What 23
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2013
- Messages
- 3,905
But I'll as usual come in on the side of the right:
The atrocities committed by Islamic Terrorists could never be justified by any other known religion, other than Islam. The Bible may have within it's pages alleged history that includes stealing of women and rape, murder, and genocide (Moses would have been considered a terrorist now), but those are clearly understood to be situational, and of the times. For whatever reason, people accept when reading its passages, that these things don't apply to now. The Bible has/had many different authors, and many translations, and Jesus basically trumps all of the old laws (though there is contradiction with this, he clearly teaches forgiveness, and non condemnation). Jesus is a role model for Christians, even if they don't follow fully. Though there may be 'Christian' terrorists (Africa, Breivik claimed to be for Christendom- he was a 'Cultural Christian' which doesn't mean Christian... Just that he is a result of the process that it took and culture took with it, and whatnot, and the enlightenment, and individualism, and whatnot, in Europe) or atrocities committed by people who drink water and eat food, their actions cannot be justified by the words of their accepted God-Jesus who teaches pacifism, and forgiveness, and love, most dominantly. Muslims on the other hand hold Muhammad as the Seal of Prophets. There will be no other. And he was militant. His message began as peaceful, when he and his people were in the minority, and then as he gained followers, his message became more violent. When he had support, he was less afraid and more boisterous. He was cocky. And since he is the singular author, and Muslims must accept him, of course, it is much harder to argue what he lays down as anything other than Gods will, and law. He is and his message is absolute, meant to correct the errors of previous attempts (Christianity, Judaism).
Basically, Islamic Terrorists are justified by their book, no matter what moderate Muslims say, or their allies, the liberal and left, say, a lot of the time. Christians however are not righteous by their book in what they may do that's compared to these acts, or whatever.
To be fair: I find it hard to believe that this direct of an attack on children is justified by the Quran, despite what I just said. Muhammad was militant, but I don't see him doing this. Moses would have, but he would have destroyed the entire city. Maybe Muhammad too. I really don't know. Jesus wouldn't have, though, if he is really God he is the devil, so..
The atrocities committed by Islamic Terrorists could never be justified by any other known religion, other than Islam. The Bible may have within it's pages alleged history that includes stealing of women and rape, murder, and genocide (Moses would have been considered a terrorist now), but those are clearly understood to be situational, and of the times. For whatever reason, people accept when reading its passages, that these things don't apply to now. The Bible has/had many different authors, and many translations, and Jesus basically trumps all of the old laws (though there is contradiction with this, he clearly teaches forgiveness, and non condemnation). Jesus is a role model for Christians, even if they don't follow fully. Though there may be 'Christian' terrorists (Africa, Breivik claimed to be for Christendom- he was a 'Cultural Christian' which doesn't mean Christian... Just that he is a result of the process that it took and culture took with it, and whatnot, and the enlightenment, and individualism, and whatnot, in Europe) or atrocities committed by people who drink water and eat food, their actions cannot be justified by the words of their accepted God-Jesus who teaches pacifism, and forgiveness, and love, most dominantly. Muslims on the other hand hold Muhammad as the Seal of Prophets. There will be no other. And he was militant. His message began as peaceful, when he and his people were in the minority, and then as he gained followers, his message became more violent. When he had support, he was less afraid and more boisterous. He was cocky. And since he is the singular author, and Muslims must accept him, of course, it is much harder to argue what he lays down as anything other than Gods will, and law. He is and his message is absolute, meant to correct the errors of previous attempts (Christianity, Judaism).
Basically, Islamic Terrorists are justified by their book, no matter what moderate Muslims say, or their allies, the liberal and left, say, a lot of the time. Christians however are not righteous by their book in what they may do that's compared to these acts, or whatever.
To be fair: I find it hard to believe that this direct of an attack on children is justified by the Quran, despite what I just said. Muhammad was militant, but I don't see him doing this. Moses would have, but he would have destroyed the entire city. Maybe Muhammad too. I really don't know. Jesus wouldn't have, though, if he is really God he is the devil, so..
Last edited:
