I was out of coverage and could not post sooner...

 

Good points Heresay. :thumb:

You cannot ignore the Old Testament!! It is a part of our Holy Book.

 

I have tried not to use it, because I don't take it literally,

You are grasping at straws.

 

Point One: If you cannot trust its accuracy, how can you possibly suggest it is valid?

 

Point Two: It is impossible to define the people of the Old Testament as Christians. How do the deeds of people who lived 400 or more years before the arrival, ministry and teaching of Jesus apply to the message of the New Testament Gospel (which for true Christians is the first source of our instruction and faith) ?

 

Point Three: Jesus came to fulfill the Law and prophesies of the Old Testament. He instigated a paradigm shift in our worship and obedience to God. I personally believe the Old Testament is accurate and trustworthy, but the emphasis of my faith is centered in the person and teaching of Jesus Christ. You cannot find one verse that may accurately be interpreted as Jesus instructing us (today) to take up arms against unbelievers.

 

...but how can any of you ignore that great bloodbath that takes place in Revelations when God destroys his enemies, and the notion that not only will all non-believers be killed, but they will SPEND ETERNITY in hell - suffering. In other words, all of the infidels will be killed in the end by God, Jesus (same) and God's army. Worse than that if you are a millienalist (sp)

I do not ignore the full right, privilege and justice of the author of life in His wisdom granting eternal rewards and or punishment as He deems fit.

 

You will find that while physical life and death are certainly described, nowhere does the Bible describe the complete snuffing out (spiritual death via annihilation) of any being. The righteous in Christ go to Heaven, the evil/unredeemed go to Hell. Who are we to question (judge) God?

How is that a generalization:

 

I did not call all christians radical, nor did I call all muslims radical . . .

 

i simply said that as long as you have the two different religions, you will have radicals (extremists) in both groups who distort the teachings.

You are ignoring the simple facts that I have attempted provide you throughout my time in this thread which clearly illustrate that Christianity in its fullest and most complete sense leads to a society of compassion, love, tolerance and understanding.

 

Islam in its fullest sense leads to a world completely in line with the tenets of Muhammad, and/or a bunch of dead infidels.

 

Radical Christians minister to the weak and sick and poor and imprisoned. Extremists who bomb abortion clinics are sinners transgressing the tenets of Christianity, are publicly denounced by true Christians, and are not in any way supported by the teachings of Jesus.

 

Radical Muslims blow up things and kill innocent people in the name of Allah under the full endorsement and authority of their Prophet. Read his words. We hear very few "moderate" Muslims denouncing these acts because there is a thread of justification for them that runs throughout the Koran. Simply put, they are afraid to speak out against them for fear of being labeled and punished as an infidel themselves.

 

Jesus instructs us to love our enemies, Muhammad instructed Muslims to fight unbelievers.

 

At the core of their messages, they are 180 degrees out of phase with one another. To draw a common thread between the two in relation to violent acts of individuals purporting to follow the faith is grossly erroneous. To call this a generalization is putting it politely.

The Quran is indeed a violent book. It is quite confusing as well. You will find passages lauding Christians, Jews, and polytheist and you will find passages like those Fastbreak refers too. Much of it is up to interpretation and context. Any person with an agenda can comb through it and dig up enough passages to support any type of claim they want to make about it. However, if the entire religion were based around the reading and self-interpretation of the Quran, arguing its meaning would be apropos. Since it is not, I will ramble on about a few other factors.

 

Illiteracy is rampant in the Muslim world, and that plays directly into the radicalization of many; not many can open the Quran and read it for themselves. Clerics not only provide the teaching, but the interpretation. There is no universal interpretation of the book as it differs between each cleric. The way they interpret it is the way they teach it, and thus what many will believe. With illiteracy and poverty, many Muslims in the Middle East will go their entire lives hearing only one interpretation of the book. This Islamic law system leaves a great deal of room for exploitation. This is why someone like Usama bin Laden, who isn’t a cleric, issuing a fatwa or declaring a jihad is possible.

 

Radical Islam isn’t so much a religion as it is a system. It’s an answer to all the problems in life. “I am hungry.” “You are hungry because America hates your religion; kill them because Mohammed said so.” The socially and economically depressed Muslim world, coupled with the abundance of interpretations of the Quran is what has bred this growing radicalism.

 

Most Muslims hold their greatest ire for other Muslims who disobey. Which is why Iraq is such a mess. It’s a rallying point for radicals. It provides radical leaders something tangible, something visceral to rally their sheep around. But it isn’t necessarily America they are after. Of course they are after us, but when they see other Muslims voting, or otherwise not killing Americans, they want to kill them. Muslims who haven’t declared this so called jihad against the west are the real enemy, while we are only the enemy in part. Our mission has evolved from weeding out these radicals in Iraq to stopping them from killing each other.

You are ignoring the simple facts that I have attempted provide you throughout my time in this thread which clearly illustrate that Christianity in its fullest and most complete sense leads to a society of compassion, love, tolerance and understanding.

 

Islam in its fullest sense leads to a world completely in line with the tenets of Muhammad, and/or a bunch of dead infidels.

 

Radical Christians minister to the weak and sick and poor and imprisoned. Extremists who bomb abortion clinics are sinners transgressing the tenets of Christianity, are publicly denounced by true Christians, and are not in any way supported by the teachings of Jesus.

 

Radical Muslims blow up things and kill innocent people in the name of Allah under the full endorsement and authority of their Prophet. Read his words. We hear very few "moderate" Muslims denouncing these acts because there is a thread of justification for them that runs throughout the Koran. Simply put, they are afraid to speak out against them for fear of being labeled and punished as an infidel themselves.

 

Jesus instructs us to love our enemies, Muhammad instructed Muslims to fight unbelievers.

 

At the core of their messages, they are 180 degrees out of phase with one another. To draw a common thread between the two in relation to violent acts of individuals purporting to follow the faith is grossly erroneous. To call this a generalization is putting it politely.

 

 

This two minute read tells you all you need to know acemona.

General observations here:

 

1.) The Bible is promotes violence as well, and is as confusing as any religious text, IMO. There are seemingly contradictory and conflicting messages and Christians are historically prone to utilizing the Bible as justification for heinous acts that are equally as brutal as what those who've radicalized the Muslim religion are doing. The difference is that (for instance) there weren't IED's during the Crusades, or the Spanish Inquisition. IMO, just because the technology wasn't available during the dark days of Christianity, doesn't mean the intent isn't/wasn't as evil, IMO. Even in the more "modern" days of the history of Christianity, there was persecution in the name of God and the Bible was used to justify it. Why did the Puritans leave England and settle in America? Why were women and girls burned and drowned during the Salem Witch Trials? Why the advent and prevelance of the Ku Klux Klan? What reason did those responsible for tying a gay teen to a fence and killing him give? There are still many more examples. It's funny we try to lessen it's significance by invoking the "They aren't true Christians", yet assume that these radical Muslims are regarded as "true Muslims".

 

2) I have the pleasure of knowing quite a few of the Muslim faith very well. They are a strictly religious, but peacful group of people. They aren't out in public denouncing the Radicals, because they are normal, everyday people like you and I. They're trying to live their lives in a way that displays their true faith. I would say it's hard for us to judge these people who are not only trying to live their lives faithfully and in peace, but battling both ethnic and religious stereotypes that have become so popular because of the radicalism of the faith by groups like Al Queda.

 

Random thoughts on a Friday......

General observations here:

 

1.) The Bible is promotes violence as well, and is as confusing as any religious text, IMO. There are seemingly contradictory and conflicting messages and Christians are historically prone to utilizing the Bible as justification for heinous acts that are equally as brutal as what those who've radicalized the Muslim religion are doing. The difference is that (for instance) there weren't IED's during the Crusades, or the Spanish Inquisition. IMO, just because the technology wasn't available during the dark days of Christianity, doesn't mean the intent isn't/wasn't as evil, IMO. Even in the more "modern" days of the history of Christianity, there was persecution in the name of God and the Bible was used to justify it. Why did the Puritans leave England and settle in America? Why were women and girls burned and drowned during the Salem Witch Trials? Why the advent and prevelance of the Ku Klux Klan? What reason did those responsible for tying a gay teen to a fence and killing him give? There are still many more examples. It's funny we try to lessen it's significance by invoking the "They aren't true Christians", yet assume that these radical Muslims are regarded as "true Muslims".

 

2) I have the pleasure of knowing quite a few of the Muslim faith very well. They are a strictly religious, but peacful group of people. They aren't out in public denouncing the Radicals, because they are normal, everyday people like you and I. They're trying to live their lives in a way that displays their true faith. I would say it's hard for us to judge these people who are not only trying to live their lives faithfully and in peace, but battling both ethnic and religious stereotypes that have become so popular because of the radicalism of the faith by groups like Al Queda.

 

Random thoughts on a Friday......

Specific observations here...

 

1) In response to the points you illustrate in your first set of condemnations, please show me anywhere in the Bible that Jesus Christ specifically instructs His followers to take up weapons and commit violent acts in His name. I have provided you links to 167 specific verses in which Muhammad instructed his followers to Jihad. The two are not the same. The fact that humans are sinful and seek a higher authority to justify their lust for power, greed and conquest is no arguement against the actual (true) teachings of Jesus.

 

I know dozens of guys who think/thought they're the next Michael Jordan/Lebron James. They buy the clothes, work on their game, hang out in the gym... so far no MJ or LJ in the bunch. Thinking it, saying it, even acting like it don't necessarily make it so. Going into a church does not make one a Christian any more than going to the gym makes you an NBA All Star.

 

You cannot possibly attribute the evil deeds you've outlined to the actions Jesus instructed His followers to live and do. Spin it all you want, it can't be done.

 

2) In response to your second set of comments, I too know Muslims who prefer to live in peace rather than participate in Jihad. I think that's great. Where are the so-called "moderate" Muslims willing to stand up and say, "My brothers, Jihad is wrong. The Prophet does not teach Jihad. It is wrong to kill in the name of Islam." They don't exist because they cannot make such a statement in truth, and yet, the vast majority of Christians condemn bombing abortion clinics and other acts of terror.

 

The Koran and Muhammad do specifically teach Jihad, Jesus does not.

General observations here:

 

1.) The Bible is promotes violence as well, and is as confusing as any religious text, IMO. There are seemingly contradictory and conflicting messages and Christians are historically prone to utilizing the Bible as justification for heinous acts that are equally as brutal as what those who've radicalized the Muslim religion are doing. The difference is that (for instance) there weren't IED's during the Crusades, or the Spanish Inquisition. IMO, just because the technology wasn't available during the dark days of Christianity, doesn't mean the intent isn't/wasn't as evil, IMO. Even in the more "modern" days of the history of Christianity, there was persecution in the name of God and the Bible was used to justify it. Why did the Puritans leave England and settle in America? Why were women and girls burned and drowned during the Salem Witch Trials? Why the advent and prevelance of the Ku Klux Klan? What reason did those responsible for tying a gay teen to a fence and killing him give? There are still many more examples. It's funny we try to lessen it's significance by invoking the "They aren't true Christians", yet assume that these radical Muslims are regarded as "true Muslims".

 

2) I have the pleasure of knowing quite a few of the Muslim faith very well. They are a strictly religious, but peacful group of people. They aren't out in public denouncing the Radicals, because they are normal, everyday people like you and I. They're trying to live their lives in a way that displays their true faith. I would say it's hard for us to judge these people who are not only trying to live their lives faithfully and in peace, but battling both ethnic and religious stereotypes that have become so popular because of the radicalism of the faith by groups like Al Queda.

 

Random thoughts on a Friday......

 

Exacly the point I was trying to make earlier, but done much more elegantly.

 

I am also in agreement with Habib. The simple fact that someone has read the Koran (Q'uran) does not mean they have an understanding of the religion if they have not been trained in that religion. As you say RockMom - someone just randomly reading the Bible would get a much different picture of its teachings than someone who has been raised in the new testament tradition.

The simple fact that someone has read the Koran (Q'uran) does not mean they have an understanding of the religion if they have not been trained in that religion. As you say RockMom - someone just randomly reading the Bible would get a much different picture of its teachings than someone who has been raised in the new testament tradition.

Just to show you I am not merely seeking to be argumentative here, I will agree to some extent to the points you make here, however, it must be pointed out that the Bible was written by something like 40 authors over a period of 1,500 years describing at least 4,000 years of human existence. As such, it is a history book, a book of poetry and wisdom, a genetic lineage, and a record of the specific activities and teachings of Jesus Christ. The Koran on the other hand was written by Muhammad over a period of about 30 years.

 

To truly and fairly compare apples to apples here we should restrict our examination to the actual teachings of Jesus and the actual teachings of Muhammad.

 

If you do this, honestly and openly you will see they are in no way similar.

 

There are dozens of examples in the Koran in which Muhammad instructs "the deadly use of force" there is nowhere in the Bible in which Jesus does the same.

 

To suggest otherwise is simply dishonest.

Specific observations here...

 

1) In response to the points you illustrate in your first set of condemnations, please show me anywhere in the Bible that Jesus Christ specifically instructs His followers to take up weapons and commit violent acts in His name. I have provided you links to 167 specific verses in which Muhammad instructed his followers to Jihad. The two are not the same. The fact that humans are sinful and seek a higher authority to justify their lust for power, greed and conquest is no arguement against the actual (true) teachings of Jesus.

 

I know dozens of guys who think/thought they're the next Michael Jordan/Lebron James. They buy the clothes, work on their game, hang out in the gym... so far no MJ or LJ in the bunch. Thinking it, saying it, even acting like it don't necessarily make it so. Going into a church does not make one a Christian any more than going to the gym makes you an NBA All Star.

 

You cannot possibly attribute the evil deeds you've outlined to the actions Jesus instructed His followers to live and do. Spin it all you want, it can't be done.

 

 

 

2) In response to your second set of comments, I too know Muslims who prefer to live in peace rather than participate in Jihad. I think that's great. Where are the so-called "moderate" Muslims willing to stand up and say, "My brothers, Jihad is wrong. The Prophet does not teach Jihad. It is wrong to kill in the name of Islam." They don't exist because they cannot make such a statement in truth, and yet, the vast majority of Christians condemn bombing abortion clinics and other acts of terror.

 

The Koran and Muhammad do specifically teach Jihad, Jesus does not.

 

First of all, I find it interesting that you label my post "condemnations". My points were observations, and not condemnations. I find it an tactic designed to discredit my thoughts, and to put me on the defensive, and provoke me into an emotional response. However, since I recognize the tactic for what it is, that won't work. If there is to be understanding of other religions, shouldn't the opportunity discuss valid opinions be open among Christians as well?

 

In the Bible, there are references to violence as the instruction for certain acts: eye for an eye, for instance. In the New Testament, Jesus instructs a more peaceful way of Truth: turn the other cheek. Now, which are literalists to follow? The two conflict and contradict. That is one example of many.

 

From your response, I would ask, how do you justify the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition to the teaching of Jesus?

First of all, I find it interesting that you label my post "condemnations". My points were observations, and not condemnations.

Please forgive me. I was making an assumption. Because I do care to understand your opinion I’m re-listing the “observations” you made in point one:

 

The Crusades

The Spanish Inquisition

Persecution in the name of God

The Bible used to justify persecution

The Puritans having to leave England due to persecution

Women and girls burned and drowned during the Salem Witch Trials

The Ku Klux Klan

Tying a gay teen to a fence and killing him

 

I’m sure with even a brief examination of history you could go on, but I have to ask for the record, "Which of these actions do you not condemn?"

 

I condemn every one of them, in light of the teaching of Jesus Christ. Again, I ask you to provide me any single verse in which Jesus instructs us to kill our enemies or those who offend our faith.

 

It was my assumption that you listed your “observations” as condemnable offenses performed in the name of God and the Bible. Again, I sincerely apologize if that was not your intent.

 

I find it an tactic designed to discredit my thoughts, and to put me on the defensive, and provoke me into an emotional response. However, since I recognize the tactic for what it is, that won't work. If there is to be understanding of other religions, shouldn't the opportunity discuss valid opinions be open among Christians as well?

You give me too much credit for crafty thinking here Mom. I did not intend to attack you or put you on the defensive. I am entirely open to discussing valid opinions. I suppose my standard for determining validity of an opinion my differ from yours. To be clear, any opinion contradicted by clear facts is not as valid to me as opinions based on facts. Feelings, emotions and good intentions have their place, but they do not trump truth in regard to validating one’s opinion… in my opinion… :lol:

 

In the Bible, there are references to violence as the instruction for certain acts: eye for an eye, for instance. In the New Testament, Jesus instructs a more peaceful way of Truth: turn the other cheek. Now, which are literalists to follow? The two conflict and contradict. That is one example of many.

 

From your response, I would ask, how do you justify the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition to the teaching of Jesus?

I’ve already answered this… the two do not align in my opinion. Jesus never instructed the propagation of the Gospel by the power of the sword.

 

It may be reasonably argued (based upon the facts,) that Muhammad did.

Please forgive me. I was making an assumption. Because I do care to understand your opinion I’m re-listing the “observations” you made in point one:

 

The Crusades

The Spanish Inquisition

Persecution in the name of God

The Bible used to justify persecution

The Puritans having to leave England due to persecution

Women and girls burned and drowned during the Salem Witch Trials

The Ku Klux Klan

Tying a gay teen to a fence and killing him

 

I’m sure with even a brief examination of history you could go on, but I have to ask for the record, "Which of these actions do you not condemn?"

 

I condemn every one of them, in light of the teaching of Jesus Christ. Again, I ask you to provide me any single verse in which Jesus instructs us to kill our enemies or those who offend our faith.

 

It was my assumption that you listed your “observations” as condemnable offenses performed in the name of God and the Bible. Again, I sincerely apologize if that was not your intent.

 

You give me too much credit for crafty thinking here Mom. I did not intend to attack you or put you on the defensive. I am entirely open to discussing valid opinions. I suppose my standard for determining validity of an opinion my differ from yours. To be clear, any opinion contradicted by clear facts is not as valid to me as opinions based on facts. Feelings, emotions and good intentions have their place, but they do not trump truth in regard to validating one’s opinion… in my opinion… :lol:

 

I’ve already answered this… the two do not align in my opinion. Jesus never instructed the propagation of the Gospel by the power of the sword.

 

It may be reasonably argued (based upon the facts,) that Muhammad did.

 

First I owe you an apology. I thought you use of "condemnations" was directed at my "observations" generally, not at specific examples I cited. My apologies.

First I owe you an apology. I thought you use of "condemnations" was directed at my "observations" generally, not at specific examples I cited. My apologies.

No problem. :thumb:

 

To the points at hand:

 

While it may be accurately stated that no one instigating violence against others can claim they are doing so in obedience to the teachings of Jesus Christ, Muslims committing violence against those outside their understanding of the Koran are able to do so in full accordance with their Prophet's teachings.

 

While Muslims may live in peace and adhere to the Koran, Christians may not live murderous and violent lives and be obedient to Christ.

 

What do you think I am missing here?

Let me put the differences between Islam and Christianity as simply as I can.

 

Islam was born in a taking of others' blood.

 

Christianity was born from a willing sacrifice of blood.

Let me put the differences between Islam and Christianity as simply as I can.

 

Islam was born in a taking of others' blood.

 

Christianity was born from a willing sacrifice of blood.

 

It depends on how you (the general you) view propitiation. If your belief is that God demanded the sacrifice of Jesus and the shedding of His blood - and there is a large # of people who adhere to this belief - then Christianity was born in the taking of a Son's blood.

 

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propitiation

In Christian theology, propitiation is the work of Jesus Christ on the cross, by which He appeases the wrath of God (both an emotional response of anger and a moral response of indignation), and conciliates Him who would otherwise be offended by our sin and would demand that we pay the penalty for it. The concept of propitiation is associated in some Christian theological systems with indemnity, imputed righteousness, and substitutionary atonement.

 

FWIW - I believe the atonement took place with the birth and that the death was a natural part of the sacrificing life of Jesus and it was not demanded by a blood thirsty God. I believe, however, that I am in the minority on this one.

FWIW - I believe the atonement took place with the birth and that the death was a natural part of the sacrificing life of Jesus and it was not demanded by a blood thirsty God. I believe, however, that I am in the minority on this one.

I really, truly, genuinely am not looking to start something here... but do you actually believe the stuff you say on here, or are you just trying to get a rise out of us?

 

If so, where do you come up with this stuff?

 

What do you base it on?

 

I really would like to know.