Egyptian court sentences Christian family to 15 years for converting from Islam

reply to post by NarrowGate


Are you drunk? What are you talking about?

Originally posted by TheToastmanCometh

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by Phantom28804

 

I don't think its comparable, Christians do not strap bombs on themselves to kill infidels at best some that professed to be Christians and have power to stop the killing of innocent Muslims do nothing (Christianity is not about killing or forcing religion on others at least that was never been the intendedmessage as I understand it).

Umm...

Crusades

To quote the first sentences : The Crusades were a series of religious expeditionary wars blessed by Pope Urban II and the Catholic Church, with the stated goal of restoring Christian access to the holy places in and near Jerusalem.

Restoring Christian access? AKA killing the ones who slaughtered Christians on pilgrimage so they would stop doing that? I must say that the Crusades got uglier as they went on, but how is this original Crusade not just?

Religion: Cancer of the uneducated, fretful mind.

Originally posted by Ireminisce
reply to post by NarrowGate

 

Are you drunk? What are you talking about?

Which part is giving you trouble?

reply to post by NarrowGate


Who is talking about Israel?

And you said it's their funeral with a laughing smiley face. Guess I'm just trying to figure out what's funny about this. I know you're very vocal about being a Christian, but you just don't come across as very nice. I read your thread about Israel and it seemed like you threw away a lot of opportunities to witness Gods love in favor of insults.

Originally posted by Ireminisce
reply to post by NarrowGate

 

Who is talking about Israel?

And you said it's their funeral with a laughing smiley face. Guess I'm just trying to figure out what's funny about this. I know you're very vocal about being a Christian, but you just don't come across as very nice. I read your thread about Israel and it seemed like you threw away a lot of opportunities to witness Gods love in favor of insults.

Yes - for Muslims to make war with Christians is their funeral. Actually - for Muslims to make war with just about anyone is their funeral Israel is definitely included. They are always accused of being bigots for that Apartheid but look at what they are apparently dealing with..

As for the insults you would have to be more specific. Context is always relevant, and things can appear to be insulting when they are actually not.

What is funny about this is they think persecuting Christians is a good idea.... I'm guessing you are Christian so maybe now you can see the humor? It is not us they have to answer to.... Aside from that it is a bad idea in this life as well. A very bad one.

ETA define witness to God's love.

Also, define nice.

I just don't think it's becoming of a Christian to take amusement from anyone's suffering, weather it's a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, etc.

Originally posted by Ireminisce
I just don't think it's becoming of a Christian to take amusement from anyone's suffering, weather it's a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, etc.

I missed the part where I took amusement from someones suffering?

I find it amusing that they think it is a good idea to make us suffer....you see the difference?

Anyways, I am still getting conflicting reports. Even from people who claim their parents are Muslim!! Do they believe Jesus was the Messiah or just a prophet?

If they believe He was a prophet..... ....

If the Messiah ........ . If they believe in the same Messiah, and they are aware of the New Covenant - how do they reconcile that with their actions?

edit: OK www.soundvision.com... answered this one for me. So basically they say God was a liar, and Jesus was just a confused prophet....well that is what I took from it anyways


I mean considering what we know Jesus said, how can they....nvm even a JW can make it fit.


OK for clarity - they believe the Messiah is just another prophet in a line of prophets....apparently....

Originally posted by TheToastmanCometh
Umm...

Crusades

Muslims were attacking Christian lands during the 400 years before the Crusades and continued to do so for 500 years after the Crusades ended.

Areas of Europe under Muslim Occupation - Spain before the Crusades and Southern Europe afterwards.



Areas in Southern Europe under Muslim occupation until late into the 19th century.

reply to post by Phantom28804

You are comparing a civilian case to a military case. That's like comparing apples and oranges.

The Christian family case is a civilian case in a civilian court. The so called terrorist case is military action.

Find a civilian case to compare it to and then you may have a point.

-Alien

reply to post by NarrowGate


Okay, I'm honest, english isn't my first language, but I want to explain something about the "just" crusade. So I try my best

Before the first crusade, relationship between muslim, christian and the jew population were quite good in the "Holy Land". Christian (and everyones else) pilgrims were in fact allowed access to all holy sites there and protected by the arabs travelling the land. It wasn't safer or unsafer there in comparision to Europe.
There was commerce, science and cultural exchange between all religions and everything was quite peaceful, everyone accepting the legacy and religious beliefs of the other groups. The arabs had taken over a great portion of what was left when the roman empire crumbled in the region and preserved much knowledge from the romans in the same time, when the Dark Ages came to europe and much got forgotten there. In the 10th to 11th century, the cultural repercussions of the dying roman empire stopped and the middle ages began and with them, the rise of knighthood, dogmatic christianity, nobility ruling the land and the reformation of the population.
Many small wars began in Europe, since kings and rulers of small countries tried to expand their power, and some greater powers emerged like Germany, Britain, France, Poland and to some degree Italy, And with these came bigger wars, which annoyed the Pope, who became more and more powerful thanks to religious belief, sucessful politics and whose word got more and more listened in Europe. In fact, christianity was the only thing, which united the european population and so the Popes word were listend by many people. To protect his new Power, the Pope was against inter-christian wars and looked for a solution to "his" problem. He found it in the Holy Land.
Another problem in europe was, that the knights (mounted professional warriors) needed wars to get their income, land and power and when there was no war, these warriors got restless, had no purpose and started fighting each other due to boredom. Since religion was deeply rooted with the knights, it was easy for the Pope to remind them of their sins (killing fellow christians for example) and obligations (protecting fellow christians or example ), since the Pope feared, that Europe would crumble under itself, when the knight couldn't be controlled.
So he shifted the attention of the bored Knights to the Holy Land, painting the arabs in the wildest colors and promised salvation to everyone, who would join these holy fight for ending the "oppression" of the christians, since killing Unbelievers isn't a sin. This was an outright lie, because the arabs had never done any harm to pilgrims visiting holy sites. But the price was Jerusalem, which was still perceived as the middlepoint of the known earth and with the counquering of Jerusalem, the power of the Pope reached a new height. We all still see the outcome of the whole crusadebusiness up until today.

So.. the first crusade wasn't "just", it was a political thing, protecting the newfound power of a small bunch of people and religious beliefs just got abused, like everytime else, when something is marked as "a holy war for god".

reply to post by Talliostro


I appreciate your input, and you do seem to be quite literate in English. I did not have any kind of problem understanding that, EXCEPT the part where you threw logic out the window.

1. It is a sin to murder any person.
2. The Knights Templar had plenty to do in times of peace, you seem to be looking to sway the uneducated. They had many professions, and soldier is definitely on that list.
3. Arabs were actually slaughtering a lot of Christians making pilgrimage or you just rewrote history on ATS.

I can go into more detail if you like, but you get the point.

Originally posted by Maslo
They still got off lightly, more than 80 % of egyptian muslims want death penalty for leaving islam. It is largely a nation of savages. Just because the west has moved on from such middle-ages mindset does not mean whole world did the same.

source

if the west has moved on from this lesser state, why do they behave like primitive savages with their modern scientific toys; for example the A bomb; the H bomb ; depleted uranium etc. do the general western public complain about the wholesale spread of depleted uranium in bosnia, fallujah and afghanistan? no, most are not interested. do they object to the vast arsenal of radioactive weapons in the usa? enough to destroy the world several times over?
NO!
because they are easily destracted like children with new TV's

reply to post by orangutang


He was referring specifically to persecuting people for their religious beliefs...and yes we are winning by a few hundred years at the least on that one....

Originally posted by NarrowGate
reply to post by Talliostro

 

I appreciate your input, and you do seem to be quite literate in English. I did not have any kind of problem understanding that, EXCEPT the part where you threw logic out the window.

1. It is a sin to kill any person.
2. The Knights Templar had plenty to do in times of peace, you seem to be looking to sway the uneducated. They had many professions, and soldier is definitely on that list.
3. Arabs were actually slaughtering a lot of Christians making pilgrimage or you just rewrote history on ATS.

I can go into more detail if you like, but you get the point.

edit on 18-1-2013 by NarrowGate because: (no reason given)

reply to post by NarrowGate


I will try to discuss this with you.

For your first point, I agree with you. Yes, it is a sin to kill people, no doubt.
Nonetheless, the pope argumented, that killing people who don't believe in (the christian) god isn't a sin and salvation awaits everyone fighting in this crusade. I have to take a deeper look into his preachings how he made his point.

For your second remark, there is the Knight and Knight Templar. The templars formed up during the first crusade, made up of disilluisioned and bored nobles throughout europe. These guys searched for a new purpose and found that in the religions war, which promised them salvation, land and income and a somewhat tight comradeship. They reformed themselves into a very sucessfull knightly order and influenced knights to follow their standards during the middle ages. But the first knights emerged from nobility in the norman and frankish population around 800-900 BC and the concept of a mounted, armoured, professional warrior fighting for income and pledged to the land was very appealing to every ruler out there. So, the first knights were more like soldiers of fortune, but slowly evolving into what we now see as a "classical, middle-age" knight with honor, strong beliefs and knightly virtues.
So there are knights and knights templar throughout the midlle ages until the destruction of the templars due to greed of the french king.

For your third remark, I didn't say, that there were no killing and wars between Arabs and Europeans. There were plenty, but up until the first crusade, they were mainly political things for land and power with only minor religious components. The first crusade was the gamechanger and starter of this whole "killing for the real god" business on both sides. The arabs had their golden age before the first crusade, being really advanced in science and culture, benefitting from the preseved knowledge from the roman empire and advancing this further and further. Then "we" came along and spoiled everything with brutality and dogmatic religious views and the arabs had to adapt to this to stay alive.

reply to post by Talliostro


1. Yes do take a deeper look, because you are wrong. Provide a source that is half way credible that says the Pope promised that killing people who don't follow Christ is not a sin, and that fighting in the Crusades will guarantee salvation. Otherwise, reconsider your views on this.

2. Did you just insinuate that I do not know the difference between a knight and a Knights Templar?
Further....where did you answer anything? You almost ignored it. Knights Templar had many professions, soldier included. You said they are just soldiers who were bored, then you say they were rich and delusional. I'm confused. I have never met a rich delusional bored soldier, and I have known a few soldiers in my time.

3. OK for clarity - you are stating that Islamic extremists were NOT slaughtering Christians on pilgrimage and making it completely unsafe for Christians to visit the Holy Land? If so - I will need a source because this is literally a different version of history than the one I know.

ETA - The definition of Dogma is...... Discovered Truth. Yes, Catholicism is Dogmatic.

Originally posted by NarrowGate
reply to post by ollncasino

 

Well....it's their funeral (suicide?).

Just don't go calling Israel the bigots

.

I must admit, I never researched it and you have convinced me to take 5-10 minutes to look at it.

From what I have seen...it does not look good.

SO WTF DO THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVE? Was Jesus who He said He was, or was He not who He said He was? Is God Love or is God hate? Does God tell us to kill all infidels or to love all sinners?

It is almost like this doesn't get talked about on purpose....

who was jesus? well, the bible states him saying that if you have seen him you have seen the father. yet their god is infinite, so how could one possibly "know him"? the bible has been interpreted to suit the priests so they have control over the masses. and its contents were mucked about with at the council of nicea centuries ago. (or some such name). the old testament says an eye for an eye, so it seems to be on a par with moslem teachings
and christian 1 fights christian 2, whose side is "god" on? i'll bet he's confused!
religions 10 commandments and similar are good i believe but the vast majority including its adherents, just dont live it. its mainly a hypocriticla world.

they are punished because they fake formal papers and Ids to get the inheritance not for converting ,,,newspapers in here are unreliable looking for hot labels to sell more

reply to post by TheToastmanCometh


Not the same, they got a dispensation form the Pope, again times are different but yes there was a time that the Vatican did despicable things not only the Crusades but the Inquisition. But the context was completely different and it was not terrorism it was a declared war. The Pope had power over every Crown. Power came from God to the Pope to the Crowns a system that in fact germinated by the Romans.

Originally posted by NarrowGate
reply to post by Talliostro

 

1. Yes do take a deeper look, because you are wrong. Provide a source that is half way credible that says the Pope promised that killing people who don't follow Christ is not a sin, and that fighting in the Crusades will guarantee salvation. Otherwise, reconsider your views on this.

Well, I can give you a link to the speech in german. English and latin sources are beyond me, sorry, and I won't look then up. Here ist the paragraph in german, stating that salvation is promised:

Wehe uns, wenn wir leben und solchem Unheile nicht steuern;
besser ist sterben als der Brüder Untergang länger dulden!
Jeder verleugne sich selbst und nehme Christi Kreuz auf sich, damit er Christum gewinne;
kein Christ streite mehr wider den anderen, damit das Christentum selbst nicht untergehe, sondern verbreitet und gefördert werde. Es höre auf Mord und Feindschaft und Bedrückung; es beweise jeder Mut und Tapferkeit, nicht wo sie den Fluch, sondern wo sie Vergebung der Sünden und die Krone der Märtyrer erwerben. Keiner fürchte Gefahr, denn wer für den Herrn streitet, dem sind die Kräfte der Feinde untertan; keiner fürchte Mangel und Not, denn wer den Herrn gewinnt, ist überall reich; keiner lasse sich durch Klagen der Zurückbleibenden vom Zuge abhalten, denn die Gnade des Herrn wird auch diese schützen!

The bold text promises salvation of all sins for everyone fighting in this crusade. And yes, you are right: he didn't say openly, that killing the enemy isn't a sin. But he implicates it, because when you die there fighting for christianity, salvation and cleansing of all sins will be yours.

Originally posted by NarrowGate
2. Did you just insinuate that I do not know the difference between a knight and a Knights Templar?
Further....where did you answer anything? You almost ignored it. Knights Templar had many professions, soldier included. You said they are just soldiers who were bored, then you say they were rich and delusional. I'm confused. I have never met a rich delusional bored soldier, and I have known a few soldiers in my time.

I'm confused too, because you implicate a modern soldier has the same mindset as a middle-age Noble/knight. These two are nowhere near comparable, or since when does a modern day soldier have the obligation to rule a small strip of land with peasants for his ruler and if he wants to increase his income, fight for this ruler in wars...
And there were no knight templars/knight orders around until the first crusade. So there is a difference between a knight before the first crusade and a knight templar, which is a member of a knightly order. "Holy" Knightly orders are a real different beast, combining the concept of strict religion (vow to god instead of ruler/king) with the whole support structure (aka peasants, land and retinue) of a normal medival knight. So there are others around in these knightly orders, but if they aren't nobility, they are not knights.

Originally posted by NarrowGate
3. OK for clarity - you are stating that Islamic extremists were NOT slaughtering Christians on pilgrimage and making it completely unsafe for Christians to visit the Holy Land? If so - I will need a source because this is literally a different version of history than the one I know.

Yes I do state this. Just look up the whole affair Byzanz had with the seldchuck-turks and with itself under Alexios I around 1090. The byzantine envojs exaggerated the reports from the holy land wildly to get help with their internal and external affairs from western europe. Alexios even promised a reunion of the western and eastern christian church...
There were problems in Palestine, but they were nowehere near as grave as reported before the first crusade.

But I have to say, this is getting harder and harder for me in english, because I'm mostly in loss of words