All-American Muslim

[HBGary]

Are Christians currently engaged in Jihad?

.

Call it whatever you want. Jihad means "struggle", Christians call it a holy war. Well, we had 100,000 soldiers in Iraq and tens of thousands in Afghanistan, mostly Christian - fighting Muslims. There is no doubt that there are Christians currently engaged in a holy war....Christian Jihad.

 

[MachZer0]

Jihad is always positive and good...

Tell that to the people incinerated on 911

 

[Drunk On Love]

Tell that to the people incinerated on 911

How?

 

[someguy14]

Jihad is always positive and good.

I hope, Drunk On Love, your not including the physical assault that happened on 9-11.

 

[Umaro]

Are Christians currently engaged in Jihad?

.

Certainly, they've been trying to put their holy symbols in public places, trying legal discrimination against homosexuals, trying to prevent legal mosques from being built, forcing their holy book to be taught in schools, and of course all the Christian terrorist organizations that never seem to get mentioned.

 

[AtheistVet]

Certainly, they've been trying to put their holy symbols in public places, trying legal discrimination against homosexuals, trying to prevent legal mosques from being built, forcing their holy book to be taught in schools, and of course all the Christian terrorist organizations that never seem to get mentioned.

But but but, that's not JIHAD!

 

[PHenry42]

Ah, a Politically Incorrect Guide. A most shining example of the scholarly parallel universe American neocons have withdrawn into.

 

[MachZer0]

How?

Exactly

 

[NightHawkeye]

Ah, a Politically Incorrect Guide. A most shining example of the scholarly parallel universe American neocons have withdrawn into.

Exactly ... people like R. James Woolsey, former director of Central Intelligence.

.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Yes. If there are Christians battling against their passions and sinful inclinations. If there are Christians fighting in just battles verbally, intellectual, or physically for the defense of others or the establishment of righteousness then most definitely yes. They probably would use a different term though.

Jihad is always positive and good. If a battle isn't then it isn't really Jihad.

It is important to remember that more than 95% of verses about jihad in the holy writings of Islam refer to war against unbelievers. Jihad as a form of spiritual self-discipline is a metaphor. Actual Jihad means killing non-Muslims. It would be nice if what you said were true, but unfortunately it is not.

 

[HBGary]

It is important to remember that more than 95% of verses about jihad in the holy writings of Islam refer to war against unbelievers. Jihad as a form of spiritual self-discipline is a metaphor. Actual Jihad means killing non-Muslims. It would be nice if what you said were true, but unfortunately it is not.

Jihad is no different than the Christian holy war. Religious people kill each other based upon their religious bias and hatred for their fellow man. I see no difference in what Muslims have done and what Christians have done to kill each other. Neither group should claim a higher moral standard.

 

[Belk]

It is important to remember that more than 95% of verses about jihad in the holy writings of Islam refer to war against unbelievers. Jihad as a form of spiritual self-discipline is a metaphor. Actual Jihad means killing non-Muslims. It would be nice if what you said were true, but unfortunately it is not.

Feel free to substantiate your claim.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

I don't need to refute anything, as you offer no substantiation to begin with for anything you say.

You dont need to respond to my post at all, but if you do, presumably it's to actually address what I've said.

Besides, it's not a changing of the subject, it's a refutation by counterexample.

A counterexample would be an example showing how what I've said about Islam isn't true. You're talking about a different subject.

If the statement is equally true when changing Islam for Christianity word for word, the logical conclusion is that if your methodology is true, it damns your religion equally much. So you might want to reconsider the validity of that methodology, or change religion.

True enough, (since you used the word "if") but completely irrelevant. Whether my methodology damns my own religion and whether it is valid are two different questions. Unless... maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Maybe you're not disputing the truth of what I've said, but merely suggesting that I shouldn't be saying it. If so, duly noted, but then my point still stands.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Jihad is no different than the Christian holy war. Religious people kill each other based upon their religious bias and hatred for their fellow man. I see no difference in what Muslims have done and what Christians have done to kill each other. Neither group should claim a higher moral standard.

You're right. Jihad is a holy war is a jihad. I suppose you could say 'crusade'.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

You're right. Jihad is a holy war is a jihad. I suppose you could say 'crusade'.

Originally Posted by HBGary Jihad is no different than the Christian holy war. Religious people kill each other based upon their religious bias and hatred for their fellow man. I see no difference in what Muslims have done and what Christians have done to kill each other. Neither group should claim a higher moral standard.

Good point

http://www.christianforums.com/t2464457-16/#post21041677
The Orthodox lack of an Inquisition...

Three words, Islam, Inquisition and Freedom.

The inquisition in Spain was founded to defend orthodoxy in faith and to detect Muslims and Jews who hate Christians and to lead them out of Christian territories. by that way, Inquisition protected freedom from sharia and from jewish dominion and their xenophoby.

After the apparition of protestantism, Inquisition moved to persecute protestantants in Spain and all the Spanish Empire. With the aparition of Freemasons the flag of freedom was taken against Inquisition, and against Papacy and Catholic Kings. The promess was to achieve freedom by secular powers and free of the ""opression"" of any religion.

The results now are quite visible, Europe is flooded with muslims and schismatics, The most advanced nation in """freedom""" issues, Holand, is the most muslim country in Europe. Its apostasy has no limit, persuing freedom from Saint Peter's See, they are now facing the threat of Islamization.

Do we need a new Inquisition?, Can we leave the fate of our nations in the hands of Freemason ideals?

 

[someguy14]

1 Timothy 6:10
For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erredhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/1-timothy/6-10.html#fn-descriptionAnchor-a from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

1 Timothy 6:5
Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Are Christians currently engaged in Jihad?

.

No, we don't call it a Jihad. We call it a Crusade, and yes there are Christians currently engaged on a Crusade to dominate, overthrow, and establish a right-wing fascist theocracy.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[HBGary]

You're right. Jihad is a holy war is a jihad. I suppose you could say 'crusade'.

Crusade is the same thing. There is a holy war being waged in the minds of the religious soldiers on both sides. It is expected that each side believes they are in the right.

 

[PHenry42]

Exactly ... people like R. James Woolsey, former director of Central Intelligence.

Tell me, how many academic degrees does Robert Spencer have in fields like Islamic Studies, Islamic Theology or Islamic History? How many peer-reviewed papers has he been able to publish in academic journals?

 

[PHenry42]

A counterexample would be an example showing how what I've said about Islam isn't true. You're talking about a different subject.

Okay, call it reductio ad absurdum instead. I presumed your methodology and demonstrated how it leads to a conclusion you would hardly support. Thus implying that your methodology is bogus.

True enough, (since you used the word "if") but completely irrelevant. Whether my methodology damns my own religion and whether it is valid are two different questions. Unless... maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Maybe you're not disputing the truth of what I've said, but merely suggesting that I shouldn't be saying it. If so, duly noted, but then my point still stands.

I'm disputing your assertion that history can be used just like that to discern the "inherent, true" nature of a religion, since such a thing is conceptually meaningless. And I assert that if it can, like you imply, it would condemn Christianity, to paraphrase Voltaire, to be the most atrocious, most absurd, and most silly religion ever