Christian Teens Beheaded

[Pah]

There is nothing wrong in telling someone that you believe they are going down the wrong path. If go out of my way to tell a girl that I believe the ice she is skating on is too thin, then I have not sinned. However, if I redicule her, threaten her or cut her head off for it, then that is a different matter. Do you see the difference?

While I would agree with that, I do not see much restraint in this thread from going beyond that. It need be said only once and not argued.

 

[Pah]

Where you have quoted me there I was refering to the necessity of Christs atonement.

It is related to your question though, the bible states many times if anyone preaches a different gospel that it is inferior. Paul for example when writting to those who had accepted Christ as Savior wrote

As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! Galatians 1:9
​

It makes sense that if the Bible teaches Christ is the only way then it will regard any religion that denies this as inferior because it will not lead people to Salvation.

Neither the Jew nor the Muslim requires salvation. To force salvation on a Jew or Muslim is the process and purpose of the inquisition. You have become an Inquisitor.

 

[Steve]

Where you have quoted me there I was refering to the necessity of Christs atonement.

It is related to your question though, the bible states many times if anyone preaches a different gospel that it is inferior. Paul for example when writting to those who had accepted Christ as Savior wrote

As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! Galatians 1:9

​

It makes sense that if the Bible teaches Christ is the only way then it will regard any religion that denies this as inferior because it will not lead people to Salvation.

Neither the Jew nor the Muslim requires salvation. To force salvation on a Jew or Muslim is the process and purpose of the inquisition. You have become an Inquisitor.

:banghead3
If its true that Christ needed to be crucified to make atonement for our sin then the Jew, the Muslim, the atheist, everyone needs this gift from God if they want to avoid Gods punishment. If what Christ said in the Bible is true then it dosnt matter if you belong to a different religion because it isnt based on reality.

To force salvation on a Jew or Muslim is the process and purpose of the inquisition. You have become an Inquisitor.

No one is forcing anyone to convert, just some of us are willing to read the bible for what it says and share it if they believe it.
This has nothing to do with the inquisition.

 

[Pah]

This has nothing to do with the inquisition.

You just keep on believing that and keep on contributing to the circle of violence.

 

[Steve]

You just keep on believing that and keep on contributing to the circle of violence.

It seems you are the one that will just continue believing what you want. I dont think ive ever done somthing violent in my life in the name of religion. Although Ive restrained myself plennty of times because of my religion.
If me telling someone that they need Christ is violent in your opionion perhaps you need to venture out past your cotten wool.

Just because some people decided to kill etc in the name of Christianity dosnt mean they were being true to Christianity, if you have read the new testament and the words of Christ you would know that the many of the things done in the name of Christianity were anything but Christian.

With your type of thinking i could label your worldveiw as violent and that anytime you promote atheism you are promoting violence consider the following taken from -http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/653192/posts


A blight on Christianity? Certainty. Something wrong? Dismally wrong. A tragedy? Of course. Millions and millions of people killed? No. The numbers are tragic, but pale in comparison to the statistics of what non-religion criminals have committed.


My point is not that Christians or religious people aren't vulnerable to committing terrible crimes. Certainly they are. But it is not religion that produces these things; it is the denial of Biblical religion that generally leads to these kinds of things. The statistics that are the result of irreligious genocide stagger the imagination.

My source is The Guinness Book of World Records . Look up the category "Judicial" and under the subject of "Crimes: Mass Killings," the greatest massacre ever imputed by the government of one sovereign against the government of another is 26.3 million Chinese during the regime of Mao Tse Tung between the years of 1949 and May 1965. The Walker Report published by the U.S. Senate Committee of the Judiciary in July 1971 placed the parameters of the total death toll in China since 1949 between 32 and 61.7 million people. An estimate of 63.7 million was published by Figaro magazine on November 5, 1978.

In the U.S.S.R. the Nobel Prize winner, Alexander Solzhenitsyn estimates the loss of life from state repression and terrorism from October 1917 to December 1959 under Lenin and Stalin and Khrushchev at 66.7 million.

Finally, in Cambodia (and this was close to me because I lived in Thailand in 1982 working with the broken pieces of the Cambodian holocaust from 1975 to 1979) "as a percentage of a nation's total population, the worst genocide appears to be that in Cambodia, formerly Kampuchea. According to the Khmer Rouge foreign minister, more than one third of the eight million Khmer were killed between April 17, 1975 and January 1979. One third of the entire country was put to death under the rule of Pol Pot, the founder of the Communist Party of Kampuchea. During that time towns, money and property were abolished. Economic execution by bayonet and club was introduced for such offenses as falling asleep during the day, asking too many questions, playing non-communist music, being old and feeble, being the offspring of an undesirable, or being too well educated. In fact, deaths in the Tuol Sleng interrogation center in Phnom Penh, which is the capitol of Kampuchea, reached 582 in a day."

