Christianity, the religion of peace...

[Hermit]

Yeah....problem is that Islam explicitly commands Muslims to kill and enslave infidels

That's a problem the Qor'an shares with the Bible: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." Luke 19:27

We've been over this before. You're balancing your condemnation on a slender reed indeed.

Slender? It was crucial for justifying several crusades and quite number of wars between Christian sects. The difference between the Qor'an and the Bible in respect to advocating violence and death is for all practical intents and purposes negligible. The difference that matters is that today the relevant passages in the Bible are ignored by all but a the tiniest number of nutters while a tiny but significant number of Muslims still take the equivalent sections of the Qor'an seriously. Ultimately, both texts are equally idiotic and contradictory.

Wayback Machine fallacy.

Neither the Qur'an nor the Bible has changed appreciably over the centuries since they were written down. You did say that the problem is that Islam explicitly commands Muslims to kill and enslave infidels, did you not? I argued that Jesus is quoted to have said words to that effect himself. Neither the Qur'an nor the Bible has changed appreciably over the centuries since they were written down. Your Wayback Machine fallacy does not apply.

[pErvinalia]

No true Muslim...

Yeah....problem is that Islam explicitly commands Muslims to kill and enslave infidels, which makes it pretty hard to argue that it's a religion of peace...unless you define "peace" as "enslaving or killing everyone who isn't a Muslim."

And Christianity explicitly commands Christians to stone adulterous woman. And kill people who eat shellfish, if I'm not mistaken.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah....problem is that Islam explicitly commands Muslims to kill and enslave infidels

That's a problem the Qor'an shares with the Bible: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." Luke 19:27

We've been over this before. You're balancing your condemnation on a slender reed indeed.

Slender? It was crucial for justifying several crusades and quite number of wars between Christian sects. The difference between the Qor'an and the Bible in respect to advocating violence and death is for all practical intents and purposes negligible. The difference that matters is that today the relevant passages in the Bible are ignored by all but a the tiniest number of nutters while a tiny but significant number of Muslims still take the equivalent sections of the Qor'an seriously. Ultimately, both texts are equally idiotic and contradictory.

Wayback Machine fallacy.

Made up fallacy fallacy.

[Seth]

No true Muslim...

Yeah....problem is that Islam explicitly commands Muslims to kill and enslave infidels, which makes it pretty hard to argue that it's a religion of peace...unless you define "peace" as "enslaving or killing everyone who isn't a Muslim."

And Christianity explicitly commands Christians to stone adulterous woman. And kill people who eat shellfish, if I'm not mistaken.

Er, no. Please try to remember that Christianity didn't start until Christ came along. You're referring to Old Testament religious law which was repealed by Jesus.

[Seth]

Neither the Qur'an nor the Bible has changed appreciably over the centuries since they were written down. You did say that the problem is that Islam explicitly commands Muslims to kill and enslave infidels, did you not? I argued that Jesus is quoted to have said words to that effect himself. Neither the Qur'an nor the Bible has changed appreciably over the centuries since they were written down. Your Wayback Machine fallacy does not apply.

Sure it does. You are conflating the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament was repealed by the New Testament. And no, Jesus did not command anyone to kill or enslave anyone.

[JimC]

Neither the Qur'an nor the Bible has changed appreciably over the centuries since they were written down. You did say that the problem is that Islam explicitly commands Muslims to kill and enslave infidels, did you not? I argued that Jesus is quoted to have said words to that effect himself. Neither the Qur'an nor the Bible has changed appreciably over the centuries since they were written down. Your Wayback Machine fallacy does not apply.

Sure it does. You are conflating the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament was repealed by the New Testament. And no, Jesus did not command anyone to kill or enslave anyone.

Point 1

Matthew 5.17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

Point 2

Virtually all branches of christianity use excerpts of the Old Testament in their sermons

Point 3

Virtually all branches of christianity include the old testament in their bible; if thgey wanted to, they could easily leave it out.

But your last sentence is fair enough.

[Seth]

Neither the Qur'an nor the Bible has changed appreciably over the centuries since they were written down. You did say that the problem is that Islam explicitly commands Muslims to kill and enslave infidels, did you not? I argued that Jesus is quoted to have said words to that effect himself. Neither the Qur'an nor the Bible has changed appreciably over the centuries since they were written down. Your Wayback Machine fallacy does not apply.

Sure it does. You are conflating the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament was repealed by the New Testament. And no, Jesus did not command anyone to kill or enslave anyone.

Point 1

Matthew 5.17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

Doesn't mean what you think it means.

Point 2

Virtually all branches of christianity use excerpts of the Old Testament in their sermons

So what?

Point 3

Virtually all branches of christianity include the old testament in their bible; if thgey wanted to, they could easily leave it out.

Er, you'll find a lot of Christians only follow the New Testament. And as for leaving it out, I'm told God doesn't want it left out. It's part of man's historical relationship with God and it helps to explain why God chose to send his only begotten Son to earth to live and die as a man to redeem the sins of mankind. Apparently, God decided that the Old Testament schtick wasn't working out very well and had a change of heart and decided to change things around, which, being God, would be his prerogative. So why would Christians want to leave it out. That would be like the Germans banning Mein Kampf because it reminded them of unpleasantness and served as an example of why they shouldn't be like that. Oh, wait, Germany DID ban Mein Kampf because it made them uncomfortable, so they decided to elide the distasteful past.

Christians choose to acknowledge the past as explanatory of their current faith. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

But your last sentence is fair enough.[/quote]

[Hermit]

Neither the Qur'an nor the Bible has changed appreciably over the centuries since they were written down. You did say that the problem is that Islam explicitly commands Muslims to kill and enslave infidels, did you not? I argued that Jesus is quoted to have said words to that effect himself. Neither the Qur'an nor the Bible has changed appreciably over the centuries since they were written down. Your Wayback Machine fallacy does not apply.

Sure it does. You are conflating the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament was repealed by the New Testament. And no, Jesus did not command anyone to kill or enslave anyone.

Lol. I quoted from the New Testament.

As for the Old Testament, as Jim just mentioned, the alleged son of God allegedly said this about it: "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished " Matthew 5:17-18 It means exactly what it says, not any convoluted reinterpretation to deny the obvious.

[pErvinalia]

No true Muslim...

Yeah....problem is that Islam explicitly commands Muslims to kill and enslave infidels, which makes it pretty hard to argue that it's a religion of peace...unless you define "peace" as "enslaving or killing everyone who isn't a Muslim."

And Christianity explicitly commands Christians to stone adulterous woman. And kill people who eat shellfish, if I'm not mistaken.

Er, no. Please try to remember that Christianity didn't start until Christ came along. You're referring to Old Testament religious law which was repealed by Jesus.

When was the old testament written? And do you have proof that Jebus repealed the OT?

[Seth]

Neither the Qur'an nor the Bible has changed appreciably over the centuries since they were written down. You did say that the problem is that Islam explicitly commands Muslims to kill and enslave infidels, did you not? I argued that Jesus is quoted to have said words to that effect himself. Neither the Qur'an nor the Bible has changed appreciably over the centuries since they were written down. Your Wayback Machine fallacy does not apply.

Sure it does. You are conflating the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament was repealed by the New Testament. And no, Jesus did not command anyone to kill or enslave anyone.

Lol. I quoted from the New Testament.

As for the Old Testament, as Jim just mentioned, the alleged son of God allegedly said this about it: "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished " Matthew 5:17-18 It means exactly what it says, not any convoluted reinterpretation to deny the obvious.

So you say. Then again, he's also quoted as saying "It is accomplished" just before dying. And that's why Christians don't stone women to death or kill nonbelievers, something Muslims still do with increasing frequency.

[Seth]

No true Muslim...

Yeah....problem is that Islam explicitly commands Muslims to kill and enslave infidels, which makes it pretty hard to argue that it's a religion of peace...unless you define "peace" as "enslaving or killing everyone who isn't a Muslim."

And Christianity explicitly commands Christians to stone adulterous woman. And kill people who eat shellfish, if I'm not mistaken.

Er, no. Please try to remember that Christianity didn't start until Christ came along. You're referring to Old Testament religious law which was repealed by Jesus.

When was the old testament written? And do you have proof that Jebus repealed the OT?

He said he did. That was the whole point of his sacrifice, according to Christian theology.

[pErvinalia]

How do you know he said he did? Were you there?

[Hermit]

Neither the Qur'an nor the Bible has changed appreciably over the centuries since they were written down. You did say that the problem is that Islam explicitly commands Muslims to kill and enslave infidels, did you not? I argued that Jesus is quoted to have said words to that effect himself. Neither the Qur'an nor the Bible has changed appreciably over the centuries since they were written down. Your Wayback Machine fallacy does not apply.

Sure it does. You are conflating the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament was repealed by the New Testament. And no, Jesus did not command anyone to kill or enslave anyone.

Lol. I quoted from the New Testament.

As for the Old Testament, as Jim just mentioned, the alleged son of God allegedly said this about it: "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished " Matthew 5:17-18 It means exactly what it says, not any convoluted reinterpretation to deny the obvious.

So you say. Then again, he's also quoted as saying "It is accomplished" just before dying. And that's why Christians don't stone women to death or kill nonbelievers, something Muslims still do with increasing frequency.

That's the thing about those tomes: You can pick and choose whatever suits the argument you wish to promote. The vagueness, incoherence and contradictions make it easy to find justification for whatever barrow you're pushing.

[Seth]

That's the thing about those tomes: You can pick and choose whatever suits the argument you wish to promote. The vagueness, incoherence and contradictions make it easy to find justification for whatever barrow you're pushing.

So, it might be reasonable to look at what barrow modern Christians are pushing rather than trying to stuff them into a fallacy. Whatever Jesus is alleged to have said 2000 years ago, the incidence of Christians stoning adulterers or cutting off people's heads today is, well, just about zero. I will note that it is alleged that one Christian fighter somewhere over in the sandbox cut the head off of a Muslim the other day, but that doesn't seem to be either a trend or something modern-day Christians approve of.

And that's why the "Matthew 5:17-18" canard is a Wayback Machine fallacy.

[Seth]

How do you know he said he did? Were you there?

What part of "according to Christian theology" is unclear to you?