Afghan Man Faces Death for Allegedly Converting to Christianity

[herrmag]

Well, I just read through 4 pages of ****ing about FOX news when I thought the title of this thread was that a man was facing the death penalty for converting to Christianity. Maybe, some people would like to get back to the topic on hand.

Why actually discuss a topic intelligently when we can just call each other names and explain that news doesn't actually occur in the world, but rather news agencies make stuff up to further their political gain?

[TradeTheBeal!]

Well, I just read through 4 pages of ****ing about FOX news when I thought the title of this thread was that a man was facing the death penalty for converting to Christianity. Maybe, some people would like to get back to the topic on hand.

The voice of reason is heard!

[Predicto]

I can't beleive I read this entire thread (and derailment).

By the way, the guy is not being prosecuted for "being" a Christian. He is being prosecuted for renouncing Islam. It's ok not to be a Muslim, but once you are one, you are stuck. Being a Muslim and then turning your back on Islam is the worst sin one can do, and historically has been punished by death.

Just thought you might like to know.

[skinsfan51]

I can't beleive I read this entire thread (and derailment).

By the way, the guy is not being prosecuted for "being" a Christian. He is being prosecuted for renouncing Islam. It's ok not to be a Muslim, but once you are one, you are stuck. Being a Muslim and then turning your back on Islam is the worst sin one can do, and historically has been punished by death.

Just thought you might like to know.

Well...yes and no. You are right to say that historically converts from Islam have been murdered for leaving the faith, but it's also true that they have killed non-Muslim Christians and Jews just for being Christians and Jews. It's seen as a special honor. Which brings me back to my original question: Is Islam really a religion of peace as so many like to claim? I know what I believe, but I'm interested in what others think about it. I think the answer is pretty clear from what we see in the news every day (including this story). But it's funny how many are willing to deny what is right in front of their face every day. They blindly accept a fabricated ideal against observed reality. They live in fairyland.

[skinsfan51]

Wow! I wholeheartedly agree that all Muslims are in fact not Peaceful, and representative of cases just like this.

-------

Sounds like a terrible injustice :2cents:

Actually, the truth is that all Muslims are not violent, but the religious teachings of Islam are based in violence, and have been since the beginning. One only needs to study the life of Mohammed to understand this. As the leader, so go the followers.

Again, there are peaceful Muslims, but Islam is not a peaceful religion. I know some very nice Muslim people, and I'm not sure that they would stand behind all the killing done in the name of their god. You'd have to ask them. But, that doesn't mean that their religion isn't violent, because it is.

[MoeRedskins]

Is Islam really a religion of peace as so many like to claim?

Do me a favor and name me 5 religons of violence. After Satanism, I'm all out. Why, b/c all religions are religions of peace, at least the most popular ones. Christinaity, Buddism, Taoism, Confusium, etc. I mean, all KKK members are devote Christians, so are you going to throw all christians under the bus for what KKK members do? Pat Roberts has been on TV numourous times wishing for the demis of of supreme court justices and the death of foriegn heads of state. All religions praise peace and understanding, but minute sects of each religion always find ways to solve problems through violence.

[CaliforniaSkin]

Well...yes and no. You are right to say that historically converts from Islam have been murdered for leaving the faith, but it's also true that they have killed non-Muslim Christians and Jews just for being Christians and Jews. It's seen as a special honor. Which brings me back to my original question: Is Islam really a religion of peace as so many like to claim? I know what I believe, but I'm interested in what others think about it. I think the answer is pretty clear from what we see in the news every day (including this story). But it's funny how many are willing to deny what is right in front of their face every day. They blindly accept a fabricated ideal against observed reality. They live in fairyland.

Technically, according to Islam Jews and Christians are NOT to be killed or converted. Jews and Christians are considered dhimmis "people of the book" and afforded special protection under Islamic law. There are fundamentalists who do only selectively follow their teachings.

Remember that historically many, many Christians were killed by Christians for heresy. From 1560 to 1750 Europe was consumed by religous wars. At that time Christianity was roughly as old as Islam is now. Some people make arguments that the current period of violence within Islam is directly comparable to that within Christianity at a similar point in its history. I'm not in any way defending the actions of Islamic extremists, but I am placing them into context.

We are, hopefully, in a reformation period for Islam. It is predictably bloody. There are a number of reform-minded muslims who are simply afraid to speak out. They face death threats.

Is denying that Islam is a violent religon denying observed reality? Perhaps, but in the same way denying that Christianity is a violent religon would be to deny centuries of history. Both have had violence in their pasts and present. Both are living and changing religons. I think it is a mistake to categorize either in such simplistic terms.

[Winslowalrob]

Well...yes and no. You are right to say that historically converts from Islam have been murdered for leaving the faith, but it's also true that they have killed non-Muslim Christians and Jews just for being Christians and Jews. It's seen as a special honor. Which brings me back to my original question: Is Islam really a religion of peace as so many like to claim? I know what I believe, but I'm interested in what others think about it. I think the answer is pretty clear from what we see in the news every day (including this story). But it's funny how many are willing to deny what is right in front of their face every day. They blindly accept a fabricated ideal against observed reality. They live in fairyland.

Historically, if you tallied up all the deaths at the hands of Muslims based on being a Christian or a Jew, and compared that to the deaths at the hands of Christians for being a Muslim or a Jew, I think you would be surprised at the results. If people want to accuse Islam of being an inherently more violent religion, I suggest they look at Christianity as well. Now, I am all for an intelligent debate on the topic, but we all know that the point of this thread was for everyone to nod their heads in agreement and claim that Islam is a violent religion, and then pat ourselves on the back for not partaking in such barbaric practices. Its a Christian (assuming that most of the people laying the blame on Islam are in fact Christian) circle-jerk basically, and I will enjoy thorougly countering every single point you just proposed.

[Prosperity]

Actually, the truth is that all Muslims are not violent, but the religious teachings of Islam are based in violence, and have been since the beginning. One only needs to study the life of Mohammed to understand this. As the leader, so go the followers.

Again, there are peaceful Muslims, but Islam is not a peaceful religion. I know some very nice Muslim people, and I'm not sure that they would stand behind all the killing done in the name of their god. You'd have to ask them. But, that doesn't mean that their religion isn't violent, because it is.

The religious teaching of Christianity, especially the Old Testament aren't so peacful either.

[skinsfan51]

Historically, if you tallied up all the deaths at the hands of Muslims based on being a Christian or a Jew, and compared that to the deaths at the hands of Christians for being a Muslim or a Jew, I think you would be surprised at the results. If people want to accuse Islam of being an inherently more violent religion, I suggest they look at Christianity as well. Now, I am all for an intelligent debate on the topic, but we all know that the point of this thread was for everyone to nod their heads in agreement and claim that Islam is a violent religion, and then pat ourselves on the back for not partaking in such barbaric practices. Its a Christian (assuming that most of the people laying the blame on Islam are in fact Christian) circle-jerk basically, and I will enjoy thorougly countering every single point you just proposed.

I think you'd have a hard time tallying up any accurate numbers from either side, so your challenge is smoke to start with. Furthermore, the ONLY reference point where fingers get pointed to are the crusades, which happened hundreds and hundreds of years ago. And, the crusades and their mission weren't any more "Christian" than Emperor Constantine's National Religion. It was a political Christianity in the same sense that the Catholics and Protestants are fighting today in Ireland. Neither represents true BIBLICAL Christianity as taught by Jesus Christ.

Outside of the crusades, you might point to the inquisitions, but those weren't by Christians either. They were actually against Christians (i.e. "heretics") by Rome. I would point you to "Foxe's Book of Martyrs" as a credible source.

All this being said, Islam has BY FAR killed more people in the name of Allah than any true Christian church (of which the Roman Catholic Church is not one; no offense, just historical fact) has killed in the name of Christ. And the numbers grow larger every day. The numbers aren't even close. As a matter of fact, no true Christian would ever condonde the killing of one single person by the hands of another. (And don't cite the death penalty. That's a different matter.)

If you believe otherwise, please post your evidence. Thanks.

[skinsfan51]

The religious teaching of Christianity, especially the Old Testament aren't so peacful either.

Liberty, the Old Testament is the recorded history of the JEWS. There isn't a single Christian in the Old Testament. But you said "especially," so that must mean that other Christian teachings aren't peaceful, right? Can you cite them?

[brewdogmike]

Anyone who cites the Crusades as a reason to behead someone in 2006 is just grasping for a pretext to rationalize cold-blooded murder.

[skinsfan51]

We are, hopefully, in a reformation period for Islam. It is predictably bloody.

Islam has always been bloody. They have always conquered by the sword. This is not hate speech. This is a historical fact that anyone who would like to study a little history can learn. The problem lies with those who want to rewrite history, not with the facts of history itself.

[skinsfan51]

Anyone who cites the Crusades as a reason to behead someone in 2006 is just grasping for a pretext to rationalize cold-blooded murder.

:applause:

[Winslowalrob]

I think you'd have a hard time tallying up any accurate numbers from either side, so your challenge is smoke to start with. Furthermore, the ONLY reference point where fingers get pointed to are the crusades, which happened hundreds and hundreds of years ago. And, the crusades and their mission weren't any more "Christian" than Emperor Constantine's National Religion. It was a political Christianity in the same sense that the Catholics and Protestants are fighting today in Ireland. Neither represents true BIBLICAL Christianity as taught by Jesus Christ.

Outside of the crusades, you might point to the inquisitions, but those weren't by Christians either. They were actually against Christians (i.e. "heretics") by Rome. I would point you to "Foxe's Book of Martyrs" as a credible source.

All this being said, Islam has BY FAR killed more people in the name of Allah than any true Christian church (of which the Roman Catholic Church is not one; no offense, just historical fact) has killed in the name of Christ. And the numbers grow larger every day. The numbers aren't even close. As a matter of fact, no true Christian would ever condonde the killing of one single person by the hands of another. (And don't cite the death penalty. That's a different matter.)

If you believe otherwise, please post your evidence. Thanks.

And these dudes aren't real muslims either. And the Inquisition was against Jews, Muslims, and Heretics (They tested the former two by offering ham sandwiches... I kid, I kid). If we are going to throw away religious affiliation because they don't mesh with our beliefs, we trivialize the debate. I think your definition of a true muslim is too broad and a true christian is too narrow. Basically, under your definitions no one who ever did anything bad is a true christian, but every bad person who happens to be muslim automatically speaks for the whole religion. You could tally up decent numbers for both sides (yay societies with writing and census'), but without a definition of both religions our argument is moot. Give me a workable definition of "killing the unbeliever for your religion" that applies equally to both sides.

[Winslowalrob]

Islam has always been bloody. They have always conquered by the sword. This is not hate speech. This is a historical fact that anyone who would like to study a little history can learn. The problem lies with those who want to rewrite history, not with the facts of history itself.

I know a little about history. Christians conquered by the sword as well. In fact, the act of conquering requires violence. Muslims gained more converts with tax breaks and gifts than with the threat of violence. This is a historical fact that anyone who would liek to study a little history can learn. The problem lies with those who want to rewrite history and ignore such facts, not with the facts of history itself.

[SUNSTONE]

Maybe if you held that standard to the war, and invasion of Iraq, we'd have already pulled out right? I mean EVERYONE told the president and Rummy that they needed more troops, the generals on the ground said the same things, he lied about it to the American people. Truth is truth right? Or is that only when you agree with the side?

What's the point of this post?

To change his mind and make him think that living what one believes to be true should not be followed?

[skinsfan51]

Christians conquered by the sword as well.

Proof, pretty please. :cool:

In fact, the act of conquering requires violence.

No, it doesn't. Love is a great conqueror. I'd say a much better one than violence.

Muslims gained more converts with tax breaks and gifts than with the threat of violence. This is a historical fact that anyone who would liek to study a little history can learn.

