Christian vs. Muslims

[treat2]

For over ONE THOUSAND YEARS, the violence of the Christian Church was unleashed upon over a million women that were buned at the stake as witches, the countless thousands of people that were subjected to the most unimaginable, inhumane torture scanctioned by Christians in their Inquisition, and the millions that were either killed, wounded, tortured, or the subject of the Crusades.

The GREATEST Crime Against Humanity EVER commited was by the Christian Church that plunged mankind (in what we call Europe) into a THOUSAND YEARS of darkness. The world was flat,
the Church was ALWAYS right (as it is still presumed by Christians to be, depending on whatever Church they belong to), and the threat of never-ending Hell-fire was used to control and shape innocent young minds, as it still is today by the likes of Jerry Falwell, Born-Agains, and numerous other Christians.

From the begining of the Christians rise to power, well over a thousand years ago, up to today Christians sought to either destroy or rewrite all of the written works and discoveries ever recorded in such fields as Science, Math, Philosophy, and any others that they did not agree with.

Countering this unfathomable and endless crime of the Christian Church were the Muslims. During
the most repressive thousand years of the Church's domination over mankind (in what is modern Europe),
the Muslims in the regions we now commonly call the Arabic countries, preserved all of the written works
and discoveries in these many fields (previously mentioned).

While the Christians continued to burn people at the stake, and torture everyone that did not agree with them, the Muslim culture florished. Great mathematitions, scholars, astronomers, artists and others unknown
to today's Christians by virtue of the restricted teachings in their schools (today) were born and made contributions that permitted Galeleo to reach the astronomical conclusions that the Church refused to recognize.

When the stranglehold of the Christian Church's was finally broken by independent thinkers that were able to obtain English translations of the written works of mankind that Muslims had preserved, the advances
that most Christians are familiar with today were made possible, because they were built upon the advances made in these fields by Muslim scholars.

The self-rightious Christians of today that claim Christianity as a religion of peace and Islam as a violent
religion, defy and deny their own history, and the manifestations of that legacy today in schools that teach
children that the female of our species was divinely invented from a rib bone of the male of our species, and
that the universe is 6,000 years old.

For every fanatical Muslim, there are certainly more fanatical Christians that seek to turn back the clock
a over a thousand years, dumb-down everyone's children, and claim that they themselves are in some way
morally better than and different from a suicide bomber.

 

[janeeng]

Didn't you just throw this out here on another topic?????

 

[treat2]

If that doesn't answer your question as being an obvious no. Try bothering to read my post before creating your own post, if you want to be taken seriously!

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by treat2
If that doesn't answer your question as being an obvious no. Try bothering to read my post before creating your own post, if you want to be taken seriously!

Try bothering to read what I posted previously. If you cannot follow the rules and post on topic, feel free to leave! This was no comparison, it was 100% about Christians and not meant for the Muslim forum. Adding the word "muslim" in there occasionally doesn't make it a Muslim topic.

Future posts will not be politely moved, they will just be deleted.

 

[Jackass]

Interesting OPINION. What magazine did you get it out of?

 

[treat2]

... the different posts were moved, altered, unread, and plagerized.

I'm not worried about Muslims! (Read between the lines.)

 

[janeeng]

You mean read between like this ! :finger:

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by treat2
... the different posts were moved, altered, unread, and plagerized.

I'm not worried about Muslims! (Read between the lines.)

I'm not worried about Muslims either!

You were told why your thread was moved. Nothing was altered. You are free to continue your discussion here.

Btw - you are defending the indefensible. Enjoy!

P.S. - it's "plagiarized"

 

[5stringJeff]

From other threads, I take it that treat has been banned. I'd still like to respond to his rantings...

