If somone says they have converted because they are afraid of God, then they havn't truly converted. Jesus doesn't want us to be in cowaring fear of him, he wants to build a relationship with us, we are to fear God but out of respect not true fear. If we are truly affraid of him then we can't have a relationship with him. We have a saying, Religeon is Dead, Jesus Lives! People don't convert because they are affraid of going to hell, but because they love God. For we know that through Jesus, hell has no power over those who believe.

oldsoldier wrote: People are evil, and violent, not ideas.

Agree.  I don't think it makes sense to declare a particular religion "evil" or "not evil".

brihard wrote: MT, I'd reccommend refreshing yourself with the conflicts in Ireland, in particular the 'troubles'. Much catholic vs protestant violence and terrorism. Witness atrocities committed between Christian Croats and Muslim Serbs in the 1990s. I know men who fought in the Medak Pocket in Croatia and killed Croatian soldiers who were massacring Serbian civilians- it was a war fought in great part over religious-based cultural differences. 'Ethnic cleansing' is a lovely term, isn't it? Sounds much nicer than 'genocide'. There are Chrsitian terrorist groups waging battles in India. In 2004 they killed 44 Hindus. The Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda is a Christian nationalist element with strong terrorist cells. Don't make claims without research.

Now, I do not believe that the majority of muslims are evil, most of them are good. However I do believe that the terrorist are following the original teachings of mohamed. I beleive this because when Mohamed first began to preach in Mecca, no one believed him. So he went to Medina where he converted many, he then led his new converts back to Mecca where he had them slaghter the population of Mecca for not believing him.
I just hope that the majority of muslims continue in thier belief in a peacefull islam, wheather that is true islam or not.

MT. Vigilante wrote: Those people are not Christians, they may call themselves Christians but they are not because they are not following anything in the Bible.

Lamest excuse ever.  That same reasoning could be used (and has been) to claim that the jihadists are not really Muslim.

Sorry - if they read the Bible and claim to be Christian, then they are Christian for all practical purposes.  You don't get to conveniently declare anybody "not a Christian" who does something you disagree with.

Most if not all "violent" quotes in the Bible are taken from the Old Testement, and it's laws were made basically obsolete by Jesus and the New Testement.

No where does the Bible order Christians to cut the heads off non-believers or make it's goal to convert the entire world or kill it.

MT. Vigilante wrote: Those people are not Christians, they may call themselves Christians but they are not because they are not following anything in the Bible. Christ said this; " For God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." John 3:17. So any terrorist who calls himself a christian is not one at all. You are probably thinking, the same could be said about islam, this is not true. For the extremists can find many examples in thier religion that they are true muslims, so called "Christian Terrorists" can not. You may now be asking how I know this, I have asked many a muslim and they all say the same thing, wich is exactly what I have told you now. Now, I do not believe that the majority of muslims are evil, most of them are good. However I do believe that the terrorist are following the original teachings of mohamed. I beleive this because when Mohamed first began to preach in Mecca, no one believed him. So he went to Medina where he converted many, he then led his new converts back to Mecca where he had them slaghter the population of Mecca for not believing him. I just hope that the majority of muslims continue in thier belief in a peacefull islam, wheather that is true islam or not.

And of course those christian terrorists, whernt following the teachings of the bible either... It may never say to grab a .45 and kill abortion doctors, but neither does the Koran.

So you cant accuse the muzlims on that without taking the same thing into consideration for your own religion.

fractus.scud wrote: "Convert or die by the sword" are their chants. Had a Catholic said this he/she would probably be excommunicated from the Church.  There is clearly a difference.

I believe "convert or die by the sword" was how much of the world was initially converted to christianity...

fractus.scud wrote: Most if not all "violent" quotes in the Bible are taken from the Old Testement, and it's laws were made basically obsolete by Jesus and the New Testement.

Well that's just wrong.  Why is there an OT reading every Sunday?

The Ten Commandments are now obsolete?

Skillet42565 wrote: fractus, murder is murder, the numbers dont matter.

Skillet, I wouldn't be bringing Christianity into the discussion, but some characters here decided to compare Christianity to radical Islam.

Actually numbers do matter. Let's say you have religion A and B. Both have extremists.

Religion A's extremists have killed 7 people in 30 years.

Religion B's extremists have killed 30 people in seven hours.

Obviously, religion B has more issues. Granted a murder is a murder, but when one religion's extremists are murdering far more than the other somthing is wrong, especially when there is a dead silence from the "moderates" not doing anything to try to stop the violence.

Extremists of most religions are no good for anybody. However the difference between extremist Islam and extremist Christian sects is what they're trying to follow.

Christian fundamentalists are dangerous because they follow everything in the bible. As depicted in the bible(especially the old testament) God is a mass-murdering jerk. These people try to do God's work(or their interpretation) and don't pay so much attention in emulating Jesus.

Islamic fundamentalist problem is when they try to emulate the Prophet. While a lot of Islam's teaching are fundamentally good, especially their emphasis on charity and such, Mohammed's actions are not exactly a good thing to follow. Emulating the prohet isn't required of Muslims, but it's a way for crazy fundemantalists to say "Nah nah, I'm more devout than you are".

In short

Jesus=good role model

Mohammed=bad role model

The messages behind both religions are mostly good, but literal interpretation or the text is bad, as is acting like a warlord. Mohammed billed himself as a prophet, therefore not requiring followers to do anything except what god tells him to tell them. No need to do as he does. Jesus billed himself as the savior/god personified whatever, so he requires some sort emulation.

It's the man vs. the message.

MT. Vigilante wrote: brihard wrote: MT. Vigilante wrote: brihard wrote: MT, I'd reccommend refreshing yourself with the conflicts in Ireland, in particular the 'troubles'. Much catholic vs protestant violence and terrorism. Witness atrocities committed between Christian Croats and Muslim Serbs in the 1990s. I know men who fought in the Medak Pocket in Croatia and killed Croatian soldiers who were massacring Serbian civilians- it was a war fought in great part over religious-based cultural differences. 'Ethnic cleansing' is a lovely term, isn't it? Sounds much nicer than 'genocide'. There are Chrsitian terrorist groups waging battles in India. In 2004 they killed 44 Hindus. The Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda is a Christian nationalist element with strong terrorist cells. Don't make claims without research. Those people are not Christians, they may call themselves Christians but they are not because they are not following anything in the Bible. Christ said this; " For God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." John 3:17. So any terrorist who calls himself a christian is not one at all. You are probably thinking, the same could be said about islam, this is not true. For the extremists can find many examples in thier religion that they are true muslims, so called "Christian Terrorists" can not. You may now be asking how I know this, I have asked many a muslim and they all say the same thing, wich is exactly what I have told you now. Now, I do not believe that the majority of muslims are evil, most of them are good. However I do believe that the terrorist are following the original teachings of mohamed. I beleive this because when Mohamed first began to preach in Mecca, no one believed him. So he went to Medina where he converted many, he then led his new converts back to Mecca where he had them slaghter the population of Mecca for not believing him. I just hope that the majority of muslims continue in thier belief in a peacefull islam, wheather that is true islam or not. Bull. I'll drag up biblical quotes later after class if noone else beats me to it, but there are DEFINITELY parts in the bible that call for violence against others. Likewise, the radical muslims are deemed by moderates within their own religion to not be following the true tenets of their faith. I'd suggest checking out the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. You'll find it illuminating Show me one Bible verse where Jesus tells his followers to kill people if they don't convert, just one. And it has to be from the New Testement, (of coars that is the only place where Jesus' teachings are written down anyway.) And to whoever said that the Ten commandments are null and void, that is not true, Jesus said himself that they are still to be followed, but they say nothing about killing anyone anyway, infact they clearly say "You shall not comit murder."

And yet God himself, flooded the planet... do you not consider that murder? truth be told, if where to believe the bible, God has commited way more sin than any of us. You wanna talk about Gennocide, think about it. Millions and Millions of people where killed just because they did'nt believe a certain way.

I dont give a damn who kills them for what they believe weather its God or follower, its still wrong. God supposadly gave us the free will to live our lives as we want, he may be all powerfull but even he can't take back a promise he gave to us. So either one God is a lier and we shouldnt believe anything he says, or 2 the bible is not true and we should'nt trust it. I dont wanna hear any of that "G0Dz sp3cialz! H3 c4n D0oZ w4T3VER!" beucause you and I both know thats a bunch of B.S.

