Is Christianity just as bad as Islam? [Archive]

Yahzi

19th May 2003, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by Baker
I wanted to continue the argument from why I’m not a Muslim thread is Christianity just as bad as Islam.
Is the violence and hatred by both just the same?
Yes.

If anything, Christianity is worse. Where in the Koran does it exhort its followers to kill "everything that breathes?" Where in the Koran does it praise a man for convincing another tribe to convert, and then killing them anyways?

The Old Testament is as bloody a book as you can imagine. Now, given that Islam accepts both the Old and New testament as legitimate writings of god, one might argue that Islam is violent in proportion to its Judeaic influence.

Islam has never had a Crusade. When they took over places, they generally tolerated the local religions. I don't know of any instance where they murdered entire cities for being the wrong religion. The Christians not only did this to Muslims, they did it to each other. Try reading up on the history of the Catholic church and how it handled the various heresies. The Catholics put entire cities of Christians to the sword for believing that god was three who was one, instead of one who was three.

The only reason you think Christianity is peaceful is because for the last 100 years it has been chained by secular law, and compelled to act according to Enlightenment principles by social opinion. There certainly is no justification in the Bible for the liberal tolerance demonstrated by today's Christianity. Just ask the Pope. I would argue that the only reason Islam was ever liberal and tolerant is for exactly the same reasons: having started in the 9th century, Islam simply missed the good old days when genocide was doing the work of the Lord.

This is like arguing that Charles Manson is a nicer guy than the East Coast Sniper, because Manson's murders were 20 years ago and he hasn't killed anyone while he's been in prison.

Fundamentally, both these religions place God above Good. Thus, you would expect them to be violent and harmful, since serving god is more important than being good. If god wants you to murder people, well, obedience is more important than kindness, tolerance, compassion, honor, love, or any other virtue. So Abraham takes his child to the mountain top, and Christians, Muslims, and Jews around the world praise him as a model of piety. All of these religions demand obedience to god over any other consideration. Sounds like an army, doesn't it? That's pretty much the point.

Any religion that places obedience over morality will be a dangerous religion, that will turn to violence any time it looks like it might advance their goals. This is why we despise both Christianity and Islam, along with Judeaism, which is historically worse and currently only moderately less obsessed with obedience.

Some sects of Christianity are different: Quakers do not put obedience to god above morality. And there is a sect of Islam (I have forgotten the name, they are about as numerous and obscure as Quakers) that is unwarrantedly peaceful. But these accidental offshoots do not excuse the mainstream.

Yahzi

19th May 2003, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
No. Christiainity has had its bad points. The Middle Ages, the Crusades. But it started as a doomsday cult.

It started as Judeaism, which already had a proud history of genocide.

Jesus was a Jew.

Why do Christians have so much trouble remembering that?

Upchurch

19th May 2003, 01:51 PM

I was listening to a conservative radio show, as I sometimes do, that made the point, once again, that it is not Muslims who were "the enemy" but fundamentalist extremist Muslims. This got me to thinking, as it had before when I first heard the argument, that it's not just fundamentalist extremist Muslims that we should be worried about, but also fundamentalist extrimist anything.

Because he came up in a thread recently, consider Rev. Fred Phelps, who is a hate-mongering fundamentalist extrimist anti-gay Christian. Phelps' fanatical group protested Fred "Won't you be my neighbor?" Rogers' funeral, for pity's sake!

Granted, that's not as violent as the terrorists, but consider those fundamental extremists who bombed abortion clinics or burned crosses and lynched black men.

I don't think it's one religion, or even idea, per se that should be considered dangerous, but anyone who takes that religion or idea to an extreme.

Pahansiri

19th May 2003, 02:11 PM

Well said Upchurch but let me add it is not Only religion it can be any idea or belief such as the case with what could have been good, communism which went bad. It can be almost anything not just religion. Many times people who believe in God based beliefs will say that Atheism has done more harm i.e. Stalin, Pol pot, Chinese government etc . The need to attack the beliefs of other and point fingers and compare becomes fundamentalist extremist itself.

Upchurch

19th May 2003, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by Pahansiri
let me add it is not Only religion it can be any idea or belief

[snip]

The need to attack the beliefs of other and point fingers and compare becomes fundamentalist extremist itself.
Well said to you as well. A perfect case-in-point is one of the conservative radio show hosts I listen to on occasion, Michael Savage of The Savage Nation. His show is a one hour (in my area) attack on any person or idea that he doesn't like. No that he doesn't have the right to do it, but he doesn't justify it. He assumes that his attacks/claims are self-evident and that everyone agrees with him, or else they are idiots. He is very similar, in my mind, to Ann Coutler who does much the same thing.

I would consider both Savage and Coutler fundamental extremists in the political world.

DialecticMaterialist

19th May 2003, 02:53 PM

Christianity is not Judaism. Christianity actually cut itself off from it very well and made many rules obsolete via the second covenent. Jesus preached practices that contradicted many OT rules.

And in regards to the Torah, in Judaism tadition has watered it down beyond belief.

In any event if you are going to play that game, then I'll say Islam began with Judaism and thus contains the sins of all three. Muslism do believe in the Torah and New Testament after all, they just interpret it differently.

DialecticMaterialist

19th May 2003, 02:57 PM

Granted, that's not as violent as the terrorists, but consider those fundamental extremists who bombed abortion clinics or burned crosses and lynched black men.

I don't think it's one religion, or even idea, per se that should be considered dangerous, but anyone who takes that religion or idea to an extreme.

Yes Christians can be pretty violent, often times are in a manner which can be justified in their religion.

However a big difference is at least the mainstream Christians, even fundamentalists will try to distance themselves from such fanatics. Jerry Falwell and the 700 club for example condemn abortion bombing on the air.

They probably feel some sort of sympathy but they keep quiet about that.

Muslims however will not distance themselves. Mainstream fundamentalist Muslims will praise for such actions and say the guy will be rewarded with many virgins.

DialecticMaterialist

19th May 2003, 03:02 PM

Many times people who believe in God based beliefs will say that Atheism has done more harm i.e. Stalin, Pol pot, Chinese government etc . The need to attack the beliefs of other and point fingers and compare becomes fundamentalist extremist itself.

See the problem with that reasoning is that you are comparing on the basis of a negative and not a postive.

For example you cannot really say that blaming Stalinism for bad things is similiar to blaming non-Stalinism, as non-Stalinism is just way too wide an area.

Stalinism is a positive-specific belief system that advocates certain values and beliefs. Non-Stalinism advocates nothing.

A better comparison then atheism then would be Marxism, or Marxist-Lenninism.

Pahansiri

19th May 2003, 03:48 PM

Hello DialecticMaterialist no actually you helped prove my point what I was saying while perhaps I did not present it well was that say Christians will point and say Atheist caused more suffering and I listed some leaders who used great greed and cruelty to harm many who happened to be Atheist. You broke it down more to a smaller grouping if you will. My point is we seek to create or life in this ego illusion that there is an us and them, there is not.

What we see here in many post is very much just the same old thing, it is all “ my god ( what ever that may be) is bigger then yours”. All ego the need to be on the special team. The belief that “I believe it so it JUST has to be true and they can’t be right because if they are then I am wrong and I just can’t handle that”.

There is here what you find on say a Christian site, the attacking of any other belief and even groups within their belief because they don’t believe JUST the way I do so they are wrong, bad, evil lost, dumb the list goes on. Here many times it is attacking people who believe in gods etc any religion, the reason the very same the ones in the Christian groups do it.

But more so to my point and Upchurch one can NOT say “they are this or that” you can never judge the thoughts or actions etc of everyone just because they belong to a belief of any kind etc.

The need to attack others is always fear and ego, self image. It is the cause of more suffering then can be pinned on any group of belief, it is fear based ego that is the fuel for suffering.

I seek to just respect, to have loving kindness, respect and compassion for myself and all living things what someone believes who they love etc is not my concern unless it brings harm, real harm to others not the harm created in the mind because someone does something I don’t do.

Just what I believe.

justsaygnosis

19th May 2003, 04:11 PM

It can be worse or beter depending on how it's interpeted and applied.
There are violent people in all walks of life.
Some are leaders and some are followers.

Baker

19th May 2003, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by Yahzi

Yes.

If anything, Christianity is worse. Where in the Koran does it exhort its followers to kill "everything that breathes?" Where in the Koran does it praise a man for convincing another tribe to convert, and then killing them anyways?

The Old Testament is as bloody a book as you can imagine. Now, given that Islam accepts both the Old and New testament as legitimate writings of god, one might argue that Islam is violent in proportion to its Judeaic influence.

Islam has never had a Crusade. When they took over places, they generally tolerated the local religions. I don't know of any instance where they murdered entire cities for being the wrong religion. The Christians not only did this to Muslims, they did it to each other. Try reading up on the history of the Catholic church and how it handled the various heresies. The Catholics put entire cities of Christians to the sword for believing that god was three who was one, instead of one who was three.

The only reason you think Christianity is peaceful is because for the last 100 years it has been chained by secular law, and compelled to act according to Enlightenment principles by social opinion. There certainly is no justification in the Bible for the liberal tolerance demonstrated by today's Christianity. Just ask the Pope. I would argue that the only reason Islam was ever liberal and tolerant is for exactly the same reasons: having started in the 9th century, Islam simply missed the good old days when genocide was doing the work of the Lord.

This is like arguing that Charles Manson is a nicer guy than the East Coast Sniper, because Manson's murders were 20 years ago and he hasn't killed anyone while he's been in prison.

Fundamentally, both these religions place God above Good. Thus, you would expect them to be violent and harmful, since serving god is more important than being good. If god wants you to murder people, well, obedience is more important than kindness, tolerance, compassion, honor, love, or any other virtue. So Abraham takes his child to the mountain top, and Christians, Muslims, and Jews around the world praise him as a model of piety. All of these religions demand obedience to god over any other consideration. Sounds like an army, doesn't it? That's pretty much the point.

Any religion that places obedience over morality will be a dangerous religion, that will turn to violence any time it looks like it might advance their goals. This is why we despise both Christianity and Islam, along with Judeaism, which is historically worse and currently only moderately less obsessed with obedience.

Some sects of Christianity are different: Quakers do not put obedience to god above morality. And there is a sect of Islam (I have forgotten the name, they are about as numerous and obscure as Quakers) that is unwarrantedly peaceful. But these accidental offshoots do not excuse the mainstream.

Every post I have read from Islam Apologist defending Islam and attacking Christianity always start with the old testament.
As I understand the Old testament,it's about the history of the Jews.consider this,for all it's violence,why didn't they invade the rest of the Fertile Crescent considering that they are the people of God and in the peak of their power concentrated their power in Israel and it's borders and not on others .On the other hand Islam, a so called religion of peace extended it's power from Arabia to Europe,North Africa,Asia and the Middle East by way of the sword and for your information,there were no crusades in 711AD when the Moors invaded Spain,only Jihad.

So in effect,Islam thru it's invasion of Europe planted the seeds of the Christian Crusades centuries later.Oh by the way,isn't dhimmitude the way to presecute other religions by way of forcing them to pay ridiculous protection taxes for their survival and if they want to be free of the those taxes,convert to Islam.How tolerant is that?Oh yeah,wasn't there a civil war after Muhammed died,from what I have read,it was real bloody,like murder,assasinations,massacres and the like just..How peaceful was that .

Yahzi

20th May 2003, 01:30 AM

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Christianity actually cut itself off from it very well and made many rules obsolete via the second covenent. Jesus preached practices that contradicted many OT rules.

And in regards to the Torah, in Judaism tadition has watered it down beyond belief.

I realize that's true, but do you realize that you couldn't figure that out merely by reading the Bible?

The whole point is that merely quoting passages out of the holy book does not actually reflect the religion very accurately. In fact, modern Christianity has practically nothing to do with the Bible (except for some radical fundamental sects). So why would anybody think modern Islam has anything to do with the Quran?

The answer is that modern Christians don't realize their religion has nothing to do with the Bible...

Yahzi

20th May 2003, 01:50 AM

Baked

Every post I have read from Islam Apologist defending Islam and attacking Christianity always start with the old testament.
Every complaint I read from fundies attacking Islam always starts with the Quran.

Um. What is your point? That their holy book is ok to attack, but yours isn't? :confused:

why didn't they invade the rest of the Fertile Crescent considering that they are the people of God and in the peak of their power concentrated their power in Israel and it's borders and not on others
For the same reason they didn't invade Central America or Sibera. The Jews, even at their peak, were a tiny, tiny power. A small fish in a puddle. The fact that you even make this argument demonstrates that you don't know anything about history.

On the other hand Islam, a so called religion of peace extended it's power from Arabia to Europe,North Africa,Asia and the Middle East by way of the sword and for your information,there were no crusades in 711AD when the Moors invaded Spain,only Jihad.
The people who worship the Prince of Peace conquered a pretty sizeable empire by the sword, too. What's your point again? That both Christians and Muslims preached peace while waging constant war? Well... I agree with you.

So in effect,Islam thru it's invasion of Europe planted the seeds of the Christian Crusades centuries later.
Ah yes, let us blame the victim. You know, a Chinese man once looked askance at my great-great-great-great-great-great grand uncle's brother's goat. So clearly we are justified in nuking the entire Eastern hemisphere.

BTW, you are just plain wrong. The Muslim invasion of Europe was not a significant cause of the Crusades.

Oh by the way,isn't dhimmitude the way to presecute other religions by way of forcing them to pay ridiculous protection taxes for their survival and if they want to be free of the those taxes,convert to Islam.How tolerant is that?
Slightly more tolerant than the Christians of the era, who generally responded to other faiths by killing them. Or took Jewish children from their parents to raise them as Christians. Would you rather be killed, have your children taken away, be driven from your home, or pay a tax?

Oh yeah,wasn't there a civil war after Muhammed died,from what I have read,it was real bloody,like murder,assasinations,massacres and the like just..How peaceful was that .
Does the phrase "Protestant-Catholic conflict" mean ANYTHING to you? Anything at all? Does the last 400 years of almost constant warfare - sometimes so all-consuming that people actually forgot to persecute Jews - ring even the ghost of a bell in your head? How about names like "Thirty Year's war" and "Hundred Years war?"

And at what point did anyone here assert that Islam was a peaceful religion? For the thousandth time, we are asserting that Islam and Christianity are both violent religions. Nothing peaceful about either of them. Islam scores slightly lower on the body count, for the sole reason they got started 800 years late. The only other difference is that Islam has already been through it's liberal period, whereas Christianity is currently in its liberal period.

Your Christian holy book preaches as much or more violence and death than the Muslim holy book. This is a simple fact. Why can't you accept it?

ceo_esq

20th May 2003, 05:13 AM

Princeton sociologist Rodney Stark's One True God: Historical Consequences of Monotheism (http://pup.princeton.edu/titles/7122.html) debunks the notion that Islamic society has historically been more tolerant of other religions than Christian societies.

(On the question of the socio-historical consequences of Christianity and Islam, I'd also recommend the same author's book For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery (http://pup.princeton.edu/titles/7501.html).)

As for the various Crusades, they shouldn't be attributed to the Bible, or even viewed as a purely religious phenomenon. This essay (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0054.html) contains a fairly good, succinct review of the causes, effects and events.

Darwin

20th May 2003, 10:08 AM

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Shores/2800/ViolentChris.html

Scary site,somewhat related maybe.

Yahzi

20th May 2003, 04:17 PM

As for the various Crusades, they shouldn't be attributed to the Bible, or even viewed as a purely religious phenomenon
Then it wouldn't be fair to say that the various Crusades shouldn't be attributed to the Quran?

Why are you arguing that Christianity is a superior religion because it follows the instructions of its holy book with less faithfulness?

Princeton sociologist Rodney Stark's One True God: Historical Consequences of Monotheism debunks the notion that Islamic society has historically been more tolerant of other religions than Christian societies.
Saladin made Jeruslam a place where all faiths could worship. KIng Richard made the blood flow until it was ankle deep.

From your link:
With his customary clarity and vigor, Rodney Stark explains how and why monotheism has such immense power both to unite and to divide...

In the final chapter, Stark also examines the American experience to show that it is possible for committed monotheists to sustain norms of civility toward one another.

Doesn't sound like he's quite on your side... if the American expierence is the only way to maintain peace between monotheists, and the American expierence is secular, then it seems to indicated that secularism is the force that makes Christianity not kill people, and lack of secularism is what permits Islam to kill people, and the various merits of Christianity and Islam really don't matter.

Which was my point all along.

Baker

20th May 2003, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by Yahzi
Baked

Every complaint I read from fundies attacking Islam always starts with the Quran.

Um. What is your point? That their holy book is ok to attack, but yours isn't? :confused:

For the same reason they didn't invade Central America or Sibera. The Jews, even at their peak, were a tiny, tiny power. A small fish in a puddle. The fact that you even make this argument demonstrates that you don't know anything about history.

The people who worship the Prince of Peace conquered a pretty sizeable empire by the sword, too. What's your point again? That both Christians and Muslims preached peace while waging constant war? Well... I agree with you.

Ah yes, let us blame the victim. You know, a Chinese man once looked askance at my great-great-great-great-great-great grand uncle's brother's goat. So clearly we are justified in nuking the entire Eastern hemisphere.

BTW, you are just plain wrong. The Muslim invasion of Europe was not a significant cause of the Crusades.

Slightly more tolerant than the Christians of the era, who generally responded to other faiths by killing them. Or took Jewish children from their parents to raise them as Christians. Would you rather be killed, have your children taken away, be driven from your home, or pay a tax?

Does the phrase "Protestant-Catholic conflict" mean ANYTHING to you? Anything at all? Does the last 400 years of almost constant warfare - sometimes so all-consuming that people actually forgot to persecute Jews - ring even the ghost of a bell in your head? How about names like "Thirty Year's war" and "Hundred Years war?"

And at what point did anyone here assert that Islam was a peaceful religion? For the thousandth time, we are asserting that Islam and Christianity are both violent religions. Nothing peaceful about either of them. Islam scores slightly lower on the body count, for the sole reason they got started 800 years late. The only other difference is that Islam has already been through it's liberal period, whereas Christianity is currently in its liberal period.

Your Christian holy book preaches as much or more violence and death than the Muslim holy book. This is a simple fact. Why can't you accept it?

First of all,I'm a not christian,secondly I'm not blind to the fact that some people who call themselves christians have murdered,robbed and forcefully prosecuted non christians throughout history and guess what,we don't like it.period.If you have read the the New Testament,from the Gospels ,Acts and the Letters of the apostles,do you see a command there to kill unbelievers?
I'll be waiting for your answer pal because many practicing christians I know follow the New more than the Old Testament.So tell me,where did Jesus say kill those who have rejected him?
Come on wise guy,show it to me!
Oh by the way,if we compare the early spread of Islam to the early spread of christianity on the fertile Crescent,which religion spread faster,the former or the latter and by what means do they both spread their dogma?
Which holy man commanded armies when he was alive and which among the two was responsible for the murders and massacres of innocent men,women and children during their lifetime.

Think about it when spreading BS.I'm also fairly well read in European history inspite of my nationality so don't peg me for a fool.I know about the problems of the early church post Constantine the Great,the schisms,the prosecutions of particular sects,the inquisitions and the church abuses during the dark ages to the Middle Ages and beyond.So tell me what I don't know.Don't bother me with the,Crusades, Inquisition,the Thirty years War,the murder of the Hugenots by Catholics,the presecution of Jews,etc.

It's well documented and nobody is denying or hiding it.How about your precious Islam,can you explain the wholesale massacres of Hindus during the Islamic conquest of India,how about the forceful kidnapping and conversion of Christian boys in the Balkans and turning them into Janissaries in the service of the Ottoman empire,the bloody invasion of Spain,France and Sicily and why Muslim influenced history books that are being taught in Muslim schools or in PC communities are contending that Muslims have been in those places forever and the Christians are the invaders.

So please don't tell me that Islam is squeaky clean when the history of the Balkans as well as the Iberian peninsula and India says otherwise.
I read the Bible cover to cover in my youth and I fully understand the fundamental differences between the Old and New testament and it's nuances.So tell me where in the New testament is the command to kill unbelievers.If you can't answer that,I will not accept your statement that the bible is a more bloody book than the quran.

ceo_esq

21st May 2003, 05:16 AM

Originally posted by Yahzi
Why are you arguing that Christianity is a superior religion because it follows the instructions of its holy book with less faithfulness?
The short answer, Yahzi, is that I haven't argued that Christianity is a superior religion. I haven't even suggested any criteria according to which it might possible to determine the relative "superiority" of a religion, whatever that means. Please check your strawmen at the door.

aggle_rithm

21st May 2003, 06:31 AM

There's nothing inherently "bad" about Christianity or Islam. Or Atheism. It's individuals with screwed-up agendas that cause all the problems.

Pahansiri

21st May 2003, 07:16 AM

Baker wrote" So tell me where in the New testament is the command to kill unbelievers.If you can't answer that,I will not accept your statement that the bible is a more bloody book than the quran.

"But these enemies of mine who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27)

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother in law." (Matthew 10:34-35)

"I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, father against son, and son against father; mother against daughter, and daughter against mother; mother-in-law against daughter-in-law, and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law." (Luke 12:49-53)

There are many more including instructions as to how to beat a slave Luke 12: 47, great anger over a fig tree that did not give forth fruit when it was not in season the killing of a farmers stock of pigs etc. You attack Islam and complain that people who defend it are apologist yet you discount the OT completely as to the violence in it, knowing it is the base for the Christian belief in such you are what you condemn.

This whole topic and ones like it that attack the beliefs of others is the very fuel of all hate and violence greater then what is found in these old books.

aggle_rithm is very right There's nothing inherently "bad" about Christianity or Islam. Or Atheism. It's individuals with screwed-up agendas that cause all the problems.

All beliefs have people/followers that carry their personal agenda into them and do as they please, follow their egos and cause suffering. I am Buddhist I can say the “book” of my belief the Tipitaka is huge about 11 times larger then the OT and NT and has not one single call for violence or act of it as something that is seen as good, the same can be said for the religion of Jainism. BUT are there Buddhist people who have done stupid things, YES.

This need to compare is all ego and stems from a childish and worthless, meaningless low self image. There is no need to be better or worse just see we are all interconnected and all interdependent.

My friend I am sure there is far better things you can do, things that will bring you joy and not the anger found in your post then attack others I say the same for others here who attack Christian beliefs or the beliefs of anyone or things they hold dear.

Just what I believe

Flaherty

21st May 2003, 08:15 AM

In the big creamy center of the distribution, Christianity and Islam are essentially the same in terms of their pros and cons. But at the extremes, I think Islam is clearly worse. The Islamofacist movement is more violent and larger than any Christian extremist group operating today. Historically, Christian extremists could match or exceed anything dished out by al Qaeda, but that kind of widespread madness has not been indicative of Christianity for a few centuries.

Yahzi

21st May 2003, 01:06 PM

Baker

First of all,I'm a not christian,secondly I'm not blind to the fact that some people who call themselves christians have murdered,robbed and forcefully prosecuted non christians throughout history and guess what,we don't like it.period.
Is this the no true Scotsman fallacy sneaking in?

I'll be waiting for your answer pal because many practicing christians I know follow the New more than the Old Testament.

Which is my entire point, Baker! Don't you get it? Here you are, defending Christianity from a few isolated quotes. Your experience of Christianity is utterly unlike what those few, isolated, out of context quotes would seem to indicate.

So why can't you understand that the same thing is true for most Muslims?

You have just successfully argued that reading a handful of Bible quotes does not convey the true nature of Christianity today. So why can't you understand that reading a handful of Quran quotes does not necessarily convey the true nature of Islam today?

Oh by the way,if we compare the early spread of Islam to the early spread of christianity on the fertile Crescent,which religion spread faster,the former or the latter and by what means do they both spread their dogma?
Christianity's first big coup was an Emperor, who spread the religion by force of law. He already had an empire to stick it on.

Jesus was working on raising an army. That's why when Peter draws his sword, he says, "Not yet." I will grant you that Jesus committed no murders in his time, but then the Jews quite intelligently killed him after only three years. Hardly a fair contest.

[QUOTE]It's well documented and nobody is denying or hiding it.How about your precious Islam,can you explain the wholesale massacres of Hindus during the Islamic conquest of India,how about the forceful kidnapping and conversion of Christian boys in the Balkans and turning them into Janissaries in the service of the Ottoman empire,the bloody invasion of Spain,France and Sicily and why Muslim influenced history books that are being taught in Muslim schools or in PC communities are contending that Muslims have been in those places forever and the Christians are the invaders.
After giving me a long list of Christian crimes, you then proceed to list various Islamic crimes in apparent ignorance of the fact that every single one of them has been committed by Christians too. Including kidnapping children from Jews to raise them as Christians. When you succeed in finding a crime that Islam committed and Christianity did not, then maybe you will have something.

How about your precious Islam

So please don't tell me that Islam is squeaky clean

What is your malfunction?

I don't think Islam is squeaky clean. I think Islam is a violent, irrational, immoral, oppressive, murderous, religion devoted to crushing the human spirit, maintaining power for a handful of decietful perverts, and in general insuring that suffering is magnified to the greatest possible level. I hate and despise Islam as a blight on human existance. Do you understand?

Now, can you fit two facts into your tiny head? All those things I just said about Islam are also true of Christianity.

I read the Bible cover to cover in my youth and I fully understand the fundamental differences between the Old and New testament and it's nuances.So tell me where in the New testament is the command to kill unbelievers.If you can't answer that,I will not accept your statement that the bible is a more bloody book than the quran.
Have you read the Quran cover to cover? Then how do you know that Muslims don't just discount all the sections they don't like, just like you do with the Bible?

How can you defend the violence in the Bible by claiming to have read and understand the context of the entire book, and then attack the violence in the Quran after reading only a few quotes?

Don't you see the double standard you are applying? You take your Christian friend's word when it comes to interpreting the violent bits of the Bible, but when hundreds of millions of Muslims assert exactly the same thing about their holy book, you don't take their word?

You have made my argument for me. You have shown why a religion cannot be judged by a few passages from its holy book, or even why a modern religion cannot be judged by its history. So why do you insist on judging Islam by a few passages from its holy book and its bloody history, while refusing to judge Christianity by the same criteria?

I am not asking you to like Islam. I am not defending Islam. I am not even necessarily attacking Christianity. I am simply asking you to apply the same standards.

justsaygnosis

21st May 2003, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by Flaherty
Historically, Christian extremists could match or exceed anything dished out by al Qaeda, but that kind of widespread madness has not been indicative of Christianity for a few centuries.

It hasn't been as overt. It's just more subtle nowadays.
Mix in a few dashes of politics along with some humanitarian concerns and spin it around long enough and you too can produce a socially palatable christian crusade against....(*.*)

Baker

22nd May 2003, 03:58 AM

Originally posted by Yahzi
Which is my entire point, Baker! Don't you get it? Here you are, defending Christianity from a few isolated quotes. Your experience of Christianity is utterly unlike what those few, isolated, out of context quotes would seem to indicate.

So why can't you understand that the same thing is true for most Muslims?

You have just successfully argued that reading a handful of Bible quotes does not convey the true nature of Christianity today. So why can't you understand that reading a handful of Quran quotes does not necessarily convey the true nature of Islam today?

How many Muslims speak out against these Koran quotes how many speak out against Al Qaeda and other terrorist attacks.
There or for more Muslims that believe in these isolated quotes as you call them then Christians do in the Bible.

Christianity's first big coup was an Emperor, who spread the religion by force of law. He already had an empire to stick it on.

Which holy man commanded armies when he was alive and which among the two was responsible for the murders and massacres of innocent men,women and children during their lifetime.
Jesus was working on raising an army. That's why when Peter draws his sword, he says, "Not yet." I will grant you that Jesus committed no murders in his time, but then the Jews quite intelligently killed him after only three years. Hardly a fair contest.

Christianity may be metaphysically absurd and it is not even for sure that Jesus Christ ever has really lived.

But apart from that, the person called Jesus Christ, as portrayed in the gospel - fictional or real - expresses a remarkable ethics: "Love your enemies!" "Turn the other cheek!" etc.

Although personally I find Buddhism and Chinese Taoism to be even more sympathetic.

However this is different with Islam.

Islam is the only religion with worldwide missionary ambitions of which its founder already has used violence in order to spread it.

Islam is the only religion of which its own adherents, the muslims themselves(!), report, that their "prophet's" behavior was not only not divine, but rather deeply immoral and criminal: a killer and a gangster. Every "common" thief, who is only a thief and not a murdere is morally superior to Mohammed.

Islam is the only religion which endorses offensive violence starting with its founder, leaving to pagans only the choice between death and embracing Islam and to Christians and Jews the inferior "Dhimmi" status.

Islam is the only religion of which its founder already has attacked "pagan" people and killed them if they refused to embrace his religion and become his subjects.

Muhammad himself already killed defenseless prisoners of Banu Quraizah.

Islam is the only religion of which its founder already has unscrupolously used violence in order to obtain power.

And this has been reported by the muslims themselves and obviously the muslims did not find anything irritating, wrong or embarassing about this behavior they reported of their own prophet - they are even proud about it.

After giving me a long list of Christian crimes, you then proceed to list various Islamic crimes in apparent ignorance of the fact that every single one of them has been committed by Christians too. Including kidnapping children from Jews to raise them as Christians. When you succeed in finding a crime that Islam committed and Christianity did not, then maybe you will have something.

My aim isn't necessary to defend Christianity but show that it is the lesser of two evils.
Tell me where Christians committed these types of violence against humanity?

A million to a million and a half died. Turkey refuses to this day, and alleges fabrication!

http://www.armenian-genocide.org/

What is the Armenian Genocide?
The atrocities committed against the Armenian people of the Ottoman Empire during W.W.I are called the Armenian Genocide. Genocide is the organized killing of a people for the express purpose of putting an end to their collective existence. Because of its scope, genocide requires central planning and a machinery to implement it. This makes genocide the quintessential state crime as only a government has the resources to carry out such a scheme of destruction. The Armenian Genocide was centrally planned and administered by the Turkish government against the entire Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire. It was carried out during W.W.I between the years 1915 and 1918. The Armenian people was subjected to deportation, expropriation, abduction, torture, massacre, and starvation. The great bulk of the Armenian population was forcibly removed from Armenia and Anatolia to Syria, where the vast majority was sent into the desert to die of thirst and hunger. Large numbers of Armenians were methodically massacred throughout the Ottoman Empire. Women and children were abducted and horribly abused. The entire wealth of the Armenian people was expropriated. After only a little more than a year of calm at the end of W.W.I, the atrocities were renewed between 1920 and 1923, and the remaining Armenians were subjected to further massacres and expulsions. In 1915, thirty-three years before UN Genocide Convention was adopted, the Armenian Genocide was condemned by the international community as a crime against humanity.

Islamic imperialism knew no code of honor. The only rule of war they observed without fail was to fall down the helpless civil population after a decisive victory had been won on the battlefield. They sacked and burnt down villages and towns after the defenders had died fighting or had fled. The cows, the Brahmins and Buddhist Bhikshus invited their special attention in a mass murder of non-combatants. Their temples and shrines were their special targets in an orgy of pillage and destruction. Those that they did not kill, they captured and sold as slaves. The scene was described by Kanhadde Prabandha (1456 A.D) in the following words: "The conquering army burnt villages, devastated the land, plundered people's wealth, took Brahmins and children and women of all classes captive, flogged with thongs of raw hide, carried a moving prison with it, and converted the prisoners into obsequious Turks."
http://www.atributetohinduism.com/Islamic_Onslaught.htm

Slaughters did occur in the initial wave of conquest: during the Muslim invasion of Syria in 634 thousands of Christians were massacred; in Mesopotamia between 635 and 642 monasteries were ransacked and the monks and villagers slain; while in Egypt the towns of Behnesa, Fayum, Nikiu and Aboit were put to the sword. The inhabitants of Cilicia were taken into captivity. In Armenia, the entire population of Euchaita was wiped out. The Muslim invaders sacked and pillaged Cyprus and then established their rule by a "great massacre." In North Africa Tripoli was pillaged in 643 by Amr, who forced the Jews and Christians to hand over their women and children as slaves to the Arab army. They were told that they could deduct the value of their enslaved family from the poll-tax, the jizya. Carthage was razed to the ground and most of its inhabitants killed...
http://www.antibaro.gr/international/trifkovic_christian.htm

Have you read the Quran cover to cover? Then how do you know that Muslims don't just discount all the sections they don't like, just like you do with the Bible?

How can you defend the violence in the Bible by claiming to have read and understand the context of the entire book, and then attack the violence in the Quran after reading only a few quotes?

Don't you see the double standard you are applying? You take your Christian friend's word when it comes to interpreting the violent bits of the Bible, but when hundreds of millions of Muslims assert exactly the same thing about their holy book, you don't take their word?

You have made my argument for me. You have shown why a religion cannot be judged by a few passages from its holy book, or even why a modern religion cannot be judged by its history. So why do you insist on judging Islam by a few passages from its holy book and its bloody history, while refusing to judge Christianity by the same criteria?

I am not asking you to like Islam. I am not defending Islam. I am not even necessarily attacking Christianity. I am simply asking you to apply the same standards.

That is how Islamic terrorist justify killing by quoting the Koran.
Are there any Christian terrorist using the bible to justify using terror?
You see I am using the same standards to judge both religions
Here is the Qatari television channel Al-Jazeera interviewed Saudi sheikh Mohsin Al-'Awaji.
This should help you out on the topic.

We are proud that they define us as someone who strikes terror into the heart of the enemies of Allah and our enemies [a paraphrase of a Koranic verse], but not according to the definition they [the Americans] want. America wants us to define terror according to its criteria. The American definition of terror is that anyone who resists America's colonialist and religious interests is a terrorist…"

"The Saudis maintain that the Arabian peninsula is the resting place of the lions from which the leaders emerged. Those who confront America in Afghanistan, Chechnya, and Kashmir are the cubs of those lions. [The Saudis] who lead the Jihad in the world left without asking the permission of the rulers or the world. They broke through the barriers to leave. They run in pursuit of death, while George Bush and his administration fled the White House, at a certain point, when they were targeted."

"The Saudis believe that the glory of the [Islamic] nation appeared when our Prophet taught us the industry of death – when he taught us how to create death. Then life became cheap in our eyes… When one of the sons of our nation is killed, he says: 'I won,' and the master of the Ka'aba swears that he had won. This we see as the industry of death. We in Saudi society and in other Islamic societies have finally realized that this is the right path to tread in order to deal with today's deadly strategic weapons. If America has intercontinental missiles and bombs, then our bombs are the Jihad fighters, whom America has called 'suicide attackers' and we call 'martyrs.' We will develop them because we see them as a strategic weapon
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=saudiarabia&ID=SP40002

Following a lesson on the monotheistic faiths, Saudi Arabian schoolchildren are asked to discuss "With what types of weapons should Muslims arm themselves against the Jews?" That question is part of an official textbook for 8th grade students which also emphasizes that "Jews and Christians were cursed by Allah and turned into apes and pigs," and that "The hour [the Day of Judgment] will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them."

MEMRI reports that "the textbook interprets the conversation between the prophet and his companion as follows: the most important activity is Jihad for the sake of Allah and the convocation of Allah's religion on this earth." By ninth grade, students are ready for "The Promise of the Stone and the Tree" - the story of Abu Hurayra, one of the prophet's companions who quoted the prophet as saying: "The hour [the Day of Judgment] will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. A Jew will [then] hide behind a rock or a tree, and the rock or tree will call upon the Muslim: 'O Muslim, O slave of Allah! There is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!' - except for the gharqad tree, for it is one of the trees of the Jews."
http://memri.org/bin/media.cgi?ID=39202

Yahzi

22nd May 2003, 01:15 PM

Baker

There or for more Muslims that believe in these isolated quotes as you call them then Christians do in the Bible.

So, your answer to my post is that you do, in fact, know as much about Islam and Islamic culture as you do about Christianity and Christian culture. You know what Islam is, despite what any Muslim might say. You know that Islam is a terrible religion because they actually believe in their holy book. You know that Christians don't actually beleive in the Bible, regardless of what they say, and this excuses them from any content of the Bible or history.

Pardon me if I simply don't believe you.

But apart from that, the person called Jesus Christ, as portrayed in the gospel - fictional or real - expresses a remarkable ethics: "Love your enemies!" "Turn the other cheek!" etc.

Right. Which is why he condemns to eternal torment all those who do not accept his authority.

Islam is the only religion with worldwide missionary ambitions of which its founder already has used violence in order to spread it.

Islam is the only religion of which its own adherents, the muslims themselves(!), report, that their "prophet's" behavior was not only not divine, but rather deeply immoral and criminal: a killer and a gangster. Every "common" thief, who is only a thief and not a murdere is morally superior to Mohammed.

You sure make a lot out of the fact that Jesus did not actually kill anyone himself. Given that he never led an empire, an army, and only had 3 years of itinerate preaching, it seems unfair to compare him to someone who actually ruled a society. But as long as you are at it, Hitler never killed anyone himself either. Does that matter?

And in any case, we are not arguing about the character of Jesus or Mohammed, but rather about the character of a religion. Your complaints about Mohammed's character seem to indicate you are afraid that Muslims will act like Mohammed. This seems unwarranted, given that Christians don't act like Jesus despite constant exhorations to do so.

Islam is the only religion which endorses offensive violence starting with its founder, leaving to pagans only the choice between death and embracing Islam and to Christians and Jews the inferior "Dhimmi" status.
Christianity did exactly the same thing - except Jesus didn't do it. Oh, you don't even believe Jesus existed. So your point is that a relgion founded on a complete myth is necessarily better than one founded on a real person?

And this has been reported by the muslims themselves and obviously the muslims did not find anything irritating, wrong or embarassing about this behavior they reported of their own prophet - they are even proud about it.
Mohammed thought he talked to god, it's true. And he was pretty much indistinguishable from any other ruler of the time. But he wasn't a nut who thought he was god, he didn't abstain from marriage or expect others too, and he didn't kill fig trees for not bearing fruit out of season. I think walking around talking to fig trees is the sort of behaviour most people would consider embarrassing, but you don't see any Christians embarrassed by Jesus.

Tell me where Christians committed these types of violence against humanity?
What? You just listed a dozen wars, crusades, and pograms that Christianity inflicted on Islam. I am afraid I don't understand the question.

That is how Islamic terrorist justify killing by quoting the Koran.
Are there any Christian terrorist using the bible to justify using terror?

Is there any hope of facts penetrating your skull? Abortion clinics have been bombed at a steady rate for 20 years. Doctors have been killed. And North Ireland has Christian preachers who will happily show tell why the other side is inhuman and should be killed by any means possible.

Presumably you meant to include the qualifier "today," so we don't have to discuss the Crusades and indeed the entire bloody history of Christianity. That's like saying has Charles Manson killed anybody this week? Well, no, but only because he was forcibly restrained. Does that mitigate his character? Or are you trying to argue that modern Chrisitanity is somehow irrevocably different than original Chrisitianity?

You see I am using the same standards to judge both religions
Indeed you are. Your standard is, "what did the founder do." Now the question is, is that the appropriate standard to judge a religion by? Or should you judge a religion by what its followers do?

If we compare Jesus and Mohammed, Jesus wins. Yay. But if we compare what their followers have done, the record is indistinguishable. I, personally, judge a religion by how much Taco Seasoning it endorses, and thus can inarguabley assert that the Taco God is by far the better religion.

I invite everyone else to pick an arbitrary standard, and then vehemently argue for the superiority of your chosen religion over all the others. You shouldn't reveal your arbitrary standard for at least four pages, though.

Here is the Qatari television channel Al-Jazeera interviewed Saudi sheikh Mohsin Al-'Awaji.

Why don't you go to Fred Phelps site and read a few pages. Oh, right, he's not a True (tm) Christian, so we can discount him. Of course, anybody that says anything about Islam automatically speaks for all of Islam. They don't have crazies like Christianity does.

How is that not a compliment?

Summation
Baker judges a religion not on what its followers do, or what its holy book says, or what its teachings are, but rather on what its founder did. That is his sole criteria: that Mohammed was more immoral than Jesus. No other considerations matter.

I suppose if you are addicted to cults of personality, that might not be a wholly useless position. But I assert that to Judge modern-day Islam (or Christianity) by something its possibly mythical founder did is completely unreasonable: a religion should be judged not by what it says but by what it does. But hey, I'm crazy like that.

Pahansiri

22nd May 2003, 02:21 PM

Greetings Baker

May I start with a quote “when you embark upon a course of revenge, dig two graves (Confucius)”

As I have said this need to point fingers and compare is the fuel for wars and hate, childish. I was not going to post any such things until I believe seen you post Tell me where Christians committed these types of violence against humanity? then seem to make light of the great suffering of thousands , millions in events like crusades and inquisitions. You just listed a dozen wars, crusades, and programs that Christianity inflicted on Islam. How sad, the suffering of any being should bring you sadness, which I believe it does.

Allow me to offer a few more events and related facts you are seeming not to see.

Hagia Sophia / The Crusades - Holy Wars / The Spanish Inquisition The burning of Joan of Arc - later Sainted / Witch trials & burnings The Ku Klux Klan and other white Supremes groups

Many in this country were so angered about a day for MLK yet we honor Columbus who was a slave trading butcher who murdered huge amounts of people including American Indians while supporting the Churches convert or die policies. These policies continued for many decades in some form at the expense of millions and millions American Indians. Scientists like Giordano Bruno http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/feb2000/brun-f16.shtml Galileo http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Religious%20atrocities.files/Galileo.htm .

In the Christian religion, the killing of heretics became a basic church doctrine during the rule of the Roman Emperor Constantine in the 4th century. Here also what is not often talked about is while we often hear of the just unreal things done to Christians in the coliseum we do not look at the fact that while Constantine Roman Emperor and for the next 100 years while Christianity was the official state religion death and suffering did not end in the coliseum in fact rather then Christians who died it was mainly Muslims and also Christians who Constantine and the Church did not feel were “ real” Christians.

In 1122 Christian crusaders swept over Jerusalem and slaughtered men, women and children, 'until their horses were knee deep in blood.

In 777 , Charlemagne, a devout Christian, after conquering the Saxon rebels, gave them a choice between baptism and execution. When they refused to convert, he had 4500 of them beheaded in one morning.

Back again to the fourth century, and Emperor Constantine, the first Roman Emperor to become a Christian, had over 3000 Christians executed because their interpretation of the Bible did not agree with his. That’s more than the number of Christians who died at the hands of the Romans during the 1st century "Christians to the lions" persecutions.

"In Britain, 30,000 went to the stake for witchcraft; in Protestant Germany, the figure was 100,000" (, p. 275). In Scotland, too, alleged witches were cruelly put to death.

Today we see words like these that may be a sign of what could happen again

I want to be invisible. I do guerrilla warfare. I paint my face and travel at night. You don't know it's over until you're in a body bag." --Ralph Reed, Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, 11/9/91

"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."--Randall Terry, Founder of Operation Rescue, The News-Sentinel, Fort Wayne, Indiana, 8-16-93

"It's like guerrilla warfare. If you reveal your location, all it does is allow your opponent to improve his artillery bearings. It's better to move quietly, with stealth, under cover of night. You've got two choices: You can wear cammies and shimmy along on your belly, or you can put on a red coat and stand up for everyone to see. It comes down to whether you want to be the British army in the Revolutionary War or the Viet Cong. History tells us which tactic was more effective."--Ralph Reed Los Angeles Times, 3/22/92

"The mission of the Christian Coalition is simple," says Pat Robertson. It is "to mobilize Christians -- one precinct at a time, one community at a time -- until once again we are the head and not the tail, and at the top rather than the bottom of our political system." Robertson predicts that "the Christian Coalition will be the most powerful political force in America by the end of this decade." And, "We have enough votes to run this country...and when the people say, 'We've had enough,' we're going to take over!"--Pat Robertson

"The Constitution of the United States, for instance, is a marvelous document for self-government by the Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian people and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society. And that's what's been happening." -- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club, Dec. 30, 1981

"It is interesting, that termites don't build things, and the great builders of our nation almost to a man have been Christians, because Christians have the desire to build something. He is motivated by love of man and God, so he builds. The people who have come into (our) institutions (today) are primarily termites. They are into destroying institutions that have been built by Christians, whether it is universities, governments, our own traditions, that we have.... The termites are in charge now, and that is not the way it ought to be, and the time has arrived for a godly fumigation."--Pat Robertson, New York Magazine, August 18, 1986

"You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. I can love the people who hold false opinions but I don't have to be nice to them."--Pat Robertson, The 700 Club, January 14, 1991

(talking about apartheid South Africa) "I think 'one man, one vote,' just unrestricted democracy, would not be wise. There needs to be some kind of protection for the minority which the white people represent now, a minority, and they need and have a right to demand a protection of their rights."--Pat Robertson, "The 700 Club," 3/18/92

"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."-- George Bush

"I am bound by the laws of the United States and all 50 states...I am not bound by any case or any court to which I myself am not a party...I don't think the Congress of the United States is subservient to the courts...They can ignore a Supreme Court ruling if they so choose."--Pat Robertson, Washington Post, June 27,1986)

"How can there be peace when drunkards, drug dealers, communists, atheists, New Age worshipers of Satan, secular humanists, oppressive dictators, greedy money changers, revolutionary assassins, adulterers, and homosexuals are on top?"--Pat Robertson, The New World Order, p.227

There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. It is a lie of the Left and we are not going to take it anymore." --Pat Robertson, November 1993 during an address to the American Center for Law and Justice

MLK said “ injustices anywhere is a threat to justice every where.”

All hate and violence against others is wrong what matters is the body count is slightly higher from one cause or the other, it does not matter to the ones who suffered.

A great wise Christian said so very well

“What can we gain by sailing to the moon if we are not able to cross the abyss that separates us from ourselves?”...Thomas Merton

I leave you with words of Buddha that I believe if every one lived by we would all be far better off.

Be capable, upright, & straightforward, easy to instruct, gentle, & not conceited, content & easy to support, with few duties, living lightly, with peaceful faculties, masterful, modest, & no greed for supporters. Do not do the slightest thing that the wise would later censure. Think: Happy, at rest, may all beings be happy at heart. Whatever beings there may be, weak or strong, without exception, long, large, middling, short, subtle, blatant, seen & unseen, near & far, born & seeking birth: May all beings be happy at heart. Let no one deceive another or despise anyone anywhere, or through anger or irritation wish for another to suffer. As a mother would risk her life to protect her child, her only child, even so should one cultivate a limitless heart with regard to all beings. With good will for the entire cosmos, cultivate a limitless heart: Above, below, & all around, unobstructed, without hostility or hate. Whether standing, walking, sitting, or lying down, as long as one is alert, one should be resolved on this mindfulness. This is called a sublime abiding here & now. Buddha

Just what I believe and I mean no disrespect.

Baker

22nd May 2003, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by Yahzi

So, your answer to my post is that you do, in fact, know as much about Islam and Islamic culture as you do about Christianity and Christian culture. You know what Islam is, despite what any Muslim might say. You know that Islam is a terrible religion because they actually believe in their holy book. You know that Christians don't actually beleive in the Bible, regardless of what they say, and this excuses them from any content of the Bible or history.

Pardon me if I simply don't believe you.

So your just responding to parts of my messages you didn't answer my question.
How many Muslims speak out against these Koran quotes how many speak out against Al Qaeda and other terrorist attacks.

Right. Which is why he condemns to eternal torment all those who do not accept his authority.

All you can choose to counter my messages is to use the Christian beliefs of the after life?

You sure make a lot out of the fact that Jesus did not actually kill anyone himself. Given that he never led an empire, an army, and only had 3 years of itinerate preaching, it seems unfair to compare him to someone who actually ruled a society. But as long as you are at it, Hitler never killed anyone himself either. Does that matter?

And in any case, we are not arguing about the character of Jesus or Mohammed, but rather about the character of a religion. Your complaints about Mohammed's character seem to indicate you are afraid that Muslims will act like Mohammed. This seems unwarranted, given that Christians don't act like Jesus despite constant exhorations to do so.

I don't recall ever hearing in the stories of Jesus that he had plans to build an empire.
Its not that I'm afraid that Muslims will act like Mohammed its that they are acting like Mohammed.

Christianity did exactly the same thing - except Jesus didn't do it. Oh, you don't even believe Jesus existed. So your point is that a relgion founded on a complete myth is necessarily better than one founded on a real person?

I never claimed he did or didn't exist.
In fact, this entire statement is a straw man reply.

Mohammed thought he talked to god, it's true. And he was pretty much indistinguishable from any other ruler of the time. But he wasn't a nut who thought he was god, he didn't abstain from marriage or expect others too, and he didn't kill fig trees for not bearing fruit out of season. I think walking around talking to fig trees is the sort of behaviour most people would consider embarrassing, but you don't see any Christians embarrassed by Jesus.

I don't see what this has to do with the violence of Jesus vs. Mohammed.

Is there any hope of facts penetrating your skull? Abortion clinics have been bombed at a steady rate for 20 years. Doctors have been killed. And North Ireland has Christian preachers who will happily show tell why the other side is inhuman and should be killed by any means possible.

Presumably you meant to include the qualifier "today," so we don't have to discuss the Crusades and indeed the entire bloody history of Christianity. That's like saying has Charles Manson killed anybody this week? Well, no, but only because he was forcibly restrained. Does that mitigate his character? Or are you trying to argue that modern Chrisitanity is somehow irrevocably different than original Chrisitianity?

here we go.. The pro-life guys who actually advocate (or make apologies for) the murder of abortion doctors are a MINISCULE percentage of Christians.
I must have mist that in the news abortion clinics have been bombed at a steady rate for 20 years you seemed to be over exaggerating a bit.
Once again are there any Christian terrorist using the bible to justify using world wide terrorisim?

Why don't you go to Fred Phelps site and read a few pages. Oh, right, he's not a True (tm) Christian, so we can discount him. Of course, anybody that says anything about Islam automatically speaks for all of Islam. They don't have crazies like Christianity does.

How is that not a compliment?

Summation
Baker judges a religion not on what its followers do, or what its holy book says, or what its teachings are, but rather on what its founder did. That is his sole criteria: that Mohammed was more immoral than Jesus. No other considerations matter.

I suppose if you are addicted to cults of personality, that might not be a wholly useless position. But I assert that to Judge modern-day Islam (or Christianity) by something its possibly mythical founder did is completely unreasonable: a religion should be judged not by what it says but by what it does. But hey, I'm crazy like that.

I have no idea what any of this has to do with the links posted why don't you responded to the information they give instead of your same old double talk and straw man replies.
MEMRI translates Arab media news links read thru their articles and tell me when have you seen a Christian country make the same claims.

CSSMariner

22nd May 2003, 06:36 PM

I consider both to be equally revolting to a modern mind that is free of superstition. Religion was created by primitive man to explain natural phenomena for which he, or she not to offend by ommission, has no other explanation. Modern science has removed the necessity of gods and God to be afoot in the cosmos and active in the modern realm of mankind.

As much as I hate admit that I am partially in tune with a former pro wrestler, I have to agree with Jessee Ventura that "Religion is a crutch for a weak mind," or words to that effect.

DialecticMaterialist

22nd May 2003, 10:58 PM

The whole point is that merely quoting passages out of the holy book does not actually reflect the religion very accurately. In fact, modern Christianity has practically nothing to do with the Bible (except for some radical fundamental sects). So why would anybody think modern Islam has anything to do with the Quran?

Yes Yahzi I know interpretation is a lot of any religion. Religions are not built on Holy Scripture alone.

However the point sort of takes off from where you said Christianity is divorced from strict/traditional interpretations of the bible "except for the fundamentalist sects", Islam is dominated by the fundamentalist sects. And its fundamentalist scriptures and traditions are actually worse then Christianities.

Yahzi

23rd May 2003, 01:20 PM

Baker
here we go.. The pro-life guys who actually advocate (or make apologies for) the murder of abortion doctors are a MINISCULE percentage of Christians.

Once again are there any Christian terrorist using the bible to justify using world wide terrorisim?

First you acknowledge the existance of Christian inspired terrorists, and then you demand that I name some Christian inspired terrorists. Plus you apparently don't know where North Ireland is.

I have no idea what any of this has to do with
That's kind of the point. You have no idea. You are asserting that Islam is worse than Christianity, but when asked for proof, what you show is that Mohammed is worse than Jesus. Apparently you are never going to understand what is wrong with that.

You know, given that both of these people are dead, I'm not terribly interested in their characters. I'm a lot more interested in what their followers are likely to do, since they live around me. But since all you are interested in is fueling your irrational hate and pushing your particular brand of imaginary sky fairy, you'll never understand my point.

DialecticMaterialist
Islam is dominated by the fundamentalist sects
Except that is not true. Wabbahism is the main fundie sect of Islam; it is a minority sect; and it frightens many Muslims as much as it frightens us.

It is true that right now the Arabic world is rife with violence, terrorism, and oppression. No one disputes that. What we are disputing is whether Islam is the cause of that, or whether Islam is merely as irrelevant to social conditions as Christianity proved to be for the last 1700 years. We are also disputing what the solution would be. According to some people, converting the Arab world to Christianity would make them non-violent. Of course, when you look at it like that, the naivete just leaps out at you.

And its fundamentalist scriptures and traditions are actually worse then Christianities.
No they aren't. Name one crime that Islam committed that Christianity did not. And the Crusades stand out as a particularly horrific example: all empires conquer, but deliberate acts of wholesale genocide are fairly rare. Particularly since the crime that provoked the Crusades was the Islamic practice of allowing all three faiths to worship at Jersulam. For that act of tolerance, they (and the Christians who lived there) were slaughtered.

This claim is precisley the point: Islam is not worse than Christianity. Christianity is as bad as you can get, and Islam cannot get any worse. Christians want to point to the crimes of the Middle East and feel superior, but that is crap. The only reason Christianity does not kill people right now is because of Secular Humanism. So yes, religion does affect social conditions: it makes them violent. Secular Humanism is what stops the violence. Thus the appropriate complaint about the Arab world is not that it is violent, but that it is religious. Why don't people want to admit that? Because they don't want to own up to all the suffering caused by Christianity.

After a lifetime of complaining about Christianity's crimes, it is very frustrating to see Christians complaining about the very same thing, while asserting that they never did anything wrong, despite 1,700 years of recorded history.

It's called hypocrisy, and it is the fundamental Christian trait, so I don't suppose I should be surprised.

Consider this: all these claims that Islam is a violent religion, and Christianity is a peaceful relgion, are effectively attempts to convert people from Islam to Christianity. How do you suppose the Christians in this country would react to wholesale conversion attempts from Muslims?

Pahansiri
'until their horses were knee deep in blood
Now, now, Pahansiri, let's not exaggerate. The blood was only ankle deep.

Baker

23rd May 2003, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by Yahzi

First you acknowledge the existance of Christian inspired terrorists, and then you demand that I name some Christian inspired terrorists. Plus you apparently don't know where North Ireland is.

I named a few episodes in history about some Christians but we are talking about current history so are you going to answer the question are there any Christian terrorist using the bible to justify using world wide terrorism?
Or admit you are wrong?
What does North Ireland have to do with worldwide terrorism?

That's kind of the point. You have no idea. You are asserting that Islam is worse than Christianity, but when asked for proof, what you show is that Mohammed is worse than Jesus. Apparently you are never going to understand what is wrong with that.

You know, given that both of these people are dead, I'm not terribly interested in their characters. I'm a lot more interested in what their followers are likely to do, since they live around me. But since all you are interested in is fueling your irrational hate and pushing your particular brand of imaginary sky fairy, you'll never understand my point.

Now you are out right lying I gave you my evidence it is you that has yet to give proof of your claims that Christianity is more violent then Islam.

So, let me repeat what I have already gave you and which you just chose to ignore.

A million to a million and a half died. Turkey refuses to this day, and alleges fabrication!

http://www.armenian-genocide.org/

What is the Armenian Genocide?
The atrocities committed against the Armenian people of the Ottoman Empire during W.W.I are called the Armenian Genocide. Genocide is the organized killing of a people for the express purpose of putting an end to their collective existence. Because of its scope, genocide requires central planning and a machinery to implement it. This makes genocide the quintessential state crime as only a government has the resources to carry out such a scheme of destruction. The Armenian Genocide was centrally planned and administered by the Turkish government against the entire Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire. It was carried out during W.W.I between the years 1915 and 1918. The Armenian people was subjected to deportation, expropriation, abduction, torture, massacre, and starvation. The great bulk of the Armenian population was forcibly removed from Armenia and Anatolia to Syria, where the vast majority was sent into the desert to die of thirst and hunger. Large numbers of Armenians were methodically massacred throughout the Ottoman Empire. Women and children were abducted and horribly abused. The entire wealth of the Armenian people was expropriated. After only a little more than a year of calm at the end of W.W.I, the atrocities were renewed between 1920 and 1923, and the remaining Armenians were subjected to further massacres and expulsions. In 1915, thirty-three years before UN Genocide Convention was adopted, the Armenian Genocide was condemned by the international community as a crime against humanity.

Islamic imperialism knew no code of honor. The only rule of war they observed without fail was to fall down the helpless civil population after a decisive victory had been won on the battlefield. They sacked and burnt down villages and towns after the defenders had died fighting or had fled. The cows, the Brahmins and Buddhist Bhikshus invited their special attention in a mass murder of non-combatants. Their temples and shrines were their special targets in an orgy of pillage and destruction. Those that they did not kill, they captured and sold as slaves. The scene was described by Kanhadde Prabandha (1456 A.D) in the following words: "The conquering army burnt villages, devastated the land, plundered people's wealth, took Brahmins and children and women of all classes captive, flogged with thongs of raw hide, carried a moving prison with it, and converted the prisoners into obsequious Turks."
http://www.atributetohinduism.com/Islamic_Onslaught.htm

Slaughters did occur in the initial wave of conquest: during the Muslim invasion of Syria in 634 thousands of Christians were massacred; in Mesopotamia between 635 and 642 monasteries were ransacked and the monks and villagers slain; while in Egypt the towns of Behnesa, Fayum, Nikiu and Aboit were put to the sword. The inhabitants of Cilicia were taken into captivity. In Armenia, the entire population of Euchaita was wiped out. The Muslim invaders sacked and pillaged Cyprus and then established their rule by a "great massacre." In North Africa Tripoli was pillaged in 643 by Amr, who forced the Jews and Christians to hand over their women and children as slaves to the Arab army. They were told that they could deduct the value of their enslaved family from the poll-tax, the jizya. Carthage was razed to the ground and most of its inhabitants killed...
http://www.antibaro.gr/international/trifkovic_christian.htm

We are proud that they define us as someone who strikes terror into the heart of the enemies of Allah and our enemies [a paraphrase of a Koranic verse], but not according to the definition they [the Americans] want. America wants us to define terror according to its criteria. The American definition of terror is that anyone who resists America's colonialist and religious interests is a terrorist…"

"The Saudis maintain that the Arabian peninsula is the resting place of the lions from which the leaders emerged. Those who confront America in Afghanistan, Chechnya, and Kashmir are the cubs of those lions. [The Saudis] who lead the Jihad in the world left without asking the permission of the rulers or the world. They broke through the barriers to leave. They run in pursuit of death, while George Bush and his administration fled the White House, at a certain point, when they were targeted."

"The Saudis believe that the glory of the [Islamic] nation appeared when our Prophet taught us the industry of death – when he taught us how to create death. Then life became cheap in our eyes… When one of the sons of our nation is killed, he says: 'I won,' and the master of the Ka'aba swears that he had won. This we see as the industry of death. We in Saudi society and in other Islamic societies have finally realized that this is the right path to tread in order to deal with today's deadly strategic weapons. If America has intercontinental missiles and bombs, then our bombs are the Jihad fighters, whom America has called 'suicide attackers' and we call 'martyrs.' We will develop them because we see them as a strategic weapon
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=saudiarabia&ID=SP40002

Following a lesson on the monotheistic faiths, Saudi Arabian schoolchildren are asked to discuss "With what types of weapons should Muslims arm themselves against the Jews?" That question is part of an official textbook for 8th grade students which also emphasizes that "Jews and Christians were cursed by Allah and turned into apes and pigs," and that "The hour [the Day of Judgment] will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them."

MEMRI reports that "the textbook interprets the conversation between the prophet and his companion as follows: the most important activity is Jihad for the sake of Allah and the convocation of Allah's religion on this earth." By ninth grade, students are ready for "The Promise of the Stone and the Tree" - the story of Abu Hurayra, one of the prophet's companions who quoted the prophet as saying: "The hour [the Day of Judgment] will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. A Jew will [then] hide behind a rock or a tree, and the rock or tree will call upon the Muslim: 'O Muslim, O slave of Allah! There is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!' - except for the gharqad tree, for it is one of the trees of the Jews."
http://memri.org/bin/media.cgi?ID=39202

Ben Shniper

23rd May 2003, 07:37 PM

I would like to make a comment... many of you seem to think comparing Christians and Muslims is like comparing green and red M&Ms. That's just not the case.

There are major differences between the two religions, and they are not as simple as equating Crusades and Jihads, equating witch trials and stonings for adultry, or comparing burquas and corsettes.

The Muslim book, the Koran, is unquestionably more accepting of violence and less tolerant towards other cultures than the Christian Bible.

http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/browse.html

Love thy enemy? Not in Islam. Do unto others? Its in the Bible, not the Koran.

Still, Islam is not without merit. They had their golden age, a thousand years ago. But what has Islam done for humanity lately?

-Ben

Pahansiri

24th May 2003, 06:03 AM

Originally posted by Ben Shniper
I would like to make a comment... many of you seem to think comparing Christians and Muslims is like comparing green and red M&Ms. That's just not the case.

There are major differences between the two religions, and they are not as simple as equating Crusades and Jihads, equating witch trials and stonings for adultry, or comparing burquas and corsettes.

The Muslim book, the Koran, is unquestionably more accepting of violence and less tolerant towards other cultures than the Christian Bible.

http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/browse.html

Love thy enemy? Not in Islam. Do unto others? Its in the Bible, not the Koran.

Still, Islam is not without merit. They had their golden age, a thousand years ago. But what has Islam done for humanity lately?

-Ben

Perhaps more so then the NT but not the OT, the base of the Koran is the TO and Jewish law. Stoning mass killings horrible treatment or woman, slaves non believers etc. The OT, is unquestionably more accepting of violence and less tolerant towards other cultures than the Koran and Christian Bible.

Again this need to compair and point fingers and hate will bring only more and more hate.

Baker

24th May 2003, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by Pahansiri

Stoning mass killings horrible treatment or woman, slaves non believers etc.

Perfect example of Islam Pahansiri thanks.

Pahansiri

24th May 2003, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by Baker

Perfect example of Islam Pahansiri thanks.

Baker it is a perfect example where they learned it from, the OT.

To harm any being is wrong also to be dishonest and filled with hate is and on this my friend you are being both.

It is sad you do not respond to any other facts or logic I post then you seek to twist my words here.:( I am sure if you were being honest you know I was speaking of the OT, perhaps you just did not read the post with open eyes but ones closed with hate.

Just what i believe.

Baker

24th May 2003, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by Pahansiri

Baker it is a perfect example where they learned it from, the OT.

To harm any being is wrong also to be dishonest and filled with hate is and on this my friend you are being both.

It is sad you do not respond to any other facts or logic I post then you seek to twist my words here.:(

Just what i believe.

Going over the facts and evidence isn’t hate it might give the impression of it but you can’t avoid the truth in fear of being accused of hate.

Pahansiri

24th May 2003, 11:31 AM

Again my friend you are not being honest I have offered many facts and you did not respond to me or them at all then you twist what I posted. That is not honest.

You say but you can’t avoid the truth in fear of being accused of hate.
Yet every fact not of your pleasing you do avoid, an example

" So tell me where in the New testament is the command to kill unbelievers.If you can't answer that,I will not accept your statement that the bible is a more bloody book than the quran.

I gave you the following

"But these enemies of mine who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27)

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother in law." (Matthew 10:34-35)

"I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, father against son, and son against father; mother against daughter, and daughter against mother; mother-in-law against daughter-in-law, and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law." (Luke 12:49-53)

Luke clearly says to bring anyone who will not follow or be ruled by Christ to him and kill them before him.

Facts and truth Facts and truth and do not become not Facts and truth just because we choose to ignore them or they do not please us.

Read again also all my above post with an open honest mind. The point of this thread I believe by you was you felt others were attacking the Christian belief or the belief of a God close to how you choose to believe. You became angry feeling that was wrong so what you do is attack Islam doing to it what you feel is wrong, that is hypocrisy.

Baker

24th May 2003, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Again my friend you are not being honest I have offered many facts and you did not respond to me or them at all then you twist what I posted. That is not honest.

You say
Yet every fact not of your pleasing you do avoid, an example

I gave you the following

"But these enemies of mine who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27)

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother in law." (Matthew 10:34-35)

"I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, father against son, and son against father; mother against daughter, and daughter against mother; mother-in-law against daughter-in-law, and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law." (Luke 12:49-53)

Luke clearly says to bring anyone who will not follow or be ruled by Christ to him and kill them before him.

Facts and truth Facts and truth and do not become not Facts and truth just because we choose to ignore them or they do not please us.

Read again also all my above post with an open honest mind. The point of this thread I believe by you was you felt others were attacking the Christian belief or the belief of a God close to how you choose to believe. You became angry feeling that was wrong so what you do is attack Islam doing to it what you feel is wrong, that is hypocrisy.

I was mainly responding to Yahzi but all go over your messages and give a response on them I wasn’t aware of the verses from the New Testament you gave so all have to look up the meaning.

Pahansiri

24th May 2003, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by Baker

I was mainly responding to Yahzi but all go over your messages and give a response on them I wasn’t aware of the verses from the New Testament you gave so all have to look up the meaning.

Thank you for your responce Baker, but as to saying "I'll have to look up the meaning." the meaning seems clear, please do not use the “ your taking it out of context” or “ that’s not what I REALLY means” ( followed by no explanation of what it “really” means. This is just silly and if done for you not then to allow a Muslim to respond to your post of passages from the Koran with be hypocritical.

The meaning of the following "But these enemies of mine who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27) seems very clear.

If I wash my child not to do something I say, do not do that I do not give cryptic statements that would ever confuse and I am far from a perfect all knowing being.

The following also for example "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother in law." (Matthew 10:34-35)

I would not tell my children to honor their mother and brothers and sisters then tell them to not honor their mother and brothers and sisters.

Again I mean you no disrespect, for me I find this attack against what people hold dear, attacks that while may have base in some fact are too all encompassing and harmful and have been proven over and over to be the fuel for hate and war. It is the same old “my god, or non god or you choose is bigger then yours”.

Yahzi

24th May 2003, 02:48 PM

Baker
I named a few episodes in history about some Christians but we are talking about current history so are you going to answer the question are there any Christian terrorist using the bible to justify using world wide terrorism?
Why does it have to be recent?

Are you saying that Christianity has changed, and no longer is capable of the violence it once caused? Are you saying that the holy word of god is different now, and no longer supports the interpretations that drove that violence? Or are you saying that all those Christians of the past were just wrong about what the holy word said?

Either concept strains credulity.

Now you are out right lying I gave you my evidence it is you that has yet to give proof of your claims that Christianity is more violent then Islam.
Again, you meant to include a qualifier: "today."

First you argue that the religion is doctrinally more violent. When you are shown that is not the case - when you are forced to vehmently denounce any attempt to judge the religion by merely looking at quotes out of context - you switch to arguing that Jesus committed less crimes than Mohammed.

When I argue that what the founder did is less important than what the followers are doing, you assert that I show how Christianity is more violent than Islam today. As if the past were forgotten dust, and of no relevance to anything.

Christianity is not as violent as Islam is today. The reason for that is not found in the Christian holy words of god (which have not changed) but rather in the society in which Christianity exists.

Either accept that, or show me how the holy words of the Christian god have changed since the time they used them to justify violence.

What does North Ireland have to do with worldwide terrorism?
Oh, so now it has to be world-wide terrorism. Just plain old international terrorism doesn't count.

Do you understand what the phrase "moving the goalposts" means?

Baker

24th May 2003, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Again my friend you are not being honest I have offered many facts and you did not respond to me or them at all then you twist what I posted. That is not honest.

You say
Yet every fact not of your pleasing you do avoid, an example

I gave you the following

"But these enemies of mine who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27)

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother in law." (Matthew 10:34-35)

"I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, father against son, and son against father; mother against daughter, and daughter against mother; mother-in-law against daughter-in-law, and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law." (Luke 12:49-53)

Luke clearly says to bring anyone who will not follow or be ruled by Christ to him and kill them before him.

Facts and truth Facts and truth and do not become not Facts and truth just because we choose to ignore them or they do not please us.

Read again also all my above post with an open honest mind. The point of this thread I believe by you was you felt others were attacking the Christian belief or the belief of a God close to how you choose to believe. You became angry feeling that was wrong so what you do is attack Islam doing to it what you feel is wrong, that is hypocrisy.

You really need to try to read the entire chapters of the verses you give Luke 19:27 is from a story being told about a King telling how the people from another kingdom his enemies should be brought to him to be slain.
Matthew 10:34-35 and Luke 12:49-53 both talk of a diversity between families with non-Christians and Christians nothing more vary mild compared to the Koran my Christian friend laughed when first reading the verses and easily decipher them.

So where are the verses telling Christians to kill the nonbelievers?

Baker

24th May 2003, 10:42 PM

Originally posted by Yahzi

Why does it have to be recent?

Are you saying that Christianity has changed, and no longer is capable of the violence it once caused? Are you saying that the holy word of god is different now, and no longer supports the interpretations that drove that violence? Or are you saying that all those Christians of the past were just wrong about what the holy word said?

Either concept strains credulity.

Well the argument is about Christianity vs. Islam hate and violence lets stop the double talk and get back to the evidence of both I have provided examples of Islam can you show examples proving Christianity is worse?

Again, you meant to include a qualifier: "today."

First you argue that the religion is doctrinally more violent. When you are shown that is not the case - when you are forced to vehmently denounce any attempt to judge the religion by merely looking at quotes out of context - you switch to arguing that Jesus committed less crimes than Mohammed.

That's right and I proved that point.
Where was I shown that Islam was not doctrinally more violent?

When I argue that what the founder did is less important than what the followers are doing, you assert that I show how Christianity is more violent than Islam today. As if the past were forgotten dust, and of no relevance to anything.

Christianity is not as violent as Islam is today. The reason for that is not found in the Christian holy words of god (which have not changed) but rather in the society in which Christianity exists.

Where does the Christian holy words show killing the non-believers besides the Old Testament that we have already gone over?
At least you admit Christianity of today is not as violent as Islam of today.

Oh, so now it has to be world-wide terrorism. Just plain old international terrorism doesn't count.

Do you understand what the phrase "moving the goalposts" means?

Even using international terrorism doesn't compare to Islam's worldwide spread of terrorist.

Pahansiri

25th May 2003, 06:21 AM

Baker my friend it is my hope you are not that dishonest and you only did not really read Luke 19 or maybe just did not understand it. Luke 19 is the story of Jesus and Zacchaeus. Zacchaeus was a tax collector. The story Jesus was said to be telling was about the kingdom of God the King in the story represents God he sends out servants to collect taxes and testing his servants as to being loyal to the kind/ god. When they each return the first few have done what is asked and severed the lord he commanded them to give the tax money away and explained how it would increase. One servant did not have the faith or fully believe in the king/god and did not do what was asked, the King/god explains to him But from those who are unfaithful,[2] even what little they have will be taken away.

The meaning of this story was that if you do what God wants you will be happy in the kingdom of god but if you don’t like this God you will be killed and not enter his kingdom..

My friend read with an open logical mind not a closed hate filled one.

As to Matthew 10:34-35 and Luke 12:49-53 both talk of a diversity between families with non-Christians and Christians nothing more vary mild compared to the Koran my Christian friend laughed when first reading the verses and easily decipher them.

Your friend has also a closed off mind it is sad to say and perhaps you need do your own research.
PLEASE PLEASE think logically and about what you say..

Read these again
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother in law." (Matthew 10:34-35)

"I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, father against son, and son against father; mother against daughter, and daughter against mother; mother-in-law against daughter-in-law, and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law." (Luke 12:49-53)

Jesus does not say there is a diversity and he was here to fix it he clearly says he is here to be the root cause, he came with the goal of causing this separation and hate, he would with force ( a sword) turn families against each other.

He clearly says in Luke 12:49-53 he “came not to grant peace on earth but to cause division” He brags there is a family right now falling apart, 5 people and he is the cause… How sad not a loving family first god it seems.

I believe you are a very smart and honest man but this hate has blinded you as to this topic.

thaiboxerken

25th May 2003, 10:00 AM

LOL. Christianity has done far worst in it's history than Islam has.

The reality is, the more secular the religion becomes, the more peaceful and tolerant of others it becomes.

You still haven't found a good, reliable study that shows that most Muslims are fundamentalist, Baker. Why not?

Yahzi

25th May 2003, 02:27 PM

Baker
Well the argument is about Christianity vs. Islam hate and violence lets stop the double talk and get back to the evidence of both I have provided examples of Islam can you show examples proving Christianity is worse?
Why do I have to provide examples? You already have. You keep demanding lists of atrocities, yet everytime I post one, you just say, ya, ya, I already knew about those.

Why don't you apply the same vigor and zeal to finding ancedotes of Christian violence as you do to finding ancedotes of Islamic violence? Then you can answer your own question.

That's right and I proved that point.
Yes, Baker, you proved that point. What you fail to understand is that point is utterly irrelevant. IRRELEVANT. Nobody cares - least of all you - about what the founder did a thousand years ago: we care about what they are going to do now.

The reason that Christian history is relevant is because it is indicative of what Christians are likely to do. The notion that they will do as their founders did has already been refuted by simple history.

Where was I shown that Islam was not doctrinally more violent?
The Old Testament. I am losing patience with you. You simply ignore every point and go around and around in a circle.

Where does the Christian holy words show killing the non-believers besides the Old Testament that we have already gone over?
You have yet to show why the Old Testament is not relevant. You simply claim that although it is a Christian holy book, the words it contains do not apply to Christians. When Muslims try to assert the same thing - that their religion has little to do with their holy book - you refuse to even hear it.

Show me where in the Quran that Allah tells his people to "kill everything that breathes." That one line alone contains more violence than even Adolph Hitler ever dreamed of.

Even using international terrorism doesn't compare to Islam's worldwide spread of terrorist.
Now. NOW. But for the previous 1,500 years, this was not true.

You simply have not responded to question of why Christianity is not as violent today as it used to be. RESPOND TO THE QUESTION. But you won't, because you can't. Both religions preach violence whenever it suits their purpose. This has been shown beyond all reasonable doubt, and your bleatings are merely the tiresome squeakings of an old, worn-out hatred.

Baker

25th May 2003, 09:57 PM

Yahzi

You have yet to show why the Old Testament is not relevant. You simply claim that although it is a Christian holy book, the words it contains do not apply to Christians. When Muslims try to assert the same thing - that their religion has little to do with their holy book - you refuse to even hear it.

Show me where in the Quran that Allah tells his people to "kill everything that breathes." That one line alone contains more violence than even Adolph Hitler ever dreamed of.

When did Muslims ever say that their religion has little to do with their holy book?
I have never met a Muslim that discounted their holy book.
It tells them to kill non-believers.

Now. NOW. But for the previous 1,500 years, this was not true.

You simply have not responded to question of why Christianity is not as violent today as it used to be. RESPOND TO THE QUESTION. But you won't, because you can't. Both religions preach violence whenever it suits their purpose. This has been shown beyond all reasonable doubt, and your bleatings are merely the tiresome squeakings of an old, worn-out hatred.

Christianity is not as violent today as it used to be because Christian Nations flourish instead of being trapped in the Middle Ages as, many Islam nations did.
And had Secular governments that didn't run the people on the bible as Islam nations ran theirs on the Koran.
The thread topic is if Christianity was as violent as Islam not that its just as violent in its history.

Baker

25th May 2003, 10:23 PM

Pahansiri

Baker my friend it is my hope you are not that dishonest and you only did not really read Luke 19 or maybe just did not understand it. Luke 19 is the story of Jesus and Zacchaeus. Zacchaeus was a tax collector. The story Jesus was said to be telling was about the kingdom of God the King in the story represents God he sends out servants to collect taxes and testing his servants as to being loyal to the kind/ god. When they each return the first few have done what is asked and severed the lord he commanded them to give the tax money away and explained how it would increase. One servant did not have the faith or fully believe in the king/god and did not do what was asked, the King/god explains to him

The meaning of this story was that if you do what God wants you will be happy in the kingdom of god but if you don’t like this God you will be killed and not enter his kingdom..

I read the entire chapter and he was referring to a king killing those from another kingdom I don't see where god tells them to kill his enemies.

Your friend has also a closed off mind it is sad to say and perhaps you need do your own research.
PLEASE PLEASE think logically and about what you say..

Read these again

Jesus does not say there is a diversity and he was here to fix it he clearly says he is here to be the root cause, he came with the goal of causing this separation and hate, he would with force ( a sword) turn families against each other.

He clearly says in Luke 12:49-53 he “came not to grant peace on earth but to cause division” He brags there is a family right now falling apart, 5 people and he is the cause… How sad not a loving family first god it seems.

I believe you are a very smart and honest man but this hate has blinded you as to this topic.

Oh you are trying very hard to make it look as neditive as you can but look at these other quotes.

Luke 5:27
“But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who ill-treat you.

Luke 5:37
“Do not judge others, and God will not judge you; do not condemn others and God will not condemn you; forgive others, and God will forgive you. Give to others and God will give to you

Does the Koran have quotes as the ones I gave above from the bible?

thaiboxerken

26th May 2003, 05:43 AM

When did Muslims ever say that their religion has little to do with their holy book?
I have never met a Muslim that discounted their holy book.
It tells them to kill non-believers.

Probably because you hate muslims and would rather kill them then actually talk to them. Muslims I've talked to say that the violent verses are taken out of context or no longer reply, they'll use other verses to show that Islam is peaceful. This is the exact same thing christians do, they claim "out of context" and "Old Testament doesn't count". Both "Holy" books are full of contradictions and advocate both violence and peace.

How many christians discount their holy book? Do you claim that certain parts of your bible is fiction and others real? Do you claim that christianity has little to do with that bible?

Christianity is not as violent today as it used to be because Christian Nations flourish instead of being trapped in the Middle Ages as, many Islam nations did.
And had Secular governments that didn't run the people on the bible as Islam nations ran theirs on the Koran.
The thread topic is if Christianity was as violent as Islam not that its just as violent in its history.

History is the most relevant thing we have in determining if the religions are more or less violent, as it's been demonstrated that both Holy books preach violence/hate and peace/love. You can't just toss out evidence just because it hurts your position.

thaiboxerken

26th May 2003, 06:24 AM

Does the Koran have quotes as the ones I gave above from the bible?

Sura 29:46

YUSUFALI: And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we bow (in Islam)."

No one of you is a believer until he desires
for his brother that which he desires for himself.
{Sunnah}

"Thus, if they let you be, and do not make war on you, and offer you peace, God does not allow you to harm them" (4: 90).

Seems that one can find verses in either "Holy" book to make the other religion seem violent or peaceful. You've lost on this point, the reality is that these holy books are self-contradictory that one can use them to justify war or peace.

Pahansiri

26th May 2003, 08:21 AM

Oh Baker my friend, is it hate that blinds you so or now just purely ego and not wishing to admit truth. I believe you are an honest and non hateful man in reality but this has become silly.

I read the entire chapter and he was referring to a king killing those from another kingdom I don't see where god tells them to kill his enemies.

Baker, Baker, Baker why so dishonest? It is very clear you either did not read the whole thing or are to stubborn to admit the truth you seem to over look within Luke 19, Luke 19 11While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once.

A parable, a parable is a allegory, fable, tale. It is a tale there is no far off land he is talking about him/god. He was teaching the people of that town that the tax collector Zacchaeus should NOT be hated by them because he gave to the poor part of what he collected and only a tax collector etc who does not follow his king/god needs worry because his king/god will kill anyone who does NOT summit to him.

Read again what I wrote above.

Baker my friend it is my hope you are not that dishonest and you only did not really read Luke 19 or maybe just did not understand it. Luke 19 is the story of Jesus and Zacchaeus. Zacchaeus was a tax collector. The story Jesus was said to be telling was about the kingdom of God the King in the story represents God he sends out servants to collect taxes and testing his servants as to being loyal to the kind/ god. When they each return the first few have done what is asked and severed the lord he commanded them to give the tax money away and explained how it would increase. One servant did not have the faith or fully believe in the king/god and did not do what was asked, the King/god explains to him

The meaning of this story was that if you do what God wants you will be happy in the kingdom of god but if you don’t like this God you will be killed and not enter his kingdom..

Again read the passage and be an honest man as I know you are. "But these enemies of mine who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27)

May I ask before I go on why you avoided all the examples of the killings of millions in history by Christians yet only keep speaking of such acts by Islam? Also why avoid this passage?

Do you believe it is OK to own slaves and also beat them?

"And that servant [slave], which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes." (Luke 12:47)

Now allow me to add more passages that were used as fuel to kill ( and burn) non believers.

"If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." (John 15:6)

Maybe the most revealing aspect of his anger was his promotion of eternal torment. "The Son of man [Jesus himself] shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." (Matthew 13:41-42) "And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched." (Mark 9:43)

As to family values.

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)

When one of his disciples requested time off for his father's funeral, Jesus rebuked him: "Let the dead bury their dead." (Matthew 8:22)

Along with the ones I mentioned before

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother in law." (Matthew 10:34-35)

:"I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, father against son, and son against father; mother against daughter, and daughter against mother; mother-in-law against daughter-in-law, and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law." (Luke 12:49-53)

You say ( while avoiding Matthew 10:34-35 and ." (Luke 12:49-53 in a very dishonest way) Oh you are trying very hard to make it look as neditive as you can but look at these other quotes.

My friend you only prove the fact that there are thousands of contradictions in the Bible, you seek to avoid the truth of what is bad found there and see only what is good said there. I believe Mark Twain said it best as to this The Bible has some noble poetry in it... and some good morals and a wealth of obscenity, and upwards of a thousand lies. - Mark Twain

You then ask Does the Koran have quotes as the ones I gave above from the bible?

Again you prove you do not seek truth and only wish to sit back blind to truth and fact and spew hate. Thaiboxerken posted some and allow me to post a few more, my friend you are making yourself look silly and I know you are now. Shoe the same respect to others as you seek.

"God commands justice, the doing of the good, and liberality to kith and kin. He
forbids all shameful deeds, injustice and rebellion. Thus does he instruct you, that you may receive admonition." 16:90

"O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of male and female, and made you
into nations and tribes, that he may know and cooperate with one another." 49:13

"...approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, he could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah hath opened no way for you (to war against them)."
Qu'ran 4:90

Let me end again with “when you embark upon a course of revenge, dig two graves (Confucius)”

My friend you have dug a deep hole allow me to give you a hand in getting out, bury your hate not yourself.

Pahansiri

26th May 2003, 08:30 AM

Baker my friend I also must ask you as you have not addressed this, why do you discount the OT, saying well that does not count all the violence and cruelty found there?

Please remember it is that which, ( the OT) is the base for the NT and the Christian religion. You ask or seem to place only importance on what the NT and Jesus has to say so for that reason I offer you what the NT and Jesus has to say out the OT and it’s laws which you say are irrelevant.

Matthew, Chapter 5.

5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

5:19
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Please see here that Jesus clearly says he did not as many Christian believe come to change the Jewish laws but, he came to fulfil, “act in accordance with” or complete.

Baker

26th May 2003, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Oh Baker my friend, is it hate that blinds you so or now just purely ego and not wishing to admit truth. I believe you are an honest and non hateful man in reality but this has become silly.

Pahansiri if this is just a matter of hate then your hate for Christianity is just as bad.

Even if the verses you give are what you say they are they still don't match the violence of the Koran and Hadith.

[8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,

[5.38] And (as for) the man who steals and the woman who steals, cut off their hands as a punishment for what they have earned, an exemplary punishment from Allah; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.

[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

[47.4] So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish.

[4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

[4.91] You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given.you a clear authority.

The hadith have similar type verses:

Volume 8, Book 82, Number 794: Sahih Bukhari
Narrated Anas:
Some people from the tribe of 'Ukl came to the Prophet and embraced Islam. The climate of Medina did not suit them, so the Prophet ordered them to go to the (herd of milch) camels of charity and to drink, their milk and urine (as a medicine). They did so, and after they had recovered from their ailment (became healthy) they turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away. The Prophet sent (some people) in their pursuit and so they were (caught and) brought, and the Prophets ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and that their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they die.

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260: Sahih Bukhari
Narrated Ikrima:
Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

Volume 8, Book 81, Number 792:Sahih Bukhari
Narrated 'Aisha:
The Prophet cut off the hand of a lady, and that lady used to come to me, and I used to convey her message to the Prophet and she repented, and her repentance was sincere.

Volume 2, Book 23, Number 413: Sahih Bukhari
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar :
The Jew brought to the Prophet a man and a woman from amongst them who have committed (adultery) illegal sexual intercourse. He ordered both of them to be stoned (to death), near the place of offering the funeral prayers beside the mosque."

Book 38, Number 4359:Sunan Abu-Dawud
Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:
The verse "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite side or exile from the land...most merciful" was revealed about polytheists. If any of them repents before they are arrested, it does not prevent from inflicting on him the prescribed punishment which he deserves.

Book 38, Number 4348: Sunan Abu-Dawud
Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas:
A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) was informed about it.
He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up.
He sat before the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.
Thereupon the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood.

Book 38, Number 4396: Sunan Abu Dawud
Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah:
A thief was brought to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him). He said: Kill him. The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah! Then he said: Cut off his hand. So his (right) hand was cut off. He was brought a second time and he said: Kill him. The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah! Then he said: Cut off his foot.
So his (left) foot was cut off.
He was brought a third time and he said: Kill him.
The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah!
So he said: Cut off his hand. (So his (left) hand was cut off.)
He was brought a fourth time and he said: Kill him.
The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah!
So he said: Cut off his foot. So his (right) foot was cut off.
He was brought a fifth time and he said: Kill him.
So we took him away and killed him. We then dragged him and cast him into a well and threw stones over him.

Book 38, Number 4442: Sunan Abu Dawud
Narrated Al-Bara' ibn Azib:
I met my uncle who was carrying a standard. I asked him: Where are you going? He said: The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) has sent me to a man who has married his father's wife. He has ordered me to cut off his head and take his property.

Book 38, Number 4448: Sunan Abu Dawud
Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:
If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death.

Book 38, Number 4349: Sunan Abu-Dawud
Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib:
A Jewess used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. A man strangled her till she died. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) declared that no recompense was payable for her blood.

Book 38, Number 4357: Sunan Abu-Dawud
Narrated AbuzZinad:
When the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) cut off (the hands and feet of) those who had stolen his camels and he had their eyes put out by fire (heated nails), Allah reprimanded him on that (action), and Allah, the Exalted, revealed: "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Apostle and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is execution or crucifixion." [/quote]

Baker

26th May 2003, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Sura 29:46

YUSUFALI: And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we bow (in Islam)."

Sura 29:31
And when Our messengers brought Abraham the good news, they said: Lo! we are about to destroy the people of that township, for its people are wrong-doers.

"Thus, if they let you be, and do not make war on you, and offer you peace, God does not allow you to harm them" (4: 90).

Look at the next verse it gives after 4:90
004.091
YUSUFALI: Others you will find that wish to gain your confidence as well as that of their people: Every time they are sent back to temptation, they succumb thereto: if they withdraw not from you nor give you (guarantees) of peace besides restraining their hands, seize them and slay them wherever ye get them: In their case We have provided you with a clear argument against them.

Seems that one can find verses in either "Holy" book to make the other religion seem violent or peaceful. You've lost on this point, the reality is that these holy books are self-contradictory that one can use them to justify war or peace.

Your examples don't give a clear call for peace.

Pahansiri

26th May 2003, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by Baker

Pahansiri if this is just a matter of hate then your hate for Christianity is just as bad.

Baker my friend I hate no one and in all my post I make that very clear most of my family and friends are Christians, I hate nor attack anything. I understand why you say this as it is an attempt to avoid answering any questions I ask or points I make. It is as you know not that I hate anything it is that you do and I pointed that out, it is that you can not or will not conduct a mature, logical conversation nor will you answer any questions.

I understand why, fear, lack of understand etc breeds hate. Be well my friend.

Let me leave you with 2 other quotes by former American presidents that come to mind while posting with you.

"Facts are stupid things." -- Ronald Reagan, 1988, a misquote of John Adams, "Facts are stubborn things."

"I will never apologize for the United States of America - I don't care what the facts are."
George Bush, Newsweek, (Commenting on the shooting down of an Iranian airliner by the U.S. warship Vincennes, killing 290 passengers.), August 15, 1989

Yahzi

26th May 2003, 01:32 PM

Baker
When did Muslims ever say that their religion has little to do with their holy book?
I have never met a Muslim that discounted their holy book.
It tells them to kill non-believers.
Countless Muslims assert every day that their religion is not the violent, war-like thing that you paint it as. You refute them by quoting the Quran. Then you say that if they don't discount the entire Quran completely, they must be violent just like their book says.

But you will not accept the same treatment of the Bible. You want to discount the Old Testament, despite the fact that every Christian sect accepts the OT as part of the Bible. You want to ignore or repudiate quotes out of context from the Bible, but you cannot understand why Muslims should be allowed to do the same thing.

The Old Testament tells you to kill non-believers. It tells you to pretend you are letting them join the faith, trick them into accepting circumcision, and then kill them while they are still recovering. The Quran does not contain such an act of treachery. The Quran commands you kill those who recant, or possibly even those who will not submit: but never does it command you to accept their submission and kill them anyway.

And had Secular governments that didn't run the people on the bible as Islam nations ran theirs on the Koran.
That is our entire point! You have just agreed that if governments were run on the Bible, they would be just as violent as Islamic governments!

You have just admitted you agreed with our point all along. So all of this has just been a waste of time, because you already knew the truth, you just didn't want to admit it.

The thread topic is if Christianity was as violent as Islam not that its just as violent in its history.
That's like having an argument over whether or not Charles Manson is violent, given that for at least 20 years he has forcibly been restrained from killing people.

The topic was whether or not Christianity is doctrinally less violent than Islam. A point which you have just conceeded.

Every party to the discussion admitted at the outset that the Arabic world was more violent today than the Christian world is. If that was your point, then you are a complete idiot, because you won that argument from the very first post, but apparently were too stupid to notice it.

One strongly suspects that you don't actually know what the thread is about, or what your point is, or even what you have said here. You are simply obessesed with hating Arabs, and you thought the Quran would be a convenient justification for your hatred.

Summation
Baker has finally admitted that:
1. The Old Testament is as bad as anything found in the Quran.
2. Christians basically ignore the parts of the OT they don't like, so Muslims ought to be allowed to do the same.
3. Arabia is violent because it is based on a religious government. The West is less violent because it is based on secular government. The West was a violent as Arabia is back when it was run by religious governments. Therefore, it is not the religion that matters, but simply the fact that the government is religious instead of secular. The difference between Islam and Christianity is basically meaningless, since it is dwarfed by the difference between religious and secular.
4. Despite having admitted the truth and force of our logical arguments, Baker will continue to quote the Quran out of context, repudiate the Old Testament, and ignore history. Simply admitting the illogical, irrational, wrongess of his behaviour will not actually cause him to stop his behaviour.
5. Despite knowing all of these facts from the start, Baker still hates Arabs, and will continue to hate Arabs regardless of any logic, reason, or evidence.

Baker

26th May 2003, 02:21 PM

Yahzi

But you will not accept the same treatment of the Bible. You want to discount the Old Testament, despite the fact that every Christian sect accepts the OT as part of the Bible. You want to ignore or repudiate quotes out of context from the Bible, but you cannot understand why Muslims should be allowed to do the same thing.

I said the New Testament corrected the violence of the OT and that it was written by Jews not Christians.

The Old Testament tells you to kill non-believers. It tells you to pretend you are letting them join the faith, trick them into accepting circumcision, and then kill them while they are still recovering. The Quran does not contain such an act of treachery. The Quran commands you kill those who recant, or possibly even those who will not submit: but never does it command you to accept their submission and kill them anyway.

Just where does It tell you to pretend you are letting them join the faith, trick them into accepting circumcision, and then kill them while they are still recovering?

That is our entire point! You have just agreed that if governments were run on the Bible, they would be just as violent as Islamic governments!

You have just admitted you agreed with our point all along. So all of this has just been a waste of time, because you already knew the truth, you just didn't want to admit it.

What the hell or you talking about?
This is the most strawman replie that I have receved so far.

Every party to the discussion admitted at the outset that the Arabic world was more violent today than the Christian world is. If that was your point, then you are a complete idiot, because you won that argument from the very first post, but apparently were too stupid to notice it.

Then why did you keep replying to the thread?

Summation
Baker has finally admitted that:

1. The Old Testament is as bad as anything found in the Quran.

Show me where I made that claim?

2. Christians basically ignore the parts of the OT they don't like, so Muslims ought to be allowed to do the same.

I have explained this many times including this post

3. Arabia is violent because it is based on a religious government. The West is less violent because it is based on secular government. The West was a violent as Arabia is back when it was run by religious governments. Therefore, it is not the religion that matters, but simply the fact that the government is religious instead of secular. The difference between Islam and Christianity is basically meaningless, since it is dwarfed by the difference between religious and secular.

The West was a violent as Arabia is back when it was run by religious governments is open to debate.

4. Despite having admitted the truth and force of our logical arguments, Baker will continue to quote the Quran out of context,

Can you show where I quoted the koran out of context?

5. Despite knowing all of these facts from the start, Baker still hates Arabs, and will continue to hate Arabs regardless of any logic, reason, or evidence.
I don't hate Arabs I hate Islam for obvious reasons.

Pahansiri

26th May 2003, 02:29 PM

Baker wrote I said the New Testament corrected the violence of the OT and that it was written by Jews not Christians.

It would seem Jesus does not agree with you.
Matthew, Chapter 5.

5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

5:19
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

How can you be right if Jesus the fonder of Christianity says you are wrong?

Please also remember Jesus would have been a Jew, he was also called Rabbi often in the NT which also means he would have been married as in Jewish law a Rabbi must be married.

Open your heart and mind let truth in and hate out.

Baker

26th May 2003, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Baker wrote

It would seem Jesus does not agree with you.

How can you be right if Jesus the fonder of Christianity says you are wrong?

Please also remember Jesus would have been a Jew, he was also called Rabbi often in the NT which also means he would have been married as in Jewish law a Rabbi must be married.

Open your heart and mind let truth in and hate out.

Sorry but I fail to see where it contradicts my statement can you be more precise?

Pahansiri

26th May 2003, 02:57 PM

My friend baker I wrote it in such a way I was hoping it was easy to understand allow me to try again.

You wrote I said the New Testament corrected the violence of the OT and that it was written by Jews not Christians.

Here you are you are saying there were mistakes made in the OT that allowed hate and carnage by God and in his name and under his command and that the NT and Jesus corrected the OT. You avoided all the NT calls for violence of course but as to your point here I posted that Jesus says clearly below he was NOT here to change Jewish law but to fulfil. It. What is it you do not understand?

It would seem Jesus does not agree with you.
Matthew, Chapter 5.

5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

5:19
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

How can you be right if Jesus the fonder of Christianity says you are wrong?

Also while you have avoided almost every single question and point I have made I will ask you again and perhaps give you a chance to show you can be at least honest.

Do you believe it is good and OK to own as a slave another human and beat them?

And that servant [slave], which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes." (Luke 12:47)

Baker

26th May 2003, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by Pahansiri
My friend baker I wrote it in such a way I was hoping it was easy to understand allow me to try again.

You wrote

Here you are you are saying there were mistakes made in the OT that allowed hate and carnage by God and in his name and under his command and that the NT and Jesus corrected the OT. You avoided all the NT calls for violence of course but as to your point here I posted that Jesus says clearly below he was NOT here to change Jewish law but to fulfil. It. What is it you do not understand?

It would seem Jesus does not agree with you.

How can you be right if Jesus the fonder of Christianity says you are wrong?

Also while you have avoided almost every single question and point I have made I will ask you again and perhaps give you a chance to show you can be at least honest.

Do you believe it is good and OK to own as a slave another human and beat them?

And that servant [slave], which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes." (Luke 12:47)

The verses in the NT you give are not very clear as in the Koran they are quite clear.
The Koran is a much smaller book then the bible but it still has more calls for violence and not as confusing as the ones given from the bible.
The quotes you give can have many meanings.

This is what a friend of mine concluded from some of the questionable verse.

"But these enemies of mine who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27)

This is a parable of the end of times. Those who were did good with whatever skills they had were rewarded. The enemies are symbolic for those who hate good. Of course... this leaves the question open as to who these enemies are...

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother in law." (Matthew 10:34-35)

This too is symbolic for Jesus never overthrew the Romans nor slew a man with a weapons nor lead armies. This means that there will be those who are conservative and set in their ways and there will be radicals who will be at odds with them. Where previously people thought that the rich were blessed by God, now Jesus says that it is easier for a camel to pierce the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.

"I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth?

Same thing. Has not Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death?" It is the spirit that does not compromise. It is the antithesis of politically correct. It is to value truth even if it is unpleasant and to never stand by while injustice is done.

But the one who doese not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

This is, again, symbolic. Just like we do not expect a poor man to donate as we expect rich men, so too will the judgement be fair. If anyone is intellegent, has resouces, is capable and does not live up to his potential, he will be held accountable far more than a person who is dull, has little resources, and is incapable.

great anger over a fig tree that did not give forth fruit when it was not in season

This is, again, symbolic. For if christians have been so blessed by God, God demands that we produce good fruit. Good fruit meaning building good character and producing good works and being a blessing to those around us.

the killing of a farmers stock of pigs etc.

Like the other parables, it is impossible to understand if you do not look at it symbolically, or spiritually. The point was not to destroy property or to slaughter animals. The point of that was that one man's life has infinite worth. Where the people should have been overjoyed that this man has his life back, they merely focused on their material loses. It is a pointed challege to everyone: do you value material goods more than the life of your fellow man?