yes, some christians think they should carry out god's will, and others don't. the fact that jesus asks god not to rectify the sin against his only begotten son, and the fact he instructs man to "turn the other cheek" means he asks of man to accept persecution and to not rectify sin against yourself.
this is where there is a clear logical divide within christian belief. carry out god's will in punishing sin? or follow jesus' instructions in forgiving all sin, loving your enemies, etc? the same type of liberal thinking as : fight hate with love, kill them with kindness, etc.
muhammad otoh left no sin unpunished and instructed the same, for an enemy of him was an enemy of allah.
there's no record of jesus smiting people, but plenty accounts of muhammad not only smiting people, but taking sex slaves, etc.
if you want to excuse muhhamad's bloody conquests, beheadings, taking of slaves, pedophilia, based on the barbaric time period he lived in, it was all in accordance with allah's will.
but you don't have to excuse jesus for the time period, for the way he lived is in perfect accordance with the most progressive modern society (the kind of society that is historically christian). this is not by chance that muslim societies are the way they are. their god and figurehead are in perfect agreement, whereas god and jesus; it's easy to see how many think they're at odds with one another. and even if they're not, you can come to the conclusion that what is of this earth, flesh, etc is entirely sin, therefor, is a sin to protect through earthly punishment. a lot of ways to construe christianity.....
in short, for christians, passivity is rewarded in the afterlife. for muslims, actions are rewarded.

to be more precise, maybe a muslim itt could clarify what is rewarded in the afterlife, but from what i can gather, it's mainly spreading the faith (jihad). you can argue whether it's peaceful or through violence (i'd assume muhammad's ex, and you could also add, giving to charity, and making the voyage to mecca. w/e, all of these things are still actions, whereas:
christians are for the most part in agreement that as long as you ACCEPT jesus as your lord and savior, DON"T act upon earthly desires (DON"T eat the forbidden fruit), you will get into heaven. these are passive requirements. i mean, even the 10 commandments were all just DON"T DO's.

Uhhhhhhh...

Can anyone tell me, is it lack of knowledge or do people actually dismiss the things they once learned?

As someone who doesnt have great knowledge of history Im constantly baffled by the sheer lack of historic context in our world. Not that it would matter, but if you talk about history might as well do it right?

My assumption is that most people "in power" dismiss it in order to push their own egoistical agenda. And most people "without power" are so overwhelmed by the sheer amount of information being pushed onto them 24/7 that they cant but dismiss/forget it...

adding to festeringZit's post: inbreeding knocks off about 16 iq points on avg.

I'd like to see a citation for this claim. It seems to be an exaggerated value or potentially a conclusion of a particular population (smaller N situation).

Also, I'm still hoping you will address your 10 commandments claim.

for inbreeding and iq:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...l.pone.0109585
the mean for non-inbred in full scale iq is 96.5 compared to inbred which is 72 in this study.
afa 10 commandments, i guess yes, recognizing and keeping the sabbath holy can qualify as a non passive commandment, but at the same time not clear if the instructee is to impose on others or merely himself. if your implying also that the first commandment is non-passive, it isn't, for it's merely acceptance (irrational maybe) and it's not requiring the individual to impose himself outwardly. all of the others check out. most of my argument has circled around the fact that the words of jesus himself are entirely passive (at least the ones the masses know about). pointing out his passive manner vs god's vengeful manner.

Jesus is God to most Christians. Also many think he will come back in a war to end all wars called Armageddon where all non believers will be slain.

LOL? Did you make up a number and then come back with a different study?

Anyway, I raised the question because the number that you can find out there varies depending on the specific definition that's used. The effect varies (for example) with first cousin and full sibling offspring. There's a large meta analysis of 72 countries that gives a much more modest claim of the effect:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e6a...afd72b3585.pdf

------

LOL?

You're going to manipulate "Remember the Sabbath Day" to be "passive" and you think "Honor your father and mother" is passive? These are "don't do" commandments? Good luck with that.

i referenced the 4th slide (shows 6 comparative bell curves).
i think you're missing my overall point (what is the effect this has in the world). explain how honoring your parents entails imposing one's will over another.
if you think this is oppressive, it's only oppression bestowed upon yourself. not an instruction for you to oppress others.
god can be as oppressive as he wants. being there's a choice for man to accept that oppression. it's when god or allah instructs man to oppress man, there's a problem, for the oppression becomes realized in the real world.
for argument's sake, i'll grant you all 10 commandments as violent man vs man actions.
does jesus' words contradict this? yes. love and forgive your enemy. turn the other cheek. obey your master (to slaves). all of these have a central message of being the antithesis of vengeful, not rectifying sin or injustice on earth, and not only accepting, but welcoming your own persecution. maybe you can find a jesus quote where he instructs for sin or injustice to be rectified.

Seventy-one years ago, on Aug. 9, 1945, an all-Christian bomber crew ordered by a Christian President and supported by Christian citizens dropped a plutonium bomb on Nagasaki City, Japan, instantly vaporizing, incinerating, irradiating and otherwise annihilating tens of thousands of innocent civilians, men, women and children. Very few Japanese soldiers were affected.

Romans 13:4
....for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.

Thus Christians can be supremely violent and it can be supported by the New Testament.

Do you see your thesis vaporizing as well?

Why is it always Jesus and the NT instead of Moses and the OT being compared. I mean i know the answer but...

One group is allowed reformation one not.

You don't seem to understand the role of forgiveness in Christianity. Jesus asking God to forgive people's sins is not the same thing as him asking God to not rectify sin.

You should pay less attention to people's rhetoric - this is neither accurate of liberal thinking in general, nor of Christian theology, except perhaps of the Mennonite/Quaker/Anabaptist types.

I don't make any excuse for these stories: the Koran describes and condones evil actions. I'll just note that the Christian Bible also describes and seemingly condones evil actions, such as genocide and murder, pedophilia, cousin marriage, sexual slavery, and so on. I'll also admit that the picture of Jesus given us in the Gospels is of someone more in line with the contemporary mores of Western society than Mohammad, but Jesus is not the only person Christians take as a guide for action in the Bible.

This is false. Jesus seems kind of prejudiced against non-Jews, his views on divorce are not acceptable to progressives, his pacificism would be opposed by most progressives, etc.

What about the Incarnation? Or postmillenialism? These are both theological doctrines that would seem to imply a great deal of concern about the impact of Christianity here on earth. You seem to be picking and choosing here which doctrines to emphasize with no reason behind doing so.

This is just ignorance of the history of Christianity and a simplistic read of how theology impacts society. For instance, Calvinist theology might be read as one of the most passive versions of Christian theology, as it claims that anyone who is saved is predestined to be saved by God's grace alone before their birth and nothing they do on their own can cause them to lose this salvation. Yet Calvinist social norms (most famously discussed in Weber's Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism) focused heavily on showing that you are a member of the elect through worldly success and conspicuous religiosity. It is very difficult to predict how religious ideas will affect society, and I'm skeptical that your attempt to do so here is of much evidentiary value.

Jesus said the law and the prophets could be summed up in the command to love God and to love others. This is not a prescription for a passive "do not" morality. Also, I'm not aware of any passage where Jesus commands slaves to obey their masters, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Fourth... slide? Do you mean Figure 2? And I'm talking about you starting from your original statement about 16 point difference and then quoting something that's a 24 point difference. It's very weird.

I'm looking at your statements and asking you to verify your statements. You said

And when I asked you about it, you said:

So in the original context, you *were* talking about passivity, even though I was challenging your literal claim. But then you went further and said:

Really? You had the chance to read a handful of verses (or even just Google "10 commandments") to see what would come up, and you didn't bother? But now you're trying to change the meaning again to something about oppression?

This is just really, really bizarre.

if that's the best example you can come up with for a non-passive quote from jesus, i think i've gotten my point across.
here's an online hadith you can search through using keywords. in this case "kill"
https://sunnah.com/search/?q=kill
maybe you can find some jesus quotes that are comparable.
*sunnah means practices of muhammad.

if there's confusion, (saw) = muhammad

[QUOTE=Original Position;54815609]You don't seem to understand the role of forgiveness in Christianity. Jesus asking God to forgive people's sins is not the same thing as him asking God to not rectify sin.
[QUOTE]i agree, i don't think most understand, if anyone.
for one, jesus would not ask god to do something he was already going to do. this is really important. this means, either god wasn't going to forgive or he WAS going to forgive along with punishment. either way jesus is requesting the almighty and perfect authority to change his course. unless jesus just said it for dramatic value? [QUOTE]
You should pay less attention to people's rhetoric - this is neither accurate of liberal thinking in general, nor of Christian theology, except perhaps of the Mennonite/Quaker/Anabaptist types.
[QUOTE]all of these denominations don't stem from the same interpretations.
if only islam had this same problem. instead their only "denominations" stem from who is the rightful islamic leader.

[QUOTE]I don't make any excuse for these stories: the Koran describes and condones evil actions. I'll just note that the Christian Bible also describes and seemingly condones evil actions, such as genocide and murder, pedophilia, cousin marriage, sexual slavery, and so on. I'll also admit that the picture of Jesus given us in the Gospels is of someone more in line with the contemporary mores of Western society than Mohammad, but Jesus is not the only person Christians take as a guide for action in the Bible.
[QUOTE]thank you. yeah more in line is an understatement. it's like comparing buddha boy with isis.
[QUOTE]This is false. Jesus seems kind of prejudiced against non-Jews, his views on divorce are not acceptable to progressives, his pacificism would be opposed by most progressives, etc.
[QUOTE]would any of this land him in jail? or make him a national threat like muhammad?
[QUOTE]
What about the Incarnation? Or postmillenialism? These are both theological doctrines that would seem to imply a great deal of concern about the impact of Christianity here on earth. You seem to be picking and choosing here which doctrines to emphasize with no reason behind doing so.
[QUOTE]the doctrines can be as bloody and barbaric as they want. even if the 10 commandments said to kill the non-believers. jesus seems to instruct the opposite.
have you also lost sight of my argument? the difference between the bible(s) and the word of jesus. no, i'm not a theologian. it doesn't take a genius to see a clear difference between muhammad and jesus. let's say both of the books are just as barbaric and violent along with allah/god. if there's a difference between muhammad and jesus, one of them has to be at odds with allah/god or one of the books isn't calling for man on man justice. pick one.

Since your claim that I was contesting was that the commands of Christianity are of the passive, "do not" variety, no you haven't gotten your point across. In fact, I have demonstrated that your point here is false and relies on an incorrect understanding of Christian scriptures. You are here just making a different claim.

Okay. Since forgiveness is absolutely central to Christianity and one of its most distinctive doctrines, I don't agree with you that most don't understand this. Please expand on your claim.

Huh? I can't make sense of this.

Lol, no, this isn't correct at all. Muslims have much greater differences in both practice and theology than just who is the rightful leader.

The biggest difference is that Jesus was a radical prophet type figure, whereas Mohammad was a more of a warlord. You seem to infer from this that all Muslims believe they should be warlords like Mohammad, and all Christians believe they should be prophets like Jesus, but this isn't how religion works.

You're shifting the goalposts. I was contesting your claim that Jesus was perfectly in line with progressive values (which you've never really defined). Now you are using the standard of whether Jesus' views would put him in jail. However, to answer your question, possibly. One popular historical reconstruction of Jesus understands him as a political radical advocating for the overthrow of the government.

What? Postmillenialism and the Incarnation are not particularly bloody or barbaric. Your ignorance of basic Christian theology continues to make your argument unpersuasive.

Also Matthew 10:34
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword."

No, I haven't lost sight of your original argument. You made a claim that because the Christian scriptures are more contradictory than Muslim scriptures that Muslims were not able to hold progressive Western values. I proved this was false by showing that Muslims that live in the US largely do hold values consistent with progressive Western values. Your response to this was to claim that this isn't a representative sample. I pointed out that it wasn't supposed to be, but it demonstrates your claim that that Islam isn't compatible with these values to be false (the actual implies the possible). You never responded to this, so I can only assume you've given up defending your original argument.

Instead you are banking on the differences between Jesus and Mohammad to tell us something important about differences between Christians and Muslims. Now, I do think there are clear differences between Jesus and Mohammad. I also think there are differences between Christian and Islam theology that are causally relevant in their respective histories. But I don't buy your argument that we can justifiably make sweeping pronouncements about the whether Islam is compatible with Western values on the basis of the character of Jesus or Mohammad, or the nature of their respective Scriptures on their own. The historical evolution of religion has much more to do with the contingencies of history, such as the institutions that arise to promote and sustain those religions, the cultural, geographical, economic, and political aspects of the societies in which those religions flourish, the people who are the leaders of these religions during pivotal moments in their history, and so on. Whether it is a fundamentalist Christian trying to understand what Christianity or Islam is by just reading their Scriptures or copying their founding heroes or a critic of religion like Sam Harris, this is a simplistic understanding of religion that misunderstands it nature because they approach it in an overly rationalist manner. Understanding religion, like understanding other social institutions, requires a more empirical approach.

For example, Roman Catholicism has been the largest Christian denomination for the last 1600+ years, but you cannot understand why it is the way it is without knowing the history of the Roman Empire and especially the incorporation of Christianity as its state religion under Constantine and Theodosius. But you will not find this church structure or theology in either the Bible or the life of Jesus, which did not really contemplate Christianity as a state religion.

It was narrated from Ibn`Umar:
The Prophet (ﷺ) stoned two Jews, and I was among those who stoned them. I saw (the man) trying to shield (the woman) from the stones.”
Ibn Abbas narrated:
"The Prophet stoned the Jamrah on the Day of An-Nahr while riding."

It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that the Prophet (ﷺ) said concerning those who do the action of the people of Lut:
“Stone the upper and the lower, stone them both.”
Ibn 'Abbas (RAA) narrated that The Messenger of Allah said, “He who changes his religion (i.e. apostates) kill him.” Related by Al-Bukhari.

Matthew 22:21 Jesus said "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." Romans 13:1 "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God and those which exist are established by God."

jesus predated the bible and leaves much room for christians to ignore pretty much any biblical passage they don't like, by simply following the example of christ.
the quran and muhammad are from the same period. where are muslims supposed to turn to when the quran doesn't meet modern ethical standards?

when jesus asks god to forgive... he would not ask if that was god's intent. whether it means god will not forgive or god will forgive and punish. it's unclear, but unless it's for dramatic purposes, jesus' request MUST be at odds with god's will.

Again Jesus is God to most Christians...

possible break downs:
Matthew 22:21 Jesus said "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."
can easily be construed as:
let the sinners sin and create injustice for god's will is god's own burden to carry out. if we carry out god's will, this would not be rendering god's will to god.

Romans 13:1 "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God and those which exist are established by God."
can be construed as: let yourself be subject to the oppressors, for they were put in place by god.
there's a common motif in all of the teachings i've seen from jesus. not a single one i could find is directed towards the oppressor, but only to the oppressed and neutral. whether i'm correct in my translations, is irrelevant. only the likeliness along with the effects the translations would have.
jesus didn't parrot the bible for it did not exist.
muhammad not only wrote the quran, but explicitly took on god's burden of punishing sinners and instructed the same.

if you're still failing to give any credence to the correlation of these two completely opposite figurehead's and their respective religion's effects on the societies they dominate, then i honestly don't know what else to say. if you want to say both books are barbaric and promote violence, that's fine, but at least one has an exemplary figure to turn to (who is not the book's author).