The Barbarity of Christianity (as compared to Islam)

quote:

---

On the other hand,KOran ( Surah 33 and 35) states that all muslims must hate Jews and Christians and even execute them.

---

Lol. Have you read those Surahs yourself? Here is an on-line translation of the Quran. Those Surahs don't say what you say they do.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Atheists are bad.
Hitler was bad.
Therefore, Hitler was an atheist.Jesus, Dan, do you even try?

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

You omitted to include the attributes of that same God which make it perfectly acceptable to wage such a war.

---

Acceptable to whom? Maybe crash finds it unacceptable regardless of any possible additional attributes.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Hi, iano."Acceptable" and "unacceptable" are purely subjective terms. If crashfrog finds the behavior of the deity to be unacceptable, then (as far as crashfrog is concerned) the behavior is unacceptable.It may very well be a moot point if the deity is omnipotent and doesn't much care what crashfrog thinks, but that is another discussion.So, if one were to try to convince crashfrog that the deity's behavior is acceptable, then one would have to figure out what crashfrog's feelings of morality and ethics were and then base the argument on that.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

Would it not be logically consistant to simply accept that if God is there then he calls the shots and if that is so then the behaviour is objectively acceptable (for God would define objectivity).

---

Yes, I suppose that would be logically consistent. Equally logically consistent would be to accept God may indeed call the shots, but that does not make it right nor just.-

quote:

---

In that case, Crash might say he is confused by Gods behaviour because it clashes with his own moral framework.

---

Or crashfrog might say that simply that God's behavior clashes with his moral framework, and therefore according to that framework God is immoral. Crashfrog might also say that his moral framework is just a valid as God's; indeed, in a fit of arrogance usually exhibited by deities and their followers, crashfrog might even say that it is his moral framework that is absolute and that it is God, omnipotent he may be, who is wrong and unjust.Having power is not the same being ethical or moral.Edited to correct a typo.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 14-Feb-2006 10:22 PM

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Hi, iano.

quote:

---

God on the other hand can point to himself as that from which morality rolls down.

---

Anyone can point at themselves with equal validity. God's personal choice of morality is no less arbitrary than anyone else's. Even if God is omnipotent and can punish anyone he pleases, it is still arbitrary. Even if God claims the right because he is the creator, it is still arbitrary.Crashfrog is still reasonable in his own moral judgement. Whether it is wise to spit in the face of an omnipotent being is another question, but we are discussing right vs wrong as opposed to simple power politics.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

We do not target civilians. But in our operations, innocent civilians do die.

---

And that makes your operations better...how?

---

This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely

When you engage in an activity knowing that innocent people are going to be killed, how do you escape moral culpability when those people are killed?

---

This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely

quote:

---

I don't hold the soldier who fired the shots responsible for her death, I hold the person that put her in the car responsible.

---

Neither do I. As far as I know, this guy joined pre-9/11 (or shortly afterwards during Bush's misinformation campaign) and didn't realize that someone with no good reason would put him in a situation where he would have to kill innocent people.I am talking about the political and military leaders who, knowing that innocent people would be killed, planned and implemented the invasion to begin with and continue with the war.-

quote:

---

The key point is, we don't target civlians, and we don't go on raids where we know we are going to kill X number of innocent people. It just happens.

---

Sure. And drunk drivers don't intentionally hit other people, and some of them even conscientiously take the less busy streets to reduce the risk of killing anyone.Frankly, though, I don't understand why the morality of a drunk driver is something we should be aspiring to.

---

This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely

Actually, your analogy with chlorination really doesn't fit this situation. I had composed a post with several points explaining why, but Buzsaw has just pointed out that this topic is about the relative intrinsic barbarism between Islam and Christianity.Tal said that there are Muslims who deliberately target innocent civilians while American (and presumably Christian) soldiers simply engage in military operations that they know will result in the deaths of innocent civilians without actually deliberately targeting them; he claims that this makes Islam different than American Christianity, while I am asking why this makes a difference.So, getting back on topic, when you say,

quote:

---

The question is whether the number of people that die outweighs potential good from acting, or the potential evil that would result from inaction,

---

and since Islamists have weighed the number of people killed in terrorist activities with the good that results from acting or the potential evil that would result from inaction, then I suppose that one may conclude that however we may disagree with them, morally the terrorists are acting as responsibly as the good Christian American leaders.

---

This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely

quote:

---

IMPORTANT FACTOR: By violence/nonviolence my above statements are regarding what was being taught to be practiced by the followers in this life/world order and not regarding judgement violence of the respective gods pertaining to the hereafter.

