The Prblem with Anti-Islamic Arguments

[micatala]

http://www.twincities.com/newsletter-mo ... ck_check=1

The article includes a short quiz on violent rhetoric, and asks the reader to choose where the rhetoric resides, Bible or Koran.



Questions for debate.

1) Is the author, Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald, correct? Do Christians, at leat in the U.S., tend to get the benefit of the doubt while Muslims are often condemned in a blanket fashion?


2) Is it fair to Christians who do not understand the context of the Koran to use the Koran to criticize modern Muslim's? Should we discount opinions on the Koran or Islam provided by individuals who show no understanding of Islam?


3) What benefit does the anti-Islamic rhetoric prevalent in today's U.S. society provide to that society? What detriments does it present?


Even if criticism of Islam in general, or particular Muslim or Muslim populations is justified, should we not ask what good or harm this criticism does? Of these three questions, 3 seems to be the most important. It also leads to the follow up.


4) To the extent that their are radical Muslims who practice violence, what is the most constructive way of dealing with those radical views?

[Murad]

My whole argument was "The Word" only gets described as "ton theos",...

Your argument was actually based upon the use of two articles translated "ho" and "ton". You attempted to show "ton" modified "God" when the scripture said "the Word was with God" and that "ho" modified "God" when the scripture said, "and was God." You then attempted to draw from this observation that when the scripture said "and was God" it should have said, "was divine."

I have now revealed your error based upon your ignorance of Greek declensions and the fact that "ho" and "ton" are declensions of the same word. I furnished a link as proof of that claim. Now that your ridiculous argument with respect to translation of John 1:1 has been exposed you post several obscure and incorrect translations where you find "was divine."

The Original Greek reads:

En arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos.

(I don't know why the last 'God' has a capital G when rendered into english)
Thus there are scholarly divisions on how this should be read.

Nevertheless, lets look into the context of the verse:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(NIV John 1:1)

So basically, "the Word" (Logos) is another name for "God".
So lets see if it makes any sense when we replace "the Word" with "God":

In the beginning was God, and God was with God, and God was God.

Do you agree the above statement is illogical?

Though i never claimed mainstream translations are incorrect, the alternate explaination is plausible.

& there is evidence that the oldest coptic manuscripts read "a god":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdMV3PIEUco

I complement you on your diligent research. If not all, you have certainly found most of the errors in translation and thought that exist. Now consider what the mainstream versions and scholars have to say. The following are the translations of John 1:1 justifying the text, "and the Word was God."

New International version
New Living Translation
New American Standard Bible
International Standard Version
GOD'S WORD Translation
King James Bible
American King James Bible
American Standard Version
Bible in Basic English
Douay-Rheims Bible
Darby Bible Translation
English Revised Version
Weymouth New Testament
World English Bible
Young's Literal Translation

Well i did refer to them as "Mainstream" translations for a reason

The only real "Obfuscation" here is the Christian mistranslation of Exodus 3:14 "Ehyeh asher ehyeh" into "I AM what I AM" to suit the Greek "ego eimi" used in John 8:58, a prime example of a Trinitarian concoction to make Jesus appear as God.

I find it strange you offer no corrected version of this translation. Since this verse is not part of my argument your objection to its translation seems to serve as a red herring.

Its no red-herring, it shows the double standards many Christians have without realising it. When talking about the "accuracy" of rendering a text into a different language, the majority of the Christian Bibles have theological inputs.
For example, Exodus 3:14 should read:

Hebrew: Ehyeh asher ehyeh

Wrong English Translation: [strike]I Am Who I Am[/strike]

Correct English Translation: I WILL BE what I WILL BE

Infact "Ehyeh" is used fourty three times in the Hebrew Bible, each time it is either translated into "I will be" or "I shall be", definitely not "I AM"

So the question is, why do Christian Bibles translate Exodus 3:14 into "I Am"? The answer is found in John 8:58 where Jesus in Greek says: "ego eimi" which literally means "I Am", thus Exodus 3:14 is manipulated to compliment the Greek "I AM' used in John 8:58.

This is just one random mistranslation, there are dozens more.

So tell me, how can you BE GOD & be WITH GOD at the same time? Its like saying Im God & im also with God, absolute baloney that survives thanks to your "mysterious" doctrines

I will do that right after you explain to me how Allah always existed.

How? You are asking me to explain something about a transcendent God in minute details, which cannot be done, i simply want a general answer to my question; theologically, God exists without a beginning & without an end; he is the foundation of everything else that "exists". How he exists we do not know, he does not have body organs that keep him alive, but he himself is the essence of existence & because existence cannot be created, he always "was what he was".

Back to my question:
How can X be with Y & also be Y at the same time?

Also could you please elaborate your earlier comment regarding the "Ignorance" in my claims:

The christian notion of Jesus is:
1) Hypostatically Unified as a Fully Man & a Fully God because according to mainstream Christians, the doctrine of Kenosis is insufficient; because a "Partial God" cannot atone for all humanity meaning Jesus had to be "Fully God" when he was "crucified" (The Hypostatic Union is still contradicted by Matthew 24:36 & Mark 13:32)
2) Was one with God & was God at the same time. (Aka "Holy Mystery" aka baloney)
3) Is 1 in essence with God but has a different mind of his own & a different personhood. (Another great "Mystery" we blindly have to believe)
4) The Triune God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) can pray to itself (To a different person within itself).

Part of this is true and part is pure ignorance.

1 & 2 are basically the same thing stated differently.

Actually they are different
1) Jesus was Fully Man & Fully God (Please explain Matthew 24:36 & Mark 13:32)
2) Jesus was "With God" & "was God" at the same time

Do you see how 1 & 2 make no sense?

3 "has a different mind of his own..." Baloney. Christ could not be fully God and yet have a different mind. "a different personhood" is part of 1 & 2.

If there are triplet babies & when they grow up one of them becomes a mass-murderer, do we kill all 3 of the babies or just the 1 that committed the crime? Why not kill the 2 innocent ones? Because they are different persons, now what makes them a different person? Their personality. The 3 Gods that make up the Trinitarian union have minds/thoughts of their own but they share the same essence of Godhood.

4. Only the fully man Christ Jesus prayed to God. He had to be fully human for His sinless life to have meaning. God cannot sin neither be tempted to sin. From birth to death Jesus was fully a man and fully God.

(Bolded is mine)
You are playing nothing but verbal gymnastics. Jesus prayed to God as a whole, he did not cut himself into 2 entities and pray with the "Fully man" side. The Christian notion of the Hypostatic Union is that both the God & the Man attributes of Jesus co-existed in peace & harmony. How can you be "Fully God" & stop being God in order that you only pray as a man? The doctrine of Kenosis makes more sense.

Since you have failed to understand what you call the "Holy Mystery" it renders your objections to the humanity of Christ meaningless.

Its not me solely that fails to understand the "Trinity", as far as i know, no-one understands the Trinity & as famous Christian Anis Shorrosh puts it: "We do not have to understand it, but we have to accept it"

[micatala]

While the interpretive discussions regarding the Bible that have been going on over the last couple of pages are interesting, we are getting a bit off topic.

Again, here are the questions for debate.

http://www.twincities.com/newsletter-mo ... ck_check=1

The article includes a short quiz on violent rhetoric, and asks the reader to choose where the rhetoric resides, Bible or Koran.



Questions for debate.

1) Is the author, Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald, correct? Do Christians, at leat in the U.S., tend to get the benefit of the doubt while Muslims are often condemned in a blanket fashion?


2) Is it fair to Christians who do not understand the context of the Koran to use the Koran to criticize modern Muslim's? Should we discount opinions on the Koran or Islam provided by individuals who show no understanding of Islam?


3) What benefit does the anti-Islamic rhetoric prevalent in today's U.S. society provide to that society? What detriments does it present?


Even if criticism of Islam in general, or particular Muslim or Muslim populations is justified, should we not ask what good or harm this criticism does? Of these three questions, 3 seems to be the most important. It also leads to the follow up.


4) To the extent that their are radical Muslims who practice violence, what is the most constructive way of dealing with those radical views?

I will refer back to some comments related to these that have not been addressed.

Now, let's be clear. Do I think Christians should offer interpretations of the Bible? Yes. Do I accept that others can have different interpretations than mine? Yes.

But to say that we must accept a sentence out of the Koran with no interpretation and then not say the same about the Bible is inconsistent. It is arguably a violation of the Golden Rule, doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. You have illustrated this inconsistency very clearly.

I didn't attempt to interpret admonishments to Christians to be violent as anything because I can't find any. I only find admonishments to the Jews who are not Christians to be violent. Sorry, you can't equate what was said to the Jews as being said to Christians.

While I agree with your particular interpretive assumptions here, you miss the point.

I absolutley can equate them if I wish. And I can point to Biblical support for it. God does not change, and all that. Those commands were commands of God.

But again, the larger point is you are making an interpretive assumption about how Christians should read the Bible. You are basing these on a long history of theological writings.

You have not done the same for Islam and the Koran, and have in fact, dismissed any such possiblity that such interpretations need to be made.


Inconsistent as inconsistent can be.


This is compounded by the fact that you as a non-believer in their religion purport to be able to say what their religion means, what their Holy Book means, more than they do.


Blatant violation of the golden rule, given that you clearly believe, based on your statements, that your religious beliefs should be based on what you believe and how you understand the Bible, not how others do.


Inconsistent as inconsistent can be.

I earlier provided a few quotes from the Koran as well as several statements by current Muslims on their view of their religion and the Koran. delcoder has completely ignored these.

Again, if one cherry picks from a text, especially in order to negatively portray adherents of a religion, in this case Islam, that suggests Anti-Islamic bias.

I note you did not address any of the other verses or opinions from actual Muslims from my recent post.

WHy not?

My references are the times it says, "Then shall ye fight." You interpret that as you will. I don't have to interpret it.

Again, delcoder spends a lot of time defending his interpretation of the Bible, but claims no such interpretation is necessary to understand the Koran.

If we are to consistently apply your (delcoder's) method for dealing with the Koran to Christianity and the Bible, ANY interpretive explanation you offer should be considered out of bounds. ANY selection of verses I or anyone else offer from the Bible should be taken at face value, just like you expect others to take your single quote from the Koran.

And again, here is a question from the OP that no one seems to be addressing at all.

As a final general point, and not just to delcoder's post, I do not believe anyone on this thread has addressed this.

3) What benefit does the anti-Islamic rhetoric prevalent in today's U.S. society provide to that society?

How does pointing to violent verses in the Koran actually benefit U.S. society?

I frankly don't see much if any benefit. It certainly doesn't prevent terrorism. It is clearly not necessary to engage in anti-ISlamic rhetoric to prevent terrorism. In fact, it is pretty clearly true that anti-Islamic rhetoric can help institigate violence, as the recent Koran burning highlights.

[delcoder]

While the interpretive discussions regarding the Bible that have been going on over the last couple of pages are interesting, we are getting a bit off topic.

Again, here are the questions for debate.

http://www.twincities.com/newsletter-mo ... ck_check=1

The article includes a short quiz on violent rhetoric, and asks the reader to choose where the rhetoric resides, Bible or Koran.

Questions for debate.

1) Is the author, Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald, correct? Do Christians, at leat in the U.S., tend to get the benefit of the doubt while Muslims are often condemned in a blanket fashion?

2) Is it fair to Christians who do not understand the context of the Koran to use the Koran to criticize modern Muslim's? Should we discount opinions on the Koran or Islam provided by individuals who show no understanding of Islam?

3) What benefit does the anti-Islamic rhetoric prevalent in today's U.S. society provide to that society? What detriments does it present?

Even if criticism of Islam in general, or particular Muslim or Muslim populations is justified, should we not ask what good or harm this criticism does? Of these three questions, 3 seems to be the most important. It also leads to the follow up.

4) To the extent that their are radical Muslims who practice violence, what is the most constructive way of dealing with those radical views?

I will refer back to some comments related to these that have not been addressed.

Now, let's be clear. Do I think Christians should offer interpretations of the Bible? Yes. Do I accept that others can have different interpretations than mine? Yes.

But to say that we must accept a sentence out of the Koran with no interpretation and then not say the same about the Bible is inconsistent. It is arguably a violation of the Golden Rule, doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. You have illustrated this inconsistency very clearly.