Originally posted by treat2
For over ONE THOUSAND YEARS, the violence of the Christian Church was unleashed upon over a million women that were buned at the stake as witches, the countless thousands of people that were subjected to the most unimaginable, inhumane torture scanctioned by Christians in their Inquisition, and the millions that were either killed, wounded, tortured, or the subject of the Crusades.
The GREATEST Crime Against Humanity EVER commited was by the Christian Church that plunged mankind (in what we call Europe) into a THOUSAND YEARS of darkness. The world was flat,
the Church was ALWAYS right (as it is still presumed by Christians to be, depending on whatever Church they belong to), and the threat of never-ending Hell-fire was used to control and shape innocent young minds, as it still is today by the likes of Jerry Falwell, Born-Agains, and numerous other Christians.
From the begining of the Christians rise to power, well over a thousand years ago, up to today Christians sought to either destroy or rewrite all of the written works and discoveries ever recorded in such fields as Science, Math, Philosophy, and any others that they did not agree with.

1. One million women accused of being witches and burned? Source, please. I have never heard a number that high.
2. The Inquisition, brought to you in part by the Catholic Church, was indeed a horrible event. In fact, its target was other Christians. Christianity went through a very long period where different denominations considered each other lost. Today, however, I think most Christians reject that kind of thinking.
3. You never actually named the greatest crime ever against humanity that plunged Europe into a thousand years of darkness. What the hell are you talking about?
4. The threat of hell. If you read the Bible, hell is described in several places as a very real place. However, if you spoke to Christians about why they believe what they do, very few will tell you that it's primarily because they don't want to go to hell; they'll say that it's primarily because they understand the LOVE that God has for us.
5. In actuality, most European scientists were guided by their faith to pursue scientific knowledge. Challenges from the Catholic Church notwithstanding, the majority of European scientists believed that God was the author of science, and so science and faith were intertwined.

Countering this unfathomable and endless crime of the Christian Church were the Muslims. During the most repressive thousand years of the Church's domination over mankind (in what is modern Europe), the Muslims in the regions we now commonly call the Arabic countries, preserved all of the written works and discoveries in these many fields (previously mentioned).
While the Christians continued to burn people at the stake, and torture everyone that did not agree with them, the Muslim culture florished. Great mathematitions, scholars, astronomers, artists and others unknown to today's Christians by virtue of the restricted teachings in their schools (today) were born and made contributions that permitted Galeleo to reach the astronomical conclusions that the Church refused to recognize.

I don't think anyone disagrees that the Arab/Muslim contributions to science and math during the Golden Age of Islam. The question you should ask is why there are no longer any such significant contributions from the Muslim world.

The self-rightious Christians of today that claim Christianity as a religion of peace and Islam as a violent religion, defy and deny their own history, and the manifestations of that legacy today in schools that teach children that the female of our species was divinely invented from a rib bone of the male of our species, and that the universe is 6,000 years old.
For every fanatical Muslim, there are certainly more fanatical Christians that seek to turn back the clock a over a thousand years, dumb-down everyone's children, and claim that they themselves are in some way morally better than and different from a suicide bomber. [/B]

Well...
1. Christianity has had its violent moments. However, the Bible itself does not teach violence towards anyone. So, as a born-again Christian that you so willfully disparaged, I would call the killing of innocents during the Crusades wrong.
2. Public schools today do not teach that the universe was created by God. The church absolutely teaches this, as it is clearly outlined in the Bible.
3. I don't know any Christians that believe the universe is 6,000 years old. In fact, most Christians I know believe that the Big Bang is of God's design.
4. I would love to see these 'fanatical Christians' who seek to take the world back to the Stone Age. I have yet to see them on the Christian-friendly media (okay, stop laughing). On the other hand, I see Muslim extremists blowing people up almost every day. So yes, I would have to say that a Christian who seeks to teach people about his/her religion in a peaceful manner is morally better than a homicide bomber who kills widows and children because his Imam told him to.

 

[Dan]

I'm sure God's in heaven right now, so happy to see how much argument he's causing around here!

If you're a Christian, worship Christ and be happy and don't be self-righteous!

If you're a Muslim, worship Allah and be happy and don't blow anyone up!

Simple as that.

 

[5stringJeff]

Dan,

I'm really not trying to be self-righteous. I'm attempting to defend my faith in a logical manner.

Though I have to agree, your advice to not blow anyone up is good!

 

[Dan]

Jeff-

That wasn't directed toward anyone on the board at all, just the majority of Christians in general. It bugs me that their attitude is generally, "you better change yourself or you're going to hell". It also bugs me that it's one of the only theologies that feels that its followers are the only people getting into heaven.

But, anyways, nothing personal, no hard feelings, I'm actually learning a lot from everyone's posts on here!

 

[Spirit_Soul]

Biblic roots to the statement "Women are inferior, you are made for a man!"

1 Corinthians 11 "...Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and the head of Christ is God. (NIV)". There is some debate among theologians about the translation of the Greek word "kephale" as "head." However that word is universally used in New Testament translations.
1 Corinthians 11:7-9:"For a man...is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head." (NIV) This refers to the practice of women wearing hair covering as a sign of inferiority. This is not longer widely observed today.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35: "...women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says, If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (NIV) This is a curious passage. It appears to prohibit all talking by women during services. But it contradicts verse 11:5, in which St. Paul states that women can actively pray and prophesy during services.
It is obvious that verses 14:33b to 36 are a later addition, added by an unknown counterfeiter with little talent at forgery. Bible scholar, Hans Conzelmann, comments on these three and a half verses: "Moreover, there are peculiarities of linguistic usage, and of thought. [within them]." 6 If they are removed, then Verse 33a merges well with Verse 37 in a seamless transition. Since they were a later forgery, they do not fulfill the basic requirement to be considered inerrant: they were not in the original manuscript written by Paul.

Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife...wives should submit to their husbands in everything." (NIV)
1 Timothy; various passages: Conservative theologians date this "pastoral epistle" as having being written prior to 65 CE, and assign its authorship to Paul. Liberal theologians generally believe that it was written by an unknown author during the first half of the second century, a half-century or longer after St. Paul's execution. If the latter is true then the epistle's many passages reflecting female inferiority can be attributed to a gradual reinstatement of patriarchal authority by the early Church. Some of these passages are:
1 Timothy 2:11-15:"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent..." (NIV) Some Biblical scholars believe that woman and man should be replaced by wife and husband in the above passage. This would mean that the passage would not refer to women teaching men in the church, but rather wives teaching their husbands within the home. 5
1 Timothy 3:2: "Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife..." (NIV) This would seem to imply that all overseers (bishops) must be male.
1 Timothy 3:8: "Deacons likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere..." (NIV)
Titus 1:6: "An elder must be blameless, a husband of but one wife" (NIV). Women are apparently excluded from the position of elder or bishop.
Titus 2:4: "...train the younger women...to be subject to their husbands." There is no indication of equal power sharing in marriage.
1 Peter 3:7: Women are referred to as "the weaker vessel" in comparison to their husbands

 

[Spirit_Soul]

True christians support equality regardless of race, gender etc.
So does the bible in these following verses.

