Printable View
As for Jesus being married, that didn't arise with "The Da Vinci Code". Although this is a major hot topic and a sore subject with most Christians there is really no definitive asnwer (form a historical stand-point) There is little real historical evidence either way, even using the NT as historical evidence.
There is no historical reference to the subject prior to the 2nd century to my knowledge.
Was not actually against the law, just tradition, if he was not married.
ok, I get it now.
Yeah, I had always been curious of it, then the "Da Vinci Code" movie just made it more popular.
I had always thought it was against law, thanks for clearing that up.
I love the mysteries of the Bible, and life of Jesus...
what happened during all those years of his life, that aren't mentioned in the bible?
[quote=Counts;1774150]Quote:
Originally Posted by Burton13
Who? Me? Nahhhhhhhhhh, I wouldn't do such a thing. ;)
Normally I wouldn't bring up a portion of the thread that is basically "over". But I happened along something completely by accident earlier today, and was surprised when I saw the source.
Earlier in the thread there was an exchange between Biggin and myself concerning Islam. He apparently mistaking thought I had taken part of my argument from this site:
TheReligionofPeace.com - Islam: Making a True Difference in the World
I had not, but did mention that I was familiar with the site. He went on to accuse the site of being racist. I disagreed with that opinion. Today , completely by accident, I came across a statement on this very subject by the authors of the site in question. I felt that since they had been accused of racism on this site, even if it is a limited number who see it, that they should be allowed to respond.
TheReligionofPeace - Race, Racism and Islam
Race and Racism
Race is the arbitrary classification of individuals based solely on human genetics. How many races there are and what characteristics are used to determine racial identity is entirely subjective. Race is therefore a social construct, and not a physical science. It is no more meaningful to say that a person is of a certain race than it is to say that they live in Indiana rather than Illinois.
Categorizing people by race is also non-sensible and irrelevant. Consider the entirely feasible example of a girl born to parents who are a white European and a native African. Given the different races involved, which one would she be considered? More importantly, how could it possibly matter? Would being either “black” or “white” or something in between make her any different of a person?
Race also serves as the foundation for racism, which tries to emphasize distinctions between racial categories – arbitrary as they may be. Racism is the “science” of drawing broad conclusions from comparative studies, which are then assumed to apply to all members of a particular group who happen to share a genetic profile.
Racism is deeply flawed because it is fundamentally irrational. Human beings are not groups, they are individuals.
There is not one scientific or social fact that can be determined about an individual based on their race. For example, one cannot know what music another person enjoys, how they vote, or how high they are able to jump simply by knowing their race.
In fact, all racial stereotypes dissolve at the individual level. No matter how fast one runs, how quick one thinks, or how moral one’s character, there can always be members of any other race found who better excel at each of these – or any other imaginable measure. There is simply no such thing as a meaningful racial stereotype. People are whoever they are raised to be.
This makes perfect sense to intelligent people. Since racial identity is arbitrary, it cannot be deterministic. Without determinism, there can be no science. Therefore, neither racism nor the study of race has anything factual to offer.
In addition to being a false science, racism is morally wrong because it is the foundation for racial discrimination, in which different rules and standards are applied to individuals based on their presumed identity. In the past, people suffered tremendously (and unfairly, of course) because of this.
Thus, the artificial system of race serves no positive purpose. Lending legitimacy to the flawed theory of racial distinction leads, almost inevitably, to racism and the justification of racial discrimination. This, along with the inherent absurdity of even classifying people by race, should be enough to merit junking racial identification altogether.
Islam and “Racism”
Those openly critical of Islam are sometimes dubiously slurred as racists, regardless of what their true views on race may be.
In fact, Islam is not a race. Islam has nothing at all to do with genetics. It is an ideology – a set of beliefs about individual behavior and the rules of society.
Neither are Muslims a race of people. In fact, there are Muslims of all races.
Therefore criticizing Islam is not racism.
So why would anyone claim that it is?
It is because the battle over Islam is being fought in the West, the only arena in which this religion can still be critically debated. It is also here that repugnance toward racism is strong and nearly universal. As politicians well know, if one can successfully paint the opposition as “racist,” then the battle for public opinion is all but decided. From high-risk mortgages to illegal immigration, fear of the race card is one of the strongest influences on public policy.
