"Islam is violent! Just read the Koran to see for yourself!"

[Phlegmak]

The statement in the title of the thread is true. Islam is indeed inherently violent. However, if you've read the Bible, you should know that the Bible is overflowing with violence, plenty of it ordered by god. So obviously, Christianity is inherently violent as well.

Today, the majority of Christians and Muslims are obviously not violent. That's easy to see, since 51% of the people you see around you don't go around hitting other people, or killing other people on a daily basis, or wishing to kill people on a daily basis. (I would add though that the Christians in favor of war are indeed proviolence, but I think that's much less than 51% of Christians, and I think the proviolence of these people isn't related to religion.)

Anyway, Christians will eternally have trouble criticising Muslims as being violent. Any Christian who says, "Hey, look at the Koran! It's got violence in it!" will have to then defend the Bible. The Bible is loaded with violence, so anyone can say, "Hey, did you notice what the Bible says?" (I'm ignoring the fact that this is a bad argument tactic. That's a different subject.)

The good thing about these holy books is that people don't truly follow them. Isn't that nice? All this talk about the Koran and the Bible being good guides for morality is completely useless! They're both incredibly poor guides for morality. Generally what people do is only follow parts of either book, and reject the rest. Because people do that, that clearly and obviously shows that those books are just not good guides for morality.

One other thing. I'd like to show examples of people who are proviolence due to religion and people who are proviolence not due to religion.

Proviolence due to religion: Osama bin Laden, Becky Fischer (female camp manager in Jesus Camp)
Proviolence not due to religion: Saddam Hussein, Bill Kristol

Becky Fischer is proviolence due to her desire to turn Christian children into soldiers. She actually admires the violence and fervor that Palestinians teach their children.

 

[Mirc]

Of course, especially the Old Testament contains lots of violence (I would argue that the Old Testament is not even part of Christianity itself, but a part of its ancestor - Judaism, but there are Christians who will disagree).

Anyway, that's not the point. One of the main purposes of Christianity, as I see it, is eliminating violence. While I don't see Islam make a target from as little violence as possible. That's the difference.


Edit: Oh and Christians who support violence are total hypocrites... Either that, or they understood nothing of the real essence of the religion. Usually a combination of both.

 

[skadistic]

The Quarn says to kill the unbeliever, the bible does not. Yes both have violence but the reasons are vastly different.

 

[Phlegmak]

The Quarn says to kill the unbeliever, the bible does not. Yes both have violence but the reasons are vastly different.

Joshua was ordered by god to destroy Jericho and kill every man, woman, and child. So this is a-ok with god! At some point early in the Old Testament, there is a list of all the peoples whom the Hebrews completely wiped out. Genocide is a-ok with god!

Actually, I can't think of a place in the Bible that specifically says that Christians should kill unbelievers, but it does have other juicy stuff. For example, cutting off your own body parts that have "caused" you to sin. So if I gamble one day, and that'll lead me to Hell, I should chop off my hand.

 

[FeelGood]

"Violence" is only the last resort when there's no other method work. Also, read in context not in isolation, then we'll understand why.

 

[puglover]

Phelgmak (where does your name come from anyway?): I have to agree with you on the major point of your post, even if it is a strawman to begin with. Christians who say the Bible is not violent are lying. The Bible is incredibly violent, a lot of the violence ordered by God himself. Does that ruin the credibility of the Bible, or the righteousness of God? No. We're his creation, and he can set our fates to the greatest good, no matter what that involves along the way.

Also, I think it is incredibly naive to put Becky Fisher (who may be a fruitcake, but has never actually committed an act of violence) in the same category as Osama Bin Laden (extremely violent terrorist leader)

Of course, especially the Old Testament contains lots of violence (I would argue that the Old Testament is not even part of Christianity itself, but a part of its ancestor - Judaism, but there are Christians who will disagree).

No, no, no, no. That's worse than making a distinction between the OT and NT God. They are both the same, and the OT serves as a look back to where our religion came from, and the nature of the God who sacrificed his Son. By no means is it outdated, or part of another religion.

Anyway, that's not the point. One of the main purposes of Christianity, as I see it, is eliminating violence. While I don't see Islam make a target from as little violence as possible. That's the difference.

Do not suppose I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. People like to depict Jesus as some cross between Donny Osmond and a hippie. He's still the same God from the OT, and he knew the dangers of his new religion.

 

[Bill3000]

No, no, no, no. That's worse than making a distinction between the OT and NT God. They are both the same, and the OT serves as a look back to where our religion came from, and the nature of the God who sacrificed his Son. By no means is it outdated, or part of another religion.

Eh, I could point to Gnosticism which clearly makes the distinction between the two; in fact, two different gods.

 

[puglover]

Eh, I could point to Gnosticism which clearly makes the distinction between the two; in fact, two different gods.

Am I a Gnostic?

 

[Bill3000]

Am I a Gnostic?

No, but your dog is!

 

[Phlegmak]

Phelgmak (where does your name come from anyway?):

It comes from the video game Starflight.

I have to agree with you on the major point of your post, even if it is a strawman to begin with. Christians who say the Bible is not violent are lying. The Bible is incredibly violent, a lot of the violence ordered by God himself. Does that ruin the credibility of the Bible, or the righteousness of God? No. We're his creation, and he can set our fates to the greatest good, no matter what that involves along the way.

Your latter sentences are mostly saying, "god did it and what god does is ok. It doesn't matter what he orders or says. It's just automatically ok." Correct?

Also, I think it is incredibly naive to put Terry Fisher (who may be a fruitcake, but has never actually committed an act of violence) in the same category as Osama Bin Laden (extremely violent terrorist leader)

Yes, they're on different scales, but the point was that Becky was proviolence. (Why'd you say Terry?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Becky_Fischer

 

[skadistic]

Joshua was ordered by god to destroy Jericho and kill every man, woman, and child. So this is a-ok with god! At some point early in the Old Testament, there is a list of all the peoples whom the Hebrews completely wiped out. Genocide is a-ok with god!
.

But god gave these other people hundreds of years to reform and many chances to change before god sent his killers.

I'm in no way defending Christianity but there are starkly different reasons behind the killing in each book. There are also differences between the messages of the prophets. Jesus the original do gooder hippy wasn't a war mongering wife beating child raping mass murderer.

 

[-0blivion-]

The Bible is incredibly violent, a lot of the violence ordered by God himself. Does that ruin the credibility of the Bible, or the righteousness of God? No. We're his creation, and he can set our fates to the greatest good, no matter what that involves along the way.

Not really countering this, but I find it interesting that many muslims probably have the exact same viewpoint about their holy book and the lessons contained within - taking a step back reveals that two groups often polarised in today's media have exactly the same perspective.

 

[puglover]

No, but your dog is!

?

It comes from the video game Starflight.

Ah, ok.

Your latter sentences are mostly saying, "god did it and what god does is ok. It doesn't matter what he orders or says. It's just automatically ok." Correct?

It does matter what he orders and says. But he's a just God, he knows the future. To us it looks like violence, but he is saving us. Read below for a specific example. It is harder theology to accept, of course, but we can't understand an omnipotent, omniscient, and loving God otherwise.

Joshua was ordered by god to destroy Jericho and kill every man, woman, and child. So this is a-ok with god! At some point early in the Old Testament, there is a list of all the peoples whom the Hebrews completely wiped out. Genocide is a-ok with god!

Not necessarily. But when you think about it, if Jericho and the other enemy tribes had been allowed to remain, we would have no Israel. No Israel, no Jewish law. No Jewish law, no knowledge of the Messiah. No knowledge of the Messiah, no Jesus. No Jesus, everyone goes to Hell, a far worse, and eternal fate than having our cities razed.

Actually, I can't think of a place in the Bible that specifically says that Christians should kill unbelievers, but it does have other juicy stuff. For example, cutting off your own body parts that have "caused" you to sin. So if I gamble one day, and that'll lead me to Hell, I should chop off my hand.

It's called a metaphor. Read a book.

 

[El_Machinae]

Are there instances where Jesus, Paul, or the other authors of the New Testament give permission to kill people?

That's the main problem with the Qur'an. It gives permission to kill people (and sometimes just for sins against God) and so people seek to twist those permissions into their current lives, when they want to kill someone.

 

[Mirc]

No, no, no, no. That's worse than making a distinction between the OT and NT God. They are both the same, and the OT serves as a look back to where our religion came from, and the nature of the God who sacrificed his Son. By no means is it outdated, or part of another religion.

You got me totally wrong, I actually agree with you. I'm not making any distinction between the supreme entities, I do believe, as a Christian, that God existed since before the beginning of time (so, obviously, he was around in the times of the Old Testament). The Old Testament indeed serves as a look back to where our religion came from. Actually, I think that's pretty much the only thing it serves as. So if there is ever any contradiction between the Old and New Testament (and there are many), the New Testament is always right. The violence in the Old Testament is a clear example of how outdated it is, considering the total anti-violence message of Christ. The Old Testament is simply kept as a history book IMO - no true Christian would use the teachings there.

 

[Phlegmak]

But god gave these other people hundreds of years to reform and many chances to change before god sent his killers.

Hasn't allah given the nonbelievers 1400 years to hear his good words and convert?

I'm in no way defending Christianity but there are starkly different reasons behind the killing in each book. There are also differences between the messages of the prophets. Jesus the original do gooder hippy wasn't a war mongering wife beating child raping mass murderer.

Maybe Jesus wasn't those things, but Jesus isn't the only character in the Bible. For example, David, an extremely highly revered figure in Christianity and Judaism, murdered a man so he could marry his wife.

 

[Phlegmak]

Not necessarily. But when you think about it, if Jericho and the other enemy tribes had been allowed to remain, we would have no Israel. No Israel, no Jewish law. No Jewish law, no knowledge of the Messiah. No knowledge of the Messiah, no Jesus. No Jesus, everyone goes to Hell, a far worse, and eternal fate than having our cities razed.

Then god in his eternal knowledge and wisdom, could have given his words to some other people and they would become the new Israel.

It's called a metaphor. Read a book.

Ok. How do you metaphorically cut off your own body part that "caused" you to sin? Simply stop sinning?

 

[puglover]

Maybe Jesus wasn't those things, but Jesus isn't the only character in the Bible. For example, David, an extremely highly revered figure in Christianity and Judaism, murdered a man so he could marry his wife.

Now that was condemned by God. You can't use that as a legitimate example.

Then god in his eternal knowledge and wisdom, could have given his words to some other people and they would become the new Israel.

Wow, sounds easy doesn't it? What happens as soon as neighboring kingdoms decide they want to take this holy kingdom and raze it to the ground?

Ok. How do you metaphorically cut off your own body part that "caused" you to sin? Simply stop sinning?

Typically, the interpretation is that if you are tempted to sin because of something you do (the company you keep, the way you behave, where you go), you should get rid of it. Throw away temptations without remorse is the message Jesus is trying to portray.

 

[Hitti-Litti]

Also, I think it is incredibly naive to put Becky Fisher (who may be a fruitcake, but has never actually committed an act of violence) in the same category as Osama Bin Laden (extremely violent terrorist leader)

Becky Fisher wants to make killing machines out of Christian children, Osama Bin Laden wants Muslim people to attack against Christians. What's the big difference? Iraqi people are as innocent as Americans.

 

[Phlegmak]

Now that was condemned by God. You can't use that as a legitimate example.

Ok, fine. David, Joshua, and Saul still went to war very often.

Wow, sounds easy doesn't it? What happens as soon as neighboring kingdoms decide they want to take this holy kingdom and raze it to the ground?

Well, he's god, isn't he? Can't he protect his chosen people? He could simply put the notion in the head of the enemy ruler, "You know, I just don't feel like invading Jerusalem."

Typically, the interpretation is that if you are tempted to sin because of something you do (the company you keep, the way you behave, where you go), you should get rid of it. Throw away temptations without remorse is the message Jesus is trying to portray.

Alright then.