Islam and Islamophobia

Nah. The Catholics gave up torturing heretics a long time ago. It was never an inherent part of Christianity and was instead inventions of the Catholic church. That's why we don't have problems with Catholics torturing heretics these days. On the other hand, the commandments to "fight", "kill", "slay" and "smite the necks" of the unbelievers "Until... religion is only for Allah", written into the original doctrine of Islam, continue to motivate jihadists to this day.

 

There are only a couple of verses that are controversial, and the scholars make lots of excuses for them.
This compares to thousands of Islamic verses that, plain and simple, hate, rob, rape, and kill.

 

You seem to be confusing doctrine - with the teachings of Jesus. Just because Catholics no longer follow the doctrine they followed for over 1000 years (part of this time when Catholicism was most of Christianity) ... does not mean it was not part of their doctrine.

Just like Christians no longer follow some of the old evil doctrines - some Muslims do not follow these evil doctrines. Same with the Jews.

 

We are discussing doctrine - not "hate rob rape and kill". You seem to not understand the difference between "Doctrine" and the Bible - or Quran.

 

I'm not discussing the Qur'an, I try to stay away from that.
Nobody here knows the correct way to read it.
So I try to stay with the teachings and deeds of Muhammed.
and yes, they are all hate, rob, rape, and kill.

 

You're having a hard time understanding this.
The Catholics have their doctrine.
The snake handlers have their doctrine.
Richard Butler had his doctrine.
The KKK has their doctrine.
The Mormons have theirs.

Everyone has their own doctrine.
and Christianity has it's own, regardless of what any other sect says.

 

Catholic doctrine "is" Christian doctrine. Just not all Christians are Catholic nor adhere to Catholic doctrine.

It is you who can not seem to understand the difference between Catholic doctrine and Christian doctrine. Christian doctrine is the combined beliefs of all Christian sects - in particular the dominant one's such as the Catholic's, Protestants and Orthodox.

There is no "Christian Doctrine" outside of the various sects and denominations despite you wanting to desperately believe this.

 

I think this has been spelled out to you, by different people in different ways.
If you are not going to understand it, the 10th time you are told, you're certainly not going to understand it the 11th.

 

You have not spelled anything out. You just keep repeating the same nonsense hoping that repetition will somehow make your claim less false. The fact that you find one idiot in a crowd that agrees with you also does not make your claim any less false.

Notice the word "creed" and the phrase "taught by a church" Example - the Apostles Creed is taught by the Catholic Church - it is therefor Catholic Doctrine. Not only is the creed Catholic Doctrine - it is also Christian Doctrine as anyone who knows anything about Christianity knows.

I had hoped not to have to dumb it down to kindergarten level for you to understand - hopefully you can at least attain that level of understanding.

 

Not really. People always misunderstand many things, first they mistake the witch hunt with the whole inquisition. Under the witch hunt, there were many people executed, but very few by the inquisition itself. And I was talking only of the spanish one.
I wasn't saying that violence didn't existed under christianity, but on the specific point of the inquisition, there is a big part of black legend. I'm not saying there were nice guys or not, but between an angry crowd believing I'm a sorcerer and an inquisition trial, I choose the later.

If you go back to the wikipedia source I gave you, you would notice there were around 87 000 trials and around 1303 executions. That's very few executions for a lot of trials, you would have much less luck to survive with an angry crowd.

 

Here,
Let me dumb it down for you.

Notice the word "creed" and the phrase "taught by a church;

There is a Christian church in Kentucky that handles snakes.
It is part of their doctrine. It is taught, and filmed by the church.
This does not mean Catholics do it, just because some Christian branch does.

I was at one years ago in Colorado, where half the service is Christian, half is psychic predictions and explanations.

It is there creed, and it is "taught by a church"

I can't dumb it down any more...…..

 

The number of Hags killed is estimated at 400,000. They were the keepers of the medical technology. If little johnny was ill the local priest would tell him to say 5 hail Mary's and pray - which of course would not work. He would go to the local Hag and she would give him some herbs and Johnny would get better.... obviously it was "the power of the devil" and that was that.

Saying Violence didn't exist ? Are you fken kidding me ? These evil pieces of human garbage devised the most hideous forms of torture imaginable and the church basement was where the torture chamber was.

You have no clue what you are talking about - go do some research and get a clue.

 

The difference being that all Christians Churches have the Apostles Creed and almost none do the snake thing. Your example is as idiotic as it gets as it does not represent a significant denomination in Christianity - and you know it.

Your example is "dumb and dumber" on steroids.

 

LOLOL
As I said, I cannot dumb it down any more.


ANSWER:
According to Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, there exist roughly 43,000 Christian denominations worldwide in 2012. That is up from 500 in 1800 and 39,000 in 2008 and this number is expected to grow to 55,000 by 2025.

Currently, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary estimates that a new Christian denomination is formed every 10.5 hours, or 2.3 denominations a day.

Wikipedia does a great job listing the largest denominations. Religion Facts compares the major denominations. And the Hartford Institute for Religion Research has links to hundreds of official denominational websites.

Here is a mashup of some their data. Since Church Relevance focuses primarily on Protestantism, I will elaborate on that data.

Catholicism – (1,200,000,000 adherents) Click for beliefs.

• Roman Catholic Church (1,187,000,000) Click for beliefs.

Protestantism – (792,000,000 adherents) Click for beliefs.

• Pentecostalism/Charismatic (612,000,000) Click for beliefs.
  >> Assemblies of God (60,000,000) Click for beliefs.
  >> New Apostolic Church (11,200,000) Click for beliefs.
  >> Foursquare Church (8,000,000) Click for beliefs.
  >> Church of God in Christ (6,500,000) Click for beliefs.
• Baptist (100,000,000) Click for beliefs.
  >> Southern Baptist Convention (16,000,000) Click for beliefs.
• Lutheranism (87,000,000) Click for beliefs.
  >> Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (5,000,000) Click for beliefs.
• Methodism (75,000,000) Click for beliefs.
  >> United Methodist Church (12,000,000) Click for beliefs.
  >> African Methodist Episcopal Church (3,000,000*) Click for beliefs.
• Reformed Churches (75,000,000) Click for beliefs.
  >> Presbyterian Church U.S.A. (3,000,000) Click for beliefs.
  >> United Church of Christ (1,000,000) Click for beliefs.
• Non-Denominational Evangelicalism (40,000,000) Click for beliefs.
  >> Calvary Chapel (25,000,000) Click for beliefs.
  >> The Vineyard (15,000,000) Click for beliefs.
• Restorationism (20,000,000) Click for beliefs.
  >> Seventh-day Adventists (17,000,000) Click for beliefs.
  >> Church of Christ (5,000,000) Click for beliefs.
  >> Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) (1,000,000) Click for beliefs.
• Anabaptism (4,500,000) Click for beliefs.
  >> Mennonites (1,500,000) Click for beliefs.
  >> Amish (250,000) Click for beliefs.

Eastern Orthodoxy – (230,000,000 adherents) Click for beliefs.

Oriental Orthodox Church – (82,000,000 adherents) Click for beliefs.

Anglicanism – (85,000,000 adherents) Click for beliefs.

• Episcopal Church in the U.S.A. (2,400,000) Click for beliefs.

Nontrinitarianism – (36,000,000 adherents) Click for beliefs.

• Jehovah’s Witnesses (7,700,000) Click for beliefs.
• Mormonism (14,700,000) Click for beliefs.

Nestorianism – (600,000 adherents) Click for beliefs.

Obviously, there are significant theological differences between the main branches of Christianity – Catholicism, Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodox Church, Anglicanism, Nontrinitarianism, and Nestorianism. In fact, many might argue that some denominations are not Christianity at all.

 

That's simplification and it's what I'm explaining you, most hags killed weren't killed by the inquisition but angry crowds or local powers. It has too to be remembered that the perception of reality was very different too, some people actually believed in the devil, some people were poisonners. I don't think there were the majority, but again, you have to remember it actually existed in the past. For all those people god was real and the devil exist, and in some very rare case there were people which actually worshipped the devil. I suppose however there were a tiny minority among people executed.
"Keepers of medical technology", that's an over estimation and against just a political view of the past. By the way, many "witches" had good knowledge in herbs, but there were too a lot of superstitions. What is deeply unfair is that if you read about the "medicine" of that time, you don't know how the medicine of this time was really different from the witchery of some of those women. The legend would want that the witch hunt were mean superstitious people against nice witch which understood popperian methodology before Karl Popper was born. In the reality it was a hysteric superstitious crowd attacking a superstitious woman, which most of the times was as kind-hearted that the rest of people, even if there could be more complex cases.
Witch hunt stay a historical phenomenon were crowd rumpurs and where all the rumors and the poorest side of human nature were getting out. There were dark times and a lot of innocent people died in that, but it doesn't mean that history should be over simplified.

You're clearly over simplifying the past, I'm not saying it's entirely false, but it's not true. First, there were already "doctors" which had mostly unusefull treatments and

and that was that.

You're the one which is kidding of me, I know that english isn't my first language, I did some researchs to check down if the double negation I used could be the source of a miscomprehension problem, but apparently there is no problem with double negations in english.
What I said :

= I was saying that violence existed under christianity.

Apparently, you're just trying to deform what I said to fit your narrative.

I like things to be exact, there was torture, but not in the church basement. If someone is killed in a church, you have to do a mess inside to in a way "consecrate back" the church.

You have no clue what you are talking about - go do some research and get a clue.[/QUOTE]

I'm the one documenting my posts, and I'm not the one which change what the other says.

 

Thank you for proving how silly your snake charmer example is. Of the denominations listed above - precisely none include snake charming as part of their doctrine. The vast majority have the apostles creed as part of doctrine.

There is a reason why in my previous posts I used terms like "major denomination" and "significant number of Christians".

To use some start up nut job church as an example of Christian doctrine in general is dumb and dumber on steroids.

