Billboard that says 'Jesus is Muslim' upsets some groups

[cbayer]

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/03/27/Muslim-billboard-upsets-some-groups.html

By JoAnne Viviano
The Columbus Dispatch • Friday March 28, 2014 4:41 PM

A group plans to protest near a North Side billboard carrying messages about the Islamic faith.

Protesters are specifically opposed to the message “Jesus is Muslim” that some recently saw on the billboard on Cleveland Avenue. The message did not appear on the billboard this afternoon, however.

The messages placed by the Ask a Muslim organization also list the group’s website.

Members of several Christian churches say they will pray, preach, sing and carry signs on Saturday to promote their belief that Jesus is the son of God who rose from the dead.

more at link

[randys1]

1. ,

I still cant get over the fact of how many people believe "Noah" is a true story!

[cbayer]

3. Welcome to the Religion Group, randys1

There are still a substantial number of literalists in this country who believe some of these stories and don't' see them a allegory or metaphor, and that's problematic.

How do you see that applying to this story?

[trotsky]

6. That's rather judgmental of you, cbayer.

Who are you to tell someone their belief in the stories in their holy text is wrong?

[randys1]

7. religion

Religion, all of them, is the opiate of the masses or whatever that phrase is.

I happen to believe there is the exact same amount of evidence that Leprechauns exist as a god of any religion exists.

I am unfortunately someone who does not believe, it is problematic because this means I have to face the unsatisfactory fact that when I die nothing happens.

[trotsky]

10. Yup, I'm with you.

cbayer, on the other hand, doesn't think we can say anyone's religious beliefs are wrong unless we can "prove" they are wrong.

Except for the beliefs that she declares are wrong, it's ok for her to do it. Just no one else.

[longship]

19. What is your problem?

Why do you always post these in response to this one DUer?

Maybe she posted without comment to introduce the topic as an interesting one, for discussion here in the Religion Group, which is after all its purpose. (Your post down thread.)

Instead of commenting on the content, you call out the poster, for basically nothing other than an apparent personal animosity.

I don't think that is very constructive.

I would appreciate it if you could make more constructive contributions. You don't have to agree with the DUer, but your very common posts in this vein seemingly come off as stalking trolls.

Sorry for the call out, but in this context I feel I must say something.

I would appreciate it if you take this to heart.

Best regards.

PS, all three of your posts in this thread are call outs on one DUer. QED

[trotsky]

21. My problem, as I have made clear many times, is with hypocrisy.

Refusing to allow others to declare some beliefs nonsense while allowing oneself to do precisely that is hypocritical to say the least. Do you agree? Or do you disagree?

No, I don't think you are sorry for the callout, otherwise you would have used a PM. But whatever you feel you need to do as a host, dude. Heap it on and accuse me of whatever you want. Sorry that you don't like your friend taken to task for her hypocrisy. Perhaps she should try defending her behavior instead of making others do it in such classless ways.

[longship]

22. Than argue the point, and stop the ad hominem.

You are stalking her, and that is unacceptable.

Why do you do that?

BTW, your call outs are very public. So is my criticism of it.

[trotsky]

23. You have posted your opinion. Thanks.

Now stop stalking me and let cbayer defend her own hypocrisy. Just as you decided you were free to call me out, so I am allowed to do as well. As I see fit.

[longship]

25. Apparently one call out by you in this thread wasn't enough.

nt

[trotsky]

26. You are entitled to your opinion.

That doesn't mean you are right.

[Leontius]

30. It is called stalking and it's definitely weird.

[longship]

31. Yup! nt

[trotsky]

33. So when you reply to me, that's stalking and weird?

I put someone in here on Ignore a long time ago, and informed him I was doing so, yet he continues to reply to me. I don't give a toot. Would you say that he is stalking me?

[longship]

34. 89 out of 270 posts since January call out cbayer.

Yup! I'd call that stalking.

QED.

[trotsky]

35. Of course some might say that poring over someone's recent posting history...

making a tally, and then harassing that person with accusations would also be called stalking.

I have a problem with cbayer's hypocrisy. I most certainly do. But we all hold contradictory positions on some things, and ordinarily I'd let it slide.

With cbayer, though, she goes over the top. I've seen her launch into new members making posts expressing their disbelief of religion. She scolds, attacks, and lectures others on behavior that *she herself* continues to exhibit. I'm going to call attention to that - and no amount of namecalling or accusations from you, or anyone else, will stop me.

