By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Islam and Christianity are almost the same!

babuks said:


I would like to answer a few:

1. If it is an Islamic country, there is no place for homosexuals. Do you have place for Child Pornography? No! How did you draw line between a homosexual and child pornographer? Your drawing this line is based on what you think right and what you don't. Likewise, Islam also thinks in certain way.

I'm sorry, but this is the single most disgusting thing I have read in this thread.

You are comparing two consenting adults in a loving relationship to the often violent sexual abuse of exploited children?

No, you are comparing two completely different things.

Most homosexual couples, like most heterosexual couples, are in a relationship based around a love they feel for each other. In most cases they do not wish to cause any harm to their partner, they can have all the love and respect that any heterosexual couple would have.

Child pornography on the other hand is a sexual desire which only breeds violence and abuse which ruins the lives of the exploited children. It is almost always (as in 99% of cases) like this.

If homosexuality came with the abuse, exploitation and suffering that child abuse came with, then it would be banned in a second and everyone would be against it. But it doesn't.

Fair enough a moral line is hard to draw, morals are a relative thing, but you have chosen two things that are far removed form each other.



Around the Network

The major issue is that while they indeed share a common heritage, these can lead to vastly different values. Judaism, for instance, puts far more value on works in the material world because there either is no afterlife, or if there is it's not a meaningful one, whereas Christianity sees the afterlife as the life, the true life, beyond the mere distractions that the material world tries to impose upon us

Islam sees that tradition too come to a very different end ideologically. Certainly not "opposed" as none of the major religions have truly opposite ends (since they all promote some sort of universal goodness to the point where if we all obeyed the basic tenets of religion without getting into any of the technical crap, we would generally be at peace), but the ideological paths are skewed, and were skewed from the beginning of Islam (and of Christianity)

Muhammed was very different from Jesus, but one must understand that the world he worked in was a sight more savage, certainly more tribal, more of a dog-eat-dog world which is why you see Islam with some of its stricter tenets than Christianity.

Christianity got skewed too, with the function of the afterlife, and the spirit being somehow more pure than flesh, coming in from Greek philosophy, made possible by the fact that Judea was run by the Roman Empire

The Caliphate also bound Islam more closely to the state, which was also done with Christianty, but in a less permanent way (because they understood overall that the idea of the state predated Christianity, unlike in Arabia where central government was often nonexistant before the Caliphate rolled in, and why certain Muslim-majority countries have had far less trouble adapting to a secular model of rule than otheres)

Though i agree with the sentiment of your post at heart



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Yeah they kinda differ greatly when it comes to Jesus.

In Islam he's a prophet like you say, In Christianity he's the son of God and died for our sins. Pretty big difference.

Plus the cultural differences are big too.

- Men wear Turbans and women are fully covered in Islam. In Christianity we wear what we want.

- No alcohol and restrictions on food (i think its pig that muslims can't eat), in Christianity there are no restrictions for food but you're not supposed to get drunk (although you can drink)

- Islamic countries have no separation of church and state. Christianity is separate from the state in most cases.

Plus Islam means submission and people must obey Allah and worship him several times daily. In Chrisitanity we choose to worship God on our own terms whenever we want.

 

Yeah there are some similiarites but they're hardly "almost the same"



 

Very well said. The stupidest people on this planet are the ones that take the news as fact instead of researching things before saying something or judging people and then hating them.

Maybe not stupid but very immature. But then there are those who see things in front of them yet stick to what they heard! 



    R.I.P Mr Iwata :'(

The modernazations of Christianity encouraged the exploration of secular ideals which further modernized christianity.

Humans by our nature preffer options, take that from us and you will go against our nature.

It is odd how the Christians will take blame for just about everything even the things that they had nothing to do with while the Muhhamadan Islamic will ignore or pretend to not to be associated with anything bad.

I noticed the pattern again in this thread when a poster starts talking about how it is okay to behead someone for converting their religion. This a form of tyranny that goes beyond simple lust for power, it's down right a lust to rip power away from people - to what end!? I've wondered if it was self preservation - but when confronted the Muhhamadan Islamic will make a shuddered explination like the one given and relate two seemingly unrelated things to make a point that only they and anyone who refuses to accept the consequences of their actions  will understand: That poster likened wanting to convert from a religion to a defect from an Army.

Thus the underlying tid bit of Islam - Islam is constantly at war with all other religions, countries and free peoples. So I guess a person who converts from Islam really is a defector or traitor.



I'm Unamerica and you can too.

The Official Huge Monster Hunter Thread: 



The Hunt Begins 4/20/2010 =D

Around the Network
raptors11 said:

Yeah they kinda differ greatly when it comes to Jesus.

