Jesus also called an entire population “dogs”. That’s a pretty poor example of “love your neighbor as yourself”.
If one’s only going to look at the words of a religion’s initial texts and ignore all the commentary and practice of the majority of the faith’s followers over the following millennia, then one’s going to be presenting oneself in a rather poor light when discussing said religion.
If your best defense is “well in the last 1400 years there have been lots and lots and LOTS of good muslims” then, well, you’re just repeating the same line apologists like you have allways used. It doesn’t make the book any less barbaric and the guys stoning women to death in Afghanistan are using THE SAME BOOK all the good muslims are using. The good muslims ignoring the “bad” parts is irrelevant. They are still in the book. I doubt I have any left so say about this (to you).
Then how come we are on page 6 of this discussion? If you all agree with me about how violent and maniacal he was…
This post raises an interesting question for you: Exactly how many times do you have to hear it or read it before it sinks into your skull that the fact is “All the good Muslims use more than just the Qur’an to illuminate their understanding and their practice of their faith”?
Didn’t he maintain that his audience was supposed to follow the entirety of the laws contained in the Pentateuch?
Ok, you’re shifting goal posts yet again but I’ll give you one last chance to demonstrate your debating in good faith.
Certainly. Matthew 5:17-18
In case you’re unfamiliar with this passage what he means is that OT law still applies and will always apply.
And yes, Biblical law repeatedly does allow for torture.
Now, cough up the answer you promised to give or we’ll have to conclude you’re not debating in good faith.
If you don’t want to then fine, hopefully we’ve helped educate you.
Your quote does not say Jesus advocated torture. So, no soup for you.
LOL, I posted the same passage, like 2 or 3 pages before you did. Quit implying that I “don’t know” about Christianity. The book contradicts itself so many times, you don’t get to “win” because you find a contradiction.
I very well - could - be wrong about the “hippy” Jesus thing. In reality, there is hippy Jesus and crazy psychotic Jesus, calling people vipers and doubting his own apostles belief in his dogma/divinity, using the whip in the temple and casting demons into pigs… on further consideration I - was - wrong to claim that Jesus was a “hippy”. Well, that he was - only - a hippy.
Where?
yes
not that they do that, but yes, he told them to
nobody.
Ok, so you demanded a passage showing Jesus endorsed torture, I provided a passage where he did so since Biblical law endorses torture now please explain why you’re a bigger expert on the Bible than Thomas Aquinas.
BTW, if you never went to college that’s nothing to be ashamed of. You’ve already told us you suffer from bipolar disorder so it would be completely understandable.
I’ve never implied, I’ve flat out stated you don’t understand it and you’ve repeatedly demonstrated you don’t if we take all your posts at face value.
This is somewhat incoherent. Would you mind rewriting it.
Uh… in the Bible. Haven’t you been insisting you’ve read it or did I misunderstand you?
That’s pure bullshit. That doesn’t even begin to explain killing someone because they leave the religion. Were apostates attacking him or anyone else?
Did you hit the “submit reply” button a bit early because you didn’t quote a question?
You’ve yet to supply the OT passage that calls for torture
Ok, I’ve answered all your questions. I’ll answer this one but first you have to answer mine which you earlier did. I’ll even cut them down for you.
Where did you go to college, what did you major in, and did you go on to grad school?
Or do you find the answer to the question embarrassing?
I was an Art Major in college, Drawing and Painting, one year away from graduating, no plans or desire, at all, to go to graduate school for any subject. Have no plans to complete my Art degree either. Do have plans to take more Art Lessons.
My Artwork
Thank you sincerely for your answer.
Well to give just one obvious example, in Exodus, it condones the torturing of slaves even if they’re beaten so badly it takes a day or two to recover. “If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.”
For that matter, Jesus in the Gospels at times speaks favorably of torture in his parables.
“And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”- Matthew 22: 12-13
“The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.”- Luke 12:46-48
Of course innocents were harmed, however you wish to define innocent. It was a war. If nothing else, these things tend to involve grieving mothers and orphans.
