Crypto2015
Active Member
Please read the post above.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Trump Calls for Ban on All Muslims Entering US
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Please read the post above.
Crypto2015
Active Member
How many of those denominations disagree on crucial points such as pacifism, the love for our enemies, the resurrection of Christ, etc.? Less than 0.1%.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
No they don't. Our modern notions of human rights come from enlightenment-era philosophers. Freedom to choose your religion isn't something Christianity is into. Equal rights for women goes against the teachings of Paul. Freedom of speech and press and association has the potential to go against Biblical law. Gay marriage is something that is against the Bible. Our focus on profit and material wealth is clearly anti-Christian.
It was legal, for a very long time, much like viciously ripping people apart and burning them alive for the crime of "witchcraft." It didn't become illegal until society said no more. Christians played a part, but it was everyone, society as a whole, saying we won't have it anymore. America fought a war over it.
I can list my views, and back them up by saying how they help people, how they further society, how they protect minorities from being ran-over by the majority. I don't hold a value unless I can rationally justify it. You are the one who picks up a book and says it's just because of this book and because of god.
Probably because I read it, right there in the Quran. I can't believe you don't realize there are multiple ways to interpret the Bible and Quran, and accept the "no true Scottsman" as a valid argument.
Pacifism? Really? I think there are very few Christian denominations that agree with pacifism. There are the Quakers of course, and given time and research I could probably come up with others. But by far the majority of Christian denominations are not pacifists. And polls show that Christians are more likely to agree with torture, so I am not sure about love for you enemies either.
Crypto2015
Active Member
Gay marriage, abortion, and materialism are against the teachings of the Bible. That's why you have Christian anti-abortion movements and Christian movements against gay marriage. Monasteries are meant to free people from materialism and they are also inspired in Christian teachings. Several Christian orders, like that found by Francis of Assisi focus on poverty as a way of renouncing the love of money. The reason why there aren't any Christian anti-women movements, Christian anti-freedom-of-speech movements, Christian anti-democracy movements, Christian anti-freedom-of-religion movements, and Christian anti-slavery movements is that Christianity is anti-slavery, anti-gender-segregation, anti-racism, anti-totalitarianism, and pro-freedom. Infanticide was stopped by the early Christians that stooped to collect the babies that the Greeks used to leave in the forests to die, slavery was stopped by the Christians who showed that all people are created in the image of God, gender segregation was stopped by people that followed the Christian teaching of loving our wives as Christ loved the Church. The fact that you don't know that all of these values are Christian values show how little you know about Christianity.
Do you know why there are Islamic anti-freedom-of-speech movements, Islamic anti-women movements, and Islamic anti-democracy movements? Because democracy, freedom of speech, and gender equality have never been part of Islam. You insult Middle Eastern people if you believe that they are less morally or intellectually developed. They are not. There are Middle Eastern people studying in the best universities in the world. However, these people are against gender equality, against democracy, and against freedom of speech not because they are ignorant, but because they have a different view of the world. Can you prove that they are wrong? No, you can't. You can't because you only have your opinion to support your views. On the contrary, a Christian can hold its ground against a Muslim because a Christian, just like a Muslim, believes that there is an eternal Creator and, unlike the Muslim, the Christian believes that this Creator has made us in its image and given us the right to follow our consciences.
Regarding the Qur'an, you know nothing about this book. Have you ever read the verse?
"None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?" (Qur'an 2:106)
If you have read that verse you would know that the verses that you so happily cite have been abrogated, superseded, cancelled, replaced.
Last edited:
Crypto2015
Active Member
Have you ever heard of this passage?
"Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the Lord. "BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD."Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." (Romans 12:19-21)
It is in a book called The Bible.
I'm sorry, I was responding to this post
This is where you expressed the opinion that the majority of Christian denominations support pacifism and love for their enemies. I think that is just not true. Your Biblical quote does not even address the issue of what the majority of Christian denominations believe today.
For example, and to get back on topic a bit, do you think the majority of Christian denominations today support taking in Syrian refugees, or do you think it is split more evenly (or do you think the majority are against it)?
Crypto2015
Active Member
Well, I don't know about "Christians" in the US. All I know is what the Bible teaches.The Syrian "refugees" are actually economic migrants. At first I supported taking them in, but the more I read about their origin and their reasons for emigrating, the less I believe in the idea that they are refugees. For instance, most of them are not even Syrians. Secondly, about 20% of them either belong to ISIS or are liable to be recruited by ISIS given their ideological background. I have had Syrian colleagues and although they weren't refugees I wouldn't call them "moderate" Muslims either. They are closer to chopping your head off than they are of supporting an anti-ISIS rally.
