Which Religion is more "pushy?" Christianity or Islam?

Arcadius · Feb 18, 2011

Walter said:
And I demonstrated that you are WRONG. (not to be PROGRESSIVELY assumed to mean WRONG!!!!!) There is only one standard that calibrates the Christian Religion and that would be the Holy Bible, and no where can you find a declaration of converting anyone to the faith against their will.....nowhere. Are you suggesting that people are born with an innate faith in Christianity and that faith has not been translated from generation to generation by the content of the Holy Scriptures? Its absurd to blame Christianity for the wrongs preformed by man when there is nothing in the standard that accepts such an act as being righteous. While on the other hand its a most easy thing to point to the Holy book of Islam and see the contrasting difference between the two religions. Its a most simple thing....point to the Book, Chapter and Verse where anyone could even assume that Christianity is to be promoted by violence.....but on the other hand............

Islam promotes a message in the Koran that suggests when any Muslim "thinks" they are being persecuted that it is the duty of the loyal Muslim to "...smite them on the neck until you have routed them..." (Surah 47:4), "Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you......slay the aggressors wherever you find them....fight them until PERSECUTION is no more" (persecution can be perceived as anything, one can be interpreted as being a persecutor for simply supporting the nation of Israel) -- Surah 2:190-194).

WARFARE IS ORDAINED IN YOU.................(Surah 2: 216-217).

One does not need a blindfold to take the COKE v PEPSI challenge, just "commonsense".

As long as we're quoting holy books... "The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword: their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open."-Hosea 13:16 Oh, the bible says that you should just kill people who don't agree with you, that makes much more sense. And before you say that quote means something completely different, I'd like to remind you of Occam's Razor. That also gives me the right to dispute your Qur'an quotes, as having deeper meaning than what is apparent.

“The anger of God rose against them, and he killed their strongest men; he struck down the finest of Israel's young men. But in spite of this, the people kept on sinning. They refused to believe in his miracles. So he ended their lives in failure and gave them years of terror. When God killed some of them, the rest finally sought him. They repented and turned to God.”-Psalms 78:31-34

"I brought hunger to every city and famine to every town. But still you wouldn't return to me," says the LORD.
"I kept the rain from falling when you needed it the most, ruining all your crops. I sent rain on one town but withheld it from another. Rain fell on one field, while another field withered away. People staggered from one town to another for a drink of water, but there was never enough. But still you wouldn't return to me," says the LORD.
"I struck your farms and vineyards with blight and mildew. Locusts devoured all your fig and olive trees. But still you wouldn't return to me," says the LORD.
"I sent plagues against you like the plagues I sent against Egypt long ago. I killed your young men in war and slaughtered all your horses. The stench of death filled the air! But still you wouldn't return to me," says the LORD.
"I destroyed some of your cities, as I destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. Those of you who survived were like half-burned sticks snatched from a fire. But still you wouldn't return to me," says the LORD.”-Amos 4:6-11

“Therefore, this is what the Sovereign Lord says: You people have behaved worse than your neighbors and have refused to obey my decrees and regulations. You have not even lived up to the standards of the nations around you. Therefore, I myself, the Sovereign Lord, am now your enemy. I will punish you publicly while all the nations watch. Because of your detestable idols, I will punish you like I have never punished anyone before or ever will again. Parents will eat their own children, and children will eat their parents. I will punish you and scatter to the winds the few who survive.”-Ezekiel 5:7-10

“If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins. I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted.”-Leviticus 26:21-22

"I brought hunger to every city and famine to every town. But still you wouldn't return to me," says the LORD.
"I kept the rain from falling when you needed it the most, ruining all your crops. I sent rain on one town but withheld it from another. Rain fell on one field, while another field withered away. People staggered from one town to another for a drink of water, but there was never enough. But still you wouldn't return to me," says the LORD.
"I struck your farms and vineyards with blight and mildew. Locusts devoured all your fig and olive trees. But still you wouldn't return to me," says the LORD.
"I sent plagues against you like the plagues I sent against Egypt long ago. I killed your young men in war and slaughtered all your horses. The stench of death filled the air! But still you wouldn't return to me," says the LORD.
"I destroyed some of your cities, as I destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. Those of you who survived were like half-burned sticks snatched from a fire. But still you wouldn't return to me," says the LORD.”-Amos 4:6-11

It seems to me that God supports killing people, if people don't agree with him, or don't please him, or because he just feels like it. I think if God does it, it suggests it's good behavior. This is from my list of 40 ****ed up bible quotes (more to be added), by the way. http://www.debatepolitics.com/relig...judaic-monotheism-detrimental-society-16.html

ludahai · Feb 18, 2011

So, where did you cut and paste this from?

