Berkely students petition to stop Bill Maher from delivering commencement addres

[Viking]

But around the edges I continue to think the point still stands.  There is a difference between the teachings of the Bible, and of the Koran, and the teachings of the Koran have a noticeable more sympathy and endorsement or war and struggle.

This is making the same mistake the fundamentalists do - historical de-contextualization.

Jihad is used in a variety of contexts in the Qu'ran and the Islamic tradition generally, of which the military aspect is only one.  But focusing solely on the military implications, the relevant historical context is the pre-industrial tribal societies of pre-Islamic Arabia, in which warfare was endemic.   Early Islam sought to transcend tribal boundaries and put an end to incessant tribal warfare.  "Jihad" in that context is actually a concept design to restrain war by creating rules or law of war and channeling conflict away from internal and civil wars (ultimately unsuccessfully of course).  Jihad permits conflict against "Others" but of course in most pre-WW1 societies (and many since) such conflict has always been justifiable.  Jihad does not permit forced conversion as Islam requires toleration of people of the Book, which was then defined to include just about every major religion Muslims came into contact with.

If you actually believe the tenets of your religion you must de-contextualize. Jesus and Mohammed came to us with messages for all humanity for all time. They did supposedly have the answer to the question of life the universe and everything. They were the chosen vessels by the only perfect being to present that answer to us. They supposedly trancend their time and place, or so the believers and the tenets of the faith supposedly claim.

De-contextualizing is denying the divine character of the revelation itself. It is the act of putting oneself above god by "knowing better than him" what he was trying to express. This is not an analysis of Plato or Confusius or Descartes, fallible humans trying to make sense of their own world. This is god speaking to us.

[garbon]

What it means is that I think it is rather disingenuous to try to distance Christianity from rather large events-broad reaching attitudes by calling out that there were small communities doing other things.

I don't think that is true at all.  I think it is rather disingenuous to cherry pick events from a certain couple centuries in a millennia plus long phenomenon.  Especially claiming that events over 600 years ago is more pertinent to Christianity than what is going on today, when for the most part even at the time the Church was mostly anti-war.  How ridiculous is that?

The point of the discussion wasn't to suggest that Christianity was evil but that what was being called out as uniquely part of Islam wasn't unique at all.

The fact you would bring this up suggests you completely missed my point. 

You didn't seem to have a relevant point.

[Valmy]

The point was exactly that you said the point of the discussion was. 

Still intrigued why that was disingenuous.

[garbon]

The point was exactly that you said the point of the discussion was. 

Yeah I don't see how I was supposed to get that from your post, but sorry we cross-talked.

[dps]

But if someone does accept the Bible as the Word of God, well then you kind of have to take Jesus at His word.

But I am.  He is saying he comes with a sword and so I take that at his word.  He is saying he (or the Father with him at his side) will rain destruction and hellfire on the unbelievers and I am taking him at his word.   

But clearly Jesus doesn't isn't calling on his followers to destroy the unbelievers.  He's promising them that God will do so.

[garbon]

But if someone does accept the Bible as the Word of God, well then you kind of have to take Jesus at His word.

But I am.  He is saying he comes with a sword and so I take that at his word.  He is saying he (or the Father with him at his side) will rain destruction and hellfire on the unbelievers and I am taking him at his word.   

But clearly Jesus doesn't isn't calling on his followers to destroy the unbelievers.  He's promising them that God will do so.

Ah that's better then. Instead of fallible humans, an omnipotent God is the enemy of unbelievers.

[grumbler]

But clearly Jesus doesn't isn't calling on his followers to destroy the unbelievers.  He's promising them that God will do so.

Whoever wrote "Onward Christian Soldiers" wants to talk to you.

[Razgovory]

If ABB was a christian then he was one who didn't actually believe in god.

You don't need millions of adherents to create chaos and murder. You just need the hundreds of millions to agree that the tenents are good and the objectives are good.

An odd choice for you.  His anger was that too many of those evil Muslims are getting in the country, and he acted to prevent it  I suppose those millions that agree that Islam is uniquely evil are causing those few to create chaos and destruction.

[dps]

But clearly Jesus doesn't isn't calling on his followers to destroy the unbelievers.  He's promising them that God will do so.

Whoever wrote "Onward Christian Soldiers" wants to talk to you.

Don't recall the author off the top of my head, but I'm quite sure it wasn't Jesus.

[Razgovory]

But clearly Jesus doesn't isn't calling on his followers to destroy the unbelievers.  He's promising them that God will do so.

Whoever wrote "Onward Christian Soldiers" wants to talk to you.

You might want to read that Hymn again.

[CountDeMoney]

But clearly Jesus doesn't isn't calling on his followers to destroy the unbelievers.  He's promising them that God will do so.

Whoever wrote "Onward Christian Soldiers" wants to talk to you.

http://youtu.be/4t4TC6h9bpo

[Josephus]

When I got confirmed i became a Soldier for Christ.

[Razgovory]

Ah that's better then. Instead of fallible humans, an omnipotent God is the enemy of unbelievers.

Well what it to you?  You have some serious trouble if people come at you.  If someone you don't even believe exists has in for you, you should be fine.

[Valmy]

Ah that's better then. Instead of fallible humans, an omnipotent God is the enemy of unbelievers.

Yeah but strangely having fallible humans coming after you is typically more troublesome.

[Jacob]

Ah that's better then. Instead of fallible humans, an omnipotent God is the enemy of unbelievers.

Yeah but strangely having fallible humans coming after you is typically more troublesome.

Yet somehow, fallible humans sometimes take it upon themselves to carry out what they feel their god intends to do, and go after the people they think he's designated as enemies.