Christianity vs. Islam
 

People say that one should not criticize the institution of Christianity for the actions of a few radicals, for the same reason that it is "politically incorrect" to define all of Islam as bloodthirsty Jihadists. That's a good point, but let's keep going...

People say that moderate Muslims should "speak out" more, against the actions of the radicals. Should Christians be criticized for not "speaking out" against the actions of other Christians?

How many other statements should we be adamant about applying both religions?

I think so. If you want your religion to represent your values, you'd better fight for it.

I absolutly think that christians have a responsibility to critically address the actions and statements of other christians. Every religion has the responsibility to either accept and defend the connection between the actions of (all of) its followers or to publicly throw them out.

Christianity vs. Islam - Christianity 17, Islam 17. Looks like we're going to sudden death, folks!

For sure they should. Christians that don't stand up against radicals are in essence succumbing to them by doing nothing. A great example, my home town church is in the middle of disaffiliating with the PCUSA. It has been a huge struggle and we finally did it. They try to control every church and pass legislation that should be offensive to every Christian on the planet. Example: they published a piece that encourages and expects every church to use language other than Father Son and Holy Ghost/Spirit in order to "connect and identify with others' faiths and give a more worldly view of the Trinity". They provide examples such as "Mother, Child, and Womb", somehow completely forgetting that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are their names, not just made up titles that sound cool and can be replaced with others. That was basically the last straw for us. Now, PCUSA is trying to physically take over our church, kick out the pastor and the session (our church's congress of sorts) and boot out the 3/4 of the congregation that voted to disaffiliate.

Its been a painful and divisive process, and it isn't over yet, but we had no choice but to defend our faith from these other Christians who were and are attempting to control our every act of worship.

Sounds not too dissimilar to my branch of the labour party:P

There is no Christian equivalent to the current Islamofascist movement to take over the world through terrorism and subject all nations to Sharia law (and hopefully bring on Armageddon). If there were, millions of Christians would not only loudly and publicly denounce the movement, but would do their best to stop it.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of the so-called moderate Muslims of the world are neither denouncing nor acting against the Islamofascist movement. Their silence is deafening. The number of Muslims who have publicly spoken against the actions of those who claim to be bringing 'pure' Islam to the world can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

When anyone - Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan, Pagan, Muslim, Atheist - commits a terrorist act in the name of his/her religious beliefs, those within that religion have a duty to denounce it and do what is possible to bring the perpetrators to justice. The only religion where it doesn't happen is Islam.

orthodoc, you must have a lot of fingers on one hand.

Depends what you mean about "speak out". In the 70s and 80s when Protestants and Catholics were murdering eachother (and anyone else in their way) in Northern Ireland, my parents didn't raise any official protests. I don't remember our priest criticising them during his sermons each week at Mass, or the nuns at my convent school fulminating against them in the classroom.

But I was in no doubt that the Catholics I knew and associated with had no connection with those wearing balaclavas, blowing up pubs and shopping centres and killing builders and taxi drivers.

I knew Catholics of Polish, Italian, Irish and British (ie mongrel!) descent. We didn't march, write letters to the newspapers, sign petitions or make banners. We did pray for peace, and that the hatred that made countrymen kill eachother could be lifted from men's hearts.

This was at a time when money was raised "for the cause" in America.

Violence where the victims are identified by their religion is rarely actually about religion.

Exactly, much more was done to raise money to keep the killing going, on both sides, in Ireland than to stop it.
However, the scale is minute compared to what is happening in the Islamic world.
Another thing, You do not see those within the community who say they want to stop the violence in the Islamic communities who know where these people hide turning them over to the authorities. There are cells, world wide, each exists in broad daylight. Most taught by radical Imans openly... who comes forth to expose them, to show the way to cleanse the Islamic community of this cancer?
They walk past and do not pick-up the phone.
Choice.

People have to understand that a bad "one of us", is not better than a good "one of them".

Mother Teresa did some good deeds, but she was a Roman Catholic.
Mahatma Gandhi did some good deeds, but he was an Indian.
Joesph Stalin did some bad things, but he was a Soviet.
But? But! What the hell difference does it make? It's what they did, how they acted, what they accomplished, that defines them.

If you see/hear someone doing what you feel is wrong, say so. Doesn't matter if it's "one of us" or "one of them", speak out. That goes double for someone doing wrong, while claiming to represent you. Don't let anyone use you or your name, for evil, just because they are "one of us". :headshake

The difference are the Imans, there were not religious leaders telling Stalin to wipe out Jews. There was one Catholic leader that said Jesus was not a Jew, he did not say to kill them all.
The radical Imans are encouraging the violent factions of Islam and the their ranks are growing, it is organized... that is the difference and it is huge.

I am one to support the theory that religon will hurt a progressive society because religion usees tradition and tradition hinders progress.

One big difference between Christianity and Islam is that mainstream Christains have progessed and Christianity as a whole has become more liberalized when Islam hasn't. Christianity is 700 years older than Islam and what were Christians doing 700 years ago? The Crusades?

Give Islam a couple decades to a century and they should liberaize just as Chrsitianity has.

Only after they have converted the whole world to Islam.

It's in their mission statement.

Just as much as it is Christianity's.

All the Muslim's I've met in real life were down to earth people who didn't care what religion I was. Another thing, in Islam, if you are a good person you can be accepted into heaven without regard to religion. Christianity doesn't work that way.

Christianity has already passed through that "convert or die" stage.

I don't consider that I have a good sample if I base my opinions about Islam only on Muslims I have met and have had an opportunity to discuss theology with. They are all professionals (psychiatrists) who have emigrated to America, and became citizens, one of whom said he took a trip back home to Pakistan and never felt so scared in his entire life. Even the ones who attend services at their local mosque have a lassez-faire approach to religion.

I read the Koran.

Don't forget the Inquisition. About 700 years ago the Cathars were being wiped out for heresy. And a good deal of politics and greed was tied up in that episode of genocide too.

Exactly, that is why I get pissed off whenever I hear that Islam is a violent religion.

In reality, it is actually more peaceful and forgiving than Christianity.

I don't see exactly where you get that ...

Suicide-bomber-a-day was never part of the Inquisition.

its the exremists on both sides who fuck everything up for everyone else.
i work with a muslim, a sikh, a catholic, a buddhist ... all nice people.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm

They were in power. They hardly had to do suicide attacks when they could just summon the victim to the torture chamber.

Need I point out that it is not the 14th Century?

need i point out that just because women arent being burned at the stake, not much else has changed.

You could, but you'd be wrong. :D

need i point out that, after reading your post, the ammonia-soaked homeless dude I encounter back and forth to work everyday just passed you on the credibility scale?

I think you could pass him back if, for example, you publicly renounce your belief that the sun revolves around the earth.

You might be surprised by the credibility of the ammonia soaked homeless dudes you pass, should you spend time in conversation with them. I doubt that you'll be surprised by Phil.

keep deluding yourselves.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...61/fariba1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...61/stoning.jpg

and if you think THAT'S bad...
 

Great. Show us two of the worst photoshop jobs ever made then scorn us for living under the veil (no pun intended) of delusion.

Take thine own advice.

they HATE crappy 'shop!
 

The Apostle Paul specifically says that the church is to rebuke its members and let God do the judging of the world.
1Co 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
1Co 5:10 Yet not altogether the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
1Co 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no not to eat.
1Co 5:12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
1Co 5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

See, Christians are suppose to have judgment WITHIN the church, only of its (voluntary) members. God is the one that judges the world, Christians are to rebuke one another to keep each other on the straight and narrow path.

How can a Christian expect a heathen to do the "right thing" since they do not have the Holy Spirit? Any Christian knows (believes) that only by the Holy Spirit can people truly do good works, and the Holy Spirit is received by faith in Christ Jesus the Lord. So if someone doesn't have faith in Jesus, a Christian can't really expect them to produce good fruit.

A lot of people have been jaded by the hypocrisy of church-goers, because they have twisted and neglected this essential concept: God judges the world, not us. Let God do what God does best: judge.

Christians suck at judging, and even if we didn't, the judgment is only supposed to occur WITHIN the church, AMONG people who have claimed to have repented of all their sins.

> Christianity has already passed through that "convert or die" stage.

not really...

Luk 13:1 There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.
Luk 13:2 And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things?
Luk 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Luk 13:4 Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?
Luk 13:5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

If Jesus said "repent or perish", its a permanent part of Christianity.

Thankfully, Christians (hopefully) understand that the "perishing" is not to be done at THEIR hand but at GOD's hand-- Jesus' message here is for YOU (the christian, the person hearing Jesus that believes him) to repent, and not to focus on the sins of others but to focus on one's own sins and repent of them and THEMSELF love one another fervently.