-Goodbye and Goodnight

usafpilot07 wrote: XenoSabre wrote: Christianity doesn't need terrorism. People are converted to christianity because of one of two reasons... 1. They truely believe 2. They are afraid of eternal damnation Don't you have to believe in order to be afraid of eternal damnation?  If you don't believe in Christianity, you'd think that you aren't going to be subject to eternal damnation.

would'nt that make you try to not screw up even tho your not 100% sure it'll happen.

oldsoldier wrote: Christianity has done its best to move out of its middle age mentality and grasp more modern concepts.

Christianity has?  I hadn't noticed.

What are these modern concepts that Christianity has grasped?

Modern science?  No.

Modern sexuality?  No.

Women's equality?  No.

Modern family structure?  No.

Please help me understand all these modern concepts that Christianity has grasped.

MT. Vigilante wrote: Show me one Bible verse where Jesus tells his followers to kill people if they don't convert, just one. And it has to be from the New Testement, (of coars that is the only place where Jesus' teachings are written down anyway.) And to whoever said that the Ten commandments are null and void, that is not true, Jesus said himself that they are still to be followed, but they say nothing about killing anyone anyway, infact they clearly say "You shall not comit murder."

You are pretty wrong on all counts there...

 - Christianity doesn't toss out of the OT entirely - it never has.  It just picks and chooses at will (kind of like you are doing now, actually).

 - Please cite chapter and verse where Jesus refers to the Ten Commandments.

 - The Fifth Commandment is sometimes translated as "no murder", other times as "no kill".  It depends on the translation.  And, of course, translations into other languages yield other nuances.  Have you read the original version?  No?  Me neither.  I wouldn't call the bible's specific stance on killing clear at all.

Vigilante wrote: Clark Kent wrote: Sorry - if they read the Bible and claim to be Christian, then they are Christian for all practical purposes.  You don't get to conveniently declare anybody "not a Christian" who does something you disagree with. That is not true, the Bible clearly states that regardless of what you say, if you are not following and teaching what the Bible teaches then you are not a true christian.

Chapter and verse, please.

But accepting your interpretation regardless, I hereby declare you NOT a true Christian.  Congratulations.

I beg to differ that Christianity is not in a crusade right now. If you talk to some of the more staunch believers that will tell you that we are in a biblical battle in the middle east right now, and that it is good (christianity) vs. evil (islam). It doesn't matter what the original intent of the war was, only what matters in the eyes of the believers.

I am not so sure that christians are as holy as they believe, or in line with God's thinking. Many are wholeheartedly behind the "war on terror" which has killed tens of thousands of innocent people. When car bombs kill innocent people, they call it "murder". When laser-guided bombs kill people, they call it "collateral damage."

I still scratch my head (being a christian), how people ever got that going to war is what God wants. The teachings of Christ are that when confronted, we let our enemy slap both cheeks, give him our coat as well as our shirt, and pray for his forgiveness. That is a far stretch from cheering explosions on the nightly news.

I see the bible as more of a philosophy then a religion, I wouldnt mind if people followed it because it would make the world a better place if we didnt hate each other, but people take it to the exstream and try to convert everybody and act like a bunch of idiots.

oldsoldier wrote: It is a question for many. Why in the name of God, do we kill. Christianity is a lot less extreme in the kill in the name of God game than the current crop of Islamic fanatics. I can not remmember the last time the religious police walked the streets of America (maybe the Salem Witch Trials) and condemned to public punishment those non-believers, or any transgretion(sp)against God. Remmember Thursdays in Riyad, where "Chop Chop Square" was off limits due to punishment day. I really do prefere the more passive "hail mary" christian approach to religious punishment over public floggings, blindings, stoning, the decapitation here and there, etc. Or maybe it is time for a good ole Christian Inquisition?

If this is true, it is only due to the continued efforts of the NON-Christians on this country.  If the Christian extremists had their way, we would be enforcing the Bible as law even now.

Salem witch trials the most recent example?  Where have you been?  Scopes monkey trial?  Dover evolution trial (last year!), book burnings, sodomy laws, "one nation under God", school prayer, school segregation, women's lib, birth control, homosexual marriage - the list goes on and on.

