Christian Scholar: The Bible is More Violent Than the Koran

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: 23432


Christianity is more violent then Koran because Bible has been altered by men kind.

Original Christianity is lost long ago and has been replaced by men's text .

If Christianty didn't loose it's ways , God would have no need to send Islam .

LOL, that is a good one.

Madman Mohammad was sent by God to start Islam. Hell dude, even he thought he was talking to demons and going insane. First impressions are usually right.




“Trembling, he went out of the cave onto the hillside, not knowing what had happened to him, and afraid he must be a sha’ir or possessed.” 3

How convenient that he could read during this vision. And how strange that he would come away thinking that he was DEMON POSSESSED. You will never find an example of a prophet of God receiving a message from God only to wonder if he was full of the devil. But Muhammad was so convinced of the fact that he was possessed by demons that he contemplated suicide!

maybe stick to topic ?

Bible is more violent than the Koran .

Yes it is , because Bible has been altered by men .

God is far more mercifull in reality as it attested by Koran . Men is wicked and it shows in the altered Bible .

You guys must not have gotten the memo, all christians only follow the nice parts of the bible, while all muslims follow the evilest barbaric scummy part of the koran lol.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Xtrozero

Kansas.

400 million short fall due to your issues..yep all religious based? lol

But 4.1 unemployment, not bad

So I'll see your Kansas and raise you oh about 30 other states that are progressive left that suck worst...lol

originally posted by: 23432

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: 23432


Christianity is more violent then Koran because Bible has been altered by men kind.

Original Christianity is lost long ago and has been replaced by men's text .

If Christianty didn't loose it's ways , God would have no need to send Islam .

LOL, that is a good one.

Madman Mohammad was sent by God to start Islam. Hell dude, even he thought he was talking to demons and going insane. First impressions are usually right.




“Trembling, he went out of the cave onto the hillside, not knowing what had happened to him, and afraid he must be a sha’ir or possessed.” 3

How convenient that he could read during this vision. And how strange that he would come away thinking that he was DEMON POSSESSED. You will never find an example of a prophet of God receiving a message from God only to wonder if he was full of the devil. But Muhammad was so convinced of the fact that he was possessed by demons that he contemplated suicide!

maybe stick to topic ?

Bible is more violent than the Koran .

Yes it is , because Bible has been altered by men .

God is far more mercifull in reality as it attested by Koran . Men is wicked and it shows in the altered Bible .

OK, Let's agree to disagree.

You think the Bible was altered by Man. I think it is not since numerous bible codes, the Septuigent, and many others pretty much show it is the same.

I think the Koran is either a work of total fiction from a Madman who replicated versions of some stories from the bible and Talmud a few centuries later or is the inspired word of the demons in his damned head which would explain his lust for a religion of the flesh, by the flesh, and rewards his followers with sins of the flesh.

To compare the Koran's laws of earthy pleasures and sins of the flesh as holy to the bible is ridiculous in itself.

We all know who owns this world and rewards their followers with the sins of this world don't we?

The kingdom of Christ is not of this world. The Kingdom of Mohammad is, by any means necessary. Think about that.

a reply to: Xtrozero

yep all religious based?

All Dominionist policies.

sigh.

The Seven Mountains. Look them up.
I'm done trying to enlighten you. A simple ATS search will provide you with plenty to chew on.

originally posted by: mOjOm

Counts as still being part of it's teachings.

Let's gather our thoughts here shall we. You said my use of "irrelevant" was putting words in your mouth because you said "not based in". So to make myself clear I asked if the OT is used in Christian teachings or not. Because if it is still used in Christian teachings, regardless of whether or not it's used as it's base or not then the OT is still part of it's teachings.

Then we should include the Hadiths in this analysis, and then make a comparison, should we not?

Muslims "use" them as much as Christians "use" the OT.

Hi Chester, i will look into that some more then.

a reply to: mOjOm

mOjOm, what do you mean use it? I admit that I love end time preachers but even then I am not religious. So again, what do you mean by "use it".

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: 23432

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: 23432


Christianity is more violent then Koran because Bible has been altered by men kind.

Original Christianity is lost long ago and has been replaced by men's text .

If Christianty didn't loose it's ways , God would have no need to send Islam .

LOL, that is a good one.

Madman Mohammad was sent by God to start Islam. Hell dude, even he thought he was talking to demons and going insane. First impressions are usually right.




“Trembling, he went out of the cave onto the hillside, not knowing what had happened to him, and afraid he must be a sha’ir or possessed.” 3

How convenient that he could read during this vision. And how strange that he would come away thinking that he was DEMON POSSESSED. You will never find an example of a prophet of God receiving a message from God only to wonder if he was full of the devil. But Muhammad was so convinced of the fact that he was possessed by demons that he contemplated suicide!

maybe stick to topic ?

Bible is more violent than the Koran .

Yes it is , because Bible has been altered by men .

God is far more mercifull in reality as it attested by Koran . Men is wicked and it shows in the altered Bible .

OK, Let's agree to disagree.

You think the Bible was altered by Man. I think it is not since numerous bible codes, the Septuigent, and many others pretty much show it is the same.

I think the Koran is either a work of total fiction from a Madman who replicated versions of some stories from the bible and Talmud a few centuries later or is the inspired word of the demons in his damned head which would explain his lust for a religion of the flesh, by the flesh, and rewards his followers with sins of the flesh.

To compare the Koran's laws of earthy pleasures and sins of the flesh as holy to the bible is ridiculous in itself.

We all know who owns this world and rewards their followers with the sins of this world don't we?

The kingdom of Christ is not of this world. The Kingdom of Mohammad is, by any means necessary. Think about that.

Jesus would weep at your usage of credit score .

Islam was sent because Jesus got murdered and Bible got corrupted.

Let's agree to disagree , this ain't science , there is room .

originally posted by: NthOther

Then we should include the Hadiths in this analysis, and then make a comparison, should we not?

Muslims "use" them as much as Christians "use" the OT.

If they still use teachings from it then I don't see why not. Why, do Muslims still use the Hadiths but make the claim that they are no longer taught???

I don't know what Muslims teach or what they claim to use or not use so it's hard for me to say. But if it works in the same way as what we're talking about as far as the OT vs. NT discussion goes then I'd say yes it applies the same way.

a reply to: Harvin

I mean "use it" as in "use it" when preaching or teaching about Christianity. I'm not sure how you don't understand what "use it" means in this context of what we are talking about.

I don't mean "use it" as a hammer or book end or as something to sit on to make a high chair. I mean "use it" in the same way they use anything else to teach from.

a reply to: 23432

Jesus died on the cross as predicated by the founding of this world. The only begotten son of God, The way, the truth, and the life. The ultimate sacrifice to re-unite man with God.

Seriously, think about it. The entire purpose of spreading the Gospel is to tell and bring others to the life. Not through violence and subjugation. We are to spread the news of the gospel across the globe for every ear to hear. You are given a choice on accepting eternal life or rejecting it. Your choice.

Your prophet teaches to conquer and subjugate. Force people into practicing regardless if they believe or not. No resistance, this world of flesh must belong to his Deity by any means necessary.

Don't you find it concerning that every nation that was an ancient enemy of the Biblical people have sided with the Deity who wants them subjugated, trampled upon, enslaved, or eliminated? Pretty much along with anyone else who "rejects' his violent enlightenment?

Really, who the hell do you think you serve? I serve the God who died for me, the God of Holy Love and Self sacrifice. You worship the God of force spoken of by Daniel.

But, Old or New Testament, the discussion of how much more violent one is over the other in the same context as the peace and love they portend as a reason for their existence, is the ultimate conundrum for me. You can believe in God, without any of it.

a reply to: charlyv

Exactly God doesn't need religion neither do we.

originally posted by: mOjOm

I don't know what Muslims teach or what they claim to use or not use so it's hard for me to say. But if it works in the same way as what we're talking about as far as the OT vs. NT discussion goes then I'd say yes it applies the same way.

Fair enough. Then the "scholar" cited in the OP is not making a valid comparison. He includes "supporting material" from one religion and not the other.

His conclusions may be drastically different when presented with the full liturgy of doctrine.

Well it's followers are far less violent than the followers of the Koran.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Harvin

I mean "use it" as in "use it" when preaching or teaching about Christianity. I'm not sure how you don't understand what "use it" means in this context of what we are talking about.

I don't mean "use it" as a hammer or book end or as something to sit on to make a high chair. I mean "use it" in the same way they use anything else to teach from.

Dude seriously, this is becoming an exercise in stupidity. I really thought my previous post was clear enough. But then i should not make myself so smart since i am sitting here arguing with you and not writing a book to satiate people like yourself. It does not seem to be too difficult either.

originally posted by: Xeven
Old and New Testaments are two separate religions.

If God is omniscient, omnipotent, infallible, etc etc, why would he have to re-write his own Word of Truth?

"Uh - hold up, scratch that OT, guys. Here's the new one."

The flawed and circular logic applied by this faith amuses me.

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: 23432

Jesus died on the cross as predicated by the founding of this world. The only begotten son of God, The way, the truth, and the life. The ultimate sacrifice to re-unite man with God.

Jesus kicked out the money changers and got killed for it .


Really, who the hell do you think you serve? I serve the God who died for me, the God of Holy Love and Self sacrifice. You worship the God of force spoken of by Daniel.

I submit to creator who is immortal , eternal while you believe in a God who can die .
Bit of an oxymoron if I ever saw one .
I am sorry my rational thought process won't allow me to buy into this narrative .
My logic says God don't die .

Jesus to me a prophet and a man ; Jesus to you a God .

You are idolising imho .

a reply to: NthOther

I see what you're saying. If this guy is picking and choosing from either side in order to make his claim seem correct then yes, I'd say you have a strong argument for the fact that he's using his bias as a way to slander the other side. This wouldn't be a surprise to me since I have yet to know anyone who writes anything about comparing religion or culture that does it in a fair and impartial way.

If he's leaving out some of the Islamic teachings that are still being used while using all of the teachings from Christianity that are still being used, then absolutely he's not making a fair comparison and he's full of sh*t and should not be thought of as correct.

originally posted by: grumpy64
The only really violent part of the Bible is the old testament. It was written perhaps about 1,500 BC. The Koran was written in the 440's AD. About 2,000 years difference. So you cannot compare the two. You could compare the New Testament with the Koran as the NT was apparently put together in the 400's. The OT is weird and most churches don't seem to refer to it at all as it is Jewish tradition and little to do with Jesus. But I do not care as I am an atheist.

Where'd you get the idea that the Old Testament was written around 1500 BC? All historical accounts show King Saul & King David's Israel was around 1000 BC; the Kingdom of Israel fell in the 700s BC; the Kingdom of Judea fell in the late 600s or early 500s BC; and the Babylonian exiles returned in the 500s BC. the events surrounding Ezra, Daniel, Nehemiah, Zerubbabel, and the building of the 2nd Temple all occurred in the 500s BC. In fact, the Book of Maccabees details events from the mid 100s BC.

Maybe you're just referring to the Torah, which only makes up a fraction of the Old Testament?