There's nothing incorrect about "repent or perish" - all of the unrepentant will be cast into the lake of fire - but things like, oh, say, the spanish inquisition (NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!!!) occur when power-hungry vile and violent (so-called) Christians (wolves in sheep's clothing) force people to comply with the Law, whereas they should be preaching the good news of the gospel (forgiveness of sins through Jesus' blood on the cross).

How's about you stop quoting, and start thinking?

That's more of what this place is about.

I like this one:

"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."

When I have my christianity down pat, then I have room to criticize other's fidelity to islam. When I have the bible memorized, I can then quote passages of the koran to backsliding muslims. When god talks to me, I'll be sure to pass on the message.

No V, when God talks to you, it's for you. Don't be a pompous ass like Gannet495, and think you've been chosen as a prophet.

When god talks to you, it's time to change your dosage. :haha:

When God talks to you... (that could be a whole thread of its own)

...you're in the Cellar.

If God is a talkin'
Don't bother knockin'

Help! Help! I'm bein repressed!

btw ... are there no more prophets, ever again, or, if there are, how do we distinguish them from crazy streetcorner bums?

... I have a hard time swallowing "because it happened a long time ago" as a rationale for valuing one crazy rant over another.

Neither are peaceful or forgiving.

If the moderates are not actively trying to prosecute and eradicate the radicals they are enablers just because they exist as members of the same religion.
"Well, I'm not like that" does not cut it. If they, as members of the same religions and communities are not actively telling police/soldiers where the radicals can be found and how to get to them (this is true of Christians with anti-abortion radicals and Muslims with "charities" that support terrorists and the terrorists themselves), cowardice is never an excuse, they are supporting them just by their existence, their numbers.

Hmm...
 

How is this Christianity vs. Islam? What kind of theological debate are you trying to prove?:eyebrow:

They are the same. There is no vs.

The title says "vs"

LOL!

1Co 14:1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.
1Co 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
1Co 14:3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
1Co 14:4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

Christians are the ones who prophesy, by the Holy Spirit, to tell people to repent of their wickedness and believe in Jesus the son of God. Prophecy is a gift, it is not earned, and God chooses who he gives it to. When that person receives that gift, they are expected to use it to deliver the message to an unbelieving world in hopes that someone will believe and be saved.

The quotes are here as authority to back up what I'm saying. If I merely say something, and don't back it up with Scripture, it is only my opinion, and opinions are worthless when it comes to God, they are only the imagination of man. God has revealed himself very clearly in the Bible and by his Holy Spirit, and you can be born again today if you will not harden your hearts to the gospel.

We all have a right to our opinions, and to express them, and to back them up with appropriate texts as we see fit.

Unfortunately, they fail to do so. You're gonna have to justify the authority of the Bible before you try to use it as one.

I like how authority and opinion are interchangable... just good fun!

The bible as authority, yeah, the world is flat, stationary on pillars under a dome, rabbits chew cud, snails melt, bats are birds and it is ok to murder a kid that says "no"... wheeeee look at me I'm an authority!

LoL. He's back!

Oh... I was so holding back... Bruce is being nice right now.
Don't tell him...

Mock all you want, but on that last day, you will regret it if you don't repent and believe in the crucified Savior Jesus.

Don't you mean the day after the last day?

Is this one of those this week-next week things?

*chokes on chicken kiev* damnit......shouldn't eat in the Cellar.

Gannet, if heaven is full of preachy, whiney sunzabitches like you, I'm GLAD I'm not going. Besides, how many musicians, artists, generally cool people do you think make it to heaven?

Sorry bub. Havent sold me yet. Try something other than threats, maybe?

I see no problem with arguing with Gannet.

Now if Gannet had practiced what he (?) preached right here, everything would be lovely. But when he expanded his repertoire to fire, brimstone and a pox, on the rest of the community, he opened himself to rebuttal.

I don't think people should criticize others in the first place.

In the second place, who cares what "people say"? I mean, are you referring to the idiot on the street, journalists, or scholars? It might make a difference, but not much, to me.

And lastly, basic or common sense truths, such as it's wrong to condemn a whole group of people for the actions of a few, should apply to all religions.

Why not, there is no reason to respect an idea you don't hold.
It does not disrespect the person who holds it.
That is a myth/fallacy held by people with no self-esteem.

i personally don't think you should disrespect something just because you don't believe in it. i personally don't believe in the concept of homosexuality but i wouldn't disrespect someone just for being different than me...unless they were men (JK)

Not respecting something and disrespecting something are not related in any way.