Jesus speaks. Are you listening?

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

depends upon how you define terror. obama is a christian (though i guess there are still some who don't believe that) and he has unleashed terror on many people since taking office. of course he doesn't say he's carrying out these attacks in the name of christianity, he claims we have to do this in the name of freedom. in your mind there is a sizable portion of muslim terrorists; in my mind there is a sizable portion of muslim AND christian terrorists.

drones

if a muslim had killed Americans via drones on this scale in the u.s. and claimed to have done this in the name of 'freedom' - you'd call them a terrorist.

Ok both Christian and Islam religions support terrorism. I can live with that. So you are agreeing that more than just a tiny isolated few Muslims support Terror and the ritual abuse of woman. ?

I would add that if a suicide bomber really wanted to gain sympathy for Islamic plights, light themselves on fire or starve themselves to death, if they want to die for Allah. World Wide sympathy would pour in, but they are never going to get sympathy when they fly planes into buildings targeting 1000's of civilians on purpose. Also hard to fell sorry for Syrian's when they park Rocket Launchers next to Hospitals knowing what is coming.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

I am with you on the Catholic church thing. They got by with a cover up that went straight to the top in my opinion.

My thing with Islam is this, Usually when there is an Incident like 9-11, the Cole etc, the people doing it make it widly known they are doing in the name of Islam or in some varied support there of. Usually when some American, like the School Shooting, does something it is a random act by an individual that has no ties to any world wide religious networks.

Are there good decent Muslims who want world peace and love. Of course. I think you are one of them. However there is a sizable portion of people that follow Islam who support Terror. What percent I do not know, but it is more than just an isolated handful as many of you assert.. I am deeply sorry if that fact makes you uncomfortable , but a fact it is. It is a fact my ancestors held people in bondage and denied them their rights for many years after that. I wish I could change that but can't.

Look at all the Islamic countries that treat women like cattle, and deny them equal rights. Surely you will not argue that point.

Now you know I can aruge any point if I can get the right/logical angle on it

That's because when you look at any of those shooting or killings, we don't probe into what the root is, we just say they're crazy and move on. If a muslim does it, the entire religion is under question. You see it on here and everywhere, instead of reading the Qu'ran and trying to gain an understanding of it, they look for the more extreme passages and use that to blast the religion. The Bible has some intense verses as well, but no one will use those as a reference point. We are paying for every single radical thing Al Queda does, but look at history. Look at the atrocities done in the name of Chirstianity, the KKK founding principles are rooted in it, any hate group swears by it, and yet it still remains for the most part untouched. If you say you're a Christian, you won't get a second look, try saying you're a Muslim.

I don't agree with women being treated that way, but remember, in the Bible it is written that women are second to men. Here in the USA, we stopped that a long time ago.

[decocker 7,198]

Ok both Christian and Islam religions support terrorism. I can live with that. So you are agreeing that more than just a tiny isolated few Muslims support Terror and the ritual abuse of woman. ?

as long as you give proper credit to christians who support terror and abuse women. people kill and strike the fear of god into innocents from both sides of the fence. religion only fuels the flame.

from reading your posts, you consider terror in the post 9-11 tradition which excludes our own government from being defined as such. i don't buy that for a second. i can't imagine what it's like to live in a country where there is a constant threat of drone attack coming from a huge military powerhouse of country that also refuses to acknowledge the severity of it's own terrorist action.

i would suggest the main manipulator of terror - in this country - is the media.

[sandinista! 1,816]

hmm.

I recently published an article entitled Gallup Poll: Jews and Christians Way More Likely than Muslims to Justify Killing Civilians. The poll found that Muslim-Americans (21%) were far less likely than their fellow Jewish (52%) and Christian (58%) countrymen to think it is sometimes justifiable to target and kill civilians. (For the record, these numbers were 64% in Mormons and 43% in people with no religion/atheists/agnostics.)

I agree that x% is a lot. Even the 21% of Muslim-Americans who think it is sometimes justifiable to target and kill civilians is unacceptably high. Yet, the point that Islamophobes intentionally fail to mention is that this number is less–far less in this case–than the general public (including Jews and Christians). So while it’s absolutely atrocious that 21% of Muslim-Americans would think so, more than twice that percentage of Jewish- and Christian-Americans think so! This fact “steals their (the Islamophobes’) thunder,” so to speak.

