YouTube censoring a video which only quotes the Quran

[Robert]

As it is to read the Bible and conclude that God expects you to stone adulterers, kill idol worshippers

Only if one partly reads the Bible.
It's VERY clear that this is directed to the Jews.
I can see that from those isolated texts alone someone may conclude that one has to kill idol worshippers, but not if one reads the entire Bible, from beginning to end.

It is. As is made clear by how many Christians still take the "fire and brimstone" view of the Bible.

Yes, I know they do. Which is obviously against the Bible itself. That's not a matter of interpretation. no one can in a sane way mis interpret: "Don't judge another" or "Turn the other cheek".
The fact that that misinterpretation happens doesn't mean that the Bible is to blame.

You may "clearly" see otherwise, but the Bible contradicts itself in so many cases...

not about violence.
Show me where in the NT christians are told to use violence?

Books are books... people are responsible for their actions, books are not.

Of course books can be responsible for learning followers to do wrong things. If I tell you to murder someone for money, and you do so, then the judge will jail me as well. That's not different if I write it down.

And that if you don't accept Jesus as your savior you're going to be stuck with the Old Testament style beat-down after this life... for all eternity. (The notion of Hell is one that's very similar in both the Bible and Quran.)

Yes, but it's not upon christians to bring hell to people. It's very clear that we are not allowed to judge each other. That can't be misinterpretated. It will be misinterpretated, but the Bible is not to blame for that.

I wonder btw if the Muslim hell is alike the christian hell. The christian hell is seperation from God, just that.

It's not my interpretation... 4:75 in my copy (N.J. Dawood) has a footnote that clarifies it is directed at Mecca. A quick internet search verified it from several sources. I would assume the footnote is there to clarify something that didn't go over so well in translation, but not sure on that.

footnotes are interpretation.
the fact that it needs a footnote says enough indeed.
I think that most Muslims read Qurans without footnotes btw.

(My own interpretation is that Muhammed wanted to justify his wars, just as everyone who starts wars tries to give themselves some moral superiority for the fighting, and that "who started it" is likely a very muddled picture.)

Obviously.
And that's a huge difference as well. Is your religion founded by a warlord or by a peacelover.
It's not so weird that Muslims interpret the Quran in a violent way. The author was a very violent man himself. It's not so weird that most (almost all?) christians interpret the Bible in a peaceful way, or at least the NT and their position in this world, because the founder of christianity was a peaceful man. Who told Peter to not use his knife against the enemy and even healt the ear of Malchus.

I think that anyone who is going to start a war based on what a text tells them should probably at least do a cursory investigation of what the text actually means. Same with anyone who wants to argue about what it means.

People start wars becuase the're indoctrinated to start a war by powerthirsty people who lead them.
It's very easy to start a war based on the Quran and on the lifestyle of Muhammed.

Of course. You just have to figure out who the "unbelievers" are.

Why? The concept of believers and unbelievers is so clear! Perhaps Muhammed should've written: "The unbelievers of Mecca", like the Bible speaks about the "People of Canaan" at least.

Before Google there were other avenues of finding information actually... not quite as easy... but for you and I, Google is there. Use it.

I don't have the intention to start a war.
Tell those people in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. etc. to use google.

I'm afraid btw that there are many websites to be found through google that do support a violent interpretation of the Quran btw.

(But as said before... in the end he's just using some text to justify what he wanted to do anyways. His crimes are not the text's fault. They're Bin Laden's.)

They're easily validated through the text.
Your obviously right, but on the other hand, it's scary that a man, a rich man, son of a very rich man, who had everything he needed, left his luxerious life to live in a cave, just for his religion and ideology. That's pretty different then those palastinians who blow themselves up because they have nothing.

If you look into what aneeshm is talking about, you would understand how ludicrous it is to say most Muslims only interpret the Quran based on what is in the Quran. The opposite is true, the Hadith is as much a part of the average Muslim's interpretation of the Quran as the Quran is. Only a small minority of Muslims hold that the Quran stands on it's own, without the Hadith.

that doesn't make it much better, does it?

Most of them went for spoils of war, or because it was what they had to do based on their position. Religion, as always, is just an excuse. If they had read the Bible (those few who could read), they would have picked the parts that suited them, and ignored the rest. That's what people do.

You have to ignore about the entire new testament to go to war based on the Bible.
yes, people do that, and yes, that does justify the war to them, but that's not a valid interpretation of their religion.

If the OT = the Quran, then the Muslims don't have a New Testament.
I can see that people go to war based on the Old Testament. Even that would be rejectable, and perhaps you're right that going to war based on the Quran is rejectable and invalid as well, but it's understandable at least.

Muslims lack the New Testament. And that's always and will always be the huge difference between Christians and Muslims. Muslims don't have the "Turn the other cheek" or "Pray for your enemies" or "Don't judge" or "Give to the emperor what belongs to him" or "obey the administration" or "Love your enemy" etc. etc.

Neither do they have a leadsman who actually did turn the other cheek. Who gave his life for others. Who did heal his enemies.

That's such a difference.

It couldn't have anything to do with economics and politics... it must all be due to the Bible vs Quran!

If the differences are that big....... and the Quran/Bible are that much of an inspiration to those people, it would be weird to not see a connection. There are obviously more influences. Obviously. A Muslim from Turkey is different then a Muslim from Iran.

"Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who [is] on the LORD'S side? [let him come] unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.

And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, [and] go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.

And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men." KJV Exodus 32:26-28

This is clearly a limited order given to a limited group of people. The Levites had to kill the people in the camp. I'm not a levite and I cannot kill someone who's not in the camp, for that reason.

I can see that people interpretate it differently, but that's just not valid.
If Moses would have said: "All the rightious people should slay the unbelievers" then it would've been a different case.

But here it's in the context of a story that's been told, to a certain group with a certain limitation (between the gates of the camp).

The whole "go commit genocide to claim the promised land" thing isn't very nice either. And threatens the safety and security of all of humanity even to this day.

It's not 'very nice' indeed, but it's once again limited to a certain group. And yes, a Jewish interpretation of the OT can be a lot more violent then a christian interpretation of the entire Bible.

Let me ask you this, do you believe in Hell?

I believe in the eternal seperation from God. I do name that Hell.

The Quran states that for peace to be joined, it only has to be asked for and kept.

And in other instances it says differntly.
How can I know which passage is the ultimate one?
The Bible is clear, "An eye for an eye" has been made absolete by Jesus.

Um... it's important for anyone who wants to really understand. I'm sure many Muslims find it's historical context meaningful.

Sure, many, but certainly not all. I even doubt if the majority does. I think that many Muslims don't even want to interpretate the Quran, but just read it as it is. "Slay the unbelievers", no interpretation, just do it. (fortunately most shy away from actually doing so)

Actually you also made the statement that you have had courses about Islam

Well, I have had some courses. That's not a bold answer, is it?

and are studying to be a theologian, in regards to a question I asked.

Well, I am studying theolgy, it's not a bold answer, is it?
I never used it to justify a "Therefor I know more then you" attitude or something. I even added to it that there's a lot for me to learn yet.

Obviously, if one wants to interpretate me differently, one can do that. But that's not what I said, and I, as the author of my words, say that it's invalid to interpretate me like that

If you want to stick to arguments, fine. If you want to put your qualifications out there as if it is relevent information,

My qualifications were being doubted, then I just responded by giving my qualifications. I did never even doubt your qualifications! I just debate with based on what you say. I would never doubt any qualifications of anyone I'm debating with. I do not care about qualifications. But if people doubt my qualification or even any justification to be in the debate, which actually happend, or at least I thought that happened, then I just reply by giving my qualifications, in a humble way.

I wouldn't have done that if I wasn't pushed to do it.
It's never good, it's either: "You know nothing about your own faith and hardly know the Bible" or it is: "You're bragging about your study".

I always refer to me as a wannabe theologian. I hope that's good enough for you, I'm just a wannabe and love debating. I did that before I studied theology, and I still do now. I'm not debating because I know the truth as a wannabe theologian, it's more the other way around. I started to study it because I want to learn more.

You can blackmail me with that information, I consider that to be bad form.
Don't first doubt my qualification and then put me down as a braghead if I give them.

you're the one making it part of the discussion and I will address it as I see fit.

This is how it happened: (I think it was not in a debate with you)

Wow CyberShy, you're an ignorant tool about your own religion too.

CyberShy: Sure. That's why I'm studying theology. There's always more to learn.

Have you read the Quran?

Do you realize that Jesus is considered a prophet by Muslims?

CyberShy: Isa, son of Mirjam.
In his stead Judas died on the cross, not Jesus.
Isa will return in the end of time, not Muhammed.

I have had some courses about Islam. (I'm studying theology)

Don't blame me for answering questions people ask to me. And don't blame me for responding to insults people make to me. I hope this settles it. If we can't even agree about this...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by CyberShy

As it is to read the Bible and conclude that God expects you to stone adulterers, kill idol worshippers

Only if one partly reads the Bible.
It's VERY clear that this is directed to the Jews.
I can see that from those isolated texts alone someone may conclude that one has to kill idol worshippers, but not if one reads the entire Bible, from beginning to end.

And yet Christians continued to do such things a thousand years after Jesus' death, and claimed that their interpretation is correct.

[Robert]

And yet Christians continued to do such things a thousand years after Jesus' death, and claimed that their interpretation is correct.

Only a very small minority, pherhaps fewer then 0,01%.
The grand majority of christianity rejects violence.
But yes, we christians suck at being good christians. I'm sorry.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by CyberShy

And yet Christians continued to do such things a thousand years after Jesus' death, and claimed that their interpretation is correct.

Only a very small minority, pherhaps fewer then 0,01%.
The grand majority of christianity rejects violence.

this is an absurd claim.

But yes, we christians suck at being good christians. I'm sorry.

The implication being that your interpretation of Christianity is the One True Faith, and all others are heretics. Why, given that your interpretation only became popular fairly recently?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by CyberShy

As it is to read the Bible and conclude that God expects you to stone adulterers, kill idol worshippers

Only if one partly reads the Bible.

I'd like to nuance this:

There are people who do conclude all this, and they read the Bible fully. However, there are so many things in the Bible, the readers make their conclusions based on what they deem as most important. A peaceful fundamentalist, upon reading the Bible, will mostly remember Jesus' message of peace and love
A hateful fundamentalist will mostly remember the hateful passages of the Bible.

Interpretations of the Bible, Quran and the like really depends on the reader's personality, or the priest's.

[Robert]

this is an absurd claim.

I don't think so.
There are 2.1 billion christians, how many are waging a war or a jihad? One could mention Northern Ireland and perhaps Indonesia. And that's just only a very few, and it has more to do with local tribe problems then with true fighting in the name of God.

The implication being that your interpretation of Christianity is the One True Faith, and all others are heretics. Why, given that your interpretation only became popular fairly recently?

Recently?
you know the Nicene creed?

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

That one is believed and confessed by about 99,9% of all christians, from the beginning. It's after the Concily of Nicea that the church started to seperate. (first about the Holy Spirit, who came forth from the Father by the orthodox churches, and from the Father and the Son by the catholic churches)

That above described creed describes my faith in God, it's been read every week in my church.
It's not a recent interpretation.

[Robert]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I'd like to nuance this:

There are people who do conclude all this, and they read the Bible fully. However, there are so many things in the Bible, the readers make their conclusions based on what they deem as most important. A peaceful fundamentalist, upon reading the Bible, will mostly remember Jesus' message of peace and love
A hateful fundamentalist will mostly remember the hateful passages of the Bible.

Interpretations of the Bible, Quran and the like really depends on the reader's personality, or the priest's.

That's true.
I never denied that one can misread the Bible. And that someone who wants evil can find evil in the Bible. (or in any other book)

But one cannot blame the Bible for that.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by CyberShy
But one cannot blame the Bible for that.

The only thing for which I blame the Bible (or any other exclusive Holy Book) is because it claims to have absolute truth in it.

Absolute truths are a recipe for catastrophe. Not every reader, far from it, will become a mindless zealot. But some readers will. And when the "absolute truth" doesn't give an unamibguously good message, you're bound to find zealots who fanatically serve the bad aspects of it.

I have seen it applied to a non-religious text too, as I know some people who consider Marx as canon

[Robert]

But what if there's an absolute truth?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by CyberShy
But what if there's an absolute truth?

If there is an absolute truth, and if it is revealed by an all-knowing external source, I expect this absolute truth not to be open to radically opposite interpretations: as it reveals the Truth, the external source wouldn't want to let people rule themselves into false interpretations.

Especially if "free will" is to choose between embracing the revealed Truth, or opposing it.

[Aeson]

Cybershy,

Thanks for the discussion. I think we're to the point where we are arguing in circles now, where my responses to your responses would be what you've responded to... so I'll leave our previous statements at that.

I have a lot of respect for your position on the Bible, in fact it's much how I interpret it myself, just I think you could be more understanding towards Muslims and their faith, and even their books. Those Muslims who think the Quran is a message of peace are correct in as much as it has influenced them to peace... and there are many of them out there. They don't get on the news that much of course, becuase it's not deemed an item of interest when people just live their life and aren't blowing others up.

