The Saint Euphrosynos Cafe

JamesR wrote:

The rebellious enticed-by-the-other-side-effect

The extreme liberalism of the UK, which, is also growing in the United States, has seen Christianity as its enemy for quite a while because of its close connection with conservatism. Plus, many conservatives hate Islam--hence "Islamaphobia". So, the liberals want to rebel against the conservatives and join the religion that they hate, sort for the shock factor involved. It's like a girl dating the bad boy.

Islam is Satanic and thus should be hated by all Orthodox Christians, as well as anyone who has the ability to think rationally. Islam, not muslims. Although, if muslims would bother studying what their faith teaches them, those who continue to follow Islam are in need of help.
BTW, it isn't Islamophobic when they really are trying to kill you.

Well what's so different between Islam and when we used to burn down pagan temples and forcibly convert barbarian tribes in Europe? Only difference is that we evolved and changed to fit in with society, whereas Islam still wants to hold onto its history.

Who is this "we" you're referring to who forcibly converted tribes and burned down temples. If you mean certain individuals acted in an un-Christian manner, that's one thing. But the Church is incapable of wrong-doing.
Islam, in that it worships Satan, is all wrong-doing.

The British newspaper, The Daily Mail, has under it's Our 10 top breaking views heading an article by columnist Melanie Phillips, today 'Until our leaders admit the true nature of Islamic extremism, we will never defeat it'.

JamesR wrote:

Well what's so different between Islam and when we used to burn down pagan temples and forcibly convert barbarian tribes in Europe? Only difference is that we evolved and changed to fit in with society, whereas Islam still wants to hold onto its history.

Europe was converted to christianty mostly through missionaries that were monks... Excepted for Charlemagne and the Teutonic that launched military operations, officially for religious reasons (well officially), I see no conversion in Europe that happened through war. Once again, it is an inaccurate assertion from you, based on antichristian propaganda. Until 313, christianism was persecuted in the Roman Empire... So which people could be forcibly converted in Europe?

V Moss wrote an interesting article on Orthodoxy and religious freedom. Here are the first two paragraphs:

It is generally assumed by Orthodox Christians that Orthodoxy is a liberal religion in the sense that it favours freedom of religion in general. It is pointed out with some pride that Orthodoxy has never had an institution to compare with the Catholic Inquisition, and that Orthodoxy has been the persecuted, rather than the persecutor, throughout her history. Orthodox persecutors such as Ivan the Terrible or Peter the Great have been rare exceptions to the rule – and condemned ones at that.

Code: Select all

 I believe that this is basically true. However, it is always dangerous to identify Orthodoxy with any popular dogma of the modern age. Even when Orthodoxy appears to coincide with popular sentiment, there are almost always subtle but important differences to be noted and qualifications to be made. And the motivation for the position in question is almost invariably different. It may therefore be useful to examine the Orthodox position on freedom of religion in the context of a brief historical survey.[/quote]

http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/a ... -religion/

Certainly, Our All-powerful God could force men to love and worship him; that He does not is testament to the necessity of free will in our relationship with God.
Contrast that to Islam, where the moon-god compels his worshipers to terrorize, maim and butcher those who refuse to bend their knee to him. If allah is so great, why doesn't he just do it himself?