So Should We Round Up Christians?

Why did you snip the next sentence? "NO ONE....sane or influential." And there's nothing disingenuous about condemning "RADICAL" Islam which is what any important person does. Who cares what kookie people on a forum or Facebook say? Stop being disingenuously LITERAL. Leaders are not condemning the entire religion. They're condemning the radical elements of it. Its not anyone else's fault when the not so radical members sort of sit quietly and say nothing....kind of like Germans did before WWII. Nice silent sheep who want to claim innocence....&$*#(# that.

FAR more people group all of Christianity together than Islam. Its always Radical Islam or Terrorist, ect. Its almost acceptable on the MSM to group together all Christians, but HOLY crap don't you dare say something bad about precious Muslims. Can't make them angry or upset, hehe. Wonder why? Don't see Christians hunting authors or cartoonists down when they write books. Don't see Christians killing people over a movie? But apparently Muslims do, according to Obama=) They certainly chop off the heads of Journalists. Any other religion do that in the past 1000 yrs?

You can count the number of actual radical Christians who actually do anything, on one hand. There are millions upon millions of radical Muslims living in the ME and who knows how many over here.

 

I must have missed the part about rounding up Mulsims and deporting them

 

The old testament doesnt lead to violence by Christians because the old testament called for violence in a specific time and place against a specific people. And because

Ephesians 2
15 by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.

Hebrews 8
13 By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

Romans 10
4Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.(*)

Romans 7
6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

2 Corinthians 3
13We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. 14But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away.

Galatians 3 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."

23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ[h] that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law(*)

 

You are using the exact same argument to defend the Old Testament as Muslims are using to defend the Qu'ran.

 

You do realize that Hadith of Bukhari is an interpretation of the Q'ran. Right? You also know that Sahih al-Bukhari is one of six major hadith's of the Sunni relgion. Sunni, Shia, and other sects can be compared to Cathoiciism, Protestantism, Mormonism, or Gnosticism in Christianity.

 

That;s because you don't read or listen to international news unless it comes from Fox News.

If you go to India, Nigeria or Norway where Christians have killed other people in the name of Chrsitanity. Or perhaps you were asleepin during history class about the 30 Years War, the Crusades, or the Spanish Inquisition where Christians murdered other Christians based on their definition of heresy.

 

In Islam, the Hadith are considered to be second only to the Qu'ran.

 

How can you prove that the books you mention were actually written by the people you claim they were written by?

How can you prove that they were written when you say they were written? How do you know what was written in them?

Those are just questions for you to ask yourself. Moving on, the original manuscripts were lost for thousands of years. The surviving scriptures have been reformed many, many times. So much so that "Jesus" is not the true name of the messiah, but a Greek corruption of the actual name. And regardless of what you say, there was hardly ever two copy's of the bible that were identical until the creation of the printing press sometime in the 16th century.

That doesn't make sense. The scriptures, as well as their intepretations, was central issue.

Are you looking for more assumptions or facts...?

 

They could be either or they could be neither. Do you know the definition of terrorism? Were any of the killers bent on radical religious views that motivated them to kill, and kill in a specific manner such as beheading? What the hell point are you trying to make anyway?

 

As Mormons to the Book of Joseph Smith, the Christians to their Septuagint, and Gnostics to their Gospels.

 

I'll give you a clue. Look up the definition of terrorism. Does your example meet the criteria?

 

The reason we follow those 4 books is because they were written by 4 different authors at 4 different times who did not collaborate with one another. It would be an impossibility to get all of the doctrines of Jesus without contradiction by 4 different people without collusion. But the problem is... if they colluded then why is there discrepancy in time, place, date or order of events? You can't have it both ways. Either they copied without err or they didn't. And if they didn't then what they were writing about must have been accurate.

You're simply wrong. The Codex Sinaiticus was a copy written ~350AD and is inclusive of the NT and is almost exactly what we have today. It doesn't substantially differ in any doctrine from Christ.

 

No its not. Its Matters Pertaining to the Prophet, His practices and His Times. The words and practices of Muhammad.

The most respected of the six. AND written in the 9th century, you are 5 centuries off. Wa there some point you wanted to make?

 

So are you saying that you're fine with the idea of rounding up Muslims for the acts of a few?

Just checking. I assumed that you weren't, but then thought, is that a safe assumption? Maybe I read it right the first time.

 

and what about Tim McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, Michael Page, James Von Brunn, Nancy Lanza, George Hennard, James Huberty, Howard Unruh?????

 

Try to focus on your original assertion. You claim Jihad as warfare is a 14th century definition. I provided you 26, 9th century Hadiths, regarding the 7th century life and times of Muhammad, all pointing to jihad as warfare. And you have nothing to say in response?
You don't have a clue as to "what that text originally means" or what it means now, and make a fool of yourself trying to pretend as if you do. ........ Or do you know exactly what they mean, and here you are just dishonest?.

 

Wow thread uncovered more bigotry than I thought. What it also shows was the hypocrisy of the right.

 

Yes.

"If you can kill a disbelieving American or European – especially the spiteful and filthy French – or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever … including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be,”
“Ibn Rajab said regarding Allah’s mercy in his collection on science and governance, p 112: “in charity it is permissible to kill people and animals in the easiest way and do not increase in the torture and the easiest method to kill a human being is to strike off the neck with the sword of violence in accordance to the Quran when “you meet the unbelievers then strike off their necks”

 

LOLOL.. Dixon take your expertise to the 40,000 Americans who are now working, living and raising their families in the kingdom... They will laugh you outta town with your dimestore expertise.

 

You should attach your post to a quote that shows this hypocrisy of the right.

 

That's a quote from ISIS, spokesman Abu Muhammad al-Adnani ash-Shami, not my expertise. And I doubt if many Americans working in Saudi Arabia would find such sentiments funny.
And the Hadith quotes are not my expertise and instead the result of a searchable, online version of the Hadith, searching on the term "jihad".

 

How many of those 40,000 are actually Saudi citizens?

 

This article is 11 years old. I expect the number has gone up a bit:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2003/05/13/35000-americans-live-in-saudi-arabia/
About 35,000 Americans live in Saudi Arabia. Most are employed in the lucrative oil industry, but many also work in the construction and financial sectors.

Like other Westerners in the kingdom, the Americans earn tax-free salaries and live in housing compounds with luxurious amenities, such as swimming pools and tennis courts.

 

Their definition of heresy. As opposed to the bibles. Back then, bibles were written in Latin, unread by anyone other than the clergy. Christian doctrine was whatever the CHURCH said was doctrine. Invention of the printing press, the spread of literacy, widespread translation and publication of bibles, the reformation, the Christian doctrine of the bible was used to demonstrate the illegitimacy the crusades and inquisitions. The doctrine of the bible was used to demonstrate the illegitimacy of the divine rule of the church and monarchs.
That's the problem with Islam. The Islamic Caliphates that existed from 632 until the 1920s, The Islamic Jihad waged to establish, expand and defend the Islamic caliphates, the caliphates applying Islamic doctrine as law, was all done according to the doctrine of the Koran and Hadiths.
The protestant reformation helped return Christianity to the doctrine of the bible just as this Salafist reformation seeks to return Islam to the doctrine of the Koran and hadiths. To emulate the "Rashidun" the "Rightly Guided" Caliphs and Caliphates. Within 80 years of the death of Muhammad, these "Rightly Guided" Caliphs were waging jihad in Spain to the west and Afghanistan to the east, ISIS has the doctrine of the Koran and Hadiths to justify their actions.

 

I rest my case.