Posted on 10/29/2001 1:34:22 PM PST by RaceBannon
A Contrast Between Mohammed and Christ
Mohammed was the prophet of war; Christ is the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6-7).
Mohammed's disciples killed for the faith; Christ's disciples were killed for their faith (Acts 12:2; 2 Tim. 4:7).
Mohammed promoted persecution against the "infidels"; Christ forgave and converted the chief persecutor (1 Tim. 1:13-15).
Mohammed was the taker of life; Christ was the giver of life (John 10:27-28).
Mohammed and his fellow warriors murdered thousands; Christ murdered none but saved many (compare John 12:48).
Mohammed method was COMPULSION; Christ aim was voluntary CONVERSION (Acts 3:19).
Mohammed practiced FORCE; Christ preached FAITH (John 6:29,35).
Mohammed was a WARRIOR; Christ is a DELIVERER (Col. 1:13; 1 Thess.1:10).
Mohammed conquered his enemies with the sword; Christ conquered his enemies with another kind of sword, the sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God (Heb. 4:12; Acts 2:37).
Mohammed said to the masses, "Convert or die!"; Christ said, "Believe and live!" (John 6:47; 11:25-26).
Mohammed was swift to shed blood (Rom. 3:15-17); Christ shed His own blood for the salvation of many (Eph. 1:7).
Mohammed preached "Death to the infidels!"; Christ prayed "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34).
Mohammed declared a holy war (Jihad) against infidels; Christ achieved a holy victory on Calvary's cross (Col. 2:14-15) and His followers share in that victory (John 16:33).
Mohammed constrained people by conquest; Christ constrained people by love (2 Cor. 5:14).
Modern terrorists derive their inspiration from Mohammed and carry out their despicable atrocities in the name of his god; Christians derive their inspiration from the One who said, "Blessed are the peacemakers" (Matthew 5:9).
Modern day disciples of Mohammed respond to the terrorist attacks by cheering in the streets; modern day disciples of Christ are deeply grieved at past atrocities carried out by those who were "Christians" in name only (the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, etc.).
Many Muslims are peaceful and peace-loving because they do not strictly follow the teachings of their founder; many Christians are peaceful and peace-loving because they do strictly follow the teachings of their Founder (Rom. 12:17-21).
Mohammed called upon his servants to fight; Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world; if My kingdom were of this world, then would My servants fight . . .but now is My kingdom not from here" (John 18:36)
Mohammed ordered death to the Jews (see A.Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, Oxford University Press [1975], p. 369); Christ ordered that the gospel be preached "to the Jew first" (Rom. 1:16).
The Koran says, "Fight in the cause of Allah" (Qu'ran 2.244); the Bible says, "we wrestle not against flesh and blood" and "the weapons of our warfare are not carnal" (Eph. 6:12; 2 Cor. 10:4).
The Koran says, "Fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them" (Qu'ran 9.5); Christ said, "Preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15).
The Koran says, "I will inspire terror into the hearts of unbelievers" (Qu'ran 8.12); God inspires His terror into the hearts of believers (Isaiah 8:13).
The Koran (Qu'ran) is a terrorist manual which condones fighting, conflict, terror, slaughter, and genocide against those who do not accept Islam; the Bible is a missionary manual to spread the gospel of peace to all the world (Rom. 10:15).
Mohammed's Mission was to conquer the world for Allah; Christ's mission was to conquer sin's penalty and power by substitutionary atonement (2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 3:18).
Mohammed considered Christ a good prophet; Christ pronounced Mohammed to be a false prophet (John 10:10; Matt. 24:11).
Mohammed claimed that there was but one God, Allah; Christ claimed that He was God (John 10:30-31; John 8:58-59; John 5:18; John 14:9).
Mohammed's Tomb: OCCUPIED! Christ's tomb: EMPTY!
—George Zeller (10/01)
[Note: For excellent documentation on the bloody history of Islam, see "THE BLOODY LEGACY OF ISLAM" by Chuck Sligh. E-mail: esligh2001@yahoo.com
John 11:35 Jesus wept.
Shalom.
I am a Bible literalist. One is to read the Bible as you would any other book - when context dictates literal interpretation, interpret literally. There is obvious figurative language and metaphor used as well.
Hello again. :) I didn't mean to suggest as part of my argument that the Bible is God's Word and the Koran is man's. Although it is what I believe, I don't think that point is necessary. We don't even have to assume that one or the other is divine revelation. The only thing we need to realize is that it is impossible for both to be, because they are so divergent. While man might be contradictory, as in different sects based on the same scriptures, God would not be contradictory, giving two such conflicting messages.
With regard to your comment about divine inspiration, I believe it can be evaluated when one looks at the evidence. I feel very strongly that I have proved the Bible to myself.
Common sense decides. When you are reading a firsthand account of the Gulf War, for example, do you assume that the author is describing real air strikes, real soldiers, real numbers of casualties? At the same time, when you read in the same book that when the returning author saw his fiance' waiting for him at the airport, flowers of joy burst from within his heart, do you assume that flowers actually came out of the man's heart?
