Why do Leftists/Liberals support Muslims and not Christians?

[tulc]

Duh, everyone knows that. I didn't say it was a bad proverb.



Care to Google how many Christian clergy were imprisoned, tortured and killed by Communists worldwide since 1917?

Not even, I'm well aware of them, I've been praying and letter writing in support of them for many years now. It's the fact that while the Church was protesting the communist oppressions many of them were conspicuous in their silence over how bloody our "friends" hands were.
tulc(and not everyone knows that)

 

[Nathan Poe]

Nathan Poe,
Apart from having no idea what your point is, just to correct you during the disputes some of Mohammed’s followers were attacked.

So those military style campaigns they carried out proved to be both prudent and useful.

 

[Verv]

it's actually quite simple -- if you spend decades kicking a dog, who's to blame when it turns around and bites you?

How did we kick it any more than we kicked, say, the Japanese?

In fact, we had given all of those nations their sovereignty and, in good old American tradition, we had merely hoped for them to trade with us and not be Communist.

Heck, Americans were happy to sit around while the Taliban executed women for showing too much of their arms.

Where is the kicking, Nathan?

 

[Nathan Poe]

How did we kick it any more than we kicked, say, the Japanese?

Ironically enough, if because we kicked them less that caused the problem. After nuking Japan -- twice -- and rebuilding them from the ground up, we defanged their army and re-wrote their laws to the point where they were neither willing nor able to cause the US much grief.

Machiavelli once pointed out that both men and nations are more likely to avenge small injuries than big ones. The Romans didn't have much trouble with Carthage after burning it to the ground, did they?

Or in simpler terms -- Kick a dog and he'll bite. Shoot a dog, and he'll behave.

In fact, we had given all of those nations their sovereignty and, in good old American tradition, we had merely hoped for them to trade with us and not be Communist.

We did more than hope -- we toppled their governments and put one wacko in charge aftyer another until one came along that rolled over and played dead for us -- for a while, anyway.

If you had a history of foreign powers playing musical chairs with your government for their own profit, you might be a little miffed.

And why weren't they sovreign before? You can understand why they're somewhat distrustful of western nations -- kind of like being sold a wheelchair by the man who broke both your legs.

Heck, Americans were happy to sit around while the Taliban executed women for showing too much of their arms.

And we still are happy to sit around and do nothing -- the only outrage that ever came of it was manufactured by the administration that was looking for an excuse to invade.

Where is the kicking, Nathan?

Did you ever stop to ask how those borders in the middle east were formed in the first place? Wasn't made by them.

And then there's Israel -- Heh... don't even get started with what happens when foreign nations start giving away your land.

So yeah, it's kind of hard to jump onto the whole "Islam is a threat to the world and must be dealt with" bandwagon.

 

[Penumbra]

I don't like most forms of Islam just as I don't like most forms of Christianity. It has to do with similar reasons in the realms logic and ethics, or lackthereof in my opinion in many cases. I'm an equal opportunity critic.

-Lyn

 

[tanzanos]

.....

 

[Phinehas2]

tanzanos,

Then they are in direct violation of Jesus' commands:

No they aren’t, you don’t understand Christianity. The remarks are being made to those who followed the OT law. Jesus fulfils the law and prophets. Indeed to highlighted that Jesus doesn’t abolish any of the law and prophets but failed to highlight that he fulfils. There is a new covenant in Christ.
So for example…
Romans 7:6 “But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.”

 

[tanzanos]

.......

 

[Phinehas2]

tanzanos,

Before the Nicene creed; The proto-Christians did not believe in Christ as God. The notion of the trinity was fabricated at the Nicene synod 300 years after the death of Christ. Islam is more in line with early Christianity.

Atheists actually believe in God, they are just in the stage before their rebellious spirit is broken and the believe. The Nicene creed is based on what the first disciples taught by Christ, heard saw and believed. Read the CF Nicene Creed statement of faith, its quite obvious from the NT writers, including original disciples taught by Christ that God is manifest as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Now the thread asks why do leftist/liberals support Muslims rather than Christians and you seem to be demonstrating that as presented with the difference between Islam and Christianity you have chosen to argue about Christianity.

 

[QuakerOats]

So obviously not, if God carries out the violence then leave it to God, Jesus tells His disciples not to use the sword or violence and didn’t.
Mohammed isnt Allah, Jesus Christ is God. Do you not understand core Christian values?

I understand the Trinitarian view perfectly well, thank you. The point I had been trying to make was simply that accusing Islam of condoning violence, whether by Muhammad or by Allah, is something I find to be entirely hypocritical of those following another religion, in this case Christianity, whose God can also be shown to be condoning of violence, and yes, even in spite of Jesus. This all assumes of course that one views the bible literally, and accepts each event as it's supposed to have happened.

 

[Phinehas2]

QuakerOats,

I understand the Trinitarian view perfectly well, thank you. The point I had been trying to make was simply that accusing Islam of condoning violence, whether by Muhammad or by Allah, is something I find to be entirely hypocritical of those following another religion, in this case Christianity, whose God can also be shown to be condoning of violence, and yes, even in spite of Jesus. This all assumes of course that one views the bible literally, and accepts each event as it's supposed to have happened.

But I wasn’t talking about whether Allah and God both commit what you call violence, I was referring to the followers, the followers of Allah through Mohammed’s teaching and the followers of Jesus Christ through His teaching. Mohammed and his followers committed violence, the followers of Jesus were taught not to and in the only incident, Jesus healed the man
That is the difference I am asking you to take on board and address.

