Obama Just Compared Christianity With Islam…At National Prayer Breakfast

[Steinlight]

Islam is basically just a Christian sect.

And you are basically a stupid faggot.

 

[Pogo]

Islam is basically just a Christian sect.

Islam is a hybrid of Judaism + Christianity + Arabic Paganism; a copycat, knock-off, rip-off or plagiarized knocked-together collection of borrowed/stolen concepts plus its own fair share of hallucinations, foisted upon the gullible locals (Arabs) by a self-excusing, bloodthirsty pedophile and war-monger.

Replace the specific proper nouns with generics and you have a worthy definition of any of those religions.
But you know what, let's single one out and pretend it's "different". That way we need not inspect our own.

The Founder of Christianity (Jesus of Nazareth) preached peace and love and tolerance.

The Founder of Islam (Muhammed) preached war and bloody violence and oppression against Unbelievers, and against those who oppose Believers.

The former is a Religion of Peace.

The latter is a Warrior's Religion.

When Christianity has spawned warfare and violence, its leaders were doing so in direct violation of the precepts of their Founder.

When Islam has spawned warfare and violence, its leaders are doing so in direct compliance with the precepts of their Founder.

Huge phukking difference.

The basic or Core Teachings of Christianity supply a braking and self-correcting mechanism which always brings the philosophical wings back towards the center.

The basic or Core Teachings of Islam supply permissions and justifications for war and violence which serve as a perpetual breeding ground for fresh radicalisms.

Purveyors of faux equivalencies and those unable to distinguish these vast and all-important differences cannot be expected to agree with such distinctions.

If you can show us where Jesus of Nazareth gave repeated permissions and justifications for war and if you can show us where Jesus of Nazareth embarked upon campaigns of bloody conquest and if you can show us where Jesus of Nazareth stormed Jewish citadels and slaughtered their chiefs then forcibly-married the widow of one of those chiefs on the evening of her husband's killing and if you can show us where Jesus of Nazareth porked little girls, then, maybe, you've got a ballgame here.

:sigh... back to this crap again...

 

[Kondor3]

Islam is basically just a Christian sect.

Islam is a hybrid of Judaism + Christianity + Arabic Paganism; a copycat, knock-off, rip-off or plagiarized knocked-together collection of borrowed/stolen concepts plus its own fair share of hallucinations, foisted upon the gullible locals (Arabs) by a self-excusing, bloodthirsty pedophile and war-monger.

Replace the specific proper nouns with generics and you have a worthy definition of any of those religions.
But you know what, let's single one out and pretend it's "different". That way we need not inspect our own.

The Founder of Christianity (Jesus of Nazareth) preached peace and love and tolerance.

The Founder of Islam (Muhammed) preached war and bloody violence and oppression against Unbelievers, and against those who oppose Believers.

The former is a Religion of Peace.

The latter is a Warrior's Religion.

When Christianity has spawned warfare and violence, its leaders were doing so in direct violation of the precepts of their Founder.

When Islam has spawned warfare and violence, its leaders are doing so in direct compliance with the precepts of their Founder.

Huge phukking difference.

The basic or Core Teachings of Christianity supply a braking and self-correcting mechanism which always brings the philosophical wings back towards the center.

The basic or Core Teachings of Islam supply permissions and justifications for war and violence which serve as a perpetual breeding ground for fresh radicalisms.

Purveyors of faux equivalencies and those unable to distinguish these vast and all-important differences cannot be expected to agree with such distinctions.

If you can show us where Jesus of Nazareth gave repeated permissions and justifications for war and if you can show us where Jesus of Nazareth embarked upon campaigns of bloody conquest and if you can show us where Jesus of Nazareth stormed Jewish citadels and slaughtered their chiefs then forcibly-married the widow of one of those chiefs on the evening of her husband's killing and if you can show us where Jesus of Nazareth porked little girls, then, maybe, you've got a ballgame here.

:sigh... back to this crap again...

Indeed.

Refute the assertions and you negate the claim to differences sufficient to put Islam into a different category.

Never mind the horseshit about the Old Testament.

Concentrate on the basic or Core Teachings of the two Founders, not what their mortal and fallible and disingenuous disciples and successors and heirs (spiritual and temporal) did with (or buried) those Teachings over the centuries in order to work mischief of their own.

But you won't defend Islam on the level of those Core Teachings... because you know you can't... that's OK... it's one helluva challenge... damned-near impossible.

