U.S. WEIGHS OPTIONS FOR MILATARY RESPONSE IN SYRIA
- Thread starter iamsoandso
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Perhaps I have to expand my argument.
To decide whether or not a religion or ideology does more to predispose one to violence, it is not enough to look at historical events hundreds of years after the death or departure of the religions founder for a couple of reasons.
1. Overriding political concerns of the era may obfuscate the theology. How often do people claiming to be Christians fall to the allure of a zeitgeist? Too often.
2. The people of that particular time period may be blind to that theology out of their own will. Many on this site would claim that all who participated in the Crusades were Roman Catholic and, by definition, either seriously flawed in their theology or not Christian altogether.
My claim is simple: If one is to follow the methodology of the founders of their religion (which doesn't always happen), then the Muslim is more likely to be violent than the Christian. Why? Muhammad spread Islam via the sword as did his followers shortly after his death. Jesus and his apostles did not. They sought to capture the hearts and minds of men.
Does this mean a Muslim always be more violent than a man redeemed by Christ? No. See above. The zeitgeist and impure theology can, indeed, pacify a man. What it does mean is that there is a factor moving in favor of violent action within his system of belief and likely his heart as well.
To decide whether or not a religion or ideology does more to predispose one to violence, it is not enough to look at historical events hundreds of years after the death or departure of the religions founder for a couple of reasons.
1. Overriding political concerns of the era may obfuscate the theology. How often do people claiming to be Christians fall to the allure of a zeitgeist? Too often.
2. The people of that particular time period may be blind to that theology out of their own will. Many on this site would claim that all who participated in the Crusades were Roman Catholic and, by definition, either seriously flawed in their theology or not Christian altogether.
My claim is simple: If one is to follow the methodology of the founders of their religion (which doesn't always happen), then the Muslim is more likely to be violent than the Christian. Why? Muhammad spread Islam via the sword as did his followers shortly after his death. Jesus and his apostles did not. They sought to capture the hearts and minds of men.
Does this mean a Muslim always be more violent than a man redeemed by Christ? No. See above. The zeitgeist and impure theology can, indeed, pacify a man. What it does mean is that there is a factor moving in favor of violent action within his system of belief and likely his heart as well.
Hi Ritter
Concerning spread by the sword. All my posts were addressing the fact that Islam was not spread by the sword. The fact that Jews were allowed back into Jerusalem and freely worship. That Jews persecuted to convert to another religion, escaped to Muslims land. Even today Jews in Iran refuse to migrate to Israell.
Islam more "violent". Due to the rules of this chat I cannot go into too much details. Lets just say Islam has combined the teachings of the OT and Jesus. The time of the prophet pbuh was similar to the time of Joshua who had to remove oppression from the land. Several of my posts previously has outlined that oppression.
Don't get me wrong, the way Christians acted back then (and many now) has nothing to do with the teachings of the NT.
Concerning spread by the sword. All my posts were addressing the fact that Islam was not spread by the sword. The fact that Jews were allowed back into Jerusalem and freely worship. That Jews persecuted to convert to another religion, escaped to Muslims land. Even today Jews in Iran refuse to migrate to Israell.
Islam more "violent". Due to the rules of this chat I cannot go into too much details. Lets just say Islam has combined the teachings of the OT and Jesus. The time of the prophet pbuh was similar to the time of Joshua who had to remove oppression from the land. Several of my posts previously has outlined that oppression.
Don't get me wrong, the way Christians acted back then (and many now) has nothing to do with the teachings of the NT.
1. But it was. That is a fairly inescapable conclusion. Yes the "convert to Islam or die" notion is a myth. I agree with you. I'll even agree with you that the early Muslims were fairly judicious, but it is almost inescapable that warfare played a greater role in the foundation of their religion than it did for the early Christians. Indeed a central role.
Did Muhammad stride into Mecca on a donkey? No, he surrounded the place with around 10,000 soldiers.
Given the vast swath of land the Muslims conquered in the 100 years after the religion's birth, it is inconceivable that everyone wanted Muslim overlords. At least the Franks didn't. The difference was that the Franks had the tools and leadership needed to repel the invaders.
Sometimes you don't have to use the sword if people know you have one. No matter how nice they were, I cannot get past the fact they sent armies out.
2. I'll have to disagree again. Sure they appropriated elements of the OT and NT, but they surely missed the point of those scriptures. Redemptive history as we know it is alien to Islam.
Did Muhammad stride into Mecca on a donkey? No, he surrounded the place with around 10,000 soldiers.
Given the vast swath of land the Muslims conquered in the 100 years after the religion's birth, it is inconceivable that everyone wanted Muslim overlords. At least the Franks didn't. The difference was that the Franks had the tools and leadership needed to repel the invaders.
Sometimes you don't have to use the sword if people know you have one. No matter how nice they were, I cannot get past the fact they sent armies out.
