Danes vs Muslims?

[Wooz]

I know that there is a significant difference between catholicism and christianity, but still is too dificult and touchy to debate about as it may piss off some people...

If by "some people" you meant me, you're mistaken, as I don't consider myself much of a zealot of the Catholic church, nor did I see anything that personally offended me. Religious debates get touchy only when somebody tries to claim supremacy of one religion over another. Like that time CCR got involved into a flamefest with Dove, and subsequently sported an avatar depicting an ass with eyeglasses. (Which IMO suited him perfectly )

The point at hand wasn't about the two Churches' differences, it was about your claim of "Only True Christian" and pointing out the logical fallacies.

Don't apologize. Next time, do some research on the topic before you try to debate it. For additional information on the book of Enoch, know that it's dated to be written around a century before Christ's birth.

 

[Jebus]

Well there is no point continuing the arguement as I know that there is a significant difference between catholicism and christianity, but still is too dificult and touchy to debate about as it may piss off some people...

It's not the argument that pisses peole off (hell, I'm not catholic myself, and I still get pissed off by the idiocy you're spouting), it's the fact that you interpret history like television evangelist.

We had violent kings ruling in the name of Christianity in that time,

Political and economic necessity, rarely theologically backed.

Tell that to, for instance, the Cathars. Or hell, even better - tell that to the librarians of Alexandria or any other of the great hubs of pre-christrian knowledge that were burned down in the 6th century AD.
There is a reason we had the middle ages, and that reason is called 'Christianity'.

Now look at TODAY, and see how Christianity has progresed from what it was, and Islam has gone from "Child-Rapin' Jesus" to "What The Fuck?"

Yeah, let's just pretend everything between the Arab conquests and the Enlightenment never happened.
There's a reason we're no longer in the middle ages, and that reason is called 'Islam'.

 

[frissy]

It's not the argument that pisses peole off (hell, I'm not catholic myself, and I still get pissed off by the idiocy you're spouting), it's the fact that you interpret history like television evangelist.

I wote for top10 post. Muahah.
________
Gift cards

 

[[Rusty Chopper]]

That topic has shown to me that I know absolutely nothing about religions.

But I hope it's not a loss to grieve over.

I'm proud of you, guys!

 

[Judas Iscariot]

Hi everybody. A nice fiery and somewhat wayward discussion you’re having here. I’m not an expert on the field of theology and history of religion, thus I can’t categorically approve or disapprove with a large chunk of what has been proposed here, but I did notice a few fallacies (as I see them) that I felt obliged to respond to.

Mr. Santa here seems to have a very high opinion of our “savior” Jesus Christ and at the same time a very low opinion of the so called “Prophet” which he expressed in a considerably derogatory manner on more than one occasion. As to how correct he is regarding the “Prophet” I can’t say, but I will point out a few defects present in the image of Jesus Christ as portrayed by the Gospels, which hardly render Him as the being of superlative wisdom and goodness as some are led to believe.

Namely, He is shown to be a liar and hypocrite, hardly the qualities one would prescribe to a saint. First, let’s see what he lied about: He told everyone that the his second coming would happen before the death of all the people who were living at the time. There are a great many texts that prove that. He says, for instance: "Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be come." Then He says: "There are some standing here which shall not taste death till the Son of Man comes into His kingdom"; and there are a lot of places where it is quite clear that He wanted them to believe His second coming would happen during the lifetime of many then living. That was the belief of his earlier followers, and it was the basis of a good deal of His moral teaching. When He said, "Take no thought for the morrow," and things of that sort, it was very largely because He alluded that the second coming was going to be very soon, and that all ordinary mundane affairs did not count.

Then you come to moral questions. There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person that is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment. Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did believe in everlasting punishment, and one does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to His preaching -- an attitude which is not uncommon with preachers, but which does somewhat detract from superlative excellence. You do not, for instance, find that attitude in Socrates. You find him quite bland and urbane toward the people who would not listen to him; and it is, to my mind, far more worthy of a sage to take that line than to take the line of indignation. You probably all remember the sorts of things that Socrates was saying when he was dying, and the sort of things that he generally did say to people who did not agree with him.

You will find that in the Gospels Christ said: "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell." That was said to people who did not like His preaching. It is not really to my mind quite the best tone, and there are a great many of these things about hell. There is, of course, the familiar text about the sin against the Holy Ghost: "Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world nor in the world to come." That text has caused an unspeakable amount of misery in the world, for all sorts of people have imagined that they have committed the sin against the Holy Ghost, and thought that it would not be forgiven them either in this world or in the world to come. I really do not think that a person with a proper degree of kindliness in his nature would have put fears and terrors of this sort into the world.

Then Christ says, "The Son of Man shall send forth His angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth"; and He goes on about the wailing and gnashing of teeth. It comes in one verse after another, and it is quite manifest to the reader that there is a certain pleasure in contemplating wailing and gnashing of teeth, or else it would not occur so often. Then you all, of course, remember about the sheep and the goats; how at the second coming He is going to divide the sheep from the goats, and He is going to say to the goats: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire." He continues: "And these shall go away into everlasting fire." Then He says again, "If thy hand offend thee, cut it off; it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched, where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched." He repeats that again and again also. I must say that I think all this doctrine, that hell-fire is a punishment for sin, is a doctrine of cruelty. It is a doctrine that put cruelty into the world, and gave the world generations of cruel torture; and the Christ of the Gospels, if you could take Him as his chroniclers represent Him, would certainly have to be considered partly responsible for that.

There a quite a few other places in the Gospels that don’t shed any glint of pure light on Him. To name a few:

"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city" (Mark vi, 11)--

How evangelical!

"And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea" (Mark ix, 42) .--

How evangelical!

"But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." (Matthew vi, 15.)--"

Very compromising for the said "father.

"Know yea not that yea are the temple of God, and that the spirit of God dwelt in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple yea are." (Paul, 1 Corinthians iii, 16.)--

For that sort of thing one cannot have enough contempt...

"Do yea not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are yea unworthy to judge the smallest matters?" (Paul, 1 Corinthians vi, 2.)--

Unfortunately, not merely the speech of a lunatic...

To finish my post off, I quote Nietzche:

«What follows, then? That one had better put on gloves before reading the New Testament. The presence of so much filth makes it very advisable. One would as little choose "early Christians" for companions as Polish Jews: not that one need seek out an objection to them . . . Neither has a pleasant smell.--I have searched the New Testament in vain for a single sympathetic touch; nothing is there that is free, kindly, open-hearted or upright. In it humanity does not even make the first step upward--the instinct for cleanliness is lacking. . . . Only evil instincts are there, and there is not even the courage of these evil instincts. It is all cowardice; it is all a shutting of the eyes, a self-deception. Every other book becomes clean, once one has read the New Testament: for example, immediately after reading Paul I took up with delight that most charming and wanton of scoffers, Petronius, of whom one may say what Domenico Boccaccio wrote of Ceasar Borgia to the Duke of Parma: "e tutto Iesto"--immortally healthy, immortally cheerful and sound. . . .These petty bigots make a capital miscalculation. They attack, but everything they attack is thereby distinguished. Whoever is attacked by an "early Christian" is surely not befouled . . . On the contrary, it is an honour to have an "early Christian" as an opponent. One cannot read the New Testament without acquired admiration for whatever it abuses--not to speak of the "wisdom of this world," which an impudent wind bag tries to dispose of "by the foolishness of preaching." . . . Even the scribes and pharisees are benefitted by such opposition: they must certainly have been worth something to have been hated in such an indecent manner. Hypocrisy--as if this were a charge that the "early Christians" dared to make!--After all, they were the privileged, and that was enough: the hatred of the Chandala needed no other excuse. The "early Christian"--and also, I fear, the "last Christian," whom I may perhaps live to see--is a rebel against all privilege by profound instinct--he lives and makes war for ever for "equal rights." . . .Strictly speaking, he has no alternative. When a man proposes to represent, in his own person, the "chosen of God"--or to be a "temple of God," or a "judge of the angels"--then every other criterion, whether based upon honesty, upon intellect, upon manliness and pride, or upon beauty and freedom of the heart, becomes simply "worldly"--evil in itself. . . Moral: every word that comes from the lips of an "early Christian" is a lie, and his every act is instinctively dishonest--all his values, all his aims are noxious, but whoever he hates, whatever he hates, has real value . . . The Christian, and particularly the Christian priest, is thus a criterion of values.
--Must I add that, in the whole New Testament, there appears but a solitary figure worthy of honour? Pilate, the Roman viceroy. To regard a Jewish imbroglio seriously--that was quite beyond him. One Jew more or less-- what did it matter? . . . The noble scorn of a Roman, before whom the word "truth" was shamelessly mishandled, enriched the New Testament with the only saying that has any value--and that is at once its criticism and its destruction: "What is truth?". . .

