The figures are nowhere near that high, though, when you are looking for church goers or active believers. We have a very high percentage of nominal Christian faith and not a whole lot of the real thing, beyond the sentiment that because one was brought up Christian, one is Christian.

Re: Dave’s comment

The same would be true for muslims though. It’s part of the block vote assumption that all people who call themselves muslim are active believers, where-as we know very few of those who call themselves Christian are. If we start seeing individuals rather than just ‘muslims’, we see a different picture.

The Daily Mail isn’t very intelligent or Knowledgable. So is the Daily Mail one of the major causes of dumbing down that the paper itself attributes to the education system? I’d say its one of the causes of dumbing down which they are blind to on their very doorstep.

Frankly, I’m glad of the large numbers of ‘Christians’, nominal or practicing, because it allows me to attack religion in general without being automatically branded a racist.

I still think it’s a scary statistic, however you slice it.

The fact remains that Christians, en masse, don’t really represent that big of a threat. Sure, you get the nutbags who picket funerals of gay soldiers and march outside of abortion clinics, but the incidence of Christian-related terror (in the truest, non-sensationalist sense) using violence and force is much lower than Islam as a *current* threat (certainly not discounting history here!).

I think Richard Dawkins need to blanket-bomb Europe and the Middle East with paperback copies of The God Delusion…

@6

I like to think of it as an age issue. Islam, as a religion, is some 600 years younger than Christianity. If you look at Christianity circa 1400 as well as before and after that time period, you’ll find quite a few Christian terrorists, and even state-sanctioned militant Christianity (The Crusades, the majority of the Tudor dynasty, etc). Philosophically, I imagine Islamic extremism will fall the same way as Christian extremism did to the point where now it’s just the few nutbars in Kansas you mention as examples. Basically, Islam will become less and less of a threat as its practice naturally becomes less extreme, but it will take time – just as it did for Christianity.

Just for the record. One of the most appalling genocides ever was committed by the Spaniards when they “colonised” Central and South America and forced entire population to convert. Mostly, this was done in the name of “god”.

This is not to say that they were alone. Most religions have seen terrible atrocities carried out in their name.

@7+8 — good points… I just hope what happens in the interim doesn’t get *too* extreme for those bearing the brunt.

The elephant in the room here – is that Jesus and Mohammed were very very different/

Jesus was primarily a spiritual figure: never had politicial positions: said ‘love your enemy’, and the only fight he got involved in, he healed a guy from the ‘other’ side.

Whereas Mohammed was a political leader, a military leader: who said ‘kill your enemy wherever you find him’: personally beheaded hundreds of prisoners.

Christianity had a reformation, whch dumped alot of the duff baggage of the church at the time: got back to the Jesus of the bible.

But the more Islam gets back to the Mohammed of the Qu’ran – the more the violence, the antisemitism, the misogyny of Mohammed’s life come to the fore.

it’s hard see a happy outcome really: models like Lebanon show it’s not impossible for countries formerly peaceful and mixed religion, to go downhill once the Muslim population reaches a certain level and asserts itself violently over non-Muslims (Lebanon is a complex story of course, but the christian population, that’s been there many years, is dwindling as many leave. And the PLO story there is complex: the Palestinians having been thrown out of Jordan after 2,000 or 10,000 were killed by the authorities – numbers are disputed)

““The project”, the article continues, “presents a portrait of the Muslim world that might surprise some. For example, Germany has more Muslims than Lebanon”.”

Cunning stuff from the Mail, because they must know that most of their readers won’t realise that Germany is big country with a fairly small Muslim minority, whereas Lebanon is a tiny country with a Muslim majority of only about 55%. Of course, I wouldn’t give a shit if everyone in Britain but me was a Muslim, but I suspect Mail readers think differently.

So Chris, you really don’t think your life would be any different in a Muslim majority country?

Hard to believe you’ve thought that through.

(not sure where to start really – how about: You don’t drink alcohol? You want to buy any book you like? Your wife/mother/sisters want to decide for themselves if they drive, study, go out alone, choose spouses?
You want the freedom to say what you think? You don’t mind the death penalty for adultery?

Just Visiting – I agree with your observation in 13 (obviously living in an islamic country would be different from living in a “liberal democracy” so Chris’s “I wouldn’t give a shit …” remark isn’t too well thought out) but I think you’re rather overdoing it in the subsequent posts.

To go back to post 11, though, you’re talking bollocks really, aren’t you? “Christianity had a reformation ….. got back to the Jesus of the bible.” and the bible’s all about Jesus, peace and love, is it?

Really “getting back to the bible” is what the fundamentalist christian lunatics in the US are doing when they murder doctors who work abortion clinics or organise protests against gay rights and the teaching of evolution. The bible specifies death by stoning as the punishment for “serving other gods” (Deuteronomy Ch13 verses 7 – 1) and if you think that this should be read in anything other than a literal sense (difficult to see how you’d do that) try going back a few pages (Deutoronomy Ch 13 verse 1) and you’ll find “Whatever I am now commanding you, you must keep and observe, adding nothing to it and taking nothing away.” There are of course other intersting sections specifying similar punishments for such heinous crimes as adultery and not respecting your parents.

Suggesting christianity is somehow ethically or practically superior to islam (or pretty much any other religion) is only possible if you ignore the collective literary insanity that is called the bible, Christianity has gone through a bizarre historical process which has somehow enabled a lot of it’s adherents to go on claiming that the bible is the word of god whilst simultaneously choosing to ignore vast tracts of it which narrate bogus histories of genocidal wars, set out punishments which would make even the Tory law and order lobby cringe or simply descend into utter insanity (including stories of incest, gang rape and prostitution all presented in a positive light when perpetrated by those beloved of god).

Most (note “most” not all) religions are based on a set of bronze age tribal prejudices and myths and, as such, they’re all equally insane.

Richard

So we agree that a Muslim Britain would be quite different to the current one.

But whilst I said ‘getting back to the Jesus of the Bible’, you changed that to lets not look at Jesus at all but instead cherry pick a couple of verses from the Old Testament!

The New Testament is the place to look at what Jesus said and did, and instructed.

Nowhere does he instruct his followers to a path of violence. Quite the opposite. He instructs his followers to ‘go and make disciples’, not by force but by taking good news to people – saying things like: preach good news to the poor, freedom for the prisoners, recovery of sight for the blind, release the oppressed blah, blah.

No sign of coercion or violence there.

As I already said, he was involved in one punch-up only: and there he healed ‘the enemy’.
Whereas Mohammed was a very successful military leader, and personally involved in many killings – including unarmed prisoners.

Or add another comparison: women caught in adultery.
Both lived in cultures that took a tough stance on the issue.
- Jesus saves the women’s life.
- Whereas Mohammed condemns her to be stoned.

The good Christian’s role model (barring lunatic fringes) is to follow Jesus example.
The good Muslim’s role model (barring lunatic fringes) is to follow Mohammed.

That’s why mainstream Islam say adultery deserves the death penalty: because Mohammed did it! And if you drop that, you are saying Mohammed got it wrong…. which a good Muslim simply cannot do.

Why is beheading the preferred killing method of Islamists – because Mohammed did it!

Why does the Luton Islamic Centre website go on at length to explain their ‘logic’ that a women’s voice before a court of law counts half that of a man: because Mohammed said it!

Why are there many hospitals and schools around the world founded by Christian groups? Coz of what Jesus said.
Who runs the street food services for down and outs in your town: odds are that it’s local christians who are significantly represented there.
Who volunteers at your local Refugee Action Network team; certainly my local one is probaby half active church goers.

You are of course are spot on using the word ‘lunatic’ in your sentence: “fundamentalist christian lunatics in the US are doing when they murder doctors who work abortion clinics” – because these people are clearly not supported by any wing of christianity at all, and there’s no reading of the new testament that can support what they do – unless you’re a lunatic….

So actually it’s a bit rich to bring them into the issue here, because they are not representative of anything except lunacy…

But you mention “organise protests’ – isn’t that just freedom of expression? Whether the protesters are influenced by religion or not, freedom of expression reigns.

But anyway, you’re following a well worn path – making a moral equivalency between 2 very different religions.

It’s like in LC someone saying that fascism and communism are essentially the same because they are both ideologies…

It doesn’t stand scrutiny.
The facts need to be looked at.

Some ‘compare and contrast’ is needed.

Just how many people have been murdered by christians quoting the new testament recently?

Whereas how many people are being killed by muslims quoting the Qu’ran?

A better question might be, how many countries in the world are there where people are NOT being killed by Muslims quoting the Qu’ran.

That clear difference is worth thinking about – and what better place to start than looking at the lives of the religious founders: jesus and mohammed?

I’ve read the two holy books – IMHO it really is chalk and cheese.

By all means you’re entitled to your view of ‘the collective literary insanity that is called the bible’: but you still need to do a proper comparison of Jesus and Mohammed, otherwise, where do you provide logic to support your view that a Muslim Britain would be quite different to today’s Britain?

Let’s not get in to this old conversation again. Last time I had it those fighting the Christian corner were completely unable to justify their claims (given the many interpretations available of Muslim texts) and unable to comprehend that Muslim texts were written under entirely different circumstances, contexts and (given the war time nature of the period) ethics than we would judge today.

The only sense you’re right about the books being “chalk and cheese” is they are from completely different environments and influences, so why exactly with this fact you would try to compare them I have no idea…I guess you want your cake and to eat it too.

http://www.evilbible.com

‘Nuff said.

Just visiting
You dismiss the lunatic fringe of US fundamentalists too lightly. They are a very powerful and large group in the US. That has influenced education policy (creationism) and US foreign policy based on the rapture.

Also no US president or senator (there is only one atheist US senator) would be power without an assurance his a belief in a higher power.

I see that “Just Visiting” is trying to argue that somehow inherently Islam is worse than Christianity. Whatever your interpretation of the story of the life of Jesus, though, who does seem to have been a nice chap going by the Gospels [which are, after all, works by his followers and so not exactly unbiased] – it is clear that most of his self-proclaimed followers don’t always follow his example. For example, I am sure the Amerindians didn’t exactly welcome the advent of the Christian Spanish and Portugese – which led to genocide and mass deaths from disease……..

I bet you, over the last few centuries, individuals from Christian-majority countries have killed more people in warfare than individuals from Muslim-majority countries……..

Just Visiting – long post. The key point, I think, is “But whilst I said ‘getting back to the Jesus of the Bible’, you changed that to lets not look at Jesus at all but instead cherry pick a couple of verses from the Old Testament!”

I can’t believe you actually used the phrase “cherry pick.” The only possible way you can present christianity as the peace/love ideology that you are seeking to portray is to do exactly that, cherry pick. Cherry pick on a massive scale, in fact, by ignoring most of the old testament (not a couple of verses) and bits of the new.

So, tell me, how do you decide which parts of the bible are valid and which aren’t? And, having made that decision, what do you have to say about the bits you’ve thrown out? How do you explain their existence? What does the fact that you have discarded them say about the bible’s validity as the word of god?

Christianity, in that it focusses on a figure (the historical evidence for the existence of whom is, at the very best, pretty dubious) who drew authority from the books of the old testament is a modification of a bronze age tribal cult which included sacrifice (and I mean actual sacrifice of animals and, occassionally, humans not altruistic self – sacrifice), pointless rituals and bizarre taboos. It is difficult to read the old testament and get any sense of what would be understood today as an ethical outlook, particularly when reading about god – sanctioned wars of conquest, ethnic cleansing and genocide. I understand that, as a modern liberal christian (or christian apologist), you would like to focus attention on the sermon on the mount, saving the woman “caught in adultery” etc but the the whole thing is based on the old testament and jesus (if he actually existed) drew his authority from it (otherwise why make a point of entering jerusalem when he did riding a donkey colt? why the ludicrous inconsistencies in the accounts of his birth aimed at showing he was member of the house of david?) so you can’t just dismiss it and focus attention on the bits which, today, look less barbaric and insane.

Lee – 16 I’m afraid your memory is wrong – look back in LC anf you’ll see it was _you that was unable to justify your claims!

If you really believe that Jesus and Mohammed said, did and instructed the same things – then let’s hear the details.

If you can’t cough up the evidence, then you really must change your view on this – Christianity and Islam are not conveniently to be put into one category and made equal: no more than fascism and communism can be dismissed a being the same because they are both ideologies.

You say :that the Qu’ran and the New Testament are “from completely different environments and influences, so why exactly with this fact you would try to compare them I have no idea”……err because you can’t understand somethign without looking into where it came from?

Because good Muslims aim to do exactly the things Mohammed did – so to understand them you need to read Mohammed’s book. And likewise for Christians and Jesus.

17 : Ryan

So you want to make a serious compare and contast including ‘the lunatic fringe of US fundamentalists’ – that’s a sensible approach.

You say ‘They are a very powerful and large group in the US’

Fair enough.

And “no US president or senator (there is only one atheist US senator) would be power without an assurance his a belief in a higher power.” – indeed you’re right, that is a difference between American political life and our own.

But nobody sensibly argues that everything America does is in accordance with Jesus teachings. The lobby in question are only one lobby in the USA, there are many others.

However, to finish the _compare and contrast_ – how may countries in the world are there where Christians are killing and quoting the words of Jesus in justification?

Versus how countries many where Muslims are doing that?

How do you explain the continuous and global stream of violence, where the protagonists are so vocal that they do it in the name of Allah/Mohammed?

Or how many mainstream Christian groups advocate violence: versus the mainstream islamic view that death is the correct and Quar’anic punishment for
* adultery
* apostasy
* denigrating Allah.

Chalk and cheese – so the inquiring mind wants to look into the sources and roots of the differences.