That would be well and good if it were true. One has only to read the Koran to find many, many references to violence and even commands to violence.

I didn't attempt to interpret admonishments to Christians to be violent as anything because I can't find any. I only find admonishments to the Jews who are not Christians to be violent. Sorry, you can't equate what was said to the Jews as being said to Christians.

While I agree with your particular interpretive assumptions here, you miss the point.

I absolutley can equate them if I wish. And I can point to Biblical support for it. God does not change, and all that. Those commands were commands of God.

Your arguments in this case have been reduced to the ridiculous. True, you can equate anything with anything you wish, but in this case the evidence makes you look rather foolish for doing so. In addition, I find it not worth my time to reply to such ridiculous assertions. If you choose to make yourself look foolish, please do it without my help.

But again, the larger point is you are making an interpretive assumption about how Christians should read the Bible. You are basing these on a long history of theological writings.

You have not done the same for Islam and the Koran, and have in fact, dismissed any such possiblity that such interpretations need to be made.


Inconsistent as inconsistent can be.

Only in your eyes. The Koran speaks for itself. The problem here is not working to interpret many of it passages to be admonitions to violence, but rather to make them not appear to be urges to violence.

This is compounded by the fact that you as a non-believer in their religion purport to be able to say what their religion means, what their Holy Book means, more than they do.

Blatant violation of the golden rule, given that you clearly believe, based on your statements, that your religious beliefs should be based on what you believe and how you understand the Bible, not how others do.


Inconsistent as inconsistent can be.

You wouldn't recognize a violation of the golden rule if it walked up and slapped you in the face. If I were a captive to as false a religion as Islam I would be thankful to whomever sought to free me from my deception. That's an honest interpretation of the golden rule.

As to what your religion means, I think I have covered that thoroughly. You don't need commentaries upon commentaries to conclude "Then shall ye fight." to be an admonition to violence. How else would you interpret "fight" an admonition to hug someone's neck?

I earlier provided a few quotes from the Koran as well as several statements by current Muslims on their view of their religion and the Koran. delcoder has completely ignored these.

Again, if one cherry picks from a text, especially in order to negatively portray adherents of a religion, in this case Islam, that suggests Anti-Islamic bias.

You and I both know you can always find a few individuals who will present an opinion opposite to what the masses take. This is a logic fallacy known as "Too small sample." When Muslims riot the world over when a Pastor burns a Koran and some capture and kill United Nations workers who had nothing to do with the burning you can pretty well conclude Muslims are looking for an excuse to be violent. Finding 3 or 4 who speak out against their actions isn't really going to mean very much, now is it?

I remember seeing a video of small Muslim school children who attacked an effigy of an American while on recess. How many other religions teach their small children to whack a dummy and express hatred? Your children are not only born into Islam, they are trained when they are very small to be violent.

A former Muslim who is a Christian missionary spoke at our church last night. He told of the terrible abuse Muslim apostates (Muslims who become Christians) suffer. He spoke of a man who had both elbows broken to make his arms useless. Why? Because he became a Christian.

I don't want to hear "The radicals did it." Are your little children radicals? Are your innocents taught hate and violence or do they learn it on their own?

You want to talk about three or four Muslims who spoke out about the World Trade Center massacre, but you want to ignore the thousands who poured into the streets shouting and dancing in glee.

I note you did not address any of the other verses or opinions from actual Muslims from my recent post.

WHy not?

Well, you got it here. Are you happy now?

My references are the times it says, "Then shall ye fight." You interpret that as you will. I don't have to interpret it.

Again, delcoder spends a lot of time defending his interpretation of the Bible, but claims no such interpretation is necessary to understand the Koran.

I have not once defended my interpretation of the Bible other than to straighten out Murad on his ridiculous interpretation of John 1:1. I posted a link that proved his assertions were invalid and he still persists in perverting the scripture. I will accept everything you say about the OT if you will show me one passage that even mentions Christians.

If we are to consistently apply your (delcoder's) method for dealing with the Koran to Christianity and the Bible, ANY interpretive explanation you offer should be considered out of bounds. ANY selection of verses I or anyone else offer from the Bible should be taken at face value, just like you expect others to take your single quote from the Koran.

Its not a single quote. The Koran is full of violence. The Muslims are also. I wonder why?

And again, here is a question from the OP that no one seems to be addressing at all.


As a final general point, and not just to delcoder's post, I do not believe anyone on this thread has addressed this.

3) What benefit does the anti-Islamic rhetoric prevalent in today's U.S. society provide to that society?

How does pointing to violent verses in the Koran actually benefit U.S. society?

I frankly don't see much if any benefit. It certainly doesn't prevent terrorism. It is clearly not necessary to engage in anti-ISlamic rhetoric to prevent terrorism. In fact, it is pretty clearly true that anti-Islamic rhetoric can help instigate violence, as the recent Koran burning highlights.

[/quote]

I don't think you realize it but you just made my case with " it is pretty clearly true that anti-Islamic rhetoric can help instigate violence, as the recent Koran burning highlights." There you have it folks. The Muslims are accused of being instigated to violence by whom? A Muslim is doing the accusing.

I only seek to get the word out. Our politicians keep attempting to cover the rabid violence by Muslims with relegating it to radicalized Muslims. Baloney. It is being done by Muslims who believe they should practice what the Koran says.

[delcoder]

My whole argument was "The Word" only gets described as "ton theos",...

Your argument was actually based upon the use of two articles translated "ho" and "ton". You attempted to show "ton" modified "God" when the scripture said "the Word was with God" and that "ho" modified "God" when the scripture said, "and was God." You then attempted to draw from this observation that when the scripture said "and was God" it should have said, "was divine."

I have now revealed your error based upon your ignorance of Greek declensions and the fact that "ho" and "ton" are declensions of the same word. I furnished a link as proof of that claim. Now that your ridiculous argument with respect to translation of John 1:1 has been exposed you post several obscure and incorrect translations where you find "was divine."

The Original Greek reads:

En arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos.

(I don't know why the last 'God' has a capital G when rendered into english)
Thus there are scholarly divisions on how this should be read.

It is capitalized because it refers to Almighty God.

Yeah, and there are some like scholars that believe the world is flat. There is no dispute as to what the Greek says. There are only a few nut jobs that "wrest the scriptures to their own destruction."

Nevertheless, lets look into the context of the verse:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(NIV John 1:1)

So basically, "the Word" (Logos) is another name for "God".

No it is not. It is a title. God's name is Jehovah. His title is God.

So lets see if it makes any sense when we replace "the Word" with "God":

In the beginning was God, and God was with God, and God was God.

Do you agree the above statement is illogical?

No, I don't because you present "God" as a name. If you make a mistake at the outset it follows you all the way through your point.

Though i never claimed mainstream translations are incorrect, the alternate explanation is plausible.

& there is evidence that the oldest coptic manuscripts read "a god":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdMV3PIEUco

Oh, we are now using YouTube for our authority in the debate? The New American Bible was translated using the oldest reliable manuscripts possible. It is regarded as the most accurate translation of the Bible in existence. That means your "coptic manuscripts" don't count. I noticed you didn't quote them directly, but hedged with "evidence" of what they read.

I complement you on your diligent research. If not all, you have certainly found most of the errors in translation and thought that exist. Now consider what the mainstream versions and scholars have to say. The following are the translations of John 1:1 justifying the text, "and the Word was God."

New International version
New Living Translation
New American Standard Bible
International Standard Version
GOD'S WORD Translation
King James Bible
American King James Bible
American Standard Version
Bible in Basic English
Douay-Rheims Bible
Darby Bible Translation
English Revised Version
Weymouth New Testament
World English Bible
Young's Literal Translation

Well i did refer to them as "Mainstream" translations for a reason

The only real "Obfuscation" here is the Christian mistranslation of Exodus 3:14 "Ehyeh asher ehyeh" into "I AM what I AM" to suit the Greek "ego eimi" used in John 8:58, a prime example of a Trinitarian concoction to make Jesus appear as God.

I find it strange you offer no corrected version of this translation. Since this verse is not part of my argument your objection to its translation seems to serve as a red herring.

Its no red-herring, it shows the double standards many Christians have without realising it. When talking about the "accuracy" of rendering a text into a different language, the majority of the Christian Bibles have theological inputs.
For example, Exodus 3:14 should read:

Hebrew: Ehyeh asher ehyeh

Wrong English Translation: [strike]I Am Who I Am[/strike]

Correct English Translation: I WILL BE what I WILL BE

Infact "Ehyeh" is used fourty three times in the Hebrew Bible, each time it is either translated into "I will be" or "I shall be", definitely not "I AM"

So the question is, why do Christian Bibles translate Exodus 3:14 into "I Am"? The answer is found in John 8:58 where Jesus in Greek says: "ego eimi" which literally means "I Am", thus Exodus 3:14 is manipulated to compliment the Greek "I AM' used in John 8:58.

This is just one random mistranslation, there are dozens more.

This is a red herring regardless of what you say. You are trying to divert attention away from your ridiculous mistranslation of John 1:1. Not going to work. I won't bite.

So tell me, how can you BE GOD & be WITH GOD at the same time? Its like saying Im God & im also with God, absolute baloney that survives thanks to your "mysterious" doctrines

I will do that right after you explain to me how Allah always existed.

How? You are asking me to explain something about a transcendent God in minute details, which cannot be done, i simply want a general answer to my question; theologically, God exists without a beginning & without an end; he is the foundation of everything else that "exists". How he exists we do not know, he does not have body organs that keep him alive, but he himself is the essence of existence & because existence cannot be created, he always "was what he was".

What I asked you to do is no more difficult than what you asked me to do.

Back to my question:
How can X be with Y & also be Y at the same time?

Easy. Because they are all one and separate all at the same time.

Also could you please elaborate your earlier comment regarding the "Ignorance" in my claims:

The christian notion of Jesus is:
1) Hypostatically Unified as a Fully Man & a Fully God because according to mainstream Christians, the doctrine of Kenosis is insufficient; because a "Partial God" cannot atone for all humanity meaning Jesus had to be "Fully God" when he was "crucified" (The Hypostatic Union is still contradicted by Matthew 24:36 & Mark 13:32)
2) Was one with God & was God at the same time. (Aka "Holy Mystery" aka baloney)
3) Is 1 in essence with God but has a different mind of his own & a different personhood. (Another great "Mystery" we blindly have to believe)
4) The Triune God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) can pray to itself (To a different person within itself).

Part of this is true and part is pure ignorance.

1 & 2 are basically the same thing stated differently.

Actually they are different
1) Jesus was Fully Man & Fully God (Please explain Matthew 24:36 & Mark 13:32)
2) Jesus was "With God" & "was God" at the same time

Do you see how 1 & 2 make no sense?

3 "has a different mind of his own..." Baloney. Christ could not be fully God and yet have a different mind. "a different personhood" is part of 1 & 2.

If there are triplet babies & when they grow up one of them becomes a mass-murderer, do we kill all 3 of the babies or just the 1 that committed the crime? Why not kill the 2 innocent ones? Because they are different persons, now what makes them a different person? Their personality. The 3 Gods that make up the Trinitarian union have minds/thoughts of their own but they share the same essence of Godhood.

4. Only the fully man Christ Jesus prayed to God. He had to be fully human for His sinless life to have meaning. God cannot sin neither be tempted to sin. From birth to death Jesus was fully a man and fully God.

(Bolded is mine)

You are playing nothing but verbal gymnastics. Jesus prayed to God as a whole, he did not cut himself into 2 entities and pray with the "Fully man" side. The Christian notion of the Hypostatic Union is that both the God & the Man attributes of Jesus co-existed in peace & harmony. How can you be "Fully God" & stop being God in order that you only pray as a man? The doctrine of Kenosis makes more sense.

It was necessary for the Word to become flesh so He could be tempted in all points like as we are yet without sin. Had He not become human He could not have been tempted nor could He sin so that being the case His sacrifice would have meant nothing. You evaluate Christ with a secular humanistic approach. No wonder you come to such ridiculous conclusions. You do not have the mind of Christ, you have the mind of a human, the prophet. You are as blind as he was. He was fully God and He was fully human.

Since you have failed to understand what you call the "Holy Mystery" it renders your objections to the humanity of Christ meaningless.

