Sexually depraved ISIS offers slave girls as prizes in Koran memorising contest.

Youre stupid too

Posted from TSR Mobile

Yeah, and what ur saying is bull****

Posted from TSR Mobile

Exactly the same applies to the Bible



Exactly the same applies to the Bible



Good. Christians used to claim the perfect inerrancy of the Bible. Nowadays this is rare, since the process of the Enlightenment has cast doubt on this. The same can happen with the Qur'an.



It used to be claimed that the Bible all came from one source, God. Now it isn't. The Qur'an is also a collection of stories was alleged to have been been revealed over a period of time. More and more Muslim appreciate the variable context each part of the Qur'an relates so, so the whole "perfect and relevant for all times" is slipping away from the ummah. Whilst it is rare that Muslims will directly concede the Qur'an is not all relevant to all people at all times, many many say so indirectly. Over time this may lead to a process dilution. During the Enlightenment, liberal minded Christians didn't start saying the Bible wasn't from God and wasn't without error, but started questioning its legitimacy indirectly. It would have been a gradual, generational process.



I think because you are a Christian, and because of the way in which you view things, you can't see the big picture here and appreciate the similarities



But it used to be claimed to be so. Now it isn't. Something happened within Christians and Christendom that caused it to stop, and in spite of all your unfounded objections, could very much happen to Islam.



Not Christian thought. Christian thought actively sought to stop this, just as Islamic thought tries to do.



A thought inconceivable in Middle Ages Christendom

.

So you do accept it is possible? Finally"



Erm, even with the Hadith and Tafsir, it's message is not clear. Just as the Bible's message is not clear. That's why you find a huge breadth of theology and sects within both Christianity and Islam.



Er, no. Christian doctrine despised science and independent thought. Early Christian scientists made discovering in spite of their religion. Indeed Christian institutions thwarted scientific progression, and it was only really during the Renaissance and Enlightenment that science took off in a big way in Christendom. Once the nuisance Christian priests and their wretched religion was out of the way, science could progress. Your fantasy of Christianity's nurture of science is exactly the same to the letter as Muslims' belief about the Golden Age of science in the Islamic Empire being about Islam; it wasn't, all of it occurred in spite of Islam, not because of it.

Anyway, you're scraping into the delusions of Christian apologia



Yes, exactly the same was true of science from Christendom. Increased resources from trade and later empire lead to the ability and means of scientific study,



Rubbish! The Church was an obstacle to science, peddling superstition and all sorts of other nonsensical explanations for the world. It eventually stopped because of the crumbling of Christianity in the face of the Enlightenment.



It died out in the Muslim world because the fundamentalism of Islam eventually caught up with it, as well as general stagnation of the Islamic Empire (with the pursuit of science de prioritised and viewed as a luxury that could not be afforded).

Science flourished and Europe during and after the recession of Christianity from its stranglehold on institutions and people's minds, as well as it's Enlightenment such that core beliefs were removed.



I hope you reallise that the Enlightenment was not a Christian inspired event, but something that was a response against Christianity and eventually neutered and removed fundamental Christianity from the centres of power. From this arose essentially a new religion, which is the Christianity of established churches in Western Europe, the Americas, and pretty much everywhere bar the Middle East and Eastern Europe.



Good, so it might. It already is starting to go through the process of developing theologies which would have been previously inconceivable, and which are heretical by orthodox Islam's standards



That may be down to culture, since Christian churches of the Middle East do things very differently.



There isn't anywhere in the Bible that says "the pre-Jesus books should not be followed". That's just something that more modern Christian theologians have done. And it shows by way of non Anglican, non Catholic Christianity in the US so much more fixated on the OT and the 10 commandments compared to Europe. This is because the process of "de-Old Testementising" Christianity occurred from the late 17th century, after which many Europeans had started settling in the Americas, taking with them their less reformed Christianity.



Erm, you have to ignore half the Bible in Christianity.



Maybe select Hadith will survive. Just as the 10 Commandments survives from the OT, particularly in the US ad US influenced churches worldwide.



Exactly. It hasn't been, but used to be. Same may happen to Islam.



Islam is 700 years younger than Christianity, with much of the Islamic world pretty backward even a century ago.



It's obvious you do. You find it difficult to conceive things that are radically different.



You obviously don't and can't



Just like Islam today. There are Muslims doubting Islamic doctrine



Because of your lack of imagination.



It's actually likely to be in the tens thousands if you strip out offences (such as rape and murder) which warrant the death penalty in non-Islamic jurisdictions (such as the US). And I wouldn't include things related to honour, since this happens in so many non-Islamic jurisdictions. When you just include issues of blasphemy and heresy (which is what we are talking about in the context of Christian killings in the Middle Ages), it's not going to be as much as you think.



The tens/hundreds of thousands number for the Inquisition is about persecution, not necessarily killing.



Yes I know, it's why it's not relevant to this discussion of killing people for heresy and blasphemy



At the time, the OT was very much integral to Christianity. Hence the awful things happening.



But Christian law was once ingrained in the minds of Christians. It stopped. This repetitive point I am making is what this whole discussion is about.



And maybe the minority of liberal Muslims who are currently viewed as heretics will go onto succeed.



Only because they are brainwashed and perform mental gymnastics to keep it consistent. Just as Christians were in the Middle Ages.



That is one school of thought in Islam. Not the only one.



Nor did he says it was to be discarded.



Yep. And there were times when he did loving and peaceful stuff. So the cherry picking for Muslims is as easy as it is for Christians.



I doubt that.



Untrue. There are Sahih Hadiths that depict and loving gentle Mohammad. Modern Muslims love these ones. Hence all the contradictions.



There was no command.



That's no true at all, there is a huge amount of internal debate within the ummah. And the pressures to tone it down are external you are right, as were the pressures to tone down Christianity in the Middle Ages during the Enlightenment.



There are sufficient similarities that they trajectories could end up the same.



I dislike Islam more than I dislike Christianity. I think that because you feel insecure in your weak and wishy washy Christianity, that you see muscular Islam as practiced by orthodox Muslims, and think it is all like that. It isn't



The Bible clearly supported the Inquisition, persecution of heresy, slavery



In the end, for the most part, these places were not tolerant or liberal.



The Shah was overthrown by communists and liberals. In the chaos Islamists took over (just as was predicted would happen during the Arab Spring). If you read up about Iranian history, you will see that the opposition to the Shah was because he was corrupt and ineffective, such that even secularists opposed him. The bulk of the opposition wasn't to his secularism, though it did rally the Islamist minority



Er no. LRA in Uganda was not in response to Islamism. The explosion of intolerant evangelical Christianity is not in response to Islamism (indeed, they are succeeding in converting Muslims to it).



None of what you wrote is relevant to the reality.



Maybe peaceful like Mohammad was during the Mecca years......pragmatism



It doesn't say to discard the OT teachings.



It was improved by the Enlightenment, people who were not motivated by Christian doctrine. The reformation just opened the doors to questioning, which centuries later lead to the Enlightenment.

Thing is, the original reformers actually made things worse.



And in Christianity, the messiah has come and died for our sins. That puts a full stop on a lot of creative theology, just like a final prophet does for Islam.



Which is why some Muslims resort to historical context as a way of sanitising their scripture. Neither context nor abrogation are theologically sound ways of dealing with a book that is relevant for all people for all times. But Muslim theologians have created these innovations as a means of interpretation



The details you bring forward just aren't relevant.



The same key message is the same. This world is about salvation through faith. No faith= eternal torture. That's the essence of both religions, and their core teaching. And it's disgusting

And remember, Christianity used to be about spreading the message through the sword. But then it stopped.



Yes, but Muslims will refer to the "poor struggling" years when it's suited. They had a poor period and then a powerful period. As did Christianity, albeit the time lag was somewhat longer.



Judaism, by it's scripture is by far the worst. But of course Judaism has been reformed, and part of the OT don't appear in even the hardline Haredi sects.

The details of the religions vary, but there are sufficient commonalities in their principles which means they can all take a trajectory of reform.



Only because Christians in the Middle Ages made it that way.



In the Middle Ages and before, people did think Yaweh did things literally. Just like Muslims do so now with their scripture



Yeah but it's just modern Christians which have made the Bible all allegorical. Didn't used to be like that. Just as orthodox Muslims don't view the Islamic scriptures as allegorical, though some are starting to, and many more may in the future.



All this used to be the case for Christians. Why can't you recognise this.

Anyway, save me repeating the same old same to you here is the gist of what am saying;

-Christian scripture used to be interpreted literally; today this is the minority
-Christian scripture used to be viewed as divine and without error; today this is a minority
-Christians and Christian institutions used to persecute heresy; today this does not happen
-Christians and Christian institutions used to persecute deviance; today this doesn't occur for the bulk of Christians in Europe, the Americas and Asia, though is re-emerging in sub-Saharan Africa

Notice the pattern that 'Christianity' used to do all the things that 'Islam' does now. But it stopped. And Islam could stop. You keep on saying that Islam is different, but this does not stand up to scrutiny.
-Islam has violent and oppressive verses in its scripture; so does Christianity
-Christianity has peaceful and loving verses in its scripture, so does Islam
-Christianity is sufficiently ambiguous to allow flexibility; so is Islam

Please don't come back with all sorts of Christian apologia.

Yes, I agree this has gotten to long, and we are essentially repeating the same things over and over. In short for me, I agree with many of your points and of course the possibility exists Islam could reform, but I said nearly impossible because I personally just dont think it will pan out that way.

-Islam has a strong political arm and legislature which is found in scripture to be executed BY MEN and above all requires an Islamic state and leader on Earth to rule over all muslims,

Christianity has nothing similar in the NT and scholars as far back as Roman times only conceived of a kingdom of God in the spiritual realm, all OT laws are sketchy and people are not sure to follow them as Jesus disregarded many, but like you said, doesnt out right banish them, leaves a doubt that is as not easily found in Sharia law

-Islamic thinkers had more power to crackdwon on science due to said state, Church could not hold such power over different nation states as much as it tried, the Church was a spiritual leader

-Jesus and Muhammads lives differ vastly, different morals based on different role models behaviours, different culture emerge

-You cannot whitewash Muhammad without rewritting his entire character, Jesus is an easy poster hippie boy

-The Bible differs hugely from Quran, different structure, writers, chapters, wheras Quran and a more concrete divine attribution that survives till the modern day, and is harder to bring to scrutiny in a less developed world

-Christianity had many advocates against slavery, Islam never had these doubts

-Christianity allowed more study of the natural Earth than Islam

-Islam founded by the followers of Muhammad in new regions through war and armies, Islam was militaristic from the start with a state and a clear leader, Christianity for the first hundred years of its existence was a niche cult with no military heritage

-Chrsitainitys more horrible section was less relevant than Islam's (hadith), the vast majority of Islamic practises are found here and the overwhelming majority of Muslims are Sunni, Islam does not have the myriad of interpretations Christianity has at similar sizes, the next biggest one is 10%

-Islam forbids drawings or paintings of any kind depeciting real life beings, Christianity has such restriction classicly, one arm of art is held back in severly in Islamic world, although not stopped entirely. Only God has such power and many things Christians debated over even in medieval times, Islam was just like nope

There are many more that is too long to list

I'm not a Christian btw and yes Christianity done many things similarly but the enlightenment arose out of Medieval times in Europe and not the middle east because Christianity gave us the mindset to do so, more than Islam.

If Islam was the same as Christianity, the enlightenment and the evolution of Islam should have happened there in the splendor of their vast empire with some of the richest minds on earth but it didnt and that because the circumstances arent the same.

It doesnt matter that Islam is younger because Islam had a ver similar mindset to Christianty in the Middle ages and early Renaissance and it did not bloom at all.

I may be too adamant against that change, and you could have a point there but I just think theres no way the real Islam can stand up to the scrutiny of the modern world and it will be shunned and looked down upon, it will wither and die, anti Islam feelings are already increasing rapdidly, just my prediction. Islam modernisng now wont have the same conditions as Christianity 500 years ago, the world is too different a place. I think you do not appreciate how much Christianity has done in shaping western culture, all our morals boil down to Christian ones , and despite all the bad, the west had the right circumstances at the right time with the right mindset (base given by Christianity) develop as it did. Saying Islam and Christianity are the same is completely wrong IMO and it just doesnr stand up even with those similarities you rightly pointed out but its in their key sometimes minute differences that led one culture one way and the oother another way (The west's and east's culture were massively influenced by their resective religion)

Im just going to agree to disagree, we'll se what happens in the future and who is right