Welcome to Gaia! ::

Reply The Pro-life Guild
Pro life and religiousness Goto Page: [] [<] 1 2 3 4 [>] [»|]

Quick Reply

Enter both words below, separated by a space:

Can't read the text? Click here

Submit

I.Am
Captain

Quotable Tycoon

7,825 Points
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Signature Look 250
  • Forum Regular 100
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:43 pm


divineseraph
i wish the people of the religions could pull it together and realize that they are the same religion.

i'm sure that islam=christianity=judaism, and have some small evidence that polytheism could fit there as well
They aren't the same religion. confused It's almost insulting that you think they are, as it shows a serious lack of knowledge about them.
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:21 pm


they worship the same god, have the same prophets and follow the same rules.

again, allow me to remind you that Allah is not a name, but a position or title meaning "one god". they believe in the same yhwh we do. muslims believe in jesus as a prophet. true muslims are as anti-violence as true christians. jihad is supposed to be spiritual strenghtening, but is perverted to mean spiritual strenghtening by killing people.

it is like a trilogy- the jews were "a new hope", christians were "the empire strikes back" and islam is "return of the jedi"- 3 different videos, yes, but all continuations of the same story.

divineseraph


andyz cool

PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 4:23 pm


If Islam is truly a non violent religion, and they are actually on the same team as the Christians, then why was the first thing that happened after Mohammad united the waring tribes in the middle east was their unified attack on Constantinople? (the then Christian epicenter of the world?)


Sorry if this offends people, but these are direct quotes for the Koran:

Quote:
Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve (Koran 8:55)

And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah (Koran 8:39)

FIGHT THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN ALLAH, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, NOR FOLLOW THE RELIGION OF TRUTH, OUT OF THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE BOOK [Christians and Jews], until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and THEY ARE IN A STATE OF SUBJECTION. (Koran 9:29, Emphasis added.)


This is a direct contradiction with the teachings of Christ, not some sort of continuation.

Also, Hebrew phonetic word Allah (aw-law) means to lament, mourn and curse. (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance #421, 422, 423)
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 4:48 pm


and did not christians do their own to extreminate the non-believerrs? crusades, witch-burnings?

and mohammed was a prophet, yes. but this does not make him a god. He was human and human alone, and may have confused God's message.

those who disbelieve are vile? and there will be gnashing of teeth, too, i suppose.

there are many confusing, hypocritical or misleading things in all holy books.

divineseraph


andyz cool

PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 5:10 pm


*sigh* how did i know you were gonna play the 'crusades' card?

Quote:
A Deadly Give and Take
Crusaders fought many terrible battles in the Middle East, but Muslims started—and won—the war.
by Paul Crawford, assistant professor of history at Alma College in Alma, Michigan. He specializes in ecclesiastical history with emphasis on the crusades and military orders.


Jerusalem has changed hands many times over the centuries, but the seventh century was particularly tumultuous. Pagan Persians stormed the city in 614. Eastern Christians, led by Byzantine Emperor Heraclius, reclaimed it by 630. Within a few years, though, Islamic forces had broken the Byzantine military and chased them out of Palestine.

Jerusalem surrendered to a Muslim army in 638. Construction began soon afterward on a mosque at the Temple Mount. Sophronicus, the patriarch of the city, is said to have burst into tears and wailed, "Truly this is the Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel the Prophet!"

After capturing Jerusalem, the Muslim armies poured through the eastern and southern provinces of the reeling Byzantine Empire. In the 640s Armenia in the north and Egypt in the south fell to Islam. In 655 the Muslims won a naval battle with the Byzantines and very nearly captured the Byzantine emperor.

By 711 Muslims controlled all of northern Africa, and a Muslim commander named Tariq had set foot on European soil—on a rock that took his name (Jebel al-Tariq, corrupted into Gibraltar). By 712 Muslims had penetrated deep into Christian Spain. At the battle of Toledo that year, they defeated the Spanish and killed their king. The Spanish kingdom promptly collapsed.

Surviving Christians retreated into the mountains of northwestern Spain and dug in their defenses. The Muslim armies bypassed them and began raiding across the Pyrenees into France.

Meanwhile, in the East, Muslims continued to push into the Byzantine Empire. By 717 they had landed in southeastern Europe, and they besieged the Byzantine capital, Constantinople. Had they taken the city, they might have conquered the entire continent. But the Byzantines resisted. Their capital would not fall to Islam until 1453.