Its not me solely that fails to understand the "Trinity", as far as i know, no-one understands the Trinity & as famous Christian Anis Shorrosh puts it: "We do not have to understand it, but we have to accept it"

You don't understand an eternal Allah either, but you accept it. I asked you to explain how he could be eternal and all I got was excuses. Do you think you cannot understand Allah's being eternal and yet accept it and then not accept Christ being fully both God and man? Where is it written I have to understand everything about God's nature to believe in Him? I understand enough to know that He loves me with a love I cannot fathom and that love drove Him to become a man and die so that I might live. I understand He wants to be my father and I want to be His son. I think maybe this is enough.

[micatala]

While the interpretive discussions regarding the Bible that have been going on over the last couple of pages are interesting, we are getting a bit off topic.

Again, here are the questions for debate.

http://www.twincities.com/newsletter-mo ... ck_check=1

The article includes a short quiz on violent rhetoric, and asks the reader to choose where the rhetoric resides, Bible or Koran.

Questions for debate.

1) Is the author, Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald, correct? Do Christians, at leat in the U.S., tend to get the benefit of the doubt while Muslims are often condemned in a blanket fashion?

2) Is it fair to Christians who do not understand the context of the Koran to use the Koran to criticize modern Muslim's? Should we discount opinions on the Koran or Islam provided by individuals who show no understanding of Islam?

3) What benefit does the anti-Islamic rhetoric prevalent in today's U.S. society provide to that society? What detriments does it present?

Even if criticism of Islam in general, or particular Muslim or Muslim populations is justified, should we not ask what good or harm this criticism does? Of these three questions, 3 seems to be the most important. It also leads to the follow up.

4) To the extent that their are radical Muslims who practice violence, what is the most constructive way of dealing with those radical views?

I will refer back to some comments related to these that have not been addressed.

Now, let's be clear. Do I think Christians should offer interpretations of the Bible? Yes. Do I accept that others can have different interpretations than mine? Yes.

But to say that we must accept a sentence out of the Koran with no interpretation and then not say the same about the Bible is inconsistent. It is arguably a violation of the Golden Rule, doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. You have illustrated this inconsistency very clearly.

That would be well and good if it were true. One has only to read the Koran to find many, many references to violence and even commands to violence.

I didn't attempt to interpret admonishments to Christians to be violent as anything because I can't find any. I only find admonishments to the Jews who are not Christians to be violent. Sorry, you can't equate what was said to the Jews as being said to Christians.

While I agree with your particular interpretive assumptions here, you miss the point.

I absolutley can equate them if I wish. And I can point to Biblical support for it. God does not change, and all that. Those commands were commands of God.

Your arguments in this case have been reduced to the ridiculous. True, you can equate anything with anything you wish, but in this case the evidence makes you look rather foolish for doing so. In addition, I find it not worth my time to reply to such ridiculous assertions. If you choose to make yourself look foolish, please do it without my help.

THis is a vacuous response that in no way addresses the evidence I've presented that you deal with the Bible in one way and the Koran another. In other words, you are being inconsistent, which arguably makes your position an anti-Islamic one, as you clearly are seeking to portray Islam in as negative a way as possible.

But again, the larger point is you are making an interpretive assumption about how Christians should read the Bible. You are basing these on a long history of theological writings.

You have not done the same for Islam and the Koran, and have in fact, dismissed any such possiblity that such interpretations need to be made.


Inconsistent as inconsistent can be.

Only in your eyes. The Koran speaks for itself. The problem here is not working to interpret many of it passages to be admonitions to violence, but rather to make them not appear to be urges to violence.

Seeking to dismiss the point through blanket accusations of subjectivity is another vacuous defense of your position.

Repeating your assertion that the "KOran speaks for itself" while going through endless gyrations to say the Bible should be interpreted as you think is most appropriate only further illustrates the inconsistency of your position.

This is compounded by the fact that you as a non-believer in their religion purport to be able to say what their religion means, what their Holy Book means, more than they do.

Blatant violation of the golden rule, given that you clearly believe, based on your statements, that your religious beliefs should be based on what you believe and how you understand the Bible, not how others do.


Inconsistent as inconsistent can be.

You wouldn't recognize a violation of the golden rule if it walked up and slapped you in the face. If I were a captive to as false a religion as Islam I would be thankful to whomever sought to free me from my deception. That's an honest interpretation of the golden rule.

More gratuituous accusations.


You are certainly free to express how you hope others would treat you.

Let's say, to give your position the benefit of the doubt, that you are sincerely trying to "save the souls" of Muslims.


Let's consider the effectiveness of your approach. Do you really think that by pointing out one verse, or pointing to only verses that follow a particular theme (in or out of context) and using those to mischaracterize a Muslims religion that you are likely to be successful in getting him or her to forsake their religion?

Can you show any evidence that such an approach has worked in the past?

As to what your religion means, I think I have covered that thoroughly. You don't need commentaries upon commentaries to conclude "Then shall ye fight." to be an admonition to violence. How else would you interpret "fight" an admonition to hug someone's neck?

Then you don't need any commentaries or defenses to conclude that, according to CHristianity, God wants us to kill apostates, or children who dishonor their parents. If you refuse to consider the Koran as a whole and address verses which provide context or even contradict this one, or to consider the actual views of Muslims on how they read this, then you have no real reason to complain when others mischaracterize the BIble or your views on the Bible.


Again, all I am asking for is a fair measure to be applied to both religions. You insist, repeatedly, on an unequal and unfair measure, and you clearly seem intent on doing so in order to make negative comments about Islam.

I earlier provided a few quotes from the Koran as well as several statements by current Muslims on their view of their religion and the Koran. delcoder has completely ignored these.

Again, if one cherry picks from a text, especially in order to negatively portray adherents of a religion, in this case Islam, that suggests Anti-Islamic bias.

You and I both know you can always find a few individuals who will present an opinion opposite to what the masses take. This is a logic fallacy known as "Too small sample."

I agree with the general point here.

When Muslims riot the world over when a Pastor burns a Koran and some capture and kill United Nations workers who had nothing to do with the burning you can pretty well conclude Muslims are looking for an excuse to be violent. Finding 3 or 4 who speak out against their actions isn't really going to mean very much, now is it?

This paragraph is packed with fallacies.

First, one has to ask how many Muslims were actually involved in protests on the Koran burning?

How many of those committed acts of violence?

Secondly, the number of people involved in protests is typically going to be many times the number who make public written pronouncements that are widely publicized. To compare a number of protestors to a number of the latter is a rather ridiculous comparison.

Thirdly, it is true I only provided a few samples. However, your comment seems to assert that there are no others writing similar comments, and furthermore, that no other Muslims agree with the sentiments these moderates express.


How can one explain the blanket statements and fallacious assumptions in this short passage other than as an anti-Islamic rhetoric?

I remember seeing a video of small Muslim school children who attacked an effigy of an American while on recess. How many other religions teach their small children to whack a dummy and express hatred? Your children are not only born into Islam, they are trained when they are very small to be violent.

Notice how you take one instance of negative behavior and then go on to paint the whole religion with it. This is just exactly the type of rhetoric Pitts is pointing to in his article.




Do some Muslims, and certainly more than in this one instance, indoctrinate their children to hate others? Sure. The evidence clearly indicates this happens. No argument from me, and no argument that this is outrageous.


Do Christians never do this? Hmmm. I assume you have heard of Fred Phelps.

How about Jesus Camp?

Fischer is shown preaching a sermon where she mentions Harry Potter and claims that had he existed in biblical times, he "would have been put to death". Fischer admonishes the children that many among them are "phonies" who curse or engage in non-Christian behaviors with friends at school, and tells them "it's time to clean up your act". Most of the children in the room are crying after the sermon. Summoning the now-hysterical children gather around her, she pours a bottle of Nestlé water on their hands to be "washed in the water of God's word."

How about the Christian Identity Movement?

Racialism, or race based philosophy is the core tenet of Christian Identity, and most CI adherents are White Nationalists or support racial segregation. Most believe that Jews are genetically compelled by their Satanic or Edomite ancestry to carry on a conspiracy against the Adamic seedline and today have achieved almost complete control of the Earth through their illegitimate claim to the white race's status as God's chosen people.[42] As a general rule, Christian Identity followers adhere to the traditional orthodox Christian views on the role of women, abortion, and homosexuality, and view racial miscegenation as a sin and a violation of God's laws as dictated in Genesis of "kind after kind". (Ex. 21:22, Lev. 20:13).

Now, do I think that these groups are representative of CHristianity? No, of course not. It would be fallacious to paint all CHristians using these brushes.

One should allow each individual, and each denomination or church, to represent themselves, and not seek to mischaracterize all Christians on the basis that some are racists, misogynists, bigots, or even terrorists.



And yet, you are falling into the exact same fallacies in your arguments.


And after you just got done pointing out the fallacy of "Too Small Sample"

A former Muslim who is a Christian missionary spoke at our church last night. He told of the terrible abuse Muslim apostates (Muslims who become Christians) suffer. He spoke of a man who had both elbows broken to make his arms useless. Why? Because he became a Christian.

I don't want to hear "The radicals did it." Are your little children radicals? Are your innocents taught hate and violence or do they learn it on their own?

Once again, no discussion of who is actually doing this, how many Muslims do this, how many support this. Just a blanket accusation based on an isolated example. Clearly the example is horrific and to be condemned.


Would not doing unto others mean not slandering people who do not commit acts with the actions of those who do those actions?


And trying to make a pre-emptive strike against other people pointing out the truth is not going to keep me from doing so. You not wanting to hear the truth is irrelevant.

How would you define such people other than as radicals?


Does your statement now mean we do not dismiss the Fred Phelps of the world as radicals? The Christian Identity people are not radicals? Hmmm.

You want to talk about three or four Muslims who spoke out about the World Trade Center massacre, but you want to ignore the thousands who poured into the streets shouting and dancing in glee.

I have said no such thing. That is your straw man.

My position is simple.

Each person is responsible for their own actions and their own statements. Slandering person A because he belongs to a group including a person B who commits violent acts is inappropriate and un-CHristian.


I have never ONCE said we should ignore acts of violence or those who commit them.

You are engaging in an implied false dichotomy. Your position seems to assume we must engage in negative rhetoric against Muslims in general or we are condoning the actions of those that commit violence.

I note you did not address any of the other verses or opinions from actual Muslims from my recent post.

WHy not?

Well, you got it here. Are you happy now?

No, I did not get it. You simply dismissed them without mentioning anything they actually said. How you can consider simply mentioning that I brought up opposing views and then dismissing them without comment is addressing those views I really can't understand.


This again illustrates your inconsistency.

[Murad]

You don't need commentaries upon commentaries to conclude "Then shall ye fight." to be an admonition to violence. How else would you interpret "fight" an admonition to hug someone's neck?

This is where you've failed to understand the Quran like many Islamaphobes.
Most parts of the Quran that talk about "Fighting" have a HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE, for example in the battle of the trench where the muslims where being invaded from the north & east (if i remember correctly), Muhammad(pbuh) received a revelation commanding him not the run away like he did last time but to defend the city in the name of God & that God would help him & his companions to be victorious over the idolaters & they won even though they were outnumbered. & the list of battles in Arabia goes on, & for each battle there was a different revelation.

What Islamaphobes tend to do is something like quote this:

"Kill the mushriqeen (pagans, polytheists, kuffar) where ever you find them."[Al-Qur’an 9:5]

Now Islam is made to appear as a "Devil" & "Satanic" religion.

But objectively, what God commanded the muslim soldiers is to fight during the invasions & to not be afraid, meaning kill your enemies, plain & simple. That is basically the definition of war, to kill your enemies. Whats so shocking about that?

Now this is what Islamaphobes dont want you to see:

The verse 9:5 which i quoted earlier is only half of the story, one verse later we see:

"If one amongst the pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure that is because they are men without knowledge."
[Al-Qur’an 9:6]

Not only are muslims Commanded by God to give the enemies peace if they want peace, but they also MUST escort them to a place where they can be safe. Please, i am begging you, to find A SINGLE biblical verse that shows this type of courtesy during fatal warfare.

That is my only challenge, just ONE biblical verse that shows this type of courtesy during life & death warfare.

My whole argument was "The Word" only gets described as "ton theos",...

Your argument was actually based upon the use of two articles translated "ho" and "ton". You attempted to show "ton" modified "God" when the scripture said "the Word was with God" and that "ho" modified "God" when the scripture said, "and was God." You then attempted to draw from this observation that when the scripture said "and was God" it should have said, "was divine."

