Ahmed Mohamed: 'Clock boy' seeks $15m from city and school

[JimC]

Once again, the only objection I had to your previous post is the implication that Islam is no more than just another religion. ...

Perhaps then we are only disagreeing slightly over emphasis. Currently Islam presents a particular range of problems to, and issues for, secular societies, but for me, even though these challenges are pressing they're nothing special or particular to Islam, they're just the kind of errant stool-water that all too often gushes from the dogmatic sphincters of insistent of ideologues and which, they assert, we'd all be a lot better off for swallowing.

Some very interesting arguments. However, in the end, I think that Islam is a special case, in that its holy writings have many dangerous sections, in terms of advocating violence and asserting the utter primacy of its religious commands over all else. Virtually all other religions either do not have such passages, or have in practice abandoned them. Sure, the vast majority of modern muslims will happily cherry pick, and conform reasonably well to the secular principles of the society they live in. However, the potential inherent in Islam to strive violently for worldly supremacy remains, and is acted upon in fairly convincing ways by substantial numbers.

[Brian Peacock]

Do you not think that the passages in the Koran that seem to be being used to legitimise violence are essentially the same in character as those in the Bible which could also be seen to legitimate violence Jim?

The only difference seems to be the Enlightenment period's enduring influence on Christianity. How long that influence endures may be in the balance, it may be not, but if, for example, some fundie Christian was elected to high office or inspired a significant movement that decided it was God's will that they should work towards the conditions for Biblical Armageddon outlined in Revelations ahead of Jesus' upcoming comeback tour and the final judgement, then... Indeed, some Christian groups do just that, either through supporting divisive causes or, more commonly, simply through preaching The End Of Days doctrine and the message that an Earth riven by destruction and chaos is a Glory unto teh Lord and a source of great hope and joy...

Extract from the teachings of Wilford Woodruff, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

The Lord has raised up a kingdom of priests here in the last days to establish his church and kingdom, and to prepare the way for the second coming of the Son of Man, and the God of heaven has put into the hands of his servants the keys of the kingdom, and he has said—“Whatever I have decreed in these my servants shall be fulfilled, for to them is given power to bind and to seal both on the earth and in heaven, against the day of the wrath of Almighty God, which is to be poured out upon the world.” [See D&C 1:7–9.]

I think, many times, that we, as elders of Israel and as Latter-day Saints, come far short of realizing our position before the Lord. The work required at our hands is great and mighty; it is the work of Almighty God. We are held responsible for presenting the gospel of Christ to all the nations of the earth. … We are held responsible for all this and for building temples to the Most High, wherein we can enter and attend to ordinances for the salvation of our dead. …

… How much has the Lord plead with the nations of the earth to give them celestial glory, honor, immortality and eternal life? He has plead with them for the last six thousand years, and has raised up his servants from time to time and called upon the inhabitants of the world to prepare themselves for the great day of his second advent and coming, which is at hand. He is calling upon them loudly to-day; and, as I have said to some of my brethren lately, the Lord now wants to know whether the Latter-day Saints are willing to work with him or not. It is a day of decision....

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-wi ... 4?lang=eng

... It only needs a few more people to start taking this kind of shit literally.

The problem lies with the fundamentalism of fundamental believers I think, and it's just that Islam seems to contain a higher proportion of them, at least for the present.

[Seth]

Seth, you have a very warped viewpoint that comes from haviing lived a sheltered life. You probably have never lived outside the US* and I can safely say that you definitely have never lived in any Muslim majority country that upholds democractic principle, because otherwise you'd have had a more sensible view that would promote tolerance.

I go by what Islam says about itself and what Muslims do to one another and others, which is kill and enslave, something they have been doing more or less continuously since 822 A.D.

While I do not nercessarily deny the truths in your views, I believe that such polarising viewpoints are useless and practically dangerous as it might enrage moderate Muslims to take up the extremist causes.

And I do not give a flying fuck what Islamists want because what they want is for the rest of us to submit to them and worship their god or they will behead us or throw us from rooftops or blow us up or shoot us. Muslims don't have to "take up the extremist causes" because by being Muslims and refusing to repudiate those causes and extremism in public, in ways that convince me that they are not simply lying to me, they are part of the extremist causes already.

There are two ways to win wars, by attrition or by diplomacy. But you seem to only know the violent way, such that even if you damn well know the odds of winning through violence is slim, you will still badger on down that route.

We've been trying to accommodate and respect Islam for some 1400 years now without success. Regardless of how much diplomacy we engage in, Muslims seek to kill and enslave us because that is what they are commanded to do by their holy writ. They will never cease to do so because to do so is to not be a Muslim.

Fuck diplomacy, it's time to get back to attrition, which has historically been the only way to limit the amount of damage Muslims can do to non-believers. The Ottoman Empire was pretty good at suppressing Islamic violence, so we should consider their strategy and tactics as a solution to the Muslim violence problem.

My personal preference is to send them all back to the homeland of Islam, Saudi Arabia, and contain them there. They can then kill each other for the next thousand years trying to decide who the Prophet's legitimate heirs are for all I care. But we should NEVER let them out again because no matter how much they protest to the contrary, they are congenital, religiously-motivated and mandated liars who will say anything that advances the Caliphate and will dissemble and wait patiently for their chance to slit your throat, just as they have done for 1400 years to everyone who has tried conciliation and diplomacy. Throughout history Muslims are absolutely notorious for their habit of smiling and nodding with one hand while slipping the knife blade into your ribs with the other. It has been the advice of non-Muslim leaders and rulers since the beginning of the cult to never trust a Muslim, and I see no reason to begin now. Doing so does not secure peace it only allows Islam to infect society further, awaiting it's opportunity to explode into lethal fury when the time is right. Islam is a creeping but deadly virus that must be isolated and contained if not destroyed in order to ensure the future of free peoples everywhere.

*It's curious that you speak of the ISIS Muslim extremist problems (sharia law, caliphate, etc) as something that's solely American, when in fact many countries around the world that's outside the U.A.E are facing similar problems. The truth is more nuanced, as the U.A.E. itself is also probably facing similar problems, as ISIS does not approve of the current rulers of U.A.E.

Has the geographic label "Paris" escaped you? How about "Brussels?" ISIS is a global problem because it seeks to establish a global Caliphate. As to the UAE, I suspect they will get theirs when the time comes. Until then, they are Muslims, even if ISIS "does not approve" of the rulers, and therefore they are inherently not ISIS's primary concern, which is all non-Muslims like me.

[Seth]

Do you not think that the passages in the Koran that seem to be being used to legitimise violence are essentially the same in character as those in the Bible which could also be seen to legitimate violence Jim?

The only difference seems to be the Enlightenment period's enduring influence on Christianity. How long that influence endures may be in the balance, it may be not, but if, for example, some fundie Christian was elected to high office or inspired a significant movement that decided it was God's will that they should work towards the conditions for Biblical Armageddon outlined in Revelations ahead of Jesus' upcoming comeback tour and the final judgement, then... Indeed, some Christian groups do just that, either through supporting divisive causes or, more commonly, simply through preaching The End Of Days doctrine and the message that an Earth riven by destruction and chaos is a Glory unto teh Lord and a source of great hope and joy...

Extract from the teachings of Wilford Woodruff, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

The Lord has raised up a kingdom of priests here in the last days to establish his church and kingdom, and to prepare the way for the second coming of the Son of Man, and the God of heaven has put into the hands of his servants the keys of the kingdom, and he has said—“Whatever I have decreed in these my servants shall be fulfilled, for to them is given power to bind and to seal both on the earth and in heaven, against the day of the wrath of Almighty God, which is to be poured out upon the world.” [See D&C 1:7–9.]

I think, many times, that we, as elders of Israel and as Latter-day Saints, come far short of realizing our position before the Lord. The work required at our hands is great and mighty; it is the work of Almighty God. We are held responsible for presenting the gospel of Christ to all the nations of the earth. … We are held responsible for all this and for building temples to the Most High, wherein we can enter and attend to ordinances for the salvation of our dead. …

… How much has the Lord plead with the nations of the earth to give them celestial glory, honor, immortality and eternal life? He has plead with them for the last six thousand years, and has raised up his servants from time to time and called upon the inhabitants of the world to prepare themselves for the great day of his second advent and coming, which is at hand. He is calling upon them loudly to-day; and, as I have said to some of my brethren lately, the Lord now wants to know whether the Latter-day Saints are willing to work with him or not. It is a day of decision....

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-wi ... 4?lang=eng

... It only needs a few more people to start taking this kind of shit literally.

The problem lies with the fundamentalism of fundamental believers I think, and it's just that Islam seems to contain a higher proportion of them, at least for the present.

