[Vision2020] Religious Diversity Education

[Luke]

Hey, Don:


>they are superior to others and that nothing can stop them. He was quoted
as saying, "If the Jews did >not exist it would have been necessary to
invent them." It is not too shocking that a man as intelligent >and gifted
as Hitler could say one thing and really think another, politicians have
been doing this since >the beginning of time.

I agree here with what Tom Hansen wrote. You should read Mein Kampf, Don.
Hitler wasn't simply saying one thing and believing another. He meant what
he said, which was Darwinism applied to world power. And no, he was not a
Christian.


> Your statement that "Napoleon used Catholicism, which is different than
biblical Christianity". There >is no such thing as 'Biblical Christianity'."
It is not listed anywhere or any definition of it anywhere.

You seem to have misunderstood me. Biblical Christianity is not a nominal
category of Christianity; "biblical" means following the Bible's teachings.
And Catholicism is very different from biblical Christianity. To make a few
notes:
-Roman Catholicism holds the authority of the ecumenical councils of the
church over all the Bible, but biblically, Scripture is superior to man's
will and decisions.
-Roman Catholicism is centered around the pope and around rituals, but
biblically, Christ is at the center and not Peter, and practical
teaching/obedience is
upheld over rites.


>It is nonexistent. If you follow the Bible then you follow Judaism. If you
are Christian then you follow >Christ. Otherwise, you claim your own faith
separate from the other two. Which is fine, but it is not >Christianity or
Judaism. There is no such thing as "Judaic Christianity" in any real sense
as you are >claiming exists.

Well, good, because I am not claiming "Judaic Christianity". If you honestly
follow the whole Bible, you are following Christianity. If you follow only
the Old Testament revelation, you are
Judaic. Otherwise, you claim your own faith separate from the other two, to
use your own words.


Third,
>Even if you were correct about your assumptions about Hitler and Napoleon ,
which you are not >based on the greater minds of society, that is only two
people and there are millions that slaughtered >in the name of Christianity.
They put crosses on their swords.

Other than the crusades, which went in the name of Roman Catholicism, I
don't know what you're talking about.


>>You replied: "I am not fanatical in the same way that countless of jihad
suicide bombers have been >>fanatical. It is bloody murder to kill someone
because they don't serve the true God, and I would >>never do such a thing."
>You are fanatical in a different way, with words and ideas. This can be
just as or more damaging in a >spiritual sense because you are changing
souls not just taking the physical lives of people.


If I convince people that Christ died for their sins, and therefore they
should go forth and stop living a life of sin, what damage is that?


>
>>You replied: "What's wrong with owning wealth? What's wrong with being in
positions of authority?"
>Nothing, it is just the word "slaughtering" that was suppose to get your
attention. True Christians >would use their power and wealth to help people,
not kill them.

I'm glad we agree on something. And that is just what true Christians have
done throughout history.

>>Splurb on Islamic History (mine)

>Phillipens, and Africa. I would also like to point out >hat their were more
people to slaughter during >these centuries then the 7th and 8th. >

Actually, the Islamic war in former Byzantium continued until about
September 11th, 1413 (not absolutely certain on the year, but it was in the
1400's), when Constantinople finally fell to the Muslim swords. That's 700
years for just one war.


>"Their Koran says specifically that if a Muslim warrior dies fighting in
the name of Allah, he will wake >up in paradise with 70+ hot chicks for his
pleasure."
>Which verse in the Korean specifically mentions  "he will wake up in
paradise with 70+ hot chicks".

The wording isn't exact, but it is stated in the Koran. I'll find the verse
for you shortly (I don't actually have a Koran, but I promise I'll get back
to you on that).

>"So, they go kill themselves in suicide bombings in the name of Allah, and
they do it sincerely (which >has been happening a lot since Reagan)."
>Well, perhaps this is because Reagan funded Iranians to kill Iraqis, funded
Iraqis to kill Iranians and >gas their own people, funded Isreailtes to kill
Palastinians,and stopped funding Afganishtan that then >sunk to the poorest
nation in the world for its size.

You don't seem to follow history too well, Don (no offense, but it seems
true).
The Iranians and Iraqis have hated each other for years and years and years;
they didn't need funding to squabble, and Reagan actually never funded the
Iranians, it was an officer of his acting independently, Oliver North.
But anyways, that is a rabbit-trail. To get back to the point of what I was
saying, there is only one way, only one truth. You seemed to have missed
this point.
You said that many "Christians" have been hypocritical and slaughtered
millions (to paraphrase a little). But, to look at it another way, just
because someone likes to make and use counterfeit dollar bills, that is no
reason for us to decide not to use real dollar bills. "Oh, I think I'd
better shift to francs!"
Even though a few people in history, calling themselves Christians, did
terrible things, that does not mean that we shouldn't follow the straight
and narrow and reject Christianity.

Have a great day,
Luke