The Barbarity of Christianity (as compared to Islam)

1. This thread is a comparison of two religions which are Christianity and Islam as to which is violent. Both of these religions have a God, a prophet/messiah and an allegedly inspired book/manual which spells out the doctrines of the two religions as inspired by the gods and prophets of each respective religion.2. To determine the doctrines of each religion regarding violence, it is the written doctrines of the religions which come from the prophets themselves as well as the practices of the prophet messiahs themselves which determin what those doctrines are regarding such matters of violence.
What violators of the respective messianic doctrines do is not what determines what the doctrines of each are, i.e. whether either is a violent religion or not. What determines this is what the writers wrote and did themselves.3. Jesus and his desciples all taught and practiced non-violence to the point that Peter was not even allowed to cut off the enemy's ear.4. Mohammed and his desciples, on the other hand both taught and practiced extreme violence throughout their lives as Muslims.5. Both Mohammed and Jesus allegedly had communication/experience with spirit beings, i.e. visions, etc which inspired their lives and doctrines. The above #s one through four prove that these two prophets were inspired by two opposite gods and/or spitit beings, the one inspiring a spirit of violence; the other inspiring a spirit of non-violence.6. A: 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.B. This is not a comparison of Judiasm/Islam, but Christianity/Islam since Judiasm was not Christianity but another world order for the specific purpose of establishing a messianic nation in a world full of paganism. Neither Christianity or Islam reject that fact. What they disagree on is which prophet and which doctrine the people are to follow.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

quote:

---

B. This is not a comparison of Judiasm/Islam, but Christianity/Islam since Judiasm was not Christianity but another world order for the specific purpose of establishing a messianic nation in a world full of paganism. Neither Christianity or Islam reject that fact. What they disagree on is which prophet and which doctrine the people are to follow.

---

Could you elaborate on that a little? I don't follow. Why shouldn't we include the Old Testament in this analysis?

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

quote:

---

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.

---

First of all, the American military, like the American government, does not have a set religious creed. In fact, there are a small number of Muslim soldiers in the American forces in Iraq now. This is really beside the point, though, since I think it is self-evident that the good (or bad) behavior of individuals does not necessarily reflect on the good (or bad) nature of their religious beliefs.I agree with Tal in that there is a huge moral difference between terrorists who murder civilians with the intent of perpetuating a sectarian civil war, with foreign soldiers who military engage said terrorists to attempt to establish peace, support a democratically elected government, and frankly, go home as soon as possible reasonably certain that they won't have to back one it turns into New Sudan.If nothing else, the intent of the various forces in play in Iraq has to do with the morality of the situation. If terrorists would stop killing civilians deliberately, American forces would not kill civilians by accident, the war would be over, and the troops could come home.I also think that one has to weigh the occasional, very regretful, and accidental killing of civilians by American forces against what would happen if we were to implement what the Iraq Study Group called a "precipitous withdrawl". If you have not read their report, it is rather informative on what "could" happen there. By the way, one conclusion of the study group is that since we began the destabilization of civil order there, we have a moral interest in the outcome.It is pretty obvious now that a lot of mistakes have been made in Iraq, starting perhaps with the decision to invade (a decision I vigorously supported). Now that we're there, though, the only debate that matters is what to do now. Edited by gene90, : No reason given.

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:

---

Why is one barbaric and the other not?

---

Kind of reminds me of a certain Platonic dialog. Yes, to everyone involved, his cause is "right". No sane person will knowingly undertake a cause that is wrong or morally unjust.The problem is that not everybody agrees on what is just.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.Otherwise, you could agree with Thrasymachus that might makes right and whoever wins the war in Iraq is right, or if the two are morally equivalent, then morality is all relative and killing is probably okay anyway so it doesn't matter. After all, if deliberately killing civilians to perpetuate an endless conflict is no different from accidentally killing civilians in attempting to end a conflict, then morality is irrelevant. Flip a coin. Edited by gene90, : No reason given.

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:

---

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?