Western Christians stopped the Muslim advance into their territory in 732 at the Battle of Tours (or Poitiers), France. Charles of Heristal, Charlemagne's grandfather, led a Frankish army against a large Muslim raiding party and defeated them, though Muslim raiders would continue attacking Frankish territory for decades. For his victory, Charles became known as the Hammer—in French, Charles Martel.

After regrouping, Muslim forces began to move into south central Europe, lauching invasions of Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica in the ninth century. They mounted operations on the Italian mainland as well, sometimes at the invitation of quarrelling Christian powers.

In 846 Muslim raiders attacked the outlying areas of Rome, the center of western Christianity. This act would be comparable to Christians sacking Mecca or Medina, something they have never done.

Toward the end of the ninth century, Muslim pirate havens were established along the coast of southern France and northern Italy. These pirates threatened commerce, communication, and pilgrim traffic for a hundred years or more.

During the tenth century, however, the tide began to turn. In the East in the 950s and 960s, the Byzantines mounted a series of counterattacks. They eventually recovered the islands of Crete and Cyprus and a good bit of territory in Asia Minor and northern Syria, including Antioch. They lacked the strength to retake Jerusalem, though they might have struggled harder had they known what terrors the city would soon face.

New threats
In 1000, much—perhaps even most—of the population of the Holy Land was still Christian, of one affiliation or another. This was about to change.

One reason was the rise of a local Muslim ruler named Hakim, who was possibly insane and certainly not an orthodox Muslim (he claimed to be divine). Hakim persecuted Christians and Jews fiercely. In 1009 he ordered the destruction of the rebuilt Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. The Christian population of the Holy Land began to shrink under his tyrannical rule.

Hakim aroused great hostility even from other Muslims, and his reign was soon over. The Byzantines, distressed by the damage to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, negotiated with the Muslims and in 1038 were allowed to begin rebuilding it again. But the losses to the local Christian (and Jewish) communities were harder to repair.

Another, and perhaps more serious, cause of distress for the local populations of all faiths was the intrusion into the Middle East of the Seljuk Turks. The Seljuks, pagan nomads from the steppes of central Asia, made steady inroads into the more sophisticated world of the Muslim Arabs in the early eleventh century.

In 1055, the Seljuks captured Baghdad, destroying a long-lived Muslim dynasty and seriously disrupting the stability of the Middle East. This might have provided an opportunity for the Christian Byzantines to recover their lost provinces, but even as the Seljuk Turks conquered the Arabs, they converted to Islam. The Muslim Arab overlords of the region were thus replaced by harsher, coarser Muslim Turks.

Pleas from the East
In 1071 Byzantine Emperor Romanus Diogenes confronted a Turkish invasion force in the far eastern provinces of the Byzantine Empire. The two armies met at the village of Manzikert, near Lake Van, and the Byzantines were utterly defeated. As a result of this disaster, the Byzantines lost all the territory that they had recovered, painstakingly, in the ninth and tenth centuries. This included the entirety of Asia Minor, the breadbasket and recruiting ground of the empire.

Succeeding Byzantine emperors sent frantic calls to the West for aid, directing them primarily at the popes, who were generally seen as protectors of Western Christendom. Pope Gregory VII received these appeals first, and in 1074 he discussed leading a relief expedition to Byzantium himself. But this proved impractical, and no aid was offered. The Byzantines continued sending appeals, however, eventually finding an audience with Pope Urban II.

In the meantime, Turkish invasions continued to affect the Holy Land. Jerusalem, which was held by the Shi'ite Fatimid dynasty of Egypt, was captured by the Seljuk Turks in 1071. The Turks, suspecting (rightly or wrongly) that the local Christian population might prefer their former Fatimid rulers to the new overlords, persecuted them. In 1091, Turks drove out the Christian priests.

The Fatimids, meanwhile, bided their time. When the moment was right, they seized the city again—in 1098, just one year before the First Crusade would arrive to recapture it.

In 1095, the West finally responded to the plight of Eastern Christians by mounting the First Crusade. In 1099, crusaders stormed Jerusalem. Like the capture of Jerusalem by the Persians in 614, but unlike the negotiated surrender to the Muslims in 638, this attack ended in a bloody massacre of the city's inhabitants. "Heaps of heads and hands and feet were to be seen throughout the streets and squares of the city," a medieval historian wrote.

A Christian kingdom controlled much of the Holy Land until 1291, when the Muslims once again conquered the area. But the crusades themselves were military failures. Whatever battles Christians could claim, Muslims would win the war.

