That’s just moving the goalposts from “Jesus preached peace and was not violent at all” to “Jesus’ violence was different from Muhammad’s violence”.
No, actually it is not.
Jesus preached certain forms of violence, and actually committed other forms. The Old Testament is full of violence.
If “the holy figures and the scriptures of this religion are violent!” is your yardstick, then Islam and Christianity stand side-by-side with each other.
Really?
What, specifically, did Jesus command to do that was violent?
“Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites!” (Matthew 15:3-7)
Are you for the death penalty for children who curse their parents? Because Jesus was.
Jesus once killed almost everything on the Earth in a cataclysmic flood.
Beat that, Mohammed!
And you simply ignore every fact that demonstrates that your hypothesis is nothing more than wishful thinking. Nothing in your claim has a factual basis and your insistence on acting as though there was any merit to it simply identifies you as one who places your own beliefs above facts and reality.
Ha! Old Testament doesn’t count!
Obey all the violent laws of the Old Testament:
All that Old Testament barbarism (the stonings, the persecution of LGBT folks) you’re trying to specially plead away? Jesus endorsed all of it, and commanded others to abide by it.
fervent - having or displaying a passionate intensity.
fundamentalism - is defined as strict adherence to some belief or ideology, especially in a religious context, or a form of Christianity where the Bible is taken literally and obeyed in full.
hmmm… lets see what he actually said about death by stoning:
The Adulterous Woman
John 8
“He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”
I wasn’t aware of that. So, you’ve proved me wrong.
But that doesn’t make Mohammed any better. It just means I was wrong when I said Jesus never advocated violence.
Yeats, The Second Coming
Well. That’s an interesting post.
Putting aside the obvious, guns are not violent. They’re inanimate objects. People are violent. This is a thread about a demographic group that is extremely violent and uses Islam as their guide.
Moving on, when has the NRA ever sanctioned or suggested violence via guns or otherwise? The light of your post grows dimmer still.
Finally, How exactly have I advocated the treatment of Islam? And for extra credit, how does it relate to the NRA besides radical Muslims using guns to kill people.
Except that’s exactly what it comes down to. What would Jesus or Buddha do versus what Mohammad would do. Radical Islam is doing what Mohammad would do. Therein lies the problem.
And the stone was flung from the crowd
That cracketh her skull, she dieth.
And the Lord, sore wrought and vexed
Cried out in a loud voice
“Dammit, Mom!!”
Nope. Still fails. There is no evidence that Saladin was in any way less fervent than Godfrey of Bouillon, yet Godfrey’s capture of Jerusalem was much different than Saladin’s.
Beyond that, you have moved the goalposts: your post to which I linked made no mention of fundamentalism. In addition, your assertion of “marginal” members of a religion has no basis in fact when studying history; it is simply something you insert without evidence because you need it to rationalize your beliefs.
You are, as you have done before, taking the fundy stance that only a literal interpretation of any scripture is the correct one–a point that is pretty much a new idea that only arose in either Christianity or Islam since the end of the eighteenth century.
No, it’s not. As you can tell from the fact that the vast majority of Muslims don’t believe that, nor do scholars.
In fact, the hallmark of the most violent radical Islamic fanatics is that they’re strikingly uneducated in Islam. Osama bin Laden had no training or credentials whatsoever (he was a civil engineer who attended a secular school growing up). Nor do any of the Taliban (their very name, in fact, is a reference to their lack of education). Nor does ISIS’ leader (a former military officer under Saddam’s regime).
Really, the most radical Muslims seem to be those who know the least about Islam
It also doesn’t make him any worse.
Add Sayyid Qutb to the mix. An American-trained engineer educated in western schools.