Originally posted by jaywill
I don't know what "dancing" around you are refering to. I was ASKED why I refered to Muhammed as an antichrist. Did you find my lengthy reply political ? Did you find it flattering to Islam ? I didn't.
Do I really need to talk about jihad in every reference concerning Islam ? My burden here is to explain why Islam is not a good candidate for interpreting Babylon the Great in Revelation.
I'm focused on this issue.
The public dissemination of fundamentalist Christian insults against Islam is inherently political and very much a concern of others. It promotes and incites to hatred. As such it is to be deplored.
Dressing it up in biblical terms is not a persuasive disguise. Ulster Protestants today describe the Pope as The Whore of Babylon and that is rarely in the context of an interesting Biblical exegesis. The phrase rings through the religious wars within Western Christianity since the Reformation.
By "dancing around" I referred to your perfectly consistent and long standing practice in supplying a very detailed interpretation of the Bible as you understand it. I personally find that utterly bizarre but still informative, no more odd than the time I have lost interpeting Finnegans Wake or, more recently, the Semi-Slav Defence, and you have more success in your project than I have had with mine. On the other hand, I don't rely on the Semi Slav Defence to live (fortunately).
I credited you with "seeking something bordering on a decent attitude" but complained that even you are
unwilling to challenge the repeated labeling of Islam as inherently violent. I do not require your rehearsal of the concept of jihad, since I do not challenge the violence present in Islam.
I pointed out instead that violence is no less a feature of the other monotheist religions and advocated something similar to what Jesus said when he did not in fact reject in principle the stoning to death of a woman caught in adultery, but suggested that the first stone be thrown by one who is without sin. To be consistent, maybe he should have demanded the right to throw that stone, since he did not come to set aside the laws.
If it is not your intention to endorse the incitement to hatred which is more evident in other posts, then it would be appropriate sometimes to say so. Otherwise, while your own exegesis may be accurate within its terms, it is hardly complete. As you have said yourself, one cannot selectively pick and choose - the Bible must be taken as a whole and there are important refinements in the New Testament which are lost on too many Christians in practice. Revelations is hardly a useful grounding for a good life.