I'm surprised no one has posted about this yet, as it's become a really huge thing.
For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, a few months ago, a Danish author wrote a letter to the editor of the Jylands-Posten complaining that he couldn't get anyone to draw a picture of Muhammed for a book he was writing about the found of Islam. Images of the prophet are considerred to be blasphemous in the Islamic faith. This gave the Danish editor an idea, and the newspaper put out an ad seeking cartoonists willing to draw the prophet. They got about nine responses as a result and printed them on a special issue.
Some of the cartoonists took an artistic bent. One of the images shows the cresent moon that is popularely associated with Muslim world and fashioned it so the moon was the left side of Muhammed's face, the star his left eye. Others took a humorous bent, with one image showing a nervous cartoonist looking over his shoulder as he drew his cartoon. Still others decided to go a route that could be potentiall offensive. One comic showed an Islamic man in a turban, with the top half of the turban being a lit bomb.
The cartoonists were paid the equivalent of $73 for these images, along with the promise that they would get byline credit for them. Now they are all in hiding with 24/7 police protection.
The conservative Islamic world has been inflamed by these images, not just the potentially offensive images, just from the idea that Muhammed has been depicted visually, which is not allowwed. There have been protests and riots. One the other day in Afghanistan resulted in the deaths of two people.
The Danish embassy in Beirut.
This is a scary situation. I think most people would have agreed that perhaps Jyllands-Posten should have thought twice about running the cartoons despite having the ability to under free speech, but reaction has been so swift and virulent that it raises a greater issue of what to deal with conservative Islam when it doesn't have respect for the ideals of liberal democracy.
The really sad thing is that this is hurting the normal muslims and people of faith all over the world. The majority of Muslims are getting up in the morning, going to work and school, eating with their families, and then going to bed. The actions of extremists are once again dragging the religion through the mud. At the same time, marginiling the extremists is a bad idea. They're definately there, and there's a lot of them.
I'm in the middle of a crisis with this right now. I'm the Commentary editor of my university paper and I want to do a special section on this, but I'm nervous about even touching the issue as there have been protests and threats in Philadelphia since the Inquirer printed some of the cartoons, and I think I'm a lot more accesible than the Inquirer. And the fact that I pause at all before doing it, not for reasons of respect, but reasons of safety, is a very scary thing.
Out of respect for any potential Muslim readers on the board, I will not post any of the cartoons here, but for those of you who wish to see the original Danish ones you can find them here.
Anyway, more thoughts?
Just saw this and it's pretty funny. 
I have to say this is all completely absurd.
Free speech needs to be upheld. Even if it attacks religion. Anti-Christian? Anti-Jew? Anti-Muslim? Has to be allowed (even if people don't like it. It should be frowned upon, yes, but it can't be outlawed), as long as it doesn't impede upon the civil rights of the targeted group. Freedom from being offended is not a civil right.
But I have to say...what the heck? These guys are going postal over freakin' CARTOONS. Can you imagine what would happen if Hollywood made 'The Last Temptation of Muhammed'?
Just more proof that there will not be peace. Confirmed deaths in at least three countries due to the riots responding to cartoons...Two newspaper editors in Jordan arrested for blaspheme for reprinting the cartoons.
In the west we riot over civil liberties or such nonsense. In the Muslim world they riot over cartoons and allegations of a koran being flushed down the toilet...
It seems that there is a larger population of the "Religion of Peace" willing to kill in order to force their view on others than I first thought.
I used to chide people who said "bomb them all, make a glass parking lot", but lately such a simple answer, genocide, makes frightening sense in that an opponent who is not capable of compromise can only end with the complete destruction of one contender.
Jimro
If anything, all they've done is potentially justified any future racist jabs against them. Yes it's wrong for those cartoons to exist, but when they say "Islam is violent" and then sections of Islam go nuts...
This isn't the same as a bunch of Christians getting up in arms about being mocked, this is actual blasphemy in the strict religious sense to a Muslim. At the same time, you have to admire the savvy of the earliest Muslims in making so many things religious offences - it makes for far more effective and lasting social control.
I mean, what better way to make sure a religion catches on and stays on top? Saying everything that might cause people to question the teaching is blasphemy which is punishable by any measure of violence or death. These people are being raised under the teaching that they will have no end of suffering if they don't serve this purpose without question.
It's a system which breeds fanatics. The more generations that are born into this, the more extreme they will take it.
Anyway, I'm of the opinion that we should be a live-and-let-die global society. We shouldn't always question everyone elses beliefs and take offense when they don't share our views. Bin Laden is claiming that part of the reason for his attacks on the West is how we're all immoral and horrible people. (How this translates into it being his holy duty to murder us, I will never understand.)
Of course, I have absolutely no confidence that the Danish papers were "standing up for free speech" instead of just sticking a finger in the eye of a disliked minority because they are racist. This was an incredibly irresponsible move on the part of the cartoonists and the editors. I mean, the image depicted the prophet Mohammad with a bomb on his head. What was the point of that? "All Muslims are terrorists?" "All Arabs are terrorists?" This went way beyond simple parody and well into bigotry and racism.
The only possible westernized analogy I could come up that would simultaneously combine blasphemy with racism with is this: imagine if a German newspaper printed a caricature of a Jew carrying bags of money with a caption indicating that it were a depiction of Moses. It would be stupid and invective, and no respectable newspaper would do it.
But anyways. As we can see in Exhibit A, there is a mention of a popular terrorist figurehead, who will apparently "Make Europe Pay" for a Danish cartoon which insults the Muslim prophet. (Note that it is EUROPE who will pay, not Denmark or the newspaper, or even the cartoonist.) Exhibit B shows murderous zeal for the Islamic faith.
Drawing a line from point A to point B is easier when there are several points to choose from.
Exhibit C simply shows us that there are, in fact, retarded people all over the world. Having the freedom to say "Freedom of speech can go to hell" seems a tad on the ironic side.
Honestly though, if Muslim terrorism becomes blatant all over Europe, it will be that much easier for the USA to get permission to begin operation "Glass Parking Lot" in the middle east.
I used to chide people who said "bomb them all, make a glass parking lot", but lately such a simple answer, genocide, makes frightening sense in that an opponent who is not capable of compromise can only end with the complete destruction of one contender.
There are 1,200,000,000 muslims in the world. How many are in the riots?
Why do people always blame the whole section of society for what some idiot extremists do?
My best friend spends half his time in church or being a youth minister. Obviously I don't blame all christians for how a few more retarded ones act towards minorities.
Both sides are in the wrong here. Nothing condones the murder of bystanders. And its stupid to openly to something you KNOW is going to piss a bunch of fanatics off so they go kill people.
Quote:
Of course, I have absolutely no confidence that the Danish papers were "standing up for free speech" instead of just sticking a finger in the eye of a disliked minority because they are racist. This was an incredibly irresponsible move on the part of the cartoonists and the editors. I mean, the image depicted the prophet Mohammad with a bomb on his head. What was the point of that? "All Muslims are terrorists?" "All Arabs are terrorists?" This went way beyond simple parody and well into bigotry and racism.
The only possible westernized analogy I could come up that would simultaneously combine blasphemy with racism with is this: imagine if a German newspaper printed a caricature of a Jew carrying bags of money with a caption indicating that it were a depiction of Moses. It would be stupid and invective, and no respectable newspaper would do it.
I remember seeing all sorts of anti-christian cartoons over the years, involving abortion clinic workers praying to Jesus "Please save me from your followers" and other such ilk. Don't forget that in the West we haven't had a single church (the Catholic Church) in about 400 years, and half of our Christian denominations are heretical to the other.
So blaspheme in our culture isn't exactly anything new (I haven't seen any news reports of American Muslims rioting), but to these Muslims, they are experiencing the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Magna Carta all at once, and not handling it too well.
Jimro
I can't see this as a freedom of speech thing due to the fact that it is legal and no one in power is trying to make it illegal. Some have acknowledged the fact that some European countries do have laws that make publishing certain anti-Jewish things (usually surrounding the Holocaust) illegal--unlike the U.S.--which makes some forms of "blasphemy" protected. The freedom of speech argument has never worked for me on this issue due to the fact that there are plenty of things any major newspaper won't print because all people know there's a general expected level of respect to be given by something marketed to the general public--or else the paper will suffer major protests/loss of sales. A major paper could decide that it wants to advocate in its editorial pages that to reduce violence in the U.S. all one has to do is kill all Black babies (bonus points if you know who inspired my comment ;p). The chances of a major paper doing that are practically nil and it has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Of course, Denmark has a small Muslim population, which is one of the many reasons why all the major protesting/rioting is occurring in other places. Most of the other reasons I feel surround the governments in the countries in which the rioting/protesting is occurring.
Anyway, I can't see this as a freedom of religion thing either due to the fact that I haven't heard anyone advocating forcing people to convert to a particular religion.
In the end, I find this all as unfortunate, but expected in the sense that the situation has been boiling for awhile. While the cartoons have turned out to be the "straw that broke the camel's back," all the rioting has more to do with the "outsider" feeling that I believe many Muslims have in many parts of the world and the cartoons have given a tangible thing to focus on besides "foreign policies" or "discrimination." While there have been rioting in countries throughout Asia and Africa, there have also been protests to the cartoons in the U.S. (relatively peaceful or they would've made a lot more news) and Europe (though I heard some of these have had threats). So, while not mentioned so far in this topic, I think a look at where things are happening is just as telling, particularly due to the fact that the countries making the news for rioting/protesting usually are either filled with poor people, uneducated people, oppressive governments, or a combination of those.
Oops, forgot. Srol, trust your judgement on whatever you decide to do. I'm sure you are aware that you will probably receive threats for things at any point because even sports writers get them. There are crazy people everywhere and for everything.
Funny thing is, they didn't even start out as political cartoons. And they were printed several months before this even blew up in Egypt.
And indeed, there's over a billion Muslims. Not every single one of them is gunning for us. These protests go into the several thousands, yes, but thousands =/= billions.
I don't see my Iranian Muslim teacher going up to the blackboard and screaming "INFIDELS! DANISH INFIDELS MUST DIE!!! AND YOU TOO!!!!" He instead said, "Yeah, it's against our religion, and some of the pictures are downright offensive. But does this mean I'm going to go over to Denmark and kill these people because I didn't like what they drew? No. It's archaic and silly!"
If you want to do an article on it, Srol, there's Cagle's website which has some great commentary on the situation. You don't have to show the cartoons themselves if you don't want.
As for me, I'll leave with this possible solution to the problem:
Never mind that he's drawn by an American... ^^;
Riots in 19 Countries, sixteen dead today alone as Muslims in Nigeria burned 11 churches and attacked christians.
www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/af...index.html
Hooray for the religion of peace.
Jimro
It just doesn't make sense to me. 
Racism, homophobia, sexism, those I can understand because you're forever (suppose to be) the same race, gender, and sexual perference. But violent acts against a specific religion is dumb. Espeically sense you can switch religions and that most religions are good anyway
curmudgeonlyskeptical.blogspot.com/
Interesting flash presentation, contains a couple F-Bombs.
Jimro
Racism, homophobia, sexism, those I can understand because you're forever (suppose to be) the same race, gender, and sexual perference.
QUE?
Update, total 45 dead.
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060...NlYwM3MjE-
Considering the 65 Mexican miners who aren't expected to live it seems even more tragic that the bruhaha is over cartoons.
Jimro
Quote:
I mean, what better way to make sure a religion catches on and stays on top?
That's exactly what's wrong with the world's religions today: they're a big, angry, foaming-in-the-mouth competition to stamp eachother out.
I don't see Christians, Jews, or Buddists rioting...
Not a whole lot of foaming at the mouth action going on there...
Jimro
I don't see Christians, Jews, or Buddists rioting...
Not a whole lot of foaming at the mouth action going on there...
Well, Buddhists don't seem to care much, either way, unless it involves Tibet or Chinese freedom.
However, just because Christians and Jews aren't rioting doesn't mean they aren't bigoted in any way. Especially Christians. I have a silly example for it, if you want to hear it, as to how "I am trying to help you improve your writing" turns into a lynch mob with me being a fat lesbian - no, "lezbien" - with AIDS because I OBVIOUSLY don't like what the person is writing, which is Christian-related, and I OBVIOUSLY am slanting Christianity as a whole, so OBVIOUSLY I am going to burn in hell.....
...You get the picture. xx
The last time someone tried to "help improve my writing" It ended with me threatening to smear lambs blood on his dorm room walls and put dead cat heads in front of his door.
Cooki,
I understand that there are bigotted Christians out there, and Christians like me roll our eyes in disgust when they act like that. There are bigots in every religion, and that is the point of religion, to change for the better.
However, had a Muslim killed you for endorsing something that was against the Koran, he/she would be hailed as a her by many fundamentalist Muslims, simply because you are a westerner who believes in silly things like womens rights. If a Christian killed you they would be hailed as a MURDERER.
Of course not all Muslims would embrace your killer, many understand Jihad to be a personal war with our human nature, but there is a LARGE population of Muslims who don't share their modern revisionist philosophy.
Jimro
Oh no, I agree with that, Jimro. I just tend to believe that Christian bigotry has just gone underground in the past 100 years, particularly with the end of the use of eugenics and the Holocaust. It's still around, obviously, with Pat Robertson, the KKK and the Boston Catholic group that said that birth control is the work of Satan even if it's just used to control polyovarian cysts. Just that with the problems escalating in the Middle East after the collapse of European imperialism (since they were effectively masked from the outside world by the colonial presence), the fundamentalist Muslims just gradually took center stage on being the ultimate "bigots", which I think is untrue - they just happen to be louder nowadays, especially after 9/11 for the obvious reasons.
Huh, so you believe that "Christian Bigotry" is only underground and us just waiting for a chance to jump out of the shadows and make everyone live by an enforced standard of morality?
Not going to happen, Pat Robertson may be an outspoken and controversial individual, but his biggest threat is, "You have lost the favor of God!", and the "Boston Catholic Group" is FLIPPING CATHOLIC so they must endorse the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, no matter what that doctrine is, and if you didn't notice "Catholics for Choice" has recieved some pretty strict words from the Bishops.
You don't see Pat Robertson calling for the blood of unbelievers, nor do you see the Pope calling for another crusade.
The difference between Christian fundamentalists and Islamic fundamentalists is this;
Islamic fundamentalists want to kill unbelievers so they get to heaven.
Christian fundamentalists are already going to heaven and want unbelievers to come to faith so they get to heaven as well.
Jimro
Huh, so you believe that "Christian Bigotry" is only underground and us just waiting for a chance to jump out of the shadows and make everyone live by an enforced standard of morality?
I'm not saying it's going to just jump out of the shadows and force people to live a certain way. I'm saying that the forces that drove Christian biogtry were far more powerful in the past than they are now. They still persists in certain ways, however.
Not going to happen, Pat Robertson may be an outspoken and controversial individual, but his biggest threat is, "You have lost the favor of God!", and the "Boston Catholic Group" is FLIPPING CATHOLIC so they must endorse the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, no matter what that doctrine is, and if you didn't notice "Catholics for Choice" has recieved some pretty strict words from the Bishops.
Pretty much what I said above, though I'll say O'Malley's conduct at that same group outing - despite him being an obvious conservative - still disgusted me.
You don't see Pat Robertson calling for the blood of unbelievers, nor do you see the Pope calling for another crusade.
Pat Robertson's called for the death of communists and other world leaders, so I would say he's called for the death of non-believers.
Christian fundamentalists are already going to heaven and want unbelievers to come to faith so they get to heaven as well.
Actually, I heard that the new stipulation on that is that they can't go to heaven unless they each start an FCC letter campaign about the ramapant homosexuality in such satanic shows as "Barney", "Blue's Clues" and "Dora the Explorer." Mainly because "Spongebob Squarepants" is sooo 2004.
Quote:
Actually, I heard that the new stipulation on that is that they can't go to heaven unless they each start an FCC letter campaign about the ramapant homosexuality in such satanic shows as "Barney", "Blue's Clues" and "Dora the Explorer." Mainly because "Spongebob Squarepants" is sooo 2004.
I must have missed that memo...
Oh wait, I get it, you're making fun of my religion!
And concerning Pat Robertson's public statement about calling for the assassination of Hugo Chavez, once again I catch you not doing your homework. Pat Robertson clearly put this in a national security framework, NOT a religious issue.
"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he
thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go
ahead and do it," Robertson said. "It's a whole lot cheaper than
starting a war ... and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."
"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that
we exercise that ability," Robertson said.
"We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know,
strong-arm dictator," he continued. "It's a whole lot easier to have
some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."
I'm sure you expect that everyone has the right to express their viewpoint on world politics and international relations, even Christian Televangelists.
Jimro
Let's compare Pat Robetson's remarks with this...
www.nypost.com/news/natio.../62925.htm
TOP JAIL IMAM IN HATE TIRADE
By NILES LATHEM Post Correspondent
       
March 9, 2006 -- WASHINGTON - The head of Islamic chaplains in the New York City Department of Correction said in a recent speech that the "greatest terrorists in the world occupy the White House," Jews control the media, and Muslims are being tortured in Manhattan jails.
The outlandish remarks were made by one of the city's most prominent Islamic leaders, Imam Umar Abdul-Jalil, the executive director of ministerial services for the city Department of Correction. He spoke at a conference of Islamic leaders in Tucson, Ariz., and was secretly recorded by the counterterrorism organization The Investigative Project.
The recordings capture Abdul-Jalil - speaking at two separate symposiums on Islam in America held by the Muslim Students Association on April 15 and 16 last year - making incendiary charges and espousing extremist views.
Abdul-Jalil, 56, who is also imam of the Masjid Sabur mosque in Harlem, initially denied making the comments - but later admitted to The Post that the tape was most likely accurate and said his words are being "taken out of context."
At one conference session, Abdul-Jalil charged that Muslims jailed after the 9/11 attacks were being tortured in Manhattan, according to the tape.
"They [some Muslim inmates] are not charged with anything, they are not entitled to any rights, they are interrogated. Some of them are literally tortured and we found this in the Metropolitan Correctional Facility in Manhattan. But they literally are torturing people," Abdul-Jalil said.
Abdul-Jalil also accused the Bush administration of being terrorists, according to the tape.
"We have terrorists defining who a terrorist is, but because they have the weight of legitimacy, they get away with it . . . We know that the greatest terrorists in the world occupy the White House, without a doubt," he said.
At another session, Abdul-Jalil urged American Muslims to stop allowing "the Zionists of the media to dictate what Islam is to us" and said Muslims must be "compassionate with each other" and "hard against the kufr [unbeliever]."
Abdul-Jalil, a Bronx resident who said he converted to Islam while at Attica prison in 1970, participated in interfaith reconciliation efforts after 9/11. He recently took part in an educational ceremony with Gov. Pataki on Martin Luther King Day.
"His comments betray an effort to instill hatred of the United States as the enemy of Islam by making a series of false allegations portraying the U.S. as an evil country," said anti-terror expert Steve Emerson, director of The Investigative Project.
"This is a man who is supposed to be spreading words of reconciliation and moderation as head Islamic chaplain - not inciting followers to believe that the U.S. government and 'Zionists' are plotting a conspiracy of persecution against Muslims," Emerson added.
In two telephone interviews with The Post while ministering to inmates of Rikers Island yesterday, Abdul-Jalil insisted that he was not promoting extremism.
He said he was "offended, as an African-American, that someone would have the audacity to question my citizenship" and love of his country.
Abdul-Jalil is the latest Muslim chaplain working for city and state agencies to come under fire.
Last year, the city Fire Department forced Imam Intikab Habib to resign as chaplain for publicly doubting that al Qaeda hijackers brought down the World Trade Center towers and suggesting there was a broader "conspiracy."
Three years ago, Pataki fired Imam Warith Deen Umar, the former chief Muslim chaplain for the state prison system, after it was reported he was expressing support for the 9/11 terrorists.
"He who sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed." (Exodus 22:20)
Islam, fundamentally, is no more violent or cruel than Christianity or Judeaism. I could go through the Bible chapter by chapter and find enough cruelty and violence to provide you with several days' reading, but I don't see the point in trying because you'll just find some other reason why Islam is a fundamentally violent religion, as opposed to Judeasim and Christianity.
You seem to think that only fundamental Islam is "real" islam, which is pretty much what the crazy bomb-throwing fundies want you to think.
Cycle,
Going through the Bible chapter by chapter might be good for you. I recommend starting out with the Gospels and completing the New Testament so that you begin to understand Christian doctrine and how it differs from Judaism.
Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
Matthew 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Romans 13:7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. 8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill (murder), Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
Luke 3:14 And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence (extortion by intimidation) to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.
I highly recommend the NASB or KJV translations. If you get lost in the english of the KJV the NASB will probably be easier reading.
Jimro
I've read the Bible. Well, I skipped Numbers and a couple other parts, but I've read most of it. I particularly enjoyed the part in which they pretty much do nothing but violently slaughter animals and women to please the Lord, which basically encompasses the entire second half of Exodus, and all of Leviticus. Reminded me of Heart of Darkness.
By the way, trying to spin Islam as an inherently violent religion while pretending the Old Testament doesn't exist is like Fidel Castro calling Bush a "madman" with "blood on his hands". Christianity has plenty of skeletons in its closet.
Quote:
Islam, fundamentally, is no more violent or cruel than Christianity or Judeaism. I could go through the Bible chapter by chapter and find enough cruelty and violence to provide you with several days' reading, but I don't see the point in trying because you'll just find some other reason why Islam is a fundamentally violent religion, as opposed to Judeasim and Christianity.
The rules of the Old Testament no longer apply in Christianity Cycle. Back in the days of the Old Testament, it was a rather vicious cycle of 'God saves the Israelites (be it through a prophet or a judge or through divine intervention), Israelites obey God's commands, Israelites disobey and perform immoral deeds and fall away, God removes his protection from them, rinse and repeat'. The rules of the Old Testament (for instance, how to properly prepare a sacrifice for every sin) were utterly impossible to follow to the letter for a weak creature such as man. As such, it was impossible for humanity to get close to God, due to our sinful nature.
However, when Jesus was born, He was God in human flesh (aka the second of the Trinity, God the Son), so He could truly understand the nature of humanity from a human's perspective. And when He was crucifed, his life took on the punishment of all human sins past, present, and future, so that we could wipe the slate clean with God the Father. He is the bridge to God and Heaven. Thus, the old rules were no longer needed, for a new way now existed: Jesus, who proclaimed Himself as 'The Way, the Truth, and the Life'.
Judeism does not regard Jesus as the Messiah or the Son of God, saying that any prophet or dreamer cannot contradict the laws already established in the Torah.
Islam regards Jesus as an important prophet who was capable of miracles, but not as the literal Son of God or the Messiah. Nor does the Qur'an state that Jesus died on the cross, saying it was an illusion to decieve His enemies.
Interestingly, the fact that the Qur'an says that Jesus wasn't the Son of God is a bit of a contradiction. The Qur'an - like the Bible - is said to be divinely inspired. The prophets, being tellers of God's word, cannot lie. Jesus - claimed to be only a prophet in Qur'an, albeit an important one - said that He was the Son of God. Yet the Qur'an denies this.
Hmm. Jesus is a prophet in Islam, therefore what He says is the truth. So He is therefore the Son of God by that reasoning. But then the Qur'an says He is NOT the Son of God. But if the Qur'an is divinely inspired, and a prophet's words come straight from on high...which one is correct? Either way, there's a bit of a gap there; either the Qur'an is wrong and Jesus IS the Son of God, or the Qur'an is wrong in saying that all prophets speak the truth (which, ironically, means Muhammed's words are also fallible). Just an observation.
Quote:
You seem to think that only fundamental Islam is "real" islam, which is pretty much what the crazy bomb-throwing fundies want you to think.
That makes no sense.
Quote:
Christianity has plenty of skeletons in its closet.
Thing is, do the dictates of Christianity (teachings of Jesus Christ) smile upon these skeletons (Aka, the Inquisition's torture of people), or frown upon them?
The rules of the Old Testament no longer apply in Christianity Cycle.
You can't just say that. People were still committing horrible atrocities based on teachings in the Old Testament a thousand years after the New Testament was written. The verse "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" was used to justify the excruciating torture and murder of thousands of people pretty much right up until the Rennaissance. At the time, the people doing those things were fully convinced they were carrying out the will of the Father, the Son, all that jazz.
I mean, for @#%$'s sake, man, you believe in creationism. That's pretty Old Testament-ish if you ask me.
That makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense. Fundamentalist Christians believe all of the stuff in the Bible, including the part about disemboweling "tainted" women and sprinkling their blood on altars, and they want everyone to think it is the one true faith. Fundamentalist Muslims, or "Islamists", believe all of the stuff in the Qu'ran, including the part about... well, disemboweling "tainted" women and sprinkling their blood on altars, and they want everyone to think it is the one true faith. It just so happens that Islamists are very vocal in a time when such behaviour is not only noticed, but also discouraged by the rest of the world. Fundamentalist Christians picked a much better time to be in charge of empires.
Quote:
People were still committing horrible atrocities based on teachings in the Old Testament a thousand years after the New Testament was written. The verse "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" was used to justify the excruciating torture and murder of thousands of people pretty much right up until the Rennaissance. At the time, the people doing those things were fully convinced they were carrying out the will of the Father, the Son, all that jazz.
Then they weren't acting like Christians, now where they?
Take a looksie for an explanation about that verse.
Quote:
I mean, for @#%$'s sake, man, you believe in creationism. That's pretty Old Testament-ish if you ask me.
I believe that God created the universe. I don't attest to know His method for bringing it about. Of course, if you take into account that that light may have been slowing down since the creation of the universe, it does give some credit to the notion that Earth is 6000 years old.
Quote:
It makes perfect sense. Fundamentalist Christians believe all of the stuff in the Bible, including the part about disemboweling "tainted" women and sprinkling their blood on altars, and they want everyone to think it is the one true faith. Fundamentalist Muslims, or "Islamists", believe all of the stuff in the Qu'ran, including the part about... well, disemboweling "tainted" women and sprinkling their blood on altars, and they want everyone to think it is the one true faith. It just so happens that Islamists are very vocal in a time when such behaviour is not only noticed, but also discouraged by the rest of the world. Fundamentalist Christians picked a much better time to be in charge of empires.
Ah. I was thinking about something else then.
It makes perfect sense. Fundamentalist Christians believe all of the stuff in the Bible, including the part about disemboweling "tainted" women and sprinkling their blood on altars, and they want everyone to think it is the one true faith. Fundamentalist Muslims, or "Islamists", believe all of the stuff in the Qu'ran, including the part about... well, disemboweling "tainted" women and sprinkling their blood on altars, and they want everyone to think it is the one true faith. It just so happens that Islamists are very vocal in a time when such behaviour is not only noticed, but also discouraged by the rest of the world. Fundamentalist Christians picked a much better time to be in charge of empires.
Cycle, you have shown the depth of your ignorance.
Would you please show me the part of the bible about disemboweling women and sprinkling their blood on the altar?
And could you give us a list of terrorist camps set up by fundamentalist Christians? How about throngs of Christians rioting over cartoons? C'mon, you have a lot to say without any evidence to back it up.
The top three Christian "terrorists" in modern times have been anti-abortionists. Were they trained in foreign nations? Are they funded by a vast conspiracy of international Christians willing to shelter them from justice?
You wanna talk about the Crusades? How about we talk about the 400 year that preceded the crusades?
From "The Force of Reason" by Oriana Fallaci, this is an excerpt from the first chapter.
It was in 635 AD, that is three years after Mohammed's death, that the armies of the Crescent Moon invaded Christian Syria and Christian Palestine. It was in 638 that they took Jerusalem and the Holy Sepulchure. It was in 640 that after conquering Persia and Armenia and Mesopotamia, present-day Iraq, they invaded Christian Egypt and overran Christian Maghreb. That is, the present Tunisia and Algeria and Morocco. It was in 668 that for the first time they attacked Constantinople and laid a siege that would last five years. It was in 711 that after crossing the Strait of Gibralter they landed in the most Catholic Iberian Peninsula, took possession of Portugal and Spain where despite the Pelayos and the Cid Campeadors and the other warriors engaged in the Reconquest they remained for noless than eight centuries. And whoever believes in the myth of *peaceful coexistence that marked the relationships between the conquered and the conquerors* should reread the stories of the burned convents and monestaries, of the profaned churches, of the raped nuns, of the Christian or Jewish women abducted to be locked away in their harems. He should ponder on the crucifixioins of Cordoba, the hangings of Grenada, the beheadings of Toledo and Barcelona, of Seville and Zamora. (The beheadings of Seville, ordered by Mutamid: the king who used those severed heads, heads of Jews and Christians, to adorn his palace. The beheadings of Zamora, ordered by Almanzor: the vizier who was called the-patron-of-the-philosophers, the greatest leader Islamic Spain has ever produced). Christ! Invoking the name of Jesus meant instant execution. Crucifixion, of course, or decapitation or hanging or impalement. Ringing a bell, the same. Wearing green, the colour exclusive to Islam, also. And when a Muslim passed by, every Jew and Christian was obliged to step aside. To bow. And mind to the Jew or the Christian who dared react to the insults of a Muslim. As for the much-flaunted detail that the infidel-dogs were not obliged to convert to Islam, not even encouraged to do so, do you know why they were not? Because those who converted to Islam did not pay taxes. Those who refused, on the contrary, did.
From Spain, in 721 AD, they passed into the no less Catholic France. Led by Abd al-Rahman, the Governor of Andalusia, they crossed the Pyrenees and took Narbonne. There they massacred the entire male population, enslaved all the women and children, then proceeded towards Carcassonne. From Carcassonne they were to Nimes where they slaughtered nuns and friars. From Nimes they went to Lyons and Dijon where they pillaged every single church... And do you know how long their advance in France lasted? Eleven years. In waves. In 731 a wave of three hundred and eighty thousand infantry and sixteen thousand cavalry reached Bordeaux which surrendered at once. Then from Bordeaux it moved to Poitiers, from Poitiers it moved to Tours and, if in 732 Charles Martel had not won the battle of Poitiers-Tours, today the French too would dance the flamenco. In 827 they landed in Sicily, another target of their voraciousness. Massacring, beheading, impaling, crucifying as usual, they conquered Syracuse and Taormina the Messina and Palermo, and in three-quarters of a century (which is what it took to break the proud resistance of the Sicilians) they Islamized the island. They stayed for over two centuries, in Sicily: until they werre cleared out by the Normans. But in 836 they landed at Brindisi. In 840, at Bari. And they Islamized Puglia too. In 841 they landed at Ancona. Then from the Adriatic they moved back to the Tyrrhenian Sea and in the summer of 846 landed at Ostia. They sacked it, they burned it, and moving upriver from the mouth of the Tiber they reached Rome. They laid siege to it and one night they burst in. They plundered the basilicas of St. Peter and St. Paul, sacked both, and to get rid of them Pope Sergius II had to stipulate an annual tribute of twenty-five thousand pieces of silver. To prevent further attacks, his successor Leon IV had to erect the Leonine Walls.
Having left Rome, though, they descended on Campania. They stayed there for seventy years destroying Montecassino and tormenting Salerno. A city where, at one time, they amused themselves by sacrificing a nun's virginity every night. Do you know where? On the cathedral's altar. In 898 they landed in Provence. To be precise, in present-day St. Tropez. They settled there, and in 911 crossed the Alps to enter Piedmont. They occupied Turin and Casale, set fire to all the churches and libraries, killed thousands of Christians, then went to Switzerland. Here they reached the Graubunden valley and the lake of Geneva. Then, put off by the snow, did an about-turn and returned to the warm climate of Provence. In 940 they occupied Toulon where they settled and... Today it's fashionable to beat our breast over the Crusades. To blame the West for the Crusades. To see the Crusales as an injustice committed to the detriment of the poor-innocent-Muslims. But before being a series of expeditions to regain possession of the Holy Sepulchure that is of Jerusalem (which had been taken by the Muslims, remember, not by my aunt), the Crusades were the response to four centuries of invasions and occupations. They were a counter-offensive to stem Islamic expansionism in Europe. To deflect it, mors tua vita mea, towards the Orient (meaning India and Indonesia and China) then towards the whole African continent and towards Russia and Siberia where the Tartars converted to Islam were already crushing the followers of Christ. At the conclusion of the Crusades, in fact, the sons of Allah resumed their persecutions as before and more than before.
By the hand of the Turks, this time. The Turks who were about the prepare the birth to the Ottoman Empire. An empire that until 1700 would concentrate on the West all of its greed: turn Europe into its favourite battlefield. Interpreters and bearers of that greed, the famous Janissaries who still today enrich our language with the synonym of killer fanatic assassin. And do you know who the Janissaries actually were? The chosen troops of the Empire, the super-soldiers as capable of self-immolation as of fighting and massacring and sacking. Do you know where they were recruited or rather pressed into service? In the countries subjugated by the Empire. In Greece, for example, or in Bulgaria, in Romania, in Hungary, in Albania, in Serbia. Often in Italy too, along the coasts plied by their pirates. Those coasts where still today you can see the remains of the watchtowers used for spotting their arrival and warning the towns and villages. And where still resounds the echo of the scream which today is used as a mockery but at that time was a cry of terror and despair: *Mamma, li turchi! Mother, the Turks!*. They abducted those killers to be at the age of eleven or twelve, together with even younger children to punt in the seraglios of the sultans and viziers given to paedophilia, and they chose them from the best-looking and strongest of the important families' firstborns. After the conversion they shut them in the military barracks and here, forbidding them to have any kind of amorous or affectionate relations, marriage included, they indoctrinated them as not even Hitler would indoctrinate his Waffen SS. They turned them into the most formidable fighting machine the world has seen since Roman times.
You want to paint Christianity with the same brush as Islam, you'd better start finding some history that I don't know about, and show how Christian leaders are preaching the overthrow of secular government to set up a theocracy.
Until then, get thee to they studies.
Jimro
Would you please show me the part of the bible about disemboweling women and sprinkling their blood on the altar?
Leviticus.
And could you give us a list of terrorist camps set up by fundamentalist Christians? How about throngs of Christians rioting over cartoons?
1500 years ago, in England, if someone drew a picture that was seen as sacrilegious, they would most likely be stoned, or burned, or otherwise lynched, by a large mob.
I'm not saying Christians are terrorists. I'm not saying they were terrorists. I'm saying that, and this is important so I'll bold it for you, in the past, fundamentalism and all the violent baggage that came with it (see: Leviticus, again) dominated Christianity in some regions of the world, just as fundamentalism and violence dominates Islam in some regions of the world today.
Both the Qu'ran and the Bible are full of violence and cruelty. True fundamentalism is all about interpreting the entire book literally, including the parts about circumcizing heretics before stoning them. Christianity basically got over that kind of fundamentalism after the Rennaissance, and since then western society has become basically phobic of theism in government. Unfortunately a very vocal, charismatic and savvy group of Islamist leaders are firm believers in literal interpretation of the entire Qu'ran, including the parts about non-Muslims being heretics, and have managed to convince a lot of people, especially in the Middle East, that their way is the right way. This is how people like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad end up in a position of power.
Basically, I agree with you when you say that Islam is an inherently violent religion, but I disagree when you say that Christianity is not. Literally interpreted, both books encourage things that need not be mentioned. It's just that literal interpretation of the entire Bible, Leviticus and all, is at an all-time low, as is the rule of the Church over western societies. Meanwhile literal interpretation of the entire Qu'ran is still very popular, and Islamic theocracies are all over the place.
Cycle,
It's refreshing to see you backpeddle.
Leviticus contains only 6 verses that contain both the word "woman" and "blood".
None of them deal with disemboweling a woman and sprinkling her blood on the altar.
Leviticus 15:19, 15:25, 20:13, 20:16, 20:18, 20:27
Leviticus contains NO verses with the words "woman" and "altar".
So, once again your ignorance is made apparent. Get thee to thy studies.
You are still confusing Judaism with Christianity. Here's a huge hint, Christianity=New Testament. For further Clarification read Hebrews chapters 8-10.
You are also seem to have no grasp of Catholic dogma and the Catholic church's belief of the "visible church" that set forth the basis for the laws you are talking about. These Catholic laws are not going to be found in the Bible. Ever wonder why Lent and Christmas aren't in the Bible?
In Europe monarchs enforced Church law, here in the "colonies" different sects came to set up their own colonies where they would be free from religious persecution, so they setup their own laws and ordinances based on their beliefs. Which is why the Salem witch trials happened. Of course you blame the "Church" not the "Monarchy".
But let's not forget those that DEFIED Catholic law, translating the Bible into English, French, and German. Tyndale, Wycliffe, and Luther. Let's not forget that it was a bunch of these religious nutcases who were so uptight that Britain didn't want them that gave birth to the United States.