Last edited:
The Emperor of Mankind
Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
Curious then, that it took over a thousand years of Christian religious hegemony in Europe as well as the Enlightenment (one of the results of which was an increase of secularism and a decrease of Church authority over nations) for this to be realised in the laws of European nations. A brief Googling shows that Christianity did not 'invent' human rights any more than Islam 'invented' the scientific knowledge it introduced to Western Europe with the invasion of Spain. The concept of human rights existed before Christianity emerged in the world - as evidenced by the Cyrus Cylinder which was issued by the Zoroastrian Persian Emperor, Cyrus the Great. Here's a website for you to read about it:
http://www.un.org/en/events/humanrightsday/2007/history.shtml
As to the concept of 'equality before law'; Christianity did not invent that either. The earliest known mention of the concept is by an Athenian statesman called Pericles from 431 BC
"Its administration favours the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a democracy. If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences; if no social standing, advancement in public life falls to reputation for capacity, class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way"
It's taken from a book by Thucydides called The History of the Peloponnesian War. If you're looking for the quote you can find it here:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/7142/7142-h/7142-h.htm
It's in Book 2, Chapter 6.
Thus far, all you've proven is that, like Islam, your faith was a vehicle for the conveying of concepts older than itself.
True; I'll give you that. What that doesn't change, though, is that for centuries, Christian theology & scripture was used by Europeans to justify horrendous atrocities. Black people were the descendants of Cain (with the mark Cain had on his skin being interpreted as being the skin turned black). Want me to quote you scripture to back up what I'm saying? Okay, I will.
Ephesians 6:5 - "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."
Colossians 3:22 - "Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord."
It also didn't prevent Christianity from failing to abolish slavery for the hundreds of years it had power in Europe before the Transatlantic Slave Trade began. In fact, in some ways Christianity made the lot of slaves worse by promising them equality and brotherhood, then failing to deliver on Earthly freedom.
You're kidding, right? That concept hasn't stopped over a millennium of Christians fighting and massacring both each other and non-Christians. It didn't stop Christians of various nations marauding across Europe and sacking cities in the same way Pagans did, it didn't stop the Crusaders attacking and raping Constantinople (and yes, I'm using the word 'rape' because it alone conveys the sense of destruction and wanton savagery).
Oh, on the subject of killing babies, you might want to look into older social attitudes on ******* children. They were children born out of (Christian) wedlock and they were all-too-often punished by society for that fact. It took until 1926 for English law to even allow them to inherit from their parents.
Except in cases of adultery, according to Deuteronomy 22:22;
"If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel."
No doubt Christians down the centuries have used that verse as justification; despite it being addressed to the Jews and not them.
By the way, you might want to read up on the Greek belief in the Furies and what they were responsible for (it was punishing the commitment of crimes against family members which included murder).
(continued...)
Last edited:
The Emperor of Mankind
Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
(continued from above)
What a load of rubbish! Most of these ideas did not come about thanks to Christianity; they came about in spite of it. Freedom of religion & speech only came about because religious influence on government has been curtailed - else we'd still be subject to barbaric blasphemy laws (England & Wales had a blasphemy offence under common law up until as recently as 2008; look it up if you doubt me) and laws that stated that citizens had to be Christian under threat of legal penalty.
Do you really believe the Suffragists and Suffragettes weren't harangued, railed against and defamed by priests, pastors & other clerics of the day?
Here's a link to the Google books entry for 'From Preachers to Suffragists: Woman's Rights and Religious Conviction in the Lives of Three Nineteenth-Century Clergywoman' by Beverly Ann Zink-Sawyer
Look for the section titled "The Denunciation of "Women's Agitation"" starting on page 6.
The Bible doesn't support them either, unless there's a verse or two I have missed? Does the Bible support freedom of religion, speech etc?
The reason that freedom of religion, speech et al doesn't pervade the Islamic world the way it does the Western world is because the Islamic world has not gone through its own Enlightenment; it has not undergone the transformation that would allow Muslims to interpret the veracity of scripture or the diktats of Islamic scholars or clerics. It has yet to break the stranglehold Islam has on governance; clerics are still allowed to influence law-making and Islamic diktats inform legal protections & rights.
