Why Muslims Behead People (second attempt)

[emprworm]

Well, what you're saying with Point E, is that if a man who claims to be a Christian kills someone, thereby breaking a teaching of Christ, he is no longer Christian, leaving Christianity as a whole totally free from blame. Given that as truth, there are few Christians on the planet.

I don't really see the point, as it were, of the rest of your points - albeit that they are undeniably true, at least from my perspective.

[Apollyon]

Rotfl. I don't believe in souls so why should I judge them?

Anyway --

If an act by a Christian in no way implicates Christianity, then why must this act of execution implicate Islam, or in fact that Islam should implicate the executioners? The fact that the Qu'ran states that infidels should be executed in that manner does not imply, except through hypothesis, that the executioners chose that form based upon their religious texts. There is no evidence of that except for their saying "allah ackbar" -- praise god, which is as much a common phrase as my saying of 'thank God' or 'dear Christ' etc. Are you somehow trying to present Christianity as 'better' than Islam through your 'points'?

[emprworm]

Rotfl. I don't believe in souls so why should I judge them?

Anyway --

If an act by a Christian in no way implicates Christianity, then why must this act of execution implicate Islam, or in fact that Islam should implicate the executioners? The fact that the Qu'ran states that infidels should be executed in that manner does not imply, except through hypothesis, that the executioners chose that form based upon their religious texts. There is no evidence of that except for their saying "allah ackbar" -- praise god, which is as much a common phrase as my saying of 'thank God' or 'dear Christ' etc. Are you somehow trying to present Christianity as 'better' than Islam through your 'points'?

huh?

[Dante]

now that the christophobes have converted this into an anti-christian rant....

It's just so easy to do...

POINT A:

[Apollyon]

huh?

[nemafakei]

"to implicate an entire religion, you cannot cite examples committed by followers"

If you wish to take that line (I'm not arguing either way), then what might it prove about the entire religion that "It is illegal for a homosexual atheist to be "open" about his/herself in numerous areas on earth where Islam is openly practised" (i.e. the intolerant actions of the followers)?

[emprworm]

"Does the Vatican count as a Christian nation? It's certainly a country in its own right and it is lorded over by the Pope... And were people ever stoned by Christians anyway? They seem to have had a knack for thinking up things much more painful..."

I wasn't aware of any painful executions the Vatican is currently carrying out against unbelievers.

[Dante]

The point, oh ye of little understanding, was that Christianity is in no way inherantly better than Islam. Both are murderous, both are violent. It just so happens that one of them has been neutralised while the other one hasn't.

You haven't answered the quotes either. As for the first one, meh. I'm thankful to say that the teachings of intolerant religions is something I gladly remain mostly ignorant of the nuances of.  ;D

I count two rebuttals on my part, several on ACE's part, several on Dust's part, several on Nema's part, one on Edric's part... tell me, when someone says, "I disagree," do you immediately clap your hands to your ears and hum "The Battle Hymn of the Republic"?

[emprworm]

The point, oh ye of little understanding, was that Christianity is in no way inherantly better than Islam. Both are murderous, both are violent.

how is Christianity violent?

[nemafakei]

Anyone in there?

[SurlyPIG]

Christianity is still a religion in which God is the highest power.  The actions of God (Biblical recounts of creation, the flood, the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah etc.) and the word of God (which includes all Biblical verses from both the OT and NT, no?) are supposed to be synonymous with the teachings and the actions of Christ.  Is he not the son of God?  If Christ fulfilled the Hebrew laws of God, do they suddenly expire?  Are they then invalid, and replaced by the new laws of Christ?  Is not Christianity the worship of Christ not as a man, but as the son of God, the mouth of God, and the personification of the will of God.  Assuming all Biblical verses are the word of God (as the writers were inspired by God), and that Jesus is the son of God, synonymous with God, the will of God and all such things, one doesn't need a direct quote from Jesus to talk about true Christianity.

[Dante]

The only thing you got right is your self-professed ignorance.

"is something I gladly remain mostly ignorant of" ...as you said.

I knew you'd say that. In fact I deliberately put it in there so that I could be right about you doing that. You're so predictable.

[SurlyPIG]

*Psychic prediction*

Emprworm will make some distinction about how those aren't really Christian scriptures.

[Dante]

Hey, you got that premonition too?

[Dunenewt]

Jesus was a prophet of Islam as well, but not a son of god in muslim eyes.

[Dude_Doc]

But I still find it strange why muslims believe that Jesus lived around 600 AD, when in fact, he died 570 years before Islam was ever founded. Has anyone any idea?

[emprworm]

If Christ fulfilled the Hebrew laws of God, do they suddenly expire?

[Dante]

Yes, yes, be deliberately obtuse, we've all come to expect it of you by now. As if I needed to point it out again, I am gay and as such I'm hardly likely to go about supporting homophobic murder now am I?

It was (duhhhh) a quote from your beloved christian religion.

acelethal, dan, dustscout...you guys are a sad typification of the rampant christophobic hatemongering so ever present in society.

That's it, when you can't win an argument, revert to the insults. I'm sure it works every time...

You snip a piece of text out of parable, a quote spoken by a fictional character in the fictional story, and try to pose it as a command given by Christ to his disciples.

[emprworm]

but dustscout, earlier you said in your post:

"If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death"

you said this earlier dustscout.  this means you advocate killing gay people.

seems pretty clear to me.

now if you are going to implicate Christianity based upon Jesus quoting what someone else said, then I am going to implicate you based upon you quoting what someone else said.

same bad logic you use, I will turn back on you.

either start thinking objectively and without christophobic intolerance, or be prepared to receive the same fallacies you consistently use at me.....right back at you.

[Dante]

Now see this is why I generally step out of arguments with you. The logic doesn't work, the arguments are weak, the insults are frequent, the stubborn, bull-headed 'I'm right and you're not,' attitude permeates every sentance... I'm going to leave this for now to see what Dan and the others say (if they still have the stomach for it) because frankly talking to you really is like talking to a brick wall. Pointless, annoying, and painful.

[emprworm]

Now see this is why I generally step out of arguments with you. The logic doesn't work,

[SurlyPIG]

Matthew Chapter 5

5:17

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

5:18

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

From this, I conclude that Jesus did not come to replace/invalidate/expire the Old Law.  You'd be hard-pressed to argue otherwise unless you have a strange definition of fulfil.

[emprworm]

From this, I conclude that Jesus did not come to replace/invalidate/expire the Old Law.

[SurlyPIG]

Fulfill:  EXECUTE b : to meet the requirements of (a business order) c : to bring to an end d : to measure up to : SATISFY

Since Christ fufilled (met the obligations of) the Old Testament Law, therefore Christians do not follow the old testament law.

I get that, but if Jesus himself followed the old law, is it appropreate to throw it out the window?  I mean, If Jesus fulfilled, for example, Levithian law to the letter, he would have brought death upon any homosexual he met.  Obviously he either never met a homosexual or he wasn't really following the letter of the law.

If you want to brand your own customized cult version of Christianity, Ace, go ahead.  But the vast, overwhelming number of Christians on this planet do not follow Old Testament Jewish law, and the overwhelming number of Christians on this planet understand that there is no directive whatsoever by Christ to kill anyone.  In fact, even throughout the history of the Catholic church, atrocities were carried out by the minority of "christians".  The overhwelming majority of Christian Europe was impoverished, and most of its citizens did not kill for religious purposes.  Nearly all of the Roman Catholic barbarism was tyrrany of the minority.

I know, killing/oppressing in the name of Christ were the ones in political power who stood to gain financially by doing so.  What I'm saying is that it's the same case of the people killing in the name of Islam.  The only people who truly in their mind kill for Islam are the teenagers brainwashed by their power hungry religious leaders to walk into crowds and blow themselves up.  All the recent instances of attempts at fulfilling Sharia law have never been in response to blasphemy, but things such as adultery (eg Amina Lawal of Nigeria).  None of the Islamic dictatorships execute non-muslims through official means either because they fear an international response or they actually recognize the flaw in applying Islamic law to a non-Muslim.  They still forbid churches, synagogues and temples and outlaw other religions, but not to the point of killing the blasphemous.  I havn't heard of any executions attributable to punishing blasphemy in my lifetime, and certainly not any official ones.

Thanks to Reformed Christians (not atheists, and not secularists), the stranglehold that the minority had over the majority was done away when Martin Luther started translating and copying the Bible for the common folk on the early printing presses (the Catholic church forbade common citizens from posessing Bibles).

Once people began to read the Bible for themselves....and see that indeed Jesus does not advocate violence, the reformation began.  And now, to this day, thanks to other Christians who read the Bible for themselves (not thanks to atheists or secularists), the Catholic church no longer advocates violence as an acceptable means to conversion.

True, but not until the philosophes, the deists, and the secular revolutionaries of France was Church control removed completely.  Not that I'm saying their tyranny was any better...

And religiously motivated executions arguably still took place, as the clergy and the nobility were the ones with judicial (and financial/executive) control.  You could say that modern-day Islam is comparable to post-Martin Luther Christianity.

To say that because some professing Christians murder therfore Christianity is barbaric is to say some atheists murder therefore atheism is barbaric.

As is saying because some Muslims murder, Islam is therefore barbaric.  I''ve read many vile verses in the scripture, but a religion isn't just about the scripture or we wouldn't have so many denominations.

[Edric O]

Let's recap Emprworm's arguments: A religion cannot be condemned for the acts of its followers (or the acts of the people who claim to be its followers); it can only be condemned for the commands given by its god(s).

That is logical, and I agree with it. Notice, however, that it negates Emprworm's points A, B, C and D. You cannot condemn Islam for what certain violent Muslims do - regardless of whether those Muslims are ordinary people or the agents of a theocratic government.

Emprworm's point E still stands, though. And that's why I ask him to show us those Qu'ran verses in context. I'm honestly curious.