The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation

Is Christianity more Murderous than Islam?

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 West. http://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: 1389

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Kinana on June 11, 2012 at 0:15

Mark

I think we may have reached an impasse.  I do not accept the first point of your definition of Christianity (via Webster dictionary).  But if that is what you believe then you go ahead.  Use whatever definitions you want to suit your own opinions and conclusions agreed to by yourself.  That is fine by me. 

You are making claims about Christianity so let’s move on to the next point.  If your claims are true then I repeat:

‘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 do not want to let my phrase ‘main-stream Church’ be a stumbling block.  So let it be any Church with a large international membership.  Take your pick. 

Bear in mind the topic of this discussion is your claim:

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

To help you a bit, would it not be more accurate to say that you believe:

‘Historically speaking the atrocities that Christians have engaged in make what Islam as done not much more than a drop in the bucket.’

This way you are not talking about Christianity but about the behaviour of Christians. 

If you wish to stay with your word ‘Christianity’ as opposed to ‘Christians’ and since Christianity is taught by Christian churches then my request to you remains.  But bear in mind your own methodology of ‘taking the Bible as a whole…’  Quoting individual versus violates your own methodology.

Regards

Permalink Reply by Mark on June 11, 2012 at 4:53

Kinana,

 

"I think we may have reached an impasse.  I do not accept the first point of your definition of Christianity (via Webster dictionary).  But if that is what you believe then you go ahead.  Use whatever definitions you want to suit your own opinions and conclusions agreed to by yourself.  That is fine by me". 

You're the one one not accepting the Webster's dictionary definition of Christianity, but yet you seem to want to make it sound as if I'm just believing what I want regarding the term from nowhere as it suits me. You're the one here who refused to give your definition of the word Christianity or accept the dictionary definition even though you yourself I presume are a Christian! and told me "I'll let you define it." Perhaps this is because you might be aware that your definition (whatever that might be) would fail to meet any standard of objective scrutiny and would only serve to placate your very specialized perception of what you would like Christianity to mean for you.  

"I do not want to let my phrase ‘main-stream Church’ be a stumbling block.  So let it be any Church with a large international membership.  Take your pick". 

As you define "main stream church" I would have to say that any "main stream church" would qualify to answer your question of which "main stream" church teaching coincides with my understanding of Christianity  as I am promoting it here.

Any main stream church as well as the "minor stream" one's as well.  You can take your pick.

 "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".

As you have allowed me to work with the Webster's dictionary definition of Christianity, and given some of the conversation that we have already had, I believe that both of these are about to be finally dealt with in an earnest manner.

"If you wish to stay with your word ‘Christianity’ as opposed to ‘Christians’ and since Christianity is taught by Christian churches then my request to you remains.  But bear in mind your own methodology of ‘taking the Bible as a whole…’  Quoting individual versus violates your own methodology".

The individual verses were only being quoted to underscore the fact that there is far more encouragement and justification for violence in the Bible "taken as a whole" than anything written about forgiveness and loving kindness.

Please forgive me if any of my conversation offends you,  I only consider it good and meaningful conversation. I love you also.

 

Brother Mark:)

P.S.

 I'll plan on being back in touch tomorrow....it's breakfast time!



Kinana said:

Mark

I think we may have reached an impasse.  I do not accept the first point of your definition of Christianity (via Webster dictionary).  But if that is what you believe then you go ahead.  Use whatever definitions you want to suit your own opinions and conclusions agreed to by yourself.  That is fine by me. 

You are making claims about Christianity so let’s move on to the next point.  If your claims are true then I repeat:

‘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 do not want to let my phrase ‘main-stream Church’ be a stumbling block.  So let it be any Church with a large international membership.  Take your pick. 

Bear in mind the topic of this discussion is your claim:

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

To help you a bit, would it not be more accurate to say that you believe:

‘Historically speaking the atrocities that Christians have engaged in make what Islam as done not much more than a drop in the bucket.’

This way you are not talking about Christianity but about the behaviour of Christians. 

If you wish to stay with your word ‘Christianity’ as opposed to ‘Christians’ and since Christianity is taught by Christian churches then my request to you remains.  But bear in mind your own methodology of ‘taking the Bible as a whole…’  Quoting individual versus violates your own methodology.

Regards

Permalink Reply by Netcon on June 11, 2012 at 9:32

Message from Admin Team: COC Violation by member: Mark

Clauses Breached: 4.2.3 Unsubstantiated Allegations & 4.6.4 Shoddy Evidence and Research (Time Wasting)
Warning Level:  4.2.3 = YELLOW;  4.6.4 = RED
 
Explanation:
At the very beginning of this discussion, Mark gave this link as proof that Christianity is more murderous than Islam:
http://notachristian.org/christianatrocities.html

Its a long list of deaths that have been directly attributed to christianity.  To save time, Admin has attempted to verify the veracity and applicability of only a random selection of these alleged 'facts'.

1. Alleged 'fact': Germany
*1349 In more than 350 towns in Germany all Jews murdered, mostly burned alive (in this one year more Jews were killed than Christians in 200 years of ancient Roman persecution of Christians). [DO42]

Actual Historical Evidence:
January
– The Jewish population of Basal Switzerland is rounded up and incinerated, believed by the residents to be the cause of the ongoing Black death febuary 1 – Roughly 2,000 jews are burned to death in Strasburg. March 21 – The bulk of the 900 strong Jewish community of Eurfert Germany is murdered by the rest of the population which accuses the minority to be the underlying cause of the Black Death

I'm not going to go through every town, because it was pretty much the same reason. in some cases it may have been opportunism.

Maybe here we need to define religious war. 
Holy wars usually have three elements:
the achievement of a religious goal

authorised by a religious leader

a spiritual reward for those who take part
Francis Bacon said there were five causes for holy war: (he wrote in a Christian context, but the categories would be usable by any faith)
to spread the faith 
to retrieve countries that were once Christian, even though there are no Christians left there 
to rescue Christians in countries that were once Christian from 'the servitude of the infidels' 
recover and purify consecrated places that are presently being 'polluted and profaned' 
avenge blasphemous acts, or cruelties and killings of Christians (even if these took place long ago) 

Conclusion: The quoted fact does not justify the allegation
 
 
2. Alleged Fact: England
*1257, 1267 Jewish communities of London, Canterbury, Northampton, Lincoln, Cambridge, and others exterminated. [DO41]

Actual Historical Evidence:

1257-1267
English Jews
Historian K Deschner reports extermination of Jewish communities in London, Canterbury, Northampton, Lincoln and Cambridge. Unverified. The Jewish history site reports pillaging during a civil war of 1263 (opportunistic, not specifically anti-Semitic) and damage to a synagogue that year, but no "extermination". 
This was part of what are known as the baron wars.
Conclusion: The quoted fact does not justify the allegation 

We went through other items in the list and found a twisting of historical truth, in all of them.  Mark's capricious (or is it malicious?) use of this spurious source caused Admin to waste many hours checking out facts for which a simple check by him would have shown their distortion.
Permalink Reply by Netcon on June 11, 2012 at 10:12

Message from Admin Team: COC Violations by member: Mark

Clause Breached: 4.4.3 Fogging and Disconnect   (Substandard Responses and Refutations)
Warning Level:     YELLOW
 
Explanation:
Mark says:
Would you deny that given both their history and scripture, that they at least have great potential for unjust persecution and violence?"

To which joe replied;

That statement is a long way from your claim that the blood spilt by islam is a drop in the bucket of the blood spilt by christianity. You don't seem to be prepared to admit that you were wrong, yet you don't provide any of the evidence I asked you to provide. "What I challenge you to do is to provide evidence that in the 300 years following the death of Jesus, that christians exhibited the same rapacious, murderous actions as muslims did in the 300 years following his death

Instead of answering Joe, Mark issues more challenges.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
 
Clause Breached: 4.4.1 Fobbing Off & 4.4.3 Fogging and Disconnect
Warning Level:     RED
 
Explanation:

Joe asked this;

"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)?"

Mark replies:

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


4.4.1 Fobbing Off
Fobbing Off is making a flippant reply to a genuine or realistic question, or sometimes no reply. If this is done to a 4F Admin it is a more serious matter.

4.4.3 Fogging and Disconnect
 Fogging is replying to a point, by raising some unrelated issue as a diversion, and not responding to the original point at all. We all do this to some extent, but if it is done often, it becomes a tactic to distract and exhaust all opposition. Another manifestation of this tactic would be to endlessly wander off topic, or just be generally incoherent, thus making it difficult for others to continue a sensible line of thought and discussion.

 
N.B. Please note that although we have given an explanation and quoted the relevant COC clauses here, Admin team is not obliged to do this.  It is being done as a convenience and learning experience for members.  We are only obliged to quote the clause and the warning level against the relevant text.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
 
Clauses Breached: 4.4.3 Fogging and Disconnect
Warning Level:     RED
 
Explanation:

Mark said
 I also have found great similarities between the book of Deuteronomy and the teachings of Islam. Just where pray tell do you think the Muslim prophet Muhammad got many of his ideas from?
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Parallelism_Between_the_Qur%27an_and_Jude...

Joe responded with:
Muhhammad got his 'ideas' from Allah surely?



This is not relevant to the question of whether Christians or Muslims are more murderous.  It is Fogging.
_____________________________________________________________________________________



Mark said:

Joe,

"What is missing from this history is context."

"Murder in the name of christianity comes from incorporation of christianity into religions of state,"...

It's interesting that you give the same apologetic that the Islamic fundamentalists give for the Islamic conquest. You know, it wasn't really us... it was those darn political rulers!  

 

"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)?"

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

"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."  

"Whilst the rulers of christian empires went against christianity in order to massacre and dominate,"...

"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 New Testament book of Acts Ch.5 tells the story of how a husband and wife were murdered for selling some land and then not coughing it all up to peter when they lied about how much they got for it. Who murdered them? It was none other than the precious "holy" spirit of Jesus. Shame on them for lying!

9 Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.” 10 At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+5&version=NIV

Take a look at some modern dayChristian commentary on this...

"This chilling account of the sudden deaths of Ananias (Hebrew, "the Lord is gracious") and Sapphira (Aramaic, "beautiful") makes us face the fact that God deals with sin, especially church members' deceit and lack of integrity"...

 

"Such discipline certainly has its deterrent value."  http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/IVP-NT/Acts/Nega...  

Although Jesus had some very good things to say, the God that they worship is no different than the vengeful, rath filled God of the Old Testament.

Murdering someone for lying? Would anyone care to deny that the best teacher teaches by example? To say that there are conflicting messages in the New Testament as well as the Bible itself, I believe would be fair....don't you?

This is good piece that you may wish to read:

This discusses the similarities between the Qur'an and Judeo Christian scripture.

I also have found great similarities between the book of Deuteronomy and the teachings of Islam. Just where pray tell do you think the Muslim prophet Muhammad got many of his ideas from?

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Parallelism_Between_the_Qur%27an_and_Jude...

Any Christian will acknowledge that the Christian Bible consists of both Old and New Testament, and claim that God is the same God as was is , is now, and shall be. Considering this, and taking the Christian Bible as a whole, there is certainly more to be used to justify the killing of those deemed "un Godly" than others would rather acknowledge.

Have you forgotten about their "witch" hunting, the murdering of heretics (the Christian form of Islam's "apostate"),  or the slaughter of indigenous peoples, just to name a few other examples,  all in the name and for the sake of their Christian God? 

Would you deny that given both their history and scripture, that they at least have great potential for unjust persecution and violence?

With metta,

Brother Mark:)


Joe said:

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. ...

Permalink Reply by Netcon on June 11, 2012 at 10:46

Message from Admin Team: COC Violation by member: Mark

Clause Breached: 4.2.3 Unsubstantiated Allegations
Warning Level: YELLOW
 
Explanation:
Mark asked:
Would you deny that given both their history and scripture, that they at least have great potential for unjust persecution and violence?"

