Which religion is worse for killing, Christianity or Islam

Originally posted by Rajk999
Therefore atheists fundamentalists can also be terrorists.

Naturally. The religion (or non-religion) is not important here. There are terrorists of any religion (or non-religion). Fundamentalist denominations or movements are the most fruitful groups for recruitments of terrorists.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Naturally. The religion (or non-religion) is not important here. There are terrorists of any religion (or non-religion). Fundamentalist denominations or movements are the most fruitful groups for recruitments of terrorists.

So why make an issue of religion when a fundamentalist can arise from any source.

Originally posted by Rajk999
So why make an issue of religion when a fundamentalist can arise from any source.

I don't. Never done. I always say that it's not about religion, it's all about fundamentlism. There are no terrorists who aren't a fundamentalist of some kind. Religion has in fact nothing to do with it.

Are you a fundamentalist?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I don't. Never done. I always say that it's not about religion, it's all about fundamentlism. There are no terrorists who aren't a fundamentalist of some kind. Religion has in fact nothing to do with it.

Are you a fundamentalist?

No. Are you?

Originally posted by Rajk999
No. Are you?

No, I honestly cannot say that I am.

To be a fundamentalist is not a freethinker, not a free thinker. To be a fundamentalist is to think correctly according to what someone else thinks.

So, no, I'm not a fundamentalist.

But some are, and are proud about it.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
No, I honestly cannot say that I am.

To be a fundamentalist is not a freethinker, not a free thinker. To be a fundamentalist is to think correctly according to what someone else thinks.

So, no, I'm not a fundamentalist.

But some are, and are proud about it.

If trying to apply the doctrine of Christ and Paul is being fundamentalist then I guess Im one.

Originally posted by Rajk999
If trying to apply the doctrine of Christ and Paul is being fundamentalist then I guess Im one.

Many of my personal friends have a sound, living, loving, caring, christian faith. I wouldn't call them fundamentalists.

'Fundamentalist' is not a pretty label, not in my eyes.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Many of my personal friends have a sound, living, loving, caring, christian faith. I wouldn't call them fundamentalists.

'Fundamentalist' is not a pretty label, not in my eyes.

Would you refer to me and Rajk999 as fundamentalists? If so, in what
way are we distinguished for non-fundamental Christians?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Many of my personal friends have a sound, living, loving, caring, christian faith. I wouldn't call them fundamentalists.

'Fundamentalist' is not a pretty label, not in my eyes.

People would call me fundamentalist because I go after religions which change the doctrine of Christ and brainwash people... like the JWs. I guess your friends wont do that.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Would you refer to me and Rajk999 as fundamentalists? If so, in what
way are we distinguished for non-fundamental Christians?

You are a fundamentalist Christian because you believe the bible is literally true, that the
world was made 6000 (ish) yrs ago, that the flood really happened, the Armageddon is
happening, that all of modern science is wrong because your holy book says so.

None of this is true about non-fundamentalist Christians.

Originally posted by FMF
Who is it you think has asked you to "gently bring [God] up to speed on the wrongs of slavery"?

Who is it you think has asked you to "gently bring [God] up to speed on the wrongs of slavery"?

That was not to be taken by anyone personally. I was simply refering to the attitude that God is deficient in morality and in need of human education.

I recognize that the Atheist does not believe God exists. I start from the standpoint of that being a non-starter of an issue. As a theist then, the next issue is could God our Creator be in need of improvement from His own creation.

The Person in history most qualified to shine a light upon God of the Old Testament is Jesus Christ. And I believe that Jesus Christ did do something like that. I don't think we can improve upon it.

That is, there are the passages in which Jesus taught essentially "In the old times you learned this or that. But I say unto you ... thus and such".

Jesus did do that kind of re-examining of what was spoken in the Old Testament. But of course I believe that He is the Son of God, even God come as a man.

Christ took the Old Testament laws, and the ritual ones, the ceremonial ones, He underplayed. The more moral ones, He made more penetrating, [/b]more[/b] subjective - correcting not only the outward action but the inward motive.

Once again. The Old Testament laws which were more ceremonial and ritual in nature, He underplayed and even purposely broke. The ones pertaining to more moral behavior, He heightened, made more penetrating, made cut deeper, made not only a matter of outward action but of innermost motive.

Originally posted by jaywill
That was not to be taken by anyone personally. I was simply refering to the attitude that God is deficient in morality and in need of human education.

Surely the issue at hand here is not "that God is deficient in morality" but that the OT bible, rather than being "divinely inspired", is - on the contrary - simply a flawed anachronistic cultural document reflecting the reactionary backwardness of past eras. This necessitates brazen cherry picking and/or extraordinarily contorted and brittle defences of things like slavery and genocide, delivered in all earnest, by believers like yourself?

Originally posted by googlefudge
You are a fundamentalist Christian because you believe the bible is literally true, that the world was made 6000 (ish) yrs ago, that the flood really happened, the Armageddon is happening, that all of modern science is wrong because your holy book says so. None of this is true about non-fundamentalist Christians.

Meanwhile, Islamic fundamentalism asserts that the basic instinct of human beings is intrinsically religious and not political. All systems of thought other than Islam are seen as 'pagan'. It is not so much concerned with defining and elaborating God's attributes but instead shifts its focus to the attributes of Islam itself. And finally, the affinity between philosophy and natural science is ruptured and deemed to be unwarranted. [my paraphrase of http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ip/rep/H007.htm]. None of this really applies to non-fundamentalist Muslims.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
don't get hysterical. it was customary for tribal war chiefs of barbarian hordes to get a share of the "booty." moses would have been no exception and given the proof that he actually expected his people to capture virgin girl slaves (after slaughtering their entire families in front of them), he would've gotten his share of the spoils of raiding.

bu ng bible-gods (actually the ancient hebrew's, since bible-god is an invention) immorality.

don't get hysterical. it was customary for tribal war chiefs of barbarian hordes to get a share of the "booty." moses would have been no exception and given the proof that he actually expected his people to capture virgin girl slaves (after slaughtering their entire families in front of them), he would've gotten his share of the spoils of raiding.

Assumption with exactly NOTHING in the text to demonstrate that this is what happened. YOU assume that this is what HAD to have happened.

Even if what you assume did happen - ie. - Moses made sure he obtained a young virgin women from the defeated Medianites, the fact remains that the Levitical LAWS disallowed rape or sexual object making of female POWs.

There was a prescribed period in which the captive woman was to mourn her father's house. Only after such lengthy duration of mourning was the Hebrew allowed to take the captive woman as a WIFE.

Now, IF Moses obtained WIFE according to this protocol, from the Medianite virgin women, the Scripture is totally silent about her.

Essentially, YOU are just assuming what you wish to assume to break down any recognition of the uniqueness of the divine covenanted community of Israel.

Sure, use your imaginaion. Its not my hysteria that is the problem. It is your wild and prejudiced imagination.

but all this is a moot point. the point as has been proven repeatedly, is that the bible-god who could've put an end to human trafficking with but a single command rather decided to endorse and command slavery.

Here again is a stark display of your ignorance of the ways of God.

Sure, God from the beginning could have forced a utopia of moral perfection. The story of the Bible is how God imparts and dispenses His life and nature into man, to unite with man in a mingled way.

If MAN was merely a wooden chair or a stick or stone, than that would give God no problem at all. It is because His creation has his own ideas, his own will, and makes his own choices, some of which are very bad, that God has to work on the inside of man's character.

We do not see a perfect world from Genesis 1 or even from the conquest of Canaan. But we DO see that that is where history is moving. And by the time of Revelation 21 and 22 we DO see that God's operation on and within His people will produce that new heaven and new earth in which righteousness dwells.

You complain because you blame God that the world is not perfect today - now.

I have faith that God is definitely moving human history in that direction.

He is moving to head up all things in Christ. He is able in Christ, to do far above what we could ask or think.

