NationStates Jolt Archive

Like the title says will there ever been peace between christians and muslims. I understand that this is already occuring on a small scale amongst individuals. But will world leaders of either faction ever find common ground, or will the wars of our past continue to rage on into the future. Discuss.

Nope.

Civilisations of Christians and Muslims tend to slowly move towards childlike morals and ways of reasoning. And children bicker.

Like the title says will there ever been peace between christians and muslims. I understand that this is already occuring on a small scale amongst individuals. But will world leaders of either faction ever find common ground, or will the wars of our past continue to rage on into the future. Discuss.

Peace between these 2 religions will be difficult. There's a lot of bad blood between them. But we can only hope for a true peace to ensue sometime in the future. Could it be soon? Not likely.

No. When Islam is ready for peace, Christianity wont be. When Christianity is ready, Islam wont be. History shows theyre in a constant flux of who hates who more.

Wars are waged over resources and access to those resources. This is why wars are fought.

Religion is used as a tool to ensure social cohesion among the troops and the community. This is how wars are fought.

There will always be war as long as there is perceived scarcity. Having religious leaders agree on things won't change anything in that regard.

Muslim and Christian organisations in the UK made peace a while ago, and since then they've been ganging up on the Atheists and Secularists. :p I'd rather this didn't happen on a global scale...

No and even if people stopped using religion as an excuse for war they would find other excuses to keep fighting for.

(added a poll so you can point a finger at who's to blame)

I don't think it's so much a question of whether or not Christianity and Islam can be at peace with one another: too broad of a question.

The question might be "Can Christians and Muslims live together in peace?", and if that is the case the answer is a resounding "Yes", but not for reasons pertaining to religion but due to the people who are following those religions: a more accepting and open minded Christian or Muslim should not have a problem with each other. Replace "open-minded and accepting" with "closed-minded and bigoted", and the result is much, much different.

Remember, religious folks are human, just like everyone else: they can be saints just as easily as they can be pricks.

Like the title says will there ever been peace between christians and muslims. I understand that this is already occuring on a small scale amongst individuals. But will world leaders of either faction ever find common ground, or will the wars of our past continue to rage on into the future. Discuss.

Sure, once there are no more christians or muslims...

effin' thousand-plus years of bile and violence end up with neither side being particularly positive on the scale of doom to doom.

I have the feeling that there will never be a uniform opinion expressed by either all Christians or all Muslims, so there will never really be peace in that sense.

Wars are waged over resources and access to those resources. This is why wars are fought.
No, not always. There was no particular resource that the Crusaders were seeking when they invaded the least valuable (materialistically speaking) section of the Middle East.

... seeing as there was in Moorish Spain, I don't see why it can't happen again in the future.

Wars are waged over resources and access to those resources. This is why wars are fought.
The Crusades were more about venting off steam than anything else. After whole swathes of Europe became increasingly united, you got a whole section of society, the young and noble, who had trained for a life of conflict. Sending them a few thousand miles away to fight against someone Western Europe didn't really care about was an excellent way of avoiding pointless civil wars and such. Which was nice for most of Western Europe, that's for sure.

... seeing as there was in Moorish Spain, I don't see why it can't happen again in the future.

To be truthful, we Spaniards still recent the Moors with a passion. To us, in a way, the Moorish invasion that lasted 800-900 years it's still very fresh. I guess people do not forget.:p

If we want to discuss occupation, the Ottomans Greece and other parts of europe from the 14th century to almost the 19th. 500 years is an extremely long time.

Did the christian crusaders or the roman armies ever occupy parts of the middle east for this length of time?

Like the title says will there ever been peace between christians and muslims. I understand that this is already occuring on a small scale amongst individuals. But will world leaders of either faction ever find common ground, or will the wars of our past continue to rage on into the future. Discuss.

Probably not at this point in time. As long as there are those that believe that death is appropriate to someone who openly criticizes a religion there will never be peace between them. When both faiths have evolved to a place of respect for human life, regardless of belief, then perhaps there will be peace. Until then, nope.

If we want to discuss occupation, the Ottomans Greece and other parts of europe from the 14th century to almost the 19th. 500 years is an extremely long time.

Did the christian crusaders or the roman armies ever occupy parts of the middle east for this length of time?

Check on the history of the Byzantine Empire for some reference to your question.

But were the Byzantine's as interested in theology as the Ottoman who came after them? Or was the focus of the conquest of the greatest limited resource on earth.... land.

But were the Byzantine's as interested in theology as the Ottoman who came after them? Or was the focus of the conquest of the greatest limited resource on earth.... land.


They were, specially in the formation of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Christian_theology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_theology
As for the conquest, remember, Rome took vast regions that the Moors thought, rightfully belonged to them. Byzanthium was located in what is modern day Istambul, the capital of Turkey.

When they both cease to exist there will be peace.

Don't recall Jesus telling his followers to kill those who disagree with him.

Don't recall Jesus telling his followers to kill those who disagree with him.

.
If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

.

Deuteronomy is the Old Testament and not the commands of Jesus.

Deuteronomy is the Old Testament and not the commands of Jesus.

It is still christianity.

For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
Doesn't say kill, but rather indicative anyways.

But were the Byzantine's as interested in theology as the Ottoman who came after them? Or was the focus of the conquest of the greatest limited resource on earth.... land.
The Byzantines were morbidly obsessed with theology, fighting deadly quarrels over where Christ's nature was "similar" the "the same" as God's, whether the divine and human natures were two "substances" or two "persons", etc. The Muslims were greatly aided in taking Syria, Palestine, and Egypt from the Byzantines by a substantial faction of the populace that would rather be tolerated by the Muslims than persecuted by the Byzantines.

Don't recall Jesus telling his followers to kill those who disagree with him.

The actual words of Jesus (or Mohammed) are not the most important thing here - it is what the believers do with them. Or not do with them.

However, as I said before, Jesus and Mohammed were quite.. childish. Which is probably why their teachings appeal to so many people.