And you know what? I'm far from alone. The list of people that are disgusted with cbayer's hypocrisy and lecturing is a very long one indeed. And guess what - it's not just the horrible fundie atheists in this group.

I'm sorry to have to throw that out and make it so public, but you really gave me no choice. You chose to make this discussion public, you get to deal with the consequences. Let's hash it out. Get her to participate and let's work through this.

You up to it?

[longship]

36. How many spend a third of their time here trolling her?

You never seem to address issue, though. Do you?

You call her out by name. 89 out of 270 posts, with no substantive argument, just ad hominem. Here, let me help you with that... argumentum ad hominem.

Your posting history here is clear. Why don't you just put her on ignore? The answer is inevitable. You are stalking her. That is unacceptable.

I rest my case.

[trotsky]

37. Again, your words and your opinion.

When she stops attacking others for simply doing the same thing she is doing, I will stop pointing it out.

How's that for a deal?

[longship]

38. I updated my post. nt

[trotsky]

39. Great!

My point still stands.

[skepticscott]

43. Do you think that posting is the only way people spend their time here?

If not, then your question is deeply disingenuous. And how many posts has cbayer put up in this group since January? Thousands. Far more time is spent ignoring her posts than replying to them.

And I defy you to show that every one of the posts you cite (dude, did you really count them all up?) was nothing but an ad hom.

[longship]

44. Yup! I counted them all up.

One third of the posts were attacks on a single DUer, ad hominem attacks. No substantive argument.

QED.

[skepticscott]

46. Your saying it

does not "show" it. As you well know. And your bias here is well documented.

Try again. With evidence this time.

[longship]

48. That's "you're" not "your"

Sorry about that. Pedantic me.

You have a star. Advanced search is your friend. Don't believe me? Look for yourself. The data speaks for itself.

I am done with this thread.

PM me.

[skepticscott]

55. Sorry, the old saw

that the evidence is "out there" or "obvious" is mealy-mouthed crap. It's what I expect from the most intellectually dishonest religionsts on the board, not from someone who claims to be a rationalist. It's your claim, and you're accusing another Duer of a felony because of it. Either back it up or admit you can't. I'm not obliged to do the legwork you claim you've already done (a claim that appears more doubtful all the time). BS is called until you come up with the evidence. You can run away and stick your fingers in your ears like your friend, but everyone reading this knows why. And sorry, I'm not interested in PMs. I prefer things out in the open where they belong. Bullshit stinks the way it should when it's exposed to sunlight.

"your" is what I meant, btw. Back to English 101 for you, Mr. Pedantic.

[longship]

57. Felony? Hyperbole? nt

[skepticscott]

66. Stalking is a felony

You accused trotsky of stalking. QED. Or did you mean the good kind of stalking?

And apparently you weren't as "done with this thread" as you claimed. BS on top of BS.

[rug]

83. Stalking can be anything from a summary offense to a felony, depending on the juridisction and acts.

Usually, especially on message boards, it's simply someone being a serial asshole. Occasionally. it's a crew of people being serial assholes.

[Goblinmonger]

64. You incorrectly played grammar Nazi

That's fucking hilarious. Please keep doing that.

[rug]

81. Actually, his saying it carries far more worth than your denying it.

All the posts are public and the value, or lack thereof, is obvious.

[rug]

76. Ooh, watch out, he said he has a "list".

[skepticscott]

40. Sheesh…replying to public posts in a public discussion forum is "stalking"?

Telling someone that they're wrong and saying why, or asking them to back up what they've said with evidence, or pointing out that they're doing something that they've said elsewhere was improper when other people did it is a call out? Seriously?

Maybe if cbayer wasn't one of the most, if not THE most frequent and egregious posters of nonsense and hypocrisy on the board, and maybe if she didn't regularly scold and upbraid people for doing what she herself does regularly, those who don't think those things should pass unchallenged wouldn't be replying to her so much. The fact that she chooses to stick her fingers in her ears and not reply to any response that isn't fawning and deferential (gee) does not mean she gets a free pass from criticism.

[trotsky]

42. Stalking, I think, would be following her to other groups or forums that she frequents...

even safe havens, and harassing her wherever she posts.

I keep my comments here, and refer directly to her prior and ongoing actions and words. Apparently there can be no defense of the hypocrisy, and so the response is to personally attack the individual making the criticism.

When all I ask is that the hypocrisy cease. Or at least the blatant scolding.

[hrmjustin]

47. Out of curiousity why do you post to someone who won't respond to you?

[trotsky]

49. Why does someone I don't respond to keep replying to me?

I've stated my position above.

