ISIS vs. The Crusades

[InItToWinIt]

Haven't read this thread at all, but what I know is this:

 

Even if the Crusades were just as/more gruesome than what ISIS is doing, that does not justify what ISIS is doing. It is inhumane, no matter what you compare it to.

[Watusi]

I don't want to derail this discussion, but in short, Christians often use OT passages to justify social action over the course of history. My main point is that without study and guidance, misinterpretation and misapplication of any religious text is possible, and it has (and does) occur in Christianity as well.

No question, lots of hate and violence have been wrongly perpetrated and passed off in the name of Christianity. Those people are are misguided if they think Christ encourages those actions. So I disagree that those atrocities are encouraged of Christians by Bible authority today, and that is how I read your first statement.

 

That is the reason I asked for clarification, I couldn't help but think you didn't mean that statement the way it was written.

[rockmom]

No question, lots of hate and violence have been wrongly perpetrated and passed off in the name of Christianity. Those people are are misguided if they think Christ encourages those actions. So I disagree that those atrocities are encouraged of Christians by Bible authority today, and that is how I read your first statement.

 

That is the reason I asked for clarification, I couldn't help but think you didn't mean that statement the way it was written.

 

I think you, then, understand that just as there are extremists that twist Islam, there have been (and) are extremists who twist Christianity. In either case, it's easier to for those without knowledge of the actual message to use that ignorance to manipulate the Truth. Followers of Muslim who are knowledgeable and learned in their faith are not the same as those who are extremists. The same for Christians. The % of those who are extremist in either is small compared to the number of true believers.

[Jumper_Dad]

^ So we want to use the opinion of someone who is just someone who is anti-Muslim?

 

Is anything he said about the battles incorrect? Or are you dismissing the information because you don't like the messenger?

[ggclfan]

I think you, then, understand that just as there are extremists that twist Islam, there have been (and) are extremists who twist Christianity. In either case, it's easier to for those without knowledge of the actual message to use that ignorance to manipulate the Truth. Followers of Muslim who are knowledgeable and learned in their faith are not the same as those who are extremists. The same for Christians. The % of those who are extremist in either is small compared to the number of true believers.

 

The difference is that there are not hundreds of thousands or millions of Christians who torture and rape women and others in the name of their religion. Even the most extreme Christians don't think "non-Christians" should be tortured and killed just because they aren't Christians.

[Watusi]

I think you, then, understand that just as there are extremists that twist Islam, there have been (and) are extremists who twist Christianity. In either case, it's easier to for those without knowledge of the actual message to use that ignorance to manipulate the Truth. Followers of Muslim who are knowledgeable and learned in their faith are not the same as those who are extremists. The same for Christians. The % of those who are extremist in either is small compared to the number of true believers.

Agreed :thumb:

[Habib]

The difference is that there are not hundreds of thousands or millions of Christians who torture and rape women and others in the name of their religion. Even the most extreme Christians don't think "non-Christians" should be tortured and killed just because they aren't Christians.

 

What, then, do you make of Christians in certain African countries, like Uganda, who want homosexuality to be punishable by death, and often take that matter into their own hands when the government won't? (This hasn't been exactly foreign in our country either).

 

Again, the point isn't to say "well, ISIS isn't so bad because Christians did/do bad things" or "it wouldn't be fair to criticize Muslim extremism without also criticizing the past sins of Christianity." That's a deliberately obtuse reading of what's being said.

 

The point is that religions and sacred texts are interpreted by humans and their interpretations have often spawned some nasty strains - even in Christianity, which many good-natured Christians in this thread have argued is peaceful, with little room for debate. So, do we say that all of Islam is violent and terroristic, incompatible with Western values? Or do we say that this violent, jihadist interpretation should (and can) be rooted out?

 

When Catholics first made their way to the new world, they would read the "Requirement" to the natives:

 

I implore you to recognize the Church as a lady and in the name of the Pope take the King as lord of this land and obey his mandates. If you do not do it, I tell you that with the help of God I will enter powerfully against you all. I will make war everywhere and every way that I can. I will subject you to the yoke and obedience to the Church and to his majesty. I will take your women and children and make them slaves. The deaths and injuries that you will receive from here on will be your own fault and not that of his majesty nor of the men that accompany me.

 

I post this not to "equivocate." I post this to point out that every person here finds this disagreeable. The Bible hasn't changed. Our interpretations have changed, however, to the point that this seems archaic and foreign. The violence practiced against homosexuals and blasphemers in Africa makes us in the West aghast, but we are reading from the same book. Why, then, do we not think that a "Reformation" of interpretation is impossible in Islam, that we should cast all Muslims in with their most extreme adherents?

 

That is the point.

[LIPTON BASH]

What, then, do you make of Christians in certain African countries, like Uganda, who want homosexuality to be punishable by death, and often take that matter into their own hands when the government won't? (This hasn't been exactly foreign in our country either).

 

Again, the point isn't to say "well, ISIS isn't so bad because Christians did/do bad things" or "it wouldn't be fair to criticize Muslim extremism without also criticizing the past sins of Christianity." That's a deliberately obtuse reading of what's being said.

 

The point is that religions and sacred texts are interpreted by humans and their interpretations have often spawned some nasty strains - even in Christianity, which many good-natured Christians in this thread have argued is peaceful, with little room for debate. So, do we say that all of Islam is violent and terroristic, incompatible with Western values? Or do we say that this violent, jihadist interpretation should (and can) be rooted out?

