Who's Taking Blame for Christian Violence?

  • Thread starter Thread starter romano
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Richardols:
Oh, you haven’t heard what happened in Kosovo.
Click to expand...
I’m not saying Christians haven’t done their fair share of worldwide crimes, but that doesn’t excuse any of the crimes committed today by Islamic terrorists.

Which it was it seemed like you were doing to me…

:hmmm:
 
Philip P:
If you’re going to distinguish Catholics out of all the Christians, then you ought to make distinctions in regards to Islam as well. It’s no more fair to use one group of Christians to characterize all Christians than it is to take one group of Muslims to characterize all Muslims. Do Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, or Slobodon Milosevic represent Christianity? Then why accept Bin Lade as representing Islam?
Click to expand...
Timothy McVeigh was not a Christian, though he was raised in a Christian home. He had rejected Christianity while in the service and considered himself an agnostic. He did not bomb the federal building in the name of Christianity.

Eric Rudolph was not a Christian, but rather a follower of Nitzche. Rudolph railed against Christians and considered religion to be the opiate of the masses and blah blah blah. He did not kill the abortion doctor in the name of Christianity.

Most uninformed anti-religious people assume that if Eric Rudolph was against abortion, he must be a Christian.

But I agree that not all Muslims should be lumped in with the terrorists.
 
Philip P:
See Post #15, by MikeWm:
Click to expand...
I can concede that there may be a bigger outcry from the Muslim community that has not been reported by the media.
 
I have already posted about 6 different posts here with condemnation from all the UK Muslim groups about the London attacks. I don’t see why they viewed the attacks on the USA any differently.
Click to expand...
Well, yes, the Muslim world’s response to the London bombings of 7/05 is startlingly different than the muslim response to 9/11. Perhaps all the rumblings and musings about the silence following 9/11 persuaded the more moderate element to speak up. I don’t know. But I’m not going to assume without facts that there was some outcry from the muslims following 9/11 that** all** of the media jointly failed to publish, for some unknown reason.
I remember precisely 2 clips of people looking happy at the events,
Click to expand...
I remember more. I guess our memories will just have to differ.
I read afterwards that one of those clips was a stock image taken weeks before about something else entirely.
Click to expand...
I never read this. What was your source?
 
40.png
PaulDupre:
Timothy McVeigh was not a Christian, though he was raised in a Christian home. He had rejected Christianity while in the service and considered himself an agnostic. He did not bomb the federal building in the name of Christianity.

Eric Rudolph was not a Christian, but rather a follower of Nitzche. Rudolph railed against Christians and considered religion to be the opiate of the masses and blah blah blah. He did not kill the abortion doctor in the name of Christianity.

Most uninformed anti-religious people assume that if Eric Rudolph was against abortion, he must be a Christian.

But I agree that not all Muslims should be lumped in with the terrorists.
Click to expand...
Paul, you beat me to it. Great post!
 
40.png
romano:
By Calvin White

07/26/05 “Toronto Star” - - Now that imams in Britain and Canada are standing up and publicly condemning terrorist acts as anti-Muslim and against the teachings in the Qur’an, I wonder if pressure might be put on Christian leaders to take a similar stand.

For the rest of the article:

informationclearinghouse.info/article9577.htm
Click to expand...

**They both claim a righteousness in their policies of destruction. They were even counseled by their secular allies not to resort to the carnage. Where was the equal pressure from the Christian leadership?​

Interesting, isn’t it, that Muslim fanatics use the idea of holy jihad and rewards in paradise to recruit their dupes into terrible acts of destruction, and in Christian circles there is the solemn assembling for prayer and seeking of blessings for the troops and leaders in their mission of war.**

How it may be in the USA, I don’t know - but clergy in the UK have been very critical of Bliar’s policy.

It seems this was not known to the author of the article. ##
 
40.png
dwc:
Well, yes, the Muslim world’s response to the London bombings of 7/05 is startlingly different than the muslim response to 9/11. Perhaps all the rumblings and musings about the silence following 9/11 persuaded the more moderate element to speak up. I don’t know. But I’m not going to assume without facts that there was some outcry from the muslims following 9/11 that** all** of the media jointly failed to publish, for some unknown reason.
Click to expand...
I don’t know the answer to this, to be frank. I was in the USA on 9/11 and in the UK for the London bombs, so I can only compare the relative media, not the different events in the same media. There seemed to be more respose to London, but I don’t know if that is due to (a) there is more response, (b) the Muslims in the US are less organised, or (c) the UK media is better than the US media. (well, no offence to anyone, but the UK news media is infinitely better than the US news media. Whether in reporting the reactions of Muslims though, I dunno 🙂
I remember more. I guess our memories will just have to differ.
Click to expand...
I’ve got a load of 9/11 and 9/12 news coverage on video tape somewhere. At some point in my life I’ll take another look.
I never read this. What was your source?
Click to expand...
Oh, it was 3 and a half years ago, I can’t possibly remember 😦 I’ll take a look to see if I can dig it up though, if I get chance.

