Since when did the NAACP become pro moslem??

[NEO]

1 Peter 3:15 ESV
"But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect." Not Christ but one of this followers.

Matthew 7:1
“ Judge not, that you be not judged."

Acts 10:28 ESV
And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean.

 

[tigervol9802]

I have already quoted that verse and many others throughout this discussion.

Do you want me to add to that Jesus' parable concerning the ten coins? Where the King, whom Jesus lauds for his decisions, states at the end:



Real peaceful and tolerant...

So am I allowed to use that section of Luke 19:27 is in to saw Jesus was also pro-capitalist?

 

[NEO]

I have already quoted that verse and many others throughout this discussion.

Do you want me to add to that Jesus' parable concerning the ten coins? Where the King, whom Jesus lauds for his decisions, states at the end:



Real peaceful and tolerant...

This is the parable about talents. You took this completely out of context and you know it. He is talking about a person who does nothing with their talent. God clarly says that a person who does not use their talent and hides it will be screwed in the end days where a person who takes their talent and grows it will be rewarded. I'm sorry you chose to take one verse in an entire parable and butcher it so.

 

[NEO]

This is what God is saying. Some people at their best will make 50K in their lifetime with the talents they have. If they gave all and only achieved average God will still be pleased. A child who can't make an A but gives his all and makes a B. But a person who can easily make 100K and only makes 50K is not using their talent, as a child who can easily make an A but only makes a B.

God is saying if you miss use your talent their will a punishment.

This verse is also dealing more with Christians and christians using their talents to benefit God. It is not actually being aimed at an unbeliever.

 

[therealUT]

This is the parable about talents. You took this completely out of context and you know it. He is talking about a person who does nothing with their talent. God clarly says that a person who does not use their talent and hides it will be screwed in the end days where a person who takes their talent and grows it will be rewarded. I'm sorry you chose to take one verse in an entire parable and butcher it so.

For starters, you prove my point when you say I am taking it out of context.

Next, your interpretation is wrong. Yes, it is the parable about talents; however, the last sentence concerns those who do not want him to be king. He is telling his followers, which in the context of the story would be those with talents, presumably, to slay the non-followers. This is the king delegating his murderous vengeance to his followers.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[NEO]

For starters, you prove my point when you say I am taking it out of context.

Next, your interpretation is wrong. Yes, it is the parable about talents; however, the last sentence concerns those who do not want him to be king. He is telling his followers, which in the context of the story would be those with talents, presumably, to slay the non-followers. This is the king delegating his murderous vengeance to his followers.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

No. You are taking the last line out of context. It is talking about the end of the world in that sentence. It is talking about after all men are judged for their talents.

 

[NEO]

I'm sorry you have mommy and daddy issues because you come from a mixed religious family.

I would never follow any man. Why would I follow some other dude? Men fail. Preachers fail. I fail.

 

[tigervol9802]

For starters, you prove my point when you say I am taking it out of context.

Next, your interpretation is wrong. Yes, it is the parable about talents; however, the last sentence concerns those who do not want him to be king. He is telling his followers, which in the context of the story would be those with talents, presumably, to slay the non-followers. This is the king delegating his murderous vengeance to his followers.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

At no point does Jesus ever tell his followers to murder others in the Gospels. He clearly states they will be judged by God, but at no point does Christ tell his disciples to take matters into their own hands. Actually, on the flip side, when they did (see Peter in Gethsemene) he told them to stop.

I would say Jesus was probably very intolerent. Then again, if I was the Son of God I could probably be intolerent also and really not have to care what anyone else thought about it. Believe it or not, logic dictates that if he is indeed who he said he was, then that would be ok, yes?

 

[gsvol]

Oh, I thought since you said it was "decidedly" not true, you had some frame of reference or direct experience with Islam. Sorry, my mistake.

Here is a link that substantiates
his "decidedly" claim, not that there
is any shortage of information refuting
the ludicrous claim to which he was
responding.

Egypt's reformer

The Christian population of Syria in 1920
was 33%, now 10%.

Turkey 1920 15%, now 1%.

