So Mohamed was not so bad after all as it was his times, eh?
Mohammed was a product of his time and ethnic group. The 7th Century was fairly chaotic world-wide and if he is to be held to 7th Century standards, he was typical.
For comparison, Jesus was not typical, he preached peace and understanding, and the Christian Church at the time of Mohammed was supposed to do the same, but the times created the "warrior church" in Europe and Asia. Only the Irish Church, founded by St.Patrick was run according to the word of God: the conversion of the Irish Celts to Christianity produced no martyrs or destruction of local customs, the two belief systems sort of assimilated producing a Church that the Church of Rome didn't much care for, because it didn't need the Church of Rome, but recognized it as the One True Church anyway.
Does this make St.Patrick and the Irish saints better than Mohammed? Yes, because they taught about a loving God that was there to help mankind, not some angry, vengeful God that wanted you to kill all non-believers, as well as anyone who wished to leave the religion, as in Islam.
"No, it is not, because there is no moral equivalency between the two."
Why? Because you say so? Or your preacher says so?
Because logic says so, the two ideas are different and took place at different times
Either it is immoral to execute women and children in the name of obeying God or it is not and time doesnt change that.
It is and always has been immoral to murder women and children PERIOD. To do so "In the name of God" makes it worse, since it is a human interpretation that decides "What God Wants." Man has free choice, and a conscience, choosing to murder the innocent just uses "God" as an excuse for lack of courage to say "No, it's wrong."
If someone believes in an all-powerful God, they must also realize that the all-powerful God can destroy anything and anyone at anytime, the moral choice is not to murder innocents.
Remember, God ordered Abraham to kill his son, and then stopped him from doing so.
Time does change it since we are an ever evolving species and we learn more as a society with each passing generation.
There was a time when slavery was acceptable, it is no longer; there was a time when women were thought to be inferior, that thought is no longer acceptable. WAIT, excuse me, Slavery and the subjugation of women is still acceptable in Islamic countries ruled by Sharia law, how about THAT!
"The Biblical occurrences were thousands of years ago, and are NO more. The Islamist occurrences of punishment under Sharia law are TODAY, and that, the cruel and unusual punishments as described above, is NOT acceptable in civilized society."
Ah, so it is OK to take practices condemned by 98% of Muslims around the world as typical of them while ignoring Biblical passages from our own faith that call for the execution of entire nations?
Where do you get the 98% figure?Saudi Arabia, Iran, Somalia, Indonesia and Pakistan, for a start still practice Sharia Law and allow many of these practices TODAY. Afghanistan used to, until the US and Coalition stopped them.
We ignore the Biblical passages from our own faiths concerning these laws because we have EVOLVED and realize that they are wre not acceptable.
The New Testament does not indicate punishments allowed by a higher authority (above man, below God)because society at that time, several centuries after the Old Teastament "ended", and thousands of years after the "rules/laws" were written, had evolved BEYOND the need for such Draconian measures handed down from God, and society was run by a secular government, not a religious one.
Why dont you jsut admit that you want to hate Muslims and feel good about it?
Why do you want to put words in my mouth? why do you want me to say something that I had not even inferred in my previous post?
Are you trying to get me to say something so thst I might get in trouble?
Your logic is faulty and your argument sounds like a retread from several other troll-like posters I've encountered.
I've stated my position and defended it.
Poor thing - he's terrified that everything he read on Prophet Of Doom might be true.
"Why dont you jsut admit that you want to hate Muslims and feel good about it?"
_________________________________________
Your forebearance is admirable FD. You were obviously being baited by that emotionally charged statement. None of us enjoy being wary of our fellow American and world citizens. And no civilized person feels good about hate; it is a base, soul destroying emotion. We are not driven by hate, but by love for our way of life and our determination not to give it up.
FD...that was a powerful and touching response on your part...congrats!
OK, and that makes St Patrik better than the prophet Samueal, too I suppose.
And God *is* an angry and vengeful God, whether you are comfortable with that thought or not.
Former Dodger - Because logic says so, the two ideas are different and took place at different times.
Let me start afresh with my point, since this thing goes back several posts.
Islam is criticized as being evil because of the use by fringe elements of death in ways that shock us in the west, and they openly advocate death to those who they percieve as threatening their faith. And yet our Christian Bible tells us God commanded people at various times to utterly destroy man, woman and child different tribes; the Caananites and the Amalekites, for example. So for someone to make this argument puts them in a position of indirectly acusing our God of being evil. That is wrong and howver so gentle, it is blasphemous.
Former Dodger - It is and always has been immoral to murder women and children PERIOD. To do so "In the name of God" makes it worse, since it is a human interpretation that decides "What God Wants." Man has free choice, and a conscience, choosing to murder the innocent just uses "God" as an excuse for lack of courage to say "No, it's wrong."
So Samuel was evil in telling King Saul to kill the Amalekites and then to strip the kingship away from him because Saul failed to kill all the royal family as well as all the commoner Amalekites?
I just want to clarify what you think of the way God is presented in the Old Testament.
Former Dodger - WAIT, excuse me, Slavery and the subjugation of women is still acceptable in Islamic countries ruled by Sharia law, how about THAT!
And slavery and the subjugation of women is still accepted in the West if it is among illegal immigrants forced to work in sweat shops chained to their work benches or women held under threat of torture and death. That goes on all over our country and the government could stop it, but it does not.
So, yes, officially we do not practice slavery or sexually exploit women, but with a wink and a nod to organized criminals, we in effect do in fact.
Also, the biggest number of sex tourists in Thailand and the Phillipines every year are not Muslims, but Westerners and alot of them Americans. So when you compare what is practiced in broad daylight, we trump the degeneracy of the Muslims tenfold.
Former Dodger - We ignore the Biblical passages from our own faiths concerning these laws because we have EVOLVED and realize that they are wre not acceptable.
But it is GOD who is the SOURCE of those laws and moral systems, right?
Has GOD evolved in your opinion?