Joe answered

That statement is a long way from your claim that the blood spilt by islam is a drop in the bucket of the blood spilt by christianity. You don't seem to be prepared to admit that you were wrong, yet you don't provide any of the evidence I asked you to provide.  Buddhism, christianity and islam all have potential for unjust persecution and violence. Water has the potential to kill. But it isn't classed as a weapon.
Mark has changed his allegation in a dishonest way, i.e. without either:
  • withdrawing the original, or
  • admitting it was wrong, or
  • saying he is changing it.

Joe said:

Brother Mark said:  "Would you deny that given both their history and scripture, that they at least have great potential for unjust persecution and violence?"

That statement is a long way from your claim that the blood spilt by islam is a drop in the bucket of the blood spilt by christianity.  You don't seem to be prepared to admit that you were wrong, yet you don't provide any of the evidence I asked you to provide.

Buddhism, christianity and islam all have potential for unjust persecution and violence.  Water has the potential to kill. But it isn't classed as a weapon.

Again, you want to collapse scripture and subsequent history together, because that suits your purpose.  Of course I deny that on the basis of scripture christianity has the same potential for violence and persecution as islam.  No muslim has ever been able to provide me with texts from the New Testament which justify murder.  You can insist (as muslims do) that christianity and islam share the same roots; but the point is exactly as I've been laying out - christianity is a moderating voice against that Old Testament background; islam is a war-mongering voice against that Old Testament background.  It is no surprise when a war-mongering voice leads to war. It is a surprise when a doctrine of peace and love leads to war.  You want to claim christianity is violent because it holds onto the Old Testament; but you seem to ignore that islam also holds onto the Old Testament, and then bolsters it with yet more calls for violence.  And you are the one who has put forward the claim that christianity is far worse than islam when it comes to murder. 

Now when we look at the history as given in the list of "christian atrocities" you cited, there is nothing before the incorporation of christianity into the Roman Empire.  That history would appear to be totally at odds with the comparable history of islam.  Just like you think that the life of buddha and Theravaden Buddhism is the originary buddhism, so we can look at the lives of Jesus and Mohammed, and the initial followers of their religion as the undistorted representations of those religions.

Now, having answered your question, can you do me the courtesy of answering the questions I posed to you.

 

Permalink Reply by Netcon on June 11, 2012 at 11:09

Message from Admin Team: COC Violation by member: Mark

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

Clause Breached: 4.4.3 Fogging and Disconnect
Warning Level: YELLOW

Explanation

Kinana has made numerous attempts to get answers to his questions.  Mark is just playing cat-and-mouse with him, spinning the process out, and consuming everyone's time for no benefit.


Kinana said:

Mark

I think we may have reached an impasse.  I do not accept the first point of your definition of Christianity (via Webster dictionary).  But if that is what you believe then you go ahead.  Use whatever definitions you want to suit your own opinions and conclusions agreed to by yourself.  That is fine by me. 

You are making claims about Christianity so let’s move on to the next point.  If your claims are true then I repeat:

‘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 do not want to let my phrase ‘main-stream Church’ be a stumbling block.  So let it be any Church with a large international membership.  Take your pick. 

Bear in mind the topic of this discussion is your claim:

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

To help you a bit, would it not be more accurate to say that you believe:

‘Historically speaking the atrocities that Christians have engaged in make what Islam as done not much more than a drop in the bucket.’

This way you are not talking about Christianity but about the behaviour of Christians. 

If you wish to stay with your word ‘Christianity’ as opposed to ‘Christians’ and since Christianity is taught by Christian churches then my request to you remains.  But bear in mind your own methodology of ‘taking the Bible as a whole…’  Quoting individual versus violates your own methodology.

Regards

Permalink Reply by Netcon on June 11, 2012 at 11:25

Message from Admin Team: COC Violation by member: Mark

Clause Breached:  4.7.3 Strange Use of Language
Warning Level: RED
 
Explanation
There are many examples of this Strange Use of Language, but we just explain the one for brevity.
In this post, Alan Lake explains the 2 differing interpretations of the English statements given:
http://4freedoms.ning.com/group/christians/forum/topics/is-christia...
The 1st interpretation, assigned to Mark is a strange one.  The 2nd interpretation, assigned to John, is the statistically 'normal' one.
Mark does not contest this interpretation in his reply below.  He continues on happily from it, so he must accept it. 
Even if Mark were to come back and say now that he didn't accept it, that would be violation 4.7.4 - Strange Mental Models, since we don't expect people to let that kind of allegation pass by them, while they blissfully continue on to another point.
Normally, for these kinds of possible misunderstandings, we issue a Yellow warning.  However, in Mark's case, there are many instances of this strange use of language, and it has caused a great deal of frustration and time wasting amongst our members, as we struggle to help someone, in our foolish kindness.  Therefore, this warning has been raised to Red level.

Mark said:

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:)

Permalink Reply by Mark on June 11, 2012 at 11:32

Kinana,

 

Here's a taste....

 

"Any main stream church as well as the "minor stream" one's as well.  You can take your pick"

Would you deny that it pretty much has always been the accepted Christian doctrine that if I don't accept Jesus as my lord and savior, that either I'll be annihilated (killed for good) or as most popular, that I'll be punished and tortured for all of eternity? Not just for a few billion years to make me perhaps change my mind. No. For all of eternity. For the horrible crime of not being a Christian, and presumably being deceived by a spiritual being called "Satan."The reply to this is usually something about my free will, however I know that this can be no good explanation, because if I can deceive someone to believe as an example, that the red light means go and the green light means stop, all of your free will in the world won't stop you from running many a red light.  So billions of people  are going to be punished and tortured for not being a Christian, and at that, for all of eternity. Gosh, where could Muhammad have gotten such a an idea from, regarding not being a Muslim?  

 

Brother Mark:)



Mark said:

Kinana,

 

"I think we may have reached an impasse.  I do not accept the first point of your definition of Christianity (via Webster dictionary).  But if that is what you believe then you go ahead.  Use whatever definitions you want to suit your own opinions and conclusions agreed to by yourself.  That is fine by me". 

You're the one one not accepting the Webster's dictionary definition of Christianity, but yet you seem to want to make it sound as if I'm just believing what I want regarding the term from nowhere as it suits me. You're the one here who refused to give your definition of the word Christianity or accept the dictionary definition even though you yourself I presume are a Christian! and told me "I'll let you define it." Perhaps this is because you might be aware that your definition (whatever that might be) would fail to meet any standard of objective scrutiny and would only serve to placate your very specialized perception of what you would like Christianity to mean for you.  

"I do not want to let my phrase ‘main-stream Church’ be a stumbling block.  So let it be any Church with a large international membership.  Take your pick". 

As you define "main stream church" I would have to say that any "main stream church" would qualify to answer your question of which "main stream" church teaching coincides with my understanding of Christianity  as I am promoting it here.

Any main stream church as well as the "minor stream" one's as well.  You can take your pick.

 "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".

As you have allowed me to work with the Webster's dictionary definition of Christianity, and given some of the conversation that we have already had, I believe that both of these are about to be finally dealt with in an earnest manner.

"If you wish to stay with your word ‘Christianity’ as opposed to ‘Christians’ and since Christianity is taught by Christian churches then my request to you remains.  But bear in mind your own methodology of ‘taking the Bible as a whole…’  Quoting individual versus violates your own methodology".

The individual verses were only being quoted to underscore the fact that there is far more encouragement and justification for violence in the Bible "taken as a whole" than anything written about forgiveness and loving kindness.

Please forgive me if any of my conversation offends you,  I only consider it good and meaningful conversation. I love you also.

 

Brother Mark:)

P.S.

 I'll plan on being back in touch tomorrow....it's breakfast time!



Kinana said:

Mark

I think we may have reached an impasse.  I do not accept the first point of your definition of Christianity (via Webster dictionary).  But if that is what you believe then you go ahead.  Use whatever definitions you want to suit your own opinions and conclusions agreed to by yourself.  That is fine by me. 

You are making claims about Christianity so let’s move on to the next point.  If your claims are true then I repeat:

‘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 do not want to let my phrase ‘main-stream Church’ be a stumbling block.  So let it be any Church with a large international membership.  Take your pick. 

