Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[WealthyRadish]

Islam vs Christianity

Oh boy.

So which religion produces more violence, do you think?

Oh boy.

To link the religion itself to the violence in the Middle East is really pretty ridiculous. If you want a starting point for the violence, you'll need to look at the end of WWI, and the rampant European imperialism in the region following the end of the Ottoman Empire. Between Britain, France, and Russia competing for oil and territory, and the later involvement of the US during the Cold War (political assassinations, installation of friendly despots, monetary and military support for anti-Soviet radicals), Islam really has little to do with the anti-Western sentiment in the region. What isn't left over from the Soviet leaning dictatorships was created by US and British foreign policy.

We see radical Islamists emerge from Saudi Arabia because it's an ultra-conservative and oppressive hellhole that also happens to be in bed with the US. We see violence in Afghanistan because between the CIA interventions, civil war, and the Soviet invasion, there has been no peace for decades. I don't know if you can really imagine constant warfare for generations. The lucky states get to be oppressed by military dictatorships, only recently getting any reform.

More to the point, what does any of this have to do with the crusades? I don't even want to imagine how anyone would act on the claim that Muslims are inherently violent, or is this xenophobia purely academic?

[Max White]

So not only your priests but your translators interpretation matter. Only solution seems to be to learn Hebrew and Aramaic; and translate it yourself.

No see that is the exact wrong thing to happen! You don't want people reading the bible, there is a lot of violent crap and bad advice in there. You will have people killing birds to cure illness and stuff like that.
All you need to do is denounce the more extreme as not being real Christians/Muslims/Buddhists/Hindus/Tengrists/Great Rainbow Serpantists/Pastafarians and that the moderates who aren't advocating death and violence are the true believers, and give them all enough reality tv that they never feel compelled to actually look at the scriptures.

[Muz]

Crusades weren't the bloodiest religious battle known to mankind. The Crusades was a political war, infused with religious themes.

No, check out the first actual religious wars, right after the Prophet Muhammad's death. The Muslims' casus belli was liberation, but conversion was often mentioned in every military speech.

Abu Bakr to the head general Khaalid on the people of Persia:

And win over the hearts of the people of Persia, and of the people who live within their realm. (At-Taareekh Al-Islamee (9/131))

Abu Bakr to General Usaamah on the Muslims' first assault into the Levant:

O people! Stop, so that I can advise you regarding ten matters. Memorize them from me: Do not be treacherous; do not wrongly take from the spoils of war (before they are properly distributed); do not deceive; and do not mutilate (fallen enemy soldiers). Do not cut down a tree that bears fruit. Do not slaughter a sheep, a cow, or a camel, unless you do so in order to feed yourselves. Verily you will pass by a people who have completely dedicated their lives to living in monastaries; leave them alone, and let them continue doing what it is they have dedicated themselves to doing. (Qissah Ba'th Abu Bakr Jaish Usaamah (pg 70)

A similar speech a year later to each of the leaders on their large scale takeover of the Levant from Rome:

In your march be not hard on yourself or your army. Be not harsh with your men or your officers, whom you should consult in all matters. Be just and abjure evil and tyranny, for no nation which is unjust prospers or achieves victory over its enemies. When you meet the enemy turn not your back on him; for whoever turns his back, except to manoeuvre for battle or to regroup, earns the wrath of Allah. His abode shall be hell, and what a terrible place it is! And when you have won a victory over your enemies, don't kill women or children or the aged and do not slaughter beasts except for eating. And break not the pacts which you make. You will come upon a people who live like hermits in monasteries, believing that they have given up all for God. Let them be and destroy not their monasteries. And you will meet other people who are partisans of Satan and worshippers of the Cross, who shave the centre of their heads so that you can see the scalp. Assail them with your swords until they submit to Islam or pay the Jizya. I entrust you to the care of Allah. (Waqidi, pg 4)

So there you go, the initial military policies of Islam.

[Arx]

Most of the reasonably committed Christians I know read their bibles regularly.

If you want to make a strawman for Christianity, you point at the Old Testament or Crusades and go "Durr, violence!"
If you want to make a strawman for Islam, you point at the Middle-East or 9/11 and go "Durr, violence!"

If you actually want to make a reasonable argument for or against either, you'd have to actually read the texts and know which ones are relevant; because of that, I can't say anything about Islam. Christianity, on the other hand, I can.

The Old Testament is not as totally relevant to Christianity as a lot of people seem to think it is. What is important is the New Testament; the Old provides context for a lot of things (see Isaiah 9, etc.), but contains significantly less that is of importance than the NT does. A Christian trying to be a Christian from the OT would not, in fact, be a Christian.

No see that is the exact wrong thing to happen! You don't want people reading the bible, there is a lot of violent crap and bad advice in there. You will have people killing birds to cure illness and stuff like that.
All you need to do is denounce the more extreme as not being real Christians/Muslims/Buddhists/Hindus/Tengrists/Great Rainbow Serpantists/Pastafarians and that the moderates who aren't advocating death and violence are the true believers, and give them all enough reality tv that they never feel compelled to actually look at the scriptures.

Nah, nah. You optionally denounce the radicals, but then tell them to read the Bible/scriptures and see for themselves that violence isn't advocated.

The Crusades was a political war, infused with religious themes.

This right here. The church of the Middle Ages was a political entity as much as or more than a religious one, which bears remembering. Essentially, the high-ups in the medieval church were not particularly Christian.

Bleh. Post doesn't have much structure, sorry. Disclaimer: I don't speak for everyone, etc.

[GreatWyrmGold]

-snip-

Indeed. Islam isn't helping matters, but it's hardly a major cause.

More to the point, what does any of this have to do with the crusades? I don't even want to imagine how anyone would act on the claim that Muslims are inherently violent, or is this xenophobia purely academic?

I think that the claims that Muslims are more violent is based on the idea that the Quran encourages its followers to be more violent than the Bible does.

Crusades weren't the bloodiest religious battle known to mankind. The Crusades was a political war, infused with religious themes.

There is no such thing as a pure religious war, and I daresay that there is no such thing as a pure political or a pure economic war either.

Most of the reasonably committed Christians I know read their bibles regularly.

Cover to cover, or selected passages?
Also, I have exactly the opposite observation, and since several of those Christians were my immediate family...

The Old Testament is not as totally relevant to Christianity as a lot of people seem to think it is.

The reasons for that are twofold:
1. Jesus repeatedly stated that he was not replacing/repealing the old laws/scriptures.
2. Lots of arguments the right-wingers use the Bible for draw from the Old Testament, notably Creationism and homophobia.

What is important is the New Testament; the Old provides context for a lot of things (see Isaiah 9, etc.), but contains significantly less that is of importance than the NT does. A Christian trying to be a Christian from the OT would not, in fact, be a Christian.

And why is it up to you to dictate what makes a Christian or no? Yes, the New Testament is important, but judging by the fact that there was at least one OT reading every week when I went to church, it's pretty important. Not to mention that nearly all household-name figures are OT.

Nah, nah. You optionally denounce the radicals, but then tell them to read the Bible/scriptures and see for themselves that violence isn't advocated.

But it is. Even in the New Testament! Hell, Jesus told his disciples to sell their cloak and buy a sword if they didn't have one.

[Willfor]

Nah, nah. You optionally denounce the radicals, but then tell them to read the Bible/scriptures and see for themselves that violence isn't advocated.

But it is. Even in the New Testament! Hell, Jesus told his disciples to sell their cloak and buy a sword if they didn't have one.

Fucking hell.

Context: They are at the Last Supper, and about to make their escape from the city as fugitives. He is speaking only to the disciples at the time, and only in the context of them running.

And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.” (Luke 22:35-38, ESV)

This is totally advocating for everyone to pick up their swords and run around killing infidels. That's exactly what it's saying. [/sarcasm]

I have too little time before work to correct the numerous other mistakes being made here. But I want to make it clear that there should be a lot more citations here than there are.

[Arx]

Most of the reasonably committed Christians I know read their bibles regularly.

Cover to cover, or selected passages?
Also, I have exactly the opposite observation, and since several of those Christians were my immediate family...

Both; read cover to cover according to plan of your choice, read selected passages as you feel the need.

The Old Testament is not as totally relevant to Christianity as a lot of people seem to think it is.

The reasons for that are twofold:
1. Jesus repeatedly stated that he was not replacing/repealing the old laws/scriptures.
2. Lots of arguments the right-wingers use the Bible for draw from the Old Testament, notably Creationism and homophobia.

1. This is truth. Jesus did say that, but He also removed the need for sacrifices (as a sacrifice Himself) and later the requirements regarding clean/unclean food were repealed. A lot of it comes down to whether you parse the Bible as entirely absolute instruction, or as containing large segments of laws that made quite a lot of sense at the time and kept a nation from destroying themselves prior to more sophisticated laws, healthcare, etc.

2. Not sure where you're going here. To be honest, not entirely sure where you were going with 1 either, but I think I've made a relevant point.

What is important is the New Testament; the Old provides context for a lot of things (see Isaiah 9, etc.), but contains significantly less that is of importance than the NT does. A Christian trying to be a Christian from the OT would not, in fact, be a Christian.

And why is it up to you to dictate what makes a Christian or no? Yes, the New Testament is important, but judging by the fact that there was at least one OT reading every week when I went to church, it's pretty important. Not to mention that nearly all household-name figures are OT.

I did add a disclaimer at the end of my post. That's my opinion; but I put it to you, can one be a Christian if one does not read about Christ?

Nah, nah. You optionally denounce the radicals, but then tell them to read the Bible/scriptures and see for themselves that violence isn't advocated.

But it is. Even in the New Testament! Hell, Jesus told his disciples to sell their cloak and buy a sword if they didn't have one.

Willfor answered that better than I would have.

[WealthyRadish]

More to the point, what does any of this have to do with the crusades? I don't even want to imagine how anyone would act on the claim that Muslims are inherently violent, or is this xenophobia purely academic?

I think that the claims that Muslims are more violent is based on the idea that the Quran encourages its followers to be more violent than the Bible does.

What I'm more curious about is what anyone claiming this (that Islam makes people more violent than Christianity) could possibly want to be done in response to their perceived threat. Casual supremacist notions are par the course for comparing your culture's religion to others, but how exactly would anyone intend to act on it? Such a discussion is as degenerated as discussing whether Jews are thrifty. Islam doesn't get roped into extremist violence because it's evil, but because it's such an important part of society that there's no way it wouldn't be involved in their twisted notions of justice.

Obviously Ireland's recent violent history is due to those damn savage Catholics stirring up trouble against their peaceful Protestant overlords, right? And the wars and riots involving Buddhism, because the Buddha was a warlord prince!

[sebcool]

So which religion produces more violence, do you think?

Obviously, the most violent religion is Old Norse, where you go to heaven for waging bloody warfare and then dying in battle (or in childbirth, interestingly enough)

Maybe Aztec?

[Helgoland]

PTW, because this will be hilarious/terrifying.

[misko27]

Most of the reasonably committed Christians I know read their bibles regularly.

Cover to cover, or selected passages?
Also, I have exactly the opposite observation, and since several of those Christians were my immediate family...

There is more to Christianity then your experience. I don't read the bible regularly, and my sister reads it every night (although not all in one sitting). There is more room in heaven and earth then is dreamt of in your philosophy, GWG.

What is important is the New Testament; the Old provides context for a lot of things (see Isaiah 9, etc.), but contains significantly less that is of importance than the NT does. A Christian trying to be a Christian from the OT would not, in fact, be a Christian.

And why is it up to you to dictate what makes a Christian or no? Yes, the New Testament is important, but judging by the fact that there was at least one OT reading every week when I went to church, it's pretty important. Not to mention that nearly all household-name figures are OT.

Again, one church of a religion of literally billions. With three separate main sects I might add, let alone the hundreds (maybe thousands) of little sub-divisions in Protestantism; some of which believe things almost resolutely opposed to each other. I for one know my homelands specific religious figures better then those of the Old testament; Of what households are you referring to? And, as Wikipedia says: "The books included in the Old Testament (the Old Testament canon) varies markedly between Christian denominations; Protestants accept only the books of the official Jewish Hebrew Bible canon as their Old Testament but divide it into 39 books, while Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, Coptic and Ethiopian churches accept a considerably larger collection of writings in their Old Testament canon." Which Old Testament are you referring to?

Other then calling things out, I don't intend to be here too much. Watching the arguing maybe; that sounds fun.

[Remuthra]

So which religion produces more violence, do you think?

Obviously, the most violent religion is Old Norse, where you go to heaven for waging bloody warfare and then dying in battle (or in childbirth, interestingly enough)

Yeah, but the Norse were also really big fans of impending doom. So they were arguably saving lives by killing people, who could then go train to fight world-eating snakes and giants and stuff.

[Elfeater]

So which religion produces more violence, do you think?

