There is NO SUCH THING as a "Christian Terrorist"

PsyOps

Pixelated
Here is the philosophical problem...

"Christians" marched onto lands that predominately belonged to Muslims, dropped bombs, and shot their people. We went where we were probably better off not going. How do we Christians justify our actions on land that is considered holy in the minds of Muslims? I am by no means justifying what Muslims are doing; it angers me. But now we can get a sense of what it must have felt like to have us going there and killing their people.

But, it's done now... there's no turning the clock back. I don't give a damn whether Obama and liberals want to recognize this for what it is... We ARE at war and we had better get that in our heads pretty quickly.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Here is the philosophical problem...

"Christians" marched onto lands that predominately belonged to Muslims, dropped bombs, and shot their people. We went where we were probably better off not going. How do we Christians justify our actions on land that is considered holy in the minds of Muslims? I am by no means justifying what Muslims are doing; it angers me. But now we can get a sense of what it must have felt like to have us going there and killing their people.

But, it's done now... there's no turning the clock back. I don't give a damn whether Obama and liberals want to recognize this for what it is... We ARE at war and we had better get that in our heads pretty quickly.

I missed where Christianity was a driving factor in any American war, ever.

But, I think I get your point - it is only a relatively recent concept that "nation" and "race" have two different meanings. As our nation has a higher self-identified population of Christians than even Israel has of self-identified Jews, actions we take are deemed as "Christian" actions even though they have nothing to do with religion, and we have a self-imposed separation of religion from our governmental actions. Therefore, when we pushed Iraq out of Kuwait recently (not the first time) it could be mischaracterized by the region as an act of Christians, not an act of a diverse country with no religious overtones....

Is that what you are saying?
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
I missed where Christianity was a driving factor in any American war, ever.

But, I think I get your point - it is only a relatively recent concept that "nation" and "race" have two different meanings. As our nation has a higher self-identified population of Christians than even Israel has of self-identified Jews, actions we take are deemed as "Christian" actions even though they have nothing to do with religion, and we have a self-imposed separation of religion from our governmental actions. Therefore, when we pushed Iraq out of Kuwait recently (not the first time) it could be mischaracterized by the region as an act of Christians, not an act of a diverse country with no religious overtones....

Is that what you are saying?

They view us as the infidel. It doesn’t really matter much to them whether it’s Christian or atheist or whatever; they view our actions from a spiritual standpoint… we are invading their holy land and killing their people and destroying their property. So yes, that is what I’m saying. I’m actually trying to sit back and understand their anger through mine.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Here is the philosophical problem...

"Christians" marched onto lands that predominately belonged to Muslims, dropped bombs, and shot their people. We went where we were probably better off not going. How do we Christians justify our actions on land that is considered holy in the minds of Muslims? I am by no means justifying what Muslims are doing; it angers me. But now we can get a sense of what it must have felt like to have us going there and killing their people..

Then how do you explain their collective behavior in centuries past?..Take the late 1700 and early 1800s, for example, when various Muslim nations (Tripoli, for example) routinely captured western vessels and enslaved (and/or ransomed) their crews, freeing otherwise only those who appeared to have sincerely convert to Islam. Their justification for that "behavior" back then was exactly as it is now. Infidels must convert or are otherwise legally enslaved or killed. Nothing has changed in over a thousand years..why is anyone acting surprised now??
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Then how do you explain their collective behavior in centuries past?..Take the late 1700 and early 1800s, for example, when various Muslim nations (Tripoli, for example) routinely captured western vessels and enslaved (and/or ransomed) their crews, freeing otherwise only those who appeared to have sincerely convert to Islam. Their justification for that "behavior" back then was exactly as it is now. Infidels must convert or are otherwise legally enslaved or killed. Nothing has changed in over a thousand years..why is anyone acting surprised now??

The thing that surprises me is that we have a Muslim in the White House and some people still believe he is some sort of Christian.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
I'm sure it was Muslims that have attacked Planned Parenthood locations ump-teen times.

I'm sure Robert Lewis Dear was a Muslim.



Give me a break and stop acting like Christians are the bastion of caring and forgiveness and somehow exempt from committing terrorist attacks.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
I'm sure it was Muslims that have attacked Planned Parenthood locations ump-teen times.
I'm sure Robert Lewis Dear was a Muslim.
Give me a break and stop acting like Christians are the bastion of caring and forgiveness and somehow exempt from committing terrorist attacks.



those were not Christians acting in the Name of Christ ... no matter what they may have stated
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
I'm sure it was Muslims that have attacked Planned Parenthood locations ump-teen times.
.

How many times is "umpteen"? Yr a real semi-pro at the moral equivalence game, aincha? Too bad that is an invalid rhetorical device, huh?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
I'm sure it was Muslims that have attacked Planned Parenthood locations ump-teen times.

I'm sure Robert Lewis Dear was a Muslim.



Give me a break and stop acting like Christians are the bastion of caring and forgiveness and somehow exempt from committing terrorist attacks.

While I am not 100% certain I agree, please recognize the point of the OP. I boiled it down for you so you don't have to read too much:
Terrorism is in direct disobedience to Christ.

