rickyp wrote:Steve

Your error: confusing the Roman Catholic Church with Christianity.

You always seem very able to finely parse the adherents to Christianity and exclude those who've not been ideal Christians.

Actually, I'm a great deal more charitable than the Catholic Church. In Vatican II, it pronounced "anathema" on virtually every Protestant sect. Reading the history of the Catholic Church is, for the most part, reading a history on a group that was determined to restrict or eliminate reading of Scripture, restrict or eliminate the grace of God, and limit heaven to those who would buy Rome's favor.

There are many Christians who are genuine Christians with whom I disagree on doctrine. However, I believe they understand the Gospel because they adhere to sola scriptura. Rome, on the other hand, condemns this approach.

There seem to be very few. At some points in history I wonder if for you and your sense of Christian purity there really existed a Christian church?

God has always kept a remnant, in spite of the RCC's best efforts.

Ifthe Catholic Church doesn't qualify as the standard bearer for Christianity in Europe for hundreds of years then for you was there really Christianity?

Yes, but it wasn't Rome. For a classic example, how about as many as three popes?

The Catholic Church constantly looked to put an end to "heresy" (what the Bible calls "the Gospel") whether it was by burning Hus, killing Huguenots, or whatever it took. This went on for centuries. For several centuries, the kings of Europe cowered in fear before the Pope--not for his godliness, but for his military and economic might. Given what Jesus said about His kingdom not being of this world, it seems a bit counter-intuitive that His (alleged) "vicar" would wield such power.

Why are you unable to provide the same context to adherents to Muhommed? There are as many versions of fidelity to the Quran within the Islamic umbrealla as there are versions of adherence to Christ within the Christian community.

That has precious little to do with the fact that tens of millions of Muslims believe it is perfectly legitimate to kill people with whom they disagree. If Ozymandias is correct, and Islam was once a religion of peace and tolerance, then what happened?

Ozymandias wrote:I think, and it seems as thought he vast majority of opinion supports this in some form or another, that modern Islamic radicalism is born out of poverty and the associated frustration, anger, and jealousy that comes with it. Osama may be insane, or he may be power hungry, or he may just actually be full of religious fervor... but he's not the one blowing himself up. Those are the poor and hungry peasants.

I actually don't believe this is true. I recall reading something a few months ago (back around the time of the Christmas bomber) that most homicide bombers actually come from rather well off families and are somewhat educated.

Here are the top two hits I got from a google search.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/ ... 23327.html
http://www.alternet.org/world/35815/

The Catholic church was pretty darned violent, can't argue there.
But we have moved beyond that time.
Islam was equally bloody yet continues to be so, that is the difference.

Making excuses for the Islam religion because Christianity was at one point as well simply doesn't matter. My great great grandfather might have been a murderer? Doesn't mean I am one now, doesn't mean you can now have [i]your[/i[] turn at being a murderer.
Gee, Tom's great great grandfather murdered so Ozzy can murder now, it's all good???

(and I have no freaking idea what my great great grandparents did, my family tree seems to have been sawed off after my grandparents, it's a freaking mystery beyond them, so maybe he was????)

Ozymandias wrote:
I think, and it seems as thought he vast majority of opinion supports this in some form or another, that modern Islamic radicalism is born out of poverty and the associated frustration, anger, and jealousy that comes with it. Osama may be insane, or he may be power hungry, or he may just actually be full of religious fervor... but he's not the one blowing himself up. Those are the poor and hungry peasants.

That makes it sound as if muslim terrorists are some sort of aberrant social activists. Though poverty and balant injustice always makes it easier for all sorts of radicals to gather support, i'd say if someone puts on a vest packed with nails, coins and C4, makes a video saying death to nonbelievers and then blows up a bunch of people shouting "God is great" i will take him at his word, that he has a religious motive.

GMTom wrote:The Catholic church was pretty darned violent, can't argue there.
But we have moved beyond that time.
Islam was equally bloody yet continues to be so, that is the difference.

Well to be fair the Catholic Church was no more bloodthirsty than anyone else in power in those times. It was a brutal age.

GMTom wrote:Making excuses for the Islam religion because Christianity was at one point as well simply doesn't matter.

A sentiment i agree with. Also i'm not interested in a debate wether the crusades were evil or just, or for that matter that Christianity also persecuted Jews. It's like an argument of a 4 year old "but he did too".

GMTom wrote:(and I have no freaking idea what my great great grandparents did, my family tree seems to have been sawed off after my grandparents, it's a freaking mystery beyond them, so maybe he was????)

If you know their surnames you'd be surprised what you can find out if you are interested, i did a little digging, because i wanted to know when my family tree stopped being Jewish.

Very true on the others at the time, it really was a brutal age, and the Muslims were every bit as bloodthirsty at that time as well. But why even mention it? As we agree on, it just doesn't matter who did what in the past, it's about the here and now.

and digging up the past, I have no real interest
My Grandparents didn't tell us (or my parents) anything, they wanted to ignore the past, then let it stay ignored, as we said about the religions, what happened 'back then" really doesn't matter.

fax

It's like an argument of a 4 year old "but he did too".

Depends on the point of the arguement. In this case the person making the point is trying to ilustrate that islam is not a unique religion and that other main stream religions (no matter how narrowly Steve wantsa to define Christianity, Catholicism is widely accepted to be Christian) have evolved through preiods when they were the font of brutaility and made violence upon those not of their faith.
In that case, the arguement by Ozzy is entirely on point.

Spoken from the view of a 4 year old. (Maybe at least typed as one)

The comparison of a religion brought up saying that Christianity (Catholicism) was blood-thirsty then but is not now, compared to Islam which was said above was peaceful in the beginning (refutable...) is amazing. This would show that Christianity has evolved, and Islam has devolved. Yes, Islam has peacemakers, and Christianity has it's nut-cases. When you look at the current body of work, It appears one is more violent that another.

Yes, someone will say that Darren Klebold was a "Christian". Yeah Right. Like hell he was. Was he shouting the Doxology while shooting up Columbine? (Hint: NO!) Compare that to Major Hasan, and give me your answer on which one is less violent today.

After all, we don't live 600 years ago. We live in the world today, and we are dealing with today's issues.

Ricky, a couple of things you fail to (conveniently) ignored:
Ozzy stated the following:

I find it difficult to criticize violent Islamic extremists when it was only sixty six years ago that (and lets not deceive ourselves) Christian fundamentalists were exterminating Jews and other Christian sects. They called themselves National Socialists, but in their bigotry and their methods they were pure medieval Catholics. I believe its largely the residual horror, shame and guilt the Christian world feels for that atrocity that has allowed us to move past many of our traditional hatreds. And Jews don't get a pass either. Despite its completely fabricated nature, one of the most glorious moments in Jewish history, and certainly the pinnacle of Jewish political power, was divine-mandated genocide. Or ethnocide, at least.

So we can all point fingers, because Muslim society at large deserves a marginal amount of blame for allowing extremists to foster, but lets not forget an equally enabling generation is only just beginning to pass away.

The reply "It's like an argument of a 4 year old "but he did too" applies directly to this post and those that followed, it most certainly does apply and your stating Ozzy is on point is simply not so
...That is unless you take the four year old "but he did too" angle.

You go on to argue other issues and you fail to ignore what we were all speaking about, changing the topic again are we?

Ozymandias wrote:

I find it difficult to criticize violent Islamic extremists when it was only sixty six years ago that (and lets not deceive ourselves) Christian fundamentalists were exterminating Jews and other Christian sects. They called themselves National Socialists, but in their bigotry and their methods they were pure medieval Catholics. I believe its largely the residual horror, shame and guilt the Christian world feels for that atrocity that has allowed us to move past many of our traditional hatreds.

To characterize the Nazis as fundamental Christians is plain wrong, if at all they were extreme social Darwinists (not that poor Darwin is to blame). Of course historical antisemitism played a role in the thinking of Nazis, but that's it, they really didn't care wether it was the Romans, Babylonians or Christians that did it, as long as someone bashed the Jews head in.
The Christian churches, same as the Wehrmacht were dangerous to nationalsocialism when they took over, because they were highly influental with the masses and so they were bullied and wooed until their influence was broken and they were streamlined to support or at least no oppose them anymore. The Church failed to effectively oppose the Nazis but it certainly wasn't a relevant factor in the development of Nazi doctrine.

Ozymandias wrote:And Jews don't get a pass either. Despite its completely fabricated nature, one of the most glorious moments in Jewish history, and certainly the pinnacle of Jewish political power, was divine-mandated genocide. Or ethnocide, at least.

Again we have to remember that slaying every man, women and child of your enemy was, for the longest time not considered an evil thing.
I mean mediveal times you rode over to your neighbours land, stole his cattle and sheep and killed his peasents, because they were basically in the same category. Hard to replace merchandise.

[

Ozymandias wrote:So we can all point fingers, because Muslim society at large deserves a marginal amount of blame for allowing extremists to foster, but lets not forget an equally enabling generation is only just beginning to pass away.

