• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Do Christians and Muslims Want World Dominion?

Vox said:
Now, I'm not one of those who claims the Koran commands Muslims to take over the world.

Having said that, however.........it does seem that at least some Muslims talk about it a lot. Maybe they don't understand their own book.

Christians don't talk about it a lot, but there are churches in my area that have "World Dominion," "World Revival," and/or, world this and world that, in their name, and, of course, Christians are commanded in their Holy Book to "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost."

Sounds like world dominion to me.

The missionaries come first and then the soldiers and then the politicians and then the robber barons take whatever is left.

Much of the conflict with Muslims was due to this agenda........and how the memories linger.

Muslims did their own version of conquest, though.........even though their Book appears to only validate war in self-defense........wherever they rubbed shoulders with another culture, it seems, there was soon a reason for self-defense.

(Similar, probably, to the "False Flag" incidents that usually precede U.S. wars.)

Anyhow......if you ask most Christians or Muslims if they have a need or a plan for world dominion........rarely would you find a single one that would admit to it.

Yet.......real life seems to tell a different story, does it not?

Realistically, is there a solution to this problem?
Click to expand...

What do you mean "false flag"?

What false flag was there in Korea? World War II? The Gulf War? Afghanistan/Iraq? World War One?
 
celticwar17 said:
what? Why do people think of the crusades as some kind of christian holocaust, that was completely uncalled for? You do know the Muslims had been raiding and conquering parts or Europe for like a couple hundred years before the crusades? That was the major reason for the crusades.... in order to get people motivated to fight back they turned it into a religious war(on both sides, the Islamic caliphate had also been conquering in name of their religion)

describing the crusades as some kind of European only sin... is just ignorant. It was just war of territory and influence more than anything else.
Click to expand...

How exactly did sacking Constanople strengthen the defense of Western Europe again?
 
zyzygy said:
What a terrible life. Being an atheist is much more enjoyable.
Click to expand...

Unless, of course, you work yourself into a lather over everything people who do believe do.
 
Tigerace117 said:
What do you mean "false flag"?

What false flag was there in Korea? World War II? The Gulf War? Afghanistan/Iraq? World War One?
Click to expand...

I DID say "usually."

If not a false flag, there's usually some provocation or manipulation to justify another profitable war.
 
Vox said:
I DID say "usually."

If not a false flag, there's usually some provocation or manipulation to justify another profitable war.
Click to expand...

Like what? Please enlighten me on how Hitler, Tojo, the Kim Family or Saddam were "manipulated".

As for your claim of "usually".....that doesn't look likely.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Like what? Please enlighten me on how Hitler, Tojo, the Kim Family or Saddam were "manipulated".

As for your claim of "usually".....that doesn't look likely.
Click to expand...

Ok, start a new topic and we'll discuss it later. Others may want to weigh in. Provocations abound.
 
I'm not a Christian nor a Muslim but I wouldn't mind World Domination.
 
Vox said:
Now, I'm not one of those who claims the Koran commands Muslims to take over the world.

Having said that, however.........it does seem that at least some Muslims talk about it a lot. Maybe they don't understand their own book.

Christians don't talk about it a lot, but there are churches in my area that have "World Dominion," "World Revival," and/or, world this and world that, in their name, and, of course, Christians are commanded in their Holy Book to "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost."

Sounds like world dominion to me.

The missionaries come first and then the soldiers and then the politicians and then the robber barons take whatever is left.

Much of the conflict with Muslims was due to this agenda........and how the memories linger.

Muslims did their own version of conquest, though.........even though their Book appears to only validate war in self-defense........wherever they rubbed shoulders with another culture, it seems, there was soon a reason for self-defense.

(Similar, probably, to the "False Flag" incidents that usually precede U.S. wars.)

Anyhow......if you ask most Christians or Muslims if they have a need or a plan for world dominion........rarely would you find a single one that would admit to it.

Yet.......real life seems to tell a different story, does it not?

Realistically, is there a solution to this problem?
Click to expand...

Teaching people and offering them a free choice to accept Christ is a whole different that conquering the world "by the sword" and forcing people to accept Allah. You've got start with the idea that Christians want to rule the world and then twist facts to fit that false assumption in order to come to the conclusion that you threw out.
 
zyzygy said:
So the Crusaders were only pretending?
Click to expand...

This again...???

The Crusades used religion as an excuse to invade, the Christian faith did not demand it. This is a fact so well known and understood that to throw this out reflects either a willing ignorance or a gross lack of education.
 
faithful_servant said:
Teaching people and offering them a free choice to accept Christ is a whole different that conquering the world "by the sword" and forcing people to accept Allah. You've got start with the idea that Christians want to rule the world and then twist facts to fit that false assumption in order to come to the conclusion that you threw out.
Click to expand...

What conclusion?
 
Fledermaus said:
Marching as to war.....

Onward, Christian soldiers!
Marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus
Going on before.
Christ, the royal Master,
Leads against the foe;
Forward into battle,
See his banners go!

Entire Continents have been invaded and conquered in the name of Jesus.
Click to expand...

But not as a reflection of His will. He never once commanded us to spread the Gospel by the sword and in fact made it clear that a true free will choice is the only acceptable choice.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
I think most believers in both religions wish the whole world shared their faith. I don't think most believers of either religion wish it to be done by force.
Click to expand...

Does changing laws to comport with a religious viewpoint count as "by force"? That is being attempted from time to time.
 
Vox said:
Jesus DID tell his followers to sell their coats and buy a sword.

Remember?
Click to expand...

Taken out of context.
He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’ ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”

“That’s enough!” he replied.
Click to expand...

See that phrase "It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’ ", it's a reference to Isaiah 53, which spoke of the oppression of The Messiah. Now you couple this with what happened shortly thereafter when Peter actually used one of those swords and was rebuked for it. So we put all of this into context and it's pretty clear that He was referring to having swords to defend themselves against illegal oppression once Christ was gone. Let's add in the plethora of verses (https://www.openbible.info/topics/oppression) which speak against those would oppress others. It's not hard to figure out that the use of force, intimidation, etc is something which God abhors.
 
Tigerace117 said:
The Crusaders were in it for loot. The First Crusade was the only one that was truly about religion.
Click to expand...

They were all about the pursuit of worldly gains. Europe was facing a huge problem with 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. born males who were demanding an inheritance. The Crusades were primarily designed to first of all, thin out the numbers of these young men and if they survived to have a place where they could be granted lands far away from where the elder sons were.
 
Vox said:
What conclusion?
Click to expand...

Christians don't talk about it a lot, but there are churches in my area that have "World Dominion," "World Revival," and/or, world this and world that, in their name, and, of course, Christians are commanded in their Holy Book to "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost."

Sounds like world dominion to me.
Click to expand...
:roll:
 
zyzygy said:
Name some of them please.
Click to expand...

Why? You're not a Believer, so why do you care?? Right now the worst thing that you could ever possibly do pales in comparison to the fact of your future. I had a friend of mine offer up an analogy about this: "It's like telling someone swimming in a sea of raw sewage that they shouldn't pee their pants."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom