Prophet Muhammad vs Jesus Christ

Post Reply New Topic

I'd be grateful for your help here. I Googled Alinskyite because I hadn't heard of it. The site, wordnik.com didn't have a meaning, but gave examples of its use. There was something about a quote from Obama. Google also pointed me to Saul Alinsky, so I read about his ideas and gathered your meaning, I hope. I get the idea that an Alinskyite is someone who uses a process of action and reaction, and putting people on the back foot by asking questions, to bring about social reform. Is that what it means?

Versus? There is no "versus". Jesus and Muhammad were both devout servants of God; there is no contradiction between their teachings.

You got it right in as far as Saul Alinsky was a proponent of "psychopolitics" imposed by a mind-rotting thing called "psychodrama".

Yes, the (negative) reaction emotion was crucially important to the success of the thing.

The "action/reaction" supposition in Alinsky's programme was a supposition of the Hegelian/Darwinian "survival-of-the-fittest (Natural Selection) paradigm.

Anyhow, I was fatally flawed by daring to question without understanding how it was supposed to work; the fundamental tenets of the ideology. You see, I was naïvely self-convinced that most people were instinctively honest except for a few tricksters that showed up in sideshows at the annual Agricultural Show and the like.

I was wrong about that

I respectfully disagree.

Jesus claimed to be God. Muhammed said Jesus was a prophet. They can't both be right. If Muhammed is right, Christians are not only misdirected and wrong, but are outright blasphemers.

Jesus taught his followers to love their enemies and to turn the other cheek when they were struck on the first. Muhammed taught that Muslims should kill those who will not convert. Muhammed also said his followers would be warriors, while Jesus rebuked Peter in the Garden of Gethsamane when he cut off a man's ear. Jesus even healed the man's ear.

Jesus allowed women to follow him, listen to his teachings, and even touch him. Muhammed taught that women should be beaten even upon suspicion that they will not obey their husbands.

There's a wide, wide discrepancy between the two! If you need Bible and Qu'ran reference verses, I will provide them.

Ok, thanks for the explanation. I guess I'm less jaded about people's inherent honesty, one-on-one at least. I've often thought individual dishonesty was like a protective reaction, generally benign and not a reflection on the receiver. Though, if I'm being lied to, it's hard not to take it badly.

As for group dishonesty, that's a different animal, just as the crowd will often do things that an individual wouldn't. And in that case, it's one group being dishonest to another group. e.g. The corporate group being dishonest to the consumer group.

Me personally, I find I get carried away in "telling" and then I pull myself up, reminding myself that I often learn more from asking questions. And I do love to learn.

So, what do you think of my what-if question?

This is a misconception, not even the Gospel writers claimed this.

People often confuse the apostles with the writers of Gospels, they are completely different people even if they may have similar names.

Ask a theologian.

Dear nerdygirl,

There is, in the Hadith, not the Q'uran, an instance where a man and woman were brought before Muhammad.

They were adulterers, and those who held them asked Muhammad that since the original teaching was a sentence of death for adulterers, but Jesus taught to forgive, what did Muhammad say?

He said 'What did Moses say?'

The answer was 'Death by stoning.'

Muhammad said 'Stone them.'

And they did.

Point is, Muhammad placed Mosaic Law or Old Testament Law over Jesus' teaching, flatly contradicting that Jesus had brought a new Law to us.

Mohammad was demonstrating that he felt that he had the authority to disregard what Jesus established.

I'm not sure why people are argueing whether the teaching of prophet 1 versus prophet 2 are moral. Whether a prophet is moral or not is irrelevant. The only thing that should matter is whether they are correct or not: the True Religion instead of the false one. If the true religion happens to be an immoral one, we are just out of luck.

...oh no...

If you can't beat Him, join Him.

But Jesus is not a prophet. He is gods son/god.

Nuh-uh.. I don't like binary options. Can I have a side serve of #42?

Only according to most branches of Christianity. But that wasn't the point: I meant to say you don't choose a religion based on how moral it is, but on whether it is true or not. It's useless to believe in a false God just because their prophet/messiah is a nice person.

Maybe follow a polytheistic religion?

Muhammad and Jesus both taught that only one god exists.

Muhammad's teachings seem to reach back to Mosaic Law and to ignore or deny Jesus' teachings.

Moses was raised as a polytheist, as an adopted Prince of Egypt.

He was shown otherwise by God, who chose him to lead His people to freedom.

Once he got them out of Egypt, what did they do?

Make a golden calf, or cow, which would have been an avatar for Hastur.

By that time, some Jews had become believers in the Egyptian deities.

Polytheism kept popping up in Israel throughout OT history, too.