Mormons are hardly mainstream Christianity. But, you are largely correct in your analysis of the difference between New Testament Christianity and Pre-Christian Judaic religious practice. You need to understand that. All of you do. The Old Testament is not a Christian document, only the New Testament is because, quite obviously, Christ wasn't around when the Old Testament was written, and according to Christians themselves, Christ came to earth as a man, suffered and died precisely to redeem mankind from the sins of Judaism and to change all the rules behavior by mandating a new set of rules. The Old Testament is part of the historical record of the Christian religion but it is not the amended rules of conduct, the New Testament is. With certain radical exceptions (yes, even Christianity has radicals) today no Christian sect in the US or in most other places, including the Catholic church, subscribes or authorizes violence against anyone, including unbelievers. Indeed exactly the opposite. Christians are told NOT to engage in violence in the name of Christ, even if they are being tortured and murdered. They are told to accept their fate as martyrs and proof of the nature of Christians and their belief in Jesus Christ and his principles of living, which unlike Islam, do not call for world domination and enslavement of non-believers.

Fundamentalism is not itself the problem. The problem is what the fundamentalist believes and practices.

[Seth]

Seth's doubling down seems to see him justifying action (enforced expatriation) on the basis of religious membership alone

Um, in so far as Islam calls for a society governed by Sharia, it is rather more than just a religion.

Well, yes, I'd grant that fundamentally Islam is a political force, but then again this could be said of any religious ideology unswervingly held supreme by its adherents. In this they are essentially no different to any of the pre-Enlightenments brands of European Christianity. Modern-day JWs for example are fundamentalist Christians who maintain the supremacy of 'God's Law' as presented in a Bible--as commanded and inspired by God--which trumps and superceeds all human laws, and all other political, social, and moral/ethical considerations...

The fundamental question to ask of any religious order is whether it's precepts and ideas are to be forced upon others against their will or whether those precepts and ideas are merely presented as arguments to persuade others to follow a certain religious path.

No Christian sect that I know of today demands adherence to it's orthodoxy on pain of death as Islam does. Christians certainly point out that NOT adhering to Christian orthodoxy will (in their opinion) result in damnation and eternal torment, but that's not a threat, it's an earnest and altruistic warning of what they believe will be the impending wrath of God in the end times that implores people to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior willingly and voluntarily, thereby ensuring that they will be forgiven their sins and will avoid the purgatory and damnation that awaits those who do not receive absolution and forgiveness of sins.

That's substantially different from Islam, which says "convert to Islam and accept sharia law and Caliphate rule or die...or be enslaved and pay taxes because you're of more use to Islam as a tax-paying slave than as a corpse, although Islam doesn't give a rat's ass either way, so long as you submit to Allah one way or another."

[Seth]

Extract from the teachings of Wilford Woodruff, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

The Lord has raised up a kingdom of priests here in the last days to establish his church and kingdom, and to prepare the way for the second coming of the Son of Man, and the God of heaven has put into the hands of his servants the keys of the kingdom, and he has said—“Whatever I have decreed in these my servants shall be fulfilled, for to them is given power to bind and to seal both on the earth and in heaven, against the day of the wrath of Almighty God, which is to be poured out upon the world.” [See D&C 1:7–9.]

I think, many times, that we, as elders of Israel and as Latter-day Saints, come far short of realizing our position before the Lord. The work required at our hands is great and mighty; it is the work of Almighty God. We are held responsible for presenting the gospel of Christ to all the nations of the earth. … We are held responsible for all this and for building temples to the Most High, wherein we can enter and attend to ordinances for the salvation of our dead. …

… How much has the Lord plead with the nations of the earth to give them celestial glory, honor, immortality and eternal life? He has plead with them for the last six thousand years, and has raised up his servants from time to time and called upon the inhabitants of the world to prepare themselves for the great day of his second advent and coming, which is at hand. He is calling upon them loudly to-day; and, as I have said to some of my brethren lately, the Lord now wants to know whether the Latter-day Saints are willing to work with him or not. It is a day of decision....

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-wi ... 4?lang=eng

... It only needs a few more people to start taking this kind of shit literally.

Right, but what exactly is "this shit" and what is its import for non-believers? Does anything quoted above demand that their beliefs be forced upon anyone?

No.

It says that God has given them the duty of "presenting the gospel of Christ to all the nations of the earth", not forcing it upon others and demanding obedience on pain of death.

This is a very important point and distinction between Christianity and Islam. In Christian theology Christians are commanded to "present the gospel of Christ to all the nations of the earth" but they are NOT commanded to force anyone to accept the salvation of Christ. That is a personal decision that each person is freely permitted to make, without coercion or force by Christians. The purpose of this commandment to Christians is to make sure that everyone knows that the salvation of Christ is available to them on request, and that is all.

The persuasive argument made to cajole or induce people to voluntarily accept Christ as their personal savior and receive the forgiveness and grace he offers is, of course, the impending wrath of God that will be poured out upon those who, having been informed of the gift available to them, refuse to accept it. But that wrath is God's wrath, to be imposed by God, not by Christians, who are not called upon to compel anyone to Christian obedience on pain of death.

Muslims are explicitly compelled to do exactly that, either physically themselves compel (or convince) non-believers to convert to Islam or submit to Islamic rule or to kill them if they refuse or oppose or even insult Islam, Mohammed or Allah. This means that Muslims are expressly commanded to be the instruments of God's wrath at non-believers, which Christians are expressly forbidden to be, God's wrath being his alone, like his forgiveness, to dispense.

This is an incredibly important distinction that you all need to understand about both Christianity and Islam.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

Muslims are explicitly compelled to do exactly that, either physically themselves compel (or convince) non-believers to convert to Islam or submit to Islamic rule or to kill them if they refuse or oppose or even insult Islam, Mohammed or Allah. This means that Muslims are expressly commanded to be the instruments of God's wrath at non-believers, which Christians are expressly forbidden to be, God's wrath being his alone, like his forgiveness, to dispense.

This is an incredibly important distinction that you all need to understand about both Christianity and Islam.

There is some truth in this, as long as you are talking about the modern version of christianity; a somewhat different picture would emerge if we went back to the days of the Spanish Inquisition and the like. Christianity in those days was extremely violent towards heretics, and wielded a considerable amount of worldly power. Much of the change to a milder form of christianity was not via internal change by the church of those days, but via curbs put on it by an increasingly secular society, a process which has been much weaker in the case of Islam...

However, when you say "Muslims are explicitly compelled to do exactly that, either physically themselves compel (or convince) non-believers to convert to Islam or submit to Islamic rule or to kill them if they refuse or oppose or even insult Islam, Mohammed or Allah.", this is very much only in theory for the majority. The fundamentalists who take these commands literally are the enemy, the rest should be steadily assimilated into more modern, secular positions, and let the violent core of islam gradually fade away, as did the violence inherent in earlier versions of Old Testament influenced christianity. This last is what the fundamentalists truly fear; they like nothing better than the rise of rabid red-neck anti-muslim sentiment in the west, which promotes ghettoisation, and radicalises by the score

[Seth]

There is some truth in this, as long as you are talking about the modern version of christianity; a somewhat different picture would emerge if we went back to the days of the Spanish Inquisition and the like. Christianity in those days was extremely violent towards heretics, and wielded a considerable amount of worldly power. Much of the change to a milder form of christianity was not via internal change by the church of those days, but via curbs put on it by an increasingly secular society, a process which has been much weaker in the case of Islam...

True in part. However I wouldn't necessarily say that secular society is responsible. Mostly it was Martin Luther and internal changes in the Catholic church itself, which abjured the Inquisition (which only took place in Spain by the way, not worldwide, which is not to say that you are incorrect about church violence towards heretics that did occur a thousand years ago) and eschewed the improperly assumed political role of the Catholic church as a ruling authority over non-Catholics.

However, when you say "Muslims are explicitly compelled to do exactly that, either physically themselves compel (or convince) non-believers to convert to Islam or submit to Islamic rule or to kill them if they refuse or oppose or even insult Islam, Mohammed or Allah.", this is very much only in theory for the majority.

I said they are commanded to do so, and they are, explicitly. Whether "the majority" actually does so must be viewed in light of the additional commandments that they do so when the time is right to permit Islamic victory and that until that time arrives they are to dissemble, lie and give the appearance of being a peaceful religion.

The fundamentalists who take these commands literally are the enemy, the rest should be steadily assimilated into more modern, secular positions, and let the violent core of islam gradually fade away, as did the violence inherent in earlier versions of Old Testament influenced christianity.

Great idea, except for that whole "Muslims are commanded to lie and pretend to be peaceful for as long as it takes to ensure victory" part. Now, if "moderate" Muslims come out of the closet and openly and publicly abjure and disassociate from the relevant passages in the Koran and demonstrate that they do not teach those passages and have in fact edited them out of their copies of the Koran or have added to the Korans that they themselves hold sacred pronouncements from Allah that they are to abjure violence and Islamic political rule and supremacy forever, then I might begin to believe them.

This last is what the fundamentalists truly fear; they like nothing better than the rise of rabid red-neck anti-muslim sentiment in the west, which promotes ghettoisation, and radicalises by the score

And the alternative is what, exactly? Until "moderate" Muslims actually demonstrate openly and truthfully that they have removed the calls for violence and Islamic superiority and have submitted, before Allah and in defiance of Mohammed, to secular political rule and have repudiated sharia law they simply cannot be trusted not to be lying to us as fifth-column sleeper units.

As I said before, I heard a Muslim apologist claiming to be horrified and heart-broken by the slaughter in California lie by omission in a blatant attempt to persuade non-Muslims that she and other Muslims are in fact opposed to the religious principles and commandments in the Koran and that they would never do or sanction such a thing. When one's religious commandments compel one to lie to non-believers in order to gain the advantage over them for the faith, nothing anyone of that faith says can be trusted. It's just that simple.

[Hermit]

The Bible is every bit as barbarous as the Qur'an. The first commandment, purportedly being the words of god himself, who warns us: "I am a jealous God." That's the god who commands his chosen people to commit genocide for no better reason than so they won't intermingle with the tribe whose land they were in the process of conquering, lest their religion be polluted via cross pollination. This is the holy writ that gives women no voice and is cool with slavery. And then there is the particularly disgusting book of Leviticus, which is every bit as vicious as Sharia, and then some. Offences that must result in stoning to death include eating prawns, backchatting your dad, being raped in a village you don't live in and wearing garments made of mixed threads among other crimes.

Apologists argue that, yabbut that's the old testament. It's been superseded by the New Covenant, which is all lovey-dovey. Three point need to be highlighted about this bullshit.

Firstly, why is the old testament still part of the Bible on every pulpit of every Christian denomination, to be quoted from whenever convenient? Homosexualityas an abomination, anyone?

Secondly, the New Covenant is so lovey-dovey and forgiving only if you ignore a few verses that are definitely not.

• "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you." [Matthew 11:21-24]
  
  "Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come." [Matthew 11:31-32]
  
  "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me" [Luke 19:27]
  
  Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a mans enemies will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it. [Matthew 10:34-39]

Thank you, Jesus. You are just too kind.

Thirdly, the New Covenant has not superseded the old one just yet. "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. [Matthew 5:18] Guess what. Yes, correct; Heaven and earth have not yet passed.


Modern Christianity was created around the time the Roman Emperor Constantin convened the first Council of Nicaea in the fourth century. With the wholesale deletions, interpolations and outright forgeries that occurred in thisperiod there was the perfect opportunity to reshape the holy writ to become the lovey-dovey New Covenant today's moderate Christians claim it is. It did not happen. There was another chance of it happening a thousand years later with the Reformation. Again, it did not happen. All we have is new interpretations of a text that is both savage and full of contradictions using the time honoured technique called cherry-picking. I do wish fewer adherents of the respective Abrahamic religions would pick from the abundant cruel fruit. That does tend to happen roughly in tandem with increased education and material comforts.

[Seth]

The Bible is every bit as barbarous as the Qur'an.

The Old Testament is. The New Testament, which amends the old, is not.

Apologists argue that, yabbut that's the old testament. It's been superseded by the New Covenant, which is all lovey-dovey. Three point need to be highlighted about this bullshit.

Firstly, why is the old testament still part of the Bible on every pulpit of every Christian denomination, to be quoted from whenever convenient?

Because there is both historical information and sage wisdom in the Old Testament, notwithstanding the "jealous god" provisions that no longer apply. And many churches do not use the Old Testament as a reference for proper Christian behavior because it pre-dates Christ.

Homosexualityas an abomination, anyone?

Yeah? So what? While homosexuality may be an abomination in the Old Testament that does not mean that homosexuals are automatically reviled in the New Testament. Most often the phrase used is "hate the sin but love the sinner."

Secondly, the New Covenant is so lovey-dovey and forgiving only if you ignore a few verses that are definitely not.

Cherry picking quote mining.

• "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you." [Matthew 11:21-24]

Jesus is not commanding Christians to do anything, he is merely advising the inhabitants of those corrupt places that they risk God's judgment. Now you may complain that God should not punish the wicked, but you'll have to take that up with God, not Christians.

"Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come." [Matthew 11:31-32]

So don't speak against the Holy Spirit unless you don't care to be forgiven. It still does not command any Christian to take any aggressive action against anyone.

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me" [Luke 19:27]

Out of context.

Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a mans enemies will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it. [Matthew 10:34-39][/list]

Well, he's the Son of God and is merely trying to convince people that one risks forfeiting salvation if one places family over obedience to God, he's not telling anyone to harm anyone else.

Thank you, Jesus. You are just too kind.

Just telling the truth and warning you that unless you seek salvation you will be judged by God...not by Christians.

Thirdly, the New Covenant has not superseded the old one just yet. "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. [Matthew 5:18] Guess what. Yes, correct; Heaven and earth have not yet passed.

Quote mining. You have to understand the context and meaning of "the law" to understand the quote.

Modern Christianity was created around the time the Roman Emperor Constantin convened the first Council of Nicaea in the fourth century. With the wholesale deletions, interpolations and outright forgeries that occurred in thisperiod there was the perfect opportunity to reshape the holy writ to become the lovey-dovey New Covenant today's moderate Christians claim it is. It did not happen. There was another chance of it happening a thousand years later with the Reformation. Again, it did not happen. All we have is new interpretations of a text that is both savage and full of contradictions using the time honoured technique called cherry-picking. I do wish fewer adherents of the respective Abrahamic religions would pick from the abundant cruel fruit. That does tend to happen roughly in tandem with increased education and material comforts.

Wayback Machine fallacy. What happened then is utterly irrelevant to what's happening today, and today we do not see Christian death squads blowing themselves up and murdering non-Christians. So whatever you think about the Bible or Christianity the fact is that it's nothing like Islam today, and never has been.

[Brian Peacock]

...

Apologists argue that, yabbut that's the old testament. It's been superseded by the New Covenant, which is all lovey-dovey. Three point need to be highlighted about this bullshit.

...

Fourthly, the Jesus narrative marks him out as the enforcer of the Laws of Moses.

Matthew 5:17-18, KJV

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

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."

... and all that he spoke was the holy word of God...

John 1:12-14, KJV

"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth."

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

Wayback Machine fallacy. What happened then is utterly irrelevant to what's happening today, and today we do not see Christian death squads blowing themselves up and murdering non-Christians. So whatever you think about the Bible or Christianity the fact is that it's nothing like Islam today, and never has been.

Way to miss Hermit's point...

You have been banging on endlessly about how the holy books of Islam contain many barbaric passages. No one will disagree with that. But you become extremely defensive about christianity - I wonder why? Hermit has merely pointed out that both testaments of the christian bible contain equally barbaric passages; and it is a fact that the majority of christian denominations (certainly including the catholic church) include both testaments in their bible, and I have certainly heard many a reading from the old testament (typically not the really gory bits, but they are there and available to a fire and brimstone preacher like the late Ian Paisley...) in catholic services. If modern christianity was serious about repudiating the old testament, it would not publish it and would not quote from it, leaving it as a purely historical reference source for history-minded theologians. But they don't...

Yes, it is true that modern christianity behaves differently, in the sense that even its fundamentalist sects do not act as IS does (at least in part because they are constrained by functioning and effective secular law enforcement agencies, and not operating in the political chaos of the Middle East). But given that both religions have extremely offensive and barbaric sections in their writings, but many of the adherents of both can effectively ignore them as they practice their religion, one cannot make absolutist statements that the Koran and Hadith forever hold muslims in an iron grip, compelling them to lie to the infidel and enslave them. We no longer think it appropriate for bears to eat small children because they have irritated religious old men; in time, it is perfectly possible that a secularised Islam will quietly sweep its nasty historical baggage into the dustbin of failed ideas...

[laklak]

He he he he he
He said "tittle"
He he he he he he

[surreptitious57]

My personal preference is to send them all back to the homeland of Islam

Over one billion Muslims in the world so Saudi Arabia is not going to be able to accommodate them all
And it does not want to accommodate any at all given how it has taken in none of the Syrian refugees
Islam is too big to be confined to a physical border anyway for it is the worlds fastest growing religion
Kierkegaard said that you can stop the march of an army but not an idea and this is very true of Islam
Also the internet makes a mockery of physical borders as ideas are freely disseminated in cyber space

[Brian Peacock]