Questions for Muslims

[Zoness]

Well, the West is certainly not innocent; not even considering the aerial bombings I think its safe to assume that it has been involved in terrorism itself. I'd hesitate to say any religion in particular caused it. Mostly political and corporate motivations.

 

[smaneck]

Well, the West is certainly not innocent; not even considering the aerial bombings I think its safe to assume that it has been involved in terrorism itself. I'd hesitate to say any religion in particular caused it. Mostly political and corporate motivations.

It has indeed and for quite some time. For instance, after the bombing of the Marine base in Lebanon the CIA secretly had a Hizbullah mosque bombed during the Friday Service.

 

[wn123455]

Well, the West is certainly not innocent; not even considering the aerial bombings I think its safe to assume that it has been involved in terrorism itself. I'd hesitate to say any religion in particular caused it. Mostly political and corporate motivations.

Religion can be mixed with politics to justify imperialism, colonialism and occupation.

Islam Watch - "Colonialism: What about Reparations from Muslims?" by Fjordman

 

[Zoness]

Religion can be mixed with politics to justify imperialism, colonialism and occupation.

Islam Watch - "Colonialism: What about Reparations from Muslims?" by Fjordman

Weird, I noticed you didn't post any links about Christian imperialism.

 

[ContraMundum]

The Reformation did not make Christianity less violent, in fact it introduced the most religiously violent century Christendom had ever seen. It was the Enlightenment which reduced religious violence by making people less religious.

Gosh that's a weird version of it!

 

[smaneck]

Religion can be mixed with politics to justify imperialism, colonialism and occupation.

Of course, and both Christianity and Islam have done their share of this. It is just that Muslims have been the most recent victims of it.

 

[smaneck]

Gosh that's a weird version of it!

It is the historical version of it. The Wars of Religion which followed the Reformation resulted in the death of about 11 million people.

 

[ContraMundum]

It is the historical version of it. The Wars of Religion which followed the Reformation resulted in the death of about 11 million people.

...but the history didn't end there. The result of those wars (ending the old system) has given us a less political and more tolerant Church. If you want to just focus on the wars, then you're not telling the whole story.

..and claiming peace came as a result of the Enlightenment and not because of the Reformation is not really bringing anything fruitful into the discussion, as you cannot really separate a society from its religion in order to win a political point centuries later.

Always comes down to politics on this forum...always.

 

[smaneck]

...but the history didn't end there. The result of those wars (ending the old system) has given us a less political and more tolerant Church. If you want to just focus on the wars, then you're not telling the whole story.

It gave us a more tolerant West. I would argue that tolerance doesn't enter into the church until the church has to come to terms with the Enlightenment. And it is the Enlightenment, an explicitly anti-Christian movement which tells the rest of the story.

..and claiming peace came as a result of the Enlightenment and not because of the Reformation is not really bringing anything fruitful into the discussion, as you cannot really separate a society from its religion in order to win a political point centuries later.

Oh, indeed it does. You can rail against politics all you want, but a society can not be separated from its politics anymore than it can be separated from its religion. And the Enlightenment was not simply a political movement. It had its spiritual dimension, it just wasn't Christian.

 

[Optimus Fortis]

Don't take the bait to blame Muslims just yet.

When scions of the celebrity cult talk to the profane about the latest atrocity in an oil rich country, we should read more into things.

AFRICOM

Boko Haram: US AFRICOM’S Latest False Flag Franchise

 

[smaneck]

I'm not sure what to make of this. One thing I do know is that Boko Haram does not mean "everything is forbidden" it literally means "Books are forbidden." It sounds a bit like conspiracy theories, but it is not beyond the CIA to do things like this. Still, I'd want more evidence.

Don't take the bait to blame Muslims just yet.

When scions of the celebrity cult talk to the profane about the latest atrocity in an oil rich country, we should read more into things.

AFRICOM

Boko Haram: US AFRICOM’S Latest False Flag Franchise

 

[Optimus Fortis]

I'm not sure what to make of this. One thing I do know is that Boko Haram does not mean "everything is forbidden" it literally means "Books are forbidden." It sounds a bit like conspiracy theories, but it is not beyond the CIA to do things like this. Still, I'd want more evidence.

By knowing the difference between the literal meaning of Boko Haram and the media's spin, you will at least judge the celebrity cult's latest outrage critically.

Is Boko Haram An “Intelligence Asset”? Terror Attack in Nigeria Opens Door to Africom

Is Boko Haram An “Intelligence Asset”? Terror Attack in Nigeria Opens Door to Africom | Global Research

 

[ContraMundum]

It gave us a more tolerant West. I would argue that tolerance doesn't enter into the church until the church has to come to terms with the Enlightenment. And it is the Enlightenment, an explicitly anti-Christian movement which tells the rest of the story.

Oh, indeed it does. You can rail against politics all you want, but a society can not be separated from its politics anymore than it can be separated from its religion. And the Enlightenment was not simply a political movement. It had its spiritual dimension, it just wasn't Christian.

OK then...so anything good has to be non-Christian. Christian thinkers of the Enlightenment were actually something else.

Gotcha.

Disengenous much?

 

[smaneck]

OK then...so anything good has to be non-Christian. Christian thinkers of the Enlightenment were actually something else.

Gotcha.

Disengenous much?

Oh, there were lots of good things that came out of Christianity. Tolerance simply wasn't one of them. As for Christian thinkers of the Enlightenment, I can't think of a single one that could be considered orthodox, can you?
John Locke was probably the most "Christian" but his theology pretty much excluded Original Sin.

 

[ContraMundum]

Oh, there were lots of good things that came out of Christianity. Tolerance simply wasn't one of them.

Hyperbole?

As for Christian thinkers of the Enlightenment, I can't think of a single one that could be considered orthodox, can you?

I'm not sure I would even want to go there with you. We wouldn't agree on the colour green to begin with, let alone how broad or narrow orthodoxy is.

Besides...you're not even a Christian. What gives you a say in this and why would it concern you? Mere book knowledge makes one a Christian or not?

John Locke was probably the most "Christian" but his theology pretty much excluded Original Sin.

...probably half of the world's Christians have a similar idea.

 

[smaneck]

Hyperbole?

Not hardly.

I'm not sure I would even want to go there with you. We wouldn't agree on the colour green to begin with, let alone how broad or narrow orthodoxy is.

Let's agree that belief in the Nicene Creed is usually what defines orthodoxy in Christianity.

Besides...you're not even a Christian. What gives you a say in this and why would it concern you? Mere book knowledge makes one a Christian or not?

I was a Christian once upon a time. What's orthodox or not does not particularly concern me, but it is a matter of historical fact that the Enlightenment was largely an anti-Christian movement. One only needs to read Thomas Paine's Age of Reason, or Diderot's Encyclopedia to figure that out.

...probably half of the world's Christians have a similar idea.

Not back then and certainly not in Europe.

 

[ContraMundum]

Let's agree that belief in the Nicene Creed is usually what defines orthodoxy in Christianity.

...which says nothing of original sin.

I was a Christian once upon a time.

Lots of people say that....never met one that could prove it to me.

Not back then and certainly not in Europe.

So, Eastern Orthodox are not in Europe now?

If I gave you a shovel you could dig your hole quicker.

 

[Huntun]

Lots of people say that....never met one that could prove it to me.

What would you accept as proof or do you just reject the idea of "former Christian" out of hand on theological grounds?

I used to believe in God, trust that Christ saved me from my sins, believed I had a personal relation with him,considered myself Christian, went to church, prayed, studied the Bible and all that jazz for example. My Church also accepted me as a Christian and treated me as such by giving me accesses to the sacraments and such. For that reason I say I used to be a Christian. I don't see why saying that would be problematic or even a particularly suspicious statement . Lots of people are practicing Christian and then move on to something else.

Christians seem to be the people who say things like that too. I never see people saying there is no such thing as an ex-Buddhist or ex-shintoist or whatnot.

 

[ContraMundum]

What would you accept as proof or do you just reject the idea of "former Christian" out of hand on theological grounds?

I used to believe in God, trust that Christ saved me from my sins, believed I had a personal relation with him,considered myself Christian, went to church, prayed, studied the Bible and all that jazz for example. My Church also accepted me as a Christian and treated me as such by giving me accesses to the sacraments and such. For that reason I say I used to be a Christian. I don't see why saying that would be problematic or even a particularly suspicious statement . Lots of people are practicing Christian and then move on to something else.

Christians seem to be the people who say things like that too. I never see people saying there is no such thing as an ex-Buddhist or ex-shintoist or whatnot.

Interesting, but I make it a habit of not judging such a person thing via an internet testimony. People I've had to deal with professionally who make the claim that they were once Christian have always had something amiss and something else going on behind the words. But, to be fair, the NT does (in my understanding) teach that apostasy is possible. I have met people who are apostate in the minds of some Christians and even in their own estimation but there's always something else doing on when we look at it deeper. I'm just saying that I've never met a person with a convincing testimony of faith that is now an atheist or whatever...and I've talked to quite a few. But I have to accept that apostasy is taught in the NT, so I may yet meet one.

 

[LoAmmi]

Interesting, but I make it a habit of not judging such a person thing via an internet testimony. People I've had to deal with professionally who make the claim that they were once Christian have always had something amiss and something else going on behind the words. But, to be fair, the NT does (in my understanding) teach that apostasy is possible. I have met people who are apostate in the minds of some Christians and even in their own estimation but there's always something else doing on when we look at it deeper. I'm just saying that I've never met a person with a convincing testimony of faith that is now an atheist or whatever...and I've talked to quite a few. But I have to accept that apostasy is taught in the NT, so I may yet meet one.

What is your qualification for someone being a former Christian?