Then in Chinese history of the thirteenth to seventeenth centuries there were three periods of wholesale massacre. The numbers of victims attributed to these events are assertions rather than reliable estimates. The figures put on the Mongolian invasion of northern China form 1210 to 1219 and from 1311 to 1340 are both on the order of 35 million people. While the number of victims of bandit leader Chang Hsien-Chung, known as the Yellow Tiger, from 1643 to 1647 in the Szechwan province has been put at 40 million people. China under Mao Tse Tung, 26.3 million Chinese. According the Walker Report, 63.7 million over the whole period of time of the Communist revolution in China. Solzhenitsyn says the Soviet Union put to death 66.7 million people. Kampuchea destroyed one third of their entire population of eight million Cambodians. The Chinese at two different times in medieval history, somewhere in the vicinity of 35 million and 40 million people. Ladies and gentlemen, make note that these deaths were the result of organizations or points of view or ideologies that had left God out of the equation. None of these involve religion. And all but the very last actually assert atheism.

 

[ChrisP]

I think you are misunderstanding the point here Steve. People of all religions occassionaly commit acts of violence. Why should Islam be any different from Christianity, (unless you're point is it is a more peaceful religion).

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

I think you are misunderstanding the point here Steve. People of all religions occassionaly commit acts of violence. Why should Islam be any different from Christianity, (unless you're point is it is a more peaceful religion).

Islam is different in that it is religios people doing violence in the name of religion.

A Methodist who grows up in church, and then gets mad at his wife and kills her is not the same as a person who goes out and murders someone, or many someones of a different faith because they feel it is their solemn religious duty to do so.

A person who kills someone else and just happens to be a Muslim, Jew, Christian, etc. . . does not necessarily say much about that religion. A pattern of organized violence done by members of one of those groups, and done against others in the name of that group's religion bears note, however, and says much about that religion in particular, and organized religion in general.

B.

 

[ChrisP]

Islam is different in that it is religios people doing violence in the name of religion.

A Methodist who grows up in church, and then gets mad at his wife and kills her is not the same as a person who goes out and murders someone, or many someones of a different faith because they feel it is their solemn religious duty to do so.

A person who kills someone else and just happens to be a Muslim, Jew, Christian, etc. . . does not necessarily say much about that religion. A pattern of organized violence done by members of one of those groups, and done against others in the name of that group's religion bears note, however, and says much about that religion in particular, and organized religion in general.

B.

Have these people said they killed these teens in the name of Islam or is it someone else "saying" it for them (i.e Putting words in their mouth).

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

SnaleSpace,

I don't personally know if any group has taken "credit" for the beheadings of these 3 Christian Schoolgirls. Therefore I cannot say with certainty that the murderers are going to be claiming they killed the girls in the name of Allah. I can say this was done in an area of Indonesia where there has been a history of violence in the name of Islam, and that Islamofascists are wont to cut the heads off of those they consider to be "infidels".

Draw your own conclusions.

Or, if you prefer, replace the "Christian Schoolgirls" with Nick Berg, Danny Pearl, or the dozens and dozens of other recently beheaded people who were for sure murdered by Muslims in the name of Islam. It is not hard to find info on them. www.thenausea.com has videos of many different people being tortured and killed in the name of Islam. And it is easy to tell, cause the guy who does the cutting reads off what he is going to do, and why before he does it.

B.

 

[michel]

Islam is different in that it is religios people doing violence in the name of religion.

A Methodist who grows up in church, and then gets mad at his wife and kills her is not the same as a person who goes out and murders someone, or many someones of a different faith because they feel it is their solemn religious duty to do so.

A person who kills someone else and just happens to be a Muslim, Jew, Christian, etc. . . does not necessarily say much about that religion. A pattern of organized violence done by members of one of those groups, and done against others in the name of that group's religion bears note, however, and says much about that religion in particular, and organized religion in general.

B.

Which, on Earth, is the point trying to make ?

What is the difference between a Methodist who kills his wife, and a person who goes out and murders someone ?

To be frank, I can't understand the point you are trying to make in the next paragraph.

A blight on Christianity? Certainty. Something wrong? Dismally wrong. A tragedy? Of course. Millions and millions of people killed? No. The numbers are tragic, but pale in comparison to the statistics of what non-religion criminals have committed

Have you statistics to prove your point, or is this circumstantial speculation to prove a point ?

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

Michel,

The poing I was trying to make was a distinction between a person who kills in the name of his religion because he feels it is his duty to do so, and a person who kills someone totally unrelated to religious reasons, and just "happens" to be a member of a given church.

