danivon

If the Syrian civil war can be resolved, both sides would likely turn on ISIS - they just fear each other more at the moment

.

Not sure what you mean by both sides.

The most powerful leader of the armed opposition in Syria these days is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the self-declared Caliph of Isis. Those rebels who do not follow his black banner mostly follow that of Jabhat al-Nusra, which was created by Mr al-Baghdadi and then split from him. Other armed opposition groups not in these two are tiny.

rickyp wrote:ray

I'm saying that's different. I guess you are saying that 12 years and 300 years are basically the same thing.

The circumstances were the same. Mohammed managed to achieve power faster than Paul's successors in the Christian church.

That is utterly idiotic.

Mohammed exercised violence IN HIS LIFETIME.

Jesus did not.

None of the Apostles did (save Peter at Jesus' capture, whereupon he was rebuked for it).

None of the immediate disciples of the Apostles did.

In fact, until Constantine (who likely never was a Christian) made Christianity the religion of Rome, Christianity was never the religion of the powerful. And, Constantine used Christianity for nationalistic purposes, having little to do with the Bible per se.

Once in power, neither religion was entirely a force for good. Tolerance and acceptance dissolved when it became possible to control through force.

Go ahead, make a case that Christianity became violent before Constantine. From history, we know the apostles all suffered miserable deaths--and not because they were engaged in warfare.

Mohammed and many of his successors were warriors.

ray

I didn't say Christianity is inherently good. I said it's central text is anti-violence. People in power did what people in power do

Yes. And continue to do.

More garbage. Where does the NT espouse violence?

Go ahead, I'll wait. You're the expert on the NT.

Modern Christians use the bible as rationale to keep women subjugated and to maintain institutionalized discrimination against homosexuals. It wasn't so long ago that the Bible was also used to justify discrimination against racial minorities including things like inter racial marriage.
The Bible didn't change. Peoples interpretation of t did, as a result of the evolution of the moral gyroscope of society

This is more garbage.

Now, I did recently read a message from Bob Jones circa 1961 in which he was defending segregation. Notably absent: any explication of an NT text to support his unsupportable position.
.

Muslims use their scriptures the same way Christians used, and continue to use theirs... And the interpretation of the Islamic verses will change as ideas of the world change the Muslim world.

Sweeping generalizations. Look, let's have a contest. I'll cite verses of the Qur'an supporting violence by adherents; you cite NT verses supporting violence by believers. Let's see who wins? How about a wager on it?

rickyp wrote:freeman3

Maybe having oil controlled by an elite changes that equation

.
Any time a small elite is in control of governance this happens. Example: China had a large exploration fleet and magnificent sailing vessels under Zheng. The ruling Ming dynasty eventually saw exploration and the opening up to the world as a threat to their existence and destroyed the fleets and banned travel.
The Japanese did much the same until forced to open up.

Yes, in a discussion about Christianity and Islam, the most logical thing to do is cite the history of . . . China and Japan???

Today the KSA is only just opening up more to the outside world. (although its elite children do get modern educations.)

Good point. After all, the Saudi dynasty has remained unchanged for hundreds of years. That's quite an argument you've made.

What? It was founded in 1933? Oh. Never mind.

Oil only changes the dynamic because it so quickly changed the rulers wealth. The dynamic is always the same. An elite gives way to democratic aspirations... (And the dynamic does have push back. Witness the difference in the US between the middle class of the 50's and 60's and today and the loss of political sway to corporate money.)

Irrelevant rabbit trail, but, apart from those, how would you ever post?

The feminist movement started in the mid 19th century. Sure. But for most of the history of Christian dominance women were chattel as they are in the KSA.

Not really. Rarely have women been subjected to regimes like KSA. If you'd like to compare, let's have at it. Furthermore, what the NT says vs. what the Qur'an says might startle you.

The gains made by women were hard won and mostly came after the singularly important step of winning the vote. With that power more change came, and more quickly. But women in the US still don't enjoy wholly equal rights protection. (Equal pay for one. )

Another rabbit trail and a false one. Read this and get back to me. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gender- ... lete-myth/

As for the evolution of women's rights in the Middle East, I agree that it is stuck at a point that Christianity was some 300 years ago.

False. Was it standard for men in Christendom to have as many as four (living) wives? To have a woman's testimony about rape completely discarded unless she had male witnesses?

And, please, don't use "Christianity" if you really mean "Christendom." There is nothing in the NT that would justify treating women as "chattel."

Nobody can pump out more errors and extraneous nonsense than you. It's a gift, I suppose.

rickyp wrote:Other armed opposition groups not in these two are tiny.

Oh, but you've missed the news! The US has trained opposition forces and they are on the march! I think we've got like . . . 1200 of them ready!

Heckuva job, Barry!

fate

Yes, in a discussion about Christianity and Islam, the most logical thing to do is cite the history of . . . China and Japan???

well yes. Since the discussion has moved into how both religions have ben used by ruling elites to control the populace and preserve the dominant position of the elite....
as per this quotation:

freeman3

Maybe having oil controlled by an elite changes that equation

rickyp.

Any time a small elite is in control of governance this happens

But I take your point about Christendom and Christianity. However, you'll also note that "Christians" don't use only the New Testament when they make their arguments based on scriptures. How often were Leviticus used to condemn homosexuality?
Similarily the Islamic texts are used by those who hand pick the scripture that supports what ever position they propose. The war like fanatics choose the war like scripture. The pacifists the verse preaching tolerance and love.
Its all very well and good for you to take the position that Christendom wasn't ruled by True Christians since the Romans...
But then isn't it equally valid for True Muslims dismiss the Wahabists and other conservatives as non-Muslim?

Anyway, the discussion was getting beyond this narrow carping about the various sects and interpretations and which is devine and which not. It matters not to the use of Islam or Christianity as political tools. One version or another will become dominant in any society, usually because of the support of the elite ruling the nation. Except in liberal democracies where tolerance and acceptance of diversity of religious worship is guaranteed .
That's a recent development in human history. And a development that Muslims have bought into in societies that have evolved past the point where religion is a political tool.

rickyp wrote:fate

Yes, in a discussion about Christianity and Islam, the most logical thing to do is cite the history of . . . China and Japan???

well yes. Since the discussion has moved into how both religions have ben used by ruling elites to control the populace and preserve the dominant position of the elite....
as per this quotation:

freeman3

Maybe having oil controlled by an elite changes that equation

rickyp.

Any time a small elite is in control of governance this happens

Rather than admit you've gone far afield, you try to justify dragging the Ming Dynasty and Imperial Japan into a discussion about Islam and Christianity.

Oh brother.

It's as weak as it is pointless, but you know that.