To Allonehhob

Submitted by iasius (India), Nov 5, 2005 at 04:20

First, my profuse gratitude to Allonehhob for granting me the liberty of holding my beliefs. Much obliged!

Pardon me, but Islam does not "link" the supposed advent of Christ (IESAPL) to violence. It merely refutes the claim that Christ (IESAPL) was son of god [see HQ, 4:171; 5:75] and declares the belief blasphemous [HQ, 5:17, 72, 73]. It also says that Christ (IESAPL) was never crucified [HQ, 4:157]. Nevertheless, it accepts him as one of Allah's prophets in the same prophet-tradition as Muhammad, calling upon every Muslim to accord respect to him. Therefore, it certainly isn't a "Muslim claim" as you attempt to misrepresent. I have merely quoted verbatim from what many still amazingly believe to be "god's word", so I don't see how I may have "twisted" facts in any way. On the contrary, a re-examination might only helpe in straightening out theological glitches and kinks that god seems to have overlooked in the dictation! My profound apologies if reality annoys you, and I can understand. It does annoy some, but just can't be helped.

It is only the Bible that apparently says Christ (IESAPL) came "came with a clear message of peace", despite what Christ (IESAPL) himself is supposed to have declared [Luke 12:49 http://www.godrules.net/library/kjv/kjvluk12.htm]: "[12:49] I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? [12:50] But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! [12:51] Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: [12:52] For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. [12:53] The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." (I wonder how dynamite like this wasn't excised from Bibles long ago!) But what he said was perfectly in consonance with a purely political agenda, which, given the nature of Roman occupation, could only be realized by military means of which violence is an inevitable ingredient. Families were bound to be divided, and altercations the result, if one of its members joined Christ (IESAPL)'s political movement.

Naturally I am going to quote from the Bible! How can ludicrous Biblical claims be discussed if one doesn't?

The quality of truth (something the Church hasn't heard about since Adam) is independent of the medium through which it gets disseminated. It isn't ‘who' says it but ‘what' is said that is of moment. So how does it matter if I used this or that source as reference? Also, if I used "probably" more often than you think was desirable, it is only because I am always open to correction. The view that appeals to my reason and logic might not be the absolute, undiluted truth. There could be another that provides more satisfactory explanations. But unfortunately, early and complete indoctrination in a certain monopolistic worldview precludes some of us from even appreciating this openness found in others, which is a great pity indeed. If only the Bible had used the word "probably", like me, more often than it used the word "verily", the world might have been an immeasurably happier place to inhabit, don't you think?

Thanks a million for crediting me with the faculty of imagination. And, I am not "accusing billions" for their imagination as you obviously seem to have misread. On the contrary, I am accusing them for NOT using it!

Our present discussion is about Christian claims for numerous illogical, unreasonable and perfectly untenable "facts" (as too many naïvely choose to call them), and not about our personal beliefs or preferences. One has absolute right even to believe Christ (IESAPL) was god's father for all I care! But every such unreasonable belief needs strictly to be kept personal in order that at least the semblance of sanity, reasonableness and rationality is presented, unless of course one wishes to attract undue pity and public attention, or in severe and extreme cases, be ‘certified'.

I also thank you for your solicitation: "focus your energy on what really threatens your existence and the existence of the world". Evidently unbeknownst to you, however, I feel I am already doing that. The process of ascertaining the genesis, development and true motives of "Christian Love" must logically precede a similar inquiry into other so-called religions, for wasn't Christianity the first to plan and execute such a big-time hijacking of god?

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".