 

[Mikey]

[Blah blah] No reference in the Bible [Blah blah]

Dude, the Bible and the Christian Faith are not one and the same. Jesus didn't write the Bible, God didn't write the Bible. Men wrote the Bible.

"There are some standing here which shall not taste death till the Son of Man comes into His kingdom"

Jesus went to his Kingdom after the ascension. Anyway, if you're talking about the Day of Judgement, people won't die then either; they'll be assumed. Or sent to Hell.

Very compromising for the said "father.

God's purpose is not to be loving and caring and wipe your arse all the time. You need to forgive others also - he's not going to treat a man well who doesn't treat other men well.

For that sort of thing one cannot have enough contempt...

Expand upon this comment, please.

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

Announcing that masturbation is a no-no truly is contemptible.

 

[Duckman]

Dude, the Bible and the Christian Faith are not one and the same. Jesus didn't write the Bible, God didn't write the Bible. Men wrote the Bible.

Look, men did write the physical bible, but the men who did eg, Moses, Luke, Matthew, Mark, Peter and so many others heard what they were told to write by God. God placed the words that they wrote into their minds, then they wrtote the Bible from there. Haven't you heard of the Bible referred to as "the Word of God"??? Oh and by the way Mikey, Jesus and God are the same thing, Jesus is the physical appearance of God.

God's purpose is not to be loving and caring and wipe your arse all the time. You need to forgive others also - he's not going to treat a man well who doesn't treat other men well.

But He is not going to put bad things upon you (aka Karma) if you do bad things. Once you die and have not asked forgiveness of Him before you die, you go to hell. Thats it...

 

[Mikey]

Look, men did write the physical bible, but the men who did eg, Moses, Luke, Matthew, Mark, Peter and so many others heard what they were told to write by God. God placed the words that they wrote into their minds, then they wrtote the Bible from there. Haven't you heard of the Bible referred to as "the Word of God"???

Yes, but men are imperfect - the Bible may have been inspired by God, but there is still room for human error. Take, for instance, the numerous times where the Bible contradicts itself.

Oh and by the way Mikey, Jesus and God are the same thing, Jesus is the physical appearance of God.

No shit. I was making a point; mainly that God as a God didn't write it and Jesus as a Man did not write it.

But He is not going to put bad things upon you (aka Karma) if you do bad things. Once you die and have not asked forgiveness of Him before you die, you go to hell. Thats it...

Yeah, but it means that not forgiving is a sin which if you don't repent you will get burnt.

 

[Duckman]

Yes, but men are imperfect - the Bible may have been inspired by God, but there is still room for human error. Take, for instance, the numerous times where the Bible contradicts itself.

I'm not going to deny the fact that men are imperfect. Take the scriptures of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Here we have 4 interpretations of Jesus' birth, life and mainly death. My class and I, after having to do Biblical Studies at school, underwent an experiment whereby we had to watch a video recording of a part of a movie. The number of different interpretations that the class came up with was enormous. These, may, appear to some as contradictions, but it's all in the way the writer interpreted their "vision" or what happened at that time. Neither of what the writers wrote was contradictory, or even clearly wrong. If you have any examples of where the Bible may contradict itself, please tell me I'd love to know

Yeah, but it means that not forgiving is a sin which if you don't repent you will get burnt.

True. Any sin which a person may commit, can be forgiven if they ask for repentance or forgiveness, pretty straight forward right??

And by all accounts, the Bible is one of the strongest primary resources of history, along with God's message. It has been used to accuratley uncover buried towns that have withstood the test of time. (There is a town, however the name hasn't come to me as of yet).

 

[Jebus]

And by all accounts, the Bible is one of the strongest primary resources of history, along with God's message.

1. A book describing history can never be a primary resource

2. The Bible is no strong source of history

 

[Jebus]

I'm way too spiffy-wiffy to go to bed right now, so I'm going to have a little fun first.

It doesn't help that the general attitude toward women in Islam, from even the Prophet's times and the Prophet himself, is the mentality based upon the excuses of a rapist; that the woman drives the man to unclean thoughts, despite the purpose of Allah making her like that to be man's companion (which the religion can't ever stay constant, leading to arguments around divine construction, because then what about circumcision?).

This misconception about the Qu'ran teachings is one of the oldest around.
I don't know where you read it, but I'm fairly certain it wasn't from any serious Qu'ran study.

Also, the parallel with Christianity is easily drawn. The entire blaming-women-for-all-evil thing is pretty obvious there too - of which the Original Sin thing is a well known example. In Christianity too it was the Woman that seduced the Man to evil, by good old Judaistic tradition.

Pot, kettle, etc.

Oh, and the religion was founded by a brigand, a murderer, and a child rapist.

First of all, I don't see how his criminal activities tie in to the teachings of Islam. I sincerily doubt there's a passage in the Qu'ran somewhere that states "Thou shall raid caravans".
Secondly, the parallels between Christianity are again easily drawn. David, for instance, one of the more important characters in Christian tradition, was a pretty violent character too.

Thirdly, a little historical perspective might be in order about the 'child raping' thing. Different times have different values and standards, and judging historical figures by current values is... unfair. In the Greco-Roman world, for instance, pedophelia - gay pedophilia, even - was pretty common too, yet I don't see a lot of people discarding the entire Greco-Roman civilization because members of them practiced these, by current standards, dispicable acts.

Christians and Jews were allowed to remain in their faiths, because the Prophet conveyed that Allah saw their faith as wrong but for not executable reasons, because they worshipped God but didn't hear His whole message. If you were a pagan Arab, you had to convert or be executed. Selectively peaceful != peaceful.

Funny thing is, the exact same thing then happened in the Roman church. Even heard of the Arians? The Cathars? Right.Except that in later centuries, anybody who was not christian was deemed unworthy of life. And that's a place Islam never went.

Now look at TODAY, and see how Christianity has progresed from what it was, and Islam has gone from "Child-Rapin' Jesus" to "What The Fuck?"

See now, this is just dumb. While Islam rethoric is used to justify agression against Western culture, don't be a fool to assume that the hatred a lot of Muslims feel for the West stems from the teachings of Islam.
Instead, look for more rational reasons: resentment against historical colonialism, present day economical imperialism, and good old classic class struggle.


Reacting to entire cultures based on emotions, generalisations and biased information is pretty easy. Put some actual thought into it, and things take on a whole different perspective.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

First of all, I don't see how his criminal activities tie in to the teachings of Islam. I sincerily doubt there's a passage in the Qu'ran somewhere that states "Thou shall raid caravans".
Secondly, the parallels between Christianity are again easily drawn. David, for instance, one of the more important characters in Christian tradition, was a pretty violent character too.

He is supposed to set an example for his followers. How can a religion be "peaceful" if its central figure is a sexually deviant brigand who slaughters innocent civilians?

Your king David analogy is bullshit. David is said to have committed one hideous crime in his life - murder of Uriah the Hittite - and God condemned and punished him for it. Meanwhile, Allah seemed to be a very gracious, forgiving god, allowing his Prophet to get away with misdeeds that were comparatively just as evil.

Thirdly, a little historical perspective might be in order about the 'child raping' thing. Different times have different values and standards, and judging historical figures by current values is... unfair. In the Greco-Roman world, for instance, pedophelia - gay pedophilia, even - was pretty common too, yet I don't see a lot of people discarding the entire Greco-Roman civilization because members of them practiced these, by current standards, dispicable acts.

Ah, moral relativism. This argument would have relevance if it wasn't for the small fact that Jesus preached peace, tolerance, compassion and equality in Roman Judea, one of the most turbulent and unstable provinces of the Empire, where violence, inequality and oppression were commonplace. Yet Jesus consistently preached against those, thereby denouncing norms and customs of his era and promoting social change and betterment of entire humanity. He didn't pillage and raid, he didn't rape, he didn't murder, he didn't indulge in pedophilia, he didn't do any of the despicable acts Mohammad stooped to. He preached his principles, but he also lived by them every day of his life, despite the fact they were far from what was considered normal or commonplace in his era.

See now, this is just dumb. While Islam rethoric is used to justify agression against Western culture, don't be a fool to assume that the hatred a lot of Muslims feel for the West stems from the teachings of Islam.
Instead, look for more rational reasons: resentment against historical colonialism, present day economical imperialism, and good old classic class struggle.

Nobody denies that islamist hatred for the west has deep social, political and economic roots, but teachings of Islam are so full of ambiguous or downright despicable crap that they are easier to pervert for political purposes than teachings of any other major monotheist religion.

 

[John Uskglass]

For Ratty:

 

[Hovercar Madness]

He is supposed to set an example for his followers. How can a religion be "peaceful" if its central figure is a sexually deviant brigand who slaughters innocent civilians?

You're overlooking something important when comparing Mohammed and Jesus. Whereas Mohammed was a prophet, a (mere) messenger of God, Jesus is part of the holy trinity. As God defines morality (or is the only source of knowledge concerning morality, take your theological pick), what Jesus did was per definition morally right. Mohammed, on the other hand, could theoretically have be a pedophile, while the word of God forbode it.

 

[Montez]

Duckman, would you also consider Quakers, the Amish, Mormons, Mennonites, 7th Day Adventists, Pentacostals, and Jehovah's Witnesses to be more christian than Catholics?

Also, what is your opinion on Martin Luther's "On the Jews and their Lies"?

 

[Ashmo]

Sorry for digging a bit, but some of this stuff was just too bad to be ignored.

FYI, I was raised by liberally Catholic parents, but do know my share of more than one side of the issue.

I myself am an atheist, but that doesn't stop me from calling bullshit by its name when I see it.

I may piss off a few people by saying this but Catholicism isn't Christian because they believe that Mary is higher than Jesus Christ because she gave birth to Him. Where the true definition of a "Christian" is one who believes in Jesus Christ as saviour, not another person, or idol (the 2nd Commandment).

Bullshit.

1. The Roman Catholic church itself doesn't put Mary above Jesus. There are Catholic faiths that focus on Mary, but Roman Catholicism is about Jesus and God, Mary just being one of the more notable Saints that act as intermediates (Catholics don't pray to Saints, they pray to God, either through the Saints or directly).

2. According to the Bible Jesus himself said one should not worship Jesus, but God. Yet almost every Christian faith uses the cross as idol and worships Jesus, the Son of God, rather than God as a whole.
Yes, Son, Father and Holy Ghost are God, but by praying to Jesus in particular you are still worshipping Jesus rather than God as a whole.
Thus, MOST Christian faiths are wrong.

If you look back at the medieval church as well, they spoke in Latin (a then "holy" language that only the priests spoke). And in modern day mass they also speak in Latin...

Latin isn't holy, it's just the original language of Catholicism as it was the lingua franca at the time Christianism came up (i.e. the time of the Roman Empire).

Thanks to many people, most notably Luther, the Holy Mass may be held in ANY language now (IIRC that wasn't the official Catholic policy until the second concile of the Vatican, tho).

am not denying the fact that they pray to a Christ figure. But when I refer to "Christian" the group I am talking about is the Protestant/Anglican people... Catholicism is a different group of rules which is much strickter if you go by the rules...

BULLSHIT.
The majority of protestant faiths developed FROM Catholicism.

Claiming Catholicism isn't Christian is one of the most retarded remarks you can make.

1. Catholicism makes up several things that don't occur/say to do in the bilbe. For example, the wine is Jesus blood and the bread is His body. No reference in the Bible

As a matter of fact, during the Holy Mass, the only time that claim is made is when the Bible is quoted directly. It's a matter of interpretation.

Catholics believe that the wine is His blood and the bread is His body, Lutherans believe the wine and bread is TURNED into His blood and body through the believer's faith after consumption. Both are interpretations of a passage from the Last Supper that describes how Jesus took the wine and bread and said something that can be interpreted this way.

2. And the hail Mary thing with the beads and the like. There is no reference in the Bible which refers to praying to Mary or the like.

You really like making ignorant shit up, do you?

Catholics DON'T put Mary (Mother of God and thus a Saint) above Jesus and they DON'T pray to their Saints as gods.
Not being in the Bible doesn't mean jack. If you follow the Bible, you can't have an institutionalised church either as Jesus is very specific about Him being everywhere and not needing a man-made "house of God" to be prayed to.

3. They believe that purgatory is a place where your sins can be redeemed so that you have a chance to be saved and go to heaven. No biblical reference.

Negative. Purgatory is the waiting room. The medieval church preached that you could shorten that waiting time by paying money to them, but that's another story and has little to do with the modern Catholic faith.

The decision has already been made by the time you get into purgatory.

4. Confession to a priest in a box. No reference to the Bible

Relic of the medieval tradition of paying for redemption. AFAIK the modern intend is to have an intermediary when asking God for forgiveness.
Not in the Bible indeed, but that's hardly a point for Catholicism not being Christian.

There are so many more that disproves the Catholic church as a Christian establishment, its ridiculous...

None of that disproves anything. There is no such a thing as pure Christianism, or at least not in the form of a church.

Just swallowing hate propaganda doesn't make it true.

Need I point out how many times the Bible requires the placement of corporal punishments for sins?
The beloved section that's interpreted to discourage homosexual behaviour for example also mentions that anyone doing it should be stoned. Neat, eh?
If you can't follow that part, why follow any other?

It also mentions something nasty about men with long hair. I don't remember what exactly the punishment was, but I think it was castration.
Amazing, considering Jesus is usually depicted as a White Caucasian hippie.

Martin Luther King

Martin Luther King lived in the 20th century and was killed for being a defender of black rights. Martin Luther, OTOH, lived in the late Middle Ages and founded Lutheran Protestantism by nailing a letter to a church door (or so the legend goes).

Just in case you couldn't figure out why everybody was laughing at you for being a dumbass.

Lastly, may I remind you that the modern Bible, yes, even the one you "true" Christians use, is the result of the first concile of the Vatican? It was the Catholic consensus of several different variations and a wide number of scriptures which collectively made up the "Word of God", only a few of which eventually made it into the Bible.

If you're following a Catholic Bible, how can you claim Catholicism to be less Christian than your faith?
Unless you actually follow the original scriptures -- any of the dozens of versions that exist, including the ones that didn't make it into the Bible.

Fellating your faith's rhetorical phallus doesn't make any other faith less true to the religion both are part of.
You can call the collection of non-Catholic Christian faiths "Evangelicalism" or "Protestantism", but it's not the sole definition of "Catholicism". Several thousand years of history and the other two branches of Christianity strongly disagree with you.

Next you're going to claim the Bible can only be taken litterally and Jesus using parables to teach ethics lessons doesn't mean there might be something between the lines.

The world was created in six days, the 10 Commandments are the only laws that exist and Elvis didn't do no drugs.

Jeah, right.

What are you? American?

EDIT:
Although I think that Wikipedia is probably not the best source for valid information, this graph might help visualising what history has to say about the issue at hand:

 

[Jebus]

First of all, I don't see how his criminal activities tie in to the teachings of Islam. I sincerily doubt there's a passage in the Qu'ran somewhere that states "Thou shall raid caravans".
Secondly, the parallels between Christianity are again easily drawn. David, for instance, one of the more important characters in Christian tradition, was a pretty violent character too.

He is supposed to set an example for his followers. How can a religion be "peaceful" if its central figure is a sexually deviant brigand who slaughters innocent civilians?

As Hovercar already brought up, Mohammed is not a central figure. Mohammed literally means 'Quill (sp?) of God', and a pen can commit all sorts or atrocious acts in his life but still write cleanly.

Anyway, my point was that whatever Mohammeds personal crimes were, those did not shimmer through nor had any effect on the Qu'ran, and Islam as a whole.

Let's compare:

Whoever takes a life without due justice, it will be as if he has killed the whole of mankind

And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall surely stone him: as well as the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall be put to death.

etc. etc.

Your king David analogy is bullshit. David is said to have committed one hideous crime in his life - murder of Uriah the Hittite - and God condemned and punished him for it. Meanwhile, Allah seemed to be a very gracious, forgiving god, allowing his Prophet to get away with misdeeds that were comparatively just as evil.

Sure, I guess all the warfare and slaughter he did cannot be considered as 'violence', right?

Here the guy engages in a two-day slaughter of an untold number of Amalekites to get his two wives back:

And David smote them from the twilight even unto the evening of the next day: and there escaped not a man of them, save four hundred young men, which rode upon camels, and fled.
18 And David recovered all that the Amalekites had carried away: and David rescued his two wives.

Ah, moral relativism.

Not moral relativism. Historical perspective.
If two hundred years from now, killing and eating cows is considered to be an atrocious crime, it would not be fair for people then to consider us soulless barbarians because we did. Different times, different cultures, different morals. The fact that Mohammed wed an underage wife does not make him morally reprehensible, as that was a cultural given that existed long into the Middle Ages.

Nobody denies that islamist hatred for the west has deep social, political and economic roots, but teachings of Islam are so full of ambiguous or downright despicable crap that they are easier to pervert for political purposes than teachings of any other major monotheist religion.

I refer you to the quotes I have already posted, and I would be much obliged if you could post any source that would back this claim of yours up.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

As Hovercar already brought up, Mohammed is not a central figure. Mohammed literally means 'Quill (sp?) of God', and a pen can commit all sorts or atrocious acts in his life but still write cleanly.

Though Christian prophets were fallible like all men, as far as I know God *always* punished them for their sins, whereas there is no mention of repercussions for Muhammad for all the despicable acts he committed. Face it, Muhammad is a murderous rapist and pedophile, unworthy of being the Quill of God and everything he preached should be regarded as questionable.

Anyway, my point was that whatever Mohammeds personal crimes were, those did not shimmer through nor had any effect on the Qu'ran, and Islam as a whole.

Bullshit. They had *tremendous* effect. Mohammad was a morally reprehensible wretch. A man like him *cannot* be trusted to relay the word of God without tainting and perverting it in the process, hence entire teachings of Islam are likely tainted and perverted.

Sure, I guess all the warfare and slaughter he did cannot be considered as 'violence', right?

Here the guy engages in a two-day slaughter of an untold number of Amalekites to get his two wives back:

David was a king of Israel - a secular leader of a secular entity. He was a God's favorite most of the time, but a secular ruler is frequently forced to get his hands dirty. Muhammad was (supposed to be) first and foremost a prophet of God, i.e. someone who relays his message to the world and lives by it, yet his cruelty and moral perversion make him as bad as any secular ruler of his era.

Also, Old Testament is just as bad as Q'uran, and I prefer the belief that much of the bullshit written there (including genocide of Amalekites) is deprecated by the New Testament.

If two hundred years from now, killing and eating cows is considered to be an atrocious crime, it would not be fair for people then to consider us soulless barbarians because we did. Different times, different cultures, different morals. The fact that Mohammed wed an underage wife does not make him morally reprehensible, as that was a cultural given that existed long into the Middle Ages.

As far as sexual deviance goes, taking on an underage wife was the least of Muhammad's sins. But as I said above, lots of things were considered normal and socially acceptable back then, but that doesn't make them any more morally depraved.

And killing cows *is* barbaric, but it is excusable if you kill them for food.

I refer you to the quotes I have already posted, and I would be much obliged if you could post any source that would back this claim of yours up.

Not a chance. There was an exact same discussion on this forum two weeks ago. Plenty of sources were posted there by Rosh, so refer to them if you wish.

 

[Dapper Dan Man]

As Hovercar already brought up, Mohammed is not a central figure. Mohammed literally means 'Quill (sp?) of God', and a pen can commit all sorts or atrocious acts in his life but still write cleanly.

Anyway, my point was that whatever Mohammeds personal crimes were, those did not shimmer through nor had any effect on the Qu'ran, and Islam as a whole.

My only response to this thread is thus:

Muhammad *is* a central figure to many Muslims through their use of the Sunnah and Hadith. Both are texts relating the life of the Prophet as testimony to how a proper Muslim should live their lives. Many Muslims probably DO interpret them as at least socially, if not doctrinally bound to the Qu'ran.