[hrmjustin]

50. I can't answer for someone else.

[Warren Stupidity]

52. the person of interest has us all on ignore.

That would be my guess. I believe that a certain lent related post in AA resulted in a mass ignore action.

[skepticscott]

88. Good question

I'm getting all kinds of noise blasts on this thread...not one of them worth the electrons they're riding on, I'll wager.

[skepticscott]

69. Um...maybe because what they post is horseshit

and some people don't like to see horseshit pass unchallenged. Seriously, is this something you've never even thought about?

Do you think that someone's posts should be immune from criticism just because they refuse to respond?

[rug]

84. Lol!

The fact that she chooses to stick her fingers in her ears and not reply to any response that isn't fawning and deferential (gee) does not mean she gets a free pass from criticism.

Make sure that you and Trotsky heed that. It's obvious how you hate hypocrisy.

[Warren Stupidity]

51. I'd call cataloging 270 posts borderline stalking.

[hrmjustin]

54. He is a host of this room so I can't agree with you.

[Warren Stupidity]

58. I don't care if he is the Great Satan, the behavior in a public forum

is ironic in the context of accusing another of stalking behavior. As a host he can do whatever host mischief he chooses on the side with other hosts, but when a host posts in a forum he is just another shithead like the rest of us.

[hrmjustin]

60. He is giving his opinion.

It is perfectly fine to use the advanced search to help make your opinion.

[Warren Stupidity]

61. yes and "hostiness" is irrelevant.

You brought up his host status.

[hrmjustin]

62. Forgive me for not being clear.

It is perfectly fine for anyone to use the advance search to make a point.

[Warren Stupidity]

71. You were perfectly clear, and now you are back-peddling furiously.

He is a host of this room so I can't agree with you.

That was perfectly clear it seems, to everyone except you, the author. You declared his own stalking behavior to be sanctioned by his host status. When I pointed out he wasn't acting as a host, he was acting in his role as just another idiot in this forum, you pretended you hadn't made the claim you clearly made. You do that a lot.

[hrmjustin]

74. Well sorry if I am not clear.

If you dislike me you can place me on ignore.

[skepticscott]

80. And man, is it hard

to backpedal one line at a time.

[rug]

89. Irony be damned, he is completely accurate.

So accurate your attempt at deflection is transparent.

[longship]

56. Nope, just advanced search.

And a little data gathering to document my claim. I wouldn't want to be accused of making stuff up (as it appears I already am.)

Amazing how people will defend some behaviors around here recently. But, to my thinking, bullying and stalking are never, ever acceptable. But apparently it's A-OK here on good old DU, where one does not have to answer for it.

Nor does one want to discuss it.

That's sad.

Sometimes one has to stand up against such things.

[Warren Stupidity]

59. well thank god you stepped up.

This place would just fall apart if it weren't for your data gathering and documenting activities.

[longship]

63. I do not like bullying. I will step up for that cause any time.

What would you do, my friend?

And as a science advocate, I would hope that you would not make such an argument.

Shame.

[skepticscott]

68. Oh, now it's bullying? Sheesh

next it will be "harassing" or "persecuting" or any of the other laughable accusations cbayer has thrown out over the years, and which you have now apparently swallowed whole.

Rootin' Tootin' Raspberry, anyone?

[longship]

70. Bully for you, my friend nt

[Warren Stupidity]

73. well no in this case you are bully for cbayer.

[skepticscott]

75. Is it just me

Or are you getting more profound as this thread goes on? (A thread you said you were "done with", unless my memory fails me).

Talk about having nothing substantive. You're (not "your&quot the new poster child for that. Funny things that blatant bias has done to you.

[rug]

90. How about calling out assholes for repeatedly being assholes to members?

[skepticscott]

78. "Data" that for some odd reason

you're (not "your".... get it right, dude) not able to produce. Which would get you laughed out of any group of rational people.

But at least you've relieved me of any lingering smidgen of respect I might have had for you.

[longship]

91. Come on, Scott.

Do you have a dog in this hunt? Why in the fuck would that be?

You've got a star. I'm a skeptic, but you don't have to believe me. You know the routine. Advanced search is at your fingertips, just as it is for mine. You don't think I would call out another DUer without data, do you?

But you'll call out me.

Bully for you.

[skepticscott]

93. My "dog" in this hunt is the truth.

You claimed that trotsky has made 89 posts "calling out" cbayer and that every one of them was nothing but an ad hom, and that none of theme had any substantive argument. You also accused him of a felony, based on that.

The "routine" is that if you make a claim, you provide the evidence to back it up, or your claim is dismissed as horseshit. You have heard of the burden of proof, I take it? Who does it fall on here? One guess. You've claimed to already have found the evidence..if that's true, why are you afraid to produce it for everyone to examine? No one making an honest and sincere claim would be.

Your attempt to bluff your way out of this is pathetic, really. And you'd hardly be the first religionista here to make a claim knowing it was false and that they couldn't back it up with evidence.

[rug]

72. +100 just for the recordeing of the observation.

+1000 for the accuracy of the conclusion.

[LiberalFighter]

94. I'm wondering how it is valid for Christians to interpret the OT

differently from those of the Jewish religion when many of the books are included in the Hebrew Bible? And apparently in some cases the translation from Hebrew was wrong. From what I gather the Jewish Bible consists of more than just the written word that they rely on.

[cbayer]

98. Not sure what you mean by "valid"?

Just different interpretations, imo.

[skepticscott]

5. Can you get over the fact

that many people believe the resurrection is a true story? A guy dies and is buried for three days, and then comes back to life?

I mean, how crazy is that?

[trotsky]

2. Should be very interesting to see some of the responses here.

Posted without comment, as usual, eh cbayer?

[rug]

92. You'd have no problem seeing them at all if you weren't hiding behind ignore.

[mr blur]

99. Well, that's pathetic even for you. Less sleazy than hiding behind the RCC, though.

[rug]

100. Ah, a surrogate. Why don't you expand on that post?

Or is a oneliner all you have in you?

For somebody who boasts of who he ignores while mocking those ignoring him, he's gotten a slight defender.

[Heddi]

106. are you cbayer's surrogate when you answer for her?

which you kind of do a lot. Like, all the time.

[rug]

107. Ah, two surrogates.

No, I'm not but I do have a knack for grasping the obvious.

[Heddi]

108. So again, only when others do it

Other do it : surrogate
You do it : not surrogate

Others respond to people they're being ignored by : stalking
you respond to people you're being ignored by : not stalking

crystal clear!

[rug]

110. Don't you have a facebook page somwhere where you carry on with your friends without challenge?

It ain't here. Get used to it.

[Heddi]

101. I await your equal condemnation of cbayer and the posters she has on ignore

or is it only "hiding" if Trotsky is doing it?

[rug]

102. She's not stalking them, now is she?

Nor do I see her boasting about who she is ignoring.

But yes, trotsky is certainly hiding. It is odd to see people overtly wedded to reality attempting to create their own. Happy, happy, happy.

[Heddi]

103. I love how responding to people in a single forum is "stalking"

He's not "stalking" her anymore than you're stalking me by replying to me. He's not following her around to other forums to make hay about things posted in Religion. He's responding to her here, about what she's posting here.

The definition of "stalking" is minimized when used in this ridiculous way. It's like when someone gets a bad deal at the bank or a car dealership and complains about being "raped." She's not being stalked, and no one is 'raped' when they get a bad interest rate. It is a complete offense to anyone who has actually been stalked or raped.

Awesomely enough, I've been both real stalked and real raped. When Cbayer has to contemplate changing her name, has to use a PO Box, has to change her phone number monthly, has fear of leaving her house, has to beg for police protection, has to get a restraining order, and has fear of bodily harm, then we can talk about stalking.

Having someone respond to a post being made on a message board, or to multiple posts on a message board, or to hundreds of posts on a message board is not stalking. It's called participating in a message board.

[rug]

104. You don't do coy very well.

He repeatedly has sought out her posts, knowing full well she won't respond to him due to his past behavior, repeating virtually the same inane things - about her - regardless of the subject of the thread. It's as if those numerous posts to her are not for her at all but for the benefit of, well, you, for instance.

It's a repellent and transparent tactic.

Make sure you quote me accurately when you get back to him.

[Heddi]

105. you don't do the whole "take that 4x4 out of your own eye" very well

1) I don't report what you or anyone says to me. But you know that.

2) he has you on ignore. That doesn't stop YOU from responding to HIM. But again, that's okay when you do it, but not when anyone else does it.

And there is absolutely not one rule, stated or otherwise, that says one has to "ignore" the posts of someone that has placed them on ignore. Again, you respond to Trotsky and other posters KNOWING that they have you on ignore. You know full well he won't respond to you due to your past behaviour (he has stated as such when he stated he was putting you on ignore). You repeat virtually the same inane things -- about him -- regardless of the subject of the thread. It's as if your numerous posts to him are not for himat all, but for the benefit of, well, other posters, for instance.

I'm glad you can admit that your tactics, when you do this, are repellent and transparent.

You should probably stop doing that since you find it so repellent.

[rug]

109. Oh, bullshit.

1) Of course you don't.

2) Let me quote a wise person from this very thread:

The fact that she chooses to stick her fingers in her ears and not reply to any response that isn't fawning and deferential (gee) does not mean she gets a free pass from criticism.

And you, from this very post:

And there is absolutely not one rule, stated or otherwise, that says one has to "ignore" the posts of someone that has placed them on ignore.

The irony of citing planks and splinters while mounting a defense based on hypocrisy eludes you.

[AlbertCat]

111. She's not stalking them, now is she?

Guffaw!

The way you and she post and play the "I'm getting the last word" game, it's impossible to avoid you or not seem to be "stalking"...because there's no getting thru the gauntlet you two have created.

Fortunately, you both are hysterically funny.... oh man.... the notions you have!



Y'all have fun.... and don't miss getting that last word in. 2 points!

[rocktivity]

4. Let's spin this DU oldie but goodie

OBAMA "STRONGLY" LINKED TO RADICAL PALESTINIAN PREACHER


rocktivity

[randys1]

8. Obama antichrist

I thought Obama was the Antichrist, thus he cant be a Muslim, or am I confused


the day Barack Hussein Obama was elected prez, the right-wing went literally, not figuratively, insane and have remained so since.

[hrmjustin]

9. I can see how this will start a sign war.

The fact is Jesus is an important figure in both faiths, but more the Christian faith. I understand how some people might get upset by this but I doubt it was meant as an insult. If both sides would talk to one another that would be a good ending.

[cbayer]

11. From what I have read, I think their intentions were good,but

I don't think they thought this through or considered how it might be interpreted.

Anyway, they apparently took it down very quickly.

[hrmjustin]

12. A wise decision.

[pinto]

18. Yeah. (somewhat aside) Reminds me of this unintended consequence -

A church at one of the busiest intersections in town has an enormous stained glass portrayal of Jesus over their main entrance. I used to pass by on my way to work.

Weekdays, when the interior lights were off, Jesus looked decidedly Middle Eastern. His complexion darker than as usually rendered. Later, when the interior lights were on he was decidedly European, very fair skinned. Apparently the facial glass is clear, so if it wasn't back lit it appeared dark.

Lots of people have noted it over the years.

[cbayer]

24. Perhaps the artist did that on purpose?

That would be pretty cool.

[pinto]

27. Would be cool. It's still there, fwiw.

[handmade34]

13. "If both sides would talk to one another"

actually what the billboard had in mind... Muslims follow the teachings of Jesus... let's talk... sounds reasonable to me

[cbayer]

14. The way you put it would have been much more effective, imo.

Perhaps they will rethink this and use is as an opportunity to open communication.

[hrmjustin]

15. It does but not everyone wants to talk.

Also some might take it as an insult because they don't know that Jesus is a figure in the Muslim faith as well.

[handmade34]

16. seems

ignorance of facts causes most problems these days (as well as lack of empathy and critical thinking)

oh, to have an open minded, educated populace

[hrmjustin]

17. True but it also could be said this might not have been the best idea either.

[Act_of_Reparation]

115. This isn't really about dialogue...

It's about proselytizing.

This post on their website accompanied the billboard:

Muhammad did not speak of his own (Holy Quran 69:41-46). He also spoke of what he heard from Angel Gabriel, and he told us of what is yet to come. This verse is also clearly referring to a spirit that can speak, while the Holy Spirit is incapable of speech as it only groans and utters words which are in-comprehensive (Romans 8: 25-30). As mentioned before he did enforce what Jesus had enforced aswell, and did spread the same message as Jesus.

The comforter was also to reside with us forever. This is in tune with the Quran that Muhammad is the final messenger, the Quran is the final testament, and the message will remain forever.

His teachings are in tune with the Quran, the Quran IS the final testament. So what is stopping you from accepting Muhammad, when Jesus told you to. I hope I have shed light on this.

[AlbertCat]

113. If both sides would talk to one another that would be a good ending.

Hahahahaha! Good one!

Christians can't even not fight over stupid crap with each other! They've been killing other Christians for centuries now.

Muslims fight and kill other Muslims over details too.