Christianity has been a major factor of every major social and political battle this country has ever had, and usually has argued for a return to medieval times.  If Fred Phelps and his gang had their way, we would indeed be having public executions.  American Christianity is an amazingly anti-progressive institution.

OS, I have spent enough time in the Middle East to understand that the "burps" in the US are quite different from Sharia - clearly that is true.

But my point is that this is true not because of the goodness of Christianity, but because of the secularization of the US.  Back when Christianity ruled countries the way Islam rules in the Middle East, the situation was much more similar.

And if the Christian extremists of today had their way, we would be just as medieval as the Middle East. 

We are modern DESPITE Christianity, not Because of it.

EDIT - you are fast, Tolga...!

MT. Vigilante wrote: O.K., First the Ten Comandments, Jesus said; "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, untill heaven and earth disapear, not the smallest letter, nor the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disapear from the Law untill everything is accomplished." Mathew 5:17-18 Clear enough for you?

Not even close.  How do you know he is talking about the Ten Commandments, and not some other part of Leviticus or Deutoronomy?  Or the rest of the OT, for that matter.  I don't see how you can arbitrarily pick out the Ten Commandments, but still wear clothes from two different fabrics, or not stone adulterers to death.

As for not following the Bible, Jesus said; " I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers..." John 15: 5-6. That is the best one I can get off the top of my head, but I will find a more clear verse for you.

I agree that Jesus thinks you should do like he says - but how does that make anybody that doesn't follow his word not a Christian?  That's an extremely self-serving and circular reading and definition.

And god said " Vengence is Mine." So we are not to do it for him.

He said that in the New Testament?

mbro wrote: Jesus could only name six

Which is five more than a certain Congressman on The Colbert Report.

Clark Kent wrote: MT. Vigilante wrote: O.K., First the Ten Comandments, Jesus said; "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, untill heaven and earth disapear, not the smallest letter, nor the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disapear from the Law untill everything is accomplished." Mathew 5:17-18 Clear enough for you? Not even close.  How do you know he is talking about the Ten Commandments, and not some other part of Leviticus or Deutoronomy?  Or the rest of the OT, for that matter.  I don't see how you can arbitrarily pick out the Ten Commandments, but still wear clothes from two different fabrics, or not stone adulterers to death. As for not following the Bible, Jesus said; " I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers..." John 15: 5-6. That is the best one I can get off the top of my head, but I will find a more clear verse for you. I agree that Jesus thinks you should do like he says - but how does that make anybody that doesn't follow his word not a Christian?  That's an extremely self-serving and circular reading and definition.

I know he is talking about the ten comandments because the ten comandments are what is important, the law of judiaism was given to the people in order for them to be saved, because Christ hadn't come yet. Before Christ came people were saved by thier works (what they did) and not by grace, which is how we are saved now. Becuase Jesus Christ died for all of our sin for all time, and then rising from the dead he defeated death for us, so all that is required of us to be saved now is to believe in him.
Now we must still keep the ten commandments however, becuase that is how we show our love for Christ Jesus. For Jesus said;         & nbsp; " If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. " John 14:23. All of what we know about the relationship between we who believe and the old Law of Judiasm, is well described by Paul in the book of Galatians.

I understand how it is difficult for you to understand what I am saying. In order for anyone to understand God's word, they must first have faith in God and his word, and have the Holy Spirit working in them. First comes faith, then comes understanding.

MT. Vigilante wrote: First, lets look at what the word Christian means, it means followers of the Christ. How can you be a follower of Christ Jesus if you are not emulating him as we are supposed to? Now don't misenterpret that, we all fall short of emulating Christ, we are not perfect and Christ is. But the difference between true Christians and those "Christian Terrorists" is that a true Christian recognizes that they have sinned, asks God to forgive them, and seeks to stop committing that sin and live thier life more like Christ. The "Christian Terrorist" purposely lives a life completely contrary to how Jesus taght us to live, and does not seek to change his life, and end his or her sin.

And that is a convenient explanation.  Many Christians, of course, disagree, and will proclaim you a heretic.  Your explanation also, of course, requires some aggressive and/or circular interpretation of scripture, or just simple assumption about the mind of God.

I am not convinced.

