All sodomites go to the hell!

[Al-Meksiki]

Christianity was initially spread by peace by apostoles and early Christians, going from one door to another preaching. It matters none what others later did in the name of Christianity. On the other hand your subhuman warlord waged wars from day one. ISIS are true Muslims and European figures who spread Christianity with violence were not real Christians. It is as simple as that.

Wrong, they are the only true christians

[Insuperable]

If you want Christian terrorist groups more akin to modern Islamist extremists, there's the Lord's Resistance Army, basically Christian ISIS, who operate in The Central African Republic, Uganda, and the Congo. They engage is mass killings, destruction of homes, abduction of children for child soldiers, abduction of women for sex slaves, mutilation of their prisoners (in addition to beheading them, they also do things such as cutting the noses, lips, and eyelids of suspected enemy agents, and will pour acid on women who refuse to be used as slaves). Their ultimate goal is to establish a Christian Theocracy in Africa. As well, there is the Anti-Balaka, christian militants that have been massacring muslim and pagan civilians in the Central African Republic

Christian 'ISIS' is just a group doing wrong things in the name of Christianity. Pisslamic ISIS just follow the life of their subhuman prophet. That is a big difference.

As far as I'm concerned, given what ive read in the New Testament, groups like the LRA and Anti-Balaka are the only correct christians, the same christianity professed by Charlemagne, Isabella, Olaf of Norway, and many other great Christian leaders before the humanist movement.

When you compare the life of Jesus and the New Testament (you with the rest of Muslimes may see it as corrupt, that is your view) and then compare life of Muhammad and Pisslamic Quran and Sahih it is quite evident what people should have followed and what people should follow. To claim what you claim one has to lack a brain like most Muslimes do or be really insincere and/or butthurt.

Wrong, they are the only true christians

Mere words can't change reality. The reality is that they are the opposite of what christians should be while ISIS is a true Muhammedian organization imitating the life of Muhammad.

[al-Bosni]

Wota fuq, the Prophet was not waging war from day 1. He did not wage war at the beginning of Islam when Muslims were weak. For example, the people of taif told their children to throw stones at the Prophet until he would start bleeding. And an angel asked him if he should bring to two mountains together and crush these people. But the Prophet said no because they might become Muslims.

In early Islam, the command was not to fight, rather it was to forgive.

Allah says:

"So turn aside from them and say, "Peace." But they are going to know."

[Quran 43: 89]


Muslims were weak at first, just as the Christians were always weak during the time of Jesus. The Christians feared for their lives. They had to preach the gospel in secret or else they would be executed. Just as when Muslims were weak, they were oppressed by the pagans in Mecca. But the Muslims on the other hand eventually gained strength and were able to conquer the whole Arabian Peninsula. Christians never gained that strength, they were always weak in numbers during the lifetime of Jesus.

[Dandelion]

Common knowledge about Islam. Muhammad waited out until it was time and used a peaceful rationale until he became influential enough to forge a casus belli for an aggressive war. This speaks against Islam to me rather than for, though.

I wrote before Islam was violent from the start. I meant of course from the first generation of muslims. Everyone with the most basic knowledge knows about the verses from before the Hijrah versus those from after the Hijrah and how they differ in tone.

It seems to me that 'Jesus as violent' to be forgery though. No argument to back that. I have to agree with Wota Fuq here. Only reason I don't thumb him up is because of his colourful language.

The pacifist interpretation of Christianity is as old as of the first century AD even, but they lacked power also after Jesus' crucifixion admittedly. Just like with Muhammad, Christian leaders like Constantine and Charlemagne employed simple politics when they dropped the pacifism. But who knows how that was in line with Jesus' teachings. You can't forge added ideas about it just because you follow a religion that's messed up yourself. At least you admit it's bad. Now to take the next step.

[Stannis]

This is the Old Testament. It is not intended for Christians to follow.

Deceptive kind of thinking. When Jesus and apostoles were teaching about Kingdom of God they
didn't have such books like Gospel or Letters of Paul. They took Old Testament to hand and go
to teach people based on this book. So NT is based on OT whole.

The Old Testament was for Jews and Jews only to uphold for a limited time (until the Christ).

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from
the law, till all be fulfilled.

If I fulfilled rules of the road, it means that I don't have to obey it anymore?

All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof,
for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly
furnished unto all good works.

But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should
afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ,
that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

If am not under care of schoolmaster, it means that I should forget everything,
what he taught me for all the years?

We - as Christians - aren't under Mosaic Law, but we cannot say,
that it is a junk and we shouldn't use it to teaching about will of Jehovah.

