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: 1328

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

interesting questions.  since you raised this topic first, using the term/word 'Christianity'

i.e. 'The atrocity's of Christianity historically, make what Islam as done not much more than a drop in the bucket...'

i will let you define it.  Perhaps we are not even discussing the same thing.  But why the problem now, after 8 pages of discussions?!  I do wonder.

You are making claims about Christianity (however you define it) which, if they are to be of any significance and approach the truth of Christianity, should resonate with other groupings of Christians.  Otherwise your claims are just your claims.  Freedom of speech and all that.  Otherwise you are not talking about Christianity but about the behavior of Christians.

hope you had a good breakfast.

Mark said:

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.

 

Everybody...

In case I ever let this cloud storage go for some reason... I will reiterate this here.

Hi Everybody...

"What prompted me to go from referring to him in the third person to referring to him in the second person?  What prompts me to talk about admissions by him about christians not reconquering the territories taken from them by muslim violence?  Why do I open the above comment about him wanting to stand by his claim, when in the initial topic I work on the assumption that he may not have meant what he said, and thus introduced it in a way that distanced it from him?  Why do I say I am not going to argue scripture with him unless he had started to quote scripture?  Why do I say I am not sure if christians and jews worship the same god (a theme to which Brother Mark has returned many times in this Discussion, yet which is not mentioned by me once in my opening comment)?"

All any one has to do is look at the second and third items down on the list when this conversation was started, and compare his accusations to what we now have. As an example....

 

But remember, his claim is :

What prompts me to talk about admissions by him about christians not reconquering the territories taken from them by muslim violence?

The answer of course is in the reply that is within the first three replys that have been published from the very beginning after this conversation was started.

 

"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)?"

My response was...

Islam here was the better at violence, that's why. 

 

This is all contained within the the first few replies to the conversation that have been published. 

 

Another example:

"What prompted me to go from referring to him in the third person to referring to him in the second person"?  

Because he was replying to my response...that's why!

 

Or the claim that "There is no extant reference to "Ananias", except in my comment."

Anybody with sight to see can witness just how false a statement this is.

 

"The first words of my reply to it are clearly referring to something you have said in this Discussion"........

.   OK, I thought perhaps your remarks were throwaway, but now it seems you really want to stand by your claim that christianity has been hundreds of times more murderous than islam.  Your remarks about islam being quiescent during the 2nd & 3rd jihads implies you think that modern day christian nations are in a temporary lull from their love of murder and violence.

I am not going to argue scripture with you, or what christians believe the role of violence should be.  I'll leave that for others here who know about christianity.  But if that one allusive passage on Ananias and Sapphira is the best you can find

 

Again...

Yes, Joe, I believe that both you and I know that you were addressing my initial comment that you were then using to create another discussion with.

Reply by Joe on Saturday

Brother Mark, I wanted to write a response to this, but it would have taken a lot of room here and further detracted from the point of this discussion. So I have created a new Discussion here:

http://4freedoms.ning.com/group/christians/forum/topics/is-christia...

Brother Mark said:

My point is only that I believe that 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. Here's a sample....http://notachristian.org/christianatrocities.html

 

http://4freedoms.ning.com/forum/topics/are-buddhists-useless-in-the...  

 

 If anyone were to bother with just looking at what Joe tries to use as "evidence" for my deleting a comment  between the first and second replies including his reference to Acts Ch5, which was prompted by the comment made in my reply that is the second down from the first we can see just what nonsense this all really is. All anyone has to do is read this man's accusation and what he presents as evidence for it, and just read the first few replies.

 

I feel is behooves me to address this one last  time (unless he wants to insist on making this accusation) because of the language that he has used while making this accusation and the things that this man has said about me while doing so.

He has done nothing more but in the eyes of any intelligent person who can read, shamed himself with this behavior of slandering me in this way.

 

  I know that I certainly don't agree with everybody on this forum, but I have better character than to falsely accuse someone of something and then use such derogatory language to address my false accusation.

For making that statement...call me "prideful" if you wish,  it is truthful none the less.

 

Have a great day everyone!

Brother Mark:)



Mark said:

Joe,

Here's the link to my dropbox cloud storage where you and everyone can clearly see the camera shot taken by my smartphone and then uploaded to my cloud storage account where I then obtained a link to share with you and everyone. 

One moment here in the photo that will demonstrate your claim as false...

 "Why do I say I am not going to argue scripture with him unless he had started to quote scripture"? 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fjnofc7kc8dlrrc/20120606_172321.jpg

 

I invite all to look at the photo and compare what Joe is trying to use here as his claims of "evidence" regarding the comment that he asserts was deleted only one of which I have addressed.

 

Have fun!

 

Brother Mark:)

Paul,

 

"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".

No, I was using scripture that they were following or haven't you been able to get that yet? Again, show me comparable Buddhist scripture. 

Never mind, Paul I can tell it's useless. Now go and find some more C.O.C. that you can theorize me as violating. That's a better tactic for you I can tell.

