Fundamental Biblical Christianity and Fundamental Islam Fundamentally 180% Opposites

Being worthy of death yes, but it doesn't actually say kill people. It say's worthy of death, it does not give any instruction to kill. I thought "gave up the ghost" simply meant to die. I can't find the part where Peter killed anyone.It seems to me some pretty radical interpretations are needed here to understand these scriptures how you understand them. Are the quotes even relevant?
- I think most here (taking part in this topic) can or have read the NT, and do not need a new and bizarre interpretation. Is "jihad" in the NT? - You'll probably try to make us believe it is.You said Jesus doesn't need me - and so he doesn't, but it seems you have missed some of his words, so let me divulge; Don't tell me Rrhain I'm guessing........ erm, you think it means buy a machine gun. Help me out here, I'm still not sure how you would interpret this scripture. Let me guess , your going to say God's laws don't change. And I am condemning people to hell because I believe in Christ.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-27-2003]

mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

By the way, radiocarbon is not reliable in giving accurate dates going back thousands of years. AiG believes that Noah's Flood should be dated to about 4,300 years ago.)

---

​

Being worthy of death yes, but it doesn't actually say kill people.

---

Oh, don't be naive.Do you really think that if you tell people that Joe Schmoe is "worthy of death," it would never cross anybody's mind to actually go ahead and do it?What on earth is the point of saying that somebody is "worthy of death" if not to indicate that he should be killed? Nowhere in the chapter does it say not to do it, that killing is wrong, or that the phrase is simply a metaphor or parable.

quote:

---

It say's worthy of death, it does not give any instruction to kill.

---

What do you think "worthy of death" is if not an exhortation to kill?

quote:

---

quote:

---

And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost:

---

​

I thought "gave up the ghost" simply meant to die. I can't find the part where Peter killed anyone.

---

Why did you cut out the rest of the verses I included? What do you think Peter was doing? He scared Ananias to death...and then did the same thing to Ananias' wife.

quote:

---

You said Jesus doesn't need me - and so he doesn't, but it seems you have missed some of his words, so let me divulge;

---

Um, what part of "doesn't need you" don't you understand?Your preaching to me again, mike. You're trying to convert me. I thought you said you wouldn't try to convert me. Stop it.

quote:

---

Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill

​

Help me out here, I'm still not sure how you would interpret this scripture.

---

Simple: One of the many contradictions in the Bible. The Old Testament is filled with commandments to go out and kill. The New Testament even describes people who are worthy of death with absolutely no mention that you're not supposed to actually follow through with that exhortation.

quote:

---

You have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you

​

Let me guess , your going to say God's laws don't change.

---

Yep. God's laws don't change. So am I supposed to believe Leviticus which details many different things that require me to personally kill people or am I supposed to believe Exodus and Deuteronomy that say don't kill people?Since the Bible says that god's laws don't change and since the Bible clearly indicates that the law does change, what does that say about the validity of the Bible?

quote:

---

And I am condemning people to hell because I believe in Christ.

---

No, not by your belief. By your claim that if others don't do what you tell them to, they'll go to hell.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Well, I'll stop preaching then but really I thought you must have surely missed some of Jesus' words as you were making out the NT has no peaceful scriptures?
- Surely you don't believe that Rrhain? Where you see contradictions I don't, we'll have to agree to disagree I don't tell people to do what I say, so they can burn in hell -just kidding.
All the best,Mike.

mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:

---

Well, I'll stop preaching then but really I thought you must have surely missed some of Jesus' words as you were making out the NT has no peaceful scriptures?
- Surely you don't believe that Rrhain?

---

Of course it does.You're missing the point, however. Since the Bible is filled with contradictory statements, why should anybody complain that a person is choosing to pay attention to one verse over another?After all, Jesus directly states that the Law has not been revoked. Not one jot, not one tittle of the Law shall change till all be fulfilled. So Leviticus is in full effect.When was the last time you stoned someone as Leviticus commands you to do?Why do you pay attention to the other statements of Jesus regarding Leviticus (basically calling the Pharisees hypocrites rather than actually saying that the Law has been revoked) rather than his direct statement that the Law will not be altered until all be fulfilled?

quote:

---

quote:

---

No, not by your belief. By your claim that if others don't do what you tell them to, they'll go to hell.

