Originally posted by scherzo Here's the logic behind the people who think that there's a such thing as Islamofascists:
1. There are Muslim fascists.
2. These fascists carry out fascist acts based on their religion.
3. They represent the Muslim mainstream, who support them due to their fascism.
So, therefore, here's my logic:
1. There were Christian fascists (Hitler, Franco, J ...[text shortened]... ocal -- most Christians are fascists, and most fascists are Christians.
5. Christofascism.
1. There were Christian fascists (Hitler, Franco, Jumayyil, etc.)
2. Most fascists were/are Christian.
3. Due to the fact that the majority of fascists are Christian, fascism is a Christian ideology.
4. Due to previous Catholic support for fascist regimes, particularly Mussolini's Italy and Franco's Spain, the relationship between Christianity and fascism is reciprocal -- most Christians are fascists, and most fascists are Christians.
5. Christofascism.
1. they may have called themselves christian, but that doesn't mean they followed christianity.
Im not sure Jesus would approve of killing innocent people.
2. (see reply to 1)
3. following that analogy we could say that due to the fact that most terrorists are muslim, terrorism is part of the muslim religion.
4. The whole thing is much more complicated. The fascists were the only ones they could support, or did you expect them to support the communists despite the fact that they intended to impose state atheism?
what about the current muslim support for the destruction of the israeli state, any comments on that?
Originally posted by generalissimo [b]1. There were Christian fascists (Hitler, Franco, Jumayyil, etc.)
2. Most fascists were/are Christian.
3. Due to the fact that the majority of fascists are Christian, fascism is a Christian ideology.
4. Due to previous Catholic support for fascist regimes, particularly Mussolini's Italy and Franco's Spain, the relationship between Christianity an ...[text shortened]... he current muslim support for the destruction of the israeli state, any comments on that?[/b]
1. More people have died in Jesus' name than anyone else's. Does that mean that nobody who kills is Christian?
3. Most terrorists are not Muslim; terrorism is fairly equal throughout the political spectrum.
4. Exactly. My point is that the logic behind Christofascism is, to say the least, flawed. But for argument's sake: although Mussolini did attempt to impose state atheism, at least at first, Franco did not. In fact, Franco was probably the most devoutly religious leader of Spain for centuries.
And most Muslims do not support the dissolution of the Israeli state. The few that do are divided between supporting it for religious reasons (like OBL) or for political reasons (like, for example, me).
Originally posted by scherzo Jehovah's witnesses then? I know it's the same God and all, but those people are really funny.
Again sir, I refer back to my statement on retardation.
I feel freedom of religion is a basic human right. It is largely between a believer and his or her god. If someone wants to have beliefs contrary to mine, then they can swim in the lake of fire for all eternity. 😛
Originally posted by scherzo So you deny that the Vatican and Spain under Franco were/are theocracies?
And the "myriad of Mullahs" that you refer to constitute no more than, very liberally, 0.1% of the Muslim population.
I'll ask once again, who is advocating Christian theocracies today? I admit that Christiandom had its period of facsism with Crusades and inquisitions and the persecution of the Jews, but what of today? I suppose it is Islams turn, eh?
Originally posted by Ice Cold No, totally different God, I am a Christian. 😉
What I for one don't get is this, The Koran, The OT Bible, and the The Talmud, aren't they all the books of Moses??
Isn't God just God?
Ok guys, come and rip me apart now.
I still say my God is better than your god, and in conclusion, your mothers.
God is God. That is true, however, what of the religious books? From whom were they inspired? The Torah are the collection of Mosaic laws and the Koran was written by one man, Mohammad long after Chrisitanity came on the scene. In fact, the entire Koran is based upon Mohammads interpretation of the Torah, and yes, the two are inconsistant. For example, the Muslims believe that Abrahams son Ishmael was taken to the mount to be sacrificed and not Isaac. So what is the significance to all this? Inheritance of the holy land, thats what.
As for the Jews retaking the holy land, some think it is a fulfillment of prophecy based upon Gods promise to "his people". If so, God's hand was involved. Of course, you have to admit the odds they over came were somewhat miraculous.
Originally posted by whodey I'll ask once again, who is advocating Christian theocracies today? I admit that Christiandom had its period of facsism with Crusades and inquisitions and the persecution of the Jews, but what of today? I suppose it is Islams turn, eh?
The entire Catholic Church. The Vatican is the oldest continually existing theocracy in the world.
Originally posted by whodey God is God. That is true, however, what of the religious books? From whom were they inspired? The Torah are the collection of Mosaic laws and the Koran was written by one man, Mohammad long after Chrisitanity came on the scene. In fact, the entire Koran is based upon Mohammads interpretation of the Torah, and yes, the two are inconsistant. For example, t ...[text shortened]... was involved. Of course, you have to admit the odds they over came were somewhat miraculous.
