In Defence of Islam
#21
(09-14-2010, 07:44 PM)MetallicaFan Wrote:
(09-14-2010, 04:40 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: The cstholic nations where spreading the true fAith and it was good
unless you are arguing the Aztec empire should of been saved and nOt destroyed
I think it should have been converted through no violent. Spreading the faith through means that are completely contrary to the faith is not good at all - it is evil.

Actually MetallicaFan millions in that region converted to the Catholic faith because of the miracle of Our Lady of Guadalupe.  It took years to Baptize that all.  Our Lady of Guadalupe is the most visited shrine in the world now.
http://www.sancta.org/intro.html
Reply
#22
MetallicaFan,

Ad 1: Sura 8:55; 30:45.

Ad 2: Nowhere in the Bible does it say that God positively desires certain men to go to hell. Allah, however, actively works to make people sin and not believe, and then sends them to hell for what he made them do.

Ad 3: Sura 33:27; see also Bukhari 53:392.

Well, it would have been nice if you had cited your sources so that we could check for ourselves. You're free to your opinions, but not expect me to simply accept them at face value.

Does any Islamic nation, with Sharia Law in effect, allow for public worship by Christians?

I hate falsity, as does God. I do not hate Muslims, but rather their false doctrines. As a Christian, you should too.

... The Christian faith has been revealed by God; you and I should both agree on this point. Islam, because it contradicts what God revealed through Christ, cannot be from God, because He cannot deceive nor be deceived.

Please forgive me if I came off a little bit harsh toward you. I still cannot understand how you can say that neither religion is better than the other when you as a fellow Christian ought to believe that God is indeed triune and that any statements to the contrary are entirely false, including those made by Islam.

How is Islam false? Because Christianity is true, and as the two religions contradict each other in many ways, Islam must be false as a matter of principle (i.e. non-contradiction). More specifically, here are some of Islam's false doctrines:

- Jesus was not crucified
- Jesus is not the eternal and divine Son of God
- God is not three Persons in one nature
- God predestines some to hell
- False evidence is allowed to hide a Muslim's crime or protect his reputation
- Allowance of polygamy
- A wife's evidence doesn't count while her husband's does
- Blood revenge and law of retaliation are permitted
- 72 virgins waiting in heaven
Reply
#23
Metalicafan needs some lessons in  history
the Aztec were defeated primarily because they're empire was built and sustained by plunder And slavery. Cortez had the insight after first engaging the Aztecs and narrowly escaping wiith his and his troops lives (some were killed)  to rather then  attack head on to forge alliances with the azteC enemies which were every tribe under Aztec oppresion.  Prior to Cortez and prior to even barnal Diaz 2 catholic priiests were   ship wrecked and were living as Maya amongst the Maya in the yocutan. (one was made a slave the other a local petty prince due to marriege) they were living there  for close to 15 years or so.  Some Maya were Under  aztec  oppression some weren't  all were resentfull. when the Spanish landed (after some initial engagements with hostile Maya)  they were quickly pointed toward the direction of one of these priests. This priest  knew  Maya and Spanish hence Cortez was able to communicate and realize the Maya hated the Aztecs.  he was given a Maya princess who was actually a slave to the Aztecs. She new Maya and new nauutle (Aztec) she also  learned Spanish. Her name we know as la minche. She also could speak other  Indian languages from the central hghlands. The Spanish forged alliances with the Indians who were under mexica (Aztec servitude) through her. and thus were able to conquer the Aztecs. The aztecs though  brave were no match for Spanish weaponry. The Aztecs had no metal weapons no horses  and only possesed the wheel as a childeens toy. They did have obsidian which is sharper then steel but breaks upon impact against it thus muting it's cutting capability. The Aztecs were also no match in  strategy. The Spanish that came as reinforcements and most onthe first expedition were hardenend conquistadors from the reconquesta. Tenochtitlan (Mexico city) though at first seemedto be solidly impenitrible havng been bult in te middle of a lake had a fatal flaw. It's water source was outsize the city. Once the Spanish descovered this they laid side and it was just a matter of rme before th final battle between the Spanish maybe nmbering 400 (maybe it's been awhile since my mesoamaeican  history courses) and thousands and thousands upon housands of Indians tha rose against the  vile aztecs. The Aztecs were doomed the minute Cortez could speak with the Mayan who could speak with hebother subjugated tribes
hardly thebpicture leftist scum paint of Spanish bloodletting and Christian bloodletting
the destruction o the satanic Aztec empire was a good thing. And here's the clincher
most azecs didn't  convert from  or emperiIal  policy. Actually few converted untill  our  lady of guadalape appeared o don Juan
the mexica were not forcably converted
now forhe oft said Spanish bloodletting compared to whom they conquered th is a bald face lie. Temple mayor the  major Aztec temple (the first one still survives  beside the cathederal which was built ontop of montcezumas palace) had thousands of human sacrifices a day. U can still see where the heads would land after being rolled down the steps. The Spanish put an end to this
period

as for mohamadans worshipping th moon deity it s not vert but mohamadanism is abfusion of judiasm wi some Christian principles and ancent Arabian moon dirty worship (the kaba is abgood example of this)

as for Christianity being a non violent hippie love fest
this is simple not true and complelty false. I strongly recomend  the writiings  of st Bernard of clairvaux. Last father of the church. Doctor of the church. Who fused the sword with the cross in establishing catholic military monastic orders. In praise of the new knighthood is a good start

     
Reply
#24
(09-14-2010, 05:26 PM)alaric Wrote: The question is, are those continents a better place since the white christian man "imposed" their rule there?

