Teacher beat to death by mob of Muslim students in her classroom

[MSgt]

You do realize that Jesus is a prophet in Islam, don't you? Why doesn't the same apply to Muslims then? If it applies to Christians, it applies to Muslims.

Muslims do not recognize Jesus the same way Christians do. Christianity began with Jesus Christ. Islam began with Muhammed 600 years later.
The ultimate example on how to behave in each religion goes back to the roots. There is also something to be said on how these two religions spread. Jesus went to the cross willingly and forgave his murderers. He even healed the ear of the Roman soldier that was attacked by Peter in Jesus' defense. Given the persecution of Christians that followed, it's amazing Christianity even survived, but it eventually grew to take over the Roman Empire. It conquered through word of mouth. Now, the opposite is true for Muhammed. He killed in his defense and waged battles against his enemies. Later, after his death, Islam blew out of the Arabian desert on a quest to convert. Islam conquered with the sword. Now, of course, Christianity would eventually lose it's way and terrorize populations and even slaughter in God's name. But it always had that saving definition on how to behave.

Islam does not have a Jesus Christ or a Ghandi.

The two religions are so closely intwined it's difficult to tell them apart.

Yet we do. It all goes back to how we each see the image of Jesus Christ.

 

[Gibberish]

So peaceful Christians aren't really Christians at all, right? Since they're not following the literal words in the bible?

No. More devout Christians follow the example set forth by Jesus Christ. If we conducted our lives in accordance to the Bible alone, we may as well be folowing the Qu'ran.

rivrrat, True peaceful Christians do not follow the Old Testament as law, which is where you will find the more aggressive passages. Jesus didn't teach war, hatred, nationalism, racism, sexism, etc. The Old testament is merely a historical reference.

 

[SgtRock]

So do you believe Islam had anything to do with the behavior of these students. If not, why were they chanting allah akbar?

 

[Dr_Patrick]

So do you believe Islam had anything to do with the behavior of these students. If not, why were they chanting allah akbar?

Of course it did, but only because it is a religious belief that lends itself to extremist behavior. Christianity could also have to blame because it does so as well.

 

[SgtRock]

Christianah was supervising an all-girl class while they were taking an Islamic Religious Knowledge examination, a routine job by any teacher's standards the world over.

In accordance to school procedure, the homeroom teacher collected papers, books and bags before the exam papers were passed around. She left them in front of the class for pupils to retrieve later.

One of the girls responded by starting to cry and was soon telling her classmates that there had been a copy of the Quran in her bag left in front of the classroom.

The girl claimed that because Christianah was a Christian, she had desecrated the Quran by touching it.

The students began to chant in unison, "Allahu Akbar" (God is Great)". These school age girls then beat, stoned and clubbed Christiania to death where she stood.

I don't know about you but to me this behavior seems to be demonic. ~ Sgt Rock

 

[MSgt]

Of course it did, but only because it is a religious belief that lends itself to extremist behavior. Christianity could also have to blame because it does so as well.

You seem to want to place the period here in your argument. I think the both of you aren't admitting something. It is true that Christianity has proven to be as destructive and fanatical as Islam. But what great example lends itself to lift Islam up and push it forward? What living example do "true," "devout," "moderate," or "Radical" Islamists have to reach back to? The problem is that they all reach back to the same man for guidance.

No Christian fanatic can reach back to Jesus Christ to justify his behaviors. This is why Islam is a religon that is in conflict for its soul.

 

[Gibberish]

Of course it did, but only because it is a religious belief that lends itself to extremist behavior. Christianity could also have to blame because it does so as well.

Christianity does has it's extremes but the religion as a whole has progressed to modern times and realized the base is more of moral and ethical teachings rather then literal teachings. This progression is able to be done because the catholic church listens to the will of the people as a whole and understands that to keep the support from a worldly audience for years to come they must mold to the the people and not mold the people to the religion.

Islam is largely the same religion it has been for years and years. Christianity evolves with the populace. This is why you see less and less Christian extremes.