Brother Mark:)



paul collings said:

 

'''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

 

Mark your vey attitude seems to point to you wanting to get thrown off this site so you can scream victim. It matters not to me if you stay or go, for now, but my attitude can quickly change. Its up to you.
 
Mark said:

Paul,

 

"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".

No, I was using scripture that they were following or haven't you been able to get that yet? Again, show me comparable Buddhist scripture. 

Never mind, Paul I can tell it's useless. Now go and find some more C.O.C. that you can theorize me as violating. That's a better tactic for you I can tell.

Brother Mark:)



paul collings said:

 

'''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

 

Paul,

 

My "attitude" is merely to substantiate what it is that I have said, when challenged or questioned about it.

Brother Mark:)

   



paul collings said:

Mark your vey attitude seems to point to you wanting to get thrown off this site so you can scream victim. It matters not to me if you stay or go, for now, but my attitude can quickly change. Its up to you.
 
Mark said:

Paul,

 

"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".

No, I was using scripture that they were following or haven't you been able to get that yet? Again, show me comparable Buddhist scripture. 

Never mind, Paul I can tell it's useless. Now go and find some more C.O.C. that you can theorize me as violating. That's a better tactic for you I can tell.

Brother Mark:)



paul collings said:

 

'''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. I'll bite on this before breakfast.

I wanted to hear it from you but o.k....

Christianity 

noun 
\ˌkris-chē-ˈa-nə-tē, ˌkrish-, -ˈcha-nə-, ˌkris-tē-ˈa-\


1: the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies

2: conformity to the Christian religion

3: the practice of Christianity

 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/christianity

 based on the Bible as sacred scripture, based on the Bible as sacred scripture...

I don't believe that this just means some of it, leaving out the parts that some would like to forget.

You haven't given the definition of your term "main stream" church, I wonder why? That was the term that you used. So please tell me just what you think a "main stream" church" is?

'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".

Are you actually trying to deny here that the doctrine of inerrancy that is , that the entire Bible is  the unerring word of God, is believed by most of Christianity?

 

Brother Mark:)



Kinana said:

interesting questions.  since you raised this topic first, using the term/word 'Christianity'

i.e. 'The atrocity's of Christianity historically, make what Islam as done not much more than a drop in the bucket...'

i will let you define it.  Perhaps we are not even discussing the same thing.  But why the problem now, after 8 pages of discussions?!  I do wonder.

You are making claims about Christianity (however you define it) which, if they are to be of any significance and approach the truth of Christianity, should resonate with other groupings of Christians.  Otherwise your claims are just your claims.  Freedom of speech and all that.  Otherwise you are not talking about Christianity but about the behavior of Christians.

hope you had a good breakfast.

Mark said:

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.

Its seems as though better buddists than you disagree. Its all down to interpretation. I'm sure you'll have an excuse for this as well. what with you knowing bhuddhism better than a Zen master.

And as for reply,...My  'attitude' being  merely to substantiate what it is that I have said, when challenged or questioned about it.

So you throw a hissy fit when questioned or challenged?

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.

At least in the US, the belief in Biblical inerrancy is a minority position. Only 40% of Protestants, and 21% of Catholics, believe that the Bible is literally true, and the actual word God.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148427/say-bible-literally.aspx

Mark said:

Are you actually trying to deny here that the doctrine of inerrancy that is , that the entire Bible is  the unerring word of God, is believed by most of Christianity?

Paul,

"So you throw a hissy fit when questioned or challenged"?

A "hissy fit" I believe would be like something of a "temper tantrum", which I don't think would be an accurate description. 

"Its seems as though better buddists than you disagree. Its all down to interpretation. I'm sure you'll have an excuse for this as well. what with you knowing bhuddhism better than a Zen master".

 

I don't know how many times you'll choose to keep ignoring this...I'll address something and then you'll just keep ignoring it.

Just show me the Buddhist scripture. What a better guidepost for the behavior of a religion's adherents other than their own scripture.

Brother Mark:)



paul collings said:

Its seems as though better buddists than you disagree. Its all down to interpretation. I'm sure you'll have an excuse for this as well. what with you knowing bhuddhism better than a Zen master.

And as for reply,...My  'attitude' being  merely to substantiate what it is that I have said, when challenged or questioned about it.

So you throw a hissy fit when questioned or challenged?

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.

John,

"At least in the US, the belief in Biblical inerrancy is a minority position. Only 40% of Protestants, and 21% of Catholics, believe that the Bible is literally true, and the actual word God".
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148427/say-bible-literally.aspx

First, if we go to what is being said here at this site, a distinction and different category's are being made for "actual" word and "inspired word". If you take both into account the figures become the majority not the minority. The reason why both should be considered together for the doctrine of inerrancy is because whether "actual" or "inspired" the only difference being that the "actual" would be such as say, God talking and the congregation or those writing the Bible hearing these "actual" words of communication. "Inspired"  would be that the people doing the writing were directly "inspired" by God to write what was being written. If this were not the case, then the Bible for the Christian would have to be deemed unreliable as a record of their unerring and perfect God's teaching.