At the same time, it is nearly impossible to defend Islam in its own right - which is why Muslim societies usually rely on threat of violence to suppress intellectual critique and the freedom of other religion. According to its own texts, Islam was founded in terror, and its political and social code is deeply incompatible with Western liberal values. Frustrated advocates of Islam’s advance are therefore prone to taking the crude and easy path of trying to squash debate by mislabeling criticism of their religion as racism.
Having to sling the worst of all slurs to compensate for deficiency of fact and logic is bad enough, but in this case there is terrible irony in that what is being defended in such cheap fashion is an ideology that is overtly supremacist in nature. In fact, those Muslims who do want to rely on the race card are not thinking very far ahead.
On the surface it would seem that if Islam really were a race, or Muslims a race of people, then any criticism of the common tie which unites them - in this case the religion of Islam – could be dismissed out of hand as racism, thus effectively protecting the religion from tough examination. But everything is not as it seems.
If Muslims are a race because of Islam, then it means that Islam is a racial ideology. What this ideology has to say about its own and other “races” therefore becomes a very important question.
In fact, the Qur’an places an enormous qualitative distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims that is hard to miss. Believers are loved by God, whereas infidels are hated to the extent that they are tortured for eternity (3:32, 4:56) merely for not believing. Muslims are told to shun unbelievers (3:118), who are called “helpers of evil” (25:55), “wicked” (4:160), “fond of lies” (5:42) and compared to the worst of animals (8:55, 7:176, 7:179). Members of Islam are told to be merciful to each other, but ruthless to those outside of the faith (48:29). Violence is also sanctioned against those who are obstinate against Islamic rule (8:12-13, 9:5).
So, if Muslims are a race, Islam would not only be a racist ideology, but arguably the most hateful and destructive in history. It is bad enough that hundreds of millions of people have been killed in the last fourteen centuries by divinely sanctioned Jihad and slavery, but to retroactively supplant the stated motive of religious supremacy with that of racial superiority is hardly a step in the right direction for a religion seeking the acceptance of an increasingly skeptical audience.
Conclusion
Race is an arbitrary label that has no legitimacy. Therefore anything based on race, including racism and racial discrimination is unsound at best and immoral and inhumane at worst.
Human beings are individuals and should only be judged as such.
Islam is not a race. Muslims are not a race. Islam is an ideology that should be open to critical examination. Muslims, however, are individuals who should be protected from harm or harassment in the same way and for the same reasons as anyone else.
Glen Reinsford
Sorry about the length, but i felt like it deserved to be posted.
Religious intolerance and racism fall under the same category, discrimination. And that site is pretty discriminatory.
I disagree with the use of the word "discriminatory".
I'm not trying to claim that the site is not a bit over the top, but using words like racist and discriminatory, even comparing the site to the KKK, instead of attempting to refute points made by the sites author or pointing out mistakes in fact are nothing but an attempt to discredit without directly engaging and are weak attempts to avoid a strong (over the top if you will) argument.
I haven't really "studied" the site, just browsed it.
My opinion is that they point out a lot of very "uncomfortable" facts about Islam and the Islamic message, and they do this in an abrasive and somewhat radical manner.
I see no difference in how they approach Islam and how some sites, Internet Infidels come to mind, treat the christian religion.
It's not as extreme as the KKK, but certainly "preaching" the same message. They might go about in a lighter way, but its the same defaming method a KKK site would use. And as for the Internet Infidels site, I've never visited one...but if they do things the same way as that one, then they are definitely no better and maybe worse(like I said, I haven't been to it). Sites like that should be more "pro" their position than "anti" everyone elses. It's perfectly fine to compare and contrast two or however many religions, but not solely focused on how bad the opposing side is - whichever side it is, it's wrong to do so.
Again, I strongly disagree.
I think the sites author says it better than I possibly could:
"In fact, Islam is not a race. Islam has nothing at all to do with genetics. It is an ideology – a set of beliefs about individual behavior and the rules of society."
If these ideological beliefs lead to a clear and demonstrable pattern of inappropriate behavior there is absolutely nothing wrong with pointing that out.
Intolerance for a pattern of violence, abuse, and misbehavior in general based upon a set of ideological beliefs does not constitute "defaming" .
As for the internet infidels site, I've actually looked it over more carefully than I have this one.
They were pretty much the original modern source for the argument that a historical Jesus never existed. In fact, if one argues that point today they have without a doubt been influenced, knowingly or not, by the authors of that site.
Would I want the site removed? No!
That would be nothing more than an internet version of a book burning.....as is, to a slightly lesser extent, use of words like racist when dealing with a view you are in conflict with.
Again it's not the point of it being genetic, it's still discrimination. Where you are born and raised usually determine what religion you are and what you believe, it's one of the biggest factors. If you are born in a muslim area, you are going to believe in Islam and think that religion is right...if you're born here, usually you're going to think Christianity is right. Because it isn't technically "genetic", the family is the number 1 reason why most people believe the way they do...so it is a choice, but not exactly.
I do not think it "leads" to a pattern of all of this violence, like I said..about 85% of the prison population believes in Christianity, that doesn't mean it "led" to violence and there's a legit argument for plenty of violence in the Bible.
So, pointing out the fact that a hugely disapportionate number of modern day slave owners are Muslim is discrimination?
Pointing out that an outrageously disapportionate percentage of terrorist acts are committed by Muslims is also discrimination?
Pointing out the systematic abuse of women in many parts of the Muslim world is discrimination?
This idea that we have to tread lightly and maintain some sort of absurd policitally correct handling of all things Islamic is preposterous. Ask the French how that has worked out for them. Ask the Dutch how wonderful that approach has worked for them.
Concerning violence in the Bible. Tell you what, point me to the violence in the New Testament. You are aware that the NT is the blueprint for christian life, not the old testament which is actually the Hebrew bible, first five books of which make up the Jewish Torah.
I believe the only statement I didn't respond to was about the percentage of the prison population that "85% of the prison population believes in Christianity".
According to a study by The Federal Bureau of Prisons right at 20% had no religious affiliation of any type.
Now here is what I found interesting: 7.273% stated that they were Muslim, while an additional 2.320% stated that they belonged to the Nation of Islam, which was polled as a separate religion.
I find that as being better than 9.5%.
Now lets look at the percentage Muslims in the US population as a whole.
According to the latest statistical data 0.6% of the U.S. population is Muslim.
So, while about 1 in every 168 Americans are Muslim, nearly 1 in every 10 convicted felons in prison are.
Interesting, thanks for leading me to that info :)
First of all Christianity is how much older then Islam? Christianity has come a long way, Islam has too and will continue to do so.
Secondly, outrageously disproportionate? You are referring to the Islamic extremist who are not the majority. There are around 1.5 billion muslims in the world, if they were all or even mostly the extremist you are talking about...there'd be a lot more 9/11's happening, not the case.
Now to the prison population..It's 0.2 percent of non-believers(atheists) in prison, not 20. There's is a reason the Nation of Islam was polled separately, that's because they aren't the same. They cannot be counted with actual Muslims, so it's 7.27% and not 9.5. Judeo-Christians make up 83.7% of the prison poulation, I think that 8/10(Christians) is a little worse than 0.7/10(Islam).
I think you could use a better understanding of statistics and perhaps logic as well. Not intending to be mean, but some of that flies in the face of logic.
Let's start with "outrageously disproportionate". Do you mean that it's your belief that the vast majority of terrorists are not Muslim? If so you are mistaken and most any source can correct you on that.
Let me piece it out. There are more Christians in the world than Muslims, yet Muslims make up the vast majority of terrorists. That equals "outrageously disproportionate".
It does not imply that the vast majority of Muslims are terrorists, it instead CLEARLY states the verifiable fact that the vast majority of terrorists are Muslims.
Next, atheist and non-christian are two completely different things. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons about 80 percent of inmates identify themselves as having Christian beliefs. That does not in any way make the other 20 percent atheists? I have no idea were that assumption could have come from?
Now, "The Nation Of *ISLAM*" members are not Muslims :) that's a pretty good one! The Nations theology is to main stream Islam almost exactly what the Later Day Saints theology is to the main stream Christianity. They are Muslims...period.
But just for fun I'll humor you.
So about 1 out of every 168 Americans are Muslims, but about 1 out of every 13 felons in U.S. prison are Muslims (un-affiliated with the Nation Of ISLAM). That better?
It is my belief that most of the "modern-day" terrorists are muslim, but people take that as most muslims are modern-day terrorists. Terrorists have been around for a long time, it's whoever is pissed and willing to kill or whichever God they are killing for. Christians have killed plenty in the name of God, muslims are now and it will continue to be like that but IMO it will die down with those extremist and new extremists/terrorists will take their place with time.
"According to a study by The Federal Bureau of Prisons right at 20% had no religious affiliation of any type."
I read that wrong and thought you meant it said that 20% were atheist. My bad.
I said they weren't "actual" muslims, they aren't. They are a hate group here in America that uses Islam to support their "cause" and hate. It's like the KKK for the Islamic faith, do you count the Klan as "actual" christians? I mean are they following what Christianity really is and living the way the Bible says? Nope. Nation of Islam is not a religion or a branch of Islam IMO, it is only use to further their agenda. So you can't compare them with the Mormons, I don't care for them but they aren't like the Nation at all - because I don't recognize them as a branch, just as I don't see the Klan as a branch of the Christian faith.
I was just using the same page I thought you were. The numbers you were using about Islam, Nation etc. matched up with the same ones on that very site.
I disagree with the historical accuracy of comparing modern Islamic terror acts to government sanctioned actions of violence, which make up nearly all the supposed violence in Christianities past.
There is also the factor that the NT scriptures cannot be twisted in any means to condone acts of mass violence by any sane person. Jesus himself was non-violent and taught others to be such.
On the other hand Muhammad was a warlord who killed, raped, molested, and took slaves. There can be a reasonable assumption that such acts could be condoned in a reading of Islamic history and Islamic Scripture.
Next, if we are going to eliminate Nation of ISLAM members as Muslims due to their extreme radical nature, then a fair assessment would be to eliminate KKK members (as you mention yourself) Aryan Brotherhood members and Skinhead members and other like minded types from the percentage of the prison population bunched into the "Christian" category. Want to bet as to the degree that would drop the 80% Christian number?
I deleted the part of my previous post about the source for the 0.2 percent before you posted because I found that the BOP is using that number.
Now it is my understanding that the prisoner had to proclaim themselves an atheist to be put in that category, not just say, "no religion".
Following orders isn't an excuse and never has been, the gov wasn't God and a real God wouldn't be "ordering" mass murdering anyway.
Don't have to twist anything, Jesus also said he and the father are one and he never disagrees with God..but that's just another example of the contradictions in the Bible. Jesus was very peaceful, but God wasn't.
I wouldn't say it would drop all that much, of course some. Since a good majority of the prison population is black - and only 2 percent is Nation - plus Latinos make up a good part of that with Catholicism. So IMO it wouldn't be that much of a drop.
"Following orders isn't an excuse and never has been, the gov wasn't God and a real God wouldn't be "ordering" mass murdering anyway."
I didn't say it was an excuse. The difference is that Islamic violence is rooted in the religion, the religious scriptures, and the actions of its Prophet. Whereas the violence attributed to Christians, in the past, has often times actually been politically motivated, is not supported by the modern version of the religion, was never supported by the scriptures, and most certainly not by the actions of Jesus.
"Don't have to twist anything, Jesus also said he and the father are one and he never disagrees with God..but that's just another example of the contradictions in the Bible. Jesus was very peaceful, but God wasn't."
Can you say *stretch*? That really might be your poorest retort yet. Not all Christians would even agree with the basic premise, just for starters. Muhammad was a pedophile, a murderer, a slave owner, a rapist. But Jesus said he was God so he is just as bad? May well be the saddest argument I've encountered on this subject.
"I wouldn't say it would drop all that much, of course some. Since a good majority of the prison population is black - and only 2 percent is Nation - plus Latinos make up a good part of that with Catholicism. So IMO it wouldn't be that much of a drop."
Okay, whatever. Still doesn't change the fact that the percentage of Christians among inmates is actually slightly lower than it is among the general public while the percentage of Muslims among inmates is twelve times higher than among the general population. Even if we don't consider The Nation Of *ISLAM* as Islamic ;)
Ever heard of Will Durant? Noted historian, Pulitzer Prize Winner, Presidential Medal Of Freedom Winner.
According to his work Muslims have carried out a 1300 year genocide against Hindu's that at times has claimed as many as 100,000 victims in a single day. They have done this while the world ignored their actions for the most part.
Ever hear of the Armenian Genocide? 300,00 butchered by Muslims in a 2 year period, followed two decades later by another 600,000 in a four year period.
The fact is history is filled with such examples of Islamic violence from the religions outset and it continues throughout history without abate and it continues today. Efforts of the apologists such as yourself to excuse these actions because Christians committed terrible, though far less brutal, crimes against humanity a quarter of a millenium ago or more is simply baffling and is beyond any sort of logic.
There are plenty of scriptures that support violence, killing, war...so it's rooted into the religion of Christianity too. "God" ordered a lot of killings, whether or not it was politically motivated or not..it was still in the name of the Christian God.
I didn't say Jesus and God were the same, I said Jesus never disagrees with God in the Bible. So you can use the old testament and say thats what we are supposed to live by today, but Jesus never condemned nothing in the old testament or what God did.
Never said Muslims haven't been violent, just saying Christians have done the same for longer. I'm not Islamic so it doesn't hurt my feelings much to say the muslims have certainly been violent and killed. Never excused anything, if I did you have done the same with Christianity. Both religions are bad for you IMO.
My whole point was that just because you believe in Christianity, it doesn't make you a better person or have better morals. I think the whole thing is ridiculous, but as i've said, I understand why people cling to it. IMO when we stop leaning on Christianity, we'll be a lot better off.
Thank God that's minority opinion.
agree, very much so.
For now.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1inStripes
If we didn't lean on it like we do, a lot more things would get done. Israel would be off our tit, with that means less modern-day enemies which would equal less wars, no clouded judgment when it comes to things like stem-cell research etc...our common-sense laws would still be in place. Sure wouldn't be a bad thing and Christianity will continue to grow smaller here...that's the churches fault, but it definitely won't be bad IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burton13
What other things would get done that we know would be positive? The Israel issue is a such pathetic excuse to this. Islamic countries do not hate us only because of Israel, its because we are not like them. We do not live in the Stone Age, and they hate that they cannot enforce their opinions on everyone else. We are going to have enemies no matter what. Christianity is not the reason we have them. Clouded judgement is a big problem today, you have that part right, but Christianity is not what has caused the cloud. Its a lack of faith, direction, splitting of homes, personal responsibility, and morals.
Well I named less wars, less enemies, no dispute in things that are best for us...that's pretty okay for me. Israel is a main "interest" in the Middle East, we supply them with everything but the air they breath, that's a given. Israel is a jewish nation right in the middle of a mostly musilm area...they are enemies of course. You can't sit there and tell me that muslim nations are not pissed off/hate us because we are such good "allies" with us. Is it the complete reason? No, but the "because we're free" bull the gov feeds us isn't the case, Israel and our support of Israel causes a lot of enemies and hate towards us. We meddle over there, we the U.S. try to force our ways on them..not the other way around. Meddling over there cause brings problems on ourselves. Now if Israel attacks Iran like they are threatening to, how is that not causing us problems and a war? It is and because of this US obligation, they'll drag us in there. Now if we weren't so buddy buddy with them, there wouldn't be that obligation. They cause us a lot more problems than they are worth.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1inStripes
Again, faith has proven to not stop problems and doesn't give you these morals. As a person gets older, they know and will know whats right and wrong...go back to the prison population and the stats on atheist nations to see that religion doesn't determine if you are a good or bad person. Christianity/religion clouds judgment most of the time, plain and simple.
Your opinion doesn't make it anymore right than mine does. Your basis of "religion clouding judgement" only sets up for things you don't agree with. That doesn't make it right or wrong.
The line of bull, you mention is partially correct. As I stated, its a bigger thing that we don't bow down to them and their stone age mentalities.
We're the USA, we'll always have problems and enemies. It's not religion that will be the cause of all these, it's just because we are the greatest nation in the world, and people envy us.
I do know that it does cloud judgment, killing in any name of a God is not right and issues here going on now that shouldn't be an issue are..and because of religious views.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1inStripes
[/QUOTE]We're the USA, we'll always have problems and enemies. It's not religion that will be the cause of all these, it's just because we are the greatest nation in the world, and people envy us.[/QUOTE]
And you seriously believe that? Wow. That what the gov feeds us, but I think that's ridiculous. We create our enemies for the most part.