Not sure, I’m not too well versed on the Koran itself - historian here, not theologian :o. I know he had at least one Jewish community in Medina put to the sword, so there’s that (although it wasn’t over being “infidels”).
I don’t believe so, no.
Yes and no. Part of his shtick when dealing with pagans (which is to say, people who weren’t Christians, Jews or Zoroastrians - those were granted special status for Reasons) when he had the upper hand was “either come into the fold of Islam or it’s the chopping block”. But it was a fair deal - if they **did **convert they really did become full equals and part of the Muslim community, no questions asked. After all, his goal wasn’t to kill people but, no shit, to create some sort of peacenik brotherly utopia.
Is that kind of a dick thing to do regardless ? I suppose it is, yes. Yet it was still progress over the typical way of doing these things back then (or today :/), namely “it’s the chopping block, period ; also where’s your daughter because I need to tap that ?”. Look up Charlemagne’s “conversion” of the Saxons if you’re up to some gnarly stuff.
And this more merciful way of doing things stuck too, in stark contrast with Christendom for example. When the crusaders captured the city of Jerusalem during the First Crusade, they locked the doors and butchered every goddamned person in there. Man, woman and child ; Muslim or Jew or Christian alike. It was enough to horrify their own chroniclers - one reported that so much blood ran in the streets, it rose up to people’s ankles. When the Muslims took the city back by the time Saladin came around however, no “infidel” non-combatant was harmed. Many combatants & their families were taken prisoners to be ransomed later, but many others were simply escorted out and back to Cyprus (women in particular) ; and of those who could not pay the ransom and by law were to become slaves many were freed instead.
Oh, and also unlike the crusaders, Saladin didn’t desecrate the places of worship of the Other Guys. Again, pretty enlightened by the standards of the time. Could have been all politics and claiming the moral high ground I suppose, but still.
I didn’t say he was a brigand himself, merely that he allied with some. The desert of Arabia is a harsh place to live in, and there were only two real options : either claim an oasis for yourself and profit from the people who need it ; or move around and trade and raid. He himself was more of a merchant and scholar, he was from a posh sedentary family.
As for how these things were conducted, well, one group of tent-dwelling camel-herding bros would ambush the trade caravan of another group of tent-dwelling camel-herding bros on their way to wherever, take their shit and run away. Mostly when there was nothing else to do and/or their own trading expeditions didn’t amount to anything. Or, yanno, they just got their own shit took :o.
It did involve harming people, but I don’t believe that was the point - loot and providing for one’s own was the point. European post-Roman societies were very much the same, and among Germanic, Scandinavian and Celtic tribes at least, beyond mere survival (which was a big part of it of course) raiding the next tribe over was also about proving you were a manly man while they were girly girls - while at the same time knowing that the next tribe over are really cool dudes who would have your back in a real fight against the Romans, or the Saxons, or the Huns or whoever the grand outside threat du jour was. It wasn’t personal, you know ? All in the game, dawg 
But, addressing what I think is your point : I don’t think Muhammad was a particularly glowing guy by the moral standards of today. By 7th century standards however, he does stand out as a particularly bright and, no shit, enlightened man. The Koran seems to me to be pretty damn full of kumbaya, in its historical context.
You’re welcome.
I’l agree to your analysis of the three NT passages.
But those are - metaphors - whereas Mohammed actually killed people and took slaves and made commandments for other people to do so. I hope we can agree there is a vast difference between a metaphor and a direct commandment. I sure hope so, reference the part where Jesus tells a thief to cut off his hand
there is a BIG difference between a “metaphor” about cutting off a thief’s hand and - actually - doing it
is is still a practice for a thief to have his hand cut off in a Muslim country? does it happen anywhere at all anymore?
But as to the OT and beating slaves. There is a verrrrrrrrry large gap between that and using that passage as a justification for torture in the inquisition. In fact, I see no relation between the two concepts at all.
That would all be - very - impressive if he was a general… and not a prophet, a “man of god”.
I really did like reading your responses. given your command of historical topics, and interactions, and causes, and effects, I’d say you’d like this forum quite a bit: