Killing in the Name of Religion

[Immanuel Can]

That's exactly right... maybe even the greatest post you've ever made at this site. You're comin around, mannie. Let us rejoice.

Well, that's as sure an evidence as a person can want that the speaker is only interested in being the last to speak...not in being right.

Have a nice day, I guess.

[Averroes]

"Religions," as a combined total, are about 8% of the world's war casualties. 50% of those are from one "religion," namely Islam. The other 3.8% of world causalities are all other so-called "religions" combined...less than are killed in the name of geography, language, race, culture, territory, resources...and, of course, Atheism.

I have a couple of questions about the statistics in your post?

Firstly, where did you get those statistics?

Secondly, did you include the the casualties in WW2 as being due to Protestantism? For history clearly teaches us that Hitler was just the executioner of the plan masterminded by Martin Luther who was the founder of Protestantism. This can be clearly seen from the Nazi poster of 1933 depicting Martin Luther as the mastermind and Hitler as merely the executioner:


The poster reads in German: “Hitler’s fight and Luther’s teaching are the best defense for the German people.”

And for those who needs to be reminded of some of the teachings of Maritin Luther, there is an interesting article on Wikipedia that addresses some of those:

Moreover, he[Martin Luther] proposed "What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews":[1]

• "First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools … This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians …"

• "Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed."

• "Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them."

• "Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb …"

• "Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside …"

• "Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them …"

• "Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow … But if we are afraid that they might harm us or our wives, children, servants, cattle, etc., … then let us emulate the common sense of other nations such as France, Spain, Bohemia, etc., … then eject them forever from the country …"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Lu ... _the_Nazis

The active reader will undoubtedly see that the Zionists also have learned well from Luther and have been implementing his teachings on the Palestinian People since 1948. Moreover, the knowledgeable historians here will also remember that the Nazi and Zionists collaborated in WW2 to implement Luther's teachings on other Jews itself and then on the Palestinian people.

[Immanuel Can]

"Religions," as a combined total, are about 8% of the world's war casualties. 50% of those are from one "religion," namely Islam. The other 3.8% of world causalities are all other so-called "religions" combined...less than are killed in the name of geography, language, race, culture, territory, resources...and, of course, Atheism.

I have a couple of questions about the statistics in your post?

Firstly, were did you get those statistics?

You can find them yourself, but doing a little basic maths with the foremost secular academic resource on war, The Encylopedia of War. And as a Muslim, you can rejoice that Islam is only responsible for a little over 4% of the world's war deaths, and Atheism is responsible for the vast majority. Beyond question, it could have been much worse, had Muslim crusaders had modern technology.

Secondly, did you include the the casualties in WW2 as being due to Protestantism?

No, because they were not. Hitler was an Aryan occultist, not a Christian, as you can see from his own writings. That being said, he was an ardent propagandist, as well; and he and Goebbels were not at all reluctant to employ any rationale at all that they could elicit to seem to support anti-semitism; so they did a lot of that kind of propaganda.

As for Luther, Luther said some good things and some very stupid ones. But then, Lutheranism is its own thing, and not even the majority in Protestantism. But more importantly, nothing in Christianity itself will support that allegation, and everything in it will refute that mistaken view. All you have to do is read the Bible to know that; but perhaps you have not done to the Christian Scriptures the honour I have done to the Koran, and actually spent the time to read them. So you will be relying on the old propaganda, of course.

[Averroes]

"Religions," as a combined total, are about 8% of the world's war casualties. 50% of those are from one "religion," namely Islam. The other 3.8% of world causalities are all other so-called "religions" combined...less than are killed in the name of geography, language, race, culture, territory, resources...and, of course, Atheism.

I have a couple of questions about the statistics in your post?

Firstly, were did you get those statistics?

You can find them yourself, but doing a little basic maths with the foremost secular academic resource on war, The Encylopedia of War.

I actually have the complete set of three volumes of the Encyclopedia of War by Charles Philips and Alan Axelrod. Most of the fatalities of the wars referred in these collection of books are unknown and of the small number that are known, most are highly disputed among western historians themselves. But anyway, if this is your history book, then let us dive into it and see what it contains.

Firstly, I note that nowhere in the whole three volumes are the numbers you wrote mentioned. So, as I like maths, I took your advice and did some research and some basic maths as you recommended.
After researching all the three volumes, the only religious wars under the entries "Religion Wars" are between Catholics and Protestants (Huguenots). Let me quote all these Religion Wars in the order they are mentioned and as they are mentioned in the Encyclopedia:

Religion, First War of (1562–1563)
PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Catholics vs. Huguenots (with English aid) in France
PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): France
DECLARATION: None
MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: The Huguenots sought religious freedom.
OUTCOME: A degree of tolerance was granted to the Huguenots.
APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS: Catholics, 23,000; Huguenots, 15,000 (including 3,000 English troops)
CASUALTIES: Military losses were about 4,000 killed on each side; Huguenot civilian losses were about 3,000 killed.
TREATIES: Peace of Amboise (March 1563)

Religion, Second War of (1567–1568)
PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Catholics vs. Huguenots in France
PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): France
DECLARATION: None
MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: The Huguenots sought religious freedom.
OUTCOME: A degree of tolerance was granted to the Huguenots.
APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS: 16,000 French (Catholics); 3,500 Huguenots
CASUALTIES: Numbers unknown, but heavy on both sides
TREATIES: Peace of Longjumeau (March 1568)

Religion, Third War of (1568–1570)
PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Catholics vs. Huguenots in France
PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): France
DECLARATION: None
MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: The Huguenots sought religious freedom.
OUTCOME: A degree of tolerance was granted to the Huguenots.
APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS: Catholics, 18,000; Huguenots, 16,500
CASUALTIES: Catholics, 1,000 killed or wounded; Huguenots, 8,400 killed or wounded
TREATIES: Peace of St. Germain, August 8, 1570

Religion, Fourth War of (1572–1573)
PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Catholics vs. Huguenots in France
PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): France
DECLARATION: None
MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: The Huguenots sought religious freedom.
OUTCOME: A degree of tolerance was granted to the Huguenots, and a group of moderate Catholics formed a new political party known as the Politiques.
APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS: Unknown
CASUALTIES: Unknown
TREATIES: None

Religion, Fifth War of (1575–1576)
PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Catholics vs. Huguenots in France
PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): France
DECLARATION: None
MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Henry, duc de Guise; and his Royalist faction wanted to take the French throne away from Henry III, who was more tolerant of religious differences than they. OUTCOME: The Royalist Catholics under Henry, duke de Guise, formed a Holy League with King Philip of Spain to secure the French throne for the Catholics.
APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS: Unknown
CASUALTIES: Unknown
TREATIES: Peace of Mousieur, May 5, 1576

Religion, Sixth and Seventh Wars of (1576–1577, 1580)
PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Catholics vs. Huguenots in France
PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): France
DECLARATION: None
MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: The Huguenots sought religious freedom.
OUTCOME: After subduing the Protestants, Henry III wavered in his determination to carry out the terms of the Peace of Bergerac.
APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS: Unknown
CASUALTIES: Unknown
TREATIES: Peace of Bergerac (1577)

Religion, Eighth War of (1585–1589)
PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Catholics vs. Huguenots in France
PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): France
DECLARATION: None MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: The Catholic Royalists in France wanted to ensure that one of their numbers would be named successor to the childless Henry III.
OUTCOME: King Henry named the Protestant leader Henry of Navarre as his successor. APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS: Catholics, 8,700+; Huguenots, 6,500
CASUALTIES: Catholics, 3,400 killed; Huguenots, 200 killed
TREATIES: None

Religion, Ninth War of (1589–1598)
PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Catholics vs. Huguenots in France
PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): France
DECLARATION: None MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: The Protestants in France sought religious freedom.
OUTCOME: Henry III, although he had returned to the Catholic faith, issued the Edict of Nantes, which proclaimed religious freedom for French Protestants.
APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS: Catholics, 26,000; Huguenots, 20,000
CASUALTIES: Catholics, 13,550 killed or wounded; Huguenots, 12,040 killed or wounded
TREATIES: Edict of Nantes (1598)


That's it! What is shown in the book is that 100% of the religion wars listed as such in the book are between the belligerent and violent Protestants and Catholics.

I did some more research on the subject and found some other interesting statistics on Wikipedia:

Wikipedia:

• Statistical academic studies have found that violent crime is less common among Muslim populations than among non-Muslim populations.[328][329][330][331] The average homicide rate in the Muslim world was 2.4 per 100,000, less than a third of non-Muslim countries which had an average homicide rate of 7.5 per 100,000.[332] The average homicide rate among the 19 most populous Muslim countries was 2.1 per 100,000, less than a fifth of the average homicide rate among the 19 most populous Christian countries which was 11.0 per 100,000, including 5.6 per 100,000 in the United States.[333] A negative correlation was found between a country's homicide rate and its percentage of Muslims, in contrast to a positive correlation found between a country's homicide rate and its percentage of Christians.[331] According to Professor Steven Fish: "The percentage of the society that is made up of Muslims is an extraordinarily good predictor of a country’s murder rate. More authoritarianism in Muslim countries does not account for the difference. I have found that controlling for political regime in statistical analysis does not change the findings. More Muslims, less homicide."[329][334] Professor Jerome L. Neapolitan compared low crime rates in Islamic countries to low crime in Japan, comparing the role of Islam to that of Japan's Shinto and Buddhist traditions in fostering cultures emphasizing the importance of community and social obligation, contributing to less criminal behaviour than other nations.[330]
  
  A statistical textual analysis of the Qur'an and Bible conducted by software engineer Tom Anderson in 2016, using the Odin Text analytics software, found that violence is less frequent in the Qur'an than in the Bible. According to Anderson: "Killing and destruction are referenced slightly more often in the New Testament (2.8%) than in the Quran (2.1%), but the Old Testament clearly leads—more than twice that of the Quran—in mentions of destruction and killing (5.3%)."
  
  Gallup and Pew polls
  Polls have found Muslim-Americans to report less violent views than any other religious group in America. 89% of Muslim-Americans claimed that the killing of civilians is never justified, compared to 71% of Catholics and Protestants, 75% of Jews, and 76% of atheists and non-religious groups. When Gallup asked if it is justifiable for the military to kill civilians, the percentage of people who said it is sometimes justifiable were 21% among Muslims, 58% among Protestants and Catholics, 52% among Jews, and 43% among atheists.[336] Gallup in 2008 found that Palestinians held generally less violent views than Israelis, with up to 14% of Palestinians and up to 52% of Israelis saying it is sometimes justifiable to kill civilians.

________________________

And as a Muslim, you can rejoice that Islam is only responsible for a little over 4% of the world's war deaths, and Atheism is responsible for the vast majority. Beyond question, it could have been much worse, had Muslim crusaders had modern technology.

It's a great blessing and joy to be a Muslim no doubt. But before I can rejoice about the numbers you wrote, I have to know how you got those exactly. So far you have not given me your sources and methodology of calculating these numbers. The sources you gave do not contain these numbers and basic maths do not point even approximately in that direction either. Until we resolve this issue, I cannot take them seriously and fully rejoice as you suggested.

________________________

Secondly, did you include the the casualties in WW2 as being due to Protestantism?

No, because they were not. Hitler was an Aryan occultist, not a Christian, as you can see from his own writings.

