‘INSULTING TO ISLAM’ Thousands of Muslims demand Nike recall ‘offensive’ Air Max trai

[Roy]

Perhaps because that's what you were wanting to see?

No. It surprised me.

Perhaps you don't want to see it.

[Cow Poke]

No. It surprised me.

Perhaps you don't want to see it.

So, what's your real point, Roy?

The "best (worst) case" of somebody doing something hideous "in the name of Jesus (or God)" would be, what... the person who attacks an abortion clinic? Kills an abortion doctor?
If, in fact, the person who does that WAS a Christian, and was doing it in the name of Jesus (or God) - it is CLEARLY against anything we New Testament Christians are taught, and there is ZERO teaching from Jesus that we should act in that manner.
If it's demonstrable that he was not a Christian - that should be pointed out. If he WAS a Christian, it should be pointed out that he does not represent what Christianity teaches in any way, shape or form.

OTOH, somebody doing something hideous while yelling "Allahu Akbar" is very clearly doing it in the name of Allah, and there is plenty of reason he's doing it because his religion justifies it.

What am I missing?

[Mountain Man]

No. It surprised me.

Perhaps you don't want to see it.

The point you seem to be missing is that if someone commits violence in the name of Christianity, it doesn't matter if they're a "real" Christian or not because they are clearly acting contrary to the teachings of the Bible and the example of Jesus.

[Charles]

It's what I've observed.

The usual response to Christians committing violence is to deny that the perpetrators are Christians. Not to admit that they are Christians that have sinned or erred or otherwise fallen short of expectations, or that they are Christians who have different views on how Christians should act, but to deny they are Christians.

There are several examples in this thread, and more in the threads I linked to.

Right. While there are not as many examples of it you are correct that Christians define their way out of the problem. What they forget is that they themselves hold on to a particular interpretation while others hold onto another interpretation. I agree that it is much less likely for a Bible reader to become violent than for someone reading other religious texts of a more violent sort but it does happen. You will see others here argue that Jesus' words about being unto others, recieving the stranger and other ideas along those lines should mean nothing at all in a polical context and should not even influence your vote. They allow for evil to be done by this convenient interpretation.

And for anyone forgetting history here is a few quotes from a guy I am yet to see anyone deny was a Christian, namely the reformer Martin Luther. In the quotes below he is talking about Jews:

First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians.

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...heir-lies-quot

[Cow Poke]

Right.

Wrong.

[Cow Poke]

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...heir-lies-quot

Wow, Charles, you had to go back over FOUR HUNDRED YEARS to come up with your best example? Good job!!! I'm really doubting Roy was alive then, unless there's something else we need to know about him.

[Charles]

Wow, Charles, you had to go back over FOUR HUNDRED YEARS to come up with your best example? Good job!!! I'm really doubting Roy was alive then, unless there's something else we need to know about him.

So, your best argument is to point to it being old? Is that all you can do? Must have been hard to learn from history for you.

Anyway, it is no secret at all that Luther's ideas influenced the church in Germany during the nazi era and served as a justification for violence, hatred and killing of the jews. From Britannica:

The idea that the Jews were evil persisted during the Protestant Reformation. Although Martin Luther expressed positive feelings about Jews, especially earlier in his life, and relied on Jewish scholars for his translation of the Hebrew scriptures into German, he became furious with Jews over their rejection of Jesus. “We are at fault for not slaying them,” he wrote. “Rather we allow them to live freely in our midst despite their murder, cursing, blaspheming, lying and defaming.” Such views were emphasized by the Nazis. They were renounced by the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod in 1983 and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America in 1994. https://www.britannica.com/topic/ant...edieval-Europe

[Cow Poke]

So, your best argument is to point to it being old? Is that all you can do?

Read the thread, Chuckie, that is obviously NOT "the best argument I can make", as I have numerous posts about it in this thread. PLEASE try to pay attention.

[Charles]

Read the thread, Chuckie, that is obviously NOT "the best argument I can make", as I have numerous posts about it in this thread. PLEASE try to pay attention.

