David Lynn Arrested

[Uncharted]

You already put a lot of work into this post, I hope your further effort pays off somewhat better. I certainly would have been easier to leave off after your first sentence or so, and counseled patience while you dug out what others have spenttheir lives finding.

If as you say the Hadith's and Sharia (not to mention the etc.) are to be considered as "the scriptures of Islam" shouldn't we be considering the Apocrypha and the Old Testament as Christian scriptures. All three of my Bibles have the earlier testament that recounts the Prophets who foretold the Messiah, and the laws He talked about. Catholic Bibles are often printed complete with both the Old and with the Apocrypha. Not that we want to distinguish Prod and Papist strains of Christianity, but Islam likewise has had its share of schisms and rival scriptural authorities.

Surely if the history of religions has any one thing we should learn from our study, it is the gravely dangerous consequence of saying this and only this is the One True Word. Good luck, I doubt you'll find that certainty.

Islam my have their schisms, but they do not have rival scriptural authorities.
The Binding force of Islam is the Prophet Mohammad. As he is considered the mouth of Allah, and to question his word is to question that of Allah himself.
As such, whenever a line in scripture, regardless of the scriptural source, is attributed to the Prophet Mohammad it is beyond question. And there is nothing else in any other Islamic scripture that contradicts this basic edict.
Mohammad made sure of that when he created the religion.

So when such scripture attributed to the Prophet himself says bluntly to kill a person, That is the word of Allah. And it is not open to interpretation.
Now, some Muslim schisms may choose to directly ignore that edict from Allah, but they are knowingly abandoning a part of their religious teachings.

The Christian religion differs in the fact that the Christian prophet Jesus, who is generally agreed upon to speak for their God, directly contradicts the more violent and aggressive scriptures attributed to their God in the Old Testament.
Further The Prophet Jesus was never attributed to ordering death and punishment from his followers.

The Old Testament is included as a matter of context, as it established the history and the basic theological creation of the one God concept that they still agreed upon. After all, they were Jews to begin with.

But the fact that the Prophet Jesus was given the authority of their God himself, he could effectively overrule any aspect of the Old Testament. Which was done extensively.
And all this overruling was mostly centered in putting a more pacifistic spin on the more violent and intolerant aspects of it.

Something that is long overdue in the Islamic Religion.

 

[Uncharted]

Again, noble effort. They may be orders to the faithful, but they are not the words of God or even of His Prophet, only second-hand versions from various respected followers, and first written 200yr after Mohammmad (because he forbade it). Disputed to this day by different Islamic sects. Stoning was not even mentioned in the actual Quran.

It's hardly a fair comparison to cast such a wide net in Islamic writings but restrict the examination of Christian ones to the New Testament and nothing but. The Torah is the legal counterpart the Old testament as Sharia law is to the Quran, and it also prescribes stoning for homosexual acts (and for quite a few others). Which is why St. Paul and St. Stephen were stoned for their preaching about their false god Jesus.

Whatever the texts, whatever the faith, the evils are accomplished by people who read them to find the authority for what they want to do, and have determined to do, texts or no.

Actually, the specific Hadith collection these quotes are found in is considered canonical, and the one is attributed to the Prophet Mohammad himself, and by the dictates of the Islamic faith, if it is attributed to the Prophet Mohammad saying it, then it is beyond question that he did.

So it isn't really debatable in Islam if he did say it or not. What some sects debate is how relevant such quotes are to today's world.
But make no mistake, based on sheer number of Muslim countries that do actively practice such punishment in accordance with these quotes, the overall number of Muslims that question its applicability today, is not the majority of Muslims.

Indeed it is people who perpetrate all evil in the world, as evil doesn't just happen itself.
But the evil of man is far more easily spread when there are words and language instructing men to commit those evils.
If that wasn't the case, why would we need hate speech laws.

There is simply more documented blunt instruction of evil that has not been contradicted in the Islamic religion, than there is in the Christian religion.
If you don't believe that, just study the two religions like I have. Theology and world religions is something of a hobby of mine. You can borrow my Quran if you want.

 

[oldjones]

Islam my have their schisms, but they do not have rival scriptural authorities.
The Binding force of Islam is the Prophet Mohammad. As he is considered the mouth of Allah, and to question his word is to question that of Allah himself.
As such, whenever a line in scripture, regardless of the scriptural source, is attributed to the Prophet Mohammad it is beyond question. And there is nothing else in any other Islamic scripture that contradicts this basic edict.
Mohammad made sure of that when he created the religion.

So when such scripture attributed to the Prophet himself says bluntly to kill a person, That is the word of Allah. And it is not open to interpretation.
Now, some Muslim schisms may choose to directly ignore that edict from Allah, but they are knowingly abandoning a part of their religious teachings.

The Christian religion differs in the fact that the Christian prophet Jesus, who is generally agreed upon to speak for their God, directly contradicts the more violent and aggressive scriptures attributed to their God in the Old Testament.
Further The Prophet Jesus was never attributed to ordering death and punishment from his followers.

The Old Testament is included as a matter of context, as it established the history and the basic theological creation of the one God concept that they still agreed upon. After all, they were Jews to begin with.

But the fact that the Prophet Jesus was given the authority of their God himself, he could effectively overrule any aspect of the Old Testament. Which was done extensively.
And all this overruling was mostly centered in putting a more pacifistic spin on the more violent and intolerant aspects of it.

Something that is long overdue in the Islamic Religion.

Except you cited not the Quran, but a couple of hadiths, which are not the word of Allah, but the unwritten sayings of his Prophet reported second-hand, firsts written down 200 year after Mohammad's death, and of which there is no single authoritative text. The Quran was given by Allah to His Prophet and written down directly. It is the only text that is the Word of Alllah.

In the Christian religion, Jesus is the Son of God, an equal aspect of the Trinity with the Father and the Spirit. He is most certainly no mere prophet. He is God the Son, and as such He could not overrule Himself. He was delivering a new version of His eternal message of love for his Chosen people, those who have chosen Him. I trust that description you used comes from someone outside the faith. Or from a non-trinitarian sect of it.

The various accounts of his life and teachings — which often disagree with each other — were all written decades and more after his death. The Gospel writers whose names are attached likely did not write more than parts of any of them. All the books show style changes that indicate several authors, even in the original Greek.

While the Quran is in the language of the man who received it whole, even that original Greek was not the language of the teachings of Jesus, nor of the disciples who 'wrote' the Gospels, although it was the language of Paul and the much later Evangelists, so although the overall great message of Jesus may shine through, we cannot take as gospel, any of the details that we read in the murk of the many many translations since.

I think if you put equal effort into researching contemporary Islamic thought you would find quite a few writers "putting a more pacifistic spin on the more violent and intolerant aspects of it". But in the East, as in the supposedly Christian West, these days the votes, voices and energy are collecting in the regressive, less thoughtful, more frightened and instinctual parts of the body politic.

"There are some very fine people there", so we're told. CovfeFe!

 

[oldjones]

Actually, the specific Hadith collection these quotes are found in is considered canonical, and the one is attributed to the Prophet Mohammad himself, and by the dictates of the Islamic faith, if it is attributed to the Prophet Mohammad saying it, then it is beyond question that he did.

So it isn't really debatable in Islam if he did say it or not. What some sects debate is how relevant such quotes are to today's world.
But make no mistake, based on sheer number of Muslim countries that do actively practice such punishment in accordance with these quotes, the overall number of Muslims that question its applicability today, is not the majority of Muslims.

Indeed it is people who perpetrate all evil in the world, as evil doesn't just happen itself.
But the evil of man is far more easily spread when there are words and language instructing men to commit those evils.
If that wasn't the case, why would we need hate speech laws.

There is simply more documented blunt instruction of evil that has not been contradicted in the Islamic religion, than there is in the Christian religion.
If you don't believe that, just study the two religions like I have. Theology and world religions is something of a hobby of mine. You can borrow my Quran if you want.

Thanks, I've had my own since we spelled it the Holy Koran.

Islam has no authoritative clergy in the Western sense and is divided among many sects that hate and despise each other with all the fervour of the slaughters of the long-ago Christian Reformation and of today's bloody Irish Troubles. All the hadiths, in all their varying versions are presented as sayings of Mohammad. So who besides you declared that particular un-named version of Mohammad's wise sayings 'canonical'? There's not even such a thing as one canonical Christian Bible, or New Testament. I will give you the revised claim that the collected words would be his, rather than Allah's. However it remains entirely debatable which words are accepted. One sect says this bunch of sayings is, another sect says, "Nope. These are his true sayings". Then they start to kill each other. Just like Christians.

Your statement about the majority of Muslims going by the worst of their faith or ignoring it, applies equally to the majority of Christians. And for all your effort, you've found no 'Kill Fags' reference in the Quran, and only a couple in the sayings of the Prophet. The sayings of the prophets in the Bible are at least that numerous.

Although I have no inkling how you studied them, I studied both those religions in University and did quite nicely on both exams, since you asked.

 

[Uncharted]

Except you cited not the Quran, but a couple of hadiths, which are not the word of Allah, but the unwritten sayings of his Prophet reported second-hand, firsts written down 200 year after Mohammad's death, and of which there is no single authoritative text. The Quran was given by Allah to His Prophet and written down directly. It is the only text that is the Word of Alllah.

In the Christian religion, Jesus is the Son of God, an equal aspect of the Trinity with the Father and the Spirit. He is most certainly no mere prophet. He is God the Son, and as such He could not overrule Himself. He was delivering a new version of His eternal message of love for his Chosen people, those who have chosen Him. I trust that description you used comes from someone outside the faith. Or from a non-trinitarian sect of it.

The various accounts of his life and teachings — which often disagree with each other — were all written decades and more after his death. The Gospel writers whose names are attached likely did not write more than parts of any of them. All the books show style changes that indicate several authors, even in the original Greek.

While the Quran is in the language of the man who received it whole, even that original Greek was not the language of the teachings of Jesus, nor of the disciples who 'wrote' the Gospels, although it was the language of Paul and the much later Evangelists, so although the overall great message of Jesus may shine through, we cannot take as gospel, any of the details that we read in the murk of the many many translations since.

I think if you put equal effort into researching contemporary Islamic thought you would find quite a few writers "putting a more pacifistic spin on the more violent and intolerant aspects of it". But in the East, as in the supposedly Christian West, these days the votes, voices and energy are collecting in the regressive, less thoughtful, more frightened and instinctual parts of the body politic.

"There are some very fine people there", so we're told.

You and I, whom study religions from a detached, academic viewpoint, may find fault with the validity of the Hadiths , but that is not the case in the faith of Islam. Because of the way Mohammad structured the religion, his words, be they written or spoken, are beyond question, as decreed by Allah himself. Therefore if such is attributed to him speaking them, then it is not questioned if he did or didn't.
That was the genius of Mohammad's religious structuring. One would expect no less from a warlord.

And yes, the story of the New Testament has been diluted, anyone who has studied Christianity knows that. The Catholic religion added so much shit that was so obviously politically motivated that it is laughable. Before that various translators and kings used it for everything else. Adding things to effect population control right down to public health. None of them having anything to do with the supposed philosophical underpinnings. Like a Bill going through congress. But those changes and dilutions still haven't resulted in any passage anywhere that attributes Jesus ordering his faithful to kill and punish.

Which is the key. Because underneath all the bullshit, the pacifistic philosophy has either remained intact over the last 2000 years. Or Jesus was actually an asshole who wanted everyone dead, and that philosophy was rewritten to one of pacifism over the centuries. We'll never really know because no one wrote anything down at the time it was all said to have happened.

There may be some writers in Islam who may want to put a more pacifistic spin on it's scriptures, but they are forbidden from doing so, as the supposed integrity of the documented word of the Islamic scriptures is paramount in the religion. No one is allowed to alter them, if they do it is considered Apostasy, and punishable by death. Which makes such revolutionary people hard to find, and even more difficult to give voice to.
Such Integrity of the documented scriptures is a source of great pride within the religion itself. Even though modern scholars and researchers have found mounting evidence that these scriptures, including the Quran, have indeed been rewritten and changed over the early centuries of their existence.
These scholars were not Muslim of course, and these findings have been widely denounced by the Islamic Faith at large.

As for your last statement of Western energy collecting in the more regressive part of the population. That is purely a subjective statement. As Personal Responsibility, Maintaining our Rights of Freedom of Expression, Economic Common Sense, Fair Trade Practices, and the Sovereignty of ones Boarders is hardly regressive. And these things are what is drawing the lion's share of the population's energies to a particular political point. This has been proven by countless Conservative Governments in Canada being in power and repeatedly demonstrating that they do not wish to re-visit Issues like Gay Marriage, Abortion, etc.
One can be for Gay Rights and Freedom of Expression all at the same time.

But I digress.
In short you asked for quotes from Islamic Scripture that showed encouragement of death to Homosexuals.
I provided such.

 

[oldjones]

You and I, whom study religions from a detached, academic viewpoint, may find fault with the validity of the Hadiths , but that is not the case in the faith of Islam. Because of the way Mohammad structured the religion, his words, be they written or spoken, are beyond question, as decreed by Allah himself. Therefore if such is attributed to him speaking them, then it is not questioned if he did or didn't.
That was the genius of Mohammad's religious structuring. One would expect no less from a warlord.

And yes, the story of the New Testament has been diluted, anyone who has studied Christianity knows that. The Catholic religion added so much shit that was so obviously politically motivated that it is laughable. Before that various translators and kings used it for everything else. Adding things to effect population control right down to public health. None of them having anything to do with the supposed philosophical underpinnings. Like a Bill going through congress. But those changes and dilutions still haven't resulted in any passage anywhere that attributes Jesus ordering his faithful to kill and punish.

Which is the key. Because underneath all the bullshit, the pacifistic philosophy has either remained intact over the last 2000 years. Or Jesus was actually an asshole who wanted everyone dead, and that philosophy was rewritten to one of pacifism over the centuries. We'll never really know because no one wrote anything down at the time it was all said to have happened.

There may be some writers in Islam who may want to put a more pacifistic spin on it's scriptures, but they are forbidden from doing so, as the supposed integrity of the documented word of the Islamic scriptures is paramount in the religion. No one is allowed to alter them, if they do it is considered Apostasy, and punishable by death. Which makes such revolutionary people hard to find, and even more difficult to give voice to.
Such Integrity of the documented scriptures is a source of great pride within the religion itself. Even though modern scholars and researchers have found mounting evidence that these scriptures, including the Quran, have indeed been rewritten and changed over the early centuries of their existence.
These scholars were not Muslim of course, and these findings have been widely denounced by the Islamic Faith at large.

As for your last statement of Western energy collecting in the more regressive part of the population. That is purely a subjective statement. As Personal Responsibility, Maintaining our Rights of Freedom of Expression, Economic Common Sense, Fair Trade Practices, and the Sovereignty of ones Boarders is hardly regressive. And these things are what is drawing the lion's share of the population's energies to a particular political point. This has been proven by countless Conservative Governments in Canada being in power and repeatedly demonstrating that they do not wish to re-visit Issues like Gay Marriage, Abortion, etc.
One can be for Gay Rights and Freedom of Expression all at the same time.

But I digress.
In short you asked for quotes from Islamic Scripture that showed encouragement of death to Homosexuals.
I provided such.

Indeed. As expressions of the essence of Islam on the topic they seem as authoritative as the ones I mentioned from the Bible and Torah are in expressing the essence of Christianity on the same topic. And the counts are roughly equal. Most people, believers or not, don't care about such pin head stuff and just as their their friends and neighbours do. These days, over here and over their, it's the bloodthirsty and regressive who have the megaphones.

Countless Conservative Governments in Canada …do not wish to re-visit Issues like Gay Marriage, Abortion, etc.

Countless?, Gay Marriage, 2003: that'd be one Tory government, Abortion, 1969, four counting Kim Campbell, and Harper a second time

Ten Provinces and two Territories would max out at 120 some (assuming no other parties ever got elected) plus 4 Federal. But I digress.

And you exaggerated.

 

[Uncharted]

Indeed. As expressions of the essence of Islam on the topic they are as authoritative as the ones I mentioned from the Bible and Torah are in expressing the essence of Christianity on the same topic. And the counts are roughly equal.
Countless?, Gay Marriage, 2003: that'd be one Tory government, Abortion, 1969, four counting Kim Campbell, and Harper a second time

Ten Provinces and two Territories would max out at 120 some (assuming no other parties ever got elected) plus 4 Federal. But I digress.

And you exaggerated.

Actually the Preferred spelling by Arabic and Islamic Scholars is Qur'an. In Western Cultures it has been phonetically spelled Koran as an approximate Arabic translation, although according to actual Arabs, the use of the letters Qu more closely resembles the sound in the Arabic Language. Which is why now Western Media, as well as myself, tends to spell it Quran, as the use of the apostrophe tends to confuse Western readers. But I'm sure you knew that, given that it is spelled Qur'an in every University Exam pertaining to the Study of Islam.

I could go on countering your points, but you know you remind me of a certain someone from the Blue board who thinks he is smarter than 99% of the population, who argues the same way you do.
He too did not hold himself to the same standards he imposes on everyone else in making a point.

He cuts down everything someone says crying for proofs to be shown, while never offering any proof for his own arguments.
Then when proof he actually asked for is delivered, he deviates into tangential arguments that had nothing to do with his original points, in a vain effort to discount the proof that was provided as per his earlier request.

All the while never providing a single shred of proof for the tangential, or original arguments he himself is making. Instead continuing to put the burden back on the other party who has already complied with his request.

He is a Con-man of trolling.
And, me thinks you are cut from the same cloth.

Good day.

 

[oldjones]

Actually the Preferred spelling by Arabic and Islamic Scholars is Qur'an. In Western Cultures it has been phonetically spelled Koran as an approximate Arabic translation, although according to actual Arabs, the use of the letters Qu more closely resembles the sound in the Arabic Language. Which is why now Western Media, as well as myself, tends to spell it Quran, as the use of the apostrophe tends to confuse Western readers. But I'm sure you knew that, given that it is spelled Qur'an in every University Exam pertaining to the Study of Islam.

I could go on countering your points, but you know you remind me of a certain someone from the Blue board who thinks he is smarter than 99% of the population, who argues the same way you do.
He too did not hold himself to the same standards he imposes on everyone else in making a point.

He cuts down everything someone says crying for proofs to be shown, while never offering any proof for his own arguments.
Then when proof he actually asked for is delivered, he deviates into tangential arguments that had nothing to do with his original points, in a vain effort to discount the proof that was provided as per his earlier request.

All the while never providing a single shred of proof for the tangential, or original arguments he himself is making. Instead continuing to put the burden back on the other party who has already complied with his request.

He is a Con-man of trolling.
And, me thinks you are cut from the same cloth.

Good day.

Indeed, as you yourself said, I am aware of that material about Arabic, transliteration, and how we in the West have tried to adapt better over the years. That time-frame is why I mentioned my aged text's now non-PC title in the first place. I am not sure why you covered it all at such length, or why you suggested it was a start on "countering my points". If only you hadn't gone on. What a lot of typing to no effect.

I can't speak at all about the qualities and habits of someone I've never encountered, no matter how lengthy your description. I do marvel why you thought I might be interested enough in your mental processes to care why I remind you of someone unknown, but please don't prolong this by telling me. I'm on this Board, if you have something to say to me.

And good day to you as well.

 

[Darts]

I will give a bit of credit to OJ for at least attempting (unsuccessfully) to present a cogent argument. His liberal lefty comrades immediately fast forward to shouting "racist", "bigot", "Islamophobe", "homophobe", "white supremacist". "white nationalist", "redneck", KKK, Nazi, etc., etc.

Good day to all.

 

[Smallcock]

What about this Baptist? https://thehill.com/homenews/state-...p6TqAh3HTyefcElyR8ePSEsEQYtX7lYB380ru21cVaN7Q

Do you ever get tired of these false equivalences? Does it not strike you as problematic that I could point to entire nations in the Islamic world that hold such repugnant views?

 

[Boss Nass]

First off, I defy anyone to find where in the New Testament, which serves as the official revision to the Bible that all denominations of Christianity are based upon, it states that anyone should kill another in the name of their God.