Islam strikes back
The recapture of Jerusalem by Christian forces in 1099 did not, at first, draw much notice from the Muslim world. A few poets wrote laments on its capture. Abu l-Muzaffar al-Abiwardi, an Iraqi poet, called for a response:

Sons of Islam, behind you are battles in which heads rolled at your feet.

Dare you slumber in the blessed shade of safety, where life is as soft as an orchard flower?…

This is war, and the man who shuns the whirlpool to save his life shall grind his teeth in penitence.

The titular supreme ruler of the Islamic world, the caliph of Baghdad, also issued a statement of regret. But in general, local Muslim rulers adapted to the presence of the Christian rulers of the crusader states just as they had adapted to the intrusion of the Turks: here were new players on the stage of the Middle East.

Before long, that began to change. A series of Muslim rulers, including Zengi, Nur al-Din, and the famous Saladin, fought to reunite the fractured parts of the Islamic Middle East. These leaders initiated a jihad, a counter-crusade against the Christians of Jerusalem and the surrounding regions. A desire to reconquer the city figured more and more notably in Muslim writings.

By the end of the twelfth century, Saladin had reconquered Jerusalem more or less permanently. The entire Holy Land was back under Islamic control by 1291.

Christians repeatedly tried to launch crusades to drive back the renewed Muslim assault, but these attempts all failed. Crusading was too difficult, dangerous, and costly. Besides, the growing kingdoms of Europe were more interested in their own affairs than they were in the fate of Jerusalem or of Eastern Christians.

Europe under siege
By the fourteenth century, a new Muslim force had appeared in Asia Minor: the Ottoman Turks. Brought into southern Europe by one side in a Byzantine civil war, the Ottomans quickly established a base from which to expand.

Christian Balkan powers began to fall before the Ottoman advance. Christian leaders like Prince Lazar of Serbia, John Hunyadi of Hungary, and the Albanian guerilla commander Skanderbeg put up a heroic resistance, but in vain. The drumbeat of Muslim advance had resumed.

Lazar was defeated and killed in the first battle of Kosovo in 1389. Bulgaria was overrun in 1393. John Hunyadi was defeated in 1448 at the second battle of Kosovo while trying to mount a campaign to save the beleaguered Byzantines, who by now were virtual prisoners inside their capital city of Constantinople.

Constantinople was sacked in May 1453. The last Byzantine emperor, Constantine XI, died in desperate fighting around the gates of the city.

No more Christian services were conducted in the cathedral—Hagia Sophia, like most of the other churches of Constantinople, was converted into a mosque.

Over the next 200 years, European strength grew to match, then exceed, Islamic power. European states also began to claim colonies around the globe. Muslims lost their grip on land-based Asian trade and never developed the naval technology to keep pace with Europeans at sea.

In 1683, the Ottomans launched a final attack on Europe, staging their second siege of Vienna (the first took place in 1529). Once again, the city seemed on the verge of falling. It was saved by what may have been the last true crusade.

A Polish force, led by Jan Sobieski, caught the Turks by surprise and relieved the siege. Sobieski also, it is said, brought coffee and croissants onto Western tables when he discovered the Turks' uneaten breakfasts in their tents.

Muslims made no more serious attempts to take the city, or any other territory in Europe. The Muslim world was slipping into a long period of decline from which it is only now emerging.

Crusades reconsidered
Though some Christians decried the crusades while they were happening (see page 2 cool and soon afterward (see page 31), anguish over this episode in history dates primarily from more recent years. In the early 1950s, at the end of his sweeping three-volume history of the crusades, Sir Steven Runciman put it this way: "The Crusades were a tragic and destructive episode. The Holy War itself was nothing more than a long act of intolerance in the name of God, which is the sin against the Holy Ghost."

Muslims, too, have lately taken a darker view of the crusade era. Until relatively recently, they saw the battles as episodes in the long contest between Islam and Christianity—a contest initiated by Islam. Now, statements like this, from Lebanese journalist Abin Maalouf in the 1980s, are more common: "[T]here can be no doubt that the schism between these two worlds [of Islam and Christianity] dates from the crusades, deeply felt by the Arabs, even today, as an act of rape."

In the late 1990s, an American child led a "Reconciliation Walk" across Europe and the Middle East, distributing hugs, apologies, and a written statement, saying, "We deeply regret the atrocities committed in the name of Christ by our predecessors" to the bemused Muslims he and his companions met along the way.

The child's activities fit into a larger pattern of Western amnesia about the conflict between Islam and Christianity, and of fashionable Western self-loathing. Muslims have offered no apologies. Some Muslim leaders still call the faithful to counter-crusade today, viewing themselves as continuing the tradition of Muslim conquest of Christian lands (though many of those lands have ceased to be Christian in any meaningful way). Muslims in general seem to have accepted the Christians' self-description as unjust aggressors.

But if Christians are allowed to wage war when attacked, and if Christians believe that their religion has a right to exist outside the sphere of Islamic law, perhaps modern Christians should take a second look at the crusades and their historical context, in which Christianity was under near-constant pressure from the Islamic world from the seventh century to the seventeenth.

Paul Crawford is assistant professor of history at Alma College in Alma, Michigan. He specializes in ecclesiastical history with emphasis on the crusades and military orders.


You probably don't want to read all that, but I'll make it very easy to understand: Christian armies never fought for land that wasn't originally theirs.
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 5:19 pm


even that says that those were unorthadox muslims.

and even if mohammed was a bit twisted, that is simple to explain. he was human, he saw an angel who told him that God was still kicking and out there. Mohammed took this as "and kill everyone who is different" or wanted to hear that. is this not a possibility? remember, though mohammed was a prophet, that does not make him perfect and does not free him from misinterpretation.

edit- either way, it is the same abrahamic God YHWH, no matter how they interpret His actions or will.

divineseraph


King Seth

PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 5:19 pm


I.Am
Seriously Seth; It really bothers me when people insist upon calling religious people idiots or sheep or slaves. I have no problem with you being an atheist, why must you bash me for being Catholic?




Mocking the person who was saying atheism would lead to a total breakdown in morality.

Come on man, you know I have no problem with religion. I might not like it, but I hardly attack it every chance i get.
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 5:24 pm


Aufstandkind
^^^

YIKES.

I understand your vehemence--living outside of religion looking in, stuff seems far more dire than it possibly is. However, not all religious folk are quite like that. Basically, please be careful what you say: religious people won't like us any more if we insult them all. We have enough trouble fighting for rights as is.

Athiests, homosexuals, minorities, and people of non-Judeo-Christian faiths are having a rough time right now. It's easy to end up hating the ones in charge. Remember though: it's ******** up enough as it is. Fighting wins rights, but arguing with logic and calm wins support.


Ah, panic not. I accept nearly everything without question. People can choose to believe what they wish, I have no problem with that.

My atheism is in itself a leap of faith, I base it on my own logic, just as a religious person will base their belief of theirs. Both of us are right, them perhaps even more so because they have something that helps to make the world make sense.

King Seth


andyz cool

PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 5:25 pm


divineseraph
even that says that those were unorthadox muslims.

and even if mohammed was a bit twisted, that is simple to explain. he was human, he saw an angel who told him that God was still kicking and out there. Mohammed took this as "and kill everyone who is different" or wanted to hear that. is this not a possibility? remember, though mohammed was a prophet, that does not make him perfect and does not free him from misinterpretation.

edit- either way, it is the same abrahamic God YHWH, no matter how they interpret His actions or will.


Uh, no... That section you're talking about is in reference to one general in charge of Jerusalem. The Islamic conquests were done by mainstream Islam, and the crusades were merely an attempt to take back the land the Christians originally lost.

And actually, according to the Old Testament, prophets WERE supposed to be perfect. If a prophet, or someone claiming to be one, were to ever dictate something that contrasted with the law, or were to have one of his prophecies proven false, the religious leaders were to execute them. If they did indeed serve the same God, then he would have to meet these qualifications. Just about anybody can claim to have a word or a vision from God remember. Just because it caught on doesn't mean it was legitimate.
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 5:31 pm


but why CAN'T it be? if one is true, why not the others? and they still believe in the same God.

and mainstream? the crusades, again, were mainstream. witch burning was mainstream. slavery was mainstream. and all religions took part in all of those, they all had massive religious and political wars, they all persecuted those who were different, they all took slaves.

again, they are equal in my eyes. they are equal, and since they all lead back to the same God, i see them as the same thing, though very different branches. like how humans, chimps and apes are all primates, though by no means the same animal.

divineseraph


Dread Dionaea

PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 5:33 pm


MiNdCaNdY
Words on Muslim versus Christian historical agression.


Clear me up on this. Aren't the Sunnis and Shiites incredibly different when it comes to violent acts? I thought it was just one of the Muslim paths perpetrating all of the aggression.

Also important is the religious affiliation of the historian writing the articles. Sad to say, but everyone is biased and will spin to their views. The best thing to do is read up from differently-minded sources and make up your own mind.

King Seth
Ah, panic not. I accept nearly everything without question. People can choose to believe what they wish, I have no problem with that.

My atheism is in itself a leap of faith, I base it on my own logic, just as a religious person will base their belief of theirs. Both of us are right, them perhaps even more so because they have something that helps to make the world make sense.


Sorry, I've been getting more and more annoyed with militant atheism lately. The recent panel on CNN determining "atheists should just shut up" was certainly more about Christian perceptions of us, but it doesn't help that the most vocal tend to be the angriest. Not to mention Dawkins' undeniable arrogance. I love his ideas, hate his methods.
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 9:30 pm


divineseraph
they worship the same god, have the same prophets and follow the same rules.

again, allow me to remind you that Allah is not a name, but a position or title meaning "one god". they believe in the same yhwh we do. muslims believe in jesus as a prophet. true muslims are as anti-violence as true christians. jihad is supposed to be spiritual strenghtening, but is perverted to mean spiritual strenghtening by killing people.

it is like a trilogy- the jews were "a new hope", christians were "the empire strikes back" and islam is "return of the jedi"- 3 different videos, yes, but all continuations of the same story.
Why are you looking at this as me attacking Muslims? I didn't say any of that stuff. I know that Allah is the same as God, there is no difference. I know that they believe in Jesus, but not the same Jesus. They do not believe he was the Christ and that is a -key difference.-

The problem is, I don't have to believe a religion is bad to believe it is different. White bread and wheat bread are both breads, and they are both fine breads, but that does not make them the same thing.

I.Am
Captain

Quotable Tycoon

7,825 Points
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Signature Look 250
  • Forum Regular 100

I.Am
Captain

Quotable Tycoon

7,825 Points
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Signature Look 250
  • Forum Regular 100
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 9:48 pm


divineseraph
but why CAN'T it be? if one is true, why not the others? and they still believe in the same God.
You're contradicting yourself. First you say that Muhammad just got a little offtrack, now you're saying that what he prophesied is true.

And one reason they can't all be true even though they believe in the same God, is that what they say is contradictory. Muhammad says to "kill the infidels," Jesus says to love your neighbor as yourself and be kind to your enemy. You can't say both are true, because they are opposites.

Also, in the broad meaning of what Mindcandy said ("Just about anybody can claim to have a word or vision from God"), there are killers who claim that God told them to kill. Do you really think those should be considered true and legitimate? Just because they claim God told them to do something doesn't mean it should be considered true.

Quote:
and mainstream? the crusades, again, were mainstream. witch burning was mainstream. slavery was mainstream. and all religions took part in all of those, they all had massive religious and political wars, they all persecuted those who were different, they all took slaves.
I don't even know what your argument is. He said that the Crusades were perpetrated by mainstream Islam, which, since the conquests were bad, is a bad thing. Meaning that this mainstream is a bad thing. Just like the crusades, witch burning, etc. Soooo... What is your point?

Quote:
again, they are equal in my eyes. they are equal, and since they all lead back to the same God, i see them as the same thing, though very different branches. like how humans, chimps and apes are all primates, though by no means the same animal.
But... Buh... Gah!!!! You said in your first post that you wanted religions to come together, because, really, "they are the same religion," (Direct cut and paste) now you are saying that you acknowledge them as different?

Please, pick one.
PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:06 am


i see that they are different branches, but i see the more important conection of the God they worship. so, they should come together in the name of their one God that they all worship in different ways and stop hating eachother over THAT, at least.

and to muslims, christiand and jews get in to heaven. a pair of imps question you when yu die, and if you say that you are any abrahamic, monotheistic religion you're in. they shouldn't hate us because they come from us, like christians shouldn't hate jews because we WERE jews. Mohammed was christian.

divineseraph


andyz cool

PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:06 am


Um, they can't both be true because they contradict eachother, as i've shown, and they do NOT serve the same God, as i've shown (YHWH in hebrew is COMPLETELY different from alah)

The difference is those who did evil things in the name of God did them OUTSIDE of his will and in contradiction with scripture. Again, it's like those people who bomb abortion clinics. They can stamp the word God on what they do, but the truth of it is they are in complete contradiction with scripture. ANYBODY can say they have a word from God, but it has to live up to the rest of what God said and did to be true.
Reply
The Pro-life Guild

Goto Page: [] [<] 1 2 3 4 [>] [»|]
 
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
//
//

// //

Have an account? Login Now!

//
//