Wonder why you go for the worse arguments if you can do better. And I am yet to see why it makes any difference that it was more than 400 years old. You gave no reason. And when I pointed to the same tendencies in the nazi era you ignored that part. And then you ask me to pay attention?

[Cow Poke]

Wonder why you go for the worse arguments if you can do better.

Pointing out that you have to go more than 400 years ago for your best argument is not my "best argument" on the subject.

Here's an example of my actual argument.

So, what's your real point, Roy?

The "best (worst) case" of somebody doing something hideous "in the name of Jesus (or God)" would be, what... the person who attacks an abortion clinic? Kills an abortion doctor?
If, in fact, the person who does that WAS a Christian, and was doing it in the name of Jesus (or God) - it is CLEARLY against anything we New Testament Christians are taught, and there is ZERO teaching from Jesus that we should act in that manner.
If it's demonstrable that he was not a Christian - that should be pointed out. If he WAS a Christian, it should be pointed out that he does not represent what Christianity teaches in any way, shape or form.

OTOH, somebody doing something hideous while yelling "Allahu Akbar" is very clearly doing it in the name of Allah, and there is plenty of reason he's doing it because his religion justifies it.

What am I missing?

But do feel free to continue ing - better if you do it in your car, Chuck.

[Charles]

Pointing out that you have to go more than 400 years ago for your best argument is not my "best argument" on the subject.

Here's an example of my actual argument.



But do feel free to continue ing - better if you do it in your car, Chuck.

Personal attacks will not strengthen your case, sorry.

You are yet to provide any reason why it was important that it was old, and you are yet to confront why you ignored it when I pointed out that the idea had been used to support the nazis. It seems you can't adress it, or am I wrong?

What you point to as your best argument is not very strong at all. You claim "[...]he does not represent what Christianity teaches in any way, shape or form." That is, you are taking your own interpretation of what Christianity is for granted. The real deal is it can be interpreted in different ways some of which are rather unplesant but often shared and supported on tweb.

Sessions justified family separations with Bible references while many Christians called it unchristian. Luther and his anti semitism has been accepted by people calling themselves Christians for centuries. Nazism was accepted in parts of the Church.

There are people on tweb whom I would say support ideas that contradict what Christianity teaches in any way, shape or form but yet they call themselves Christians. It seems to me that you are unaware of the level of interpretation you live in and how history, culture and humanism helped form your ideas that you seemingly think are just a pure reading of "the good book".

So, perhaps you could actually learn something by going 400 years back in history. Not saying all interpretations are equally good, but they are there and point to the fact that interpretations differ, change in order to fit society, culture, science and so on. Today we are witnessing how Evangelicals are reinterpreting scripture in order to secure their own political goals. They are blind to the change to a very high degree. They forget that they are interpreting.

[Cow Poke]

Personal attacks will not strengthen your case, sorry.

Observing that fact that you are a is not a personal attack, Charles.

You are yet to provide any reason why it was important that it was old...

Is this another case where you're going to badger and badger until you get an answer, then disappear like smoke in the wind?

[Charles]

Observing that fact that you are a is not a personal attack, Charles.



Is this another case where you're going to badger and badger until you get an answer, then disappear like smoke in the wind?

You have just ignored most of my post. Now you are trying to go for a personal attack. And then you justify your lack of an answer after being asked several times with an excuse that I am not interested. It is easy to see who is not interested in an answer. Just look at the stuff you have continued to ignore in my posts.

Feel free to provide stuff of substance on what I wrote.

[Cow Poke]

You have just ignored most of my post.

Yes. Yes, I have.

[rogue06]

Wow, Charles, you had to go back over FOUR HUNDRED YEARS to come up with your best example? Good job!!! I'm really doubting Roy was alive then, unless there's something else we need to know about him.

Only mossy was around then, but yeah when you have to go back 476 years to make your case anyone who isn't a bitter, hate-filled troll would agree that is stretching things well past the breaking point.