Are Jesus and Muhammad (i.e. Mohammed) Alike?

Originally posted by lord xyz
So what you're saying is Muhammed is a crazy fundamentalist.

Makes sense. (But is Jesus no different?)

I don't think Muhammad was any more extreme than a lot of Arabs were at the time. He had a different vision which he followed through.
He was also born in the most powerful family in Arabian peninsula. He wanted to be a leader, and he ended up being so.
Religion was a small matter, effectively used.

Jesus had an eye on completely different thing. He preached his little ideas, but he never had the system or anything to that effect - it is the establishment of church which saw to that.
I think the biggest favour Christians can do for Christ, is to separate him from the Church.

I also respect the fact that he had endured a lot of pain and in the end a death for what HE believed in.
I like the idea that he refused to denounce his ideas in the face of torture and death.

What Christians did later, I always doubt was inspired by Jesus' example.
Just look at the ''turn the other cheek'' and ''love thy neighbour''. It is like the most ''forgotten'' part of Bible...ever.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
No one is spreading hatred. If you characterize facts presented in comparative, analytical form hatred then you don't understand what hatred is. Hatred would be to present false, malicious, untrue statements about someone or something. But everything that those links provided is factual and true. So, no there is no hatred being spread here.

The only thing that I hate is sin, and lies are definitely sinful. So, I don't hate anything or anyone except sin, satan, demons, and evil. Islam is not ordained of God (meaning that the God of the Bible is not its Founder). All of the religions of the world were started by satan to divert people from the true God as revealed in the Bible.

You're sites are false, JHY.

So you're going to contradict what you tried to say in the first paragraph by condemning her and her religion? Nice spread of hatred JHY.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
With all due respect crazy I was not talking to you and my question to Fatima has nothing in the world to do with Chick Tracts.

Fatima in MY OPINION is too ignorant of the facts to really disprove you, but plenty of people have disproven your claims before so I wanted to point that out, chick tracts was just one of the things and I mentioned them specifically because of your love of them.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
There is a stark contrast between Jesus Christ and Muhammad, but I have already provided links at the outset of this thread that detail those great differences.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Jesus was/is not a philosopher, He is the Son of the living God. The words that Jesus spoke were/are spirit and they are life. Furthermore, Jesus said that He spoke those things that He had seen, heard, been taught, learned, and was commanded to speak by/from His Father (in Heaven).

The words of philosophers are just that, the words of men. Hence, there is no comparison between the two.

Originally posted by crazy
Fatima in MY OPINION is too ignorant of the facts to really disprove you, but plenty of people have disproven your claims before so I wanted to point that out, chick tracts was just one of the things and I mentioned them specifically because of your love of them.

It does not change the fact that I was talking pointedly to her and not you.

Originally posted by Regret
Regardless, Muhammad and Christ were alike in a great many ways, unless, of course, you believe Christ was not the things I listed as him being.

They were not alike I provided links that show this.

Originally posted by Regret
So you are stating that Christ was not a person who lives and thinks according to a particular philosophy, and he was not a person who is calm and rational under any circumstances? Christ was/is these things, imo, and thus he was by definition a philosopher.

By your definition? Regret, philosophers speak the word of man. But Jesus spoke the Word of God. You can't see the difference between the two? Jesus was not a philosopher.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
...I also respect the fact that he had endured a lot of pain and in the end a death for what HE believed in.
I like the idea that he refused to denounce his ideas in the face of torture and death.

What Christians did later, I always doubt was inspired by Jesus' example.
Just look at the ''turn the other cheek'' and ''love thy neighbour''. It is like the most ''forgotten'' part of Bible...ever.

Jesus did not die for what He believed in. Jesus died to save you, me, and everyone else from our sins.

You can't see love every time someone tells you about Jesus? You think that we spread the gospel for our health or because we don't have anything else to do?

Jesus had a lot to say about many different subjects. People just get fixated on certain things that Jesus said because they need a convenient excuse to justify their conscience every time a Christian attempts to spread the gospel. We are accused of judging others and being mean-spirited when in reality we are not. What happens when we spread the gospel is that unbelievers feel convicted of their sin and because they don't know how to deal with it, they lash out at what they believe to be the cause of their self-awareness in terms of feeling convicted of sin--the Christians. It is your own sinfulness just like the Bible states that is the problem and not Christians. If you do not acknowledge the fact that you are a sinner then you cannot be saved, because you don't think that you need salvation from sin (when in truth you do).

So this my take on this whole issue.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Try asking your teacher. Say, didn't I post a link to Wikipedia about it? I think I did. Why don't you look at that instead of talking from your ass.

Here is what I said:

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
There is no such thing as 7 deadly sins. Here is what the Bible calls them:

Proverbs 6:16-19
These six things the LORD hates,
Yes, seven are an abomination
to Him:
A proud look,
A lying tongue,
Hands that shed innocent blood,
A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that are swift in running to evil,
A false witness who speaks lies,
And one who sows discord among brethren.

Xyz, neither anger nor wrath is included in the seven things that God calls an abomination (Incidentally, God calls these things an abomination not deadly sins). So where did anger and wrath come from in you list?

I stand by what I said. Wikipedia is not the Bible and the term "7 deadly sins" is not in the Bible. It might be in Wikipedia but if you want to dialogue with me about the what is contained in the Bible then you need to use the Bible.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Jesus did not die for what He believed in. Jesus died to save you, me, and everyone else from our sins.

Which was part of his beleif. So he did die for what he beleived in...a very noble man ! Jesus seems like a great person indeed ✅

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You can't see love every time someone tells you about Jesus? You think that we spread the gospel for our health or because we don't have anything else to do?

Not really...most of the people who preach about Jesus often seem hypocritical, full of BS, and hateful to me. Just look at George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Shirley Phelps Roper, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell...

It seems to me that the reason many Christian preachers "spread their gospel" with such annoying persistance is because in order to validate thier own faith, they need others to agree with them.

Otherwise, their faith becomes weak and means nothing.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Jesus had a lot to say about many different subjects. People just get fixated on certain things that Jesus said because they need a convenient excuse to justify their conscience every time a Christian attempts to spread the gospel.

The same way many Christians need an excuse from their Bible to commit acts of prejudice.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
We are accused of judging others and being mean-spirited when in reality we are not.

Many of you are judgemental and mean spirited ✅

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
[ What happens when we spread the gospel is that unbelievers feel convicted of their sin and because they don't know how to deal with it, they lash out at what they believe to be the cause of their self-awareness in terms of feeling convicted of sin--the Christians.

You really ARE delusional 🙄

Non Believers get annoyed that people who know NOTHING about them are making judgements on them and telling them how to live thier lives.

We also get annoyed when you bring your mythology into our politics and try to erase logic and reason from everyday life.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
[It is your own sinfulness just like the Bible states that is the problem and not Christians.

"sinfulness" is an adjective that has no factual basis to declare it relevant in anyway.

Christians AND non-Christians are both equally responsible and capable for the evils that occur in this world. You are not exempt from your own faults just because you happen to beleive some imaginary character sees you as special ❌

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
If you do not acknowledge the fact that you are a sinner then you cannot be saved, because you don't think that you need salvation from sin (when in truth you do).

The word "sinner" means nothing to me ❌

Do I acknowledge that I have flaws and do not always live up to a morally clean slate? Ofcourse bro...but the high and mighty JIA wants to judge us all as sinners in denial when he needs to take a good look at himself first.

He without sin shall cast the first stone

-Jesus Christ

You are just as good or evil as any one of us on these forums. You have equal moral standing just like the rest of us, and you are ONLY human just like the rest of us. You are no better than any of us here, so please...spare us the lectures buddy.

You have flaws of your own, you have "sins" of your own, you are NOT morally exempt, and you need to stop being a hypocrit.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
[So this my take on this whole issue

A take with too much sentiment and very little factual basis.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
By your definition? Regret, philosophers speak the word of man. But Jesus spoke the Word of God. You can't see the difference between the two? Jesus was not a philosopher.

phi·los·o·pher
NOUN:

[list=1][*]A student of or specialist in philosophy.
[*]A person who lives and thinks according to a particular philosophy.
[*]A person who is calm and rational under any circumstances.[/list]

Originally posted by Regret
Only one is necessary for the term to fit, Christ fits them all.

That definition is the work of Satan, I think JIA would agree with me in saying that he has gotten to you and dictionary.com

Originally posted by crazy
That definition is the work of Satan, I think JIA would agree with me in saying that he has gotten to you and dictionary.com

phi·los·o·phy
NOUN:

[list=1] [*]Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
[*]Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
[*]A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
[*]The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
[*]The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
[*]The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
[*]A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
[*]A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life. [/list]

Christ most definitely was/is a philosopher.

Originally posted by Regret
Are you saying that Christ is not a specialist in philosophy? You literalistic Christians are rather poor in intellect I believe. You say God can do anything, yet he is not the master of any philosophy? Does God have no philosophy? What is philosophy?