Iran's remaining Christian population
is 0.4%, Gaza 0.2%.

This is the story anywhere in the world
where there is a major moslem influence,
even in areas that were previously majority
Chritian, now they are in the minority and
dwindling.

The reason for this is moslem aggression
and violence.

You want personal experience?? I have the
email address of an Arab Christian that I
met who resides in Bethlehem, the birthplace
of Jesus.

Here is how he relates the reality of being
Christian and residing in a moslem dominated
area where it is a death penalty offence to
sell property to any Jew:

"It grows steadily worse day by day, one
dare not place a cross in one's window to
signify one's faith which has been a
tradition for many centuries, nor may one
place a candle in the window on religious
holidays as has been another tradition
because some gang of moslem thugs is
likely to break in, beat or even kill
the occupants of such a house or business
and then loot any valubles and even burn
the home or business to the ground."

"Another fear is for the children of
Christian famlilies who dare not let
their children play in the street and
if the children do go out of the house
then they must be accompanied by one
or more adults for their protection,
if not then they are likely to be beaten
bloody by moslem children who are taught
to hate Christians and especially Jews
from when they are in the cradle."

Now I ask you, do you have any personal
experience that tells your otherwise??

When was the last time you heard an islamic
cleric condemn that kind of behavior?

If so, then please produce a quote and
source!

What people like you don't understand
is just how close to the attitude toward
Christianity and Judaism maintained by
Adolph Hitler that you espouse yourself.

 

[BeecherVol]

For starters, you prove my point when you say I am taking it out of context.

Next, your interpretation is wrong. Yes, it is the parable about talents; however, the last sentence concerns those who do not want him to be king. He is telling his followers, which in the context of the story would be those with talents, presumably, to slay the non-followers. This is the king delegating his murderous vengeance to his followers.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Parable by simple definition is a "comparison". Ive also heard it defined in the Biblical application as a "earthly story, with a heavenly/eternal meaning".

The reason your interpretation is hard to follow is because it does not make sense with anything before or after it. Basically you would have to drop "parable" from the story, for it to make any sense.

If Christs intent was what you are implying why were those orders not carried out in all cases concerning non believers or those that did not see him as king after that? Pretty simple, in verse 11 of Luke 19 its stated that they were near Jerusalem and the people were waiting for the kingdom of God to appear. Why was that a good time to tell a parable? Because they were expecting him to topple their oppressors and set up his kingdom there/on earth. This falls in line with his statement that his kingdom was not of this world as well as the rest of his statements that he made before and after that story.

 

[therealUT]

I think there are plenty in here that would benefit from a primer concerning the definitions of words. Yes, words do have meanings.

literal

1 taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory:
dreadful in its literal sense, full of dread
free from exaggeration or distortion:
you shouldn't take this as a literal record of events
informal absolute (used to emphasize that a strong expression is deliberately chosen to convey one's feelings):
fifteen years of literal hell
2 (of a translation) representing the exact words of the original text.
(of a visual representation) exactly copied; realistic as opposed to abstract or impressionistic.
3 (also literal-minded)(of a person or performance) lacking imagination; prosaic.
4 of, in, or expressed by a letter or the letters of the alphabet:
literal mnemonics

The Oxford English Dictionary

Therefore, whenever someone tries to apply the terms "context" and/or "figures of speech" after I qualify a statement with "taken literally" is in no way proving me wrong or themselves right.

Context is derived from holistic readings of texts, as well as from an understanding of the cultures and the time periods. Figures of speech are often endemic to certain cultures; therefore, while a certain figure of speech may be accepted and understood amongst Christians and Western Societies, there are also figures of speech that are understood and accepted amongst Arabs, Asians, Indians, Africans, etc., and amongst different religions.

It is easy for many Christians to deride the literal translation of the Koran, most of whom I would assume have not read it in its entirety, while defending against a literal translation of the Bible by pointing to "context", "culture", and/or "figures of speech".

So, I will state once more, that a literal reading of the Bible presents violence and intolerance in both the Old Testament and the New Testament.

 

[therealUT]

I'm sorry you have mommy and daddy issues because you come from a mixed religious family.

Thanks for demonstrating your Christian tolerance.

 

[BeecherVol]

Good luck UT:hi:

Its been a pleasure discussing the topic.

 

[sjt18]

When Jesus instructs his followers to hate their family members if their family members do not follow Christ's teaching, he is certainly not showing acceptance of their beliefs. When Christ states that "anyone who is not with me is against me", he again is demonstrating an intolerant position.

Even your own definition does not support this accusation. I "accept" your right to disagree with my pov.

As I said before, if you insist on this peculiar definition of tolerance then you are a highly intolerant person.

Surely you know the context and "interpretation" of the passage you alluded to.... come to think of it, your habit of narrowing other people's views to things you can easily dismiss might well be considered intolerant action.

When missionaries goes all over the world to convert persons who proclaim different beliefs, that is not "accepting" those beliefs. It is, in both deed and in fact, intolerant by definition.

Intolerance involves action. By this extreme definition that you insist on, no one is tolerant of anyone else. Of course, you want a double standard where you can say it is OK to be intolerant of those you have decided are intolerant.

If what you are saying is true then please explain why anyone who disagrees with a biblical conservative and calls them names like "Bible thumper" is not very, very intolerant.

Feel free to change the definition of intolerant, though.

We aren't. You are. "Accept" does not require agreement. If it does then where do we stop? In the name of "tolerance" do we hold inquisitions to force everyone to "accept" your post-modern concept of fluid morality? Who then becomes the definer of "moral"?

I "accept" that you think differently than I do on many issues... I will not use force of any kind to try to make you change your mind or act as if you have. However I DO not agree with you nor will I accept YOUR USE OF FORCE against me.

Am I intolerant of some things? Yes. However, I freely admit such. Many on here are displaying themselves to be self-righteous hypocrites. I might appear self-righteous, but I certainly feel I am avoiding hypocrisy.

Some things? If you are by definition "intolerant" if you disagree with someone else then you are "intolerant" about virtually everything.

Why is it when someone takes a more traditionally moral position than someone else and that someone else cannot win the argument.... they drop this "self-righteous hypocrite" non-sense? Look in the mirror first on that one. You are most definitely pontificating.

With that said, I am going to be "self-righteous" about something: I am more "tolerant" than you.


So much for being "Done" I guess.

 

[sjt18]

Real peaceful and tolerant...

So now you want to equate what Christians are commanded to do in this life to honor Christ with the judgment? Weren't you just lecturing us about how we have to read the text? Yet here you strip somethng completely out of context, apply a meaning convenient to your argument, then present it as some type of proof of your point. The reality is.... it is dishonest tactics to do that.

BTW, you still have not shown where the Koranic texts in question were ever intended to be taken as anything less than literal.

And FTR, when you are dealing with textual criticism and issues, no serious scholar denies that you are a literalist even when you accept that some things are contextually metaphors or figurative. You are talking out of your ear with that.

 

[sjt18]

So am I allowed to use that section of Luke 19:27 is in to saw Jesus was also pro-capitalist?

Jesus consistently offers parables from a free market paradigm that consistently respects private property rights.

 

[sjt18]

At no point does Jesus ever tell his followers to murder others in the Gospels. He clearly states they will be judged by God, but at no point does Christ tell his disciples to take matters into their own hands. Actually, on the flip side, when they did (see Peter in Gethsemene) he told them to stop.

I would say Jesus was probably very intolerent. Then again, if I was the Son of God I could probably be intolerent also and really not have to care what anyone else thought about it. Believe it or not, logic dictates that if he is indeed who he said he was, then that would be ok, yes?

Jesus was the most tolerant person who every lived. He had the power to rightly destroy and eternally doom everyone who disagreed with him... and instead allowed them to kill him by a horrific and shameful means.

Your point is a good one if I understand it though. Jesus is the only man who ever lived who had a right to be intolerant... but He refused to exercise that right.

 

[sjt18]

The humorous thing about this is that therealUT is employing a right to dissent that he has because Christians who believed that they should be able to speak and live their convictions without being imprisoned or burned or hanged or have their property seized or otherwise oppressed with REAL actions stood up and demanded "tolerance". They didn't ask for gov't approval. They didn't ask gov't to impose their view on the majority. They simply demanded the right to be "tolerated".

He seems to be demanding the right to demand that everyone agree with him or else be labeled "intolerant" and punished.

 

[therealUT]

BTW, you still have not shown where the Koranic texts in question were ever intended to be taken as anything less than literal.

Here you go. Have fun reading.

Tafsir
Main article: Tafsir
The Qur'an has sparked a huge body of commentary and explication (tafsir), aimed at explaining the "meanings of the Qur’anic verses, clarifying their import and finding out their significance."[67]
Tafsir is one of the earliest academic activities of Muslims. According to the Qur’an, Muhammad was the first person who described the meanings of verses for early Muslims.[68] Other early exegetes included a few Companions of Muhammad, like Ali ibn Abi Talib, Abdullah ibn Abbas, Abdullah ibn Umar and Ubayy ibn Kab. Exegesis in those days was confined to the explanation of literary aspects of the verse, the background of its revelation and, occasionally, interpretation of one verse with the help of the other. If the verse was about a historical event, then sometimes a few traditions (hadith) of Muhammad were narrated to make its meaning clear.[69]
Because the Qur’an is spoken in classical Arabic, many of the later converts to Islam (mostly non-Arabs) did not always understand the Qur’anic Arabic, they did not catch allusions that were clear to early Muslims fluent in Arabic and they were concerned with reconciling apparent conflict of themes in the Qur’an. Commentators erudite in Arabic explained the allusions, and perhaps most importantly, explained which Qur’anic verses had been revealed early in Muhammad's prophetic career, as being appropriate to the very earliest Muslim community, and which had been revealed later, canceling out or "abrogating" (nāsikh) the earlier text (mansukh).[70][71][72]
Ta'wil
Main article: Esoteric interpretation of the Qur'an
See also: Qur'anic hermeneutics and Exegesis
Ja'far Kashfi defines ta'wil as 'to lead back or to bring something back to its origin or archetype'. It is a science whose pivot is a spiritual direction and a divine inspiration, while the tafsir is the literal exegesis of the letter; its pivot is the canonical Islamic sciences.[73] Muhammad Husayn Tabatabaei says that according to the popular explanation among the later exegetes, ta'wil indicates the particular meaning a verse is directed towards. The meaning of revelation (tanzil), as opposed to ta'wil, is clear in its accordance to the obvious meaning of the words as they were revealed. But this explanation has become so widespread that, at present, it has become the primary meaning of ta'wil, which originally meant "to return" or "the returning place". In Tabatabaei's view, what has been rightly called ta'wil, or hermeneutic interpretation of the Qur’an, is not concerned simply with the denotation of words. Rather, it is concerned with certain truths and realities that transcend the comprehension of the common run of men; yet it is from these truths and realities that the principles of doctrine and the practical injunctions of the Qur’an issue forth. Interpretation is not the meaning of the verse; rather it transpires through that meaning – a special sort of transpiration. There is a spiritual reality, which is the main objective of ordaining a law, or the basic aim in describing a divine attribute—and there is an actual significance a Qur’anic story refers to.[74][75]
However Shia and Sufism (on the one hand) and Sunni (on the other) have completely different positions on the legitimacy of ta'wil. A verse in the Qur’an[76] addresses this issue, but Shia and Sunni disagree on how it should be read. According to Shia, those who are firmly rooted in knowledge like the Prophet and the imams know the secrets of the Qur’an, while Sunnis believe that only God knows. According to Tabatabaei, the statement "none knows its interpretation except Allah" remains valid, without any opposing or qualifying clause. Therefore, so far as this verse is concerned, the knowledge of the Qur’an's interpretation is reserved for God. But Tabatabaei uses other verses and concludes that those who are purified by God know the interpretation of the Qur’an to a certain extent.[75]
The most ancient spiritual commentary on the Qur'an consists of the teachings the Shia Imams propounded in conversations with their disciples. It was the principles of their spiritual hermeneutics that were subsequently brought together by the Sufis. These texts are narrated by Imam Ali and Ja'far al-Sadiq, Shia and Sunni Sufis.[77]
As Corbin narrates from Shia sources, Ali himself gives this testimony:
Not a single verse of the Qur’an descended upon (was revealed to) the Messenger of God, which he did not proceed to dictate to me and make me recite. I would write it with my own hand, and he would instruct me as to its tafsir (the literal explanation) and the ta'wil (the spiritual exegesis), the nasikh (the verse that abrogates) and the mansukh (the abrogated verse), the muhkam (without ambiguity) and the mutashabih (ambiguous), the particular and the general...[78]
According to Tabatabaei, there are acceptable and unacceptable esoteric interpretations. Acceptable ta'wil refers to the meaning of a verse beyond its literal meaning; rather the implicit meaning, which ultimately is known only to God and can't be comprehended directly through human thought alone. The verses in question here refer to the human qualities of coming, going, sitting, satisfaction, anger, and sorrow, which are apparently attributed to God. Unacceptable ta'wil is where one "transfers" the apparent meaning of a verse to a different meaning by means of a proof; this method is not without obvious inconsistencies. Although this unacceptable ta'wil has gained considerable acceptance, it is incorrect and cannot be applied to the Qur’anic verses. The correct interpretation is that reality a verse refers to. It is found in all verses, the decisive and the ambiguous alike; it is not a sort of a meaning of the word; it is a fact that is too sublime for words. God has dressed them with words to bring them a bit nearer to our minds; in this respect they are like proverbs that are used to create a picture in the mind, and thus help the hearer to clearly grasp the intended idea.[75][79]
Therefore Sufi spiritual interpretations are usually accepted by Islamic scholars as authentic, as long as certain conditions are met.[80] In Sufi history, these interpretations were sometimes considered religious innovations (bid'ah), as Salafis believe today. However, ta'wil is extremely controversial even amongst Shia. For example, when Ayatollah Ruhallah Khomeini, the leader of Islamic revolution, gave some lectures about Sura al-Fatiha in December 1979 and January 1980, protests forced him to suspend them before he could continue beyond the first two verses of the surah.[81]
Levels of meaning
Unlike the Salafis and Zahiri, Shias and Sufis as well as some Muslim philosophers believe the meaning of the Qur’an is not restricted to the literal aspect.[82] For them, it is an essential idea that the Qur’an also has inward aspects. Henry Corbin narrates a hadith that goes back to Muhammad:
"The Qur'an possesses an external appearance and a hidden depth, an exoteric meaning and an esoteric meaning. This esoteric meaning in turn conceals an esoteric meaning (this depth possesses a depth, after the image of the celestial Spheres, which are enclosed within each other). So it goes on for seven esoteric meanings (seven depths of hidden depth)."[82]
According to this view, it has also become evident that the inner meaning of the Qur’an does not eradicate or invalidate its outward meaning. Rather, it is like the soul, which gives life to the body.[83] Corbin considers the Qur’an to play a part in Islamic philosophy, because gnosiology itself goes hand in hand with prophetology.[84]
Commentaries dealing with the zahir (outward aspects) of the text are called tafsir, and hermeneutic and esoteric commentaries dealing with the batin are called ta'wil (“interpretation” or “explanation”), which involves taking the text back to its beginning. Commentators with an esoteric slant believe that the ultimate meaning of the Qur’an is known only to God.[5] In contrast, Qur'anic literalism, followed by Salafis and Zahiris, is the belief that the Qur'an should only be taken at its apparent meaning.

Qur'an - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[therealUT]

He seems to be demanding the right to demand that everyone agree with him or else be labeled "intolerant" and punished.

Where did I say that anyone should be punished?

 

[gsvol]

Good luck UT:hi:

Its been a pleasure discussing the topic.

Discussing the topic????

