This short film on the gun markets of Pakistan is amazing. Religion of peace, indeed. The poor people of these regions are victims of the physical and spiritual poverty and violence that come with Islam.
15 Responses
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Oh, come off it! xianity has a history at least as violent and aggressive as islam (up to and including our own beloved christian prince, George II).
Oh, come off it! xianity has a history at least as violent and aggressive as islam
Absolutely not. This is a common misconception spawned by the anti-catholic enlightenment historians, and followed upon by today’s anti-religionists. As I have mentioned many times
– All ideologies have people who abuse them
– The Catholic church had grown incredibly corrupt during the period of 950-1500, culminating in the Protestant reformation
– The Crusades were to a large extent, a justified defensive war that was more political than religious, in that it was taking back land that was conquered during 400 years of Muslim aggression
– The Inquisitions were not only an outgrowth of corrupt Catholic doctrines, but of political forces (King and Queen of Spain) who promoted violence in opposition to the Popes’ pleadings
And the main kicker which I keep emphasizing is that Christianity, esp. the teachings of Jesus, lead to liberty and virtue, mercy and justice. Any violence done in the name of Christ has almost entirely been done as a bastardization or abandonment of His teachings.
Islam, by contrast, has been a religion of war, hatred, and oppression from the beginning BY IT’S VERY TEACHINGS.
As this classic comparison shows (and there are many many more), Islam’s wickedness does not stem from the fallibility of it’s followers, but from it’s source.
Luke 6:27-28
“But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.” – Jesus
Sura 9:5
“Kill those who join other gods with Allah wherever you find them; besiege them, seize them, lay in wait for them with every kind of ambush….” – Mohammed
What nonsense! Elsewhere you defend violence and refute xian pacifism in the name of Christ, while here you deny it?!
I am totally disgusted with you and your religion. Though you deny it, your religion is responsible for unknown amount of suffering and death, no matter how you try to deny it.
Elsewhere you defend violence and refute xian pacifism in the name of Christ, while here you deny it?!
And what did I suggest to replace Christian pacifism? Why do you still not understand? Because you are demanding a simplistic answer. Did you even read the passage I put above about the two kingdoms?
But don’t confuse yourself. Just answer the question, if you can. What did I suggest to replace Christian pacifism?
Seeker,
You can’t complain about Islamic violence while endorsing Christian violence. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you’re going to hold Islam responsible for the violence of some of its adherents, you owe the same to all other religions, including your own, regardless of how “right” you believe Christian violence to be.
Incidentally, is that a Christian ten commandments thong being sold on the right side of this page? Isn’t that scandalous? Aren’t thongs unChristian?
Sura 9:5
“Kill those who join other gods with Allah wherever you find them; besiege them, seize them, lay in wait for them with every kind of ambush….” – Mohammed
Deuteronomy 13:6-11
6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. 9 You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.
Matthew 5:17-19
17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Incidentally, is that a Christian ten commandments thong being sold on the right side of this page? Isn’t that scandalous? Aren’t thongs unChristian?
Sam, I actually made that same comment to Seeker. Since thongs in conjunction with hip-hugger jeans are very promiscuous, which actually in the eyes of many people suggest a girl to be “easy,” I find it totally inappropriate for it to be featured on this site.
I think I was told something to the effect that: A) Christians are not prudes, thongs are not promiscuous, and C) that there is a greater interest in burying the recent comments listing on the site to be below the fold on the page. It was in a stream of IM’s so, I could be a little off.
I will say this though. Personally, it makes me ill to see this on the site. Its like Seeker is trying to make a fast buck or something selling “sexy undies.” Not very Christian if you ask this old Catholic boy, but Catholics aren’t Christians… ;)
Perhaps this site should be called… “Two or Three dot Net: Christian Perspectives on 2 or 3 ways to get in a girls pants and still feel close to God…” LOL.
– Silver
If there's one thing you can expect from Seeker, it's consistency. Wait, wait…I mean a total lack of consistency.
For instance, Seeker will claim that Louis's quotes don't prove anything about Christianity while still insisting that his quotes prove everything about Islam. Then, he will claim that Christian thongs are in good fun, and as long as they're worn by good upstanding Christian women, there's no problem; however, those dirty thongs on women on television should be "regulated" to "protect" "children." Or whatever.