They were, specially in the formation of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Christian_theology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_theology
As for the conquest, remember, Rome took vast regions that the Moors thought, rightfully belonged to them. Byzanthium was located in what is modern day Istambul, the capital of Turkey.

What is now known as Istanbul was overwhelmingly Greek before it was conquered by the Turks, so I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with that one. And Rome wasn't Christian, certainly not when it conquered those regions and the Moors, if they existed as such at the time weren't Muslims yet either, if the Moors want to be angry at someone it should be at Muslims for conquering them and forcing them to change religions... (Rome never did such)

Like the title says will there ever been peace between christians and muslims. I understand that this is already occuring on a small scale amongst individuals. But will world leaders of either faction ever find common ground, or will the wars of our past continue to rage on into the future. Discuss.

I wouldn't say that Islam and Christianity is at war today, so yeah.

The actual words of Jesus (or Mohammed) are not the most important thing here - it is what the believers do with them. Or not do with them.

However, as I said before, Jesus and Mohammed were quite.. childish. Which is probably why their teachings appeal to so many people.

How exactly was Jesus childish? I don't think Christians have, on a large scale, approved of killing people for their religion for about 300 years. I also don't see why the words don't matter, certainly if I had a cult and I told them to go kill people it'd be slightly different than if I told them to love everyone (especially to the police). Obviously people will interpret things differently, but on the whole you stand the smaller chance if theres less to be interpreted as commands to do violence.

The Crusades were more about venting off steam than anything else. After whole swathes of Europe became increasingly united, you got a whole section of society, the young and noble, who had trained for a life of conflict. Sending them a few thousand miles away to fight against someone Western Europe didn't really care about was an excellent way of avoiding pointless civil wars and such. Which was nice for most of Western Europe, that's for sure.

So is that a case of religion using politics to achieve its goals, or politics using religion for the sake of the national interest?

The actual words of Jesus (or Mohammed) are not the most important thing here - it is what the believers do with them. Or not do with them.

However, as I said before, Jesus and Mohammed were quite.. childish. Which is probably why their teachings appeal to so many people.

Jesus was childish? Perhaps in the sense that there was a childlike innocence in his teachings, but he didn't exactly preach conflict and war.

Deuteronomy is the Old Testament and not the commands of Jesus.

But Christians believe that Jesus is God. Therefore, if God said it, Jesus said it.

Not that logic has anything to do with Christianity...

But Christians believe that Jesus is God. Therefore, if God said it, Jesus said it.

Not that logic has anything to do with Christianity...


Nope, all Christians do not believe Jesus is/was God at all. Only some sects do. And no just because God said it doesn't mean Jesus said it. In fact his coming was the guarantee to man that God was no longer a vengeful God, but that salvation was attainable through forgiveness.

It certainly cannot be logical to you at all if this is your general interpretation of it. I agree.

How exactly was Jesus childish?

Jesus was childish? Perhaps in the sense that there was a childlike innocence in his teachings, but he didn't exactly preach conflict and war.

I notice neither of you commented on the Mohammed part. Interesting.

"Childlike innocence" .. yes, that does describe the actual level of moral sophistication found in and complexity of their teachings.
Do note that this "innocence" is not all good - kids bicker, kids can be cruel and kids can have their own lines of reasoning that are completely unrelated to reality - or frowned upon by adults.

I notice neither of you commented on the Mohammed part. Interesting.

I know nothing in depth of Mohammed's teachings so I can't judge whether your analysis was accurate or not. Nice try though.

"Childlike innocence" .. yes, that does describe the actual level of moral sophistication found in and complexity of their teachings.
Do note that this "innocence" is not all good - kids bicker, kids can be cruel and kids can have their own lines of reasoning that are completely unrelated to reality - or frowned upon by adults.

Obviously I was being too subtle. I'm asking for specifics. Don't just throw some vague, "yeah they're childish" but actually explain your position.

I know nothing in depth of Mohammed's teachings so I can't judge whether your analysis was accurate or not. Nice try though.



Obviously I was being too subtle. I'm asking for specifics. Don't just throw some vague, "yeah they're childish" but actually explain your position.

ditto...

Nope, all Christians do not believe Jesus is/was God at all. Only some sects do. And no just because God said it doesn't mean Jesus said it. In fact his coming was the guarantee to man that God was no longer a vengeful God, but that salvation was attainable through forgiveness.

It certainly cannot be logical to you at all if this is your general interpretation of it. I agree.

I seem to recall that Jesus said all the laws of the Old Testament apply still.


Im amussed that Christians think they can rip out half of their fucking holy book. Seriously.

I also laugh at the historical ignorance of anyone who said Muslims are more to blame for the violence. The only sane people said equally.

I seem to recall that Jesus said all the laws of the Old Testament apply still.


Im amussed that Christians think they can rip out half of their fucking holy book. Seriously.


Evidence please.

Because otherwise, Jesus had a strong tradition of defying the letter of the Jewish law in an attempt to reach the spirit of the Jewish law. It's perfectly legitimate for a Christian to decide that the teachings of the Old Testament are inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus and through them out. His teachings on love your neighbor definitely don't match up with Deutoronomy's homophobic rantings. As more than a few Christians have noticed.

And honestly, I don't see what your problem is. If the Old Testament is the primary section that causes them to commit violence, then you should be thrilled that they're happy to rip it out in an attempt to live according to the values given to them by Jesus, which are more than compatible with a secular society.

Unfortunately they both will never get along and countries that have no religion (China) will take over and communism will take over. Too bad capitalists loose unless imperialists can conquer communism. So because countries are strong in religion they fall to non religion countries.

Evidence please.



"The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35).

Refered to the scripture as "The commandment of God" (Matthew 15:3) and as the "Word of God" (Matthew 15:6).

"Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished" (Matthew 5:18).

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." (Matthew 5:17)

And honestly, I don't see what your problem is. If the Old Testament is the primary section that causes them to commit violence, then you should be thrilled that they're happy to rip it out in an attempt to live according to the values given to them by Jesus, which are more than compatible with a secular society.


Because you dont get to cut out half your holy book to prove youre a religion of peace. I see Christians all the time slander Islam, and when they are shown that the Bible is just as violent they sey "Well thats from the Old Testament!!!"