---

If you disregard intent, then your statement is true, and all wars are simply organized murder. I'm not sure why this matters though because I've yet to see why we should disregard intent.In the real world intent matters--there is quite a difference between the ambitions of the terrorists (a blanket term for a large number of different actors with conflicting goals but similar methods of operation) and the forces that are attempting to bring peace and stability to Iraq. To disregard this reality seems to serve no purpose.By the way, in US law, intent makes a great deal of difference. Somebody, it may have been you, in this thread compared US policy to drunk driving: drunks may avoid collisions, even travel roads that minimize encounters with other traffic, but still cause fatal accidents. 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. If he had set out to deliberately kill someone, he would be charged murder. In fact, we actually have different levels of punishments for manslaughter, second degree, and premeditated murder. Therefore, in our culture and legal traditions, someone's intent makes quite a bit of difference. Another example that stole headlines recently was the astronaut that was charged with attempted murder. What did she do? She certainly didn't kill anybody, but faces very serious charges because it appears to some authorities that that was what she had planned. Therefore she will face considerably more serious charges than assaulting someone with pepper spray.If we consider intent in our legal system, I don't see why it should be rejected in this discussion. Edited by gene90, : No reason given.

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

Good question, Gene.1. OT Judiasm is not Christianity.
2. The violence of the OT which Jehovah sanctioned in the OT was sanctioned exclusively for one nation for the purpose of establishing a messianic kingdom on a planet full of pagan nations on one small local area of land.
3. The sanction of violence was restricted to that local area.
4. The purpose of the 1st advent of Jesus was to rescue and save the whole world, both Jew and Gentile, allowing all who wished to come aboard to participate in the kingdom of God on earth which was to be established for one millenium in the land of Israel by believing in and receiving the messiah Jesus as savior. After the millenium there was to be a permanent glorious earth and a New Jerusalem, the old earth having passed away.
5. Jesus and desciples forbad all violence, even to the enemies of Jehovah knowing full well that during the new world order period of grace would mean the promised kingdom land would be relatively abandoned and his nation of people scattered until the end of the times of the Gentiles on the planet.
6. At the prophesied 2nd advent of the messiah Jesus accompanied by his resurrected followers, he alone will fight again for his land and his remnant of Jews to establish a 1000 year kingdom in Israel. This violence will be again focused on the land when as prophesied he will do the violence himself to destroy the invading armies and those armies will turn on each other to destroy themselves. There is even here no indication of any of the Jesus people taking up arms in this final battle. See Ezekiel, chapters 36 through 39, Zechariah 14 for two of the significant prophecies on this.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

"Sanctioned" is softer word than; ordered genocide and rape of young children. Call it like it is.If the god of the OT is omnipotent why he didn't just have this holy land vacated so that the children of Israel would be spared experiences of hacking children, babies and old people?

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.""He who says 'I know Him', and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." (I John 2:4, NKJV)Numerous other verses corroborate this verse.On the other hand Mohammed and his desciples both taught and practiced violence by his followers which they have a long unabated history of practicing for Mohammed's stated purpose of eventual conquest of the planet for Allah. According to the Biblical prophets, as I understand them his goal will come within one tiny nation of being realized.. You guessed it, that tiny nation is/will be restored Israel where Jesus is prophesied to return soon and where the final battle of Armageddon will come to pass.THE DIFFERENCE:A. The Christ of Christianity himself effects conquest at 2nd advent in NT, followers forbidden to practice violence.B. The Jehadist devout followers of Islam as per Mohammed and his desciples effect conquest in Quran, followers commanded to practice violence.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Iseage, according to the OT, there was once only Noah and his family on earth. According to the OT, Jehovah warned Noah and his descendents that if they began worshipping other gods, all hell was to break loose so to speak upon them and their descendents. He, being god, exercised much patience before lowering the boom. Go figure. Look up the word "wrath." and note how numerous are the references to it pertaining to Jehovah, the Biblical god.There is only one charicteristic of Jehovah god which is more intense than his wrath and that is his love which extended all the way to the vicarious cross of his son Jesus for the effecting of the salvation of the sinners like me, you and all the rest of fallen humanity, both Jew and Gentile as well as OT folks who offered his prescribed sin sacrifices in effect for that world order/dispensation.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

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