Christian terrorism

It took the Washington Post less than 48 hours to link accused Olympic bomber Eric Rudolph with Christianity. This is the same Washington Post that downplays the growing evidence that the Washington, D.C. snipers were driven by their Islamic faith. An article on page 3 of the Post this morning, under the headline, "Is Terrorism Tied to Christian Sect?" heavily quotes Professor James Aho of Idaho State University. Professor Aho tells the Post that if Christians take umbrage at the juxtaposition of the words "Christian" and "terrorist," "that may give them some idea of how Muslims feel when they constantly hear the term 'Islamic terrorism.'" Professor Aho goes on to assure us that "every major world religion has people who have appropriated the label of their religion in order to legitimize their violence."

Is the professor really this ignorant? Assuming Eric Rudolph committed these crimes, he cannot find one word in the teachings of Christ to justify them. Nor will he find any theological leader of any branch of Christianity willing to defend his criminal conduct. No Christian neighborhoods burst into celebration at the news of the bombings. Nor are Christian children being taught that if Rudolph had died in his attacks he would be a "martyr" welcomed into heaven.

The contrast with radical Islamic teachings couldn't be more stark. Each terrorist act against Christians and Jews by those acting in the name of Islam is excused by countless Islamic leaders, theologians, imams, and philosophers. Schools are named after jihad bombers. And there are plenty of verses in the Koran cited to justify the murderous attacks of Islamic "warriors." Do you see the difference, Professor Aho?

"That's rich coming from a poster with the moniker "The Crusader". You are gonna have to explain how the Crusades were even possible under the guise of Christianity. The same gospel we read and live today was used then to justify FORCED conversions, the same as Islam."

This joker knows history like Bill Clinton knows honesty. Since you asked, I will explain. The Crusades had absolutely nothing to do with "forced conversions", and where you got that stupid notion from I can only guess. Prepare for you history lesson now sonny.

The Crusades were a defensive military maneuver to stop the barbaric Muslims from murdering every last Christian on earth. Islam had conquered over 65% of all Christian lands by the year 1071 A.D. Including the middle east, North Africa, most of Spain, much of Byzantium, (the eastern Roman Empire), and parts of the Christian Balkans. The bearded maniac Muslims also drove into central France earlier, but were expelled by General Martel. They threatened to invade Rome, and bragged that they would turn the Vatican into a "horse stable". The Islamic barbarians also slaughtered Christians who lived in Jerusalem, trashed all the Christian holy sites, including the Holy Sepulchre where it was said Jesus was laid after His crucifixion. They prevented Christians from pilgrimaging to Jerusalem, and tortured them in the most brutal way imaginable. They would cut open the Christians bowels and pull out his intestines. Then they would nail the intestine to a tree stump and whip him, forcing him to pull out his own intestines as the Chritians would walk away from the whip.

In 1071 A.D. the Islamic Saracens and Seljuk Turks assembled a massive army near Greece, and the Christian Byzantine Army went out to meet them at Manzikert with over 65,000 highly trained men. But they underestimated the number of Mohammedans and thier quickness, and they were completely slaughtered that day, all 65,000 of them. The Mohammedans captured Romanus IV, the Chrisian Byzantine Emporer. This left no Eastern Christian army to stop the Mohammedans from invading Western Europe. The Crusades were called by the Pope to open the roads to Jersualem and to stop the Muslim barbarians from any further incursions into Christian lands. The only successful Crusade was the first one, that began around 1098 A.D. And all they succeeded in doing was to re-take Jerusalem and build a few strategic castles along the way to defend from future Muslim attacks on their rear. Nowhere on record is it found that the Christians forced any conversions.... in fact they could have cared less. Eventually Islam reunited and defeated every single Christian Crusade for the next 450 years, more often than not slaughtering them all, including those who tried to surrender. Islam was known for their lack of charity after a military victory over their foes. Islam continued to attack Western Christian lands even after the Crusades, until they were finally defeated in the 16th century at the Battle of Lepanto. The Christians sank the whole damn fleet, and rescued about 15,000 Christian slaves that the Muslims had on their ships. Islam was about murder, invasion and conquering right from the start. You need to read a book, son.

I do not have to prove something you have stated you do not believe, I could go on for hours typing up verse after verse and you can simply say "prove G_d is real". It is Biblical doctrine rooted in the prophecies of Christ and accepted by Christians. Whether you believe it or not makes no difference, your a self described atheist. You already are questioning whether Isaiah is prophesying about Jesus or not, again an accepted concept of the New Testament.
Unless you have text stating that Satan does not believe Jesus is the Christ, it is the Christian belief. I do not have to defend every accepted belief of Christians to pose a question based on accepted beliefs of Christians .

The only reason you are even asking is to avoid the question that collapses your logic pertaining to the definition of a Christian.

By YOUR definition - the one you say is the only trustworthy definition.

Satan believes that Jesus is the Christ.

Is Satan a Christian?

"There's stuff in both the Quran and the Bible about slaying one's enemies."

Don't even go down this road Brother...Unless you know what you're talking about, the context is day and night.

"I don't remember any Turk asking me what my religion was. They asked me a lot of stuff about the USA, and I asked them a lot of stuff about Turkey. Other than that, we just got along....All Muslims are not evil, murder-crazed, terrorists. A few are, to be sure, but..."

One would assume the Turks, as a monolithically ethnic country, wouldn't ordinarily make an issue about an individual's religion -- although, as you say, they ARE Muslim in the majority.

Most of those of us who do malign Islam happen to realize that proportionately speaking, Muslims ARE in fact in the high, HIGH risk "terrorist" catagories compared to ANY OTHER religious group on earth.

While this may mean that 99% of Muslims are "peaceful," it would still be dangerous math. And it quite frankly disturbs many of us that American or International Islam has NOT been vociferous in the least in its condemnation of terrorism or anti-Americanism. This cannot be denied.

BTW, glad to hear your Muslim neighbor is a "regular" guy. Yes, I realize they really exist, but they've got a HUGE PR problem that only THEY can fix.

"I've run into numerous people here on FR who claim just that [All Muslims are evil].

Followers of the Koran = Evil."

Well, whereas I don't believe that "all" Muslims are"evil," I certainly DO believe and know that the Koran IS evil -- BECAUSE IT IS A LIE.

"My argument is that the "good" Muslims would say that these terrorists are NOT Muslim at all, but belong to a radical sect outside the view of Islam..."

The evidence suggest otherwise...There are just too many of these "radical sects" running wild -- and THEY maintain it is their version of the Koran that is the real deal. But either way, it's God, its history, and its "redemption" is still counterfeit.

Look, we merely have to take into consideration Islam's past history AND the present to realize its natural evolution would bring it to the point where it is today -- an uncompromising, openly fanatical and hostile antagonist to ALL OTHER religions and systems.

Unfortunately, "generalizing" in this case IS valid IMO.

I've read them both too, and you are clueless and only want to argue.

The Q'uran or Koran must be interpreted by realizing that Mohamad's later "dictations" replaced his earlier "dictations".

So the violant kill all infidels verses are in fact the "proper" way to read the material. The early writings of peace and acceptance of "people of the book" were superceded by the later. The Bible to you "an avowed atheist" as stated within itself, is "but foolishness to the unbeliever" until you get yourself off the throne and truely seek the answers, you can read all the "versions" and philosophy texts out there and never find the "TRUTH".

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.