It doesnt fucking work like that.

Sure.

*hugs a muslim woman*

*sets off whatever-number crusade this would be*
Woops...:(

I wouldn't say that Islam and Christianity is at war today, so yeah.

Do you think someone who commits suicide in the name of Allah would agree?

Do you think someone who commits suicide in the name of Allah would agree?

No. Just like I dont think those Christians who call Islam a "violent" or "barbaric" religion would agree. Or those Christians who think that we aught to be waging a war to exterminate it would not agree.


Stop pretending like just one side is at fault.

Do you think someone who commits suicide in the name of Allah would agree?

A Muslim that immolates himself in the name of Allah has it very clear that this is a Holy War (Jihad) against the infidels (Christians). They don´t see it as suicide but as an act of heroism. It´s dying in the name of their God.

Im amussed that Christians think they can rip out half of their fucking holy book. Seriously.

No need to rip it out, just understand that it was men who wrote it and all men are sinners and are therefore flawed.

No need to rip it out, just understand that it was men who wrote it and all men are sinners and are therefore flawed.

But Jesus said that it was the divine word of God. Jesus says that it isnt flawed.

"The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35).

He refered to the scripture as "The commandment of God" (Matthew 15:3) and as the "Word of God" (Matthew 15:6).

"Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished" (Matthew 5:18).

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." (Matthew 5:17)


Its amussing that Christians either dont understand their religion or are in denial about parts of it.

But Jesus said that it was the divine word of God. Jesus says that it isnt flawed.

I think Anikdote was refering more to the writting of the Bible which happened 300 years after the crucifixion of Christ.

I think Anikdote was refering more to the writting of the Bible which happened 300 years after the crucifixion of Christ.

Ok, but they said they are quoting him directly.


If you dont believe they quoted that part corretly, how can you believe they quoted anything he said correctly? How can you believe that he really did say to love everyone?


You cant be selective like that. If you believe that some quotes from Christ are inaccurate, than you have to admit that others might be too.

There IS peace between Christianity and Islam.

Iraq? Two sects of Islam fighting each other, perhaps a proxy war between states. There's no need to be comparing that to the Crusades.

"The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35).

Refered to the scripture as "The commandment of God" (Matthew 15:3) and as the "Word of God" (Matthew 15:6).

"Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished" (Matthew 5:18).

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." (Matthew 5:17)

Because you dont get to cut out half your holy book to prove youre a religion of peace. I see Christians all the time slander Islam, and when they are shown that the Bible is just as violent they sey "Well thats from the Old Testament!!!"

It doesnt fucking work like that.

Oh really? Here they are attempting to make themselves into a religion of peace by cutting out the violent parts, and you want to prevent them from doing that?

I can't argue with the quotes, but I can with your line of reasoning.

Oh really? Here they are attempting to make themselves into a religion of peace, and you want to prevent them from doing that?

I can't argue with the quotes, but I can with your line of reasoning.



Youre putting words in my mouth. They can make themselves whatever they want to be.

They just dont get to slander other lifestyles or religions and act all better than Islam when they are just as fucking bad. All I am saying is Christians do not get to say that they are so much better then Arabs and that Islam is so inherantly violent and a religion of darkness and Christianity is all peace and love. Thats a fucking lie. Its either ignorance or deliberitally misleading.

Christianity is just as violent as Islam. And when Christians say their religion is a religion of peace and tolerance its a fucking lie.

Ok, but they said they are quoting him directly.


If you dont believe they quoted that part corretly, how can you believe they quoted anything he said correctly? How can you believe that he really did say to love everyone?


You cant be selective like that. If you believe that some quotes from Christ are inaccurate, than you have to admit that others might be too.

What we human beings need to do is finally accept that in matters of what Christ said or didn´t say, we know absolutely nothing. That also goes for Muslims. What we have today from both books (Bible-Qu´ran) are mere interpretations. Interpretations that have come down through the ages and that have been altered who knows how many times.

Your worry is more than valid, it is perhaps, the shared feelings of thousands, Christian and Muslim alike.

Youre putting words in my mouth. They can make themselves whatever they want to be.

If so, then you shouldn't get your panties all in a knot that they're taking out half their holy book.


They just dont get to slander other lifestyles or religions and act all better than Islam when they are just as fucking bad. All I am saying is Christians do not get to say that they are so much better then Arabs and that Islam is so inherantly violent and a religion of darkness and Christianity is all peace and love. Thats a fucking lie. Its either ignorance or deliberitally misleading.

I love how you treat all Christians as a collective whole, as if the ones who wish to remove the violent aspects of Christianity are the exact same as the ones who slander Islam.


Christianity is just as violent as Islam. And when Christians say their religion is a religion of peace and tolerance its a fucking lie.

I don't debate that Christianity has similar levels of violence historically as Islam, but I do debate the amount of violence you claim they have. Religious believers make up 90% of the US population. If even a quarter of those were as violent as you claim they are, then the US should be in the full throes of a holy war right now.

I can't really speak for Islam, but I haven't killed anyone or committed any other serious felonies since I converted to Christianity.

There is basic peace between Christianity and Islam like other posters have said. Where the real problem lies in this world is not religion but money and power. If you break down most of the conflicts it is about the haves and the have nots. Religion is just used as an excuse to further problems.

Human nature is to blame. I'm sure there are Christians and Muslims who could coexist not only peacefully, but happily. It's the assholes in power who cause violence.

Power and authority poisons everything it touches. It can even take the idea of a loving god and turn it into chains of fear.

What we human beings need to do is finally accept that in matters of what Christ said or didn´t say, we know absolutely nothing. That also goes for Muslims.

The Qu'ran was supposedly dictated by Muhammed to scribes. It was at least recorded at the time, which isn't exactly the situation with the Bible.

What we have today from both books (Bible-Qu´ran) are mere interpretations. Interpretations that have come down through the ages and that have been altered who knows how many times.

If the Prophet hadn't liked what was recorded in his name, he'd have had it changed.

I personally think he was just this guy who reckoned some stuff, but I must point out that the situation is slightly different than that with Jesus and the testaments. He was this guy who reckoned some stuff, but left it to word of mouth to preserve his message.

If so, then you shouldn't get your panties all in a knot that they're taking out half their holy book.

If Christians on this board (and in general) are allowed to ignore half their book, Islam is allowed to ignore their violent parts. Thats what Im saying.



I love how you treat all Christians as a collective whole, as if the ones who wish to remove the violent aspects of Christianity are the exact same as the ones who slander Islam.

In some cases they are. I never said all Christians. Just because I didnt specify and say "X amount" doesnt mean I meant "all" and if you are going to read that much into it I cant do anything about it



I don't debate that Christianity has similar levels of violence historically as Islam, but I do debate the amount of violence you claim they have. Religious believers make up 90% of the US population. If even a quarter of those were as violent as you claim they are, then the US should be in the full throes of a holy war right now.

I never said that just because Christianity at times preaches violence (and then contradicts itself and preaches against it) that that means all its followers ae violent. Again, you are reading too much into what I say.

Also, the only statement I made regarding a level of violenc was when I said it was just as violent as Islam. Once again, you seem to be reading what isnt there.

And I want a source on that 90%. That seems absurdly high.

The Qu'ran was supposedly dictated by Muhammed to scribes. It was at least recorded at the time, which isn't exactly the situation with the Bible.



If the Prophet hadn't liked what was recorded in his name, he'd have had it changed.

I personally think he was just this guy who reckoned some stuff, but I must point out that the situation is slightly different than that with Jesus and the testaments. He was this guy who reckoned some stuff, but left it to word of mouth to preserve his message.

Supposedly. The only difference between both religions is that their respective scripture books weren´t recorded at the same time.

To leave word of mouth to preserve Jesus´s message must have given the space to alter the meaning in some ways. I guess it´s what happens to folk-tales, they´re slowly morphed into something slightly different or completely different from the original.

If Christians on this board (and in general) are allowed to ignore half their book, Islam is allowed to ignore their violent parts. Thats what Im saying.

I agree with this.




In some cases they are. I never said all Christians. Just because I didnt specify and say "X amount" doesnt mean I meant "all" and if you are going to read that much into it I cant do anything about it

You made a broad accusation against Christians. You never said "all", but you also never indicated that the only Christians you were mad at where the ones who slandered Islam and revised their holy book. Your exact wording suggested that you believed all, or near all Christians engaged in both activities. If you don't believe this, then I would recommend more care in the way you word things.



I never said that just because Christianity at times preaches violence (and then contradicts itself and preaches against it) that that means all its followers ae violent. Again, you are reading too much into what I say.

I never said that you believed that "all it's followers are violent". I said that you overexaggurate the amount of violence they perform.

Also, the only statement I made regarding a level of violenc was when I said it was just as violent as Islam. Once again, you seem to be reading what isnt there.

When you said "...that Christianity is a religion of peace and tolerance is a fucking lie" seems to indicate that you believe the levels of violence in these religions are rather high.

And I want a source on that 90%. That seems absurdly high.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html For the 90% stat, though I made a mistake. It's 85%. Whoops.

I seem to recall that Jesus said all the laws of the Old Testament apply still.


Im amussed that Christians think they can rip out half of their fucking holy book. Seriously.

I also laugh at the historical ignorance of anyone who said Muslims are more to blame for the violence. The only sane people said equally.


Just so you don't continue to appear to be completely uninformed I will pass along a little fyi. Without going into individual Christian covenants and docterines per sect (you can look those up yourself) I think you can get the gist of it all by something as simple to understand as Wikipedia. ;)


There have been differences of opinion within Christianity as to what and how biblical law applies in a Christian context. There are diverse views of the issues involved.

Although Christianity by tradition affirms that the Five Books of Moses (the Pentateuch or Torah) is the inspired word of God, Christian tradition denies that all Mosaic Law applies directly to Christians. There are differences of opinion within Christianity as to which laws apply.

The New Testament indicates that Jesus Christ established a new covenant relationship between God and his followers (Jeremiah 31:31–34; Luke 22:20; 2Cor 2–3; Heb 8–9). Christianity, almost without exception, teaches that this new covenant is the instrument through which God offers mercy and atonement to mankind. However, there are differences of opinion as to how the new covenant affects the validity of biblical law. The differences are mainly as a result of attempts to harmonize biblical statements to the effect that the biblical law is eternal with New Testament statements that suggest that it does not now apply at all, or at least does not fully apply. Most biblical scholars admit the issue of the Law can be confusing and the topic of Paul and the Law is still frequently debated among New Testament scholars[13] (for example, see New Perspective on Paul, Pauline Christianity); hence the various views.

Some conclude that none is applicable, some conclude that only parts are applicable, and some conclude that all is still applicable to believers in Jesus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_law_in_Christianity

There cannot be long-term equality and peace between Christians and Muslims because they disagree with each other on a fundamentally theological level.

The majority of Christians maintain that Christ is the conclusion of the Abrahamic line of prophets. Muslims maintain that Muhammad is the penultimate Abrahamic prophet, and that Christians are ignorantly wrong in following Jesus as a God.

While there may be a "you live your way, I live my way" peace between neighbors, for true believers, each religion presents a major theological problem to the other, and that problem will create tension that could easily spill over into violence.

To be a Christian, you must believe that Muhammad doesn't really have God's perfect message, because Jesus has God's perfect message. You can only be sad that so many have begun listening to a false prophet.

To be a Muslim, you must believe that Christ is only one prophet of God, and Christ's message has been distorted beyond recognition. You can only be sad so many have begun to worship Christ as an Idol, for God has no offspring or equal.

With 2 billion believers, and given human nature, this theological incompatibility will boil over into violence again and again, as long as humans have violent tendencies and intelligent people can use such tendencies for material gain.

No there won't. Ever.

Civilisation will only be complete when the last stone has fallen from the last temple on the head of the last priest.