It’s in direct obedience to Muhammad.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
I'm sure it was Muslims that have attacked Planned Parenthood locations ump-teen times.

I'm sure Robert Lewis Dear was a Muslim.



Give me a break and stop acting like Christians are the bastion of caring and forgiveness and somehow exempt from committing terrorist attacks.

You may have missed the point. If you OBEY Mohammed, you're going to commit terrorism. If you don't slay the infidel, you're not obeying him - you're not Muslim.
Contrast to the teachings of Jesus, where if you commit terrorism, you are NOT obeying Jesus. You're not a Christian.

One teacher says, kill the infidel. Following him means, you'll kill the infidel.
The other teacher says pray for him, bless your persecutors and don't repay evil for evil. If you follow HIM, you'll never kill the infidel.

People call themselves whatever they want, but to BE a Muslim or Christian involve different behavior.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
those were not Christians acting in the Name of Christ ... no matter what they may have stated
not at all surprising that you dont see the idiocy in this logic, or the idiocy of applying it only to christians
You may have missed the point. If you OBEY Mohammed, you're going to commit terrorism. If you don't slay the infidel, you're not obeying him - you're not Muslim.
Contrast to the teachings of Jesus, where if you commit terrorism, you are NOT obeying Jesus. You're not a Christian.

One teacher says, kill the infidel. Following him means, you'll kill the infidel.
The other teacher says pray for him, bless your persecutors and don't repay evil for evil. If you follow HIM, you'll never kill the infidel.
People call themselves whatever they want, but to BE a Muslim or Christian involve different behavior.
both books have plenty of 'kill the unbelieving scum on the other side' stuff. Just like chrisitans want to claim theirs dont apply anymore, muslims claim they are the religion of peace and to commit terror is an act no true muslim would perform.

But lets look at your logic.
W claims to be christian, as does Obama but we wont go there yet, yet he certainly ordered the killing of plenty of muslims. What part of jesus' teachings allows for the killing of innocents as a by product of a war? was W not a christian? is he going to hell for all of these obviously unchristian acts? sure seems like we repaid an awful lot of evil to a lot of people.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
How many times is "umpteen"? Yr a real semi-pro at the moral equivalence game, aincha? Too bad that is an invalid rhetorical device, huh?

Between 1973 and 2003, anti-abortion activists carried out over 300 attacks (arsons, bombings, and butyric acid attacks at abortion facilities and the murder of abortion providers) on abortion clinics in the United States. The frequency of these attacks makes abortion clinic violence one of the most common form of domestic terrorism in this country.

http://users.nber.org/~jacobson/JacobsonRoyer6.2.10.pdf

those were not Christians acting in the Name of Christ ... no matter what they may have stated

So what does it mean when the Bible says:
And utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them
- When God instructed King Saul to attack the Amalekites?

or through the Prophet Samuel, he said:
"But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey

And when Saul failed to commit genocide, God took his kingdom away. Such a loving God.

While I am not 100% certain I agree, please recognize the point of the OP. I boiled it down for you so you don't have to read too much:

Read historical documents regarding the American confrontations with Indians. It was not only legitimate to kill the Indians, but you were violating God's law if you didn't.

There's more than a few books and publications that speak to that, including the Spanish Requirement of 1513 that said:
On the part of the King, Don Fernando, and of Doña Juana, his daughter, Queen of Castile and León, subduers of the barbarous nations, we their servants notify and make known to you, as best we can, that the Lord our God, living and eternal, created the heaven and the earth, and one man and one woman, of whom you and we, and all the men of the world, were and are all descendants, and all those who come after us.
Of all these nations God our Lord gave charge to one man, called St. Peter, that he should be lord and superior of all the men in the world, that all should obey him, and that he should be the head of the whole human race, wherever men should live, and under whatever law, sect, or belief they should be; and he gave him the world for his kingdom and jurisdiction.

One of these pontiffs, who succeeded St. Peter as lord of the world in the dignity and seat which I have before mentioned, made donation of these isles and Terra-firma to the aforesaid King and Queen and to their successors, our lords, with all that there are in these territories,

Wherefore, as best we can, we ask and require you that you consider what we have said to you, and that you take the time that shall be necessary to understand and deliberate upon it, and that you acknowledge the Church as the ruler and superior of the whole world,

But if you do not do this, and maliciously make delay in it, I certify to you that, with the help of God, we shall powerfully enter into your country, and shall make war against you in all ways and manners that we can, and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church and of their highnesses; we shall take you, and your wives, and your children, and shall make slaves of them, and as such shall sell and dispose of them as their highnesses may command; and we shall take away your goods, and shall do you all the mischief and damage that we can, as to vassals who do not obey, and refuse to receive their lord, and resist and contradict him: and we protest that the deaths and losses which shall accrue from this are your fault, and not that of their highnesses, or ours, nor of these cavaliers who come with us .

You may have missed the point. If you OBEY Mohammed, you're going to commit terrorism. If you don't slay the infidel, you're not obeying him - you're not Muslim.
Contrast to the teachings of Jesus, where if you commit terrorism, you are NOT obeying Jesus. You're not a Christian.

One teacher says, kill the infidel. Following him means, you'll kill the infidel.
The other teacher says pray for him, bless your persecutors and don't repay evil for evil. If you follow HIM, you'll never kill the infidel.

People call themselves whatever they want, but to BE a Muslim or Christian involve different behavior.

People tend to get confused regarding jihad and irjaf. While it's a popular notion that jihad martyrdom is spelled out in the Quran, it's a wrong notion because the Quran explicitly condemns religious aggression and killing of civilians. It also distinguished jihad and irjaf. Jihad being legal warfare with the proper rules of engagement, and irjaf being terrorism.

I don't think it's that simple. Fundamentalists can take certain words and verses from the Bible and justify killing someone. Just like someone can take verses out of the Quran and do the same. Fact is, there's far more Muslims in the world than Christians, and the Muslim world is far more religious than the Western, predominantly Christian, world. That doesn't absolve the violence committed in the name of Christianity in the past, nor does it mean there's no violence in the bible.

The early writing and teachings of both Islam and Christianity have a lot of violence in them. Evolving from those teachings is another thing.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Read historical documents regarding the American confrontations with Indians. It was not only legitimate to kill the Indians, but you were violating God's law if you didn't.
What you are saying is that people perverted Christianity. There's no doubt of that. That didn't make them Christians.

While the OT had many allowances for more violent acts against non-believers, a guy named Jesus came along and changed the rules of engagement. People who follow Him are called Christians, and aren't really allowed to murder in the name of religion. Wars are different (killing is different from murder), but still not so much a good thing in the eye of a Christian. However, render unto Caesar and all that.

What the OP is saying is that, by the book, one religion allows it, another does not. I do defy you to use the NT and come up with "kill people who don't believe".
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
What you are saying is that people perverted Christianity. There's no doubt of that. That didn't make them Christians.

While the OT had many allowances for more violent acts against non-believers, a guy named Jesus came along and changed the rules of engagement. People who follow Him are called Christians, and aren't really allowed to murder in the name of religion. Wars are different (killing is different from murder), but still not so much a good thing in the eye of a Christian. However, render unto Caesar and all that.

What the OP is saying is that, by the book, one religion allows it, another does not. I do defy you to use the NT and come up with "kill people who don't believe".

the NT isnt the whole book, and most of the stuff from the OT does indeed carry over. It very convienent that christians like to play the "that part dont apply" game to their book, but hold up passages from the Quran :bigwhoop:
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
the NT isnt the whole book, and most of the stuff from the OT does indeed carry over. It very convienent that christians like to play the "that part dont apply" game to their book, but hold up passages from the Quran :bigwhoop:

You are right to a certain extent in that the OT does still "carry over". Jesus said so Himself:

Matthew 5:17-18 said:
Matthew 5:17-18

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

However, as I said, Jesus gave us new rules to follow, new ways of looking at things. In other words, He changed the rules - PARTICULARLY in this exact area:

Matthew 5:38-48 said:
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’

39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.

41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.

42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’

44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?

47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?

48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

So, yeah, being a Christian does indeed mean that the OT rules on harm for the people with whom you disagree are out the window, and yet the NT also shows the OT to be valid. Sorry, you're just wrong on this one.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
What you are saying is that people perverted Christianity. There's no doubt of that. That didn't make them Christians.

While the OT had many allowances for more violent acts against non-believers, a guy named Jesus came along and changed the rules of engagement. People who follow Him are called Christians, and aren't really allowed to murder in the name of religion. Wars are different (killing is different from murder), but still not so much a good thing in the eye of a Christian. However, render unto Caesar and all that.

What the OP is saying is that, by the book, one religion allows it, another does not. I do defy you to use the NT and come up with "kill people who don't believe".

I won't pick and choose what bible version to use when making my argument. I wouldn't use it to make yours either considering the NT has violence as well.

People pervert religion. Simple as that. Those perversions have killed millions and they aren't limited to a single religion. Acting like Christianity deserves to be on a high horse because some choose to argue that "no, no, use the newer book" doesn't fly with me.

Religion gave us a few good things, especially items relating to music, art, etc., but it's also, in my opinion, used as justification for the purest of evil across all of history.
 
Last edited:

This_person

Well-Known Member
I won't pick and choose what bible version to use when making my argument. I wouldn't use it to make yours either considering the NT has violence as well.

People pervert religion. Simple as that. Those perversions have killed millions and they aren't limited to a single religion. Acting like Christianity deserves to be on a high horse because some choose to argue that "no, no, use the newer book" doesn't fly with me.

Religion gave us a few good things, especially items relating to music, art, etc., but it's also, in my opinion, used as justification for the purest of evil across all of history.

You're right, people pervert it. The point is that when they pervert it, they're no longer following it. At least in the case of Christianity. Now, Islam, on the other hand, they're less perverting it as picking and choosing.

Of course there's violence in the NT - but not as directed by Jesus to His followers to conduct. THIS is the difference noted in the OP.
 
Top