I would agree with that. The assumption that all Muslims are inherently extreme is identical to claiming that all Christians are supportive of the bombing of abortion clinics. We know the latter not to be true, but largely due to the fact that Christianity is familarly western. Islam, to many Americans, is one of those strange 'other' religions, and as such, we tend to lump them under a singular label, which recent history has made all the easier due to the fact that Islam's extremists are involved in some highly emotional issues.

Painting the 'other' with a broad brush to prove a point has been a tactic of many people in many countries over time. Frankly, if more of us Christians were truer to our name, we may have reached a catharsis with the centrist and liberal elements of the Muslim community, and found a powerful ally against the extremists. Alas, that remains elusive, as given by this week's events. I am reminded of Mohandas Ghandi's famous quote:

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.

The man had a point.

I judge a religion by the official doctrine. I have to say I have distrust of people that would claim membership to a group but not follow the group's doctrines.

I'm not sure I consider anyone "moderate" who believes that a holy book is literally true, myself.

But what is the 'official' doctrine? Christianity itself is fractured with innumerable sects, each claiming to uphold the 'official' doctrine. I would dare say that there is no official doctrine of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, et al. Why would we consider Islam to be any different in that regard? They certainly don't have a monopoly on extremism, so I would not believe for a second that they are the world's only lock-step faith.

Except that none dispute the Koran as their guide. The sects of islam have to do with the leader of the faith. Not the teachings of Islam or its laws under Sharia.

Christians, on the otherhand spend much time interpreting the Bible.

That is the same nonsense you posted on the last page. The rephrasing has not made it any more true. The koran is interpreted just as the bible is. It is often those that claim to be literalists who do the most cherry picking and interpreting, all to fit their own petty preconcieved ideas and agendas.

Sniker.

It feels like a true pie thrower,is not this a bit from the topic
 

:hmmm:

er.... say what ? 'Mormonism' anyone? :doh:
Long story short, Christianity and Islam have so much in common its not even funny.
Of the six major religions, those two are closest match by miles.
Ask any muslim worth his salt what he thinks about Jesus, go on I dare ya! :)
(You might just be very suprised by his answer.)

I'm afraid there is such a thing, I have met many living breathing examples.

Sure.... whatever. :nope:

How many jews have you met? The reason I ask is the Torah is part of the christian bible and none of the Koran is part of the Christian bible.

Based on that alone I'd say you are wrong.

I am sure that makes some sort of sense in some alternate reality.
But for us mere mortals on regular planet earth it looks like more nonsense from the third man.


Which doctrine?
BTW Tater after saying its OK for people to marry two year old you never did set an age limit which would be OK for prophets.
Should a prophet go for double the acceptable and wait for 4 year olds?

I would have added Jim Jones, David Koresh and this guy:

http://www.yahwehbenyahweh.com/

as examples of charismatics who pervert faith. So in that regard Islam is hardly an exception, but such individuals should not be considered as more representative of the faith than their Christian counterparts.

Regarding the three Abrahamic religions, it is Christianity on the outside, not Judaism. Islam and Judaism are both regulatory (rules about diet, worship, times, etc), whereas Christianity is largely philisophical (focus on direct spirituality). Judaism and Islam also regard salvation as a matter of adherence to doctrine, as opposed to the Christian view of salvation through faith.

Although Christianity's holy book does indeed include the Hebrew scriptures, they are largely superceeded by the revisions in the New Testament by Messianic decree (This is the New Covenant....). The Old Testament is regarded, for the most part, as a primer in the historical roots of the faith.

Jesus of Nazareth is regarded by Islam as a prophet of Allah on par with Abraham and Moses. He is not considered deity, but is in high esteem. Obviously there would be no mention of Muhammad in the Christian Bible, given that his revelation did not occur until the year 610. The books of what would become the New Testament were generally completed by the beginning of the second century and had been canonized by the time of the First Council of Nicea in 325. It's not a snub, it is historical.

Tennessee preacher to burn Quran...
Topeka, Kansas church vows burning...
Protester plans to burn on Wyoming's Capitol steps...
FLASHBACK: Muslims Burn Bibles and Destroy Crosses...

It Has gone viral!!! :yawn:

Al Sharpton is upset. Al is also a minister playing to the media. But Al isn't getting enough attention.

In my more cynical moments, this is why I believe Christianity has such a large following. It is one of the more "easy" religions to subscribe to.

I have often wondered about what I perceive as a series of "cherry picking" of stuff people like about the old testament (10 commandments) but conveniently forget what they don't like (Deuteronomy and Leviticus).

This has confused me. Either the old testament is or is not "part" of Christianity. John 10:35; Mathew 5:18; 15:3, and 15:6 seem to indicate that it is a part of Christianity. But many Christians I have spoken to disagree. Most confusing.

Concistency is not a strong point of religions.

To add to an mentally deficient
 

http://imgur.com/BIrVO.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones

You just reminded me of the beginning part of this comedy skit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPxi5wzmPRA

:O:

Um, that's cause the koran came after. It has stolen bits from both that preceded it (not very well, in some cases—I don;t mean using pre-existing theology, but taking bits nearly verbatim and putting them in another mouth.