It was in response to SnaleSpace who asked something along the lines of "if people from all kinds of religious backgrounds kill others, what makes the Muslims different" <---- a gross paraphrase there.

To the person being killed, the motive of the murderer makes no difference, Michel, I agree. But in regards to their potential for harm to society at large, the level of organization and the motivation for the murders makes a big difference.

A Methodist (to continue the above example) who gets mad at his wife and kills her was a danger to her, but is unlikely to be a danger to you and me, or to great numbers of people in society. A person who is a member of a religion, or political group, and feels compelled to kill great numbers of others who are not a member of his particular group, does pose a grave threat to you, me and society at large.

That is the distinction I was trying to make, in an effort to respond to a query by SnaleSpace, apologies for not being clearer earlier.

B.

 

[Ryan2065]

Islam is different in that it is religios people doing violence in the name of religion.

So you are saying that people never killed in the name of other religions? Or does it not count if it happened in the past? =P

And I thought the IRA killed in the name of both liberating Ireland and in the name of Christianity?

Also the KKK kills people in the name of their religion...

So to say that this does not happen even till today... that is just quite wrong and quite ignorant.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

So you are saying that people never killed in the name of other religions? Or does it not count if it happened in the past? =P

And I thought the IRA killed in the name of both liberating Ireland and in the name of Christianity?

Also the KKK kills people in the name of their religion...

So to say that this does not happen even till today... that is just quite wrong and quite ignorant.

Not at all. People have been killing one another in the name of religion for all of recorded history. I was responding above to a specific question by a specific poster on a specific topic. Of course religious people from religions other than Islam kill in the name of their religion. That is one of the major problems I have with organized religion of any ilk.

The Northern Ireland issue was about sovereignty to some extent, but definately had a religious aspect to it re: Catholic vs. Protestant. I don't know where you get the idea that I think only Muslims are killing for their faith.

KKK and the other references you make, I don't disagree with at all. You are showing some of the points I myself have used in the past, and will likely use again. Not sure where you got the misunderstanding that I think only Muslims kill for their religion, but that could not be farther from the truth.

B.

 

[Ryan2065]

I don't think I misunderstood you... I think you wrote something completely against your views then... Case and point...

Question you responded to:

I think you are misunderstanding the point here Steve. People of all religions occassionaly commit acts of violence. Why should Islam be any different from Christianity, (unless you're point is it is a more peaceful religion).

I'll rephrase for snalespace... "People of all religions occassionally commit acts of violence... Why should islam be different from Christianity?"

Your response...

Islam is different in that it is religios people doing violence in the name of religion.

So your response to the question of "What makes Islam different than christianity" was "Islam is different because its religious people do acts of violence in the name of religion" which directly implies that Christians do not do acts of violence in the name of religion...

This is exactly how it reads... I don't quite care what you "meant" because I am sick of people saying one thing and then later saying, "oh, I didn't mean that, I meant something else." Your beliefs are represented by what you say.. Right now you are coming across as a bigot who believes that all Islam are terrorists (you use those words interchangibly) and believes that Christianity differs from Islam because Islam people kill for their religion and Christians don't.

Please clear this mess up and finish the sentence that you started... "Islam differs from Christianity becasue..."

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

Ryan,

It is entirely possible that I misunderstood SnaleSpace's question earlier. Let me once again attempt to be clear.

I don't think there is any difference between a person who is a Muslim killing in the name of his religion and a person who is a Christian killing in the name of his religion. They are both scumbags. Clear enough?

I attempted, and obviously failed, to point out the difference between a person who just happens to be a member of a particular faith, who just happens to kill someone, when that killing is not religiously motivated, and a person who kills others and feels it is his duty to do so based on religious teachings.

IMHO the Muslim/Christian/Jew/Hindu/Buddhist who just happens to kill someone else for reason's other than religion poses less of a threat to society at large than a Muslim/Christian/Jew/Hindu/Buddhist who feels it is his duty to kill others based on his religious tenents.

I sincerely hope that this clears things up, if not, please let me know where I went astray and I will attempt to explain further. And again, I could have been incorrect in my understanding/or lack thereof of SnaleSpace's original question. Christians who bomb abortion clinics are no better than Muslims who bomb nightclubs, the U.S.S. Cole, The Twin Towers, The Pentagon, marine barracks, U.S. Embassy's etc. . .

B.

 

[ChrisP]

Ryan,

It is entirely possible that I misunderstood SnaleSpace's question earlier. Let me once again attempt to be clear.

It was more of an obtuse point than a question. I will attempt to clarify here.

People are people.

Religion is Religion.

Murder is commited by people.

If people Murder in the name of religion, it is for personal reasons or personal gain.