@mld-woody said:

That would be some of the teachings in the Koran that radical Islam uses to justify their evilness. The same defense I have used in this thread about Christianity as a whole would apply to Islam as well. Not all Muslims believe or condone the radical version of Islam.

@oldbrownsfan said:

Actually I am not Woody. I have only condemned radical Islam. It is radical Islam we are at war with today. I am all for Muslims separating themselves from radical Islam. I separate Islam from radical Islam. All of good faith should condemn evil acts done in the name of their faith. The KKK comes to mind who try to claim being Christians but their actions are far from it.

I know others have made the claim on here, and I think you have too, that there is something with Islam that lends itself to the terrorism.

Based on your defense of Christianity in this thread though, we can apply the same thing to Islam.

@oldbrownsfan said:

But I don't make excuses for some of the bad things done in the name of Christianity

What do you mean? You claimed the Christians that committed the crusades weren't real Christians

@oldbrownsfan said:

But I don't make excuses for some of the bad things done in the name of Christianity. I condemn them the same as I condemn radical Islam. But I make the point the real problem today are not the bad things done hundreds of years ago but what are going on now in real time with radical Islam.

@clevfan4life said:

But I don't make excuses for some of the bad things done in the name of Christianity. I condemn them the same as I condemn radical Islam. But I make the point the real problem today are not the bad things done hundreds of years ago but things that are going on now in real time with radical Islam.

As for the Christian faith I would say sure you can find fault with the church and Christians (and those who say they they are Christians) but I would challenge you to read the gospels and try to find fault with Jesus. Sure we don't measure up many times but that is not the real important thing here. The really important issue is that He measures up even though we fail many times. None of us will go to heaven because of anything we have done, it's all because of what He did for us. The cliche saying Christians are not perfect but forgiven really is the truth.

@diehardbrownsfan said:

Nothing worse then an atheist who doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about.

Nothing worse than an old drunk on dialysis still drinking

@the-cysko-kid said:

Nothing worse then an atheist who doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about.

@osiris said:

I know your being facetious, but it's really no worse than claims that the universe was created in six days, really. In any case, I love dogs. I have a collie. Best dog ever.

People said he was brilliant for outspending them but at what cost? Rin paul talked about this too. If socialusm/communism is so doomed to failure, why didnt we let it take its natural course? Why did we put a time bomb in our monetary structure to defeat that which would imminently implode anyway?

This is no different behavior than modern day muslims getting up to bad behavior and not being critisized or censured by their contemporaries. Something you rail about constantly and in this very thread.

My life is now about searching for the "real god", and not through humans because they invariably lead you astray. And if i dont find it in this life ill find it the next.

@clevfan4life said:

You have a blind hatred of anything and anyone Christian. As I pointed out just because one claims to be a Christian doesn't necessarily make it so. As for conservatives getting into history books aren't you aware that most history books are written by liberals? And they like to re-write history plenty.

Call it history’s conservative curse.

According to a University of Miami study, those historical rankings of American presidents that pop up every year or so are significantly weighted in favor of Democrats, thanks to the liberal leanings of academia.

Political science professor Joseph E. Uscinski, one of the study’s authors, said the new analysis shows that the overwhelmingly liberal academic community consistently ranks Republican presidents about 10 spots lower than the public would.

“I don’t think anyone is surprised,” Mr. Uscinski told The Washington Times. “Among the political scientists and historians that I work with, Democrats outnumber Republicans 8 to 1.”

What was eye-opening, he said, was the stark difference between the historians’ assessments of Republicans and the grades given by the public.

“On average, all the Republicans get the short end of the stick,” he said. “But the one it impacts the most is [Ronald] Reagan. It’s often difficult for people to fathom why he’s ranked as low as he is"

Most historians readily concede that, politically, their colleagues lean left.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/24/republican-presidents-lag-in-historical-rankings/

@oldbrownsfan said:

Scary dark people! KKK!

I'm long over the obfuscated revisionist history presented to the young American generations about our role in so much of the worlds worst events. From the native Americans to the Middle East to South America.....I'd like the world in general but this country specifically, to not repeat those mistakes so we ought to learn about them. There's a reason why conservatives are so desperate to get into children's history books and start tearing pages out. Children need heroes like Christopher Columbus, excuse me while I barf....to learn about the untainted greatness of our past.

IT'S ALL BULLSHIT!!!

@mld-woody said:

Actually I am not Woody. I have only condemned radical Islam. It is radical Islam we are at war with today. I am all for Muslims separating themselves from radical Islam. I separate Islam from radical Islam. All of good faith should condemn evil acts done in the name of their faith. The KKK comes to mind who try to claim being Christians but their actions are far from it.

This sounds exactly like what the vast majority of Muslims say about the Muslim terrorists.

So if you can claim those Christians hundreds of years ago weren't real Christians, and they were interpreting the Bible wrong, why can't present day Muslims do the same? You're blaming the people when it's your religion but blaming the religion when it's someone else's.

@mld-woody said:

Here is one example of what you speak of and I highlighted the parts that answer your question. Jesus said there would be those who claimed to be His followers but were not and He said you could identify His followers by the fruit they produce. He brought out this point in a number of scriptures.

Question: "What were the Christian crusades?"

Answer: The crusades have provided some of the most frequent arguments against the Christian faith. Some Islamic terrorists even claim that their terrorist attacks are revenge for what Christians did in the crusades. So, what were the crusades and why are they viewed as such a big problem for the Christian faith?

First of all, the crusades should not be referred to as the “Christian crusades.” Most of the people involved in the crusades were not truly Christians, even though they claimed to be. The name of Christ was abused, misused, and blasphemed by the actions of many of the crusaders. Second, the crusades took place from approximately A.D. 1095 to 1230. Should the unbiblical actions of supposed Christians hundreds of years ago still be held against Christians today?

Third, not that this is an adequate excuse, but Christianity is not the only religion with a violent past. In actuality, the crusades were responses to Muslim invasions on what was once land occupied primarily by Christians. From approximately A.D. 200 to 900, the land of Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and Turkey was inhabited primarily by Christians. Once Islam became powerful, Muslims invaded these lands and brutally oppressed, enslaved, deported, and even murdered the Christians living in those lands. In response, the Roman Catholic Church and “Christian” kings/emperors from Europe ordered the crusades to reclaim the land the Muslims had taken. The actions that many so-called Christians took in the crusades were still deplorable. There is no biblical justification for conquering lands, murdering civilians, and destroying cities in the name of Jesus Christ. At the same time, Islam is not a religion that can speak from a position of innocence in these matters.

To summarize briefly, the crusades were attempts in the 11th through 13th centuries A.D. to reclaim land in the Middle East that had been conquered by Muslims. The crusades were brutal and evil. Many people were forced to “convert” to Christianity. If they refused, they were put to death. The idea of conquering a land through war and violence in the name of Christ is completely unbiblical. Many of the actions that took place in the crusades were completely antithetical to everything the Christian faith stands for.

How can we respond when, as a result of the crusades, the Christian faith is attacked by atheists, agnostics, skeptics, and those of other religions? We can respond in the following ways: 1) Do you want to be held accountable for the actions of people who lived 900+ years ago? 2) Do you want to be held accountable for the actions of everyone who claims to represent your faith? Trying to blame all of Christianity for the crusades is analogous to blaming all Muslims for Islamic terrorism.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-crusades.html

No offense

@oldbrownsfan said:

I think relationship teaching within Christianity. Real Christianity has always been about relationship and not just following religious rules. Jesus said you must be born again and there are many who call themselves Christians who are not born again and who have nothing more than a religion and are just following religious rules. When Jesus said you must be born again I don't see that as being optional in our Christian faith.

So those Christians hundreds of years ago weren't real Christians?

@calfoxwc said:

Christians don't excuse terrorism, either overtly, or covertly.

Too many Muslims do.

if the criminals want to ignore the New Testament, that is their stupid choice and they pay the

consequences for their crimes.

The Koran doesn't have a new koran.

therein apparently lays the problem.

Sure they do, in shitty places like Africa and South America and Mexico.

Nope. We're done with prophets.

Too many Muslims do.

if the criminals want to ignore the New Testament, that is their stupid choice and they pay the

consequences for their crimes.

The Koran doesn't have a new koran.

therein apparently lays the problem.

@osiris said:

I don't agree with your point because I would have no problem in singling out 'radical Christianity' if they were doing the things radical Islam was doing. I would want to show the separation, that they were not speaking or representative of my faith.

@oldbrownsfan said:

We shouldn't even call them "Islamic" anything. The implication when you call them "Islamic" is that you aren't distinguishing between them and everyone else. Try to see it from a moderate-Muslim's point of view, who is eager to ally with anyone who would fight these people but fear the ally will just turn on them because the ally can't tell the difference.

So the appropriate response is to build trust between moderate Muslims and those who agree that extremists should be eliminated so we can fight them together. Calling the extremists "Islamic radicals" is counterproductive to that goal. This is why I asked you before how do you feel about the term "radical Christianity." I thought it might help you understand this position.