There is a referenced article on Wikipedia on the Religious views of Adolph Hitler that says:

In a speech in the early years of his rule, Hitler declared himself "Not a Catholic, but a German Christian".[17][18][19][20][21] The German Christians were a Protestant group that supported Nazi Ideology.[22] Hitler and the Nazi Party also promoted "nondenominational"[23] positive Christianity,[24] a movement which rejected most traditional Christian doctrines such as the divinity of Jesus, as well as Jewish elements such as the Old Testament.[25][26] In one widely quoted remark, he described Jesus as an "Aryan fighter" who struggled against "the power and pretensions of the corrupt Pharisees"[27] and Jewish materialism.[28]

I can understand that Hitler may have been from another denomination of Protestantism than you and you might not share that denomination's beliefs, but he still declared himself to be Christian. So, contrary to what you claimed about Hitler, Hitler himself declared himself to be Christian. So, the casualties of WW2 would have be included in religion wars casualties under the heading of “killing in the name of Christianity”.
_____________________

As for Luther, Luther said some good things and some very stupid ones.

The least that can be said is that Luther had significant influence on Hitler’s ideology and actions in WW2. In reality, however, it is clear that after reading Luther that Hitler was just the muscle that Luther’s brain commanded. There was nothing that Hitler did that Luther had not commanded in his teachings. And Hitler was honest enough to acknowledge his source as being Luther. Hitler cannot be accused of plagiarism! That much cannot be denied.

________________________

But then, Lutheranism is its own thing, and not even the majority in Protestantism. But more importantly, nothing in Christianity itself will support that allegation, and everything in it will refute that mistaken view. All you have to do is read the Bible to know that; but perhaps you have not done to the Christian Scriptures the honour I have done to the Koran, and actually spent the time to read them. So you will be relying on the old propaganda, of course.

As far as I can recall, the first religious book that I read was the Christian bible. That was way before I had even heard about Islam let alone knowing about Islam. You seem to be saying that the Bible I have been reading since my childhood is an “old propaganda”. I actually think it is. But you tell me if it is the same as your copy. I will quote to you some verses in the Bible that I have been reading and you tell me if it’s the same “old propaganda” you are referring to.

In John 8:44, the authors of that Gospel claims that biblical Jesus referred to the Jews as children of the devil:

• Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. [John 8:44]

In Mathew 23:33, the authors of that Gospel claims that biblical Jesus referred to the Jews as "snakes" and "vipers":

• “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?[Mathew 23:33]

In Mathew 15:22:28, the authors of that book claims that biblical Jesus initially refused to heal a gentile women and referred to her as a “dog”:

• A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.”
  Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”
  He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
  The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.
  He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
  “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”
  Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment. [Mathew 15:22-28]

[Sculptor]

Just another example of how absurd your claims of morality having an objective basis are.

Pity you are so blind to the bleeding obvious.

[Immanuel Can]

The sources you gave do not contain these numbers and basic maths do not point even approximately in that direction either. Until we resolve this issue, I cannot take them seriously and fully rejoice as you suggested.

Did I say they did the math for you? I did not. What they do give you is the figures you need to add up...and you'll get the same result.

There is a referenced article on Wikipedia

Wiki is an open-source, which means anybody can contribute to it. You need a credible source. You've given none. And not surprisingly, because the information you have is just plain wrong.

In John 8:44, the authors of that Gospel claims that biblical Jesus referred to the Jews as children of the devil:

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. [John 8:44]

He does not, actually. If you read the context, you'll see he's only speaking to the crowd in the Temple who were already trying to kill Him. The followers of Jesus, his disciples, were all Jews; so was Jesus Christ Himself. So were all the prophets, the Hebrew kings, Abraham...and so on. So clearly, you've mistake a particular group for "all Jews." Typical anti-Jewish and anti-Christian propaganda, based on bad reading.

In Mathew 23:33, the authors of that Gospel claims that biblical Jesus referred to the Jews as "snakes" and "vipers":
“You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?[Mathew 23:33]

Same problem: look at verse 24 -- it was specifically the Pharisees who were accusing Him of doing miracles by being under the sway of Satan. There isn't the slightest indication he meant all Jews... and it would be utterly implausible to suppose it.

In Mathew 15:22:28, the authors of that book claims that biblical Jesus initially refused to heal a gentile women and referred to her as a “dog”...
Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment. [Mathew 15:22-28]

You've refuted your own argument. As Messiah of Israel, Jesus was merely pointing out that his mission was to Jews first, and it was common for gentiles to be regarded as "dogs." Jesus is asking her a soul-searching question: on what assumption are you asking Me this? And she responds correctly, and her daughter is healed.

What I can see is that you've read Muslim anti-Christian books, but haven't even read the context around the verses they quote. So of course you get them wrong. Anybody would. You've no incentive to get them right, in fact.

[Averroes]

The sources you gave do not contain these numbers and basic maths do not point even approximately in that direction either. Until we resolve this issue, I cannot take them seriously and fully rejoice as you suggested.

Did I say they did the math for you? I did not. What they do give you is the figures you need to add up...and you'll get the same result.

As I already said in my previous post, I acknowledged that you advised me to do some basic maths and I took your advice as I like maths and did that which you recommended. From the data available in the Encyclopedia, 100% of the religion wars are from Christianity alone. I already showed you my complete analysis process, i.e data gathering and analysis and the result of my calculation in complete transparency. You can verify the data I presented and from that data that my results are correct. Now, can you do the same and show me in detail your analysis process of how you came to the figures you mentioned previously? In that way, I can in turn verify for myself your numbers by consulting my copy of the Encyclopedia. Otherwise, I cannot take your numbers seriously as they have not been verified by an independent reviewer and also as I pointed out they are not mentioned in any trustworthy journal or academic research paper. This is how serious study is conducted, isn’t it?

____________________

There is a referenced article on Wikipedia

Wiki is an open-source, which means anybody can contribute to it. You need a credible source. You've given none. And not surprisingly, because the information you have is just plain wrong.