You seem confident. So quote your history to prove your claims. Thx.

[Prosperity]

Liberty, the Old Testament is the recorded history of the JEWS. There isn't a single Christian in the Old Testament. But you said "especially," so that must mean that other Christian teachings aren't peaceful, right? Can you cite them?

"Recorded History" well um I guess you can say that stuff was history, though you won't have me believe any of the miracles are "recorded history" and not religious mysticism, but let's leave that aside for now.

Do you believe in the same God as those jews? Was there a different God telling the Hebrews to go rampaging and pillaging in the desert.

Matthew 5:17 would tell me that Jesus' philosophy/teachings were a continuation of the old faith atleast partially, and definitely NOT completely seperate.

Mathew 10:14-15 (Jesus/God/whoever threatens cities with fate worse than Sodom and Gomorrah

recap of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven)

(worse than fire and brimstone?!)

[skinsfan51]

And these dudes aren't real muslims either. And the Inquisition was against Jews, Muslims, and Heretics (They tested the former two by offering ham sandwiches... I kid, I kid). If we are going to throw away religious affiliation because they don't mesh with our beliefs, we trivialize the debate. I think your definition of a true muslim is too broad and a true christian is too narrow. Basically, under your definitions no one who ever did anything bad is a true christian, but every bad person who happens to be muslim automatically speaks for the whole religion. You could tally up decent numbers for both sides (yay societies with writing and census'), but without a definition of both religions our argument is moot. Give me a workable definition of "killing the unbeliever for your religion" that applies equally to both sides.

I disagree. I believe the violence done by THOUSANDS of Muslims across the world TODAY is orthodox Islam. I also don't think my definition of a "true" Christian is too narrow. It's pretty simple. They are followers of Christ as written in the Bible (the only record of Christ's life). They were the "heretics" you mentioned who were killed for their faith. Outside of that it's not true Christianity. Jesus said, "Thou shalt do no murder." Anyone, therefore, who kills in the name of Christ is NOT a Christian. They have no claim in Christ. They can say they do, but what difference does that make?

Mohammed on the other hand was a warrior and killer. He conquered by the sword. So his followers walk in his footsteps. It all boils down to each religion's leader.

[CaliforniaSkin]

I think you'd have a hard time tallying up any accurate numbers from either side, so your challenge is smoke to start with. Furthermore, the ONLY reference point where fingers get pointed to are the crusades, which happened hundreds and hundreds of years ago. And, the crusades and their mission weren't any more "Christian" than Emperor Constantine's National Religion. It was a political Christianity in the same sense that the Catholics and Protestants are fighting today in Ireland. Neither represents true BIBLICAL Christianity as taught by Jesus Christ.

Outside of the crusades, you might point to the inquisitions, but those weren't by Christians either. They were actually against Christians (i.e. "heretics") by Rome. I would point you to "Foxe's Book of Martyrs" as a credible source.

All this being said, Islam has BY FAR killed more people in the name of Allah than any true Christian church (of which the Roman Catholic Church is not one; no offense, just historical fact) has killed in the name of Christ. And the numbers grow larger every day. The numbers aren't even close. As a matter of fact, no true Christian would ever condonde the killing of one single person by the hands of another. (And don't cite the death penalty. That's a different matter.)

If you believe otherwise, please post your evidence. Thanks.

The Catholic church was the ONLY Christian church throughout Europe for most of Christian history. Yet you reject them as a '"true Christian church." There are roughly 1.1 billion catholics comprising almost 22% of the world's population. They certainly believe that the Catholic church is not only a, but THE true Christian Church. You disagree. Fine, but that disagreement is by no means a "historical fact." It is a theological belief. Any historian is going to consider the Catholic church a Christian church.

And just as many Christians, including aparently yourself, would deny that a true Christian could ever condone the killing of a single inncocent person, there are many Muslims who reject the extremists as not being true Muslims. (Actually, the death penalty works mostly in your favor because the vast majority Christian churches, starting the Catholic one, reject the death penalty.)