Unfortunately, the stupid morons will probably take the rest of us with them.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=UY-ZrwFwLQg

Muslim and Christian organisations in the UK made peace a while ago, and since then they've been ganging up on the Atheists and Secularists. :p I'd rather this didn't happen on a global scale...

Just to illustrate my point: Saudi King Calls for Interfaith Talks (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3620897.ece)

"If God wills it, we will then meet with our brothers from other religions, including those of the Torah and the Gospel to come up with ways to safeguard humanity," he added. The king, who is the guardian of the holy sites of Mecca and Medina, said the major faiths shared a desire to combat "the disintegration of the family and the rise of atheism in the world".

According to the official Saudi Press Agency King Abdullah said "I have noticed that the family system has weakened and that atheism has increased. That is an unacceptable behavior to all religions, to the Koran, the Torah and the Bible. We ask God to save humanity. There is a lack of ethics, loyalty and sincerity for our religions and humanity."

No, not always. There was no particular resource that the Crusaders were seeking when they invaded the least valuable (materialistically speaking) section of the Middle East.

The Crusades were more about venting off steam than anything else. After whole swathes of Europe became increasingly united, you got a whole section of society, the young and noble, who had trained for a life of conflict. Sending them a few thousand miles away to fight against someone Western Europe didn't really care about was an excellent way of avoiding pointless civil wars and such. Which was nice for most of Western Europe, that's for sure.

Go look at a map of Asia and eastern Europe. Start tracing the old route of the Silk Road, i.e. the major trade route for shipping goods between Europe and Asia. Controlling access to that road would be incredibly lucrative.

Just so you don't continue to appear to be completely uninformed I will pass along a little fyi. Without going into individual Christian covenants and docterines per sect (you can look those up yourself) I think you can get the gist of it all by something as simple to understand as Wikipedia. ;)




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_law_in_Christianity

I think in this case Wiki is misinformed, because based on the scripture I quoted, it is clear IMO that Jesus believed OT law still was valid.

Like the title says will there ever been peace between christians and muslims. I understand that this is already occuring on a small scale amongst individuals. But will world leaders of either faction ever find common ground, or will the wars of our past continue to rage on into the future. Discuss.

Peace between Christians and Muslims. or in other words,
Peace between People and People.
Hold on world leaders of either faction? what makes you think they're divided into factions?

What is peace?
That's an awfully loaded question you have there, try a more specific one.

I think in this case Wiki is misinformed, because based on the scripture I quoted, it is clear IMO that Jesus believed OT law still was valid.

Your choice of course. I chose Wiki only because it was easy to read. As I suggested you could search denomination doctorine and amazingly you will find the same information. But I see you feel you are the expert on scripture interpretation. :p

Your choice of course. I chose Wiki only because it was easy to read. As I suggested you could search denomination doctorine and amazingly you will find the same information. But I see you feel you are the expert on scripture interpretation. :p

Those passages I quoted are pretty tough to interpert as anything but...

Those passages I quoted are pretty tough to interpert as anything but...

Hey I was just trying to save you from yourself. ;)

I think in this case Wiki is misinformed, because based on the scripture I quoted, it is clear IMO that Jesus believed OT law still was valid.

Actually, this is one of those times when the Bible has contradictory information. In terms of the question as to whether or not Christians have to support OT law, both sides have scriptural support:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/otlaw.html

I think it would be safe to say that different denominations would have different interpretations about this.

Go look at a map of Asia and eastern Europe. Start tracing the old route of the Silk Road, i.e. the major trade route for shipping goods between Europe and Asia. Controlling access to that road would be incredibly lucrative.

Um, Kazakhstan and Israel are not remotely close to each other.

Hey I was just trying to save you from yourself. ;)

No need when Im right.


The Bible contradicts itself. Holy crap, really?

Im saying that when someone claims the OT doesnt count, they have to admit that there are passages from Jesus that are contradictory to their claim and theyre just going to ignore them.

Actually, this is one of those times when the Bible has contradictory information. In terms of the question as to whether or not Christians have to support OT law, both sides have scriptural support:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/otlaw.html

I think it would be safe to say that different denominations would have different interpretations about this.

Exactly. Many Christians do not believe that they are obliged to follow Mosaic law. I interpretted KoL's posts that he was obviously not aware of that.

Exactly. Many Christians do not believe that they are obliged to follow Mosaic law. I interpretted KoL's posts that he was obviously not aware of that.

Oh, Im aware of it. I was born and raised Christian, and grew up in Wheaton IL, which spends the most capita per GDP on churches than anywhere else in the country. Ive read the Bible cover to cover over the course of my life. I am more Bible literate than many Christians.

Im saying that demoninations who say the OT doesnt count have to be willing to admit that there is scriptual support for the OT laws in the NT that they are going to ignore. Thats fine, they can ignore them, but that means they forfit the right to call out other religions as "violent" or "barbaric".

Um, Kazakhstan and Israel are not remotely close to each other.

Tyre and Antioch were the main ports connecting the overland Silk Road to the Mediterranean. The third major connection point was the the thin strip of land where the Suez Canal is now located. Please note that this is the area that everyone was fighting over. Everything from Kazakhstan and points east had to be loaded onto boats in one of these three places.

Oh, Im aware of it. I was born and raised Christian, and grew up in Wheaton IL, which spends the most capita per GDP on churches than anywhere else in the country. Ive read the Bible cover to cover over the course of my life. I am more Bible literate than many Christians.

Im saying that demoninations who say the OT doesnt count have to be willing to admit that there is scriptual support for the OT laws in the NT that they are going to ignore. Thats fine, they can ignore them, but that means they forfit the right to call out other religions as "violent" or "barbaric".


Nah, it doesn't forfiet anything for anyone except you.

Your theory that just because a passage is in the Old Testament calling for violence, that somehow that binds all Christians to accept the violence of others who have perverted a religion is silly.

Feel free to apply that to your thoughts of course, but it certainly isn't binding to anyone else just because you say so. :p

Nah, it doesn't forfiet anything for anyone except you.

