Is Christianity really as violent as Islam?

The Mosque of Rome is not in the Vatican. Italy is a secular country but the Vatican is a religious state, even if it is small. The Vatican is the equivalent of Saudi Arabia. Mecca is a city not a State. Vatican is a State. Also there are no Christian citizens living in Saudi Arabia, only temporary guest workers.

 

Religious States, Lands, Worlds, Solar Systems, Galaxies and Universes are not compatible with a Golden Rule. Where do you stop your tyranny?

Roman Popery is not Christian; if it were, Jesus would have been convicted by Pontius Pilate for attempting to overthrow Rome.

 

The Vatican city is in essence a church. That is like asking can a church be built on top of the Black Stone in Mecca. I think it can if Saudi Arabia gets wiped off the planet, which looks to be on track within a decade or so if it doesn't change.

 

That's your interpretation of the Golden Rule that it necessarily excludes the existence of religious states.

Btw Jesus was convicted of insurrection against Rome. That's why it was written on the top of the cross he was crucified upon "King of the Jews". Whether Jesus was actually guilty or not is another story, but that was the official reason the Romans had him crucified.

 

Ok, I apologize. Im confusing tribe and clan names. I stand by my point. There is no limitation of the unbelievers or idolaters to those who broke a treaty.

[3.151] We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority,

Not because they broke a treaty but instead because “they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority,”

[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them,… such is the recompense of the unbelievers

Not because they broke a treaty but instead because they are “unbelievers”

[2.193] And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah..

NOT until they stop violating the treaty but instead until “religion should only be for Allah”

[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them.

“Idolaters” the majority of the population of the Arabian peninsula at the time, with no limitation to those who broke a treaty and instead specifying Idolaters “wherever you find them.”

[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth,

NOT because they broke a treaty but instead because they ”do not believe in Allah”.

[9.123] O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).

NOT because they broke a treaty but instead because they are “unbelievers who are near to you”

 

That doesnt mean it will stay that way

- - - Updated - - -

I agree but it doesnt change the facts

 

You could attribute their belief that "there was something wrong with how" homosexuals live, to Christian doctrine. Killing them is a violation of that same doctrine. Killing homosexuals is according to Islamic doctrine.

 

Once again, you're taking single verses by themselves without including the context of the chapter or the historical context. It's like taking a single line from a speech that FDR gave where he says kill the Japanese and going "see, look at this line, it sets no limitations, it just says kill the Japanese"

Well of course, because you only included that individual line to make your point, you deliberately avoided including any context, as we already demonstrated with chapter 9. We already know the context of chapter 9 of the quran, so at this point you're just being obtuse bringing up that chapter again. I am confident you already understand the context of chapter 9 at this point, we've already demonstrated why it is clumsy to to refer to a single verse without reading into the context of the chapter. So what do you do? you do the same exact thing six more times to make your point.

Once again, context....

2.190. Fight against those who fight against you in the way of Allah, but do not transgress, for Allah does not love transgressors.

2.191. Kill them whenever you confront them and drive them out from where they drove you out. (For though killing is sinful) wrongful persecution is even worse than killing. Do not fight against them near the Holy Mosque unless they fight against you; but if they fight against you kill them, for that is the reward of such unbelievers.

2.192. Then if they desist, know well that Allah is Ever-Forgiving, Most Compassionate.

2.193. Keep on fighting against them until mischief ends and the way prescribed by Allah prevails. But if they desist, then know that hostility is only against the wrong-doers.

How long would it had taken you to look at the prior verses? not long at all, but evidently you learn nothing, and continue to find it rational to take a single line from an entire chapter and ignore all context. Do you see how stupid this is? you can't get context from a single line, if you had simply looked into what the prior verses were, you would have seen that the context of the verse was saying to fight those who fight you because of your religious beliefs, and to forgive them if they desist from fighting you. This is so immature, but you know what? if you want to argue religious verses, lets ague religious verses

Deuteronomy 13:
"If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.

12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in 13 that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. 16 You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt, 17 and none of the condemned things[c] are to be found in your hands. Then the Lord will turn from his fierce anger, will show you mercy, and will have compassion on you. He will increase your numbers, as he promised on oath to your ancestors— 18 because you obey the Lord your God by keeping all his commands that I am giving you today and doing what is right in his eyes"


Notice I didn't just cherry pick a single verse by itself? I provided enough of the chapter to give you a full understanding of what the verses mean. Take note, that is how you argue religious verses

 

And you haven't yet shared with us ANY context that shows otherwise. Feel free to.

Nothing in the prior verses contradicts a thing Ive said. Nothing in the entire chapter contradicts a thing Ive said. So not sure of your point.
AND regardless how you or I interpret the verse, we can see how the Muslims, following Muhammads death interpreted the doctrine. With NO SUCH limitation of unbelievers or idolaters to those who broke a treaty. Within 80 years of Muhammads death the Muslims were waging violent jihad against the unbelievers in Spain to the west and Afghanistan to the east, because "they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority,". Because “religion should only be for Allah”. Because they "do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth". Nowhere is there a limitation of idolaters and unbelievers to only those who broke a treaty.

 

No go zone in the USA.
http://conservativefighters.com/news/video-muslims-go-crazy-michigan-attack-christians-stones/

 

That's a good question. But I believe in a creator.

- - - Updated - - -

There are only two options. The "big bang" wasn't the beginning of existence.

 

uhh, yes it does. The sounding verses clearly limit "fighting the unbelievers" to fighting those who already fight you, and to forgive those who desist from fighting you. Once again

2.190. Fight against those who fight against you in the way of Allah, but do not transgress, for Allah does not love transgressors.
2.191. Kill them whenever you confront them and drive them out from where they drove you out. (For though killing is sinful) wrongful persecution is even worse than killing. Do not fight against them near the Holy Mosque unless they fight against you; but if they fight against you kill them, for that is the reward of such unbelievers.
2.192. Then if they desist, know well that Allah is Ever-Forgiving, Most Compassionate.
2.193. Keep on fighting against them until mischief ends and the way prescribed by Allah prevails. But if they desist, then know that hostility is only against the wrong-doers.

Fight those who fight you, do not transgress. Fight them, but if they desist, forgive them. Only show hostility to the wrong doers. Basically, everything limitation you claim isn't there is all there. Now if you want to talk about history and conquest, religion has never repelled conquest. Do you think Christian nations conquered because the doctrines of Jesus told them to? absolutely not. The same is true with Islam, the Quran doesn't say to fight those merely for their differing religious views, it says to only fight those who fight you.

 

Until a reason is known there are near infinte possible reasons.

 

I feel that the most reasonable is God.

 

Religious States can only be compatible with the Golden Rule if the people are at least free to worship as they see fit in private, enfranchised so that change of the State is possible, and have freedom of speech. Understanding that freedom of speech must include verbal speech and written texts, communications, accessible to all. Speech does not have to include porn or public displays of lasciviousness, Gay pride parades... What you see in public in your daily life would not change in Saudi Arabia, only communications would change.

I know some believe the right way is clearly distinct from error, but I just do not see purity of essence of Muslim lands being compatible with a Golden Rule.

One could claim you can have your religion (State) I can have mine, but if the individual has no rights within the State, for changes, it is meaningless in application of the Golden Rule.

It seems flabbiness of mind, unclear communications, impatience for judgement day, and lack of moral fiber by the worst of mankind that needs a landed State religion.

The narrative in Christianity is that Jesus was innocent, and not killed for insurrection, as Pontius Pilate found no fault, but he was killed for what he said. He was arrested not by Rome, but by the Jews that wanted to murder him for speech.

The Koran also claims messengers were killed. A Muslim writer once said, “Hypocrisy is the most hated of God,” if true how can you kill other messengers or reject other communications?

“[7.36] And (as for) those who reject Our
communications and turn away from them
haughtily these are the inmates of the fire they
shall abide in it.
[7.37] Who is then more unjust than he who
forges a lie against Allah or rejects His
communications? (As for) those, their portion
of the Book shall reach them, until when Our
messengers come to them causing them to
die, they shall say: Where is that which you
used to call upon besides Allah? They would
say: They are gone away from us; and they
shall bear witness against themselves that
they were unbelievers” (posted August 30, 2001 10:35 PM)

 

I feel the .most reasonable is energy. But give it any name you like. But I highly doubt its the exact one described in the bible

 

Therefore, if someone in Saudi Arabia converts to the New Age Digambara Technomage religion, and they are attacked they have the right to exterminate all oppressors.

 

Well, we'll both find out someday.

 

Then you have made a choice with no facts to support it

 

Doubtful. Unless you think there is the same consciousness after we die. I don't.

 

Private worship is allowed in Saudi Arabia, including non-Islamic worship, but only in private.

If freedom of speech means allowing people to denigrate and desecrate what the majority community finds to be sacred, how is that compatible with the Golden Rule "treat others as you wish to be treated?" Allowing freedom of speech so people can make cartoons mocking religious symbols and the like is definitely a contravention of the Golden Rule

I agree that genuine criticism of the government especially when the latter is being unjust and oppressive is a right of the people at all times.

The Jewish Sanhedrin had no authority to crucify Jesus, that is why they pressured Pontius Pilate to execute Jesus of Nazareth. The Gospel accounts portray Pilate as reluctant to have Jesus crucified, but nonetheless he did cave into the pressure of the religious leaders and the mobs and ordered Jesus's crucifixion. However, many historians are skeptical that Pilate showed any concern for Jesus, because they argue that the historical Pontius Pilate was a tyrant who had multitudes of Jews put to death in Judea province without blinking an eye. The Gospel accounts perhaps painted a more rosy picture of Pilate due to their wanting to put the blame on the Jews "his blood is on us and our children" and wanting to portray the Roman government in a positive light.

 

I think this goes to a core difference. Whereas Christians do not like the New York “art” of pissing on Jesus, we allow it.

The reason why we allow such freedom is to preserve our own rights, whether it be mocking prayers to Oden, slander of a prophet of Shaitan, or a cartoon of Zeus.

Allowing freedom of speech so people [mankind] can make cartoons mocking religious symbols and the like is not a contravention of the Golden Rule. Anything you do to establish what cannot be slandered or blasphemed, the opposing force can do the same. If you "treat others as you wish to be treated” you are giving them the same freedom you wish to have.

The books of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, at one point or another slander paganism and idolatry, and countless ministers blaspheme against their false gods, oracles, and prophets. In essence, you say, “I am going to treat them differently,” I am going to slander and blaspheme with our book, and from our pulpits, and they cannot reciprocate.

"Matthew 12:30-32: 30 “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. 31 And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."

On some websites, Muslims claim that Holy Spirit (comforter) would be your prophet, which is simply not the case in context. A book or prophet does not ultimately lead us, but the spirit; being led by a spirit was and is revolutionary concept. Then in application of such a Golden Rule, to retain our rights, to say, “We are led by a spirit of truth,” we must give them the same equal rights.

It is an extremely hard thing to do, but in the end, there is judgment day.

Attempts to make Heaven on earth, controlling the clouds, defeating factionalism, and humiliation and scorn on those who disobey, of various Al Quacka and Shiite factions, how is that working out for you?

Claiming that “Allowing freedom of speech so people can make cartoons mocking religious symbols and the like is definitely a contravention of the Golden Rule,” this is what our domestic enemies support:

"The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of [those that believe Vladimir Putin (peace be upon him) is a Prophet of Allah]." (Clinton, deliberate act of betrayal of oath of office and cowardice in the face of the enemy)

"The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of [those that believe the wooden horse is an offering to the goddess Athena]." (Clinton, deliberate act of betrayal of oath of office and cowardice in the face of the enemy)

"We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of [those that believe blacks are Kenites the descendants of Cain and the mark is upon them].” (Obama, deliberate act of betrayal of oath of office and cowardice in the face of the enemy)

 

That's your business. If you don't have a sense of honor what can we do?

Actually Islam upholds the Golden Rule perfectly. The Qur'an says: And do not insult those they invoke other than Allah, lest they insult Allah in enmity without knowledge. Thus We have made pleasing to every community their deeds. Then to their Lord is their return, and He will inform them about what they used to do. (Surah 6:10

The context of the prophecy of the Comforter or Advocate reveals that he is person and not the omnipresent "Holy Spirit": "But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you." (John 16:

The Holy Spirit you are talking about, the Spirit of God, was already present during the ministry of Jesus, for example at the baptism of Jesus, when he descended in the form of a dove (Luke 3:22). But this promised Comforter could only appear after Jesus was gone.
http://www.answering-christianity.com/prediction.htm

 

A commandment to fight against those who fight you isn't a limitation of the fight to those who fight against you. Especially when they are commanded to "fight them wherever you find them"

 

We would be without honor and violating our oaths, to protect and defend the Constitution, to take away the freedom of speech and press to insult beliefs, gods, and practices.

Assuming a person does not know, they are a stranger, is what the verse [6.108] assumes, that is reasonable. The problem is we are not talking about those who do not know. To not insult a false prophet would not be what that is saying. Throughout the entire section there are several insults of people following Shaitans.

How is this not an insult?

16.105 “They only invent falsehood who do not believe in the verses of Allah, and it is those who are the liars.”

This is quite insulting, but he was talking to people, knowledgeable people, who wanted to murder him:

“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.” (John 8:44)

Say, whatever translation you want, verse 16.102, in our view, we do not just rely upon a book or something handed down by others, for recitation, in any controversy, we seek direct guidance from the Spirit of Truth:

John 16:8 in context is not speaking about a man, but the other part of the trinity, the Holy Spirit or Spirit of Truth:

John 16:13 “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.” https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+16:13

The foundation of our laws with regard to freedom of speech have to do with the concept of a spirit, whether it be the Spirit of Truth or the spirit of conscience, not established works of man or verses attributed to God. It just seems illogical from an argument point of view that God would be so weak as to be unable to guide us outside of established books.