And very quickly you have to face up the fact that Jesus’ life and teachings were about inner spiritual life; and no mention of violence at all. Whereas the Qur’an has violence as a theme running through it.

17 Joseph

evilbible.com – Haha. Sounds immediately like a nice balanced, reasoned place to research.

But on it’s home page , it says ;”For far too long priests and preachers have completely ignored the vicious criminal acts that the Bible promotes”

Yeah right, how stupid thise christians have been….yeah, evilbible.com know the Bible and it’s interpretation better than all those various Christian groups from catholic to anglican to orthodox….

Those ignorant christian theologians, why aren’t they promoting violence, they really should, because evilbible.com has interpreted the bible to nsay they should..

Sorry, I don’t think so.
Why do none of the mainstream christian groups not promote violence? Because of course their interpretation of the bible says not to. An interpretation of the christan books by the christian scholars.

It’s patronsing to come along and say they you are better able to interpret their book than them!

In the same way that it is equally patronising for westerners to say that ‘some muslims have misunderstood the Qur’an’ – when in fact all mainstream branches of Islam agree on the death penalty in 3 situations.

19 – Anonymouse

__I see that “Just Visiting” is trying to argue that somehow inherently Islam is worse than Christianity__

No, not at all. Look back at the thread again: Various folk have suggested that they are ‘similar’, eg 17 JSlayer “Basically, Islam will become less and less of a threat as its practice naturally becomes less extreme, but it will take time – just as it did for Christianity”.

I have simply said those saying they are findamentally the same, have not so far given any evidence for that.

And that the live and teachings of Jesus and Mohammed deserve a proper _compare and contrast_.

And I’ve done a little of that, and I find Jesus and Mohammed chalk and cheese. And that today’s christian groups and islamic groups also seem to have reached quite different places, as a result of what their leaders did and said.

You write: “Whatever your interpretation of the story of the life of Jesus, … it is clear that most of his self-proclaimed followers don’t always follow his example”

Quite true, but irrelvant here. Many Muslims drink alcohol when in the West. Does that mean that Mohammed didn’t say ‘kill your enemies where you find them’ whereas Jesus said ‘love your enemies?

So you’re right, but it’s irrelevant.

We still need to understand the characters of Jesus and Mohammed if we want to take a view on christianity and Islam today.

You write: “I bet you, over the last few centuries, individuals from Christian-majority countries have killed more people in warfare than individuals from Muslim-majority countries……..”

Firstly, is that of the top of your head? If not quote some sources.
Secondly, again, it’s irrelevant: this thread was not about warfare.
Nor about body counting in warfare.
And even if it was, it’s a big topic and simplistic to make that kind of assertion. (Eg the fact that much historic war in Europe (long history of fighting among ourselves) was christian nations against christian nations:: and anyway most of the wars were not influenced by the life or teaching of Jesus, but by the usual political /power issues.)

So, the issue that people here seem to want to avoid answering – is whether Jesus and Mohammed are substantially different.

20 Richard
“long post”

Sorry, yes, I know blogging suits better to the ‘sound bite’ short length, but not very good at that…

You write: “So, tell me, how do you decide which parts of the bible are valid and which aren’t?”

Well, I don’t decide. I just and see what mainstream christianity says and does: and how it says it interprets its books.

And do the same with Islam.

For example, not one christian group advocates the death penalty for those leaving christianity. Not one country with a judeo-christian background ha a law like that.

Then look at the islamic world -and see mainstream islamic schools advocate death for apostates. and some muslim countries enshrine it in law.

So, there is a difference to be explained.

I look at the Quar’an, and I see it is exactly the words of Mohammed that islamic scholars use to explain why death is right. (not me cherry picking his words out of context) – but Islamic scholars themselves quoting his words.

I can’t argue that I know their books better than them!

So I see that it is not somthing external bolted on to Islam – but central to Islam, because it comes from Mohammed’s own words.

And likewise, as christian groups don’t advocate death, I have to accept that their scholars have interpreted their new Testament that way. And when I delve into that book, I had better be careful not to pull out (cherry pick) verses that _I_ think might suggest the use of violence: because it is clear no christian group has interpreted them that way.

You write: “Christianity, in that it focusses on a figure (the historical evidence for the existence of whom is, at the very best, pretty dubious)”

You can’t be serious?
What are your sources for suggesting that Jesus never even lived! Serious, historian type sources.

And you are entitled to your opinion that christianity “is a modification of a bronze age tribal cult which included sacrifice (and I mean actual sacrifice of animals and, occassionally, humans not altruistic self – sacrifice), pointless rituals and bizarre taboos”

But we still have to look at christianity today and judge what we see it do and what it says – we must be led by evidence!

I dont see much use of animal sacrifice in mainstream christianity today: so if your opinion above is right, wll then things seem to have moved on a very logn way: so maybe not sensibe to harp back to sonething that is well in the past.

Time for you to look at what christianity and islam are doing an saying today.

You write: “It is difficult to read the old testament and get any sense of what would be understood today as an ethical outlook…”

I’ve only been talking about Jesus/New Testament and Mohammed/Quar’an here.

You’re probably right, that the old testament is not a good place to start, if you’re just starting to try to get an understanding of Jesus: in order to compare/contrast with Mohammed.

To try to see what common ground we may have, would you agree with these, pretty modest. statements
i) mainstream islamic teaching is quite different to mainstream christain teaching on a number of areas
ii) that each religion uses the books of their own founders as basis for those teachings
iii) that Jesus and Mohammed did, said and instructed very different things, and that appears to be why (i) and (ii) come about

Just Visiting, you’re kidding yourself.

Requiring evilbible.com to be ‘balanced and reasonable’ is like chastising a debate about Hitler for not including his nicer attributes, too.

It doesn’t need to be fair and balanced because, clearly and obviously, the bible is a book of hate, rape, pillage, slavery, murder, baby killing and twisted morality.

Don’t give this BS about ‘Christian’s interpreting better’. There are no two ways about many of the paragraphs of the bible.

Take Deuteronomy 20:10-14:

” As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.”

There is very clearly only one way to interpret that – it’s written in plain English.

That is to say…
* Killing is okay…
* Enslave everyone in ‘forced labor’, that’s okay too
* Keep the woman, children and livestock… it’s okay to plunder
* Enjoy all their spoils, because God actually wants you to have them

Don’t kid yourself, Just Visiting.

What you worship is a religion of hate and intolerance, just like all religions.

If you think otherwise, you have been brainwashed – perhaps parentally, by your schooling or upbringing, or by your church.

You will try and justify it as best you can, because your paradigm would be rocked to the core if you considered anything out of it – and knowing our place in the world, and our environment, is the most powerful psychological foundation we have.

Anyone who is religious is suffering a form of psychosis.

No normal, relational person would believe in the fantasy touted by an evil book all on their own, if not for the brainwashing of that information by other human beings. You would not reach those conclusions on your own in a million years, if your logic was not warped by other people.

Read The God Delusion and The Selfish Gene, as well as Letter To A Christian Nation by Sam Harris.

This isn’t solely directed at Christianity, of course. Any religions pray on the same psychological vulnerabilities and promote hatred, intolerance and a defiance of natural, physical law.

It’s not your fault you think this way – that part of was automatic instillment by other people.

But it is up to you to question the basis and *really* think about the facts. Hopefully, like others before you, you’ll reach the conclusion that it’s all a crock and simply get on with your life.

sorry, too many long posts….not this one!

Here’s the question that no one wants to answer: did Mohammed and Jesus do, say and intruct different things?

I get the feeling that folks here on LC have a problem accepting this – which I find strange because to even superficial analysis, it quickly becomes obvious that it is true.

Just Visiting, to answer your Q on why mainstream religion does not promote violence, isn’t it obvious?

Promoting violence would have them outlawed in a heartbeat.

The Catholic faith, over the years – like all faiths in competition with popular memes and status quo – have had to ‘shape’ their understanding around what it is to be popular… to the extent of what they can get away with.

No society of modern, rational people in 2009 would tolerate murder, rape and pillage, as described in the bible. Religious faith would be overruled in favor of simple sanity.

So mainstream Christian groups – as others have said here – have had to cherry pick the nice bits, and discard the rest.

Anyone who points out the clear and obvious behavior that the bible condones is told that ‘Christian scholar’s know better’ or ‘of course God didn’t mean that – you’re not interpreting it right’.

Which of course, is plain nonsense.

If I said to you ‘It is okay to steal, kill babies and rape women’, would there be any more than one way of interpreting that statement?

Of course not – it’s a simple, logical phrase that’s syntactically valid. It may not specify context, but the verbs and nouns render it very easy to understand – stealing, killing babies and raping women is perfectly acceptable.

Yet the Bible is full of these types of phrases… paragraphs that cannot be disputed.

Rather than accept the ills, flaws, cracks and inconsistencies of the bible and question them on their own merit… Christians gloss over them like they don’t exist, and instead, pay credence to the more acceptable versus, like the Ten Commandments.

This is the very definition of psychosis – molding reality to as you see it should fit, and not actually how it does.

Religion is evil.

As for Mohammed vs. Jesus, go watch http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com for a comparison of faith across hundreds of different ideologies and sects over time, for a very real overview of the mass plagiarism that forms of the basis of religion.

You don’t have to agree with everything this author/narrator says to realize that, if only 1/100th of it can be verified, you should immediately terminate any and all belief in religion until the facts are in.

Of course, you won’t do that, because your clinging to your paradigm is much more important than the words of a stranger and your brain is far too selfish and ego-centric to *ever* concede that your worldview is totally and utterly false.

But whatever – it’s fun poking the religious all the same!

26 Joseph

I’m sorry, I seem to have hit a raw nerve with you – judging by the level of emotion and anger there.

Generally speaking, trying to have a logical debate with someone with heightened emotions is a no hoper… but anyway, maybe your last post was just on a bad moment.

So, firstly, you can interpret the bible (or any book) how you wish – but it’s arrogance to claim that your interpretation is ‘right’ if the mainstream scholars who specialise in that area don’t agree with you.

I can only judge by what I see christianity do today, and I don’t see the violence promoted and meted out in the way that your interpretation would indicate it would and should be.

Therefore I see no evidence that your own interpretation is in line with mainstream christianity.

So it’s not relevant to the thread here- which is about whether christianity and islam are similar or not.

You say “Read The God Delusion and The Selfish Gene”
I’ve read both. Good reads, I liked them.

But you must be aware that Dawkins is not universally agreed with, even among his atheistic colleagues – some of whom have said that he goes too far, because science doesn’t and never can have a view on whether there is a ‘creator god who began the whole universe’ – but anyway, an interesting area itself, for another thread.

You write:” Anyone who is religious is suffering a form of psychosis.”

Ok, any evidence for that?
So in your world view, some huge percentage of the world is mentally ill.

Sounds like you’d have fitted in well in the old USSR – which imprisoned anyone of faith into ‘mental hospitals’ or the Gulag.

And today, all those scientists, world leaders, doctors, noble prize winners, professors etc etc who are professing Christians or whatever – you think they are all mentally ill?

Remarkable how the poor chaps hold down a job isn’t it!

You write: “What you worship is a religion of hate and intolerance, just like all religions”.

I see now, you DO think that all religions are the same.

Wow – you must be really confused as to why it is worldwide that bombing and violence on grass roots level is being done mostly by people who are quoting from the Quar’an.
You must be scratching your head as to why there are so few Budhist bombers, or christian or jewish or ..

So, if you really think all religions are the same: let’s have some evidence for this view regards islam and christianity then:
Back to Jesus and Mohammed – can you list the things that they did in common? Said in common? Instructed their followers in common?

justvisting – you always turn up on this blog when something mentioning Islam is written and keep copying and pasting the same texts telling us how Muslims are so evil etc etc. It’s getting rather tiring – please stick to the issue

It’s a classic technique, Just Visiting, to claim that anyone who asserts their side of the (opposing) argument is emotional and angry.

I’m sure you’d like to believe I am clouded with irrationalities whilst typing to you… that you’d affected me on some raw, emotional level… but the fact of the matter is, I really couldn’t care less either way.

You are not the first deluded Christian, and you won’t be the last.

No, you cannot interpret a statement as raw and as obvious as the one I highlighted as an example multiple ways. If you say killing and raping is okay, then there is no interpretation that states it is not – unless the source was purposefully lying.

If that was the case, the entire book is moot to begin with – so why follow it?

Christian ‘scholars’, of course, claim to know the true interpretation. But isn’t there a little bias, here? They are Christian first and scholars second, so they will interpret it in the best manner that fits their faith… otherwise they wouldn’t be Christian scholars, they’d just be scholars.

Having a PhD in bullshit doesn’t make the bullshit any more credible – it just means the student is further down the rabbit hole than the rest of us.

As far as religion and psychosis goes, yes, I maintain that anyone who believes in fictional characters in the sky and other fantastic nonsense without a shred of proof is suffering from a form of mental illness.

How they hold down a job is obvious. They are smart in many other ways. Religion has nothing to do with intelligence. There are plenty of intelligent people who are rational in every other area of their lives, but will then go on to believe that Jehovah has room for only 144,000 of their kind in a place in the sky.

I have no confusion over religion, and it’s perfectly understandable why some religions offer a greater threat than others. That doesn’t change the fact that brainwashing a person with information that they will never have any way of truly verifying is not inherently evil.

Like Dawkins and his ‘tea cup’ analogy, simply stating that something exists with no proof whatsoever, and infecting that meme into millions of people, does not make it so. If it doesn’t exist, it doesn’t exist. So too it is with the conclusions that any and all religions make.

The only true religion is the anti-religion of science, and plain Humanism.

