Christian/Muslim Debate

[felix]

1. Yet Christianity was also spread by violence and Jesus was a Jew?

2. Yet is seems that certain people have decided that which is and isn't God's 'word' and this varies sometime from person to person.

Something to think about . . . . .

The real difference is, what is being taught. Just because a christian is violent does not mean Christianity teaches it.

(John 16:2) "They will put you out of the synagogues; yes, the time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he offers God service.

God's Word is clearly Jesus Christ. There is no differences in core christian doctrines in all denominations and whoever differs are not Christians, but cult. The real difference is in some minor interpretations of theology. These differences are not because of contradictions but because of the limited understanding of some prophecies and verses which God Himself hides from certain people and reveals to certain people.

 

[Free]

1. Yet Christianity was also spread by violence and Jesus was a Jew?

This isn't entirely true. Christianity first spread rapidly despite heavy persecution against the early church. Not until much later was "Christianity" then spread by violence. Islam, on the other hand, was spread by violence from the beginning, which makes sense since it is a political and legal system first and foremost.

Violence goes against Christian belief but not necessarily Islam.

2. Yet is seems that certain people have decided that which is and isn't God's 'word' and this varies sometime from person to person.

Something to think about . . . . .

To what do you refer? The canonization of Scripture?

 

[seekandlisten]

The real difference is, what is being taught. Just because a christian is violent does not mean Christianity teaches it.

Could the belief that 'God' speaks to "chosen" people be used to justify violence?

God's Word is clearly Jesus Christ. There is no differences in core christian doctrines in all denominations and whoever differs are not Christians, but cult.

Wouldn't Christianity have been considered a cult in its origin?

God Himself hides from certain people and reveals to certain people.

Hardly seems fair?

 

[seekandlisten]

This isn't entirely true. Christianity first spread rapidly despite heavy persecution against the early church. Not until much later was "Christianity" then spread by violence. Islam, on the other hand, was spread by violence from the beginning, which makes sense since it is a political and legal system first and foremost.

I don't think the timing of the violence makes one better then the other.

You mean to tell me that Christianity doesn't have the framework for a political and legal system? How many Christians do you know that wouldn't be for a society run by 'biblical principles" and would be more than willing to step in and enforce these new laws?

Violence goes against Christian belief but not necessarily Islam.

Depends on your point of view I guess.

To what do you refer? The canonization of Scripture?

Partly, I would assume you hold "God's word" to be the Bible. Others believe their sacred Scriptures to hold the "word" of their Creator. Seems in most instances someone was out in a desert alone or conveniently misplacing their golden tablets when push comes to shove though.

 

[felix]

Could the belief that 'God' speaks to "chosen" people be used to justify violence?

No. There is no justification for violence. All the wars/violence in the OT are the result of their own deeds. The same is very true even in NT times.

If you are are Christ centric, you have peace and rest. If you aren't Christ centric, you will have many enemies and will not have peace or rest but war. A good example is the king of Judah, Asa.

Wouldn't Christianity have been considered a cult in its origin?

Cult is not based on what people think. No SDA (Seventh Day Adventists) will think they are in a cult unless he/she digs deeper to discover the truth. Similarly, just because people say doesn't make it a cult. Christianity is still considered a cult even today by a billion Muslims - this doesn't change anything.

Hardly seems fair?

No it's fair. You cannot give solid foods to a baby but only milk. A baby symbolizes immaturity in Christ and an adult symbolizes maturity in Christ - the same example used in Hebrews. God gives 'tongues' for non-believers but prophecy to 'believers'. Similarly, God gives specific gifts which He thinks best for us, not what we think as best and reveals things to His servants on how much they can absorb. Just because they can't understand doesn't mean they must formalize their own logic, but wait patiently for the Lord.

 

[seekandlisten]

No. There is no justification for violence. All the wars/violence in the OT are the result of their own deeds. The same is very true even in NT times.

