Sorry, derogatory flyers do not count. I am talking about open, public executions.
You are correct they wanted to put homosexuals to death but that was a Jewish punishment for homosexuality, not a Christian one,ie, christ never said to kill gays, only Moses.
Nothing in the NT justifies the Spanish Inquisition, not one single piece of scripture.
Yes, there are all bad. None of them are as bad as the Taliban.
:smack::smack::smack::smack::smack:
Nothing in the NT justifies that! I’m — not — saying Christians don’t do brutal, horrible, vile things. What I am saying is, when they do, they can not say they did it because Christ commanded them too. Not so with Moses, not so with the Taliban.
Yeah, Stoneburg, he’s talking about open, public executions, performed in the last ten days, using stones made of granite thrown left-handed by middle-aged men named Mohammed who don’t take sugar on their porridge. How many Christians have done one of those?
“Don’t look over there!!! Nothing to see there!!!”
And yet many eminent theologians thought so at the time. Why is your interpretation more correct than theirs?
Oh, I’d argue the LRA are worse, not that either are particularly nice.
But who decides what “by the book” means? Violent Muslims think they are going “by the book”. So do peaceful Muslims. So do violent Christians, and so do peaceful Christians. It seems to me that these big, complicated books that use lots of metaphor and stories can be interpreted in lots of different ways, and no ways are more or less legitimate than others.
Moses said not speak in metaphors, as far as I am aware. That was Christ’s habit.
As far as Mohammed, I think his words are to be taken literally. At least for the Koran. Peaceful Muslims are just ignoring the violent parts of the Koran.
Each of them would be, were their cultural environments conducive to their taking power over a large region. Those cultural elements–which, yes, include religious history–have coincided with fundamentalist theocratic Islam in the cases of the Taleban and Daesh. But I’m still not sure you’ve established the unique role of Islam in this, particularly considering all the examples we’ve seen of other religious sects engaging in similar behaviors in the past.
Then what are you saying? You seem to agree that Christians and Muslims have done horrible things in the name of their faith. Only you contend that Christians had to misinterpret their faith to do it whereas Muslims were accurate about theirs. And from that you conclude that Islam is more dangerous than Christianity. How so, if the result is always the same?
No you said was this:
As far as I am aware there has never been any Christian Sect that has stoned people to death for adultery, homosexuality or for working on the Sabbath.
What you did just now is called ”moving the goal post” because you were caught. You asked for a Christian sect (KKK fits that criteria) that stones people (gay bashing and lynching includes that). You got EXACTLY what you asked for but you didn’t like it, so now you’ve come up with a new scenario. This new scenario has some very strange parameters that seem to say that murder is only bad if it is done in public…?
Unfortunately for everyone Christianity is not limited to the teachings of Jesus, but includes a whole bunch of other stuff that is very unpalatable for the civilized person. Nobody is saying that Jesus killed gays or advocated murdering innocent people, but Jesus does not equal Christianity.
And that is relevant how? Are you saying that the Catholic Church is not a Christian organization?
If the KKK were to take over and rule Louisiana I don’t think the difference but be that great, but I do agree that the Taliban has taken the concept of evil to new heights (or lows, if you prefer). Your total argument is still a mess though and you would do better to adjust your opinions (they are just opinions, it won’t kill you to change them) than keep this up. You’ve lost this argument countless times already and there is no way you’re making a come back. The smart thing is to realize you were wrong and just change your position. That’s what intelligent people do. Actually, that is a big part of what makes people intelligent in the first place. The ability to update ones world view when confronted with new information or perspectives.
it’s relevant because he’s contending that the Bible–or more accurately the Christ as recorded in the New Testament–does not explicitly encourage, support, or mandate violence…but the Qur’an does.
So what it boils down to is…
Muslims are bad people because X. But Christians are not bad people because Jesus never told anyone to kill anyone.
Yeah I can’t see any flaws in that argument. :rolleyes:
As far as I can see the argument is over. Can we get a “resolved” or so we have to go a few more rounds?
What? I mean, seriously, what?
I’m sure that when Europeans were killing each other and enslaving or oppressing half the planet they - thought - the were working on the behest of Christ, but no actual scripture accounts of or justifies any of that. But the Taliban can back up every single action from the Koran, or, at least, most of them.
So, to answer your question, which is worse, Christianity from 200 years ago or The Taliban today? Wow, that’s a really hard question to answer.
My point is, religious fanaticism is allways bad, and the worse the proscriptions of the book, the worse the results you will get. Seriously, can you HONESTLY tell me the Taliban wouldn’t be as bad if they were just run of the mill criminals with no religious agenda?
And peaceful Christians are just ignoring the violent parts of the bible.
Stop
I never said Muslims were bad people
Just quit doing that
It’s a dishonest characterization of my position
My position is that - bad - Muslims get more mileage for their extreme position from their book than a bad Christian can.
What violent parts
oh wait, the OLD TESTAMENT!!!
That’s right. Most Christians adhere to old testament judgment and retribution than they do to new testament forgiveness and love.
When is the last time you heard of a Christian beheading someone or stoning someone to death???
Nice try, Robert163. Or should that be Robert van der 163!!!
We patriots of the Americans United to Beat the Dutch, we’re not so easily fooled! We know you are simply trying to distract our attention from the real enemy and their plots on our doors and ovens! So suck up that “Dutch courage”, pal, because you’re gonna need it!
The first part of this sentence I agree to. But history seems to contradict the second. If the Quran - as you claim - contains a mandate for violence and the Bible does not, then why do we historically see just as much violence coming from Christians as we see coming from Muslims? The results are the same.
Are you trying to say that if you somehow removed Islam and Christianity from history, all Arabs, Afghans, Persians … etc. would be entirely peaceful people, because their violence came from Islam - whereas all Congolese, Hondurans, Mexicans … etc. would still be violent, because they just are that way and Christianity has nothing to do with it? You really *believe *that?
And the New Testament.
You keep ignoring the parts where Jesus is supposed to commit mass murder on a grand scale as wel as condoning slavery and brutality.
You seem to be holding Christianity and Islam to different standards
You should stop because it’s exceedingly hypocritical and does little to inspire confidence in your willingness to debate in good faith.
If you’d rather engage in JAQing off, this might not be the forum.
And around we go. The point is, when the most violent force on the planet were Christians acting on their faith, it still would be not be factually correct to say Christianity was a violent religion. Likewise today, in spite of all the violence perpetrated by Islamic extremists, it is not factual to say that Islam is a violent religion.