The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation

In the discussion "Are Buddhists Useless in the Fight Against Islam", Brother Mark said

it would be a serious mistake if we should "fall a sleep" on the Christians as well. The atrocity's of Christianity historically, make what Islam as done not much more than a drop in the bucket.Yes I know,not for a while, right? That's nice, Islam had it's relatively "quiet" period also between what is termed it's second and third jihad.

http://4freedoms.ning.com/xn/detail/3766518:Comment:103151

As evidence of this, Brother Mark gave this link: http://notachristian.org/christianatrocities.html

I think this is a gross mis-representation of christianity and islam.  I'm not a christian, and I don't know much about the history of the church.  Nevertheless, given some knowledge of the Koran and the history of jihad, I think it is obvious that the above claim diminishes the violent aggression of islam, and greatly exaggerates the violence of christianity.

The page lists many "Christian atrocities"and jumbles up the dates, and provides no context. As such, I think it is a very dubious activity.

  • As soon as Christianity was legal (315), more and more pagan temples were destroyed by Christian mob. Pagan priests were killed.
  • First Crusade 1095 on command of pope Urban II. [WW11-41]
  • (1229) the Inquisition was founded 1232 to search and destroy surviving/hiding heretics. Last Cathars burned at the stake 1324. [WW183] *Estimated one million victims (cathar heresy alone), [WW183]
  • Already in the 4th and 5th centuries synagogues were burned by Christians. Number of Jews slain unknown.
  • Beginning with Columbus (a former slave trader and would-be Holy Crusader) the conquest of the New World began, as usual understood as a means to propagate Christianity.
  • Catholic extermination camps Surpisingly few know that Nazi extermination camps in World War II were by no means the only ones in Europe at the time. In the years 1942-1943 also in Croatia
  • Rwanda Massacres In 1994 in the small african country of Rwanda in just a few months several hundred thousand civilians were butchered, apparently a conflict of the Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups.

We can see that the events go from around the time that Emperor Constantine made christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, right up to the Rwandan genocide.

What is missing from this history is context.  Much of the context is provided by Fregosi's book Jihad in the Westhttp://4freedoms.ning.com/group/books/forum/topics/jihad-in-the-wes...

In the 70 years following the death of Mohammed (632 AD), muslim armies had attacked and/or taken Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Persia, Cyprus, Rhodes, Crete, Lebanon, Constantinople, Spain.  (I know that the country names were not in existence then, but the same cities/geographies that exist now were attacked then). 

The Holy Roman Empire was fully aware of what it was facing in terms of a violent assault on it from a competing religious empire. It took almost 400 years for Pope Urban II to begin the Crusades. Thus that famously violent episode in christian history was in fact a much belated response to violent incursions into christian territory.

None of that is to dismiss the violence of the Crusades (nor attacks on non-muslims).  However, it is the causal context of the violence.  Without that violent response, what would have stopped islam from sweeping into Europe (as it had tried in France, less than 100 years after the death of Mohammed.

Christianity existed before it's incorporation into the Roman Empire. Whether or not it could have survived against islam without that incorporation is debatable. It is interesting that the list of "Christian atrocities" only begins with the official incorporation of christianity into the Roman Empire.  Why are there no stories of mass murder, genocide, executions for heresy, etc. in the 300 years before that incorporation?  Surely if such atrocities were essential to christianity as a doctrine, we would have seen them in those first 300 years.  After all, in the first 300 years of islam, islamic armies had invaded and dominated many countries, butchering and taking men, women and children as slaves.  Where were the christian armies that did that in those 300 years before incorporation into the Roman Empire?  Christ died for others; others were killed for Mohammed.

War, slavery and murder are essential to islam.  Ibn Ishaq's biography of Mohammed was proudly known by muslims as The Book of Battles, http://4freedoms.ning.com/xn/detail/3766518:Comment:100894   Mohammed is recorded as a slave trader and mass murderer, and muslims are supposed to emulate his example.  The 300 years following his death proved that they did precisely that.  Unless someone has evidence to the contrary, it would seem that in the 300 years after the death of Jesus, christians 

Fundamentalist christians could reasonably argue that they must be pacifists if opposed.  Fundamentalist muslims could reasonably argue that they must be killers and slave-mongers if opposed.

The page cited by Brother Mark refers to cases where up to 1 million people were killed in specific events, by the edict of those claiming to follow christianity.  Yet clearly they had usurped christianity, and their actions were going against the teachings of Jesus.  The muslim conquest of India is considered the greatest genocide in history. http://www.voi.org/books/negaind/ch2.htm  Whilst the rulers of christian empires went against christianity in order to massacre and dominate, muslim rulers who did not massacre and dominate were going against islamic theology and hundreds of years of consistent tradition and history.

It is also very likely that christianity acquired the belief that slave-trading was permissible from corruption from islam. Whilst the Roman Empire had slaves (as did many other civilisatons), slavery died out in christian europe (one could argue that there was some form of it in serfdom).  But slavery never died out under islam, because Mohammed himself took slaves and traded in them.  The slave trade arose again in Europe in Portugal, a country that had been islamised for hundreds of years. I would need to do more research to be able to be totally convinced of this argument concerning the introduction of slavery into christian europe from islamic contamination.

According to one analyst, 270 million people were killed by islam throughout history. http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=297   And if christianity (even as it has been exploited by rulers) was so violent and aggressive, why is it that half of the christian world was lost to islam, and those christian rulers have never used violence to reclaim  those loses (except for Spain & Portugal)?  

And even if the killings in the name of christianity did outnumber those killed in the name of islam, such actions would have been against the teaching of Jesus, whilst they would have been in accordance with the teachings of Mohammed.

The liberal-left academics, politicians and media have been simultaneously subjecting christianity to critical judgement whilst proposing that islam is the religion of peace, it behooves us to speak the truth.  Indeed, in the face of their lies, speaking the truth might not even be enough.  On matter of fact as well as doctrine, it appears that it is islam that is far more murderous than christianity.  Murder in the name of christianity comes from incorporation of christianity into religions of state, and if it hadn't been for those incorporations christianity would probably not have survived the rise of islam.  And the bold writer of that web page would not have been free in a muslim state to decry islam the way he can decry christianity.  

Views: 1360

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Paul, as I said above, the number of civilian deaths caused by the West in Iraq (and Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen etc.) dwarfs the number of people killed on 9/11. My question to you would be, "What's worse killing one civilian, or killing two civilians?" If you agree with me that killing two people is more morally reprehensible than killing one person, than clearly the West is more morally reprehensible than militant Islam, simply because the West kills so many more people. The West can do this because it has a far more advanced and high-tech killing machine.

Now you could say, "Yes, that's true, but Muslim killings are much worse because they are driven by the evil teachings of the the Koran!" But I don't see why the existence of a justifying ideology makes a murder any worse than a murder without such justification. The innocent person is still dead right? And the principles of human rights ensure that all lives have equal value. Western killings of Iraqi civilians may not be justified by a religion, but they are certainly justified by political doctrines (e.g., Neoconservatism). Since that doctrine caused the deaths of so many people, isn't it just as evil as Islam?

In short, it's hard for the West to criticize Islam for its murderous ways when the West itself is killing Muslim civilians on a massive scale.

paul collings said:

John is it the teaching of  christianity killing people in Iraq? is it a crusade launched by the pope, Cathlic or coptic. Is it the christian church  that is killing everone on the command of teachings  of the bible, jesus, god, moses, Who, is ordering the armies into battle, for what reason are wars being fourght??. If its all down to christianity why isn't  the  pope strutting his funky stuff around Helmand provence ordering air strikes. just where are the christian generals demanding death to all muslims, death to all non believers, Where are they? everytime people start saying christianity has been bloodier than any other religion, it seems as though the proof comes from 5000 yr old text that no one acts on. Islam has, since its conception, always demanded death for anything. And as its not possible to change the quran, its hard to now when it will stop. Also its been said that islam had a time when it was quite, (not killing many), thats what it does when its not the dominant force, it waits untill it is the dominant force then it attacks. Its in the teaching, its what it does!!. We get Atheists saying if only nobody believed in god we'd all be better off. Well how successfull has that been, how many have died this centry at the hands of godless societys.

People are generaly better of in western societys, where theres no islam. Now if you equate that to christianity as being inferior to islam than i would be intrested to to know how you arrived at that conclusion.

John,

 

Correct me if you think that I'm wrong here, but....

116 whereas Allah has turned them back (to their former state) because of the evils they have earned?*

Would this not indicate apostate status? What tafsir is this?

Thank you!

Brother Mark:)



John Carlson said:

Mark,

The verse of the Koran you cite refers to the *hypocrites* (in Arabic the munafiqun) - a specific group of people in Arabia at the time of Muhammad. It is written in the context of the wars between the Meccans and the Muslims in Medina. It is violent, but does not prescribe the death penalty for apostates.

The following is the entire context of that section (4:88-91) with the accompanying tafsir:

4:88-91] How is it with you that there are two opinions among you concerning the hypocrites,*116 whereas Allah has turned them back (to their former state) because of the evils they have earned?*117 Do you desire to show guidance to him whom Allah has let go astray? You cannot find a path for him whom Allah has turned away from the right path. They really wish that you should also become disbelievers, as they themselves are so that both may become alike. So you should not take friends from among them unless they migrate in the way of Allah; and if they do not migrate, then seize them wherever you find them and slay*118 them and do not take any of them as friends and helpers. However, those hypocrites are excepted who join a people who are allied to you by a treaty.*119 Likewise, those hypocrites are excepted who come to you and are averse to fighting either against you of against their own people. Had Allah willed, He would have given them power over you and they also would have fought against you; therefore if they leave you alone and desist from fighting against you and make overtures for peace to you, in that case Allah has left you no cause for aggression against them. You will also find another kind of hypocrites, who wish to be at peace with you and also at peace with their own people but who would plunge into mischief, whenever they got an opportunity for it. If such people do not desist from your enmity nor make overtures for peace nor desist from fighting against you, then seize them and slay them wherever you find them, for We have given you a clear authority to fight against them.

Notes:

116This passage deals with the problem of those hypocritical Muslims who had accepted Islam in Makkah and other parts of Arabia but had not emigrated, to Madinah. They lived as before with their people, and took more or less a practical part in all their hostile activities against Islam and the Muslims. They had become a very difficult problem for the Muslims who did not know how to deal with them. Some Muslims were of the opinion that they were after all "Muslim" because they recited the kalimah (the article of the Muslims' Faith), offered the Salat, observed the Fast and recited the Qur'an. Then how could they be dealt with like the disbelievers? Allah in this passage has removed that difference of opinion from among the Muslims and told them how to deal with them.

At this place one should clearly understand why those Muslims who did not emigrate to Madinah were declared to be hypocrites; otherwise one might not be able to interpret correctly this passage and the like passages of the Qur'an. The fact of the matter is that when the Holy Prophet migrated to Madinah and conditions were created there for the fulfillment of the requirements of Islam, a general order was given that all those Muslims who were oppressed in any place and in any tribe or clan and could not freely carry out their Islamic obligations, should migrate to Madinah, "the Abode of Islam." As a result, all those who could emigrate but did not do so because they loved their homes, their relatives and their interests more than Islam, were declared to be hypocrites. Only such of those as were really being prevented by impediments were declared to be helpless in verse 97 of this Surah.