I know he is talking about the ten comandments because the ten comandments are what is important, the law of judiaism was given to the people in order for them to be saved, because Christ hadn't come yet.

Surely you can see how circular that position is.

I understand how it is difficult for you to understand what I am saying. In order for anyone to understand God's word, they must first have faith in God and his word, and have the Holy Spirit working in them. First comes faith, then comes understanding.

Methinks you are making entirely unwarranted (and extremely arrogant) assumptions about my beliefs and my education.

Religion? Don't waste my time

    Let me start honestly, I didn't read most of the posts in this thread, but for good reason. First of all the Pope did not call Islam eveil, instead he was making a point in the differing opinions between religions and quoted a medieval emporer to make a point of the friction between Isalm and Christiandom. But nobody bothered to make note of that.

   Then begins the downward spiral into differing doctrine. Every religion that has ever existed has some black spots on it, it is inevitable as man has free will and is fallible. Zealotry is nearly always bad and both the Bible and the Quran are used by groups to justify murder and other grisly punishments, none of which is condoned in either text.

   Religious terrorists have used and will continue to use religion in order to make promises of greater glory in the next life to inspire their followers to greater ruthlessness and to follow through with their crimes.

    However to label religion as bad is pure ignorance. There are far more charitable organizations with religious affiliates then not, every food pantry (feeding the poor) in my local area is church sponsored and run by parishoners. Churches gathered money and work crews for relief after hurricanes Andrew and Katrina. The US Constitution was written under tenants of the Bible and the motto "In God we trust" was no mistake. The American Civil war was inspired by the irrefutable truth that every man is a child of God and is thereby entitled to his inalienable right of freedom.

    I agree that extemists are bad, and I know that religious doctrine is misused in recruiting sad individuals to do evil acts, but religion is not inherently evil. I believe that most of you who attack christians do so because the idea of right and wrong upsets you. People shouldn't be punished for murder, rape and theft, they were just victims of a poor upbringing.

  God forbid there be some morality in the world.

Joe Cool wrote:     Let me start honestly, I didn't read most of the posts in this thread, but for good reason.

Joe Cool wrote: First of all the Pope did not call Islam eveil, instead he was making a point in the differing opinions between religions and quoted a medieval emporer to make a point of the friction between Isalm and Christiandom. But nobody bothered to make note of that.

Joe Cool wrote:    Then begins the downward spiral into differing doctrine. Every religion that has ever existed has some black spots on it, it is inevitable as man has free will and is fallible. Zealotry is nearly always bad and both the Bible and the Quran are used by groups to justify murder and other grisly punishments, none of which is condoned in either text.

Joe Cool wrote:    Religious terrorists have used and will continue to use religion in order to make promises of greater glory in the next life to inspire their followers to greater ruthlessness and to follow through with their crimes.

Correct. this is true for zealots of most faiths.

Joe Cool wrote:     However to label religion as bad is pure ignorance. There are far more charitable organizations with religious affiliates then not, every food pantry (feeding the poor) in my local area is church sponsored and run by parishoners. Churches gathered money and work crews for relief after hurricanes Andrew and Katrina. The US Constitution was written under tenants of the Bible and the motto "In God we trust" was no mistake.

The United States is a secular republic. There's no room for religion in the affairs fo the state. As for the beenfits of religion, I absolutely agree- I admire many tenets of most religions. In fact, the Muslim pillar of hospitality is very admirable, as wella s its equivalents in Christianity and Judaism. However, all of these sentiments and charities have secular equivalents that do equal good. Religion is not necessary for good to be done.

Joe Cool wrote: The American Civil war was inspired by the irrefutable truth that every man is a child of God and is thereby entitled to his inalienable right of freedom.

Slavery was only one of many causes, most of which were sociological, political, and economic factors. The evolution of the North's concept of republicanism outpaced the South's, and caused great political divide. The Civil War was 'inspired' by much more selfish causes across the board than the concept of emancipation.

Joe Cool wrote:     I agree that extemists are bad, and I know that religious doctrine is misused in recruiting sad individuals to do evil acts, but religion is not inherently evil..

Correct

Joe Cool wrote: I believe that most of you who attack christians do so because the idea of right and wrong upsets you..

