Isn't Multiculturalism Wonderful...

[Darth Executor]

http://www.newsweek.com/us-bars-chri...s-syria-497494

looks like the aptly named rogue stole the last number in the url

[Jin-roh]

Eh, seems like a very flimsy argument on several grounds.

First, Jesus came to die. So I'm not sure how that makes the empire incompatible with Christianity given that they played a major role in its formation. It sounds like the opposite, if anything.

Just as enslavement in Egypt and the Babylonian exile played a major role in the development of ancient Judaism, but that doesn't mean that God endorses them or how they ran things, or would prescribe such things.

Second, the Romans were not the primary antagonists.

Well sure not at that point in the story. Though Acts and Luke are meant to be taken together...

They did kill Jesus, but they only did it to pacify the pharisees. Using the same line of argument you could argue that religious leaders are even more incompatible with Christianity than the politics of empire, an absurd position.

"Religious leader" is a vacuous term.

Third, I'm not sure how killing Jesus makes it incompatible with Christianity in general. It was a one-time thing, and they were ignorant of Jesus's status as the Son of God (something Jesus Himself states).

The Romans saw Jesus as another upstart messiah, and were probably a little confused why the Jewish people wanted him dead so much. Still, those Pharisees were motivated by their need to keep their hands down before their masters, and Jesus was going around casting "legion" into a herd of pigs... so...

In fact Roman politics ended up being crucial to spreading Christianity in the Middle East and Europe, and imperial politics in general have spread Christianity a lot further than it would have gotten on its own.

That was hard won after many centuries of persecution because Christians refused to acknowledge the cult of the empire. It does not imply that the cycle of military might, to oppress 'the other' people, to get resources for 'your' people, -which is the politics of empire is is compatible with Kingdom of God.

Combined with Paul declaring the Roman authorities as enforcing God's will on earth (and the crucifixion was God's will too) and I don't think you have much of a case.

I really think that you confuse accidently (not as in 'happened by chance or unintentionally' but 'properties that are found in the subject, but not essential to the subject') living and dealing with empire, to being essentially compatible with empire.

I also think you gloss over things like That Rome persecuted Christians specifically because they did not fall in line, or that demon Legion was thrown into a herd of pigs, or that Revelation's flying angel declares "fallen is Babylon the great" or that terms like "world" had politically charged meanings.

[Darth Executor]

Just as enslavement in Egypt and the Babylonian exile played a major role in the development of ancient Judaism, but that doesn't mean that God endorses them or how they ran things, or would prescribe such things.

The issue is whether they are compatible, not whether God would endorse them.

"Religious leader" is a vacuous term.

No more than "empire".

That was hard won after many centuries of persecution because Christians refused to acknowledge the cult of the empire. It does not imply that the cycle of military might, to oppress 'the other' people, to get resources for 'your' people, -which is the politics of empire is is compatible with Kingdom of God.

Christians didn't refuse to acknowledge the "cult of empire", it refused to acknowledge the emperor's divinity, which is a different thing entirely. An empire is not dependent on an emperor that is descended from a god. And Christians took over that empire, and kept it going for well over another thousand years. Seems to me that if Christianity was not compatible with empire, it would have collapsed a lot sooner.

I really think that you confuse accidently (not as in 'happened by chance or unintentionally' but 'properties that are found in the subject, but not essential to the subject') living and dealing with empire, to being essentially compatible with empire.

Paul said quite a bit more than "accidentally live with the empire" from what I recall.

I also think you gloss over things like That Rome persecuted Christians specifically because they did not fall in line,

Is religious conformity a necessary component of empire? Nevermind that persecution by the Romans themselves is spotty. Nero scapegoated Christians, but for the most part Christians did fall in line in other matters, which kept them safe until they became a political threat due to their numbers, much later on.

or that demon Legion was thrown into a herd of pigs,

I gloss over it because I don't think it was intended to be an insult to Rome.

or that Revelation's flying angel declares "fallen is Babylon the great" or that terms like "world" had politically charged meanings.

There's no question that Christians came into conflict with the late pagan Roman empire, but that's hardly evidence that Christianity is incompatible with empire in general. It just means it's incompatible with hostile non-Christian empires at best, and you could say that about every other religion.

