Meaning of Islam

[AE Bravo]

Even though I'm Muslim, I'll be the first to admit that each of these religions contain vile material. Those who are critical of Islam simply cannot distinguish between Muhammad and the Qur'an because, as non-believers, they naturally see them as one in the same obviously. It wouldn't be a problem to see it that way as a non-Muslim, but if it interferes with your analysis of modern Islamic thought then you are not qualified to talk about it altogether. Ibadis see the Qur'an as a (flawed) creation rather than a revelation, some Shia sects believe that god intended for Ali to be the prophet, and most Sufi texts make no distinction between a Muslim and non-Muslim.

Considering Jesus enabled PFH the street preacher to speak about other religions with a high horse, I'd imagine his three-headed God is capable of spawning as much bad as it does good. Lets not forget that this hydra constantly butts heads with itself.

[Pannonian]

Even though I'm Muslim, I'll be the first to admit that each of these religions contain vile material. Those who are critical of Islam simply cannot distinguish between Muhammad and the Qur'an because, as non-believers, they naturally see them as one in the same obviously. It wouldn't be a problem to see it that way as a non-Muslim, but if it interferes with your analysis of modern Islamic thought then you are not qualified to talk about it altogether. Ibadis see the Qur'an as a (flawed) creation rather than a revelation, some Shia sects believe that god intended for Ali to be the prophet, and most Sufi texts make no distinction between a Muslim and non-Muslim.

Considering Jesus enabled PFH the street preacher to speak about other religions with a high horse, I'd imagine his three-headed God is capable of spawning as much bad as it does good. Lets not forget that this hydra constantly butts heads with itself.

It's their followers that make each religion as vile or as insignificant as they are. The texts are pretty much an irrelevance by this stage. It's what their believers do in their name that matters. And as such, a far larger proportion and numbers of Muslims have turned Islam into an atrocity. If the Muslim world were overwhelmingly like Ataturk, I'd call Islam an enlightened and modern culture. But it's not. It's moving against what Ataturk believed in, and towards what he feared Turkey would become if not secularised and westernised.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Even though I'm Muslim, I'll be the first to admit that each of these religions contain vile material. Those who are critical of Islam simply cannot distinguish between Muhammad and the Qur'an because, as non-believers, they naturally see them as one in the same obviously. It wouldn't be a problem to see it that way as a non-Muslim, but if it interferes with your analysis of modern Islamic thought then you are not qualified to talk about it altogether. Ibadis see the Qur'an as a (flawed) creation rather than a revelation, some Shia sects believe that god intended for Ali to be the prophet, and most Sufi texts make no distinction between a Muslim and non-Muslim.

Considering Jesus enabled PFH the street preacher to speak about other religions with a high horse, I'd imagine his three-headed God is capable of spawning as much bad as it does good. Lets not forget that this hydra constantly butts heads with itself.

High Horse?

Pah.

I made a general statement about similarities between Islam, Christianity and Judaism. These similarities are well documented. Prior to that I said that "Islam" means "Submission to Divine Will" which is an explanation of the word entirely compatible with Islamic teaching which is largely about following rules laid down by God and conveyed by Muhammed and the other Prophets, and about dividing actions into those which God deems permissible and not permissible.

Now, I'm not saying that's all Islam is and I took the time to point out that "Submission to Divine Will" is not the same as "submission" or surrender in an earthly context.

As to separating Muhammed and the Koran, one notes that the Koran is God's Word as transmitted by Muhammed - and as God's ultimate messenger Muhammed is surely an example of all Muslims just as Jesus is to Christians or Abraham and the Patriarchs are to Jews.

I'll note that you couldn't restrain yourself from insulting my view of God despite the fact that I have tried not to insult yours. A while back you said we're all haters but it seems to me you're the one with a chip on your shoulder about Christians if you're saying we worship a Hydra.

I worship one God who created the Earth as the Father was Revealed as the Son and is Present as the Holy Spirit.

Didn't your Prophet say that Allah has 99 names? Why is it then so hard for you to accept that Christians see God from three perspectives depending on how he interacts with His Creation?

