Originally posted by googlefudge
No.

The greatest problem with Islam is that it teaches people that it's not just ok,
but required that you believe based on faith and that morality is determined
by god and comes from divine authority.

Exactly the same problem as Christianity, they just haven't had hundreds of
years of being dragged towards that light by secular morality.

No, there are mandates to kill certain kinds of people running around today, but not so in the Bible.

Originally posted by whodey
What does this have to do with God?

Were not the genocides committed by the Hebrews ~ the ones you mentioned in your OP ~ mandated by the Abrahamic God - according to your beliefs and according to the holy scriptures and beliefs of billions of Christians around the world? If you are meaning to talk about 'killing in the name of God' in a nothing-to-do-with-God, secular, non-religious, non-spiritual, non-superstitious way, surely this thread belongs on the Debates Forum?

Originally posted by whodey
No, there are mandates to kill certain kinds of people running around today, but not so in the Bible.

The Albigensian crusade and massacre occurred in the early 13th century, many centuries after God ordered massacres. And it was done in God's name. "Kill them all, God will know his own" is remembered from that event.

What happened, between then and now, that you think has rendered Christianity incapable of supporting violent crusade against infidels? The Bible hasn't changed.

Originally posted by JS357
The Albigensian crusade and massacre occurred in the early 13th century, many centuries after God ordered massacres. And it was done in God's name. "Kill them all, God will know his own" is remembered from that event.

What happened, between then and now, that you think has rendered Christianity incapable of supporting violent crusade against infidels? The Bible hasn't changed.

The engagements mentioned in the Bible were goal oriented, namely, the removal of the Canaanites from the Promised Land. They eradicated city by city, much like Truman with the A-bomb. Once this had been accomplished, they stopped.

And like Truman, once the goal was reached the order to kill was revoked.

This is not the case with the open ended mandates by Mo, such as kill the Jew/infidel where you find him. I guess you could say that if they are able to kill all the infidels the mandate would cease.

Originally posted by whodey
The engagements mentioned in the Bible were goal oriented, namely, the removal of the Canaanites from the Promised Land.

If I understand the extremist militarized jihadists' plans and wishes correctly, they [or at least some proportion of them] are also goal oriented, very explicitly so: the goal is to establish a kingdom under God's law that is in place and enforced the world over. It doesn't really work for you to claim some sort of legitimacy for the religious figures/stories you happen to root for by erecting a false dichotomy about one being "goal oriented" and the other not.

Originally posted by whodey
I guess you could say that if they are able to kill all the infidels the mandate would cease.

Ya think?!

Yeah, I guess that order for genocide can be taken away, leaving our religion a shining example of moral superiority now that we've killed every last mother's son of them. Now we can walk around with a halo over heads and look down at those pissant religions that are so bad at genocide that they have to issue open-ended mandates. 🙄

Originally posted by FMF
If I understand the extremist militarized jihadists' plans and wishes correctly, they [or at least some proportion of them] are also goal oriented, very explicitly so: the goal is to establish a kingdom under God's law that is in place and enforced the world over. It doesn't really work for you to claim some sort of legitimacy for the religious figures/stories y ...[text shortened]... pen to root for by erecting a false dichotomy about one being "goal oriented" and the other not.

Like I said, once they conquer the world they will stop killing.

LOL.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Ya think?!

Yeah, I guess that order for genocide can be taken away, leaving our religion a shining example of moral superiority now that we've killed every last mother's son of them. Now we can walk around with a halo over heads and look down at those pissant religions that are so bad at genocide that they have to issue open-ended mandates. 🙄

Jesus, who is the example of my religion, IS a shining example of moral superiority compared to Mo blow.

Originally posted by whodey
Like I said, once they conquer the world they will stop killing.

In religious and spiritual terms, if that's what the Abrahamic God desires, your personal preference for Christianity doesn't really mean anything to the world other than it informs your personal perceptions. I don't think either you or the jihadists are right about God and I wish the jihadists would stop their mass murder and other atrocities. Your preference for following Christ doesn't affect the veracity of your beliefs, just as the sincerity/certainty of the jihadists does not affect the veracity of theirs.

Originally posted by whodey
Jesus, who is the example of my religion, IS a shining example of moral superiority compared to Mo blow.

I see we've reached that magical point in the debate where the Christian stops owning the Old Testament as part of his religion. 🙂

Even though, in this case, you explicitly mentioned that period in your OP.

Well played, yet again. 😴

Originally posted by divegeester
Here's a potentially controversial pov; militant Islam would not be what it is today if the west's enemies didn't empower it. By enemies I specifically mean those with money: Saudi, China, Korea and Russia. Where does ISIS get its Kalashnikovs for example; buried in the sand?

Why have you singled out 'the West's enemies'? The West is just as guilty of funding wars in the region, and the West's friends are just as guilty of funding militant Islam. (Saudi Arabia for example, that you incorrectly listed as 'the West's enemy' ) .
Also listing China as 'the West's enemy' is definitely politically controversial. And which Korea are you referring to?

Originally posted by whodey
Jesus, who is the example of my religion, IS a shining example of moral superiority compared to Mo blow.

Compared to Mo, I would agree. But compared to a significant proportion of modern people, I disagree. Jesus doesn't stand out as particularly morally admirable.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Compared to Mo, I would agree. But compared to a significant proportion of modern people, I disagree. Jesus doesn't stand out as particularly morally admirable.

Really?

Explain. Just how much better are you than Jesus?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why have you singled out 'the West's enemies'? The West is just as guilty of funding wars in the region, and the West's friends are just as guilty of funding militant Islam. (Saudi Arabia for example, that you incorrectly listed as 'the West's enemy' ) .
Also listing China as 'the West's enemy' is definitely politically controversial. And which Korea are you referring to?

The West has an open ended war as well, but that is for oil.

Conversely, Islam has an open ended goal for world domination.

If you get in eithers way they will slit your throat just like Obama did Gaddafi.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
I see we've reached that magical point in the debate where the Christian stops owning the Old Testament as part of his religion. 🙂

Even though, in this case, you explicitly mentioned that period in your OP.

Well played, yet again. 😴

It is the inability to understand the life of Jesus and his reformation of the faith that is mind boggling. Wut part of love your enemy don't you understand?

Christians SHOULD follow Christ, otherwise I would be a Jew.

And yes, it was a magical moment when he came upon the scene. He changed the world.