What we have then is:

Percentage of people who said it is sometimes justifiable to target and kill civilians:

Mormon-Americans 64%

Christian-Americans 58%

Jewish-Americans 52%

Israeli Jews 52%

Palestinians* 51%

No religion/Atheists/Agnostics (U.S.A.) 43%

Nigerians* 43%

Lebanese* 38%

Spanish Muslims 31%

Muslim-Americans 21%

German Muslims 17%

French Muslims 16%

British Muslims 16%

Egyptians* 15%

Indonesians* 13%

Jordanians* 12%

Pakistanis* 5%

Turks* 4%

*refers to Muslims only

Therefore, Muslims in every country are less likely than U.S. Jews and Christians (and Israeli Jews) to believe that it is sometimes justified to target and kill civilians.

* * * * *

The only worthwhile conclusion that we can draw from all this is that an unacceptable number of people in general–whether they be Muslim, Jewish, Christian, or even atheist/agnostic–think it’s OK to sometimes target and kill civilians. This is a sobering thought, and should remind us that we should all work together to end war and bring peace to this earth. The hateful and violent state of humanity–egged on by Islamophobes like Robert Spencer and LibertyPhile (as well as their counterparts in the Muslim world)–is truly disturbing. Something is truly wrong when so many people–of every faith (as well as those of no faith)–believe it’s sometimes justified to take the life of an innocent human being.

My intention here is not to vilify Jews and Christians (see here). It is only to prevent the line of thinking that has become endemic among us Americans: Those Foreign-Looking Moozlum People Over There are Evil and Wicked, Whereas We White Judeo-Christian People are Good and Holy. Once it is acknowledged that we too have the same problem as they, we can draw not only a more accurate conclusion, but a more sensitive, tolerant, and helpful one.

Of course, it would be worthwhile to consider actual results on the ground: we Americans have (at minimum, using conservative numbers) killed 30 times as many Muslim civilians as Muslims have killed of ours, whereas Israelis have killed many-fold the number of civilians as Palestinians have killed of theirs. Clearly, what people and states do is far more relevant than what they merely believe. surveys show...

[hikergirl 277]

The largest petition ever on the White House Petitions site

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2253374/White-House-petition-label-Westboro-Baptist-Church-hate-group-gathers-nearly-250-000-signatures--making-largest-history.html

[rlogan 2,036]

I am with you on the Catholic church thing. They got by with a cover up that went straight to the top in my opinion.

The Patriot quoted the Pliny-Trajan correspondence in 112 CE and the important thing about it is that Pliny undertook an extensive investigation of Christianity at the time because it was a secret society and therefore illegal under the Emperor's edict.

Pliny found not one page of literature - no gospels, no letters, nobody named Paul, no disciples who ever learned at any founder's feet, and no person named Jesus. There was a "Christ" concept but had there been a historical Jesus with disciples and gospels written by eye witnesses, all of this would have been uncovered by Pliny in his investigation. The entire correspondence was not quoted above, but another important observation is that Christianity had only been around for a couple of decades. This makes sense because it does not appear in any of Josephus' works, most notably his entire chapter on Sects of the Jews that was written in the 90's CE. Josephus was the commanding general defending Jerusalem against the Roman Seige in 70 CE so he is obviously the most important author to have written on this subject, and why it was so important to the Christina forgery machine of the 300's to insert the ludicrous passage (Testimonium Flavianum) into Josephus. But by that time they were so heady from the power granted to them by the Emperor it was spectacularly overdone as to be an obvius forgery on a number of grounds. Josephus is the first person to quote his own forgery, and the entire purpose is to "prove" that there was actually a historical Jesus. Without one there could be no passing of authority from Jesus to Peter (the Rock the Church was to be founded on) and then the succession of Popes. This is the entire basis for the Catholic Church's claim to authority over everyone on earth. A forgery, and a really comical one at that.

In the Pliny-Trajan correspondence you'll note that one of the things Christians did was to stop giving over their first fruits, their livestock, money, etc. to the church authorities. Instead they just ate their own bread, drank their own wine, and cooked their animals for their own communal meal. That is why Christianity spread like wildfire. Because what Christ did for them was remove the obligation to give the fruit of their labor to people who were richer and hypocritical tyrants over them. This is a Christianity I can respect and admire. Look how they pledged to be honest in all their affairs. Not like the crooks governing them. These are worthy principles.

Pliny managed to temporarily stamp out the Christian wildfire but ultimately these principles were too powerful to stop. So the Roman authority ended up co-opting it and turning it to its own ends instead of fighting in vain. This was the genius of Emperor Constantine, and from there all citizens were not just required to be Christians but to register with a parish so that no person was free. This registration was the means by which taxation, military conscription, and government investigations could all be conducted and absolute power over individuals exercised. The tithe system was imposed, so that the poorest of the poor could once again be required to give over what little they had to the pedophiles and hypocrites in charge of the church. So by that time Christianity had been turned into the very thing it had originally revolted against.