John 1:12: All people, men and women, have the opportunity to become children of God - presumably without regard to gender, race, sexual orientation, nationality, etc.
Acts 2:1-21: At the time of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit was described as entering both men and women. In Verse 17, Peter recites a saying of the prophet Joel that talks about sons and daughters; Verse 18 talks about men and women.
Acts 9:36: Paul refers to a woman (Tabitha in Aramaic, Dorcas in Greek, Gazelle in English) as a Christian disciple.
Acts 18:24-26 describes how a married couple, Priscilla and Aquila, both acted in the role of pastor to a man from Alexandria, called Apollos. Various translations of the Bible imply that they taught him in the synagogue (Amplified Bible, King James Version, Rheims, New American Standard, New American, New Revised Standard) However, the New International Version have an unusual translation of this passage. The NIV states that the teaching occurred in Priscilla's and Aquila's home.
Acts 21 Four young women are referred to as prophetesses.
Romans 16:1: Paul refers to Phoebe as a minister (diakonos) of the church at Cenchrea. Some translations say deaconess; others try to downgrade her position by mistranslating it as "servant" or "helper".
Romans 16 Paul refers to Priscilla as another of his "fellow workers in Christ Jesus" (NIV) Other translations refer to her as a "co-worker". But other translations attempt to downgrade her status by calling her a "helper". The original Greek word is "synergoi", which literally means "fellow worker" or "colleague." 4
Romans 16:7: Paul refers to a male apostle, Andronicus and a female apostle, Lunia, as "outstanding among the apostles" (NIV) The Amplified Bible translates this passage as "They are men held in high esteem among the apostles." The Revised Standard Version shows it as "they are men of note among the apostles." The reference to them both being men does not appear in the original Greek text. The word "men" was simply inserted by the translators, apparently because the translators' minds recoiled from the concept of a female apostle. Many translations, including the Amplified Bible, Rheims New Testament, New American Standard Bible, and the New International Version simply picked the letter "s" out of thin air. They converted the original "Junia" (a woman's name) into "Junias" (a man's name) in order to warp St. Paul's original writing by erasing all mention of a female apostle. Junia was first converted into a man only in the "13th century, when Aegidius of Rome (1245-1316 CE) referred to both Andronicus and Junia as "honorable men." 5
1 Corinthians 1 Chloe is mentioned as the owner of a house where Christian meetings were held. There is some ambiguity as to whether the women actually led the house churches. Similar passages mention, with the same ambiguity: The mother of Mark in Acts 12:12, and
Lydia in Acts 16:14-5, and 40, and
Nympha in (Col 4:15).

1 Corinthians 12:4-7: This discusses gifts that the Holy Spirit gives to all believers, both men and women. The New International Version obscures this message; in Verse 6 is translated "all men", whereas other translations use the terms "all", "all persons", "in everyone", and "in all."
1 Corinthians 16 Paul refers to a married couple: Priscilla and Aquila as his fellow workers in Christ Jesus.
2 Corinthians 5:17: "Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation..." (NIV). Again "anyone" appears to mean both men and women.
Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (NIV) This is perhaps the most famous passage in the New Testament that assigns equal status to individuals of both genders (and all races, nationalities and slave status).
Philippians 4:2: Paul refers to two women, Euodia and Syntyche, as his coworkers who were active evangelists, spreading the gospel.
Philemon 2: Paul writes his letter to "Apphia, our sister" and two men as the three leaders of a house church.
1 Peter 4:10-11: This passages discusses all believers serving others with whatever gifts the Holy Spirit has given them, "faithfully administering God's grace in its various forms." (NIV) Presumably this would mean that some women are given the gift of being an effective pastor, and should be permitted to exercise that gift.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by Spirit_Soul
Biblic roots to the statement "Women are inferior, you are made for a man!"

The word is 'biblical,' FYI. Regardless, please allow me to rebut.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35: "...women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says, If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (NIV) This is a curious passage. It appears to prohibit all talking by women during services. But it contradicts verse 11:5, in which St. Paul states that women can actively pray and prophesy during services.
It is obvious that verses 14:33b to 36 are a later addition, added by an unknown counterfeiter with little talent at forgery. Bible scholar, Hans Conzelmann, comments on these three and a half verses: "Moreover, there are peculiarities of linguistic usage, and of thought. [within them]." 6 If they are removed, then Verse 33a merges well with Verse 37 in a seamless transition. Since they were a later forgery, they do not fulfill the basic requirement to be considered inerrant: they were not in the original manuscript written by Paul.