Both the US and CSA took quotes from the Bible to support their positions in the Civil War, but the real reasons were economical, not religious.
So what has changed? First off the Reformation in Germany and the Renaissance in Italy happened, which took the sting out of excommunication so that secular leaders (whether elected or not) had an alternative to the Catholic church. Then democracy happened in the US, and France.
The Christian church, which first suffered under Roman rule, then became the Roman religion, which then became the Roman Empire (in the form of the Catholic church), had to revert once again to being a church under a government. This is from a purely secular viewpoint. Islam has never been a subject to a non Islamic government. Conversely the Coptic church has survived in Egypt for centuries despite Islamic rule.
Now, during the "bad old days" that you speak of the average Christian did not read the Bible. The Catholic church considered the scriptures too complicated for "lay men". Today the average Christian, even Catholics, DO read the scriptures, and read for themselves what Jesus (you'll find him in the New Testament) taught.
Muslims, who have a very high literacy rate, read the words of the Prophet and see what he DID during his life, and his commands for Jihad, and most rate the "haddith" right up there with the Koran.
Jesus sent his followers out as "sheep amongst wolves".
Muhammed sent his followers out to subjugate and conquer.
Jimro
It's refreshing to see you backpeddle.
I am not backpedalling. I'm clarifying my position.
But anyways, yes, upon further observation, in Leviticus there are no people being sacrificed in the precise manner that I described, however they do sacrifice at least a dozen animals in similarly barbaric fashion to please the Lord.
Quote:
But anyways, yes, upon further observation, in Leviticus there are no people being sacrificed in the precise manner that I described, however they do sacrifice at least a dozen animals in similarly barbaric fashion to please the Lord.
It's a far cry from human sacrifice, at the very least (which is something the Torah completely abhors).
Quote:
But anyways, yes, upon further observation, in Leviticus there are no people being sacrificed in the precise manner that I described, however they do sacrifice at least a dozen animals in similarly barbaric fashion to please the Lord.
The purpose of a blood sacrifice is for the remittence of sin, not to "please God".
1Sa 15:22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.
And if you ever get around to reading the New Testament you'll understand how the Mosaic Law was a type and shadow of things to come. The Pauline epistles cover this issue extensively. What was once a physical sacrifice under the Law becomes a spiritual sacrifice under Grace.
Jimro
"Flay the burnt offering; cut it into pieces." 1:6
Burn the head, fat, and entrails for "a sweet savour unto the Lord." 1:8-9
"Kill it and sprinkle blood round about." 1:11, 3:2, 3:8, 3:13
"Cut it into pieces and burn it for a sweet savour unto the Lord." 1:12-13
"Wring off its head and burn it." 1:15
"For a sweet savour unto the Lord." 1:17
"Part it in pieces... it is a meat offering." 2:6
"It is a thing most holy of the offerings of the LORD made by fire." 2:10
What to do with the fat, kidneys, and liver of your burnt offerings. 3:3-4, 3:9-10, 3:14-16
"Kill the bullock before the Lord and take of the bullock's blood." 4:4
"The priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle the blood seven times before the Lord." 4:6, 4:17
"Pour all the blood at the bottom of the altar." 4:7
What to do with the fat, kidneys, liver, skin, head, entrails, and dung from your burnt offerings. 4:8-11
"The bullock shall be killed before the Lord." 4:14
"Kill it and pour out the blood." 4:24-25
"Slay it for a sin offering, pour out the blood, and burn the fat for a sweet savour unto the Lord." 4:29-31
Quote:
The purpose of a blood sacrifice is for the remittence of sin, not to "please God".
*snicker*
Rico,
Thanks for the Snickers, but they're only good if you eat them.
Cycle,
Put the verses into context, and do yourself a favor and get a Strong Concordance and Dictionary so that you can avoid looking like a complete idiot.
"sweet" Strongs numbers 05207, soothing, quieting, tranquillising
"sweet savor" means "placating aroma"
The reason for the sacrifice is to avoid the consequence of sin, to prevent God from justly punishing you for the sin you committed. The sacrifice died in your place.
The smoke from the sacrifice is symbolic of soothing aroma to an angry king or ruler, such as incense.
Get thee back to thy studies. Of course you are seem to be so "Anti-God" that you assume all religion alike, so study harder. Heck, read the Koran while you are at it. Right now you are attacking animal sacrifice as barbaric after claiming human blood was sprinkled on the altar.
Why don't you compare that with this?
Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. - Sura 2:98
On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. - Sura 2:161
Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. - 2:191
Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme. (different translation: ) Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God's entirely. - Sura 2:193 and 8:39
Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. - 2:216
If you should die or be killed in the cause of Allah, His mercy and forgiveness would surely be better than all they riches they amass. If you should die or be killed, before Him you shall all be gathered. - 3:157-8
You must not think that those who were slain in the cause of Allah are dead. They are alive, and well-provided for by their Lord. - Surah 3:169-71
Let those fight in the cause of God who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fights in the cause of God, whether he is slain or victorious, soon we shall give him a great reward. - Surah 4:74
Those who believe fight in the cause of God, and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil. - 4:76
But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever you find them. - 4:89
Therefore, we stirred among them enmity and hatred, which shall endure till the Day of Resurrection, when Allah will declare to them all that they have done. - 5:14
O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them. God does not guide an unjust people. - 5:54
Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme - 8:39
O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there are 20 steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish 200; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding. - 8:65
It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he has made slaughter in the land. - 8:67
Allah will humble the unbelievers. Allah and His apostle are free from obligations to idol-worshipers. Proclaim a woeful punishment to the unbelievers. - 9:2-3
When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. - 9:5
Fight those who believe neither in God nor the Last Day, nor what has been forbidden by God and his messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, even if they are People of the Book, until they pay the tribute and have been humbled. - 9:29
Whether unarmed or well-equipped, march on and fight for the cause of Allah, with your wealth and your persons. - 9:41
O Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites. Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end. - 9:73
Allah has purchased of their faithful lives and worldly goods, and in return has promised them the Garden. They will fight for His cause, kill and be killed. - 9:111
Fight unbelievers who are near to you. 9:123
As for those who are slain in the cause of Allah, He will not allow their works to perish. He will vouchsafe them guidance and ennoble their state; He will admit them to the Paradise He has made known to them. - 10:4-15
When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds, then set them free, either by grace or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens. - 47:4
Those who are slain in the way of Allah - he will never let their deeds be lost. Soon will he guide them and improve their condition, and admit them to the Garden, which he has announced for them. - 47:5
Muslims are harsh against the unbelievers, merciful to one another. - 48:25
Muhammad is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another. Through them, Allah seeks to enrage the unbelievers. - 48:29
Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal sternly with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate. - 66:9
Seems silly to compare animal sacrifice to remit sin and get to heaven with a comman to slaughter non-muslims to remit sin and get to heaven.
Jimro
God will "cut off" all those who "have not sought the Lord" or who worship another god. (Zephaniah 1:4-6)
God will "smite the heathen" with a plague. (Zechariah 14:18)
God will burn "the wicked" and the "righteous" will walk around on their ashes. (Malachi 4:1-3)
Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. (Matthew 5:17)
Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching. (Matthew 11:20-24)
Jesus will send his angels to gather up "all that offend" and they "shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." (Matthew 13:41-42, 50)
Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: "He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." (Matthew 15:4-7)
Jesus tells us what he has planned for those that he dislikes. They will be cast into an "everlasting fire." (Matthew 25:41)
Any city that doesn't "receive" the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. (Mark 6:11)
Jesus says that those that believe and are baptized will be saved, while those who don't will be damned. (Mark 16:16)
Jesus says that entire cities will be violently destroyed and the inhabitants "thrust down to hell" for not "receiving" his disciples. (Luke 10:10-15)
The "wrath of God" is on all unbelievers. (John 3:36)
Jesus believes people are crippled by God as a punishment for sin. He tells a crippled man, after healing him, to "sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee." (John 5:14)
Those who do not believe in Jesus will be cast into a fire to be burned. 15:6 (John 15:6)
"And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people." (Acts 3:23)
Homosexuals (those "without natural affection") and their supporters (those "that have pleasure in them") are "worthy of death." (Romans 1:31-32)
Jesus will take "vengeance on them that know not God" by burning them forever "in flaming fire." God, I love that phrase. (Thessalonians 1:7-9)
Are you confusing spiritual consequences promised in the Bible to the physical consequences preached in the Koran?
Here's the cliff notes version of Biblical consequences, if you aren't saved you are damned on the day of judgement to the lake of fire. That is what "worse than Sodom and Gomorrah" means, Jesus is the ticket to salvation from that fate, and those that reject the savior embrace damnation.
What does the New Testament say about hurting other people?
Ro 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
Matthew 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. 5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. 6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. 7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. 8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. 9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. 10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. 12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
Matthew 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. 41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. 42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. 43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Cycle, you don't even understand Jesus' rebuke to the pharisee's about eating with unwashed hands. You see there is this think called "Talmud" which is sometimes referred to as "Oral Torah" in which different teachers argue over how to properly interpret the scriptures and apply it to daily living. Jesus' rebuke accuses the Pharisee's of missing the mark about righteous living and getting caught up in legalistic and unloving interpretation of the scriptures. And for your information, it isn't a sin, or even "unclean" to eat with unwashed hands from scripture, that is Talmud commentary.
Seriously, watching you mangle scripture together to "prove your point" is like watching a child play with fire. Stop before you hurt yourself.
Jimro
Seriously, watching you mangle scripture together to "prove your point" is like watching a child play with fire.
At this point I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm just having a lot of fun reading these threats of horrible doom. "Flaming fire" is pretty much my new catchphrase.
Amidst the threats of "horrible doom" there is quite a bit of instruction on how to live life to it's fullest, and by following such instruction avoid the "horrible doom".
Tommy Douglas would agree with me on that point.
Jimro
The fun thing about the bible is you can mangle to say whatever you want. People have been doing it for centuries now! 
A wise man once said, "If a man who believes that it is his right to beat his wife reads the Bible or the Koran, he will come away believing that God is on his side."
If you read God's words only looking for what you want to see, then you are not reading God's words to improve your life.
Jimro
You hit the nail on the head. People are going to think the bible tells them what they want. Personally I like commonsense better, but unfortunately that is a very rare commodity anymore.
Quote:
Interestingly, the fact that the Qur'an says that Jesus wasn't the Son of God is a bit of a contradiction. The Qur'an - like the Bible - is said to be divinely inspired. The prophets, being tellers of God's word, cannot lie. Jesus - claimed to be only a prophet in Qur'an, albeit an important one - said that He was the Son of God. Yet the Qur'an denies this.
Hmm. Jesus is a prophet in Islam, therefore what He says is the truth. So He is therefore the Son of God by that reasoning. But then the Qur'an says He is NOT the Son of God. But if the Qur'an is divinely inspired, and a prophet's words come straight from on high...which one is correct? Either way, there's a bit of a gap there; either the Qur'an is wrong and Jesus IS the Son of God, or the Qur'an is wrong in saying that all prophets speak the truth (which, ironically, means Muhammed's words are also fallible). Just an observation.
According to Islam, later prophets were needed to set people back on the "true path" towards God and to correct mistakes and mistellings that came about over time concerning old scripture and the like. As far as I remember, none of the Bible was written by Jesus himself and was made up of accounts by other people. Therefore, according to Islam, those accounts, including the claim that Jesus stated he was the son of God, could be subject to questioning. It's not a doubt of the word of Jesus, it's a doubt of what was reported as the word of Jesus. No contradiction.
Out of curiosity, are any of you actually on friendly terms with any Muslims?
Yes, as far as working together I served with a number of Muslims in the Army. One was from Egypt, the other from Chicago. That was a couple years back in Texas, not a whole lot of Muslims in rural Washington.
They were both good men, and both believed that Jihad was a personal battle, not a holy war to kill unbelievers. The only problem is, if you want to kill unbelievers and you read the Koran....
Jimro
Thing is, Islam came into existence about six centuries after Jesus died. And the Gospels were written within 20-70 years after Jesus death (most likely before the year 70 A.D., which is the year Romans ransacked Jerusalem and destroyed the temple, as prophesied by Jesus). If you're curious about when the Gospels were written, go here.
And no, I don't recall knowing a Muslim personally, myself.