You describe science’s inherent limitation of not being able to conclude any form of creator, but don’t you see the hypocrisy? Science is simply the study of reality. If studying reality cannot reveal the truth behind any creator, then how do you expect a book written by many different people over the past 2,000 years and modified over time to suit personal preference and interpreted a thousand different ways, to offer you any further clues?

As I said – psychosis.

Just to point out, there was a big survey in the Economist earlier this year showing that actually it was Christianity that was the fastest growing religion in the world.

The growth of any organised religion should be a worry to all of us, because there is more potential to spread hatred and division.

“The growth of any organised religion should be a worry to all of us, because there is more potential to spread hatred and division.”

I disagree with your premise, but why worry about something you can’t affect?

I thought Just Giving was the same propagandist individual that came here back along, simply wouldn’t accept that Jesus can be interpreted to be violent as well as prejudiced, while in the same hypocritical breath would only accept that mohammed can be interpreted as an evil violent person.

He says that you have to investigate where the texts came from, which is ironically exactly my point that he fails to actually follow through on.

Both books are violent and both books are also compassionate…the idea that Christians are the only people capable of interpreting their book as being peaceful and carrying through those messages, and that Muslims cannot, is just the stance of a prejudiced individual with an agenda.

Alas, if we don’t hold to his view then we are emotional, uneducated, unable to comprehend and similar insults. Just leave him go, he’ll pop up each time to defend his religion that has caused so many deaths around the world…leave him to it and ignore from now on I say.

SunnyH

“telling us how Muslims are so evil etc etc. ”

Evil is a word I never used.

You’ve not answered any of the points I’ve raised – why is that?
You’ve made ad homin attacks instead – doesn’t reflect well on you to do that.

“The growth of any organised religion should be a worry to all of us, because there is more potential to spread hatred and division.”

So I interpret that to mean, that in your view, all organised are equally bad.

You have ruled out the possibility that some organised religions are closer to your views than others? May have less potential for hatred and division?

I just don’t see a world like that – I don’t see Budhists as facimilies of Hindus or Jews or muslims ….

So you appear to have in this are of religion, a world view not based on evidence or reality.

I find it hard to believe that anyone can hold that view… do let us know if your view is more nuanced.

Lee

Come on, you’ve not addressed any of the points I’m making.

Why can’t you answer my question: “If you really believe that Jesus and Mohammed said, did and instructed the same things – then let’s hear the details.”

Instead you go off on generalities: “simply wouldn’t accept that Jesus can be interpreted to be violent as well as prejudiced”

“Both books are violent and both books are also compassionate”

Ok, then just tell us about the mainstream Christian group that promote violence based on their interpretation of Jesus’s words: and I’m persuaded.

Conversely, tell us about the mainstream islamic group, who do not believe that apostasy deserves death, despite Mohammed saying that.

Time for facts from your corner.

Just Visiting – you didn’t answer my main question, so I’ll reformulate it:

If the bible is the word of god and if you choose to discard large tracts of it because it does not support current “mainstream” (I wont even begin to point out the problems with that particular use of words) christian practice, then:

a.) what is your justification for doing so (ie why do you choose to discard some parts of the text and retain others)
b.) what effect does this have on the view that the bible (in it’s entirety, not just the nice fluffy bits that you like to mention) is the “word of god”? Surely, if it’s the word of god then it’s all equally valid/sacred/true?

Your use of the “mainstream” yardstick provokes another question:

Mainstream interpretations today are radically different from mainstream interpretations 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 500 years ago, 1, 000 years ago and so on. Why is today’s “mainstream” interpretation any more valid than any of the others?

Now, to your argument that islam is, due to the nature of it’s core text and the actions of the man who founded it, more likely to provoke violence than christianity. The short reponse to that one is “bollocks.” You are quite right that some islamic schools are able to advocate violence based on the authority of the islamic religious canon. If you actually read the bible you will find similar exhortations to stone to death apostates, take the land and other possessions of unbelievers, kill adulterers etc. Christianity, by your argument, is thus equally likely to promote violence because the bible (great big huge enormous chunks of it) advocates, or actually requires, it It’s all about which bits you choose to read and that is what makes most religion what it is, an inconsistent set of prejudices based in the ancient world.

There are, in fact, christian groups not only advocating, but actually practicing, murder of people they feel have offended god, they just don’t have the same high profile in the press that the islamic ones do:

Dr David Gunn (1993), Dr J. Britton & Mr J. Barrett (1994), Ms S. Lowney and Ms A. Nicholls (1994), Dr B. Slepian (199) ……… Dr G. Tiler (2009)

were all murdered in the US (years of death in brackets and the dots indicate that the list is a very long one) by christian anti – abortion campaigners. The most famous of the murderers was probably the Rev (yes Rev) Paul Jennings Hill. Have a look at his website – he doesn’t contribute much any more, he was executed in 2003, but it’s maintained by a christian organisation called The Army of God which, ironically under the circumstances, has expressed “solidarity and approval” of Saudi Arabia’s execution of homosexuals and adulterers.

So, Just Visiting, me old christian apologist mate, please don’t give me any more of your “christianity is the doctrine of peace and love” bullshit, cos it just aint.

Oh, and another thing, yes, I was saying that the evidence for jesus as a real historical figure is pretty sparse. And a sensible response to such a contention is not “what are your sources for suggesting that Jesus never even lived! Serious, historian type sources” because one doesn’t have to prove the non – existence of something or someone, one has to prove it’s existence. So, go on, give me some real evidence (not the bible) that jesus existed. I don’t believe unicorns or dragons existed either and I have never yet been asked to provide evidence to back up this viewpoint so I don’t see why I should with jesus. The burden of proof rests with you.

Joseph

First you wrote:
“Anyone who is religious is suffering a form of psychosis.”
then:
“The only true religion is the anti-religion of science, and plain Humanism.”

This is meanigless.

Regards your Deuteronomy theme – if you say that your interpretation of it can only be that rape and murder are OK, then all you have to do is show me the mainstream christian group who espouse that.

Easy peasy – over to you.

The core question you’re avoiding – let me spell it really bluntly this time:
Did Mohammed and Jesus do, say and instruct the exact same things: 100% identical. Or not.

I bet you don’t answer that.

Richard

>you didn’t answer my main question, so I’ll reformulate it:
>If the bible is the word of god

This thread has not been about a theological debate about ‘the word of god’.
It doesn’t matter whether islamic and christian scholars make explanations that satsify us or not – the point is they are the explanations that satisfy their own groups: and that form the basis of setting normal behaviour for their members.

This thread has been about christianity and islam being different today in what they do and promote.

(Do shout if you don’t agree they are different).

And trying to understand why the differences.
Sure, the scholars of each tradition have explanations for their thinking: and they do that based on their interpretation of their own holy books.

Taking just one specific: islam promotes the death penalty for apostasy: and no christian group does.
That is not a controversial statement.

I’ve made it several times here in the thread, and no one has disagreed.

So christianity and islam mainstreams have different levels of violence in regards to the treatment of apostates.

Fact.

If you choose to respond – can you say whether you’re with me so far.

> Your use of the “mainstream” yardstick provokes another question:
>
>Mainstream interpretations today are radically different from mainstream interpretations 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 500 years ago, 1, 000 years ago and so on.

Really? Can you you give a specific example of what you were thinking of?
One for Islam, one for christianity.

Because Islamic scholars (as I understand it) are adamant that nothing can be added or taken away from what Mohammed said, so they would disagree with you 100%.

As for christianity, as I understand it, it is less about ‘copying the very actions of Jesus’ and more about ‘copying the principles he laid down’: so it maybe it is more likely to have changed. And of course the reformation was a time when some baggage that had got added on to christianity got thrown out, with a new focus back on sticking to the Jesus of the new testament – so the ‘current flavour’ has at least one time changed

But whether anything signiicant and fundamental has changed: or any of Jesus words been now dumped – I don’t know.

Evidence please!

> You are quite right that some islamic schools are able to advocate violence based on the authority of the islamic religious canon.

No No No.
Please respond to the specifics I raise…. _ALL_ mainstream islamic schools believe apostasy deserves death.

Not ‘some islamic schools’. All of them.

It’s mainstream.

> If you actually read the bible you will find similar exhortations to stone to death apostates

Where does Jesus say that?
Evidence please!
And more – if you were right – where are the christian groups who advocate stoning?

Show us your evidence!

> There are, in fact, christian groups not only advocating, but actually practicing, murder of people they feel have offended god…

This is getting frustrating – lunatic fringes who kill abortion doctors, and get no support from any mainstream christian groups are just lunatics and not representative of mainstream christianity.

Please, don’t bring in red herrings that are so easily shot down.

> they just don’t have the same high profile in the press that the islamic ones do

Doh, wonder if the low media profile is because they killed maybe 10 people in the last 20 years… whereas Islamic violence is doing that number very day, or week: worldwide?

> I was saying that the evidence for jesus as a real historical figure is pretty sparse. …I don’t believe unicorns or dragons existed either and I have never yet been asked to provide evidence to back up this viewpoint so I don’t see why I should with jesus. The burden of proof rests with you.

Ha ha ha You’re making yourself look silly now.
Because you’re wrong on two fronts;

i) 2 seconds on google and I found:

“With few exceptions (such as Robert M. Price), scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.”

ii) in debating, if you make the statement, you have to back it up (irrelevant if the statement is regards something existing or not)

“First you wrote:
“Anyone who is religious is suffering a form of psychosis.”
then:
“The only true religion is the anti-religion of science, and plain Humanism.”

This is meanigless.”

–

Why is it meaningless?

All I’m saying is that mainstream religion promotes division, violence, hatred and intolerance, in the name of fantasy that cannot be substantiated.

The only real ‘religion’ (i.e. mental framework) that makes sense to follow is that of a) science (the study of reality, and therefore, the only study that makes sense of data relating to existence and life) and b) Humanism — i.e. what it means to be human, and an appreciation for life as it exists.

How is that meaningless?

—

Regards your Deuteronomy theme – if you say that your interpretation of it can only be that rape and murder are OK, then all you have to do is show me the mainstream christian group who espouse that.

Easy peasy – over to you.

–

Two things here…

1. As Richard has pointed out, there ARE religious groups that follow the Bible true to its original word, and kill and picket in the name of it. He has pointed to some good examples. I would also point to the Westboro Baptist Church, and not to mention, the tens of thousands of mainstream churches every Sunday that regularly preach everyone who doesn’t follow Biblical teachings is doomed to an eternity of hellfire and torture.

2. You’ve answered my point entirely, by stating that mainstream Christians – en masse – reject large chunks of the Bible. Richard inquired about the same. If large portions of the Bible are denounced as no longer applicable (i.e. entire sections on murder, rape, pillaging, baby killing, incest, etc), then what makes you so sure the *good* bits are still applicable? If any one section can be discarded at will, then how is the rest immune to it? Doesn’t that seem a little odd to you that you, as an insignificant human being, can decide what portion of God’s word you can choose to ignore? It’s arrogance of the highest level!

—-

The core question you’re avoiding – let me spell it really bluntly this time:
Did Mohammed and Jesus do, say and instruct the exact same things: 100% identical. Or not.

I bet you don’t answer that.

—-

Well, I personally don’t believe that Jesus ever existed, nor was I alive 2,000 years ago, so how could I possibly know what two people from a point in history said to each other?

All I have to go on is historical accounts — flawed historical accounts that, at best, are tantamount to Chinese Whispers, and at worst, are plagiarized stories as debunked by the documentary Zeitgeist.

It seems like a pretty pointless question to ask me, and I don’t see what relevance it has on this whole debate.

Joseph

You still missed my question: – let me make it clearer: according to what is written about them in their respective traditions: did Mohammed and Jesus do, say and instruct the exact same things: 100% identical. Or not.

Secondly:
Your view is that Jesus never lived… Looks like you and Richard F are both in the some boat – so keen not to believe in Jesus, that you stand against the accumulated wisdom of mainsteam historians; who say he did live.

Sunny, Richard, Lee, etc

If any of you guys are planning to chip in again – can ask you first to give your views on my question in 27 – above.

Just Visiting, to sum up your arguments in general:

a. You keep referring to “mainstream” christian groups, without defining what mainstream means, thus leaving yourself the opportunity to dismiss the actions of groups who undermine your argument as lunatics on the fringe.
b. You keep asking people to provide evidence and don’t provide any yourself. An unattributed quote from “2 seconds on google” isn’t evidence of any kind. Your lack of education and unfamiliarity with the norms of logical debate and scientific evidence are showing you up.

Also, stop asking people to respond to points when you don’t do so.

You ask me to “shout” if I disagree that islam and christianity are different. Well firstly, learn to formulate a question in a meaningful way. Of course they are different in that one is based on arabic texts claimed to be revealed by god to mohammed while the other is a tradition based on a series of texts, written over a period of at least 1,000 years, originally in at least 3 languages (aramaic, hebrew and greek) and also purporting to be the word of god. In that sense they are different. In most other senses, they aren’t. They originated in relative close geographical proximity, they claim to be the word of a single god, include similar creation myths and make reference to the same figures and events. They also both put forward similar views on how to deal with misconduct within their respective sects and by people outside them. Please take the trouble to do some reading and you will see that this is so.

“Islam promotes the death penalty for apostasy and no christian group does. This is not a controversial statement.” Actually it is controversial and it’s also both stupid wrong. So, here I am contradicting you. Look at what you wrote:

“Islam promotes the death penalty for apostasy.” Islam, not islamic groups, islam. Why do you rcompare islam with christian groups rather than islam with christianity? Christianity does advocate the death penalty for apostasy, Deutoronomy Ch 13. There are christian groups which advocate this today eg The Army of God.

