Opinion When Christians Are Under Attack, Muslims and the Left Need to Defend Them - Mehdi Hasan

[tkotom]

Lol you clearly have an axe to grind. How the fuck the balkans is still christian with the exception of some minorities and how the hell the Greece is still christian i leave for you to explain. Deep down you know youre an idiot and venting about sour grapes.

LOL Are you disabled? Turkey was literally a 100% Chrisitan region before the Turks came and murdered people.

Have you seen Game of Thrones? Unsullied? That's literally taken straight from Turkish history. They stole children from all around Anatolia and the Balkans and used them as their elite fighting force.

 

[tkotom]

No we were converted with force . Fuck ottomans , we will not forget 500 years of oppression so easily , in fact we will never forget them. They were so scared out of our hero Skanderbeg that they had to remove his bones from his graves and they even used his bones as amulets hoping that they will be as brave as Skanderbeg.

Where the fuck do you see stupidity here ? Yes we were converted by force , Does it change the fact that Albanians are all brothers despite what their religion is ? No it doesnt. Listen there pal i dont know from where are you from but here there is no difference between Muslims and Christian Albanians we are all brothers and.of course everyone knows Skanderbeg he is our hero , also we are a secular nation not a "muslim" nation.

Skanderbeg fought to stop the Muslims. No level of mental gymnastics is going to change the fact that Skanderbeg wanted to save Christian Albania from Islam. He HATED his Muslim enemies. Stop creating a fake guy that doesn't exist lol.

 

[Thurisaz]

Hitting someone in the face isnt an attack?

That you had to change the verb to make it sound more like one reveals the dishonesty plain for everyone to see.

Lol about what I'd expect from someone who rapes his wife.

Have a report, pal. I do not tolerate libel.

 

[King of Fists]

That you had to change the verb to make it sound more like one reveals the dishonesty plain for everyone to see.


Have a report, pal. I do not tolerate libel.

Lol @ the 'libel' comment. Dude at the end of the day, Jesus was about non-violence and it's clear in what he said throughout the scriptures and how he acted. He willingly gave himself up to be killed. He never told his followers to attack anyone, nor defend themselves, and in fact he rebuked Peter for trying to use one of those swords he told them to grab. The topic of why he said it (his followers to grab swords) is up for debate but remember also he told all the apostles to bring 2 swords only for the whole group, not 'every man to arm themselves,' so no he wasnt telling them to 'defend themselves,' unless you think he was an idiot and thought 2 swords were enough for a large group to share.

Spin it how you want to make yourself feel better but I wish people would be honest about what they choose to follow and not follow in the Bible. Like why cant you just be like..."yeah Jesus said that and I don't like it so I don't follow it"? Is that so hard? I freely admit there's a lot of the new testament I don't follow, and most ppl who who feel otherwise are lying to themselves.

 

[carlos cadona]

I found a pretty good take on this topic from a Communist youtuber.

 

[ferrari]

Skanderbeg fought to stop the Muslims. No level of mental gymnastics is going to change the fact that Skanderbeg wanted to save Christian Albania from Islam. He HATED his Muslim enemies. Stop creating a fake guy that doesn't exist lol.

Where are you from dimmie ? Stop trying to lecture me ahout my national hero ,,Also everything i said are facts you are the one making mental gymnastics it must be sad to have religion over nation shity ideology.
Skanderbeg wanted to save his holy lands of Albania from Ottomans and foreign enemies thats why he fought Venice too and slayed many christians duiring his life . He even needed to make an apology(or something like that) when he went to Vatican , The christianity was a factor too since it was a different time but its not like how our enemiws portray hyperbolize it .

 

[ferrari]

Scared and respected is not the same thing. Every respected source states the islamization of Albania was quite gradual and there were no sword point conversions on any meaningful scale. Obviously some nationalist narrative in the Balkans is going to attack Islamic origins but whether we agree or not, Albanians did embrace Islam.

Simple question : Where do you live and how are you going to lecture me about my own nation ?
Also fuck off with your "islamic albania" nonsense . We are Albanians muslims and christians and we dont give a fuck about non-albanian muslims , we dont see you any better than other countries at all .
Where were muslims in the time of need ?, I know where Westerners were , Helping us and stopping the serbian genocide against Albanian while in the other hand many Islamic and arab states were supporting the serbians , Terorists support terrorists i guess.

 

[svirk]

Lol @ the 'libel' comment. Dude at the end of the day, Jesus was about non-violence and it's clear in what he said throughout the scriptures and how he acted.

Is this the same Jesus that made a whip with his own hands, burst into the temple yelling and knocking over tables while whipping innocent people going about their business? Sure sounds non-violent.