 

[Steinlight]

That passage doesn't advocate slavery. But obedience to God like obedience to one's master. Its called an analogy.

It's not an analogy. It's a passage explaining that being a good slave is being a good Christian, which is about as pro-slavery as Christianity can get.

Of course, Christians today don't advocate slavery, but telling me mid-19th Century Christians had no New Testament passages to justify their position is incorrect.

Yes it it, I can't help if you can't read. It clearly says be obedient to God as you are to your master. If you can't see this, this is your problem, not mine. As I said before, there are passages that could be put forth to both advocate slavery and abolition in the Bible. The fact remains, slavery predates Christianity. It was Christians, White Christians specifically, I know, the horror, that founded the abolition movement on religious principles. It was the British Empire that effectively ended the global slave trade. So Christianity is not responsible for slavery, but it is responsible for ending slavery in the Western world and most of the world all together. though unfortunately it continues today in parts of Africa, Muslim areas more specifically. But the existence of slavery cannot be blamed on Christianity. Without Christianity, there would have been no abolition movement. And as I said before, the Bible is not a political manifesto. Christ sought salvation for all mankind, slave and free, gentile and jew, greek and roman, man and woman. He brought us something far more important than abolition in this world, he gave us eternal life in the next.

This is sort of like saying a manual on how to swim doesn't advocate swimming. Claiming a book on How To Slavery doesn't advocate slavery is some serious cognitive dissonance. And we're limiting ourselves to the New Testament right now, of course...

As far as your other points, hrm. The British Empire started the Atlantic Slave Trade Triangle. They needed African slaves because Native American ones were dying too fast. Bringing over African slaves didn't save the Native Americans, though. Christians continued their campaign to annihilate them, if not physically, then culturally with aggressive efforts to erase their identity and "civilize" them.

Christianity gets no points for not inventing slavery. That's not even a defense. "Hey, it's not like I'm the first guy to ever murder!" Christianity's shame is not cleared away because many abolitionists were also Christians. Southern pastors argued just as vigorously, and with just as much theological merit, and over the next 150 years it would be the most religious states that would most bitterly cling to institutionalized racism.

Your verse isn't a verse on "how to slavery", it is a verse on how slaves should obey God as they obey their master. So it doesn't apply at all. There is no cognitive dissonance. You are just proscribing your preconceived prejudices against Christianity, than trying to rig together text that in reality doesn't fit your claims at all.

Slavery, even in it's chattel form, existed prior to the British with the Arabs, Spaniards, Portuguese, and others. This also doesn't include the several European Christian nations that had no slaves, and the those same nations had many who were were enslaved by the Ottomans. The British didn't have a monopoly on slavery. Though their Empire is responsible for ending the trade globally. This is getting off topic though. The point is Christians don't have a monopoly on the slave trade, though Christians are behind Abolition. This is what makes Christianity unique, not that it created slavery but it gave birth to the concept that ended globally. Without Christianity, there would have not been an abolition movement. Yet you don't address this.

As I said, salvation is a far more important issue, not material and earthly political issues like abolition. Your issue is your pride, which is inflamed by your ardent materialism and humanism. You think you have a greater moral grasp of our universe and more compassion for man than our Lord, who is all knowing and omnipotent, which is unbridled arrogance.

Fine. A verse that begins "Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling," is not an instruction to slaves saying God wants them to be loyal, fearful slaves, but something that is not that.

Absolutely no one is claiming that Christianity started slavery. Why you keep bringing up these other polities as if their actions absolve Christianity for its massive hand in slavery is beyond me. It's one of the religion's most incredible traits: a complete refusal to simply and straightforwardly face up to its own blemishes. We can't even bring Christianity's role in slavery up in passing without triggering shrill protestations and wild attempts to shift blame. "What about Mauritania? What about the Portugese?" What about YOU? Why can't even one Christian have the moral courage to stand up and admit to the baser history of his creed, without the usual barrage of rationalizations, disclaimers, and self-exculpations?

What's really outrageous here is that you can't even address Christianity's historic role in the slave trade without trying to snatch credit for ending it. If Christianity was truly the animating factor in ending slavery, it damn well took its time, don't you think? Judaism existed with slavery for thousands of years. Christianity had few dissenters in nearly two millennia. It was only when we reached the Age of Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, that rationality could begin to reform Christianity. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad Christian institutions stopped spit-roasting these people long enough to listen and for some of those ideas to penetrate. But Christians today certainly don't get to absolve their institutions by bringing up those Christians who forced the other Christians to stop practicing Biblical slavery, based on ideas that originated outside of religious thought.

Now at this point, you are cutting out phrases with no context, and not giving the full sentence, honestly, you are getting more pathetic by the minute with your arguments. This isn't even a proper analysis. You are just are taking one phrase out of context and ignoring the full thing which presents it as an analogy. Be obedient to Christ as you are to your master. This phrase is no way says you should enslave others. It doesn't condemn slavery nor promote it, rather it is a verse about being obedient to your heavenly lord as you would be to your earthly lord if you were a slave.

You are the one that denies Christianity's role in slavery, which was to end it. All other societies practiced slavery, this existence without slavery is a new and modern concept, a western christian concept. So yes, lets talk about Christianity's role with slavery. No one denies Christians enslaved others, but all other peoples throughout history did as well. Whether it be the Papal Bull against Slavery or the Abolition Movement started in Great Britain and the US, these were Christian based concepts that spread throughout the rest of the world. It is ironic someone so fixated on slavery condemns the the Western Christian society which moved to eliminate it world wide. So no, I don't feel guilty about slavery at all, and Christian Civilization has no need to be specifically condemned for it, when it is going on still in non-christian areas of the world. I come from a country in which there were no slaves, except for our people taken by the Ottomans. So you aren't going to brow beat me for something I have no guilt for.

And what you don't understand, and I keep hammering this point home while you don't listen. Christ came here for far more important matters than an earthly issue like slavery, he came here for eternal salvation. We are all slaves to sin, the worst kind of slavery, and Christ offers this freedom from the bonds of sin to all mankind regardless of their earthly position in life. There is nothing more loving or caring than this. But you can't recognize this

 

[Pogo]

Islam is basically just a Christian sect.

Islam is a hybrid of Judaism + Christianity + Arabic Paganism; a copycat, knock-off, rip-off or plagiarized knocked-together collection of borrowed/stolen concepts plus its own fair share of hallucinations, foisted upon the gullible locals (Arabs) by a self-excusing, bloodthirsty pedophile and war-monger.

Replace the specific proper nouns with generics and you have a worthy definition of any of those religions.
But you know what, let's single one out and pretend it's "different". That way we need not inspect our own.

The Founder of Christianity (Jesus of Nazareth) preached peace and love and tolerance.

The Founder of Islam (Muhammed) preached war and bloody violence and oppression against Unbelievers, and against those who oppose Believers.

The former is a Religion of Peace.

The latter is a Warrior's Religion.

When Christianity has spawned warfare and violence, its leaders were doing so in direct violation of the precepts of their Founder.

When Islam has spawned warfare and violence, its leaders are doing so in direct compliance with the precepts of their Founder.

Huge phukking difference.

The basic or Core Teachings of Christianity supply a braking and self-correcting mechanism which always brings the philosophical wings back towards the center.

The basic or Core Teachings of Islam supply permissions and justifications for war and violence which serve as a perpetual breeding ground for fresh radicalisms.

Purveyors of faux equivalencies and those unable to distinguish these vast and all-important differences cannot be expected to agree with such distinctions.

If you can show us where Jesus of Nazareth gave repeated permissions and justifications for war and if you can show us where Jesus of Nazareth embarked upon campaigns of bloody conquest and if you can show us where Jesus of Nazareth stormed Jewish citadels and slaughtered their chiefs then forcibly-married the widow of one of those chiefs on the evening of her husband's killing and if you can show us where Jesus of Nazareth porked little girls, then, maybe, you've got a ballgame here.

:sigh... back to this crap again...

Indeed.

Refute the assertions and you negate the claim to differences sufficient to put Islam into a different category.

Never mind the horseshit about the Old Testament.

Concentrate on the basic or Core Teachings of the two Founders, not what their mortal and fallible and disingenuous disciples and successors and heirs (spiritual and temporal) did with (or buried) those Teachings over the centuries in order to work mischief of their own.

But you won't defend Islam on the level of those Core Teachings... because you know you can't... that's OK... it's one helluva challenge... damned-near impossible.

I don't "defend" any religion. What would be the point?