I have now revealed your error based upon your ignorance of Greek declensions and the fact that "ho" and "ton" are declensions of the same word. I furnished a link as proof of that claim. Now that your ridiculous argument with respect to translation of John 1:1 has been exposed you post several obscure and incorrect translations where you find "was divine."

The Original Greek reads:

En arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos.

(I don't know why the last 'God' has a capital G when rendered into english)
Thus there are scholarly divisions on how this should be read.

It is capitalized because it refers to Almighty God.

Yeah, and there are some like scholars that believe the world is flat. There is no dispute as to what the Greek says. There are only a few nut jobs that "wrest the scriptures to their own destruction."

So why does 'god' have a lower case 'g' in 2 Corinthians 4:4 & an upper case 'G' in John 1:1 ? If you believe the context determines the capitals when rendered into english, it would be illogical to believe "the word" is synonymous to "god" or else John 1:1 would make no sense at all (In the beginning was God, God was with God, God was God etc...) so in the context it must be "a god" or "divine".

Nevertheless, lets look into the context of the verse:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(NIV John 1:1)

So basically, "the Word" (Logos) is another name for "God".

No it is not. It is a title. God's name is Jehovah. His title is God.

But they refer to the same entity according to John 1:1 right?

So lets see if it makes any sense when we replace "the Word" with "God":

In the beginning was God, and God was with God, and God was God.

Do you agree the above statement is illogical?

No, I don't because you present "God" as a name. If you make a mistake at the outset it follows you all the way through your point.

Title or name, it doesn't change my point.
Ok, "God" is a title & "The Word" is a title. But they are interchangable because they are the same entity according to John 1:1.

Do you believe this is logical:

In the beginning was God, and God was with God, and God was God.

Why/Why not?

The only real "Obfuscation" here is the Christian mistranslation of Exodus 3:14 "Ehyeh asher ehyeh" into "I AM what I AM" to suit the Greek "ego eimi" used in John 8:58, a prime example of a Trinitarian concoction to make Jesus appear as God.

I find it strange you offer no corrected version of this translation. Since this verse is not part of my argument your objection to its translation seems to serve as a red herring.

Its no red-herring, it shows the double standards many Christians have without realising it. When talking about the "accuracy" of rendering a text into a different language, the majority of the Christian Bibles have theological inputs.
For example, Exodus 3:14 should read:

Hebrew: Ehyeh asher ehyeh

Wrong English Translation: [strike]I Am Who I Am[/strike]

Correct English Translation: I WILL BE what I WILL BE

Infact "Ehyeh" is used fourty three times in the Hebrew Bible, each time it is either translated into "I will be" or "I shall be", definitely not "I AM"

So the question is, why do Christian Bibles translate Exodus 3:14 into "I Am"? The answer is found in John 8:58 where Jesus in Greek says: "ego eimi" which literally means "I Am", thus Exodus 3:14 is manipulated to compliment the Greek "I AM' used in John 8:58.

This is just one random mistranslation, there are dozens more.

This is a red herring regardless of what you say. You are trying to divert attention away from your ridiculous mistranslation of John 1:1. Not going to work. I won't bite.

& i dont expect you to bite, no one can bite unambiguous facts on how their holy scripture contains deception. There is no mistranslation of John 1:1, you are making an argument from authority when you keep stating that the "American Standard Bible" proves me wrong because its the 'most accurate translation' when it indeed is nothing more than a subjective difference. I on the other hand did not say you are wrong, i simply said the Unitarian & JW translation of John 1:1 are plausible & many Greek speaking Christian scholars like Origen have stated that the logos is "a God". The Word "ho logos", was with God "ho theos" & following that it says he was God "theos", which can have a variety of meanings.

Count Leo Tolstoy says about John 1:1

"If it says that in the beginning was the ... Word, and that the Word was...with God, it is impossible to go on and say that it was God. If it was God, it could stand in no relation to God."
- The Four Gospels Harmonized and Translated, p. 30.

Professor Allen Wikgren who is a Trinitarian himself writes:

"It is doubtful that the author would have written [`only-begotten god'], which may be a primitive, transcriptional error in the Alexandrian tradition (YC/QC)."
- p. 189, A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament, 1971, United Bible Societies (UBS).

Back to my question:
How can X be with Y & also be Y at the same time?

Easy. Because they are all one and separate all at the same time.

(Bolded is mine)
Sorry, you cannot make 2 contradictory statements simultaneously true.

If X is one with Y then X is interchangeable with Y so X=Y & Y=X

So i'll rephrase the forumala:

How can X be with Y & also BE Y simultaneously?

By definition, if you are with someone, that "someone" you are "with" is not you.

It was necessary for the Word to become flesh so He could be tempted in all points like as we are yet without sin. Had He not become human He could not have been tempted nor could He sin so that being the case His sacrifice would have meant nothing. You evaluate Christ with a secular humanistic approach. No wonder you come to such ridiculous conclusions. You do not have the mind of Christ, you have the mind of a human, the prophet.

I have the mind of a logical thinker, i dont deceive myself with "Holy Mysteries" & "Humans are too stupid to understand" etc..etc.. Nothing but verbal gymnastics, infact thats a very accurate representation of Christianity, when there is a clear contradiction within Christendom, the Christian tends to cover it up with a "Doctrine" that is "Beyond our reasoning" thus even though it sounds like 3+3=54542454 it must be true as God works in "mysterious" ways.

You are as blind as he was.

We clearly have different definitions on what true "Sight" is.

Deaf, Dumb, and Blind, they will not return to the path
(Quran 2:18)

He was fully God and He was fully human.

Only according to the Council of Chalcedon, which has dominated in Christian theology over the doctrine of Kenosis.

An easy way to debunk the absurd "Hypostatic Union":

"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."
(Mark 13:32)

"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."
(Matthew 24:36)

"And the child grew and became strong; he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him."
(Luke 2:40)

"And Jesus GREW in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men."
(Luke 2:52)

Is this your "Fully God & Fully Man" Jesus thats "All-Knowing" ?
Thats where your doctrine fails miserably, you cannot be All-knowing & not All-knowing at the same time, its impossible.
Can you imagine God Al-Mighty growing in wisdom?


Two contradictory forces cannot and will not simultaneously co-exist without conflict. It is impossible according to logic, reasoning & what mankind has learnt over the period of our existence. Its like saying you can be "Male & Female" simultaneously, an absurd paganistic claim, only made possible by your "Holy Mysteries" & "Humans are too stupid to grasp the divine" ideologies.

Since you have failed to understand what you call the "Holy Mystery" it renders your objections to the humanity of Christ meaningless.

Its not me solely that fails to understand the "Trinity", as far as i know, no-one understands the Trinity & as famous Christian Anis Shorrosh puts it: "We do not have to understand it, but we have to accept it"

You don't understand an eternal Allah either, but you accept it. I asked you to explain how he could be eternal and all I got was excuses.

You asked me 'how is God eternal' and i said he has no beginning or end (contrary to Jesus being born) & 'why' he is eternal is because he is the essence of all existence, nothing can exist without him existing.

You tell me what is the conflict of God having no "Beginning"? By definition of "God" who is eternal, it makes perfect sense that eternity goes reverse (no beginning) & forward (no end). & if 'God' is the subject who is "transcendent of his creation", meaning by definition time does not affect him (As Judaism Christianity & Islam believes) we have absolutely no problem on how he can exist for an 'eternity' because an 'eternity' does not have a beginning or end contrary to the primary nebula in the big bang which asserts the universe had a chronological origin.

The Hypostatic Union cannot be equated or compared to God' attribute of eternity, and comparing them as the "same thing" is far from honest. For the Hypostatic Union, we can analyse the attributes of both 'Human' & 'God'.

Do you think you cannot understand Allah's being eternal and yet accept it and then not accept Christ being fully both God and man?

You claimed i was bringing up red-herrings, hypocrisy at its prime. We understand what 'eternity' means & there is no scientific evidence as far as i know that proves something 'cannot' be eternal. On the contrary even though we understand what "Hypostatic Union" means, there is scientific evidence & mathematical formulas that prove you cannot be 2 contradictory forces without conflict (look at chemical reactions for example & also look at anti-matter)

Where is it written I have to understand everything about God's nature to believe in Him?

You do not have to understand his nature directly, but you do need to understand the doctrines that try to explain his nature.

I understand enough to know that He loves me with a love I cannot fathom and that love drove Him to become a man and die so that I might live.

Why couldn't he forgive you without killing himself (ill be kind and not say suicide) ? Why is the Christian God restricted to magical blood sacrifices, while the Jewish & Islamic God can forgive from direct mercy? Yes Christianity sounds all beautiful from words "God died for my sins" or "God walked a mile in my shoes" but upon brief analysation the entire ideology becomes illogical.

[McCulloch]

Moderator Warning
Please review our Rules.

If you choose to make yourself look foolish, please do it without my help.
You wouldn't recognize a violation of the golden rule if it walked up and slapped you in the face.

In debate, civility requires you to address the arguments brought up in debate rather than the character of the person who brings them up. Please refrain from deliberately insulting other debaters.


______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[East of Eden]

Yes for all? Nice...
Please dazzle me with your objective evidence.

The Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or those who interviewed eyewitnesses. The early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew, one of the 12 apostles, was the author of this Gospel, and that Mark was written by John Mark. Papias (c. AD 140) quoted an even earlier source as saying: (1) Mark was a close associate of Peter, from whom he received the tradition of the things said and done by the Lord, (2) this tradition did not come to Mark as a finished, sequential account of the life of our Lord, but as the preaching of Peter, and (3) Mark accurately preserved this material.

As far as Luke, the author's name doesn't appear in the book, but unmistakable evidence points to Luke. This Gospel is a companion volume to the book of Acts, and the language and structure of these two books indicate that both were written by the same person. They are addressed to the same individual, Theophilus, and the second volume refers to the first (Acts 1:1). Certain sections in acts use the pronoun "we", indicating that the author was with Paul when the events described in these passages took place (Acts. 16:10-17, 20:5-15, 21:1-28:16). By process of elimination, Paul's "dear friend Luke, the doctor" (Col. 4:14), and "fellow worker" (Phm 24) is the most likely candidate. His authorship is supported by the uniform testimony of early Christian writings such as the Muratorian Canon, AD 170, and the works of Irenaeus, AD 180.

John was authored by the disciple of the same name, "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, 20, 24). The author knew Jewish life well, as seen from references to popular Messianic speculations, the the hostility between Jews and Samaritans, and to Jewish customs. The Gospel of John has many touches that were obviously based on the recollections of an eyewitness such as the house at Bethany being filled with the fragrance of the broken perfume jar. Early writers such as Irenaeus and Tertullian say that John wrote this Gospel.

Amazing? Absolutely, can you recall something you did 50 years ago with precise wording & crystal clear detail?

I'm only 51, but I can remember events of 45 years ago clearly, and I never have seen miracles as the Gospel writers did. It is interesting with the Gospels there is agreement on the big picture but variance on minor details, something that would not have happened if it were 'rigged'. Frank Morrison was a skeptic and prominent lawyer who while researching a book attempting to disprove the Gospel, became a believer by looking at the evidence. In this book, "Who Moved the Stone?", he says this pattern of agreement on the big picture but divergence on minor details is exactly what we find in criminal trial testimonies today.

The Hadiths were written up to 200 years after the events, do you reject them also?

We have fragments of the Gospels dating to 114 AD, a very short time gap after it was written. The time gap between our earliest copies of Caesar's 'Gallic Wars' is 1,000 years after it was written, for Homer's 'Illiad' it is 400 years, and for the writings of Demosthenes it is 1,400 years. Do you reject those writings also?

The Gospels are unreliable & highly doubtful, fact ( No "Tradition" is involved in this assertion ).

But I'm sure the Koran and Hadiths are beyond reproach, right?

“I am the Messenger of God, yet I don’t know what will be done with me.�
- Muhammad (pbuh)

If even the 'prophet' wasn't sure of his salvation, shouldn't you be really worried?

Be more specific, Genesis what verse? The only thing Genesis asserts is that Adam & Eve were thrown out of Paradise, this is nothing special to Muslims or Jews, but Christians have interpreted this as "Inherited Sin" & "Original Sin" where we all burn in hell unless we testify God committed suicide for us; however, such a pseudo ideology did not exist until Augustine of Hippo invented it.

See verses 16-19. The statements about women's painful childbirth and the man's toil and cursed earth didn't just apply to Adam and Eve. It was no longer 'paradise' after the curse. The place were the Garden probably was located looks very different today.

Obviously mankind is sinful, there has not existed a single man from Adam to Muhammad that didn't commit sin (yep even Jesus).

What sin did Jesus commit? There was no sin before the Fall. Before the Fall it was possible not to sin, now it is not possible not to sin, and in the new Heaven and Earth it will not be possible to sin.

Exactly & this sin can be forgiven through God's love & mercy, not a blood sacrifice.

First comes acceptance of God's love and mercy, then comes God's mercy. You will probably reject it, but see John 3:16. It is interesting that Muslims accept only parts of the NT as 'authentic', to fit their doctrinal interests. (Or as you say, 'cherry-picking') On the other hand, if a passage does not support Islamic beliefs, they will arbitrarily be pronounced corrupt, with no evidence of tampering. The Islamic concept of corruption or tahrif, has absolutely no textual support, and is simply based on a misunderstanding of the passage. The Bible has overwhelming manuscript support that predates Muhammad by centuries. There is more manuscript evidence for the NT than for any book from the ancient world.

I don't accept any part of the Koran as divinely-inspired.

I do not reject "Depravity" of man, where did i ever say that?
I reject the Christian notion of "Original Sin" & i reject "Inherited Sin", such ideas are absolutely barbaric & a slap in the face to human reasoning.

If human reasoning could reconcile us to God, He would not have sent Jesus Christ, or the 'prophet'. God's ways are not our ways.

How/Why on earth does your "All Loving God" create humans with a hereditary magical stain that they have no control over? Did Adam ask you on whether he could eat that apple? He defintely did not ask me.

]

And you and I have both misused our free will and have sinned.

Augustine your renowned Christian scholar who concocted the whole idea of "Original Sin" believed that babies would be thrown into hellfire because of this magical "Stain". & you expect me to believe in the doctrines of this man?

I couldn't care less what Augustine said, the idea of the Fall is found in the OT and the NT.

Islam teaches all humans, even psychopaths like hitler, are born beautiful pure, holy & absolutely sinless & it's their actions & deeds that corrupt their heart. While Christianity teaches humans are born with a hereditary magical stain.

Toddlers can be pretty bad, the only thing holding them back from real damage is their lack of power.

One of the most beautiful verses in the Bible is found in Ezekiel, & i have no problem in accepting this as the literal word of God:

The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
(Ezekiel 18:20)

Again, you selectively accept Scripture. When did this 'tampering' take place?

The classic deviation when double standards are exposed. I never claimed any "Self Defence", it is you that made the claim, so tell me how invading the Islamic Empire was "Self Defence".

The same way we invaded Germany in WWII. Europe was threatened by Islam as recently as 1680 in the battle for Vienna.

Well the guy with the "False Religion" had the same argument you did.
Facts are, Jesus is called a worm in your Bible (in the original Hebrew), honest translation such as the RSV do not cover this fact up.

Cite?

It seems like Tacitus was repeating already known oral tradition, it is not an independent confirmation.

An assumption on your part, you have no way of knowing he didn't confirm the facts before reporting them. Using that 'logic' we would have to throw out much of what we know of history, and your religion.

Also, Tacitus got it absolutely wrong when he referred to Pilate as "Procurator", his correct title is "Prefect".

Only after 44AD. Whatever title is used makes no difference to the historical account.

From Wikipedia:

The title used by the governors of the region varied over the period of the New Testament. When Samaria, Judea proper and Idumea were first amalgamated into the Roman Judaea Province (which some modern historians spell Iudaea),[13] from 6 CE to the outbreak of the First Jewish Revolt in 66, officials of the Equestrian order (the lower rank of governors) governed. They held the Roman title of prefect until Herod Agrippa I was named King of the Jews by Claudius. After Herod Agrippa's death in 44, when Iudaea reverted to direct Roman rule, the governor held the title procurator. When applied to governors, this term procurator, otherwise used for financial officers, connotes no difference in rank or function from the title known as prefect.

I wont even get into Josephus' Testimonium Flavianum, we all know his works were later fabricated by Christians.

Some was, but what is authentic tells us a great deal about Jesus, and fits with the NT.

Christians only fabricated the parts that dealt with Christianity in Josephus' works. Tacitus only repeats oral tradition & what is already known,

Yes, that's how history is written. I gave you a number of other non-Christian historical accounts of Jesus' death on the cross you haven't responded to. One such account would prove the Koran wrong.

Tacitus gives no source for his material & his elementary mistake proves he did not use official sources, the birth of Tacitus was around 20years after Jesus & he wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, so he can only provide us with hearsay accounts. Tacitus was reporting not recording, appealing to hearsay is not solid evidence.

Jesus asked not to die, and as a Prophet of God in Islam, God accepted his prayer.

The NT has nothing to do with Islam.
In fact, the most horrendous lie attributed to God is the idea of him "begetting" a child

Think of it as Jesus was with God from eternity past. It is a mystery I can't explain, just like you can't explain Allah's eternality.

Not anything, God is restricted by his Godhood. God cannot lie, even your own scripture testifies to this fact:

Obviously, God can do anything which does not violate His character. Sending Jesus to atone for our sins on the cross fulfills His character, it doesn't violate it.

The question here is; was Jonah alive in the belly of the whale?
Yes he was. Jonah was alive; not only when he was thrown overboard; but when he was inside the belly of the whale.

Jonah himself was a type of Christ, who spend three days in the tomb before rising again.

And btw, Isaiah 53 refers to Israel not the Messiah. Jews see Christians as highly dishonest for misinterpreting Jewish scripture.

Yes, Jews are spiritually blinded just as Muslims are.

Even if you insist Isaiah 53 refers to the Messiah, you are nullified by Isaiah 53:7: "he did not open his mouth"

"Then Pilate asked him, "Don't you hear the testimony they are bringing against you?" But Jesus made no reply, not even to a single charge - to the great amazement of the governor." Matt. 27:13-14

"But, He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed." (Is. 53:2-5). So Jesus' crucifixion was not only approved by God, it was predicted (Zech. 12:10, Ps. 22:16).

Regarding the Messianic prophecies, its only a matter of Christian cherry picking of Jewish scripture.

So who else is this passage referring to if not Jesus Christ? The late Dr. D. James Kennedy once read these passages to a Jewish man and asked him who it was talking about. The Jewish man replied, "Jesus, obviously", and was later shocked to learn the passages were from the OT.

For you, O LORD, have delivered my soul from death, my eyes from tears, my feet from stumbling,
(Psalm 116:8)
Yes, according to Islam, not according to Christianity.

Jesus was raised (delivered) from the dead.

Clearly, there is a lot of evidence that Jesus was crucified:

Also vice versa.

Like what, the Koran?

Do you see how the disciples never acknowledged the prophecy as messianic.

Which is why the Bible says 'they did not understand', meaning at that time.

& Just to set the facts straight, it was one day (Saturday) and two nights (Friday and Saturday); so as you can see; the biblical inconsistency is very blatent & evident.
No matter what verbal gymnastics you try to do; this prophecy was left unfulfilled: "and the third day He will be raised"

Wrong, it was parts of three days.

Point number:
1) You rely on the testimony of an unidentified man, he could be satan incarnate for all i care.

What difference? You don't believe the testimony of the identified people.

2) Why did the Gospel writer need a "Testimony" when he could just be "Inspired" & write everything truthfully from God?

So we could believe it. Jesus' miracles were done in front of many people, unlike the 'prophet's' private Koran encounter. Kind of reminds me of Joseph Smith's story.

3) The Gospel of John makes the absurd claim that: "Not one of his bones will be broken"
* Can you believe this man that was beaten up & barbarically tortured did not get a SINGLE broken bone?
* HOW ON EARTH can you be nailed to the cross without any penetration to the bones?

The nail could go between bones. God is all-powerful, remember?

This did not happen if Jesus' prayers were accepted, which in Islam they were.
Again, you are reporting a hearsay account, the facts are:

Then everyone deserted him and fled.
(Mark 14:50)

That was at the time of Jesus' arrest at the garden, you're confusing two events. At least the disciple John was at the crucifixion (John 19:26).

You could use the 'hearsay' argument to doubt King Tut ever existed. See http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=7791

Reading the New Testament at first glance will make anyone conclude Jesus died.

But analysing the discrepencies & analysing the authenticity & credibility of the canonical Gospels themselves, will make anyone conclude that the source is highly doubtful. There are great Biblical Scholars with PhD' such as Bart Ehrman who was a former Fundamentalist Christian,

I would post names of many former Muslims who are now Christians, what would that prove?

whom now claims the entire biblical recount of Jesus is a mythological story & historically unreliable. Clearly satan has deceived him with logic & reasoning.

Agreed. I'm sure liberals like Ehrman that you love to quote would have no use for the Koran, either.

I conclude with a text that was rejected by the Council of Nicea:

"After my departure there will arise the ignorant and the crafty, and many things will they ascribe unto Me that I never spake, and many things which I did speak will they withhold.
(Gospel of the Nazorenes)

Sounds like a reference to the Koran.


If I can address the OP, is this man engaging in 'Anti-Islamic' arguments?

http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-u ... -dying-for

[Murad]

Yes for all? Nice...
Please dazzle me with your objective evidence.

The Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or those who interviewed eyewitnesses.

1) Who were these "Eyewitnesses" that were interviewed?
2) Who interviewed them? (Please no unsubstantiated claims)

The early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew, one of the 12 apostles, was the author of this Gospel

We all know what Church Tradition asserts. The questions are:
1) How/Why was that conclusion reached? In an objective debate, we require objective evidence, not arguments from tradition or authority.

, and that Mark was written by John Mark. Papias (c. AD 140) quoted an even earlier source as saying: (1) Mark was a close associate of Peter, from whom he received the tradition of the things said and done by the Lord, (2) this tradition did not come to Mark as a finished, sequential account of the life of our Lord, but as the preaching of Peter, and (3) Mark accurately preserved this material.

1) It wasn't until the second century that the Gospel of Mark was named: “According to Mark�
2) It is tradition that asserts the author of Mark compiled what he learnt from the apostle Peter in Rome. (See 1 Peter 5:13)

* The claims of Papias were based solely upon hearsay that he claimed to have heard from a "Presbyter." What a surprise, another "anonymous" figure who probably got his information from another "anonymous" figure...

I do praise you for your diligent presentation of Christian history, but you have not presented any "objective evidence" that can be evaluated.

Regarding your claim: "Mark accurately preserved this material"
My question to you is, out of the 24,000 New Testament manuscripts, why isn't there a SINGLE identical pair? Although the anonymous author of Mark could have preserved his source, it was definitely corrupted later on, the differences between the ancient & the most ancient Greek manuscripts prove that either:
1) The scribes were too careless when they copied the manuscripts
2) There were purpose interpolations

I do believe option 1 is valid, but there are biblical concoctions (by Trinitarians) such as 1 John 5:7 that signify option 2 is another reason for the biblical corruption.

As far as Luke, the author's name doesn't appear in the book, but unmistakable evidence points to Luke. This Gospel is a companion volume to the book of Acts, and the language and structure of these two books indicate that both were written by the same person. They are addressed to the same individual, Theophilus, and the second volume refers to the first (Acts 1:1). Certain sections in acts use the pronoun "we", indicating that the author was with Paul when the events described in these passages took place (Acts. 16:10-17, 20:5-15, 21:1-28:16). By process of elimination, Paul's "dear friend Luke, the doctor" (Col. 4:14), and "fellow worker" (Phm 24) is the most likely candidate. His authorship is supported by the uniform testimony of early Christian writings such as the Muratorian Canon, AD 170, and the works of Irenaeus, AD 180.

(Bolded is mine)
It is generally agreed by the scholarly world (including Christians) that Luke did not author a book:

According to the majority view, the evidence against Luke being the author is strong enough that the author is unknown.[48][49][50] The Book of Acts contradicts the letters of Paul on many points, such as Paul's second trip to Jerusalem for an apostolic council.[51][52]
Source

It is also generally accepted that the Gospel of Luke copied from "Mark" & "Quella".

