Pope Francis: "I don't think it is right to equate Islam with violence." - Polidicks

[QUOTE=xbax;50809301]Islam is no worse then Christianity in this regard. For example Deuteronomy 13 from the Bible: "6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. [B]Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people[/B]".[/QUOTE] Did my saying that Islam is violent somehow imply that Christianity was any less so? No.

[QUOTE=Boaraes;50809277]Islam contains violent text and passages that call for violence. It requires an extreme amount of delusion to say that Islam is not a violent religion.[/QUOTE] here is the problem I see with this line with thinking. first off there are many different interpretations of Islam, just like Christianity. for example, some interpret the quote "any man who sleeps with another man must be stoned" as a call against gay people. I interpret that as a call to legalize weed. likewise there are many interpretations of the qu'ran, some more violent than others. tell that quote to most "christian" families in the US or most countries, and they will probably tell you something like "yeah but we don't believe in that." You can have an entire theocratic argument with them about that, and you would technically be right in some sense. but it is completely irrelevant if you are right or not since most christians ignore those "bad parts" of the bible. The same has happened with islam (and other religions) here in the west and this mentality needs to spread to the middle east. Now I am fine with politely criticizing certain aspects of islam (or any religion). The problem that I (and many other people) worry about is that too many folks believe that criticizing islam = criticizing all muslims (im not saying you are doing this im just making a statement). unfortunately its a very thin line that many people cross, and discriminating muslims will just make the terrorism situation worse. the idea that "islam is the problem" is also simply an unproductive one. So Islam is the problem, what now? do we kill everyone off everyone who is muslim? maybe just a few countries? that line of thinking really leaves no solutions. the best way to approach this is that islam, like the prominent religions in the west, need to be secularized. Unfortunately that isn't going to happen considering many middle eastern countries are in poor socioeconomic conditions, and their governments are enforcing the worst of the religious laws, making progress difficult. It can be done however, and you can see it happening in Iran actually. thankfully Irans lake of super tight control on the internet has led the young generation to become quite secular (in fact atheism is on a sharp rise there amoungst young people). Who knows, if the current shah doesn't screw things up (or if trump doesnt become president and royally screw everything over) Iran could become a westernized nation pretty soon.

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50809233]Islam is not the problem. Extremism is. As I said earlier, if Christianity went through what Islam has been through then it'd have just as many extremists. Islam is not to blame- violent interpretations of it are.[/QUOTE] you say this a lot, but you never specify. what exactly have Christians not experienced that muslims have? christians in the former territories of the roman empire that were subjugated by the umayyads were subject to large amounts of taxation unless they converted (taxation so large that a decent living was practically impossible.) so lets go ahead and tick "occupation" off the list. what else? oh i know! people ignorant of history often like to say "but what about the crusades?" in an intellectually dishonest or ignorant attempt to somehow reconcile the actions of modern islamist terrorists by comparing them to actions taken by christian kingdoms 800 years ago. lets analyze that for just a moment. did you know that the crusades werent just this random "lets go raze islamic lands in the name of the lord" sort of thing that many make it out to be? did you know that the muslim empires made it into europe as far as vienna without any prior provocation? and the christian kingdoms are suddenly the bad guys for trying to recover land rightfully lost? (a little off topic, but how come this doesn't seem to be ok but calls to return land to native americans are seen as just?) so lets tick that little fantasy off the list. anything else im missing? just for shits and giggles, i want you to name me some horrible atrocities committed by radical christian sects against muslims SOLELY in the name of Jesus.

[QUOTE=mr kjerr;50809387]you say this a lot, but you never specify. what exactly have Christians not experienced that muslims have? christians in the former territories of the roman empire that were subjugated by the umayyads were subject to large amounts of taxation unless they converted (taxation so large that a decent living was practically impossible.) so lets go ahead and tick "occupation" off the list. [B]what else? oh i know! people ignorant of history often like to say "but what about the crusades?" in an intellectually dishonest or ignorant attempt to somehow reconcile the actions of modern islamist terrorists by comparing them to actions taken by christian kingdoms 800 years ago. lets analyze that for just a moment. did you know that the crusades werent just this random "lets go raze islamic lands in the name of the lord" sort of thing that many make it out to be? did you know that the muslim empires made it into europe as far as vienna without any prior provocation? and the christian kingdoms are suddenly the bad guys for trying to recover land rightfully lost? (a little off topic, but how come this doesn't seem to be ok but calls to return land to native americans are seen as just?) so lets tick that little fantasy off the list. anything else im missing? just for shits and giggles, i want you to name me some horrible atrocities committed by radical christian sects against muslims SOLELY in the name of Jesus.[/B][/QUOTE] I like how you got so upset over something he didn't actually say