It is obvious that the Muslims living in the "abode of unbelief" may be declared hypocrites for not migrating only if a general invitation is extended to them by the people living in "the Abode of Islam", or at least the doors of" the Abode of Islam" are kept open for them. In such a case all those Muslims who may be doing nothing to change "the abode of unbelief" into "the Abode of Islam", nor emigrate to "the Abode of Islam", even if they could, would be declared hypocrites.

117Allah turned the hypocrites back to their former unbelief because they followed a double-faced policy and were time-servers. As they preferred the life of this world to that of the Hereafter, they had entered the fold of Islam with some mental reservations. They were not prepared to sacrifice those interests which came into conflict with the requirements of the Faith and they did not have that firm belief in the Hereafter which makes one sacrifice with perfect peace of mind this world for the sake of the Next World: It has thus become obvious that the line of demarcation was so clearcut that there ought not to have been two opinions about hypocrisy.

118Here the Muslims have been asked to catch hold of those hypocrites who belonged to the belligerent disbelievers and were actually engaged in hostile activities against the Islamic State.

119The exception is only concerning the first part of the Command. Though the blood of such a hypocrite is lawful, he is not to be pursued and killed, if he has sought asylum in the territory of a non-Muslim State, which is an ally to the Islamic State. This is not because of the sanctity of the blood of the hypocrite but because of the sanctity of the treaty.


Mark said:

 

John,

I just thought that I should perhaps give you a polite heads up to the fact that murdering apostates is actually in the Qur'an at 4:89. 

Have a great day!

 

Brother Mark:)

John Carlson said:

Paul: "The Koran teaches its followers to wage war, the Bible does not."

That's not really true. The Old Testament is full of stories where God tells the Israelites to kill people and wage war. God himself murdered the first born of the Egyptians during passover. What happened to the Jews who worshipped the Golden Calf when Moses was on Sinai? The Lord was so angry he ordered the Israelites to "kill their neighbors, relatives and friends," and the men from the Tribe of Levi followed his orders. They murdered 3,000 of their own people on the spot. That's why Moses appointed the Levites as the priestly tribe. (Exodus 32) Unfortunately, they didn't film this orgy of blood and guts for the Charlton Heston version. It would have been like the Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

Anyway, the idea that the Bible is about love while the Koran is full of warmongering isn't accurate. The worst stuff – like stoning adulterers and murdering apostates – is in the Bible, and not in the Koran. The Bible is full of human sacrifice, while the Koran isn't. You're going to get a lot of egg on your face if you argue the "Koran is violent" thesis with somebody who knows their Bible.

Establishing Allah’s religion on the entire earth is big responsibility that requires enormous sacrifice, preparation, energy, money, etc. Therefore, Allah made it (accepting that responsibility) an integral part of embracing Islam. By embracing Islam, we are signing a business transaction with Allah. The details of this business transaction are spelled out in Taubah 111:

(Verily, Allah has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allah's Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) and the Qur'an. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded. That is the supreme success) Taubah 111

The Verse above is very serious indeed. It states the relationship between Allah and the Believers. The Verse started with a verb in the past tense form. This means that the transaction has been consummated. The terms of this transaction are as follows:

Buyer: Allah

Seller: The Believers

Goods: The seller’s person, property, money, and everything he/she possesses

Price: Paradise

Payment Due Date: Upon delivery of goods

Means of Delivery: Jihad, fighting, getting killed or killing Kuffar

Allah has fulfilled his end of the bargain. Have we? Each and every one of us ought to ask himself, “Have I honored my agreement with Allah?” If the answer is no, isn’t fair to question our state of Imaan?

The following cannot be repeated too often because it diametrically opposes the Islamic doctrine of salvation: only Christ’s "Martyrdom" guarantees a believer’s place in heaven; only his ultimate good work on the cross paves the way to God. Thus, the Christian does not (or should not) have a psychological inducement to kill himself or to be killed in battle to achieve heaven. He needs only trust in Christ.

So Jesus and his disciples through the first three centuries turned the world upside down by simple proclamation, not by butchering with swords (or by threatening to butcher with swords) people who opposed their ministry—the warpath of Emperor Constantine in the fourth century and the Medieval Crusaders do not set the genetic code in the very origins of Christianity in the New Testament. On the other hand, Muhammad is foundational to Islam, and he says that a martyr’s death in the cause of Allah (cause = war) guarantees heaven. The contrast between the two religions is stark. Christ’s way leads to life and the light; Muhammad’s way leads to death and darkness.

Hence, the deadly bargain of martyrdom is completely foreign to devout Christians and even to nominal Christians world over, who no longer take their faith seriously. Christians want heaven, and they are assured of it by the atoning death of Christ, once they receive his Holy Spirit—the divine, life-transforming Spirit of God, who is not the angel Gabriel as claimed in Muslim theology.

Why would a Christian choose the inferior path to heaven—the one that Muhammad teaches—death by martyrdom in a qital or war? Total devotion and surrender should not be perverted. Instead, total devotion and surrender to Christ is far better, for he produces divine love and true inner peace, and hence his real path to heaven far surpasses Muhammad’s claims and "revelations" that conveniently support his wars. Christ rose above such petty, dubious assertions and cleared the way to heaven with his Death and Resurrection.

Thus, Islam does not complete or fulfill Christianity. Rather, Muhammad’s religion is a degradation and a distortion of Christianity, devolving downwards from it.

Brother Mark, you said in your first posting: ‘Considering this, and taking the Christian Bible as a whole…’

I agree with you that people who want to make a study of Christianity should take the ‘Bible as a whole…’

Then you bring up examples of particular Christian behaviours and pick out versus or stories from either the Old Testament or the New.  But one verse or two or three… does not a teaching make!  I believe your method is faulty based on your own methodology. 

What would strengthen your argument is if you quoted a main-stream Church and source that says what you believe to be true about Christianity.  I would like to see that.  (I suggest you find a source other than InterVarsity Press.)

The correct methodology is important in a study of anything.  In addition to understanding the ‘Christian Bible as a whole…,’ I also would like to add, that for many Christians, the study of the Bible is necessary but not sufficient.  For the majority of Christians the Bible alone is not the sole source of what it means to be a Christian or to understand Christian teachings.

The work or inspiration of the Holy Spirit through prayer, Community and Tradition are also key factors for many Christians.

Also, most Christians do not look at or read the Bible in the same way as Muslims read the Qur'an.  Jesus is the equivalent of the Qur'an; Jesus is the Word of God; the Qur'an is the Word(s) of Allah.  What we know of Allah is found in the Qur'an and the example of Mohammed.  What we know of Jesus is found in the New Testament, and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit throughout history.  Fundamentally, Christians are supposed to follow Jesus not the Bible.

The meaning(s) of the Bible and the texts therein are filtered through the understanding of the communities for which they were written.  After all, the communities came before the texts!  It seems to me that you want, from a Christian point of view, to make an idol of the Biblical texts, and you choose to make some versus over-ride other versus in order to establish the meanings you want to convey.  This makes Christianity mean what you want it to mean but not what is necessarily meant or a meaning shared by any main-stream Christian Church.

The point I am making here has also been said in different ways by Joe and Paul, which I have not seen you address.

Regards,

Paul,

"You try to read the Bible in the same way as you read the Quran. People do not follow the words of the old testament or the new testament like muslims are taught to follow the Quran".

Now if only all of those Christians slaughtering others in the name of "Christ" felt that way. The next time a Christian shoots up a woman's health clinic or something of the sort, you just convince yourself of that, I'm sure you'll have no problem doing so.

 "maybe its because Buddhism is like Islam, unchanging, stuck in the past"

Truth is everlasting, something I'm sure that even a Christian would have to agree with.

"that you believe everything should be understood as it was in the past".

The same Christian scripture that was there in the past is still with us today or has it changed much lately, and someone didn't let me know about it? Oh, that's right we're supposed to believe that their own scripture didn't actually influence them much...and won't do the same if the're given that same powerful state granted opportunity? rrright!

 "You don't sound much like a Buddhist anyway, all full of pride and spite".  

I'm sorry, do I not seem submissive enough for you? That's interesting, when I try to bend over backwards and compensate... some like yourself usually call me "condescending".

Have a great day, and know that I have sincere love for you and Joe.

Brother Mark:)

paul collings said:

Mark,

Exodus 15.3

I know that as The lord is a man of war, the lord is his name.  King James version. ...

Kinana,

I only have the time to carry one conversation at a time...and you Kinana are now it!

But one verse or two or three… does not a teaching make"!  

This is very true, however as I have discussed with Paul, the point here is that there are plenty of Christian scriptures which can be used and have been used to justify and encourage the murder and oppression of innocents. As long as every word in the Bible is considered by most Christian's as the unerring word of their unerring and perfect creator God, (doctrine of inerrancy) and is as well considered to be completely consistent because God supposedly does not contradict himself, then unfortunately they have every right as a Christian to do so accordingly.

It's sad really, if the Bible ever stated that "every third child shall walk in darkness" you would have many if not most Christian's probably gouging out the eyes of every third born. Of course by now it would be a medical procedure like circumcision and the proper prayers and rites would have to be performed also.

Please don't misunderstand and think that I'm here to just "slam" Christian's, but if I am going to be challenged on a remark that I once made, I believe that a discussion of it and any ramifications, if any one should wish is appropriate. 

I don't find anything near any of what I have discussed in Buddhist scripture, and as well we according to our scripture, are to take a different approach to our teaching than to involve ourselves in some sort of divine scriptural fetishism, which accordingly is contained in our scripture. I am referring here to the scripturally based doctrine of inerrancy of Christianity. If you would like to discuss this further I would be more than glad to do so. 

Brother Mark:)

Kinana said:

Brother Mark, you said in your first posting: ‘Considering this, and taking the Christian Bible as a whole…’

I agree with you that people who want to make a study of Christianity should take the ‘Bible as a whole…’

Then you bring up examples of particular Christian behaviours and pick out versus or stories from either the Old Testament or the New.  But one verse or two or three… does not a teaching make!  I believe your method is faulty based on your own methodology. 

What would strengthen your argument is if you quoted a main-stream Church and source that says what you believe to be true about Christianity.  I would like to see that.  (I suggest you find a source other than InterVarsity Press.) ...

Brother Mark

Again it seems I have not made myself clear. 

I asked you to cite main-stream Church teaching which coincides with your understanding of Christianity as you are promoting here.  I did not ask you to tell me what some Christians believe.  In fact I explicitly asked you to take your own methodology seriously and take the ‘Bible as a whole’ when it comes to expounding Biblical teaching.   If your understanding of the Bible is the ‘doctrine of inerrancy’ and you think that this is main-stream teaching (for you say it is believed in ‘by most Christians’) then you should have no trouble providing what I am asking.

I am not asking you about the many Christians and their various behaviours over the last 2000 years.  I am asking you about your claims about Christianity, hence its teachings and the sort of behaviour it encourages amongst Christians.

Thank you

In this Mahãvamsa passage, the reference to “bring glory to the doctrine” can be taken as providing safety and protection to the Buddhist teachings, practices and institutions in Sri Lanka. “Brotherhood” refers to the Buddhist monastic community collectively known as the sangha. Having a company of bhikkhus (monks) with him while marching for war is perceived as an act of securing protection for Duããhagãmani himself at the time of war. However, the monks’ marching with troops is perceived by monks themselves “as a penance” (25.4). Placing a relic in the spear is an apotropaic action intended to ward off evil forces at times of troubles as believed in many pre-modern societies.

