The light of islam (ugh everyone is a critic)

Yes of course, though that is from the Old Testament which, at least in my intepretation, the NT should be meant to override or update. They are all so old the context they are provided is very out of date these days. Leena mentioned she looked for something and couldnt find it so I was just trying to help.

Adder wrote: Yes of course, though that is from the Old Testament which, at least in my intepretation, the NT should be meant to override or update. They are all so old the context they are provided is very out of date these days. Leena mentioned she looked for something and couldnt find it so I was just trying to help.

I see the nt, and ot one and the same personally because it builds on one another and speaks of the same god anyways in a chronological order. But your right the Old testament god was much more harsh compared to that of the new testament to say the least. He was portrayed as a vengeful deity where as in the new testament he is presented more as a "buddy" of sorts

I have seen because of Christianity, Judiasm, and Islam we have great people in the world

History shows otherwise. the arrival of abarahamic religions always marks the end of civilization. That's true in: America, Europe, middle east, Africa. Asia was recently taken by communism, another form of religion, but adoption, complete rejection and recovery won't take more than a hundred years.

Didn't Jesus say something like "I have not come to change on letter in the Law or the Prophets, but to see them fulfilled". So "overriding" the Old Testament is just Christian justification.

Different times, different stories. Christianity was influenced by Hellenism and Paganism, so no religion stays pure. Most of the things most Christians believe today were introduced by Catholic folklore in its quest to mesh with pagan religions and gain acceptance. The devil and hell weren't even in original Judaism!

Civilizations come and go, but the destroyers have always been men, not religions.

And what are religions made of? The existence of a deity does not make a religion, in the same way the Force didn't wait for Jediism to exist. Christians make christianity, muslims make islam. Considering the importance of religion in the life of the religious, denying its involvement in the negative parts of history and exclusively looking at the positive influences is dishonest at best.

You make a good point Ren.

But rarely does a person burst into jihad or inquisition sporadically. There is usually someone manipulating religious doctrine in their favor, and the ignorant follow through.

Manu wrote: So "overriding" the Old Testament is just Christian justification..

Well I'm not Christian and I havent heard anyone else say it, so I'm not parroting anyones justification - but in my own readings it is the most obvious and meaningul relationship between the two Testaments. The Old Testament needed not be wrong to require overriding, just badly written/transmitted.

ren wrote: Considering the importance of religion in the life of the religious, denying its involvement in the negative parts of history and exclusively looking at the positive influences is dishonest at best.

Only if the person is claiming to represent the religion. Discussing only the positive aspects of a religion is not dishonest IMO (in fact its all I'm interested in) - in the same way as I dont judge a how football team plays based on the behaviour or football skills of its supporters!

Something like the death penalty has advantages. Exclusively looking at those advantages is foolish. Same goes for religion. And everything else for that matter. Being a Jedi, believing in the Force... It's all about looking at the bigger picture, not only at what's convenient.

ren wrote: Something like the death penalty has advantages. Exclusively looking at those advantages is foolish. Same goes for religion. And everything else for that matter. Being a Jedi, believing in the Force... It's all about looking at the bigger picture, not only at what's convenient.

Well analogies are only useful insofar as they make sense, but it sounds like your talking about the act of passing judgement on something? The electrician who is fixing the electric chair for the prison only needs to look at the electricals and not the broader implications - to fix the chair.

If he is deciding whether he wants to be associated with fixing a chair that kills...then yes he needs to look at the bigger picture to make a judgement about his path, but he is also loosing focus on what his actual involvement is by looking at the bigger picture, as their is a judical system that takes the responsibility for when the chair is used.

The broader the scope the more you see but all at less detail, but the narrow the scope the less you see but at greater detail. I think its fair to say a forum with religious subforums should be able to accomodate discussion about individual aspects of religions? Surely we dont need a disclaimer after every post indicating that religions are dangerous for your health, seek medical advice before reading!