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
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
![Wink](https://apolyton.net/core/images/smilies/wink.gif)
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)
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...
Comment