Look... we're having a bit of a comprehension problem with you here... IF I make a statement as to what the Bible says, that doesn't mean I am making a statement that's what I believe. If I make a statement as to what Christians believe, that doesn't mean this is what I personally believe. You keep wanting to take what I am saying in the context of someone arguing FOR Christian beliefs, and I have not done that. Repeatedly, in this thread, I have clarified that mine is not a 'theological' debate, and I still maintain that. You can try and rope me into such a debate, by parsing my words or manipulating the context, but I have repeatedly told you and others, I am not here to debate Christian theology, just to set the record straight on the facts pertaining to it.
Goodness, what violent texts. I wonder if Dixie will say that Christianity preaches violence?
Goodness, what violent texts. I wonder if Dixie will say that Christianity preaches violence?
I think the main difference between the violence in the Bible and the Koran is the progression. The Christian Bible begins with violence and ends with peace, with the Koran it is opposite. If you take the Koran as Christians do the Bible, this would mean that according to the newer text it is a religion of warriors. I do not know enough of their beliefs to say that they do take it that way, and all evidence I have seen is that they do not. I have yet to be physically attacked by the Muslims that I know, while they worry for my soul as I am not a believer I have never heard them suggest that I am less human or had one attack me for my disbelief. All that is anecdotal, however, and personal in nature.
I think that Christians assume that, like the Bible, the later verses (New Testament) take some precedence over the earlier verses (Old Testament) and that the progression of the scripture they follow would mean that they believe that violence is an expression of their Deity.
I don't necessary believe that the progression of the scripture has the same weight for Muslims, that there is no "New Testament" that changed the religion as it did for Christianity.
I think the main difference between the violence in the Bible and the Koran is the progression. The Christian Bible begins with violence and ends with peace, with the Koran it is opposite. If you take the Koran as Christians do the Bible, this would mean that according to the newer text it is a religion of warriors. I do not know enough of their beliefs to say that they do take it that way, and all evidence I have seen is that they do not. I have yet to be physically attacked by the Muslims that I know, while they worry for my soul as I am not a believer I have never heard them suggest that I am less human or had one attack me for my disbelief. All that is anecdotal, however, and personal in nature.
I think that Christians assume that, like the Bible, the later verses (New Testament) take some precedence over the earlier verses (Old Testament) and that the progression of the scripture they follow would mean that they believe that violence is an expression of their Deity.
I don't necessary believe that the progression of the scripture has the same weight for Muslims, that there is no "New Testament" that changed the religion as it did for Christianity.
I think the main difference between the violence in the Bible and the Koran is the progression. The Christian Bible begins with violence and ends with peace, with the Koran it is opposite. If you take the Koran as Christians do the Bible, this would mean that according to the newer text it is a religion of warriors. I do not know enough of their beliefs to say that they do take it that way, and all evidence I have seen is that they do not. I have yet to be physically attacked by the Muslims that I know, while they worry for my soul as I am not a believer I have never heard them suggest that I am less human or had one attack me for my disbelief. All that is anecdotal, however, and personal in nature.
I think that Christians assume that, like the Bible, the later verses (New Testament) take some precedence over the earlier verses (Old Testament) and that the progression of the scripture they follow would mean that they believe that violence is an expression of their Deity.
I don't necessary believe that the progression of the scripture has the same weight for Muslims, that there is no "New Testament" that changed the religion as it did for Christianity.
You just described the Bible as more of a history text, which is how I tend to see it. Dixie is saying that its a tenet for belief. Are real Christians supposed to "believe" more of what comes later, and be more dismissive of what the former writes?
I have always felt that the OT & NT were inherently contradictory. Just my opinion, of course...
i said carry on spazzfreak. you're completely spazzing on the issue and being intellectually dishonest and outright dishonest by saying i'm a bigot. i've showed you the definition and you refuse to explain how it fits the definition and you refuse to hold the same stance for muhammad or those who believe the text.
i'm not going to waste my time with an idiot who refuses to rationally and honestly discuss the issue. i've tried, and you just go in circles.
carry on.
i said carry on spazzfreak. you're completely spazzing on the issue and being intellectually dishonest and outright dishonest by saying i'm a bigot. i've showed you the definition and you refuse to explain how it fits the definition and you refuse to hold the same stance for muhammad or those who believe the text.
i'm not going to waste my time with an idiot who refuses to rationally and honestly discuss the issue. i've tried, and you just go in circles.
carry on.
Quran 2:59
But those who wronged changed [those words] to a statement other than that which had been said to them, so We sent down upon those who wronged a punishment from the sky because they were defiantly disobeying.
Poor little yurtle.... running scared yet again....
One of Yurt's fave catch-phrases is "intellectually dishonest." I don't think he really knows what it means....
Once again you FAIL to read what I write and just continue on with your bigotry. I have already answered WHY it makes you a bigot you fucking retard. I also have stated the ANSWER to YOUR question. YOUR question was ..... ARE ALL Muslims Bigots because of the quote you posted. I answered NO. I then explained why. Then you pretended that I hadn't answered your question, so I explained again. You again pretended that I didn't answer you. How many fucking times must I answer you?
No, I am not going to hold ALL Muslims accountable for a quote written over 1000 years ago.
To answer your NEW question.... YES, anyone who claims that anyone ALTERED God is a fucking idiot and a Bigot.
Your quote in question:
Now READ and try to COMPREHEND Yurt.
The above does NOT state that they 'altered God'.... they said they 'changed the story/wrote it down wrong'. It doesn't say that the Jews believe in a different God or that they changed the entity. It says they wrote the story wrong (and accuses them of doing so on purpose and were thus punished by God for it).
What YOU and DITZIE are saying is that the Muslims cannot possibly believe in the God of Abraham, because their STORY is different. You are claiming that God/Allah are not the same because the STORIES are different. Yet you THEN IGNORE all the differences between Christianity and Judaism and pretend that THOSE differences do NOT somehow alter God. Why? Because you are a bigot.
Bigot:
You are completely intolerant of the FACT that Muslims believe and STATE they believe in the God of Abraham. How could you be anything OTHER than a bigot?
Now, let me guess, you are going to ignore all of the above and pretend it wasn't written yet again?