Go back as little as a few hundred years ago and the early British colonies in America had laws mandating attendance at houses of worship. (Source here: https://www.facinghistory.org/nobigotry/religion-colonial-america-trends-regulations-and-beliefs)
In addition, the Act of Uniformity 1558 in England mandated that all persons had to engage in acts of Christian worship once a week or be fined 12 pence (which was a lot for peasants). Apart for a period of 10 years between 1650-1660, this remained law up until 1888. Here's the source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Uniformity_1558
More horse hockey. You're just trying to give your religion credit for ideas & concepts that pre-Christians invented & recognised. It was a fervent belief in God that prompted man to pass blasphemy laws preventing people disagreeing with the veracity of the Bible and the veracity of the claim that Christ saved us from sin. It was a fervent belief that led Christians to senselessly slaughter one another for hundreds of years before the peoples of Europe got sick of it, realised Protestant denominations & the Catholic Church were the root cause, and began removing their undeserved privileges in governments across the continent.
There you go again, presupposing that you know what we think or how we justify things. Such hubris!! You're offering a false dichotomy; it isn't a choice between your god - or nothing at all.
So you're arguing against Islam while at the same time you view it as "more rational than a world view that is based entirely on feelings" (which is a straw man, not that you even bothered to find out). Is Islam rational or isn't it? Can you at least try to argue in a straight line?
And it's not slander if it's true!
I didn't say I believed it. I said it's there in the Quran. There's a world of difference.
What a load of rubbish! Most of these ideas did not come about thanks to Christianity; they came about in spite of it. Freedom of religion & speech only came about because religious influence on government has been curtailed - else we'd still be subject to barbaric blasphemy laws (England & Wales had a blasphemy offence under common law up until as recently as 2008; look it up if you doubt me) and laws that stated that citizens had to be Christian under threat of legal penalty.
Do you really believe the Suffragists and Suffragettes weren't harangued, railed against and defamed by priests, pastors & other clerics of the day?
Here's a link to the Google books entry for 'From Preachers to Suffragists: Woman's Rights and Religious Conviction in the Lives of Three Nineteenth-Century Clergywoman' by Beverly Ann Zink-Sawyer
Look for the section titled "The Denunciation of "Women's Agitation"" starting on page 6.
The Bible doesn't support them either, unless there's a verse or two I have missed? Does the Bible support freedom of religion, speech etc?
The reason that freedom of religion, speech et al doesn't pervade the Islamic world the way it does the Western world is because the Islamic world has not gone through its own Enlightenment; it has not undergone the transformation that would allow Muslims to interpret the veracity of scripture or the diktats of Islamic scholars or clerics. It has yet to break the stranglehold Islam has on governance; clerics are still allowed to influence law-making and Islamic diktats inform legal protections & rights.
Go back as little as a few hundred years ago and the early British colonies in America had laws mandating attendance at houses of worship. (Source here: https://www.facinghistory.org/nobigotry/religion-colonial-america-trends-regulations-and-beliefs)
In addition, the Act of Uniformity 1558 in England mandated that all persons had to engage in acts of Christian worship once a week or be fined 12 pence (which was a lot for peasants). Apart for a period of 10 years between 1650-1660, this remained law up until 1888. Here's the source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Uniformity_1558
More horse hockey. You're just trying to give your religion credit for ideas & concepts that pre-Christians invented & recognised. It was a fervent belief in God that prompted man to pass blasphemy laws preventing people disagreeing with the veracity of the Bible and the veracity of the claim that Christ saved us from sin. It was a fervent belief that led Christians to senselessly slaughter one another for hundreds of years before the peoples of Europe got sick of it, realised Protestant denominations & the Catholic Church were the root cause, and began removing their undeserved privileges in governments across the continent.
There you go again, presupposing that you know what we think or how we justify things. Such hubris!! You're offering a false dichotomy; it isn't a choice between your god - or nothing at all.
- Freedom of religion is right because it lends itself to preventing immoral acts such as persecution or sectarianism. It benefits society where the presence of socially beneficial religious beliefs are tolerated.
- Freedom of speech (within reasonable limits) is right because it permits the free exchange of ideas and opinions which is vital for a healthy, educated society to develop.
- Equality before law is right because citizens should not be subject to taxation without representation; should be allowed to influence the formation of the governments which pass laws affecting them.