Although its not impossible that Luke authored a book, evidence is stacked against him thus making him being a candidate highly unlikely.

John was authored by the disciple of the same name, "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, 20, 24). The author knew Jewish life well, as seen from references to popular Messianic speculations, the the hostility between Jews and Samaritans, and to Jewish customs. The Gospel of John has many touches that were obviously based on the recollections of an eyewitness such as the house at Bethany being filled with the fragrance of the broken perfume jar. Early writers such as Irenaeus and Tertullian say that John wrote this Gospel.

The Gospel of John is the least authentic Gospel out of the 4. It wasn't until the 2nd century that Christians attributed "the disciple whom Jesus loved" to John the Apostle.

Conservative Scholars believe the Gospel was written around 70 (thats still around 40 years later), but the majority of the scholars believe it was written between 90-100 (60-70 years later)

The so-called "Monarchian Prologue" to the Fourth Gospel (c. 200) supports AD 96 or one of the years immediately following as to the time of its writing.[35] Scholars set a range of c. 90–100.[36]
Source

Despite Christian "opinion" (Wishful thinking) that it was written by an actual disciple, it was not, there is no objective evidence whatsoever, none, zilch, zero.

The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." The text does not actually name this disciple, but by the beginning of the 2nd century a tradition began to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus's innermost circle). Today the majority of scholars do not believe that John or any other eyewitness wrote it, and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John; the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three "layers", reaching its final form about 90-100 AD.[12][13]
Source

Amazing? Absolutely, can you recall something you did 50 years ago with precise wording & crystal clear detail?

I'm only 51, but I can remember events of 45 years ago clearly, and I never have seen miracles as the Gospel writers did.

I can remember events & the exact words that my mother spoke when i was 3-4 years old, but trasnforming vague "Scenes" from memory into a chronological story is, umm, impossible to say the least.

It is interesting with the Gospels there is agreement on the big picture but variance on minor details, something that would not have happened if it were 'rigged'.

If Luke & Matthew copied verses from Mark & Quella you are bound to have similarities.

& the bolded is a false statement, there were numerous Gospels, just because your religious leaders in The Nicene Council cherry picked what they preferred does not mean "There is agreement".

Frank Morrison was a skeptic and prominent lawyer who while researching a book attempting to disprove the Gospel, became a believer by looking at the evidence. In this book, "Who Moved the Stone?", he says this pattern of agreement on the big picture but divergence on minor details is exactly what we find in criminal trial testimonies today.

Except criminals don't copy from other sources & the "Holy Spirit"(Who cannot lie) cannot inspire "Errors".

I got to know about Frank Morrison about 5 years ago, but by a Muslim Scholar (suprising but true) named Ahmed Deedat.

Check out his short answer to Mr Morrisons book.

The Hadiths were written up to 200 years after the events, do you reject them also?

Comparing the Gospels to the Hadiths is not a smart thing to do:
1) For muslims, it is theologically forbidden to consider hadiths as infallible.
2) We know the names of the narrators
3) There are about 500,000+ hadiths, but only a very small fraction has passed the Scholarly Authenticity Test

Muslims do not believe in ordinary 'Hadiths', we believe in 'Sahih Hadiths', the word "Sahih" means "Authenticated" & the authentication process is a very vigorous process, not just a matter of '"So & So" believes X' like its generally asserted in Christendom.

If you have any objective evidence/reason to refute the "Sahih Hadiths" as "unauthentic", please present your case, if not, do not compare them with the Gospels.

We have fragments of the Gospels dating to 114 AD, a very short time gap after it was written. The time gap between our earliest copies of Caesar's 'Gallic Wars' is 1,000 years after it was written, for Homer's 'Illiad' it is 400 years, and for the writings of Demosthenes it is 1,400 years. Do you reject those writings also?

I do not reject them, but i do not consider them "Authentic" (nor do i have any reason to) & i do not consider them "Holy" nor do i base my faith on them.

The Gospels are unreliable & highly doubtful, fact ( No "Tradition" is involved in this assertion ).

But I'm sure the Koran and Hadiths are beyond reproach, right?

The hadiths can be criticised & infact it is the responsibility for every muslim to criticise them. But then again, trying to undermine "Sahih Hadiths" on nothing but subjective opinion, is pretty futile.

The Quran we have today is the Quran Uthman(r.a)[Disciple of the Prophet] compiled from the manuscripts of Hafsa(r.a)[Wife of the Prophet]. There have been those such as Ibn Warraq who have tried to undermine the authenticity of the Quran, this man have been proven fraudulent by western scholars such as Herbert Berg, Fred Donner & Daniel Martin Varisco. Even the most elementary muslim can refute his absurd claims.

Authenticity of the Quran

“I am the Messenger of God, yet I don’t know what will be done with me.�
- Muhammad (pbuh)

If even the 'prophet' wasn't sure of his salvation, shouldn't you be really worried?

There is no need for me to be worried because God has proclaimed:

"Then shall anyone who has done an atom's weight of good, see it! And anyone who has done an atom's weight of evil, shall see it. "
(Quran 99:7-8)

On the day of judgment (known as the "last hour" by Christians), God will serve justice & if i have been evil, then i deserve to be thrown into hell.

It was reported by Umar(r.a) that the Prophet said:

"I heard the Prophet saying, 'Do not exaggerate in praising me as the Christians praised the son of Mary, for I am only a Slave. So, call me the Slave of Allah and His Apostle.'
(Sahih Bukhari, Prophets, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 654)"

God proclaims to Gabriel:

Do the people think that they will be left to say, "We believe" without being put to the test?
We have tested those before them, for GOD must distinguish those who are truthful, and He must expose the liars.
(Quran 29:2-3)

The concept of "Guaranteed" salvation is nothing but wishful thinking, the covenant of Moses regarding "Repentence" was an eternal covenant, the Soul that repents from his wrong-doings will not die.

Faith & Works are the keys to salvation, James testifies to this fact:

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,� but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.�

Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
(James 2:14-19)

The most important phrase in the above quote is:

faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead

This is exactly what Islam & Judaism teach, but Islam does not reject the Messiah Jesus & we believe in the second comming of Jesus Christ where he will clarify the truth about himself to the ignorant men.

Be more specific, Genesis what verse? The only thing Genesis asserts is that Adam & Eve were thrown out of Paradise, this is nothing special to Muslims or Jews, but Christians have interpreted this as "Inherited Sin" & "Original Sin" where we all burn in hell unless we testify God committed suicide for us; however, such a pseudo ideology did not exist until Augustine of Hippo invented it.

See verses 16-19. The statements about women's painful childbirth and the man's toil and cursed earth didn't just apply to Adam and Eve. It was no longer 'paradise' after the curse. The place were the Garden probably was located looks very different today.

Again, verses 16-19 do not signify of an "Inherited Sin" but simply a punishment.
The official Jewish view of Genesis is:

IN SHORT... Jews do not believe in the existence of Original Sin. The concept of Original Sin simply states that because Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden, they brought Death into the world. Every human being dies because Adam and Eve committed a sin, and for their sin, all humans are punished with death. However, the Bible describes something entirely different. Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden because if they remained, they could eat the fruit of the Tree of Life, which would make them IMmortal. If Adam and Eve had to eat the fruit of the Tree of Life to become IMmortal, then they were created mortal to begin with. They did not bring Death into the world, and we don't die because they sinned. As a matter of Biblical fact, the answer to Question One shows that one person cannot die as the punishment for the sins committed by another. We die because Death is a natural part of existence, and has been since from the moment the first human beings were created. That is why God told the animals, before Adam and Eve ate the fruit from The Tree Of The Knowledge Of Good And Evil, to be fruitful and to multiply, since they needed to replace themselves. God also told the same thing to Adam and Eve before they ate that fruit as well.
Source

Obviously mankind is sinful, there has not existed a single man from Adam to Muhammad that didn't commit sin (yep even Jesus).

What sin did Jesus commit? There was no sin before the Fall. Before the Fall it was possible not to sin, now it is not possible not to sin, and in the new Heaven and Earth it will not be possible to sin.

All the Prophets in Islam are sinless from major sins, but they are definitely not sinless from minor sins:

"Never have We sent a single prophet or apostle before you with whose wishes Satan did not tamper. But Allah abrogates the interjections of Satan and confirms His own revelations. Allah is wise and all-knowing. He makes Satan's interjections a temptation for those whose hearts are diseased or hardened - this is why the wrongdoers are in open schism - so that those to whom knowledge has been given may realize that this is the truth from your Lord and thus believe in it and humble their hearts towards Him. Allah will surely guide the faithful to a straight path."
(Quran 22:51)

Sorry, but even in your Christian doctrine of the "Hypostatic Union", you cannot be "Fully Man" without sinning, there is not a single descendant of Adam & Eve who was absolutely sinless.

Exactly & this sin can be forgiven through God's love & mercy, not a blood sacrifice.

First comes acceptance of God's love and mercy, then comes God's mercy. You will probably reject it, but see John 3:16.

There is no reason for me to reject John 3:16, Jesus was the one & only Messiah & one of the greatest prophets, if God didn't love us & want us to be guided he wouldn't of sent Prophets.

It is interesting that Muslims accept only parts of the NT as 'authentic', to fit their doctrinal interests.

Muslims have no problem in accepting something that doesn't contradict the Quran.

On the other hand, if a passage does not support Islamic beliefs, they will arbitrarily be pronounced corrupt, with no evidence of tampering.

I do not make any claim against the Bible besides its unauthenticity, the Bible is self-refuting:

"Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
(Proverbs 30:5)

Vs

http://www3.sympatico.ca/shabir.ally/new_page_17.htm

The Islamic concept of corruption or tahrif, has absolutely no textual support, and is simply based on a misunderstanding of the passage.

You are absolutely wrong, please present me a single identical pair out of the 24,000 New Testament manuscripts that Christians enthusiastically boast about.

Just ONE identical pair (Of any Gospel) & i will hand this entire debate to you, if you cannot, that means you have refuted yourself, the biblical manuscripts are inconsistent.

I've completed a bachelors in divinity from 'The Australian Catholic University' & the blatant errors & differentiations with ancient & newer Greek manuscripts are undeniably significant. Do you know why the word "Begotten" was removed from the RSV Bible' New Testament? It was a fabrication that resulted from the Nicene Creed. Your holy book as theological interpolations.

There is more manuscript evidence for the NT than for any book from the ancient world.

Most of the manuscripts we have in possession are AFTER the Nicene Council, did you know that?
We only have fragments of the most ancient manuscripts, & even they were supposedly written decades & decades after Jesus by anonymous authors.

I don't accept any part of the Koran as divinely-inspired.

Ofcourse i do not expect you to, no Christian can ever consider the Quran divinely inspired while believing in the doctrine of "Atonement & Blood".

How/Why on earth does your "All Loving God" create humans with a hereditary magical stain that they have no control over? Did Adam ask you on whether he could eat that apple? He defintely did not ask me.

]

And you and I have both misused our free will and have sinned.

Yes we have & God is the most merciful, hopefully we are all pardoned for our sins, Jews Christians & Muslims. I might have come off a bit sarcastic but im dead serious with the Question:

Did Adam ask you on whether he could eat that apple?

If you suffer because of something you did not do, nor have control over, is your God a "Loving & Just" God? I doubt you have ever asked yourself that.

Augustine your renowned Christian scholar who concocted the whole idea of "Original Sin" believed that babies would be thrown into hellfire because of this magical "Stain". & you expect me to believe in the doctrines of this man?

I couldn't care less what Augustine said, the idea of the Fall is found in the OT and the NT.

The implications of original sin are dangerous & blasphemous, the man Augustine (regarded as a "Saint") who concocted the whole idea, believed that innocent babies would suffer eternal damnation in hell for something they had no control of.

Islam teaches all humans, even psychopaths like hitler, are born beautiful pure, holy & absolutely sinless & it's their actions & deeds that corrupt their heart. While Christianity teaches humans are born with a hereditary magical stain.

Toddlers can be pretty bad, the only thing holding them back from real damage is their lack of power.

Yes & my little nephew is a prime example Nevertheless even those little devils are born sinless & pure.

