Islam a Religion of Peace?

[billie]

Wow, Eve, that was pretty good.

[secondeve]

Wow, Eve, that was pretty good.

Thankee!

Edited August 28, 2006 by secondeve

[pointer]

the whole issue hinges on interpretation.

Indeed it does. The astonishing thing is that not a single mainstream Christian denomination interprets the Bible in support of violence, and their members not infrequently speak against it, but atheists on the internet insist on interpreting it that way for them.

Otoh, maybe one must expect that sort of thing on the 'net. Atheists have so little else to say, after all.

[secondeve]

the whole issue hinges on interpretation.

Indeed it does. The astonishing thing is that not a single mainstream Christian denomination interprets the Bible in support of violence, and not infrequently speak against it, but atheists on the internet insist on interpreting it that way for them.

Otoh, maybe one must expect that sort of thing on the 'net. Atheists have so little else to say, after all.

So modern Christians speak for the whole of Christianity throughout the ages, do they? Which was, I believe, the topic under discussion? Besides which, just because the current trend of interpretation tends towards the peacable (in your estimation) does not mean that:

a) more violent interpretations are not possible (as in the Crusades); or

b) that more violent interpretations will not become the flavour of the month at some point in the future.

[pointer]

the whole issue hinges on interpretation.

Indeed it does. The astonishing thing is that not a single mainstream Christian denomination interprets the Bible in support of violence, and not infrequently speak against it, but atheists on the internet insist on interpreting it that way for them.

Otoh, maybe one must expect that sort of thing on the 'net. Atheists have so little else to say, after all.

So modern Christians speak for the whole of Christianity throughout the ages, do they?

The Archbishop of Canterbury at the Reformation described the Pope as the Antichrist, as did just about every other Reformation leader, so yes, Protestants do, on this issue.

Anyone who reads the Bible knows that there are many false Christians prophesied, so atheists need to make up their minds about whether the Bible's prophecy has come true.

[secondeve]

Anyone who reads the Bible knows that there are many false Christians prophesied, so atheists need to make up their minds about whether the Bible's prophecy has come true.

Of course, no, I don't believe the prophecy has come true. It seems fairly self-evident that an ideology holding influence over large numbers of people for a long period of time will, throughout that period, be interpreted in a number of different ways in the absence of a definitive reading. That's what happened to Judaism, which led to Christianity, to which the same thing has happened.

Seeing as human beings have no innate ability to discern truth and as, barring the descent of God Almighty from on high to give us the proper interpretation, it is human reasoning and belief which has thus far leafed through the Good Book and told us what it means. There are buckets of proof that no such reading has ever been proven definitive. Why should I believe that another Crusades is impossible? To rephrase: I am not accusing modern Christians of being Crusaders. I am saying that, as such a reading was got out of the Bible once and considered definitive for the times, why can't the same thing happen again? The only thing to prevent it would be the second Word of God.

[ted]

I'm an athiest. I study Islam and the Middle East, as well as Judaism, the Bible and the Middle Ages.

So?

As I said, I'm not religious. I think, by and large, that religion has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of humanity. I don't think that all Christians are raving Crusader-type loonies, any more than I think that all Muslims are bomb-hungry kamikazes of terror. I do think that both types exist, have existed and will continue to exist for as long as the Qu'ran and the Bible endure.

By this, are you saying that if religion were disappear, everything will be peaceful and peachy?

Get a grip.

Killing isn't because of the Bible. In fact, I would venture to say that the Bible gives us a pretty decent insight of why killing happens in the first place. In many aspects, the Bible gives historical accounts of sin so that we can better understand what we are up against, and to display how sin can manifest itself to different degrees.

Doing away with it will solve absolutely nothing.

Tell me, do atheists commit murder and rape, or are these crimes limited to the religious only?

Nobody has the "definitive" Christianity next to which the Crusaders are proven unChristian; you have only your own interpretations - unless God has descended with a list of specific annotations, and I've not been informed of it.

Jesus did a pretty good job of "laying the smackdown".

Check it out sometime while you are studying the Bible.

And yes, you have been informed of it, if you have studied the Bible like you say you did. It's right in front of your eyes, you just choose not to believe it.

It's giving the rest of us a headache, if nothing else.

You make the choice not to listen to Jesus, then simply make the choice not to listen to His followers, right?

It'll save on buying so much Tylenol.

t.

[pointer]

Anyone who reads the Bible knows that there are many false Christians prophesied, so atheists need to make up their minds about whether the Bible's prophecy has come true.

Of course, no, I don't believe the prophecy has come true.

Then don't bother coming here!

[secondeve]

As I said, I'm not religious. I think, by and large, that religion has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of humanity. I don't think that all Christians are raving Crusader-type loonies, any more than I think that all Muslims are bomb-hungry kamikazes of terror. I do think that both types exist, have existed and will continue to exist for as long as the Qu'ran and the Bible endure.

By this, are you saying that if religion were disappear, everything will be peaceful and peachy?

Get a grip.

Get a grip yourself. Nobody with sense would argue that. I was making a comparative statement, i.e: I think religion has caused more violent wars than anything else, not that nothing else had ever caused wars.

Killing isn't because of the Bible. In fact, I would venture to say that the Bible gives us a pretty decent insight of why killing happens in the first place. In many aspects, the Bible gives historical accounts of sin so that we can better understand what we are up against, and to display how sin can manifest itself to different degrees.

Doing away with it will solve absolutely nothing.

Tell me, do atheists commit murder and rape, or are these crimes limited to the religious only?

For goodness' sakes. Of course athiests commit crimes, just like everyone else. But are you arguing, then, that nobody was ever killed in the name of God? I won't deny that the Bible does underline how some sins come about and so on and so forth, but think about something like "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Innocent women died for that injunction. I was pointing out that it is both innacurate and frighteningly revisionist history to claim that Christianity was never responsible for anything violent. I didn't claim that Christians have been the only ever murderers or any such rubbish. That would be absurd.

Nobody has the "definitive" Christianity next to which the Crusaders are proven unChristian; you have only your own interpretations - unless God has descended with a list of specific annotations, and I've not been informed of it.

Is the above statement untrue?

Edited August 28, 2006 by secondeve

[ted]

For goodness' sakes. Of course athiests commit crimes, just like everyone else. But are you arguing, then, that nobody was ever killed in the name of God?

Not at all. In fact, according to the Bible, God Himself has sent people to kill.

Aside from that, there are many who have taken it upon themselves to kill in God's Name, and that is where the difference is. You may not accept it, but there is a difference.

I won't deny that the Bible does underline how some sins come about and so on and so forth, but think about something like "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Innocent women died for that injunction.

Innocent women dying under these injunctions are a great example of the difference I was just talking about, along with thousands of other offences.

However, your posts never really go on to describe the crimes of atheists, which leads me to get the impression that you really only care to bring to light the crimes of religious followers.

I was pointing out that it is both innacurate and frighteningly revisionist history to claim that Christianity was never responsible for anything violent. I didn't claim that Christians have been the only ever murderers or any such rubbish. That would be absurd.

There's the twist, right? Christianity or Christ? The followers of Christ have done much damage to His Holy Name with their actions, but the argument remains; the ones that have done this, were they truly followers of the Word?

Hard stuff. Let me know when you have the answer, ok?

Until then, we can seperate this in two ways

1. Yes, they were doing His will.

2. No, they twisted the Word and committed such crimes under a false sense of doing right.

Now, if you conclude that number 1 is correct, then you haven't learned a thing abut this Bible you have studied. If you have concluded that number 2 is correct, then you are now close to understanding what is going on.

There is, possibly, a number 3: The possibility that good followers of Christ got too wrapped up in the heat of the moment and went too far. While it sounds reasonable, I would guess that these people are closer to being lumped into the second group.

You may not claim that Christians or religious folks of a different bend are not the only ones killing, but you sure like to bring it up a lot.

But, maybe that's not a fair statement. Here's your chance to show the many posts in which you highlight the crimes of atheists which an equal zeal.......

There. Four lines should be enough room.

My point is, hardly anyone is dumb enough to think that Followers are innocent. Sin still rules the earth these days, but for a while, though.

Nobody has the "definitive" Christianity next to which the Crusaders are proven unChristian; you have only your own interpretations - unless God has descended with a list of specific annotations, and I've not been informed of it.

Is the above statement untrue?

It is untrue. Here....

Jesus did a pretty good job of "laying the smackdown".

Check it out sometime while you are studying the Bible.

And yes, you have been informed of it, if you have studied the Bible like you say you did. It's right in front of your eyes, you just choose not to believe it.

Have a good night.

t.