2 edits
Originally posted by Rajk999Actually I can promise you that Christians have been guilty of every one of the crimes you mention.
... but its only in Islam you find them all.
And only in Islam would you find support for their atrocities either in the Koran or in the Hadiths.
I can also promise you that you will find support for many atrocities in the Bible, and a lot less in the Quran than you are apparently claiming. Can you for example provide any evidence that the Quran supports a man beheading his wife?
You are pretentious if you claim to think that DS means Islam is a scourge simply because of this one beheading.
He has not corrected me yet. I am willing to accept that he did not mean that his conclusion was based on that one incident, but I still expect him to provide some evidence that the quoted incident is in any way supportive of the claim.
Originally posted by twhiteheadNor will he. His modus operandi is to drop in, intone his catch-phrase and move on, leaving the dirty work to the bug-eyed mugwumps.
He has not corrected me yet. I am willing to accept that he did not mean that his conclusion was based on that one incident, but I still expect him to provide some evidence that the quoted incident is in any way supportive of the claim.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI thank you for your honesty and my continued education, when i feel better i will perhaps offer a comment - kind regards Robbie.
Yes, the Koran is replete with references to war, while the New Testament steers clear of the topic.
So what guidance does the New Testament contain for Christians faced with the problem of evil in the form of people bent on killing them? Surely the Christian is enjoined to accept harm rather than fight? This problem vexed Augustine, who developed ...[text shortened]... e who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors."(2:190)
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo show me where Christ sanctioned wife beating..
Actually I can promise you that Christians have been guilty of every one of the crimes you mention.....
Note - the issue is not whether or not Christians are guilty of atrocities. I know they are.
The issue is whether or not there is support for these atrocities in the religion of the individual.
2 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageFor me, Jesus was not opposed to "fighting". Case in point was when he picked up a whip and flogged the money changers with it. Granted, what we see with Christ is a different kind of fight in that most of the time this did not involve physical violence, however, it was not prohibited as we can see. Christ's fight was a spiritual one. For example, the reason he picked up the whip and flogged the money changers was that he said they were turning a holy place of prayer into a den of theives. In short, Jesus was about doing the will of the Father, whatever this entailed.
So what guidance does the New Testament contain for Christians faced with the problem of evil in the form of people bent on killing them? Surely the Christian is enjoined to accept harm rather than fight? This problem vexed Augustine, who developed his theory of just war, subsequently elaborated by Aquinas, Grotius, etc.
Having said that, the Chrisitan must then examine what the will of the Father is when faced with physical violence or otherwise. The fight of the Christian and of Christ was ripe with violence. Jesus shook the very powers of the Jewish and Roman authorities. He did so by laying his life down as he was brutally murdered. He then enlisted the help of his followers to do the same as they were stoned, burned, or thrown to the lions. The early church used the tactic of loving people to death. The fight was a spiritual one as opposed to a material one as seen in Ephesians which says that we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against spiritual wickedness in high places. However, this does not mean that physical violence is prohibited in this endevour, rather, it simply means Christians need to be aware of the fight of love as opposed to material gain/loss. So if this involved getting a whip out or worse, then so be it. I think we all have heard the phrase, "Love must be tough".
Of course, most view the early church with Constatines Crusade for Christ, however, this occured centuries later. The question then for Christians is, was this part of God's will or was this man enlisting the help of God for his own cause?
Originally posted by twhiteheadShe was going to divorce him. Of course it was an honor killing.
No the facts do not speak for themselves. I went and read the article and there is no evidence whatsoever that it was an honor killing or had anything to do with Islam. So either present more facts or admit that you are wrong.
Can you also tell me under what circumstances some Muslims believe an honor killing is mandated by Allah and present some evidenc ...[text shortened]... d it also mentions that he has been married before. Did he 'honor kill' his previous wife too?
1 edit
Originally posted by Rajk999As I said to another in this thread, if you are capable of picking and choosing which parts of your holy book [the Bible] to follow, and free to disregard the commandments that you deem 'not applicable' [for whatever reason], then why can't a Muslim do the same when reading the Qu'ran?
The issue is whether or not there is support for these atrocities in the religion of the individual.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDo you condemn the people of Mosaic times?
mmm, Christians recognise that the Mosaic law is no longer binding, for Christ established a different and superior covenant, thus we no longer offer animal sacrifices for sins, need to submit to circumcision etc etc, However this is not the case with the Islam, for these laws are still very much binding on a Muslim, are widely accepted and practiced ...[text shortened]... offends our egalitarian sensibilities and our sense of justice in whatever context it is found?
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNot all gunshot wounds are instantly fatal. The victim may die a slow, painful death if the bullet does not hit the right spot. They certainly are capable of mutilating the body [expanding bullets, shotguns especially].
The beheading involves mutilating the body, which might make a difference if the shot was in the heart or something...
Perhaps gunshot deaths have been too romanticized in the movies [little trickle of blood, poignant last words, then head rolls to the side]. My guess is that there are more cases like Mr. Orange in Reservoir Dogs, and less cases like Johnny Ringo in Tombstone than most people realize.
Originally posted by SwissGambitWhy dont they? You tell me.
As I said to another in this thread, if you are capable of picking and choosing which parts of your holy book [the Bible] to follow, and free to disregard the commandments that you deem 'not applicable' [for whatever reason], then why can't a Muslim do the same when reading the Qu'ran?
Originally posted by Rajk999You're right that 'most' is not good enough. One victim is too many.
Most .. 😀 Nice vague answer. Youre a diplomat.
In the meantime muslims continue with the atrocities and human rights violations. I guess 'most' just aint good enough.
In the mean time, people of all nationalities, faiths, and creeds continue with the atrocities and human rights violations, and act as if the problem is exclusive to the 'other' group. Misleading at best and hypocritical at worst.
Originally posted by SwissGambitExactly where did anyone say or imply that "... the problem is exclusive to the 'other' group". I suspect youare just being overly sensitive/defensive.
You're right that 'most' is not good enough. One victim is too many.
In the mean time, people of all nationalities, faiths, and creeds continue with the atrocities and human rights violations, and act as if the problem is exclusive to the 'other' group. Misleading at best and hypocritical at worst.