Utterly incorrect. Right and wrong are moral concepts that are, ideally, impressed upon a person during their upbringing, assuming that they have moral adult figures raising them, and so long as they perceive greater reward in conduct that we would view as virtuous or socially responsible. While right and wrong are purely artificial concepts created by man, and have no intrinsic truth in and of themselves, they're still one of the fundamental tenets of human behaviour. I don't think you cana rgue that anyone is scared of the concepts of right and wrong.

Joe Cool wrote: People shouldn't be punished for murder, rape and theft, they were just victims of a poor upbringing.

Joe Cool wrote:   God forbid there be some morality in the world.

  Brihard you amuse me. Lazy, not at all, when posts dissolve into individuals ranting about religion bringing evil into the world, then it becomes a sad, pointless debate which means it would be a waste of time to read. Intelligence? Intelligence? You must mean the universal truths such as "there is no god" and "evolution has to be true because they taught me in school".

   Now on to where you took me out of context, the "they're just a product of they're upbringing" is a direct shot at the liberal left who believes that justice should be meted out  in concordance with how bad someone's life has been. The Quran, Bible and Torah all denounce crime and criminals, in effect crime is black and white. I believe that somewhere along the line you said you wanted to be a policeman, perhaps will will learn how favorable the justice system in this country has become to the criminals. Oh and if you get into public service stay there, people as short-sighted as yourself rarely go far in the private sector.

    Next, lets tackle the most fundemental part. None of your "intelligent" peers seemed able to point out that the pope's words were taken out of context. A lot of that seems to go on here, in fact I would wager to say that these boards are full of future journalists. Then finally who cares if the Muslim world felt slighted? Christians are constantly belittled and brought under fire, and yet noone condemns these remarks.

      On I go to the debate over doctrine. Now the thread has left the original premise of "where are the moderate Muslims condemning the violence?" Thread spirals away after someone names God a sinner and thus the original topic is lost forever.

     OK, since you should have failed history, let me give you a quick history lesson. This country was colonized be many people who had fled Europe in order to find religious freedom and so religion (christianity) was prevelant in the colonies. Then we have the Declaration of Independence which reads " ... every man is endowed by his Creator with certain inalienable rights which include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..." Inalienable means that those who wrote this document and those that would follow found that God (still followin?), had bestowed these rights on men, not the Continental Congress, not the goverment, Xenu, or even Hillary Clinton, but God. Sound secular to you?

     The seperation of church and state was to ensure that there would be no fracturing throughout the nation based upon religious in fighting. Nor would Rome be able to influence national interest as had ocurred in Europe, look up the Tutor family for a terrific example. Finally you are correct, the civil war was ultimately fought over economics. However, slavery was the spark that ignited the powder keg as the end of slavery would have spelt doom for the southern economy. But despite all this, it was religion that forced the issue and as such what began a war that would define America.

     Finally, no religion does not need to be present for good to be done, but it does inspire many to do so. Christianity has been an itregal part of America and to this day it still is, otherwise the Democrats would not be trying to court them.

Joe Cool wrote: I believe that most of you who attack christians do so because the idea of right and wrong upsets you. People shouldn't be punished for murder, rape and theft, they were just victims of a poor upbringing.

I thought you made some interesting points, but you ruined it all with this statement.  This is a delusion common among religious folk - that all morality is dependent upon religion.  This claim is patently and obviously false, and taking this foolish position undermines any credibility you might have had on the subject of morality.

   For the first time Clark I'll admit you're right, instead I should have brought up Miranda as an example, or the Yates woman, or Willy Horton....

Joe Cool wrote: Brihard you amuse me. Lazy, not at all, when posts dissolve into individuals ranting about religion bringing evil into the world, then it becomes a sad, pointless debate which means it would be a waste of time to read. Intelligence? Intelligence? You must mean the universal truths such as "there is no god" and "evolution has to be true because they taught me in school".

Joe Cool wrote:    Now on to where you took me out of context, the "they're just a product of they're upbringing" is a direct shot at the liberal left who believes that justice should be meted out  in concordance with how bad someone's life has been. The Quran, Bible and Torah all denounce crime and criminals, in effect crime is black and white. I believe that somewhere along the line you said you wanted to be a policeman, perhaps will will learn how favorable the justice system in this country has become to the criminals. Oh and if you get into public service stay there, people as short-sighted as yourself rarely go far in the private sector.

