Islam vs Christianity

[Hans de Vries]

This is a continuation of discussion between me and John Cuthber from the Paris attack thread.

 

There, John quoted a verse from Mathew (10:34) that says:

 

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

To begin this discussion my question is - what type of sword did Jesus bring and how did he use it?

Edited November 21, 2015 by Hans de Vries

[John Cuthber]

Obviously, it's a rubber sword to use as a prop for fancy dress parties.

It's important to realise that Christ didn't bring a shield- it's not a claim of defence.

Edited November 21, 2015 by John Cuthber

[dimreepr]

Maybe it's a wooden sword to play with his friends?

[Strange]

Did you hear about the dyslexic who brought words to a gnu fight?

Edited November 21, 2015 by Strange

[fiveworlds]

It's important to realise that Christ didn't bring a shield- it's not a claim of defence.

 

 

Ah god was the shield. It was also said that whoever lives by the sword shall die by the sword. It also mentions an eye for an eye and turning the other cheek a phrase used by mahatma ghandi

[Strange]

It also mentions an eye for an eye and turning the other cheek

 

So not much use as a guide to life then.

[fiveworlds]

So not much use as a guide to life then.

 

 

Um well according to the bible if the government mistreats us we can kill them and we can kill other governments if the government decides it is right to do so and has the support of the people. It's debatable whether it means the christian government aka the church or a country government or both. Or whether we can go on crusade/jihad without the support of both.

Edited November 21, 2015 by fiveworlds

[dimreepr]

 

“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” - Winston S. Churchill.

 

[John Cuthber]

 

Um well according to the bible if the government mistreats us we can kill them and we can kill other governments if the government decides it is right to do so and has the support of the people. It's debatable whether it means the christian government aka the church or a country government or both. Or whether we can go on crusade/jihad without the support of both.

So not much use as a guide to life then.

[Hans de Vries]

About the sword verse from Matthew - Jesus was telling his Apostles that if they keep following him, their families may reject them - and in that case they should reject their families too (but they shouldn't if their families accept them). By sword he meant the "sword" separating his followers from their families.

 

As we can see -not much to do with actual warfare. every person that is even remotely aware of the life of Jesus, his personality and his style of speech, will not interpret this verse as a call to war.

 

 

I picked up a wrong title for the thread. It should be called "Bible - controversial passages" - since at least when it comes to Jesus, those controversial passages turn out to be not controversial at all .

Edited November 21, 2015 by Hans de Vries

[Strange]

About the sword verse from Matthew - Jesus was telling his Apostles that if they keep following him, their families may reject them - and in that case they should reject their families too (but they shouldn't if their families accept them). By sword he meant the "sword" separating his followers from their families.

 

How do you know that?

[John Cuthber]

By sword he meant the "sword" separating his followers from their families.

 

It is a pity he didn't say that.

How do we know you are not just making stuff up?

[Hans de Vries]

Just read the passages immediately before and after that verse. It's basics of textual interpretation - you read the passage, then put in the context of surrounding passages and then you put them in the context of the entite book. That rule is especially true for texts outlining rules of behavior, i.e. legal and religious texts.

 

Interpreting Matthew 10:34 as a call to war not only contradicts all other teachings of Jesus, it also contradicts logic - it requires you to believe that Jesus advocated peace all his life, then became a proponent war for a few seconds (the time it takes to say "I came not to bring peace but a sword:") and then switched back to being a pacifist.

 

Isn't it better to accept the non-violent interpretation that at least dosa not contradict common sense (and all other teachings of jesus)?

[fiveworlds]

So not much use as a guide to life then.

 

 

The bible dictates many laws in England. But this is true it does not teach you how to make a plane, computer, car or phone. Or how to grow food, fish or anything else that might be actually relevant to human survival. Maybe you should join the jedi knights or the church of the flying spaghetti monster.

[Strange]

Just read the passages immediately before and after that verse. It's basics of textual interpretation - you read the passage, then put in the context of surrounding passages and then you put them in the context of the entite book. That rule is especially true for texts outlining rules of behavior, i.e. legal and religious texts.

 

You will have to do better than that. You can't just dismiss any bits you don't like by "reinterpreting" them.

The bible dictates many laws in England.

 

Really?

[Hans de Vries]

There is no need to reinterpret anything because passages from holy books are never interpreted on their own. They are always interpreted in context of other passages.

[John Cuthber]

Just read the passages immediately before and after that verse. It's basics of textual interpretation - you read the passage, then put in the context of surrounding passages and then you put them in the context of the entite book. That rule is especially true for texts outlining rules of behavior, i.e. legal and religious texts.

 

Interpreting Matthew 10:34 as a call to war not only contradicts all other teachings of Jesus, it also contradicts logic - it requires you to believe that Jesus advocated peace all his life, then became a proponent war for a few seconds (the time it takes to say "I came not to bring peace but a sword:") and then switched back to being a pacifist.

 

Isn't it better to accept the non-violent interpretation that at least dosa not contradict common sense (and all other teachings of jesus)?

"Just read the passages immediately before and after that verse.I"

Do you think I hadn't done that?

They talk of setting mother against daughter etc.

That's pretty much the defining feature of a civil war.And, since you seem so keen on logic, if you teach tolerance you can't set two people against eachother- one of them ( the one you taught) must tolerate the other's beliefs and behaviour.

 

Now we can have a look at that "pacifism". Remember, this is Matthew's gospel a he's the one who quotes Christ as saying that He came to keep the old laws- you know the currently unpopular ones like an eye for an eye, and stoning people to death.

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

 

So, you are reinterpreting the scripture here.

And it's reasonable to imagine that the more distant in time we are from Christ the more likely we are to misinterpret things.

Older interpretations are more likely to be correct,

 

Well, guess what- the older interpretations are that Christ was really did mean a sword. That passage was used as the "justification" for the crusades.

It's only the new "politically correct" interpretations that say otherwise.

 

The bible dictates many laws in England.

No it does not.

But the point is that, since nobody knows what it means, it isn't a guide.

Edited November 21, 2015 by John Cuthber

[Strange]

There is no need to reinterpret anything because passages from holy books are never interpreted on their own. They are always interpreted in context of other passages.

 

And they are always interpreted to suit the purposes of the one doing the interpretation. You want to go to war? The book says you can. You want to be a pacifist? The book will justify it. Against capital punishment? The book will support you. In favour of capital punishment? The book will support you.

[fiveworlds]

No it does not.

But the point is that, since nobody knows what it means, it isn't a guide.

 

 

What is the good samaritan law? Who was the good samaritan?

[Strange]

 

What is the good samaritan law? Who was the good samaritan?

 

Is there a Good Samaritan law in England?

 

No. (Although there is in some countries and it has been discussed in the UK.)

[fiveworlds]

 

Is there a Good Samaritan law in England?

 

No. (Although there is in some countries and it has been discussed in the UK.)

 

 

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2014-15/socialactionresponsibilityandheroism.html

[Strange]

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2014-15/socialactionresponsibilityandheroism.html

 

I don't see the relevance. I assume a "Good Samaritan" law is one that would require people to help others in need. But as you are resorting to your usual tactic of posting increasingly irrelevant "stuff" with no justification, I will leave it there.

[MigL]

There was a 'good samaritan' law in the last episode of Seinfeld.

 

The New Testament deals with the life and teachings of Christ. And it seems He never took up arms, and always turned the other cheek. Even as He was being crucified, he asked God to forgive his tormentors. The only occasion that He showed anger was in upsetting the money lenders' tables in the temple ( please correct me if I'm wrong, as its been a long time since I've done any reading from the bible ).

But all that is neither here or there, as there are no accurate historical records of Christ's life. We don't even know if He was a real person or someone 'created' by the Church as a symbol.

 

Mohammed, on the other hand, was a real historic figure, and there are actual historical records of his life.

Any history book will detail how he started preaching his new ( aggregate ) religion in Mecca, was expelled from the city and went to Medina, where He and His followers would raid wagon trains crossing the desert ( on their way to Mecca ) to finance his operations, until He could finally return to Mecca.

His religion then spread, by the sword, across North Africa, into Spain, up to the Pyrannees bordering France, and all the way to the Punjab in the East.

And lets not even get into the problems and quagmire that His succession was and is ( look up the origin of the word 'assassin', it comes from the Italian Crusader term for the stoned Seljuk Turk murderers hired by rival Muslim sects, 'Hashishini' ).

 

Now I agree, there's plenty of immorality to go around, what with the early Catholic church selling salvation, funding Crusades and competing for power with Emperors, but if we are to compare the morality of the respective religion's figure-heads, Christ and Mohammad, whose examples we are to follow, the choice seems rather simple, don't you think ?

[John Cuthber]

There was a 'good samaritan' law in the last episode of Seinfeld.

 

The New Testament deals with the life and teachings of Christ. And it seems He never took up arms, and always turned the other cheek. Even as He was being crucified, he asked God to forgive his tormentors. The only occasion that He showed anger was in upsetting the money lenders' tables in the temple ( please correct me if I'm wrong, as its been a long time since I've done any reading from the bible ).

But all that is neither here or there, as there are no accurate historical records of Christ's life. We don't even know if He was a real person or someone 'created' by the Church as a symbol.

 

Mohammed, on the other hand, was a real historic figure, and there are actual historical records of his life.

Any history book will detail how he started preaching his new ( aggregate ) religion in Mecca, was expelled from the city and went to Medina, where He and His followers would raid wagon trains crossing the desert ( on their way to Mecca ) to finance his operations, until He could finally return to Mecca.

His religion then spread, by the sword, across North Africa, into Spain, up to the Pyrannees bordering France, and all the way to the Punjab in the East.

And lets not even get into the problems and quagmire that His succession was and is ( look up the origin of the word 'assassin', it comes from the Italian Crusader term for the stoned Seljuk Turk murderers hired by rival Muslim sects, 'Hashishini' ).

 

Now I agree, there's plenty of immorality to go around, what with the early Catholic church selling salvation, funding Crusades and competing for power with Emperors, but if we are to compare the morality of the respective religion's figure-heads, Christ and Mohammad, whose examples we are to follow, the choice seems rather simple, don't you think ?

You missed the one about how old his wife was.

But, when you have finished, there's no point comparing what happened 1400 or 2000 years ago is there?

In practical (if not theological) terms, Both men are dead.

All that's left is the scriptures.

And both sets of scripture can be interpreted as pacifist or warrior. If one of them is more warrior than the other, it probably reflects the (supposed) writer's circumstances.

So what?

So, the question "if we are to compare the morality of the respective religion's figure-heads, Christ and Mohammad, whose examples we are to follow, the choice seems rather simple, don't you think ?"

has, as you say, an obvious answer.

Follow neither.

But that's hardly relevant either.

[puppypower]

The sword is a metaphor;

 

Hebrew 4;12

For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

 

If you look at history, the sword/word, after the death of Christ, began to penetrate minds and hearts with people becoming more divided. This division made it easier to judge in terms of true Christians.

 

As an analogy, say I was King and I was not able to tell who were my closest allies in my kingdom because I am surrounded by so many smart quick talkers, sales men and yes men. I need a way to divide by true and loyal subjects, from the yes men who skillfully fly below the radar.

 

What I will do is isolate myself and start a rumor that I am deathly ill, on my death bed. The idea of a power vacuum will be the dividing sword, to catalyze a power play. This will reveal the tyrants.

 

The sword/word of Jesus penetrated the ancient hearts and minds, and divided the flock; everyone starts to disagree. With so much entropy, the wolves in sheep's clothing show their true colors. This allowed pure Christian to appear and find each others and it also allowed the wolves to hunt and kill until they shed their sheep's clothing and could be recognized.

 

If the dividing sword had not be used, and wolves had infiltrated the early church, they could have undermined its purity with worldly needs. The wolves did not wish to be prey and separated from the herd of sheep to hunt them. The church become pure.

 

In the end it all payed off when Christianity becomes the official religion of Rome. The lion invite the sheep in and offers protection against the wolves. The lion is not afraid of the sheep. The sheep helps him draws in the wolves for the lion to kill and eat; predators become prey.

Edited November 21, 2015 by puppypower