I don’t know if it’s my age or just overall weariness with the pressure to seriously contemplate every whacked out opinion and perspective just to appear polite… but I have almost no tolerance for the absurd and foolish these days. Everyone with a “feeling” or an “opinion” demands equal respect, regardless of the merits of their viewpoint. This is certainly not directed at you Hatz… I just felt the need to vent I guess… just because some kook "believes" the Bible, or any other holy book tells them something doesn't necessesarily make it so. ( I am aware you know this... still venting... bear with me...)

 

The entire Bible… from beginning to end, spanning a period of about 1,600 years and written by about 40 men points entirely to one person… Jesus Christ. If Jesus Christ is the focal point of the entire Bible… if He is referred to as “the Word made flesh” then it seems to me that His words... His teaching should take precedence over all else. There is likewise no question that the Qur’an is a collection of the words and teachings of Muhammad. If one seriously examines the words and teachings of Jesus Christ versus those of Muhammad, there is no doubt what each intended to convey…

 

 

Nothing personal, I know that Leatherneck. I really respect your views on this site.

 

However my point is specific. You speak of the whole of scripture testifying and pointing to the Christ. That's hyperbole, even to the most conservative theologian. The theme of scripture does point to the Incarnation but NOT ALL the specifics do. Hence I cited SPECIFIC events in the OT that are used more than you may be aware of to invite violent reactions to situations. I even have seen some use the words of Jesus in the Upper Room concerning money and swords as a "call to arms" or Crusades (do we need to cite history as well?).

I don't like it anymore than you but to me it's naive not understand the role of the Holy Bible in inciting Religious intolerance in some (See the use of Ham's Story or the mark of Cain by those defending slavery) and out and out violence by others.

Nothing personal, I know that Leatherneck. I really respect your views on this site.

 

However my point is specific. You speak of the whole of scripture testifying and pointing to the Christ. That's hyperbole, even to the most conservative theologian. The theme of scripture does point to the Incarnation but NOT ALL the specifics do. Hence I cited SPECIFIC events in the OT that are used more than you may be aware of to invite violent reactions to situations. I even have seen some use the words of Jesus in the Upper Room concerning money and swords as a "call to arms" or Crusades (do we need to cite history as well?).

I don't like it anymore than you but to me it's naive not understand the role of the Holy Bible in inciting Religious intolerance in some (See the use of Ham's Story or the mark of Cain by those defending slavery) and out and out violence by others.

I am not arguing whether the Bible, the Qur'an or any other holy book has been used to incite religious intolerance. That is beyond dispute.

 

Nor am I suggesting that some kook with an unholy agenda couldn't find a way to twist the words of Jesus into something 180 degrees out of line with what He actually intended. Satan tried twisting God's Word with Jesus at the end of His 40 days in the desert.

 

If our measure of any faith is merely to be guaged by what some claiming to follow that religion have perpetrated in its name... you could prove anything. This is unreliable, and essentially an excercise in futility.

 

The only reliable way to guage a faith is to go to the actual words and deeds of the originators. Although I respect and value the Jewish part of my spiritual heritage... I am not a Jew... I like bacon... I eat oysters and catfish... I have not kept the Mosaic laws. Jesus distilled the laws of the OT into two I summarize here as, "Love God... Love your neighbor." As simple as those are, I still struggle and fail to keep them at all times.

 

Jesus never led an armed assault, preached aggression or espoused violence. He instructed love, forgiveness, mercy, grace and leaving vengeance to God. Muhammad, on the other hand, did lead physical battles, wielded a sword, taught jihad, warfare and violence against unbelievers. Love, forgiveness and mercy in Islam is reserved for followers of the Prophet and converts... not unbelievers. All warm and fuzzy spins claiming otherwise are nothing more than fantasy.

 

Again, I go back to my original premise... regardless of what "some" may say or do in His name, there is nothing about the life and words of Jesus that could possibly lead anyone to believe He espoused physical violence in this world by His followers. Muhammad on the other hand, not only provided instructions for the appropriate methods of jihad... which are being taught to this day, he actually led his followers into battle in his lifetime.

 

Regardless of what some may do and attribute to their faiths... true Christianity and true Islam are very different in this regard.

Withdraws from consideration.

 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/01/tsa_nominee_erroll_southers_wi.html