---

​

I don't tell people to do what I say

---

You tell them to believe in the Bible like you do. You say that if they disagree with your interpretation of the Bible, they are wrong.And, since you have the only accurate interpretation of the Bible, they're going to go to hell for that.Ergo, you're telling people to do what you say.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

No, because the Muslims in question aren't just shooting themselves in the head in the middle of the desert, they're putting on dynamite vests and sitting on buses.Christian fundies kill other people. Muslim fundies kill other people and themselves. As far as I'm concerned the difference between them is equal to exactly one additional person killed. Yes, it does. Which is why I'm very critical of the use of the word "war" in situations where no war is occuring to justify peacetime violations of civil rights, such as this "war on terror" baloney.

Well, strictly speaking God did say near the end of Leviticus, that the law made was for his people Israel, and I would abide by that law if I sojourned in the land. It would not be realistic to stone someone today, also - I don't want to hurt anyone.
Don't forget, Jesus said he came to fulfill the law, he also said:"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"So I would not be able to stone anyone, because I have broken the Commandments - the law. And therefore have sinned, so I would indeed be with sin when casting the stone.

mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

When was the last time you stoned someone as Leviticus commands you to do?

---

​

Well, strictly speaking God did say near the end of Leviticus, that the law made was for his people Israel

---

Well, strictly speaking, Jesus did say that he did not come to change the law but to fulfill it and that not one jot, not one tittle of the law would change until all be fulfilled.Ergo, Christians need to follow Levitical proscriptions, too.So answer the question: When was the last time you stoned someone as Leviticus commands you to do?

quote:

---

Don't forget, Jesus said he came to fulfill the law

---

Sorry, but that's my point, mike. He came to fulfill the law, not change. It is still required to follow Leviticus.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

There are a lot of fundies in the world. Muslim fundies, Christian fundies, and atheist fundies. Reading some of the heated debate on this thread, I would say that we all believe pretty passionately in our own worldviews - which makes us fundamentalists each and every one.

Hello, stumbled onto your forums. They are quite nice.Here's a good Christian Fundamentalist for you..Hitler."My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." -Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)Martin Luther (1483-1546): "On the Jews and Their Lies" - 1543 - According to the ninth child of a Roman Catholic primary school teacher who also became a school teacher in Nuremberg this was one of Hitler's inspirational sources.There's more of course. Just read Hitler's book -Mein Kampf.Anyway, yeah, I don't think he sent food around the world to the needy. Nor do I think the skinhead bootcamps in the Southern/Western U.S. do either. Infact, the last thing I remember them doing was bombing several abortion clinics.Thankfully though most Christians aren't like this.

How so? Jesus established the fundamentals for Christianity. Where in his teachings or by his example is it fundadmentally ok to kill, harm or persecute anyone? Talk is cheap. How do they qualify as being fundamental to the teaching and example of Jesus by killing others. Jesus who physically harmed no one and taught others to do likewise, also denounced many evil and false things vocally. Jesus would not condone homosexuality which the Levitical law clearly condemns, though he never ever advocated the Levitical punishment which was designated the specific nation in a specific timeframe, for any sin. This was evidenced by his treatment of the woman caught in adultery. 1. No Christian or Biblical fundamentalist accepts homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle. It's just not one of the fundamentals of the Bible. Prove me wrong by documentation, please.
2. The fundamentals of Christianity does not call on physical warfare on any false doctrine. It does call for refutation of such and admonishment to abstain from that which is contrary to Biblical truth via preaching and vocal persuasion. Only ones who most fundamentally mimic the practices of Mohammed himself and who know what he taught about warfare and resistance against infidels and heretics are the real fundies of Islam. These are the most devout, willing to give up their lives for the faith and for alleged personal eternal reward as taught by Mohammed and his close desciples of his day. Unlike Jesus, he practiced and advocated much violence. 1. False! There are no Christian fundies, true fundies, or denominations of such who are violent to others.
2. Why is it that murderous suicide bombers are so officially honored by nearly all under the flag of the PLO if we're only talking certain denominations here? Because the fundamentals taught and practiced by Mohammed, their prophet are so contrary to those taught and practiced by Jesus, our prophet/saviour/lord. His life, teachings and actions speak louder than your words. Likely, judging from these, he would not condemn either 9/11 or the bombings. Why? Because these have to do with the soverignty of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. He would fight anyone deterring occupation of Jerusalem. He taught that Islam must dominate the planet and this type of warfare is stregically crucial to fulfillment of that ultimate purpose of His sect.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

