I don't think I said there were no moderate Christians, I was saying that most Christians are moderate, they don't follow the word of God to the letter. If they did, they would not be moderate. If they followed Jesus to the letter, they would not have regular jobs, would not be futzing around on the computer, going to the movies, etc. They would turn their life completely over to Christ. Not many do that, therefore as I said, most Christians love their savior and their Dallas Cowboy season tickets in equal amounts (which is ok by me).

But it wasn't always that way, as you know. 200 years ago Christians took their religon as seriously as Muslims do today. There were no women bishops or pastors in the past, no gay leaders in the church. Unwed mothers were a big deal, as was drunkeness and other vices. Today, 95% of Christians don't even blink at these things.

I'm saying over time, people don't adhere to religon as strongly, and I think eventually it will be the same for Muslims. It already is for a lot of Muslims, they have their faith, the prophet's teachings, but they don't follow it as rigidly as the fundamentalist Muslim, the one we see in the ME on the news.

When considering this, it is worth remembering that in terms of age, Islam is almost 700 years behind christianity, and thousands of years behind judaism. Now, roughly 700 years ago, christianity was very fundamental and very opposed to anything that didn't toe the party line, so to speak. Whilst you could argue that with the benefit of the modern world, a religion could develop faster, but on strictly age terms it would still be several hundred years behind.

Always remember where you've come from. And even as recent as 300 years ago there were witch hunts, just after the Inquisition, at the same time as people like Copernicus were locked up for daring to differ from the teachings.

So the testaments are contradictory , now I could have sworn someone who calls themselves Skybird said the koran was contradictory .
But no matter , if we take the new testament as gospel what does that carpenter bloke say about the old laws ?:yeah:

Does it ?
Well I would have thought them mullahs in Iran were pretty fundamental , yet they offer sex change operations at tax payers expense for what they see as the "illness" of being gay don't they , is that a fudamentlist teaching ?

The church did not lose power just by becoming old, it lost power because of the "progressive" trend in European history forming up, as well as a certain man called Luther, and because the christian scripture also included the basis for thinking about alternatives (in the form of the glad tidings) to the churche'S dogmatic view and powerpolitics basing on fear of hell-fire. But in Islam, Neal, you do not have a parallel to a.) european multiculturalism and the resulting climate of national/economic competition that fostered these progressive trends in best capitalistic understanding (instead you have a dogma of monoculturalism), b.) Luther, and c.) an alternative canon in the scripture of Quran and the traditon of Hadith and Sharia that would compare to the glad tidings.

The starting conditions therefore do not compare. Nor do christian religion and islam compare by content. Why this determination to see phantoms that are not real? Just to be considered as "polite" when falling in line with populistic fairy-tales? Islam is not the Christian religion just dressed in other clothes. That would be like saying the Herrenrasse is just another word for legal citizenship. the one teaching sbrings you self-responsibility, tolerance, freedom. The other demands you to submit, to obey and brings you intolerance and attack. Muhammad did not copy parts of the Jewish-Crhistian tradition to become part of it - he took them and then CHANGED them to make his own baby being different to them, and then declare it superior to them.

I have to disagree with you here, Neal. I don't believe that time really matters all that much. Ultimately, I believe the fundamental basis of the religion is more the question.

The Koran is not a book about "turning the other cheek", as it were. In a sense, Christianity has evolved to be more representative of the moderate, Biblical aspects of the New Testament. You're not going to see a similar evolution of Islam because the very basics of the religion doesn't support that.

Compared to the New Testament of the Bible, the Koran is simply a far more extreme religious text.

But really, when it comes to the extremism that evolves into terrorism, I believe that the vast majority of Muslims "silently consent" to these behaviors, if not completely prescribe to them. Rarely does any Muslim publically speak out against such ideologies, while you see an overwhelming effort to deflect the blame upon the victims. Muslim anti-extremism organizations such as the Free Muslims Coalition struggle to get any real traction in the mainstream Islamic community. While they are certainly growing, they no doubt find themselves in the vast minority.

More importantly, however, is the fact that it is not incumbent upon the free world to wait for Islam to evolve into a more moderate form. Now, I must point out that, while I believe Islam is an extreme religion, I don't in any way advocate its outright destruction or perversion. What I believe should be done is the free world should stop trying to make perceptions of Islam into something its not - namely, an evolved, peaceful religion. It is a religion that, in and of itself, purports being a political body to its own ends. Christianity evolved FROM this type of ideology because the texts its based upon does not seek that type of power. Rather, it was the church that had asserted its control outside of its own teachings - a moved ultimately doomed to failure due to its blatant hypocrisy.

Simply put, if we want to confront the problem of extremism we need to stop being afraid of simply identifying it. The world should no longer be tolerant of Islam's inherent intolerance.

Why must we ignore the FACT that the Koran states: "Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you."? That's an extreme position, don't you think? Taken literally, it's quite clear what the passage's meaning is.

Other passages: 9:5 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."

9:29: "Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission."

8:39: "Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah."

8:65: "O Prophet, urge the faithful to fight. If there are twenty among you with determination they will vanquish two hundred; if there are a hundred then they will slaughter a thousand unbelievers, for the infidels are a people devoid of understanding."

I know of nothing comparable in Christian texts.

Fundamentally speaking, Islam is an extremist religion. Islam fundamentalism is quite mainstream within the culture. Once we acknowledge this rather than simply hoping it not to be the case, we may be able to effectively lower the overwhelming Islamic tolerance for intolerance.

More "islamophobia": even when considering "moderate Muslims", Europe nevertheless is under siege by imported true Islam.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...609660,00.html

actually they do speak out very often , but it doesn't get much coverage .

What a strange article that spiegel one is , Sarajevo is at the crossroads between east and west yet is at the heart of the continent too ...must be a very big place to cover so much territory .
Now I would have thought that the Balkan peninsula would be described as the fringes of europe not the heart .
True Islam ? Thats a wierd thing to call a sect that didn't exist until modern times .

How do you know if there isn't coverage?

I acknowledge that there are indeed groups who I find to be moderate (I cited one such group in my previous post). I contend that they represent the minority.

Also, what do you have to say about the passages from the Koran I quoted?

Did you miss the key word ?
"much" .

Thats handy , a nice simple one word answer ....
Context .

Not much coverage. That's different from no coverage. There is a little coverage, as I pointed out with NPR as an example. But not much coverage, as in NPR, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, WSJ, Reuters, etc. Hearing a story from only one or two news sources would be considered "not much" coverage. I understand what Tribesman meant.



Aramike, you're probably right, the New Testament has a lot of interesting stuff in it, such as Mathew 10:21, Acts 2:4 and Mark 16:15-18 (have you tried these yet? :)), Romans 1:27-32 (death to the gays!) and there are plenty of orders directly from Jesus, such as Matthew 5:29-30, to perform acts of violence on one's self (not many Christians are following these dictates), but yeah, it is pretty much devoid of violence and aggression. However, last time I checked, every Christian bible I've seen has the Old Testament and New, bound together, and every preacher I have ever heard pulls material from the Old with equal legitimacy as the New, and as you know, the Old Testament can match the Koran, violent exhortation for exhortation. You need me to find a few dozen examples real quick? :O:

I'm not criticizing the Bible, but I find it interesting that so many people don't know what's in it. I've read it from front to back three times, and took extensive notes. It's a fascinating read.

That's such a common answer given when Islamic-apologists are confronted with these passages, that I've learned to reject it out of hand unless one actually offers the "context" which they are referring to.That's true, he did say "not much". What I'm saying is that it seems to be due to there not being much to cover.I am fairly familiar with the Bible as a whole, and while Christians do typically accept both the Old Testament and the New, they tend to use the Old as more of a historical reference. I also believe that even Christ said to essentially discount the dicates of the Old Testament (I'll research which passage that is later).

The difference is that the Bible actually HAS a New Testament whereas the Koran does not have a more moderate text.

Why not, if you found it filled with so much violence and inhumane barbarism (I do not reject that finding!).

Is it?

Thats because it is the only answer , no passage out of any scripture has any meaning unless it is placed in context .
So if you want to do a comparison of those pasages in context with the Christian passages covering the same issues fine , because don't forget the carpenter said the old rules stand and will stand till the end of time .
No he said to discount the people who were being hypocrits about the dictates , he was quite vehement about it too , as apparently their punishment will be all the worse .
Now of course the teachers didn't like being criticised like that did they , so they started plotting to have him killed , but he had the last laugh on them by coming back from the dead .

OK - I said it once and I will say it again - you cannot compare the old and new testaments the same way. Old testament was the LAW - written as "These are all the things you must do to be saved - if you fail, here is the price that must be paid to keep you in good graces with God."

The New Testament is entirely different. The death of Jesus on the cross ushered in the reign of Grace. The price has been paid - you need but admit your error and ask forgiveness.

Now yes, pastors pull from both with equal fervor. However, you have to remember that now the Old Testament is now not LAW any longer. Instead it is history, a useful reference to help us understand the gift we are given, and what behaviors to avoid. No longer is it necessary to offer a burnt sacrifice.

Neal, the passages you refer to are allegorical in nature. For example, in Matthew Jesus is telling you - dont sin. If you can't avoid the sin of stealing - it would be better to only have one hand. Look at todays career criminals - deprived of their freedom for their crimes. Would not a thief be better off living free as a wholesome and honest person who simply had one hand? He would be better for society - and be able to enjoy a good life, though slightly limited. Whereas the punishment for stealing - often negatively colors a persons life to the point where they are trapped in a cycle of crime and punishment, instead of adapting and overcoming.

I suspect you knew this, but threw it out there anyway.

Regarding Romans 1:27-32 - note that in that there is no call to action, there is no exhortation for Christians to rise up and kill homosexuals. I do appreciate you did not take it out of context. It says clearly in verse 32 that "....that they which commit such things are worthy of death,..." - but this is not any type of condoning to kill them. In fact - if one were to use that reasoning - then the old verse of "For the wages of sin are death" - meaning any who person who sins deserves death - could be used as justification to kill every person on earth - "For all have sinned.".

What is important to remember is that the age of Grace did not remove the Law - it simply PAID the PRICE already. For those given to a reprobate mind (as this passage talks clearly about) - God will judge them and the price - death - in this case spiritual (as in the ultimate death) - will be paid if they have not accepted Jesus. The LAW of God is not removed - it still has the price to be paid - its just a matter of who pays it. In this case - those who refuse the gift of salvation - will pay it by God. It doesn't matter if they are gay, murderers, thieves, liars or anything else. Sin = death. Those who accept - have it paid for them through our Savior.

I can answer - and my above post did - the question of how the new and old fit together.

The old testament - the LAW - still exists. After all - God cannot abide sin. It has a price to be paid.

What changed was HOW that payment was made - and that changed with the New Testament death of Jesus.

Jesus never said "The LAW is null and void now.", he never said "ok I am here, sin doesnt mean death anymore" - He didn't change the law - he changed how the payment for breaking it was made.

Tribesman - what Aramike was saying was provide context for the verses given - explain WHY they do or do not apply as they seem to. To just scream "context" without providing what that context was - is tatamount to putting your fingers in your ears and stomping your feet while yelling "NANANANANANAANNAANAN! I CAN"T HEAR YOU!!!". If you want to correct an erroneous viewpoint - you have to discuss it. Either that - or you cant because it means what it means and you can't get around it. Your choice.