Still didn't answer any of my points... now, why would that be? Still, no source for your "point" that the scriptires were forbidden to the laity?

Not willing to declare failure on your part yet, but you are getting there...

Walter · Feb 18, 2011

Arcadius said:
As long as we're quoting holy books... "The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword: their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open."-Hosea 13:16 Oh, the bible says that you should just kill people who don't agree with you, that makes much more sense. And before you say that quote means something completely different, I'd like to remind you of Occam's Razor. That also gives me the right to dispute your Qur'an quotes, as having deeper meaning than what is apparent.

“The anger of God rose against them, and he killed their strongest men; he struck down the finest of Israel's young men. But in spite of this, the people kept on sinning. They refused to believe in his miracles. So he ended their lives in failure and gave them years of terror. When God killed some of them, the rest finally sought him. They repented and turned to God.”-Psalms 78:31-34

"I brought hunger to every city and famine to every town. But still you wouldn't return to me," says the LORD.
"I kept the rain from falling when you needed it the most, ruining all your crops. I sent rain on one town but withheld it from another. Rain fell on one field, while another field withered away. People staggered from one town to another for a drink of water, but there was never enough. But still you wouldn't return to me," says the LORD.
"I struck your farms and vineyards with blight and mildew. Locusts devoured all your fig and olive trees. But still you wouldn't return to me," says the LORD.
"I sent plagues against you like the plagues I sent against Egypt long ago. I killed your young men in war and slaughtered all your horses. The stench of death filled the air! But still you wouldn't return to me," says the LORD.
"I destroyed some of your cities, as I destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. Those of you who survived were like half-burned sticks snatched from a fire. But still you wouldn't return to me," says the LORD.”-Amos 4:6-11

“Therefore, this is what the Sovereign Lord says: You people have behaved worse than your neighbors and have refused to obey my decrees and regulations. You have not even lived up to the standards of the nations around you. Therefore, I myself, the Sovereign Lord, am now your enemy. I will punish you publicly while all the nations watch. Because of your detestable idols, I will punish you like I have never punished anyone before or ever will again. Parents will eat their own children, and children will eat their parents. I will punish you and scatter to the winds the few who survive.”-Ezekiel 5:7-10

“If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins. I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted.”-Leviticus 26:21-22

"I brought hunger to every city and famine to every town. But still you wouldn't return to me," says the LORD.
"I kept the rain from falling when you needed it the most, ruining all your crops. I sent rain on one town but withheld it from another. Rain fell on one field, while another field withered away. People staggered from one town to another for a drink of water, but there was never enough. But still you wouldn't return to me," says the LORD.
"I struck your farms and vineyards with blight and mildew. Locusts devoured all your fig and olive trees. But still you wouldn't return to me," says the LORD.
"I sent plagues against you like the plagues I sent against Egypt long ago. I killed your young men in war and slaughtered all your horses. The stench of death filled the air! But still you wouldn't return to me," says the LORD.
"I destroyed some of your cities, as I destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. Those of you who survived were like half-burned sticks snatched from a fire. But still you wouldn't return to me," says the LORD.”-Amos 4:6-11

It seems to me that God supports killing people, if people don't agree with him, or don't please him, or because he just feels like it. I think if God does it, it suggests it's good behavior. This is from my list of 40 ****ed up bible quotes (more to be added), by the way. http://www.debatepolitics.com/relig...judaic-monotheism-detrimental-society-16.html

Hey, you are preaching to the CHOIR, there is only one TRUE RELIGION....that which is found existing as a revelation from God in the Holy Scriptures. And why are you PASTING OLD MOSAIC LAW...when that law was drafted specifically for one nation, the nation of Biblical Israel (Deut. 4, 5). And you never mentioned that the LAW then was indeed an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, and these PEOPLE were being punished for BURNING CHILDREN they had stolen and enslaved to use as human sacrifices. The old law was nailed to the Cross of the Christ (Col. 2:14-17), we are abiding by the precepts established in the New Testament.

Walter · Feb 18, 2011

ludahai said:
So, where did you cut and paste this from?

Still didn't answer any of my points... now, why would that be? Still, no source for your "point" that the scriptires were forbidden to the laity?

Not willing to declare failure on your part yet, but you are getting there...

I do not cut and paste. This came from documented HISTORY. Regardless of your opinion, your opinion does not preclude the truth from being THE TRUTH. If I use an external source, such is presented with a link.

Arcadius · Feb 18, 2011

Walter said:
Hey, you are preaching to the CHOIR, there is only one TRUE RELIGION....that which is found existing as a revelation from God in the Holy Scriptures.

You own the original documents?

Walter · Feb 18, 2011

Arcadius said:
You own the original documents?

Nope just copies of the original which are demonstrated to be TRUE by the Scientific Process of Comparative Analysis. When you have over 5000 copies found in many different locations and they all present the same truth, Science tells us that they all were copied from an original single source. But, of course YOU are much smarter than those who collected these manuscripts and placed them into a Canon, just decades after the fact....now 2000 years later, your intellect simply overwhelms, as clearly you know more than these people as per the originality of those manuscripts which were confirmed by the historical documentation of men such Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen..etc.

ludahai · Feb 18, 2011

Walter said:
I just did. There was no protestant reformation until the 16th century, the crusades occurred under Catholic direction from the Vatican in 11,12, and 13th Century. You do the math. The Printing Press was invented in the 15th Century by "Gutenberg", and the Holy Scriptures were translated into languages other than LATIN and into the King James English in 1604.

Gutenberg was a Catholic, was he not? The Bible WAS translated into languages OTHER than Latin by CATHOLICS prior to the King James Version.

But, simply because the general public did not have access to the truth found in the Holy Bible does not preclude that record from existing from the 1st century to date. Its simple, The Catholics use Dogma and Tradition to propagate Christianity while the Scriptures teach that it is the Word of God that builds faith, not the Church Hierarchy.

Catholic teaching is that there are three sources of doctrine: Scripture, tradition, and the holy spirit. To think that anyone would like to LIMIT God to words written in a finite book is NOT Scriptural and signifciantly limits the power and love of God

Its a most easy thing to demonstrate through the historical record when certain Catholic Traditions began, with the major change being in 325 when the CHURCH and STATE were incorporated together. But the Scriptures were first perverted long before then, as per the warning contained in the scriptures themselves that such would happen (1 Tim. 4:1-3)

Yet, at the end of the fifth century, the pope stated that the Church and the State were SEPARATE. The Roman Empire was NOT the first state where Christianity became the official religion, BTW.

The blessing of WATER before use did not begin until the 2nd century. The Separation of the clergy from the laity (members)..early 2nd century. This in spite of the Scriptural Fact that the Church that the Christ built did not have any separation as each member could approach the throne of God in prayers as each person was considered a Priest with the Christ being the High Priest that we confess our sins to as he stands as advocate between God and our sins (1 Peter 2:9-10).

You obviously don't understand the Church. The Scriptures also say that Peter would be the rock on which His church would be built. Peter is regarded as the first Bishop of Rome and subsequent Bishops of Rome were his successors. Jesus also said that what was bound on earth would also be bound in Heaven and what was loosed on earth would also be similarly loosed in Heaven.

Special days being set aside for fasting which eventually began the practice of LENT -- 140 AD. Yet the actual Record in Scriptures tell us not to respect certain religious holidays or sabbath as that was the practice under the Old Law not the New (Col. 2:14-17). The wearing of Special Clothes by the Clergy did not begin until the 2nd Century, yet Christ Chastised the Jewish Clergy for doing the same thing, placing themselves above the people they served by marking their SPECIAL Identity with SPECIAL CLOTHES.