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50808735]I wouldn't be surprised if in the coming years, we see a new Anti-Pope arise, and have another split in the Catholic Church. This pacifist approach it has been going on with for the last hundred or so years, is starting to really piss off people who feel the church is not protecting the faith from other religions.[/QUOTE] So, you want the Pope to call for... violence, is that it? Christian violence? To be as bad as certain Islamic faith leaders? May I call you the hypocrite you are? Because it appears to me you totes support Christian violence against Muslims and a new war of religion. And if you somehow think that will help, I'm sure glad that the Pope will never listen to someone like you.

The problem is that major Islamic groups are encouraging this, as are many middle eastern countries. If the Vatican told Catholics to take up arms and start lynching nonbelievers in the name of god, you bet a good amount of Catholics would try and do that. The problem isn't Islam itself, it's how devoted these people are to it. It's a relatively newer religion, it'll mellow out within the next couple hundred years. There's nothing we can do about it now. The most we can do is try and actually assimilate refugees into our cultures andbteach them western standards and beliefs instead of letting them live the same way they did in Chahalakhanidurkistan or whatever shithole war-torn country they're from.

[QUOTE=Smug Bastard;50809331]The difference is that Christians stopped actually taking any of their holy books seriously about 500 years ago.[/QUOTE] 500? assholes in America were still using it to justify slavery 150 years ago

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50808735]I wouldn't be surprised if in the coming years, we see a new Anti-Pope arise, and have another split in the Catholic Church. This pacifist approach it has been going on with for the last hundred or so years, is starting to really piss off people who feel the church is not protecting the faith from other religions.[/QUOTE] Are you nuts. Do you really think in the coming years that some super militant sect of Catholocism will randomly spread up and start preaching crusades or some shit? Nobody is going to split the church, not many people are angry that it's not 'fighting' Islam, and it's not going to be relevant enough to split into a whole new branch in the coming years. [QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50808735]Big difference papa: Most of those "baptized Catholics" are not doing it in the name of Christ or God. All these terrorist attacks in the recent months though? All done in the name of Mohammad, for the establishment of the [B]Islamic[/B] Caliphate, or because their book states that they have the free-will to enslave, rape, and kill those of other faiths! They are doing it in the name of their religion or religious sect, while all those examples of Catholics doing violence are actual cases of fuckwads going around killing family members. We know those types will have eternal damnation, but why must we ignore the current black flag hordes which are actively attacking members of the Christian faith and the ideas which we used to build our civilization? I apologize if I sound a bit irritated, but this is up there for some of the worse ways he could of worded something. I[/QUOTE] I love how people somehow don't realize that [I]there are Christian terrorist groups killing in the name of the bible.[/I] The Lord's Resistance Army, the National Liberation Front of Tripura, militias in the CAR, the people who bomb abortion clinics, Nagaland, Manmasi National Christian Army. The Ku Klux Klan was using it as an excuse to lynch blacks since the 1800's into the 80's, and the Aryan Nation's still do. You wanna know what the common factor here is? Poverty! Holy shit! What? Believe it or not, people who live in poverty, tend to become criminals and hold militant views against other groups. The LRA, the CAR militants, they're in the slums of Africa. Nagaland, Manmasi, Tripura, poverty stricken India. The KKK and the Aryan Nations are focused in the bible belt, some of the poorest areas in the United States. But you never talk about them because it doesn't fit the bigoted worldview you've concocted. "Muslims are bad! They're evil!" No, they're not, and the Koran is no more evil or good than any other two thousand year old religious text. Nowhere in the Koran does it say to 'enslave, rape and kill' those of other faiths. I'm going to assume your cherry picked verses you're going to throw at me in a minute don't reference the 'brothers of the book' and the numerous other parts of the Koran actively telling people not to commit violence against other religions. And I'm sure they're going to gloss over the parts saying things like "never do this unless in defense" or "if they surrender treat them well and embrace them" and the numerous other parts of the Koran which actively defeat your view. Go on Joe, prove me wrong. The dirty black flagged brown hordes are going to kill us all, Trump will make America great again and Lord knows what else.

Islam needs reformation. Other religions have gone through it and its been for the better.

[QUOTE=Boilrig;50809749]Islam needs reformation. Other religions have gone through it and its been for the better.[/QUOTE] I don't get how the reformation made things better considering that it sparked a large number of brutal sectarian conflicts and civil wars that led to millions of people dying and religious intolerance that lasted well into the 19th century (and often later).

Also good luck reforming a religion with as many diverse followers and variants as Islam.

[QUOTE=da space core;50809358]here is the problem I see with this line with thinking. first off there are many different interpretations of Islam, just like Christianity. for example, some interpret the quote "any man who sleeps with another man must be stoned" as a call against gay people. I interpret that as a call to legalize weed. likewise there are many interpretations of the qu'ran, some more violent than others. [B]tell that quote to most "christian" families in the US or most countries, and they will probably tell you something like "yeah but we don't believe in that." You can have an entire theocratic argument with them about that, and you would technically be right in some sense. but it is completely irrelevant if you are right or not since most christians ignore those "bad parts" of the bible.[/B] The same has happened with islam (and other religions) here in the west and this mentality needs to spread to the middle east. Now I am fine with politely criticizing certain aspects of islam (or any religion). The problem that I (and many other people) worry about is that too many folks believe that criticizing islam = criticizing all muslims (im not saying you are doing this im just making a statement). unfortunately its a very thin line that many people cross, and discriminating muslims will just make the terrorism situation worse. the idea that "islam is the problem" is also simply an unproductive one. So Islam is the problem, what now? do we kill everyone off everyone who is muslim? maybe just a few countries? that line of thinking really leaves no solutions. the best way to approach this is that islam, like the prominent religions in the west, need to be secularized. Unfortunately that isn't going to happen considering many middle eastern countries are in poor socioeconomic conditions, and their governments are enforcing the worst of the religious laws, making progress difficult. It can be done however, and you can see it happening in Iran actually. thankfully Irans lake of super tight control on the internet has led the young generation to become quite secular (in fact atheism is on a sharp rise there amoungst young people). Who knows, if the current shah doesn't screw things up (or if trump doesnt become president and royally screw everything over) Iran could become a westernized nation pretty soon.[/QUOTE] That's kind of the problem, that you need to outright reject bits of the Bible/Quran if you don't want to be a terrible person. As long as the books remain how they are Islam and Christianity will always have this underlying violence problem. It's not like you can reasonably interpret "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." in a non-violent way.

[QUOTE=Kljunas;50810054]That's kind of the problem, that you need to outright reject bits of the Bible/Quran if you don't want to be a terrible person. As long as the books remain how they are Islam and Christianity will always have this underlying violence problem. It's not like you can reasonably interpret "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." in a non-violent way.[/QUOTE] Is it a problem? It means most people aren't dickheads that want to ruin people's lives based on their belief

[QUOTE=AbbaDee;50809325]You're taking it out of context. Not within the verse, but in the context of the whole Bible. The New Testament overrules the Old Testament, that's why Christian terrorists are nowhere near as big (though still existent) a problem as Islamic terrorism. I haven't read the Koran myself so I don't know if they have anything similar that overrides what is said.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't say they equivalent, but Jesus also said he wasn't there to replace the old ways - if I remember correctly, it's been a while since I read the new testament. I think the difference lies in the fact that the Quran is literally the word of god - which I think most Muslims would agree with - while I think many christians don't regard the bible as an infallible and direct translation of God's will.

[QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;50809745] I love how people somehow don't realize that [I]there are Christian terrorist groups killing in the name of the bible.[/I] The Lord's Resistance Army, the National Liberation Front of Tripura, militias in the CAR, the people who bomb abortion clinics, Nagaland, Manmasi National Christian Army. The Ku Klux Klan was using it as an excuse to lynch blacks since the 1800's into the 80's, and the Aryan Nation's still do. You wanna know what the common factor here is? Poverty! Holy shit! What? Believe it or not, people who live in poverty, tend to become criminals and hold militant views against other groups. The LRA, the CAR militants, they're in the slums of Africa. Nagaland, Manmasi, Tripura, poverty stricken India. The KKK and the Aryan Nations are focused in the bible belt, some of the poorest areas in the United States. But you never talk about them because it doesn't fit the bigoted worldview you've concocted. "Muslims are bad! They're evil!" No, they're not, and the Koran is no more evil or good than any other two thousand year old religious text. Nowhere in the Koran does it say to 'enslave, rape and kill' those of other faiths. I'm going to assume your cherry picked verses you're going to throw at me in a minute don't reference the 'brothers of the book' and the numerous other parts of the Koran actively telling people not to commit violence against other religions. And I'm sure they're going to gloss over the parts saying things like "never do this unless in defense" or "if they surrender treat them well and embrace them" and the numerous other parts of the Koran which actively defeat your view. Go on Joe, prove me wrong. The dirty black flagged brown hordes are going to kill us all, Trump will make America great again and Lord knows what else.[/QUOTE] Reread my post and get why I'm pissed off with the comment - Never have I stated their is not any Christian terrorist groups, but the way the Pope is wording it, is as if every murder committed by someone in the Christian faith, is equivalent to the terrorist activities undertaken by Al Nursa and ISIS, which is silly as all hell. Christian terrorist groups were active in the late 90's and early 00's, but most have been inactive up until about the late 00's namely around 2009 where several conflicts were kicking off in Africa and the Middle East. Outside of those regions, most of the Christian "terrorist" groups you see are mostly just the odd guy going around shooting a few bullets at a Planned Parenthood center because his or her Facebook stream talked about how they are selling aborted baby limbs and shit. As for how the Koran works - It works as a historical text detailing the life and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad and the stories of past prophets. The latter parts of the book, are seen as the actual sayings you are suppose to uphold as tenants of Islam. For example, if in one part of the book you see something saying, "Help Christians!" but later down the road you see "Kill non-believers!" the latter is what you are suppose to obey, as the narrative of the Koran basically states that anything which is said by Muhammad is word of god, and if anything is found contradictory to something from earlier on, then its' advised to follow the newest edict. That's where most of the confusion with the Koran lies, as most as the latter parts are what you are supposed to follow. Hence where tons of different sects of the Islamic Faith(and other faiths), comes into play. Hell, I even stated this pretty blatantly stated this in the open: [quote] [B]They are doing it in the name of their religion or religious sect, while all those examples of Catholics doing violence are actual cases of fuckwads going around killing family members.[/B][/quote] If you really want to pick a bone though, tons of verses talk about "killing disbelievers" "slaughter captives to manifest the religion" ect. Also, when you are stating, "Most terrorist are poverty stricken!" you are very wrong. Consider for the fact that most religious fighters for the likes of ISIS came from middle-class families around the world, and usually had to pay with their own money to come to fight for them in Syria, the whole "poverty = terrorism!" narrative falls apart in seconds. No. What causes most cases of radicalization, is how far and wide the Koran is interpreted and to what degree it's followed. Once again, groups like the Salafi and Wahhabis tend to be little-shits with how they want a world-wide Theocracy. Also hey, whatcha know? Most of the crazy-sects of Islam tend to use black flags as their warflags! So it's a strange thing when I'm saying "black flag hordes" and you are somehow reading, "BROWN PEOPLE!" seriously, maybe you are being a little overtly racist.