I believe he was joking.

This reminds me of a rather heated debate one of my classes had last year (a tute to do with paganism, Christianity and Judaism in the Middle East - period of Christian persecutions and Jewish rebellion.)

The subject was the difference between the philosophers and religious figures at the time and whether they really were inseparable. There is good and valid logic behind comparing the two. Naturally the difference set them apart and make the two separate fields - but the thing about religion and philosophy is that they do share features.

However one big difference is the way in which they approach question and answer - a philosopher is commonly seen to approach the world and the acts and like of it and the things that inhabit it on a natural and personal level of responsibility and purpose where as religion tends to look for answers outside the realm of the mortal world. Likewise where the message comes from - a philosopher him/herself or the philosophers of the past while a religious figure might believe/claim their message is derived from a divine source.

Jesus was a religious figure, and it could be argued he was also a philosopher, but there is a reason why religious figure is use as opposed to philosopher.

JIA... I do have a question, why make a thread like this? Anyone that has debated with you in the past and/or read enough of your post can vouch that you hold nothing but disdain for Islam. So why make a post for the sole purpose to demonize one religious figure in hopes of glorifying another?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I believe he was joking.

However one big difference is the way in which they approach question and answer - a philosopher is commonly seen to approach the world and the acts and like of it and the things that inhabit it on a natural and personal level of responsibility and purpose where as religion tends to look for answers outside the realm of the mortal world. Likewise where the message comes from - a philosopher him/herself or the philosophers of the past while a religious figure might believe/claim their message is derived from a divine source.

Jesus was a religious figure, and it could be argued he was also a philosopher, but there is a reason why religious figure is use as opposed to philosopher.

Maybe, but if not I responded. Lately I have been rather tired, and humour is sometimes lost on me.

Originally posted by Regret
Commonly being the key term. Regardless of common view the definition is the definition.

Although the common view is based upon definition. Compare your definition of philosophy:

NOUN:
pl. phi·los·o·phies

1.Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
2.Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
3.A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
4.The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
5.The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
6.The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
7.A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
8.A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.

With one of religion:

NOUN: re·li·gion

1.Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2.A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
3.The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
4.A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
5.A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

or alternativly Theology:

NOUN:
pl. the·ol·o·gies

1.The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.
2.A system or school of opinions concerning God and religious questions: Protestant theology; Jewish theology.
3.A course of specialized religious study usually at a college or seminary.

Now as I mentioned both share similarities, but the differences are sufficiently prominent enough to separate them into distinct categories. And ultimate the differences outweigh the similarities.

No. Religious figures that teach are in fact presenting a philosophy on life, regardless of whether it fits a non-theological perspective or even considers such a perspective is irrelevant, it is a philosophy on existence. Such a philosophy could be true, it also could not be. We could be brains in a vat, much as the scenario is overused since the Matrix, such a philosophy is no different in scope than the religious philosophies existent today.

Both religion and philosophy can deal with how one should live their life - as does the law. Is the law also a philosophy? Religious teachers present a view of life - yes - but a religious view. Strip away the religion and you might have a philosophy (as I have seen with Buddhism.) However if you stripped away the religion from Christianity would it still be Christianity since the basis of it is accepting Jesus as the Messiah? Clearly not.

Similarities yes, but the differences in approach, purpose and origin of the theory put forward separate a philosopher from a preacher.

And back to that definition of philosophy - which ones exactly would you say Jesus belongs under?

1.Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline. - Well I guess so, but isn't the way advised to be through God rather then intellect?
2.Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods. - I don't think so.
3.A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume. - No.
4.The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs. - Did Jesus engage in critical analysis of belief?
5.The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology. - The theology applies here.
6.The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology. - No.
7.A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising. - No really.
8.A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life. - Kind of, but a philosophy of life generally doesn't have a religious component.

So in a way yes - philosophical elemants, but far from being comprahensive. Just like a philosophers could be judged against a religious or theological definitions and seem to fall under some of the listings, but still be considered a philosopher. The differences outwiegh the similarities.

Originally posted by Robtard
JIA... I do have a question, why make a thread like this? Anyone that has debated with you in the past and/or read enough of your post can vouch that you hold nothing but disdain for Islam. So why make a post for the sole purpose to demonize one religious figure in hopes of glorifying another?

Question Robtard: have you read every one of my posts in this thread? I will answer your question as soon as you answer mine first.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Question Robtard: have you read every one of my posts in this thread? I will answer your question as soon as you answer mine first.