[hrmjustin]

114. I think we are capable of not killing each other today.

[cbayer]

116. And atheists and believers keep fighting about the same stupid crap as well.

That doesn't mean that there aren't significant groups of people trying to change that pattern and this Muslim group is apparently one of them.

But where's the fun in getting along?

[mzteris]

20. Well - he certainly wouldn't be

a "Christian", now would he?

(Of course "he" didn't really exist, so don't know why they have their panties in a bunch.)

[CJCRANE]

28. When muslims and christians finally realize they have a lot in common...

what will happen?

A coalition of Abrahamic fundies would be a nightmare...but on the other side there could be a liberal multifaith coalition.

[cbayer]

29. I would hope for a liberal multifaith coalition.

There seems to be a growing number of these, particularly in younger generations.

And I hope that liberal/progressive believers and non-believers will also see the commonalities and form even larger coalitions.

I'm optimistic.

[skepticscott]

41. There's a liberal multifaith coalition growing

over in the Interfaith group. A veritable Garden of Eden of deep and serious Interfaith discussions of "faith" and "belief" and how Interfaithy things can make us all feel warm and fuzzy.

Now if someone else would just join him.

[struggle4progress]

32. I thought Jesus was Jewish. Islam showed up later

[Warren Stupidity]

53. your basing that on physical reality where time seems to be unidirectional

but the faithists have no such constraints. See for example the Mormons, who just grab dead people and make them one of theirs.

[struggle4progress]

77. The structure of space-time is a fascinating question: I understand the great logician

Kurt Gödel found solutions of Einstein's equations for general relativity, with the odd property that space-like paths existed between some point and its past

But the structure of space-time is irrelevant here: the early Christian texts make clear that Jesus was Jewish: they do not describe him either as Christian or Muslim

I am not Mormon, and have no expertise regarding Mormon belief, but I expect those Mormons, who hold the particular belief to which you refer, might describe it in somewhat different terms than "just grabbing dead people" -- it does not actually require seizing any corpses, so far as I can tell

[Warren Stupidity]

82. The early christian texts are wrong, obviously.

Since islam's book supersedes those texts, it gets to be the last word on the question of Îsâ Ibn Maryam. Until of course the mormons who also re-invented the goings on and such.

Being the word of god and everything, changing stuff around is no problem.

No but seriously, see my other post down below, the point of the signs is not that Isa wasn't Jewish, he was, he was also obviously the first Christian, and since it is all made up mumbo-jumbo anyway simultaneously a prophet of Allah. Religious people don't have to make any sense or worry about things like improbability or outright impossibility or logical absurdity. Words can mean anything. Shit can just happen.

[struggle4progress]

87. I dispute also the claim "Jesus is Christian"

[Warren Stupidity]

95. since it is all made up, feel free to invent any tale you want

but at least acknowledge that everyone's else's bullshit is equally credible.

[struggle4progress]

96. Whether or not the earliest texts have any historical core, those texts reflect the thought of

an originally-Jewish sect, and the stories and traditions reflected in the early texts make clear that the major persona Jesus is Jewish

[Goblinmonger]

65. That assumes there was a Jesus.

If we are starting at assumptions, that's the first big one.

[struggle4progress]

67. If He were fictional, He would still be Jewish

[Warren Stupidity]

79. Islam considers Jesus a prophet of allah.

[struggle4progress]

85. Of course. And Martin Luther had the peculiar habit of describing various Old Testament

patriarchs as "Christian" -- insofar as he regarding their messianic hopes as evidence that they awaited Jesus of Nazareth

Though I call myself "Lutheran", I would argue against anyone following Luther's lead in this regard today, since it might unfairly ascribe to particular individuals long dead various later views, which they (being dead) would seem unable to disown

[okasha]

86. There's a wonderful scene

In Elizabeth Cunningham's novel The Passion of Mary Magdalen in which MM first sees Jesus after his resurrection. He's naked, and his first reaction to his new godhood is to glance down snd remark, "I'm still Jewish."

[struggle4progress]

97. LOL

[LostOne4Ever]

45. I see nothing wrong

If you are a Muslim then according to your holy book he most definitely is a muslim.
If you are a Christian, then according to your holy book he most definitely is not a muslim.
If you are anything else, you either think he was a Jew or did not exist at all.

[AlbertCat]

112. Great. Another moronic thing to fight over.

Religion is ridiculous.

There's no arguing over that!

[cbayer]

117. Says the guy who is always looking for a fight.

Religion and lack of religion are ridiculous when they lead people to fight over moronic things.

There's no arguing with that.