2. I'll have to disagree again. Sure they appropriated elements of the OT and NT, but they surely missed the point of those scriptures. Redemptive history as we know it is alien to Islam.
A
This interview with a 13-year-old boy, called Shaaban Abdallah Hamedah, from Aleppo reveals how a rebel group that goes by the name of 'Ahfad al-Rasoul' (Grandsons of the Prophet) Brigade recruited him as a sniper to kill people in an area of Aleppo, irrespective of whether they were military personnel, civilians, or even other rebels.
The Grandsons of the Prophet Brigade has been approved by the Obama administration to receive weapons directly from the US, besides the fact that it is already being heavily armed directly by Qatar.
[video=youtube_share;WS5WrcvH46c]http://youtu.be/WS5WrcvH46c[/video]
The Grandsons of the Prophet Brigade has been approved by the Obama administration to receive weapons directly from the US, besides the fact that it is already being heavily armed directly by Qatar.
[video=youtube_share;WS5WrcvH46c]http://youtu.be/WS5WrcvH46c[/video]
A
Yes and no. But at least you didn't blame the Jews for once.
In the late 1500's, the Ottoman Empire started going into decline as a result of both internal and external factors. Internally, the Ottomans suffered from less capable sultans after Suleiman's death who began wasting their time at court. This spawned massive corruption that spread across their large difficult to manage empire while the Janissaries became a virtual hereditary caste demanding increasingly more pay while growing soft and lazy.
After 1600, the Turks lost their technological and military edge and stagnated while their line of expensive fortresses drained the empire of even more money. Without wars of conquest to enrich them, the Turks became restless and troublesome to the central government. That combined with the problems from the Janissaries caused revolts that further disrupted the empire.
The following centuries saw the Ottoman Empire suffer from steady political and economic decay. By the 1800's, its decrepit condition would earn it the uncomplimentary title of "The Sick Man of Europe".
Finally, the shock of World War I would destroy the Ottoman Empire once and for all and the Triple Entente (e.g. Russia, France, and Britain supplemented by agreements with Portugal and Japan) broke it into the respective nations we have today.
In the late 1500's, the Ottoman Empire started going into decline as a result of both internal and external factors. Internally, the Ottomans suffered from less capable sultans after Suleiman's death who began wasting their time at court. This spawned massive corruption that spread across their large difficult to manage empire while the Janissaries became a virtual hereditary caste demanding increasingly more pay while growing soft and lazy.
After 1600, the Turks lost their technological and military edge and stagnated while their line of expensive fortresses drained the empire of even more money. Without wars of conquest to enrich them, the Turks became restless and troublesome to the central government. That combined with the problems from the Janissaries caused revolts that further disrupted the empire.
The following centuries saw the Ottoman Empire suffer from steady political and economic decay. By the 1800's, its decrepit condition would earn it the uncomplimentary title of "The Sick Man of Europe".
Finally, the shock of World War I would destroy the Ottoman Empire once and for all and the Triple Entente (e.g. Russia, France, and Britain supplemented by agreements with Portugal and Japan) broke it into the respective nations we have today.
true ritter.
but great nations are not new.
nor their decline and fall.
there are people who do nothing but study how to bring it about.
decadence and apathy were injected into America as WMD.
[video=youtube;bX3EZCVj2XA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX3EZCVj2XA[/video]
KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov's warning to America
29 YEARS AGO, Soviet defector and KGB operative Yuri Bezmenov, specializing in the fields of Marxist-Leninist propaganda and ideological subversion; warned us about the silent war being waged against America as part of a long term plan to take over and destroy the American system and way of life.
....
"to change the perception of reality.....despite the abundance of information, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interests of defending themselves; their families and communities...."
first step: DEMORALIZATION.
but great nations are not new.
nor their decline and fall.
there are people who do nothing but study how to bring it about.
decadence and apathy were injected into America as WMD.
[video=youtube;bX3EZCVj2XA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX3EZCVj2XA[/video]
KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov's warning to America
29 YEARS AGO, Soviet defector and KGB operative Yuri Bezmenov, specializing in the fields of Marxist-Leninist propaganda and ideological subversion; warned us about the silent war being waged against America as part of a long term plan to take over and destroy the American system and way of life.
....
"to change the perception of reality.....despite the abundance of information, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interests of defending themselves; their families and communities...."
first step: DEMORALIZATION.
Last edited:
A
Saudis offer Russia secret oil deal if it drops Syria
Saudi Arabia has secretly offered Russia a sweeping deal to control the global oil market and safeguard Russia’s gas contracts, if the Kremlin backs away from the Assad regime in Syria.
Saudis offer Russia secret oil deal if it drops Syria - Telegraph
Saudi Arabia has secretly offered Russia a sweeping deal to control the global oil market and safeguard Russia’s gas contracts, if the Kremlin backs away from the Assad regime in Syria.
Saudis offer Russia secret oil deal if it drops Syria - Telegraph