Islamic State uses Quran to justify child rape

[Votto]

It is even more clear after reading these posts that all religion invites stupidity and until removed from society always will encourage the worst in people.

I disagree. Followers of Jesus have a wonderful role model to follow. He never picked up a sword, never ran for political office, never did anything other than heal people, forgive people, and turn the other cheek while telling them to love their enemies.

I know that Christians have gotten bad press since the days Constantine hijacked the religion, but just remember, Constantine was not even a Christian. The reason he latched onto the religion was for political reasons. He saw that it was a faith that had grown for hundreds of years despite continual persecution, so the more Christians Nero threw to the lions the more seemed to convert.

Then came the Catholic church and the subversion of the faith along with the Inquisitions and Crusades. It took many years till the days of Martin Luther to begin to reform the religion.. Conversely, Islam has always been a religion of statists. From day one Islam sought to conquer with the sword, as where Jesus taught that his kingdom was not of this world, and even rebuked his disciple from picking up a sword to defend him as they came to take him to the cross.

So the difference between the two religions is like night and day. It is the difference between a psychopathic power hungry murderer who took slaves and was a pedophile or Jesus, the man whom all religions try to embrace, including Islam.

I dissagree. "He never picked up a sword"

When the servant for the Jewish Preist came downstairs and into the courtyard to inquire the whereabouts of Jesus, Peter, whom Jesus said was the Messiah, took HIS sword from the scaboard and cut off the earlobe of the servant as a message to back off from the persecution of Jesus. It is clear from that passage that Jesus's closest followers and quite likely Jesus himself were frequently ARMED!

That was a time when wild animals still roam the area outside of the walled city. Weapons were necessary when sleeping outside.

I agree. I just don't buy the vision that if there was a Jesus that he was this goody two shoes that walked around sporting a golden halo and pooped candy canes and marshmellows. If anything Jesus seemed to be confrontational at the end.

Make no mistake, Jesus was not a pacifist. After all, he took out a whip and drove out the money changers in the temple.

The difference between Jesus and Mo is the fight. Jesus drove the moneychangers out of the temple because his focus was the kingdom of God. Mo drove out people in his kingdom because he was focused on creating a worldly kingdom for God. Jesus would have told Mo that his kingdom was of this world as where the kingdom of Jesus was not of this world.

 

[Votto]

It is even more clear after reading these posts that all religion invites stupidity and until removed from society always will encourage the worst in people.

I disagree. Followers of Jesus have a wonderful role model to follow. He never picked up a sword, never ran for political office, never did anything other than heal people, forgive people, and turn the other cheek while telling them to love their enemies.

I know that Christians have gotten bad press since the days Constantine hijacked the religion, but just remember, Constantine was not even a Christian. The reason he latched onto the religion was for political reasons. He saw that it was a faith that had grown for hundreds of years despite continual persecution, so the more Christians Nero threw to the lions the more seemed to convert.

Then came the Catholic church and the subversion of the faith along with the Inquisitions and Crusades. It took many years till the days of Martin Luther to begin to reform the religion.. Conversely, Islam has always been a religion of statists. From day one Islam sought to conquer with the sword, as where Jesus taught that his kingdom was not of this world, and even rebuked his disciple from picking up a sword to defend him as they came to take him to the cross.

So the difference between the two religions is like night and day. It is the difference between a psychopathic power hungry murderer who took slaves and was a pedophile or Jesus, the man whom all religions try to embrace, including Islam.

I dissagree. "He never picked up a sword"

When the servant for the Jewish Preist came downstairs and into the courtyard to inquire the whereabouts of Jesus, Peter, whom Jesus said was the Messiah, took HIS sword from the scaboard and cut off the earlobe of the servant as a message to back off from the persecution of Jesus. It is clear from that passage that Jesus's closest followers and quite likely Jesus himself were frequently ARMED!

That was a time when wild animals still roam the area outside of the walled city. Weapons were necessary when sleeping outside.

I agree. I just don't buy the vision that if there was a Jesus that he was this goody two shoes that walked around sporting a golden halo and pooped candy canes and marshmellows. If anything Jesus seemed to be confrontational at the end.