Jews believe that man enters the world free of sin, with a soul that is pure and innocent and untainted.
Source

One of the most beautiful verses in the Bible is found in Ezekiel, & i have no problem in accepting this as the literal word of God:

The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
(Ezekiel 18:20)

Again, you selectively accept Scripture. When did this 'tampering' take place?

JehovahsWitness asked me the same question.

Some books of the Old Testament are regarded "Divinely Inspired" by the Quran, but the Quran is the only "unaltered" book in Islam. For example, if i asked you, "Who authored the Torah"? Would you say Moses? Do you believe Moses would call himself:

(Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth.)
(Numbers 12:3)

Or do you believe Moses recorded down his funeral as told by Deuteronomy 34 ?

Thats why the RSV bible puts the "Five books of Moses" in quotation marks. Its purely traditional.

The Old Testament can have traces of God' pure word, but as a whole it's not pure.

The classic deviation when double standards are exposed. I never claimed any "Self Defence", it is you that made the claim, so tell me how invading the Islamic Empire was "Self Defence".

The same way we invaded Germany in WWII. Europe was threatened by Islam as recently as 1680 in the battle for Vienna.

Illogical & Absurd comparison, Christians invaded Christians, ok now back to my question.

How is invading & slaying another people considered "Self-Defense"? You see unlike you i do not "Sugar Coat" blatant facts.

Well the guy with the "False Religion" had the same argument you did.
Facts are, Jesus is called a worm in your Bible (in the original Hebrew), honest translation such as the RSV do not cover this fact up.

Cite?

He said:

Further, since the words at Job 25:6 are attributed to Bildad, and individual whom Jehovah pronounced as speaking falsehood (see Job 42:7) it is not logical to say he (Bildad) is pronouncing a Messianic prophecy. The word are rather making a(n incorrect) assessement of how God values or in this case does not value, human life or humans, in general**. -- �—Mt 10:29-31; Lu 12:6, 7.

Kinda the same approach you have.

It seems like Tacitus was repeating already known oral tradition, it is not an independent confirmation.

An assumption on your part, you have no way of knowing he didn't confirm the facts before reporting them. Using that 'logic' we would have to throw out much of what we know of history, and your religion.

Also, Tacitus got it absolutely wrong when he referred to Pilate as "Procurator", his correct title is "Prefect".

Only after 44AD. Whatever title is used makes no difference to the historical account.

From Wikipedia:

The title used by the governors of the region varied over the period of the New Testament. When Samaria, Judea proper and Idumea were first amalgamated into the Roman Judaea Province (which some modern historians spell Iudaea),[13] from 6 CE to the outbreak of the First Jewish Revolt in 66, officials of the Equestrian order (the lower rank of governors) governed. They held the Roman title of prefect until Herod Agrippa I was named King of the Jews by Claudius. After Herod Agrippa's death in 44, when Iudaea reverted to direct Roman rule, the governor held the title procurator. When applied to governors, this term procurator, otherwise used for financial officers, connotes no difference in rank or function from the title known as prefect.

The main point about Tacitus' brief mention of Christians is that he was reporting not recording something 80 years later (He wasn't even born). Your point that the titles changed are irrelevant, if he was using official Roman archives, he would use Pilates correct title. Pilate was governor of Judea from AD 26 to 37, he was known throughout Judea as "Prefect" no one referred to him as "Procurator" until Tacitus. Also, if Tacitus was using official Roman archives, he would have used Jesus' name, not his religious title “Christos.�

[Tacitus wrote] at a time when Christians themselves had come to believe that Jesus had suffered under Pilate. There are three reasons for holding that Tacitus is here simply repeating what Christians had told him. First, he gives Pilate a title, procurator [without saying procurator of what!], which was current only from the second half of the first century. Had he consulted archives which recorded earlier events, he would surely have found Pilate there designated by his correct title, prefect. Second, Tacitus does not name the executed man Jesus, but uses the title Christ (Messiah) as if it were a proper name. But he could hardly have found in archives a statement such as "the Messiah was executed this morning." Third, hostile to Christianity as he was, he was surely glad to accept from Christians their own view that Christianity was of recent origin, since the Roman authorities were prepared to tolerate only ancient cults.
(The Historical Evidence for Jesus; p.16)

What gives you the idea "Tacitus" was the best historian? Your preacher?

Here is the list of Historians who were alive during Jesus' life or the first century:

Josephus
Philo-Judæus
Seneca
Pliny Elder
Arrian
Petronius
Dion Pruseus
Paterculus
Suetonius
Juvenal
Martial
Persius
Plutarch
Pliny Younger
Tacitus
Justus of Tiberius
Apollonius
Quintilian
Lucanus
Epictetus
Hermogones
Silius Italicus
Statius
Ptolemy
Appian
Phlegon
Phædrus
Valerius Maximus
Lucian
Pausanias
Florus Lucius
Quintius Curtius
Aulus Gellius
Dio Chrysostom
Columella
Valerius Flaccus
Damis
Favorinus
Lysias
Pomponius Mela
Appion of Alexandria
Theon of Smyrna

Its funny how its only one, Tacitus, who mentions Jesus, & he repeats what we already know with additional flaws.

Josephus' Testimonium Flavianum has been corrupted, what we have today is a forgery, inserted by Christians. (Interpolated most likely by Eusebius)

I wont even get into Josephus' Testimonium Flavianum, we all know his works were later fabricated by Christians.

Some was, but what is authentic tells us a great deal about Jesus, and fits with the NT.

There have been arguments that only parts were fabricated, how does that render the text authentic? If the early Christians were honest enough to not alter someone elses hard work for their own benefits, we wouldn't have this problem.

Christians only fabricated the parts that dealt with Christianity in Josephus' works. Tacitus only repeats oral tradition & what is already known,

Yes, that's how history is written. I gave you a number of other non-Christian historical accounts of Jesus' death on the cross you haven't responded to. One such account would prove the Koran wrong.

You have not proven "anything" wrong, infact the Quran is absolutely right:

they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.
(4:157)

The NT has nothing to do with Islam.
In fact, the most horrendous lie attributed to God is the idea of him "begetting" a child

Think of it as Jesus was with God from eternity past. It is a mystery I can't explain, just like you can't explain Allah's eternality.

You are repeating delcoder, read my response to him.

Not anything, God is restricted by his Godhood. God cannot lie, even your own scripture testifies to this fact:

Obviously, God can do anything which does not violate His character. Sending Jesus to atone for our sins on the cross fulfills His character, it doesn't violate it.

Checkmate, why would God incarnate himself into a human to be spat on, mocked & humilated for something he could acheive with direct mercy?

The question here is; was Jonah alive in the belly of the whale?
Yes he was. Jonah was alive; not only when he was thrown overboard; but when he was inside the belly of the whale.

Jonah himself was a type of Christ, who spend three days in the tomb before rising again.

Exactly he was never dead, it would only appear like he died, but in reality he did not die.

And btw, Isaiah 53 refers to Israel not the Messiah. Jews see Christians as highly dishonest for misinterpreting Jewish scripture.

Yes, Jews are spiritually blinded just as Muslims are.

I guess that the most "true" religion after Christianity is Hinduism for their version of a "Unified God" (Brahman), well atleast their God didn't kill himself to forgive his own creation.

Even if you insist Isaiah 53 refers to the Messiah, you are nullified by Isaiah 53:7: "he did not open his mouth"

"Then Pilate asked him, "Don't you hear the testimony they are bringing against you?" But Jesus made no reply, not even to a single charge - to the great amazement of the governor." Matt. 27:13-14

Now go 2 verses back
& that is only one Gospel' recount, also read John 18:28-38

The prophecy was unfulfilled, the Jews are not so "Blind" are they?

"But, He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed." (Is. 53:2-5). So Jesus' crucifixion was not only approved by God, it was predicted (Zech. 12:10, Ps. 22:16).

Regarding the Messianic prophecies, its only a matter of Christian cherry picking of Jewish scripture.

So who else is this passage referring to if not Jesus Christ? The late Dr. D. James Kennedy once read these passages to a Jewish man and asked him who it was talking about. The Jewish man replied, "Jesus, obviously", and was later shocked to learn the passages were from the OT.

Well if you bothered to click on the link about Isaiah 53 i provided, it would help.

For you, O LORD, have delivered my soul from death, my eyes from tears, my feet from stumbling,
(Psalm 116:8)
Yes, according to Islam, not according to Christianity.

Jesus was raised (delivered) from the dead.

Jesus was on the verge of death while he was on the cross, what fulfills the prophecy more:
1) Jesus being delivered from death by being saved (His prayers fulfilled)
2) Jesus suffering death & then being resurrected

Clearly, there is a lot of evidence that Jesus was crucified:

Also vice versa.

Like what, the Koran?

And your own Bible

There are other Gospels that were rejected by the Council of Nicea that show Jesus alive the whole time.

Do you see how the disciples never acknowledged the prophecy as messianic.

Which is why the Bible says 'they did not understand', meaning at that time.

You are kind of repeating me lol.

& Just to set the facts straight, it was one day (Saturday) and two nights (Friday and Saturday); so as you can see; the biblical inconsistency is very blatent & evident.
No matter what verbal gymnastics you try to do; this prophecy was left unfulfilled: "and the third day He will be raised"

Wrong, it was parts of three days.

2 Nights & 1 Day.
Not 3 Days & 3 Nights.

Mathematical Error.

You are refuting yourself here, there is no "part", either you fulfill the prophecy or not.

Watch this 3 minute video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S96O_gwzN0s

Point number:
1) You rely on the testimony of an unidentified man, he could be satan incarnate for all i care.

What difference? You don't believe the testimony of the identified people.

Big difference, you dont know what credibility names have to historians.

2) Why did the Gospel writer need a "Testimony" when he could just be "Inspired" & write everything truthfully from God?

So we could believe it. Jesus' miracles were done in front of many people,

Why didn't that man want to name himself in the testimony? What was he scared of?

unlike the 'prophet's' private Koran encounter.

You obviously have the same knowledge about Islam that most Christians do, very little. The miracles of Muhammad(pbuh) were done in the midst of thousands of soldiers & his companions. He also done personal miracles such as healing the sick.

3) The Gospel of John makes the absurd claim that: "Not one of his bones will be broken"
* Can you believe this man that was beaten up & barbarically tortured did not get a SINGLE broken bone?
* HOW ON EARTH can you be nailed to the cross without any penetration to the bones?

The nail could go between bones. God is all-powerful, remember?

You are making nothing but excuses. I hope deep down you acknowledge that a man cannot be barbarically beaten up & tortured & then crucified without cracking a single bone. There are 26 bones on each foot & 27 on each hand. We then have the other body parts that were subjected to torture.

This did not happen if Jesus' prayers were accepted, which in Islam they were.
Again, you are reporting a hearsay account, the facts are:

Then everyone deserted him and fled.
(Mark 14:50)

That was at the time of Jesus' arrest at the garden, you're confusing two events. At least the disciple John was at the crucifixion (John 19:26).

They fled, including John, that is the whole point. Are you telling me John fled then came back to the cross?

The first three canonical gospels never mention a "disciple whom Jesus loved" (Which you believe is John) They also do not mention any disciple or any women being near the cross, or talking with Jesus while he was on the cross unlike what the Gospel of John tells us.

You can decide.

Reading the New Testament at first glance will make anyone conclude Jesus died.

But analysing the discrepencies & analysing the authenticity & credibility of the canonical Gospels themselves, will make anyone conclude that the source is highly doubtful. There are great Biblical Scholars with PhD' such as Bart Ehrman who was a former Fundamentalist Christian,

I would post names of many former Muslims who are now Christians, what would that prove?

Vice Versa.
I referred to a non-theist & a 30year expert in his field.

I conclude with a text that was rejected by the Council of Nicea:

"After my departure there will arise the ignorant and the crafty, and many things will they ascribe unto Me that I never spake, and many things which I did speak will they withhold.
(Gospel of the Nazorenes)

Sounds like a reference to the Koran.

Yep & its supposedly written by early Christians.


It seems you have overlooked Psalm 91:10

then no harm will befall you, no disaster will come near your tent.
(Psalm 91:10)

What is your definition of "Harm"? Does "Torture" & "Crucifixion" have a special alternate meanings?

[delcoder]

While the interpretive discussions regarding the Bible that have been going on over the last couple of pages are interesting, we are getting a bit off topic.

Again, here are the questions for debate.

http://www.twincities.com/newsletter-mo ... ck_check=1

The article includes a short quiz on violent rhetoric, and asks the reader to choose where the rhetoric resides, Bible or Koran.

Questions for debate.

1) Is the author, Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald, correct? Do Christians, at leat in the U.S., tend to get the benefit of the doubt while Muslims are often condemned in a blanket fashion?

2) Is it fair to Christians who do not understand the context of the Koran to use the Koran to criticize modern Muslim's? Should we discount opinions on the Koran or Islam provided by individuals who show no understanding of Islam?

3) What benefit does the anti-Islamic rhetoric prevalent in today's U.S. society provide to that society? What detriments does it present?

Even if criticism of Islam in general, or particular Muslim or Muslim populations is justified, should we not ask what good or harm this criticism does? Of these three questions, 3 seems to be the most important. It also leads to the follow up.

4) To the extent that their are radical Muslims who practice violence, what is the most constructive way of dealing with those radical views?

I will refer back to some comments related to these that have not been addressed.

Now, let's be clear. Do I think Christians should offer interpretations of the Bible? Yes. Do I accept that others can have different interpretations than mine? Yes.

But to say that we must accept a sentence out of the Koran with no interpretation and then not say the same about the Bible is inconsistent. It is arguably a violation of the Golden Rule, doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. You have illustrated this inconsistency very clearly.

That would be well and good if it were true. One has only to read the Koran to find many, many references to violence and even commands to violence.

I didn't attempt to interpret admonishments to Christians to be violent as anything because I can't find any. I only find admonishments to the Jews who are not Christians to be violent. Sorry, you can't equate what was said to the Jews as being said to Christians.

While I agree with your particular interpretive assumptions here, you miss the point.

I absolutley can equate them if I wish. And I can point to Biblical support for it. God does not change, and all that. Those commands were commands of God.

Your arguments in this case have been reduced to the ridiculous. True, you can equate anything with anything you wish, but in this case the evidence makes you look rather foolish for doing so. In addition, I find it not worth my time to reply to such ridiculous assertions. If you choose to make yourself look foolish, please do it without my help.

THis is a vacuous response that in no way addresses the evidence I've presented that you deal with the Bible in one way and the Koran another. In other words, you are being inconsistent, which arguably makes your position an anti-Islamic one, as you clearly are seeking to portray Islam in as negative a way as possible.

I don't have to portray Islam in any way. All one has to do is to turn on their TV and view Muslim mobs rioting somewhere, killing somewhere, or arresting muslim converts to Christianity. You guys do a better job of demonstrating how violent Islam is very well without me.

But again, the larger point is you are making an interpretive assumption about how Christians should read the Bible. You are basing these on a long history of theological writings.

You have not done the same for Islam and the Koran, and have in fact, dismissed any such possiblity that such interpretations need to be made.


Inconsistent as inconsistent can be.

Only in your eyes. The Koran speaks for itself. The problem here is not working to interpret many of it passages to be admonitions to violence, but rather to make them not appear to be urges to violence.

Seeking to dismiss the point through blanket accusations of subjectivity is another vacuous defense of your position.

Repeating your assertion that the "KOran speaks for itself" while going through endless gyrations to say the Bible should be interpreted as you think is most appropriate only further illustrates the inconsistency of your position.

I have made no interpretations assumptions about the Bible with respect to Christianity. I have merely pointed out the transition from OT to NT. One must do extensive damage to both OT and NT to conclude that all the OT provisions remain in effect for Christianity. Since you have no argument that the Bible teaches Christians to resort to violence you seek to pull out references in the OT which were to the Israelites and incorrectly apply them to Christians. Indeed, you insist you have the right to do that. Guess what, I have shown you to be wrong on so many counts I see not reason to debate you on this issue. So post what you will and I will ignore your irrelevant arguments.

Let's say, to give your position the benefit of the doubt, that you are sincerely trying to "save the souls" of Muslims.


Let's consider the effectiveness of your approach. Do you really think that by pointing out one verse, or pointing to only verses that follow a particular theme (in or out of context) and using those to mischaracterize a Muslims religion that you are likely to be successful in getting him or her to forsake their religion?

Can you show any evidence that such an approach has worked in the past?

What I post on a debate forum has little to nothing to do with converting Muslims. If one is to be objective one can not even hope to change another's position on a debate forum. The only thing I seek to do here is to expose Islam for what it is, a violent religion.

As to what your religion means, I think I have covered that thoroughly. You don't need commentaries upon commentaries to conclude "Then shall ye fight." to be an admonition to violence. How else would you interpret "fight" an admonition to hug someone's neck?

Then you don't need any commentaries or defenses to conclude that, according to CHristianity, God wants us to kill apostates, or children who dishonor their parents. If you refuse to consider the Koran as a whole and address verses which provide context or even contradict this one, or to consider the actual views of Muslims on how they read this, then you have no real reason to complain when others mischaracterize the BIble or your views on the Bible.

if you seek to educate me to what Islam teaches as a whole I suggest you direct your arguments to muslims. They are the ones killing apostates. They kill prosilyters also. Doesn't it seem strange to you that entire countries, not exceptions to the rule, have laws that call for the killing of apostates. Does Afghanistan just have part of the Koran? Are they all nut job radicals who pervert Islam? The whole country?

Again, all I am asking for is a fair measure to be applied to both religions. You insist, repeatedly, on an unequal and unfair measure, and you clearly seem intent on doing so in order to make negative comments about Islam.

Please point out a Christian country that has laws that kill Christians who convert to Islam. Show me a Christian country that throws apostates into a prison where they are beaten, tortured, and sexually assaulted on a daily basis in an attempt to get them to return to Christianity. If you cannot how then can you expect me to view Islam as I view Christianity.

Fair measure? Let's take two certified measuring cups and pour Christian violence into one and Muslim violence into the other. You would be hard put to even see the level of Christian violence while the Islamic violence would over flow the cup, the table, and cover the floor.

I earlier provided a few quotes from the Koran as well as several statements by current Muslims on their view of their religion and the Koran. delcoder has completely ignored these.

Again, if one cherry picks from a text, especially in order to negatively portray adherents of a religion, in this case Islam, that suggests Anti-Islamic bias.

You and I both know you can always find a few individuals who will present an opinion opposite to what the masses take. This is a logic fallacy known as "Too small sample."

I agree with the general point here.

When Muslims riot the world over when a Pastor burns a Koran and some capture and kill United Nations workers who had nothing to do with the burning you can pretty well conclude Muslims are looking for an excuse to be violent. Finding 3 or 4 who speak out against their actions isn't really going to mean very much, now is it?

This paragraph is packed with fallacies.

First, one has to ask how many Muslims were actually involved in protests on the Koran burning?

How many of those committed acts of violence?

Secondly, the number of people involved in protests is typically going to be many times the number who make public written pronouncements that are widely publicized. To compare a number of protestors to a number of the latter is a rather ridiculous comparison.

Thirdly, it is true I only provided a few samples. However, your comment seems to assert that there are no others writing similar comments, and furthermore, that no other Muslims agree with the sentiments these moderates express.

How can one explain the blanket statements and fallacious assumptions in this short passage other than as an anti-Islamic rhetoric?

How many Christian riots were there when Afghanistan sentenced the Christian convert to hang? How does burning a Koran compare with a death sentence? We are not talking of just Islamic riots with respect to the Koran burning, we are talking seven innocent deaths. Please stop attempting to gloss over the hideous violence of your religion.

I remember seeing a video of small Muslim school children who attacked an effigy of an American while on recess. How many other religions teach their small children to whack a dummy and express hatred? Your children are not only born into Islam, they are trained when they are very small to be violent.

Notice how you take one instance of negative behavior and then go on to paint the whole religion with it. This is just exactly the type of rhetoric Pitts is pointing to in his article.

Who is to say it is just one incident? Use your own arguments about what gets reported. Secondly, it incorporates more than one incident, it incorporates the perversion to violence of all the kids in the school.

Do some Muslims, and certainly more than in this one instance, indoctrinate their children to hate others? Sure. The evidence clearly indicates this happens. No argument from me, and no argument that this is outrageous.

Do Christians never do this? Hmmm. I assume you have heard of Fred Phelps.

How about Jesus Camp?

Never heard of Fred Phelps and I know nothing about "Jesus Camp." I will, however, look them up.

Fischer is shown preaching a sermon where she mentions Harry Potter and claims that had he existed in biblical times, he "would have been put to death". Fischer admonishes the children that many among them are "phonies" who curse or engage in non-Christian behaviors with friends at school, and tells them "it's time to clean up your act". Most of the children in the room are crying after the sermon. Summoning the now-hysterical children gather around her, she pours a bottle of Nestlé water on their hands to be "washed in the water of God's word."

Sorry, I know nothing of "Harry Potter." I have watched none of the movies. I have no knowledge of what you speak of here.

How about the Christian Identity Movement?

I don't know anything about the "Christian Identity Movement, but I will follow your link."

Racialism, or race based philosophy is the core tenet of Christian Identity, and most CI adherents are White Nationalists or support racial segregation. Most believe that Jews are genetically compelled by their Satanic or Edomite ancestry to carry on a conspiracy against the Adamic seedline and today have achieved almost complete control of the Earth through their illegitimate claim to the white race's status as God's chosen people.[42] As a general rule, Christian Identity followers adhere to the traditional orthodox Christian views on the role of women, abortion, and homosexuality, and view racial miscegenation as a sin and a violation of God's laws as dictated in Genesis of "kind after kind". (Ex. 21:22, Lev. 20:13).

Sounds like a bunch of nut jobs. We have lot's of them here.

Now, do I think that these groups are representative of CHristianity? No, of course not. It would be fallacious to paint all CHristians using these brushes.

One should allow each individual, and each denomination or church, to represent themselves, and not seek to mischaracterize all Christians on the basis that some are racists, misogynists, bigots, or even terrorists.

And yet, you are falling into the exact same fallacies in your arguments.

And after you just got done pointing out the fallacy of "Too Small Sample"

A former Muslim who is a Christian missionary spoke at our church last night. He told of the terrible abuse Muslim apostates (Muslims who become Christians) suffer. He spoke of a man who had both elbows broken to make his arms useless. Why? Because he became a Christian.

I don't want to hear "The radicals did it." Are your little children radicals? Are your innocents taught hate and violence or do they learn it on their own?

Once again, no discussion of who is actually doing this, how many Muslims do this, how many support this. Just a blanket accusation based on an isolated example. Clearly the example is horrific and to be condemned.

Would not doing unto others mean not slandering people who do not commit acts with the actions of those who do those actions?

And trying to make a pre-emptive strike against other people pointing out the truth is not going to keep me from doing so. You not wanting to hear the truth is irrelevant.

How would you define such people other than as radicals?

As muslims.

Does your statement now mean we do not dismiss the Fred Phelps of the world as radicals? The Christian Identity people are not radicals? Hmmm.

You want to talk about three or four Muslims who spoke out about the World Trade Center massacre, but you want to ignore the thousands who poured into the streets shouting and dancing in glee.

I have said no such thing. That is your straw man.

My position is simple.

Each person is responsible for their own actions and their own statements. Slandering person A because he belongs to a group including a person B who commits violent acts is inappropriate and un-CHristian.

I have never ONCE said we should ignore acts of violence or those who commit them.

You are engaging in an implied false dichotomy. Your position seems to assume we must engage in negative rhetoric against Muslims in general or we are condoning the actions of those that commit violence.

Your arguments are two fold. First you seek to apply instances in the OT to Christians which is demonstratably false. Second, you point to a few radicals in Christianity to justify the radicalism of entire countries. As you have agreed there are those who pervert any religion. They are the exception to the rule. In the case of Islam, however, you have entire countries according to you who are perverting Islam. When you get to the level of entire countries you have left "exceptions" or "radicals" far behind.

It is evident that the greater percentage of a population that are Muslim the greater does Islam reveal itself to be what it is. Hillary Clinton issued a State Department report that indicated Christians in Iraq were being persecuted and experiencing violent retribution at the hands of Islamists. I'm sorry, my friend, but the argument of a small minority of Muslims being violent has been stood upon its head.

With respect to violence in Christianity it is the exceptions to the rule who practice it. With respect to violence in Islam, it is the majority who adhere to it tenets that practice it. The NT does not teach Christian violence. The Koran repeatedly teaches Muslim violence.