The topic of the thread had to do with the nexus between the NAACP and moslems, we've hardly touched upon that topic at all.

The shame of this board is that nearly anything having to do with politics and islam will quckly be turned into an anti-Christ rant by some fool (or group of) and then go on in that vein for days. (often aided and abetted by some monitor with the same sort of mindset.)

If one wants to understand one of the basic differences between Jesus and muhammed, and between Christianity and islam, here is a fine example:

The example of Mohamed on forgivness Sahih Muslim, Book 17: 4206

There came to him (the Holy Prophet) a woman from Ghamid and said: Allah's Messenger, I have committed adultery, so purify me. He (the Holy Prophet) turned her away. On the following day she said: Allah's Messenger, Why do you turn me away? Perhaps, you turn me away as you turned away Ma'iz. By Allah, I have become pregnant. He said: Well, if you insist upon it, then go away until you give birth to (the child). When she was delivered she came with the child (wrapped) in a rag and said: Here is the child whom I have given birth to. He said: Go away and suckle him until you wean him. When she had weaned him, she came to him (the Holy Prophet) with the child who was holding a piece of bread in his hand. She said: Allah's Apostle, here is he as I have weaned him and he eats food. He (the Holy Prophet) entrusted the child to one of the Muslims and then pronounced punishment. And she was put in a ditch up to her chest and he commanded people and they stoned her. Khalid b Walid came forward with a stone which he flung at her head and there spurted blood on the face of Khalid and so he abused her. Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) heard his (Khalid's) curse that he had hurled upon her. Thereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: Khalid, be gentle. By Him in Whose Hand is my life, she has made such a repentance that even if a wrongful tax-collector were to repent, he would have been forgiven. Then giving command regarding her, he prayed over her and she was buried.

The example of Jesus on forgivness (John 8:1-11)

But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people were coming to Him; and He sat down and began to teach them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court, they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. "Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?" They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground. But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court. Straightening up, Jesus said to her, "Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?" She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more."

 

[therealUT]

You do know that Shiites do not accept the Sahih Hadiths as authentic. They view them as fabrications and, therefore, false.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

I see why you post so many pictures, gs. This is fun.

 

[gsvol]

There exists a large amount of Christian Churches in the UAE.

Also, prior to our 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Chaldean population was protected and had more rights than the Shia Muslims.

Also, there are plenty of Lebanese Christians that have had rights under their government, while consistently caught in the crossfire between the Israeli's and Hezbollah, from time immemorial.

Then too, nearly one million Assyrian Christians of Iraq were slaughtered in the name of islam early in the last century.

Time immemorial??? Bull crap, hezbollah hasn't been in Lebanon all that long and the Israeli occupation didn't last very long. What hurt the Christians of Lebanon more than anything was the Syrian occupation during which they arrested in the dead of night young Christian men and shipped them off to the dreaded dungeons of the Syrian prisons, never to be seen again.

It's true that hesbollah has killed a lot of Christians and assassinated their leaders, and that has contributed from Lebanon going from a Christian majority to a dwindling minority during my lifetime. And the cause??

The words written in the koran has to be at the top of the list of causes.

As is your racist drivel.

Please point out one of my posts that you consider to be racist drivel, that is if you can stop drooling on your keyboard long enough.

Luke 16: 16-17


In these two verses, Jesus does two things, if one takes the Bible literally:

1. He declares that everyone who enters Heaven does so with violence (this is but a little over one chapter from where he declares that one must hate their mother and father to be his disciple, and three chapters from where he declares that he has come to set the earth on fire not to establish peace but rather division).

2. He states that the OT laws (which are incredibly violent) are still valid.

How you can get your interpretation from those two verses is beyond my comprehension.

And He says that one must give up their confortable life in order to be His follower, he doesn't say hate anyone.

Hmm...so did Christians. WWI. WWII (do you think the majority of Germans were not either Lutherans or Catholics?) The vast majority of Americans, in the 1940s, considered America a "Christian Nation" and we firebombed civilians in Dresden and Tokyo.

Maybe we can talk about the atrocities committed in South America during their wars for independence. Those people are not Muslims. Nope, they are Christians.

