[QUOTE=Titus 2:9-10]
9 Urge bondslaves to be subject to their own masters in everything, to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, 10 not pilfering, but showing all good faith so that they will adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in every respect.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Colossians 3:22]
22 Slaves, in all things obey those who are your masters on earth, not with external service, as those who merely please men, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Timothy 6:1]
6 All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Peter 2:18]
18 Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable.
[/QUOTE]
Here is your premise:
[QUOTE=Robert163]
What I am saying, proposing, is that the more violence that is in the original text of a religion the more likely the right and center proponents of that religion will tacitly at least, support violence to achiever their religious goals.
[/QUOTE]
Here is my logic:
The bible is the religious text of Christians.
The bible contains a great deal of violence.
Therefore, according to your premise, Christians support violence.
The core message of Jesus contained no calls for violence, there is no way you can “misinterpret” his message to blow up an abortion clinic. Mohammed, I don’t know what his core message was, but I do know he called for all kinds of violence and even participated in acts of violence, war and slavery. Having a more violent founding figure is - certainly - going to have an influence down the road.
I am aware of those passages. They were used by Americans to justify slavery. They are, however, the words of Paul and not of Jesus. Jesus and the NT vs Paul and the NT is a separate debate, really. I am talking about the words of the founder of Christianity vs the words of the founder of Islam.
No, you have your own basic premise wrong:
[QUOTE=Robert163]
What I am saying, proposing, is that the more violence that is in the original text of a religion the more likely the right and center proponents of that religion will tacitly at least, support violence to achiever their religious goals.
[/QUOTE]
Your basic premise said “the original text of a religion”, which in the case of christians is the bible.
Now, if you want to move the goalposts because you realized your basic premise is untenable, at least acknowledge that is the case.
Therefore, those Christians who both support violence and justify it in religious terms, can’t just be hand waved away as thugs who’ve “hijacked” the religion?
No, your position is wrong, you position is, essentially, Islam is bad, Christianity is bad, The old Aztec religion is bad, religions are bad therefor pretty much all religions are equally bad. This idea, that pretty much all religions are equally bad, is patently false.
In Europe, maybe. In the USA there is some degree of (academic) (and layperson) disagreement on that topic. I doubt you would find many Christians in the USA, of any stripe, who would not say the words of Jesus are - at least, slightly - more relevant to Christianity than the words of Paul.
No, you are actually right. I misrimembered. I checked and the most quoted reference to homosexuals as “abominations” is from Leviticus. Paul said they should be “put unto death” but didn’t use the “Abomination” word.
However, homosexuals are indeed called “Abomination” in the NT, in Revelations. If the NT invalidates the OT, it’s not in that respect.
I haven’t said anything that implies that. What I have said is your premise is bad. Now you are just hand waving instead of admitting when you are wrong.
Actually, I’m not. If you are paying attention to the entirety of this thread you would see that I have agreed with (a few) posters who have disagreed with me, even to the point of reversing or modifying my position (that muslim violence in Syria or Palestine is religious and not cultural). At this point, I don’t even know what your point is, apart from the fact that you seem to dislike what I have to say.
Suffice it to say, however it is to be stated, I am FIRMLY against the idea that Islam is equally bad as Christianity, in terms of their primary text. I am FIRMLY against the idea that the differing core messages of the two founders are not:
1 - distinctly different
2- very pivotal and influential
Mohammed directly advocated violence. We know for a fact that he actually took slaves, killed people and waged war. That is not a matter of speculation, as are many of the “words and deeds” of Christ. In the case of Mohammed it is an actual, literal, historical fact. To say that they are equally bad, Mohammed and Christ, or that their words/deeds do not HEAVILY influence their followers, is ABSURD.
Jesus of Nazareth is by no mean the founder of Christianity, just as Nietzsche was not the founder of the NSDAP, and Michael Jordan was not the founder of Nike.
You are of course aware that unlike Mohammed Jesus did not take part in writing down his teachings. As far as I know the Gospel of Mark is the oldest of the Gospels and it was written some time around 66-70 AD, decades after the events it describes. It is virtually impossible that any Gospel contains the exact words of Jesus. Like the letters of Paul they contain what his followers remembered or believed to be his teachings. Can you point me to any accepted source saying that the Gospels represent Jesus’ teachings more adequately than Paul’s writings do?