That was only when Lent was unified within the Church. What many anti-Catholics ignore is that the Faith was not all that unified in the first two-three centuries, due largely to persecution and the need to keep cells of believers separate from one another.

The tradition of regional meeting between the clergy began in the 2nd century. Sprinkling used in the stead of WATER BAPTISM in direct contradiction of the SCRIPTURES began in 180 AD. Its a most difficult thing to bury yourself with Christ in a few drops of water. The beginning of MAKING THE SIGN OF THE CROSS during prayer late 2nd century. The dogma of teaching PURGATORY 230 AD.

There are passages in II Maccabees, I Corinthians and others that support the notion of Pugatory.

Making marriage by the Clergy illegal...3rd century. The first OFFICE OF BISHOP 3rd century. Easter was invented 325 AD. Confessing Sins to a priest 329 AD. The practice of CALLING Bishops from large cities ARCH BISHOPS 4th century. Monastic orders. 5th century (separation of certain orders of clergy from the public society). Christmast began in 360 AD. The doctrine of Inherited Sin began in the 400 AD. A Formal announcement that Roman Catholicism was the STATE RELIGION 360AD.

Any point to be made here? Perfectly consistant with the needs of a growing Church.

Candles used used in worship as a sacred element 417 AD. Mary was declared the MOTHER OF GOD 470AD. The dogma of TRANSUBSTANTIATION (the tradition that has the elements of the mass becomes the literal body of the Christ 492 AD

Candles were used far earlier than that... they came from ancient Jewish practice. As for Mary, think about this... if Jesus is God, and Mary is Jesus' mother, doesn't that make her the Mother Of God??? As for transsubstantiation, it is a practice that far precedes its codification, and is completely consistent with the sciptures...

you know, the rest looks like the same cut and paste claptrap from Catholic-hating Fundies that I am not even going to waste my time with the rest of the bigoted rubbish...

SheWolf · Feb 18, 2011

Blackdog said:
Then your response to his statement was not correct as I pointed out.

Then you purposely cut out the first sentence as I said. It may have been unintentional, but re-reading your post, I doubt it. So this more than anything else was a hit on the credibility of the statement you picked to use.

If I give you the benefit of the doubt about the whitewashing, at the very least you were manipulating the data to enforce your point.

It is actually still spreading to this day in some places. So I guess the early expansion according to your statement never ended?

What quote?

As I said, I am not trying to downplay or manipulate anything. I know the Christians were persecuted and I have never tried to argue otherwise. I am still not arguing otherwise. I am still arguing that the religion wasn't spread through peaceful means, and that is what I meant from the very beginning... when I mentioned the inquisitions and the persecution of Pagans.

The first part of that quote makes no difference to my point... as I am not trying to deny the facts or deny Christians were persecuted. I think you yourself said, it was a fledging religion at that point... and as it grew in popularity and the Catholic Church became more powerful, it was spread less peacefully and people who refused to convert were not tolerated.

You're saying that I am whitewashing stuff now, because you are defining the spread of Christianity differently than me. That's all it boils down to, so I could just as well say you're the one whitewashing stuff and not me.

I would consider the spread of Christianity into Europe, as being part of the "initial spread of Christianity" and I thought most people did.... :shrug:

ludahai · Feb 18, 2011

Walter said:
I do not cut and paste. This came from documented HISTORY. Regardless of your opinion, your opinion does not preclude the truth from being THE TRUTH. If I use an external source, such is presented with a link.

Still no documentation for your claim that there was a papal bull denying the Sciptures to the faithful???

:failpail:

Walter · Feb 18, 2011

ludahai said:
Gutenberg was a Catholic, was he not? The Bible WAS translated into languages OTHER than Latin by CATHOLICS prior to the King James Version.

Catholic teaching is that there are three sources of doctrine: Scripture, tradition, and the holy spirit. To think that anyone would like to LIMIT God to words written in a finite book is NOT Scriptural and signifciantly limits the power and love of God

Yet, at the end of the fifth century, the pope stated that the Church and the State were SEPARATE. The Roman Empire was NOT the first state where Christianity became the official religion, BTW.