What atheist countries are you referring to that are so much better off?
Yes, I do believe that... We are the USA and we are the greatest nation in the world. If people didn't envy us, then why are all these immigrants always wanting to come here?
Why do people always expect us to set an example, and lend aid to all these other countries?
Never said they were "better off". I was talking about crime rates, teen pregnancy rates, divorce rates etc. I'll try to find the most recent study, but Japan, France and Sweden were near the top.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1inStripes
*"There are plenty of scriptures that support violence, killing, war...so it's rooted into the religion of Christianity too. "God" ordered a lot of killings, whether or not it was politically motivated or not..it was still in the name of the Christian God."*
You are either simply pulling your arguments from a webpage, or if they are coming from learned knowledge then you apparently have an issue with reading comprehension.
The violence in the Old Testament is either a historical narrative or more rarely a statement of condoning self preservation (ie self-defense) Most, in fact nearly all OT violence is historical narrative. An account of a close-ended, specific conflict.
Whereas Islamic scripture is full of open-ended orders for on-going conflict. Do you not perceive the difference, or have you not actually read them? Some quick example:
From the Quran- "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"
"O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."
"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides..."
From The Hadith - "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."
"I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.."
"Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us"
There are literally hundreds of verses like this in Islamic scripture, they are an order, a command to carry out the actions as stated. Whereas OT scripture is a recounting of past events.
*"I didn't say Jesus and God were the same, I said Jesus never disagrees with God in the Bible. So you can use the old testament and say thats what we are supposed to live by today, but Jesus never condemned nothing in the old testament or what God did."*
Actually you did say or implied that they were one in the same, but.......by your assessment Christians are still ordered not to eat pork? An eye for an eye is Jesus' way? Jesus condoned the stoning of adulterers? I believe you must be speaking from either a position of prejudice or ignorance of the facts.
*"Never said Muslims haven't been violent, just saying Christians have done the same for longer. I'm not Islamic so it doesn't hurt my feelings much to say the muslims have certainly been violent and killed. Never excused anything, if I did you have done the same with Christianity. Both religions are bad for you IMO."*
No, Christians have not done the "same" for "longer". There have been isolated cases of violent behavior by large groups done in the name of the Christian God. These are unfortunate and were the result of evil and or misdirected people. However, they are not pandemic nor unceasing as in the case of Islamic violence done in the name of Allah.
*"My whole point was that just because you believe in Christianity, it doesn't make you a better person or have better morals. I think the whole thing is ridiculous, but as i've said, I understand why people cling to it. IMO when we stop leaning on Christianity, we'll be a lot better off."*
Yeah, China is showcase for human rights and North Korea a blueprint for world peace......
Are you referring to the flawed Greg Paul piece?
According to a recent UN study the best countries to live in areQuote:
Originally Posted by Burton13
1. Iceland - over 90% Christian
2.Norway - over 90% Christian
3. Australia - you Know.....
4.Canada - you know again....
5.Ireland - Bunch of no religion goons...
6.Sweden
7.Switzerland - do I need to go on?
No, I actually don't do that and usually link my stuff if i use it.
Dress it up however you want, its still no better than what you quoted from the Koran.God ordered plenty of killings, not much of a God.
Christianity is no better than Islam or any of the other religions. And certainly is no better when it comes to violence and is definitely up to par in the BS dept.
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." --Matthew 10:34
"I and the Father are one." -- John 10:30
He said it, not me.
And I have no idea where China and North Korea came from, never mentioned them once. It was a comparison with rates...moral rates haha.....rates that a country with 3/4s of its people being christian should have better numbers than the godless countries. Not the case, because it does not give you morals or make you a better person. Plain and simple.
The China and N. Korea comment probably came from the fact that they are communist countries that do not have any religious ties to their government.
When you say God ordered killings, are you referring to things like the flood, and Sodom and Gemorrea?
"Dress it up however you want, its still no better than what you quoted from the Koran.God ordered plenty of killings, not much of a God."