Incidentally, I don't object to a Christian thong. I just think that Christians would object to a Christian thong. Also, I'm not sure what that says about the actual word of God – if Moses really did get those commandments straight from the man himself, I'm not sure they should be riding up somebody's, even a good Christian woman's, ass.
You can't complain about Islamic violence while endorsing Christian violence. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you're going to hold Islam responsible for the violence of some of its adherents, you owe the same to all other religions, including your own, regardless of how "right" you believe Christian violence to be.
You are missing my point, again. Re-read the above so I don't have to retype it. It's the foundational teachings that differ.
Aren't thongs unChristian?
That's like asking "isn't sex unchristian"? Only to the religiously old-fashioned and backwards. And the answer is the same – not within a Christian marriage. Like some fundies, you may be confusing something modern or innocuous with ungodliness. My wife wears thongs, and I think they look fine. I'm sorry such things offend your religious sensibilities ;)
Personally, it makes me ill to see this on the site. Its like Seeker is trying to make a fast buck or something selling "sexy undies." Not very Christian if you ask this old Catholic boy, but Catholics aren't Christians… ;)
Real Catholics believe the gospel that Jesus died for our sins, rose from the dead, and is coming back again. Do you? ;)
I never realized you guys were such prudes! If I want to make a buck selling items on the inet, who cares? It's the ten commandments, for heaven's sake. But I do like offending religious sensibilities, if for no other reason than to out the fundies. You want me to put up a t-shirt instead of a thong so you guys can sleep at night? Wow.
I just think that Christians would object to a Christian thong.
I'm sure there would be some. But so far, only the non-christians (and Catholics ;) have complained.
I'm not sure they should be riding up somebody's, even a good Christian woman's, ass.
Perhaps you have not read Song of Solomon lately.
All I’m saying is, don’t go whining in a post about some artist defiling the Bible if you’re going to endorse the ten commandment riding up a woman’s asscrack. Obviously, I don’t object to thongs. But considering how much (Some) Christians dislike the notion of sexual activity being anything more than procreation, I find your tolerance of such things surprising.
don’t go whining in a post about some artist defiling the Bible
Defiling? You mean like tearing pages out? I only complain about bad doctrine.
But considering how much (Some) Christians dislike the notion of sexual activity being anything more than procreation, I find your tolerance of such things surprising.
Well, though Christians are against the abuse of sex (including porno), they are not against sex in marriage. But I can see where you might get that picture. I mean, even to this day, there are baptists who are against “mixed bathing” (that’s going to the beach where the other sex is wearing bathing suits).
It reminds me of that old joke about Baptists who were against “social dancing.”
Q: Why don’t Baptists have sex standing up?
A: They’re afraid someone will see them and think they are dancing.
BTW, if you are referring to such "art" as the Piss Christ, I have no problem allowing people to express their displeasure with life or religion or whatever, as long as it's not on the taxpayer's (my) dime.
Just as sure as you understand that I would prefer that no church get any of my dimes.
BTW, if you are referring to such "art" as the Piss Christ, I have no problem allowing people to express their displeasure with life or religion or whatever, as long as it's not on the taxpayer's (my) dime.
Just as sure as you understand that I would prefer that no church get any of my dimes.
Both those immovable positions are exactly the reason why we have such division in this country. Those of faith want to have religion in schools, federal funding of faith based initiatives and (for the most part) no funding for the arts because they object to material.
The flip side is that the other end of the spectrum doesn't want any money going to support any form of relgious teaching in public schools or support of any church or religion.
There is just no room for compromise. I am going to take the extreme and say there should be no Federal Funding for the arts or any tax dollars put towards the support of Faith Based initiatives, teaching of religion/public prayer, or support of any church in this country. This is guaranteed to make both sides very unhappy. We will then have an equilibrium of unhappiness.
Sheesh.
– Silver
no funding for the arts because they object to material.
Actually, I am against government funding of the arts on principle, be they offensive arts or evangelistic arts. I don't think that's part of the government's mandate.
And I don't think these are two sides of the same coin, even though you put them together. The principles regarding church and state may be similar to those of art and state, and while they may share some principles, they are also vastly different in some ways.
And I don't think that I am uncompromising by not supporting the arts with Federal Moneys. I am all for the private funding of the arts. Nor am I against public expressions of faith.
I do, however, support the tax exempt status of not for profit organizations, including churches, because they provide a community service.
Also, while most evangelicals may want more religious freedom in schools, few are pushing for religious indoctrination in schools (and no, creationism and bible clubs don't count). But that's another discussion.