[Skybird]

Leturm,

Let's put some of your quote a bit back into context:

John 10,33
31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"

33"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." 34Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? 35If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?

Puts it a little bit in perspective, I think.

Luke 16,17
14The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus. 15He said to them, "You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valued among men is detestable in God's sight. 16"The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. 17It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.

Puts it a little bit into perspective, I think.

As is known by now, I only consider the Gospels to be the Christian thing in Christianity, and the rest pf the bible quotes for that reason I do not pay much attention to. It is of interest for historical reasons only.

Leturm, you cannot deny the fact that there existed no Christianity before Jesus ("the Christ") appeared. There was no "Christian religion" before, there were a number of cults that related to stories of the old testament and it's tradition, but the new testament did not exist. Also, what Paul and others put into the scripture by their own interpretation of Jesus - has no real authority concerning the teaching of Jesus. Call it Paul ism, or "Letter-ism" or whatever. But Paul was not Jesus, nor was anyone else.

And finally, you quoted it yourself:

"Matthew 5,17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfil.

Here Jesus gave it all a very different meaning. He said that the old law is fulfilled, and fulfilling something means to bring it to a (fulfilled) END. Something new begins. Jesus did not come to abolish the law, or the prophets, or to carry on in that tradition, because abolishing as well as keeping a tradition means to grant it an authority that Jesus rejected with determination. And if you get a feeling for it, you realise that the new thing that began was that Jesus was transcending the old meaning of words like "God" and "Father", using the same old vocabulary - but in a totally new and different meaning. He moved beyond the old word-believing conception of belief and pointed at things beyond the original meaning for these words - but the word itself is not the goal he pointed at, where as before, it very much was. Before Jesus, you had a faith basing on personal cult around an idol ("God" as a separate being), after Jesus, you had a faith in the meaning of trust into the devine essence of existence that all existence is emvbedded into, embraced by, is caused and developed thorugh it. the "perosnal" quality, the idol, is no longer there, is transcended. This is the revolution, the glad tiding - the funeral of the old patriarchalic, tyrannic vulcan gods. If you read the gospels carefully, and not in a word-believing state of mind, you relaize that jesus very much was aware of the risk of being m isunderstood when putting things into words. But he had no other words availöable than those that formed the language of his time. - that is why both in Zen and in principle inchristian mystic as well a tradition is propagated that does not depend on words and scriptures. Both try to point at that you necessarily miss reality if you try to fix it in words. It's like trying to grab water, or focue on a single wave - but the river always is in flow, their is not a single wave ever staying in a constant form, shape, condition. nor solid forms - only movement.

„Man shall see God in all things, and shall accustom his soul to always see God in his soul, in his striving, and in his love. Take care of how you are turned towards God when you are in the church, or in your cabin: keep up the same mood and carry it amongst the crowd, the hustle and the dissimilarity. [...] In all your works you shall have a steady soul, and a steady confidence, and a steady love for God. If you were that serene, no one could hinder you to be aware of God’s presence at all times.“ (Meister Eckhart)[1]
(my faulty translation)

„The One Essence that could be known,

Is not the Essence of the Unknowable.

The idea that could be imagined,
Is not the image of the Eternal.
Nameless is the all-One, is inner essence.
Known by names is the all-Many, is outer form.
Resting without desires means to learn the invisible inside.
Acting with desires means to stay by the limited outside.
All-the-One and all-the-Many are of the same origin,
Different only in appearance and name.
What they have in common is the wonder of being.
The secret of this wonder

Is the gate to all understanding.” (Lao Tse)

(my translation from my new German interpretation)

You said: "It makes a good point too. The Bible tells Christians to do these things, but obviously all those who have any sense of morality do not. The qu'ran tells Muslims to do equally terrible things and likewise; all those who have any sense of morality do not."

Can you show us please where Jesus gave orders and demanded thing like Muhammad did? I refer to the Islam-essay I had linked to above. Could you find equivalents in Jesus' (or Buddha's) teachings? where Muhammad ordered violence, wars of attack, raids, murder, and set up restriction only when he was "outgunned" (as the author put it), while lifting these restrictions again when being strong again - Jesus and Buddha not only did not authorised the use of these kinds of violence for the purpose of attack and enforced miss ionising - they also recommended to remain passive and non-violent even when becoming victim of aggression. Jesus even illustrated that by the example of his own life (and proclaimed death). Could you find that attitude in Islam scripture - anywhere? - You cannot.

If you have a sense of moral, as you defined it, you follow the teaching of Jesus. If you have a sense of morale, you violate the teaching of Muhammad, and abandon it. That simply is the essential, vital difference between Jesus and Buddha on the one side, and Al Capone and Muhammad on the other side.

What would you answer the author of that essay that I linked to? He referred to Islamic scripture and literature with far more expertise than I can call my own, and shows the many errors in the comments of that Muslim commentator he was taking on. Could you comment on his remarks and counter them - or do you pick the easy way and ignore them altogether?

Or would you like to try your luck with some apostates of Islam, that urges Westerners so desperately to ban their self-deceiving naivety and see the harsh face of it, a face that is hostile to all and everything that is not Islam itself? The essay links to according sites, and there are more around d the web. What do you answer those ex-Muslims that left that club under serious difficulties and threats for their lives? are they wrong in their criticism? You say Westwern reloigion and Islam compares, are two of a same kind, in a way. They urge you that exactly this is not true. Some of them risk their lifes for that conviction they found. I talked two Muslims into leaving islam, and it came at a heavy priuce for them, their families almost broke with them. I do not know what paths two other have choosen in whom I raised at least some serious doubt. these apostates are rsiking much. Do you have the nerve to tell them that they are wrong, and that you know Islam better than they themselves while they had to give it such painful considerations? they live under threats and getting cursed by their people - and you telling them Islam is not so harmful at all?

In Buddhism, you do not need to gain any club membership. In modern churches, the young human being born must be made a member of Christianity by a ritual, it is not automatically like that, and parents can even leave it to the kid to grow up and then decide itself what it wants to choose and follow. - In Islam, you are automatically being born as a Muslim if your father and mother are Muslim, and you are forbidden by death penalty to ever leave it. Your fate is sealed the moment you mom and dad laid down together. You are not getting asked, you have no choice - you get decided. that is humiliating, and degrading, and inhumane. It turns you effectively into a thing, without the right to decide yourself. A slave. Islam POSSESSES you. that (and it's absolute intolerance for all that is not Islam) is why I call it totalitarian . - By that ruling, Muhammad made sure that future generations still would follow his authority, and that every opposition to Muhammad could be brandmarked as heresy and thus getting burned out with sword and fire without people daring to ask questions.

I would really like to see what you have to say on the many, many examples the author of the essay above is giving. He is no blind fanatic, and obviously knows very well what he is talking about. I know some of the literature he lists at the end, at least by name, I know where to sort in some of the authors. This is far more competence on display than what I can show up with. Read it, and let us know your thoughts about it.