Mike
 
40.png
MikeWM:
These were one or two images of misguided people. You may as well say the pictures from Abu Ghraib represent the typical actions of the American Army.

Mike
Click to expand...
Yes, because putting panties on someone’s head and blasting music at them is just as bad a cutting off someone’s head.
 
40.png
UnworthySoul:
Yes, because putting panties on someone’s head and blasting music at them is just as bad a cutting off someone’s head.
Click to expand...
Sexual and mental abuse is not something to be belittled, in my opinion. Read the other thread here for some of the other things that were happening.

My point, which I thought was obvious but perhaps not, is that the images of the people happy with the 9/11 bombings have the same effect on us as images of Abu Ghraib do on some people. The media only reports extremes, ie. the extreme abuses on both sides. It fosters resentment and hate, in the name of getting a good story.

Mike
 
40.png
MikeWM:
Sexual and mental abuse is not something to be belittled, in my opinion. Read the other thread here for some of the other things that were happening.

My point, which I thought was obvious but perhaps not, is that the images of the people happy with the 9/11 bombings have the same effect on us as images of Abu Ghraib do on some people. The media only reports extremes, ie. the extreme abuses on both sides. It fosters resentment and hate, in the name of getting a good story.

Mike
Click to expand...
Panties on the head is neither sexual or mental abuse. It is panties on the head. Nothing more. If you think the guys who kill people for a living are so thin-skinned that they are scarred for life because someone put underwear on their head then you have bought the lie. And sensory depravation is NOT torture in any way, shape, or form. It’s not pleasant, but it is NOT torture. And yes, I have been through some forms of sensory depravation, so I have an idea of what it is.
 
40.png
UnworthySoul:
Panties on the head is neither sexual or mental abuse. It is panties on the head. Nothing more. If you think the guys who kill people for a living are so thin-skinned that they are scarred for life because someone put underwear on their head then you have bought the lie.
Click to expand...
I think perhaps you ought to read further about some of the things that have gone on at Abu Ghraib. The other recent thread in this forum might be a good start.

Mike
 
40.png
Richardols:
Sure. Christians do things differently. Such as, e.g., when Christian Serbs took thousands of Moslem boys and men into fields and shot them dead. Christians aren’t as crude as Moslems.
Click to expand...
Those were NATIONALISTS. The same nationalists who started World War I by instigating the terrorist attack against the Catholic Emperor and Reformist Franz Ferdinand and his wife.

Serbians were and are nuts when it comes to wanting to recreate their 14th century Serbian state.
 
40.png
Richardols:
Sure. Christians do things differently. Such as, e.g., when Christian Serbs took thousands of Moslem boys and men into fields and shot them dead. Christians aren’t as crude as Moslems.
Click to expand...
Claiming to be Christian and actually being Christian are often (sadly) two entirely different things. Standing in a garage doesn’t make you a car. I haven’t read any mandate from the New Testament indicating that shooting unarmed boys in the head is part of Jesus’ command to “Love each other, as I have loved you”.
 
40.png
Scott_Lafrance:
Claiming to be Christian and actually being Christian are often (sadly) two entirely different things.
Click to expand...
True enough about each one of us. I claim to be a Christian, but am hardly one if I lose my temper or harbor a grudge.

But, it is also correct to call those Serbian murderers Christians as they are, observant or not of all the Church teaches, members of the Orthodox Church.
 
40.png
Richardols:
And they were Christians - of the Orthodox Church.
Click to expand...
You still don’t understand. They are Nationalists. They will kill Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, and anyone who stands in the way of the achievement of the Greater Serbian State.
 
40.png
Hildebrand:
You still don’t understand. They are Nationalists. They will kill Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, and anyone who stands in the way of the achievement of the Greater Serbian State.
Click to expand...
Whom they are willing to kill doesn’t negate their membership, howsoever nominal, in the Orthodox Church, and to their being referred to as Serbian Christians.

You are seeking nuance where none is needed.
 
40.png
Hildebrand:
The Islamic terrorists commit acts of terror and murder because of the texts of the Quran.

No, because of their perverse interpretations of the Qu’ran, acts which have been condemned by Moslems.

But, nevertheless, they can still be refered to as Moslems.
The Serbian Nationalist does not kill because Jesus says to kill the Austrian, Bosnian, Croat, Albanian, and all others who get in the way of a Greater Serbian State.
Click to expand...
No one, and certainly not any of them, claims that they are killing in Christ’s name. They can still validly be referred to as Serbian Christians. No one is counting how often they go to church. Many IRA terrorists were nominally Catholics, even as their acts were not done in Christ’s name.
Click to expand...
 
I still don’t get it.

American Christians and European Christians stood with those who fought against the Serbian nationalists in the 1990s.

Pope John Paul II and Catholics and Christians throughout the world condemned the IRA’s terrorist bombings and sought peace in Northern Ireland.

So are we saying Pope John Paul II and Catholicism are to blame for the IRA?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top