 

When Catholics first made their way to the new world, they would read the "Requirement" to the natives:

 

I implore you to recognize the Church as a lady and in the name of the Pope take the King as lord of this land and obey his mandates. If you do not do it, I tell you that with the help of God I will enter powerfully against you all. I will make war everywhere and every way that I can. I will subject you to the yoke and obedience to the Church and to his majesty. I will take your women and children and make them slaves. The deaths and injuries that you will receive from here on will be your own fault and not that of his majesty nor of the men that accompany me.

 

I post this not to "equivocate." I post this to point out that every person here finds this disagreeable. The Bible hasn't changed. Our interpretations have changed, however, to the point that this seems archaic and foreign. The violence practiced against homosexuals and blasphemers in Africa makes us in the West aghast, but we are reading from the same book. Why, then, do we not think that a "Reformation" of interpretation is impossible in Islam, that we should cast all Muslims in with their most extreme adherents?

 

That is the point.

 

I'm going to call you Mr.Pretzel because you like to twist.

 

Why can't people just admit this was a dumb speech.

[All Tell]

What, then, do you make of Christians in certain African countries, like Uganda, who want homosexuality to be punishable by death, and often take that matter into their own hands when the government won't? (This hasn't been exactly foreign in our country either).

 

Again, the point isn't to say "well, ISIS isn't so bad because Christians did/do bad things" or "it wouldn't be fair to criticize Muslim extremism without also criticizing the past sins of Christianity." That's a deliberately obtuse reading of what's being said.

 

The point is that religions and sacred texts are interpreted by humans and their interpretations have often spawned some nasty strains - even in Christianity, which many good-natured Christians in this thread have argued is peaceful, with little room for debate. So, do we say that all of Islam is violent and terroristic, incompatible with Western values? Or do we say that this violent, jihadist interpretation should (and can) be rooted out?

 

When Catholics first made their way to the new world, they would read the "Requirement" to the natives:

 

I implore you to recognize the Church as a lady and in the name of the Pope take the King as lord of this land and obey his mandates. If you do not do it, I tell you that with the help of God I will enter powerfully against you all. I will make war everywhere and every way that I can. I will subject you to the yoke and obedience to the Church and to his majesty. I will take your women and children and make them slaves. The deaths and injuries that you will receive from here on will be your own fault and not that of his majesty nor of the men that accompany me.

 

I post this not to "equivocate." I post this to point out that every person here finds this disagreeable. The Bible hasn't changed. Our interpretations have changed, however, to the point that this seems archaic and foreign. The violence practiced against homosexuals and blasphemers in Africa makes us in the West aghast, but we are reading from the same book. Why, then, do we not think that a "Reformation" of interpretation is impossible in Islam, that we should cast all Muslims in with their most extreme adherents?

 

That is the point.

 

When groups like CAIR start allowing those that have been injured in the name of Islam (Ayaan Hirsi Ali for instance) to speak unprotested maybe I'll give this point of view some credence. Right now groups like CAIR shout down anyone who has anything remotely negative to say about Islam. Imagine the uproar that would have been heard if the "C" in CAIR was for Catholic and they would have as staunchly opposed anyone speaking out over the priest sex abuse issue as CAIR has done over Ms. Ali recounting what she endured in the name of Islam

 

You realize that there are "mainstream" Muslims (majorities in both Egypt and Pakistan LINK) that support death for apostasy?

 

How about the blogger in Saudi Arabia that was sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1000 lashes for being critical of Islam? Do they still amputate limbs there for theft? Can a woman drive?

 

When "mainstream" Islam moves into this century then maybe, just maybe there could be a moral equivalency.

[rockmom]

I'm going to call you Mr.Pretzel because you like to twist.

 

Why can't people just admit this was a dumb speech.

 

Beeeecauuuuuse some of us don't think it was dumb?

[jericho]

When did Obama become a Christian scholar as to even speak about Christianity. He

[History]

Beeeecauuuuuse some of us don't think it was dumb?

That is fair. However the Obama administrations inability to call items Muslim extremism have many shaking their heads. He is very inconsistent with so many items it makes my head spin. Is he for women all over the world or just ones that can support his ideology. The fact is his foreign affairs policies have been a horrendous failure. We have lost respect in the world as a leader. Ticked off arguably our strongest ally in Isreal, drawn lines in the sand that were laughed at by small country leaders like Syria's. Given back gains that were gained by our military at the expense of lives in the past and lives today.

Because of his upbringing, I believe he is a Muslim sympathizer at best. That would not be a problem if President Transparency would have stated this from the beginning, but he didn't. He is a politicians politician in that he will present himself to be whatever you want him to be, but his actions, and not words are what I look at, and whether it is trading traitors for killers, or trying to sell us on Islam being a religion of faith, he is at his core intellectually dishonest. He and Brian Williams can glad hand all day long with or without each other and be happy.

[LIPTON BASH]

Beeeecauuuuuse some of us don't think it was dumb?

 

I guess I will never understand that logic. A mam gives a speech twisting history and trying to create a moral equivalency for modern evil but some people don't take any issue.

[openlook]

The sticking point for me is referring to the individuals committing atrocities in the name of Christianity as Christians. True followers of Jesus strive to live a life that emulates Jesus. I cannot recall NT passage that advocates murder and rape. You can argue those committing these crimes are not truly born again Christians.