To act like violence in the twentieth century was only perpetrated, and perpetrated most severely, by Muslims is outrageous and ignorant.

Americans were overwhelmingly against becoming involved in both WWI and WWII and our involvement had nothing to do with the teachings of the Bible or the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

In South America the atrocities you speak of had nothing to do with Chritianity, mostly they had to do with the teachings of godless marxists.

I have never said all the violence of the twentieth century had to do with islam and moslems however much of it did and that is the only violence that you can lay at the feet of any particular religion.

Let's look more closely at WWII, the nazi fascists were very aligned with the moslem world, Mousollini took on the title of 'protector of islam' and the moslems produced three divisions of crack SS troops who were very instrumental in the eradication of Jews and other 'undesirables.'

As a matter of fact Hitler was sartisfied with shipping Jews back to their homeland from Europe but the mufti of islam convinced him to enact the 'final solution' and set about to kill all the Jews.

No one man can be held more accountable for bringing about WWII than Adolph Hitler, let's look at his view of Christianity:


http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?10291-Hitler-on-Judaism-Christianity-and-Islam

His conversations on a number of subjects were recorded by his closest confidants. One of these was Albert Speer, chief architect and Reich Minister of Armanents and Munitions, who quoted Hitler's regret the Germans accepted Christianity rather than religions which would have been more compatible to them:

"Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking: 'You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?'" (11)

Yet another aspect which Hitler praised was the fact that Muslims preserved ancient texts and passed on knowledge which otherwise would have been lost. He noted the remarkable achievements of Islamic civilization in all fields. During a meeting at the Wehrwolf on the afternoon of 27th August 1942, the Führer said(13):

"It is only with the Roman empire where one can say that culture was a factor under the government. The government of the Arabs in Spain too was infinitely distinguished: Many scientists, thinkers, astronomers, mathematicians, one of the most humane times, at the same time as a colossal knighthood. When, later, Christianity came there, then one can say: barbarians. The knighthood that the Castilians have is actually one of Arab heritage. If Charles Martel had not overcome in Poitiers: since the Jewish world already seized us - that Christianity is something well of insipid - we would have better received Mohammedanism, those doctrines of the reward of heroism-: combatants alone have the seventh heaven! With that the Germans would have conquered the world. It is only by Christianity that we have been held distant."

The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. Bolshevism practices a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave them. In the ancient world, the relations between men and gods were founded on an instinctive respect. It was a world enlightened by the idea of tolerance. Christianity was the first creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love. Its keynote is intolerance.

Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of human failure.

It is deplorable that the Bible should have been translated into German, and that the whole of the German Folk should have thus become exposed to the whole of this Jewish mumbo jumbo. So long as the wisdom, particularly of the Old Testament, remained exclusively in the Latin of the Church, there was little danger that sensible people would become the victims of illusions as the result of studying the Bible.

I can imagine people being enthusiastic about the paradise of Mohammed, but as for the insipid paradise of the Christians! In your lifetime, you used to hear the music of Richard Wagner. After your death, it will be nothing but hallelujahs, the waving of palms, children of an age for the feeding bottle, and hoary old men. The man of the isles pays homage to the forces of nature. But Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery. A ****** with his taboos is crushingly superior to the human being who seriously believes in transubstantiation.

It indeed is ignorant to say that islam is the only cause of conflict in the twentieth century and no one has done that but to say that islam hasn't been a major cause of conflict in the twentieth century is very ignorant and it is ignorant to say that it isn't the number one cause of conflict in the twenty first century is also ignorant.

 

[NEO]

Thanks for demonstrating your Christian tolerance.

Dude, I'm not tolerant. Anyone who knows me says I have no patience, no tact, and no tolerance. I personally can't figure out why Jesus even died for this pathetic race (me included) and am amazed that he would care about a piece of crap like me. Heck, my own wife gets pissed at me atleast 10 times a day. I'm saved by grace. Whether you believe this or not, I'm a billion times nicer than I was 10 years ago. I've come along ways.