(April 6, 2015 at 10:12 am)Nestor Wrote:(April 6, 2015 at 9:54 am)Faith No More Wrote: That's the problem with ambiguity and contradictory ideas. Jesus may advocate non-violence with his words, but Revelations shows he's just as blood-thirsty as Yahweh when it comes to dispensing justice. People will inevitably pick and choose which books of the NT are more important, and if one chooses to focus on Revelations, which seems reasonable given that is supposed to be when Jesus brings righteousness back to earth, it's not hard come to the violent conclusions these people have come to. Actions speak louder than words, and Jesus may talk a big game, but in the end, he's knee-deep in the blood of his victims,
I don't believe in holding a person responsible for anyone else who later comes along and twists their words so as to justify opposing action.
I would be inclined to agree if you weren't talking about an allegedly perfect being who shares (at least in some confusing 1/3 part) the identity of an all-knowing creator who inspired the text of a book that absolves people of horrific acts done under the guise of righteousness and purity.
Did Jesus not know that his words in his father's manual would be used to slaughter people? Is Yahweh and his son blameless even though they couldn't create a book that wasn't completely subject to violent interpretation for thousands of years? Omniscient or not?
I'm afraid I'm going to have to hold the creator of the universe to a higher standard.
Quote:It may still be repulsive and horrifying but that's entirely different than Mohammad advocating violent revolution for the sake of Islam in his and then in each subsequent individual's lifetime.
Me personally, I don't make excuses for when actions are allowed to be repulsive and horrifying. In addition, Messiahs don't get a pass when their prophets interpret their words in a way that is repulsive and horrifying before said Messiah meant for them to be repulsive and horrifying.