Nevertheless, the task at hand for Duããhagãmani was a rather difficult one since the text represents Elãra as a righteous king. In a dual battle, Duããhagãmani killed Elãra (25:67-70). After Elãra’s death, Duããhagãmani honoured him by cremating him and marking the place with a monument and instituting a worship there.

The remorse that Duããhagãmani had after the battle was quite severe and similar to the one that Emperor Asoka had after his battle in Kãlinga. Like in the case of Emperor Asoka, a transformation occurs, though not so dramatic, in the life of Duããhagãmani through the intervention of Buddhist monastic community. Their intervention in removing Duããhagãmani’s remorse can be seen as a ‘rehabilitation strategy’ for an evil king who had executed a lot of suffering in pursuing a battle. In this case, the rehabilitation strategy is used to direct the king to Buddhist works. Though the ‘rehabilitation’ of the king is a noble one, the justifications that the monks provided in consoling the king are controversial and problematic. They bear serious implications on the issue whether there are justifications of violence within Theravãda Buddhism.

The Mahãvamsa states (25:104) that the arahants in Piyangudipa knowing Duããhagãmani’s remorse sent a group of eight holy monks to comfort him; when Duããhagãmani confessed that he had slaughtered millions, what they said to Duããhagãmani to eliminate his remorse is highly problematic:

From this deed arises no hindrance in thy way to heaven. Only one and a half human beings have been slain here by thee, O lord of men. The one had come unto the (three) refuges, the other had taken on himself the five precepts. Unbelievers and men of evil life were the rest, not more to be esteemed than beasts. But as for thee, thou wilt bring glory to the doctrine of the Buddha in manifold ways; therefore cast away care from thy heart, O ruler of men! Thus exhorted by them the great king took comfort” (Mahãvamsa 25:109-112).

As this Mahãvamsa passage demonstrates, Duããhagãmani’s remorse is eliminated by telling him that killing ‘evil unbelievers’ carries no more weight than killing animals

''''The meaning(s) of the Bible and the texts therein are filtered through the understanding of the communities for which they were written.  After all, the communities came before the texts!  It seems to me that you want, from a Christian point of view, to make an idol of the Biblical texts, and you choose to make some versus over-ride other versus in order to establish the meanings you want to convey.  This makes Christianity mean what you want it to mean but not what is necessarily meant or a meaning shared by any main-stream Christian Church.'''''''

Isn't this what you are doing.

In the twentieth century Japanese Zen masters wrote in support of Japan's wars of aggression. For example, Sawaki Kodo (1880–1965) wrote this in 1942:

It is just to punish those who disturb the public order. Whether one kills or does not kill, the precept forbidding killing [is preserved]. It is the precept forbidding killing that wields the sword. It is the precept that throws the bomb.

Sawaki Kodo

In Sri Lanka the 20th century civil war between the mostly Buddhist Sinhalese majority and the Hindu Tamil minority has cost 50,000 lives

Paul,

Let me make this real simple for you,.... violent scripture that proclaims that it is Gods will that certain people be destroyed together with the examples given by God himself can have and will encourage such violence.

Peaceful scripture encourages peaceful behavior. Do you need a PhD. in theology or psychology to understand this? This is why citing a few examples from the past more than two thousand years where our scripture was not being followed as a teaching can hardly compare.

This is why,quoting non- scriptural sources or areas where Buddhists weren't following examples of their own scripture don't work. 

B.T.W. do you comprehend this?

Kinana,

 I only have the time to carry one conversation at a time...and you Kinana are now it!

Accordingly I will give you the last word on our conversation for now.

paul collings said:

In this Mahãvamsa passage, the reference to “bring glory to the doctrine” can be taken as providing safety and protection to the Buddhist teachings, practices and institutions in Sri Lanka. “Brotherhood” refers to the Buddhist monastic community collectively known as the sangha. Having a company of bhikkhus (monks) with him while marching for war is perceived as an act of securing protection for Duããhagãmani himself at the time of war. However, the monks’ marching with troops is perceived by monks themselves “as a penance” (25.4). Placing a relic in the spear is an apotropaic action intended to ward off evil forces at times of troubles as believed in many pre-modern societies. ...

