So what's your opinion of Islam?

I think the problem is not with Islam, but with those who interpret it.
Christianity has the potential in its holy writings to be just as violent as Islam...it is simply practiced in societies which are not as violent as those in the Middle East.
The fact is, the whole Middle East is just starting to pull out of a long Dark Age.  The Islamic nations of the Middle East were advanced when the West had its dark age, now the tables are turned.
Any culturally primitive, violent society is going to use its religion as an excuse for violence.

"other right-wingers"??

Some of my best friends are right-wingers.  The left wing tends to be a lot more wacko, in my experience -- just look at the WTO riots in Seattle, the Earth Liberation Front arsons, and the Animal Liberation Front bombings, arsons, and "animal rescues"/mass releases.

I don't know about that.  There's lots of conquest and bloodshed in the Old Testament, but in the New Testament, Jesus doesn't do much beyond talking (briefly and generally in terms open to some interpretation) and working a few minor miracles over the period of a few years.  

Islam, by contrast, has not only the Koran, but the example of a man (Mohammed) who immediately put his ideas into practice by using violence to establish a new political order.  Mohammed founded not only a religion, but an empire.

Post from RikWriter -

Jesus! RikWriter! Which 'holy writings' would those be? Must be from a Bible translation with which I am unfamiliar and I doubt I'm unfamiliar with any!

Eric The(NoPunIntended!)Hun[>]:)]

Wait a minute, the left wing has strong convictions.....if Brittinany whats her face can get naked for animals.....wait, aw that is a sick thought....there are laws against it aren't there....
And Klinton was I repeat never convicted...he has no convictions!

There will not be peace in the world until our grandchildren ask "what was a moslem?"

I voted "Unacceptably backward, gives free rein to terrorists." This is what I've been saying for some time. Glad you encapsulated it.

Islam is an antiquated religion.
(Yeah, yeah but more antiquated than most.)
The structure, plenty of structure appeals to many just as the pomp and ceremony of the Catholic Church appeals to many.

Plenty of room in most religions to for killing if not murder.
(Yeah, yeah the "Hairy Krushners" are an exception.)

[b]To the 25% who clicked this option:[/b]

Yeah, yeah, right.  Please show me [b]ONE PLACE[/b] in the Bible where Jesus Christ, or any of the apostles, [b]explicitly[/b] told their followers to kill unbelievers!  

Someone has got to put an end to this total bald-faced lie.

Did you see the bin Laden video transcript?  It quotes many places in the Koran that call EXPLICITLY for the killing of unbelievers, and the rewards that "Allah" will give to those who do it.

On the other hand, [b]the overwhelmingly dominant theme of the New Testament is [i]LOVING YOUR ENEMIES BY DOING THEM GOOD![/i][/b]  Feeding your enemies, sheltering them, ministering to their needs, easing their suffering and praying for their well being!

To make Christ's true religion and Islam "morally equivalent" is outrageous!

BTW: If you're all ready to quote "Let him who has no sword..." go to the New Testament and read the context of Luke 22:36.  Jesus was addressing the fact that He would soon (willingly!) be put to death by those who hated Him, and that in like manner His disciples would be persecuted.  He was advising them that they must be prepared to be mistreated by society.  There is NOTHING in this verse that advises going out and killing enemies.  Go read the Koran if you're looking for that.

Post from RikWriter -

Me? Unfamiliar with the Old Testament? Surely you jest, son! I know the Old Testament the way the scribes and Pharisees knew the Old Testament.

It is, however, not 'Christian holy writings', but Hebrew 'holy writings', which we know, were simply a foreshadowing of the 'perfect Law' that was to come! Ask Moses, or should I say 'Moshe'?

Christianity, my friend, is based upon the sayings and teachings of Christ, you know, the Author of our salvation. Which sayings and teachings of Jesus do you say have the potential to cause violence? Hmmm?

Now, the same is not true of Islam, with its Great Prophet in the vanguard of an army whose singular goal was 'Think as we think or perish!'

Now this was [u]way[/u] before the Crusades, feudalism, etc. Maybe those 'Christians' who later became just as barbaric as the Muslims, were listening and following the example of the Prophet, than those of their own Master?

And when was it taught that Christians should adhere to the letter of the Law of the Old Testament in their dealings with anyone?

I believe that canard was done away with at the so-called 'First Council of Jerusalem' and was surely dismissed by St Paul and the Church Fathers.

In the same generation as Jesus, too, not years and years later!

Sorry, Rik, you lose on this one!

Eric The(ButMaybeYouCanThinkOfSomeVerse...)Hun[>]:)]  

One verse I've heard used to maligned Christianity is this one:
"Is this not David, of whom they sing in the dances saying, 'Saul has slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands'?"  1 Samuel 29:5
It glorifies David and Saul for killing thousands of people.  I don't consider that as bad as when later David raped another man's wife and got her pregnant.  But rather than rectify the situation, David instead has her husband deliberately killed.  

An example from the New Testament:
"And behold, one of those where were with Jesus reached and drew out his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest, and cut off his ear." Matthew 26:51

http://www.cdi.org/issues/World_at_War/wwar00.html

Make of it what you will, but the fact is that specifically Islamic groups are involved in one or both sides of all but a few of the dozens of conflicts currently underway in the world today.

That doesn't seem very peaceful to me.

Post from zoom -

Yes, zoom, Peter did do that and earned himself a quick rebuke from the Master! Jesus told him to put away the sword and then proceeded to repair the injured servant's ear.

Not quite bloodthirsty, was our Lord?

And, once again, King David is from the Old Testament, not from 'Christian holy writings.'

Eric The(Nope!)Hun[>]:)]

E.T. Hun,
is UA in Tuscaloosa ??

is UA in Tuscaloosa ?? Sho' nuff! [>]:)]

But wan't that more about the timing of his action, rather than the action itself???
Jesus wasn't against self-defense,  He was against Peter interfering with the will of God, namely Christ's death on the cross, and eventual resurrection.

That said, your response to RikWriter above was masterful. Well done.

E.T. Hun,
I thought AU was in Tuscaloosa.

You mean the same writings which have Jesus saying he came not to negate the law of the OT but to fulfill it?  The same ones which say that God is unchanging (so that the God which ordered the mass slaughter of women and infants in Numbers 31 is the same one that is, by the Bible, the God responsible for Christianity).
Sorry Eric, but your argument is weak and desperate.

A masterful piece of denial, of which I am not surprised you approve.

Post from RikWriter -

Jesus! RikWriter! (that's twice in one thread, a record of sorts) what may be weak and desparate is any attempt to avoid the actual sayings and teachings of Christ in your response?

Once again, slowly...what...sayings...or...teachings...of...Jesus...call...on...anyone...to...kill...anyone...else...in...His...Name...or...on...His...behalf...?

Eric The(TryAgain!)Hun[>]:)]

Jesus yourself, Eric...do you or do you not acknowledge that Jesus believed in and was faithful to the moral teachings of the Old Testament?  Do you or do you not believe God is unchanging?  Do you or do you not believe that the God who, in your beliefs, manifested himself as Jesus is the same one that wrote and was responsible for the actions in Numbers 31?
Come on, they aren't difficult questions...

The God of the Old Testament and the New Testament is one and the same.  RikWriter, what you are stumbling over is that this God has the self-originating power and "right" to do with humanity exactly as He pleases.

He can and does lay waste to entire nations, young and old, rich and poor, as it suits His purposes.  This world is His, and He does with it as He pleases.  For this fact, no Christian offers an apology.

If this makes humanity to sound rather puny and insignificant, and God to be the absolute center of all things, well, that's the way it is!

To answer your specific points: 1) Jesus [b]did[/b] fulfill the Law by perfectly fulfilling all of God's legal and moral requirements.  Jesus was and is perfectly holy, without the slightest moral blemish.  In doing so Jesus became a perfect sacrifice for sinners, taking their place in receiving the punishment that sinners deserve.

But Jesus did something else in His earthly ministry.  He showed that humanity is utterly unable and unwilling to keep the law in a way that satisfies the requirements of God.  This is seen repeatedly in His confrontations with the Pharisees.  He condemned their hipocrisy, their keeping of outward formal law and moral traditions while hiding proud, hate-filled hearts.  And they hated Him for this.

2) Along the way, Jesus demonstrated and taught that His kingdom is not of this world.  It is a spiritual kingdom.  It isn't dependent upon being of a specific geneology, race or cultural heritage.  In this teaching, [b]the national, civil and ceremonial laws of Old Testament Israel are no longer valid.[/b]  This is why (true) Christans don't kill unbelievers, despite many OT passages that prescribe this.  Those civil and ceremonial laws were shown to have no power to save man from himself.

This fulfills the Father's purpose, by showing people that even if they lived in a theocracy, the heart of man would still be full of sin.  Jesus died on the cross to do for humbled sinners what they can't do for themselves.  

God authorizes civil authority to restrain evil in the world today.  But God provides the example of Old Testament Israel to show that civil laws can't make a person right with God.  Only the death and resurrection of Jesus is able to do that.

I just hope you take the time to read this carefully and consider it before responding.

Carbine Man, you (and Eric) seem to be missing the point of my original post.  Why don't you go back and re-read it, then think about it some more before replying again.

Post from RikWriter -

And Jesus! RikWriter, once again. Yes, I believe all that you have said about Jesus believing in and being faithful to the MORAL TEACHINGS of the Old Testament, as you know I am a fundamentalist Christian. Yes, God directly inspired all of the writings of the Old Testament, including the Torah, which includes the Book of Numbers.

But so what? Did God command death and murder of others as a 'MORAL TEACHING'? Was that not how God dealt with evil in the Last Dispensation, and how He will deal with evil in the Next Dispensation?

The Old Testament paved the way for the New Testament. It was a grade school of moral thought for learning prior to going to higher levels of moral thought.

Those who had the Law beforehand, when did they ever do what was right in the sight of the Lord? So what should they have expected?

And the Lord Jesus Christ is not going to deal lightly with those who have not heeded His Word in the next World either, will he? I know you've read the Book, too.

So how does the final judgment fit into a view of Jesus in your mind? Forget whether it's true or not, just as a matter of argument.

Eric The(SoundsLikeIt'sGonnaGetKinda'OldTestament'-likeInTheEnd,Huh?)Hun[>]:)]

Hell, Rik, if your point is that - can evil man find some justification in his Bible for killing folks, then my answer is - Hell Yeah!

But that has nothing to do with Christianity, now, does it?

'Cause there's simply nothing that Jesus said that would force an answer that 'Yes, Christianity condones murder!'

Can the same be said of the Koran? Quran? Or whatever?

Eric The(IThinkNot!)Hun[>]:)]

Fair enough, RikWriter, so here's my reply to the original post:

[b]"I think the problem is not with Islam, but with those who interpret it."[/b]

Islam proclaims itself to be a "religion of the book."  If we're going to talk about Islam then we must talk about what that book teaches.  If the book teaches something, then we shouldn't be surprised that many of its followers take it seriously.

[b]"Christianity has the potential in its holy writings to be just as violent as Islam"[/b]

[b][i]WRONG!!!![/b][/i]  All men everywhere have the potential for evil and violence.  But to ascribe that violence to Christianity is dead wrong.

By His teaching and example, Jesus and His followers offered no resistance to His enemies, but rather taught that love for one's neighbor (even enemies) was second only to love for God Himself.  Anyone that claims to follow Christianity has to throw away the Bible to pursue doing evil, murder, acts of terrorism, etc.

By His teaching and example, Mohammmed not only authorized the murder of his enemies, but led his followers in doing so, and preached rewards to those who continued to do so after his death.  As they say: "Allah is the one god, and Mohammed is his prophet."  Any Muslim who commits acts of murder of infidels and terrorism is just following in his masters footsteps and obeying his teachings.

The compassion and love of Christianity is rooted in a Book, the Bible.  The nation-building terrorism of Islam is rooted in a book, the Koran.

These are incontrivertable facts.

[b]"..it is simply practiced in societies which are not as violent as those in the Middle East.
The fact is, the whole Middle East is just starting to pull out of a long Dark Age.  The Islamic nations of the Middle East were advanced when the West had its dark age, now the tables are turned.  Any culturally primitive, violent society is going to use its religion as an excuse for violence."[/b]

I would agree with this in part.  What I would add is that [b]the peace and freedom of the West are a [i]result[/i] of the influence of Christianity, not the reverse[/b].  It is no accident that where Christianity has been dominant, so has freedom, tolerance, respect for civil law, human rights, etc.  The same cannot be said for Islam.

As far as the "advancements" of Islamic culture and primitive cultures using religion as a justification for violence, well, that's interesting and subject to friendly debate.  When men want to do evil, they'll justify it in whatever way they need to to "feel good about themselves."

My purpose in posting is just to address the core question, as to whether Christianity is just as liable to fostering murderous terrorism and "holy war" as Islam is.  [b]The two religions are [i]NOT[/i] the same and are [i]NOT[/i] morally equivalent.[/b]

Jesus right back atcha Eric...you're totally missing the point, apparently.
Your argument is that "according to the way I and most Christians interpret the Bible, it does not prescribe violence."
Well, most Muslims would say the same thing about the Koran...and would say that if you disagree, that you simply aren't reading or interpreting it correctly.
The fact is, though, that the Old Testament HAS been used by extremists through the centuries to promote violence and hatred:  the Witch Hunts were justified by "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live," for instance.
Just as people like Bin Laden justify their violence through their reading of the Koran.

So, Rik, your argument is that Judaism and Christianity are the same religion. That Jesus was simply an interprter of Old Testament law and did not conceive Himself as being anything 'new under the Sun'?  That He did not consciously begin any new religion?

And that simply because ignorant men ascribe their motives to Jesus, His sayings, or His teachings, then Jesus is at fault and His way is not one of Peace, but of bloodshed, lust, and anger? Simply because some, who never listen to anything He has to say, claim Him for one reason or another to be their God?

Eric The(That'sWhatYou'reTryingToSay?)Hun[>]:)]

Eric, I think I see the problem now...where in the hell did I say that it was "Jesus' fault???"
Please don't put words on my keyboard.
As to whether the historical Jesus intended to start a new religion, well...I don't know.  He may well have simply been seeking a reformation of Judaism.  He didn't seem to show much interest in non-Jews, and neither did anyone until Paul came along.
As a believing Christian, you no doubt disagree, and that's fine.  But you asked...

Post from RikWriter

Well, since it's just a matter of reading both Books, I tell you what I'll do.

For each teaching or saying of Jesus that calls upon some follower to kill, maim, or commit whatever violent act you want, I will give you a hundred teachings, sayings, implications, etc., from the Koran and the mouth of the Great Prophet that specifically say it!

Wanna take the bet?

Eric The(LaughingOutLoudRightsAreInOrderAsAPrize)Hun[>]:)]

Why would *I* be interested in that bet, Eric?  *I* am not the one trying to use EITHER book to excuse violence.  But people have, both Muslims and Christians.  And you can find plenty of verses in the Bible that can be interpreted as encouraging violence, even in the New Testament.
"I come not to bring peace, but a sword," for instance.  You can say it doesn't mean that, but Muslims will say the same thing if you quote some passage from the Koran.  I've heard them do it, over and over.
I think you're getting far too wrapped up in this and trying to build up a straw man argument, frankly.

Just say you don't want to take the bet and be done with it!

BTW, do you know what Jesus was referring to in the snatch of verse that you quoted?

Do you think that you could explain your view of what Jesus was referring to another Moslem, agnostic, atheist, etc?

Eric The(IThinkYouCould,SoWhat'sTheProblem?)Hun[>]:)]

Why don't YOU just give up trying to argue for the sake of argument?
You CAN'T deny that Christians have interpreted passages of the Bible to excuse their violence and murder.  It has happened, it is history.
So instead of just admitting this and letting it go, you HAVE to somehow take this whole thing on some tangent to make Christianity somehow intrinsically "better" than Islam.
What's the point?

The religion isn't the problem-it's the whackos who pervert and twist around the religion that are the problem. The same can be said for Christianity or probably any other religion. Just think of the millions who killed in the name of Jesus Christ throughout the ages: the inquisition, many of the countries colonized by Europe, the crusades. More people have probably been killed in the name of Christianity than any other religion in history. (oooh...i'm gonna get a sh*t storm for that one...)  

I believe Islam is supposed to be the second largest religion in the world-the vast majority of the followers aren't terrotists.
BTW, this isn't a knock against Christianity, but it shows that a peaceful religion can be carried to the extreme by a small group of nuts.

The only good Muslim is one that's at the other end of my GUA-2!!!!

Sorry, but you sound like you've never read the bible straight through and therefore don't really have a right to an opinion.  Of course God ordered the death of the society... women, children...so he is evil.  Of course, forget the fact that that very society practiced human sacrifice and other vile acts.  You have to know the history to know the context.

If you read the bible from beginning to end (and think about the themes going on) it is very clear that it is one God from beginning to end.  It is also very clear that everything he did was justified and right if you look at the context.  A book which ties together the themes of the Old testament (although sometimes in a corny fashion) is "From Creation to the Cross" by Albert Baylis.  It also helps to see these themes if you read large quantities of scripture at a time.  I just finished reading the old testament for a class I'm taking...read it in about 3 months and I saw the continuity a lot more than in the past when I read it over a period of a couple years.

"He may well have simply been seeking a reformation of Judaism" !?  Way to state the obvious.  Jesus simply established the new covenant which had been predicted in Jeremiah and elsewhere.  This covenant was intended for all people (including Jews).  The biggest difference about this and the abrahimic/davidic covenants is that now gentiles are included.

zonan, your patronizing arrogance is exceeded only by your idiotic presumption.
In fact, not only have I "read the Bible from beginning to end" more times than I can count, I have attended countless Bible study classes and put more effort into studying the Bible than most preachers I have met.
If you think you can tell me I don't have a "right to an opinion" you can kiss my ass.
As for Numbers 31, those INFANTS didn't practice human sacrifice...all the male children which the God you worship supposedly ordered MURDERED.  Those INFANTS didn't have a scrap of guilt, did they?
At least your version of God was merciful enough to take the FEMALES as sex slaves...err, I mean servants.  I guess whatever taint of evil so corrupted INFANT males that they had to be MURDERED didn't touch the females somehow...

BTW, to Eric and other Christians, I do not mean to offend YOU by the stridence with which I responded to zonan.  As I don't believe God had anything to do with any slaughters that happened or did not happen in ancient Canaan, I don't hold the story against you or against Christianity...though it is one that is hard for Biblical literalists to justify.
Anyway, as I said, this was directed at zonan, who richly deserved it and more for his obnoxious, arrogant comments.

They have infiltrated our countries! Honest Lads, as far as I am concerned they are nothing but trouble, bring their violent cultures with them refusing to fit in our society. They complain about everything, whilst our culture falls victim to theirs.

No Christmas carols, they offend them. No Santa at schools because it offends them. In some cases, no Christmas decoarations in shopping centres, it offends them. One giant load of shit while the govt bows down to them, and they take advantage of everything.

I would love to have not ONE single one of them here, but thats not gonna be.

I have to put up with their arrogance, violence, and intimidation every fucking day. In general they are not liked here, and they BLOODY well know it too.

Fuck being political correct. I don't like them, and I (and another 18,000,000 Australians) would prefer to see them leave, and go back to where they come from!

One disgusted 1feral1,
Sydney

I apologize if I misjudged.  It is interesting, however, that you study so frequently a religion that you seem to find full of errors.  Why bother?  Is there nothing better to do?

As for the infants (yes, the ones being sacrificed) I'm quite aware that they couldn't be sacrificing themselves.  But was God supposed to have the Israelites set up a daycare?



You don't believe God told them to do it?  Or do you just believe that the OT God is not the same as the NT one?



Obnoxious?  Possibly, but I don't see the arrogance.  You have the same opinions as many people I've run across who simply haven't studied the context of the material and are just reciting what they heard somewhere along their journey through popular culture.  If I'm wrong, sorry, it was simply a conclusion I made from the similarities between your views and those of others I've known.

Perhaps it is because I am the son of a Baptist preacher and was a Christian myself for two decades.



Why not have them adopted?  Male children were always considered a blessing.



I believe that if the OT is historically accurate when dealing with the various slaughters of the Canaanites, it was done by the Israelites, for the Israelites and no divine direction was given.  Most likely, these huge slaughters never happened and were just a "winner's history."



Then get glasses.  "You don't have the right to an opinion" is hopelessly arrogant to the point of being downright ridiculous.

How dare you suggest Auburn University is in Tuscaloosa; it's in Auburn, AL. The University of Alabama is in Tuscaloosa. I condem you to hell.

And when little timmy is old enough, does he thank his new parents for destroying his old society?  "Thanks pa, I wouldn't have liked it anyway."



No it's not.  From your stated opinions I made the conclusion (however errant it might have been) that you hadn't studied what you were speaking of.  If the conclusion had been correct, then you really wouldn't have had a right to an opinion.

edit spelling

Careful there. You've said the same thing time and time again. You don't want to be judged by your own standards, now do you?

Why would they tell him?

No, I have not said the same thing, not ever.
I have said "all opinions are not equal" and that some people's opinions are less informed than others but I have NEVER been obnoxious enough to tell someone they didn't have the RIGHT to an opinion.  EVERYONE has the right to an opinion.
And don't get self-righteous with me either.