The quote, in and of itself, is rather foolish given that facets of Christianity have frequently indulged in the injection of faith via swordpoint.

The principle difference could be cited in the fact that Jesus never called for conversion at swordpoint. I believe that Mohammed did...althought I could easily be proven wrong.

So what was his whole speech? I mean, quoting a quote takes the whole thing pretty out of context.

Actually, having loosely followed the new pope's behavior, I'm not all that suprised.

Read the Old Testament, it's full of God telling the Israelites to kill other peoples, because they don't believe in him. If you believe in the Trinity, then God is Jesus, is the Spirit, is God.

i aint a catholic, but even i agree with the guy. it takes a spitiual sence to understand what he is saying; that being...we already had everything we needed before mohammed came along. given that the pope believes the scriptures, he also knows that anyone who adds to or takes away from what was written will be condemned. i guess being a christian and having almost gotten shot by muslim extremists in afghanistan and iraq has tainted my view of islam. anyone wanna try to give understanding to the popes words? i think he meant well, but was misunderstood. maybe he should knock america. alot of overseas countrys hate us, and that would be more interesting news.

In theory Christians are supposed to be following the teachings of Jesus primarily.

It's my firm belief that most religions are responsible for horrific bloodbaths to further there own ends; and more, that so-called holy wars are motivated by territoriality and greed using religion as a pretext.

As for modern conflicts.. when the powers that be aren't claiming that god is behind them, they are claiming that they are on the side of "good" vs "evil".

So in a sense every war ever made has been a "spiritual" war, if you buy into the spin.

God help us...

The Cathars were a Christian sect which completely rejected the Old Testament, believing it was the work of the devil. Alas they all died by tripping onto fires and pointy objects.

I've never heard of any other group of Christians who weren't happy to include the OT as the word of God in their bibles. The Gideons sometimes just distribute the NT, but not always.

From what I can gather, he didn't. But he did leave enough wiggle room that there is still debate. Like all religious issues it's a bit on the complicated side. Verses like this specifically forbid it. Of course, as seen here not every Muslim agrees with that interpretation.

people in glass houses and all.......

True Christians believe in the entirety of the bible. Every single word of it. From the perspective of a real christian/Israelite, Jesus came to renew, to reaffirm, to serve as the embodiment of, and to fulfill the promises of the Old Testament, not to "replace" it. By the time the messiah arrived in Israel, the laws of God were no longer being followed by the Israelites. Christ came to disabuse the false teachings of the leaders and further clarify as a living example of what God's purpose for man is - the same as it had always been from creation - questing for forgiveness from sin, acceptance of his laws, seeking purification so that you may be reunited with your creator, and faith that he is alive, he is with you, he is protecting you always.

At least that is the Christ I was raised with. It hurts me to see him and his message abused and discarded so thoroughly.

I must have misunderstood what the word "primarily" meant.

Every single word including the stonings and so forth? And the blatant contradictions in, for example, the four accounts of Christ's resurrection?

Did a snake actually talk ? Are we made of dust ? Did we learn because Adam and Eve ate a fruit ? Did a man live in the belly of a whale ?

Much of the bible is allegory and metaphor.

The offenses worthy of "stonings" simply means that they are actions that God does not care for and would rather us not do.