Fair enough, although I will say that encouraging non-violence is about the evolution of human compassion and decency.
Nice turn of phrase! I can go along with that.
For example, Christians did interpret the Old Testament and did commit acts of violence ... crushed beneath slabs of rock.
*shudder* I knew of some awful things, but not that one. Yick. Let me refine you statement a bit, to add that in
some cases what they protested was breaking Biblical command, but a lot of the nastiness was over "heresy." Whatever
that's supposed to mean, which according to the Bible is precisely nothing since "the kingdom of heaven is not in word but in power." Not gov't power but
personal power to follow the Lord, yourself. About the only exception to that would be Church discipline, which is exclusively toward those that choose to be part of it, mainly leadership. Or when He returns w/ a multitude of His Saints, at which time all bets are off
Until then, the only sound teaching is Mercy.
throughout the ages, Christianity was applied using many of the primitive penalties for sin found in the Old Testament. Fortunately, Christians in developed nations no longer apply the OT in how they deal with various people and their indiscretions, because we have largely evolved beyond that and have settled into a pattern of civility.
Disagreed, and this is a point that's central to this discussion:
the change in ideal and teaching happened instantaneously. St Peter marked the beginning of human resistance to this change when he schwacked off the ear at the beginning of Christ's suffering. Peter was always brash and doing stupid things, until ...
Now if you want to say human resistance to the teaching of Christianity has marred not only the history of the Church but of humanity - well sadly that's accurate. But not a speck of that is based on Truth, dogma, religion, or any of the nasty side of organized religion you choose to throw into the mix. It was based on greed, pride, desire for power; all purely human stuff. Nothing Divine about any of it, and it seems you're trying to argue otherwise. (?)
Islam, in Western civilization, has evolved as well;
If you're talking purely about behavior, I guess I could agree. This discussion is about
the religion itself, right? That means the later, more violent writings
specifically advocating not only violence but oppression even of new converts take priority over the older, more serene writings which I will grant have some beautiful and deep meaning. This problem gets more complicated because if you look at pesky things like facts, you see a clear and intentional pattern of creating a Muslim majority in a previously non-Muslim Nation, and instituting the harshest Theocracy of their book. Which is brutal. I'll even grant you for the purposes of discussion that in that extreme but not hypothetical situation, the majority of Muslims may well
be peaceful. Does that mean they'll be willing to risk their own necks, sticking up for people like me? The facts are in and history says "no."
Bushmaster was raised Muslim and grew up in Turkey. I don't know if he faced persecution connected to his conversion, but if I were wrong in my assertions here I'm sure he wouldn't hesitate to say so. If other people have first-hand experience that's valid to these issues, I'd love to hear first your background and then your perspective.
It's a classic case of allowing a primitive mindset to overrule common sense and basic human compassion.
Just as one should be able to make a mental distinction between Christians in America and Christians in Uganda, one should be able to do the same for Muslims in America and Muslims in, say, Pakistan.
I see your line of reasoning here, I really do. I even like it. The reality is harsh, and different from what I perceive you as presenting. Fortunately, there are nowhere near enough US Muslims to create a majority like they enjoy in Pakistan. Reverse that statistic and I'm not sure you're assertion would hold up; again,
because of the teaching itself.