The article is referenced as I already said. You can see the references mentioned in the article itself. You just had to click on the numbers and you get to the references at the bottom of the article itself. But you don’t need to bother now because I will post the references here itself as it is very interesting to read from Hitler’s translated written words directly and his transcribed spoken words as well. I have all the references and can quote as needed. Seldom do I get this request to quote from the one once known as the “Führer” himself or from his very close affiliates! This is an opportunity that cannot be refused!

So previously I had quoted Wikipedia as saying:

In a speech in the early years of his rule, Hitler declared himself "Not a Catholic, but a German Christian".[17][18][19][20][21] The German Christians were a Protestant group that supported Nazi Ideology.[22] Hitler and the Nazi Party also promoted "nondenominational"[23] positive Christianity,[24] a movement which rejected most traditional Christian doctrines such as the divinity of Jesus, as well as Jewish elements such as the Old Testament.[25][26] In one widely quoted remark, he described Jesus as an "Aryan fighter" who struggled against "the power and pretensions of the corrupt Pharisees"[27] and Jewish materialism.[28]

The references are numbered in Roman numerals for reasons that will become evident as you read:

(I). In 1920, Hitler wrote in his “25 Points of the Nazi Party”(a historical document freely available on the internet) at point 24 the following:

• 24. We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: common utility precedes individual utility.https://www.vaholocaust.org/wp-content/ ... Points.pdf

(II). Joachim Hossenfelder (1899–1976) was a German Lutheran pastor and one of the founders and first national leader of the German Christian Faith Movement whose members he called “the storm troopers of Christ.” In 1929 he joined the Nazi Party. In 1932, he reaffirms the Nazi Party as grounded in “positive Christianity” in his “German Christian Faith’s Movement Ten Points Program” (a historical document as well, freely available) at point 4 in the following:

• 4. We stand on the ground of positive Christianity. We confess an affirmative faith in Christ, one suited to a truly German Lutheran spirit and heroic piety.

Point 2 and 8 also deserve to be mentioned as it unsurprisingly shows the Nazi Party affinity for Protestant ideology, if this wasn’t already clear!

• 2. We are fighting to achieve an integration of the twenty-nine constituent churches of the “German Evangelical Church Association” into one National Protestant Church [evangelische Reichskirche], and we march under the slogan and goal:
  
  Externally, one and strong in spirit,
  gathered around Christ and his Word,
  internally, rich and diverse,
  each Christian according to individual calling and style.

• 8. We see in Home Mission, rightly conceived, a living, active Christianity that, in our view, is rooted not in mere compassion but rather in obedience to God’s will and gratitude for Christ’s death on the cross. Mere compassion is charity, which leads to arrogance coupled with a guilty conscience that makes a people soft. We are conscious of Christian duty toward and love for the helpless, but we also demand that the people be protected from those who are inept and inferior. The Home Mission must in no way contribute to the degeneration of our people. Furthermore, it should avoid economic adventures and must not become a shopkeeper.https://ms.augsburgfortress.org/downloa ... pter 1.pdf

(III).In his magnum opus, namely the Mein Kampf, Adolf praises Christ as follows:

• The Jew himself is the best example of the kind of product which this religious training evolves. His life is of this world only and his mentality is as foreign to the true spirit of Christianity as his character was foreign to the great Founder of this new creed two thousand years ago. And the Founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of His estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God; because then, as always, they used religion as a means of advancing their commercial interests. But at that time Christ was nailed to the Cross for his attitude towards the Jews; whereas our modern Christians enter into party politics and when elections are being held they debase themselves to beg for Jewish votes. They even enter into political intrigues with the atheistic Jewish parties against the interests of their own Christian nation.

(IV). In 1933, Adolf Hitler said in his first radio broadcast as Chancellor the following:

• Thus, the national government will consider its first and foremost task to be restoring our people’s unity of will and spirit. It will preserve and defend the foundations on which the strength of our nation rests. It will take Christianity as the basis of our entire morality, and staunchly defend the family as the nucleus of our national and state body. In His Own Words: The Essential Speeches of Adolf Hitler, C.J.Miller

There are more historical documents on the matter if you are interested. Let me know if you need me to quote some more later. For anyone who has read Mein Kampf, Hitler's Lutheran influence is quite obvious. Have you read Mein Kampf? As you can easily imagine, Hitler is naturally in total admiration and gives praises to Martin Luther in Mein Kampf thus:

The great protagonists are those who fight for their ideas and ideals despite the fact that they receive no recognition at the hands of their contemporaries. They are the men whose memories will be enshrined in the hearts of the future generations. It seems then as if each individual felt it his duty to make retroactive atonement for the wrong which great men have suffered at the hands of their contemporaries. Their lives and their work are then studied with touching and grateful admiration. Especially in dark days of distress, such men have the power of healing broken hearts and elevating the despairing spirit of a people.
To this group belong not only the genuinely great statesmen but all the great reformers as well. Beside Frederick the Great we have such men as Martin Luther and Richard Wagner.

__________________________

In John 8:44, the authors of that Gospel claims that biblical Jesus referred to the Jews as children of the devil:

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. [John 8:44]

He does not, actually. If you read the context, you'll see he's only speaking to the crowd in the Temple who were already trying to kill Him. The followers of Jesus, his disciples, were all Jews; so was Jesus Christ Himself. So were all the prophets, the Hebrew kings, Abraham...and so on. So clearly, you've mistake a particular group for "all Jews." Typical anti-Jewish and anti-Christian propaganda, based on bad reading.

In Mathew 23:33, the authors of that Gospel claims that biblical Jesus referred to the Jews as "snakes" and "vipers":
“You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?[Mathew 23:33]

Same problem: look at verse 24 -- it was specifically the Pharisees who were accusing Him of doing miracles by being under the sway of Satan. There isn't the slightest indication he meant all Jews... and it would be utterly implausible to suppose it.

Sure, no problem. So, not all Jews were meant by the expressions "Children of the devil", "vipers" and "snakes" but only those who did not believe in him, among them the Pharisees. I have no problem with that. Now I have two questions:

1.Do you endorse these statements wherein those Jews who rejected Jesus and who wanted to kill him be referred to as “children of the devil”, "vipers" or "snakes"?
2. Wasn't it the same biblical Jesus who said in Mathew 5:43-44:

• Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you” (Matthew 5:43–44)

Where is the love and blessing in calling someone "children of the devil", "vipers" and "snakes"? Do these expressions seem loving and a blessing to you?
___________________________

In Mathew 15:22:28, the authors of that book claims that biblical Jesus initially refused to heal a gentile women and referred to her as a “dog”...
Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment. [Mathew 15:22-28]

You've refuted your own argument. As Messiah of Israel, Jesus was merely pointing out that his mission was to Jews first, and it was common for gentiles to be regarded as "dogs." Jesus is asking her a soul-searching question: on what assumption are you asking Me this? And she responds correctly, and her daughter is healed.

I wasn't making any argument yet! As I already told you, I was just quoting the Bible I have been reading since my childhood.

Now, you said “it was common for gentiles to be regarded as “dogs”. I have two questions about this:
1. Is it moral nowadays in your community for a gentile to be referred as a dog?
2. Is it still common nowadays in your community for a gentile to be referred as a dog?

[Immanuel Can]

100% of the religion wars are from Christianity alone.

That's actually not just false, but so brashly false it beggars imagination. But this is so easy to show, no more need be said. The entire history of Islam is practically nothing but a litany of wars, all considered "holy" by the Muslims, from the days of Mo to the present. But certainly, however we count the "religious" wars, we cannot possibly forget all the Islamic crusades, from the 7th Century to the early 20th Century...and that's if we don't take any of Islam's multitudinous modern wars as "religious."

I can only suppose you are redefining all Islamic wars as "not wars." Otherwise, I cannot possibly account for how you could imagine we wouldn't all know the history of Islam, in that regard.

As for the Hitler stuff, it's just so obviously a case of a wicked man using religion to advocate non-Christian values in a totally propagandized way, that it doesn't deserve expansive treatment. It's just nonsense. He did the same with science, offering multitudinous pseudo-scientific arguments for hating Jews: but I notice you don't indict science, on that account...

So fairness dictates you should look at what the Bible says, not what Adolph Hitler did. Consider the source, I suggest.

1.Do you endorse these statements wherein those Jews who rejected Jesus and who wanted to kill him be referred to as “children of the devil”, "vipers" or "snakes"?

Everybody who actually hates Jesus is a viper or a snake, of course. And you'll recognize the allusion in that to what you Muslims call "Iblis," and we call Satan. Jesus is saying that these people had a dark nature that was devoid of repentance and openness to God, just like that.

Where is the love and blessing in calling someone "children of the devil", "vipers" and "snakes"? Do these expressions seem loving and a blessing to you?

Do you personally dictate what Allah can say? Does Allah have no right to judge? You will not say such a thing, of course.

Neither do we dictate what God's Son can say. He knows much more than we do. He's always correct in His judgments.

But we are not. And his command is for us, human beings, as to how we are to treat those who make themselves our enemies. Unlike Islam, we are not told to kill our enemies or "infidels," but rather to show them compassion.

It is God alone who can judge whether a man is righteous or a "viper." And He never gets it wrong. And Jesus is God. We are not.

Now, you said “it was common for gentiles to be regarded as “dogs”. I have two questions about this:
1. Is it moral nowadays in your community for a gentile to be referred as a dog?

I don't think the custom of ancient Judaism in this regard persists. But if it does, you'd have to ask a Jewish person. Those Jews I know do not use such language anymore, even though in ancient times, it was done.

But I do know that it was, and perhaps still is, a common cliche among Muslims to refer to all "infidels" as "dogs," as we read from Usama ibn Munqidh, or find quoted by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad more recently.

[promethean75]

"So fairness dictates you should look at what the Bible says, not what Adolph Hitler did."

Are u suggesting that we ought to also look at what Marx wrote and not what Mao, Stalin, Castro and company did?

uh oh

th-240594292.jpg

[Averroes]

100% of the religion wars are from Christianity alone.

That's actually not just false, but so brashly false it beggars imagination. But this is so easy to show, no more need be said.

Sure, no problem. Recall that I had asked you how you got the precise statistics you mentioned thus:

"Religions," as a combined total, are about 8% of the world's war casualties. 50% of those are from one "religion," namely Islam. The other 3.8% of world causalities are all other so-called "religions" combined...

After all this time, you have yet to provide an intelligible answer. Did you actually do the maths to arrive at such numbers? Or it is just a wild guess that you felt an irresistible urge to write down that prompted you to write these precise numbers? If it is the latter, then it's okay. Such things happen to some people, though not to me.
_______________________

As for the Hitler stuff, it's just so obviously a case of a wicked man using religion to advocate non-Christian values in a totally propagandized way, that it doesn't deserve expansive treatment. It's just nonsense. He did the same with science, offering multitudinous pseudo-scientific arguments for hating Jews: but I notice you don't indict science, on that account...

So fairness dictates you should look at what the Bible says, not what Adolph Hitler did. Consider the source, I suggest.

Sure, no problem. Fairness should be followed. So let me look at what the Bible says as you suggest:

Paul wrote in the Bible in Ephesians 2:8-9:

• For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.[Ephesians 2:8-9]

And in Romans 5:6-9 also, Paul said:

• 6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— 8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. [Romans 5:6-9]

The Bible says in John 3:16-17

• 16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.[John 3:16-17]

Adolf believed in Christ and believed that Christ died on the cross (as he said in his writings) and in addition to that he followed Luther's teachings to the T. Accordingly, Paul says that he is saved by the blood of Christ through grace alone and not by works so that no one can boast. But in any case, if works were important, Adolf would have had the works according to Luther's teachings to show! Of course Luther has to agree on that, Adolf must have been his best follower!
_____________________

1.Do you endorse these statements wherein those Jews who rejected Jesus and who wanted to kill him be referred to as “children of the devil”, "vipers" or "snakes"?

