It seems that I touched a nerve yesterday when I compared Christianity and the Muslim faith when it came to application of Sharia law. In the comments, I was accused of being dishonest when I only quoted from the Old Testament to show that religion is a bunch of primitive men practicing according to outdated and cruel practices. In order to believe that the Old Testament, with its commands to kill disrespectful children, and kill those who work on the Sabbath, we must ignore In Isaiah 40:8 God says that the word of the Lord will last forever, and he says the same thing again in 1 Peter 1:24-25.

Even so, to be fair, here are some New Testament quotes:

Jesus was a horse thief. In Mark 11:1-3 we find this transaction:

As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage and Bethany at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two of his disciples, saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and just as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here. If anyone asks you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ tell him, ‘The Lord needs it and will send it back here shortly.’ “

Jesus advocated hate. In support, we find Jesus saying this in Luke 14:26:

Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple.

Jesus was a misogynist. Proof is here:

1 Corinthians chapter 14:

As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Under Christianity, women should be veiled, just as in Sharia:

1 Corinthians 11:

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head–it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.) That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels.

1 Timothy chapter 2:

Also that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire but by good deeds, as befits women who profess religion. Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.

Ephesians 5:22-24 we find this:

“Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Seen enough yet? Again I say:

You must understand that both of these religions were written by primitive men, using primitive standards. Enforcing the Bible in a strict manner will yield similar results as strictly enforcing Sharia. It wasn’t all that long ago that Christians were conducting the inquisition, or even the crusades.

Categories: Uncategorized


Anonymous · May 22, 2010 at 5:30 pm

Your isegesis on Mark 11:1-3 was probably the most humorous misapplication I have ever read. Since when does a theif return the item? Jesus wasn't telling them to steal. And, in case you never did a hermeneutic (which apparently you're unfamiliar with the processes) back in "primitive" times, as you put it, an unridden donkey was one who had just been procured from the wild (yes, they had wild asses back then) and was tied, awaiting someone to "claim" it anyway. So it wasn't "owned" as yet.

Again, you make the same mistake when you read Luke 14:26 and do not take a hermeneutical approach. Jesus, being an observant Jew, would have honored his mother and father as per the big 10. So how can he say to hate? In light of saying to love your neighbor and enemy, would it make sense for him to turn around and say to literally hate your family?

Like so many who perfer the isegesis approach, rather than using an honest exegetical one, you missed it. And I think you were dishonest in only quoting some of the verse as well.

The word "hate" here means literally to LOVE LESS. It does not mean hate in the sense that you or I mean it today.

So Christ is clearly saying that those who do not love their family less than they love HIM are in error.

Does that sound unfair? Christianity teaches that Jesus is GOD in human flesh. Therefore, this passage follows along in with the ten commandments wherein we are told to love GOD with all of our being and place Him above any idol (and an idol can be anything other than God that you worship or give obeisance to, even your own family.)

Divemedic · May 22, 2010 at 8:05 pm

That's it- change the definition of words that you don't like. The Bible doesn't say what it says, so feel free to make up your own stories.

You again prove my point- the Christians are no less dogmatic than the Muslims.

Anonymous · June 10, 2010 at 4:12 pm

I feel all religion is open to inspection/interpretation. It was man's interpretation of what he thought, what he felt, what he say, etc. & as we all know, man is human – [he] errs.

So I approach religion in the same manner as I try to approach all things, in a non-judgmental, open-minded fashion so I can learn & make my own decisions. Why else would God have given me a brain?

Comments are closed.