You imply that Europe was the only part of the world that had a civilization (or at least, one worthy of being called such). The Islamic world, India, China, Japan (and as my very superficial knowledge of Latin America makes me believe, Latin America too) had very developed cultures, systems of agriculture, medicine, engineering (ever seen the Hindu and Muslim architecture of India?). If you are going to compare the accomplishments of civilizations, be fair and travel a bit further into time. Europe in the fifteenth-sixteenth century was really not more "advanced" than the rest of the world.
Reply
#25
devotedknuckles Wrote:st Bernard of clairvaux. Last father of the church.

Is S. Bernard really a Father of the Church? Not having read this post this morning, I was thinking it a big stretch that S. Augustine was considered amongst the Fathers. Talk about late dating!

Quote:Who fused the sword with the cross in establishing catholic military monastic orders.

Yes, and we all know how happily the Second Crusade ended. Let's picnic at Hattin.
Reply
#26
MetallicaFan Wrote:Hint; he is a Christian.


Solzhenitsyn?
Reply
#27
Islam is certainly and absolutely worse than one religion - the only religion that is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.  God is not, in any way, playing games with religions and with the souls of mankind.  All other religions lead souls to hell, and that is the work of fallen men, and the Enemy.  None of those religions are valid, practical, or useful except for the purposes of fallen men, and the Enemy. 

MetallicaFan, pray for the conversion of Muslims.  You are right that not all Muslims are entirely sold on brutal Jihad, but that does not change the fact that Islam, because of wrong belief, cannot fully cooperate with God's grace as God intends.  They are not part of the One True Church.  Conversion is necessary.  Until Muslims are converted, they can be swept into Jihad one way or another.  The necessary events, if they were to transpire, would provide the necessary motivations.  Still, not even a sudden absence in Islam of all motivation to Jihad can make Islam any more valid or good for the souls of its followers.

It isn't a matter of our human judgment finding Islam to be equal to other religions.  You are asking Catholics here, and, especially on this forum, we are not going to answer from a position of adopted Indifferentism, which we are bound against as it is a heresy.

As it has been said here, God can neither deceive, nor be deceived.

One more thing:

"MetallicaFan" Wrote:
"SouthpawLink" Wrote:Why would a Christian say that "Islam is no better or worse than any other religion,"
Because its the truth. Why would a Christian bear so much hatred when Jesus said to love thy enemy?

You miss one immense and vital distinction.  We are commanded to love our enemy, but not his religion.  We are also commanded to hate iniquity, and false religions are vile iniquity because they lead souls to Hell.  Hating Islam is not the same as hating a Muslim.  A Christian should be entirely opposed to Islam at the same time as praying for the conversion of Muslims, and loving them the way God intends us to love them.  This does not include supporting them in error that puts their souls in danger.  That is wrong for us to do.
Reply
#28
(09-14-2010, 07:38 PM)MetallicaFan Wrote:
(09-14-2010, 02:39 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: Metalicafan is your avatar guerjieff?
Nope. Close, but I'll let you keep guessing.

Hint; he is a Christian.

Tolstoy?
Reply
#29
(09-15-2010, 11:36 AM)ecclesiastes Wrote:
(09-14-2010, 05:26 PM)alaric Wrote: The question is, are those continents a better place since the white christian man "imposed" their rule there?

You imply that Europe was the only part of the world that had a civilization (or at least, one worthy of being called such). The Islamic world, India, China, Japan (and as my very superficial knowledge of Latin America makes me believe, Latin America too) had very developed cultures, systems of agriculture, medicine, engineering (ever seen the Hindu and Muslim architecture of India?). If you are going to compare the accomplishments of civilizations, be fair and travel a bit further into time. Europe in the fifteenth-sixteenth century was really not more "advanced" than the rest of the world.
And you imply that the Europeans brought nothing but destruction,disease, and death to all these "civilizations".......

Just about all the modern conveniences enjoyed by our East Asia friends are due in part to European technology, their architecture was unique but limited  and for every Taj Mahal in the Indian subcontinent there are millions living in squalor down in Calcutta and Bombay, India is and always has been an open sewer polluting the rest of the continent with it's mass poverty and destitution and now with a little bit of industrialization (again thanks to Western companies and funding) it's only going to get worse, those Hindus do nothing but exploit their own to the utmost degree and really don't have much to do with the sanctity of human life.


As far the natives in the western hemisphere other wise known as "Latin" America, their biggest accomplishments were piling rocks on top of one another high enough to toss headless corpses over  after they removed vital organs from prior to. this was a savage world which preyed upon the weak and the young and female, they were notorious for torture just as much as any other "civilised" peoples out there.

And Europe in the 16-17th century was more advanced  many of those areas today that remained "unscathed" and untouched by the white Christian man and his "magic".
Reply
#30
(09-15-2010, 03:11 PM)Cambrensis Wrote:
MetallicaFan Wrote:Hint; he is a Christian.


Solzhenitsyn?
LOL I can see the resemblance. But no.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)