In response to my statement that mainstream interpretations are different now to those of the past you ask the mind numbingly stupid question:

“Really? Can you you give a specific example of what you were thinking of?
One for Islam, one for christianity.”

You can’t think of any yourself then? How about:

a. The use of burning at the stake as a punishment for heresy, apostasy and witchcraft? That was pretty mainstream in that it was the standard penalty in the catholic countries (more than half the christian world) until the late seventeenth century and continued up to the reign of Cromwell as Lord Protector, in England.
b. Papal condemnation of jews as murderers of christ, only recognised as wrong and apologised for in March 2000.
c. The practice of removing children from jewish parents by vatican authorities in the papal states (continued until late 19th century).
d. Belief in the right of christian states to conquer non christian states (the crusades, the colonisation of america, africa and australia all supported by the various churches of the nations involved).

All of the above have been “mainstream” interpretations of christianity.

You ask for evidence of jesus’s advocacy of stoning for apsotates. Try actually reading what I wrote. My words were “if you actually read the bible you will find similar exhortations to stone to death apostates” and indeed you will. I didn’t mention jesus and I didn’t suggest that he (if he existed) advocated the death penalty for anyone. I said the bible does. Read, once again, Chapter 13 of deuroronomy or exodus 39.

“Doh, wonder if the low media profile is because they killed maybe 10 people in the last 20 years… whereas Islamic violence is doing that number very day, or week: worldwide?” You moron. Anti abortionist christian groups have killed 17 people, committed 153 serious assaults and 3 kidnappings in recent years. These are just the anti – abortionists. If we discuss the bombings of gay and lesbian clubs, threats and assaults against members of the liberal and left wing media, scientists, teachers and political activists the toll climbs pretty quickly so don’t minimise what these idiots are doing in the name of their, and your, god.

Your posts are quite comical and your inability to grasp the basic arguments presented add to this. You still haven’t responded to my questions about the olf testament, but I expect you probably aren’t capable, so I shan’t hold my breath.

Richard:

Richard, I’ll ignore your various ad hominen attacks: the one
who uses them only tends to cast doubt on their own logic.

i) you stated here that you believe Jesus never even lived.

You have so far provided no support for your throught processes in reaching that view.

I said that I didn’t think that view is held by the majority of historians.
You have provided no argument as to why you know better than the experts.

I’ve quoted one source to you that mainstream expert opinion is against you for that: wikipedia (fair cop, I forgot to attribute it, but if you’d googled it you’d have found it immediately), and that page links to loads of other relevant sources.

Time for you to show some reasoning, as to why you know better then the experts.

ii) I asked you to shout if you disagreed that “christianity and islam are different today in what they do and promote.”

You replied that they “both put forward similar views on how to deal with misconduct within their respective sects and by people outside them”

But give no evidence or examples!
How are they similar, do you think?

iii) You said you disagree that “Islam promotes the death penalty for apostasy and no christian group does”

But you did not deny that _all_ mainstream islamic groups advocate the death penalty.
Then you then trot out (again..) some off-the radar anti-abortion idiots that dont represent christianity in any shape or form, and say they advocate it!

Read my lips – you cannot compare mainstream Islamic groups with idiot minority groups that mainstream christians shun.

Compare apples with apples!

I’d fed up of saying this, but you still don’t get it. Arghh..

iv) You write:
> In response to my statement that mainstream interpretations are different
> now to those of the past you ask the mind numbingly stupid question:
>
>> ‘Really? Can you you give a specific example of what you were thinking of?
>> One for Islam, one for christianity.’

And then you fail to give an example for Islam! So not such a silly question then!

Your christian history examples all sound fair enough at first glance.
Once we’ve got your examples from both Islamic and christian side: then we can do a compare and contrast.

Over to you.

v) regards my claim that the deaths by lunatic, fringe groups shunned by mainstream chistians is tiny.

>> Doh, wonder if the low media profile is because (lunatic anti-abortinsists)
>> killed maybe 10 people in the last 20 years, whereas Islamic
>> violence is doing that number very day, or week: worldwide?

You replied in inimitable kind manner

> You moron. Anti abortionist christian groups have killed
> 17 people, committed 153 serious assaults and 3 kidnappings in recent years.

I said 10, the real number is 17. Close enough.
And that over 20 years?
My point is still valid 100%. islamic bombings do that daily or weekly.

Choose a country – OK Afghanistan ; October 8th: martydom operation kills 17 outside Indian embassy on Kabul: there;s your 17 in one go!
ww w.theage.com.au/world/taliban-claim-kabul-bombing-20091008-goxf.html

Or maybe Thailand: Sep 27: 3 killed: ww w.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ij_jygcK5Ww60zB5YssqIRZSJOzg

Or Australia: Sep 25 – Australia how-to jihadist jailed news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8274119.stm

You then write:
> These are just the anti – abortionists. If we discuss the bombings of
> gay and lesbian clubs

You’re not seriously suggesting that even wacko lunatic fringe christians have commited even a tiny fraction of the bloodshed against LBGT that occurs in muslim nations?

Don’t you follow world news?
Hey, start with wikipedia and read up wider from there:
e n.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_topics_and_Islam

>, threats and assaults against members of the liberal and left wing media,
> scientists, teachers and political activists the toll climbs pretty quickly

Threats and assualts are not comparable to deaths.
Anyway, where is your evidence please for the numbers – if the toll climbs quickly, you can show that then?

So my point remains: there is no comparison between a tiny number of deaths committed by whacko, lunatic fringe groups shunned by mainstream christianity: and the much higher number happening within mainstream islamic groups, that are in accordance with islam and are not condemned by islamic authorities.

Your view is that Jesus never lived… Looks like you and Richard F are both in the some boat – so keen not to believe in Jesus, that you stand against the accumulated wisdom of mainsteam historians; who say he did live.

—

Watch Zeitgeist and then name any ‘mainstream historian’ who said it ever did live.

There’s a particular section of that documentary you should pay attention in which it’s made abundantly clear that historians of the day had NO recollection whatsoever of a man named Jesus, or of his so-called miracles.

Of course, that fits, since the story of Jesus is the same of the hundreds of religions that predate it that offer the same dates, names, and events – only the year is different.

As for whether Jesus and Mohammed said similar things–

Well, since they’re both fictional characters and the writers of each novel had the same idea of mass societal control and order, division and hated toward those who opposed, yes, it was pretty much the same deal in either case.

In both books, you can find countless events of murder, rape and other nasties.

What exactly is your point?

It’s pointless continuing this, you don’t even read what anyone writes.

“you stated here that you believe Jesus never even lived. You have so far provided no support for your throught processes in reaching that view.”

Once again, it isn’t necessary to produce evidence to prove the non – existence of anyone or anything. To paraphrase Bertrand Russell, I can’t prove that there isn’t a giant invisible teapot orbiting the moon but that doesn’t mean that I should believe that such a thing exists. No one has produced any convincing historical evidence for the existence of the person called jesus, as described in the bible. A quote from Wikipedia doesn’t count as evidence, regardless of how much you’d like it to. In the absence of such evidence for his existence it really isn’t necessary to produce any evidence against it, but see my questions at the bottom of this post for some idea of why I doubt the veracity of the extant accounts of jesus’ life.

“I asked you to shout if you disagreed that “christianity and islam are different today in what they do and promote.”

You replied that they “both put forward similar views on how to deal with misconduct within their respective sects and by people outside them”

But give no evidence or examples!”

Yes I have. I’ve repeatedly provided quotations from and references to biblical texts which show this. Read what I’ve written.

“Then you then trot out (again..) some off-the radar anti-abortion idiots that dont represent christianity in any shape or form, and say they advocate it!”

I gave several other examples relating to terrorist violence against gays and personal violence against scientists, teachers and political activists. Just dismissing such people as “off – radar” or using your idiotic “mainstream” non – argument really doesn’t make them any less christian. They perform their actions in the name of the religion you are defending and there are a lot of them in the US, not to mention other parts of the world.

You say that I give no examples of current “mainstream” interpretations of islam differing from those of the past. You’re right, I didn’t. The post in which I made the point about current “mainstream” interpretation of religious texts was 36. Once again, try reading what I actually wrote. I was pointing out that your use of the “mainstream” argument as you have applied it to christianity in most of your posts has the weakness of leaving the word “mainstream” undefined and giving you a get out clause when you are confronted by the actions of people who use christianity to justify violent acts. It has a further weakness in that “mainstream” doctrine changes over time and I asked you to explain why today’s “mainstream” doctrine is any more valid than that of, say 50 or 500 years ago. I didn’t mention islamic mainstream doctrine so I don’t really see why examples of change in that area are relevant.

You have ignored the following questions, put repeatedly and in various forms:

a. On what basis do you ignore the old testament?
b. How do you justify your decision to ignore the old testament, in view of the proposition that the bible is the word of god?
c. Can you give a clear definition, with justifications, of the word “mainstream” as you have used it repeatedly throughout all of your posts?
d. Can you explain why the “mainstream” christian doctrine (as you choose to define it) of today has any greater validity than the “mainstream” doctrines of the past?

I’m fairly confident that you wont even attempt to answer any of the above, because you’ve pretty much demonstrated that you aren’t capable of doing so.

But let me add a couple of further questions:

a. Why does the gospel of luke say that joseph and mary lived in nazareth, whereas the gospel of matthew say they lived in Bethlehem.
b. Why does Luke say that Quirinius was the Governor of Syria and Judea at the time when Roman records indicate that he wasn’t?
c. Why does Luke have jesus being born in a manger whereas matthew has him born in a house?
d. Why does Matthew mention the slaughter by Herod of all newly born male children in Judea, but Luke doesn’t? Did it slip his mind/

I doubt that you’ll answer those questions, too.

Just Visiting – a final post to summarise my position, before I go to bed:

a. I think christianity, islam and judaism are in very similar positions with regard to justification of the use of violence in their core texts. This is a matter of fact and none of your inane rambling about jesus or the “mainstream” is going to change that, so get used to it.
b. They are also similar in that they postulate the existence of a single creator god on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. Get used to that too.
c. They are similar in that the christian god is the god of the jews of the old testament (yes he is, read the new testament) and the islamic god is the same god but mohammed is his final prophet and the koran is his authoritative word, or so the muslims believe. All three core texts contain essentially the same creation myth, many of the same characters and similar, or identical, moral codes. Something else you will need to get used to.
d. Your arguments are idiotic in the extreme. In particular, the view that islamic violence is “mainstream” whereas christian violence has nothing to do with christianity is especially amusing.
e. You seem to be a christian with little or no knowledge of the bible. I think you should do something about that, don’t you?

Finally, I’m no fan of islam or, as you may have gathered, religion generally but I do think that islam has the edge on christianity in the following respects:

a. The evidence suggests that it’s core text has remained consistent throughout, at least, the majority of it’s existence. This consistency has been preserved by the insistence that translations into other languages should not be regarded as the koran but as representations of it’s meaning. Contrast this with the bible which was written in at least 3 different languages, none of which are now spoken in their original form and which has been translated and re – translated countless times. There was, in fact no agreed version of the bible until at least the 4th century AD and today the roman catholic, protestant, eastern orthodox, ethiopan orthodox, coptic and other traditions use very different versions.
b. There is rather more evidence for the existence of mohammed than there is for the existence of jesus.
c. Islam’s record on forced conversion, persecution of non – believers and treatment of conquered populations is, if anything, rather less appalling than christianity’s.

I should stress that I am in no way sympathetic to islam, or any other religion. I just like to give credit where it’s due.

48 Joseph

So you don’t believe Jesus ever lived. And you don’t believe Mohammed ever lived.
Ok..

It doesn’t actually matter to this thread: because we’re comparing christianity and Islam and obviously their proponents beliave that their respective founders were real historic characters: and they base their actions and creeds on what they believe them to have done and said.

In fact, Islam also believes ina historic Jesus, as he is revered strongly by Mohammed in the Qur’an: for example miracles are attributed to Jesus, but Mohammed did not do any miracles.

But hang on your reasoning is – because of the movie Zeitgeist?
Is that movie considered an accurate, historic account of Jesus and Mohammed?

Whereas Wikipedia (only starting point for findig out anything of course) says of Jesus:

“With few exceptions (such as Robert M. Price), scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer… ”

and it lists 8 books as source for statement alone: and a total of 117 sources altogether.

Your welcome to your view, but I wonder if you can bring any evidence to suggest it is not out of line with mainstream academic historic experts.

Joseph

>>As for whether Jesus and Mohammed said similar things–
>
>Well, since they’re both fictional characters and the writers of each novel
>had the same idea of mass societal control and order, division
>and hated toward those who opposed, yes

Ok, lets not overlook the fact that christians and muslims believe their founders did exist – so putting aside whether you think they did or not: the question is: from your reading of what Jesus and Mohammed in the Qur’an and the new Testamant: whether you think they did and said the same kinds of things or not.

Richard F

>> “you stated here that you believe Jesus never even lived. You have so far
>> provided no support for your throught processes in reaching that view.”
>
>Once again, it isn’t necessary to produce evidence to prove the non –
>existence of anyone or anything.

Actually it doesn’t matter whether he is a real historic figure or not – because christians obviously do believ it and act accordingly on that they beleive he said and did. Likewise Mohammed.

So our own views as to the historicity, are irrelevant to the question of the differences between islam and christianity, as evidenced around us today.

But anyway: stop playing silly logical symantics games.
———————————————————————————-

If I claimed that Nelson Mandela didn’t exist, you’d bounce the statement back at me and say there are so many sources say he exists – how did you reach your view that he doesn’t?’

Likewise here – mainstream historian/academic opinion is mostly that Jesus did live: see wiki and read onwards from there.

So: tell us how your reached a view in contradiction to mainstream experts in the field!

Oh,. OK, lower down you did write stuff like
>a. Why does the gospel of luke say that joseph
>and mary lived in nazareth, whereas the gospel
>of matthew say they lived in Bethlehem.
> etc…

Err, I don’t know. I’m not a bible scholar.

But the mainstream bible historians have obviosuly read that verse: and their view is that Jesus did live.

I’m guessing, that the historians don’trequire a document to be 100% right, to be a useful historic source (mayube that’s not true -just a guess).

Anyway, it’s not me you must persuade, it’s those historians.

Have you been in contact with any of them, with your thoughts? Bounced your questions off any historians at all?

I knew you’d write another inane post without answering any of my questions.

You can’t, can you?

“Ok, lets not overlook the fact that christians and muslims believe their founders did exist – so putting aside whether you think they did or not: the question is: from your reading of what Jesus and Mohammed in the Qur’an and the new Testamant: whether you think they did and said the same kinds of things or not.”

—-

You’re either blind, ignorant, or a little of both.

I answered that in 48 when I said “In both books, you can find countless events of murder, rape and other nasties.”.

I don’t understand the insistence on the point of whether Jesus or Mohammed did the same things, in the New Testament, the Qur’an or any other made-up religious text.

What difference does it make?

Richard

>> You replied that they “both put forward similar views on how
>> to deal with misconduct within their respective sects and by people outside them”
>> But give no evidence or examples!”
> Yes I have. I’ve repeatedly provided quotations from and references
> to biblical texts which show this. Read what I’ve written.

That was exactly not what was asked for….grrrrr…

You indeed have given loads of text on why _you personally_ interpret the bible as promoting violence and therefore “christianity is equally violent as islam”

But you have FAILED to give examples from christian groups today, and from islamic groups today: that you say have “similar views on how to deal with misconduct within their respective sects and by people outside them”

So, give us those examples of those similar views and actions happening today.

“Anyway, it’s not me you must persuade, it’s those historians.”

—–

So what you’re basically saying is: “I’ve run out of things to say, so go ask someone else who happens to believe the same crap that I do who might be able to tell you something different”.

Nice.

I’m done with you. You’re clearly not all that bright.

Joseph

> I answered that in 48 when I said “In both books, you can find
> countless events of murder, rape and other nasties.”.

You missed the question altogether!
The question was about Jesus and Mohammed -what their holy books say they did and said.

Show me the stories of murder, rape and nasties involving Jesus.
Then the same for Mohammed.

Then we can compare and contrast.

> I don’t understand the insistence on the point of whether Jesus
>or Mohammed did the same things, in the New Testament, the Qur’
>an or any other made-up religious text.

Because the christians and muslims put great store on what they read their founders doing and saying of course!
And last time I checked, church sermons are not promoting rape and murder, so maybe that’s not something jesus promoted either?

Phew – you have some major blindspot here – you clearly do not want to
consider Jesus and Mohammed as portrayed in their respective books.

How else do you think anyone can reach a view as to the similarities and differences between christainity and islam in today’s world – if not by listening to them, understanding their views, and reading and understanding the sources they themselves refer to….

Joseph, stop engaging with him, mate, he’s an idiot.

Just Visiting – actually answer some of the questions that have been put to you instead of recycling the same dreary crap and avoiding the issues.

Joseph

57: So do you really think that your view that neither Jesus nor Mohammed ever lived, is mainstream historians thought?

Yes or no ?

Richard

Regards your repeated ploy of bring in fringe lunatics into a discussion about the mainstream.

You are being intellectually dishonest, in trying to compare mainstream christian/islamic behaviour with that of lunatic fringes.
It’s not apples for apples.

You said lunatic christian fringes killed 17 people in the last 20 years, worldwide.

And have not denyed that these people were loonies, and where totally unsupported by mainstream christian groups

Whereas a compare/contrast with islamic bombings has very different numbers – more like 17/week.

You don’t deny the difference in numbers do you?

So pleeeease, can we now ignore lunatic fringe because:
i) they don;t represent christianity in any shape or form
ii) their impact is microscopic in comparison to islamic violence.

> I gave several other examples relating to terrorist violence against gays

and ignored my comment that they have a much tougher time in muslim countries than they do in judeo-christian influenced ones.

But if you do think there’s an issue for gays – then please lay out your evidence: numbers being killed by christians, numbers by muslims.

Evidence please!

Richard

to help you understand the mainstream/fringe issue -try this analogy:
–
I read in the paper that an atheist kills someone, they citie that the other person deserves to die because of XYZ atheist view points.

Can I now say that ‘atheists are just as violent as muslims and christians and hindus’ ?

NO, not if MAINSTREAM ATHEISM does not support or condone that killing.

NO, not if I can’t show that the scale of such killings by atheists is in the same league as that by christians and muslims and hindus.

QED

Stop rambling and answer the questions I asked you.

Richard – you wanted answers to every line?
You’ve got it.

But it ain’t short….. but it’s what you asked for

>a. On what basis do you ignore the old testament?

I don’t ignore it. But my questions have been about how todays’ christians/muslims act and what they say, and what they say has influenced them – what sources they refer to.

I don’t hear any christian voices anywhere advocating what Joseph listed as his reading of the bible: ‘murder, rape, pillaging, baby killing, incest’.

So I conclude that Joseph is not starting with today’s christians, listening to them and following their stated leads back to their sources in the holy books.

He seems to be trying to interpret it from his own standpoint, outside of the faith viewpoint: and his prime source seems to be Zeitgesit the movie.

In your case, you are doing similarly: and with your stated belief that neither Jesus or Mohammed even lived, it is not surprising that your interpretation differs from christians or muslims.

So I conclude that your and Joseph’s interpretation of the book is wrong: meaning by ‘wrong’ that it’s not an interpretation christians would recognise or follow.

That doesn’t mean that I personally know how christians explain specific bits of the old testament.

But I am sure that any pretty much any christian I asked would immediately say that advocating ‘murder, rape, pillaging, baby killing, incest’ is not mainstream christianity.

Do you get the subtlety there? I am not trying to be a bible scholar or Qur’an scholar myself: I only read the books as led to by the followers of that religion themselves.

In terms of ‘who’s interpretation is true’- I don’t know: but I do know that the christians/muslims have their view of a true interpretation: so I better well listen to that and see what impact it has on their actions.

It’s clear that any interpretation of the books I make on my own bat, is not one that has any influence on how they live or act, anyway.

Phew, I’ve laboured that – but I hope it makes it clear.

You clearly wanted a debate about the correct way to interpret the holy books, and about concepts such as ‘word of god’ impact the mechanics of interpretation.

So sorry, that this thread is not the place you’ll find it – at least not from me.

So yes like you I find the old testament in parts gorey and hard to comprehend.

But the New Testament is the prime source for christianity anyway, so I stick to that, and am happy to conclude that if worldwide christianity does not advocate rape and incest, they have found a way to interpret the old testament that says it doesn’t advocate it! And what matters is: is that it is their view – not whether I personally find that logical or not.

Maybe you’d consider this a value neutral anthropological approach here – using only the evidence of what is done and said: not trying to do in Wikipedia jargon ‘original research’.

> b. How do you justify your decision to ignore the old
> testament, in view of the proposition that the bible is the word of god?

As above, the only time I need to look at the old testament, is following up when a christian quotes from it: reading the verses they quote and how they interpret them.

> c. Can you give a clear definition, with justifications,
> of the word “mainstream” as you have used it repeatedly throughout
>all of your posts?

You’re bring pedantic now, surely..
Mainstream christainity means anglican, presbyterian, catholic, orthodox of it’s various types, protestant types of various flavours like Lutherans, baptists,methodists (some hae different names in different countries. Bigger groupings, not smaller ones. Ones that seem to be within the same ideological/theological framework as the most of the them.

It excludes groups like Jehovah’s witnesses, Mormons, Scientologists etc who do have a character called Jesus in them, but are considered outside the boundaries of acceptable christian doctrine by all the others, because (as far as I understand it), they fail to agree that jesus was both man and god, in one being: and/or that his death on the cross as ‘payment for sins’ means that christians do not earn their relationship with god, but that it is not earnable at all, but a free gift offered, to be accepted.

Phew, I’m sure someone more knowledgeable here will chip in and correct that theology… feel free!

Whereas Lunatic Fringe – are groups that are not part of the mainstream, and hold extreme views in one corner of theology: often taken to such an extreme that they contradict basic christian thought.

Eg, murder in the name of jesus is clearly lunatic and fringe (Jesus said after all, ‘love your enemies’… blesses is the peacemaker…kind of stuff)

So those that kill abortion doctors – are lunatic fringe.
Those that advicate violence against any group (women, gays, non-christians).

> d. Can you explain why the “mainstream” christian doctrine (as you choose to
>define it) of today has any greater validity than the “mainstream” doctrines of
>the past?

I don’t have a view of ‘eternal truth’ if that’s what you mean.

But if I want to understand christians or musims of today, it makes sense to listen and understand their doctrines of today: not harp back to what they were before.

>I’m fairly confident that you wont even attempt to answer any
>of the above, because you’ve pretty much demonstrated that
>you aren’t capable of doing so.

Oh well, that’s a least one thing you’re reached a conclusion rather prematurely about!

>But let me add a couple of further questions:

Phew – you really do want a marathon, don’t you.

> a. Why does the gospel of luke say that joseph and mary lived in nazareth, whereas the gospel of matthew say they lived in Bethlehem…. and etc

As above, I’m only trying to understand what muslims and christians and hindus etc do. And what they say. And what they say the sources for their actions are.

I’m not trying to become a scholar in each of their holy books, and understand how they reach their interpretations.

It’s clearly not an issue I’ve ever heard a christian say is a concern.
Maybe I need to read the new testament myself and see whether there is a logical explanation (they refer to different time periods or…)

But…too late to do that now – and too late to google and see if any christian scholars have commented on that.

Amd for the purposes at hand, I really don’t care.
If christians or muslims or hindus are not saying XYZ is an issue for them, then I can safely ignore it in my attempt of trying to understand what they do and say and why.

>I doubt that you’ll answer those questions, too.

Oh dear, so twice you’ve jumped to premature conclusions…I wonder if you may have done with other issues too…. hummm!

But the New Testament is the prime source for christianity anyway, so I stick to that, and am happy to conclude that if worldwide christianity does not advocate rape and incest, they have found a way to interpret the old testament that says it doesn’t advocate it! And what matters is: is that it is their view – not whether I personally find that logical or not.

—-

If you don’t believe the original teachings of Christianity, then what makes you sure that the ‘new and improved’ version (i.e. New Testament) has any merit whatsoever?

Lets use this analogy:

Say I write a story called “How To Rob A Bank”.

In it, the main theme of that story is about robbing a bank, killing the bank clerks, raping the women, stealing the babies, pillaging the bank, and making off with the money and spoils.

Throughout the story, I tell the tale of how great a life this is… how everyone should rob banks and subscribe to this lifestyle… and anyone who gets in your way and doesn’t come on board your team of bandits, should be forced to subscribe or be executed.

This story pervades for hundreds of years, and many people die in the name of upholding the lifestyle and beliefs that this story asks its readers to subscribe to. People go to buildings one day of the week and worship this story, and speak of ways in which the world should be cleansed of anyone who doesn’t join the group of bandits.

Over time, the people of the Earth get pissed off with this story. They don’t want to speak out against it, but, it’s clear over time that people are tired of the killings, the murders, the rapes, the mayhem. They have grown up and grown beyond it – and they each agree, through their unwritten actions in how they live their lives, that this sort of behavior will no longer be tolerated.

Rather than writing a *new* story – one that opposes these actions and beliefs – they decide to change the facts of the story. Bit by bit, the story is changed. Now it says the robbers are stealing money only for the poor. Next, they don’t kill the clerks, they just tie them up. Finally, they don’t steal the babies, they feed them… and release all the hostages.

Because of the fear this story has instilled in them for hundreds of years, they dare not speak out against the title of the story… or its original author. Instead, they make the content of that story more palatable to suit the mental status quo and boundaries that society – in modern times – has deemed acceptable.

In this case… would it be right to say that you are true to the teachings of me, your original author?

Would it be right to say you subscribe to the beliefs of ‘How To Rob A Bank’.

Or would the story be so far removed, that it – in actual fact – had nothing at all to do with the original story… and could, in fact, be a completely different story altogether?

Now imagine the author wasn’t me… but was God.

That, in a nutshell, is the primary problem with Christianity.

The founding principles are so far removed from original Christianity, that it’s no longer Christianity at all. It’s a bastardized version that’s been made to fit with the consensus of accepted morality, universally, by the majority of human beings… whilst still adhering (through fear and psychological memetic manipulation over the ages) to the original concept of there being a God.

If you’re going to believe something just because a large majority do, at least accept that what you believe is not at all the original ‘word of God’ – but a human interpretation that has changed over and over again, mirroring what humanity deems acceptable.

200 years ago, the principles of Christianity would have allowed slavery, the murder of homosexuals, heretics, those who opposed God-electic positions of nobility, etc.

Today, a person would go to prison for committing those acts in the name of a God.

If you adhere to *current, mainstream* Christianity, that you actually belong to nothing more than a collection of ideas that have been refined over the past 50 or so years… that have nothing to do with Gods or deities of any kind… or Jesus… or the livelihoods of the people of that time.. or dying for sins, or anything of that nature.

What we consider a ‘sin’ today was allowed and fully endorsed in early Christianity, so there’s even no clear definition for some of the absolute foundational principles of your belief system.

If you cannot recognize this, you are either mentally deficient in one of the most simple and logical means of deduction, or you are blatantly ignoring the truth to defend an illogical worldview because it’s too painful to confront.

Which is it?

Richard

>a final post to summarise my position, before I go to bed:

Oh no, not more..

>a. I think christianity, islam and judaism are in very similar
>positions with regard to justification of the use of violence
>in their core texts. This is a matter of fact and none of your
>inane rambling about jesus or the “mainstream” is going to
>change that, so get used to it.

This is where we disagree. You claim it as a ‘matter of fact’.
That claim don;t make it true or course.

You need evidence.

Snd so far tonight you;ve ignored lots of evdience to the contrary

i) you don’t deny that the level of violence today around the world carried out explicitly in the name of islam is hugely more than that of christianity, judasim, hindus, buddhism and etc all put together.

ii) you don’t deny that
Jesus said love your enemies: and Mohammed said kill your enemies where you find them: and that both groups quote these verses as reasons behind some of their actions

iii) you don’t deny that Jesus never killed anyone – but that Mohammed killed many as a military leader, and himself took part in the beheading of unarmed prisonors

iv) you don’t deny that the mainstream Islam promotes the death penalty for adultery, apostasy and denigrating allah – whereas christianity has no death penalties for anything.

You really are in a corner there – I can’t see how you position stacks up.

And as I’ve been courteous and dones as you requested and answered all your questions at length – perhaps could you cover all the points above, one by one.

and PS – just leave out the un-necessary personal digs can you ( ‘your inane rambling’ ) – it undermines your credibility as a rational debater …hope I’ve not been debating all evening with a silly sixth former…

Regarding your so-called ‘answers’ to Richard’s questions… merely writing words and filling space below each of his queries, doesn’t deem them answered.

His questions that are still outstanding are:

a. On what basis do you ignore the old testament?

(You answered with YOUR question – not really an answer at all)

—

b. How do you justify your decision to ignore the old testament, in view of the proposition that the bible is the word of god?

(You referenced the above answer, which was a non-answer… then stated you only looked up the Old Testament for interpretation. Huh?)

—

d. Can you explain why the “mainstream” christian doctrine (as you choose to define it) of today has any greater validity than the “mainstream” doctrines of the past?

(You answered stating that ‘Harping back to the past’ holds no merit. You realize the gross hypocrisy in this statement. Your entire religion is founded on what happened in the past… how can you cherry pick which parts you subscribe to? You either take Christianity for what it is… or you don’t!)

—

a. Why does the gospel of luke say that joseph and mary lived in nazareth, whereas the gospel of matthew say they lived in Bethlehem…. and etc

(You answered again with your OWN question, rather than specifically answering the post. So answer it now – how do you reconcile the inconsistencies? And if even ONE inconsistency is allowed… how can you fully endorse the rest? How are you qualified to know what actually did and did not happen?)

—

As I see it, you have yet to answer even a SINGLE question posted of you, which clearly means you don’t have the answers.

If you don’t have the answers, what the heck are you doing calling yourself a Christian and believing in this nonsense in the first place?

Richard:

> b. They are also similar in that they postulate
> the existence of a single creator god

Arr, so now we get to hear your theology.
Not sure that my theology or your theology matters, its the theology of the the christians and muslims round the world that matters: because our personal theology does not influence their behaviour one jot.

But go on then, if you must.
You say they postulate a single creator god.
True enough.

> on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. Get used to that too.

You mean of course some kind of ‘scientific, lets do an experiment in the lab’ kind of thing.
And in that framework, your statement is true.

But there are many atheistic scientists, who are quite unruffled by the fact that science has no experiments possible on ‘was the universe brought into action before the big bang or whatever the most current scientific model may be, by a god who himself is not created and has no beginnign or end’

So it’s a category error to think that a ‘creator god’ can be treated like ‘ bag of molecules from the world he created’ and tested in the lab.

Basically, even should science explain everything from the big bang to the last nanosecond: it would still be mute on the creator god question.

That’s not my view, it’s one that has been expressed by scientists both faith-based and atheist.

You raise another theology viewpoint:

> c. They are similar in that the christian god is the god
> of the jews of the old testament (yes he is, read the new
> testament)

Yup, still at Year 7 RE studies level so far – nothing controversial yet.

Though as Yr 7 kids would point out: christians do say that the game changes substantially as a result of Jesus life and death: so while god is the same, the way people can interact with him has changed: he is now knowable and relate-able in some new sense.
Amd of course Jewish theology says that their messiah is still not arrived: whereas christains differ saying it was jesus

> and the islamic god is the same god but mohammed is
> his final prophet and the koran is his authoritative
> word, or so the muslims believe.

Yup, that’s what islamic theology says.

It does include Jesus, and offers him high esteem: but only as a prophet: not as son of god as the christian position is: in fact that is serious blasphemey to Islam, as it suggests god having sex to produce an offspring (if I’ve understood that fully).

>All three core texts contain essentially the same creation myth, many of the same characters

I’d agree mostly with that – there are some significant differences – most notably Jesus being the huge difference. There are some smaller differences too: but ignoring the small stuff is fine.
So if you just added that ‘apart from jesus and his role’…. then I’d agree wholeheartedly.

So everything so far is school-kid level stuff.

> and similar, or identical, moral codes. Something else you will need to get used to.

==============
I disagree with that.
==============

Firstly, it was silly to argue that the moral codes could be identical, as it only takes one difference to disprove that.

Lets take…. err role of women. Or errr treatment of those outside of the faith.

christianity and islam are quite different in those regards
QED, they are not identical.

So the onus is now on you -you say they are similar?

Ok spell out the similarites as you see them – and hey, while you are at it, the differences: if you think there are any more than the two just gave.
Let’s hear some compare and contrast on the ‘moral code’ front.

Ps – you know you write above along the lines of ‘I bet you don;t answer this’.

Well, funnily enough, I’d wondering the same about you – wondering if now that it gets to the detail, there’ll be a telling silence?

>d. Your arguments are idiotic in the extreme.

Bles, he does love his little digs, doesn’t he.

Don’t forget, you’ve been wrong twice already in this thread, so it would be prudent to stick to debating the issues. :>)

> In particular, the view that islamic violence is “mainstream” whereas
> christian violence has nothing to do with christianity is especially amusing.

Then stop ignoring the facts I keep putting on the table and stepup to the plate: You silenvce to these facts todate is rather telling…

So how do you comment on these facts;

Facts about the level of violence done by muslims being much higher than done by other religions – worldwide.
Facts about the influence that such protatgonists refer to – they quote the Qur’an so often to justify their actions.
Facts about the very different pictures of Jesus and Mohammed that the different faiths get from their interpretation of their books.

Facts that Islam theology has the death penalty for adultery, apostasy and denigrating Allah.
And christianity doesn’t.

> e. You seem to be a christian with little or no knowledge of the bible.
> I think you should do something about that, don’t you?

Richard, you do a good line in patronising too.
Bugger, looks like I may well have been wasting my time on a smug sixth former, after all?

> Finally, I’m no fan of islam or, as you may have gathered, religion generally

Yup, you’ve made it clear that you’re not fan of christianity.
But I’ve not heard any negatives about any other religion from you yet – so haven’t seen a balance so far.

>but I do think that islam has the edge on christianity in the following respects:
>
> a. The evidence suggests that it’s core text has remained consistent
> throughout, at least, the majority of it’s existence.

Really, give me some sources for that.
Not what I’ve read

> This consistency has been preserved by the insistence that
>translations into other languages should not be regarded as the
>koran but as representations of it’s meaning.

Sorry, that only makes logical sense if you believe that the arabic language itself has stayed frozen since then. If you don’t hold to that, then the Qur’an needs just as much interpretation – it’s like saying a modern person can read Chaucer’s old english and not need help to interpret it!

>Contrast this with the bible which was written in at least 3 different
>languages, none of which are now spoken in their original form

You’re not saying historians should discount any documents just because the language is no longer spoken?
You’re talking greek, aramaic and hebrew here – you’d wipe out half the classical world’s literature!

>which has been translated and re – translated countless times.

Retranslated : what do you mean by that?
Yes there are older english translations than the newer ones -but each time, they have gone back to the oldest source documents available. And what has actually happened, as I understand it, is that over the last one or two hundred years or more through archeology etc, is that older fragments again have been found. And so the bible today is more authentic than it was 500 years ago.

>There was, in fact no agreed version of the bible until at least the 4th
>century AD and today the roman catholic, protestant, eastern orthodox,
>ethiopan orthodox, coptic and other traditions use very different versions.

My knowledge here needs a refresh, so you may well be right on the 4th C bit.

But to say that those various traditions use ‘very different versions’?

What specsific had you in mind?

> There is rather more evidence for the existence of mohammed than
> there is for the existence of jesus.

Oh, so you do think he lived then?
What’s your source on that?
On being more evidence for his life than for Jesus’ I mean.

> c. Islam’s record on forced conversion, persecution of
>non – believers and treatment of conquered populations is, if
>anything, rather less appalling than christianity’s.

Quote me some sources on that?

Christians have of course from time to time done atrocious things, (treatment of Jews at various points for example).
But then so have atheists and vegetarians.
And there’s nothing Jesus commanded or did that for example promoted violence to Jews -after all, he and all his disciples were Jews.

But you seem to overlook for starters, that a quick view of the expansion view of Islam in it’s first 100 years certainly was certainly expansion by military conquest: Mohammed himself did it, and he gave instructions on how it was to be done in the future, and how conquered peoples where to be given the choice to convert or die, or in some cases to become dhimmis (second class citizens, with extra taxes etc).

But anyway – this thread all started on the issue of the impact of christian or islamic growth today -not in the past.

So let’s hear from you on _today_’s islamic and christian viewpoints on treatment of non-believers: the strategy for making believers: how to treat those who want to stop believing.

Just Visiting, you’re an idiot.

@Joseph (55)

If I may interject with your kind permission.Just can’t help it I’m afraid.Its just to painful not to.Being a spiritual Atheist ,I have no alligance to Christianity by the way.
I know that Sunny and others here,think this is just another excuse for Muslim bashing at the slightest opportunity,but the title “The Spread of Christianity” was in itself an early response to articles on Islam,and can hardly be off-topic.

And with Just Visitings permission: Joseph,your question at (55) encapsules the entire point of Just Visiting’s well justified insistence which the religiously-relatavistíc,have been loath to recognise.

(55)Ýou ask: “I don’t understand the insistence on the point of whether Jesus or Mohammed did the same things in the New Testament,the Qur’an or any other made up religious text. What difference does it make.? ”

1) Above and excluding all other considerations,the recorded “legend-myth” of Mohammeds actions in whatever setting, is—according to “main-stream”–”orthodox” Islam ,and its officially sanctioned scholars,to be held up as the prime guiding principal
by those who refer to themselves as Muslims….and Mohammeds conduct is the one and only recognised refference as to how one should behave.,and over rules any other consideration as heresy within, “non-radical everyday” Islam.
This is why even prominent Muslims,are sometimes aghast at our ignorance and even become offended when we constantly ,in vain,wishfully conclude that there are two or many Islams.Any challenge of the text not officially sanctioned is not just heresy it is criminal.
Ergodan in Turkey stated correctly,theré is no “moderate” Islam—-only Islam.And every Imam knows it. Thats why western intellectuals run around in circles looking for the mythical unicorn,Just when you think you’ve found a “moderate “version,it somehow slips through your fingers.
We constantly judge using our western frame of cultural perception.,and this as worked to enourmous advantage for those who wish to cause us damage,and paralysised our society into making a correct assesment of its nature and thereby developing a workable response.
This is “headless chicken” first its there and then it isn’t — dithering among western goverments is ,this ignorance, and hopeless confusion manifesting itself on a daily basis repeatedly.
Another myth is that,each intepretation of Islam depends on which particular translation one reads of the Koran,or who is quoting from it.Once again we are judging according to our cultural expirience,so we cannot imagine any other alternative,because that has become a traditional aspect of our development.

The regretable and unfortunate paradox is, as much as it is difficult to fathom from our perspective, Islam cannot be that which we would accept as moderate and still be remotely anything comparable to present day, officially condoned Isalm.In order for this be possible ,not only would the “abrogated” tolerant edicts cancelled by Mohammed have to be re-established,but the entire foundation stone of Islam would have to be ditched….Mohammed himself.
According to our norms and values ,Mohammed and all of his deeds would not be as he is now, held up as a shining example of moral perfection by the most contemporary experts of jurisprudence throughout Islam.
We condemn,without reservation ,the meerest suggestion that such a cruel and violent roll-model be idolized openly and be the fundament of such a societies laws and values.
And within our midst the true mechanics of its “modus operandi” be finally understood by the Left. which it has failed to do so miserabley..

Those on the Left have expirienced disertion from their ranks by people such as myself,out of exasperation at that which one can only describe as complicity.
Islam was never moderate,it just became de-activated through cultural stagnation for three hundred years and is now re-activated after lying dormant. Now,through lower child mortality rate,death rate owing to western technology, oil wealth and youthful demographics and immigration—-its tribal collective consciousness, senses the possible re-establishment of a former more powerful status-quo. There is no paraniod.-right-wing hysteria here ,We have our own “Tribal collective consciousness”in the west.And only the foolish would gladly undermine our present security,much as it would be to maim ourselves in the leg deliberately in the presence of a cripple,because we deem it a kindness.
The failure is a fatal cocktail comprising the religion and raison d’etre of the western left intelligencia….anti-racism and civilizational guilt.. which by historical accident merges perfectly with the well honed 1400 year old war manual tactic of deception,sediton ,grievance,victimhood- status, intimidation,threats,outrage,demands,concessions and appeasement which took it from non-existence to Tours in France.
And this “taquiyya” is an inseperable aspect of Islam.

