Ah, the USA needs this.

[Jiro]

Yes, because it would mean that a new language was brought into the USA from outside its borders in order to take over in a big sweep. In other words, an invasion.

Would France have a problem with another language taking over? Would Germany? Would Egypt? Would any other country?

Would any Spanish-speaking countries have a problem with English taking over?

but.... why would you have a problem? The difference between us and them is that they have their own official languages... we don't.

 

[flip]

But they paid their taxes and obeyed the laws that weren't in conflict of their beliefs. When they did have to stand for their beliefs, they accepted the consequences of their actions.

Christians in the roman empire paid taxes, but couldn't make sacrifices because it was against the doctrines in NT. Your claims that "Christians are supposed to live under whatever government system is in place in their respective countries." or "When they did have to stand for their beliefs, they accepted the consequences of their actions(I interpret this as refusing to make sacrifices to the emperor)." simply don't fit with history.

I don't know what branch of christianity you belong to(pentecoastal?), and what your views are, but the early church of Rome, which Paulus visited, and perhaps Peter, too, seems to disagree with you. During the presecution of those christians, some christians fled, some died as martyrs, some abandoned christanity to save their lives, and some were lucky and survived. There were disputes over whether those who abandoned christanity should be allowed to return to the church after the end of a persecution. It ended with the church of rome allowing them to return to the church after confessing their sins and that.

Today, the church generally forgive all sins, even very grave ones, and this is because this practice were settled during the aftermath of the roman persecutions of christians.

 

[flip]

Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and give unto the Lord what is His.

Basically says Christians need to submit to the government over them and pay their taxes to that government, but also do not forget to give to God what is His (such as tithing 10% of your income) and to also stand up for the King when your government opposes but a Christian must accept the martyrdom for the cause of the Kingdom. The glory is not a glorious death but rather reaching Heaven and be given a crown of works to lay at the feet of God in worship.

Not preaching, just stating Christian beliefs. Believe me I'm one of those Southern Baptists that likes to study the bible from an academic point of view.

I don't have problems with what you are saying, that's basically what we can read in the gospels and acts. It's just some flawed claims that Reba made here I couldn't resist to comment.

 

[flip]

We have not gone to war over Christianity. That is false. As for prejudices, we have become one of the most accepting and tolerant nations in the history of the world and Christianity played no small role in that. Christianity fueled our slavery abolitionist movement and inspired our civil rights movement. As for ethnocentricity, you'll have to explain what you mean. Are you concerned with chauvinism or are you coming more from a cultural relativism perspective?

Ok, I'm perhaps a bit brave when I state that christianity wrecked europe, but europe have so far failed to become a melting pot/multicultural, and have issues with tolerance. And europe happens to be a old christian continent. With ethnocentrism, I mean chauvinism.

You are talking about what christianity have done to the US in the past, but this does not necessary mean that it will do the same for the US in the future. Christianity fueled slavery before it fueled the slavery abolistionist movement, so it can go both directions. Some presidents of the US have declared war in the name of God according to various sources, but I agree the US never have gone to war over christianity, though one gets uneasy when americans, especially afte 9/11 expresses this kind of islamophobia.

I see basically two incorrect claims made by some of our citizens. One, which is the most irksome, is the conflating of extreme Islam with all of Islam in general. However, most people I hear talking about extreme Islam are careful to qualify "I'm not talking about good, decent moderate Muslims. I'm only talking about the extremists". Only on rare occasions will I hear some bozo say something like "Ban Islam! Kick out the Muslims!" That sort of thing does happen, but fortunately, it turns most people off.

The other one is the exaggeration of the threat of sharia law or jihad from our own Muslims. Yes, extreme Islam does pose a threat, but it's almost all foreign and most people here recognize that.

Is that your critique also? Or did you have something different in mind?

This is what I'm talking about yes. After all, europe will have to take care of more asylum refugees, that they don't know what to do with, if the US adopts an aggresive foreign politics towards Islam and comforts dictators when they ask for more money to fight "extremist".

 

[Reba]

Christians in the roman empire paid taxes, but couldn't make sacrifices because it was against the doctrines in NT. Your claims that "Christians are supposed to live under whatever government system is in place in their respective countries." or "When they did have to stand for their beliefs, they accepted the consequences of their actions(I interpret this as refusing to make sacrifices to the emperor)." simply don't fit with history.

Yes, they do.

I don't know what branch of christianity you belong to(pentecoastal?), and what your views are,

I'm neither Pentecostal nor "pentecoastal" even though I do live on the coast. I'm an independent Baptist.

but the early church of Rome, which Paulus visited, and perhaps Peter, too, seems to disagree with you.

How so?

During the presecution of those christians, some christians fled, some died as martyrs, some abandoned christanity to save their lives, and some were lucky and survived.

So I'm right. They didn't commit terrorist acts or demand that the Roman Empire adopt "Christian" laws or else.

You forgot to add that some Christians went underground with their churches. Those who did survive weren't "lucky" BTW.

There were disputes over whether those who abandoned christanity should be allowed to return to the church after the end of a persecution. It ended with the church of rome allowing them to return to the church after confessing their sins and that.

Please elaborate on what you mean. Your description above is vague and doesn't make sense.

Today, the church generally forgive all sins, even very grave ones, and this is because this practice were settled during the aftermath of the roman persecutions of christians.

Churches can't forgive sins. Only Jesus Christ can forgive sins. Individuals can forgive sinners of their actions against them but only Jesus can forgive the eternal penalty of sin.

I'm afraid that you're confused, and you're trying to spread confusion.

 

[Reba]

Ok, I'm perhaps a bit brave when I state that christianity wrecked europe,

Brave? No. Misinformed? Yes.

...Some presidents of the US have declared war in the name of God according to various sources...

Examples, please.

but I agree the US never have gone to war over christianity, though one gets uneasy when americans, especially afte 9/11 expresses this kind of islamophobia.

Islamophobia has nothing to do with Christianity. There are people of various religious, atheists and secular humanists who are Islamophobic.

This is what I'm talking about yes. After all, europe will have to take care of more asylum refugees, that they don't know what to do with, if the US adopts an aggresive foreign politics towards Islam and comforts dictators when they ask for more money to fight "extremist".

Huh?

 

[flip]

Yes, they do.


I'm neither Pentecostal nor "pentecoastal" even though I do live on the coast. I'm an independent Baptist.


How so?


So I'm right. They didn't commit terrorist acts or demand that the Roman Empire adopt "Christian" laws or else.

You forgot to add that some Christians went underground with their churches. Those who did survive weren't "lucky" BTW.


Please elaborate on what you mean. Your description above is vague and doesn't make sense.


Churches can't forgive sins. Only Jesus Christ can forgive sins. Individuals can forgive sinners of their actions against them but only Jesus can forgive the eternal penalty of sin.

I'm afraid that you're confused, and you're trying to spread confusion.

Many christians abandoned christianity during the presecutions. After the persecutions ended, they wanted to return to the church. Not everyone agreed that those people should be allowed to return, because their sin were so grave. In rome, they eventually was allowed to return. This had a big impact on how the church later handled sin and the right to be a christian.

The churches have made different doctrines about how sins are forgiven and what sins that can be forgiven.

Could you stay with history and politics, and not your own personal faith, as that kind of religion discussions not is allowed on AD?

 

[flip]

Brave? No. Misinformed? Yes.


Examples, please.


Islamophobia has nothing to do with Christianity. There are people of various religious, atheists and secular humanists who are Islamophobic.


Huh?

One among many, said by Bush according to an Israeli newspaper:

'God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.'

Atheists tend to fear all religions, not only Islam. In europe, christians have been picking on Islam for 1500 years, with the crusaders as one of the most famous examples of this behavior.

 

[Reba]

One among many, said by Bush according to an Israeli newspaper:

'God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.'

The full story:

Bush God comments 'not literal'

A Palestinian official who said the US president had claimed God told him to invade Iraq and Afghanistan says he did not take George Bush's words literally.

Nabil Shaath said he and other world leaders at a Jordan summit two years ago did not believe Mr Bush thought God had given him a personal message.

Mr Bush's spokesman said the original allegation, which will appear in a BBC documentary next week, was absurd.

Scott McClellan said the comments had never been made.

The comments were attributed to Mr Bush by Mr Shaath, a Palestinian negotiator, in the upcoming TV series Elusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs.

Mr Shaath said that in a 2003 meeting with Mr Bush, the US president said he was "driven with a mission from God".

"God would tell me, George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan. And I did, and then God would tell me, George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq... And I did.

"And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East. And by God I'm gonna do it."

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, who attended the meeting in June 2003 too, also appears on the documentary series to recount how Mr Bush told him: "I have a moral and religious obligation. So I will get you a Palestinian state."

'Strong faith'

But in an interview for the BBC Arabic service on Friday, he said the president - who had just announced an end to hostilities in Iraq, was merely expressing his heartfelt commitment to peace in the Middle East.

"President Bush said that God guided him in what he should do, and this guidance led him to go to Afghanistan to rid it of terrorism after 9/11 and led him to Iraq to fight tyranny," he said.

"We understood that he was illustrating [in his comments] his strong faith and his belief that this is what God wanted."

The TV series charts recent attempts to bring peace to the Middle East, from former US President Bill Clinton's peace talks in 1999-2000 to Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip this year.

It seeks to uncover what happened behind closed doors by speaking to presidents and prime ministers, along with their generals and ministers.

Even though you didn't cite your source, I will cite mine:

BBC NEWS | Americas | Bush God comments 'not literal'

Atheists tend to fear all religions, not only Islam.

Atheists would probably disagree with your "fear" statement.

In europe, christians have been picking on Islam for 1500 years, with the crusaders as one of the most famous examples of this behavior.

I don't know if it's just your math, or your definition of Europe, or what you mean by picking on that makes that statement confusing. Perhaps you can clarify.

The Crusades weren't conducted by all Christians against Muslims. (I don't want to get too specific because that definitely would become a religions debate if I did.) As you also know, a lot of the conflict was political.

 

[saywhatkid]

Could you stay with history and politics, and not your own personal faith, as that kind of religion discussions not is allowed on AD?

And then you continue the religious discussion. What's up with that?

 

[Reba]

Many christians abandoned christianity during the presecutions. After the persecutions ended, they wanted to return to the church. Not everyone agreed that those people should be allowed to return, because their sin were so grave. In rome, they eventually was allowed to return. This had a big impact on how the church later handled sin and the right to be a christian.

I don't know what you mean by abandoning Christianity. Once someone is truly born again as a Christian, he or she can't abandon Jesus. If a person isn't truly a Christian, then he or she may abandon the outward practices of a Christian. Or, a real Christian could have a weak faith, and out of fear deny Christ. Maybe that's what you mean?

Neither Rome nor any church decides who is a Christian. However, churches can decide who can join their memberships.

No human or organization has a right to decide who can be a Christian. Jesus invites EVERYONE, and turns away NO ONE.

The churches have made different doctrines about how sins are forgiven and what sins that can be forgiven.

I guess when you say churches you mean religions and denominations.

Could you stay with history and politics, and not your own personal faith, as that kind of religion discussions not is allowed on AD?

Then why did you bring it up???

 

[Daredevel7]

And then you continue the religious discussion. What's up with that?

Religious discussions are allowed from atheists/non-religious people but not religious people.

That isn't obvious?

 

[saywhatkid]

Religious discussions are allowed from atheists/non-religious people but not religious people.

That isn't obvious?

Quite.

I can understand the issues involved with all the different doctrines, but when religious bashing is allowed, it puts me at an uneasy place.

 

[darkdog]

Ok, I'm perhaps a bit brave when I state that christianity wrecked europe, but europe have so far failed to become a melting pot/multicultural, and have issues with tolerance. And europe happens to be a old christian continent. With ethnocentrism, I mean chauvinism.

You say melting pot/multicultural as if they're the same thing. They're not- they're opposite concepts. It's an understatement to say that Europe has had issues with tolerance, and certainly at times, religion has played a key role in that, but what about now? The continent's more secular than it has ever been in the past and certainly more so than Christian America, so why the continued trouble with tolerance?

You are talking about what christianity have done to the US in the past, but this does not necessary mean that it will do the same for the US in the future.

Anything is possible in the future, but if widespread imposition of sharia is low on the list of things I should worry about, then a devolution back to inquisition-style Christianity is way further down that list.

Christianity fueled slavery before it fueled the slavery abolistionist movement, so it can go both directions.

I doubt Christianity really fueled the slave trade. Yes, slave-holders and Southern preachers tried to find justification in the Bible for slavery, but would they have still involved themselves in slavery if they weren't Christian? I think probably so. On the other hand, would the abolition movement have had the success it had were it not for Christianity? I think probably not.

Some presidents of the US have declared war in the name of God according to various sources, but I agree the US never have gone to war over christianity, though one gets uneasy when americans, especially afte 9/11 expresses this kind of islamophobia.

I already listed out the two distortions about Islam I've heard and they are relatively rare. Most people bend over backwards to be accepting and tolerant. Considering we had just suffered the worst attack on our soil in our history in the name of Islam, we have been remarkably restrained in our treatment of Muslims. Retaliatory attacks against Muslims have happened, but they have been rare and we have not been hesitant to punish such crimes.

However, many have talked about the actions and desires of extreme Muslims. It's actually quite difficult to exaggerate on the horrors of extreme Islam because the truth is so horrifying. I mean, we're talking about people who will riot and murder over a cartoon or a book.

This is what I'm talking about yes. After all, europe will have to take care of more asylum refugees, that they don't know what to do with, if the US adopts an aggresive foreign politics towards Islam and comforts dictators when they ask for more money to fight "extremist".

You're talking about the foreign policy doctrine of realism- that it's better to support a dictator who at least keeps things stable than to have him overthrown and replaced by thugs who destabilize the region and threatens other countries including our own. Case in point- Iran. What's preferable? Having the shah or the ayatollahs? Such foreign policy doctrines are debatable, but they have nothing to do with settling religious scores (at least on our end). Besides, more secular Europe doesn't exactly have clean hands when it comes to supporting dictators.

 

[darkdog]

One among many, said by Bush according to an Israeli newspaper:

'God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.'

That is wrong. Bush did not tell that to an Israeli newspaper. Here's how it went (as I best recall): In a meeting with Arab leaders, Bush apparently said something (we don't know what exactly), and it got translated into Arabic. Then, someone told someone else who wrote down some notes in Arabic. Then, someone translated the notes back into English and told an Israeli newspaper. It's like a game of telephone except with each iteration, it gets translated into another language.

 

[jillio]

that's not exactly how it works. The "‘IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT.. Take It Or Leave It." attitude reeks of ethnocentrism especially Caucasian.

in America - every immigrant's "ingredient" is added to the melting pot. That's why English is not an official language in here.

True. But which is more beneficial and truly tolerant and accepting? The watering down of all cultures, or preserving the uniqueness of each individual culture. Melting pot is really the most ethnocentric of all....everyone must be the same.

 

[jillio]

I don't know what you mean by abandoning Christianity. Once someone is truly born again as a Christian, he or she can't abandon Jesus. If a person isn't truly a Christian, then he or she may abandon the outward practices of a Christian. Or, a real Christian could have a weak faith, and out of fear deny Christ. Maybe that's what you mean?

Neither Rome nor any church decides who is a Christian. However, churches can decide who can join their memberships.

No human or organization has a right to decide who can be a Christian. Jesus invites EVERYONE, and turns away NO ONE.


I guess when you say churches you mean religions and denominations.


Then why did you bring it up???

If they can be "reborn" why can't they "re-cease to exist"? Reborn implies that they did not exist prior to conversion. If they can change their philosophy to include Christian doctrine, they can also change it to exclude religious doctrine at any future date.

 

[flip]

I don't know what you mean by abandoning Christianity. Once someone is truly born again as a Christian, he or she can't abandon Jesus. If a person isn't truly a Christian, then he or she may abandon the outward practices of a Christian. Or, a real Christian could have a weak faith, and out of fear deny Christ. Maybe that's what you mean?

Neither Rome nor any church decides who is a Christian. However, churches can decide who can join their memberships.

No human or organization has a right to decide who can be a Christian. Jesus invites EVERYONE, and turns away NO ONE.


I guess when you say churches you mean religions and denominations.


Then why did you bring it up???

I am not "meaning" anything here. If you want to know what "abandoning" means, and how the church in Rome decided who's a heretic and a true beliver, and their view on those who are weak versus those who are strong in their faith, among things, I recommend you to read about the early church, from 70 AD to 400 AD. Sorry I can't give you a better reply, because I am not allowed to make replies on your personal interpretations of the history and faith, as it's not allowed here on AD.

I did bring this up because sharia/muslims(radical, extreme or something) was mentioned as something dangerous in this thread.

 

[Daredevel7]

Is Islam the new Christianity?

Maybe 1000 years from now, Buddhists will try to take over.

 

[flip]

The full story:


Even though you didn't cite your source, I will cite mine:

BBC NEWS | Americas | Bush God comments 'not literal'


Atheists would probably disagree with your "fear" statement.


I don't know if it's just your math, or your definition of Europe, or what you mean by picking on that makes that statement confusing. Perhaps you can clarify.

The Crusades weren't conducted by all Christians against Muslims. (I don't want to get too specific because that definitely would become a religions debate if I did.) As you also know, a lot of the conflict was political.

Thanks for providing us with more background info about the comments from Bush. As said, just one example of several that one can find by google.

My point with atheists, is that if they have any phobia, it would be a general phobia, not against a specific religion. And I also tried to put a small joke in that sentence, but it seems that you missed both.

Christians in europe and middle east have a long story of attacking Islam, both by the sword and pen, with the first known case by Saint John of Damascus, born in 676 CE, who claimed that a heretic monk inspired the Quran.

Horror stories about Sharia is a part of this tradition.