Who wants to help me out with answers to this one? Accoring to this guy, Islam is evil because it tells its followers to kill the unbelievers, etc. The Muslims who don't go along with that, according to this guy, are the hypocrits; whereas in Christianity the hypocrits are the ones who kill the "heathens." Argh!

--------------

Here follows transcription of conversation:

> "Chapter 2, verse 190: "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors." This portion of the Qur'an was written in about 606 C.E., when the Prophet Muhammad and his followers were under attack in the city of Medinah, says Imam Yahya Hendi, a Qur'anic scholar who is the Muslim chaplain at Georgetown University. There, they had established their own state.

Precisely. They had established their own "state." They had arrogated to themselves, as a religious group, the right to rule over, tax, and if necessary persecute and murder unbelievers, simply because the Muslims were more powerful.

> But various coalitions of non-Muslim tribes--including Christians, Jews, atheists and animists--continued to go to war with them. This portion of the Qur'an explains their reasoning behind striking back. The passage actually refers to a defensive war.

By that standard, the Nazis were fighting a "defensive war" in Europe. They attacked all their neighbours, and their neighbours then proceeded to fight back, putting the Nazis on the "defensive."

> -"What the Qur'an Really Says About Jihad and Violence", beliefnet.com

A clarifying note: Unless you understand that everything that any Muslim says about Islam is a lie, you won't understand Islam. Islam believes that the end (a world-wide Islamic state in which all non-believers are either submissive or dead) justifies the means (holy war, treaty breaking, etc).

> > > Christianity, with it's commandments, and host of other sins etc., is just as much "no friend to freedom" as Islam;

> > How so? Show me from the New Testament what Christianity's philosophy of government is. (Hint: There is none. Christianity was always presumed to be a religion of the powerless. There are no hints for what "Christian" rulers are expected to do, or how they are expected to govern. Personally, I believe this omission is intentional--there has never been, and never can be, a "Christian" government, and any government claiming to be "Christian" or "run on Christian principles" is not.)

> The New Testament? Whatever happened to the Old? Didn't Jesus say "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill... Till heaven and earth shall pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law..." (Matthew 5:17-18?)

Jesus fulfilled the Law in his own person. The Law is eternal in the sense that Jesus is eternal. But are we expected to live by the Law? Of course not.

> In a "perfect Christian society," where everyone followed the Commandments in the way that we wanted them to be interpretted, sharing with and loving his neighbour etc. etc., there would be no problem I'm sure - except for the stripping of peoples freedom to eat shellfish, etc.

You seem to have a rather jaundiced view of Christianity, I'm afraid. Perhaps you are unaware of Jesus' saying that it is not what goes into a man's mouth that defiles him, but what comes out? The food laws and all that stuff are not our business any more. They have nothing to do with Christianity.

> Because, though, people can interpret the Bible and Commandments differently there needs to be an arbitrator who decides how they are interpretted;- enter the Papacy/Church. With only these guiding Commandments and doctrines as a basis for "Christian society," we see now fundamental rights removed; namely freedom of religionand personal choice.

One of the benefits of being a Latter Day Saint is that I can reject anything the Catholic Church said or did as being non-Christian, since the Roman Catholic Church was a split-off or schism from the genuine Christian Church. Any atrocities it may have committed in the name of Christ are irrelevant.

> > That much being said, compare explicitly "Christian" governments and their conduct with explicitly "Muslim" governments and their conduct. As repellent as "Christian" governments have been, they have at least grown up in the past couple of centuries. I haven't heard of any mass-executions of "heretics" by the state Lutheran Church of Sweden lately, or in any Christian country for that matter. Contrast that with Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Sudan (where slavery is still legal, as long as the slaves are Christian, BTW) and a host of others.

> A government claiming itself to be Muslim can well do so and remain within socially accepted "boundaries" if they wish,

"If they wish"? That's sort of the whole point. A government can call itself anything it wants to. If a government really, honestly tries to live by Islamic principles, the results are the same: Sudan, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

> and a government which does not - and chooses to interpret their religious book in a manner that causes them to act in unacceptable ways; or chooses to use this religion as a cover or excuse for unacceptable behavior - cannot be taken as the deffinitive example of a society following such-and-such religion.

"Unacceptable" to whom? Not to Muslims.

> There can be many different types of "Christian community," as there can with Muslim communities or states.

I agree with that: There are basically two types, in fact, of both--the hypocrites and the non-hypocrites. See above.

> You're the historian, but are you really going to say that the development of the Western World to a greater global economic powerbase (however you want to put that) is due to the employment of "Christian values,"

Indirectly, yes. To give two examples: In Islam, humans are created to "submit" to God. In Christianity, persons are of infinite worth. God gave his only Son to save human beings from their sins. The value of human beings was worth God's eternal self-sacrifice. So... if God is willing to sacrifice his own Son for my neighbour, then why am I denying my neighbour the right to vote? Such ideas were instrumental in establishing the concepts of human rights (we are "endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights" -- T.J.) and personal liberty. This is why the idea of personal freedom and human rights originated in Christian Europe, and nowhere else.

Another example: In Islam, the laws of nature and the world exist at Allah's suffrance, and God can change his mind about how things work. In Christianity, the universe is created according to divine law--it works according to a predetermined divine pattern, and it follows predictable courses. The concept of universal laws of nature was necessary to the invention of science as we know it--if the universe is operating under capricious, ever-changing whims of God, we can't hope to understand how it works or to conduct replicable experiments on it. But in Christian Europe, with the understanding that an unchanging and predictable God had created laws of nature that were equally unchanging and predictable, verifiable experiments were conducted and a scientific understanding of the universe emerged. This is why modern science originated in Christian Europe, and nowhere else.

> Just as there are thousands upon thousands of "variations on the Christian theme," each with their own "Christian" ideologies and often holding themselves up as the only "true" Christian faith; why can there not be similar shades and variations of Islam?

Of course there are! The question is, which ones are obviously hypocritical, and which ones are not? Just because some mass-murderer goes around calling himself a Christian or a Muslim, means nothing--until you search each religion's basic tenets and see how far away from them this fellow is. In Islam, Muhammad was a war leader who executed captives and raped their wives. In Christianity, Jesus gave himself up voluntarily to be killed, and rebuked the apostle Peter for trying to protect Christianity with the sword. Don't tell me you can't tell the difference.

So christianity is better than islam because of how their "main characters" lived?

And because of how their "extras" are supposed to live, apparantly.

This was really interesting...first time I've seen the two religions compared like that. Usually they just focus on the similarities.

There are two versions of Muhammad shown by religious folks.. one is a mad mad who is raping people (shown mostly by anti-muslim fanatics) and then a side by historians who have endless praise for him as the person who never killed a prisoner of war..

If Quran is the word of God then he would not have chosen a rapist as his messenger..

If Quran is written by Muhammad then why does it say that Raping and other stuff is the worst thing possible.. Why does it say that War is bad.. and why is everything totally the opposite of the Muhammad that is described by many people?


Ofcourse if you ask an anti-christian jewish person he will tell you that jesus was a blasphemor who is boiling in semen.

"Jesus "Limped on one foot" and "was blind in one eye," "he practiced enchantment by means of his membrum," "he committed bestiality with his ass," he was a fool who "did not even know his beast's mind. (Sanhedrin 105a-105b) The silly and foul misuse of Judges 5:27 about Sisera's dying convulsions meaning sexual intercourse is here applied to Jesus, with the footnote explanation of Judges 5:27: "This is taken to mean sexual intercourse..."

Jesus: Attempts to seduce woman, is excommunicated by a Rabbi and then worships a brick, was a seducer of Israel, and practiced magic. (Sanhedrin 107b, Jewish encyclopedia)

Jesus: In the index of Sanhedrin, "chief repository of the criminal aw of the Talmud," showing page numbers where He is denounced.

Jesus' Resurrection cursed: "Woe unto him who maketh himself alive by the name of God." (Sanhedrin 106a)"



If Quran is the word of God then he would not have chosen a rapist as his messenger..

If Quran is written by Muhammad then why does it say that Raping and other stuff is the worst thing possible.. Why does it say that War is bad.. and why is everything totally the opposite of the Muhammad that is described by many people?

This guy has a Masters degree in European history, man. I think he knows what he's talking about...

After all, we all know the founding throes of Islam, the wars against Mecca from Medinah, etc.

Why not? Since - from this guys point of view (which, as I find no flaw in it, I officialy take up) - the Qur'an condones raping and slavery and killing of unbelievers and the like.

Quote please?

Which "many people" is that then, and what is this Muhammad you speak of like? The all loving all caring all singing all dancing Muhammad the Benevolent?!


True, and I make no argument for or against Christianity and Jesus. However, the Jews take the words of their own books to bring their case against Jesus. In talking about Islam like this, we use it's own holy books, the center of it's faith...

And Deshy, dear, did you really have to copy the whole thing out again??! :p Your points were rather lost in the jumble... although you seem to "agree" with both arguments to some extent...

Lol, see my reply to this on "is it all manufactured".
I'm too lazy...

*sighs* ...here you go...

and this too, then...

What, are you reading in the car on a laptop or something? That always makes me feel sick... (sorry... I'm not often snappy to n00bs, (honest!) but, I have problems...)

That's what it says - Latter Day Saint! The "non-arrow" remarks are his, the "arrow remarks" are a pro-Muslim debator.

Who has too much time on their hands - someone who is debating in a sensible manner about a relevant topic in a sensible forum, or someone who replies to a reposting of that debate? (sorry repliers, but i'm illustrating a point here!)

You present the above as your reasoning for thinking they have too much time on their hands - is it just me or does this make no sense at all? This person does not, at any time, "label himself as Christian," he merely - by using Christianity as a category into which the CJCLDS clearly fits - generalises the two religions to allow an easier comparison of the basic tenets. And how can one who accepts and follows the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth say "we would rather not be called Christian?"

And you point, in relation to the topic at hand, is what? That this person is a phoney because he places his religious philosophy in the category of "Christianity?"

What, pray, is "the Christian religion?" The CJCLDS is a religion that is placed under the category Christianity, same as Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox Church, Seventh Day Adventism, etc. etc. etc.

Umm.. what? You ,apparantly, have nothing better to do than come here and "debate" about whenther this person is right or wrong (or, in your case it seems, whether he is "a True LDS" or a phoney one). The answer, of course, is "so what?"

Again, I say - how can one who accepts and follows the teachings of Jesus say that calling themselves "Christian," followers of Christ, would be "lowering themselves?" Christian standards and beliefs? What on Earth are you babbling about? Do you say, then, that the CJCLDS disagrees with any of Jesus' teachings, and wants to divorce itself from him?

I'm sorry, but your post seemed to be from an "LDS" standpoint ("We would rather not be called Christian, etc."), yet this part appears to place you in the "atheist" or "agnostic" category?

Thanks Clear!

No problem. I figured it would be stressing trying to argue with a post in another thread, and this one just screamed out for replies...well done, honey.

I think I quoted it all anyway... but you - Quick Draw McMod here - defeated me in the race to post it...

Hehe...I draw faster than my own shadow... *snickers*

you know what.. there are sooo many translations of that.. that I'm not gonna even try..

some good quotes about islam are given on

Info about the religion that doesnt seem as weird as the rest

Like.. The original koran was burnt by the successors because of "pronunciation" problems

like everything is screwed up.. with millions of people just wandering around believeing a bunch of lies and knowing nothing..

I guess you cant blame them.. not everyone can embrace the darkness

This just cries out for a response...Gargoyle...wghat do you believe in, and how do you know it is the Truth? For all you know, your view on the world can be based on lies too...