Posted on 12/03/2015 11:45:01 PM PST by walford
This did not occur due to the Reformation and indeed occurred centuries later
The net result of the reformation was that countries became either stridently lutheran or calvinist or anglican or catholic and persecuted other Christians -- the only exceptions to this in post-Reformation Europe were:
the stopping of persecution of other Christians happened:
I think we’re getting a little too bogged down in arguments as to what Christianity was like centuries ago.
I offered that example as a means to consider whether Islam can be reformed or not, because the other religion that holds that “my God is the only God and my religion is the only valid religion” found a way to stop conquering and slaughtering non-believers.
You can dispute that history, but what is far more important is how we can deal with Islam today, because what is being done now [inviting them in and trying to adjust to them rather than expecting them to assimilate] is not working.
Those of you who are entertaining the idea of replacing Islam with your religion as a solution are not being realistic.
If it turns out that Islam cannot be reformed — and certainly Islamic scriptures, history as well as current fanaticism may indicate this — then I fall back upon containment within traditional Islamic homelands and not allowing Muslims to settle in our nations.
What has served to contain Islamic expansion prior to the 20th Century is the economic and technological deterioration that inevitably accompanies totalitarianism. But the West is unwittingly providing the means to overcome this and that has to stop.
If Islam refuses to live in peace with non-believers, let them stew in their own juices.
Since I took none of those positions and you have ignored my posts I’ll take it that my points remain uncontested.
You and others are saying that Islam is fundamentally wrong and cannot be reformed, so what, then? Is the only option to kill all Muslims or convert them to Christianity?
As an outsider, my observation is that the Muslims are much more committed to that approach toward non-believers.
So seriously and realistically, what is your solution to how we deal with Muslims in our homelands?
First of all. All three religions do not worship the same god of abraham. Mohammed is the Johnny come lately. When he founded his religion in the 7th century he was familiar with christian and Jewish scriptures. It’s as if he picked and chose the elements that fit his purposes. He took some of the Jewish heros of faith as part of his story but the attributes of the god he worships in no way share any commonality with the god of old testament which is shared by jews and christians.
You assume that I have a solution just because I made the case that Islam cannot be reformed? If Christians want to convert them I’ll leave that to them but it’s not my place to recommend it. I don’t think that would work anyway.
In our homeland Islam should be declared a cult and banned. Since you pointed out that muslims can’t be contained in their homelands in this day and age (and I assume you weren’t recommending that we revert to the technologies and economies of the Middle Ages to keep them away since that’s the only way that would work) we’re going to have to kill them. Here and there.
I don’t think we would have to kill all of them but we should make it absolutely clear that we will if that’s what it takes.
I’m going to entertain these digressions away from the main subject, because it speaks to the larger issue — the social and political one.
2. “It’s a really poor starting point for discussion when the author conflates choices by political and military leaders with religious theology and teaching.”
Slaughter the unbeliever who will not convert is going to win against a willingness to live in peace with many Gods and religion every time.
Those who hold that practitioners of every other religion on the planet are kneeling before false idols are going to be tempted to believe that such people are by definition damned anyway, so killing, raping and plundering such Infidels is nothing compared to what awaits them in the afterlife. The mere existence of such people are an abomination that must not be tolerated by the truly faithful.
Christianity has gone past this. Islam has not — and may not ever.
Hate the sin, not the sinner. Islam though all too often appears to be little more than an ongoing criminal organization with the sacrament of violence and a totalitarian approach to others.
“In our homeland Islam should be declared a cult and banned.”
The majority of Muslims are peaceful and those who are not should be eliminated with extreme prejudice. This is why I totally disagree with calls for further gun restrictions in response to Islamic terrorism.
There should be far more armed, law-abiding citizens in this country so attempts at mass-murder will be cut short. Terrorists, as well as criminals and crazies, should come to understand that the United States is not a friendly place for those who would perpetrate mayhem on our people. They should know that the little old lady or man in a wheelchair may not be as helpless as they appear because they might be packing heat.
Contrary to what the esteemed Marie Harf has said, we can indeed kill our way to safety and security against terrorism.
Also, the much maligned Crusades, though poorly executed and not disciplined, they were defensive wars.
“The Reformation was about bringing Christianity back to what the reformers believed were fundamental practices”
And that is interesting because the “original practices” or classical Christianity was utterly destroyed by Mohammad and his Disciples during their 100 year (628-728 AD) rampage on classical western civilization, which they came close to utterly erasing from history.
Islam did not exist in the 1st Century, but in the 7th.
**ABROGATION** is the key Islamic theological concept you must learn to understand why Islamic texts have led to so much violence and probably always will, despite having many peaceful passages.
Abrogation has Islamic scholars consistently view the peaceful, chronologically earlier passages as being overruled by the very violent, later passages.
“So, at first aggressive fighting was forbidden; it later became permissible (2:190) and subsequently obligatory (9:5).[57] This “verse of the sword” abrogated, canceled, and replaced 124 verses that called for tolerance, compassion, and peace.”
http://www.meforum.org/1754/peace-or-jihad-abrogation-in-islam
I think people forget that the Christian faith took over the Roman Empire without the sword, only the blood of the Martyrs. There was no Christian warlord or army which vanquished the Ceasers, only men and women of faith proclaiming their faith into the face of death and drawing people to Jesus as they lay dying. For over 300 years, no Christian drew weapon or blood, and they were all pacifists.
The First Crusade was very well executed and very disciplined. The next few, not so much.
islam is based on earthly triumphalism -- that it conquers and keeps territory. This can be neutralized by destroying Mecca and Medina.
The Islamic world was shocked when they were consistently defeated by the Christian world and also by the defeats Hindu India inflicted on Moslem Pakistan
Islam as a philosophy cannot be remade, it can only be destroyed
That is not possible either -- this is an expansionist philosophy and one which can gain people to it who are of European/American origins as well as of Hindu, Buddhist etc. origins
the only way to contain it is to destroy it. Your point is like saying "contain communism in Soviet Russia"
I talk about the philosophy, not the followers -- the only option is to destroy Islam, the philosophy.
Your view of Christian theology is so totally divorced from reality that I’m going to bow out of the discussion as being useless
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.