Tough to say how it would be, if the Islamic countries had invaded us, though, instead of the other way around. If I had to guess, having a foreign occupying army on your home soil brings out the most fanatical resistance, and reactionary attitudes in people. I am not excusing anyone's behavior either, but moving in the soldiers and tanks never goes unnoticed, especially once the populace begins getting killed. It gets personal, fast. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote :
The correct answer, chaps, is B. Pretty simple, that one. I am not impressed by people who say, well Christianity has a history of violence too. That may be correct but it was a long time ago, and the religion has evolved beyond that. Islam has not. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <awoelflebater@...> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <olliesedwuz@...> wrote : A good question, though it looks like in both cases the speaker is trying to provoke a fight, using antisocial behavior and disrespectful language. So, it proves exactly what, if the speaker gets their butt kicked? I had a similar thought regarding the strength and ugliness of the language used in this case - sounds like a button pusher to me. In other words, nothing constructive being conveyed other than the speaker wants to get someone riled. Of course, whether this would result in a killing is another question although, right off the top of my head, I would have to say it should not. Before choosing A or B, I'd want to know why the speaker is expressing themselves that way in the first place. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <s3raphita@...> wrote : (A) You're in a Catholic country sitting in a cafe. There are some Christians nearby discussing their faith. You interrupt them to say: "I don't know why you waste your time with all that crap. The only thing The Bible is good for is emergency toilet paper". (B) You're in an Islamic country sitting in a cafe. There are some Muslims nearby discussing their faith. You interrupt them to say: "I don't know why you waste your time with all that crap. The only thing The Koran is good for is emergency toilet paper". Which of those two situations would you judge to be most likely to end with your being hacked to death? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <awoelflebater@...> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote : The tenents of Christianity are the teachings of Christ. Show me some actual quotes, Bible verses, in context, where Christ advocates violence on the part of man, towards his fellow man. I read about half of your article and it all dealt with men of power, Popes, Kings, etc justifying their political actions in the *name* of Christ.There is a big difference in what Christ actually taught and what people actually did in His name. You and the article are referring to *justification* of violence but not the actual teaching Christ imparts. Can you see the difference? Mohamed, Koran and Haditha actually advocate violence and killing and refer to it as a necessary tenent of the faith. You can check out some of these. Someone has gone to some trouble to find these so go ahead and see if any qualify here as "proof" that Jesus could sometimes get a little testy. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html snip
