I get what you are saying, and it is absolutely true that people will use which ever part of the bible they want to support their position and call it Christianity. What I am saying is that you still can't compare Christianity with Islam. Even if there is a bunch of crap in the Old Testament, it still doesn't compare with the violent, sexist crap in the Quran. The fundamental difference is, people with a corrupted view of Christianity really have to stretch to find a rationalization for their behaviour. They have to reach beyond the teachings of Christ into the Old Testament that was composed several thousands of years ago and carried all that time by oral tradition before finally being written down. They also need to ignore the New Testament's spirit and meaning, which is the book they should be reading instead of the Old Testament. On the other hand, for Muslims, that violent, sexist Quran is their principle book. They don't have to stretch because the violence is right there waiting for them in the text.

That's a total crock of shit! Where do you get such malarkey? The Iranian government is a corrupt theocracy. Their main interest is domination of the part of the world they are in, not modernizing their economy and increasing the standard of living of its people. They couldn't give a shit about their people. All they care about is subsidizing their proxies. They are trying to close a circle around Israel, with their proxies Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas, though lately they have become discouraged with Hamas. It doesn't make any sense to develop nuclear technology when they are awash in oil, of which they have enough for both domestic use and exports to last a hundred years. There are endless option to modernize their economy without sinking all their eggs into one basket - the nuclear technology. And for nuclear energy, they certainly don't need breeder reactors that happen to make materials for nuclear bombs as a byproduct. They could use the same technology Canada employs and exports around the world, for example. Canadian-invented, pressurized heavy water reactors cannot make material for bombs.

Again you confuse Christianity with the Old Testament. The Book of Leviticus is the third book of the Hebrew Bible, and the third of five books of the Torah (or Pentateuch). It has nothing to do with Christianity. If lots of groups pull sections from the Old Testament for the goal they want, for evil ends, they are not Christians. Christians believe in Love Thy Neighbour and Do Unto Others, etc. If you have a problem with that kind of philosophy, then you have a problem. Please don't equate Christianity with Islam. It is a radical new philosophy that parts with the older philosophies. How could anybody not have respect for his teachings? He was a humble man who taught about love. He wouldn't have hurt a flee. Now I don't buy into miracles and sky daddies and all that paraphernalia, and I am not religiously trained. I am an ordinary person with no religious affiliation. But when I read what he said, I have no choice but to respect what he said. It is that simple.

btw: I am not a Christian, but I have the greatest respect for the teachings of Jesus. I also respect Mahatma Gandhi and the Deli Lama, among many others. That doesn't mean I am a Hindu or a Buddhist either.

For sure there are a lot of Bible thumping assholes out there, but that is a statement about what kind of person they are, not what kind of person Christ was.

Wow - Thanks for that link...

Sydney siege live: Loud explosions heard as police storm Lindt cafe

Updated 3 minutes ago Mon 15 Dec 2014, 10:51am

Police have stormed the Lindt cafe in Sydney after an intense period of loud explosions or gunshots and flashes of lights.

It's not really about Islam or Christianity. Both holy books contain a lot of questionable, self-justifying violence.

You can't confuse Christianity with the Old Testament, which is the book you seem to be referring to. Christianity is about the teachings of Christ, its founder. The teachings of Christ include no self-justifying violence whatsoever. Zilch - nada. To the contrary, the teachings of Christ are about Love. Just thought I might clarify that for you, as you seeme to be confused.

The Islamic State guys are ... motivated by a level of socioeconomic suffering that is far beyond the experience of most Americans.

I really respect what you are saying in general, about greed and poverty, as it appears to come from a good heart and personal experience. However, I really doubt the Islamic State guys are motivated by socioeconomic suffering. I'm not sure what their motivation is but I can speculate on many other sources for motivation.

hallal chockies!

It's the Americans who created ISIS. See this...

ISIS was Formed in US Prison Camp in Iraq...

Unless and until they make demands, and especially political demands, they aren't "terrorists".

From Google: "terrorist" - a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.

Slightly different than "making demands". Perhaps merely making a political statement would fit the definition. In the specific instances, it is not clear there were making a political statement. I'm not sure they actually said anything, so you may well be right that they weren't terrorists. Good point.

That is precisely the danger of Islam. The vile aspects of it appeal to the mentally ill and unstable and turn them into jihadis.

I would suggest that the number of jihadis who are mentally ill and unstable is no greater than what could be expected statistically within any group. I suspect the vast majority jihadis were raised up in a Madras type of upbringing, whether they were actually sent to a Madras when they were young or simply taught to hate from an early age.

I disagree with this incredibly strongly. Religion, ideology, and violence are so tightly intertwined they almost cannot be decoupled. Today, Islam clearly holds a siren's song appeal to some disaffected members of society. You give the religion/ideology a complete pass. Have you not considered that the religion/ideology places a major role in motivating these individuals to commit their heinous actions?

Let's take a poll here... Select from...

1.) I strongly agree

2.) I somewhat agree

3.) I neither agree nor disagree

4.) I strongly disagree

5.) I disagree incredibly strongly.

Sorry - couldn't resist having a little fun with your expression. As to your argument, I might suggest that these wackos would have fallen for any number wacko world views or philosophies, but in these instances happened to have found the Muslim religion close at hand. However, saying that is not to deny that "Islam clearly holds a siren's song appeal to some disaffected members of society". I am compelled to agree with you.

You make an excellent argument, fully backed with references. I don't think you needed the word "Nitwit" on top of that. Your argument stands on its own. Just sayin'

That was a long time ago, wasn't it?

Taken out of context I could easily use this to show that the Christian god has told me to invade other cities and only leave them alive if they become my slaves

Umm - no. Your quote is from the Old Testament. That is not about Christianity. Christianity is based on one thing - the teachings of Christ. He was a radical who's fundamental message was Love.

Calling them an asshole is much more likely to be accurate. Calling them a terrorist gives them more credit than all but a tiny fraction of such scum remotely deserve.

I've often had that same thought. Calling them "terrorists" is really glorifying them, at least in the eyes of the impressionable. They are thinking "hey - I want to be a brave terrorist just like him!" All news headlines should refer to them literally as "assholes" or "losers". Then watch how many people now are going to say "hey - I want to be an asshole and a loser just like him!".I don't think quite so many would want to emulate that behaviour.