Also, Christians imagine Jesus the man was actually God so when God orders violence throughout the Bible the Christian must accept that Jesus/God is perfectly fine with commanding violence.

 

[King of Fists]

Is this the same Jesus that made a whip with his own hands, burst into the temple yelling and knocking over tables while whipping innocent people going about their business? Sure sounds non-violent.

Also, Christians imagine Jesus the man was actually God so when God orders violence throughout the Bible the Christian must accept that Jesus/God is perfectly fine with commanding violence.

"Innocent people going about their business" = "fine people on both sides" = money changers and merchants turning the temple into a souvenir shop, violating scripture. Jesus was vehemently opposed to them turning the temple into a store to exploit the poor, and they knew their actions were wrong. The whip was for animals, as that's generally how you move livestock. In fact the whole verse is "he took the whip and drove them all from the temple, both sheep and cattle"

You have to be willfully ignorant to think of Jesus as a violent person, Isaiah 53:9 spells out his non-violence:

He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.

So should I believe the prophet Isaiah, or "svirk" from Sherdog? Hmmm, tough choice...

 

[spamking]

Really, all old testament stuff? I'd think a "Christian" would know better than to use old testament scripture to put their own slant on Jesus' teachings.

Oh hey . . . just go on and ignore it . . . right? Because we're obviously supposed to completely ignore the OT . . . or something. Is that it?

You do realize this verse (Matthew 5:39) is in response to the "eye for an eye" rule used by the magistrates in a lawful judgement that eventually made it's way into the private disputes of the day? And ultimately lead to individuals seeking unlawful revenge . . . or do you not?

And really? Complain about a list of OT verses without addressing anything? Did you also "think" that's all the references that are available?

Matthew 5:40
if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well;

Luke 6:7
Looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, the scribes and Pharisees were watching Him closely to see if He would heal on the Sabbath.

Luke 6:29
If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone takes your cloak, do not withhold your tunic as well.

Luke 6:30
Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what is yours, do not demand it back.

John 18:23
Jesus replied, "If I said something wrong, testify to what was wrong. But if I spoke correctly, why did you strike Me?"

1 Corinthians 6:7
The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you are thoroughly defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?

Or would you prefer we just pick old testament verses and use them to "explain" what Jesus REALLY meant? Cause this could be fun

Feel free to have all the fun you want fella . . .

 

[King of Fists]

Oh hey . . . just go on and ignore it . . . right? Because we're obviously supposed to completely ignore the OT . . . or something. Is that it?

You do realize this verse (Matthew 5:39) is in response to the "eye for an eye" rule used by the magistrates in a lawful judgement that eventually made it's way into the private disputes of the day? And ultimately lead to individuals seeking unlawful revenge . . . or do you not?

And really? Complain about a list of OT verses without addressing anything? Did you also "think" that's all the references that are available?

Matthew 5:40
if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well;

Luke 6:7
Looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, the scribes and Pharisees were watching Him closely to see if He would heal on the Sabbath.

Luke 6:29
If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone takes your cloak, do not withhold your tunic as well.

Luke 6:30
Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what is yours, do not demand it back.

John 18:23
Jesus replied, "If I said something wrong, testify to what was wrong. But if I spoke correctly, why did you strike Me?"

1 Corinthians 6:7
The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you are thoroughly defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?




Feel free to have all the fun you want fella . . .

You are claiming Jesus was excluding self-defense from his non-violence decree, but you havent posted anything remotely evidentiary to that effect (other than some old testament scripture which I see you've wisely moved away from, for obvious reasons).

You can post all the links you want to indicate his non-violence decree applies to retribution, none of that means it DOESN'T apply to self defense. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

As an analogy, my son recently asked me if he could play video games at his friend's house. I told him 'nothing rated M.' Do you think I think it's ok if he plays M games by himself at home? I clearly said 'no M games' in response to what he can play in a group of friends and I never mentioned specifically what he can play at home. By your logic, I must be ok with M games at home.

 

[tramendous]

Simple question : Where do you live and how are you going to lecture me about my own nation ?
Also fuck off with your "islamic albania" nonsense . We are Albanians muslims and christians and we dont give a fuck about non-albanian muslims , we dont see you any better than other countries at all .
Where were muslims in the time of need ?, I know where Westerners were , Helping us and stopping the serbian genocide against Albanian while in the other hand many Islamic and arab states were supporting the serbians , Terorists support terrorists i guess.

I live in canada. Islamic Albania is not nonsense. You sound super emotional and upset about all this. I dont want to lecture you about your own nation but if youre going to get basic facts wrong like convert by force, well im going to correct you no matter how much you tell me to 'fuck off'.

 

[spamking]

You are claiming Jesus was excluding self-defense from his non-violence decree, but you havent posted anything remotely evidentiary to that effect (other than some old testament scripture which I see you've wisely moved away from, for obvious reasons).

I've never mentioned anything about a non-violence decree . . . what I HAVE posted that you're completely ignoring is commentary and other versus that explains Matthew 5:39 in pretty clear context.

I haven't moved away from anything dude . . . I simply added to what I've posted.

You can post all the links you want to indicate his non-violence decree applies to retribution, none of that means it DOESN'T apply to self defense. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Matthew 5:39 isn't a decree of non-violence . . . it isn't SPECIFIC to violence at all. It's about holding a grudge and seeking revenge. And how those impact your walk with Christ.

As an analogy, my son recently asked me if he could play video games at his friend's house. I told him 'nothing rated M.' Do you think I think it's ok if he plays M games by himself at home? I clearly said 'no M games' in response to what he can play in a group of friends and I never mentioned specifically what he can play at home. By your logic, I must be ok with M games at home.

By my logic? Stop trying to twist anything I've said to fit your idiotic analogy.

 

[tramendous]

LOL Are you disabled? Turkey was literally a 100% Chrisitan region before the Turks came and murdered people.

Have you seen Game of Thrones? Unsullied? That's literally taken straight from Turkish history. They stole children from all around Anatolia and the Balkans and used them as their elite fighting force.

It wasnt turkey before the turks, it was anatolia and the conversion to Islam in Anatolia took centuries. There were Greeks in Anatolia all the way until WW1. I dont know wtf the unsullied have to do with turks lmao at your shit cringe analogies. Did the unsullied constantly murder sultans because their demands for more pay and loot was not being met?

 

[svirk]

"Innocent people going about their business" = "fine people on both sides" = money changers and merchants turning the temple into a souvenir shop, violating scripture.

So you are comparing the Jewish money changers in the Temple to the neo-Nazis Trump calls good people? The Jews in the Temple might have been violating scripture but they were going about normal business in their time. Jesus rushes in cracking his whip and turns over their tables, scattering their money and forcing them out. That is a violent action no matter how you try to squirm around it.

Jesus was vehemently opposed to them turning the temple into a store to exploit the poor, and they knew their actions were wrong. The whip was for animals, as that's generally how you move livestock. In fact the whole verse is "he took the whip and drove them all from the temple, both sheep and cattle"

Jesus makes a whip, he enters the temple, he turns over tables and chairs, he scatters the money of the money changers and drives the merchants and their animals out of the Temple. If you want to claim the whip was only for the animals you can but there is no reason to believe it was only for the animals.

"And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: And when he(Jesus) had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;" John 2:14,15

You have to be willfully ignorant to think of Jesus as a violent person, Isaiah 53:9 spells out his non-violence:

Jesus' actions in the Temple don't necessarily make him a violent person; it proves that he was not above using violence when necessary. A policeman might not be a violent person but he uses violence in the apprehension of a criminal. To claim that all violence is wrong is the claim of a fool. We must also consider that Jesus, as you believe in him, is God. Therefore he is responsible for all of the orders to carry out violence that we find in the Bible. No?

So should I believe the prophet Isaiah, or "svirk" from Sherdog? Hmmm, tough choice...

You should use your God given senses to determine what is correct.

"The likeness of those who are entrusted with the Law of Moses, yet apply it not, is as the likeness of a donkey carrying books. Wretched is the likeness of folk who deny the revelations of God." Quran 62:5

 

[King of Fists]

By my logic? Stop trying to twist anything I've said to fit your idiotic analogy.

Lol @ someone twisting the words of the bible and getting rustled by someone exposing their hypocrisy, claiming their words are being twisted, smh.

 

[tkotom]

It wasnt turkey before the turks, it was anatolia and the conversion to Islam in Anatolia took centuries. There were Greeks in Anatolia all the way until WW1. I dont know wtf the unsullied have to do with turks lmao at your shit cringe analogies. Did the unsullied constantly murder sultans because their demands for more pay and loot was not being met?

Lol why are you telling me turkey wasn’t turkey before it was invaded by TURKS?

You’re being weird.

 

[Thurisaz]

Lol @ the 'libel' comment.

All right, have it your way, then, pedophile. But for Christ's sake, do not have your way with children!

 

[tramendous]

Lol why are you telling me turkey wasn’t turkey before it was invaded by TURKS?

You’re being weird.

[Insert shit GOT analogy] havent you watched game of thrones?

 

[tkotom]

[Insert shit GOT analogy] havent you watched game of thrones?

It’s a 100% valid analogy. You’re just weird.