In Islam he's a prophet like you say, In Christianity he's the son of God and died for our sins. Pretty big difference.

Plus the cultural differences are big too.

- Men wear Turbans and women are fully covered in Islam. In Christianity we wear what we want.

You see, that is a cultural difference. It has NOTHING to do with religion. No where in the Quran does it state that a man has to wear a turban and a woman has to be fully covered. All it says is that women must cover her breasts when she is out in public because otherwise it is a disgrace to her father and family. You will find that in Islamic countries where the country is well-off and has a good economy, the women and men don't cover themselves up. It is usually in under-developed countries where you see the women covering up. For example, the women in Afghanistan cover themselves up because the Taliban, a terrorist group, enforces it. It has NOTHING to do with religion (repeat).

- No alcohol and restrictions on food (i think its pig that muslims can't eat), in Christianity there are no restrictions for food but you're not supposed to get drunk (although you can drink)

Jews cannot eat pig either. And, surprise,alcohol drinking is frowned upon in Christianity too.

Easton's Bible Dictionary says, "The sin of drunkenness ... must have been not uncommon in the olden times, for it is mentioned either metaphorically or literally more than seventy times in the Bible."

In short, for nearly all Christians, drunkenness "is not merely a disgusting personal habit and social vice, but a sin which bars the gates of Heaven desecrates the body, which is now in a special sense the dwelling-place of the Holy Spirit, and stains the mystical body of Christ, the Church."

- Islamic countries have no separation of church and state. Christianity is separate from the state in most cases.

Once again, nothing to do with religion. Look at Dubai and Turkey, they are muslim countries but have separation of religion and state. They even serve alcohol there publicly (whilst alcohol is prohibited in Islam). 

Plus Islam means submission and people must obey Allah and worship him several times daily. In Chrisitanity we choose to worship God on our own terms whenever we want.

The reason for that is to show love and gratitude to God. Isn't it kind of greedy if one only prays to God when they want something or when they've fucked up? In Islam, Muslims pray to God regularly to show their love for him even when they don't "need" anything. That, in Muslim belief, is the true form of love to God. To pray to him even when they have everything. Plus, saying Islam=submission makes it sound like Muslims are slaves or something, which isn't the case. Muslims pray to God because of love, not because of "submission".

Yeah there are some similiarites but they're hardly "almost the same"





Cirio said:
raptors11 said:

Yeah they kinda differ greatly when it comes to Jesus.

In Islam he's a prophet like you say, In Christianity he's the son of God and died for our sins. Pretty big difference.

Plus the cultural differences are big too.

- Men wear Turbans and women are fully covered in Islam. In Christianity we wear what we want.

You see, that is a cultural difference. It has NOTHING to do with religion. No where in the Quran does it state that a man has to wear a turban and a woman has to be fully covered. All it says is that women must cover her breasts when she is out in public because otherwise it is a disgrace to her father and family (which is the same in Christianity and Judasim btw). You will find that in Islamic countries where the country is well-off and has a good economy, the women and men don't cover themselves up. It is usually in under-developed countries where you see the women covering up. For example, the women in Afghanistan cover themselves up because the Taliban, a terrorist group, enforces it. It has NOTHING to do with religion (repeat).

- No alcohol and restrictions on food (i think its pig that muslims can't eat), in Christianity there are no restrictions for food but you're not supposed to get drunk (although you can drink)

Jews cannot eat pig either. And, surprise,alcohol drinking is frowned upon in Christianity too.

Easton's Bible Dictionary says, "The sin of drunkenness ... must have been not uncommon in the olden times, for it is mentioned either metaphorically or literally more than seventy times in the Bible."

In short, for nearly all Christians, drunkenness "is not merely a disgusting personal habit and social vice, but a sin which bars the gates of Heaven desecrates the body, which is now in a special sense the dwelling-place of the Holy Spirit, and stains the mystical body of Christ, the Church."

- Islamic countries have no separation of church and state. Christianity is separate from the state in most cases.

Once again, nothing to do with religion. Look at Dubai and Turkey, they are muslim countries but have separation of religion and state. They even serve alcohol there publicly (whilst alcohol is prohibited in Islam). 

Plus Islam means submission and people must obey Allah and worship him several times daily. In Chrisitanity we choose to worship God on our own terms whenever we want.

The reason for that is to show love and gratitude to God. Isn't it kind of greedy if one only prays to God when they want something or when they've fucked up? In Islam, Muslims pray to God regularly to show their love for him even when they don't "need" anything. That, in Muslim belief, is the true form of love to God. To pray to him even when they have everything. Plus, saying Islam=submission makes it sound like Muslims are slaves or something, which isn't the case. Muslims pray to God because of love, not because of "submission".