Mark 7 is a more complete version.

This passage says clearly:

For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother:
and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

If you cannot read with understanding, it is not my problem...

You were saying that homos should be put to death, sinners and so on.

Just as I thought... You cannot read with understanding.
And you want to take for interpreting the Bible...


He said, that he had written nowhere:

"Christians should go,
and kill unbelivers, just, becasue they are unbelivers

And I agree with them.
Fags, murderers, pedophiles, rapists, witchs should be put to death,
because their degeneration, not because of that they are unbelivers.

Obviously that goes against what Jesus taught.

In that case show, where Jesus condemned a death penalty and
said that it is an evil. I expect a concrete verse, which says that
capital punishment was annulled by Jesus.

[Rethel]

Christian leaders like Constantine and Charlemagne employed simple politics when they dropped the pacifism.

Even in that case, war was a tool of politics, not faith. Faith follow just
results of politics. There always was separation between church and state.
And in addition, it is very hard to you religion to political goals, not to be
condemned by the text. When Roman Emperor on the East wanted bishops
to reinterpret religion for saying, that those who fight with muslims will have
heavenly benefits, they simply refused, sating, that it cannot be done. In the
Islam it is a basis of faith, so they have soldiers wanting to die no matter what.

In islam, politics follow faith, war is a tool of religion, state is
the religion and religion is the state. No separation what's soever.
And in Islam there is no separation between mousque and state,
mousque is a state, is a nation, and there are no problems with
making islam political, becasue the very text says it.

So, there is a huge difference.
If the ruler is bad, Church always can say: we do not support you and your ideas.
In Islam not, especially, that Islam itself is evil.

[Rethel]

You were saying that homos should be put to death, sinners and so on.

So, it was not about unbelivers, as you did claim a post above.

And Fags - yes, they should be sentenced to death according to
the state law, which would make it a crime punishiable by death.

But sinners? - no, I never said that. We all are sinners.

Obviously that goes against what Jesus taught.

Rather your imagination is going against what I really claimed.

[Rethel]

As far as I'm concerned, given what ive read in the New Testament, groups like the LRA and Anti-Balaka are the only correct christians, the same christianity professed by Charlemagne, Isabella, Olaf of Norway, and many other great Christian leaders before the humanist movement.

[Rethel]

A number of people have been executed for sodomy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catego...ted_for_sodomy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._homosexuality

Also, the people in the list above are just famous ones.

What a wonderfull times... soon will be back!

Thousands of peasants engaging in sodomy would have also been killed likely.

Do not make stuff up. Numbers of people who were
executed of sodomy is small. Mostly, becasue people
did not do that massivly, but if they did such horrible
thing - then logically no sane person make it publicly.
If did - it is his problem.

And of course, the number of executions is too small, becasue there
should be much more people executed, which were not discovered.
It is not so easy proof that someone was involved.

Many have also been executed for witchcraft,

Many, but very few in reality.
At present in Poland 100,000 people should be executed today for witchcraft.
In the Middle Ages and later, witchcraft was much more popular, than today.
Unfortunatly, numbers of witches who were killed are really very small.

adultery, etc.

Probably a half of people deserved it.
And still it is not so easy to discover such crime.
Is nothing wrong with penelizing adultery.

Also, fornication and adultery is 1000x more common today than it was in the past.

So should be 1000x more executions.

[al-Bosni]

Even in that case, war was a tool of politics, not faith. Faith follow just
results of politics. There always was separation between church and state.
And in addition, it is very hard to you religion to political goals, not to be
condemned by the text. When Roman Emperor on the East wanted bishops
to reinterpret religion for saying, that those who fight with muslims will have
heavenly benefits, they simply refused, sating, that it cannot be done. In the
Islam it is a basis of faith, so they have soldiers wanting to die no matter what.

In islam, politics follow faith, war is a tool of religion, state is
the religion and religion is the state. No separation what's soever.
And in Islam there is no separation between mousque and state,
mousque is a state, is a nation, and there are no problems with
making islam political, becasue the very text says it.

So, there is a huge difference.
If the ruler is bad, Church always can say: we do not support you and your ideas.
In Islam not, especially, that Islam itself is evil.

It's deluded that you think Christianity is special because it does absolutely nothing in terms of bringing law and order to a society, since you think Christianity and politics should be separate. Christians should not even have a military, by your own admission, since war is political and Christianity should be separate from politics. Without a political, economic, and military system in Christianity, Christians are better off living in an Islamic society than a lawless, no mans land.