patrick.net

CL says

hospitable?

LOL. Each of the three Abrahamic faiths requires followers to believe more than the one before. Each can become oppressive in proportion to the amount of political power it is allowed to attain. In Exodus, the Jews massacred various rival tribes and even their own who forgot the correct sabbath. (BTW, if they all believe the OT, which is the correct sabbath?) In the Crusades and Inquisition and Reformation and Thirty Years War and Troubles, Christians slaughtered rival groups and even their own who committed various heresies. Around the world today, Muslims slaughter each other (Shia vs Sunni) and anyone else for blasphemy. Religion and power don't mix, but the power-hungry preachers insist that they must be united into "one true religion" or a "Christian Coalition" or some other coalition where they can achieve more power for themselves and oppress everyone else.

Hospitality has nothing to do with it. It's certainly nice not to want to offend anyone, but to quote myself from a different thread:

But I've read quite a bit about Islam now and I'm pretty sure it's not at all like Christianity in spite of the superficial similarlity between intolerance in current Islam and intolerance in medieval Christianity.

Remind me now because I can't remember -- who did Jesus murder or rape?

Mohammed approved the murders of a 100 year old man and a pregnant woman who wrote comic poems about him (Abu Afak and Asma Bint Marwan), slept with a 9-year old girl (Aisha), raped a new "wife" on the day he murdered her father and brother (Safiya), beheaded 700 Jews after they surrendered, and much more that just cannot be considered humane, let alone "a model for all humanity". And this is official Islamic history, not slander. With a role model like that, slander is not necessary. Just a recitation of their official history will do.

It is morally wrong to pretend that Islam is a religion of peace when its official history praises such acts by the founder of the religion.

So I ask you, was Mohammed right to rape and murder? Is that being a good role model for all humanity, or not?

Hospitality has nothing to do with it

I said, "Theologically hospitable". :)

What do you make of (I think T-Lips said it in your earlier posts) that the Gospels that did not make canon were violent or vile?

Can you provide the text/quotes from the Quran where these acts are described, and where rape and murder are not condemned by contemporary non-fundamentalist Muslims?

Can we please ban religion from government !!!!!! WORLDWIDE!!!!

We should start with marriage, last time I checked only the government could issue a licence and not the church, synagogue or mosque!

CL says

What do you make of (I think T-Lips said it in your earlier posts) that the Gospels that did not make canon were violent or vile?

They are not official Christian scripture and most Christians are not even aware they exist. They certainly don't base their lives on them. And I don't see anything nearly as violent as Mohammed's actions.

CL says

Can you provide the text/quotes from the Quran where these acts are described, and where rape and murder are not condemned by contemporary non-fundamentalist Muslims?

This is a good start: http://patrick.net/?p=511

It's from here: http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/call_to_muslims.htm but that site seems to be continuously attacked and hard to get to.

And just start doing Google searches for Aisha, Safiya, Abu Afak, Asma Bint Marwan, the slaughter of the Banu Qurayza, etc.

Of course non-fundamentalist Muslims don't say it's all right to go around raping or killing non-Muslims. That's what makes them non-fundamentalist.

The fundamentalists are publicly very clear about their willingness to kill. You hardly have to start searching before you trip over them. Just a couple of days ago a Pakistani government official offered $100,000 to anyone who murders the maker of that ridiculous little film clip. Rape is also very commonly promoted as the right of Muslims against non-Muslims, or even Muslim enemies. See the 1971 rapes in Bangladesh.

Perhaps, someone can assist me here...what is the issue in a sentence?

The issue is whether Islam is inherently more violent and intolerant than all other religions.

it's just a young religion

in 1000yrs what do you think will happen with Scientology?

Politicofact says

it's just a young religion

You mean this is only the beginning? OMG, I see the end.

Raw says

You mean this is only the beginning? OMG, I see the end.

Very young! Should take a while. 500yrs possibly.

only a few hundred years ago we hand the Christian crusades! that lasted centuries and centuries.

Politicofact says

in 1000yrs what do you think will happen with Scientology?

Hopefully by that time they will have left on a return voyage to their original galaxy. In fact, maybe this should be NASA's next mission, to replace the Space
Shuttle with a Scientology Homeseeker. With all those Scientologists returning to their home galaxy far far away, house prices there can only go up!

They are not official Christian scripture and most Christians are not even aware they exist. They certainly don't base their lives on them. And I don't see anything nearly as violent as Mohammed's actions

Christian theology has been tweaked throughout the years, and interpreted through the lens of our growing pacifism. One could look at "an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth" philosophy as an endorsement of violence and vendetta. Indeed, it is still used as such even among Christians. Theologians say that even that Jewish philosophy was groundbreaking in that it LIMITED recourse for wrongs. It prevented the "Hatfields v. McCoys", and the chaos that that mentality engenders.

So, is Christian pacifism the cause of, or the result of Christianity itself? Or have adherents chosen it and modified it to reflect our changing mores?

So, is it the cock taking credit for the sun coming up?

Many Muslims believe in that same pacifism. They are generous to Christians and Jews in all ways, but especially in the theological.

