Terror Attack: 130 Dead in Paris

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No.

Yep

You said "There's nothing in Scripture about Muhammed having a 9-year old wife" instead of "The Haddiths disagree on how old Aisha was when they consummated the relationship".

Crucifixion is a sentence reserved for enemies of the state.

The fact that Jesus was innocent of the charges is a central plank of Christianity.

He said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". Jesus was not, in his own lifetime, a very important or influential man.

You say I'm "breathtakingly" ignorant but you yourself show equal ignorance towards Islam.

Well, let's see - the main plank of Islam is that Christian and Jewish scripture is wrong so God sent the Angel Gabriel to Muhammed to reveal the correct way to worship God and live one's life and the revalations Gabriel gave to Muhammed are the writings contained within the Koran alongside a biography of the Prophet himself.

How'm I doing?

Let's see...

According to Islam Muslims are descended from from Ishmael, Abraham's son by his slave Hagar (but in the Islamic tradition he marries Hagar) and God then commands Abraham to send Hagar and Ishmael away and, unlike the Jewish tradition, Abraham remains in contact with his son and eventually they (re)build the Kaaba. This story is the basis for the Muslim claim to be "original" monotheists rather than a Jewish or Christian offshoots.

I also know that Muslims, unlike Christians, generally believe that heaven will only exist after Judgement Day and, as I recall, Muslims do not believe in Hell - just that those found wanting will be cast into a pit of fire. I confess I don't precisely understand how Muslims are supposed to get to Heaven but from my reading I understand that, again contrary to Christianity, a Muslim's deed are judged on a balance against a feather. I'm not sure if that's supposed to mean that all Muslims are meant to fail, or if it's actually a very heavy metaphorical feather.

All of this is very different to Christianity or Judaism.

Currently there's an arms race across the ME for counterterrorism and domestic unrest. How's that for narrative. How is my discourse similar to theirs? In your radical world all Muslims are extreme judging from your first post in this thread. Just stop talking, it's a truly ridiculous thing to say.

My radical world? In Christian terms I'm about as boring, stuffy, and old-fashioned as you can get. Anyway, I'm not judging Islam - I'm pointing up the gulf between Muslim and Christian (and thence post-Christian) thought. You seem oblivious to the differences. I recognise that you don't believe in the Gospel story of Jesus as God but you have repeatedly miss-construed or miss-represented his actions as reported by early Christians and their significance. At the same time you gloss over the more violent episodes in the Koran and in Muslim history. The fact is that Christians learned Holy War from the Muslims, one of the reasons the Roman and Persian Empires folded up during the Islamic Conquests (aside from fatigue) is that they were completely unprepared for the way the Muslims fought, and particularly the belief that death in battle was a way to enter heaven - early Christian saints are all conscientious objectors or outright pacifists.

If you look at Muhammed, his companions, and the early Caliphs you see that they're all clever administrators, cunning politicians and accomplished, sometimes ruthless, generals. That is, of course, how they look the Perisaian Empire and two thirds of the remaining Roman Empire in really just a few years.

I have no problem with that - I simple object to Islam being described as a "religion of peace" when early Islamic religious expansion was achieved via military conquest.