Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"BBC News - Tommy Robinson supporters are turning to Christianity, leaving the Church in a dilemma https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy4p42kydx9o How does the church balance the message of Love thy Neighbour with the ideology of the far right whilst welcoming new churchgoers?" Does the church really spread a message of love thy neighbour? I guess it does but it also spreads a message of intolerance against others. Patriots, and I use that word very loosely, will turn to Christianity as they feel it stands against Islam. It's no surprise there's a link between Christianity and the far right. Both require obedience without questions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How does the church balance the message of Love thy Neighbour with the ideology of the far right whilst welcoming new churchgoers?" I don't see that there's anything to balance. Jesus said "love thy neighbour", he didn't add "unless he has views you don't like, in which case you should refuse to accept him". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wonder how many will continue to attend church regularly and take an active part. Church services are extremely boring unless you are truly interested and they start quite early on a Sunday, there's always evensong I suppose. " You'd be surprised at what happens when people change upon a community who accept them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's an opportunity for the Church to lead in the right direction and shepherd a flock sorely in need of guidance and who could benefit from feeling a part of something bigger. It's an opportunity that should not be squandered." 
Totally agree
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So who's going to tell these idiots that Jesus wasn't white or English and looked exactly like the people in the hotel outside which they are protesting 🤣" They won't care because they're not inherently racist. They're concerned more with, and are grieving the loss of British identity and culture to a variety of opposing forces - namely Growing Islam, and communist politics. Going to church is an act of defiance against the very institutions which seek to undermine the Christian foundations of this country. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So who's going to tell these idiots that Jesus wasn't white or English and looked exactly like the people in the hotel outside which they are protesting 🤣 They won't care because they're not inherently racist. They're concerned more with, and are grieving the loss of British identity and culture to a variety of opposing forces - namely Growing Islam, and communist politics. Going to church is an act of defiance against the very institutions which seek to undermine the Christian foundations of this country. " Comedy gold. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So who's going to tell these idiots that Jesus wasn't white or English and looked exactly like the people in the hotel outside which they are protesting 🤣" Whilst there is absolutely no chance he could have been English, the possibility exists that he could have been fair-skinned, blue-eyed and fair-haired. As very little is known about who his father was, many scholars have suggested that Mary may have been ra*ed by a Roman legionary and that the "virgin birth" story was invented to hide that idea to give her legitimacy to be mother of the messiah. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So who's going to tell these idiots that Jesus wasn't white or English and looked exactly like the people in the hotel outside which they are protesting 🤣 Whilst there is absolutely no chance he could have been English, the possibility exists that he could have been fair-skinned, blue-eyed and fair-haired. As very little is known about who his father was, many scholars have suggested that Mary may have been ra*ed by a Roman legionary and that the "virgin birth" story was invented to hide that idea to give her legitimacy to be mother of the messiah. " Most Roman soldiers were hardly white and blue eyed. Take a look at your average Italian. Besides not all Roman soldiers were actually from Italy. The idea he even remotely looked European is for the birds, and Mary herself wasn't European either. In reality he looked more like Yasser Arafat, than like the way Europe imagines him to be with European features. This is a known fact. Take a wander in Nazareth and Bethlehem, go and see what people there look like. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So who's going to tell these idiots that Jesus wasn't white or English and looked exactly like the people in the hotel outside which they are protesting 🤣 They won't care because they're not inherently racist. They're concerned more with, and are grieving the loss of British identity and culture to a variety of opposing forces - namely Growing Islam, and communist politics. Going to church is an act of defiance against the very institutions which seek to undermine the Christian foundations of this country. " Interesting perspective. Is Britain less British with the arrival of Muslims? Does that also apply to other religions like Judaism or Hinduism? If being Christian is central to British identity, is that c of e or Catholicism? Or any denomination of Christianity? Does this mean the peoples of this island who followed paganism and other beliefs before Christianity were not British? And what of the atheists among us, are they not British? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The irony is the church being in a dilemma over people wanting to practice the religion of their ancestors, yet baptising any Mohammed follower who pretends they want to follow Christ." Most who call themselves Christian only pretend to do that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So who's going to tell these idiots that Jesus wasn't white or English and looked exactly like the people in the hotel outside which they are protesting 🤣 Whilst there is absolutely no chance he could have been English, the possibility exists that he could have been fair-skinned, blue-eyed and fair-haired. As very little is known about who his father was, many scholars have suggested that Mary may have been ra*ed by a Roman legionary and that the "virgin birth" story was invented to hide that idea to give her legitimacy to be mother of the messiah. Most Roman soldiers were hardly white and blue eyed. Take a look at your average Italian. Besides not all Roman soldiers were actually from Italy. The idea he even remotely looked European is for the birds, and Mary herself wasn't European either. In reality he looked more like Yasser Arafat, than like the way Europe imagines him to be with European features. This is a known fact. Take a wander in Nazareth and Bethlehem, go and see what people there look like." You're quite correct, not all Roman soldiers were from Italy. In the history of the Roman Empire, 100's of thousands of soldiers were recruited from all over the Empire. There was famously the Legio Africanus, the Legio Hispana and the Legio Germanicus, to name but a few. These soldiers often marched with their own women, or married women of the areas they were assigned to. They were known as auxiliary units, and often "policed" Roman-conquered territories. During the reported time of Jesus's birth, the auxiliary cohorts policing Judea included a large contingent of the Legio Germanicus, of second or third generation. Roman military records were very well kept and many original documents still exist. It is highly likely that, during the reported life time of Jesus of Nazareth, there were many Teutonic looking blond haired, blue eyed soldiers around. The bible gives no physical description of any of the main characters, but the possibility does exist that if Jesus was a real person, born in this time, that he could have had pale skin, blue eyes and light hair. There is no "reality" that he looked like Yasser Arafat. Israelis, like many other countries in Asia and Africa, come in many different shades, depending on lifestyle and region. Take a look at the not delightful Netanyahu - very pale skinned, or Gal Gadot, or even Bar Rafaeli with her pale skin, blue eyes and a very old Israeli ancestry. And there are just as many men who look like Yasser Arafat. And probably some women too  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So who's going to tell these idiots that Jesus wasn't white or English and looked exactly like the people in the hotel outside which they are protesting 🤣 Whilst there is absolutely no chance he could have been English, the possibility exists that he could have been fair-skinned, blue-eyed and fair-haired. As very little is known about who his father was, many scholars have suggested that Mary may have been ra*ed by a Roman legionary and that the "virgin birth" story was invented to hide that idea to give her legitimacy to be mother of the messiah. Most Roman soldiers were hardly white and blue eyed. Take a look at your average Italian. Besides not all Roman soldiers were actually from Italy. The idea he even remotely looked European is for the birds, and Mary herself wasn't European either. In reality he looked more like Yasser Arafat, than like the way Europe imagines him to be with European features. This is a known fact. Take a wander in Nazareth and Bethlehem, go and see what people there look like." I always thought he looked like Graham Chapman. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Religion has long been a man made political force. As a social control mechanism it has existed alongside Government for centuries. " Not true. Did Buddha give up his royal life, go to the forests to meditate so that he can make a new political force? Religions usually start as an answer for man's search for meaning and purpose in life. It eventually morphs into a political force because once a religion has a large number of followers, it won't take long for someone to try and take advantage of the large following to gain power by making it a political force. " The views all religions express and the critical opinions they universally hold of those unlike themselves do not endear themselves to liberal leaning people. " Not true. There are numerous religions which don't say anything bad about the non-followers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So who's going to tell these idiots that Jesus wasn't white or English and looked exactly like the people in the hotel outside which they are protesting 🤣 Whilst there is absolutely no chance he could have been English, the possibility exists that he could have been fair-skinned, blue-eyed and fair-haired. As very little is known about who his father was, many scholars have suggested that Mary may have been ra*ed by a Roman legionary and that the "virgin birth" story was invented to hide that idea to give her legitimacy to be mother of the messiah. Most Roman soldiers were hardly white and blue eyed. Take a look at your average Italian. Besides not all Roman soldiers were actually from Italy. The idea he even remotely looked European is for the birds, and Mary herself wasn't European either. In reality he looked more like Yasser Arafat, than like the way Europe imagines him to be with European features. This is a known fact. Take a wander in Nazareth and Bethlehem, go and see what people there look like. I always thought he looked like Graham Chapman." He's not the Messiah, he's just a very naughty boy. But seriously we're assuming the image that jesus looked remotely like the dude in church, unaware that this is an image created in Europe, by medieval Europeans. But of course Christianity is in fact a religion born in the middle east without any input from Europe. It's just the way Europe imagined him. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But of course Christianity is in fact a religion born in the middle east without any input from Europe. It's just the way Europe imagined him." The Roman occupation of Judaea had much influence; as did, presumably, his paternity. The Jewish temple in Jerusalem was being massively extended by the Roman-backed Herod the great. While Christianity's founding was not specifically based upon anything European, there was strong adjacent European culture around its inception and the early development of the church had Roman fingerprints all over it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Roman occupation of Judaea had much influence; as did, presumably, his paternity. The Jewish temple in Jerusalem was being massively extended by the Roman-backed Herod the great. While Christianity's founding was not specifically based upon anything European, there was strong adjacent European culture around its inception and the early development of the church had Roman fingerprints all over it." I don't know why you're all arguing about paternity. The Bible is quite clear that Mary was divinely impregnated by God, and as such he could have chosen any appearance for Jesus. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ... I don't know why you're all arguing about paternity. The Bible is quite clear that Mary was divinely impregnated by God, and as such he could have chosen any appearance for Jesus." Quite so. In those days women had no say in any matter. It would have been God's decision only. Apart from anything else, he had to make sure it wasn't going to be a girl. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Roman occupation of Judaea had much influence; as did, presumably, his paternity. The Jewish temple in Jerusalem was being massively extended by the Roman-backed Herod the great. While Christianity's founding was not specifically based upon anything European, there was strong adjacent European culture around its inception and the early development of the church had Roman fingerprints all over it. I don't know why you're all arguing about paternity. The Bible is quite clear that Mary was divinely impregnated by God, and as such he could have chosen any appearance for Jesus." Except that the Hebrew word in the original text can be interpreted differently. It can also mean young woman, meaning she wasn't necessarily a virgin. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't know why you're all arguing about paternity. The Bible is quite clear that Mary was divinely impregnated by God, and as such he could have chosen any appearance for Jesus." "Except that the Hebrew word in the original text can be interpreted differently. It can also mean young woman, meaning she wasn't necessarily a virgin." If the original Hebrew word *can* be interpreted differently, then that's a false interpretation. The KJV says that Mary was a virgin, and that's all there is to it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But of course Christianity is in fact a religion born in the middle east without any input from Europe. It's just the way Europe imagined him. The Roman occupation of Judaea had much influence; as did, presumably, his paternity. The Jewish temple in Jerusalem was being massively extended by the Roman-backed Herod the great. While Christianity's founding was not specifically based upon anything European, there was strong adjacent European culture around its inception and the early development of the church had Roman fingerprints all over it." See, this is very much a European perspective, the idea that early development of the church had anything to do with Rome is pretty much restricted to the birth of the catholic church. The other branches of Christianity the orthodox, the Coptic and other middle eastern branches have pretty much nothing to do with Europe. When Europe considers the birth of Christianity, it thinks Catholicism. Lost in this is the fact jesus himself spoke Aramaic, a non European language. He spent his whole life in the middle east, never set foot in Europe. Arabic is derived from Aramaic in the way English & french are derived from Latin. Hence you can see Christianity like Judaism and Islam are all middle eastern religions. Europeans imo have a very skewed understanding of Christianity. They only see the catholic branch. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Religion has long been a man made political force. As a social control mechanism it has existed alongside Government for centuries. Not true. Did Buddha give up his royal life, go to the forests to meditate so that he can make a new political force? Religions usually start as an answer for man's search for meaning and purpose in life. It eventually morphs into a political force because once a religion has a large number of followers, it won't take long for someone to try and take advantage of the large following to gain power by making it a political force. The views all religions express and the critical opinions they universally hold of those unlike themselves do not endear themselves to liberal leaning people. Not true. There are numerous religions which don't say anything bad about the non-followers. " In Buddism you chose one of the few religions that are truly benign to others. It does not recognise one omnipotent God and focuses on self enlightenment. The big religions, Christianity. Islam, Judaism do not get on well. Hinduism is thought to be tollerant but that tends to ignore the 4 wars between Hindu India and Islamic Pakistan. I am not a specialist in religions. However, my perception of religion is, at least in the largest religions on Earth, Christianity and Islam, there is not a lot of love lost. Obviously, there are exceptions, but in the main they compete with each other and each have an unshaken belief they worship the one true God. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Religion has long been a man made political force. As a social control mechanism it has existed alongside Government for centuries. Not true. Did Buddha give up his royal life, go to the forests to meditate so that he can make a new political force? Religions usually start as an answer for man's search for meaning and purpose in life. It eventually morphs into a political force because once a religion has a large number of followers, it won't take long for someone to try and take advantage of the large following to gain power by making it a political force. The views all religions express and the critical opinions they universally hold of those unlike themselves do not endear themselves to liberal leaning people. Not true. There are numerous religions which don't say anything bad about the non-followers. In Buddism you chose one of the few religions that are truly benign to others. It does not recognise one omnipotent God and focuses on self enlightenment. The big religions, Christianity. Islam, Judaism do not get on well. Hinduism is thought to be tollerant but that tends to ignore the 4 wars between Hindu India and Islamic Pakistan. " Look at Myanmar. Even Buddhist countries aren't immune fron engaging in political violence. I was addressing this point you made - "Religion has long been a man made political force." Most religions weren't created with political motivation. After awhile, they get adopted as a political force. The only religion as far as I know that hasn't involved on political violence is Jainism. That's probably down to the less number of followers throughout the history because of which it didn't make sense to adopt it for political causes. " I am not a specialist in religions. However, my perception of religion is, at least in the largest religions on Earth, Christianity and Islam, there is not a lot of love lost. Obviously, there are exceptions, but in the main they compete with each other and each have an unshaken belief they worship the one true God. " We could say that about pretty much every political ideology too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Religion has long been a man made political force. As a social control mechanism it has existed alongside Government for centuries. Not true. Did Buddha give up his royal life, go to the forests to meditate so that he can make a new political force? Religions usually start as an answer for man's search for meaning and purpose in life. It eventually morphs into a political force because once a religion has a large number of followers, it won't take long for someone to try and take advantage of the large following to gain power by making it a political force. The views all religions express and the critical opinions they universally hold of those unlike themselves do not endear themselves to liberal leaning people. Not true. There are numerous religions which don't say anything bad about the non-followers. In Buddism you chose one of the few religions that are truly benign to others. It does not recognise one omnipotent God and focuses on self enlightenment. The big religions, Christianity. Islam, Judaism do not get on well. Hinduism is thought to be tollerant but that tends to ignore the 4 wars between Hindu India and Islamic Pakistan. I am not a specialist in religions. However, my perception of religion is, at least in the largest religions on Earth, Christianity and Islam, there is not a lot of love lost. Obviously, there are exceptions, but in the main they compete with each other and each have an unshaken belief they worship the one true God. " Hinduism also has it's zealots as do all religions. It was a Hindu zealot who murdered Gandhi. The current prime minister of India is a Hindu zealot responsible for the mass murder of thousands of people in Gujarat 20 years ago. He was banned from entering the UK and US until he became prime minister. The point is all religions have these types of people. Look at netanyahu or George bush/Richard Nixon. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“I am not a specialist in religions. However, my perception of religion is, at least in the largest religions on Earth, Christianity and Islam, there is not a lot of love lost. Obviously, there are exceptions, but in the main they compete with each other and each have an unshaken belief they worship the one true God. " Muslims, Christian’s and Jews agree on one thing absolutely. The Old Testament. We all share it and share the same God. Muslims believe Christ was a prophet, Christians believe Christ was the Messiah and most Jews believe Christ is in hell boiling in shit. Come to think of it, someone should remind Tommy (founder of the English & Jewish Defence League) Lennon about this." Lol so true | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't know why you're all arguing about paternity. The Bible is quite clear that Mary was divinely impregnated by God, and as such he could have chosen any appearance for Jesus. Except that the Hebrew word in the original text can be interpreted differently. It can also mean young woman, meaning she wasn't necessarily a virgin. If the original Hebrew word *can* be interpreted differently, then that's a false interpretation. The KJV says that Mary was a virgin, and that's all there is to it." Not sure that's a valid position, but hey! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" most Jews believe Christ is in hell boiling in shit. " Most jews acknowledge Jesus, but believe he was a prophet, not the messiah. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Religion has long been a man made political force. As a social control mechanism it has existed alongside Government for centuries. Not true. Did Buddha give up his royal life, go to the forests to meditate so that he can make a new political force? Religions usually start as an answer for man's search for meaning and purpose in life. It eventually morphs into a political force because once a religion has a large number of followers, it won't take long for someone to try and take advantage of the large following to gain power by making it a political force. The views all religions express and the critical opinions they universally hold of those unlike themselves do not endear themselves to liberal leaning people. Not true. There are numerous religions which don't say anything bad about the non-followers. In Buddism you chose one of the few religions that are truly benign to others. It does not recognise one omnipotent God and focuses on self enlightenment. The big religions, Christianity. Islam, Judaism do not get on well. Hinduism is thought to be tollerant but that tends to ignore the 4 wars between Hindu India and Islamic Pakistan. I am not a specialist in religions. However, my perception of religion is, at least in the largest religions on Earth, Christianity and Islam, there is not a lot of love lost. Obviously, there are exceptions, but in the main they compete with each other and each have an unshaken belief they worship the one true God. " I have to take issue with this impression that this is a clash of islam Vs Christianity. It is not. There's millions of Christians living happily in the Muslim world from Egypt to Syria to Pakistan. There's probably far more there than in the UK. The narrative you mentioned is something created by the yaxley Lennons of this world, they want to emphasise an imaginary conflict because it suits his purpose. I'll give you an example of this on my trip to Syria, I went to see some of the crusader history. The crusades are still portrayed in Europe as a fight between Islam & Christianity. But in the middle east, I found that the Arab Christians sided with the Arab Muslims because they too were persecuted by the Europeans. So it was clearly not about religion. The wars were nothing more than a land grab by Europeans. As my Christian Syrian guide described it, "it was bullshit". You can go to 2000 year old Christian churches in Syria and sit through a sermon delivered in Aramaic. (The language jesus spoke) as I did. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Hinduism also has it's zealots as do all religions. It was a Hindu zealot who murdered Gandhi. The current prime minister of India is a Hindu zealot responsible for the mass murder of thousands of people in Gujarat 20 years ago. He was banned from entering the UK and US until he became prime minister. The point is all religions have these types of people. Look at netanyahu or George bush/Richard Nixon." Or Muhammad Ali Jinnah/Zia-ul-Haq | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" most Jews believe Christ is in hell boiling in shit. Most jews acknowledge Jesus, but believe he was a prophet, not the messiah. " Sorry, wrong. There are possibly 300,000 Messianic Jews in the world, a minority of the world’s Jewry. Less than 2%. Of the rest, almost none support the idea that he is a prophet which is a divine status. The majority by far considers him a failed Messiah and a heretic. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Hinduism also has it's zealots as do all religions. It was a Hindu zealot who murdered Gandhi. The current prime minister of India is a Hindu zealot responsible for the mass murder of thousands of people in Gujarat 20 years ago. He was banned from entering the UK and US until he became prime minister. The point is all religions have these types of people. Look at netanyahu or George bush/Richard Nixon. Or Muhammad Ali Jinnah/Zia-ul-Haq " Jinnah was not a demagogue, he wasn't even religious. Zia I will give you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Hinduism also has it's zealots as do all religions. It was a Hindu zealot who murdered Gandhi. The current prime minister of India is a Hindu zealot responsible for the mass murder of thousands of people in Gujarat 20 years ago. He was banned from entering the UK and US until he became prime minister. The point is all religions have these types of people. Look at netanyahu or George bush/Richard Nixon. Or Muhammad Ali Jinnah/Zia-ul-Haq Jinnah was not a demagogue, he wasn't even religious. Zia I will give you." Sure Jinnah may not be religious. But if we are talking about the accusation of Modi on the Gujarat riots, it's nothing compared to Jinnah's actions and words which led to the Direct action day violence - "We do not want war. If you want war we accept your offer unhesitatingly. We will either have a divided India or a destroyed India." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Hinduism also has it's zealots as do all religions. It was a Hindu zealot who murdered Gandhi. The current prime minister of India is a Hindu zealot responsible for the mass murder of thousands of people in Gujarat 20 years ago. He was banned from entering the UK and US until he became prime minister. The point is all religions have these types of people. Look at netanyahu or George bush/Richard Nixon. Or Muhammad Ali Jinnah/Zia-ul-Haq Jinnah was not a demagogue, he wasn't even religious. Zia I will give you. Sure Jinnah may not be religious. But if we are talking about the accusation of Modi on the Gujarat riots, it's nothing compared to Jinnah's actions and words which led to the Direct action day violence - "We do not want war. If you want war we accept your offer unhesitatingly. We will either have a divided India or a destroyed India."" You obviously have your own view, but frankly you are comparing apples with oranges. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But of course Christianity is in fact a religion born in the middle east without any input from Europe. It's just the way Europe imagined him. The Roman occupation of Judaea had much influence; as did, presumably, his paternity. The Jewish temple in Jerusalem was being massively extended by the Roman-backed Herod the great. While Christianity's founding was not specifically based upon anything European, there was strong adjacent European culture around its inception and the early development of the church had Roman fingerprints all over it. See, this is very much a European perspective, the idea that early development of the church had anything to do with Rome is pretty much restricted to the birth of the catholic church." No. It isn't. An analogy: Imagine that a religion starts today in South Korea. A woman gets pregnant by an American soldier. She lives close to an American base and brings up her child to speak English as well as Korean, and he is educated both on traditional Korean values, but also from watching predominantly American YouTube clips. The US looms large in his psyche and he begins preaching new values. In fact, much of his preaching is directed against Americanism, but aims to incorporate a few elements that be respects. 1,000 years later, people are debating whether his values and teachings are predominantly Korean, or they have American influence. Rome wasn't a place, it's was an empire, whose influence (and fingerprints) were all over the known world. The Middle East was under Rome - Syria, Egypt, Turkey (those Orthodox places you mention). Of course Christianity is a watered down rip-off of Middle Eastern Judaism, with some pagan stuff thrown in for good measure. But this statement from above is absolutely true: "...there was strong adjacent European culture around its inception and the early development of the church had Roman fingerprints all over it..." Ask why Sunday is almost universally considered Sabbath. Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch were the earliest churches. The Roman Empire, not an organic Middle Eastern movement, was the cradle of early Christianity. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" most Jews believe Christ is in hell boiling in shit. Most jews acknowledge Jesus, but believe he was a prophet, not the messiah. " That's Muslims, not Jews. For Jews to acknowledge him as a prophet, they'd need to heed his words (they don't). Muslims, on the other hand, accept Christianity as Judaism 2.0... then immediately claim that they're Judaism 3.0 (and the final version, judge's decision is final, no correspondence will be entered into). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I have to take issue with this impression that this is a clash of islam Vs Christianity. It is not. There's millions of Christians living happily in the Muslim world from Egypt to Syria to Pakistan. There's probably far more there than in the UK. " Okay.. when were you last in Syria? The past two years has been a blood bath. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I have to take issue with this impression that this is a clash of islam Vs Christianity. It is not. There's millions of Christians living happily in the Muslim world from Egypt to Syria to Pakistan. There's probably far more there than in the UK. Okay.. when were you last in Syria? The past two years has been a blood bath." Have you heard of the cluster illusion fallacy? You are picking one isolated example and saying it’s the rule. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I have to take issue with this impression that this is a clash of islam Vs Christianity. It is not. There's millions of Christians living happily in the Muslim world from Egypt to Syria to Pakistan. There's probably far more there than in the UK. Okay.. when were you last in Syria? The past two years has been a blood bath. Have you heard of the cluster illusion fallacy? You are picking one isolated example and saying it’s the rule. " BBC News - 'We're not safe here anymore' - Syria's Christians fear for future after devastating church attack https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c79q8p8qx1do Isolated? Syria was fine for Christians under Assad. HTS took over and nobody is safe. The Isis/Muslim Brotherhood is not especially tolerant. Egyptian Christians have had massive issues over the past decade and just look at the demographic changes in Lebanon - it has gone from Christian majority to minority. But the post was in reference to Syria specifically, over the past two years. That has been especially difficult, as the linked BBC article outlines. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
