Well I am mad and sad right now. You can clearly see in my post that I am offended.

You claim I said the story of Mohammad is in the Quran but you can't point where I did this. Simply because I did not. You are dishonest.

Just lol at this post. You know how weak poker players can often reveal their low level by limping UTG, or donk betting the flop, or betting 100 into 1300 pots type bet sizing...? (Once you can be sure that they're not a high level player using apparently bad plays to mess with you...)

You just did the debate equivalent. You may be much better than this and simply be trolling, but at this point I'm going to go with my read that you actually have no idea how bad you are.

Look, there is very little chance you have studied theology for five years. There are two things theologians tend to be good at, building arguments and precision of language. Two traits which you have not displayed.

And no, I don't buy the "English is not my first language" excuse from the other thread. This isn't about mastery vs being average at a language, but how you use the skill you do possess.

In short, I don't believe you have studied theology for five years, I don't believe you have ever read the Quran beyond excerpts and maybe some google searches to affirm your existing beliefs. Nor would I surprise me if your knowledge of the Bible isn't all that either.

I believe you are someone who doesn't actually enjoy a debate, but simply someone who enjoys declaring his beliefs loudly enough to drown out others, and who'll default to characterization and lying about his credentials to back it up.

Of course, there is an equally plausible explanation, that you're just a gimmick account.

Bye.

You talked about muhammad in your first post.

You said not to relate him to the hippie Jesus who according to some will come kill all non believers on a horse with a sword.

Hey batair, I appreciate your input, but I don't think this guy will be persuaded about anything by reason.

Actually, he is one of the most intelligent and intellectually honest contributors to this forum. It is still up for grabs whether or not you're particularly intelligent, and it seems clear at this point that you are not intellectually honest.

Your only quality post you've contributed so far is your "cut and paste" job. Stick to cutting and pasting, and maybe things will work out for you around here a bit better.

But the word Quran was not mantioned in my post!
His argument is that the story of Mohammad is not from the Quran, and he claims I made this assertion...

You people are literally insane or trolls.

You mentioned the Koran when you mentioned the two "holly" books!

WHY DO YOU IGNORING THE FACT THAT I WAS WRONGLY ACCUSSED OF BEINNG FACTUALLY INCORRECT.

ALSO YOU NOT ARE RIGHT TO MAKE ME USE CITATION FOR A HISTORICAL FACT. YOU ARE SIMPLY TROLLING ME.

I TALK RELIGION FACE TO FACE WITH PEOPLE LIKE Alain Badiou AND Slavoj Zizek! NOOBS!

Man this is some bottom barrel stuff here.

+1

Thank you atleast adressing my question.

I wrote two separete paragraphs.
First saying that the Quran is far more valiont then the New Testiment.
Second that Mohammad and Juses are completely difrent archetypes.

How do you fail to see that there is no relation between the first and the second paragraph.

You never mentioned the NT!

Lets stop the derail please. I acknowledge that I started this silly conversation and I apologize from ill manners.

Just one last comment:

I was thinking that it is implied, first I compare the NT to the Quran. Then I compare the prophets. And again I am not saying that Mohammad is mentioned or not mentioned in the Quran.

Cheers.

If you want to show that Jesus and Muhammad are different archetypes, you'll need to read the Hadith. Muhammad isn't described in any detail in the Quran, nor is his story.

Though somewhat ironically for your case, most of the Jesus myth can be found in the Quran.

So exactly why you're pitting "Jesus against the Quran" is anyone's guess. My take is that you didn't know he is one of the most important characters in it.

Even after I apologize you still continue your trolling.

Is time that you use a citation. Show me where I put the Quran against Juses. Ok?

I have the Sunni, Shia and Ibadi collections. All of the ahadith. Books you can't buy, you have to reseve them personally! Your assertion that I have no knowledge of the ahadith is simply wrong.

I would apologize for calling you a troll once you support your accusation with a citation.

cheers.

Group thinking ideology is what failed you mr. legtight.

Well, the revelations are pretty damn violent. Killing children of people in revenge, torturing all who does not bear the mark of God, killing with sword, famine and pestilence, killing a third of all men twice, squeezing people to death, having people bite off their tongues and the peaceful Jesus is to rule by sword and iron rod. Of course the revelations are in both books, but the NT doesn't lack other violent passages either.

The fact is that the Quran isn't really more violent than the Bible. Both holy books contain plenty of violence and violent messages, just as they both contain peace and peaceful messages.