His actions were intended to make the romans react. He was the match in a sea of dry grass.
The carrying of weapons would have been normal and necessary out side the city. His actions in the city were provocative though.

Jesus was provocative to his very core. He once said that the violent takes it by force.

So what violence? He confronted the religious leaders of his day and essentially called them a bunch of lying hypocritical asps, which essentially is what they were. That will get attention.

He intentionally provoked them into killing him, that seems pretty violent to me.

It's like the tactics of Ghandi. He did not raise a sword but orchestrated strikes. He essentially brought the UK to it's knees economically. That is rather violent as well.

As we see with Jesus and Ghandi, both accomplished their goals without raising a sword. Jesus created a religious movement, which he called the kingdom of God, and Ghandi achieved independence for India. Most agree Ghandi studied the tactics of Jesus. What can you say, they work.......a little to well.

The tactics I speak of is to take the higher moral ground and refuse to lower your own moral code to that of your adversary. If you refuse to compromise your moral superiority, the very weight of that moral superiority will crush your adversary.

That is why Ghandi would go on hunger strikes to prevent his followers from killing.

MLK also took these tactics to heart. He refused to kill, steal, loot, etc. while promoting civil rights for blacks. The weight of his morally superior position crushed his opponents. Isn't it ironic that MLK was murdered as well?

 

[Votto]

I disagree. Followers of Jesus have a wonderful role model to follow. He never picked up a sword, never ran for political office, never did anything other than heal people, forgive people, and turn the other cheek while telling them to love their enemies.

I know that Christians have gotten bad press since the days Constantine hijacked the religion, but just remember, Constantine was not even a Christian. The reason he latched onto the religion was for political reasons. He saw that it was a faith that had grown for hundreds of years despite continual persecution, so the more Christians Nero threw to the lions the more seemed to convert.

Then came the Catholic church and the subversion of the faith along with the Inquisitions and Crusades. It took many years till the days of Martin Luther to begin to reform the religion.. Conversely, Islam has always been a religion of statists. From day one Islam sought to conquer with the sword, as where Jesus taught that his kingdom was not of this world, and even rebuked his disciple from picking up a sword to defend him as they came to take him to the cross.

So the difference between the two religions is like night and day. It is the difference between a psychopathic power hungry murderer who took slaves and was a pedophile or Jesus, the man whom all religions try to embrace, including Islam.

I dissagree. "He never picked up a sword"

When the servant for the Jewish Preist came downstairs and into the courtyard to inquire the whereabouts of Jesus, Peter, whom Jesus said was the Messiah, took HIS sword from the scaboard and cut off the earlobe of the servant as a message to back off from the persecution of Jesus. It is clear from that passage that Jesus's closest followers and quite likely Jesus himself were frequently ARMED!

That was a time when wild animals still roam the area outside of the walled city. Weapons were necessary when sleeping outside.

I agree. I just don't buy the vision that if there was a Jesus that he was this goody two shoes that walked around sporting a golden halo and pooped candy canes and marshmellows. If anything Jesus seemed to be confrontational at the end.

His actions were intended to make the romans react. He was the match in a sea of dry grass.
The carrying of weapons would have been normal and necessary out side the city. His actions in the city were provocative though.

Jesus was provocative to his very core. He once said that the violent takes it by force.

So what violence? He confronted the religious leaders of his day and essentially called them a bunch of lying hypocritical asps, which essentially is what they were. That will get attention.

He intentionally provoked them into killing him, that seems pretty violent to me.

It's like the tactics of Ghandi. He did not raise a sword but orchestrated strikes. He essentially brought the UK to it's knees economically. That is rather violent as well.

As we see with Jesus and Ghandi, both accomplished their goals without raising a sword. Jesus created a religious movement, which he called the kingdom of God, and Ghandi achieved independence for India. Most agree Ghandi studied the tactics of Jesus. What can you say, they work.......a little to well.

Basically the tactic is to take the higher moral road and refuse to lower yourself to the lower moral road of your adversary, even if it costs you your life.

In the end, your morally superior position will crush them.