Posted on 11/13/2002 3:35:07 AM PST by kattracks
Actually, it depends on what you mean by "new testament" and "Christian." If you are talking about Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, then what you have said is correct. However, there are are an enormous number of people who call themselves "Christians," but who would be more accurately called "Tarsusians," or "Paulines" [after Saul of Tarsus, or Paul, or whatever you want to call him]. I get in arguments with them all the time here at FR, and, while I try to make the standard points as a matter of duty, I've come to realize that, in general, it's just a big waste of time to try to talk any sense into them.
There are some really ugly proto-Marxist aspects of the post-Christian books of the New Testament.
It shouldn't be too difficult. Islam has been illegal in the US since 1892.
Too bad we are too "politically correct" and "tolerant" to act on it.
The last sentence is of course a lie, as the genocidal means including slavery and what not is used by Islam to spread. Then again he does admit this religion "of peace" is a salesman's solicitation, unappologetic proselytism, if not outright ideologically insulting the intelligence, very close to terrorism inherently.
I make no distinction between the four cannonical gospels and the other cannonical books of the NT, including those authored by Paul. I stand by my assertion that you will not find in ANY of these a command that genuine followers of and believers in Jesus Christ are to employ force for the purposes of propagating their religion. In fact, the ONLY justification found there for ANYONE to employ ANY force is with regard to legitimate governmental authorities in fulfillment to protect the innocent, preserve the peace, and maintain a just social order.
If you think that you have found verses that prove otherwise, I invite you to share them with us.
98% of the world's Muslims give the remainder a bad name.
The Crusaders were fighting a defensive war against mohammedan aggression. They were attempting to defend Christians in Europe and the Near East against oppression. They, unfortunately, weren't successful.
Certainly there are no commandments in any part of the New Testament which bear any resemblance to Mohammed's commandment to seize them and kill them wheresoever ye find them [Medina Suras, Chapter of Women]. However, there are some passages in the post-Christian books of the New Testament that are, for all intents and purposes, Marxist in their approach to private property rights [and I've often wondered whether this is why so many Catholics vote Socialist].
If by "Marxist" you imply an advocacy that the government confiscate and control all property, I would again challenge you to provide us with specific verses. I do find many verses throughout the New Testament exhorting and commending VOLUNTARY charitable giving, but that is most certainly NOT the same thing as Marxism. Indeed, if you actually read Marx you would find that he had nothing but contempt for such.
Yes, but let's be clear here. It was not so much that there was scriptural warrant for individual Christians on their own initiative, or for the church as an ecclesiastical body, to undertake the liberation of Christian victims of Islamic aggression. There is no such scriptural warrant. What there IS scriptural warrant for is for governments to protect the innocent from aggression, and if necessary to wage just war to do this. The Christians in the Middle East became victims of Islamic aggression in the first place and in large part due to the failure of their governing authorities to do what they were supposed to do (per scriptural warrant) to defend them. The case for other governments to later intervene in their behalf, roll back the Islamic aggression, and liberate the oppressed Christians, is less clear, but perhaps could be made on the basis of a just war ethic. But the ONLY scriptural warrant for such an action is if the action is initiated by GOVERNMENTS, and is entirely a GOVERNMENTAL action. Christians can certainly support and participate in such an action, but because they are citizens, not so much because they are Christian.
It was the failure to properly define the line of authority between the church and the state that was at the root of whatever problems occured with the Crusades. This, at its root, was due to a failure both of people running the church and people running the government to obey the clear teachings of scripture, which gets back to my original point: Any criticism of the behavior of Christians during the crusades must be based on the fact that such behavior was out of DISOBEDIENCE to the scriptures, rather than out of obedience to any scriptural commands.
By George, I think he's got it!
It was the failure to properly define the line of authority between the church and the state
That "line" was fuzzy indeed a millennium ago. I agree, though, that the failures of the Crusades were in large part a result of "DISOBEDIENCE to the scriptures", and forgetting the nature of the mission.
Just for the record, can you post a listing of these 24 conflicts, their region, and the 2 identified as not being Islamically-induced?
I, and doubtless others, would appreciate such a listing.
Thanks in advance!
CA....
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Many people believe islam is a violent religion because islamics are perpetrating unspeakable acts of terrorism around the world, even killing each other over disagreements! DUH! They then compound the felony by either celebrating in the streets after such acts, or by standing silent and not condemning same, loudly and publically! Lack of condemnation = support and approval!!
If anyone thinks islam is about anything other than hate and death, then they are not observing the actions of islam, and they are ignoring the resounding silence (lack of widespread condemnation) of muslims with respect to terrorist acts. Islam is its own worst enemy - islam is sowing hate and death, all by itself (no outside help), because the koran tells it to, and it WILL reap what it sows!
Stay vigilent, stay armed and never trust a muslim!
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.