[Darnell 8,479]

I DO SO MISS The Holy Roman Empire.

[james&olya 1,121]

depends upon how you define terror. obama is a christian (though i guess there are still some who don't believe that) and he has unleashed terror on many people since taking office. of course he doesn't say he's carrying out these attacks in the name of christianity, he claims we have to do this in the name of freedom. in your mind there is a sizable portion of muslim terrorists; in my mind there is a sizable portion of muslim AND christian terrorists.

drones

if a muslim had killed americans via drones on this scale in the u.s. and claimed to have done this in the name of 'freedom' - you'd call them a terrorist.

War is hell! While I have been uncomfortable with the terminology of our "war on terror", we are certainly at war. This war has been going on since the 9-11 attacks. Who is the enemy? It is difficult when you face stateless terrorists. Perhaps we should have declared war on Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan and fought them till their unconditional surrender. Would fewer innocents have died that way? Probably many more would have died. How do you propose we should conduct this war?

[james&olya 1,121]

as long as you give proper credit to christians who support terror and abuse women. people kill and strike the fear of god into innocents from both sides of the fence. religion only fuels the flame.

from reading your posts, you consider terror in the post 9-11 tradition which excludes our own government from being defined as such. i don't buy that for a second. i can't imagine what it's like to live in a country where there is a constant threat of drone attack coming from a huge military powerhouse of country that also refuses to acknowledge the severity of it's own terrorist action.

i would suggest the main manipulator of terror - in this country - is the media.

I hate seeing innocents die. But it is a gross distortion of logic to call our government terrorist for its use of drone strikes. It is terrorism only if the choice of target is to instill terror in a population. I don't believe for one second that Bush or Obama did that! In war innocents suffer and die! War is hell but sometimes a country is left with no real option.

[Jericho 28]

If that is what you think Jesus speaks to you, then I'm sorry. God bless you my son, and may he bless you!

[decocker 7,198]

I hate seeing innocents die. But it is a gross distortion of logic to call our government terrorist for its use of drone strikes. It is terrorism only if the choice of target is to instill terror in a population. I don't believe for one second that Bush or Obama did that! In war innocents suffer and die! War is hell but sometimes a country is left with no real option.

oh no, not just drone strikes..

terrorism has no legitimate legal definition, while it's nice to think that our government does not terrorize a population because it wasn't their intention to scare everybody affected, terror is still the result. the war on terror is the same as the war on drugs, it succeeds only in creating more terrorists/drug addicts. no real option? the war on terror is nothing more than a knee jerk reaction to a very complicated event. i don't see myself ever excusing our government for it's irresponsible and constant call to war, just like i can't excuse myself for my tax contribution to these efforts. i refuse to believe that war is ever the only option, after all - we did not declare war on ourselves after timothy mcveigh. after everything that has happened in the past 15 years, what do we have to show for our efforts? guantanamo? NDAA? state police drone usage? taking our shoes off for tsa and no makeup on flights? an ineffective war breeds ineffective restraints, go figure.

How do you propose we should conduct this war?

i don't propose we conduct it at all.

[Brother Hesekiel 2,236]

No, he didn't. In the 4th century the bishop Eusebius, at the behest of Emperor Constantine, forged a ridiculous passage into Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews. That was necessary in order to use the police power of the Roman State to impose a religious tyranny over the people as a means of controlling the population. Different factions had very different beliefs about the nature of Christ, (God, Spirit, Man) and this was resolved at the Council of Nicea in 325 CE with Constantine presiding and Bishop Eusebius serving as his right hand man. They couldn't agree so they made him all three, which is called the Trinity or the Nicene Creed. The Church at Rome was using the forged history to lay claim to linear descent from Jesus to Peter to the first four nonexistent Popes.

There is a long history of forgery in Christianity, the most obscene of which is probably the "Donation of Constantine". The ones most interesting to me are the co-option of Marcion's forged letters of Paul by the protocatholics in Rome. They could not defeat the Marcionites, so they co-opted their literature (letters of the legendary Paul) and edited them sufficient to their own ends.

There are no contemporary references. You'd be able to name them if there were. In Josephus' works there are on the order of 26 persons named Jesus, including the son of a high priest, a leader of rebels who fought the Romans, and my favorite who was a bit of a loon that was indeed tortured by Pilate. He died in the Battle of Jerusalem, hit by a boulder thrown my a Roman Seige engine saying "Woe is Israel". But nobody even remotely resembling the Biblical Jesus.

When I studied philosophy as an undergraduate, including the philosophy of religion, we revisited this issue in detail, but while I always had a very strong personal interest in this subject, I don't think I could have recalled this nearly as well. I lift my imaginary hat in respect to your knowledge.