Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: haqihana who wrote (758215)	1/27/2007 11:33:36 AM
From: Stan	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

They weren't Christians who fought in the Crusades, (or carried on inquisitions or any other barbaric act). No apostle ever rallied the church against any kingdom in a military fashion. The Jesus whom they claim to have served taught no such thing. He said, "My kingdom is not of this world; If it were, then would my servants fight to prevent my arrest." The Crusaders and Inquisitors acted in the then powerful name of the Church, but they were just as barbarian as Islamo-Fascists are today. No one who raises a weapon in defense of the Gospel is a disciple of Christ.

To: haqihana who wrote (758215)	1/28/2007 12:07:59 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Re: "Moslems are not welcome in my home because I consider them to be barbarians, and not because of their religious preference." WHO you choose to have in your own private home is your business... not mine. (But I believe that your answer dodged the question I asked of you... which was: "Is that Christian?" In other words: Is that a proper 'Christian attitude'? To my mind it is not a proper Christian attitude, but 'Each to her own, said the woman as she kissed her cow.' Your home is your business, whether I think much of you sense of Christian charity and piety, or no.) "Religious preference is a personal thing, and any person has the right to be of any religion, but when they start trying to force their religion down my throat, that makes a difference." I would agree that intrusive, pushy evangelicism is offensive. (I would further note that most scholars believe that the HIGHEST RELATIVE LEVELS of evangelical action come from the religions of Islam and Christianity... [and to a lesser degree Judaism.] They have even developed a term to describe this observation. They refer to the three as the world's great 'Desert Religions' [i.e., referring to their origins in the 'deserts'.] Other major world religions [Buddhism, Confucianism, etc., seem to not emphasize converting the 'unbelievers' quite so much....] But, I believe that active proselytizing and even forced 'conversions' at the point of a sword or gun are not exactly unknown in the history of most major religions --- ancient and modern. Still... these aggressive similarities between Christianity and Islam, down through history and to today, could explain something about their many centuries of competition and conflict.) "To kill in the name of religion, any religion, is wrong," I agree. "... and that is what they think the Koran tells them to do." Not 'all', by any means. (Just as not 'all' Christians would support wars to convert the masses....) We must be careful to not generalize that 'everyone' believes these things --- because that would be a lie. It is clearly not true. "Before you jump, I am also ashamed of the crusades carried on by Christians." I find it difficult to personally get 'ashamed' of some war or political event that occurred so very FAR before my time. :-) I mostly chalk it up to man's 'inhumanity' (actually: VERY human!), and the true fact that the VAST MAJORITY of historical wars actually were motivated by baser instincts... such as greed and desire for power and conquest.