[Jedidiah]

Please don't use 'snowflake' in this context as the context is exactly the opposite of the word's meaning.
Darth doesn't consider himself to be the center of his own special universe and he isn't fragile and given to crying.

There are insulting terms for people who are like him, 'snowflake' isn't one of them.

Star uses snowflake in inappropriate ways because he does not like the fragility of liberal extremists derided.

[Tassman]

Could one imagine that Christians would point to the fact that Germany and Sweden saved so many human lives, gave freedom and options to those who were otherwise left to hopelessness and death?

Yes, consequences exist, but it appears the consequences of doing nothing to help these poor people would be a lot worse if one cares equally for human lives no matter their nationality.

That's not the Christian way, Charles. America first is the way to go. <sarcasm>

[Starlight]

That's not the Christian way, Charles. America first is the way to go. <sarcasm>

Given the number and seriousness of different problems that the US has, I think "America first" makes sense, especially if it is taken to mean "lets stop spending money blowing up random brown people on the other side of the world and thus inspiring them to commit terrorism against the West, and instead redirect our absurdly bloated military budget (that's currently acting as the world's most perverted jobs program where they give people money for making weapons and for using weapons) and instead use that money back home in the US to solve some of the many serious problems the US currently has like a need for universal healthcare, a need for housing for the homeless, a need for infrastructure spending etc."

If I were appointed leader of the US, on my first day I would declare a state of emergency on the grounds of massive homelessness and lack of healthcare and lead in the water supplies, and set the army to building massive amounts of housing that poor people could live in for free, and replace lead piping around the country so people weren't getting brain damaged from drinking their water, and the army doctors to providing free healthcare clinics, until such time as these problems were properly addressed through other legislation. I mean if you're going to have an absurdly bloated military budget, you might as well have the military doing something worthwhile, instead of destabilizing foreign nations and inspiring terrorism.

I think a lot of people who voted for Trump did so because they thought that's the general kind of thing he might do - he made pretty clear throughout his campaign that he wanted to have less wars and more local spending on infrastructure etc. Of course, his proposed budget gave the lie to that.

[Charles]

That's not the Christian way, Charles. America first is the way to go. <sarcasm>

Good point

[Cerebrum123]

I am acutely aware of Islam's medieval fights with Christendom and understand that yes, many of those difficulties still affect us today.

I wonder if you're aware what happened to the Ottoman Empire after world war one, or Operation Ajax.

The Ottoman Empire had the option of staying neutral in World War 1, which most of the cabinet apparently wanted. This bit them in the butt severely. You're also talking about the people who carried out the Armenian Genocide. They also had been performing centuries of Islamic conquest, and all that that entails. That the Ottoman Empire was defeated, and power taken away is a very good thing in my eyes.

I don't see how Operation Ajax has anything to do with the major problems in the Middle East right now.

The biggest problems in the Middle East all stem from Islam, and not from some recent wars. The Sunni-Shia split* has killed millions, and continues to kill at an alarming pace. Women being treated as second class citizens at best stems from Mohammed's teachings that women are inferior to men, can be beaten by their husbands, and are the majority in hell. The hatred of Christians, Jews, and all non-Muslims is explicit in the Koran. If you're not a Christian, Jew, or Sabian, then you must convert to Islam, or die. If you are a Christian, Jew, or Sabian, then you have the option of becoming a dhimmi, or dying. Conquering the world in the name of Allah, killing all disbelievers who won't convert, and all hypocrites is all inherent to what Mohammed taught and did.

*This happened almost immediately after Mohammed died, and resulted in the "Wars of Apostasy", or Ridda Wars.

[Cerebrum123]

Exactly. Islam doesn't have a clean history. While someone could convince that the crusade went into excess, or that crusaders did terrible things, the one thing that I won't be convinced of is that it wasn't a reaction to aggression that included forced conversions and slavery.

Yet somehow the problems in the Middle East today are the result of similar conflicts with the "West"?