Your theory that just because a passage is in the Old Testament calling for violence, that somehow that binds all Christians to accept the violence of others who have perverted a religion is silly.

Feel free to apply that to your thoughts of course, but it certainly isn't binding to anyone else just because you say so. :p

I dont think you get my point.

I never said the OT binds all Christians to stone a non-virgin on her father's doorstep.

I am more than happy to let Christians ignore the violence in their book. In fact, I encourage it.


My only reason for bringing this up is many Christians say Islam is so violent and Christianity is so peaceful. Thats false. And when you call them on that falsehood, they say its from the OT and therefore doesnt matter. My point is, there is scriptural evidence in the NT saying the OT is indeed valid. So some Christians dont get to allow their religion to cut out the nasty parts but not let Islam cut out its nasty parts.

Christianity is only a religion of peace if you willfully ignore the nasty parts.

You seem on a quest to portray me as anti-Christian. Which I am anti-Christian theology. But not anti-Christian the people. Stop.

not as long as there are radical mullahs

not as long as there are radical mullahs

I read that as radical mullets, man i'm tired.

not as long as there are radical mullahs

Or radical Christians. Like those who call Islam a violent and barbaric religion that we should wage a war to exterminate. In fact one of those radical Christian dominionists is John McCains spiritual advisor.


See? You dont get to pretend like just one side is bad.

Tyre and Antioch were the main ports connecting the overland Silk Road to the Mediterranean. The third major connection point was the the thin strip of land where the Suez Canal is now located. Please note that this is the area that everyone was fighting over. Everything from Kazakhstan and points east had to be loaded onto boats in one of these three places.
No, not unless you had to go through Persia and the Caliphate. Trade destined for Europe went through Khazary and Byzantium instead, either loaded onto boats at Caspian Sea ports to go up the Volga, across the Khazar Portage to the Don, and down through Crimea (or "Tmutarakhan" as it was known then), or else overland as far as Black Sea outlets. This is why Venice, Genoa, and Pisa fought to control trading stations in Constantinople and Crimea (and motivated the Fourth Crusade when Venetians seized Constantinople), but had nothing to do with the First Crusade.
It is true that there was a window of time AFTER the First Crusade when the Franks in "Outremer" were on reasonable terms with the Caliphate and could purchase some silk/spices/other Eastern wares through Baghdad, for shipment west, but this was not a necessary route.

I dont think you get my point.

I never said the OT binds all Christians to stone a non-virgin on her father's doorstep.

I am more than happy to let Christians ignore the violence in their book. In fact, I encourage it.


My only reason for bringing this up is many Christians say Islam is so violent and Christianity is so peaceful. Thats false. And when you call them on that falsehood, they say its from the OT and therefore doesnt matter. My point is, there is scriptural evidence in the NT saying the OT is indeed valid. So some Christians dont get to allow their religion to cut out the nasty parts but not let Islam cut out its nasty parts.

Christianity is only a religion of peace if you willfully ignore the nasty parts.

You seem on a quest to portray me as anti-Christian. Which I am anti-Christian theology. But not anti-Christian the people. Stop.

I don't agree with that. Simply because you want to compare ancient history with today's standards. Christianity by today's standards does not call for violence at all. (If I am wrong I would appreciate that name of a sect that does.) I am not disputing that both have had violent histories. I am saying one has without question evolved. One is trying to evolve.

Today we have a world religion that is being perverted and used as a base reasoning for violence/hate. Estimates are that only 1% of Muslims are radicals. But in the big picture that is a huge number of people. CAIR estimates the Muslim population to be 1.2 billion world wide. That is 12 million people who deem violence and killing acceptable religious dogma.

The poll asks "on-going hatred and violence"....I daresay that there are not 12million Christians calling for the death of anyone.

I am not on a quest to portray you as anything at all, I simply am following up on your thoughts with my own. Is that uncomfortable to you?

The poll asks "on-going hatred and violence"....I daresay that there are not 12million Christians calling for the death of anyone.


I would bet money that there are 12 million Christians who activelly wish for the death of some group. What about the thousands alone who attend the church of Ron Parsely or who view him on TV?

I think thats very naive of you.


You can continue to pretend that Christianity is inherantly peaceful. Those of us outside without a bias would argue with that statement however.

I would bet money that there are 12 million Christians who activelly wish for the death of some group. What about the thousands alone who attend the church of Ron Parsely or who view him on TV?

I think thats very naive of you.


You can continue to pretend that Christianity is inherantly peaceful. Those of us outside without a bias would argue with that statement however.

Oh so if one Imam calls for jihad that makes all Muslims guilty of wanting jihad?

By your standard then all Muslims must want all infidels dead.

The only naive person here is the one that back peddles faster than the speed of light. ;)

Oh so if one Imam calls for jihad that makes all Muslims guilty of wanting jihad?

By your standard then all Muslims must want all infidels dead.


Show me where I said that. Now youre just putting words in my mouth.

The only naive person here is the one that back peddles faster than the speed of light. ;)

Whos back peddling? Im certainly not.

Or radical Christians. Like those who call Islam a violent and barbaric religion that we should wage a war to exterminate. In fact one of those radical Christian dominionists is John McCains spiritual advisor.


See? You dont get to pretend like just one side is bad.

Who is pretending?

show me a Christian church where a deacon,vicar or priest is whipping parishioners into a frenzy to go kill muslims where they shop,sleep,learn or pray?

Any suicide bombers that arent muslims?

Who is pretending?

show me a Christian church where a deacon,vicar or priest is whipping parishioners into a frenzy to go kill muslims where they shop,sleep,learn or pray?




Ron Parsely.

Show me where I said that. Now youre just putting words in my mouth.



Whos back peddling? Im certainly not.


I would bet money that there are 12 million Christians who activelly wish for the death of some group. What about the thousands alone who attend the church of Ron Parsely or who view him on TV?


Why in the world would you bet that? What about them?

I would bet money that there are 12 million Christians who activelly wish for the death of some group.
I don't know how many there are, but there are enough that I've been attacked twice.

I would bet money that there are 12 million Christians who activelly wish for the death of some group. What about the thousands alone who attend the church of Ron Parsely or who view him on TV?