In other words, you have no real response? Simply run out of arguments to support your position and are now falling back upon your personal dislike of Christians and Christianity?
"Christianity is no better than Islam or any of the other religions. And certainly is no better when it comes to violence and is definitely up to par in the BS dept."
I've already addressed this repeatedly. Christianity can't hold a candle to Islam for consistent, systematic and scripture supported violence. Although any violence done in the name of God is wrong and unfortunate there is a major difference in proportion. This difference in proportion is historically evident to anyone who actually cares to look at evidence rather than just spout rhetoric.
It can be reasonably assumed that this glaring difference in proportion is inextricably tied to the hate filled scriptures written by the murderer and pedophile who serves as the religion's prophet and are so fervently adhered to by many of it's followers.
So, you are comparing:
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." --Matthew 10:34
To:
"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides..."
LOL @ You :)
I notice you didn't respond to my question about the eating of pork, Christ's support for the stoning of adulterers or an eye for an eye.
Unless this is it:
"I and the Father are one." ?
"And I have no idea where China and North Korea came from, never mentioned them once."
You mentioned them in proxy, or are you not even aware of that?
"It was a comparison with rates...moral rates haha.....rates that a country with 3/4s of its people being christian should have better numbers than the godless countries. Not the case, because it does not give you morals or make you a better person. Plain and simple."
Okay..........not sure how to respond since I have no idea what it is suppose to mean.
I'm going to guess as to it's meaning and reply:
You presented no evidence to support this / your *statement*????
I did show that each of the top seven nations in terms of quality of life for it's citizens are all Christian nations. It is reasonable to assume that quality of life for citizens of a nation could be tied to the moral standards of it's population.
"In other words, you have no real response? Simply run out of arguments to support your position and are now falling back upon your personal dislike of Christians and Christianity?"
It's hard to try to argue when someone has that much resentment towards a religion and chooses not to recognize the faults of his own..but if you must...
Now consider this, ye that forget God, lest I tear you into pieces, and there be nothing to deliver. - Pslam 50:22
Now go, attack them and destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them, put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys. - Sam 15:3
However, in the cities of the nations the lord your God is giving, do not leave anything alive that breathes. - Deut 20:16
Set up the standard toward Zion: retire, stay not: for I will bring evil from the north, and a great destruction. The lion is come up from his thicket, and the destroyer of the Gentiles is on his way; he is gone forth from his place to make thy land desolate; and thy cities shall be laid waste, without an inhabitant. - Jer 4:6-7
And so on and so on, it's the word.
All scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. So that the man of God be equipped for every good work. - Tim 2:16-17
And it also said that God never changes, so I guess he still kills babies and the inferiority complex is still there.
But all of that is just historical account of course, God didn't say kill any infants or wasn't really that jealous. Though you write off almost every major instance in history when Christians were the instigators and did the slaughtering. No, not them. Of course the numbers are in the favor of the muslims, you ignore every part of Christian history when they have killed millions upon millions. Can't reason with that denial logic.
Well I'm looking at those murder rates, teen preg rates prison population etc. instead of the completely irrelevant UN study you presented. I have no idea what is had to do with "moral" countries, but if you want to use it, we will.
First of all, it was based on figures for life expectancy, educational levels and per capita income. How does that pertain to this and morals? I have no idea, but lets pretend it does. So to answer your question, yes you should have went on. It would have shown that the U.S. ranked 15th on this list that somehow has relation to morals. It would have also shown that those nations I mentioned were all ranked ahead of the U.S. Why is that important? Because even though these countries have the 90 percent christians, the US has more christians than all of those countries combined. So in this moral study that has nothing to do with morals, this country which is very populated with christians - more than all of those combined - ranks 15th and behind the heavily atheist populated nations I mentioned.
Your Bible comprehension is pretty lacking Im afraid. Read more than one verse to get the full meaning. Your Psalms quote is dictation/praise from one of David's musicians Asaph.
The order in Samuel is to go and crush Amalekites who were a rival tribe who had repeatedly attacked the Hebrews. They were basically atheist, and God ordered Saul to take the Hebrews and wipe them out.
Its not an inferiority complex. Its that those who chose not to accept his ways can be dealt with severely if they do not abide by his commandments.
What a loving god...Quote:
Originally Posted by 1inStripes