While I cannot give you a source, one of the commentaries I have read on this passage states that a lot of women in the early church would ask questions to their husbands in the middle of the church gatherings. Thus, Paul admonishes them to remain silent - and if you notice this whole paragraph that you quote from is about orderly worship. And why would Paul tell women to be quiet if, as you stated, he had just written that women should be an active part of the service?
I don't know who Hans Conzelmann is, so I have no idea how authoritative he is on the New Testament. But I disagree with your assessment that it is an "obvious" forgery. Paul writes similiarly themed passages in other letters (see your own quotes below).

Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife...wives should submit to their husbands in everything." (NIV)
1 Timothy; various passages: Conservative theologians date this "pastoral epistle" as having being written prior to 65 CE, and assign its authorship to Paul. Liberal theologians generally believe that it was written by an unknown author during the first half of the second century, a half-century or longer after St. Paul's execution. If the latter is true then the epistle's many passages reflecting female inferiority can be attributed to a gradual reinstatement of patriarchal authority by the early Church. Some of these passages are:
1 Timothy 2:11-15:"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent..." (NIV) Some Biblical scholars believe that woman and man should be replaced by wife and husband in the above passage. This would mean that the passage would not refer to women teaching men in the church, but rather wives teaching their husbands within the home.

You omitted Ephesians 5 "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." This applies both ways; i.e. husbands should submit to wives just like wives submit to husbands. In fact, the rest of chapter 5 is an admonition to both husbands and wives to be loving toward each other and respectful of the other's feeling and wishes.
For the I Timothy passage, note the words "I do not permit..." While his words carry apostlistic authority, Paul frequently distinguishes between God's command and his own commands. Obviously, this is one of the latter.

1 Timothy 3:2: "Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife..." (NIV) This would seem to imply that all overseers (bishops) must be male.
1 Timothy 3:8: "Deacons likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere..." (NIV)
Titus 1:6: "An elder must be blameless, a husband of but one wife" (NIV). Women are apparently excluded from the position of elder or bishop.
Titus 2:4: "...train the younger women...to be subject to their husbands." There is no indication of equal power sharing in marriage.
1 Peter 3:7: Women are referred to as "the weaker vessel" in comparison to their husbands

Bishops (elders/overseers) and deacons... while there are a couple of verses that indicate that deaconesses were allowed, I have not found a verse to indicate that female elders were allowed. Thus, your statement that all elders are to be male is correct.

 

[eric]

Lets be honest for a moment, the nature of the times in which these passages were written, men were considered the heads of families and the decision makers. The important thing that I come away with is nowhere is there even the slightest hint of violence toward wives. In fact there is a passage that states "husband love your wives", which many modern scholars interpret to mean to die in defense of them.

 

[_dmp_]

Fwiw, I agree with what Jeff is writing; but would only add:

Treat? You're mislead at best, an idiot at worst.



Have a nice day...I mean that.

 

[Spirit_Soul]

Actually anything can be presented in a positive way... which it should be in order to keep harmony and spiritual growth in the society.

My main reason for posting that here was to see how christian individuals would interpret it in a discussion forum and what they would accept as the truth.

 

[_dmp_]

Ya know why a woman should EVER deserve to get Hit?

If she Nags too much.





No Christian can use the Bible to justify beating their wives. The Bible does NOT teach that -

What we gather from the Bible is, the BEST way to conduct a family is with the Man as the 'head' and the woman as the 'neck'

It's a simple truth...Whether or not ppl want to believe it.

 

[Spirit_Soul]

Originally posted by dmp
Ya know why a woman should EVER deserve to get Hit?

If she Nags too much.





No Christian can use the Bible to justify beating their wives. The Bible does NOT teach that -

What we gather from the Bible is, the BEST way to conduct a family is with the Man as the 'head' and the woman as the 'neck'

It's a simple truth...Whether or not ppl want to believe it.

Actually both Quran and Bible try to give women rights while maintaining their illusion of male superiority. Both systems of thought try to preserve the patriarchial way of life and think that it is the 'way' to salvation.:cof:

But they are fun to read, because then you can see how they used to think in the past...