- Not killing one's spouse or child is right because it furthers the continuance of civilised, ordered society.
So you're arguing against Islam while at the same time you view it as "more rational than a world view that is based entirely on feelings" (which is a straw man, not that you even bothered to find out). Is Islam rational or isn't it? Can you at least try to argue in a straight line?
And it's not slander if it's true!
I didn't say I believed it. I said it's there in the Quran. There's a world of difference.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
And those things go against contemporary Western values. Science tells us it's better to prevent abortions from being needed in the first place, but anti-abortion clinics attack Planned Parenthood-who is very successful at preventing abortions in the first place- because they support a woman's right to choose. Many Christians (exclusively those who do agree with you, because many do not) want stipulations and barriers placed on abortions that few people support. Those views are not modern Western views. Evan many Christians have no issue with gay marriage, abortion in some circumstances, but Christians have just as many abortions as non-Christians, and the anti-birth control Catholics have the most out of all Christian groups. Many Christians also have no problems with homosexuals or gay marriage.
Those are modern views. Increasingly we are embracing science and reasoning. You yourself admit what Christian values are, and clearly those are not the values of today's Western society.
Crypto2015
Active Member
I didn't say that those principles that I mentioned cannot be found outside of Christianity. All I said is that those values are Christian values and that Western Civilization incorporated these values because of Christianity. Are you telling me that Western civilization did not get the idea of human rights from the Bible, which could be found all over Europe, but from a cylinder from a Persian king that lived in 600 BC and had no connection whatsoever to the Western Civilization? Are you telling me that Western civilization did not get the idea that all humans are equal before the law from the Bible, from which this idea can be clearly derived, but from a relatively unknown Greek philosopher that lived centuries before Christ? It is amazing how far you will go in order to deny the obvious. Regarding slavery, Christianity fought slavery not by teachings slaves to revolt, which would have caused all slaves and Christians to be killed almost immediately, but by changing the hearts of both slaves and freemen. When the hearts and minds of the people changed, slavery crumbled under its own weight. It was impossible for a Christian to imprison someone that was created in God's image. In order to achieve this, slaves had to gain their masters by being the perfect servants. Christianity had to win the hearts and minds of everyone by showing that it produced perfect citizens, perfect slaves, perfect wives, perfect daughters, perfect human beings. You may understand this if you read what Paul and Onesimus resolved to do when the latter escaped from his master. Read Paul's letter to Philemon.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Enough to have thousands of Christian denominations created based on those disagreements.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
That isn't Biblical; Paul explicitly told slaves to be obedient towards their master, especially if their master is a Christian because they serve the same god.
Crypto2015
Active Member
It does not matter how slave holders sought to justify their business. Slave trading was condemned both in the Old and New Testaments:
"Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper's possession." (Exodus 21:16)
"the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine," (1 Timothy 1:10)
Crypto2015
Active Member
That's what I am saying. The idea is to win the hearts and minds of all members of society by proving that being a Christian makes you a better citizen. At that time slavery was part of the social fabric. It was socially and morally acceptable. Hence, any ideology or faith that encouraged slaves to revolt would have been deemed immoral (and unmercifully crushed in the most expedient of manners). Since the goal of Christianity is not to create a perfect society, but to lead all human beings to God, slavery was not fought against at a civic level, although the Christian teachings are clearly against slavery:
"There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)
"Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you--although if you can gain your freedom, do so." (1 Corinthians 7:21)
The Christian fight against slavery succeeded. When the hearts and minds of all members of society were led to Christ, slavery crumbled. Christianity modifies society from the bottom to the top, from the individual to the masses, and not vice versa.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Those do not contain an anti-slavery message, and Paul clearly states slaves are to obey. And it also has nothing to do with what is socially acceptable or not. Rather than making one of the 10 commandments "thou shalt not own slaves," we find many laws regulating and permitting slavery.
Clearly that is not how things happened. America didn't even have "In God we Trust" on the currency when it ended slavery, and it was the much deeper-religious South that didn't want to give up slavery.
Underhill
Well-Known Member
So you think all muslims are simply lying in wait of the day they can be violent? That is quite a stretch.
Underhill
Well-Known Member
Because religious text are ambiguous. It is their nature. If they were clearcut in saying Jesus will return on December 12th, the authors or religious leaders may have a problem come the 13th.