ISIS

Zakharra wrote:

Tenshinai wrote:
Some most definitely are using force, and fewer but still some use violence as well.

In the West? I don't think so. Certainly not in the US

The various terrorist attacks on abortion clinics would suggest otherwise.

The E wrote:

Zakharra wrote:In the West? I don't think so. Certainly not in the US

The various terrorist attacks on abortion clinics would suggest otherwise.

1) Opposition to abortion is not a specifically Christian political/moral position, though a substantial majority of all pro-lifers in the U.S. are likely Christians of one sect or another.

2) That's a clown comparison, bro. The scale is off by several orders of magnitude. Exactly one death in the past 15+ years? Fail.

CSB wrote:1) Opposition to abortion is not a specifically Christian political/moral position, though a substantial majority of all pro-lifers in the U.S. are likely Christians of one sect or another.

2) That's a clown comparison, bro. The scale is off by several orders of magnitude. Exactly one death in the past 15+ years? Fail.

The question was whether any used violence. Your reading comprehension fails.

And while it is not "specifically Christian" no, but outspokenly "christian" groups are among the worst of that lot.

Zakharra wrote:The New Testament is much less violent and more 'love your neighbor as yourself. Be peaceful', and as I understand it, that is what Christians are supposed to follow. Not the bloody and barbaric OT. The koran though has never had a NT. It remains in its OT version, which allows believers to pick and choose what they want to apply.

You might have had a point if it wasn´t for the fact that the "christian bible" specifically includes the old testament.

Zakharra wrote:It still changes the mindset of the believers. Even the average extremist fundamentalist Christian is far less likely to use violence to try and get his/her way. It's certainly not the way the mainstream does things.

USA mainstream yes. Try looking at what is mainstream christianity in the places where you also have "islamic" thuggery. In some places the difference is complete(just as in other places, the roles are exactly reversed between christan(or hindu, buddhist etc) thugs and islamic victims), in other places there´s no real differences at all.

Zakharra wrote:In the West? I don't think so. Certainly not in the US

Then you must be trying very hard not to look.
What groups are trying to push creationism into schools? And yes, the way that is done by "christian" groups in some places are most definitely force. Abusing legal loophole exploits and extortion definitely counts as force.

And as already noted, violence may not be everyday occurences, but it certainly happens.

CSB wrote:2) That's a clown comparison, bro. The scale is off by several orders of magnitude. Exactly one death in the past 15+ years? Fail.

I wasn't making an argument about scale, but offering a refutation of the point Zakharra made (to wit, that there was no violence based on religious motivations among US christians).

The anti-abortion movement in the US is predominantly christian, and violent attacks by its members (and associated harassment of people who request or perform abortions) cannot be discounted as being the work of a few isolated people.

And that's before we go into violence that isn't attributable to organized movements. Here's a worst of list.

*bonks the E on the head* Context, man. Context. I admit I was wrong in that there is -no- Christian violence, but the scale of it is way WAY lower, as in nearly no existent. As CSB points out, you don't need to be a Christian to dislike abortion clinics. Are many Christians against abortion clinics? Yes. Are all of them? No.

You might have had a point if it wasn´t for the fact that the "christian bible" specifically includes the old testament.

Except that the NT is supposed to override the OT. 'Love your neighbor as yourself', not 'murder your neighbor because they don't worship the same god as you do' the OT was wont to do (the god of the OT was, to use appropriate language, a real asshole). If anyone was advocating using OT teachings in real life and trying to apply them with force, they are acting against the wishes of Christ, who was, a very notable pacifist. The most violent I heard of him getting was throwing out the money lenders from the temple (which probably broke several laws, but as far as its written, he didn't physically hurt anyone). As far as it goes, Christ told his followers to obey the secular laws 'render unto Caesar what is Caesar's'. Christians have, for the most part, left that sort of violent behavior in the past where it belongs. Society has moved on.

USA mainstream yes. Try looking at what is mainstream christianity in the places where you also have "islamic" thuggery. In some places the difference is complete(just as in other places, the roles are exactly reversed between christan(or hindu, buddhist etc) thugs and islamic victims), in other places there´s no real differences at all.

Extremist behavior tends to breed extremist opposition.

Then you must be trying very hard not to look.
What groups are trying to push creationism into schools? And yes, the way that is done by "christian" groups in some places are most definitely force. Abusing legal loophole exploits and extortion definitely counts as force.

Oh? I was unaware that using the legal means, ie proposing laws and such, is now considered using force equal to using violence to get their way. I am unaware of ANY one or group in the US that has used force to try and get creationism into the schools. I haven't heard of anyone using a gun or the threat of physical force to try that. If you have please enlighten me, but until I have heard of that, I am calling bullshit on this claim of yours.

And before you reply, remember we're discussing PHYSICAL VIOLENCE as the type of force here. You seem to be trying to skate around that by using a different definition of force (And yes I know there are different definitions of 'force', but keep this in context. The discussion here is physical force being used. NOT legal means.)

And before you reply, remember we're discussing PHYSICAL VIOLENCE as the type of force here. You seem to be trying to skate around that by using a different definition of force (And yes I know there are different definitions of 'force', but keep this in context. The discussion here is physical force being used. NOT legal means.)

That is blatantly incorrect, as otherwise, the earlier statement would not have been "are NOT using force and violence", but rather just stating violence by itself if it was the same thing.

You´re the one who separated the two.

Oh? I was unaware that using the legal means, ie proposing laws and such, is now considered using force equal to using violence to get their way.

It is considered force when exploiting the craptastic legal black hole that the US court system can be made into if you have enough money or the right lawyers.

I am unaware of ANY one or group in the US that has used force to try and get creationism into the schools.

There has been several attempts to use legalese to declare creationism or religious texts as being equal to scientific theory, and then use that to push the agenda.

There´s also been political scheming and skullduggery of all kinds for the same reason.

And simply stated, if something is the kind of force that would have made Machiavelli tearful with pride, then it definitely counts as force.

I´m pretty sure that if moslems tried to use the same venues to force all US schools to teach the koran and adhere to the praying schedule, you would call it force...

I looked: those are encyclicals of Pope Paul VI,
which means that Roman Catholicism has them.

I understand that most Protestants adopted much the same
doctrines earlier, which means that the RCC is trailing.

HTM

aairfccha wrote:

Christianity also has Dignitatis Humanae and Nostra Aetate, two declarations to my knowledge without equivalent in the Islamic world, as is the institution of an ecumenical council. They enshrine freedom of religion and equality and are pretty much accepted across mainstream christianity

Peace. Peace. Is there anyway we can separate the religion from the politics? I'm a ignorate agnostic and I try with some success to separate the people from their religion.

ISIS in my view are just crazy sons of bitches. Crazy. In my view they could have hung their crazy hat on any religion. I wonder about our reactions if they were Jews? Catholics?

Still crazy. At what point of time are governments going to decide to eliminate all of them? Very sad decision, but necessary? A very slippery slope for sure. We must decide soon.

HB of CJ wrote:Peace. Peace. Is there anyway we can separate the religion from the politics? I'm a ignorate agnostic and I try with some success to separate the people from their religion.

Not if we're going to discuss radical Moslems - their religion is their politics.
--------------------
Deja moo: that funny feeling that you've heard the same bullshit before.