I think you should promote (if just within your own viewpoint) that there are good ideals in the Quran, and not focus on the negatives. We all fail if viewed that way. And to me that is really what Christianity has to teach (regardless of whether a person believes in God or not). Self-introspection and improvement rather than focusing on the flaws of others.

[Robert]

Thank you as well Aesson!
It was me a pleasure.

Spiffor: If there is an absolute truth, and if it is revealed by an all-knowing external source, I expect this absolute truth not to be open to radically opposite interpretations: as it reveals the Truth, the external source wouldn't want to let people rule themselves into false interpretations.

Especially if "free will" is to choose between embracing the revealed Truth, or opposing it.

Ok, let's do this step by step.
What if the case with man is that it reject authority?
How can any authority in that case gets reckognized as being authority, even if this is the truth?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Ok, let's do this step by step.
What if the case with man is that it reject authority?
How can any authority in that case gets reckognized as being authority, even if this is the truth?

You don't understand. The "absolute truth" is not merely that there's only one God or Allah or whatever. If the only truth was that God's in charge, the Bible would only say that, and it'd be one-sentence long.

Instead, it lasts for hundreds of pages, and is full of "absolute truths", which are open for very broad interpretation.

From what I understand in protestant theology, Jesus came on earth so that everybody can know God's glory. Now, every human has a simple choice to make: embrace Jesus as Lord and saviour, or not. The former will be saved, the latter will be damned. Yet, in the eyes of many protestants, most Christians on this earth are going to hell anyway, because they follow the false teachings of the catholic church.

Catholics believe in God as the saviour, and yet they're condemned to hell because, regardless of the sincerity of their beliefs, their interpretation is wrong. An omniscient God would have seen it coming, and an all-loving God wouldn't have doomed his own followers to death by letting a margin of interpretation.

[Robert]

You don't understand.

I do

The "absolute truth" is not merely that there's only one God or Allah or whatever. If the only truth was that God's in charge, the Bible would only say that, and it'd be one-sentence long.

And then everybody would deny it, since that's the problem of man, we do not accept authority.
The Bible is not a book of truths, it's a book that tells (from the human POV) how God dealt with humans and how humans dealt with God through history.

Instead, it lasts for hundreds of pages, and is full of "absolute truths", which are open for very broad interpretation.

Jesus says: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life"

That's the only truth and there's no interpretation. Believe in Jesus (not in his existance, but belief IN him) and you'll be saved from damnation.

From what I understand in protestant theology, Jesus came on earth so that everybody can know God's glory. Now, every human has a simple choice to make: embrace Jesus as Lord and saviour, or not. The former will be saved, the latter will be damned.

We're all damned. But Jesus will save us from damnation. If you trust / have faith in / believe in Jesus, he'll save you from damnation.
People aren't damned because they don't believe in Jesus.

Yet, in the eyes of many protestants, most Christians on this earth are going to hell anyway, because they follow the false teachings of the catholic church.

I think that most protestants believe that Catholics are also christians who believe in Jesus.
False teachings do not damn anybody, as long as people believe in / have trust in Jesus.

Catholics believe in God as the saviour, and yet they're condemned to hell because, regardless of the sincerity of their beliefs, their interpretation is wrong.

I know little protestants (maybe a few old men) who believe that Catholics go to hell. And I know a lot of protestants from many different groups, churches, etc.

An omniscient God would have seen it coming, and an all-loving God wouldn't have doomed his own followers to death by letting a margin of interpretation.

God saw this coming. The Bible already says that false teachers would come.
The problem is that humans are the problem, so everything done with humans will go wrong eventually. I believe that despite these wrongs, God wants to proceed with humand, and even wanted to become human.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by CyberShy

this is an absurd claim.

I don't think so.
There are 2.1 billion christians, how many are waging a war or a jihad? One could mention Northern Ireland and perhaps Indonesia. And that's just only a very few, and it has more to do with local tribe problems then with true fighting in the name of God.

I wasn't talking about modern Christians, duh.

Recently?
you know the Nicene creed?

It obviously wasn't followed very well.

Given that virtually nobody actually follows modern "Christianity," I suspect it's a load of bull. Actions speak louder than words, and even modern Christians have given great evidence that they don't believe any of Jesus' message [as you define it].