[Yesugey]

Which is why the trend of Muslim countries moving to acknowledging religion as an influence in government is absolutely stupid. Muslim countries should be looking to Mustafa Kemal as their role model, not Mohammad. Infinitely more so for Muslims living in secularised western countries.

Well our well educated smartass Turkish youth decided that: "Yeah, no need to idealize Mustafa Kemal, who are you, an idiot just like a North Korean Citizen? He was good soldier but at the end he was just a dictator, he messed a lot of things, especially by putting pressure on Islamist, since they are not evil people who want to take over the country, but people who want to live their religion." And they gave Islamist and Kurdish people a chance.

Now they all horrified the results, and "Oh my God... He actually was the greatest guy ever, who gave us the life we have today..."

But I believe the youth of Turkey deserved this.

[Yesugey]

Not really, if someone follows the commands of the old testament that go against Christ's teaching, how can he be a christian, i.e. a follower of Christ? It's not that God likes homosexuals now, he just doesn't want you to kill them anymore.

The new testament basically says you should leave the judgment to God and not judge people yourself. Before Jesus came that was different indeed, but that's judaism and not christianity.
Jesus said things such as "he who is without sin shall throw the first stone", how that can be interpreted as or even brought into accordance with "you have to kill the gays" is something you need to explain to me.



So you agree that Yesugey is wrong when he says christians must kill the gays and your entire argument against my point was for nothing?
Good to know, so we can go back to blaming the terrorists for what they do instead of claiming christianity demands violence against gays.

I am not an expert on the subject, but your words "he just doesn't want you to kill them anymore" is exactly what I was looking for. Even though you can have an updateable religion, the first one issued suppose to be the original one.

But it's really good to have a Pope to reorganize things. I heard that few years ago he said "You don't have to be Christian to go to Heaven." It's the best update ever! You couldn't say it like a thousand years ago for example, or you would get beheaded.

I think Gilrandir's words are not even crossing with mine, because I am judging the religions, not people. Human behavior is illogical. Of course you can be a Moslem who counts women are equal with men. All you have to do is not read the book! I am laughing but not joking though. Most Moslems doesn't read the book.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You couldn't say it like a thousand years ago for example, or you would get beheaded.

Funny how Muslims spend all their time saying Islam and Christianity are different religions, but then can't tell the difference between them.

A thousand years ago saying non-Christians could go to heaven would get you a stern telling off from the Bishop, 500 years ago it might have got you hanged or - if you were important enough - get you burned at the stake.

Christians didn't start killing each other over their religious beliefs until after the First Crusade.

[Gilrandir]

And this change is not some whim of the moment change either like you make it out to be, there are prophesies in the old testament that relate to it.

So prophesies said something like: "Follow our religion which is the only religion and all its tenets are the only/best tenets. But the day will come when some tenets will change, so stand by for further notices?" And how come only SOME tenets changed while others didn't? For instance, homosexuality has stopped being a sin (as modern tendencies even among clerics seem to show) while incest hasn't? Isn't it a whim of the moment? And who is to determine which tenets are to be slackened and which should be followed as strictly as ever?

You still confuse having stories about violence with actually demanding or promoting violence, unless "violent religion" simply means "there are mentions of violence in the holy texts somewhere".

Not just mentioning violence, but attributing it to God who thus punishes the dissident or the recalcitrant and - which is more important - takes a deal of pleasure in it. It has been quite a time since I read Bible last, but an episode from it is still carved in my memory. Someone with a better knowledge of the Scripture may provide a reference from it when he recognizes the story: God was walking squashing humans under his feet and his cloak was purple with blood. Describing such acts of violence with a kind of gloating is not a direct call to it, but a question may arise: If God does it (and not without satisfaction), why humans can't follow in the wake of their deity?

Saying that god doesn't like homosexuality makes a religion violent or are we changing goal posts now?

It doesn't. It shows divergence between the proclaimed tenets and modern perception of the phenomenon. If the clerics tend to agree with the modern view (and say that you must love thy fellow even if he is gay), doesn't it make the religion in question fickle?

And yes, if you do not understand the difference between the OT and the NT and have absolutely no idea how the religion works, then it is easy to say that it contains statements that confuse you. I may agree on there being some questionable things, but you use big words for something you apparently just don't understand.

As I have remarked once: there is no correct or incorrect understanding of Bible. No one (except the author) can prove that my or your understaning is better/worse. So I might as well say that it is you who don't understand anything. Generally, it is the last argument (bar calling someone names - nazi is especially favored) when one can't prove his stance.

People who just pick some statements to follow and ignore others have completely missed the overall message of Jesus, which is relatively clear from some reading and a bit of study.

So your advice is to heed the overall message and to ignore those dubious statements? And what are they there for? In the book which is ostensibly HOLY IN ITS ENTIRETY?

It's their followers that make each religion as vile or as insignificant as they are. The texts are pretty much an irrelevance by this stage. It's what their believers do in their name that matters. And as such, a far larger proportion and numbers of Muslims have turned Islam into an atrocity.

This is what I have been saying all the time.

[Pannonian]

Well our well educated smartass Turkish youth decided that: "Yeah, no need to idealize Mustafa Kemal, who are you, an idiot just like a North Korean Citizen? He was good soldier but at the end he was just a dictator, he messed a lot of things, especially by putting pressure on Islamist, since they are not evil people who want to take over the country, but people who want to live their religion." And they gave Islamist and Kurdish people a chance.

Now they all horrified the results, and "Oh my God... He actually was the greatest guy ever, who gave us the life we have today..."

But I believe the youth of Turkey deserved this.

When Blair talked about praying, he was seen as a bit of a loon who had no business talking about his religion and his job in government in the same sentence. Brown supposedly came from a strict Methodist background, but it's the language of socialism that he used in politics, most notably in the run up to the Scottish referendum. We almost universally despise the former (religion). There's still a fair chunk who believe in the latter (socialism, or secular politics in general), and even its opponents pay lip service. Any country that moves towards acknowledging religion in government is wrong. Compared with other religions, it's overwhelmingly Muslim countries that do this, especially after long term dictators have been removed. Iraq should have been the object lesson. Instead, we've seen liberal idealists raging against the dictatorships of Qaddafi and Assad, with results that I could have predicted 10 years ago (that Saddam predicted even longer ago). Idiots on both sides, although I'll give our side credit for being idealistic idiots, rather than malicious scum like ISIS and their supporters.

[Gilrandir]

Christians didn't start killing each other over their religious beliefs until after the First Crusade.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raskol...nd_persecution

And this is only one to mention off the top of my head. I believe other instances could be referrred to.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raskol...nd_persecution

And this is only one to mention off the top of my head. I believe other instances could be referrred to.

That's about 550 year after the First Crusade, so supports my point.

[Husar]

So prophesies said something like: "Follow our religion which is the only religion and all its tenets are the only/best tenets. But the day will come when some tenets will change, so stand by for further notices?" And how come only SOME tenets changed while others didn't? For instance, homosexuality has stopped being a sin (as modern tendencies even among clerics seem to show) while incest hasn't? Isn't it a whim of the moment? And who is to determine which tenets are to be slackened and which should be followed as strictly as ever?

First of all, don't confuse the Catholic Church with biblical teachings, because they also have a tendency to pick what they like.
You also never heard about the prophecies of the Messiah?

http://www.gotquestions.org/Old-Testament-Christ.html

Jews obviously do not accept that Jesus is the Messiah while Christians do, but that's a different topic.
However, if you accept him as the Messiah and the Messiah says the way people should go about things changes, how is that a surprise?
Remember that he did not change what is a sin, he just said his followers should not punish sinners because God will do that on judgement day.

As for the interpretations of "modern clerics", a while ago they "interpreted" that people could pay money for forgiveness of their sins, I just wouldn't count them as the most christian christians. Neither would I say though that Jesus advocated for a theocracy where homosexuals are punished, his message was more along the lines of love everyone but hate the sin.

Not just mentioning violence, but attributing it to God who thus punishes the dissident or the recalcitrant and - which is more important - takes a deal of pleasure in it. It has been quite a time since I read Bible last, but an episode from it is still carved in my memory. Someone with a better knowledge of the Scripture may provide a reference from it when he recognizes the story: God was walking squashing humans under his feet and his cloak was purple with blood. Describing such acts of violence with a kind of gloating is not a direct call to it, but a question may arise: If God does it (and not without satisfaction), why humans can't follow in the wake of their deity?

First of all, that he enjoys crushing sinners is not entirely correct: http://www.jba.gr/Articles/jba2004_02.htm

It is God that expresses His heart and feelings here. It is God that was provoked to anger with their images and it He that wanted to leave them and cry endlessly because they didn’t know Him. God was terribly sorrowful for the sin of His people. And God is sorrowful when we sin. The New Testament tell us clearly “to grieve not the holy spirit of God, by which we were sealed for the day of redemption” (Ephesians 4:30). The spirit of God can be grieved. God IS sorrowful when we reject Him. When we willfully forsake His way to walk somewhere else, due to personal passions, wills and ambitions. When instead of bowing down to Him and say “your will be done and not mine” we move ahead carelessly and without fearing Him. The spirit of God is not indifferent but sorrowful in such cases.

However, God, for reasons I'm not aware of and that may not be mentioned, seems to enforce some kind of sterility and paradise in the end by disposing of all sin. See sin as some kind of dirt in God's world and in the end he wants the place to be sterile. You could even go meta and say maybe he has no choice for reasons we are not aware of, but that is beside the point. Also note that due to free will it is your own fault if he has to punish you.

As for people punishing other people for being sinners, it is simply not for us to decide if that sinner gets another chance or not and Jesus said that God is love and his followers should embrace love by even loving their enemies. Killing someone for being a sinner goes fundamentally against that, instead one should teach them about the love of God and save their soul, again fundamentally different from damning them by killing them and removing their chance to repent.
Things like cleansing sin with fire seem made up to me because Jesus said the only way to the father is through him, i.e. accepting him as your saviour so that he will forgive your sins.

Again, you have to justify your claims and not vaguely recall things.

It doesn't. It shows divergence between the proclaimed tenets and modern perception of the phenomenon. If the clerics tend to agree with the modern view (and say that you must love thy fellow even if he is gay), doesn't it make the religion in question fickle?

No, again, love the sinner but hate the sin. Loving the fellow does not mean you cannot tell him that what he does is a sin according to God. You can tell him that in a friendly manner and still hang out with him even if he decides not to listen. You can also pray to God to open his eyes so that you can help save his soul from eternal damnation. There is no conflict until you begin throwing expletives at him or try to kill him for being a sinner.
The modern perception is mostly atheist and the catholic church and sometimes the protestant church goes along with it because it depends on all the semi-atheists giving it money.

I've said before that the argument of "the catholic church should recognize this or that because it's modern" only shows a fundamental lack of belief in an all-powerful god because a human can never change the basic rules of such a god, no matter how unfair or outdated he deems them. You can complain all day but in the end you get crushed anyway, either you comply or you day. I'm not calling that an ideal scenario but IF it is a reality, then it is the reality and the Christian god also promises you eternal happiness and love if you do comply, so it's not all doom and gloom.

As I have remarked once: there is no correct or incorrect understanding of Bible. No one (except the author) can prove that my or your understaning is better/worse. So I might as well say that it is you who don't understand anything. Generally, it is the last argument (bar calling someone names - nazi is especially favored) when one can't prove his stance.

Except that you have apparently hardly read the book, much less heard people interprete it directly. Yet you claim to have a better understanding.

So your advice is to heed the overall message and to ignore those dubious statements? And what are they there for? In the book which is ostensibly HOLY IN ITS ENTIRETY?

What dubious statements? I've already explained what some stories and orders are there for. It's called context. If you only read the New Testament, you miss a whole lot of the context as the appearance of Jesus makes little sense and the way God thinks and what he considers a sin are also partially missing. To go out on a limb a bit, the New Testament is about how to be a good Christian and the old testament is about why to do all that and how God and people acted before he sent the Messiah.

If you want a fun "fact", I'm not aware of anywhere in the bible saying that God wants us to live monogamous.

[Yesugey]

Funny how Muslims spend all their time saying Islam and Christianity are different religions, but then can't tell the difference between them.

A thousand years ago saying non-Christians could go to heaven would get you a stern telling off from the Bishop, 500 years ago it might have got you hanged or - if you were important enough - get you burned at the stake.

Christians didn't start killing each other over their religious beliefs until after the First Crusade.

I am not Muslim, and I don't even understand why it's related. They both are religions, they both are false, so, so what they are the same or not?

Christians stopped killing people or burning them after they "modernize" the religion. Which shouldn't be a part of the religion.
It's exactly the same for Islam as well.

The advantage of Christianity is, you have a Pope to make the modernization "legal for a religion". He speaks the word of God. Which is illegal for Christianity as a religion, but since everything is illogical in religion, I think it's a really nice feature.

And to be honest, I like the Christian fanatics doesn't kill others, but the commit mass-suicide instead. Still sad, but not so harmful.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It's demonstrably false - he's taking passage from Leviticus and trying to apply it to Christianity whilst ignoring the fact that "true" Christianity places an absolute ban on violence.

While I'd say the ban is more on aggressiveness than contrary to reasonable self defense, PVH is spot on in noting that the New Testament (which specifically asserts itself as superseding the Old) does NOT call on believers to kill homosexuals. It refers to homosexuality as being sinful and wrong and asserts that homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom, but stops short of calling for persecution.

[AE Bravo]

PFH - I remember your heavy-handed opinion of Islam. In this thread you bring up the ban on idolatry, "genocide" which didn't exist, and enslavement of people to condemn the prophet, thereby condemning Islam because (according to you) he is the manifestation of it. I distinctly remember that I had nothing bad to say about Christianity because it had to allow its people to be beaten to a pulp if it hoped for a future (considering they were against a powerful establishment). But for some reason it didn't sit well with you that Jesus was a rebel, or like you more accurately put it a disturber of the peace.

So because Islam became highly politicized and was able to make a stand for itself in its earliest phases you present the logic of your beliefs to it in order to paint it as a morally inferior faith.

[Pannonian]

PFH - I remember your heavy-handed opinion of Islam. In this thread you bring up the ban on idolatry, "genocide" which didn't exist, and enslavement of people to condemn the prophet, thereby condemning Islam because (according to you) he is the manifestation of it. I distinctly remember that I had nothing bad to say about Christianity because it had to allow its people to be beaten to a pulp if it hoped for a future (considering they were against a powerful establishment). But for some reason it didn't sit well with you that Jesus was a rebel, or like you more accurately put it a disturber of the peace.

So because Islam became highly politicized and was able to make a stand for itself in its earliest phases you present the logic of your beliefs to it in order to paint it as a morally inferior faith.

What it does mean, is that current Muslims who highlight the combative part of Islam in today's world makes Islam, as it currently is, more violent than Christianity, as it currently is. Which also makes Muslims unwelcome here in today's generally peaceful world. If you want to believe in the righteousness of jihad, go and do it in your own world, away from the civilised world which we prefer to live in.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I am not Muslim, and I don't even understand why it's related. They both are religions, they both are false, so, so what they are the same or not?

You sound like a Muslim, and you talk about Christianity in comparison to Islam - Muslims cut the heads off heretics, Christians burn them.

If you're not a Muslims I'm guessing you were raised in a "Muslim" context the same way Husar was raised in a "Christian" one.

Christians stopped killing people or burning them after they "modernize" the religion. Which shouldn't be a part of the religion.
It's exactly the same for Islam as well.

No, it's not, because if you read the Christian Bible you see that the early Christians are pacifists, they "modernised" when they accepted that it was OK to be Christian and a soldier in the Roman Army, then they "updated" again when they decided it was OK to wage a Holy War against Muslims, and later such Holy War was extended to Christian heretics.

That's not to say that Christianity is somehow inherently better but Christianity and Islam have not followed the same evolutionary path.

The advantage of Christianity is, you have a Pope to make the modernization "legal for a religion". He speaks the word of God. Which is illegal for Christianity as a religion, but since everything is illogical in religion, I think it's a really nice feature.

That's not how it works. Not everyone, even in the Western Church, recognise the Pope's authority and even those who do don't necessarily recognise his ability to speak "Ex Cathedra" (From his Throne) and make pronouncements on the Faith.

While I'd say the ban is more on aggressiveness than contrary to reasonable self defense, PVH is spot on in noting that the New Testament (which specifically asserts itself as superseding the Old) does NOT call on believers to kill homosexuals. It refers to homosexuality as being sinful and wrong and asserts that homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom, but stops short of calling for persecution.

None of the early Christian martyrs defended themselves, Jesus would not even allow others to defend him. Good Christians are pacifists.

[AE Bravo]

What it does mean, is that current Muslims who highlight the combative part of Islam in today's world makes Islam, as it currently is, more violent than Christianity, as it currently is. Which also makes Muslims unwelcome here in today's generally peaceful world. If you want to believe in the righteousness of jihad, go and do it in your own world, away from the civilised world which we prefer to live in.

Stop projecting in every thread. I never said I want jihad and you don't know me or what I believe.

[Pannonian]

Stop projecting in every thread. I never said I want jihad and you don't know me or what I believe.

That's what a lot of Muslims believe in though. And as someone who doesn't believe in any religion, what religions are to me is defined not by their texts, but by their believers, and what they choose to define their religion by. And what early Christians and Muslims did isn't nearly as significant or meaningful as what current Christians and Muslims do. Living here in a supposedly Christian country, a devout Christian PM was despised for talking about his Christian beliefs and government in the same sentence. Which is how I like it. Then you have the examples of Muslim countries vocally bringing Islam into their government and state. Which to me isn't civilisation. And as the various Islamist states bear out, is usually downright barbaric.

[Yesugey]

You sound like a Muslim, and you talk about Christianity in comparison to Islam - Muslims cut the heads off heretics, Christians burn them.

If you're not a Muslims I'm guessing you were raised in a "Muslim" context the same way Husar was raised in a "Christian" one.

No, it's not, because if you read the Christian Bible you see that the early Christians are pacifists, they "modernised" when they accepted that it was OK to be Christian and a soldier in the Roman Army, then they "updated" again when they decided it was OK to wage a Holy War against Muslims, and later such Holy War was extended to Christian heretics.

That's not to say that Christianity is somehow inherently better but Christianity and Islam have not followed the same evolutionary path.

That's not how it works. Not everyone, even in the Western Church, recognise the Pope's authority and even those who do don't necessarily recognise his ability to speak "Ex Cathedra" (From his Throne) and make pronouncements on the Faith.


None of the early Christian martyrs defended themselves, Jesus would not even allow others to defend him. Good Christians are pacifists.

That's correct! I raised from a Muslim family, so it probably makes a difference. It's what we call "Cultural Moslem". No matter how atheist you become, there are things you can't get back.. (Like your circumcision )

As I said, I talk about Christianity without any knowledge, I think you talking about the first 13 Christians who died in a cave, without any resistance. From what I heard the first martyrs were pacifist, but once they get enough power, things were changed. (The part that Roman army comes in) You simply stripping that part of Christianity, because it's not "nice" anymore.

I don't wanna offend any of the martyrs by the way, maybe I am wrong and they were truly pacifist. I am just logically assumuing, because it's exactly what Islam did. Moslems were pacifist for like good 15 years, until they become capable of raising an army.

Since the whole Jesus story is on debate as well, let's say you are right, maybe the "True Christianity" is even nicer than Buddhism... It actually doesn't matter because I am not against religion because it's violent, but because it's scientifically false.

You see, the problem here is we are dealing with people, not any logical or scientific problem. The first version of them doesn't matter. It's only a nice toy for history geeks like us. So it's possible to have "Nice Moslems", just ike you have nice Christians. Turkey is a good example,he just forced people to modernization, and now we have Good Moslems in Turkey, who doesn't read the book, doesn't think about it much. (Moslems in Europe are just horrible though, as I heard.)

[Husar]

As I said, I talk about Christianity without any knowledge, I think you talking about the first 13 Christians who died in a cave, without any resistance. From what I heard the first martyrs were pacifist, but once they get enough power, things were changed. (The part that Roman army comes in) You simply stripping that part of Christianity, because it's not "nice" anymore.

No, it's simply not possible to justify this "kind of Christianity" using the bible without ignoring most of what Jesus said.
If you base your Christianity on the teachings of everybody but the Christ who gave Christianity it's name, I'd say it's safe to assume that you just use the name for your own gain or simply aren't a true Christian.

The "problem" I have with Islam in this regard is that I haven't read the book or heard many people preach about it and so I can't decide whether ISIS or my friendly neighborhood hijabi has the "correct" as in intended interpretation. What I can say is that I certainly prefer the one of the friendly hijabi and would rather claim that to be the true interpretation and promote it rather than the other one.

[rory_20_uk]

Who knows what the "Correct" interpretation is? The Canon was formed hundreds of years after Jesus died for the first time and much of what was written was suppressed actively by the church. When Islam swept through the region, vast amounts of what had been written was also destroyed.

[Pannonian]

No, it's simply not possible to justify this "kind of Christianity" using the bible without ignoring most of what Jesus said.
If you base your Christianity on the teachings of everybody but the Christ who gave Christianity it's name, I'd say it's safe to assume that you just use the name for your own gain or simply aren't a true Christian.

The "problem" I have with Islam in this regard is that I haven't read the book or heard many people preach about it and so I can't decide whether ISIS or my friendly neighborhood hijabi has the "correct" as in intended interpretation. What I can say is that I certainly prefer the one of the friendly hijabi and would rather claim that to be the true interpretation and promote it rather than the other one.

The one of the friendly hijabi isn't doing much to counter the one of the beheadings though. Every time we've removed a dictator in a Muslim country, a Wahabbist state has sprung up as a replacement. The natural conclusion is that this is the current tendency of the Muslim world. Anyone who wants to argue that the Islam of the friendly hijab is the true Islam has to explain why it is, that whenever Muslims are given the freedom to choose whatever regime they like, they revert to the Islam of the beheadings.

[rory_20_uk]

The one of the friendly hijabi isn't doing much to counter the one of the beheadings though. Every time we've removed a dictator in a Muslim country, a Wahabbist state has sprung up as a replacement. The natural conclusion is that this is the current tendency of the Muslim world. Anyone who wants to argue that the Islam of the friendly hijab is the true Islam has to explain why it is, that whenever Muslims are given the freedom to choose whatever regime they like, they revert to the Islam of the beheadings.

Because Saudi Arabia has the most cash to splash. They bankroll their version all over the world and to a degree that swamps everyone else.

[Husar]

Who knows what the "Correct" interpretation is? The Canon was formed hundreds of years after Jesus died for the first time and much of what was written was suppressed actively by the church. When Islam swept through the region, vast amounts of what had been written was also destroyed.

I was talking about the bible that Christianity has supposedly been based on since it has been based on the bible. If you want to claim that the Jesus in that bible somehow promotes violence I would appreciate it if you could actually substantiate that with more than a single quote taken out of context. Otherwise we may perhaps conclude that Christianity is or should be based on the delivered teachings of a man who preached love and nonviolence.
Whether that is the ultimate truth of the universe or everybody who calls himself a Christian follows these teachings 100% are different questions.

The one of the friendly hijabi isn't doing much to counter the one of the beheadings though.

Why would they have to? Should Christians have jumped in front of NRA guns to prevent them from besmirching the image of their religion?
And how would you know the hijabi is not condemning the attacks? Did you talk to her about it?

Every time we've removed a dictator in a Muslim country, a Wahabbist state has sprung up as a replacement. The natural conclusion is that this is the current tendency of the Muslim world. Anyone who wants to argue that the Islam of the friendly hijab is the true Islam has to explain why it is, that whenever Muslims are given the freedom to choose whatever regime they like, they revert to the Islam of the beheadings.

So when British politicians' daddies have fake companies in Panama, we can safely assume that all British people are corrupt thieves?
And who left and then supported the dictators in these countries in the first place? Oh right, that was usually us, too.

[rory_20_uk]

Which Bible? There are over a dozen different ones. What they contain differs extensively - this is before the different versions of what is the same Bible.

I do not think that any version of the Bible espouses violence - why most hold on the the Old Testament is a mystery to me since Christians seem to have to spend a lot of time explaining why everything it says should be ignored.

[Pannonian]

Why would they have to? Should Christians have jumped in front of NRA guns to prevent them from besmirching the image of their religion?
And how would you know the hijabi is not condemning the attacks? Did you talk to her about it?

And I remember the largest demonstration in British history turning out to argue against an invasion of Iraq. 1 million+ on the streets of London, apparently the largest outdoor crowd in the capital since 1945.

[Pannonian]

Because Saudi Arabia has the most cash to splash. They bankroll their version all over the world and to a degree that swamps everyone else.

I loathe Saudi Arabia and anyone who supports their export of Wahabbism. ISIS is the current spearhead, but Saudi Arabia is the wellspring of all that is vile about modern Islam.

[Greyblades]

Which Bible? There are over a dozen different ones. What they contain differs extensively - this is before the different versions of what is the same Bible.

I do not think that any version of the Bible espouses violence - why most hold on the the Old Testament is a mystery to me since Christians seem to have to spend a lot of time explaining why everything it says should be ignored.

I think it is because parents and priests find some of the stories and parables contained within the old testiment useful when teaching children morality.

[Husar]

I do not think that any version of the Bible espouses violence - why most hold on the the Old Testament is a mystery to me since Christians seem to have to spend a lot of time explaining why everything it says should be ignored.

Why then ask which version if they're all the same in the aspect that matters to the discussion?
As for the explanations, that's because people like you only cherry-pick the attackable quotes. Maybe if asked about a part that is not taken out of context or outdated, such as Psalm 51:10 or Deuteronomy 10:12-19, you'd get a different answer.

And I remember the largest demonstration in British history turning out to argue against an invasion of Iraq. 1 million+ on the streets of London, apparently the largest outdoor crowd in the capital since 1945.

That's great, unfortunately also a bit late and didn't quite work out.

[Gilrandir]

That's about 550 year after the First Crusade, so supports my point.

Sorry, got the dating wrong.

First of all, that he enjoys crushing sinners is not entirely correct: http://www.jba.gr/Articles/jba2004_02.htm

You again resort to referring to interpretations. Let me quote Rory on that:

Who knows what the "Correct" interpretation is? The Canon was formed hundreds of years after Jesus died for the first time and much of what was written was suppressed actively by the church.

I don't know whether the word "enjoy" is applicable, but informing in all details what befell those God didn't like is close to gloating. Like having a separate verse for each of the Egyptyan plagues, or desribing how Sodom and Gomorrah died, or repeating several times to Noah how every single human (except him) would be terminated.....

And you say that

Killing someone for being a sinner goes fundamentally against that, instead one should teach them about the love of God and save their soul, again fundamentally different from damning them by killing them and removing their chance to repent.

and

love the sinner but hate the sin.

Or is this rule made for human use only and God has a monopoly on killing sinners (and in most cruel way too)?

a human can never change the basic rules of such a god, no matter how unfair or outdated he deems them.

The God changes rules himself!!!

Do you remember that Lot had children by his two daughters (or do I have to quote it)? So the incest was OK? And the offspring of both lived happily ever after until today. WTF?

Except that you have apparently hardly read the book,

I thought that after all my references to Bible (in this thread and elsewhere - remember our discussion of Jesus ordering a robbery of the donkey?) I am exempt from such charges. But qualifying an opponent as ignorant is a good argument. In my case it isn't valid, sorry to say. It is true, though, that I read it about 15 years ago (and found it extremely tedious), so some episodes are rather abraded in my memory. But what struck me back then is still there. You may not believe me, but I thought it to be Brenus' previlege.

much less heard people interprete it directly.

You know what I think of interpretations (see above the message by Rory).

Yet you claim to have a better understanding.

Now read carefully once again what I wrote:

No one (except the author) can prove that my or your understaning is better/worse.

Which is to say that neither my nor your interpretation is better. Nor anyone else's, btw.

What dubious statements?

One may call it encouraging plunder, or marauding:

Exodus 3

Moses and the Burning Bush

21 “And I will make the Egyptians favorably disposed toward this people, so that when you leave you will not go empty-handed. 22 Every woman is to ask her neighbor and any woman living in her house for articles of silver and gold and for clothing, which you will put on your sons and daughters. And so you will plunder the Egyptians.”

If you want a fun "fact", I'm not aware of anywhere in the bible saying that God wants us to live monogamous.

If it is so, it is one more reason to take what is said in the Bible cum grano salis.