 

'''This is why,quoting non- scriptural sources or areas where Buddhists weren't following examples of their own scripture don't work.''

And yet you use the same argument to smear the entire christian part of the world with examples of their own scripture they don't follow.

 

May i point you to COC 3.6.2  and COC 4.4.4 and COC 4.6.1 and COC 4.6.3

 

Kinana,

O.k. Kinana,

Let's do this.

"I asked you to cite " main-stream" Church teaching which coincides with your understanding of  Christianity as you are promoting here."

"I am asking you about your claims about Christianity, hence its teachings and the sort of behaviour it encourages amongst Christians".

I believe that it would be helpful to our conversation if you would define both "Christianity"  as well as "mainstream" church.  I would like to see this from you before we proceed.

 

Thank you!

Brother Mark:)

P.S. I'll be back in touch after breakfast tomorrow.



Kinana said:

Brother Mark

Again it seems I have not made myself clear. 

I asked you to cite main-stream Church teaching which coincides with your understanding of Christianity as you are promoting here.  I did not ask you to tell me what some Christians believe.  In fact I explicitly asked you to take your own methodology seriously and take the ‘Bible as a whole’ when it comes to expounding Biblical teaching.   If your understanding of the Bible is the ‘doctrine of inerrancy’ and you think that this is main-stream teaching (for you say it is believed in ‘by most Christians’) then you should have no trouble providing what I am asking.

I am not asking you about the many Christians and their various behaviours over the last 2000 years.  I am asking you about your claims about Christianity, hence its teachings and the sort of behaviour it encourages amongst Christians.

Thank you

RSS

Page Monitor

Just fill in the box below on any 4F page to be notified when it changes.

Privacy & Unsubscribe respected

Muslim Terrorism Count

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Mission Overview

Most Western societies are based on Secular Democracy, which itself is based on the concept that the open marketplace of ideas leads to the optimum government. Whilst that model has been very successful, it has defects. The 4 Freedoms address 4 of the principal vulnerabilities, and gives corrections to them. 

At the moment, one of the main actors exploiting these defects, is Islam, so this site pays particular attention to that threat.

Islam, operating at the micro and macro levels, is unstoppable by individuals, hence: "It takes a nation to protect the nation". There is not enough time to fight all its attacks, nor to read them nor even to record them. So the members of 4F try to curate a representative subset of these events.

We need to capture this information before it is removed.  The site already contains sufficient information to cover most issues, but our members add further updates when possible.

We hope that free nations will wake up to stop the threat, and force the separation of (Islamic) Church and State. This will also allow moderate Muslims to escape from their totalitarian political system.

The 4 Freedoms

These 4 freedoms are designed to close 4 vulnerabilities in Secular Democracy, by making them SP or Self-Protecting (see Hobbes's first law of nature). But Democracy also requires - in addition to the standard divisions of Executive, Legislature & Judiciary - a fourth body, Protector of the Open Society (POS), to monitor all its vulnerabilities (see also Popper). 
1. SP Freedom of Speech
Any speech is allowed - except that advocating the end of these freedoms
2. SP Freedom of Election
Any party is allowed - except one advocating the end of these freedoms
3. SP Freedom from Voter Importation
Immigration is allowed - except where that changes the political demography (this is electoral fraud)
4. SP Freedom from Debt
The Central Bank is allowed to create debt - except where that debt burden can pass across a generation (25 years).

An additional Freedom from Religion is deducible if the law is applied equally to everyone:

  • Religious and cultural activities are exempt from legal oversight except where they intrude into the public sphere (Res Publica)"

© 2022   Created by Netcon.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service