What I defend is Logic. And what you have above, the same old "when we do it it's random nuts, when they do it it's institutional" crapola, doesn't come close. It's the same old double standard bullshit we've heard for years.

That's why I rarely venture into these things any more. Nobody's listening.

 

[Pogo]

Islam is basically just a Christian sect.

And you are basically a stupid faggot.

See what I mean? QED.

 

[Agit8r]

Islam is basically just a Christian sect.

Islam is a hybrid of Judaism + Christianity + Arabic Paganism; a copycat, knock-off, rip-off or plagiarized knocked-together collection of borrowed/stolen concepts plus its own fair share of hallucinations, foisted upon the gullible locals (Arabs) by a self-excusing, bloodthirsty pedophile and war-monger.

The Jews and Christians of the time thought it was a shabby joke. They were right.

It is based on Christianity. It is little wonder that it has fallen into the same errors:

Bahira - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Steinlight]

Islam is basically just a Christian sect.

Islam is a hybrid of Judaism + Christianity + Arabic Paganism; a copycat, knock-off, rip-off or plagiarized knocked-together collection of borrowed/stolen concepts plus its own fair share of hallucinations, foisted upon the gullible locals (Arabs) by a self-excusing, bloodthirsty pedophile and war-monger.

The Jews and Christians of the time thought it was a shabby joke. They were right.

It is based on Christianity. It is little wonder that it has fallen into the same errors:

Bahira - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

It would be cool if you weren't a total autist. Stop posting faggot.

 

[Politico]

Maybe 500 years ago. Sure as hell not today...

Can someone point out anything within christanity today that even starts to compare with the isis and al quada?? This is some crazy shit obama is smoking.

He didn't compare Christianity with ISIS or Al Qaida

In order to do that he'd have to be willing to call them by their names.

 

[Agit8r]

Islam is basically just a Christian sect.

Islam is a hybrid of Judaism + Christianity + Arabic Paganism; a copycat, knock-off, rip-off or plagiarized knocked-together collection of borrowed/stolen concepts plus its own fair share of hallucinations, foisted upon the gullible locals (Arabs) by a self-excusing, bloodthirsty pedophile and war-monger.

The Jews and Christians of the time thought it was a shabby joke. They were right.

It is based on Christianity. It is little wonder that it has fallen into the same errors:

Bahira - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

It would be cool if you weren't a total autist. Stop posting faggot.

Historically, Christians LOVED faggots. By which I mean the bundles of wood that they tied intellectuals to before setting them alight.

 

[TooTall]

Nowhere in the OP article did I see where President Obama "compared" Christianity with Islam! He was simply stating a fact about the history of Christianity.

We did the same thing 800 years ago is about as clear a comparison as one can make.

 

[Geaux4it]

Nowhere in the OP article did I see where President Obama "compared" Christianity with Islam! He was simply stating a fact about the history of Christianity.

We did the same thing 800 years ago is about as clear a comparison as one can make.

Who is we?

The crusaders were a defensive posture as a result of Islams push into the Med and points abroad.

-Geaux

 

[JoeB131]

Nobody's advocating perpetual war... merely Realism, as this pertains to Islam, and perpetual watchfulness, and readiness to preempt and intervene as necessary.

We've had some kind of conflict with the Islamic World since 1991. That's about as close to Perpetual as you get.

 

[JoeB131]

Hardly... but it has to be done, from time to time, and, when that time comes, somebody's got to do it... sending our kids into harms' way.

The trick is not to do it lightly, and to do it intelligently, with clear and realistic goals in mind, to get it over quickly, and to then walk away quickly, without all that nation-building horseshit.

You mean make sure you have another war to fight in 10 years, then?

Hey, here's a crazy idea. How about

1) Stop pissing them off by propping up Israel.
2) Stop enabling crazy people who you think will do your bidding like Bin Laden and Saddam.
3) If you are going to send kids, then call a draft and make sure the kids of the rich and the politicians are right there in the foxhole next to the poor brown kids.

I'm guessing if you had #3 as a policy, you'd have a lot of politicians who would stop talking smack.

 

[JoeB131]

Fox News' Eric Bolling Says Only Muslims Kill In The Name Of Religion

Forget the Inquisition or the Crusades, religious fanatics only kill in the name of Islam -- at least according to Fox News' Eric Bolling.

