Bible twice as violent as the Koran.

[Kidlicious]

kentonio's reasoning is that people are violent anyway so it's no big deal that Mohammed told people that Allah told him to tell people to murder.

Also it's OK that he was a baby raper.

[Proteus_MST]

Yes... and the Koran told people how (and why) to be violent. That just isn't comparable to the violence in the NT, Jesus and his followers were the victims of violence, not the perpetrators. Jesus didn't walk around telling people to behead each other in his name. The OT and Koran are both violent and have violent gods, but they differ in one respect - Judaism is exclusive and Islam is expansionist. The former doesn't care if other people are 'sinners' and not Jewish, the latter requires submission.

Insofar (as the god of the OT and the god of Islam are both violent), Islam is more believable as a successor to Judaism, than Christianity is.
Not to forget that many of the rules in Shariah (for example stoning women for adultery) are taken from the rules in he old testament/tanach and most other rules can be seen to be in the spirit of he old testaments rules.

[Kidlicious]

...

[Proteus_MST]

Judaism has nothing like Sharia Law. There is one Israel and it isn't anything like those Islamic countries.

We talk about judaic laws in the old testament (for example Deut. 22:23-24 for the law on stoning a woman who hd sex (or was raped) with/by another man in a city) ... at a time when god allegedly (if one believes the stories of the OT to be true) regularly spoke to the Jews.

If christians would have looked at the judaic laws in the old testament and someone (like a catholic pope) had, at one time, decided that they are holy and eternal and have to be a basis for worldly laws, christianity would have ended with laws similar to the Shariah

(and actually many of the laws in the Torah and Tanach are holy to fundamentalist jews today (the so called 613 commandments ... amongst them the law to stone idiolatrists and blasphemers) ... the shariah differs from this only, in declaring further laws holy and adding a few other laws to them )

[Kidlicious]

We talk about judaic laws in the old testament (for example Deut. 22:23-24 for the law on stoning a woman who hd sex (or was raped) with/by another man in a city) ... at a time when god allegedly (if one believes the stories of the OT to be true) regularly spoke to the Jews.

If christians would have looked at the judaic laws in the old testament and someone (like a catholic pope) had, at one time, decided that they are holy and eternal and have to be a basis for worldly laws, christianity would have ended with laws similar to the Shariah

(and actually many of the laws in the Torah and Tanach are holy to fundamentalist jews today (the so called 613 commandments ... amongst them the law to stone idiolatrists and blasphemers) ... the shariah differs from this only, in declaring further laws holy and adding a few other laws to them )

No. The difference is that Jews don't have to implement any particular law or laws for their nation. Muslims are commanded to impose Shariah Law on nations. The same is not true for Jews.

[Kidlicious]

Let me explain it this way, the Jews have been captives many times throughout their history. While religious law is considered higher than secular law it's not the same as in Islam, because muslims are not a people like the Jews are a people and they have no history of captivity. They have a history of imposing their religious law on other people. So religious law is different in Judaism although some believe in strict adherence to it. Separation between religious and secular authority is the norm.

[Proteus_MST]

Let me explain it this way, the Jews have been captives many times throughout their history. While religious law is considered higher than secular law it's not the same as in Islam, because muslims are not a people like the Jews are a people and they have no history of captivity. They have a history of imposing their religious law on other people. So religious law is different in Judaism although some believe in strict adherence to it. Separation between religious and secular authority is the norm.

Both, Muslims as well as christians, have deviated from Judaism ... just into different directions.
Christians (at least nowadays christians, not the ones before Paul) were very keen on abolishing laws left and right ... even those that Jews saw/seen seen as binding (like he circumcision) ... nowadays christians even go further and have replaced the old testamentary image of god with some Hippie version of this ... and try to totally forget the warlike god who did not shy away from ordering suicides, or even personally (or via his angels) killing followers who strayed away from his flock or dared to have their own opinion (in medieval times this more brutal image of god was still more present in christians, as you can see in the death penalty for blasphemy and witchcraft and in the crusades and also in the destruction of books that were seen as aberrant from "true faith" (tm) )

In contrast to this Shariah strayed from Judaism by making most of the laws of the old testament secular binding, even those that aren't seen by the jews themselves as binding ... and added laws to this that are in the same spirit.

Well, for Jews both have strayed away from the true faith ... Christians as well as Muslims ... no matter how much adherents of those 2 religions claim to be the only "true believers" (tm)

[Kidlicious]

Both, Muslims as well as christians, have deviated from Judaism ... just into different directions.
Christians (at least nowadays christians, not the ones before Paul) were very keen on abolishing laws left and right ... even those that Jews saw/seen seen as binding (like he circumcision) ... nowadays christians even go further and have replaced the old testamentary image of god with some Hippie version of this ... and try to totally forget the warlike god who did not shy away from ordering suicides, or even personally (or via his angels) killing followers who strayed away from his flock or dared to have their own opinion (in medieval times this more brutal image of god was still more present in christians, as you can see in the death penalty for blasphemy and witchcraft and in the crusades and also in the destruction of books that were seen as aberrant from "true faith" (tm) )

In contrast to this Shariah strayed from Judaism by making most of the laws of the old testament secular binding, even those that aren't seen by the jews themselves as binding ... and added laws to this that are in the same spirit.

Well, for Jews both have strayed away from the true faith ... Christians as well as Muslims ... no matter how much adherents of those 2 religions claim to be the only "true believers" (tm)

No. I believe in the Law, so do jews. The law is not abolished. The difference is Christians do not lord over other people and jews have a history of the Law being separate from secular authority, and it is God who sent them into captivity.

[Kidlicious]

To be clear, I don't believe that jews are true believers, in the sense that Christians are. But God has made promises to them that I believe he will keep. If they don't believe in imposing religious law on people that's no rejecting God's Law from a Christian perspective. Neither is it rejecting God's Law from a Jewish perspective, as they have a tradition of separation between religious and secular authority.

[Proteus_MST]

No. I believe in the Law, so do jews. The law is not abolished. The difference is Christians do not lord over other people and jews have a history of the Law being separate from secular authority, and it is God who sent them into captivity.

You abolished the law about circumcision.
I know, the traditional justification is along the lines that you are mentally circumcised now ... but no true jew will accept this justification (remember especially that it is one of the most important things in Judaism, sign of their covenant with god)

Not to forget that the law about circumcision and (2 of) the 10 commandments aren't the only laws that, according to Judaism are important.
While the Rabbis are divided which laws/commandments make up "the law", many believe that it is the 613 commandments

And christians don't obey many of them so, yes, they abolished "the law" in the eyes of Judaism.

I'd guess whether or not you are screwed in your afterlife rests on a lot of assumptions ... the most important being, whether Jesus really is the son of god ... another really important question however is, whethr or not the changes introduced by Jesus followers after his death (i.e. like the abolishment of circumcision) really were O.K. with Jesus/God
(the same goes for the muslims and Jews ... if Jesus was the son of god/god himself, then they will hhave to expect bad things in their afterlife, for not accepting him ... especilly cnsidering how vengeful and jealous the god of the old testament is).
Likewise Atheists of course and believers in not the "true faith"

[Kidlicious]

You abolished the law about circumcision.
I know, the traditional justification is along the lines that you are mentally circumcised now ... but no true jew will accept this justification (remember especially that it is one of the most important things in Judaism, sign of their covenant with god)

Not to forget that the law about circumcision and (2 of) the 10 commandments aren't the only laws that, according to Judaism are important.
While the Rabbis are divided which laws/commandments make up "the law", many believe that it is the 613 commandments

And christians don't obey many of them so, yes, they abolished "the law" in the eyes of Judaism.

I'd guess whether or not you are screwed in your afterlife rests on a lot of assumptions ... the most important being, whether Jesus really is the son of god ... another really important question however is, whethr or not the changes introduced by Jesus followers after his death (i.e. like the abolishment of circumcision) really were O.K. with Jesus/God
(the same goes for the muslims and Jews ... if Jesus was the son of god/god himself, then they will hhave to expect bad things in their afterlife, for not accepting him ... especilly cnsidering how vengeful and jealous the god of the old testament is).
Likewise Atheists of course and believers in not the "true faith"

No part of the Law was abolished. Paul said that it's wrong to expect the gentiles to get circumcised as adults and that salvation doesn't depend on circumcision. Also, Christians don't believe in all the laws that were made up.

[Proteus_MST]

No part of the Law was abolished. Paul said that it's wrong to expect the gentiles to get circumcised as adults and that salvation doesn't depend on circumcision. Also, Christians don't believe in all the laws that were made up.

Paul is not Jesus ... Jesus didn't say it (according to the bible), likewise Jesus didn't divide the Tanach/Torah into parts that were made up and parts that were true.
So one might judge that Jesus had the standpoint of traditional jews of this time ... he only differed in how severely sinners should get punished or whether the laws should be obeyed all of the times under all circumstances (but he didn't abolish them, insofar as saying that such and such a law isn't valid/important anymore from now on)

Many will come in My name, saying, 'I am He!' and will mislead many.

http://biblehub.com/mark/13-6.htm

[Kidlicious]

Paul is not Jesus ... Jesus didn't say it (according to the bible), likewise Jesus didn't divide the Tanach/Torah into parts that were made up and parts that were true.
So one might judge that Jesus had the standpoint of traditional jews of this time ... he only differed in how severely sinners should get punished or whether the laws should be obeyed all of the times under all circumstances (but he didn't abolish them, insofar as saying that such and such a law isn't valid/important anymore from now on)


http://biblehub.com/mark/13-6.htm

You aren't getting it yet. Paul didn't abolish the law (he had no authority to do so) and Jesus didn't abolish the law, any of it. It was never part of the law to expect adult Gentiles to get circumsized. Jesus didn't say sinners should get less punishment. He said sinners should get NO punishment if they believe in him.

[Proteus_MST]

You aren't getting it yet. Paul didn't abolish the law (he had no authority to do so) and Jesus didn't abolish the law, any of it. It was never part of the law to expect adult Gentiles to get circumsized. Jesus didn't say sinners should get less punishment. He said sinners should get NO punishment if they believe in him.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+17

...
Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. ¹⁰ This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. ¹¹ You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. ¹² For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. ¹³ Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. ¹⁴ Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”
...

Considering that god includes non jews in this listing (those not born of a jew, but coming from outside (getting bought by foreigners)) says to me that anyone who claims to be of judaic faith/comes to judaic faith has to get circumcised (and Jesus always was a jew ... that means those who would become christians would become jews (which was a fact until Paul and his people changed the conditions forr non jews so much, that it could no longer be tolerated))
(and AFAIK jews even today adhere to this rule that converts to Judaism have to get circumcised)

[Kidlicious]

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+17

Considering that god includes non jews in this listing (those not born of a jew, but coming from outside (getting bought by foreigners)) says to me that anyone who claims to be of judaic faith/comes to judaic faith has to get circumcised (and Jesus always was a jew ... that means those who would become christians would become jews (which was a fact until Paul and his people changed the conditions forr non jews so much, that it could no longer be tolerated))
(and AFAIK jews even today adhere to this rule that converts to Judaism have to get circumcised)

What Paul says is that none of the Judaizers would themselves get circumcised as adults. It's kind of like the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" thing. Yes Abraham circumcised himself. No other adults were required to get circumcised. That is Paul's interpretation, who was a Pharisee.