Muslim hypocrisy?

[IGrok]

Speak not about hypocrisy lest ye have thy glass house stoned.

According to Matthew [10.34], Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to bring peace, but a sword."

According to Thomas [saying 16], Jesus said, "Men indeed think I have come to bring peace to the world. But they do not know that I have come to bring the world discord, fire, sword, war."

Violence has been used to spread Christianity ever since it became the state religion of the Roman Empire. It was official policy for over a thousand years. What Muhammad and Abu Bakr did in the Arab peninsular was no different to what Alfred and Charlemagne did in England and Europe.

I agree that Christianity has been a professed motivator for violence in the past, but I have to disagree that those policies are rooted or promoted in the New Testament. It's true that the Jewish people looked forward to the coming of the Messiah because they expected Him to be a political leader - someone who really would come to rule the earth and convert all peoples. When Christ arrived, however, He upturned those interpretations of Messianic prophecy entirely. His mission was purely spiritual, which is supported by His every word and the tradition of His immediate followers. You misunderstand the meaning of the use of the word "sword" in Biblical texts. The sword is pretty much always meant to symbolize authority, often vested by God, as in "...the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God" [Ephesians 6:17]. This has been the interpretation used since the earliest days of the Church. You can read St. Augustine's explanation of that passage specifically, in which he interprets it as being a purely spiritual/religious message. No one in the early Church ever looked to this as a licence to commit acts of violence against other nations or religions.

I think the distinction that most people make between Christianity and Islam is that the latter was intrinsically violent, while the former was entirely peaceful but perverted by cultures that inherited it later. I can't say much about the quality of Islam personally, though, because I haven't gotten that far in my study of religions. I'm still working on the main branches of Christianity and Judaism.

 

[Dan Howard]

You misunderstand the meaning of the use of the word "sword" in Biblical texts. The sword is pretty much always meant to symbolize authority, often vested by God, as in "...the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God" [Ephesians 6:17]. This has been the interpretation used since the earliest days of the Church.

Perhaps in Matthew but not in Thomas. Thomas is very specific and unambiguous. Jesus brings "discord", "fire", "sword", and "war."

 

[Swamp Booger]

Perhaps in Matthew but not in Thomas. Thomas is very specific and unambiguous. Jesus brings "discord", "fire", "sword", and "war."

The Book of Thomas is apocryphal, and not part of the New Testament canon.

 

[Dan Howard]

The Book of Thomas is apocryphal, and not part of the New Testament canon.

Classic example of Christian hypocrisy. Anything in their scriptures that they don't agree with is "apocryphal".

 

[John B]

If you strip out the New Testament to only the words of Jesus the do the same for the Islamic texts regarding Mohammed's then do the comparative.

 

[Swamp Booger]

Classic example of Christian hypocrisy. Anything in their scriptures that they don't agree with is "apocryphal".

Not hypocrisy sir, but established church tradition based upon 1700 + years of prior precedent. Hardly modern Christian bias. If you have a problem with what is considered canonical, then I suggest you find a time machine and take the matter up with the early Church Fathers.

 

[Dan Howard]

Not hypocrisy sir, but established church tradition based upon 1700 + years of prior precedent. Hardly modern Christian bias. If you have a problem with what is considered canonical, then I suggest you find a time machine and take the matter up with the early Church Fathers.

Not modern bias; ancient bias. It is still blatant hypocrisy. You ignore any of the scriptures that you don't like. The Gospel of Mary is another example. You can't have a female apostle because it might set a precedent for female priests.

 

[Swamp Booger]

Not modern bias; ancient bias. It is still blatant hypocrissy. You ignore any of the scriptures that you don't agree with. Just like the Gospel of Mary. Can't have a female apostle - it might set a precedent for female priests.

The Church Fathers engaged in a remarkable level of textual criticism in determining whether a particular book was inspired and thus to be included in the Scriptures. It was not an arbitrary decision based upon human whim and bias as you seem to think.

 

[Dan Howard]

The Church Fathers engaged in a remarkable level of textual criticism in determining whether a particular book was inspired and thus to be included in the Scriptures. It was not an arbitrary decision based upon human whim and bias as you seem to think.

Complete rubbish. They decided how to structure their organisation so as to maximise their power and authority and deliberately removed the texts that contradicted that doctrine.

 

[John B]

Unlike Christians Muslims act on their religious texts. As Jesus said follow the laws as in the OT. However when is the last time there was a stoning in St Peter's Square? Neither has burning at the stake been in vogue for a while. However ISIS that followed the Islamic faith to the letter burned people alive in cages.