Muslims

Post Reply New Topic

He used the whip on the animals. Okay, Jesus doesn't win any awards for animal welfare (between this and driving the pigs off a cliff), but he didn't use it on the people, hence 'both sheep and cattle'.

Also, it's actually a different incident, but meh.

Making whip doesn't equal whipping. No evidence was presented of whipping in any of the translations linked or the associated commentaries.

LOL, we are getting to be a bit like panto in this exchange, Oh yes he did!

It is pointless arguing over the semantics of the translation, of the translation, of the translation of the fourth hand account of someone who may or may not have been there at the time.

We will never know if he did or didn't whip people conclusively, but that passage certainly makes it a strong possibility.



So much violence, so many temples it's hard to remember which atrocity is which.

Meh. Still a goodly percentage less violent that Muhammad is in the hadiths.

http://bible.cc/mark/5-13.htm

No evidence provided there that he whipped the animals or the humans, in the previous post.

According to the link above from the Apostle Mark, Jesus cast out demons from a man, they went into pigs, and the pigs ran off the cliff. But no evidence provided that Jesus physically drove them off the cliff in the link above. One would think that he could have saved the pigs, from that destiny, however the dominion over the rest of the earth ideology, appears to continue in the new testament per literal interpretation. Also in the passage where a fig tree was cursed and died, if one is to take it literally that he killed the tree.

Who knows, if he saved the pigs, or saved the fig tree, more Christians might not eat bacon, as well as showing a greater interest in environmental concerns.

On the other hand, if we weren't meant to eat meat, it's not likely we would have canines.

Also, while the incident is described differently (money changers), per the link you provided per Matthew as opposed to John, provided by DC, in that specific translation, it is a description of the same incident by a different apostle per that specific translation.

It is clear in the Websters translation, per the precise wording, provided through the same link of the description of John, as quoted below, that Jesus drove the money changers and the animals from the temple. Again though, no evidence of whipping, just evidence in this translation that a scourge of small cords was made.

There is certainly talk about violent things and some verbally abusive language, in the new testament, but no reports of Jesus actually committing a physical act of violence against any animals or humans or even physically cutting down a tree, that I am aware of. Definitely evidence of vandalism, though.

I agree but the Jesus dude is a bit suspect in other areas when it comes violent rhetoric:

“If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.” (Luke 14:26)

“But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.” (Luke 22:36)

I have come to cast fire upon the Earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism* to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished! 51 Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; 52 for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father* against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law. (Luke 12:49-53)

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on Earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.” (Matthew 10:34-39)



Fact is there is easily enough material in the New Testament to allow a half decent preacher to create a bunch of suicide bombers or to justify the crusades in the name of Jesus.

Ever heard of the Book of Martyrs?

Torture porn for christians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actes_and_Monuments

As a christian with Muslim friends I will admit the similarity between Islam and Christanity who share a common enemy the enemy of their faith will always be the faithless.

Yes, my mistake.

Anyways, Samson destroyed a building, killing other people and himself in the name of God. Was this the first suicide bombing?

I would call it Samson trying to free himself but ended up dieing for his freedom. In my study of the Quran Muhammad would not like the sucide bombings that happen today.

I like your point, but it is more akin to a prisoner burning down a prison as a protest.
Suicide bombers are not generally prisoners at the time they commit their final act, they have to actively seek out someone.

If we are talking Old Testament, there is plenty of horrific genocide and ethnic cleansing present in that.

Their is Geneocide it was gentiles commiting it a gentile as we both no is some one not Jewish.

Errrr, you have read the bible right?

Deuteronomy 20:16
However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.

Joshua 6:12
They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it--men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.

Joshua 10:28
That day Joshua took Makkedah. He put the city and its king to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it. He left no survivors. And he did to the king of Makkedah as he had done to the king of Jericho.

Along with many, many more examples...

Well we would not be a good follower with out listening to our Master. To answer your question yes I have and I enjoy reading it and being a Christian. I also enjoy being mocked and attacked because of my faith it just proves that I am a very zealous Christian and proud of it.

But you are still arguing that Joshua wasn't a jew?

Never said he wasn't a Jew Joshua was a Jew he was following God's orders their for I feel no guilt over the lifes Joshua took doing soo.

Separation of Church and state, or the approximation of that goal, is a good thing, and likely separates some of the more violent political activities of the distant past against the non-christian opposition, at least within the boarders. But it continues in political rhetoric like the "evil empire", per Reagan and Russia, and the axis of evil per Bush, Iran, North Korea, and Iraq.

As well as legal systems that mold religion and culture to suit tradition, harming segments of society. More prevalent in other countries without separation of church and state, but still a continuing factor in the US.

Those of Muslim religious background for the most part in the US, are evidenced as existing as peacefully as the majority Christian demographic within the boundaries of the US. There is no significant evidence of violence or crime among Muslims above and beyond that of Christians in the US.

The religions of Islam and Christianity don't appear to be more dangerous, one more than the other, when politics, and the legal system are separated from religion.

The biggest difference appears to be when one looks across the globe toward countries strongly constituted of Muslims, whom maintain strong Patriarchal values, and have not been influenced as much by the egalitarian nature of developed countries, where technology has evened the playing field among many.

Christianity has it roots based in patriarchal values as well, but in part, technological advancements have watered down that patriarchy and continues to do so.

This is one of the hardest fought battles among the evangelical christian patriarchs to maintain those traditions in the US, but in other cultures that consist of Muslims, where there is no clear separation of church and state, it is a much more powerful source of division from the western world's increasingly egalitarian ways.

A battle of the sexes can be a very powerful thing, I think it is likely that it is at the crux of most of the conflicts seen between Muslim and Non-Muslim countries, but it doesn't appear to be an issue specific to the core teachings of either Christianity or Islam, when one takes politics and economic development out of the equation.

There are still a great many patriarchal leaning countries in the World among developing countries that still have their roots in Christianity, where one sees a great disparity of advantage among the different demographics of the countries. As well as other developing countries with no Abrahamic religious roots.

It's not likely anyone that lived in a developing Muslim country would have the same viewpoint about much in life, as compared to those in highly advantaged developed countries, regardless of religious viewpoints.

I think Islam is viewed through the overall problems and conflicts inherent in developing countries across the globe. Islam is proven to work as a peaceful religion in some countries, but it is the religion of the majority in many over-populated developing countries, economically disadvantaged, that have serious conflicts associated with basic subsistence.

An egalitarian way of life, is a fairer way of life for all, but harder to establish and maintain in over-populated countries that are economically disadvantaged. Abrahamic religions can contribute to the issue in strengthening and maintaining patriarchal traditions but are not evidenced as the sole source of conflicts in these nations, as one attempts to evidence the pros and cons of the religions.

And for those countries consisting mostly of Muslims in the middle east that are doing quite well economically, there is only oil that separates them as economically successful countries lacking in many natural resources, including water. There are specific economic limiting factors per geography that impact culture and the expression of religious tradition, that will likely continue regardless of economic influence from the west. If most of the US consisted of desert, we would likely be living in a very different situation, per our economic advantages, as well as religious traditions and cultural practices.

Perhaps the biggest equalizing factor in the US, is there aren't any appreciable differences per economic disadvantage among the overall Muslim population in the US and the non-Muslim population. Shared advantage, along with those that started off with economic advantage that migrated to the US is a big factor.

One doesn't see the same among those whom are refugees from poor Muslim countries without that economic starting advantage. They are having more difficulty assimilating into the culture. One sees a similar issue in other countries. Those conflicts paint the view as one specific to religion, because the individuals involved are labeled as Muslims but it is more complicated than that.

I enjoyed the Star Trek and Star War series, not only because of the special effects, but because they highlighted social issues on our own globe, where we see people from much different geographical locations, conditions, and religious/cultural traditions as alien to us. However there was an element of hope in all those shows per the ability of people with actual alien differences to get along with each other, in a time far away, with the given that it already happened on earth. It's questionable if we can be successful in ever reaching that fictional given.

It's kind of amazing we got to the point that we could imagine something greater, portray it in the future, looking back on the past, given a more peaceful world, than is even possible.

Planet of the Apes, might be closer to reality. Not nearly as optimistic per the general human condition.