Jesus, Moses and Muhammed

[Emperor Harkonnen]

Let's see what did the different founders(or most important persons) of three great religions stand for:

Jesus: Love

Moses: Love

Muhammed: War

heard this on 60 minuttes today. Some guy said that Muhammed was a terrorist, and when I think about it, it does acctually seems as if he is right. Muhammed was a man of war. he spread his religion with fighting and war.

[nampigai]

and christianity was spread with love....?

[Emperor Harkonnen]

at jesus' time, yes.

[Acriku]

Since the accounts of Jesus were decades after he was dead, he could have been a coldhard jackass for all you know. But that's another story.

At Jesus' time, christianity wasn't there. So, how could he spread it with love or hate? He was a normal jew who said he was the messiah (which wasn't rare, it happened quite a bit during his time).

And I wouldn't put too much trust in the dolled-up versions of Moses and Jesus.

[TMA_1]

Mohammed preached love, but war against those who he thought slandored the name of God.

We christians believe that unbelievers are infidels as well, since the word literally means that they fornicate with other Gods, could be from other religions, to simple drug addiction.

We just dont kill them. We did once, but the catholic text is highly mistaken, even adding the apocripha to their canon of scripture. Totally messed up. They did kill and it isnt mentioned to do so in the new testament. Give me a verse.

[TMA_1]

I found these things a long time ago when I read the history of the Jews. It is written by probably the greatest jewish historian of all time and one of the greatest historians in general. His name was Flavius Josephus, he attained the title by building a friendship with two emperors, one was Titus. ;D hehe anyways It is a neat thing, because here are two texts written around the time of christ, which is about christians from a jewish perspective.

This one is a blurb from Josephus' arguments against apion, an egyptian historian and anti semite.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Another blurb from his histories.

2. Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him

Just thought it was neat. A perspective from a jew who was not a christian, and a devout jew at that. also a great historian.

[Acriku]

A great historian? This was a recount decades after Jesus died. A great storyteller, sure.

[Guest Eric E.]

The koran, chapter one:

''Death to all Disbelievers''

I don't see much love in that, TMA

[nemafakei]

Now go and read TMA's whole post, Monk, rather than just the first few words, as you seem to have done. Now post intelligently, or at least post in a manner which implies you've read what people are saying, rather than mentally polarising people according to your categorisations and attacking any category that you place someone in on the basis of your reading of the first few words of their post...

[Hawat]

Since the accounts of Jesus were decades after he was dead, he could have been a coldhard jackass for all you know. But that's another story.

He was a normal jew who said he was the messiah (which wasn't rare, it happened quite a bit during his time).

1. With this attempt you can negate nearly everything that happened before the age of "unlimited Information".

2. When they existed so many charlatans, who claimed to be the messiah, why do you think Jesus was so successful (ok, more or less successful, death on the cross isn't the kind of success one wants to achieve) Because he was just smarter and a little bit more elaborate than his "colleagues"? I think not.

Ok let' say he was just a human. Then he surely must have preached something that was different from the teachings of the other messiah candidates. If they based a whole religion on his teachings he must have touched something that humans were and are willing to believe. I don't think people want to believe a coldhearted jackass...

To Nampigai: Do you really think it was "christianity" that motivated the Crusaders, the Inquisition and all the other scoundrels who acted "in the name of god"? Was it the message of the bible they "spread" with their actions?

[nampigai]

no, however it was in the name of Christ as you say yourself, I don't know if the motivations was to spread the word as much as to kill the infidels.

[TMA_1]

I suggest studying josephus before you call him a story teller. He was by no means a christian, and actually pitied them more than anything else. he was a strong jew though and because of it he had a strong conviction to write a history of his people. He was a highly esteemed general before this, and had extensive education, he then understood the defeat that the jews would go through when in 70 a.d. israelites were to be dispersed. He saw the metaphorical handwriting on the wall and joined with the romans. Citing that it is like every other instance when another nation dispersed the jews, that it was an act of God's wrath. that can be debated, but his credability shouldnt be taken so lightly.

Thanks nema, im really speechless. :)

Eric, I understand why you see it as unloving, but you have to understand that your impression of love is not the impression of cultures throughout the world. your westernized idea of love is different than others. as a matter of fact it does grow similar in certain instances.

If you had something that you loved so dearly, and you held to it like you held to your own family, (most likely even more) you would fight for it. Not only would you fight for it but you would bring the wrath of God on those who literally cheat on God, who are infidels. With no control you would judge them to the full extent.

This is the fundimental difference with christianity and islam/judeism

The ideas of islam and judeism are more corperate and legally binding. This doesnt make it any less or any worse. It is equal in it's ideal. You just have to understand that they fit in more of an ancient setting, where the archaic ideas of fighting for Gods and fulfilling GOd's laws was acceptable. They have more love than you could ever imagine. Many followers of islam pray constantly every day, more than their required three times. They read their sacred book and cleave to God like a baby to their own mother. It is a love that you cant understand, this is why you judge it. We christians have a similar love but the big differences is that the judgement is taken outside of the hands of man and directly in the hands of God. God during the time of the jews gave men power to judge, because God was physically the king of israel, he wasent a figure head, for a while he was the literal ruler of the kingdom. It was a true theocracy. They had to base many judgements on the mind of man because God depended on his subjects he ruled. As I said it was more of a corperate relationship.

Christ taught us not to judge though in the new covenant he made. He taught us that if we judge others for absolutely anything, we will not only be judged by god for the sin of judging, but we will also be judged for the sin we judged against! We cannot kill or maim or do any harmful thing to any other person (theoretically speaking) because we would be judging and that is one of the cardinal sins that God promises to repay imediately. The repayment is never good for the person who commited the sin. So you see that is the difference. Never think though that the people of islam or of judeism are inferior or anything of that sort. They have the same kind of love, but in a different style.

[Emperor Harkonnen]

Ok let's get this clear. this has nothing to do with the spreading of the religion it has to do with the example the individual person which is the most important in that religion gave to the believers of that exact religion. u got that acriku?

[Anathema]

Wow TMA that's some pretty interesting stuff you posted (I'm not being sarcastic)

@Emp Hark: do you have a problem with muslims? Looking at your posts in Duniverse and here it certainly seems that way.

[Acriku]

Since the accounts of Jesus were decades after he was dead, he could have been a coldhard jackass for all you know. But that's another story.

He was a normal jew who said he was the messiah (which wasn't rare, it happened quite a bit during his time).

1. With this attempt you can negate nearly everything that happened before the age of "unlimited Information".

2. When they existed so many charlatans, who claimed to be the messiah, why do you think Jesus was so successful (ok, more or less successful, death on the cross isn't the kind of success one wants to achieve) Because he was just smarter and a little bit more elaborate than his "colleagues"? I think not.

Ok let' say he was just a human. Then he surely must have preached something that was different from the teachings of the other messiah candidates. If they based a whole religion on his teachings he must have touched something that humans were and are willing to believe. I don't think people want to believe a coldhearted jackass...

Hawat, just because some people falsely believed in the messiah does not make him special. Do you know why they believed him? I don't either. But don't make the assumption that he had anythng special. What he preached was what any pharasaic (spelled wrong, I know) Jew would preach.

And if people really took him seriously, they wouldn't have a computer to post on forums...

To Nampigai: Do you really think it was "christianity" that motivated the Crusaders, the Inquisition and all the other scoundrels who acted "in the name of god"? Was it the message of the bible they "spread" with their actions?

I'll respond to this. It was, be it in retaliation or whatnot, christianity that motivated the crusades. A holy crusade to rid of all infidel muslims? Yeah, christianity had nothing to do with that ::)

They have more love than you could ever imagine.

TMA, this is dedication, obsessive even. I'm confused as to why you call it love. I guess anything can be love nowadays. But I guess I can't understand because I don't believe. Cough.

Ok let's get this clear. this has nothing to do with the spreading of the religion it has to do with the example the individual person which is the most important in that religion gave to the believers of that exact religion. u got that acriku?

Oh I got it, but next time don't say christianity was spread during jesus' time, and I won't object.

[TMA_1]

if I am not mistaken, you are as young as I am, and hold similar immaturities as I do with love and knowing what love is. I could cite many instances where you showed the exact opposite of what love is. why do that though? just make sure you know what something is before you judge on it. Not only do you need to understand what love is, you also dont have a concept of what spiritual love is about, because you are not religious and have no love for the metaphysical.

[Acriku]

I know what love is, but I don't know what you are making it out to be. Spiritual love? I've had that when I believed. I can fake it right now in my head, which I do sometimes to see if I can see the perspective from a theist. It isn't anything special. You make it out to be way more than it is.

[TMA_1]

lol nevermind man. It isnt a matter of "faking" anything. You cant fake the feeling, there is a true conviction that comes with it. You just never had it if you cant see it. and no, you dont know what love is because I have only met a few people at our age who truly did, and they dont say the things you have spoken on the issue. true, that is an evaluation. Evaluations though can be very correct though. Let go of the bitterness and just accept that what we believe is special. It isnt something to kick around in front of them. It reminds me of the fundimentalist christians who stick their opinions and false ideals down other people's throats. it just doesnt benefit.

[Egeides]

Let's see what did the different founders(or most important persons) of three great religions stand for:

Jesus: Love

Moses: Love

Muhammed: War

heard this on 60 minuttes today. Some guy said that Muhammed was a terrorist, and when I think about it, it does acctually seems as if he is right. Muhammed was a man of war. he spread his religion with fighting and war.

Jesus: Love

Moses: Obediance (not sure)

Muhammed: Justice and correcness

Muhammed's doctrine is as misinterpreted as what led to Christian's crusades I believe.

[Acriku]

lol nevermind man. It isnt a matter of "faking" anything. You cant fake the feeling, there is a true conviction that comes with it. You just never had it if you cant see it. and no, you dont know what love is because I have only met a few people at our age who truly did, and they dont say the things you have spoken on the issue. true, that is an evaluation. Evaluations though can be very correct though. Let go of the bitterness and just accept that what we believe is special. It isnt something to kick around in front of them. It reminds me of the fundimentalist christians who stick their opinions and false ideals down other people's throats. it just doesnt benefit.

Spiritual love is just like any other emotion. Actors can fake hatred, laughter, love, sadness, etc. It's not that hard. You can fake the feeling, you just don't want it demeaned into a fakeable simple emotion. Wake up!

I know what love is. I'm glad you know my life enough to say I don't know what it is. I guess an immature little brat like me can't associate myself with adult emotions. Get real.

What you said was exactly right. What you believe is special. I don't believe it is, but you can continue believing at your will - I am just opening your eyes.

[TMA_1]

Remember that you are speaking from a point of bias, and that you arent opening my eyes. You are a jerry falwell that is trying to convert me. Acting a feeling is not the same as experiancing a feeling. And by that definition you dont know what true love is. Love is not just a feeling or an emotion. It includes the mind, the heart, the entire force of our being. Be careful to judge.

[Acriku]

I guess being a materialist restricts me from understanding how in the world love can be more than influxes of potassium and sodium ions.

[TMA_1]

the explanation of the functions of nerve cells does not make you intelligent. deflate the ego. ;) lol

[Egeides]

Acriku, I propose you get a look at Humes... One thing he said is that to know everything ABOUT something is not to know the thing itself. Knowing everything surrounding feelings makes you know nothing about the essence of feelings themselves.

The feeling itself is felt, it is not a movement of particles. What is "feeling"?

And besides... Perhaps I should refer you to an American cult book (within certain circles) from a few decades ago. It's called Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. It's discussing the rational and its limits, logic, the nature of rationality, etc. Also enters in religions (versus rationalism, taoism...). It's a "novel" describing the author's life but it's strong dope, not sugar. All about rationality and it could change totally your view as it did for many (it's very loaded).

[gunner154]

Don't the muslims and christians share something in common - the old testament?