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

I'm bringing up a Biblical scholarly consensus about Mark 16:9-20 being a later interpolation (hell, most Bibles have a comment about the passages being added later). Yes, I understand that the Bible in its current form is the accepted doctrine of Christianity, whoop-de-doo. Does that make it immune from textual criticism? People need to know the history of the book that they hold as the basis for their worldview. I see no reason why anybody would want to base their theological argument, like you did, on forgery.

 

Catholic doctrine specifically. The divine rule of "Christian" rulers was purely an invention of European empires. Protestant reformation began the process of using the text of the bible to demonstrate the illegitimacy of Devine rule.
Unfortunately the Muslims can use the Koran to demonstrate the illegitimacy of any governance other than an Islamic caliphate that ruled over most of the lands of Islam from 632 until the 1920s.

 

No, but 2013 years of Christian history, beginning with the disciples who knew him best, of a religious zeal to bring the Gentiles into the fold, makes your points purely academic and of no practical effect. And I am an atheist and make no theological arguments.

 

Okay, first off, Christianity as you know it didn't exist for 2,013 years. Jesus wasn't even born on the BC/AD mark of the Anno Domini system and the Gospels didn't appear until 40 years after Jesus' death. Then you have to go through the entire consolidation of the Church AND of doctrine which took hundreds of years. Secondly, the disciples were not one band of like-minded men, they all most likely had different views on what Jesus wanted and what should be preached to whom. The New Testament even brings up a theological spar between Paul and the Apostles.

 

You seem to be drawn to irrelevancy like a moth to a flame.

 

How is any of that irrelevant?

 

I hope as your name might indicate, that you're not Irish, I've heard "800 years of oppression" far too many times....

And lets face facts, US Right doctrine, is based on 2000 - 4000 year old myth.

 

More like a bomb goes off a few weeks ago = bad for those involved in the world today, we all here dwell within, torture on the rack = bad for those involved who lived in the world of 800 years ago, not bad at all for us today, since they've discontinued the practice.

 

All the historical back and forth is worth nothing.

What is Christianity doing TODAY? What is the consensus of 99+% of Christians WRT violence against civilians to further Christianity?

What is Islam doing TODAY? What is the consensus of 99+% of Muslims WRT violence against civilians to further Islam?

They are different. Drastically different. There is no consensus in Islam even in the most modern societies.

 

Your baseless opinion is duly noted.

 

There will always be bastardizations of any given religion by despots and those with twisted minds.

 

Well, half your post was devoted to arguing the precise beginning date of Christian history. Irrelevant to any point I've made. The rest irrelevant because Christianity isn't limited to that portion of the gospels believed to have been written before some specific date. Secondly because it's all irrelevant to the topic of the thread.

 

Well, it certainly was relevant to you saying that the history of Christianity was 2,013 years old.

No, but if we are discussing theology, it helps to know what was actually written first and then later forged in.

YOU were the one that started talking to ME about this. So, go look in a mirror and say that to yourself.

 

That's why I would blame the bastardization of Christianity for the divine rule of emperors and monarchs claiming Christian authority. Not christianity. On the other hand the divine rule of Islamic caliphates from 632 to the 1920s ruled according to the doctrine. And those who have been fighting to bring about it's return, ever since, can use a literal interpretation of the Koran to demonstrate the divine duty to do so.

 

What would lead you to believe that one particular author "accurately reflects the text of the Koran" any more than a Muslim could declare that any specific commentator that serves his agenda unilaterally defines Christianity?

Injunctions to violence in both the Bible and the Koran abound, as do historical instances of depravity in the name of both religions. Certainly, the rabid religionists who had embraced Christianity espoused a scripture that, in their minds, justified murderous crusades, savage inquisitions, brutal pogroms, and factional warfare that ravaged Europe for centuries. An anti-Christian observer would have a wealth of material to seize upon and hold up as the fruit of New Testament thinking if he focused soly upon the failures of a faith.

Rather than strutting around with a prideful, "holier than thou" attitude, it behooves proponents of whatever tradition they find themselves in to follow the better angels of their nature rather than sneer at those of another, or as the Bible admonishes, ""Let the person among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone." (John 8:7)

Or,take a page from the Koran: 17:53, 54. And tell my servants that they should speak in a most kindly manner (unto those who do not share their beliefs).

Contemporary Christian nations,clearly, have made great strides in moral progress as exemplified by raising the status of women as of late, and the ending of gender-discrimination in marriage (an outrage to Shari'a law, to be sure,) and I much prefer what I regard as the more enlightened attitude in those respects, but my inclination to be critical of another religious tradition in these issues does not dispose me to sit in hubristic judgement of the totality of that faith.

 

My point remains the same whether it is 2013 years or 1500 years. Soooo your point was irrelevant to what you choose to respond to.

You were the one who started making claims that Jesus didn't want to include Gentiles in the fold.

 

Yep, to a person who was not you. You were the one that jumped into the conversation, and now you want to jump out because it is off topic? Well, okay, then.

 

Because Qutb's views are so closely reflected in the passages quoted from the Koran.

 

Selected passages reflect your narrow perspective.

If you actually think that any of the world's great religions can be denigrated in this manner, your being very foolish.

 

Well put.
Now with respect to the bastardization of Islam, would you not agree with me that the violent verses within the Koran are used/abused today by those who commit the acts of terrorism as they utilize those verses to justify their acts? The violent verses speak for themselves in the Koran unlike the NT where there are many parables and the meaning is not to be taken literally.

 

Are you of the opinion that the many violent verses within the Koran are not meant literally?

 

I'm still here. Just pointing out that your statements are irrelevant to my points you choose to quote and resound to, while at the same time irrelevant to the topic of the thread

 

Following a strict literal interpretion of Islamic doctrine, isn't a bastardization of Islamic doctrine. It is the application of Islamic doctrine.

 

We agree. The Koran has no parabolic rhetoric as it were. All verses are to be taken literally.

 

Whether violence prescribed in the Bible or the Koran were meant literally when written is irrelevant. The vast majority of Christians and Muslims do not take such injunctions literally now.

Unless Islamophobes are contemplating another round of crusades, it's difficult to determine what they hope to accomplish by maligning the faith of a billion and a half folks of another monotheistic, Abrahamic tradition.

Where, precisely, do they wish to go with their notions?