Yeah there are some similiarites but they're hardly "almost the same"







Oh another interesting Article:

 

 

The persecution of Egypt's Coptic minority is taking an ironic, and dangerous, turn: Islamist leaders are now projecting the worst traits of radical Islam onto Egypt's Christians. A psychological phenomenon first described by Sigmund Freud, "projection" is defined as "the attribution of one's own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people." As such, consider how the following excerpt from this recent report is a perfect example of projection:

In the last month various fundamentalist groups held ten demonstrations [in Egypt], each after coming out of mosques following Friday prayers, against the 86-year-old ailing Coptic Pontiff, in which he was accused of being a US agent, an abductor and torturer of female Muslim converts from Christianity, of stockpiling weapons in monasteries and churches to carry out war against Muslims, and of plans to divide Egypt to create a Coptic State.

All of these accusations are as ludicrous to apply to the Coptic Church as they perfectly apply to Islamists. Let us first examine the context of these charges:

"Abducting and torturing female Muslim converts from Christianity." Context: The wife of a Coptic priest, Camelia Shehata, was reportedly kidnapped by Islamists, but then returned to her family. In response, Islamist leaders began saying that she had willingly runaway and converted to Islam, and, in fact, has been "re-kidnapped" by the Coptic Church, which has trapped her in a monastery where she is being "tortured" and "re-indoctrinated" to Christianity.

In fact, the opposite scenario — kidnapping Christian women and forcing them to convert to Islam — is a well documented and notorious phenomenon in Egypt. So now the Coptic Church is being accused of behaving identically — not just kidnapping, but torturing, brainwashing, and forcing women to convert. Moreover, that Camelia has appeared on video fervently affirming her Christian faith and denying that she ever converted to Islam has been ignored, no doubt because Islam's ingrained notion of taqiyya, or deceit, is also being projected onto the Copts. Finally, little wonder this charge jibes well with Muslims: their own sharia mandates that Muslim women who apostatize must be incarcerated and tormented until they return to Islam, such as in the recent case of Nagla Imam.

"Stockpiling weapons in monasteries and churches to carry out war against Muslims." Context: On September 15, leading Islamic figure Dr. Muhammad Salim al-Awwa appeared on Al Jazeera and, in a wild tirade, accused the Copts of "stocking arms and ammunitions in their churches and monasteries"— imported from Israel, no less, since "Israel is in the heart of the Coptic Cause" — and "preparing to wage war against Muslims." He warned that if nothing is done, the "country will burn," inciting Muslims to "counteract the strength of the [Coptic] Church." Awwa further charged that Egypt's security forces cannot enter the monasteries to investigate for weapons (an amazing assertion, considering that Coptic monasteries are not only at the mercy of the state, but easy prey to Islamist attacks, with monks tortured and crucifixes spat upon).

Needless to say, such charges are preposterous: in a nation and society where Islam is supreme; where sharia (which mandates subjugation for non-Muslims, a la Koran 9:29) is part of the Constitution; where Copts have been conditioned over centuries to be happy just being left alone — is it reasonable to believe that these selfsame, down-trodden Christians, who make up 12-15% of the population, are planning a violent takeover of Egypt? It is easy to see, however, why such charges resonate with Muslims; after all, Islamists are constantly arming and stockpiling weapons — a Koranic charge — including in mosques, as they prepare to violently seize power across the nations, Egypt being an especially coveted target. Indeed, at one point, Awwa himself ceded that "Muslims are arrested every day [in Egypt] for extremism and the possession of arms."

"Planning to divide Egypt to create a Coptic State." Context: In a closed conference, Coptic Bishop Bishoy had the temerity to acknowledge history: "Muslims are guests in this country, Christians are the original residents. Prior to the Arab invasion of Egypt, which took place in the seventh century, the majority of Egypt's population was Christian." As usual, this otherwise historically accurate observation has enraged Muslims, been denounced by Al Azhar, and cited as "proof" that the Copts seek to divide Egypt and establish their own state.

It is actually Muslim minorities who habitually try to secede from non-Muslim countries. Whether by creating their own nations (Pakistan), or creating enclaves in the West, the notion of separating from the infidel is commanded in the Koran (e.g., 3:28, 4:89, 4:144, 5:54, 6:40, 9:23, and 58:22), codified in the doctrine of wala wa bara, and imprinted on the Muslim psyche. Unsurprisingly, then, Muslims have come to project this divisive impulse onto the Copts as well.

Yet, there is perhaps no clearer example of Muslim projection than when the aforementioned bishop, in response to the anti-Copt upsurge, declared that Egypt's Christians are reaching the point of martyrdom; amazingly, this, too, has been thoroughly "Islamicized" as a declaration of war-to-the-death, including by Awwa, who, during his Al Jazeera rant, asserted that "Father Bishoy declared that they would reach the point of martyrdom, which can only mean war. He said, 'If you talk about our churches, we will reach the point of martyrdom.' This means war."

Of course, the notion that a martyr is someone who wages and dies in jihad, or "holy war," is intrinsic to Islam (e.g., Koran 9:111). Even the authoritative Hans Wehr Arabic-English Dictionary translates shahid ("martyr") as "one killed in battle with infidels." On the other hand, Christian martyrdom has always meant being persecuted and killed for refusing to recant Christianity — and this is precisely the definition that has for centuries applied to Egypt's Copts, the definition that Bishop Bishoy clearly meant. (See this article for the pivotal differences between Christian and Muslim martyrdom.)

To recap: Islamists regularly abduct, abuse, brainwash, and compel Coptic girls to convert — and now Copts are accused of doing the exact same thing; Islamists regularly smuggle and stockpile weapons, including in their holy places — and now Copts are accused of doing the exact same thing; Islamists are constantly either trying to break away or conquer infidel nations — and now Copts are accused of doing the exact same thing; Islamic martyrdom means participating and dying in jihad — and now Christian martyrdom is defined as the exact same thing.

While anti-Copt sentiment is as old as the Muslim conquest of Egypt, this recent batch of bizarre accusations is making Muslims more irate and paranoid, and bodes greater evil for Egypt's beleaguered Christians. According to sharia's dhimmi pact, the necessary condition for Copts to be tolerated is that they live as subordinate, second-class "citizens." The Islamist psyche — and Egypt is increasingly Islamicizing — expects this. Yet these recent charges portray the Copts as violent antagonists bent on war and conquest. If the Muslim popular mind accepts this new interpretation, far from subjugated dhimmis, or even co-equals, the Copts will be perceived as little better than infidel terrorists, and treated accordingly, that is, barbarously.

Raymond Ibrahim is associate director of the Middle East Forum, author of The Al Qaeda Reader, and guest lecturer at the National Defense Intelligence College.



I'm Unamerica and you can too.

The Official Huge Monster Hunter Thread: 



The Hunt Begins 4/20/2010 =D

Smidlee said:
SpartenOmega117 said:
....

The reason we don't believe in the current Bible is because Muslims beleive that the Bible has been changed quite a bit throughtout the years by the Pope, priests, etc. So we don't think it is original and has been changed dramatically. Otherwise we do believe in the Bible.

.....

 I find this interesting since the Pope is found no where in the Bible nor is some of Catholic teachings. In fact Jesus warn his disciples on men who likes to sit in Mose's seat (law giver). Why didn't the Catholic change the scripture which speak out against their own teachings?  Probably because the Catholics who copied the scripture before the printing press  respect God enough  not to change the scripture to fit Catholic teachings.  What the Catholic church did was refuse the common person from reading the scriptures  until the printing press was invented.  Both Catholics and Islam has a mixture of different religions as well as politics  which Jesus spoke out against.

What scripture is opposed to catholic teaching?

Authority figures of the church are throughout the New Testament, as are their admonitions, encouragements, requirements of holy men of the church, and rulings/decrees to various churches. The Bible also tells that there should not be divisions in the church. How can there be no divisions in the church without a structure of authority? How can the church be the "pillar of truth", as scripture says it is, if there are hundreds of denominations disagreeing on subjects ranging from the defintion of marriage, free will, and what brings about salvation? The word "pope" or an equivalent is not in the Bible, but then again neither is "Holy Trinity" or anything about "asking Jesus into your/my heart" to be saved, which is what many a well-meaning person will tell you is all that is required for full and eternal salvation.

As far as papal authority, there is a traceable line of succession from Pope Benedict to St Peter. What authority does Peter have? Among other things, we can read in Matthew....

Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

 



"I feel like I could take on the whole Empire myself."

babuks said:
richardhutnik said:

So, on the surface, it would seem they are similar.  But, by making Jesus an unessential and an afterthought just touched on in the Quran, makes it really hard to considered they are similar. I also think a Muslim would find it outright weird to think of a group of some people of The Book, to be part of Christ's body. After all, why would a prophet have a body made up of people of the Book.


Enough talk from laymen. Listen to someone learned of both the religions and scriptures:

 

Just follow Youtube link to get other lectures on the same topic.

I noticed he didin't quote Jesus stating " Before Abraham was, I AM. The very next verse states the Pharisees were picking up stones to kill him? Why? Because they understand Jesus identify himself equal with God , The great "I AM"
 According to this video Muslims would have join with the Pharisees in that day.