---

Personally, the important factor to me would seem to be the actual behavior of people who claimed to be acting according to their religious beliefs. Historically, Christians in the early Roman empire were peaceful as long as they were the underclass; once they achieved some measure of freedom, and even political power, they began killing each other over various heresies. The period of actual Christian government was one of violence and the lack of freedoms; it wasn't until the Enlightenment, when explicitly Christian traditions were repudiated, that violent tendencies of Christians began to be checked. And, in fact, it is now that Christians are forced to live under secular governments that they are suddenly the "religion of peace". I don't know why you keep going on about "teachings" and "holy books" when the actual actions of Christians themselves tell a very different story.Again, the initial Islamic empire may have been violent, but no more that comparable Christian empires at the same time, and, in fact, several Muslim leaders were far more tolerant of different religions than Christians were during a similar period. What is more, in secular societies Muslims are every bit as peaceful as the Christians are. Again, I don't know how "teachings" or "holy books" compare to the actual behavior of real life Muslims.

---

This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely

I guess you still don't quite understand the question.Extremist organizations have goals. In order to further their goals, they deliberately target innocent civilians. They believe that their actions are justified in that they will result in a better, more just world.The US government has goals. Even though they do not deliberately target civilians, they nevertheless understand that by engaging in their operations innocent civilians will die. They believe that their actions are justified in that they will result in a better, more just world.Why is one barbaric and the other not?

---

This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely

quote:

---

If one believes that one Iraqi religious sect should commit genocide against another, and that Islamic fundamentalism makes for the best form of government, then the terrorists in Iraq have the moral high ground.

​

If one believes that representative government and peace are morally preferable, then the American forces have the moral high ground.

---

That is not true. One can believe in one goal over the other and still refuse to believe that either side has the moral high ground. But that is beside the point, isn't it? I think you didn't notice the sign when you wondered into the shop. This is a thread about whether or not Christianity is barbaric compared to Islam. This subthread started when inkorrekt stated that Muslim extremists kill civilians in their attacks; as a comparison (with a presumably non-barbaric people), the US military does not.Tal corrected him, noting that the difference is that Muslim extremists deliberately target civilians, while US forces merely engage in operations that they know will result in the deaths of innocent civilians. (His words.) He, in fact, said that this is the important point. He said nothing about the stated goals of the two forces.So, the question is, why is a group who deliberately targets noncombatants (or innocent civilians, or whatever you want to call them) barbaric while another group who engages in military operations knowing full well that noncombatants (or innocent civilians) are going to die not barbaric?In other words, regardless of intent or whether or not you agree with the stated goals, why is engaging in activities that you know will kill innocent civilians different than deliberately targeting them?

---

This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely

quote:

---

I'm not sure why this matters though because I've yet to see why we should disregard intent.

---

Because Tal says that isn't the important point. If you disagree, then your disagreement is with him, not me.-

quote:

---

This is not a bad analogy, but it is one that I can use to suit my own purposes: in the US legal system, a drunk driver who causes a fatal accident will more likely be charged with vehicular manslaughter than murder.

---

But this also suits my purpose. The drunk driver's intent did not absolve her of the responsibility for the deaths that resulted from her behavior. In either case, her behavior is considered criminal.-

quote:

---

If we consider intent in our legal system, I don't see why it should be rejected in this discussion.

---

I imagine it's because if one really believe that it's intent that matters, and it's not important that the blown up school bus full of children is the result of suicide bomber deliberately climbing aboard the bus or the result of an accidentally mistargeted missile, then one is forced to admit that there are cases where it is justified to blow up kids. I bet most people don't really want to go there.

---

This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely

quote:

---

Because the NT which they claim to follow forbad the violence they tolerated and practiced. The lives and actions of the writers who established the religion also practiced no such violence. The NT clearly says that if folks claim they are Christians and blatantly disregard what is taught, that "they are liars and do not the truth."

---

Again, I don't see why this matters. When a scientists tests a theory or hypothesis, she doesn't just examine the theory and its basis. She performs an experiment or makes an observation of a real life phenomenon. If I want to know whether Christianity is or is not inherently peaceful, I am going to look at the record and see how actual, real life Christians behave. And societies that have been predominately Christian, and especially societies where the state has been openly acknowledge to based on Christianity, have not had a particularly peaceful track record.You can point to all the Bible verses you want, but the record, I think, is pretty clear.

---

This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely