Print

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

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

I'm trying to get the point across that if he has a problem with the other guy that he should leave it at the door and not bring it here

[smjjames]

Mitcl does need to cool it, yes.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

New topic of discussion: Jews and Christians are the most violent people ever. Prove me wrong. This is what this topic is about, right?

[Frumple]

I did counter that with the fact that historically, christians have been just as violent in fighting in the name of religion. Though the dark ages and the middle ages were a pretty violent time, even without getting religion into it.

Somewhat significantly more violent, actually, iirc. Islam actually has (pretty progressive, honestly) rules of war built into the religion, and adherents did a pretty good job of sticking to them, historically. Christianity... not so much. Or judaism, really, when followers have had the option to get their murder on. In terms of atrocities, everything I can recall points to islam holding the low count compared to the other two. Especially if you discount radical offshoots. You've got extremist heretics giving them a bad name nowadays, but it's a comparatively undeserved one.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

Christians themselves have been violent but the religion itself doesn't really support it
sure their excuse was spreading the religion and such but it was for different purposes just using religion as an excuse for it

[smjjames]

New topic of discussion: Jews and Christians are the most violent people ever. Prove me wrong. This is what this topic is about, right?

No, the mongols were the most violent people ever, end of discussion.

Since this current direction of the topic is starting to go somehwere that we don't want it to, we should deflect it.

No idea what to deflect it to though...... iconography???

[Sheb]

Why doesn't anyone pay attention to what I posted?

Anyway, Mict, I've been tempted to go on a troll post about how Jews are the most violent people ever just to see how BP react (the internet is full of antisemite crap to use as template) but I though better. If you don't want to talk to BP, just ignore him, don't go on ranting. 

[WillowLuman]

Christians themselves have been violent but the religion itself doesn't really support it
sure their excuse was spreading the religion and such but it was for different purposes just using religion as an excuse for it

And, discounting extremist offshoots, Muslim empires did much the same historically. Though their height was several centuries before the colonial age.

[smjjames]

@sheb, which one? The one saying to close the thread or the one saying that even today, christians aren't neccesarily a peaceful religion all the time?

A lot of the time, in the past, it's been people using religion as an excuse to be violent, not neccesarily that the religion itself is violent.

[Frumple]

Christians themselves have been violent but the religion itself doesn't really support it

We actually hit on that over in the christian thread, remember? The religion kinda' does, or at least doesn't do much to undermine it. It doesn't particularly speak against killing or atrocity in war and specifically commands proselytizing. And particularly because of the connection to the OT, it's got plenty examples of the righteous going out and doing utterly horrific things in the name of their god. If you wanted to use the religion as a framework to promote violence, especially against the non-believer or other nations, well... it's a pretty decent one for doing so. As history, both past and present, has shown fairly well

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

Christians themselves have been violent but the religion itself doesn't really support it

We actually hit on that over in the christian thread, remember? The religion kinda' does, or at least doesn't do much to undermine it. It doesn't particularly speak against killing or atrocity in war and specifically commands proselytizing. And particularly because of the connection to the OT, it's got plenty examples of the righteous going out and doing utterly horrific things in the name of their god. If you wanted to use the religion as a framework to promote violence, especially against the non-believer or other nations, well... it's a pretty decent one for doing so. As history, both past and present, has shown fairly well

Discounting OT since if we are just going with the OT we would be talking about the jewish and not the christian who base themselves more on the teachings of Christ over killing the non believers
also the killing non believers doesn't exactly work anymore to spread religion since you know, people have changed over the past 10,000 years

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Spoiler: Reasoning (click to show/hide)

No, the mongols were the most violent people ever, end of discussion.

Since this current direction of the topic is starting to go somehwere that we don't want it to, we should deflect it.

No idea what to deflect it to though...... iconography???

I was being sarcastic. This isn't a topic that should be about how a certain person feels towards a religion. Besides 'I feel Christians are bad/good because x' or 'Islam is bad/good because y' arguments don't actually contribute anything to cross-referencing and discussion of beliefs. It's injecting personal viewpoint into something that can be objectively studied and otherwise poisons the discourse.

And, discounting extremist offshoots, Muslim empires did much the same historically. Though their height was several centuries before the colonial age.

Actually, the first caliphate gave special protections to Jews and Christians in its borders. Proselytizing was allowed, obviously, but not forced conversion of Jews and other minorities. It's kind of crazy to think the people who accepted Jews the most before the middle ages were Muslims. This could have been overt populism to get the people of Mesopotamia to be more accepting of the new empire controlling the territory, though.  The later rulers of the Caliphate changed course significantly after the crusader era.

[Sheb]

This might be of interest: a rebuke of ISIS by leading Islamic scholars (Including people with name as impressive as "Sultan of Sokoto" and "Grand Mufti of Egypt", "Grand Cheikh of the Sufi Tarifah", and a whole bunch of academics and scholars)

5- It is forbidden in Islam to ignore the reality of contemporary times when deriving legal rulings.
6- It is forbidden in Islam to kill the innocent.
7- It is forbidden in Islam to kill emissaries, ambassadors, and diplomats; hence it is forbidden to
kill journalists and aid workers.

Sergarr:This post.

10- It is forbidden in Islam to harm or mistreat—in any way—Christians or any ‘People of the
Scripture’.

[Frumple]

also the killing non believers doesn't exactly work anymore to spread religion since you know, people have changed over the past 10,000 years

... killing to spread christianity was done in the states... less than two, three hundred years back? Fair amount of that done during the whole native american mess. It's only been really ruddy recent, historically, that that has fell out of favor, and it's still not entirely gone in certain areas, iirc.

People haven't really changed all that much in the last 10k years -- our environment has (and fairly significantly, over the last half millennium or so), but we're still mostly the same sort of jumped up monkey. Christianity's only been around for less than 2k, anyway, and it's certainly had its periods of conversion by the sword...

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

.-. i was exagerating with the ¨10,000 years¨

and yes it has had its fair bit with that
but up until recently a religious group going out and demolition a city or killing a bunch of people was pretty ok since everbody else was doing it anyways
but nowadays if a few thousand religious folk gathered up and attacked a sinful city, all of them would be held for crimes of one sort or another and the world would look down upon said behavior