And by the time he was carrying his cross after been whipped, whatever clothing he had most likely was reduced to bloody rags
No, it wasn't. The Gospel accounts clearly say that he was stripped before being flogged, that he was wearing a loaned scarlet robe for his crowning with thorns, and that he didn't get his own clothes back till he was led off to be crucified. Then they go on to say that after he was stripped naked* to be crucified the soldiers divvied up his own clothes between them as a saleable 'perk' of their job; all except the tunic which they gambled for, because it was too good just to tear up. Those 'bloody rags' are a figment of your imagination.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+14%3A25-27&version=ERV
Duh. You do realise, don't you, that
"Decide if You Can Follow Me" isn't part of the text of Luke, just the spin the Biblehub boys chose to put on it. Here's something for you (John 15.6):
'If anyone does not remain in Me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers. Such branches are gathered up, thrown into the fire, and burned.' Sure, the people listening to Jesus could
decide either to follow him, or be thrown into eternal hell-fire. Just as the inhabitants of the countries conquered by Muhammad and his followers could
decide either to convert to Islam or have their heads chopped off. Each choice as coercive in its way as the other. (And before anybody here accuses me of insulting their religion, I'd point out that devout believers in both Islam and Christianity have deplored the promise-and-threat element common to both faiths.)
And of course it's a truly absurd line to have put into the mouth of a Catholic princess in the 12th century: a time when heretics were routinely burned alive, and one of the delights that was officially promised to blessed souls in heaven was the enjoyment of watching the torments of the damned in Hell.
* And I do mean naked; that's how the Romans crucified people. It's only because the Christian authorities jibbed at the notion of Jesus's willy being painted in churches for all to see, that the Crucifixion in Christian art has always included a loincloth.
reply
share
al666940-3
8 years ago
"that he was wearing a loaned scarlet robe"
You just admitted he was wearing a robe (which is a clothing item). I never said he was wearing his own clothes, I said "whatever clothing he had", which in this case was that robe.
What else you got?
"Duh"
Fair enough. If we're going to play the quote mining game, how's this for starters?
"Slay the unbelievers wherever ye find them..." (Quran, 9:5)
"Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah." Muhammad (Ibn Ishaq 992)
"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them." "Allah"(Quran, 8:12)
"As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help." (Quran, 3:56)
And my very own favourites:
- The Apostle of Allah said. When any one of you awakes up from sleep and performs ablution, he must clean his nose three times, for the devil spends the night in the interior of his nose. (Sahih Muslim, Book 002, Number 0462)
- The Prophet said, “If anyone of you rouses from sleep and performs the ablution, he should wash his nose by putting water in it and then blowing it out thrice, because Satan has stayed in the upper part of his nose all the night.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 516)
Heck, even the commentary from Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan states this is to be taken literally:
"We should believe that Satan actually stays in the upper part of one’s nose, though we cannot perceive how, for this is related to the unseen world of which we know nothing except what Allah tells us through his Messenger"
You sure you still want to quote mine? Don't make me paste the mentions of where Satan pees into or what causes him to pass wind (I'm sure it MUST be a figure of speech, it HAS to be...).
Don't bother quoting me OT BTW, unless you're willing to concede Jesus to be truly God and thus being able to ascribe the OT commandments to him (I have heard that one before, and when I point out they just conceded Jesus to be God, they kinda backtrack rather poorly).
It must be easier than address the point of my post (when comparing the founder of each religion side by side, it's crystal clear who offers what, once informed pick your poison)
reply
share
syntinen
8 years ago
It must be easier than address the point of my post
And you clearly find it easier to quote-mine than address
my main point, which is that the idea
'Mohammed's "Submit" versus Jesus' "Decide"' is a false dichotomy anyway - threatening people with hell if they don't accept your teaching is not essentially any less coercive than threatening them with decapitation, and faces them with an equivalent decision. Jesus, unlike Muhammad, was never in a position to physically coerce people to accept his teachings. It's futile to speculate whether he would have done so had he ever found himself in a position of power; but it's certain that if Muhammad had similarly been martyred at a time when he and his followers were still a threatened minority, any sect that survived him would have been very different, and a great deal less triumphalist.
Also my secondary point, which is that the whole notion that 'Jesus asks us to decide for ourselves rather than to submit' would have been literally unthinkable to a 12th-century Frankish woman, and that putting the line into movie-Sibylla's mouth was idiotic. (The great exemplar of Christian womanhood is of course Mary, whose virtue and wisdom Christian girls have been exhorted to imitate for millennia - and her wise and virtuous response to the Annunciation was
'I am God's slave girl'. You really can't get any more submissive than that.
reply
share
al666940-3
8 years ago
"is a false dichotomy anyway - threatening people with hell if they don't accept your teaching is not essentially any less coercive than threatening them with decapitation, and faces them with an equivalent decision."
Is that so? A decapitation is an objective end of you life (no debate there). A condemnation to hell is a subjective possible future (it may not exist, and he may be wrong).
Apples and oranges.
"Jesus, unlike Muhammad, was never in a position to physically coerce people to accept his teachings."
Is that so? At one point he was welcomed into Jerusalem like a king (even if on a donkey). Had he harboured an earthly power trip he could have right then and there attempt to seize the city.
He could have gone to where he had most disciples and started arming them, raiding caravans, and build up his power base.
Yet he never did any such thing.
"'Jesus asks us to decide for ourselves rather than to submit' would have been literally unthinkable to a 12th-century Frankish woman, and that putting the line into movie-Sibylla's mouth was idiotic."
It may sound so, until you realize the not so hidden hint:
- Christianity is based on the notion that God is (among other things), reason, thus bound by itself (sort of speak, God cannot make 2+2=5) and thus Christians are encouraged to use reason to interpret the Bible and figure how best to apply its teachings in the real world.
- Islam however says God transcends even reason, and thus can will literally anything (even idolatry), and contradict himself if needed without explanation (the practice of abrogation in the Quran is based on that notion). Thus Muslims are discouraged to use reason and philosophy to interpret their teachings and apply them to the real world (why their golden age faded and never recovered).
Great article on that is here (it's long, you may want to settle for the end):
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/why-the-arabic-world-turned-away-from-science
"I am God's slave girl"
She actually said servant, not slave (don't expect a girl of that time and place to have 21 century notions/vocabulary of feminism and consent). And Christian theology has always maintained Mary was actually free to refuse.
reply
share