Obviously, the most violent religion is Old Norse, where you go to heaven for waging bloody warfare and then dying in battle (or in childbirth, interestingly enough)

Yeah, but the Norse were also really big fans of impending doom. So they were arguably saving lives by killing people, who could then go train to fight world-eating snakes and giants and stuff.

No problem here, carry on Norsemen.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Nah, nah. You optionally denounce the radicals, but then tell them to read the Bible/scriptures and see for themselves that violence isn't advocated.

But it is. Even in the New Testament! Hell, Jesus told his disciples to sell their cloak and buy a sword if they didn't have one.

Fucking hell.
Context: They are at the Last Supper, and about to make their escape from the city as fugitives. He is speaking only to the disciples at the time, and only in the context of them running.

Whoops, my bad.

1. This is truth. Jesus did say that, but He also removed the need for sacrifices (as a sacrifice Himself) and later the requirements regarding clean/unclean food were repealed.

By whom?

A lot of it comes down to whether you parse the Bible as entirely absolute instruction, or as containing large segments of laws that made quite a lot of sense at the time and kept a nation from destroying themselves prior to more sophisticated laws, healthcare, etc.
2. Not sure where you're going here. To be honest, not entirely sure where you were going with 1 either, but I think I've made a relevant point.

To be blunt, as long as people take the Bible seriously what the Bible says is important. If nothing else, you can (try to) shut down stupider arguments by pointing this out; "If you hate homosexuals/etc because the Bible says so, do you also not eat shellfish, not wear mixed fabrics, etc?"

I did add a disclaimer at the end of my post. That's my opinion; but I put it to you, can one be a Christian if one does not read about Christ?

Regardless of if one "can," a lot of people sure as heck try.
(And, really, what is a Christian?)

So which religion produces more violence, do you think?

Obviously, the most violent religion is Old Norse, where you go to heaven for waging bloody warfare and then dying in battle (or in childbirth, interestingly enough)

Maybe Aztec?

Neither of them had a terribly large following compared to major modern religions.

Most of the reasonably committed Christians I know read their bibles regularly.

Cover to cover, or selected passages?
Also, I have exactly the opposite observation, and since several of those Christians were my immediate family...

There is more to Christianity then your experience. I don't read the bible regularly, and my sister reads it every night (although not all in one sitting). There is more room in heaven and earth then is dreamt of in your philosophy, GWG.

Strangely, I had much the same point. Just because everyone Arx knows reads their Bibles regularly does NOT make that the paradigm for Christianity.

Again, one church of a religion of literally billions. With three separate main sects I might add, let alone the hundreds (maybe thousands) of little sub-divisions in Protestantism; some of which believe things almost resolutely opposed to each other. I for one know my homelands specific religious figures better then those of the Old testament; Of what households are you referring to?

The households that recognize names like Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Elijah, Samson...

And, as Wikipedia says: "The books included in the Old Testament (the Old Testament canon) varies markedly between Christian denominations; Protestants accept only the books of the official Jewish Hebrew Bible canon as their Old Testament but divide it into 39 books, while Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, Coptic and Ethiopian churches accept a considerably larger collection of writings in their Old Testament canon." Which Old Testament are you referring to?

The general tones that people claim to follow. I suppose the King James Bible or variations thereof, since that seems to be the one considered "standard" from what I hear.

[Muz]

So which religion produces more violence, do you think?

Obviously, the most violent religion is Old Norse, where you go to heaven for waging bloody warfare and then dying in battle (or in childbirth, interestingly enough)

Yeah, but the Norse were also really big fans of impending doom. So they were arguably saving lives by killing people, who could then go train to fight world-eating snakes and giants and stuff.

Heaven for dying in battle.
Heaven for righteous warfare.
Heaven for dying of childbirth.
Impending doom and final judgement.

Sounds a lot like Islam.

Those times were very different to today anyway. We live in a peaceful era, where anyone who wages war is evil. Those were times of scarce resources. The Vikings faced a hostile Charlemagne. The early Muslims faced a hostile Byzantine Rome and Sasanid Persians. If they didn't fight back, they would've fell to those aggressive empires. Both the Rashidun era Muslims and the Vikings hit at a time when the enemies threatening them were at their weakest point (but bluffed based on their legendary reputation), so they hit back hard.

I'd say the violence in these religions inspired the people to survive and start a new era. Whether or not they were divinely inspired, they were what the people wanted and needed.