Certainly you can reject all of the considerable violence done by Christians in the name of Christianity as being oposed to the Jesus' teachings. But so too do many Muslims reject the violence done in the name of Islam as against the teachings of the Quran. The word Islam means peace. Shari'a forbids the use of violence against women and children and against civilains.

You can't hold Islam responsible for the sins of all who call themselves Muslim but absolve Christianity from the sins of those who call themselves Christian.

[skinsfan51]

"Recorded History" well um I guess you can say that stuff was history, though you won't have me believe any of the miracles are "recorded history" and not religious mysticism, but let's leave that aside for now.

Do you believe in the same God as those jews? Was there a different God telling the Hebrews to go rampaging and pillaging in the desert.

Matthew 5:17 would tell me that Jesus' philosophy/teachings were a continuation of the old faith atleast partially, and definitely NOT completely seperate.

Mathew 10:14-15 (Jesus/God/whoever threatens cities with fate worse than Sodom and Gomorrah

recap of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven)

(worse than fire and brimstone?!)

Tell me why the two testaments are called the Old Testament and the New Testament. That will answer your question about Christ's teachings regarding the O.T.

Question: Do you believe it's ok for our government to punish those who break the law, or do you believe that no act against society, no matter how gross, offense or evil, should ever be punished? Do you think that governments have the RIGHT and AUTHORITY to carry out such judgments? Your answer will help answer your questions about the destruction of Sodom.

[Prosperity]

Question: Do you believe it's ok for our government to punish those who break the law, or do you believe that no act against society, no matter how gross, offense or evil, should ever be punished? Do you think that governments have the RIGHT and AUTHORITY to carry out such judgments? Your answer will help answer your questions about the destruction of Sodom.

Let's skip right down to it, I don't believe anyone who wants dominion over all that it is moral ( this God feller) has a right to MURDER.

Your God is immoral (by your own definition of morality no less), time to face the facts and move on, there are several more peaceful religions if that is your schtick.

QUESTION: Do you believe in threatening entire cities for religious reasons (today that would be called TERRORISM)

[skinsfan51]

The Catholic church was the ONLY Christian church throughout Europe for most of Christian history.

That is absolutely not true. There were MANY remnant sects that held to the early New Testament church teachings from before the time the Roman Catholic Church started in 325 and after.

Any historian is going to consider the Catholic church a Christian church.

Wrong again. One of the best church history books ever written is "The Pilgrim Church" by E.H. Broadbent. I'd suggest you read it if you want to truth about church history. He isn't the only one. There are more than you might be willing to acknowledge. (BTW, just how much church history have you studied to be able to speak with authority on the matter?)

(Actually, the death penalty works mostly in your favor because the vast majority Christian churches, starting the Catholic one, reject the death penalty.)

I don't reject the death penalty. I think it's perfectly legitimate for governments to impose the ultimate penalty if the crime warrants it.

Certainly you can reject all of the considerable violence done by Christians in the name of Christianity as being oposed to the Jesus' teachings.

I can reject them because they are against the teachings of Jesus. Anyone can read his words and see this. But, again, Mohammed conquered by violence. Jesus didn't. This is not open to debate. It's a fact.

But so too do many Muslims reject the violence done in the name of Islam as against the teachings of the Quran. The word Islam means peace. Shari'a forbids the use of violence against women and children and against civilains.

Then upon what basis do the Muslims trying the man in our news report justify putting him to death for converting to Christianity? Are they misunderstanding true Islam? How so?

You can't hold Islam responsible for the sins of all who call themselves Muslim but absolve Christianity from the sins of those who call themselves Christian.

I can if the foundations of either religion condone violence or peace. Then there is nothing to absolve; just expose.

[Winslowalrob]

Forget it guys. Anti-Catholic, anti-Muslim, anti-historical lectures at their finest. Read ANY world history by world historians. Jerry Bentley's Old World Encounters, or Fernand Braudel's a History of Civilizations. Where is SkinsHokie when you need him?