[QUOTE=SebiWarrior;50810058]Is it a problem? It means most people aren't dickheads that want to ruin people's lives based on their belief[/QUOTE] Yeah I think it's a problem that the Bible advocates for the execution of homosexuals (among other things) even if the mainstream Christian view is to ignore that passage. And mainstream Christianity still shares some responsibility in promoting a book with such horrible stuff in it. If this passage is to be ignored why is it still in the canon? [QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50810089]I wouldn't say they equivalent, but Jesus also said he wasn't there to replace the old ways - if I remember correctly, it's been a while since I read the new testament. I think the difference lies in the fact that the Quran is literally the word of god - which I think most Muslims would agree with - while I think many christians don't regard the bible as an infallible and direct translation of God's will.[/QUOTE] Well the book of Leviticus is quoting God directly in that case. But yeah it's true that the Bible allows more room for human error than the Quran. That doesn't change the fact that calls for violence are in the text in the first place though, regardless of their fallibility.

[QUOTE=AbbaDee;50809325]You're taking it out of context. Not within the verse, but in the context of the whole Bible. The New Testament overrules the Old Testament, that's why Christian terrorists are nowhere near as big (though still existent) a problem as Islamic terrorism. I haven't read the Koran myself so I don't know if they have anything similar that overrides what is said.[/QUOTE] I'm tired of this argument. No it doesn't. [QUOTE=Matthew 5:17]Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.[/QUOTE] People just decide to ignore the parts that don't benefit them. Wearing mixed fabrics? Who cares? Bacon? Sure! Tattoos? Why not? Gay marriage? Gross! Killing disobedient children? How barbaric!

[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;50808661]It would except there is an awful lot of "Fuck the new pope" Catholics out there.[/QUOTE] Eh no wonder, the new pope seems more like atheist than christian

[QUOTE=Kljunas;50810148]Yeah I think it's a problem that the [b]Bible advocates for the execution of homosexuals[/b] (among other things) even if the mainstream Christian view is to ignore that passage. And mainstream Christianity still shares some responsibility in promoting a book with such horrible stuff in it. If this passage is to be ignored why is it still in the canon?[/QUOTE] where not even the people using the bible to justify their bigotry mention this also Hebrews 8:13. Old Testament is there because it's Judaism (literally the torah) which Christianity derived from. [editline]1st August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=DarklytheGreat;50810186]I'm tired of this argument. No it doesn't. People just decide to ignore the parts that don't benefit them. Wearing mixed fabrics? Who cares? Bacon? Sure! Tattoos? Why not? Gay marriage? Gross! Killing disobedient children? How barbaric![/QUOTE] congratulations, you just quoted a comment about the ten commandments literally just 20 verses later [quote=Matthew 5:38-48]38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. 43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[b] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.[/quote] not to mention a few books later: [quote=Hebrews 8:13]By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.[/quote]

[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50810293] also Hebrews 8:13. Old Testament is there because it's Judaism (literally the torah) which Christianity derived from.[/QUOTE] does this mean that judaism is inherently violent

[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50810293]where not even the people using the bible to justify their bigotry mention this also Hebrews 8:13. Old Testament is there because it's Judaism (literally the torah) which Christianity derived from.[/QUOTE] Leviticus 20:13 which is what I was quoting above. And I don't think one comment in Hebrews about the OT being somehow obsolete is enough to excuse the horrible shit from Leviticus being there. It's highly irresponsible to have pages upon pages that urge people to violence and only tell people to disregard it in a different book way later in the text. You can argue that the Bible isn't meant to condone violence (not like anyone can really know what the authors meant, and if they even all meant the same things) but if that's the case it does a pretty terrible job at conveying a message of peace.

[QUOTE=Kljunas;50810500]Leviticus 20:13 which is what I was quoting above. And I don't think one comment in Hebrews about the OT being somehow obsolete is enough to excuse the horrible shit from Leviticus being there. It's highly irresponsible to have pages upon pages that urge people to violence and only tell people to disregard it in a different book way later in the text. You can argue that the Bible isn't meant to condone violence (not like anyone can really know what the authors meant, and if they even all meant the same things) but if that's the case it does a pretty terrible job at conveying a message of peace.[/QUOTE] The discussion of whether Christians should fallow OT laws is a discussion than happens IN THE ACTUAL BIBLE. It's not some modern development where Christians decided to ignore verses.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50810529]The discussion of whether Christians should fallow OT laws is a discussion than happens IN THE ACTUAL BIBLE. It's not some modern development where Christians decided to ignore verses.[/QUOTE] Isn't this what we're already talking about right now? Matthew 5 and stuff?