During a segment Saturday on "Cashin’ In," Bolling accused President Barack Obama of lumping "Christians and murderous Islamic terrorists together" at the National Prayer Breakfast last week. In his speech, Obama warned Americans of forgetting the atrocities made in the name of Christianity when condemning Islam.

"Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ," Obama said during his speech. "In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ."

Bolling claimed the president's "egregious" comments would "follow him for the rest of his presidency and legacy," and pushed back on the idea that people murder in the names of other religions.

More: Fox News Eric Bolling Says Only Muslims Kill In The Name Of Religion

Is Eric Bolling really that fucking stupid? It appears that he is...

When were the Crusades. shitting bull?

Were they yesterday?

Attacking him because he's Native American is hitting below the belt. So am I. If you can make your argument without the racist remarks it would be appreciated.

Lakhota is about as "Native American" as Ward Churchill.

 

[Kondor3]

...What I defend is Logic. And what you have above, the same old "when we do it it's random nuts, when they do it it's institutional" crapola, doesn't come close. It's the same old double standard bullshit we've heard for years...

Fortunately for me, that is not what I was saying.

What I was saying was that when we did it - 1000 years ago (Crusades) or 500 years ago (Inquisition) - we were doing it in VIOLATION of the basic or Core Teachings of the Founder of Christianity - Jesus of Nazaraeth.

What I was saying was that when they do it - 1000 years ago - or today, in our present age - they do it in COMPLIANCE with the basic or Core Teachings of the Founder of Islam - Muhammed.

If you can argue-down that point, then I will happily concede the matter.

If not, then I will assume that the point has been conceded to me.

You are also free to open-up a related can of worms, namely:

"Conceding that Christianity contains no embedded injunctions on the part of its Founder, to wage Religious War, and conceding that Islam does... do these differences between the basic or Core Teachings of Christianity and Islam serve to - (a) discourage or (b) promote - Religious War in our present age?"

But, I think we know the answer to that question as well, don't we?

 

[Kondor3]

Hardly... but it has to be done, from time to time, and, when that time comes, somebody's got to do it... sending our kids into harms' way.

The trick is not to do it lightly, and to do it intelligently, with clear and realistic goals in mind, to get it over quickly, and to then walk away quickly, without all that nation-building horseshit.

You mean make sure you have another war to fight in 10 years, then?

Hey, here's a crazy idea. How about

1) Stop pissing them off by propping up Israel...

This is your primary goal.

...2) Stop enabling crazy people who you think will do your bidding like Bin Laden and Saddam...

Agreed.

...3) If you are going to send kids, then call a draft and make sure the kids of the rich and the politicians are right there in the foxhole next to the poor brown kids...

Agreed.

...I'm guessing if you had #3 as a policy, you'd have a lot of politicians who would stop talking smack.

Agreed.

And let's make sure the politicians' kids go first, in order to to 'lead by example'.

 

[JoeB131]

Leave it to Joeb131 to illustrate the absurd. Pope Innocent saved 10,000 Jews, but that doesn't stop the despicable Left from calling him a Nazi sympathizer. These people twist history so much they don't know what really happened.

First, "Pope Innocent" wasn't the Pope when WWII happened. It was Pius XII. Or as Historians have called him, "Hitler's Pope".

Hey, all the Pope had to do was get on Vatican Radio and say, "The Axis is evil, and all Catholics are to put down their arms or face excommunication!" That would have disarmed Italy and about half of Germany. True, Mussolini and Hitler would have shot Pius, but he'd have gone straight to heaven, really.

He didn't do that.

 

[Kondor3]

Islam is basically just a Christian sect.

Islam is a hybrid of Judaism + Christianity + Arabic Paganism; a copycat, knock-off, rip-off or plagiarized knocked-together collection of borrowed/stolen concepts plus its own fair share of hallucinations, foisted upon the gullible locals (Arabs) by a self-excusing, bloodthirsty pedophile and war-monger.

The Jews and Christians of the time thought it was a shabby joke. They were right.

It is based on Christianity. It is little wonder that it has fallen into the same errors:

Bahira - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Islam is exactly as I described it, regardless of how many fictitious monk-legends came swarming out of the ditchwater of Muhammed's fevered brain.

 

[Agit8r]

Nobody's advocating perpetual war... merely Realism, as this pertains to Islam, and perpetual watchfulness, and readiness to preempt and intervene as necessary.

We've had some kind of conflict with the Islamic World since 1991. That's about as close to Perpetual as you get.

Except for Bosnia...