What is the difference between an Islamic vs a Christian terrorist?

Any/all of it.

 

Likely not.
I came to this site over 8 yrs ago after another site I was active in shutdown.

I most exclusively in this religion forum. Because at that time I was in search of confirming the bible and wondering how the bible compared to other Abrahamic texts.
After many many years, I stopped being a practicing Christian largely based on many many posts in these forums.
Although, even from the time I was 8 yrs old, I remember asking all sorts of questions on Christianity and never being satisfied with answers. In particular to questions that seem to be completely illogical.

Most of the time it was explained away to me as no one knows the mind of god.
Or it is beyond all human understanding.
And me being human, can't accept those types of answers.

But if you have questions or want to bounce something, I would respond with my opinions. Because that is all religion and philosophy is based on, people's individual opinions.

 

Islamic terrorists pursue a strategy. They kill as many innocent people as possible, to create hatred for Muslims. As a result, Muslims are oppressed and discriminated. Then the terrorists hope that these poor, innocent guys will join jihadi groups to fight for freedom for all Muslims.

I don't think that Christian Terrorists follow the same strategy. But who knows?

 

You are defining any terrorism as non christian
Of course there is a very long history of judeo christian terrorism

If you start out in the OT there are clear examples where the jews were instucted in genicide and child abuse
An of course jesus was fully a jew, who said he was the fullfilment of jewish law

But then lets move through examples like the crusades, the inquisition, the conquests and colonization, the pograms, the witch burnings, the klu klux clan, slavery, lynching, homophobic torture and murder even up to very recent days

I guess you will say that none of that is christian... even though all the people who did that were convinced they were good Christians fulfilling a christian mandate.

Also, the fact is that just as you will attempt to separate yourself from christian abuses.. in just the same way muslims will attempt to distance themselves from todays terrorists

 

Except nobody is calling for violence or death in this case, making your point moot.

Then whatever laws you support are also impositions of your morality backed up by violence.

And so do you.

Thankfully you don't get to decide that.

 

Except Jesus never harmed anyone, nor did He tell anyone else to, unlike the bloody prophet. The Jihadists are simply following his example.

 

Christians will sacrifice their lives to save innocent lives; Muslims will sacrifice their lives to take innocent lives.

 

Can't vote since there is no such thing as a "Christian Terrorist"

 

That's not so simple.

Muhammad was a military leader and head of state. He lived in violent times and behaved no different from other leaders. On the other hand, Jesus was a Jewish wandering preacher who never had anything to do with politics.

 

Which is why the whole pathetic moral equivalency attempt is bogus, and why they have to go back 4,000 years for fake 'Christian' examples, and why they never seem to be able to come up with a Christian terrorist.

 

You don't have to travel into the past to meet Christian terrorists.
--> https://www.salon.com/2015/04/07/6_...roups_our_media_conveniently_ignores_partner/

 

Good points......
and many Islamic terrorists are not Islamic at all but really Marxist Atheists who have been trained to quote the Koran and sound like Muslims. Their main goal may be to discredit religion in any and all forms.

https://www.tldm.org/news9/russianinfluenceonmideast.htm

 

You are calling for violence- when you support law banning abortion. that is what law is. Running around in denial will not change this fact.

Correct - which is why I do not support laws that violate essential liberty - particularly not on the basis of religious belief - like you.

Correct. I realize that like your Islamist brethren - you have no respect for essential liberty or the founding principles but - these are what decide what is legitimate law and what is not.

 

Whose Bible are YOU reading?

First Man did not leave Eden voluntarily.

First Man flunked and got banished.

 

Ardy's list is not going back 4000 yrs. And none of them are fake.
Ignorance of history doesn't mean those things didn't happen.

Christians blowing up abortion clinics and killing doctors was just a few decades ago.
Christians killing LGBT types is even less in time.

 

So with your current world view, you don't have any unanswered questions?

 

Bunk, there is no violence proposed, any more than for laws YOU support.

The motivation for proposed laws is irrelevant.

LOL, funny how Islamists are supposedly my brethren, when it is the secular left constantly apologizing for and minimizing their daily mayhem, often with false equivalency arguments. Someone once wrote a book about this:

https://www.amazon.com/Unholy-Alliance-Radical-Islam-American/dp/0895260263

 

There is a huge difference ... the idea that "The motivation for proposed laws is irrelevant" shows how little you know about the founding principles.

There is a difference between law that messes with essential liberty and law that is for protection of direct harm - murder, rape, theft and so on. . The line of separation is that - "rights end where the nose of another begins".

The Founding principles state that essential liberty is "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't. You want to violate this principles by allowing the Gov't to make law that messes with individual liberty.

Worse is that you have no justification other than your religious belief. While it is not legitimate to make any law messing with individual liberty - regardless of the rational (sans overwhelming consent) - it is a complete anathema to the founding principles and the Constitution to do so on the basis of religious belief.

This is exactly what the Islamist's want ... religious theocracy.

I can't stand the left either but, what does this have to do with your sharing the same ideology as the Islamist ? - including your attempt to demonize "secularism" ... the Islamist hates "Secularism" - that was what the whole "call to Jihad" in Syria was about - the dreaded secularism.

Not sure what your party affiliation is but, one thing is for sure - you hate the principles of Republicanism - even though you do not know what they are.

So you are not Left - you hate the principles of Republicanism and Libertarianism ... what is your political affiliation ?

 

ISIS has just as much hate for mainstream Islam.

They've slaughtered large numbers for not accepting their own radicalized and virulent brand of the religion.

 

Yes, I do. I've asked you this question many times and you never answer.

What is the path to heaven per Saul?
What is the path to heaven per Jesus?

 

Very true - as does - and has Saudi Arabia and the clan of Gulf nations under its control.

Part of the high school curriculum in the land of El Saud is hatred for Jews, Christians - and "not like us" Muslims such as Shia or even moderate Sunni.

Taliban, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Islamic Front, Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, Al Shabaab - the wing nuts in Pakistan and India - and in various other parts of the world "ALL" share the same Saudi Inspired Salafi Islamist ideology. Saudi Arabia has been exporting this ideology around the world for decades as well as arming and supporting these groups.

As discussed in the previous post - these groups hate the dreaded "Secularism" .. they all want some form of Strict Sharia theocracy.

While the western infidel is bad - Syria was a cancer from within... a "Secular" Muslim nation on holy ground - the Middle East.

Syria has a fair amount of religious freedoms - there are Christian Churches. Assad has/had Christian Generals in his army. Women do not need permission of a man to be educated. They dress in skirts and wear proper bathing suits. There is alcohol and dancing to "western music" in bars. There is no stoning women for adultery or throwing gays off buildings. It is not a theocracy and Sharia is not law.

The rebel opposition - all Islamist or led by the Islamist - mainly Al Qaeda/Al Nusra or ISIS with a few smaller groups of the same ilk - were fighting to end "secularism" and replace it with Sharia theocracy.

The people of Syria wanted to keep their freedoms - which is why they fought in the Syrian arming. One of the more interesting facts is Sunni Muslims were 50% of Assad's regular army. It was a completely false narrative to characterize the war as a "Sunni -Shia Conflict" .. or as a civil war. It was an armed insurgency .. It was Islamist extremists against the people of Syria who wanted to keep their freedom.

Unfortunately - we chose the side of the Islamist extremists - an act which led to the death of over 500,000 people, the refugee crisis, and the rise of the modern incarnation of ISIS.

 

I know you imagine there is, but there is no conflict between them.

 

A lot of laws infringe on somebody's idea of personal liberty, drug and prostitution laws come to mind.

And I don't need any other.

Absolute nonsense, cite where you're getting that. The general consensus at the time of the founding was that Christianity ought to be fostered, as long as it did not infringe on anyone's conscience. We have separation of church and state, not separation of faith and state. The same Congress that wrote the 1A the very next day established a national day of prayer. Was that a theocracy?

Nobody is calling for that here, it is lunacy to say otherwise.

I have no problem with secular people, just those who want to infringe on the rights of theists.

Actually, the Islamists also hate fellow Muslims not of their beliefs.

That question really has nothing to do with a religious issues forum.[/QUOTE]

 

I see. You can't answer the questions? Why not? Aren't the answers right in your bible?

I didn't ask about any conflict. Nor did I state there is a conflict.
I asked, what each of them gave as the message to get to heaven.

It should be quite simple for you, as a strong Christian to show/state what Jesus says is the path to heaven?
What does Saul state at the path to heaven?

Will you continue to dodge or actually give the answer?

 

It is funny because I brought those up earlier - as examples of folks making law on the basis of religious belief. Prohibition was pushed hard by the religious right and the same is true with Prostitution. Fine examples of Puritanism.

That said - Religious belief is just one way that people violate the constitution.

A

I realize that religious belief is the only justification you need to force your beliefs on others through physical violence (Law) .. that is what you have in common with the Islamist.

You are conflating two separate issues. Just because one believes one should foster Christianity - or some other religious belief - does not mean that one should make law messing with liberty on the basis if that belief. These are two completely different things Prayer day does not mess with liberty.

Remember this rule - There is a difference between 1) having a belief (religious or otherwise) and 2) forcing that belief on others through physical violence.

You are calling for a form of Theocracy - whether or not you realize it. Theocracy seeks to make law on the basis of religious belief - that is one of the things that separates a theocratic from a secular system. Secularism - by definition - means no law on the basis of religious belief.

So you want to infringe on the rights of secularists but, you do not want secularists to infringe on your rights. This is a complete violation of the Golden Rule - the rock on which the teachings of Jesus are based.

This is True. This hate is also a function of Islamist's wanting to force their religious beliefs on others through physical violence - just like you.

You were the one that brought up political belief. I was just reminding you that your beliefs are an anathema to the principles of Republicanism.