Perhaps the greatest response I've ever read. Kudos.

With all due respect, allow me to comment on your quotes:

"If any man come unto me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brother, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he can not be my disciple."
It`s not hate in the sense of despise, it means forsake, or better yet, put cast away/renounce - like priests renounce everything for a life dedicated to God, even renouncing themselves.

Jesus didn`t come to "please" people, He came to help them and with that He knew that would create conflicts.

The not worthy part summons both your quotes: no one, but no one is above Jesus be it in love or pain/sacrifice and by even renouncing yourself you will find your true self - which is a very important and deep part of the message brought by Jesus.

I guess so

I should have said imo after that statement..

Lol, what the actual fuck??? xD

Well the idea Jesus is a myth is not growing, even Richard Dawkins think he existed in the historical sense but that you could make a case against his existence.

The issues is of course over was he a divine figure?
The evidence over Jesus's miracle does not exist really.
The thing is no secular source from the era talks about a divine Jesus but always talk about a man seen to be a prophet.

1500 years ago.

Also if you read up on the life of Aisha (from historians or whomever you feel more confortable trusting ;) )...you will see that she definately was not a slave and became one of the most prominent female figures in Islam.

At the end of the day even historians only have so much to go on...even Roman scholars would have skewed events etc. Theres always going to be some degree of doubt when dealing with history from so long ago. But given all the information that we do have we can come up with the most likely way things went down etc. Whether or not you choose to believe in that is your own thing ofcourse.

You're a Buddhist?

This thread is bringing out the crazies!
I agree with kowenicki, both totally irrelevant.

Cool, thanks for clearing that up. I had my suspicions that those verses you talked about were being brought up out of context. Always good to learn a bit more!

Mohammed certainly accomplished more in his lifetime than Jesus did, but that's about as far as matters go. It really shows the clash of realism vs idealism, since Mohammed and Jesus had more or less the same idea: preach the supremacy of the Abrahammic God above all other factors. Jesus approached the matter from an idealistic perspective and has the far better reputation, but was crucified by the very people he was trying to convert and saw his fledgeling followers forced underground for a time before their message tapped into the religious desires of the Greco-Roman world. Mohammed unified a disparate people and built an Empire with his religious teachings, with many big similarities in their messages: Submit/humble yourself to the Lord, forego religious legalism (which one can see in Islam through the forbidding of any imagery), and care for the poor (almsgiving as one of the Four Pillars)

It then depends on your moral perspective as to who did more good. Assuming that both religions are equally valid, Mohammed did the greater good in his lifetime, because he actually established his faith and had more impact on more people. If we look for a more motive-based morality (such as the thoughts of Immanuel Kant), Jesus is clearly superior. Taking into effect the good and the evils that have been done in the name of both, however, its easier today to point to Jesus, but from my perspective this is due to the comparative wealth of the Christian world vs the Muslim world, and not due to inherent goodness in Christianity or evilness in Islam

One must remember also that Mohammed was deliberately trying to convert people. Jesus was simply trying to reform the system in which he existed; a cleansing of Judaism vs a revolution within pagan Arabia. Their spiritual goals were similar, but the contexts were quite different.