So rather than a moot point we have an ironic point/. You complain why all things are not headed up under God yet you do not yourself want to be headed up under God.

there is no argument you can bear that can change what is written in the bible concerning bible-gods (actually the ancient hebrew's, since bible-god is an invention) immorality.

You never took up my challenge to produce and ancient writing expressing a divine viewpoint on the dignity and human worth of one in servitude as I provided in the book of Job.

You ignored it and now come back with a "skeptical business as usual" evasion.

I am not impressed.

Here is Job's utterance again (around 2000 BC, some 500 years prior to the writing of the Penteteuch)

"IF I HAVE DENIED JUSTICE TO MY MENSERVANTS AND MAIDSERVANTS WHEN THEY HAD A GRIEVANCE AGAINST ME, WHAT WILL I DO WHEN GOD CONFRONTS ME ? WHAT WILL I ANSWER WHEN CALLED TO ACCOUNT ? DID NOT HE WHO MADE ME IN THE WOMB MAKE THEM ? DID NOT THE SAME ONE FORM US BOTH WITHIN OUR MOTHERS ?" (JOB 31:13-15)

In the liturature of the world, produce for us an earlier expression of a divine regard for the human dignity of slaves or servants. Match it .

Originally posted by FMF
Surely the issue at hand here is not "that God is deficient in morality" but that the OT bible, rather than being "divinely inspired", is - on the contrary - simply a flawed anachronistic cultural document reflecting the reactionary backwardness of past eras. This necessitates brazen cherry picking and/or extraordinarily contorted and brittle defences of things like slavery and genocide, delivered in all earnest, by believers like yourself?

Surely the issue at hand here is not "that God is deficient in morality" but that the OT bible, rather than being "divinely inspired", is - on the contrary - simply a flawed anachronistic cultural document reflecting the reactionary backwardness of past eras.

Your view of what it means to Christians that the Bible is "inspired" seems to be that there should be NOTHING written in the Old Testament that you do not agree with.

It is "inspired" only if it suites your taste in everything ? Does your personal life testify that it would be impossible for you to have any disagreement with God ?

I question your view of inspiration. Reflecting norms of the times does not negate inspiration to me. Recording what happened is not necessarily recording what is TAUGHT as behavior.

David in the Psalms wants God to really put it to his enemies. David expresses his desire for God to be vengeful against those bothering him. Yet in the New Testament Christ speaks that we should love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us.

This decrepency does not mean to me, that the Old Testament is not inspired of God - "God breathed" .

In creation, obviously God ordained ONE man and ONE woman as marriage. Latter we read of Jacob's two wives, David's two or three wives, and Solomon's 600 wives. We even read of God's intructions on how divorce should be handled with a certificate. I see neither decrepency in these details or evidence that the Old Testament is not written under inspiration.

God tells Israel that HE Himself is their only King. Latter they demand to be like the nations around them. He allows them a king like the nations around them in Saul, and latter in David. These details do not mean that the Old Testament was totally divorced from reflecting contemporary customs. Neither does it indicate to me a lack of divine inspiration of the writing.

In short, I don't count the Old Testament "inspired" only because from Genesis to Malachi FMF has no problem with anything written there.

This necessitates brazen cherry picking and/or extraordinarily contorted and brittle defences of things like slavery and genocide, delivered in all earnest, by believers like yourself?

My experience is that people with less amount of total reading experience in the Bible are the ones who usually criticize others of "cherry picking".

And skeptics like yourself usually consider themselves experts on the Bible according to how much they haven't really read it.

By the way, if the Christian faith is the real issue, Who is commanding you to live under the Levitical Laws anyway ? If the Christian faith is the issue Who is commanding you to enter into Canaan and make war with the inhabitants of it ?

Are you so adverse to following Jesus that you have to hunt for things in the Old Testament to provide you rational NOT to believe in Christ ? That is kind of scraping the barrel for excuses when you have 27 New Testament books to clarify what is involved in being a disciple of Jesus.

Do you really have to go back to Joshua to grasp reasons to not confess you are a sinner in need of Christ's redemption and forgiveness ??