Joe Cool wrote:     Next, lets tackle the most fundemental part. None of your "intelligent" peers seemed able to point out that the pope's words were taken out of context. A lot of that seems to go on here, in fact I would wager to say that these boards are full of future journalists.

Joe Cool wrote: Then finally who cares if the Muslim world felt slighted? Christians are constantly belittled and brought under fire, and yet noone condemns these remarks.

Joe Cool wrote:       On I go to the debate over doctrine. Now the thread has left the original premise of "where are the moderate Muslims condemning the violence?" Thread spirals away after someone names God a sinner and thus the original topic is lost forever.

Welcome to the internet.

Joe Cool wrote:      OK, since you should have failed history, let me give you a quick history lesson. This country was colonized be many people who had fled Europe in order to find religious freedom and so religion (christianity) was prevelant in the colonies. Then we have the Declaration of Independence which reads " ... every man is endowed by his Creator with certain inalienable rights which include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..." Inalienable means that those who wrote this document and those that would follow found that God (still followin?), had bestowed these rights on men, not the Continental Congress, not the goverment, Xenu, or even Hillary Clinton, but God. Sound secular to you?

Joe Cool wrote:      The seperation of church and state was to ensure that there would be no fracturing throughout the nation based upon religious in fighting. Nor would Rome be able to influence national interest as had ocurred in Europe, look up the Tutor family for a terrific example. Finally you are correct, the civil war was ultimately fought over economics. However, slavery was the spark that ignited the powder keg as the end of slavery would have spelt doom for the southern economy. But despite all this, it was religion that forced the issue and as such what began a war that would define America.

That would be the 'Tudor' family, King Henry the Eigth and his foundation of the Church of England in particular. One of the blessings of living in England for three years of my youth is a solid foundation in British history. The establishment of the Anglican church was indeed fractious, however England did not experience great upheaval as you would imply. Indeed, under Henry's daughter Elizabeth the First, England became one of the most dominant nations in Europe. I fail to see your point.

Joe Cool wrote:      Finally, no religion does not need to be present for good to be done, but it does inspire many to do so. Christianity has been an itregal part of America and to this day it still is, otherwise the Democrats would not be trying to court them.

Damn, bri.

All I can say is "ditto".

Clark Kent wrote: MT. Vigilante wrote: First, lets look at what the word Christian means, it means followers of the Christ. How can you be a follower of Christ Jesus if you are not emulating him as we are supposed to? Now don't misenterpret that, we all fall short of emulating Christ, we are not perfect and Christ is. But the difference between true Christians and those "Christian Terrorists" is that a true Christian recognizes that they have sinned, asks God to forgive them, and seeks to stop committing that sin and live thier life more like Christ. The "Christian Terrorist" purposely lives a life completely contrary to how Jesus taght us to live, and does not seek to change his life, and end his or her sin. And that is a convenient explanation.  Many Christians, of course, disagree, and will proclaim you a heretic.  Your explanation also, of course, requires some aggressive and/or circular interpretation of scripture, or just simple assumption about the mind of God. I am not convinced. I know he is talking about the ten comandments because the ten comandments are what is important, the law of judiaism was given to the people in order for them to be saved, because Christ hadn't come yet. Surely you can see how circular that position is. I understand how it is difficult for you to understand what I am saying. In order for anyone to understand God's word, they must first have faith in God and his word, and have the Holy Spirit working in them. First comes faith, then comes understanding. Methinks you are making entirely unwarranted (and extremely arrogant) assumptions about my beliefs and my education.

And please do not misunderstand me, I mean none of you any disrespect nor do I mean to insult your inteligence. I know that I am no greater than any other man, infact I am much lower than many.
    If you want God to prove these truths to you then ask him, it is that simple, just remember that God answers our prayers in his own time.

I will no longer argue this point, if you disagree with what the Bible teaches us through the Holy Spirit, then your arguement is not with me, it is with God. So take your questions to him.

MT. Vigilante wrote:   How can I use God's word to prove what Christ has taught us through the Holy spirit if those whom I speak to have no faith in Jesus?

Here is that presumption again.