This is all of course is fairly irrelevant when comparing the actual religions. The religions are much more than the holy books, and rely just as much (perhaps even more) on interpretation of passages as some literal reading. And fundamentalists tend to cherry-pick, which in books that contain so many contradictory passages works just as well.

It does however have a bearing on your point that the differences between Christianity and Islam on violence should become clear from reading the holy books, which is an unrefined and fairly doubtful claim.

Islam: "Convert or else we'll kill you."

Christianity: "Convert or else we'll keep praying for you."

Okay, obviously this is a gross over-simplification, though it probably contains more than a kernel of truth.

My point is, the violence that has been committed historically by Christians were in all cases being disobedient to their Master (Jesus).

On the other hand, Muslims who have historically "killed the infidel" were being obedient to their master(s) [Muhammad and Allah].

I think you'd be very hard pressed to argue that case historically.

Which is a solid argument for claiming that Christianity's current lack of ability to spread by the sword is no fault of Christianity. Rather we owe it in large parts due to the Peace of Westphalia and the age of enlightenment. Certainly before those events there was little shortage of people dying by the sword of cultures maintaining Christianity as the only way to go.

Islam, lacking such developments in the nations it dominated culturally, was perhaps never tempered in the same way.

Now, perhaps you are tempted to say "no true Christian", but then again... A muslim could do the same thing.

I don't really believe either of you. I think your respective religions contain a lot of violence inherently and I think they are and have been ripe for abuse by people wanting to justify violent acts.

We can reasonably argue that Islam seems to have a bigger problem with extremist violence today, and that it also holds greater political sway used to punish what it deems sinful. I wouldn't disagree, but I don't think that development in predominantly Christian countries is as much "due to Christianity" as much as it is "in spite of Christianity".

Hi, tame-deuces.

Yeah, I try to avoid the "no true Christian" schtick, which is basically the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

Also, I agree that many use religion as a vehicle for violence and control.

Having said that, while I wouldn't say that "no true Christian would promote violence", I would say that "no consistent Christian would promote violence."

Anyway, there is a lot more I'd like to say, but I have to get ready for work, so I'll say more later.

Peace!

I have no issue with someone saying "my form of Christianity is non-violent", from a societal perspective. And of course from a theological perspective you get to say "other forms of Christianity are wrong, and some are not Christian and shouldn't be called that".

But I do think it is important to keep those spheres separate, so that we can actually speak of Christianity as one big movement, without necessarily implicating someone who is a Christian as somehow guilty by association.

Then again, we must afford a Muslim the same opportunity... even if he is hypothetical (as in we don't have many active Muslims on this board).

I agree with tame_deuces on this one. There's a lot of retroactive claims being inserted when we look back over the course of Christianity and try to explain/justify behaviors. If you look back, it would almost certainly be the case that killings that were committed by Christians would have been seen as being a form of being "obedient to Jesus" from their perspective. Being outside of that and having the advantage of a different set of cultural perspectives, we can argue that we see it differently.

A good contemporary example of this are those who voted for Trump on what they would consider a Christian basis. And there are certainly other Christians that would accuse them of being "inconsistent" between their faith and their behaviors (especially as you pull out of the US and think of Christianity as a global movement). But it's going to be really, really difficult to parse that in a manner that lets you draw as clean of a line as you seem to want to draw here.

Consider a scale 0-100 on which religions will graded for violent tendencies: 0 Jainism, 100 murderous apocalyptic cult.

Stipulate Islam as more violent than Christianity for the purpose of explanation, assign values as you will: Christianity 35, Islam 50, whatever.

In such a world, non-Christians in Christian countries equivocate on the difference because of a bias against their locally-dominant religion; liberals equivocate out of a sense of fairness: any act of violence by a Muslim can be met with "but Christians have done violence too, right?" They also fear that in the previous example Christianity 35 Islam 50, acknowledgment of a difference will lead to exaggeration i.e. Islam will be treated like it's proper rating is 80, 90, 100.
This is the world in which we live.

The Lord said:

To enter Paradise you must be free from sin.

To become free from sin you must repent.

To repent you must first of all accept the Ten Commandments.

Then you must show true remorse.

True remorse can only be felt by those who humble themselves before Me.

Only then can sin be forgiven.

Only then are souls fit to enter My Father’s Kingdom.

Your Saviour
Jesus Christ

https://fatherofloveandmercy.wordpre...shed-severely/