Comments by "" (@asgaiyawaya3973) on "The Japan Reporter" channel.

  1. 9
  2. 5
  3. I always find it interesting that those who attack Christianity keep insisting Christians are a dangerous group, some will even accuse us of terrorism or engaging in it citing groups that did in fact exist and did associate themselves with Christianity. However, the second you confront them with a list of known terrorist, or just violent and dangerous groups in general and the START institute and the Institute for Global and Global Affairs in the Hague Netherlands does maintain such a list going as far back as the first historically accepted Terrorist group, and such groups are organized according to their affiliations you will find that the lists are dominated by left wing groups, like the Red Army Faction, the Black Hand, and Naradnaya Volya. Islam really dominates especially in the post 9/11 world but Christianity typically will have less than a handful of groups at any given time and for the most part they tend to be fringe groups. Even in countries where you wouldn't blame them for fighting back, like North Korea, it's almost unheard of. So it really raises the question where this accusation really comes from and why are they getting their information from them rather than doing the research themselves and seeing what is really the truth about it? Even their justifications for it are really from a stereotype about Christians but they still don't pay any attention to this fact when it should be making it crystal clear they overlooked something. Some of their justifications are in fact biblical but in 100% of times it's only half the story. As though they have no problem with reading the violent parts of the bible but hesitate when it comes to looking up the why behind that particular part and it shows whenever it turns out that particular Christian being asked the question responds with a more informed response and it turns out they in fact know the other half of the story then the attacker retorts by challenging the authenticity which becomes even more ironic because if they are skeptical of the back story which is part of scripture then why aren't they skeptical of the violent parts of the bible which is also in there? So they practice a double standard and it really just comes down to the fact they fear because they really don't know and they get their facts from people who only want to encourage that same fear rather than letting them know what the truth of it is. Before anyone challenges me on that answer one question In regards to anything you were told about Christianity from where ever it was you got it did you actually fact check it and got the whole story or did you just take their word for it? Yes, even if they have a Phd in whatever like Dawkins or Hitchens and even they got a ton of stuff wrong according to their own colleagues. Hitchens even admitted to being wrong in a debate with John Lennox. If the answer is yes you did fact check and you think this is true then how did the above fact escape your research? If the answer is no then at least you are being honest.
    4
  4. 4
  5. 3
  6. 2
  7. 1
  8. 1
  9. JoeJoe your statement has several problems with it. To best explain these problems I will draw a parallel to an existing court case that happened in 1983 involving Ron Williamson, a washed up Baseball player who became an alcoholic with mental issues. He was brought to trial for a murder rape and was convicted and sentenced to death. 5 days before he was scheduled to be executed he received a stay of execution, that means it was postponed, because the appeals court noticed how his case was mishandled, there are two many to list it's fair to say the whole affair was one huge miscarriage of justice from start to finish. I will however give a couple of examples though 1 the only reason he went to trial was because of a DREAM he had of himself raping and killing the victim yeah you read that correctly a dream, and 2 he was not given adequate representation by a lawyer. Not long after his stay of execution, I should state btw this whole ordeal drove him more mentally ill, a DNA test was given proving he was nowhere near the crime scene and it was actually one of the eyewitnesses who had a history of violence towards women that was the apartment on the night of the murder. So what does this have to do with Christianity in Japan? Well for one thing it shows how easily a prejudice can lead to not just a miscarriage of justice but a miscarriage of truth. Take your whole historical account for example. First of all by your own admission this account wasn't by a westerner but a Japanese official and you clearly left out the fact that it was only after he had tortured the accused. Why does that matter? For the same reason law enforcement was ordered through court cases to stop. It tends to create false confessions. There is even a case from 2002 where a suspected Al Qaeda operative was captured and tortured by the SAS and MI6 and stated that there were WMDs in Iraq. Of course now we know this was false. When this man was asked why he said that he said he just wanted it to stop and would have said anything even though he knew nothing. See where I am going with this? And we know for a fact torture was implimented in Japan at that time because we even such writings even detailing what was used and how. So a Jesuit priest giving a false confession is not only not unheard of but when it's all coming from a single source that makes it suspicious and has to be taken with a grain of salt but let's say it was true. If it was coming from the Spanish or Portuguese then why not France or Britain well as the inquisition demonstrated that's because these countries were known for using religion as politics in other words it maybe a church doing this but if not every church was used in this manner then that begs the question of why and in Spanish and Portuguese politics religion and politics went hand in hand. In other words of such an operation was being conducted it wasn't by a united Church but it was by a particular ruler for his own reasons. We can clearly see an example of this by King Philip of Spain when he tried to invade England and used catholicism as a sort of weapon to get his own agents into England and gain support for overthrowing Queen Elizabeth. So you can see that Spain was known for such tactics around that very time but not too many other countries. Queen Elizabeth for one chose not to use the church in this manner citing the barbarity of the inquisition as her reasons. Making your example very one sided and based solely on the modus operandi of A country and the testimony of a man who was tortured and could have given a false confession.
    1