 

[Dr_Patrick]

Christianity does has it's extremes but the religion as a whole has progressed to modern times and realized the base is more of moral and ethical teachings rather then literal teachings. This progression is able to be done because the catholic church listens to the will of the people as a whole and understands that to keep the support from a worldly audience for years to come they must mold to the the people and not mold the people to the religion.

Islam is largely the same religion it has been for years and years. Christianity evolves with the populace. This is why you see less and less Christian extremes.

I think the only reason that Christianity has evolved is because our culture has evolved and become more civilized. The same would most likely happen with Islam if the middle eastern culture did the same. I just think its hypocritical to point a finger at Islam like it is evil when there really aren't many differences between it and Christianity as far as extremism goes. Sure, Christianity is more progressive now, but it wasn't always.

 

[MSgt]

rivrrat, True peaceful Christians do not follow the Old Testament as law, which is where you will find the more aggressive passages. Jesus didn't teach war, hatred, nationalism, racism, sexism, etc. The Old testament is merely a historical reference.

True. Christians do belive in the Commandments and they adhere to the Old Testament mostly as lessons, but do appreciate that it does aid in worship. But Jesus was the ultimate example on Christiandom.

 

[rivrrat]

rivrrat, True peaceful Christians do not follow the Old Testament as law, which is where you will find the more aggressive passages. Jesus didn't teach war, hatred, nationalism, racism, sexism, etc. The Old testament is merely a historical reference.

How convenient to disregard an entire section of the bible as "historical reference", and that "true peaceful" Christians don't follow the OT. Yet in the same breath declare that "peaceful" Muslims aren't true to their religious texts.

Why is it okay to eliminate the violent texts from Christianity and just choose to not follow them, and yet still be a Christian? Was the OT not the word of the Christian god? If it's not, then why is it still taught as such? If it is, then why don't "true Christians" follow it? If it's not the word of the Christian god, then it should not be considered a Christian holy text.

Why is not okay for Muslims to interpret their scriptures the same way Christians are afforded the freedom to intepret theirs?

It makes absolutely no sense to me to declare that peaceful Muslims are not really Muslim and point to their book to prove that allegation, while at the same time categorically denying that same practice be applied to Christians and their text.

Either afford Muslims the same courtesy, or deny Christians that selective privilege. You can't have it both ways.

 

[MSgt]

rivrrat, True peaceful Christians do not follow the Old Testament as law, which is where you will find the more aggressive passages. Jesus didn't teach war, hatred, nationalism, racism, sexism, etc. The Old testament is merely a historical reference.

True. Christians do belive in the Commandments and they adhere to the Old Testament mostly as lessons, but do appreciate that it does aid in worship. But Jesus was the ultimate example on Christiandom. Just like Muhammed is seen as the example of true Islam.

 

[rivrrat]

You seem to want to place the period here in your argument. I think the both of you aren't admitting something. It is true that Christianity has proven to be as destructive and fanatical as Islam. But what great example lends itself to lift Islam up and push it forward? What living example do "true," "devout," "moderate," or "Radical" Islamists have to reach back to? The problem is that they all reach back to the same man for guidance.

No Christian fanatic can reach back to Jesus Christ to justify his behaviors. This is why Islam is a religon that is in conflict for its soul.

Muslims regard Jesus as a prophet.

 

[Dr_Patrick]

No Christian fanatic can reach back to Jesus Christ to justify his behaviors. This is why Islam is a religon that is in conflict for its soul.

Yet Christian extremists still find ways to justify their erratic behavior. I could see your point if the Bible wasn't so open to interpretation and that's really what it boils down to. Islam extremists have a far more extreme interpretation of the Qur'an and Christian extremists have a far more extreme interpretation of the Bible. The problem with both of these texts is that they are vague and can be interpreted in a number of ways and that is a dangerous combination when the ideology as a whole has a "my way or the highway" attitude.

 

[MSgt]

How convenient to disregard an entire section of the bible as "historical reference", and that "true peaceful" Christians don't follow the OT. Yet in the same breath declare that "peaceful" Muslims aren't true to their religious texts.

Why is it okay to eliminate the violent texts from Christianity and just choose to not follow them, and yet still be a Christian? Was the OT not the word of the Christian god? If it's not, then why is it still taught as such? If it is, then why don't "true Christians" follow it? If it's not the word of the Christian god, then it should not be considered a Christian holy text.

Why is not okay for Muslims to interpret their scriptures the same way Christians are afforded the freedom to intepret theirs?

It makes absolutely no sense to me to declare that peaceful Muslims are not really Muslim and point to their book to prove that allegation, while at the same time categorically denying that same practice be applied to Christians and their text.

Either afford Muslims the same courtesy, or deny Christians that selective privilege. You can't have it both ways.

Wow, you are full of questions. But your questions seem to promote your confusion on this. Christians have chosen to adhere to the teachings of Jesus Christ. Not only does that make the most sense on moral behavior, but Christianity came from Christ. It did not come from the Old Testament. Before the book of Matthew we have people wandering around in the dark adhering to literal scripture or chooing select passages to define his code. Jesus was the example and left no doubt on proper behavior.

Muslimss have this option as well. They have every ability to choose what is and is not proper behavior. The problem here is that the prophet that defines Islam was a violent man and also lends the Radical his justification.

So, it's not about what individuals want. It's about the movements and what they collectively decide.

 

[Gibberish]

I think the only reason that Christianity has evolved is because our culture has evolved and become more civilized. The same would most likely happen with Islam if the middle eastern culture did the same. I just think its hypocritical to point a finger at Islam like it is evil when there really aren't many differences between it and Christianity as far as extremism goes. Sure, Christianity is more progressive now, but it wasn't always.

It's hypocritical based on the reason for the finger pointing. Pointing a finger at Islam for barbaric acts based on their very traditional and literal view of a book written 1500 years ago is not hypocritical.

 

[MSgt]

Muslims regard Jesus as a prophet.

Exactly. Jesus does not define Islam. Muhammed did.

 

[Dr_Patrick]

It's hypocritical based on the reason for the finger pointing. Pointing a finger at Islam for barbaric acts based on their very traditional and literal view of a book written 1500 years ago is not hypocritical.

One could then point a finger at Christianity for the same. I'm just saying that it's wrong to judge all believers of Islam as a whole on the actions of the extremists. Not every Muslim is an extremist. That's my only point.

 

[Gibberish]

How convenient to disregard an entire section of the bible as "historical reference", and that "true peaceful" Christians don't follow the OT. Yet in the same breath declare that "peaceful" Muslims aren't true to their religious texts.

The Old Testament is a jewish text. The New Testament is a Christian text. Jesus taught many things and one of those is to not forget the teachings of the religious roots. He did not come to abolish the Old Testament but to expand upon it.

Why is it okay to eliminate the violent texts from Christianity and just choose to not follow them, and yet still be a Christian? Was the OT not the word of the Christian god? If it's not, then why is it still taught as such? If it is, then why don't "true Christians" follow it? If it's not the word of the Christian god, then it should not be considered a Christian holy text.

It's not ok to eliminate them, they are part of Christianities past. God brought a new word through Jesus, according to Christianity.

Why is not okay for Muslims to interpret their scriptures the same way Christians are afforded the freedom to intepret theirs?

Because the religion doesn't allow it. Christianity specifically had their divine being (Jesus) tell them new rules, moral codes and expansions on the old.

It makes absolutely no sense to me to declare that peaceful Muslims are not really Muslim and point to their book to prove that allegation, while at the same time categorically denying that same practice be applied to Christians and their text.

All Muslims are Muslims. You just have a difference between traditional and non traditional. Non-traditional take the words of the Quran as more rhetorical then literal.

Either afford Muslims the same courtesy, or deny Christians that selective privilege. You can't have it both ways.

Yes you can because Christianity is not based on the Jewish bible (Old Testament) it is based on the New Testament. That's the whole reasons Christians are Christians and not Jewish.

 

[MSgt]

Yet Christian extremists still find ways to justify their erratic behavior.

And how do they justify it? Through passages of the Bible...not the example set forth by Jesus Christ. This is the one thing they cannot use and this is why they avoid acknowledging true Christian code when caught. The saying "what would Jesus do" very much applies to how Christianity has been able to pick itself up. When's the last time you heard "what would Muhammed do?"

Radical Islamist don't just have the Qu'ran. They simply reach back to Muhammed. Just like the vast majority of Muslims who choose not to strap on a bombs.

Are you at least seeing the confusion within Islam and why it is a mess?

 

[Gibberish]

One could then point a finger at Christianity for the same. I'm just saying that it's wrong to judge all believers of Islam as a whole on the actions of the extremists. Not every Muslim is an extremist. That's my only point.

I fully agree with that point. Extremists are not the religion. They are individuals who take a literal view of the Quran and take barbaric actions based on the literal interpretations.

 

[Ikari]

Maybe we should just get rid of religion all together and see what happens. If we are going to group the whole into the actions of a few then all religion is equally as guilty of spreading hate, intolerance, and war. If that's the case, why have it at all?

 

[Doremus Jessup]

Why do you even bring up the dark ages. I am not trying to gloss over atrocities comitted by christians or any one else for that matter. That is ancient history. How are we ever to understand if we continually bring up the crusades when ever muslims behave the way they do.

It is as if people insist on making excusses for there behavior by comparing it to the behavior of other religious groups past history.

We are living in the 21st century.

I think the point being made was that Islam is not as old as Christianity and is only now going through its "Dark Age."

 

[MSgt]

Maybe we should just get rid of religion all together and see what happens. If we are going to group the whole into the actions of a few then all religion is equally as guilty of spreading hate, intolerance, and war. If that's the case, why have it at all?

The twentieth century saw more bloodshed and destruction than any previous century before it. It also happens to be the century of the German Nazi and Stalinistic and Maostic Communism - "godless" movements.

History seems to show us that with God we are going to see violence, but without God we are going to see hundreds of millions of corpses - like we did between Berlin and Cambodia.

God may be that tool that allows man to kill, but God is also that tool to temper the angry and evil.

 

[rivrrat]

The Old Testament is a jewish text. The New Testament is a Christian text. Jesus taught many things and one of those is to not forget the teachings of the religious roots. He did not come to abolish the Old Testament but to expand upon it.



It's not ok to eliminate them, they are part of Christianities past. God brought a new word through Jesus, according to Christianity.



Because the religion doesn't allow it. Christianity specifically had their divine being (Jesus) tell them new rules, moral codes and expansions on the old.



All Muslims are Muslims. You just have a difference between traditional and non traditional. Non-traditional take the words of the Quran as more rhetorical then literal.



Yes you can because Christianity is not based on the Jewish bible (Old Testament) it is based on the New Testament. That's the whole reasons Christians are Christians and not Jewish.

Actually, Jesus said he came to fulfill the OT. He also taught that all of the laws in the OT were to be followed to the letter. Matthew 5:18-19, Luke 16:17, 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 20-21

So by the words of Jesus himself, the OT is to never be disregarded. Neither is it open to interpretation.

 

[MSgt]

Actually, Jesus said he came to fulfill the OT. He also taught that all of the laws in the OT were to be followed to the letter. Matthew 5:18-19, Luke 16:17, 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 20-21

So by the words of Jesus himself, the OT is to never be disregarded. Neither is it open to interpretation.

I love this excuse to bash Christinity in defense of Islam. The fact is that Jesus did not kill, steal, lie, murder, slaughter, offer human sacrifice, or harm anybody. The verse you are replying to is often used to portray that Christians are supposed to be murdering and killing in God's name. But this is not the case. If it were so, then Jesus would have given us the example.

There are plenty of Bible scholars that argue this verse back and forth. But it all comes down to the example set forth by Jesus Christ.