[Charles]

Women being treated as second class citizens at best stems from Mohammed's teachings that women are inferior to men, can be beaten by their husbands, and are the majority in hell. The hatred of Christians, Jews, and all non-Muslims is explicit in the Koran. If you're not a Christian, Jew, or Sabian, then you must convert to Islam, or die. If you are a Christian, Jew, or Sabian, then you have the option of becoming a dhimmi, or dying. Conquering the world in the name of Allah, killing all disbelievers who won't convert, and all hypocrites is all inherent to what Mohammed taught and did.

But if those women come to our part of the world, if they bring their children, if they try to escape death and torture, they are told to return. This is is all inherent to what Jesus taught and did. Or what?

[Sparko]

So your point being that we should do what about hundreds of thousands whose other opportunity is to die or live painful, hopeles lives? We should stick to theories that they are ALL the same and ALL want to damage our countries. The idea that we have responsibility does not go in this case?

I am asking, because each day I see happy innocent children, who would either be dead or live under hopless conditions if they should have stayed home. The idea that they have ALL come to damage our countries is not worthy. Nor is your cartoon.

help them stay in their own country safely. they don't want to be refugees.

[Jin-roh]

Yet somehow the problems in the Middle East today are the result of similar conflicts with the "West"?

Well to your other post, I'm certainly not arguing that the Ottoman empire was innocent, only that the carving up of it has an affect on things, much as like how the carving up Africa once the Europeans left had an affect things.

Operation Ajax is pretty clear example of Western powers messing with the development of a sovereign nation, to the detriment of that sovereign nation. Iran might have become a much more open and liberal republic had we not messed with it. "Messed with it" is an understatement now that I think about it.

You seem though, hell bent on twin premises that "the west can do no wrong" and "islam is always bad."

[Cerebrum123]

Well to your other post, I'm certainly not arguing that the Ottoman empire was innocent, only that the carving up of it has an affect on things, much as like how the carving up Africa once the Europeans left had an affect things.

Operation Ajax is pretty clear example of Western powers messing with the development of a sovereign nation, to the detriment of that sovereign nation. Iran might have become a much more open and liberal republic had we not messed with it. "Messed with it" is an understatement now that I think about it.

You seem though, hell bent on twin premises that "the west can do no wrong" and "islam is always bad."

You're the one who put the majority of the blame at the feet of "the West", and downplayed the effects of Islam, kind of the opposite of what you accuse me of. I don't think that Operation Ajax was a good thing, but I don't see how it's anywhere near the root of the problem with Middle Easter countries. The primary problems seem to be things like non-Muslims being second class citizens, terrorist attacks, and a host of other issues that can be directly tied to Islamic teaching.

I gave reasons for why Islam is the root of the problem in the Middle East, and gave examples of teachings found in the Koran and ahadith*. You gave one example that is basically the Ottoman Empire, and Operation Ajax. So, one entirely irrelevant piece of information, and one "what if" that you think might have happened if Operation Ajax hadn't happened. Iran was Islamic, and we've seen the fruits of Islam for 14 centuries. It's rotten to the core, and has been ever since Mohammed went to the cave at Hijra. Where, oddly enough, he first believed himself to be possessed by a demon.

You did get one thing right though, that "Islam is always bad", and while I think you were meaning to mock me, it's actually an accurate representation of reality. Good thing most Muslims don't follow what Islam actually teaches, otherwise we would have much, much more massacres in the name of Allah than we already do.

*If you want the exact passages just ask. It's really not hard to find.

[Darth Executor]

But if those women come to our part of the world, if they bring their children, if they try to escape death and torture, they are told to return. This is is all inherent to what Jesus taught and did. Or what?

Jesus's paradise has a very strict immigration policy too.

[Darth Executor]

Well to your other post, I'm certainly not arguing that the Ottoman empire was innocent, only that the carving up of it has an affect on things, much as like how the carving up Africa once the Europeans left had an affect things.

Operation Ajax is pretty clear example of Western powers messing with the development of a sovereign nation, to the detriment of that sovereign nation. Iran might have become a much more open and liberal republic had we not messed with it. "Messed with it" is an understatement now that I think about it.

You seem though, hell bent on twin premises that "the west can do no wrong" and "islam is always bad."

If the West had properly conquered and forcibly converted the Middle East to Christianity there would be even fewer issues. This is what happens when the state abdicates its duty in favor of mercy.