BILL MAHER: Comparing Islam to Christianity regarding violence is liberal bull.....

I'm not sure what this has to do with my post. You said there were isolated incidences, and I posted a bunch of examples, showing they aren't isolated. Your response is "uh, but Muslims do it more!" That does not work as a rebuttal to you being proven wrong about isolated incidences. I'm not gonna bother with this thread anymore, because I can post link after link of terrorist and other violent activity from Christians, and it won't matter to you, because your type doesn't care about reality. You just apply the No Scotsman Fallacy to Christians, and then, turn around, and blame all of Islam for every incident. It's ridiculous.

 

Yes, you are correct, this is pretty much Catholic dogma. The old law has been abolished due to faith in Christ. However, there are many people that believe the books after the Gospels to be just a later interpolation by Paul, which really they were. A careful reading of the Gospels paints Jesus as not even wanting to spread his word to the Gentiles in the first place, and it certainly makes it appear as if he doesn't want any of the laws to be dismissed.

 

All quotes from St. Paul, who mutated Christianity so that it would appeal to the Gentiles. Circumcision of adults with no pain-killers? No way that would fly, so it went out the window, along with the rest of pre-Pauline Christianity.

 

Pauls writings are in fact a part of christian doctrine. Sooooo not sure of your point.

 

The "Christians" you are refering to in the ethnic wars, were secularized Europeans. Like you. You're a secularized American who appears as Christian in statistics. So if you do something stupid, your actions will be mentioned in history books as things done by Christians.

Like most politically correct left wingers, you have no clue as to what it means to be a Christian or about some people in Christian history who have done a lot of good.

They are oblivious to the fact that some of the greatest things in history, were done by God through Christians. “Surely I say to you, he who believes in Me, will also do the works that I do. And he will do even greater works than these, because I go to the Father” Jesus said. John 14:12

Such as exploring other continents and helping to stop slavery. David Livingstone contributed to bring an end to slavery. As an explorer in Africa, Livingstone and his companions used to stop caravans of slaves led by Muslim slave traders, and sometimes at gunpoint, freed the slaves.

The influence of the Gospel, the saving message of Jesus, has transformed people and nations. William Carey, a Christian missionary to India in the late 1700s and early 1800s, started the first schools for women and untouchables in that country. With God’s help, he also put an end to the religious pagan practices of widow burning and killing newborn infants born with birth defects, in India. Speaking of killing newborn infants, it shouldn't be a surprise that Planned Parenthood is silently approving of that murderous doctor who murdered babies born alive, after botched abortions. They have a pagan satanic mentality.

See a story here about two liberal pro-abortion "ethicists" who argue that killing a baby after he or she is born, should be legalized. They call it "after birth abortion".
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/eth...birth-abortions-as-newborns-are-not-persons/

He also planted the first botanical gardens in India and introduced Hindus to the printing press technology.

For the most part, people’s conscience is more sensitive today to things like slavery, forced prostitution, child abuse, than it was in ancient pagan societies, where some of those things were viewed as normal. This is due to the influence that the Christian faith has had in the Western world. In fact, in parts of the world where the influence of God through Christianity has been minimal, forced prostitution of women and children is still widespread and is viewed as a normal part of the culture. These things are happening mostly in societies where Islam, Budhism and Hinduism are the predominant religions.

Michael Faraday, famous for his contributions to physics, was a devout Christian. He believed the Bible, and that didn’t stop him from being a great scientist.

All these people were followers of Jesus Christ and believers in God.

 

Here's some very recent news, it shows the double standards and hypocrisy about this whole topic.

http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/301008-political-commissars-rise-us-military.html

 

I don't know where people get this from.

Jesus didn't want the faith to go to the Gentiles and he didn't want to abolish the punishments for certain sins in the Old Testament?!

Yes, he did. In the New Testament, in Luke chapter 4, starting in verse 16, where it's recorded about his going to the synagogue in Nazareth. He read from the Old Testament scriptures a very important passage. It's from Isaiah, and it refers to him, to Jesus saying "I have come to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord".

That expression refers to the fact that God was doing away with the death penalty for certain sins, and was giving everyone the chance to repent and be forgiven, through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Messiah.

Jesus actually did this, when he saved the adulterous woman from stoning. By doing this, he was taking her sin and our sin on himself and then he took the penalty at Calvary.

Jesus then addressed the men in the synagogue and told them of two examples where Gentile people in critical situations were helped by God. In verse 26, about the widow at Zarephath in Sidon. God saved her and her son in that situation.

Then in verse 27, "There were also many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian."

This infuriated those in the synagogue. They were angry at Jesus for giving them two examples of Gentiles who found favor with God. He was actually telling them that they are not so special after all. That God cares about all humans and wants people from all nations to become His believers.

This was before Paul or Peter. It was the vision Jesus had for what would become the Church. The "acceptable year of the Lord" is Anno Domini, the Year of the Lord, the time of grace. The grace that God makes available to all people, and which is mistaken by many for weakness or a change of moral standards on God's part.

 

Ah, you are correct about Jesus preaching to the Gentiles. I definitely mixed up my theology, thanks for the correction!

 

You seem to know very little about Christianity or Islam. Revealing that you are compelled to defend Islam while condemning Christianity. "Grasping for peace" while defending the religion that commands its followers to "fight", "kill", "slay", and "smite the necks" of the unbelievers "until religion should only be for allah"

 

Actually, I know quite a lot. But he was right, and I misspoke. It was either admit that I was wrong or argue from a false premise. I prefer to not have my ideas to be in flux when I encounter new information. Paul was the "apostle" that started bringing the Word to the Gentiles and even though he eventually did heal the Canaanite woman's child after she had to beg him for it, Jesus said this: “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” But, I had forgotten about his pronouncement to the people of his homeland. Forgive me for not being inerrant.

 

Actually, after looking into it further, I recant my admission. It seems that whether or not Jesus wanted the Gentiles to be brought into the fold isn't easily answerable. There are passages such as the one I quoted to Dixon and this one:
"These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them, "Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

But, obviously, there are other parts of the text that say differently. This seems to be just another contradictory part of the Gospels.

 

Mark 16
15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.

 

Too bad anything after Mark 16:8 was never included in any of the original manuscripts and was clearly added by some other author or authors later on.

 

Neither atheism nor religions - Christianity, Islam, Atheism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. - are disposed to violence.

Fanatic religionists are, and they can latch onto any of them as their excuse. No religion has escaped that inevitability.

 

What silliness, the entire book of Mark is just as much a part of christian doctrine as the first part. You only further demonstrate my point. Tortured, twisted and selective interpretations of Christian doctrine are required to use Christianity to advocate for violence against others while the Muslims use a strict, literal interpretation of Islam to advocate for violence against the unbelievers.

 

And in the world today, the religion with the most fanatics who are prone to violence is Islam.

 

And then there is the real world
[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, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust.


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

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

2.216] Fighting is enjoined on you, and h is an object of dislike to you; and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you, and Allah knows, while you do not know.

[2.244] And fight in the way of Allah,...

[2.246] ...May it not be that you would not fight if fighting is ordained for you? They said: And what reason have we that we should not fight in the way of Allah, and we have indeed been compelled to abandon our homes and our children. But when fighting was ordained for them, they turned back, except a few of them, and Allah knows the unjust.

[3.169] And reckon not those who are killed in Allah's way as dead; nay, they are alive (and) are provided sustenance from their Lord;

[4.74] Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah, who sell this world's life for the hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of Allah, then be he slain or be he victorious, We shall grant him a mighty reward.

[4.76] Those who believe fight in the way of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the way of the Shaitan. Fight therefore against the friends of the Shaitan; surely the strategy of the Shaitan is weak.

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

[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, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

[9.111] Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain;

[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).

[47.4] So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them,

 

It's easy for Muslims to read the above words of Allah and conclude-


Islam is not merely a belief, so that it is enough merely to preach it. Islam, which is a way of life, takes practical steps to organize a movement for freeing man. Other societies do not give it any opportunity to organize its followers according to its own method, and hence it is the duty of Islam to annihilate all such systems, as they are obstacles in the way of universal freedom. ...
This religion is really a universal declaration of the freedom of man from servitude to other men and from servitude to his own desires, which is also a form of human servitude; it is a declaration that sovereignty belongs to God alone and that He is the Lord of all the worlds. It means a challenge to all kinds and forms of systems which are based on the concept of the sovereignty of man; in other words, where man has usurped the Divine attribute. Any system in which the final decisions are referred to human beings, and in which the sources of all authority are human, deifies human beings by designating others than God as lords over men.
This declaration means that the usurped authority of God be returned to Him and the usurpers be thrown out-those who by themselves devise laws for others to follow, thus elevating themselves to the status of lords and reducing others to the status of slaves. In short, to proclaim the authority and sovereignty of God means to eliminate all human kingship and to announce the rule of the Sustainer of the universe over the entire earth. ...
After annihilating the tyrannical force, whether it be in a political or a racial form, or in the form of class distinctions within the same race, Islam establishes a new social, economic and political system, in which the concept of the freedom of man is applied in practice. Sayyid Qutb
http://web.youngmuslims.ca/online_li.../chapter_4.htm

 

looking to Muslims to interpret Biblical texts would be every bit as foolish as expecting Xtians to explicate the Koran - especially when a phobic bias is evident in either case.

 

Yeah, that's why I quote muslims to explicate the Koran.

 

Yes, cherry picking to further an agenda is quite common.

Any dishonnest Muslim could similarly quote crackpot headline-grabbing Christian ministers such as the Reverend Terry Jones of the Dove World Outreach Center or the Reverend Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church and pretend they represent the entire faith and not an aberrant faction.

Quite silly, really.


.

 

???? I made no claim of the author representing the entire faith and instead was demonstrating that the author accurately reflects the text of the Koran. Got anything relevant to what you choose to respond to???

 

A sure sign of a weak argument is when you use an 800 year old event as a moral equivalency ruse to dismiss Islamo-terrorism.

 

It isn't silliness, there are parts of the Bible that were later altered. Is that such a shock to you?

 

Silliness because the bible in it's current form is the accepted doctrine of Christianity. You use the same arguments as the Muslims to discredit the bible.