For a specific Biblical example, in this same thread, one verse was used to suggest that God made men be drunken, but when you back up a couple verses, it's pretty easily determined that the passage is speaking of a "cup of fury" that is figurative for His anger at the nations' sin. As punishment, they will be drunk from drinking this cup - easily determined as metaphor.
So you read hebrew? That link looked like English to me. It seems to me that you are accepting some other human's interpretation of the original author.
No, I do not read Hebrew, and yes, I accept the source as being accurate in its interpretation. The Jewish Bible is a pretty well known translation of the Tanakh and I consider it trustworthy.
If we read it as "thou shalt not murder" instead of "thou shalt not kill", a definition of murder becomes very interesting. Here's one from www.dictionary.com....
mur·der (mûrdr) n.
1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
The word "unlawful" is a singularly interesting qualifier on "killing." I think the premeditated clause can be ignored since it is not universal to the definition. Who decides it is unlawful? Did Hitler murder the people in the camps? Not according to German law at the time.
Sure, Hitler murdered millions lawfully. But was it right? How many people really believed that it was the right thing to do? A scarce few no doubt. Your next comment suggests why.
Maybe "thou shalt not murder" refers to a lawfulness passed down by the author of the original commandment.
Absolutely. The lawfulness is entirely based on the intent of the author. God's law is above all, and the remarkable thing is that for most people on the planet, if they are truly honest with themselves, their own conscience speaks of God's law. Romans says that the law is written on our hearts. We know it is wrong to deliberately or maliciously kill another human being, but at the same time we know that it is also God's desire that we take care of and protect our families from harm.
I just wonder where that law is defined and how it is applied today.
While one might argue that our country's founders were Christians, it seems to me that it is pretty widely held that our legal system is based on Judeo-Christian ethics. And although some might disagree with my interpretation, I can cite you scripture which defines Biblical law vs US law with regard to murder and our actions in Afghanistan.
In a post further down, you said the following -
It's sort of ironic that Agrace and I, with contrasting views, answered your query the same way, i.e. that the Bible really means "thou shalt not murder." Murder is a matter of cultural definition. From the Old Testament point of view, killing any of God's enemies is perfectly OK, even compulsory. Most followers of Judaism, Christianity and Islam still feel this way, though they define God's enemies differently.
How do you justify that last statement?
Different rules/parameters are "in play" if an entire culture regards other cultures as "subhuman" as part of their "credo!" "Jews in Nazi Germany!"
We are facing the latter scenario.
Doc
There is no such thing as superiority of a belief. A thing is either true or it is not true. If you believe in something that is true, you are right. If you believe in something that is false, you are wrong. This isn't about such vague comparitave terms as "better" and "worse." It's about specific absolute terms like "right" and "wrong." I believe I am right. If someone tells me that I am wrong I can do one of two things. I can refuse to enter the debate because I know I am right. But that doesn't give me the opportunity to find out that I may be wrong and I always hold that possibility. The other option is to present my case and find out whether I am right. If I prove I am right, by necessity I prove the other viewpoint wrong. Is being right superior to being wrong? I don't think so. I think being right is right and being wrong is wrong. Do you hold a different opinion?
Over the centuries, Christians have killed and coerced in the name of God far more than any others, though Moslems are probably a close second here.
Actually, unless you have some numbers to back that up I think atheism, specificaly communism, holds the crown. Stalin is responsible for the deaths of over 100 million. If you match that number we'll move on to the second highest communist killer. I won't even mention the 40 million aborted in the United States because I don't need them to make my case.
You also made a point about the original purpose of this post to show how peaceful Christianity is. I think the original purpose of this post is to counter the mantra we're hearing from the administration and the media that Islam is a religion of peace. From my brief reading of the Q'uran (I've only just started) Islam is a religion of the meandering thoughts of Mohammed. There is peace and war there. Christianity and Islam speak for themselves. The author of this peace just wanted to make sure they were both being heard properly.
Shalom.
I apologize, I got confused between my response to you and my response to Lchris.
Thanks to you too for the exchange. :)
That would be a very bad guess. There is another post on FR on this topic I was just reviewing yesterday. Over the millennia there haven't even been as many people around to kill as there are today. I read recently that half of the entire human population of all time is alive today. Atrocities like the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Witch Trials, as awful as they were, can only account for numbers in the thousands to tens of thousands. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. handed out deaths in the millions.
You might possibly be able to prove your point in terms of a percentage of the population, but I would still ask you to do more than guess if you assert it.
And I wouldn't have to prove that those who had abortions weren't Christians, just that they were not getting their abortions in the name of Christ. I think I could do that.
Shalom.
Stalin is responsible for at least 66 million due to direct attack.
Shalom.
Interesting comment. I would be interested in seeing one if you ever find one. Thanks
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.