The first argument was not mine. It was somebody else's. I was pointing out that it made no sense. They were saying "Christ didn't make these statements, so they're in effect not part of the religion."
I'm a Unitarian from the Christian perspective, which means I have my own problems. I believe I interpret Christ's teachings in the same way you do. But I think a lot of people would have quarrel with the notion that Christ said to ignore the OT. These are the people who claim that every word is the word of God -- even the baffling, dated, contradictory statements. I don't think these people are retards, though I certainly think they're wrong. However, they're part of the religion even if they have a different grasp of the theology. And part of that religious belief is a belief in a time for violence. It's plastered all over the OT.
I interpret the Bible in the same way I do the Koran. There are things that are just meant for their times and don't apply today. There is wisdom that holds true today. If you believe it's the word of man interpreting God, to accept either as a text that doesn't move and bend with the wisdom we've accumulated throughout the ages is a big mistake.
I suppose we'll agree to disagree on our interpretations of Islam. I live near a mosque and know many peaceful followers. I think theirs is a religion of devotion, and, yes, unironically stated, one of peace. What is passing for Islam in the media and in the schools of radicalism is a distortion being used for political gain and power.