Well let's ask your buddy Jesus if he revised anything: https://danielmiessler.com/blog/no-jesus-did-not-soften-the-old-testament-in-fact-he-did-the-opposite-and-heres-what-that-means/

 

[TeeJay]

First off, I defy anyone to find where in the New Testament, which serves as the official revision to the Bible that all denominations of Christianity are based upon, it states that anyone should kill another in the name of their God.

There are numerous violent references to times that murder is ok in the New Testament (and way more in the Old)

God lets you kill for some seriously ridiculous things

Since you want some examples; God says it is a-ok to murder a thief (seriously? My material possessions are worth more than a human life???)
Slavery is also cool, even if your master is not good and perverse

And what about the one where Jebus tells people to murder non-believers?

In the book of Luke, Chapter 19 verse 27 Jesus says, “but those enemies of mine who do not want me to reign over them, bring them here, and kill them in front of me.”

 

[wigglee]

Yep. It happens.
Here's the difference though between Christianity and Islam when it comes to a yahoo like this.

The scriptures of the Christian religion do not at all back up this guys ramblings. In fact, they specifically say the opposite.

The scriptures of Islam do back up these kinds of ramblings. In fact they encourage it.

So any Christian who has strong faith, and reads the New Testament, will see that this guy is full of shit.

Any Muslim who has a strong faith and reads the Quran would be lead to believe that this guy is right.

So you are writing off the Old Testament? How convenient for your argument, but the fundamentalist Christian bigots still use Leviticus and others to justify their hatred of gays and the suppression of women

 

[Darts]

God says it is a-ok to murder a thief (seriously? My material possessions are worth more than a human life???)
Slavery is also cool, even if your master is not good and perverse

And what about the one where Jebus tells people to murder non-believers?

In the book of Luke, Chapter 19 verse 27 Jesus says, “but those enemies of mine who do not want me to reign over them, bring them here, and kill them in front of me.”

In 2019 how many or better still how few, if any, people actually act on these verses?

On the other hand.

"The Quran contains at least 109 verses that speak of war with nonbelievers, usually on the basis of their status as non-Muslims. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter." Yes, they are still chopping off heads and murdering infidels in the 21st century.

 

[Smallcock]

So you are writing off the Old Testament? How convenient for your argument, but the fundamentalist Christian bigots still use Leviticus and others to justify their hatred of gays and the suppression of women

What's convenient is your delusion that Christianity in 2019 is in the same universe as Islam in its hatred of gays and suppression of women. What compels you to make such foolish comparisons even when you know they incomparable? Is the libtard noose so tight around your neck that you can't be honest about what you see and know as fact?

 

[Uncharted]

There are numerous violent references to times that murder is ok in the New Testament (and way more in the Old)

God lets you kill for some seriously ridiculous things

Since you want some examples; God says it is a-ok to murder a thief (seriously? My material possessions are worth more than a human life???)
Slavery is also cool, even if your master is not good and perverse

And what about the one where Jebus tells people to murder non-believers?

In the book of Luke, Chapter 19 verse 27 Jesus says, “but those enemies of mine who do not want me to reign over them, bring them here, and kill them in front of me.”

Wonderfully taken out of context.

Did you know what Jesus was doing when he said that?
No?
Do you know who Jesus was quoting when he said that?
No?

Jesus was relaying a story about a nobleman and his servants, and was quoting what the nobleman said to his servant, as part of relaying the story.
It had nothing to do with Jesus himself. Simple English comprehension skills should have told you that.

Let me give you the entire passage so you can see.

" 11 As they heard these things, he proceeded to tell a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately. 12 He said therefore, “A nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and then return. 13 Calling ten of his servants, he gave them ten minas, and said to them, ‘Engage in business until I come.’ 14 But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man to reign over us.’

15 When he returned, having received the kingdom, he ordered these servants to whom he had given the money to be called to him, that he might know what they had gained by doing business. 16 The first came before him, saying, ‘Lord, your mina has made ten minas more.’ 17 And he said to him, ‘Well done, good servant![c] Because you have been faithful in a very little, you shall have authority over ten cities.’ 18 And the second came, saying, ‘Lord, your mina has made five minas.’ 19 And he said to him, ‘And you are to be over five cities.’ 20 Then another came, saying, ‘Lord, here is your mina, which I kept laid away in a handkerchief; 21 for I was afraid of you, because you are a severe man. You take what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.’

22 He said to him, ‘I will condemn you with your own words, you wicked servant! You knew that I was a severe man, taking what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow? 23 Why then did you not put my money in the bank, and at my coming I might have collected it with interest?’ 24 And he said to those who stood by, ‘Take the mina from him, and give it to the one who has the ten minas.’ 25 And they said to him, ‘Lord, he has ten minas!’ 26 ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 27 But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’” Luke 19:11-27 ESV


I don't have the entirety of the New Testament memorized, so please show me the passage where Jesus said to Murder a thief. The Old Testament is not the meat of Christianity. The New Testament is, and it greatly revises and countermands the violent nature of the Depiction of God and the lessons taught. The Old Testament is actually incorporated into Islam far more than it is incorporated into Christianity.

 

[Uncharted]

So you are writing off the Old Testament? How convenient for your argument, but the fundamentalist Christian bigots still use Leviticus and others to justify their hatred of gays and the suppression of women

Bad people will use anything to justify what they do. They take things out of context, just to make a point.

But an intelligent, faithful, Christian simply has to read the very testament his religion is based upon to see that these fundamentalists are not being Christian.
Muslims can't do that. Because when their fundamentalist leaders kill Gays and apostates. And they read their scriptures and it definitively says to kill gays and apostates, with absolutely nothing else given to contradict that by their profit whom speaks for Allah, the see that these fundamentalists are being Muslim, and not following suit means they are not Muslim.

Islam starts with the Old Testament as well. But unlike Christianity where their envoy of God actively contradicted the violence found in it. Islam's envoy of God actively doubled down on the violence found in it.

 

[Darts]

and not following suit means they are not Muslim.

In Pakistan Ahmadis are not consider Muslims because they are "too peaceful".

 

[Uncharted]

Well let's ask your buddy Jesus if he revised anything: https://danielmiessler.com/blog/no-jesus-did-not-soften-the-old-testament-in-fact-he-did-the-opposite-and-heres-what-that-means/

Nice Link. Full of shit and flawed beyond all logic, but Nice Link.
Did you read it?

This guys entire argument hinges on a Passage that Jesus says about how he is not here to override the laws of God. Which was true.
The passage in the article goes on to show Jesus listing exactly what the Laws of God were that he was talking about, which this author seems to completely ignore, even though he quoted it.
Let me show you the line the article author ignored completely.

“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John7:19)"

What Law from God did Moses give?
You don't have to be a theological scholar to answer this. It should be an easy one for any Charlton Heston fan out there.

The Ten Commandments.
Now, did the Ten Commandments at any point instruct man to punish anyone who violated these commandments?
Think hard.
The answer is no.

As evidenced.

From Exodus
20 And God spoke all these words:

2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

3 “You shall have no other gods before[a] me.

4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

7 “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.

8 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

12 “Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you.

13 “You shall not murder.

14 “You shall not commit adultery.

15 “You shall not steal.

16 “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”


So to summarize, all Jesus was going to uphold was the Ten Commandments Which are basically one of the Softest things in the Old Testament.
Now before you start in with the 2nd Commandment, It was stated that God would punish non believers, and didn't even mention what that punishment would be. Only God. No instruction was given for his followers to do it for him. Unlike in Islam.
So nice try with your article, but the author is a little stupid, as he simply ignored the key Line of the passage he was basing his entire argument on.

 

[TeeJay]

In 2019 how many or better still how few, if any, people actually act on these verses?

On the other hand.

"The Quran contains at least 109 verses that speak of war with nonbelievers, usually on the basis of their status as non-Muslims. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter." Yes, they are still chopping off heads and murdering infidels in the 21st century.

I am totally missing your point
Both the Bible and the many other religious books (eg Quran) say all kinds of stupidity
Anyone who bases their lives off a book written centuries ago is really a tool anyways

But yes in ALL religions there are some people who realize not to blindly follow and there are extremists who think every word is sacrosanct