Well it would certainly be a good thing for everyone to be more aware of the history of their own people, but i really don't see how my great great grandfather pillaging a Prostestant village, shooting some naked tribal dude in the colonies or burning down a mosque or synagoge 500 years ago should affect my judgement on terrorism or sectarian violence today.
Yes times not so long ago were pretty brutal, but today they are less so and that's the new standard.
Look at the Arab leaders crying about the civilian casualties in Lybia they suddenly care about since Nato and the US are dropping bombs. The past 40 years when @#$! mad towelhead killed his own people it was apparently fine and not worth any huffing and puffing.
We didn't care either, but finally we do.

fax

Well it would certainly be a good thing for everyone to be more aware of the history of their own people, but i really don't see how my great great grandfather pillaging a Prostestant village, shooting some naked tribal dude in the colonies or burning down a mosque or synagoge 500 years ago should affect my judgement on terrorism or sectarian violence today.
Yes times not so long ago were pretty brutal, but today they are less so and that's the new standard.
Look at the Arab leaders crying about the civilian casualties in Lybia they suddenly care about since Nato and the US are dropping bombs. The past 40 years when @#$! mad towelhead killed his own people it was apparently fine and not worth any huffing and puffing.
We didn't care either, but finally we do.

Perhaps you are viewing the Arab "opinion" through the lens of western media alone? When Saddam was in power he certainly had critics within the Middle East. Shiites mostly. Whilst he was killing his people Saddam was being supported by the West, including in a major way the US. (Shall I post pictures of his meetings with his friend Cheney?)
You can claim that the Middle East didn't care. But then, the West didn't seem to care either.
The recent Arab Awakening is awakening not just a appetite for democracy and freedom but a moral conscious that comes with it. Including a moral conscious amongst the West.

Currently the greatest font of Muslim fundamental terror is in Pakistan. And frankly was the source for the last 40 years. The Taliban emerged from Pakistan into Afghanistan. Supported by the CIA. Pakistan has enjoyed major support from the US, despite this. For years. In large part Al Quesda's refuge has been prepared with US dollars.
It may be that poverty and injustice in the badlands of Pakistan have bred a form of Islam that breeds terrorists.
But they didn't exist within Islam for hundreds of years... Not until the proxy war with Russia in Afghanistan did they gain the financial support of some rich Muslims and some governments. Once successful against the Russians.... they needed a new enemy.
None of that really has to do with how Muslims around the world practice their faith. If you can point to Islamic terror of any consequence before this - its aimed at Israel. And then its not really motivated by "religion" but more by "nationalism."
That there are so few incidents of terrorism by Muslims outside of Pakistan and Afghanistan and Israel ...should indicate that the religion itself is not a cause of terror.
The peaceful practice of a religion by billions Today is enough evidence that something not of the religion has to pervert the message, whether its a Christian or Muslim.
If you don't subscribe to the "ancient history" then at least consider the evidence of the weight of numbers.
And consider that when a Muslim sees a country occupied and witness images of Christian foreigners machine gunning a van full of children for instance (the images of the Iraq incident released by Wikileaks that were played ad naueseum in the Arab world, they can blame All Christianity. Or they can blame the guys in the helicopter. Or maybe their commanders. Which do you think is fair judgment?

Unfortunately this isn't from the Onion. It does speak in part to concerns regarding a certain sizable segment of the Tea Party crowd.

A whopping 46 percent of likely GOP primary voters said they think interracial marriage should be illegal, while only 40 percent said they think it should be allowed. Another 14 percent said they were unsure.

It was only 45 years ago that Mississippi legalized interracial marriage, and this poll indicates it continues to be a controversial subject.

The poll also found that Mississippi Republicans back Haley Barbour, their outgoing governor, to run for president on the GOP ticket in 2012. Barbour had 37 percent of respondents' support, followed by Mike Huckabee with 19 percent and Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin tied for third place with 10 percent each.

The PPP poll also revealed that Palin has more support among voters who believe interracial marriage should be illegal than among those who are OK with it. Mitt Romney's numbers reveal just the opposite. He has a higher favorability among Mississippi Republicans who want interracial marriage to remain legal.

It's too bad there aren't more libertarians in the movement. Hard to take the group seriously when they say they want less government, but are so interested in having the government in our bedrooms.

Not that this automatically discredits the poll, but it should be noted that PPP is run by Democrats.

Uhhh, also worth noting this was a poll of 400 Mississippi Republican Primary voters
A very small poll, very little specifics done in possibly the most racist area of the country. To try and make this reflect the feelings of all Republicans across the country is not just a stretch but very dishonest to say the least.

GMTom wrote:Uhhh, also worth noting this was a poll of 400 Mississippi Republican Primary voters
A very small poll, very little specifics done in possibly the most racist area of the country. To try and make this reflect the feelings of all Republicans across the country is not just a stretch but very dishonest to say the least.

Just to be clear, are you suggesting that Neal is being dishonest, or the news source, or the polling company? I don't think any of the above has made any effort to extrapolate from this poll to Republicans in the rest of the US. The news story and the poll report both make it quite clear that the poll involves only Mississippians.