Christian persecution in America

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Oct 19 2009, 03:14 PM)

It can be intuitive observed in Islamic nations who have not advanced ideologically beyond the 8t century. Islam has not changed at all.

Sorry, but that is just flat out wrong and defies historical fact. Islamic ideology has reformed specifically in regards to the punishment for apostasy. The Ottoman Caliphate got rid of the penalty for apostasy...and it was ratified by Shaykh al-Islam. However, that is not to say that radicalism has been removed. There are still radical extremists who use Islam for thier own corrupt goals and power...primarily in Arabia. Those extremists are in the minority.

What they say is not the same as what they do. That is the problem with Islam. We have had, even on this board in the past several articles posted about Muslims in Muslim countries who were either put to death or at least imprisoned (and who knows what else) for converting to Christianity. We have even had reports about missionaries who have been killed or imprisoned in Muslim countries for sharing Christ. You can tout rulings and so forth all you want. That does not change the fact that Christians are heavily persecuted in Muslim countries and Islam is a tyrannical, intolerant ideology/government.

First of all...thank you for helping prove my point that American Muslims are different than those in the Middle East. There is simply no reason to believe that a muslim living in Ohio has the same radical ideology as a muslim in the Middle East.

I never cast all Muslims as terrorists or extremists, nor did I say at any time that all Muslims were the same. So, evidently, you were trying to refute an argument I had not raised.

I also wholehearted agree that Muslims living in America embrace the freedoms they find here and have no desire to return to a radical version of their faith. Its sort of like a Christian who attends a legalistic church their whole life, but then one day is set free from those bonds...they never before realized that they could still have that same relationship with God. They have no desire to return to legalism.

No, its not like that. Many of the Muslims who get a taste of their freedom don't go back to real Islam at all. Oh, they might retain a residue of Muslim culture, like my professor and his family did, but they refused to attend a mosque, they celebrate Christmas (albeit fromm a totally secular point of view) and they do not maintain any ties with their former home in the Middle east. My professor considers himself a "secular" Muslim. He does not consider himself a practicing Muslim, as he cannot accept Islam piece meal. Islam proper does not allow itself to be treated like a smorgasboard. You don't get to pick and choose which parts you will accept and reject. That is more of a western concept.

So I'm curious...your friends are still muslim, but they escaped "real" Islam." So do they consider themsleves "fake" Islamists? Are they moderates? I mean seriously, this paragraph doesn't even jive with the rest of your post. You basically claim that moderates have the same evil purpose as the radicals...but here you have "friends" who are "westernized" who still consider themselves "muslims."

The call themselves Muslim, but they don't practice it. They are not practicing Muslims, but they don't have another piont of reference for how they should see themselves so for better or worse, they simply refer to themselves as Muslims.

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Oct 19 2009, 03:14 PM)

You have an interesting way of spinning things. You cannot compare an agenda like world domination with say Christian evangelism to see as many people worldwide find Jesus. Christians are not out to take over the world and establish Christianity as the only permissible idealogy on the planet.

I'm sorry, but its hard to take you seriously. Watch this video and tell me how freaked out people would be if this was put out by Muslims, rather than christians. I will be the FIRST to admit that radical Islam has a foothold in certain parts of the world and that their goals are evil...but to pretend that radicalism has never affected Christianity in the same way is wrong.

Again, you are trying to argue against something I have not said. I didn't say there are not any wierdo, radicals among Christianity. But generally speaking when dealing mainstream Christianity, we don't have a world domination agenda, and so to even argue against that makes YOU the one that cannot be taken seriously. You are still trying to act as if Islam and Christianity mirror one another in terms of radicalism and it just doesn't wash. Islam is radical. Islam began as a radical terrorist, barbaric cult and advanced its cause by the sword. In order for a so-called "Christian" to commit terror in the name of Christ, he has to abandon the Christian faith to do it. Muslim terrorists are the true expression of Islam.

Why should it go peacefully? I've seen and heard plenty of Christians on this website (especially lately) talking about going to war in this country over their perceived loss of religious freedoms and societal woes. If American Christians can't go peacefully, why should we expect anyone else too?

What a crock. You are comparing two disimilar things. I am talking about the fact that Islam will not surrender any country where it is the mandated religion regardless of whether or not they entered that country peacfully or not. The point I am making (which has nothing to do with Christians standing up for their rights) is that Islam, despite your claims, has always ruled by despots. Historically, it has always been spread AND enforced by the sword and tyranny.

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Oct 19 2009, 03:14 PM)

No, you don't get it. The moderates have the same evil purpose as the terrorists. They simply have different methods for achieving that purpose.

And yet you call them friends.

No, I dont. "Moderate" does not mean "peaceful."

Sooooo...we don't distrust every muslim, but every muslim has an evil purpose?

No, I did not say that. The problem is that you are interpreting what I am saying in general to refer to every single Muslim, and I have taken pains to point out that I am not indicting every Muslim on the planet. Perhaps when you grow some integrity, you will stop misrepresenting my remarks to mean something I did intend and have clarified remarks to that end, multiple times.

How do you know that your "friends" are not playing off of your naivete by acting like they like being westernized, and hate "real" Islam?

Because they are not practicing Muslims. They don't pray, they eat pork, etc.

[Guest shiloh357]

You accuse me of "spinning" but the reason is because your logic is all over the place. I'm trying to follow your idea that all muslims are evil, but not untrustworthy.

The reason you are having so much trouble is that you are trying to assign values and motives to me that contrary to what I have expressed. It is confusing because you cannot reconcile what I have said with what you have assigned to me. It only underscores the fact that you are just reacting emotionally and not rationally to what I have said.

You keep going between terrorists and muslims as if they are one in the same (with the same goals)...

Nope, not true.

but you don't want to be the guy who says that all muslims are untrustworthy because you actually know muslims who are not evil and can be trusted.

That is because I have not said, nor do I believe all Muslims to be untrustworthy. That is your problem, you are trying to have a debate with me over stuff I have not said. I can see why that would be confusing.

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Oct 19 2009, 03:14 PM)

I am talking about high profile acts of terrorism. For instance, The 2002 Miss World contest ended up seeing Muslims slaughter hundreds of Christians for no other reason than a journalist's (she was not a Christianj) offhanded remark about Muhammed and one of the contestants. No Muslim group denounced it.

Not ONE moderate Muslim group has ever denounced any of the high profile terrorist attacks on Israel such as the 2002 Passover massacre, the Katusha rockets launched into S. Israel, the constant rocket and mortar attacks on Israeli cities by Hamas, and so on. I could list several more high profile attacks in other countries like Spain, which were not denounced by moderates.

Sure, they will get in front of western TV cameras and deliever some left-handed generalized denouncement of violence, but they are silent where specific attacks are concerned. I would also point out that there is also no serious attempt by "moderate" Arab nations to detain, try and execute known terrorists for crimes agasint humanity. When Arab/Muslim governments arrest the leaders and henchmen of Hizbollah, Hamas, the PLO, Al Aqsa, Al Quaeda and other known terrorist groups, then you might have something credible to offer.

Actually, each and every one of those incidents was roundly condemned by the Islamic community. It should also be noted that each and every one of those incidents was committed by religious radicals and terrorists.

Not true, the Christians killed in Nigeria were killed by Muslim people in their own neighborhoods, people they had lived around in relative peace and quiet for years. NO Muslim group has EVER denoucned the Passover Massacre that occured in Israel, nor has ANY Muslim group EVER come to Israel's defense agaisnt the terrorists. To say otherwise only makes you look like a fool.

However, as you pointed out...you don't accept those condemnations even when they are given. You are impossible to please.

No I am not. The fact is, any can tell the difference between genuine denunciations and insincere ones. Genuine denunciations are backed up with corresponding actions.

You are also 100% wrong that there is no serious attempts by moderate nations against terrorists. We can point to Pakistan's all-out assault against al-qaeda this week.

Only because Pakistan know which side its bread is buttered on and does not have the nerve to stand agaisnt the US. I would point out that Pakistan was not engaging Al Quaeda prior to 9/11. There has NEVER been a serious attempt by Islamic nations to stop international terrorism. But there has been plenty of support by Muslim nations to see the anninilation of the only nonterroristic, democratic nation in the Middle east: Israel.

Indonesia, again the largest muslim country, is in a constant fight against terrorism and has worked as hard as any country to bring terrorists to justice.

Maybe in yourliberal, fairytale world, but not in the real world where the rest of us live.

[Guest shiloh357]

So, instead of saying that I was right...you just change the context of your point.

No, I didn't change the context of anything.

There is no death penalty and those that enforce a death penalty do so out of radicalism and are NOT gov't supported.

The problem is that they are government supported. The government favors Islam and looks the other way when Muslims murder Christians and the Muslims are not brought to justice. That smacks of at least a passive support. The Muslims may not be on the government payroll, but the government is as guilty as the actual perpetrators.

It is also crazy to say that Indonesia doesn't arrest extremists...they do, even as they are targeted by extremists for doing so. It is also HIGHLY deceptive to portray the actions of a corrupt indonesian gov't in the 1970's towards the Timorese as a Islamic/Christian persecution. It was a corrupt gov't attempting to overpower and annex a sovereign nation. Many brutalities occured and there remains a civil unrest in the region over that.

The government may have been corrupt, but firstly, I didn't say the government committed the atrocities, and secondly, this is not just about the 1970s. 10,000 Christians have murdered by Muslims in Indonesia from 1998-2003. The government of Indonesia has never brought anyone to justice for that.

In all...not all muslims are evil.

No one said all Muslims are evil. Again, you are trying to have a debate that no one else is having. Maybe if you bothered to read instead of react, you would have figured that out a long time ago.

[spiritman]

I work for a government entity. A group of us have Bible study each week before work. It is wonderful and we've been doing it for years. My boss has recently joined and we are soon going to look for another room to meet in because we are getting a little cramped!! Praise God!!!

Nice, I wish i could find a place like that to work. well I'm still hoping maybe someday.

[spiritman]

So Axxman,

or anyone else that wants to respond to this question: Do you think that this congressman has the right to come over here and swear on the Quran instead of the Holy Bible when getting swore in? and is this setting a dangerous precedent See link:

click here

[Axxman]

So Axxman,

or anyone else that wants to respond to this question: Do you think that this congressman has the right to come over here and swear on the Quran instead of the Holy Bible when getting swore in? and is this setting a dangerous precedent See link:

click here

Off topic...but...do you really believe any vow he makes on the Holy Bible would mean anything to him. If a person is expected to make a vow to uphold our laws and our constitution...then I'd at least like him to make it in a setting that held some meaning to him.

The real question is, how did this guy get elected in the first place?

[Axxman]

Hey Shiloh...

I love this type of convo...but we are clearly going in a circle that is never going to meet at the end. These posts are getting longer and longer (for both of us) and it seems like a lot to type when we are not coming any closer together. I also think that some of us can handle a healthy discussion on this topic...but there are many who are not muture in the faith who might read this topic and be tempted by the lies of this false religion. I need to constantly remind myself that my pride, or my need to prove a point, is not greater than the overall edification of the community.

I apologize if it seemed I was trying to put words into your mouth...it was not my intent...but I was not quite understanding your trust/distrust of "moderates who have the same evil goals as radicals". I'm still not sure I get it. Suffice it to say, that if you say that you don't believe all muslims are evil or untrustworthy...then thats good enough for me and I'm sorry if I offended you by stating otherwise.

Lastly...I appreciated our mostly polite exchange.

[spiritman]

So Axxman,

or anyone else that wants to respond to this question: Do you think that this congressman has the right to come over here and swear on the Quran instead of the Holy Bible when getting swore in? and is this setting a dangerous precedent See link:

click here

Off topic...but...do you really believe any vow he makes on the Holy Bible would mean anything to him. If a person is expected to make a vow to uphold our laws and our constitution...then I'd at least like him to make it in a setting that held some meaning to him.

The real question is, how did this guy get elected in the first place?

that is a good point. It wouldn't make much of a difference if he really didn't mean it. I guess what shocked me the most, is that our government was willing to go along with it.

To see story click here

[Guest shiloh357]

Hey Shiloh...

I love this type of convo...but we are clearly going in a circle that is never going to meet at the end. These posts are getting longer and longer (for both of us) and it seems like a lot to type when we are not coming any closer together. I also think that some of us can handle a healthy discussion on this topic...but there are many who are not muture in the faith who might read this topic and be tempted by the lies of this false religion. I need to constantly remind myself that my pride, or my need to prove a point, is not greater than the overall edification of the community.

I apologize if it seemed I was trying to put words into your mouth...it was not my intent...but I was not quite understanding your trust/distrust of "moderates who have the same evil goals as radicals". I'm still not sure I get it. Suffice it to say, that if you say that you don't believe all muslims are evil or untrustworthy...then thats good enough for me and I'm sorry if I offended you by stating otherwise.

Lastly...I appreciated our mostly polite exchange.

The reason we went in circles was because my point was that Islam is not a religion of peace and that peaceful, western Muslims are not an accurate gauge for measuring Islam, particularly in terms of its history. You were trying to pin me down as saying all Muslims are terrorists/evil.

As for my remarks about Moderates... The problem is that "Moderate" does not mean "peaceful" where "Moderate" Islam is concerned. The US and the international community consider Fatah in the West Bank as "Moderates." Yet, Fatah is the PLO, a terrorist organization. They are not a peaceful group, even though they are called "moderate." The label of "moderate" is applied to a group like the PLO when the US thinks the PLO might be of a benefit to US interests. So you really cannot trust such labels. The US applies applies the label moderate in attempt to avoid having to admit that they are really dealing with a terrorist organization. Just slap the name "moderate" on them and suddenly, the PLO beccomes a legitimate political entity overnight, despite the fact that Fatah/PLO still has as one of its primary objectives, the destruction of Israel, but remember, that is supposed to be swept under the rug 'cause now they are "moderates." Right now, there are 22 "moderate" Arab/Muslim states that also want Israel destroyed. "Moderate does not mean "peaceful."

The problem with your inability to understand my alleged trust/distrust of moderates is that I never claimed to trust moderates. You are operating under false premise "moderate Muslims" even exist in Islam. "Moderate" is a political label that the international community imposes on the Muslim community. I really don't see why it is so hard to understand that two groups can have the same agenda but different methodologies to accomplish it.

Islam is not even a "religion" in the conventional sense. Islam is both a religion and a government. There is no separation of religion and state in Islam. The government is the religion and the religion is the government. Islam has no point of reference for separating the two. The US government is seen as a "Christian" government. That is why our soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan are seen as a Christian crusader army. That is why when the US exports things like pornography, orthodox Islamicists see that as an example of the immorality of Christianity.

There are peacful Muslims who don't hate anybody and should not be mistreated or discriminated against who mind their own business and just want to live in peace and get along with everyone. Those are not moderates.