I think thats very naive of you.


You can continue to pretend that Christianity is inherantly peaceful. Those of us outside without a bias would argue with that statement however.


You bet that ? So you're wager could mean its true?

You're the pretender. You want that to be true.

Are there any Christians anywhere declaring "God is great!!" and shooting into crowds of shoppers?
Bombing nightclubs?
Assaulting schools full of children or movie theatres?

I don't know how many there are, but there are enough that I've been attacked twice.

what physically or verbally, other?

You bet that ? So you're wager could mean its true?

You're the pretender. You want that to be true.

Are there any Christians anywhere declaring "God is great!!" and shooting into crowds of shoppers?
Bombing nightclubs?
Assaulting schools full of children or movie theatres?

No Muslim army is occupying Christian nations and forcing their morals onto them. Christians dont need to.

I don't know how many there are, but there are enough that I've been attacked twice.


Do you think their religion told them to do that?

Why in the world would you bet that? What about them?


Ron Parsely and people like him are prominant Evangelical Leaders. His whole platform is that we should be waging war to exterminate the violent and barbaric religion of Islam.


One does not get popular and become a leader of large groups of evangelicals if these evangelicals disagree with his main platform.

I can't speak for Muslims, but I don't believe there is anything intrinsic to Christianity that requires agression against anyone. There is a question of rightious indignation, but that isn't the same thing as agression.

Do you think their religion told them to do that?

Ive read the stories from him, and because of why he was attacked, I can garuntee you that their religion told them to.

Ron Parsely.


He tells his parishoners to attack muslims?

And how many of them have?

Do you think their religion told them to do that?

Oh yes. They were quite explicit about that.

So [were the Crusades] a case of religion using politics to achieve its goals, or politics using religion for the sake of the national interest?
Les deux.

I can't speak for Muslims, but I don't believe there is anything intrinsic to Christianity that requires agression against anyone. There is a question of rightious indignation, but that isn't the same thing as agression.

oddly, in church, I hear the priest tell us to pray for our enemies.

He tells his parishoners to attack muslims?

And how many of them have?

He says we should be exterminating Islam.

There is no Islamic regiem to exterminate in America. He just supports us doing it in the Middle East.


Again, Christians are in control in America. They can enforce their values on us. They dont need to be blowing shit up. Except for abortion clinics.

Are there any Christians anywhere declaring "God is great!!" and shooting into crowds of shoppers?
Bombing nightclubs?
Assaulting schools full of children or movie theatres?
I don't know about crowds at the mall, schools, or theaters, but gay nightclubs have often been targets.

oddly, in church, I hear the priest tell us to pray for our enemies.

Thats because you dont go to a radical church.


Your missing the fucking point. You pretend like there are only radical Muslims. There are batshit crazy radical Christians. For some reason you just dont want to admit it.

No Muslim army is occupying Christian nations and forcing their morals onto them.


Thank God.

If they were- you and I wouldnt be allowed to share these opinions.

Thank God.

If they were- you and I wouldnt be allowed to share these opinions.

You realize not every Muslim country is a theocracy or a dictatorship, right?

You realize not every Muslim country is a theocracy or a dictatorship, right?
Such as?

Ron Parsely and people like him are prominant Evangelical Leaders. His whole platform is that we should be waging war to exterminate the violent and barbaric religion of Islam.


One does not get popular and become a leader of large groups of evangelicals if these evangelicals disagree with his main platform.

So you think we should keep violent radical Islam?

I don't believe the entire religion has been bastardized but I have no question that there is definately a large faction that has been. I don't think that faction should be allowed to grow.

Btw I for one have never even heard of him, so he isn't nearly as popular as you seem to think.

Thats because you dont go to a radical church.


Your missing the fucking point. You pretend like there are only radical Muslims. There are batshit crazy radical Christians. For some reason you just dont want to admit it.

Calm down.

I'm not missing the point. I never suggested all muslims were radical. I bet not even 5% worldwide are.

Yes-there are batshit crazy radical Christians. I',m well aware and I have as little to do with them as you do with any suicide bomber.

However, even the radical Christians arent making news blowing up public centers.

Such as?

Pakistan wasnt and still isnt, but they are starting to lean that way.

So you think we should keep violent radical Islam?

Do you get off to putting words in peoples mouths?

I don't believe the entire religion has been bastardized but I have no question that there is definately a large faction that has been. I don't think that faction should be allowed to grow.

Where on the same page on this, what does this have to do with Christianity not being perfect?

Btw I for one have never even heard of him, so he isn't nearly as popular as you seem to think.

Than you havent been paying attention, because hes been in the news, especially lately, because hes supporting John McCain.

They dance in the street on Al-Jazeera when 3k of ours died. We indoctrinate a nation to believe all muslims are the problem (and arabs), like on Faux News. They danced...3k dead. We just talked stearnly...more than a million dead. Okay, I'll be fair...3k from 9-11 and 4k dead from Iraq war, and the say 30k wounded...still they got 37k for a dance...we got over a million and talked nasty. Stop while we're ahead? Cmon, please? I just wanna go out on the high side here. Anyway, historically speaking, the only reason Islam was hated in the early world was because they bathed daily. HaHa! No crap, Romans killed them for too many baths. And Christianity? Killed more people than any other religion in history, hands down, not even negotiable. But they usually kill other christians, or jews, or pagans of some type. So I'd say it's a draw nowadays. We all suck on both sides, we just can't smell our own @#$%. LOL.


Hope not to offend, I'm new.

I dont care what your beliefs are. I dont need you to share mine.

I dont think you're an infidel because you dont share my beliefs.

No, not unless you had to go through Persia and the Caliphate. Trade destined for Europe went through Khazary and Byzantium instead, either loaded onto boats at Caspian Sea ports to go up the Volga, across the Khazar Portage to the Don, and down through Crimea (or "Tmutarakhan" as it was known then), or else overland as far as Black Sea outlets. This is why Venice, Genoa, and Pisa fought to control trading stations in Constantinople and Crimea (and motivated the Fourth Crusade when Venetians seized Constantinople), but had nothing to do with the First Crusade.
It is true that there was a window of time AFTER the First Crusade when the Franks in "Outremer" were on reasonable terms with the Caliphate and could purchase some silk/spices/other Eastern wares through Baghdad, for shipment west, but this was not a necessary route.

There were obviously several routes. Here (http://www.silkroadproject.org/images/map.jpg) is a map. No one route was necessary, but having control of many of them as possible would have ensured control over the resources travelling along these routes.

Are there any Christians anywhere declaring "God is great!!" and shooting into crowds of shoppers?
Bombing nightclubs?
Assaulting schools full of children or movie theatres?
You never heard of the Lord's Resistance Army or something?

How's about the Phalange in Lebanon?

Anyway, historically speaking, the only reason Islam was hated in the early world was because they bathed daily. HaHa! No crap, Romans killed them for too many baths.

That would be difficult, considering there was no Islam during the reign of Rome.


Hope not to offend, I'm new.


Welcome.

Well all my best friends are Muslim (I'm Catholic) so I'm going for a yes.

Both christianity and islam are flawed, evil, sick ideologies. The world and humanity will be a better place when we are finally rid of the infectious disease of evangelical religion.

Pakistan wasnt
General Zia-ul-Haq much?

That and its politics are completely dominated by the Bhutto family, the military, and extremist Muslims.
and still isnt, but they are starting to lean that way.
It's been the way it's been for a long time.

Pakistan wasnt and still isnt, but they are starting to lean that way.



Do you get off to putting words in peoples mouths?



Where on the same page on this, what does this have to do with Christianity not being perfect?



Than you havent been paying attention, because hes been in the news, especially lately, because hes supporting John McCain.


I didn't put any words in your mouth. I have asked a question or two that you seem to not want to answer. Fine not a problem, but don't accuse me of putting words in your mouth when both times I have simply asked you a question. I want your answer so I can see where you are coming from because to be honest you are terribly difficult to follow in your train of thought. It is why I said you are a master back peddler.

I have to go now. I will check back later.

General Zia-ul-Haq much?

That and its politics are completely dominated by the Bhutto family, the military, and extremist Muslims.

It's been the way it's been for a long time.

They hold (held) elections dont they?

That means they arent a dictatorship. With the exception of the Musharaff coup.

I dont care what your beliefs are. I dont need you to share mine.

I dont think you're an infidel because you dont share my beliefs.

who are you talking to?

to be honest you are terribly difficult to follow in your train of thought. It is why I said you are a master back peddler.

I have to go now. I will check back later.

Then youre not trying hard enough.


Yes, radical Islam should be culled. So should radical Christianity, Judaism, Hindiuism, Buddhism, you name it.


I just dont point the finger at one group and say "You. You are the worst. Its all your fault."

Both christianity and islam are flawed, evil, sick ideologies. The world and humanity will be a better place when we are finally rid of the infectious disease of evangelical religion.
The world isn't going to be free of religion until our lives are completely utopian and people have no need of it as a support mechanism - even then, people inclined to such things will still believe in a faith of some sort just as something to do and something to find a community in.

USA much?

That and its politics are completely dominated by the Clinton family, the military, and extremist Christians.

It's been the way it's been for a long time.

Fixed :D

They hold (held) elections dont they?
Vaguely, the fact that the same family has been in power in Pakistan for the whole of its post-1947 history, and that when they've not been around, it's been the army in control kind of makes it a sham in my eyes.
That means they arent a dictatorship. With the exception of the Musharaff coup.
Aye, if you completely forget about General Zia-ul-Haq, which wasn't very long ago by any means.

Fixed :D
Hardly just the Clinton family. The Bushes have a fairly large amount of heritage in US politics, and the fact that both George Bush Jr. and John Kerry belonged to the same semi-secret society at university suggests some other fairly dodgy goings on.

But there we go.

Aye, if you completely forget about General Zia-ul-Haq, which wasn't very long ago by any means.

I actually dont know who that is...:(

I actually dont know who that is...:(
He was a general in the Pakistani army who led a largely bloodless coup, which then made Pakistan into a religious dictatorship from 1977 until his extremely timely death in 1988, when his helicopter, containing both himself and most of the other top generals responsible for the dictatorship being upheld 'mysteriously' crashing, killing everyone.

He won a whole bunch of "hero of freedom and suchlike" awards from both the US under Reagan and the UK under Thatcher for making sure that Communism stayed out of Pakistan, and bravely backing up our then-chums, the Mujahideen, i.e. Taliban in their fight against the USSR.

This thread is high in stuff I had to look up. Silk road, Crusades, Rod Parsley, General Zia-ul-Haq (that's a badass mustache), and it started so lamely...

the Mujahideen, i.e. Taliban
I don't think it is entirely proper to treat "Mujahideen" and "Taliban" as synonyms. A lot of people were involved in the fight against the Russians who did not join, or ending up getting killed by, the Taliban.

This thread is high in stuff I had to look up. Silk road, Crusades, Rod Parsley, General Zia-ul-Haq (that's a badass mustache), and it started so lamely...
Damn right it's an incredibly badass moustache. Without it, he'd have been nothing.
I don't think it is entirely proper to treat "Mujahideen" and "Taliban" as synonyms. A lot of people were involved in the fight against the Russians who did not join, or ending up getting killed by, the Taliban.
Let's put it this way - General Zia-ul-Haq was hardly supporting the Northern Alliance.

Such as?

Turkey, Indonesia, and recently Pakistan(maybe)

I'm taking a course in the History of the modern Muslim nations, so any questions?

Turkey, Indonesia, and recently Pakistan(maybe)

I'm taking a course in the History of the modern Muslim nations, so any questions?
Yes, foremost "how can you the beginnings of take yourself seriously?"

Turkey - is hardly a democratic state, and is known for its flagrant human rights abuses against women. The military plays a tremendous role in the country's politics.

Indonesia - See above, is also far more of a Theocracy than Turkey.

Pakistan - See above, but more so on every level.