Thanks for clearing that up. To me the translations I read seemed to be pretty much the same thing. No wonder those Islamics are going to burn in hell. 😕
Originally posted by whodey God is God. That is true, however, what of the religious books? From whom were they inspired? The Torah are the collection of Mosaic laws and the Koran was written by one man, Mohammad long after Chrisitanity came on the scene. In fact, the entire Koran is based upon Mohammads interpretation of the Torah, and yes, the two are inconsistant. For example, t ...[text shortened]... was involved. Of course, you have to admit the odds they over came were somewhat miraculous.
The Holy Qur'an is the final word of ALLAH SWT as dictated by the Angel Jibraeel to the Prophet Muhammed PBUH.
Originally posted by Ice Cold Thanks for clearing that up. To me the translations I read seemed to be pretty much the same thing. No wonder those Islamics are going to burn in hell. 😕
Of course there are many other differences. For example, they say that Christ never was crucified. That is puzzling especially considering this is a historic fact. However, this teaching dodges any questions about Christ being the sacrifice for sins, since he never died.
In short, the teaching about Ishmael and Christ illustrate in the Koran the need to "adjust" the other holy scriptures to fit another theology and self interest. Of course, if you are Islamic, the other scriptures were "corrupted" and it is only Mohammad among all of humanity that God has chosen to reveal the "true" gospel.
Originally posted by scherzo The Holy Qur'an is the final word of ALLAH SWT as dictated by the Angel Jibraeel to the Prophet Muhammed PBUH.
Case in point. The Koran says that there were other "prophets" but the words of all these prophets since time began have been "corrupted". Therefore, Mohammad and Mohammad alone has "corrected" any inacuracies and has the final word. This means that no prophet before Mohammad or to come is allowed to contradict Mohammad in any way.
Originally posted by whodey Case in point. The Koran says that there were other "prophets" but the words of all these prophets since time began have been "corrupted". Therefore, Mohammad and Mohammad alone has "corrected" any inacuracies and has the final word. This means that no prophet before Mohammad or to come is allowed to contradict Mohammad in any way.
Well, no, because they received garbled translations. They're free to have their testaments contradict the Final Prophet's, but they're not right.
Originally posted by scherzo 1. More people have died in Jesus' name than anyone else's. Does that mean that nobody who kills is Christian?
3. Most terrorists are not Muslim; terrorism is fairly equal throughout the political spectrum.
4. Exactly. My point is that the logic behind Christofascism is, to say the least, flawed. But for argument's sake: although Mussolini did attempt ...[text shortened]... porting it for religious reasons (like OBL) or for political reasons (like, for example, me).
1. More people have died in Jesus' name than anyone else's. Does that mean that nobody who kills is Christian?
so what, just because they worship the messenger (or say they do) it doesn't mean they're following the message.
3. Most terrorists are not Muslim; terrorism is fairly equal throughout the political spectrum
that's a non-sequitur, nobody's talking politics, regardless of politics there is a great deal of islamic terrorist groups out there, why is that? are muslims somohow inclined to be violent?
In fact, Franco was probably the most devoutly religious leader of Spain for centuries
yes, but having all faith in the world doesn't give you an excuse to kill innocent people. but then again, he didn't kill in the name of God, he killed political opponents, thats completely different.
The few that do are divided between supporting it for religious reasons (like OBL) or for political reasons (like, for example, me).
is it fair to say there is a certain degree of anti-semitism involved?
Originally posted by whodey Case in point. The Koran says that there were other "prophets" but the words of all these prophets since time began have been "corrupted". Therefore, Mohammad and Mohammad alone has "corrected" any inacuracies and has the final word. This means that no prophet before Mohammad or to come is allowed to contradict Mohammad in any way.
except of course if you are Muhammad contradicting Muhammad! which is true even in the case of Muhammad himself when he was gonna get his a$$ handed to him in Medina, he uttered the so called 'satanic verses', in praise of the deities of the place', subsequently it has been erased, or superseded. As a historical character i do not know how anyone can advocate Mohammed as a good example, either as portrayed in the Hadith, the Koran or elsewhere, for it is well known that he was utterly scurrilous. Sorry Scherzo, but its true.
Originally posted by scherzo Well, no, because they received garbled translations. They're free to have their testaments contradict the Final Prophet's, but they're not right.
Out of interest, what would you do if a man claimed to be a prophet sent by Allah and said that Muhammad received the garbled translation? This is obviously unlikely, but I'd be rather interested in how Islam would respond.
Christofascism
25 Dec '09 18:57
Back to Top