I also find it interesting that many of America's Christian's were left out of this poll, as an example we have the Southern Baptist congregation. There are many types of Southern Baptist congregations in America, not just down South! There are also the many "Evangelicals" among many other sects of Christianity, ask any of these sometime if they believe the Bible to be the unerring word of God, whether actual or inspired and listen to what they tell you.

Thank you!

Brother Mark:)


John Carlson said:

At least in the US, the belief in Biblical inerrancy is a minority position. Only 40% of Protestants, and 21% of Catholics, believe that the Bible is literally true, and the actual word God.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148427/say-bible-literally.aspx

Mark said:

Are you actually trying to deny here that the doctrine of inerrancy that is , that the entire Bible is  the unerring word of God, is believed by most of Christianity?

I am just making this one post to try to save a lot of unnecessary argument here.  I will try expand how I think the 2 different speakers are understanding these statements.  I do not want to join this discussion, I am just trying to avoid the two speakers talking at cross purposes.

Mark said:

John said: "At least in the US, the belief in Biblical inerrancy is a minority position. Only 40% of Protestants, and 21% of Catholics, believe that the Bible is literally true, and the actual word God".

First, if we go to what is being said here at this site, a distinction and different category's are being made for "actual" word and "inspired word". If you take both into account the figures become the majority not the minority. The reason why both should be considered together for the doctrine of inerrancy is because whether "actual" or "inspired" the only difference being that the "actual" would be such as say, God talking and the congregation or those writing the Bible hearing these "actual" words of communication. "Inspired"  would be that the people doing the writing were directly "inspired" by God to write what was being written.

Mark thinks that John's assertion is something like:
"Only 40% of Protestants, and 21% of Catholics, believe that all of the Bible is the actual word spoken by God" and therefore is infallible and must be followed without deviation or updating"
 
So he makes a distinction between "inspired word of god" and "the word of god that people actually heard with their ears", and says that only 40% think its the latter, but much more think its the former.  To which most people will say "So what?".  
 
BM's distinction is actually true, most Christians would say that the bible is the inspired word of God, but to take that sense in this context is not the normal interpretation.  It is also unintentionally glossing the distinction between situations like the 10 Commandments where God actually 'spoke' stuff, and, say, the letters of Paul, where he asks a friend to get him his coat, because he left it behind and its a bit nippy in prison.  I don't think the latter were the actual words of God, but Christians would say that the whole letter was inspired by the spirit of God.  
 
John thinks that John's assertion is something like:
"Only 40% of Protestants, and 21% of Catholics, believe that the Bible is literally true, i.e. that the stories, parables, morals and instructions are all factually and morally correct and binding, and therefore to be followed like a mindless automaton without any change or updating allowed"
 
Or in other words, John takes it to mean that 60% of protestants and 80% of Catholics believe we can update the rules given in the bible.
 
So, I suggest that John takes that quote and pads it out with more words, in order to remove any possible ambiguity or alternative interpretation from it.  If John can do that and combine it with a mind numbing re-iteration step by step of his total argument, it will also help greatly (and also remove the scope for any equivocation).
 
As a closing remark, I am away for a couple of weeks so do not want to get involved, but be re-assured that the Admin Team is watching this issue, with a view to conserving members time and energy and using it for effective purposes.
 


Mark said:

John,

"At least in the US, the belief in Biblical inerrancy is a minority position. Only 40% of Protestants, and 21% of Catholics, believe that the Bible is literally true, and the actual word God".
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148427/say-bible-literally.aspx

First, if we go to what is being said here at this site, a distinction and different category's are being made for "actual" word and "inspired word". If you take both into account the figures become the majority not the minority. The reason why both should be considered together for the doctrine of inerrancy is because whether "actual" or "inspired" the only difference being that the "actual" would be such as say, God talking and the congregation or those writing the Bible hearing these "actual" words of communication. "Inspired"  would be that the people doing the writing were directly "inspired" by God to write what was being written. If this were not the case, then the Bible for the Christian would have to be deemed unreliable as a record of their unerring and perfect God's teaching. ...

John,

"I am just making this one post to try to save a lot of unnecessary argument here.  I will try expand how I think the 2 different speakers are understanding these statements.  I do not want to join this discussion, I am just trying to avoid the two speakers talking at cross purposes".

                                                                                                       Alan Lake

I'll take this opportunity to comment on what Alan has had to say. 

Once more....

I also find it interesting that many of America's Christian's were left out of this poll, as an example we have the Southern Baptist congregation. There are many types of Southern Baptist congregations in America, not just down South! There are also the many "Evangelicals" among many other sects of Christianity, ask any of these sometime if they believe the Bible to be the unerring word of God, whether actual or inspired and listen to what they tell you.

Christian Bible (New International Version)

2 Peter 1:20-21

20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

However one may choose to interpret "actual " or "inspired".......

2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

The Bible teaches that all scripture is "God breathed." I've never met a Christian willing to concede that their "God breathed" scripture was not the unerring word of their perfect and unerring God, and that it needed "updating". 

Brother Mark:)

RSS

Monitor this Page

You don't have to be a member of 4F to follow any room or topic! Just fill in on any page you like.

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)"

© 2018   Created by Netcon.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service