inyati13
Well-known member
TexasBred":2cw5nshs said:
This is a great thread. I am learning. That makes me happy.
TexasBred, I had no idea that such an analyisis comparing the Bible to the Quran had been performed in regard to which is more violent.
Fort Worth rodeo
- Thread starter Bigfoot
- Start date
Help Support CattleToday:
This is a great thread. I am learning. That makes me happy.
TexasBred, I had no idea that such an analyisis comparing the Bible to the Quran had been performed in regard to which is more violent.
bulldurham
Well-known member
Dave":3ein7bdt said:
They are all taught by Jesus. That is, if you believe in the Triune God.
"Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose." Matthew 5:17
backhoeboogie
Well-known member
Most Muslims believe most of what we know as the Old Testament. The differences are what came since. Prophets were foretold in the Old Testament. Which Prophet you follow is the difference.
Edit: And while we are on this subject, there are something like 44 things foretold in the Old Testament that were fulfilled by Christ. I have heard arguments of scripting a life to fulfill those things. But how do you fulfill a Roman Soldier piercing your side after your are dead? That was foretold in Zechariah. How could that be scripted by Christ? It was an act of the enemy.
Edit: And while we are on this subject, there are something like 44 things foretold in the Old Testament that were fulfilled by Christ. I have heard arguments of scripting a life to fulfill those things. But how do you fulfill a Roman Soldier piercing your side after your are dead? That was foretold in Zechariah. How could that be scripted by Christ? It was an act of the enemy.
Dave
Well-known member
bulldurham":2a7rugon said:
But when they were going to stone the woman guilty of adultery as is prescribed by the laws of Moses, what did Jesus say/do?
Commercialfarmer
Well-known member
TexasBred":2eagc105 said:
Couple things that should be obvious, but maybe aren't.
1. People are fallible. Some are purposefully evil, no matter what belief system they claim.
2. All doctrines should be examined on it's own merit. The belief system in this discussion is on trial, not the individuals.
3. If actions of people are to be be used as examples of a doctrine, they should be analyzed to be consistent with the doctrine first. If they are not consistent, then they are not examples of the doctrine.
The original question was about Islam since it is a position by several on this board that Islam is a danger to our society in general and freedoms. But since the position of most that defend the history of Islam is to point fingers at Christianity (which is how most kids defend a bad behavior, everyone else did it, true or not). Anyway, I'll address both to show this isn't inherently true.
"Christianity has been beheading, burning and killing since it's beginning as well."
I highly doubt that you can rationalize it. If Christianity began with the birth and death of Christ, then He was the beginning. If He was the beginning, and the doctrine of Christianity is the life, ways and action of Christ, then can you show evidence that He promoted beheading, burning and killing? I've not seen this evidence. And in the contrary, have only found evidence of Him condemning violence among individuals. From everything I can see, it was His position that decisions regarding belief were not to be coerced and something to be deeply pondered. Whether one believes in this message or not, is not the question at the moment, but whether it is the doctrine of Christianity. If you can demonstrate the doctrine states otherwise, let's look objectively at it.
To answer the question about Christian extremists.... we need to more accurately define extremism. Appears to me that what is being referenced is violence. So violent Christians.... Is there not a litmus test to classifying all things? If I claim to be of Asian decent, does that make me Asian? Or does it require that I have genetic material consistent with Asian ancestry? Points made above, if someone's actions are not consistent with the doctrine, in this case Christianity, then they are not Christian actions. If someone is outside the parameters of the ways and actions of Christ, then they are not Christian. They don't pass the litmus test. Burning someone is not a Christian act.
Even though I believe that a doctrine is correct, does not mean that I am following the doctrine or stay within it's boundaries. I've probably been a good example of that.
If Christianity does not promote burning someone, then Christianity is not the danger but the person committing the act.
What about Islamic extremism? The same should be redefined to Islamic violence.
Is not Muhammad the originator of Islam? So Islam began with Muhammad. The Koran, the doctrine of Islam, condones violence. And not only condone, but promise praise and reward for violence committed in the promotion of Islam. Muhammad, the prophet since the beginning of Islam committed violent raids on non-believers in the beginning. He not only condoned, but commanded violent acts be committed.
So being violent and violent acts for the purpose of promoting Islam can and is consistent with the Islamic faith. Violence does not preclude one from passing the litmus test. I'd go as far to say that actually lack of force, however, might. Forcing conversion is consistent with the Islamic faith.
Though someone may not commit violent acts, it does not mean that Islam is not a dangerous doctrine that promotes violence.
If someone, though not committing acts of violence them-self, knowingly funds an organization that commits violent acts, does that make them a pacifist?
If an organization knowingly harbors ongoing and actively violent criminals, are the free from association of the crime? If someone knowingly funds and supports this organization, are they free from all association?
Is someone that actively spreads a message that promotes or rewards violence, is that person free from responsibility of any real act of violence that occurs?
Heard of incitement? It is a legal situation based on responsibility that applies in other areas in addition to riots. Video games are re-labelled for less association with promoting violence than Islam.
If it is all just people that appose religions that are different from their own, how many threads have popped up on here about the severe world wide violence of the hundreds of others religions of the world?
If I missed a question posed directly to me, let me know.
TexasBred
Well-known member
Extremely long post but this is the part that actually applies to this thread.
How about murder in any form or fashion. Would not the same apply?? Who was the danger.....Christianity or David Koresh?? Who is the danger, Christianity or Jim Jones? Who is the danger, Islam or the Imam?
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
How about murder in any form or fashion. Would not the same apply?? Who was the danger.....Christianity or David Koresh?? Who is the danger, Christianity or Jim Jones? Who is the danger, Islam or the Imam?
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
OP
OP
Bigfoot
Well-known member
TB
I'm definatly following your train of thought here, and it is persuasive. I think for myself anyway, that we see incidents like Jim jones, as someone acting outside of the faith that they claim. When we see a Muslim blow up a building, we see someone acting within their faith.
I'm definatly following your train of thought here, and it is persuasive. I think for myself anyway, that we see incidents like Jim jones, as someone acting outside of the faith that they claim. When we see a Muslim blow up a building, we see someone acting within their faith.
inyati13
Well-known member
Commercialfarmer stated and I quote in italics below:
Is not Muhammad the originator of Islam? So Islam began with Muhammad. The Koran, the doctrine of Islam, condones violence. And not only condone, but promise praise and reward for violence committed in the promotion of Islam. Muhammad, the prophet since the beginning of Islam committed violent raids on non-believers in the beginning. He not only condoned, but commanded violent acts be committed.
The answer is NO. Islam preceded Muhammad. What is provided below in bold is not authored by me, it is referenced from sources I used on the internet.
Though it is believed by non-Muslims to have originated in Mecca and Medina, Muslims believe that the religion of Islam has been present since the time of the prophet Adam. Muhammad (c. 570 – June 8, 632) is viewed as the last in a series of prophets. He was preceded in Muslim believe by the prophets Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus. All were Islamic prophets, and they have equal veneration in the Qur'an. Islam is a monotheistic and Abrahamic religion articulated by the Qur'an, an Islamic holy book considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of God (Allāh), and for the vast majority of adherents, also by the teachings, normative example and way of life (or sunnah); it also is composed of prophetic traditions (or hadith) of Muhammad (c. 570–8 June 632 CE), considered by most of them to be the last prophet of God.
Disclaimer: I have not provided footnotes to reference material I used from a google search. But I trust someone will correct me if the material I lifted from the web lacks veracity.
Is not Muhammad the originator of Islam? So Islam began with Muhammad. The Koran, the doctrine of Islam, condones violence. And not only condone, but promise praise and reward for violence committed in the promotion of Islam. Muhammad, the prophet since the beginning of Islam committed violent raids on non-believers in the beginning. He not only condoned, but commanded violent acts be committed.
The answer is NO. Islam preceded Muhammad. What is provided below in bold is not authored by me, it is referenced from sources I used on the internet.
Though it is believed by non-Muslims to have originated in Mecca and Medina, Muslims believe that the religion of Islam has been present since the time of the prophet Adam. Muhammad (c. 570 – June 8, 632) is viewed as the last in a series of prophets. He was preceded in Muslim believe by the prophets Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus. All were Islamic prophets, and they have equal veneration in the Qur'an. Islam is a monotheistic and Abrahamic religion articulated by the Qur'an, an Islamic holy book considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of God (Allāh), and for the vast majority of adherents, also by the teachings, normative example and way of life (or sunnah); it also is composed of prophetic traditions (or hadith) of Muhammad (c. 570–8 June 632 CE), considered by most of them to be the last prophet of God.
Disclaimer: I have not provided footnotes to reference material I used from a google search. But I trust someone will correct me if the material I lifted from the web lacks veracity.
inyati13
Well-known member
Commercialfarmer stated:
2. All doctrines should be examined on it's own merit. The belief system in this discussion is on trial, not the individuals.
This thread has not placed anyone or anyone's religion on trial. IMO this thread is about rights, privileges and freedom. It is a shameful display of arrogance for you to pretend that this thread can put a "belief system on trial" as you state it. Christianity and Islam are two of the great religions of the world, let's not pretend to be something we are not. We have already demonstrated that we don't even know when Islam originated.
CF: I read your "extremely long post" as TB called it, I am not sure you got much of the rest of it right. I am just being candid. I am not a Theologian but you sure as heII are not one either. I haven't the motivation to check out anymore of your statements. You probably know more than I do but you are a long way behind Billy Graham. ;-)
2. All doctrines should be examined on it's own merit. The belief system in this discussion is on trial, not the individuals.
This thread has not placed anyone or anyone's religion on trial. IMO this thread is about rights, privileges and freedom. It is a shameful display of arrogance for you to pretend that this thread can put a "belief system on trial" as you state it. Christianity and Islam are two of the great religions of the world, let's not pretend to be something we are not. We have already demonstrated that we don't even know when Islam originated.
CF: I read your "extremely long post" as TB called it, I am not sure you got much of the rest of it right. I am just being candid. I am not a Theologian but you sure as heII are not one either. I haven't the motivation to check out anymore of your statements. You probably know more than I do but you are a long way behind Billy Graham. ;-)
OP
OP
Bigfoot
Well-known member
Inyati,
We buried the hatchet, and I would like to leave it in the ground. We make better friends than enemies :shock: I'm confused: are you aligning yourself with Muslims, or against Christianity? It seems to me that you getting in a debate over the two, would be like me getting in a debate if Zeus could whip Apollo. I think that neither exist, so I couldn't defend either.
We buried the hatchet, and I would like to leave it in the ground. We make better friends than enemies :shock: I'm confused: are you aligning yourself with Muslims, or against Christianity? It seems to me that you getting in a debate over the two, would be like me getting in a debate if Zeus could whip Apollo. I think that neither exist, so I couldn't defend either.
inyati13
Well-known member
Bigfoot":37c4b1mb said:
No hatchet here. I do not embrace Christianity or Islam. As stated above, this is an issue of freedom of religion which I do align myself with. In fact, my focus has not been on religion, it is on the law and rights.
You could pose the same question to Texasbred. I think he would say the same thing as I with the exception that he embraces Christianity.
It seems to me that a true Atheist opposes all religions and the free practice thereof.
inyati13
Well-known member
TennesseeTuxedo":37qu9wc2 said:
TT, that's absurd. Remember freedom of religion protects my right to not believe. Without those protected rights, we could have a government that could force us all to worship trees!
James T
Well-known member
Then you haven't looked deep enough, Mr. Tuxedo. While TB is very adept AND patient enough to point at the facts, Mr. Ron is very adept at "process" and process logic. One is no good without the other.
James T
Well-known member
Bigfoot":1n6axa6b said:
Mr Inyati is neither. As he stated, this is a learning experience. So........?
James T
Well-known member
Bigfoot":36fprx8q said:
I was asking one.
I think it was was obvious. "Invocation" plus the additional information placed the whole scenario right in your lap.
James T
Well-known member
Yes, at the invocation for the rodeo performance. Does that make a critical difference to you?
