Islam is a peaceful religion is it..

[Vince278]

Seeing a lot of Christianity in a thread about Islam.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Which is why my argument is based on Matthew being treated as a historical source.

Therfore, there exists supporting evidence for the massacre of Herod, although no direct corroborating evidence.

There is indirect evidence, in that what Matthew writes does not violate anything that we already know about Herod.

No, there doesn't.

The connection of Herod with the alleged massacre of the Innocents as related in the New Testament is now generally admitted by independent Christian thinkers to be legendary.'

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=630&letter=H&search=herod+the+great

I'm getting bored with your inability to recognize the difference between myth and history, evidence and conjecture.

I'd suggest you read Michael Grant's 'Herod the Great'
and any large volume modern work on the history of the Roman Empire, with specific reference to the province of Judaea.


'THE MASSACRE OF THE INNOCENTS

When the Magi arrived, neither Herod nor "all Jerusalem" knew anything of the birth of Jesus, although according to Luke 2: 15-17 shepherds from Bethlehem, five miles away, had been busy spreading the news. Herod's reaction to the failure of his visitors to bring him word of the child's whereabouts was to order the killing of all the infants-of both sexes apparently-in and around Bethlehem, an atrocity which would have been avoided had the star conducted the Magi directly to the birthplace. Josephus, who records the many misdeeds of Herod, omits this, one of the worst of them. The Massacre is of course unhistorical; its Old Testament prototype can be found in Exodus 1: 15-22. The gospel writer may also have known of the tradition preserved in Josephus (Antiquities 2: 9: 2) that Pharaoh gave the command to kill the Israelites' male children after a scribe had predicted the birth of a boy who would one day become dangerous to him.

Both "massacres" are variations of what has been termed "the myth of the dangerous child". Krishna and Jason survived similar holocausts, and tradition has it that the life of the infant Abraham was sought by King Nimrod, who had all the children of Babylonia slaughtered as the result of a prophecy that a rival would be born there. The "dangerous child" is the infant sun-god, who is destined to destroy the evil tyrant Winter. '

From the National Secular Society of the United Kingdom

http://www.secularism.org.uk/paganxmas.htm

[Ben Kenobi]

We have gone through this, Ben. Evidence strongly suggests that said passage in Josephus's work is a later insertion. It was not found in copies earlier than 4th Century BCE.

So The Great Agnostic is right and you are not.

Where did you see this UR?

If the insertation occurred, which parts are inserted? Or could it be a page missing from the manuscript?

[Ben Kenobi]

Seeing a lot of Christianity in a thread about Islam.

I didn't start the threadjack.

[Ben Kenobi]

You did nothing of the sort. A census of ROMAN citizens, not a local, provincial census of Judaean citizens of a client state of Rome.

The biblical passage does not make such a distinction. In fact, they reject the interpretation that such census was done by a local or provincial authority, but rather issued by the Emperor.

Why would the Emperor issue a census only for Judea? It makes much more sense that they would be conducted empire-wide.

I don't see how your citation has anything to do with the issue. It does not defend your point.

Assert their liberty? Err, wouldn't they have lost that, by the same reasoning, in the first census?

Why did they rebel in 70 BC, and then get crushed by the Romans?

The authority of the Romans existed alongside the authority of the Jewish Sanhedrin. The Gospels testify to this distinction, among other sources.

So I am really puzzled why your citation proves any point at all.

Christians quoting Christians is not an objective standard of proof, by the way, as I think we can see they might have a common purpose.

So do the writers of the Gospels solely quote Christians? It's impossible, since they quote many other sources in their testimony, some of which you have already attacked.

A reference to the reign of Caesar Augustus and his census is hardly a reference forged by Christians, is it Molly?

Secondly, you fail to address my point that even propaganda can tell us important things about history. It is not myth, rather, we have to be careful about how we use these sources.

You have no supporting evidence from a non-Christian viewpoint of a massacre in Judaea carried out by a client king of Rome's

Of course not. Samaria is not Judaea. Herod has no authority over Pilate.

You might as well rely on a 1949 edition of Pravda for an objective view of the truth about Stalin.

Even Pravda has references to outside events that can be corroborated, which is what we are doing here. So no dice Molly.

There is a difference (and I'll say this again, just in case it's having difficulty sinking in) between a reliable historical account (eyewitness, reportage, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle) and a religious or mythical narrative.

So? You fail to bring up points as to question the historical references, and the wealth of them provided in the Gospels. Rather you pick apart the stuff you like, or find easy to contest.

You have failed to prove even Luke wrong in his testimony as to the date of the birth of Christ, and there are plenty more references throughout!

Even Matthew, you have not found evidence to the contrary, to disprove what he has said, or an alternative account of the events cited in Matthew, that can be used to test whether or not Matthew corroborates with other historical sources.

And by the way, your beloved Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was written by a fervent Catholic priest. Why should we trust what he has to say? Why should you trust a Christian in one aspect of history, yet not trust the Gospel writers?

[Ben Kenobi]

New Testament is now generally admitted by independent Christian thinkers to be legendary.'

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com

I already cited several Christian authors who do not have this opinion. They defend the account of Herod as I do here, on the grounds that it violates nothing that we do not already know of Herod.

I would expect the Christians to know more about what other Christians believe than a Jewish writer.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Pretty close estimate:

"Anyone who is not a Christian will burn in Hell forever."

(kinda makes those Muslims look like a bunch of tolerant peaceniks in comparison, doesn't it? )

The same concept in Islam, It gives a chance to Jews and Christians to go to heaven, Christianity gives, or was giving in various times, such chance to good people no matter their religion is, but true, it was never an official statesment.

[Heresson]

'To the very end McVeigh exhibited no public remorse. According to a news report, he requested the ?last rights? of the Catholic Church after he was strapped to the execution gurney - even though he was a professed agnostic.'

You're just proving that He was a Christian, or that shortly before his death, He returned to faith

Nobody portrays WWI and WWII as 'Christian' conflicts- despite the fact that the fuses for both were lit in combat between Christian countries.

III reich was neo-pagan.
And why should we say these were "Christian wars"?
Was Iran-Iraq conflit a "Muslim war?
What's the point?

It now seems that every terrorist who was born a Muslim or in a country with an Arab culture and kills is now shown as killing for Islam- this despite the fact that Saddam Hussein's regime and Syria under Assad were secular supporters of terrorism and in Saddam's case actively waged war against theocratic Saudi Arabia and devout Shi'ites in Iraq and theocratic Shi'ite Iran.

First of all, none Middle East regime is fully secular. Enough to say that Iraqi flag has (since Saddam's reign) Allah Akbar written on it.
But practically yes, they were secular. And no-one claims they were Muslim fundamentalists.
But actually they might have supported fundamentalist for practical reasons - to stop them from attacking themselves. That's what Saudis do.

'Until 2000, the PFLP was led by George Habash, a Palestinian doctor from an Orthodox Christian family. '

Still, the majority of Palestinian terrorist organisations do seem to have muslim religious inspiration today, don't they?

Rarely are the Irish Republican Army or the Irish National Liberation Army or the Ulster Freedom Fighters portrayed as being Christian, yet their members are invariably from Christian families and Christian communities, killing in the name of politics and religion.

Perhaps because they do not intend to kill people of other religions, and their goals have more in common with nationalism than with religion?

E.T.A. , the Basque separatists aren't renowned for having scores of Muslim recruits willing to die for Basque independence.

But it's a secular organisation, isn't it?
You're hitting the void. no-one claims only Muslims can be terrorists. But the problem is that terrorism is becoming very popular ammongst radical muslim-political movements. And You can't compare it to any radical Christian movement.

And in the despotic regimes of Central and South America, the paramilitaries and the agents of the state security bureaus carrying out genocide and murder and torture aren't usually atheists either:

Clemente DÃaz Aguilar

Missionary in Guatemala

I think most Latin American regimes isn't reigning in the name of religion. I don't know much about Guatemala, it's sad if it's true. But it has no religious sanction from Christian organisations.

Kill them all; for God knoweth them that are His.

It's internal Christian struggle, hungreds of years ago

[Heresson]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Oh well I'm glad you said that, because now I feel so much better about the genocide of Guatemalan Indians, the Thirty Years War

Internal Christian struggle.

, the many Crusades

Which weren't to conquer Muslim lands, but to liberate Christian ones. Yup, they were slaughters - as they were on the other side, even bigger.

, ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo

Conducted by ex-communists. I doubt they were very religious.

, and the Holocaust.

Nazi ideology was hostile to Christianity. Blaiming Christianity for it isn't wise. Not only Jews were supposed to be annihilated, Christian nations as well. And the reason for the annihilation wasn't religious - Jewish by religion, but non-Jewish by rase Karaims were generally tolerated as far as I know.

All is forgiven,

Who says so?

killers for Christ,

Absurd

Whose god are they killing for?

And why do you assume these were for some God?

[Heresson]

When it comes to Rwanda, thse lands don't have a long Christian tradition. ANd while some of the clergy didn't try to stop the massacre, some did and were killed for that. You shouldn't forget that.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

Everyday run-of-the-mill Christians wouldn't force their kids to marry someone

they did until the modern era.

or wear burkas or disown (or sometimes kill) their daughters if they have premarital sex.

this, i think has less to do with islam and more to do with arab culture.

the problem, and it's a serious problem, is that while in Christianity all such behaviour existed, and gained church sanction with time, it isn't part of the faith, it was part of the tradition. But when it comes to Muslim faith, Arab tradition is, through Al-Qur'an and sunna, integral part of it. That's why Muslims will not get rid of it easily, if they ever will.
And well, from Muslim point of view, that's not bad, it's good actually. Why going far from what God wishes should be good?

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Ramo

These people are all exceptions. At least today they are. In Islam (or rather, practice of,) today however the rule seems to be that women are inferior.

As I've pointed out in countless other threads like this, would that be why the three largest Muslim countries (Indonesia, Pakistan, and Bangladesh) have had women heads of state, while the three largest Christian countries (the US, Brazil, and Mexico) have not?

That's not a wise post.
They have had female chiefs of state of whatever because these women were wife, dotters or whoever of former vhiefs of state. they inherited this position, weren't given it by society

[Heresson]

It's Abu Bakr, not Abu Bekr

[Heresson]

In short, strictly speaking, the Islamic militants are right.

That, unfortunatelly, does seem to be right

[Heresson]

How many Arabs were filmed dancing in the streets after 9/11?

But this is wrong as far as I know. The film of this dancing crowd was a manipulation, it came from some feast before the attack. That's what I've heard at least