bleh...

[superiorlobe]

Notions of the occult and of demonism are specific to Christianity.

I don't think this is true.  However, even if it was it wouldn't be a good argument.  Obviously if Christians believe there are such things then just pointing out that Christians believe that is not an argument that there aren't such things.  But in any case Christians aren't the only ones who have notions about the occult and demonism, so your statement goes nowhere.

I find it rather funny when Christians wonder why people could believe in gods or in rituals. but don't apply those same standards to themselves. Christianity is a RELIGION. No matter how they try to claim it is a relationship it still involves the belief in the unseen and in the supernatural. It has gods and rituals and all the sorts of things that Hinduism and Islam have. I think the fundamental problem with all of them is that they are not open to criticism. There is no questioning of commands or of truths.

I agree that Christianity is a religion.  I have no problem with that.  I also have no problem with belief in the supernatural. and I have no problem with rituals.  there are indeed a lot of superficial similarities between christianity and all other religions.  However I disagree that they are not open to criticism.  You are criticizing them right now.  I am responding.  This is a dialogue. Similar things go on all the time.  I am currently engaged in a massive debate within my circles regarding a theological movement known as Open Theism.  There is a ton of internal debate and exchange of ideas within Christianity.  I just don't get where you are coming from on this one.  If all you mean is that some Christians disagree with you about some things, well that is hardly news and hardly unique to Christianity.  People have disagreements and strong opinions that they hold on to in the face of all evidence in all belief systems, including science.  There are still some scientitst who rail against the Big Bang theory in the face of overwhelming evidence because they don't like its theological implications.  Also, if any system of thought is criticized, it is Christianity and religion in general.

I just don't see where you get this notion that Christianity is not open to criticism.  If you just mean that they won't accept all your criticisms and change their entire belief system, then perhaps you should consider the possibility that while they are open to criticism, your criticisms simply aren't very good.  Remember: there is nothing new under the sun.  All the critiques commonly leveled against christianity have been dealt with ad nauseum already.

ok.... I'n starting to sense that I'm losing the thread of this post, so I'll stop.


 Instead it is all accepted as if it is true. This is the same for Islam as well as Christianity. We need ot get past this desire to have everyone agree with our conceptions of religion and of the Devine learn to live together. I am tired of both Christians and Muslims trying to get me to live their by there rules.

[superiorlobe]

And let's not forget that I did not say that I believe Islam has demonic origins.  I just said that I'm sometimes suspicious.  Perhaps it doesn't.  I'm not convinced that it does.

[liberty shark]

how about this, lobe, prove to me definitively that jesus wasn't a bloodthirsty barbarian, and i'll prove to you that mohammed wasn't whatever you claim he is.  history is only as concise as it's source material, and frankly, all we really have to go on here are two distinct sets of scripture which sanctify the works of each respective messenger or prophet or whatever;  also, consider the nature of any secondary sources written regarding the two men in question; more likely than not, any secondary materials were written a considerable time after their passing, thus providing for at least a little distortion in the truth.  we're sitting here arguing about unprovable truths; there will in fact never be enough information to substantiate such claims.

situations such as this, and the consversation sparked by the title of this thread have little useful reliance on the past.  the origins of something may or may not account for it's present form, and this is a consideration that should be noted.

secondly, what are your sources of information regarding the islamic religion... im not seeing any citations here, and frankly your conception of the islamic after life seems to be way off... mainly because i was born and raised a muslim, and have not once in 22 years heard anything of heavenly harems and rivers of booze; if you're going to offer commentary, note your sources, and perhaps this conversation will lead someplace meaningful.

everything i've said has been extremely disjointed and jumbled, but it has a point, that religious should not be weighed by the merits of their foundation, but rather of their present form, and the practice of the present form.  Regardless of what a religion was like at it's conception, I could care less about whether or not Jesus punched Jebediah in the face, the fact is that he preached tolerance and honesty and blah blah blah.  the issue is that the faith exists as a tool designed to theoretically improve the quality of peoples' lives; whether or not it does this in practice has less to do with jesus and mohammed than it does with how stupid people are, and how willing they are to swallow some crazy preacher's *&^%.

[drew617]

For everyone saying that Islam is, by nature, a peaceful religion is no less than ignorant and blindly idealistic.  Read the Koran.  It not only encourages, but also demands aggressive and violent actions against all rejectors of the faith.  It guarantees permanent reconciliation with Allah to anyone who dies in this everlasting, hostile combat.  Granted, Christianity is not without a bloody past.  Howerver, these events (crusades, Inquisition, etc.) were a result of a distortion of the foundational doctrines of the faith, which value peace, love, and forgiveness.  So saying that Islam encourages a naturally peaceful way of life is a distortion on the highest level, and all true and seriously informed Islams would resent anyone attempting to water down their zeal for their faith by promoting tolerance and understanding.

[muyaha]

and where do this demonic origins come from? Just wondering.

[liberty shark]

interpretations of islam as a violent religion stem from a mistranslation of the word jihad as 'war'. i assure you that if you look into this you'll reconcile the discrepancy.

[muyaha]

most likely it is people who have never study islam nor consulted an Islamists regarding jihad of the sword and jihad of mouth or tongue (I forget) which is misinterpreted.

[giffy]

You can say the same thing about the originators of many religions including Christianity. Not Jesus so much but the patriarchs of judasim. Many were polyamourus and many were rather warlike.

You have to compare apples to apples.  I am comparing the founder of Islam to the founder of Christianity.  I'm not denying that other people, who were not the founders of either religion were bad people.  Jesus is the man who founded Christianity, not some warlike polygamous people who lived 1,000 years before him.

I don't think you can talk about chsritiantiy while excluding judaism. They are one in the same tradition. Christianity makes no sense without the old testament, i.e. the fall is nessassary for the redemption of christ.

[giffy]

I know that Christians really like to emphasis the redemption of Christ, however their religion really does still fall into the thou shalt not category.

I completely disagree.

As for the humans being basically sinful, I am not really sure about that one. Humans definitely have the capability for evil, but hey also have the capability for good. To emphasize one over the other is, I feel, not accurate.

I am not saying that human beings are incapable of being good.  I am just saying that they are incapable of never being bad.  Unfortunately, however, to be ultimately good means to never be bad.  It is not good enough to be good sometimes.  It is not good enough to be good most of the time. It is not good enough to be good almost all of the time.  To fall short of perfection by even one iota is damning.  So while Christianity does not deny that human beings have an impulse toward good, it does deny that they are capable of achieving perfection.  Ironically, a vision of Perfection is only possible if you acknowledge that no one is perfect.

You say it is not accurate to emphasize one over the other.  This is because you are okay with people being good sometimes and bad sometimes.  I say that it is a wholly bad thing that people are good sometimes and bad sometimes.  What a terrible state of affairs.

The idea that having a little bad is damning is not somoething I would accept, but that is beside the point. What i am sayign is that it is not appropriate to call humans one or the other. Instead we are a comglomeration of the two. I am not concerned with some apeasing some potencially perfect diety or of achieving perfection. What I am concerend with is creating the best world that we can. that means that we have to try and do good. That being said we cannto and shoudl not deny our bad side. Instead we should provide outlets for it that are non-destructive.

[giffy]

I am not really sure the Christians creation story is one of hope. I see it more as one of sexism and oppression. I know that many Christians try to make the old testament all happy and hopeful. It is not. I have read the whole damn thing and it is one depressing and violent series of books. I for one do not find the temporary death of a dude 200 years ago to be all that great of a thing.

I agree.  The Old Testament is a bloody and violent book full of depressing accounts of the sins of man.  This is the point.  Christianity acknowledges the brokenness of the world.

What is it that is bad about this world? Sin that leads to decay and death.  What did that dude do? he crushed death under his heel.  The point is not that Christianity tries to make the world look happy and hopeful.  Christianity makes the world look brutal and then shows that brutality being defeated.

(Check out the opening scene from The Passion of The Christ in which Christ, in the garden of Gethsemane is being tormeted before he is to go to his death.  Evil and death are mocking him and he is struggling.  Then, in a moment of resolve and of violence (a moment supposed to be the climactic moment in all of history) he crushes the head of the serpent beneath his heel.  That is a scene that makes you sit up in your chair.)

I'm not sure where everyone gets this happy-happy-clap-your-hands vision of Christianity. It certainly doesn't appear to come from Scripture.

The point is not that man is violent and destructive it is that God is that way. I can recall numerous instances in the bible were poeple are either punished unjustly or are tormented for no reason. Job would be one good example and elisha and the bears would be another one. The God of the bible is a god of war, just like mohammeds god.