There are many who have found a way to use Scripture/religion to support their acts. David Koresh, Anders Behring Breivik, Fred Phelps, Schaeffer Cox, all think they are following "God's will" but I think most of the sane public would disagree. What about those that commit violence in an an attempt to stop abortions, is that justifiable? Can one's use of murder be more 'holy' than someone else's intent to murder?

It's no different with the jihadists thinking they are picked by 'God' to kill. There has been enough whack jobs in history to demonstrate that people will find violence justifiable by their religion.

 

[felix]

There are many who have found a way to use Scripture/religion to support their acts. David Koresh, Anders Behring Breivik, Fred Phelps, Schaeffer Cox, all think they are following "God's will" but I think most of the sane public would disagree. What about those that commit violence in an an attempt to stop abortions, is that justifiable? Can one's use of murder be more 'holy' than someone else's intent to murder?

It's no different with the jihadists thinking they are picked by 'God' to kill. There has been enough whack jobs in history to demonstrate that people will find violence justifiable by their religion.

I can't see anything you say matching in Scriptures.

(Num 35:33) 'So you shall not pollute the land where you [are;] for blood defiles the land, and no atonement can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it.

In OT times, before Christ came as an atonement, there was no atonement for crimes committed with shedding of blood. The only way to purify the land is to kill the murderer (or death penalty as punishment)

(Lev 18:24-28) ' Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you. 'For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants. 'You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit [any] of these abominations, [either] any of your own nation or any stranger who dwells among you '(for all these abominations the men of the land have done, who [were] before you, and thus the land is defiled), 'lest the land vomit you out also when you defile it, as it vomited out the nations that [were] before you.

If the nation itself allows it, then the people will be vomited.

As you can see, the punishment from God is for their own wrong deeds.

 

[tessiewebb]

I can't see anything you say matching in Scriptures.

(Num 35:33) 'So you shall not pollute the land where you [are;] for blood defiles the land, and no atonement can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it.

In OT times, before Christ came as an atonement, there was no atonement for crimes committed with shedding of blood. The only way to purify the land is to kill the murderer (or death penalty as punishment)

(Lev 18:24-28) ' Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you. 'For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants. 'You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit [any] of these abominations, [either] any of your own nation or any stranger who dwells among you '(for all these abominations the men of the land have done, who [were] before you, and thus the land is defiled), 'lest the land vomit you out also when you defile it, as it vomited out the nations that [were] before you.

If the nation itself allows it, then the people will be vomited.

As you can see, the punishment from God is for their own wrong deeds.

I like your quiet method of reasoning, felix. Calms my rather radical dislike for Islam's useful idiots to a more Christian level!

I did find this article today though and would like to share it here:


August 7, 2006 Islam's Useful Idiots

By Amil Imani
Islam enjoys a large and influential ally among the non—Muslims: A new generation of 'Useful Idiots', the sort of people Lenin identified living in liberal democracies who furthered the work of communism. This new generation of Useful Idiots also lives in liberal democracies, but serves the cause of Islamofascism—another virulent form of totalitarian ideology.


Useful Idiots are naive, foolish, ignorant of facts, unrealistically idealistic, dreamers, willfully in denial or deceptive. They hail from the ranks of the chronically unhappy, the anarchists, the aspiring revolutionaries, the neurotics who are at war with life, the disaffected alienated from government, corporations, and just about any and all institutions of society. The Useful Idiot can be a billionaire, a movie star, an academe of renown, a politician, or from any other segment of the population.


Arguably, the most dangerous variant of the Useful Idiot is the 'Politically Correct.' He is the master practitioner of euphemism, hedging, doubletalk, and outright deception.


The Useful Idiot derives satisfaction from being anti-establishment. He finds perverse gratification in aiding the forces that aim to dismantle an existing order, whatever it may be: an order he neither approves of nor he feels he belongs to..."


The entire article and more that the author wrote can be found at: Archived-Articles: Islam's Useful Idiots

 

[Free]

I don't think the timing of the violence makes one better then the other.

On the contrary, it can show the origins and central beliefs of the religions. A religion based on violence and the total suppression of those who disagree certainly leaves it lacking.

You mean to tell me that Christianity doesn't have the framework for a political and legal system? How many Christians do you know that wouldn't be for a society run by 'biblical principles" and would be more than willing to step in and enforce these new laws?

Christianity as a whole? No. Individual Christians and some groups, certainly. The fact that no Christian has yet stepped in to enforce any "Christian" laws speaks volumes.

Violence goes against Christian belief but not necessarily Islam.

Depends on your point of view I guess.

How so? The center of the gospel is love and forgiveness, which includes loving ones enemies and neighbors. Islam began with violence, continues to sustain itself by suppressing those who disagree with it, and therefore there is no reason to believe it will stop. They say Islam is a religion of peace but there is very little historical evidence to back it up.

That is not to say that terrible things haven't been done in the name of Christ, but clearly those things go against the gospel that Christ taught.

Partly, I would assume you hold "God's word" to be the Bible. Others believe their sacred Scriptures to hold the "word" of their Creator. Seems in most instances someone was out in a desert alone or conveniently misplacing their golden tablets when push comes to shove though.

And in those cases, the Quran and Book of Mormon some to mind, those provide good reasons to reject those as being God's word. Each religions sacred writings need to be looked at and compared to see which one's teachings are the most consistent and coherent, and have the best explanatory power for the way that things are.

 

[Sinthesis]

...The Useful Idiot derives satisfaction from being anti-establishment. He finds perverse gratification in aiding the forces that aim to dismantle an existing order, whatever it may be: an order he neither approves of nor he feels he belongs to..."

I find it peculiar that someone would describe the tea party in an article about Islam?:yes

 

[tessiewebb]

I find it peculiar that someone would describe the tea party in an article about Islam?:yes

Apparently you didn't note that the author of this article is a converted Muslim? Who does not fixate on US political movements? The sniper type of poster is rarely truly involved in anything but taking potshots at the posters who put some thought and work into their posts. Yes, I'm saying you are an off the cuff commentator and I am referring to myself as well as to others on this forum as those who put some thought and work into their posts.

 

[Sinthesis]

Apparently you didn't note that the author of this article is a converted Muslim? Who does not fixate on US political movements? The sniper type of poster is rarely truly involved in anything but taking potshots at the posters who put some thought and work into their posts. Yes, I'm saying you are an off the cuff commentator and I am referring to myself as well as to others on this forum as those who put some thought and work into their posts.

Apparently drawing a parallel between the reactionary anger of the Tea Party and the self righteousness of liberal Utopians has struck a nerve. That's OK.
Radical dislike indeed. Well... I sure feel like a useless idiot.:silly

The point is that, left to our own devices, we as Christians (even Tea Party'ers) are still prey to the same human faults we are so quick to attribute to our adversaries. Thus throughout history self identified Christians have at times acted no better than, say, Muslims; and non-Christians love to point this out. It is the Holy Spirit which enables us as Christians to resist the fleshly urge to rage against the machine. Rather we engage the machine with the love and respect Christ showed us. Contrast that strategy with the rage of Islam, which is contrary to the meekness which wills out in the end.

 

[seekandlisten]

I can't see anything you say matching in Scriptures.

(Num 35:33) 'So you shall not pollute the land where you [are;] for blood defiles the land, and no atonement can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it.

I think we may be looking at this in two different ways. I was just making the point that certain people claiming to be Christians have committed atrocities and have used the Bible to back up their actions. By simply saying that said person is not really a Christian does not negate the fact that they felt compelled by 'God' to act out in violence. You do not accept the statement by moderate muslims that the radical jihadists are not following islam's teachings correctly so what makes that reasoning ok for christians to use but not for muslims?

 

[seekandlisten]

A religion based on violence and the total suppression of those who disagree certainly leaves it lacking.

No disagreement here.

How so? The center of the gospel is love and forgiveness, which includes loving ones enemies and neighbors. Islam began with violence, continues to sustain itself by suppressing those who disagree with it, and therefore there is no reason to believe it will stop. They say Islam is a religion of peace but there is very little historical evidence to back it up.

That is not to say that terrible things haven't been done in the name of Christ, but clearly those things go against the gospel that Christ taught.

More or less what I was getting at is that some view the Bible as promoting violence just as some view the Koran as promoting violence while other say both are peaceful religions in their true form. All a matter of opinion, right?

I have a feeling how one view's church history comes into play here as well for the violence that has clouded Christianity's history. You say violence goes against what Christ taught and I can agree with you. Now when you take that further and say violence isn't a part of Christianity I have to disagree. From the early formings of what is now Christianity, violence has been a part of getting rid of anything that contradicted the 'holy' religion.

Clearly in this day and age the violence aspect of Christianity has disappeared one could say. I could probably make an argument for harmful and separatist beliefs being taught in Christianity today that do harm in their own way even though not a physical act of violence.

And in those cases, the Quran and Book of Mormon some to mind, those provide good reasons to reject those as being God's word. Each religions sacred writings need to be looked at and compared to see which one's teachings are the most consistent and coherent, and have the best explanatory power for the way that things are.

I'm not sure what you are really saying here?

Does the sacred writings have to line up with doctrine already in place?

Does it depend on the message that is contained in it? I've read good things in the Bible, as well as the Bhagavad-Gita, the Diamond Sutra, the Tao Teh Ching to name a few. Would they all contain the 'word of God' or does just the Bible hold that title?

I would say the link with the 'word of God' to violence, whether it be the Koran or the Bible, would be in how far one takes it to towards being the literal spoken word of 'God'.

 

[Mike]

S&L, it has been quite a long time. I hope you are well.

True enough, Christendom has some dark eras in its past. We will say these were misplaced motives, by misplaced people, using misplaced tactics. Those opposed will say "bleh! You're excusing your own religion while condemning others." I can see that argument, but I disagree.

In taking the two faiths as a whole, I see Islam as always having been about "conquest". From the very beginning right through modern day, this has been a violent religion built on conquest achieved through violence, IMO. I'm not saying all Muslims are driven by violence or conquest. Some might have found this to be a peaceful expression of faith. But as a whole, Islam is what it is. It's a political power structure that uses it's means to achieve its end - the total annihilation of all who oppose it.

When was the last time anyone has heard of more than a tiny sect of Christianity using violence and claiming justification for it? Usually, it's one or a few people who are then openly criticized by the Church. Strewn throughout Islam are the underpinnings of violence, and even those who are critical of their tactics from within their faith need to be anonymous or find protection from the backlash that is feared. They fear their own Muslims executing revenge for condemning their atrocities.

Christians don't have to live in fear for their lives when they voice opposition to violence against innocent people, because the vast majority of Christians are in agreement with them. And we are not a power structure that can strike fear in the hearts of men.

 

[felix]

I think we may be looking at this in two different ways. I was just making the point that certain people claiming to be Christians have committed atrocities and have used the Bible to back up their actions. By simply saying that said person is not really a Christian does not negate the fact that they felt compelled by 'God' to act out in violence. You do not accept the statement by moderate muslims that the radical jihadists are not following islam's teachings correctly so what makes that reasoning ok for christians to use but not for muslims?

Scripture itself says they will do that and kill the 'true' Christians.

(John 16:2) "They will put you out of the synagogues; yes, the time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he offers God service.

 

[tessiewebb]

S&L, it has been quite a long time. I hope you are well.

True enough, Christendom has some dark eras in its past. We will say these were misplaced motives, by misplaced people, using misplaced tactics. Those opposed will say "bleh! You're excusing your own religion while condemning others." I can see that argument, but I disagree.

In taking the two faiths as a whole, I see Islam as always having been about "conquest". From the very beginning right through modern day, this has been a violent religion built on conquest achieved through violence, IMO. I'm not saying all Muslims are driven by violence or conquest. Some might have found this to be a peaceful expression of faith. But as a whole, Islam is what it is. It's a political power structure that uses it's means to achieve its end - the total annihilation of all who oppose it.

When was the last time anyone has heard of more than a tiny sect of Christianity using violence and claiming justification for it? Usually, it's one or a few people who are then openly criticized by the Church. Strewn throughout Islam are the underpinnings of violence, and even those who are critical of their tactics from within their faith need to be anonymous or find protection from the backlash that is feared. They fear their own Muslims executing revenge for condemning their atrocities.

Christians don't have to live in fear for their lives when they voice opposition to violence against innocent people, because the vast majority of Christians are in agreement with them. And we are not a power structure that can strike fear in the hearts of men.

Thanks for this post, Mike. I want to make a point, not disagree with what you've posted: It is really not material if "Christians" have committed heinous acts. That is not the point of argument between Christianity and Islam. The bone of contention is rather that you cannot mix the two into some mishmash like the Chris-lam thing going around just now. You made a very valid point with this and other statements in your post:

But as a whole, Islam is what it is. It's a political power structure that uses it's means to achieve its end - the total annihilation of all who oppose it.

That is the extreme difference between Christianity which is all about getting everyone to realize the way to reconciliation with God is through Jesus Christ, and, as Paul put it, Him crucified and Islam which is about killing off any opposition. It has been well publicized that the Islam extremists have made grand statements that they will not negotiate or give up until all non-Muslims are either dead or converted.And that goes for their own as well, since any Muslim who converts will have a hit out on them quickly.Any one that cannot see this vast difference would have to be bending over backwards to make concessions and therefore can be included in the Islam's useful idiots category. Why is it that 'they' can make horrible statements about their intents and we sit around calmly analyzing the content of their public statements? Christians have been passive so long it has come to be looked upon as the "righteous" attitude. In the meantime, their plotting goes on, and Christians debate whether it is Christlike to take a stand against their insidious plans!! God preserve us! And yes, I'm talking about the ones who post on forums as if they are unaware of what the Koran says and what their "jihadists" are planning and saying.

 

[seekandlisten]

S&L, it has been quite a long time. I hope you are well.

It has been a while. All is well here and I hope your doing good these days.

True enough, Christendom has some dark eras in its past. We will say these were misplaced motives, by misplaced people, using misplaced tactics. Those opposed will say "bleh! You're excusing your own religion while condemning others." I can see that argument, but I disagree.

We're all free to our opinions.

In taking the two faiths as a whole, I see Islam as always having been about "conquest". From the very beginning right through modern day, this has been a violent religion built on conquest achieved through violence, IMO. I'm not saying all Muslims are driven by violence or conquest. Some might have found this to be a peaceful expression of faith. But as a whole, Islam is what it is. It's a political power structure that uses it's means to achieve its end - the total annihilation of all who oppose it.

I think you may be stating the muslim extremists point of view here as there are many who, like you, follow their religion peacefully.

When was the last time anyone has heard of more than a tiny sect of Christianity using violence and claiming justification for it?

True enough the extremists are a minority of the whole, but then again, of the the 2 billion muslims in the world, how many of them are on a conquest to destroy all who oppose?

 

[jasoncran]

seek and listen. have you ever lived in a truly muslim nation? when i was in afghanistan, and i treated all locals as people. i hid the fact that i am a jew. they tend to hate them.

to this day, they dont know that i am a jew.its funny they hate isreal and yet isreal allows islam to practiced within her borders. they do require some reasonable changes, as i'm sure you wouldnt want sharia law to fully enforced and have girls not able to read or drive.

 

[tessiewebb]

Ok. Here's what i believe about Islam. Ishmael was put out of Abrahams camp. As the older son he was entitled to the birthright but Isaac got it instead. Ishmael harbored a deep anger and resentment about this which festered through the generations until mohammed came along and decided to reclaim the birthright. He invented Islam as a copy of the Torah and the Scriptures but to suit his agenda.
The ultimate goal of Islam is to subjugate Judaism and Christianity. To re-assert the birthright.

Great point, walter. I've thought it before and even said it to those I fellowship with but it is great to hear it come from another source too!