Is Christianity really as violent as Islam?

AFAIK, the golden rule did not originate with Jesus. He just used it as a philosophy.
And I believe, if everyone followed the golden rule, there'd be more tolerance in the world.

Jesus was a teacher to the Jewish people. Paul was a teacher to the gentiles. And no one knows what Pauls motives were. No one but him can make the claim of his supposed vision. He was a persecutor of Christians prior to his alledged vision. So I take anything said by him with a grain of salt.
He does speak a different message than Jesus. Mainly because he was talking to a different audience. But the paths to their salvations are different.

 

In Christianity Jesus is the “word,” which is his purpose for existence, so that word would have existed from the beginning. The Golden Rule as Jews would have known it would have some bearing today on how one treats legal immigrants:

"34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God." http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+19:34-35&version=KJV

The path to salvation is the same, the audience changes, and so the things the individual has to do is different (like is illustrated by the rich man); the ultimate goal does not change. Depending upon who asked the question of obtaining eternal live, Jesus answer changed or was portrayed different as one should expect. The centurion, that Jesus said had such faith, probably was not a Jew.

Then you have to consider what this meant:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+10:9-16

It is not about food, in context it is about Gentiles; Peter could not wrap his head around the Golden Rule philosophically applying to all. If Judaism changed as Jesus was trying to change it, then it is for everyone.

Just because someone sinned, and was an illegal, should we take their claim of wanting to be legal with a grain of salt? If they still support illegals, then yes, claims to want to follow our laws looks like a grain of salt.

 

Terrible excuse man!
Your early man was trying to figure out how man came to be.
What you think we came from an explosion that came from nothing? You know that takes more faith than believing in our Father who is in heaven.

What makes you think you are above those of the past, or that your smarter than them?

 

There is no 'father' or 'heaven', but keep deluding yourself. Bring a Bronze Age superstitious primitive into the 21st century and just about anyone will be smarter. We don't yet understand how the universe came into being, but at least we're trying to figure it out, rather than relying on a 2000 year-old book of myths and fairytales for the answer, because it's the easy way out and requires no critical thought whatsoever except 'faith'.

 

So says the omnipotent one.

 

No. It is not.

But I personally think that what's in the texts is pretty (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up, not that this matters. What matters is the interpretation of the adherents.

Unfortunately, a lot of Muslims believe in a literal interpretation of Islam, whereas most Christians outgrew this long ago.

 

Christianity is only 1 religion is the world. But fair enough for christians.

Other cultures and religions adopt a similar message.

 

"The Treaty of Hudaybiyyah was an important event that took place during the formation of Islam. It was a pivotal treaty between Muhammad, representing the state of Medina, and the Quraysh tribe of Mecca in March 628 . It helped to decrease tension between the two cities, affirmed a 10-year peace, and authorized Muhammad's followers to return the following year in a peaceful pilgrimage"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Hudaybiyyah

 

Prove me wrong.

 

No it isn't. Atheism is the antithesis of a belief system. It is the absence of belief in 'gods'.

 

Atheists believe that there is no God.

 

No, atheists know there are no gods. Of course you are at liberty to show me one, because in the history of mankind not one individual has managed that. Should be easy, no?

 

Our mere existence proves that there is a God. You are here...that proves that there is a creator.

It's either that, or everything we see....all creation...simply popped into existence. Do you believe that all we see came from nowhere? Which is more realistic?

 

Why does it make sense to believe in a magical being but not that we have always existed?

 

Yes, there are many religions, numbering in the billions, and that is not counting the ones off the earth in countless galaxies and solar systems. Even in the Fundamentalist Baptist Madrassa I attended, there were preachers that did not agree.

Right after 9/11 it was accurate to say that the Golden Rule was an afterthought in the Hadith, and on the Saudi website where you could find it, it only applied to Muslims, unlike the one that clearly applied to strangers “for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.” They have now attempted to create a Golden Rule on the wiki for Islam, I think in context it is an epic fail; feel free to go look:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule#Islam

Kind of, like what a Muslim I was debating said, “What does Golden Rule have to do with Muslim?”

- - - Updated - - -

I am not omnipotent.

 

The Golden Rule is in Islam, in a Hadith from the Prophet Muhammad, as reported in the canonical book of Hadith Sahih Muslim:

فَمَنْ أَحَبَّ أَنْ يُزَحْزَحَ عَنِ النَّارِ وَيَدْخُلَ الْجَنَّةَ فَلْتَأْتِهِ مَنِيَّتُهُ وَهُوَ يُؤْمِنُ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ وَلْيَأْتِ إِلَى النَّاسِ الَّذِي يُحِبُّ أَنْ يُؤْتَى إِلَيْهِ
Whoever wishes to be delivered from the fire and enter the garden should die with faith in Allah and the Last Day and should treat the people as he wishes to be treated by them.
https://www.sunnah.com/muslim/33/74

The word al-Naas is generic and means people in general, without specifying religion

 

"...When they would be afflicted with a trial, the believer would say: This is going to bring about my destruction. When at (the trial) is over, they would be afflicted with another trial, and the believer would say: This surely is going to be my end. Whoever wishes to be delivered from the fire and enter the garden should die with faith in Allah and the Last Day and should treat the people as he wishes to be treated by them. He who swears allegiance to a Caliph should give him the piedge of his hand and the sincerity of his heart (i. e. submit to him both outwardly as well as inwardly). He should obey him to the best of his capacity. It another man comes forward (as a claimant to Caliphate), disputing his authority, they (the Muslims) should behead the latter..."

 

That's diverting the issue of the Golden Rule. First admit the Golden Rule is contained within the Hadith, then we can discuss about the issue of beheading a person who challenges the writ of the State (high treason)

 

"Right after 9/11 it was accurate to say that the Golden Rule was an afterthought in the Hadith..."

Already did.

 

First, on the wiki after 9/11/2001, the only one displayed was the following, and on the Saudi website at the time, they put [] after the word, clearly indicating that this particular one only applied to Muslims, this is basically what it looked like on the Saudi site:

“None of you truly believes until he wishes for his brother [Muslim] what he wishes for himself.”

It is not my fault that several Muslim websites at the time clearly rejected a Golden Rule. That has slowly changed over the years. In addition, if you bring in a Hadith, picking and choosing will not fly well.

Several times back then I quoted this:

“[60.8] Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice.”

*****

It is not easy for us (those without a so-called “promised land”) to reconcile any tyranny, or official government religion on the land, with fitting a Golden Rule.

Now you have to apply “should treat the people as he wishes to be treated by them” to the Israeli/Palestinian question.

Then we get into the “covenant” in verses [2.40]-[2.83]. You cannot treat someone like that, and expect to be treated differently.

 

Are you allowed to build Christian churches in Saudi Arabia?

 

Popped into existence. Where does that thinking come from?
I suppose some think the big bang maybe is some sort of pop?

 

Can a Mosque be built in the Vatican City?

- - - Updated - - -

Are you implying that European civilization adheres to the Golden Rule in practice while those involved in the "Israeli/Palestinian question" do not?

 

That would be like asking if there are any Christian churches in Mecca.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosque_of_Rome

Epic FAIL!

A Mosque occupies the spot of the grocery store that was fined into oblivion by Bill McNally's zoning shock troops, back when he was sole arbiter of all ethics violations. http://www.mcnallyfoxgrantdavenport.com/Attorneys/William-R-Mcnally.shtml

 

Neither of them do. Don't make me quote the Hamas charter or the Palestinian charter(s), which are all violations of international human rights.

Religious land, whose inhabitants cannot be converted such that the land changes ruling religion, cannot support a Golden Rule.

This is incompatible with a Golden Rule:

“Ownership of land

In Islam there are three kinds of land from the stand‑point of ownership:



(1) Lands owned by society

(2) Lands owned by State

(3) Lands owned by private individuals



Lands owned by society

This kind of lands is not salable. Even the State has no right to sell them. Lands developed and tilled by human hands and those which come under Muslim control conse(*)quent on jihad are considered to be the property of the Muslim society and none can purchase or sell even one metre thereof.“

http://www.al-islam.org/philosophyofislam/17.htm