say what I think about Christianity, but neither am I a militant anti-Christian crusader. I stand by what I said in my previous post and certainly do not retract it, but neither do I wish to engage in an endless acrimonious exchange here.

I have already made several casual searches of the internet and easily found and made note of dozens of reliable confirmations of what I said. RELIABLE historical accounts, not opinions. Anyone else can easily do the same. I assure you these things are not a secret.

Meanwhile, I am a little tired and I will pass on your challenge for now. I may feel differently tomorrow. If you wish to count that as a win for yourself, you are welcome to do so. I am sure others will gladly step in and provide the support for my statements that you asked for.

John