 

[QuakerOats]

But I wasn’t talking about whether Allah and God both commit what you call violence, I was referring to the followers, the followers of Allah through Mohammed’s teaching and the followers of Jesus Christ through His teaching. Mohammed and his followers committed violence, the followers of Jesus were taught not to and in the only incident, Jesus healed the man
That is the difference I am asking you to take on board and address.

I acknowledge that Jesus' teachings are grounded more in non-violence. It's the reason I personally resonate more with Christianity than with Islam. Muhammad's teachings and world-view are quite obviously more similar to those found in the Old Testament bible. He believed in picking up a sword to fight in battle. Is this bad? It wouldn't be my first choice, and perhaps it wouldn't be Jesus' either, but other prophets and major religious figures have done so, therefore he isn't alone in his thinking. Does this make Jesus superior? That's really a matter of personal quiery. I choose instead to remember that just like the in the OT, even when entangled in battle, Muhammad too believed in the Golden Rule et al (can be found in the Qur'an and the Hadith both). Does the fact that some of his followers do not do the same reflect badly on Muhammad, or mean that he was a terrible prophet? Well, one could ask the same of Jesus, as we know that Christians don't always 'fall in line' either.

 

[tanzanos]

........

 

[quatona]

Atheists actually believe in God,

...and theists actually don´t believe in God.

 

[tanzanos]

.........

 

[tanzanos]

......

 

[Phinehas2]

QuakerOats,

I acknowledge that Jesus' teachings are grounded more in non-violence.

No I don’t think you do, to say ‘more’ in non-violence suggests His teachings did include some. Can you show where. Assuming you can’t, Jesus Christ’s teachings are grounded in non-violence, as opposed to Mohammed’s.

He believed in picking up a sword to fight in battle. Is this bad?

For faith in Christ, yes this is bad.
As to other prophets and religious figures, do you believe they can give eternal life, or eternal life more than Jesus?

Muhammad too believed in the Golden Rule et al (can be found in the Qur'an and the Hadith both).

To say Muhammed believed ‘too’ implies as well as Jesus Christ, there is no golden rule specified by Jesus Christ. According to Jesus Christ’s teaching, to love ones neighbour is subject to loving God the Father, which Islam doesn’t have. Jesus taught to obey all He taught, and for His disciples to love each other a sHe taught so the world would know who His disciples are.

Does the fact that some of his followers do not do the same reflect badly on Muhammad, or mean that he was a terrible prophet? Well, one could ask the same of Jesus, as we know that Christians don't always 'fall in line' either.

Again you are looking at those who claim to be followers rather than who they follow, which should show who the followers really are and really aren’t. That’s not the difference I am asking you to take on board and address.

 

[Eudaimonist]

tanzanos,
Atheists actually believe in God, they are just in the stage before their rebellious spirit is broken and the believe.

No, the rebellious people are theists -- Christians in denial -- since one can only rebel against what one believes.

The atheists are the people who aren't rebellious. They simply don't believe.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Phinehas2]

tanzanos,

You know me better than I do??? I can assure you that the very notion of any deity goes against all my beliefs.

Well it’s a deal as long as don’t try and tell Christians what their beliefs are either.

There were many gospels that were deemed unacceptable by the synod. It was people who decided what is what. People who did not even know Jesus. People who lived 300 years after the death of Jesus. My money is on the first non Trinitarian Christians.

No, what we have as Christianity is what the Christian churches decided to keep as authentic, so whether you think Christianity is false doesn’t change what Christianity actually is.
But the NT books that were included in the Christian Bibles we have today were written in the first century, we have them referred to and quoted from, and NOT 300 years after. I keep hearing this idea, its historically inaccurate.

You have totally disregarded my post#106

No I haven’t, I have directly addressed your post #106 in my post #107.

Christians live according to the new covenant in Christ and are not held accountable to the OT law.

 

[Phinehas2]

tanzanos,

For your information:
ALLAH means GOD in ARABIC.

Already know that and it has already been discussed. Allah is the word for god in Arabic. It doesn’t mean anything called allah god is God.

This is the same God of Abraham and Moses as the one you worship.

The Quran and the Bible show this not to be the case. In fact the superseded Mecca revelation does say this..
Our Illah and your Illah is One. – Surah 29:46

Which is another example of favouring Muslims rather than Christians.

Besides God does not require the 5 pillars of Islam as worship that Allah requires, so you cant say the Christian worships the same as the Muslim either.

The Quraan contains both the OT and the NT with the exception of the trinity and the resurrection.

The Quran doesn’t contain any such thing, even the accounts of the people are corrupted in the Quran.

In Islam; Jesus is highly regarded as a Prophet.

But Jesus Christ is the Son of God as well which is somewhat more significant.

Hitler was a follower of Jesus; do you condone his actions? Fred Phelps is a Christian; Do you condone his hate preaching?

Hitler wasn’t a follower of Jesus, he didn’t follow His teachings, he just claimed to. Fred Phelps isnt following Jesus Christ when he suggest God hates people, in Christ there is no condemnation and God so loved the world that He gave the Son.

Tanzanos, your arguments are actually very much more in line with Islam and the Quran than Christianity and the Bible. consequently very much at odds with Judaism as well. By examination and demonstration you are more supportive of Muslims rather than Christians.