Tuesday, June 11, 2019
A big difference between Christianity and Islam
There are some big differences between Islam and Christianity. A big one has to do with what happens when someone is caught in adultery.
Muhammad approved of the stoning of an adulteress (after she bore and weaned her child), but
Jesus required that the one to cast the first stone had to be without sin and ref used to cast it
himself .
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Islam and Christianity are both so absurd that it would be hard to say which one is more absurd.
But they are not equally dangerous. The reason is simple and plain to see for anybody who is thinking at all clearly.
The textual representations of Muhammad as compared to Christ. This is not complicated. The texts of Islam tell of a genocidal warlord who murdered, tortured, committed mass murder, rape, child marriage, polygamy and enslavement. Muhammad implemented death penalties for adultery, homosexuality, and apostasy. This is the man the texts of Islam say to emulate, hence global Jihad.
The textual representations of Christ are of a man who said to love your enemy, give the thief your coat too, do not resist authority, pay your taxes, do not stone adulterers, do not take up arms.
In the words of one sage youtuber "Islamophobia? Nah, I got a blowed up phobia"
I know this is obvious, but the Big Difference between Christianity and Islam is the same as the difference between Christianity and any other religion - Christ. All other differences are as nothing compared to this. They are matters of mere discipline or custom, but do not get to the heart of things.
Catholics used to not eat meat on Fridays. Now they do. But they're still Catholics. Anglicans used to have an all male clergy. Now there are female ministers and even bishops. But they're still Anglicans. Many English speaking Protestants used to regard the KJV as the only legitimate and authoritative translation of Scripture. Now they accept (and even prefer) many newer translations. But they're still Protestants.
The common thread that binds them all is Christ, as understood in the (Apostles' and Nicene) Creeds.
Victor's example of the punishment for adultery is not really a difference in religion, but one of culture.
"Victor's example of the punishment for adultery is not really a difference in religion, but one of culture."
No, Muhammad instructed that adulterers be killed. Christ stood between the mob and the adulterer.
What drives so many people to deny that Islam says what Islam says when it is clearly written in the texts and in Islamic countries those texts are put into law?
Are you afraid of being branded a bigot? Do you have some preconceived notion that all religions are equally benign? What?
StardustyPsyche said...
Are you afraid of being branded a bigot? Do you have some preconceived notion that all religions are equally benign? What?
Why don't you understand the difference being being branded a bigot and being a bigot?
"Why don't you understand the difference being being branded a bigot and being a bigot?"
It's called projection. As we used to say in elementary school, "It takes one to know one!"
I think this reflects the inmost kernel of Christianity, which is the triumph of love over cold, technocratic justice, in the form of forgiveness.
The story of the woman taken in adultery is missing in the earliest manuscripts, as far as i know, and yet it encapsulates the message of forgiveness beautifully. It may yet be the most popular story found in the gospels.
@hopper
"It's called projection. As we used to say in elementary school, "It takes one to know one!""
So, you have to be a rapist to recognize a rapist.
You have to be a murderer to identify a murderer.
You have to enslave human beings to know who is an enslaver.
In this respect at least it is plain your thinking has not advanced beyond the elementary school level of playground retort.
@One
"Why don't you understand the difference being being branded a bigot and being a bigot?"
Oh, that's easy, being a bigot takes many forms, for example, white supremacist, Black Lies Matter, Islamofacism, male chauvinism, Japanese conquest, and many more.
Being branded a bigot is what happens when one honestly states uncomfortable facts that wishful thinkers cannot or will not mentally process so they blurt out idiotic terms like "Islamophobic".
Oberlin College is finding out the difference. And I hope plenty of others find out the difference, too.
What is Oberlin College learning? I googled "oberlin college islam" and found nothing obviously relevant to this discussion - unless it has something to do with them cancelling a class called "The Spirituality of Islam". But the article did not list any reasons. So I'm in the dark here.
Starhopper,
Sorry, I was referring to One Brow's comment, the difference between being a bigot and being branded a bigot. To the tune of several million dollars, the college is learning the difference.
Far as Islam and Christianity goes, a true comparison would be apples and apples - the behavior of Western Christians and Muslims vs the behavior of Middle Eastern Christians and Muslims vs the behavior of Southeast Asian Christians and Muslims. Then see if any differences in brhavior can be attributed to primarily cultural values or religious beliefs.
StardustyPsyche said...
Being branded a bigot is what happens when one honestly states uncomfortable facts that wishful thinkers cannot or will not mentally process...
Says pretty much every bigot, ever.
I think the most telling quality of a true bigot is his tendency to value generalities over concrete example. For instance, a true Islamophobe will lump all Muslims together and label them evil, terroristic, violent, anti-Western, etc., etc. That person is a bigot.
But a person can well have a complete disdain for Islam itself yet not be a bigot, as long as he recognizes that there are good and honorable Muslims (millions upon millions of them), just as there are good and honorable Christians (or whatever).
The actual human being that you see and get to know is far more real than some purely theoretical construct that supposedly characterizes multitudes. Bigotry thrives on ignoring the actuality right in front of one's face.
And as for Islam's holy texts mandating violence, so what? There are passages in the Bible that are truly blood curdling, if you read them with a wooden literalness, devoid of cultural or literary context. And as history has shown, all too many Christians have done exactly that over the centuries.
"And as for Islam's holy texts mandating violence, so what? "
Because people read and follow texts, not all people, maybe not most people, but many hundreds of millions turn to reading their texts to guide their behavior.
"There are passages in the Bible that are truly blood curdling"
Yes, which makes the OT even more diabolical than the Quran and Hadith.
If you are a Palestinian living in occupied territories those Jewish texts are an existential threat. A very large number of Jews firmly believe the lands they take today were granted to them by god some 3400 years ago. And given the instructions of methods contained in the Jewish books many Jews feel god has given them license to use deadly force to take those lands for the modern state of Israel.
Texts matter.
Fortunately for the rest of the world the Jewish license to genocide is geographically very limited, with every indication being once the Jews have stolen back all the land their ancestors had originally stolen they will be content to expand their genocidal conquest dreams no further.
" And as history has shown, all too many Christians have done exactly that over the centuries."
There is nothing Jesus said or did that would incite war or conquest. Those who purport to use Jesus to justify violent conquest are just taking advantage of largely illiterate and gullible masses.
Here we are, 18 years after 9/11, after ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, and all the rest, yet still, Christians and liberals are still engaged in this self flagellating blindness regarding the core violence and debauchery of the life of Muhammad, and how emulating Muhammad is the root of Islamic violence.
There are unquestionably many interfaith differences between Christianity and Islam - differences of supremely critical importance. Yet they pale in significance before the intrafaith differences within the two religions between those who desire nothing greater than peace and harmony between the faiths, and those who (consciously or unconsciously) desire a ratcheting up of the tensions and hostilities between Christendom and Islam, and would gladly see all out war between them.
"interfaith differences between Christianity and Islam"
Right, Muhammad is a documented warlord who used robbery, torture, and perpetrated genocidal conquest. Muhammad raped the wives and sisters of the men he killed, one of his rape victims murdered Muhammad with poison in revenge for the murders and rapes Muhammad perpetrated. Muhammad enslaved free people and levied taxes on those he did not kill in his wars of conquest. Muhammad levied punishments of death for homosexuality, adultery, and simply leaving Islam.
It is written that the best Muslim man will seek to emulate Muhammad.
Jesus is documented to walk around preaching to people, telling them stories with moral lessons to be learned typically all about love even for ones enemy. He detested money so much that he collected none for himself, never stole any money, never taxed anybody, got rid of money changers in the temple, and said it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to heaven.
Jesus never picked up weapons and never armed himself, nor did his apostles arm themselves, nor would Jesus allow his followers to interfere in his arrest. When a crowd sought to stone an adulterer Jesus stood between them and shamed them into not stoning. Jesus never raped or killed anybody, not did he ever send one of his followers to do so.
It requires a special sort of blindness to fail to see the contrasts between Muhammad and Jesus as they are portrayed in their own holy books.
Somehow, these differences are thought to be irrelevant. How many buildings have to get blown up, how many girls have to be kidnapped and raped, how many bombs, how many shootings, how many enslavements, all in the name of Muhammad, does one require to draw the association between the call to emulate Muhammad and the extreme violence of those who say they are emulating Muhammad and the stories of how Muhammad lived found in the Quran and Hadith?
An atheist is defending the Bible over the Quran and Jesus over Muhammad, and a Christian is countering saying the Bible also has bad things in it so criticizing the Quran is misguided.
Bizarro world indeed.
Legion,
You're not representing me totally accurately. I criticize the Koran all the time - even to Muslims - as false, as a human construct void of divine inspiration, as a perversion of the narratives in the Old and New Testaments. But I would no more criticise it as a guide to good behavior than I would the Book of Mormon (which I regard as sheer lunacy). People make of texts what they wish to. (Read Matthew 15:10-11. A pure heart will find only pure things in Scripture, whilst an evil heart will find evil.) It is the Person of Jesus Christ Who makes all the difference in our lives, not what is written about Him.
Legion of Logic said...
Bizarro world indeed.
Hate makes for strange bedfellows.
Occam's razor shaves the multierse
Post a Comment