Jewish philosophy has been generally tolerant of their fellow Abrahamic religions, even if the Israeli government is not. I see horrible screeds against Islam throughout Christendom, although our religious leaders and even our political leaders take pains to renounce these screeds.

I see secular Christians and lay people openly attack Muslims as "less-than"...and like second-class citizens.

When McCain "stuck up" for Obama when the crazy old lady said that Obama was an Arab. McCain said, "No, No..ma'am...he's a good man, we just have different views on the way....". Implying, of course, that if he were an "Arab" he would not be a good and decent man.

Even Tariq Aziz was a Christian and worked closely with Saddam. What does that say about our country?

CL says

So, is Christian pacifism the cause of, or the result of Christianity itself? Or have adherents chosen it and modified it to reflect our changing mores?

Jesus was universally recorded as recommending pacifisim from the very start.

Mohammed was univerally recorded as having murdered and raped (and stolen!) from the very start.

Which example should we follow? That is the question.

I'm not even a believing Christian. I can just clearly see that the officially documented stories about Mohammed are not anything like the officially documented stories about Jesus.

To compare the two as if they were teaching the same message is, how do they say, "disingenuous at best".

CL says

Many Muslims believe in that same pacifism.

Sure, they believe it, but that makes them poor followers of Mohammed, who was not a pacifist.

CL says

Even Tariq Aziz was a Christian and worked closely with Saddam. What does that say about our country?

Probably less than Rummy working with Saddam in 1983:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Which example should we follow?

Most "Christian" politicians overlook John, "the disciple whom Jesus loved," who quotes Jesus saying: "And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I come not to judge the world, but to save the world." (John 12:47). Compare that to "kill the disbelievers wherever we find them" (Koran 2:191), or for that matter the Christian Crusades and countless wars between Catholics and Protestants.

I find it sad but telling that when "Christian" politicians put something religious into a government building, they insist on the 10 commandments from the Old Testament (starting with "I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other gods..."). They never settle for Paul's six commandments: "Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." (Romans 13:9.) Maybe they don't like Paul's version because it starts by prohibiting adultery.

Starting with the previous verse might upset the FIRE industry and the anti-marriage crowd: "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law." (Romans 13:8)

BTW, by quoting the NT, I do not intend to express any opinion about the veracity or existence of the characters therein. I've actually read the whole King James Bible though, which most fundamentalist "believers" seem never to have done.

"Jesus was universally recorded as recommending pacifisim from the very start."

He was? By whom? I think he was considered by Roman authorities to be a scabbard drawing zealot. They would have reason to think so, since there were many around at the time.

The "officially documented" is also to be viewed with some suspicion since Judea was under Roman occupation at the time. It would have been disastrous to denounce the empire, or to criticize the prelates. I'm pretty sure that's why Pilate seems so wise, and the Pharisees seem so nasty.

What do you think about the Sufis? Are they misguided? Are Muslims who embrace Christ and the pacifism of the New Testament misguided? Or are the fundies of both simply partisan tribal hacks, manipulated by the powerful in each culture?

CL says

I think he was considered by Roman authorities to be a scabbard drawing zealot.

They made no record of Jesus during his purported lifetime, which is one of the reasons why many say he never actually lived. Paul seems to have believed Jesus was a spirit deity, not a living person.

CL says

are the fundies of both simply partisan tribal hacks, manipulated by the powerful in each culture?

Bingo. Or, they might become target practice for AF once the zombie apocalypse starts, after he runs out of bankers and realtors.

CL says

"Jesus was universally recorded as recommending pacifisim from the very start."

He was? By whom?

By Christians. My whole point here is that it matters a lot what the holy books say. Show me the part where Jesus says to kill.

CL says

What do you think about the Sufis?

Sufism is used as bait to draw westerners into Wahabism. Look up the typical experience of a western convert.

CL says

Are Muslims who embrace Christ and the pacifism of the New Testament misguided?

They're not Muslims if they embrace pacifism or the Jesus of the New Testament. True Muslims must imitate Mohammed, who was no pacifist.

CL says

Or are the fundies of both simply partisan tribal hacks, manipulated by the powerful in each culture?

It's not just partisan tribalism, even if various groups root for their own teams and get used by their leaders. There is a profound difference between "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "Strike off the heads of the disbelievers".

Christians who murder non-believers are bad Christians, according to the New Testament.
Muslims who murder non-believers are good Muslims, according to the Koran.

CL says

What do you make of (I think T-Lips said it in your earlier posts) that the Gospels that did not make canon were violent or vile?

Some of them were. Some of them were nicer. In the Apocalypse of Peter* Jesus tells Peter that nobody is really going to hell forever, it's just bullshit to encourage people to behave, and that when he returns he will empty hell of the sinful.

However, there's nasty shit in the NT.

"I have not come to bring peace, but with a sword."
"To set father against son, brother against brother, etc. etc."
"No one gets to Heaven but through me"

In the OT, everybody just died. If you were good and Holy, you had a nice long life. After that, you went nowhere; the OT is unclear on any kind of afterlife.

However, in the NT, you go to a burning lake of fire and torture forever, for all eternity, if you reject the Way and the Light. Unlimited Punishment for Finite Sins.

That's pretty raw.

If you're good, basically you blow smoke up Yahweh's ass for all eternity, perhaps mingled with the occasional view of Hell where you mock the sinners who are burning in hell for all eternity, their flesh crisping and being renewed forever while getting red hot pokers shoved up their ass, just for hooking up with Mary Jane at the drive through once in 1963.

It's embarrassing that adults can believe this shit.

* (What is called "Revelations" is the "Apocalypse of John", but not the John who was Jesus' disciple, but a random John of Patmos, Cyprus many years later who never met Jesus. Basically, a 2nd Century Harold Camping)

Sufism is used as bait to draw westerners into Wahabism. Look up the typical experience of a western convert.

@patrick
+1 +1 +111!!!!1!Eleventy!!!!

Sufism is to Islam what Amish/Unitarian-Universalists is to Christianity. Or Zen/Golden Mountain Buddhism is to Tibetan or Pali or Theravada or other more Mystic/Superstition lain Mahayana sects

A tiny sect relative to the overall numbers that makes the broad overall Religion look better than it is.

Thanks for saying this about Sufism; it's constantly used as the poster boy for Islam, which is a half-truth and thus a great lie.

"Even the rock will say, 'There is a Jew behind me, Kill Him!'"

thunderlips11 says

"I have not come to bring peace, but with a sword."
"To set father against son, brother against brother, etc. etc."
"No one gets to Heaven but through me"

Now, I attribute these to an existential eschatology/theology. But, taken literally, they certainly do sound nasty and violent....like a zealot, right?

It's only through our prism that these words have less abrasive meanings. It's an easier prism when the texts have been redacted, translated and certain texts omitted altogether, no?

And still,

They're not Muslims if they embrace pacifism or the Jesus of the New Testament.

That is simply not true. At least, not in any teaching material I've been given by the RCC, or in an academic studies I have read.

I'm no apologist for any of the religions. They're all made up of dildos like all of humanity. And, although I've read most of the main texts for most major religions, I don't find the Quran very inspired. I don't find the Book of Mormon inspired either.

The Hebrew scriptures is celebrated because of its imperfect characters: Even Abraham fucked his slave, and created Ishmael (the narrative father of the Muslims). Noah may have been a molester (at least we "know" he got drunk and laid around naked with his family), David had his servant Uriah murdered so he could sleep with Bathsheba. He was a murderer, and treasonous bastard just to satisfy his own lust, and remains the central "Messiah" in the Hebrew Scriptures, and is used to lend validity to Jesus' status as such.

I like the Jesus character. I think I understand him, but it's extraordinarily difficult to separate our cultural biases from the myths.

thunderlips11 says

However, in the NT, you go to a burning lake of fire and torture forever, for all eternity, if you reject the Way and the Light. Unlimited Punishment for Finite Sins.

I think Catholic academics say that Gehenna was a massive tire fire by the freeway. A literal "burning place" as opposed to the later idea of the underworld.

CL says

Now, I attribute these to an existential eschatology/theology. But, taken literally, they certainly do sound nasty and violent....like a zealot, right?

Sure, Jesus said he's the only way and if you don't like it, too bad. So did Mohammed. Even score there.

What Jesus did not do was rob, rape, or murder unlike you know who.

The Jesus of the Koran and the Jesus of the NT are radically different. The Muslims claim that Jesus was never even crucified, and did not rise from the dead to save humanity, which kind of negates the whole NT version.

Muslim Jesus will also come back one day to exterminate the unbelievers "with a bloody sword" (or so I read on one of those Muslim sites), which is just not the kind of thing that NT Jesus would do.

Sure, Jesus said he's the only way and if you don't like it, too bad. So did Mohammed. Even score there.

This is where the existentialism/mysticism comes in: Was Jesus referring to himself as a physical being or creation? Or was he referring to the Godhead? When he refers to "himself" as the Son Of Man he seems to be referring to himself in the third person. "I" could be the universal "I", the "way" could be the "universal" way, much like the Tao.

Perhaps they are both referring to the "substance" that we all have within us that is the "Shekhinah", the feminine principle that longs to be united with the "Father", sometimes resulting in a mystical, almost orgasmic experience that appears to be universal.

The Jesus of the Koran and the Jesus of the NT are radically different. The Muslims claim that Jesus was never even crucified, and did not rise from the dead to save humanity, which kind of negates the whole NT version.

I think it may negate Christianity, but not the Gospels. I think Christians are just as likely to have misunderstood what Jesus was talking about, especially given that humans are stupid, and the Gospels constantly show how they misunderstand even the simple parables he expresses.

(Although I suspect that that dialogue is meant more like a Koan, to bring you from the literal interpretations to a more philosophical interpretation). When Nicodemus asks, "How can a man be reborn? Does he crawl into his mother's womb?", it's safe to say that the conversation never occurred, and that they were using a literary technique.

In which case, Christians don't "get it" today any more than they did in the narrative.