It seems like half the problem here is that we can't decide on what the term "fundamental" means. I don't know if this will help but the term Christian fundamentalist comes from a series of books that a wealthy man paid to have printed and given out to pastors in the early 20th century. A fundamentalist is one who agrees with the basic doctrine contained in these books. They were simply called "The fundamentals." I don't know what they contained though and I can't find them on-line. I'll ask my Prof. later today, I think he has a copy.I guess if this definition is used, it would be easy to establish the actions of a true "fundamentalist." Or maybe I'm just making things more complicated......

Old man, the more you talk about my religion, the more your ignorance shows.

quote:

---

Only ones who most fundamentally mimic the practices of Mohammed himself and who know what he taught about warfare and resistance against infidels and heretics are the real fundies of Islam. These are the most devout, willing to give up their lives for the faith and for alleged personal eternal reward as taught by Mohammed and his close desciples of his day. Unlike Jesus, he practiced and advocated much violence.

---

Our creed states that the main guidelines for virtuous living is the Qur'an, the Message of God, not the life of the prophet. Even his actions are to be judged against the verses of Qur'an. I have told you repeatedly that any violence done by Muslims in Muhammad's time is self-defense. Check your history sources.

quote:

---

His life, teachings and actions speak louder than your words. Likely, judging from these, he would not condemn either 9/11 or the bombings. Why? Because these have to do with the soverignty of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. He would fight anyone deterring occupation of Jerusalem. He taught that Islam must dominate the planet and this type of warfare is stregically crucial to fulfillment of that ultimate purpose of His sect.

---

The occupation of Jerusalem is not prescribed anywhere in the teachings of Islam. Jerusalem for us is an important city, yes, but not so important that we must have it just for us (as opposed to Xtian and Jew fundies). Israel had been murdering our Palestinian brothers and sisters since its establishment, so that is why Muslims fight back; we were never told to back off from self-defense. As for world dominance, ask yourself if your religion does not ask for world domination. What was in the mind of European conquerors when they forced native peoples of America, Africa, and other places to become Jesus worshippers?

Andya, It has been documented by quoting verses of the Quran that the offensive actions of the man, Mohammed and the call to offensive action in his book, the Quran coincide. It has also been documented that the actions of Mohammed have usually been offensive and not defensive. How do you think he reduced the number of gods worshipped at Mecca from well over 250 to his one god, Allah during his lifetime and banned the rest by means of the sword?

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

quote:

---

Andya, It has been documented by quoting verses of the Quran that the offensive actions of the man, Mohammed and the call to offensive action in his book, the Quran coincide. It has also been documented that the actions of Mohammed have usually been offensive and not defensive. How do you think he reduced the number of gods worshipped at Mecca from well over 250 to his one god, Allah during his lifetime and banned the rest by means of the sword?

---

I'll let the Qur'an refute you2:190 You may fight in the cause of GOD those who fight you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors.More on this article: War in the Qur'anMost of Prophet Muhammad's military engagements (Badr, Uhud, Khandaq, Hunayn) were defensive action against jealous Mecca pagans.The Conquest of Mecca, where The Messenger finally lead the Muslims back to his hometown, lead to the acceptance of Islam by his former enemies the Mecca pagans. Nobody gets hurt or killed, except for the pagan statues in the Ka'bah.If you recall, Buz, Muhammad's ancestor Abraham (Prophet Ibrahim) destroyed pagan statues. And many Old Testament figures had also destroyed pagan idols. So what's your problem? You're a monotheist, right?I remember having replied the same thing to you, but it seems that either you haven't noticed it or you refuse to accept it.[This message has been edited by Andya Primanda, 01-30-2004]

I did not notice your reply to my post till today, sorry about that.I'm going to answer a number of your comments with one point. You are making the no true Scotsman fallacy. I tried to get around this by asking specific questions, yet you still managed to do this.I understand that when you look at the New Testament, Jesus does not engage in any battles, nor does he encourage violence. If one focuses only on the life of Jesus, then you are right in saying that other Xians who only focus on the life of Jesus will likely not support battles or violence.However, YOU do not get to pick and choose who REAL Xians are and what they can or cannot focus on in a BIBLE, which is about more than just the life of Jesus. There is an Old Testament which talks about the will of GOD, and the SECOND COMING of JESUS. You are the one who quotes prophecy all the time.Is not part of that whole end section of the Bible the idea that when Jesus returns he will not be nice? He will return as a Lion, and wield a sword?I seem to remember this being said by all the (self-proclaimed) fundamentalist Xians when they talk about prophecy and the end times.This includes the forced conversion, or slaughter of all Jews. Am I correct or incorrect that this is part of the NT, and the FULL life of Jesus?On the flipside, Mohammed was involved with conflict in his life. So if one is forced to concentrate only on his life, then one will see violence (including some offensive military actions).However, YOU (even more than with Xianity) do not get to say what the followers of Islam must concentrate on, when practicing their religion. Xianity and Islam are not the same religion and so do not require the same tenets (and that is IF I acept for sake of argument that Xianity's main tenet is only look at the life of Jesus).You have repeatedly ignored (or merely reasserted your original position and so practically ignored in reply) that Mohammed's teachings instruct when, where, and how violence is acceptable.You may be very right that some denominations of Islam find ways around these proscriptions, by appealing to other parts of the faith (like certain acts in Mohammed's life). But these are the same kinds of people to Islam, as the Xians who find examples in other parts of the Bible are to Xianity.Who are the "fundamentalists" and/or who are the practitioners of the "real" religions?I am suggesting that you are picking and choosing unfairly. Particularly with regard to Islam, you are showing an astounding ignorance of the actual tenets of the religion, as well as a bias against the MAJORITY of its practitioners.This is particularly atrocious:

quote:

---

Only ones who most fundamentally mimic the practices of Mohammed himself and who know what he taught about warfare and resistance against infidels and heretics are the real fundies of Islam.

---

That is certainly NOT the majority of muslims. The MAJORITY do not just "mimic" or study what he practiced/taught about warfare. You may have heard of this book he wrote? It has a lot more teachings in it then that. Maybe you ought to check it out some time.Actually you might want to read the Autobiography of Malcolm X. In that, he goes on a pilgrimage to Mecca and realizes (once in the midst of the faithful) that the militaristic version of Islam which he was taught (and teaching) was wrong, and he ultimately converted AWAY from violence and hatred towards other races.As far as your quote above, anyone can equally say about Xians:"Only ones who most fundamentally mimic the practices of Abraham and Moses, and in times of peace Jesus, who know what they taught about warfare and resistance against infidels and heretics are the real fundies of Xianity."If others cannot say that about Xianity, how can you say what you say about Islam?

quote:

---

He taught that Islam must dominate the planet and this type of warfare is stregically crucial to fulfillment of that ultimate purpose of His sect.

---

Please explain how Xians and everyone else in the free world must deal with the threat posed by this threat from the followers of Islam. If it involves violence, please explain how it can. In fact, how can it do so in a pre-emptive fashion (which if I remember right, you advocated)?And once victorious against the followers of Islam, please explain what the Bible says will happen when Jesus (remember he isn't dead) returns to earth to continue his reign and achieve HIS kingdom on all earth.Will it involve violence and death to those who do not worship him (or God)?What will happen to me if I do not raise one finger against a Xian?Then explain to me how I tell the difference between the ends of Islam and that of Xianity.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)