Why Christianity is so Dangerous!

Originally posted by vistesd
I am so glad that you realize that such things as context (including historical context) are not important when it comes to reading religious scriptures. Or symbol or metaphor.

1 Samuel 15:3 Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but [b]kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey ...[text shortened]... es out of context is sufficient to understand what particular religious scriptures actually say.

I don't know of any Christians who think that Jesus meant a literal sword, especially when Peter drew a sword to defend him and Jesus rebuked him for doing so.

Now compare Jesus to Mohammad. Mohammad converted with the sword, took women sex slaves, and personally beheaded hundreds of his opponents.

There is no comparison between the two. One is an honorable man who gave us commands to love our enemies and do good to those who persecute us and to turn the other cheek, and then we have a second rate warlord with Mohammad.

Jesus was able to reform the OT through his teachings as where Islam can never be. That is because Mohammad took us kicking and screaming back to the days of the OT, and according to them there can never be another prophet of any kind to transform it the way Jesus did the OT.

There is a reason why the most violent terrorist states on earth are all in Islamic countries. And no, it's not just the Middle East where one might blame the US for its continued wars.

What really trouble me is stats that show a great percentage of Muslims around the world who sympathize with terrorist groups. It begins to beg the question, is there a moderate Islam?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Just because there is no proof that God exists, that doesn't mean that religion is a fraud.

And Christianity is not dangerous. It is inherently a religion of peace, like Islam. Evil men have used religion as excuse to foment their evil upon an unsuspecting world. Lay blame where blame is deserved.

So you are telling me that Mohammad, who refused to acknowledge Jesus as the Son of God and who conducted himself the way he did, was not an evil man?

If you can explain away all the murders he committed and rapes of women sex slaves etc., you still are left with the fact that he had the spirit of anti-Christ.

I believe him to be the False Prophet. There is nothing good in him.

Originally posted by whodey
I don't know of any Christians who think that Jesus meant a literal sword, especially when Peter drew a sword to defend him and Jesus rebuked him for doing so.

Now compare Jesus to Mohammad. Mohammad converted with the sword, took women sex slaves, and personally beheaded hundreds of his opponents.

There is no comparison between the two. One is an ho ...[text shortened]... who sympathize with terrorist groups. It begins to beg the question, is there a moderate Islam?

Luke 22:35 He said to them, "When I sent you out without a purse, bag, or sandals, did you lack anything?" They said, "No, not a thing." 36 He said to them, "But now, the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one.

I would not read it as an actual, physical sword either. But, I am not a scriptural literalist. In Luke 22, is a real sword meant? To what end? (I’m not really asking—I’m just using it as another example to make a point.)

My point is only about ripping verses out of context, and/or assuming they must be taken literally, when it comes to someone else’s scriptures—while (rightly) acknowledging such things as context, metaphor and symbol, parable, the need to recognize various literary motifs, historical references, etc., etc., when it comes to one’s own scriptures. That’s just hypocritical. Especially when used by a person of one religion to presumptively declare who are the “True Adherents™” of another religion. (It would be like a Zoroastrian, say, declaring that, “Of course, the sword in the Gospel of Matthew is a real sword, and those who claim otherwise are not ‘True Christians’.” You would rightfully object. But then, it would be hypocritical for you to turn around and do the same thing to the Zoroastrians.)

[I once participated, foolishly, in a “game” where someone on here listed verse after verse of the Qur’an out of context, with no consideration of historical references or the poetic language involved, or disagreements among various Muslims about interpretation and meaning of the Arabic*—while demanding that anyone who disagreed do all the research on every verse that he cited; then he simply proceeded to cite some more the same way. I will not play that game again.]

You yourself have participated in discussions that require pretty deep readings of the biblical texts, in which honest, thoughtful people disagree about the ultimate meaning, without resolution.

You doubtless missed the sarcasm in my post to RJ (I did not bother to put a /s sign at the end of my comments; nor am I likely to in the future). And so you missed my point. That’s the risk with sarcasm.

______________________________________________

* Classical Arabic, like classical Hebrew, appears to be a highly polysemous language.

Originally posted by twhitehead
...try disputing these statistics:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/opinion-polls.htm

Those stats are worrying.

Originally posted by divegeester
Those stats are worrying.

Just a bit.

We bought a car from a dealer employing an observant Muslim salesman. His forehead was permanently scarred from hitting the prayer mat. I got the feeling there was extreme anger hidden inside those salesman eyes. You could see it when he thought you were not looking at him. It was creepy.

Originally posted by vistesd
Luke 22:35 He said to them, "When I sent you out without a purse, bag, or sandals, did you lack anything?" They said, "No, not a thing." 36 He said to them, "But now, the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. [b]And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one.

I would not read it as an actual, physical sword either. But, ...[text shortened]... _____

* Classical Arabic, like classical Hebrew, appears to be a highly polysemous language.[/b]

Given the historical context of the lives of both Jesus and Mohammad, as well as their teachings, do you view them are being equals in terms of moral standing, or is on superior to the other?

Originally posted by twhitehead
In my view fraudulent behaviour is when you are peddling something that you know not to be true. As such I would say that most theists do seem to believe most of the basic tenets of their religion and in that sense are not frauds. I do however often see fraudulent behaviour amongst Christians when they are promoting their religion especially to children i ...[text shortened]... ou to try disputing these statistics:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/opinion-polls.htm

Would you then say that Islam is a much bigger danger?

Originally posted by vistesd
Luke 22:35 He said to them, "When I sent you out without a purse, bag, or sandals, did you lack anything?" They said, "No, not a thing." 36 He said to them, "But now, the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. [b]And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one.

I would not read it as an actual, physical sword either. But, ...[text shortened]... _____

* Classical Arabic, like classical Hebrew, appears to be a highly polysemous language.[/b]

One should always interpret literally unless context indicates it is not literal. For example, you would not interpret an analogy as literal.

Originally posted by RJHinds
One should always interpret literally unless context indicates it is not literal. For example, you would not interpret an analogy as literal.

How do you personally tell if something your have read in the bible is literal, or an analogy?

Originally posted by whodey
Would you then say that Islam is a much bigger danger?

No. Largely because Muslims are not in a position of power in most parts of the world whereas Christians are. In an equal setting, I do think Muslims take their religion more seriously than Christians and are thus generally more dangerous in some ways.

Originally posted by divegeester
Those stats are worrying.

Bear in mind that according to surveys more than 40% of Americans and 50% of Europeans (*) think the Sun goes round the Earth. What this shows you is that when faced with a stupid question people responding to surveys give stupid answers. Surveys are informationally useless unless they are short (they never are) and they've been careful with the questions.

(*) I can't remember the exact figures, they were in that ball park.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Bear in mind that according to surveys more than 40% of Americans and 50% of Europeans (*) think the Sun goes round the Earth. What this shows you is that when faced with a stupid question people responding to surveys give stupid answers. Surveys are informationally useless unless they are short (they never are) and they've been careful with the questions.

(*) I can't remember the exact figures, they were in that ball park.

I generally agree. In addition, what people say and what they do are often at odds especially when it comes to religion. But that is one of the dangers of religion ie that you can have a whole lot of people saying one thing for the sake of sticking with the group when they actually believe something else.
If we really want less terrorism we need more moderate Muslims to speak out to the point that anyone advocating terrorism feels like he is going against his religion rather than exemplifying it.

Originally posted by vistesd
Luke 22:35 He said to them, "When I sent you out without a purse, bag, or sandals, did you lack anything?" They said, "No, not a thing." 36 He said to them, "But now, the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. [b]And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one.

I would not read it as an actual, physical sword either. But, ...[text shortened]... _____

* Classical Arabic, like classical Hebrew, appears to be a highly polysemous language.[/b]

Yes, it was a literal sword like Peter used to cut the guard's ear off and the purse was a literal purse to hold money. 😏

Originally posted by divegeester
How do you personally tell if something your have read in the bible is literal, or an analogy?

I simply use common sense. 😏