Everybody who actually hates Jesus is a viper or a snake, of course. And you'll recognize the allusion in that to what you Muslims call "Iblis," and we call Satan. Jesus is saying that these people had a dark nature that was devoid of repentance and openness to God, just like that.

Everybody you say who hates Jesus is a viper or snake or a Satan/"child of the devil". So, those Jews who reject Jesus and who believe the Talmud when it says that Jesus is boiling in filthy excrement for eternity in hell are also vipers, snakes and "children of the devil" according to you. Is that correct or they are exempt from "everybody"?
___________________

Where is the love and blessing in calling someone "children of the devil", "vipers" and "snakes"? Do these expressions seem loving and a blessing to you?

And Jesus is God.

You say "Jesus is God." Is Jesus the same one who revealed the Torah to Moses? If so, is it the same Jesus who revealed to Moses Numbers 31:17-18

• 17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
  18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. [Numbers 31:17-18]

_____________________

Now, you said “it was common for gentiles to be regarded as “dogs”. I have two questions about this:
1. Is it moral nowadays in your community for a gentile to be referred as a dog?

I don't think the custom of ancient Judaism in this regard persists. But if it does, you'd have to ask a Jewish person. Those Jews I know do not use such language anymore, even though in ancient times, it was done.

You are not answering my question you quoted. Don't you distinguish a moral imperative from a custom? Can a custom become a moral imperative for you? These are questions you like to talk about and now suddenly you don't understand, what happened? If you yourself are a gentile, then is it moral nowadays in your community of gentiles for you to be referred as a dog by either a Jew or a gentile? I am asking from your perspective.

[Immanuel Can]

I had asked you how you got the precise statistics you mentioned thus:

"Religions," as a combined total, are about 8% of the world's war casualties. 50% of those are from one "religion," namely Islam. The other 3.8% of world causalities are all other so-called "religions" combined...

Take a look again.

"Religions," as a combined total, are about 8% of the world's war casualties. 50% of those (i.e. of the 8%) are from one "religion," namely Islam. The other 3.8% of world causalities are all other so-called "religions" combined...less than are killed in the name of geography, language, race, culture, territory, resources...and, of course, Atheism.

And that claim squares admirably with the mortality statistics. As you can see it's Atheism that's in the worst light, by orders of magnitude. Islam's responsible for about 4% of the world's war dead....large for a "religion," but small compared to Atheist regimes such as Communist dictatorships and Nazi dictatorships.

... let me look at what the Bible says as you suggest:

Paul wrote in the Bible in Ephesians 2:8-9:
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.[Ephesians 2:8-9]
And in Romans 5:6-9 also, Paul said:
For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— 8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. [Romans 5:6-9]
The Bible says in John 3:16-17
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.[John 3:16-17]

And?

Adolf believed in Christ

No, he very clearly did not. Sorry. Adolph was very clearly an opportunist, a propagandist, and an Aryan occultist. But he was shrewd enough to invent rationales of all kinds...theological, scientific, political, strategic, economic, historical...to bolster his program of anti-semitism and to elicit as many followers as he could fool. And that's really all that can be honestly said about that.

Now, as regards to your confusion, I understand why you're making the mistake. Muslims I have talked to seem all to suppose that people are "born into" religions, or even can be taken into "submission," to them by force. Naturally, you're assuming that Christanity must run on terms that are quite similar to that. And it's not helpful that people sometimes use misleading phrases like, "America is a Christian country," or "Christian culture spread throughout Europe in the Catholic Church". Such phrases are common among secularists, in particular, who have little or no interest in understanding the theological distinctives of actual Christianity. You'll find the same thing when people talk about "Islam," and don't mention whether they're talking about Sunis, Shiites, Sufis, Ismailis, Ahmadiyya, Wahabis, or even the Bahai or Nation of Islam. They don't really bother to clarify...but I'm sure you know there's a difference, and people's failure to mark the difference reminds you they don't always know what they're talking about, right?

To understand what a Christian really is, one has to understand Biblical theology, and not take at face value any person who uses the label. A person only becomes a Christian if they really believe in the salvation in Jesus Christ, as you list above. As you see in both Ephesians and John, if one does not believe in Jesus Christ as personal saviour, one is not a Christian, by Biblical definition. One comes to faith by personal choice.

Furthermore, one cannot be "submitted" by force, as John Locke so cogently pointed out, because, in his words, men cannot "be forced to heaven." Their consciences must be persuaded, because, as John 3 so clearly says, they must "believe." A person merely born in what you, in Islam call a "Christian" country or a "Christian" family isn't, by any Biblical definition, a Christian. They are an unbeliever, until they make the personal decision to be otherwise -- a decision in which any application of force is totally counterproductive and incapable of producing salvation.

Catholicism's a bit different than Christianity on that. For a Catholic, one can be "saved" by being integrated into the Catholic system, through various religous performances and activities, called "sacraments," and through submission to the Catholic authorities. And that's why the Catholics could (as in the St. Barthomew's Day Massacre or the various excesses of the Inquistion, or the so-called "Crusades,") use force. But Christians, real Christians, cannot do that. To try to force somebody to believe is simply impossible...and is expressly forbidden, as well.

Is that correct or they are exempt from "everybody"?

What Jesus said about those particular skeptics is sure to be true. But I would not be equipped to make that assessment: I am not God.

Christians do not commit murder. They do not wage holy wars. They do not hold military crusades. They do not make "converts" by force. They do not own nations, or take over nations. They believe personally in Jesus Christ, or they are not Christians at all. And only God judges hearts, so only God knows for sure when somebody is beyond repentance, and when they are not. Christians are forbidden to make that determination, beyond agreeing with what the Word of God says.

If you yourself are a gentile, then is it moral nowadays in your community of gentiles for you to be referred as a dog by either a Jew or a gentile?

I have not been called that by any Jewish person. I have no reason to suppose they ever say that, in fact. But there was clearly a time in history when it was true that Jews did call gentiles "dogs," as Muslims also called all who did not submit to Islam "infidel dogs." I'm not offended by either: but if I were, I suppose I should be equally offended by both.

Let's hope those days are done, shall we? But if not, we can be adults and just shrug off any such insults. They're not warranted.

[Averroes]

I had asked you how you got the precise statistics you mentioned thus:

"Religions," as a combined total, are about 8% of the world's war casualties. 50% of those are from one "religion," namely Islam. The other 3.8% of world causalities are all other so-called "religions" combined...

Take a look again.

"Religions," as a combined total, are about 8% of the world's war casualties. 50% of those (i.e. of the 8%) are from one "religion," namely Islam. The other 3.8% of world causalities are all other so-called "religions" combined...less than are killed in the name of geography, language, race, culture, territory, resources...and, of course, Atheism.

And that claim squares admirably with the mortality statistics. As you can see it's Atheism that's in the worst light, by orders of magnitude. Islam's responsible for about 4% of the world's war dead....large for a "religion," but small compared to Atheist regimes such as Communist dictatorships and Nazi dictatorships.

I understand your passion with these numbers. This is the third time on this thread you are commenting these numbers with me. But we have to be fair in our approach. Before when I had quoted a referenced Wikipedia article about Hitler’s profession of Christian beliefs, you were reluctant to believe and had asked me for a credible source. You said the following:

There is a referenced article on Wikipedia

Wiki is an open-source, which means anybody can contribute to it. You need a credible source. You've given none. And not surprisingly, because the information you have is just plain wrong.

I acknowledged your request was legitimate and undertook to provide you with the requested historical documents which showed that indeed Hitler had professed belief in Christianity, namely in Christ and his death on the cross among others. I even nicely formatted the information so that it will be an easy read for you.

Now, I am just asking you to be fair and follow your own standards of the need to provide a credible source for the claims you put forward. As I said already, until you provide trustworthy or credible sources for these claims, these numbers mean nothing and carries no weight. You surely understand that otherwise you yourself would not have asked me for such before. Right?

It's really not about the numbers themselves, for example, even if Atheism were 100% casualties and religion 0%, I would still be asking you for credible sources. I have a duty to be just in Islam. Allah, the Almighty says in the Holy Quran:

• يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا۟ كُونُوا۟ قَوَّٰمِينَ لِلَّهِ شُهَدَآءَ بِٱلْقِسْطِ ۖ وَلَا يَجْرِمَنَّكُمْ شَنَـَٔانُ قَوْمٍ عَلَىٰٓ أَلَّا تَعْدِلُوا۟ ۚ ٱعْدِلُوا۟ هُوَ أَقْرَبُ لِلتَّقْوَىٰ ۖ وَٱتَّقُوا۟ ٱللَّهَ ۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ خَبِيرٌۢ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ
  
  O believers! Stand firm for Allah and bear true testimony. Do not let the hatred of a people lead you to injustice. Be just! That is closer to righteousness. And be mindful of Allah. Surely Allah is All-Aware of what you do.[Holy Quran 5:8]

______________________

Adolf believed in Christ

No, he very clearly did not. Sorry. Adolph was very clearly an opportunist, a propagandist, and an Aryan occultist. But he was shrewd enough to invent rationales of all kinds...theological, scientific, political, strategic, economic, historical...to bolster his program of anti-semitism and to elicit as many followers as he could fool. And that's really all that can be honestly said about that.

As you rightly said only God knows what is in the hearts. What I can talk about is what people have professed and done according to historical documents that are credible. There are many Christians who do not follow their own scriptures, yet they call themselves Christians. I do not think we (at least I) have authority to excommunicate someone who professes/professed belief in Christianity simply because such a person does not go by all the prescriptions of their professed faith. If Hitler had publicly renounced the fundamental Christian beliefs that is common to the myriad denominations, like myself, then I would have had evidence that he was not a Christian anymore. But I do not have that evidence, and neither do any other human being as there is no such document. Similarly for you, until you make public that you left Protestantism, I cannot unilaterally declare that you are not Protestant anymore just because you do not follow the founder of Protestantism to the T. In fact, I really hope you don’t follow Luther! But Hitler had this going for him, he did in fact follow Luther to the T, and he greatly admired Luther and was inspired by Luther’s program of “purification” of Germany. In fact, the detailed blueprint of Hitler’s program was already laid out by Luther, Hitler merely executed that detailed plan. How can I say now he was not Christian at least of Lutheran inclinations?
Moreover, many of the allegations you levelled against Hitler and more can equally be levelled against Luther, yet do you claim that Luther was not a Christian too?
But if you still want to excommunicate Hitler from Christianity altogether without regard to denomination, I cannot participate or endorse it, as it will not be fair.

Let me ask you this: was Luther a Christian in your view?
________________________

Catholicism's a bit different than Christianity on that. For a Catholic, one can be "saved" by being integrated into the Catholic system, through various religous performances and activities, called "sacraments," and through submission to the Catholic authorities. And that's why the Catholics could (as in the St. Barthomew's Day Massacre or the various excesses of the Inquistion, or the so-called "Crusades,") use force. But Christians, real Christians, cannot do that. To try to force somebody to believe is simply impossible...and is expressly forbidden, as well.

You said that Catholicism is different than Christianity. I have two questions:
1. Does this imply that in your perspective that Catholics are not Christians or real Christians?
2. What denomination or sub-denomination of Christianity do you consider to be the real Christians?
_______________________

Is that correct or they are exempt from "everybody"?

What Jesus said about those particular skeptics is sure to be true. But I would not be equipped to make that assessment: I am not God.

Here, I find it fascinating that before you were vehement and clearly stating yourself that everybody who actually hates Jesus are vipers, snakes and “children of satan”. You said this:

1.Do you endorse these statements wherein those Jews who rejected Jesus and who wanted to kill him be referred to as “children of the devil”, "vipers" or "snakes"?

Everybody who actually hates Jesus is a viper or a snake, of course. And you'll recognize the allusion in that to what you Muslims call "Iblis," and we call Satan. Jesus is saying that these people had a dark nature that was devoid of repentance and openness to God, just like that.

But when I asked about the talmudic Jews of today who still hate Jesus, you now backpedal and push everything back on Jesus. This backpedalling of yours is reminding me of the story of Peter's denying of Jesus three times in the Bible.

Why this sudden change of heart when it is clear that many talmudic Jews today still hate Jesus to the core? Of course, it’s a rhetorical question as I already know the answer, you don’t need to answer. For example, the following video is of a Rabbi who is venting his anger to a Jewish audience about two Christian missionaries who were preaching the Gospel in Israel. After going into the fundamentals about Jesus in the Talmud [boiling in fecces and all that] apparently very angrily bordering on rage, he insults you and those who believe in what you believe by saying you are “think headed”, “an idiot” and “retarded”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy-RnubpsAk

This is not an isolated case in Israel. There are other videos where such views about Jesus in the Talmud is expressed with a lot of emotions I must say. You must know of the numerous accounts of systematic racism and discriminations against Christians in Israel.

Anyway, your half answer to this question was sufficient for me as I understand the context you are in. I won’t insist on that one.

As French philosopher Voltaire said: If you want to know who controls you, look at who you are not allowed to criticise.

_____________________

You forgot to answer one question, the following one:

Where is the love and blessing in calling someone "children of the devil", "vipers" and "snakes"? Do these expressions seem loving and a blessing to you?

And Jesus is God.

You say "Jesus is God." Is Jesus the same one who revealed the Torah to Moses? If so, is it the same Jesus who revealed to Moses Numbers 31:17-18

• 17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
  18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. [Numbers 31:17-18]

_________________________

If you yourself are a gentile, then is it moral nowadays in your community of gentiles for you to be referred as a dog by either a Jew or a gentile?

I have not been called that by any Jewish person. I have no reason to suppose they ever say that, in fact. But there was clearly a time in history when it was true that Jews did call gentiles "dogs," as Muslims also called all who did not submit to Islam "infidel dogs." I'm not offended by either: but if I were, I suppose I should be equally offended by both.

Let's hope those days are done, shall we? But if not, we can be adults and just shrug off any such insults. They're not warranted.

You said that saying to human being that he/she is a “dog” is an insult. I have three questions:
1. Is it wrong for a gentile to insult another gentile?
2. Is it wrong for a Jew to insult a gentile?
3. Is t wrong for a Christian to insult another Christian?

I mean from a Biblical perspective.

[Immanuel Can]

...we have to be fair in our approach...."

I'd love to think you mean that. And I'd love to think we could do it. But there are two factors from Islam that make it impossible for me to believe that.

The first is the principle of abrogation, which, as you know, is the Islamic exegetical principle that says that if a sura or verse in the Koran or Hadiths is written later in time, then it abrogates or supercedes and eliminates, any earlier verse that says differently.

If we procede as Islamic scholars proceed, that means that the few "peace-advocating" statements in the Koran are abrogated, and only the later calls for violence against the "infidels" count. Hence, your Koran quotation is both accurate but also abrogated, and thus not authoritative for Muslims to believe anymore.

The second factor is the Islamic practice of taqiyya. You will know that this means "religiously-virtuous deception of the opponents of Islam." An Islamic person can lie to infidels, and it is not counted as lying, and it can actually be regarded as an act of religious devotion.

Unfortunately for us, these two features of Islam makes it impossible for you and I to discuss with each other. And maybe that explains why Hamas and organizations like them can also regard bombing, rape, infanticide and pillage as "religiously motivated" actions. But there's really no way to negotiate with that sort of psychology.

I have to hope you're not in solidarity with those people. And I have to hope you're not one of the Muslims who knows the principle of abrogation or the commands for violence in the Koran, or who practices taqiyya. But I have no way of knowing. If you were a very informed Muslim, then you would not only practice abrogation, but also know about taqiyya. So the best case scenario I have is that you'd be honest but underinformed, and the worst that nothing you said would be worthy of trust anymore. But the problem that has been created there is 100% of Islam.

Sorry. That's the limit. Not my choice.

[promethean75]

"And maybe that explains why Hamas and organizations like them can also regard bombing, rape, infanticide and pillage as "religiously motivated" actions. But there's really no way to negotiate with that sort of psychology."

An even more difficult psychology to negotiate with is the psychology of the religious in general (pick your poison).

If god is good, and good people go to heaven, why does it even matter if people are bombed, raped and killed? 'Let god sort em out', right?

Why would i feel sympathy for someone who was blown into two pieces and is now in heaven living happily ever after? Likewise, why would i feel animosity toward the bomber if god is the arbiter of final justice? If the bomber is bad, he will pay.

What's the big deal? God's got everything under control, yeah?

[promethean75]

'course god doesn't exist, and even if he did anybody with any sense would tell em to fuck off... but the point is this. Look at how this mess can end up justifying horrible atrocities committed against human beings. From a jihadist droppin mad bombs to a christian conservative court sentencing a man to death.

All this nonsense comes from the fundamentally confused nature of religious thinking.