You obviously don't understand the Church. The Scriptures also say that Peter would be the rock on which His church would be built. Peter is regarded as the first Bishop of Rome and subsequent Bishops of Rome were his successors. Jesus also said that what was bound on earth would also be bound in Heaven and what was loosed on earth would also be similarly loosed in Heaven.

That was only when Lent was unified within the Church. What many anti-Catholics ignore is that the Faith was not all that unified in the first two-three centuries, due largely to persecution and the need to keep cells of believers separate from one another.

There are passages in II Maccabees, I Corinthians and others that support the notion of Pugatory.

Any point to be made here? Perfectly consistant with the needs of a growing Church.

Candles were used far earlier than that... they came from ancient Jewish practice. As for Mary, think about this... if Jesus is God, and Mary is Jesus' mother, doesn't that make her the Mother Of God??? As for transsubstantiation, it is a practice that far precedes its codification, and is completely consistent with the sciptures...

you know, the rest looks like the same cut and paste claptrap from Catholic-hating Fundies that I am not even going to waste my time with the rest of the bigoted rubbish...

Funny as Hell, with all the Rhetoric you never refuted anything. Where in the scriptures does it suggest that Mary is to be worshiped? But there are countless passages that declare that only God is to be subject to worship. Are you suggesting that Mary was deity? If so, where does this authority come from? And how can Men be born into sin when Christ was Born of a Woman, Born under the Law, are we to assume that the Christ was born into Sin? As I said, its all Dogma based upon Tradition, not Scriptural Truth. Just like the Crusades were based upon Catholic Dogma and Tradition rather than Scriptural Christian Doctrine.

ludahai · Feb 18, 2011

Walter said:
Funny as Hell, with all the Rhetoric you never refuted anything. Where in the scriptures does it suggest that Mary is to be worshiped? But there are countless passages that declare that only God is to be subject to worship. Are you suggesting that Mary was deity? If so, where does this authority come from? And how can Men be born into sin when Christ was Born of a Woman, Born under the Law, are we to assume that the Christ was born into Sin? As I said, its all Dogma based upon Tradition, not Scriptural Truth. Just like the Crusades were based upon Catholic Dogma and Tradition rather than Scriptural Christian Doctrine.

Now, I KNOW you are relying on bigoted, ignorant versions of Catholicism. We DO NOT WORSHIP Mary... nice strawman...

BTW, still haven't provided a link for your charge that the Pope banned the faithful from the Scriptures... where is it???

You can now officially be regarded as completely discredited...

Arcadius · Feb 18, 2011

Walter said:
Hey, you are preaching to the CHOIR, there is only one TRUE RELIGION....that which is found existing as a revelation from God in the Holy Scriptures. And why are you PASTING OLD MOSAIC LAW...when that law was drafted specifically for one nation, the nation of Biblical Israel (Deut. 4, 5). And you never mentioned that the LAW then was indeed an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, and these PEOPLE were being punished for BURNING CHILDREN they had stolen and enslaved to use as human sacrifices. The old law was nailed to the Cross of the Christ (Col. 2:14-17), we are abiding by the precepts established in the New Testament.

Damn't I completely forgot about that Old Testament New Testament **** while I was making my list. Now I have to mark Old Testament, New Testament. Which version you follow, is based on the sect of Christianity. Therefore it applies to Christians.

Walter · Feb 18, 2011

ludahai said:
Still no documentation for your claim that there was a papal bull denying the Sciptures to the faithful???

:failpail:

Damn, I was making a point...that is an MO common to all people who wish to deflect, the circular arguments will continue regardless of the FACTS presented. How difficult is it to goggle the Actual history of such a Papal mandate? The Pope Innocent III stated in 1199? Here allow me to save you all the wear and tear on your precious little fingers...which I suspect was not really the problem..but more of a PRIDE THINGY? Now launch your attack on the source void of presenting any documented evidence to denounce the truth presented, another common trait, of the prideful.

http://www.hol.com/~mikesch/banned.htm

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nobible.htm

ludahai · Feb 18, 2011

Walter said:
Damn, I was making a point...that is an MO common to all people who wish to deflect, the circular arguments will continue regardless of the FACTS presented. How difficult is it to goggle the Actual history of such a Papal mandate? The Pope Innocent III stated in 1199? Here allow me to save you all the wear and tear on your precious little fingers...which I suspect was not really the problem..but more of a PRIDE THINGY?

Bible possession once banned by the Catholic Church!

Bible Prohibited by Catholic Religion

Those were references to UNAUTHORIZED translations!!! I knew that was coming... you Fundies are so predictable. There was no bull against the scriptires. The Bull was against translations that were not authorized by the Church...

Arcadius · Feb 18, 2011

Walter said:
Nope just copies of the original which are demonstrated to be TRUE by the Scientific Process of Comparative Analysis. When you have over 5000 copies found in many different locations and they all present the same truth, Science tells us that they all were copied from an original single source. But, of course YOU are much smarter than those who collected these manuscripts and placed them into a Canon, just decades after the fact....now 2000 years later, your intellect simply overwhelms, as clearly you know more than these people as per the originality of those manuscripts which were confirmed by the historical documentation of men such Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen..etc.

I don't think any of that proves that you have a copy of the original Christian manuscripts. That also doesn't prove it's any more or less truthful than all of the different bibles we read today. That simply shows that whoever wrote it really wanted to spread it. Oh my god, people that have been dead for 2,000 years said something was authentic, that must make it that. Someone develops something, creates lots copies, and then convinces popular figures to support it, I smell some sort of political ploy. Although, I don't think your lying, I still have no reason to believe any of that is true.

Walter · Feb 18, 2011

ludahai said:
Those were references to UNAUTHORIZED translations!!! I knew that was coming... you Fundies are so predictable. There was no bull against the scriptires. The Bull was against translations that were not authorized by the Church...

Bingo....UNAUTHORIZED? And who determines the authority, the CATHOLIC CHURCH? Had your prideful soul pegged to perfection. The Pope could not have been any clearer or more unambiguous. "....not everyone, can understand (nope it takes the SPECIAL PEOPLE) but only those who are qualified to understand them with informed intelligence (the scriptures were not meant to be understood by the lay person, like Peter a fisherman? Really?) The depth of the divine scriptures is such that not only the illiterate and UNINITIATED have trouble understanding them (and this from a source that was propagating a FLAT EARTH).....

But what do the scriptures declare? "This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior (not the POPE, but God saves); WHO WOULD HAVE ALL MEN TO BE SAVED, AND COME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH." -- 1 Tim. 2:3,4.

And are we the Layperson not to be sanctified in that truth? Where does that truth come from? "Sanctify them (sanctify whom? The People) by your truth. Your word is truth." -- John 17:17. A most difficult thing to be sanctified in the WORD when it is prohibited from your possession...no?

So by your intellectually dishonesty you are claiming that only the Catholic Hierarchy had access to the Latin language and were capable of translating the many existing copies of original manuscripts written in GREEK? Really? Of course you must also ignore the scriptural truth, "You (every Christian) too (also) living stones (just like Christ) built as an edifice of spirit, INTO A HOLY PRIESTHOOD, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Christ (the High Priest of the order...not the POPE)." -- Heb. 4:14-16.

Or, "You, however, are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people he claims for his own to proclaim the glorious works of the ONE who called YOU from darkness into light." -- 1 Peter 2:9. And Rev. continues along the same line confirming that all CHRISTIANS are priests that need no Hierarchy to go before the throne of God through our Advocate, Christ Jesus, ".....Who has made US a royal nation of priests in the service of his God and Father." -- Rev. 1:6

ludahai · Feb 19, 2011

You know, dealing with Fundies like yourself is useless. Unlike you, Catholics are generally more open-minded about the nature of God and Salvation. I feel sorry for those who are so closed that they can't accept others. You have never proven your original point. However, it is the responsibility of the Church to ensure that all translations of the Scriptures are as accurate as possible. It is very difficult to ensure an accurate translation, even from one modern language to another (I am in that business), but to translate from the ancient texts? The Church has the responsiblity to ensure that beleivers are getting accurate translations...

You again forget that Jesus Himself told Peter that he would be the Rock of the Church, and that Chuch is the Catholic Church. Now, we regard Protestants, even radical, closed-minded Fundies like yourself, as fellow Christians who are to be saved so long as they are seeking Christ/God with good will. Sadly, most Fundies have too restricted a view of God's love to extend similar consideration to others...

Degreez · Feb 19, 2011

I think this thread is ample of evidence of which religion is more 'pushy'.

ludahai · Feb 19, 2011

Degreez said:
I think this thread is ample of evidence of which religion is more 'pushy'.

Fundamentalist Protestants?

mbig · Apr 28, 2014

The Story of the Malakand Field Force - An Episode of the Frontier War - Winston S. Churchill - Google Books

Wnston Churchill
The Malakand Field Force, 1897

"Indeed it is evident that Christianity, however degraded and distorted by cruelty and intolerance, must always exert a modifying influence on men's passions, and protect them from the more violent forms of fanatical fever, as we are protected from smallpox by vaccination. But the Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance.
It was originally propagated by the sword, and ever since, its votaries have been subject, above the people of all other creeds, to this form of madness." [......]

24107 · Apr 28, 2014

mbig said:
The Story of the Malakand Field Force - An Episode of the Frontier War - Winston S. Churchill - Google Books

Wnston Churchill
The Malakand Field Force, 1897

"Indeed it is evident that Christianity, however degraded and distorted by cruelty and intolerance, must always exert a modifying influence on men's passions, and protect them from the more violent forms of fanatical fever, as we are protected from smallpox by vaccination. But the Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance.
It was originally propagated by the sword, and ever since, its votaries have been subject, above the people of all other creeds, to this form of madness." [......]

had to necro a thread to quench your islamaphobic rage did ya?

mbig · Apr 28, 2014

24107 said:
had to necro a thread to quench your islamaphobic rage did ya?

NO One bumps up more strngs to put "JEW" in it than you.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-black-people-my-games-13.html#post1063200862

24107 said:
He's Jewish.

And 60 days is hardly "Necro".
Churchill and his opinion about Islam/that Passage had come up in the Europe section TODAY and I remembered how RELEVANT it would be to this string.

24107, quoter of David Duke et al, complaining about bigotry!
It's hard to have ANY discussion where you don't Gratuitously dump jooos/bigoted joootubes in.
Pushiness of Islam v Christianity IS the TOPIC here.
Please see if you can be as tactful/Topical.

24107 · Apr 28, 2014

mbig said:
NO One bumps up more strngs to put "JEW" in it than you.
And 60 days is hardly "Necro".
It had come up in the Europe sction and I remembered this string.

24107, quoter of David Duke et al, complaining about bigotry!

Nothing wrong with necroing, I was just teasing. Years later and your still whining about that video.

Cephus · Apr 28, 2014

Today, clearly it's Islam, but Christianity has had the "advantage" of being effectively neutered by decades of largely secular society. In time, Islam will have the same thing happen and then it will be all bark and no bite like Christianity.

24107 · Apr 28, 2014

mbig said:
NO One bumps up more strngs to put "JEW" in it than you.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-black-people-my-games-13.html#post1063200862

And 60 days is hardly "Necro".
Churchill and his opinion about Islam/that Passage had come up in the Europe section TODAY and I remembered how RELEVANT it would be to this string.

24107, quoter of David Duke et al, complaining about bigotry!
It's hard to have ANY discussion where you don't Gratuitously dump jooos/bigoted joootubes in.
Pushiness of Islam v Christianity IS the TOPIC here.
Please see if you can be as tactful/Topical.

I love how you ALWAYS edit your posts minutes after I have already quoted you to add in some extra shots.

Which Religion is more "pushy?" Christianity or Islam?

Which Religion is more "pushy?" Christianity or Islam?

Christianity

Islam

Active member

Defender of the Faith

Active member

Defender of the Faith

Defender of the Faith

Defender of the Faith

Active member

Defender of the Faith

Active member

Defender of the Faith

Defender of the Faith

onomatopoeic

onomatopoeic