My sincere apologies for the unintended length of this post.If its any consolation,I shall pop up´later this evening 11th October,to recieve the tradtional duffing over I have become so accustomed to here. Sally-Brown-Shirt included.
Regards journeyman.

. .

Joseph

I wrote:
–
But the New Testament is the prime source for christianity anyway, so I stick to that, and am happy to conclude that if worldwide christianity does not advocate rape and incest, they have found a way to interpret the old testament that says it doesn’t advocate it! And what matters is: is that it is their view – not whether I personally find that logical or not.
–
and you answer:

“If you don’t believe the original teachings of Christianity, then what makes you sure that the ‘new and improved’ version (i.e. New Testament) has any merit whatsoever?”

Please, read what I have been saying.
This thread is about the impact of the growth today of christianity or islam.
So we’re talking about what christians and muslims do today: and how they explain it from their holy books -what influences what they do and say.

It is NOT whether you or I think that they have followed ‘logical interpretation’ of their book or not. Whether we think it is ‘new improved’ or not.
Our interpretation has no impact on the X billion people of faith round the world.

So the impact on the world of their growth, is not dependent on our interpretation: but on theirs.
What drives what they do and say, ie their own books, and interpretations.

You write:
“The founding principles are so far removed from original Christianity, that it’s no longer Christianity at all”.

So you are now judge of what is ‘original christianity’?

If I want to weigh up the effect of Britain becoming 100% muslim bar me (as someone mentioned earlier in the thread), or 100% christian bar me, or just the way Britain is now: I need to work out what people will do and say: what christians do and what muslims do.

So specifically, what of the core christian message has changed do you think?

You write:
“It’s a bastardized version that’s been made to fit with the consensus of accepted morality, universally, by the majority of human beings whilst still adhering (through fear and psychological memetic manipulation over the ages) to the original concept of there being a God”

I disagree with your view on that, as I can’t see any christian seeing any evidence for that view.

What consensus is christianity supposed to be inline?
What ‘majority of human beings’ are out talking about? You think there is a globally recognised moral code,a nd that christianity fits it? And you think that is bad?

>If you’re going to believe something just because a large majority do,

That is clearly not a 100% logical position.
As a strategy it does have some evolutionary survival benefits of course.

“at least accept that what you believe is not at all the original ‘word of God’ but a human interpretation that has changed over and over again, mirroring what humanity deems acceptable”

Maybe you’re hung up here on the ‘original word of god’ thing.

As I understand it, Islamic theology is that there is a blueprint master Qur’an in heaven: and it was dictated to Mohammed word for word. He didn’t as such write any of it himself. It is therefore an unchanging thing -that cannot be changed -it’s heresy to think of changing it: which is one reason the obsession with the arabic Qur’an being the only legitimate one comes about, and why mulsims in some contries from time to time get sent to prison for producing or distributing versions in other languages.
I guess immutable is the word.

Whereas christian theology never thought the bible was dictated from on high – hey the gospels of matthew,mark, luke and john were given those names because they were believed to have been written by those different guys, from their perspectives as eye witness accounts. And theologians noted early on, that the gospels don’t agree 100% on small details.

So there’s been a recognition from the start that god influenced and ‘had his spirit’ over the creation of the bible: but not that there was an immutable copy in heaven, and that it was no big deal if in the small corners, there were small discrepancies.

And christians are highly aware that christians get it wrong – the bible shows major theological figures like king David and St Peter doing really duff things: and despite that god not giving up on them.
So it’s not a great shock if matt mark luke and john differ in small details.

Its a full credit to the bible scholars over the hundreds and 2 thousand years, that those discrepancies were not airbrushed out but are tere today, and mentioned in the footnotes in many versions.

As discoveries of older manuscripts turned up, the scholars adjsuted the text to be more in line with the oldest sources.

Not much changed as far as I can tell; but it did change.

So given all that, yes what you say is quite true and no problem as far as I can tell to any christian group.
But with the proviso that in the key core areas, the principles of who jesus is and what principles people should follow him apply: that has not changed much.

Or have you specifics in mind?

“200 years ago, the principles of Christianity would have allowed slavery, the murder of homosexuals, heretics, those who opposed God-electic positions of nobility, etc”

True enough – but none of those were core christian theology issues. They were the culture of the day.
There’s nothing Jesus said that mandated those, and so as christians came along brave enough to stand against the culture of their day, they changed things. EG Wilberforce, as a result of his christian views spent what 30 years, fighting vested interests in the UK to change the law on slavery.

You’re right, at the time, the church was at the time in line wth the culture of the day, over issues which today we find abhorrent. But the church got its act together, realised that what it supported was not in fact supportable from the bible, and changed itself.
Same process science uses to revise old models of the world when new data comes along: in this case, the ‘new data’ is normally a return to re-read and reapply what Jesus already said in the new testament.

All sounds noble to me.

“If you adhere to *current, mainstream* Christianity, that you actually belong to nothing more than a collection of ideas that have been refined over the past 50 or so years… that have nothing to do with Gods or deities of any kind… or Jesus… or the livelihoods of the people of that time.. or dying for sins, or anything of that nature”

You use disparaging language ‘nothing more than’ but what is so bad about ideas being refined? And why refined over just the last 50 years – surely you think they have been refined for alot longer than that, as just now you said that today’s christianity is so far removed from ‘original christianity’.

But I’m pretty sure a christian would agree that their worldview has nothing to do with god… or Jesus…
They’d say that it has everything to do with their view of god and jesus, which they recognise is not the same as a hindu’s view of god and jesus or an atheists: but it’s a view they are comfortable with.
They’d recognise that it may be a slightly (much more slightly) different view of god and jesus than the baptists or presbyterians or catholics down the road.

“If you cannot recognize this, you are either mentally deficient in one of the most simple and logical means of deduction, or you are blatantly ignoring the truth to defend an illogical worldview because it’s too painful to confront.”

The ‘this’ you want me to recognise seems to be just the disparaging language you use to describe what is not so bad anyway?

68 Joseph:

Not sure why you’re appointing yourself to speak for Richard (you’re not the same guy under two accounts are you?), but anyway:

> His questions that are still outstanding are:
> a. On what basis do you ignore the old testament?
> (You answered with YOUR question – not really an answer at all)

Sorry, I don’t seen any question I posed in my answer in 65
My answer was pretty full – so you need to spell out – why what I said doesn’t cover it for you.

75 Journeyman – well done for chipping in.

Fraid I haven;t read your whole thing yet

>,to recieve the tradtional duffing over I have become so accustomed to here.
> Sally-Brown-Shirt included.

Well I’ll be happy if someone else can share the duffing.

There does seem to be mire duffing dished out than a sensible debate benefits from – maybe as you post may have gone on tio say, there is a sensitive nerve within the left, about christianity and islam.

Certainly no one here seems to be able to admit there may be differences between what jesus and mohammed said and did ; and between christian and islamic moral codes and actions.

It’s somehow verboten.

>d. Can you explain why the “mainstream” christian doctrine (as you choose to define it) of today has any greater validity than the “mainstream” doctrines of the past?
>
>(You answered stating that ‘Harping back to the past’ holds no merit. You realize the gross hypocrisy in this statement. Your entire religion is founded on what happened in the past… how can you cherry pick which parts you subscribe to? You either take Christianity for what it is… or you don’t!)

OK, so if you’re right it is impossible for anyone to be a christian – convenient for you. Because the church has obviously changed it’s views on some things, (for the better mostly probably): therefore it is impossible to hold to both the old and the new… QED no christianity possible.
You happy now?

It’s your premise that is wrong of course: there is no neccessity for a christian to take on any past position of the church, that is seen from today’s light to not have been inline with the jesus of the new testament.

The church is made of people: and christianity is very comfortable with the fact that even people close to god and his plans screw up too, therefore no surprise that the church has screwed up on the past. (actually catholics have on paper at least a slightly nuanced view on that shall we say, when it comes to the Pope :<)

>a. Why does the gospel of luke say that joseph and mary lived in nazareth, whereas the gospel of matthew say they lived in Bethlehem…. and etc
>(You answered again with your OWN question, rather than specifically answering the post. So answer it now – how do you reconcile the inconsistencies? And if even ONE inconsistency is allowed… how can you fully endorse the rest? How are you qualified to know what actually did and did not happen?)

So why are you guys obessed with minutia – what difference does it make to christian theology or how christians behave today, if was bethlehem or it was nazareth. None.

It’s just not important.
And yes, it’s commn knowledge that the bible has small discrepancies within itself (small issues right on the periphery) – they get mentioned in the footnotes of many versions of the bible! They are just not a secret.
And I’ve never said that I am a bible scholar, so no, I don’t know the answer of the top of my head.

But your obessive attitude has got me going now -so I;ve just looked at the start of Luke and Matthew, and don’t see what you’re on about.
Please quote the verses you mean.

I just looked and Luke says they lived in Nazareth and were in Bethlehem when Jesus was born.
Matthew just talks about Jesus being born in Bethlehem.

Seems like prinary-school level facts here and no contradiction at all: but maybe there’s other verses you’re looking at that I missed?

> As I see it, you have yet to answer even a SINGLE question posted of you, which clearly means you don’t have the answers.
>If you don’t have the answers, what the heck are you doing calling yourself a Christian and believing in this nonsense in the first place?

Didn’t answer a single question? Doh, just coz you don’t like the answers..

And more insults from you that don’t help a sensible debate:

> If you don’t have the answers, what the heck are you doing calling
> yourself a Christian

Well if you’d read the thread, you’d know that I never did come here calling myself a christian. Doh

> believing in this nonsense in the first place?

Oh right, and you’ve said that you don’t believe that either Jesus or Mohammed ever lived at all – in contradiction to mainstream historic thought
And your source is a movie called Zeitgeist?

So what nonsense are you referring to again?

whoops : typo in 77
But I’m pretty sure a christian would agree that their worldview has nothing to do with god… or Jesus…

Should have been:

But I’m pretty sure a christian would not agree that their worldview has nothing to do with god… or Jesus…

I’m not answering for Richard – he seems perfectly capable of doing that on his own. I was curious, like him, why you hadn’t/couldn’t answer his perfectly simple questions.

Of course, I know why – you have no answers.

As for the original topic that lead to this thread, I have no interest in a Jesus vs. Mohammed argument because I believe them both to be non-existent characters.

My questions are relating to your religious beliefs, and that is the topic I have stuck to throughout, which you seem to be shockingly unable to answer.

As for your attack on Zeitgeist (which seems to be largely due to its name?), I suggest you search for it on Google and spend at least an hour of your time watching the first section.

Then come back here and refute anything you’ve just seen with *actual proof* that the story of Jesus wasn’t plagiarized from the religions that predated Christianity, and we can debate this in a logical, sensible, rational fashion.

Until you do that, what you’re spouting is nonsense and drivel, motivated by a psychological deficit that you’re (embarrassingly) scrambling to defend.

In your posts thus far, you’ve managed to…

* Reduce the Bible to playing an essentially non-important role in Christianity (cherry picking which bits you like, and saying all the versus on murder, rape, baby killing, etc simply are to be ignored in favor of what you consider ‘mainstream’ interpretation – btw, I know a number of Christians who refer to the Bible as ‘God’s word’)

* Dodge almost every question posed to you, by answering with your own questions, or picking faults at the number of them vs. actually responding to the topic at hand.

* Request evidence for the NON-existence of God… a scientific, physical and mathematical impossibility, as pointed out by the Dawkin’s ‘tea pot’ test.

* Attacked a documentary that displays (to date) irrefuted (at least substantially and wholly) proof of plagiarism of the entire Christian religion, on the basis that it’s named Zeitgeist.

But what you haven’t actually done is…

* Answer what should be very easy questions, to someone who so adamantly believes in the Christian faith.

And that, really, is what this is all about.

@Just Visiting

There is,as of course you well know a realization that finally clicks,in a “Eurika”type of realization as to the dire nature of Islam and its constant ablity to re- radicalise itself and purge any attempt at reform,moderation and dissent. This process of preserving its core elements are self-perpetuating and regenerating.
In other words,just as a lion is a lion and a horse is a horse–each specialized and evolved to perform a particular purpose, if today theoretically,it were possible to,at the wave of some magic wand ,to erradicate all extreme forms of Islamic radicalism,within a generation or two,it cannot but help to blossom forth the same inevitable and logical outcome of reverting to its former reppresive authorítarian nature. It has the inherent D.N.A and genes of a particular animal from the ground up.
It does not have a comparable counterpart in Christianity and the New Testament ,because Christ mythical or real being percieved as a man of peace, and forgiveness,gave rise to a loop hole which perhaps helped to give rise to more a more humane age of enlightenment. In other words ,a different D.N.A.
I get the impression that in Koranic text,there appears to be an enourmous emphasis on and many edicts´on what to do and how to deal with, Kaffir ,if they refuse to convert,and when they should be killed or just dhimmified.Which I can’t quiet remember finding in the teachings of Christ.
To put it in a nut shell …again….the question ” WHATS THE DIFFERENCE” between both ideologies.
Well,it seems that if I invade,pillage and conquer,it is not condoned by the teachings of Christanity’s prophet, but such actions are condoned by Islams prophet.
Of course one can always say that such actions are condoned in a defensive nature(only,but that rule seems to suddenly be dispensed with whenever convienient.Which brings right back in a circle to ” Taquiyya”-Deception we run around in circles ,not being able to respond or pin it down.But that is because it consciously does not want to be pinned down and “sussed-out”, because then the game is up.This is the very essence of Islam.
No repressive,authoritarian ideology can exist for long without duplicity as its core tenant. The teachings of Christ which seem to have ,like it or not,aided in justifying a more humane and tolerant society,don’t appear to assist in “interpertations of convinience” or duplicity.
By the way, if Islams,edicts condoning violence,are as is claimed, misunderstood,and are justified only as a means of self -preservation,how did they get all the way to the South of France.and the gates of Vienna.

.
.

@Joseph

I have long been aware that much of pagan ideology was incorporated into the Christian religion,and have also seen “Zeitgeist”,but is whether both Christ or Mohammed,were real characters or inventions,relevant in any sense to the original point of the entire discussion.
Hasn’t the whole thing gone of on a side track
Surely the fundamental point is that one society basis its entire culture around the “Myth” of a person who became dictatorial,oppressive,and violent and disavowed his earlier declarations of tolerance and co-existence,when it was militarily convienient.
And sought to impose his will by force,which is not only NOT condemned by Islam .but blatantly held up as a proud example of the perfect being.Which inspired an aggressive war of conquest over several centuries.
‘And who.s legacy, mythical or real ,is rejuventated. And regardless of its attempt to disguise itself , as a reaction to western foreign policy or war of liberation, actually comes in to conflict anywhere it comes into contact with anything other than itself,whenever it aquires the critical mass of demographics to do so.
It does not need to be some monolithic centralized,homogenous entity to create havoc.
Anything appears to serve the purpose of a “cause celebre” ,of victimhood from Cartoons to Salman Rushdie and from Isreal,now Thailand,now Kashmir,now Nigeria
Now which art gallery cancels an exhibition which might offend it,until we begin self-censoring things ,before hand on the off chance they might offend.Now why do I get the felling somebodies trying to take me for a chump.
Come to think of ít ,i don’t have that much respect for palmistry either. .

83 Joseph

> As for the original topic that lead to this thread, I have no interest in
>a Jesus vs. Mohammed argument because I believe them both to be
>non-existent characters.

So what the hell are you doing on this thread? You’ve wasted everyone’s time, because you’re presumably not interested in a compare and contrast of christianity and islam growth today either.

>My questions are relating to your religious beliefs, and that is the topic
>I have stuck to throughout, which you seem to be shockingly unable to answer.

OK, your aganda now comes out – the whole time you’ve simply hijacked the thread to make it personal about my religious beliefs? WTF.

No matter you got frustrated, because not once have I talked about my own religious beliefs: I kept strictly to talking about what christians say about their beleifs and what muslims say about theirs. It was never about me!

Most telling – you have been aggressive to me throughout – thrown in alot of ad hominen attacks on me too.

Why do you have such an issue with christianity/islam issues?

Why don’t you get the point of a simple compare and contrst exercise between religions, writing “I don’t understand the insistence on the point of whether Jesus or Mohammed did the same things, in the New Testament, the Qur’an or any other made-up religious text”

Your keeness to debate religious issues makes no sense when you also say things like:

–
It’s not your fault you think this way – that part of was automatic instillment by other people.
…
What you worship is a religion of hate and intolerance, just like all religions.
If you think otherwise, you have been brainwashed
..
Anyone who is religious is suffering a form of psychosis
…
The only true religion is the anti-religion of science, and plain Humanism
…
No normal, relational person would believe in the fantasy touted by an evil book all on their own, if not for the brainwashing of that information by other human beings. You would not reach those conclusions on your own in a million years, if your logic was not warped by other people.

Journeyman asks more succinctly the question I’ve posed here, and to date no one has answered it.

It’s central to the threads theme of the growth of islam /christianity.

“To put it in a nut shell …again….the question ” WHATS THE DIFFERENCE” between both ideologies.”

Please, please please – why do LC people have such a blindspot here?

Come on out of the woodwork , anyone who is still on this thread – and lets hear some views!

It’s clear than Richard and Joseph were happy to take this thread off to tangents : but have pointedly ignored clear questions such as:

* why the huge disparity of level of islamic violence compared to all other religions put together
* why does mainstream islam theology have the death penalty for adultery, apostasy and heresy?
* how does what christians quote of their founder Jesus compare with what muslims quote of Mohamamed: what impact does this difference have on muslim and christian behavaiour in the UK or anywhere?

The differences are striking! And deserve examination:

Jesus killed no one
Mohammed was a military leader and personally beheaded unarmed prisoners

Jesus said ‘love your enemies’
Mohammed said ‘kill your enemies wherever you find them’

Jesus saved the life of the women caught in adultery.
Mohammed sentenced her stoning

Your questions are not one of religious texts, but of culture and the evolution of individual societies. This is why people aren’t engaging with you, because you are completely unwilling to accept or understand that where we are now in the world is less because of religion and more because of society, governance and where the power lies.

This is why Christian countries like the Congo and Rwanda are still violent places.

Keep limiting the debate if you wish, but no-one is taking you and your one-dimensional prejudices seriously.

@¨Just Visiting

Looks like this lot won’t be out of bed until this evening.No self-respecting Lefty would be seen dead up and about at this time of day…..I know I used to be one.

The last three components of your post ( 87) of course are the central core of the issue, and far from being just one more insignificant difference between religions…is infact the reason that the Left wake up every morning to another article in the Daily Rightie,and moan,” Oh my God not another Muslim bashing article by the Daily Skum, its them wots causing it ”

In other words they actually believe that the symptom–endless media reports on Islamic on an almost 24/7 year in year out basis, from several apparently coincidental disconnected locations around the globe–IS–the disease.

As of yet the penny hasn’t dropped,that ….and eventually the world will run out of ways to explain it……If you live in the 21st century and 2000 years ago,your prophet preached compassion,you have a fair chance that should you happen to live in such a society today it could quiet likely resemble the one you are familar with,but thats no guarantee.

Now comes the important bit.
If you live in the 21st,century and 1400 years ago,your prophet preached,and glorified,murder,mayhem,ragnarok and every vile atrocity under the Sun and is even now elevated to a position of unquestionable perfection,goes a long way to explain why Islam is Islam…as in Saudi Arabia…and we are not.
No sane person,in his right mind,would,in the interest of being nuanced and fair , spend his time being concerned that perhaps each Muslim out of 1.6 billion just might have his own indivdual interpretation of his faith,so we should suspend, and reppress our instinctive reaction to such an alien presence., lest many of the enemy might be quiet resonable chaps.But that is exactly what we do.

Try being in the trenches WW1 and as you see the enemy coming towards you—decide you would rather have a chat with each of them,to single out the good ones before deciding who to shoot. But thats exactly what we do.But of course ,as the opposition displays no such moral dilemma…….best of luck.

The most likely scenerio we are likely to end up with while the enemy is charging at us across the field is that the “wrong ” man will do the “Right” thing—-and the “Right “man will do the “wrong” thing,
In other words,privat squady pimple face yobo,— in his unsophistication will, see the German and blow his head of,
While Captain Highworthy….obsessed with not wanting his situation judgement to be guided by such base black and white instincts will .ponder endlessly over the right and wrongs of this war and the multi.faceted moral nuances involved. And that in the end,all things being relative naturally,that we are just as bad as them.
And thats what in his hedonistic indulgence he does.
That which is the most prime and natural instinct for self -preservation and the ability to even identify a threat is channeled into writing articles about “The Spread of Christianity”

Yeah, those Muslims will never be reasonable or humane thanks to an intepretation of their religious text.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin

See…never ever ever….

Just Visiting – your memory seems a little hazy.

Allow me to clarify.

I gave my belief @6 that Islam represents a bigger threat today that mainstream Christianity does. Very much an “on-topic” post.

Posts 7 + 8 gave some very lucid observations that one reason that they be, is that Islam is still ‘young’ and, like Christianity, had violent beginnings.

In post 11, you stated that Jesus and Mohammed were very different, which gave rope for Richard and others to engage you on the basis that Christianity had a violent past.

In post 16, Lee furthered this to give context to the religious texts, which in earlier posts you had placed such emphasis on.

In post 17, I gave a link to EvilBible.com, to show that the Christian text – and supposed ‘word of God’ and voice of morality – was just as wicked in its leniency (and downright advocation) for murder, rape, baby killing, pillaging, etc.

By this point, I had not even spoken with you. It was YOU that engaged ME in post 23, when you took this look and slated it for being a biased source, defending mainstream Christianity saying that no-one would interpret it that way, bla bla bla (of course, completely ignoring Bible literalists and fringe groups who still subscribe to the Christianity you follow, just without the cherry picking).

So get your facts straight before you accuse me if ‘wasting everyone’s time’.

You started this joust. I merely responded.

It was fun at the start, but now it’s just getting tiresome. I’ll leave you to your spiel and no doubt the 10 posts that will follow talking about something-or-other… nothing of which has much to do with anything.

I’m sure what will follow is some snide hip-hip-hooray for my leaving. Go on, have your fun. I won’t be back to defend it.

Richard, Lee and others – Whilst it pains me we share a planet with these morons, it’s also good to know there are at least a few voices of reason to balance it out. I’ve enjoyed (and agreed) with your posts.

Peace out, everyone – enjoy the rest of your weekend!

@Lee Griffin

Aside from slight variations here and there historically and geographically—there is such a concept as

“the sum total effect”

The sum total effect, wears down and defeats with the death of a thousand cuts.Impercetible.The changes–incremental and insidious–neither noticed nor countered.
No matter who the strangers,.In the end,as much as we deny it, we do so invain .The mechanics of human nature and tribal identiy and loyalty can not be repressed.
to conform to some artificially imposed moral requirement.We are not units ,we are not machines.
Such population intrusions and changes are rarely benign or beneficial and if a last settle down,much pain and anguish is always unavoidable on the journey.Who would welcome such a gamble,considering the stakes at play and if avoidable and is not prudence a virtue ,and if so how ,when,where and in what manner do we exercise it.
The ulimate theoretical question—which may sort out the wheat from the chaff,would be
“If I had a magic wand,and with the knowlege that I have know, I could go back into the past and having the power to reverse decisions that where taken that have led us here,only a lunatic would willingly subject his kinfolk to such changes.if they where at all avoidable…yes ?……No?…..now who is afflicted..?Who is the mad man now Lee
There is no “smart weapon” in social terms that can with surgical precision effectively locate,identify and neutralize each threat on an individual by individual basis,in the cause of superior ideals and infinate justice. .
To do so, would, as it is doing, wear us down in a war of attrition.Until fatigue and apathy sets in.
I would have wished for a more affable group of newcomers. Any are rarely a blessing at the best of times.
Just how untainted,saintly and morally pure must we be before allowing ourselves the same resentments that they would without hesitation justifiably seaze upon should the tables happened to be turned.And they do,in Palestine and everywhere they can.
If you wear the uniform of some faith you must take the responsibiity for it. We treat them like children who don’t know any better.
The stories on a thousand streets don’t tally with your miserable web-link to Saladin–Lee
something must be going wrong.Anything else you got?
Its getting a bit , dangerous for ones health,round where I am –having to look for a safe bolt holt just incase the projectiles start flying.One too many dead now.Time to move.
And only a few short years ago,who would ever have guessed.?
And we aint seen nothing yet,

Joseph 91

> gave my belief @6 that Islam represents a bigger threat
> today that mainstream Christianity does.

Apologies, must have missed that.

Can you expand on what makes Islam the bigger threat – as it seems a minority view on LC – and I wonder how an atheist with such a low opinion of religous people in general does their ‘compare and contrast’.

Richard / Joseph

Remember back in 50 you listed ‘contradictions on the new testament’.

And at first I didn’t respond, because the thread was not about doing a DIY interpretation of the bible (let the christian scholars do thier own interpretation, and we can read it).

So I took 2 minute look in the new testament over your first contradiction:
“a. Why does the gospel of luke say that joseph and mary lived in nazareth, whereas the gospel of matthew say they lived in Bethlehem.”

and I said in 65 that I couldn’t see the contradiction, and asked yu to state chapter and verse.

Well, I;ve now read the first bit of Luke and Matthew – and guess what.

YOUR ‘CONTRADICTION’ IS BOGUS.

Because contrary to what you stated, Matthew does NOT state that they lived in Bethlehem.

I think that’s a big own goal.

So, this just underlines my point – it is pointless to try to do your own DIY bible interpretation, without first seeing what the relevant experts have to say on the matter.

Richard /Joseph

You two are in a big hole: having blown your credibility as logical thinkers.

You have argued here on, a public forum, for a view that is contrary to the mainstream academic thinking in the field: (brave thing to do).

But you then demonstrate that the very root sources you give to underpin your views – are sources that you have not even read or considered for more than a moment!

Because the very first source you quote – does not at all say what you quote!

I recommend that before taking the time to comment on the issue, that you really must show you’ve considered in depth the sources on all sides of the debate.

Read the New testament – a couple of times.
Same with the Qur’an.
Compare and contrast.

Get a couple of books on the life of Christ – from mainstream christian writers.
And ditto on Mohammed’s life.

And after: further reading and research as it takes you.

And after all that, you’ll come out with much greater respect from the LC community than before, if you show that you are willing to revise your views : we have all refined our views over time, and LC is exactly one of the places where folks come to debate and do that.

Lee

sorry, missed your 90 earlier.

You’re using a strawman trick: nobody on this thread has suggested: “Muslims will never be reasonable or humane”

So no need for you to give sources to dispute it.

Sunny

Hi you chipped in a while back, but haven’t followed up my question to your comment.

Been busy I’m sure, but the issue is: having written: ““The growth of any organised religion should be a worry to all of us, because there is more potential to spread hatred and division”

whether you think that all organised religions are equally a worry: or not.