No, but Sam Harris does have a point about fighting 14th century Christians with 21st century weapons -- which is a pretty accurate description of the situation. Not surprising, since Christianity has roots with Yahweh, a god of war.

I would like to say it's worse, since Muslims don't have any messiah coming around and saying things like, "he who has not sinned cast the first stone." It's very disconcerting and perhaps downright alarming. The Muslim penalty for apostasy is death, and there is no wiggle room in that. There is nothing commanding Muslims to behave civilly towards non-Muslims -- unless it is to convert them to Islam.

That's scary stuff.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 20 2012, 12:32 pm by Roy. Reason: This is SD

Well yer, there is always wiggle room. In fact that is the biggest difference between moderates and 'extremists' also known as fundamentalists - that wiggle room.

For starters - why do you think it is called FUNDAMENTAList, because they go off literal interpretations of the text. For the moderates, something like this:
"Deuteronomy 22:22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel."
Can be explained away. But the fundamentalists (who the moderates label as 'extremists') just read that text literally. They don't try to explain it away like the moderates do - they just read what the text actually says.

Now Christianity back then was like what Islam is today, they were all fundamentalists. For, whatever reason (I don't know precisely, I'm sure it is a variety of very complex societal/cultural factors) these moderates evolved who started to try and reconcile the texts to adhere to contemporary moral standards.

And thus, you get just some marvellous semantic back bending where, in Luke 14:26, 'hate' is interpretted as 'love less'.
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple."

This is the principle driving force behind every moderate interpretation of holy texts - reconciling them with today's moral standards. And then they turn around and say that morality COMES from these texts. That's the most amazing part.

Hold the phone.

"Doesn't have restraint?" The Islam faith still regards Jesus as an influential prophet; they just do not consider his divinity. They generally follow the teachings of Jesus and they believe he did the miracles as shown in the Bible. So you can't say they ignore him altogether as a rule - you can say that some Muslims choose to ignore him.

Jack, they're human beings they are just as capable of restraint as the next guy. To say otherwise makes you no better than the hateful people who dehumanize you for being Christian.

"They generally follow the teachings of Jesus" no they don't. At least, none of the Muslims I know do, and I know quite a few (20+) and have talked with several extensively on the issue. Basically, although the Bible, among other books, is considered to be inspired by Allah, there is basically no point in reading it or doing what it says because the Qu'ran is the new book which overrules every book before it and has everything you need to know about religion.

I didn't agree with Sacrieur, I was just acknowledging that to take that viewpoint on that passage was far less far fetched than the other viewpoint I proposed. Having said that, I don't think the Bible teaches that non-Christians are as capable of restraint as Christians; we can discuss it further via PMs or Skype if you wish to, as it is rather offtopic.

Twenty plus is a good pool but still anecdotal and can be refuted by the muslims I know who adhere to Jesus' teachings.