Bear in mind the topic of this discussion is your claim:

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

To help you a bit, would it not be more accurate to say that you believe:

‘Historically speaking the atrocities that Christians have engaged in make what Islam as done not much more than a drop in the bucket.’

This way you are not talking about Christianity but about the behaviour of Christians. 

If you wish to stay with your word ‘Christianity’ as opposed to ‘Christians’ and since Christianity is taught by Christian churches then my request to you remains.  But bear in mind your own methodology of ‘taking the Bible as a whole…’  Quoting individual versus violates your own methodology.

Regards

Permalink Reply by Mark on June 11, 2012 at 11:42

Kinana,

 

Here's a taste....

 

"Any main stream church as well as the "minor stream" one's as well.  You can take your pick"

Would you deny that it pretty much has always been the accepted Christian doctrine that if I don't accept Jesus as my lord and savior, that either I'll be annihilated (killed for good) or as most popular, that I'll be punished and tortured for all of eternity? Not just for a few billion years to make me perhaps change my mind. No. For all of eternity. For the horrible crime of not being a Christian, and presumably being deceived by a spiritual being called "Satan."The reply to this is usually something about my free will, however I know that this can be no good explanation, because if I can deceive someone to believe as an example, that the red light means go and the green light means stop, all of your free will in the world won't stop you from running many a red light.  So billions of people  are going to be punished and tortured for not being a Christian, and at that, for all of eternity. Gosh, where could Muhammad have gotten such a an idea from, regarding not being a Muslim?  Would you deny that the best teacher teaches by example?

 

Brother Mark:)



Mark said:

Kinana,

 

"I think we may have reached an impasse.  I do not accept the first point of your definition of Christianity (via Webster dictionary).  But if that is what you believe then you go ahead.  Use whatever definitions you want to suit your own opinions and conclusions agreed to by yourself.  That is fine by me". 

You're the one one not accepting the Webster's dictionary definition of Christianity, but yet you seem to want to make it sound as if I'm just believing what I want regarding the term from nowhere as it suits me. You're the one here who refused to give your definition of the word Christianity or accept the dictionary definition even though you yourself I presume are a Christian! and told me "I'll let you define it." Perhaps this is because you might be aware that your definition (whatever that might be) would fail to meet any standard of objective scrutiny and would only serve to placate your very specialized perception of what you would like Christianity to mean for you.  

"I do not want to let my phrase ‘main-stream Church’ be a stumbling block.  So let it be any Church with a large international membership.  Take your pick". 

As you define "main stream church" I would have to say that any "main stream church" would qualify to answer your question of which "main stream" church teaching coincides with my understanding of Christianity  as I am promoting it here.

Any main stream church as well as the "minor stream" one's as well.  You can take your pick.

 "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".

As you have allowed me to work with the Webster's dictionary definition of Christianity, and given some of the conversation that we have already had, I believe that both of these are about to be finally dealt with in an earnest manner.

"If you wish to stay with your word ‘Christianity’ as opposed to ‘Christians’ and since Christianity is taught by Christian churches then my request to you remains.  But bear in mind your own methodology of ‘taking the Bible as a whole…’  Quoting individual versus violates your own methodology".

The individual verses were only being quoted to underscore the fact that there is far more encouragement and justification for violence in the Bible "taken as a whole" than anything written about forgiveness and loving kindness.

Please forgive me if any of my conversation offends you,  I only consider it good and meaningful conversation. I love you also.

 

Brother Mark:)

P.S.

 I'll plan on being back in touch tomorrow....it's breakfast time!



Kinana said:

Mark

I think we may have reached an impasse.  I do not accept the first point of your definition of Christianity (via Webster dictionary).  But if that is what you believe then you go ahead.  Use whatever definitions you want to suit your own opinions and conclusions agreed to by yourself.  That is fine by me. 

You are making claims about Christianity so let’s move on to the next point.  If your claims are true then I repeat:

‘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 do not want to let my phrase ‘main-stream Church’ be a stumbling block.  So let it be any Church with a large international membership.  Take your pick. 

Bear in mind the topic of this discussion is your claim:

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

To help you a bit, would it not be more accurate to say that you believe:

‘Historically speaking the atrocities that Christians have engaged in make what Islam as done not much more than a drop in the bucket.’

This way you are not talking about Christianity but about the behaviour of Christians. 

If you wish to stay with your word ‘Christianity’ as opposed to ‘Christians’ and since Christianity is taught by Christian churches then my request to you remains.  But bear in mind your own methodology of ‘taking the Bible as a whole…’  Quoting individual versus violates your own methodology.

Regards

Permalink Reply by Mark on June 11, 2012 at 12:39

Hi everybody!

 

Clauses Breached:

4.2.3 Unsubstantiated Allegations: YELLOW warning

4.6.4 Shoddy Evidence and Research (Time Wasting):  RED warning

 

Explanation:
At the very beginning of this discussion, Mark gave this link as proof that Christianity is more murderous than Islam:

http://notachristian.org/christianatrocities.html

Its a long list of deaths that have been directly attributed to christianity.  To save time, Admin has attempted to verify the veracity and applicability of only a random selection of these alleged 'facts'.

1. Alleged 'fact': Germany

*1349 In more than 350 towns in Germany all Jews murdered, mostly burned alive (in this one year more Jews were killed than Christians in 200 years of ancient Roman persecution of Christians). [DO42]

Actual Historical Evidence:

January
– The Jewish population of Basal Switzerland is rounded up and incinerated, believed by the residents to be the cause of the ongoing Black death febuary 1 – Roughly 2,000 jews are burned to death in Strasburg. March 21 – The bulk of the 900 strong Jewish community of Eurfert Germany is murdered by the rest of the population which accuses the minority to be the underlying cause of the Black Death

 

Violation numero ono...

 "use of this spurious source caused Admin to waste many hours checking out facts"...

I can see that the admn. is hard at work trying to find reasons to get me put off this forum.

"I'm not going to go through every town, because it was pretty much the same reason. in some cases it may have been opportunism"

Yes, it was "opportunism" alright...

Have any of you ever wondered why the Christians would want to blame the Jews for the black plague in the first place? Anti semitism? NOOOOO, why would anyone say such a thing? I can still remember when I was a little boy, and my Christian friends told me that the Jews had murdered their "savior".

"Violation"numero dos...

"That statement is a long way from your claim that the blood spilt by islam is a drop in the bucket of the blood spilt by christianity. You don't seem to be prepared to admit that you were wrong, yet you don't provide any of the evidence I asked you to provide. "What I challenge you to do is to provide evidence that in the 300 years following the death of Jesus, that christians exhibited the same rapacious, murderous actions as muslims did in the 300 years following his death"

I answered this by responding to the fact that for the first 300 years Christianity did not have the state power to behave the same way as did Islam which had its state power much sooner. You seemed to have missed that somehow...

"This is not relevant to the question of whether Christians or Muslims are more murderous.  It is Fogging".

How nice of you to pick out one statement among many regarding this issue and consider it "fogging."

 

Brother Mark:)



Netcon said:

Message from Admin Team: COC Violation by member: Mark

Clauses Breached: 4.2.3 Unsubstantiated Allegations & 4.6.4 Shoddy Evidence and Research (Time Wasting)
Warning Level:  4.2.3 = YELLOW;  4.6.4 = RED
 
Explanation:
At the very beginning of this discussion, Mark gave this link as proof that Christianity is more murderous than Islam:
http://notachristian.org/christianatrocities.html

Its a long list of deaths that have been directly attributed to christianity.  To save time, Admin has attempted to verify the veracity and applicability of only a random selection of these alleged 'facts'.

1. Alleged 'fact': Germany
*1349 In more than 350 towns in Germany all Jews murdered, mostly burned alive (in this one year more Jews were killed than Christians in 200 years of ancient Roman persecution of Christians). [DO42]

Actual Historical Evidence:
January
– The Jewish population of Basal Switzerland is rounded up and incinerated, believed by the residents to be the cause of the ongoing Black death febuary 1 – Roughly 2,000 jews are burned to death in Strasburg. March 21 – The bulk of the 900 strong Jewish community of Eurfert Germany is murdered by the rest of the population which accuses the minority to be the underlying cause of the Black Death

I'm not going to go through every town, because it was pretty much the same reason. in some cases it may have been opportunism.

Maybe here we need to define religious war. 
Holy wars usually have three elements:
the achievement of a religious goal

authorised by a religious leader

a spiritual reward for those who take part
Francis Bacon said there were five causes for holy war: (he wrote in a Christian context, but the categories would be usable by any faith)
to spread the faith 
to retrieve countries that were once Christian, even though there are no Christians left there 
to rescue Christians in countries that were once Christian from 'the servitude of the infidels' 
recover and purify consecrated places that are presently being 'polluted and profaned' 
avenge blasphemous acts, or cruelties and killings of Christians (even if these took place long ago) 

Conclusion: The quoted fact does not justify the allegation
 
 
2. Alleged Fact: England
*1257, 1267 Jewish communities of London, Canterbury, Northampton, Lincoln, Cambridge, and others exterminated. [DO41]

Actual Historical Evidence:

1257-1267
English Jews
Historian K Deschner reports extermination of Jewish communities in London, Canterbury, Northampton, Lincoln and Cambridge. Unverified. The Jewish history site reports pillaging during a civil war of 1263 (opportunistic, not specifically anti-Semitic) and damage to a synagogue that year, but no "extermination". 
This was part of what are known as the baron wars.
Conclusion: The quoted fact does not justify the allegation 

We went through other items in the list and found a twisting of historical truth, in all of them.  Mark's capricious (or is it malicious?) use of this spurious source caused Admin to waste many hours checking out facts for which a simple check by him would have shown their distortion.
Permalink Reply by Mark on June 11, 2012 at 12:42

"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)".



Netcon said:

Message from Admin Team: COC Violation by member: Mark

Clause Breached:  4.7.3 Strange Use of Language
Warning Level: RED
 
Explanation
There are many examples of this Strange Use of Language, but we just explain the one for brevity.
In this post, Alan Lake explains the 2 differing interpretations of the English statements given:
http://4freedoms.ning.com/group/christians/forum/topics/is-christia...
The 1st interpretation, assigned to Mark is a strange one.  The 2nd interpretation, assigned to John, is the statistically 'normal' one.
Mark does not contest this interpretation in his reply below.  He continues on happily from it, so he must accept it. 
Even if Mark were to come back and say now that he didn't accept it, that would be violation 4.7.4 - Strange Mental Models, since we don't expect people to let that kind of allegation pass by them, while they blissfully continue on to another point.
Normally, for these kinds of possible misunderstandings, we issue a Yellow warning.  However, in Mark's case, there are many instances of this strange use of language, and it has caused a great deal of frustration and time wasting amongst our members, as we struggle to help someone, in our foolish kindness.  Therefore, this warning has been raised to Red level.

Mark said:

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:)

Permalink Reply by Mark on June 11, 2012 at 12:44

"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)".

Netcon said:

Message from Admin Team: COC Violation by member: Mark

Clause Breached:  4.7.3 Strange Use of Language
Warning Level: RED
 
Explanation
There are many examples of this Strange Use of Language, but we just explain the one for brevity.
In this post, Alan Lake explains the 2 differing interpretations of the English statements given:
http://4freedoms.ning.com/group/christians/forum/topics/is-christia...
The 1st interpretation, assigned to Mark is a strange one.  The 2nd interpretation, assigned to John, is the statistically 'normal' one.
Mark does not contest this interpretation in his reply below.  He continues on happily from it, so he must accept it. 
Even if Mark were to come back and say now that he didn't accept it, that would be violation 4.7.4 - Strange Mental Models, since we don't expect people to let that kind of allegation pass by them, while they blissfully continue on to another point.
Normally, for these kinds of possible misunderstandings, we issue a Yellow warning.  However, in Mark's case, there are many instances of this strange use of language, and it has caused a great deal of frustration and time wasting amongst our members, as we struggle to help someone, in our foolish kindness.  Therefore, this warning has been raised to Red level.

Mark said:

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

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)"

© 2023   Created by Netcon.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service