Nathiri
Commander
Who do you think has been predominately responsible for antisemitism in Western society? Atheists?
Oh. That's right. You actually buy into the current revisionist history myth that Germany was predominately atheist during WWII instead of overwhelmingly Christian, since Hitler was such a hypocritical nut when it came to religious beliefs.
Nowhere in the Bible is it found to kill all Jews. While of course, Christians would want them to become Christians, they are not to force them by death.
Ironically, that is what I have been stating all along.
Now apply it to all Muslims as well so that this perspective isn't completely hypocritical.
I am critical of all religions. But I am particularly critical of religious hypocrisy. What you support is really no different than what the vast majority of Muslims support. It is just a slightly different form of the very same Abrahamic mythology written by humans instead of a god.
I am not actually defending Islam at all, which should be obvious if you took the time to read what I have posted. What I am speaking out against is using a blatant double standard to judge Islam differently than any other Abrahmic religion where they all actually worship the very same god.
Do you realize that Muslims consider Jesus to be another prophet much like Mohammed? That what he said is inexorably part of their religion as well?
Thanks for clarifying your position.
I do realise Muslims consider Jesus to be a prophet, but he is more of like a after thought and just added in. Muslims are taught to be following the life of Muhammed and to be like he was.
Do I visit Catholic and Islamic hate sites to get or reinforce my opinions? No. Do you?
Islam is clearly a branch of the very same faith. But to claim that its roots are with the Roman Catholic Church instead of the teachings of Jesus is just another attempt by Protestants to smear them both.
No, I do not, but I have acquired information from people and sources that you may consider islamiphobic. What I believe a person needs to do is acquire the information on both sides even from 'hate' sites if need be, and then make the balanced opinion on both.
There are many similarities with what the Catholic Church eventually added, in Islam.
Do you realize that Newton has been called a "heretic" in modern times due to his wacky religious fanaticism?
There is no doubt Newton was a brilliant scientist. He may have even been the greatest scientist who ever lived. But his personal life was a complete shambles, and his views outside of science were weird beyond imagination.
Using the views of Newton and others to rationalize your own opinions is called the fallacy of appeal to authority. It might even be somewhat relevant if his chosen field of study where he was an acknowledged expert was mythology instead of physics. But as a scientist, his opinions carry no more weight than those of Richard Dawkins, or any number of other atheists who understand far more about evolution and modern science than Newton ever did.
I am aware some of his beliefs were not completely in-line with the church at his time or later. I do not know that much what it contained though.
Other than the Orthodox Church of course, the religion of the Byzantine Empire, the Rus and various Balkan states.
Yes, but both the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church were still linked in some way, and many people in the Crusades were most likely Catholics (mainly referring to the 2nd, and the 3rd, maybe the 4th).
Except that Luther, Calvin, Cranmer and so on presumably had been Catholics before the Reformation, unlike Muhammad and his followers, who never had been. Yes, Islam is an Abrahamic faith, but I'd thought that Islam would have been most affected by Chalcedonian/Orthodox Christianity (rather than by Rome), given their geographical proximity and later conquests of Byzantine territory.
Perhaps I overstated something here, but the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church did most likely have some influence on the Arabian peninsula and many of the teachings are very similar.