[QUOTE=Kljunas;50810577]Isn't this what we're already talking about right now? Matthew 5 and stuff?[/QUOTE] It's not just Matthew 5. It's a strain of thought that flows throughout the NT. To say, like many have in this thread, that Christians are just ignoring the OT because it's too harsh is to betray a total ignorance of Christian theology. It's not even an argument. Some examples: "23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise." (Galatians 3) Note that when he talks about the "law" he's talking about the OT law. Another example is the council of Jerusalem found in Acts 15 where the elders of the church get together to discuss this very issue: "4 When they arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them. 5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses.” 6 The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. 7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”" (Acts 15) The conclusion of the council is that Christians should not have to follow the law of Moses. These are just a couple examples of the many that are throughout the entire Bible.

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50808642]Good. We need big people saying this so we can finally rid people of ridiculous xenophobic opinions.[/QUOTE] Pope Francis has been saying this for a while though, it's too bad that more people don't listen. [QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50808735]This pacifist approach it has been going on with for the last hundred or so years, is starting to really piss off people who feel the church is not protecting the faith from other religions.[/quote] The Catholic Church isn't pacifist, they operate under the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory#Just_War_Doctrine]Just War Doctrine[/url] which allows the legitimate use of force, they just aren't hawkish. [quote]Big difference papa: Most of those "baptized Catholics" are not doing it in the name of Christ or God.[/quote] Yeah, I can never imagine Catholic extremists engaging in sectarian violence! /s [quote]but why must we ignore the current black flag hordes which are actively attacking members of the Christian faith and the ideas which we used to build our civilization?[/QUOTE] If you think that people are ignoring ISIS, you are nuts. It would be a good thing for the genocide of Christians to be reported more, but all kinds of governments and people are condemning or actively fighting ISIS. I don't see which part of the speech made you think that Francis is ignoring ISIS anyhow.

[QUOTE=Kljunas;50810148]Yeah I think it's a problem that the Bible advocates for the execution of homosexuals (among other things) even if the mainstream Christian view is to ignore that passage. And mainstream Christianity still shares some responsibility in promoting a book with such horrible stuff in it. If this passage is to be ignored why is it still in the canon?[/QUOTE] Because it's a historical book and it should not be censored anyhow I'd rather ignore a text instead of removing it completely By this reasoning a lot of classical authors should be censored for promoting female inferiority and pedophilia

[QUOTE=Kljunas;50810500]Leviticus 20:13 which is what I was quoting above.[/QUOTE] Leviticus is old testament, and hebrews isn't the only time it's mentioned, the entire religion is based off of changes to judaism [editline]1st August 2016[/editline] Besides that I'm kind of confused how we got to Christianity when the Pope isn't a Christian thing either

[QUOTE=SebiWarrior;50810676]Because it's a historical book and it should not be censored anyhow I'd rather ignore a text instead of removing it completely By this reasoning a lot of classical authors should be censored for promoting female inferiority and pedophilia[/QUOTE] I'm not calling for censorship, I'm just questioning why it's part of the official canon of every Christian tradition (afaik). If it's inaccurate and misrepresenting God's will then why should it be there?

[QUOTE=Kljunas;50810813]I'm not calling for censorship, I'm just questioning why it's part of the official canon of every Christian tradition (afaik). If it's inaccurate and misrepresenting God's will then why should it be there?[/QUOTE] the same reason he just said, documentation. there are christian versions of the bible that are just new testament if that concerns you, but since "The Holy Bible" is used by multiple religions it's probably not a good idea to just suddenly remove the Old Testament just because it doesn't apply to at least one of them infact I think this one Christian girl at my high school handed me a very small new testament once

[QUOTE=Kljunas;50810813]I'm not calling for censorship, I'm just questioning why it's part of the official canon of every Christian tradition (afaik). If it's inaccurate and misrepresenting God's will then why should it be there?[/QUOTE] It's not "inaccurate" or "misrepresenting God's will" according to Christianity. It's part of the old covenant that only applied to the Jews for very specific purposes (generally to keep the Jews separate from the surrounding nations).