 

I am not trying to deform anything you said. You were minimizing the violence and killing during 1000 years of horror under Christianity - by using the example of the "Spanish inquisition"

1) The Spanish inquisition was only one part of the inquisition - in one nation
2) The those that were killed in some formal inquisition process were only a small fraction of those killed due to the inquisition.

That is the only point I am making. My Hag example is not false ... it is completely accurate. The Church went after anything that challenged its authority in any way .. sometimes for things which were far less of an affront to the authority of the Church than the example given.

 

LOLOL

you really don't understand do you.

Major denomination's were spread by the sword, "AFTER" religious doctrine was documented.
and you have no right claiming which is the true doctrine, by the number of people.


Fail again.

 

The only one failing is you. I never said anything contrary to your claim that major denominations were spread by the sword after religious doctrine was documented.

Further - the only thing I said in relation to "true doctrine" is that the majority of Christianity has the Apostles creed as doctrine - which is a demonstrable fact.

You then started talking some silly nonsense about snake charming being a Christian doctrine to try to counter this argument - which of course was a major fail.

Realizing what a big fail this was - in this post you build a big strawman - accusing me of things I did not say or infer - to try to cover your error.

 

All of them start that way.

All religion's start out as cults
When they gain money and power,
They become religions.

 

No argument from me on this one.

 

The Apostles creed is Catholic, though others adopted it.
and what gives you the right, to say this is what decides Christianity.

The Ebonites, Nazarenes and Elkasites all were pre-Catholic that did not use the creed.

 

I did not say that the Apostles creed decides Christianity ? Just because you have lost this debate - is not a good reason to flail around accusing others of things they did not say or infer.

I did not decide anything for Christians - Christians decided this. All I did was point out an obvious doctrinal fact after which you brought up the snake charmer silliness which was a complete fail.

This however is not your big failure - a much bigger failure was that upon realizing your argument had failed - rather than recognize your mistake and own that mistake - you tried to defend this mistake and obscure you error in a raft of fallacious strawman gibberish.

Anyone can make a error - this is human. It is the fool however that rejects correction.

The biggest fail however is something else. The convo started in another thread. Muslims and Islam - the bad and the ugly - and the infiltration of this ideology in the US - to the point where a Muslim managed to get elected into political office.

The fact of the matter is that we are in the same camp. I am somewhat horrified by the idea that someone who holds certain beliefs could make it into political office in this nation - a nation that was founded on respect for individual liberty.

The difference is that I actually have legitimate arguments - arguments that can stand up to scrutiny - as to why I am against an Islamist managing to get political power.

You don't. Your arguments are easily refuted on the basis of generalization fallacy. Your entire argument has consisted on trying to attribute various items contained within Islamic scripture to all Muslims. Not only is this argument obvious logical fallacy - it is demonstrably false and therefor easily refuted.

Further, if you do not have a similar issue with Judaism, or a Jew being elected, you are engaging in abject hypocrisy.

Fallacy and hypocrisy is not a winning formula for success in this battle - a battle on which we are both on the same side !

American Society is currently losing this battle. The reason it is losing this battle is because valid arguments against the Islamist menace - Islamist ideology - are not getting mainstream attention.

Bad arguments serve only to help the other side in this battle - Is it that you do not realize this, do not take this topic seriously, or do you actually believe that attributing Islamic scripture to all Muslims is a valid argument ?

 

No.

I never denied that.

It's a proofless claim. The spanish inquisition is the one with the most victims. And again, you're mistaking the whole process of the witch hunt or the religion war in Europe with the inquisition.

No it's a completly made up example, you should source up your claims. There is no reports for most of witch hunting because there conducted by angry crowds, however, for trials made by the inquisition, there is judicial report enabling us to understand slighty better what could happen at those times. I red some extract of one of those trials, the woman executed was clearly not a bad hearted woman, and probably a sincere christian, but she was using witch recipes, not some advanced herbology as you seems to claim. She didn't deserved to die, and considering what could advise "doctors" at those time, I have difficulties to see the difference with what she did. So yes, it's only one case, but I already base myself more on real material than you, against, I don't have anymore the book, otherwise I would have tried to find back the passage and translate it.
Catherine Deshayes was a real witch, burned as such and was a poisonner, not an innocent herbologist as you seems to describe.
I don't says that all witch were bad as this woman, I greatly doubt it, but the reality is more complexe than "women with advanced scientific knowledge vs mean superstitious people".

I just like things to be exact, and people tend to mix up everything, death toll from the witch hunt, inquisition. I already proved that the inquisition executed very few people for a lot of trials. (87 000 trials for around 1300 execution).

Yes. And ? Explain me how the past excess (or even the modern one such paedophilia) excuse the nowodays muslim crimes.
Furthermore yes, the church had horrible behaviours, but it has too to be remembered that we judge them by notions which seems normal to us but was anachronical or didn't existed yet.
Our idea of justice was constructed for centuries, and we tend to judge some behaviours in the light of human rights which were not invented yet.