The Barbarity of Christianity (as compared to Islam)

Hmm, so to smear Islam in general because of what the Arab theocracies did is wrong? Or is that OK?In the end Christianity has been a persecuting force, regardless who it persecuted. You cannot write the Catholics off, nor the Protestants, just because you don't agree with them without doing likewise with regard to Islam. Catholics and Protestants make up the vast majority of Christianity.So either Christianity can be shown to have been historically barbaricorIslam cannot be shown to have historically barbaric (since we can just ignore the barbaric sects).Religiously speaking Islam is comparable to Judaism from a 'barbaric' point of view, whereas Christianity is totally pacifistic and anti-barbaric. Historically speaking we see something else: any religion where power becomes mingled with faith fiercely protects its powerbase using various methods of brutality.Christianity is not inherently barbaric, its inherently pacifistic. Rituals and practices have been added that were not given the green light by Christ. Barbaric acts have been committed in its name: 'Kill them all, God will know his own'.Islam is not inherently barbaric. It does justify violent acts in much the same way as Judaism does (eye for an eye, stoning women for not marrying as a virgin (or rather not bleeding on the honeymoon) etc etc). Islam preaches peace unless oppressed, and if the transgressors cease, then peace should be resumed. Plenty of barbaric acts have been committed in its name and rituals and traditions have been added that were not cleared by Allah (indeed all of them were expressly forbidden by Allah from becoming part of Islam).Many people seem to be convinced that Islam is inherently violent and barbaric. They use three prongs for this concept:1) Mohammed was a warlord.Is problematic since in Islam Mohammed is not a perfect Muslim (he his chastised several times by Allah in the Qur'an).2) The cultural laws and traditions that Muslims passed have become integral to the religionExpressly forbidden in the Qur'an (the Qur'an states that it is complete and nothing else should be added), this is more likely an overthrow from Arab culture that the religion wasn't able to entirely overcome.3) Muslims have been historically violentSo have Christians, Buddhists and Jews.The bottom line is simple: integrate a religion into a power system and corruption follows. It doesn't matter what the principles of that religion are. If it is a retaliatory religion (Islam, Judaism), or a pacifistic one (Buddhism, Christianity) they will fall and become barbaric. Even individual leaders who are religious can soon neglect the important teachings of their religion in favour of temporal power - followers of pacifistic religions going to war being an obvious example, less obvious would be a follower of a 'complete' religion adding principles to that religion. One cannot serve two masters, power and God or money and God. Doesn't work.What really gets people's goat though, is when Christians point at Islam and shout 'Barbaric', but refuse to accept that the majority of Christianity was involved in barbaric acts and persecution. Be they against Jews, Christians, Gypsies, women or Zoroastrians. Like randman here, they play variants of the 'no true Christian' (ie, Catholics were heretical, Evangelicals were/are true Christians), but refuse to accept that the same applies to Islam.

I didn't say 'today'. I was talking generally (including the time dimension) and not about specific numbers but as proportions throughout time. Only where it becomes a theocracy. The same happens when Christianity prevails in a nation (as a theocracy), or any other religion. Only the heretical parts of Islam (which is a good deal of it). Those that actually follow the words of Allah as spoken by Mohammed via Gabriel (which is an increasing amount) reject such Dark Ages nonsense.

Well, that may be true within the very thinly populated US, but around the world Catholicism is the big daddy by a long way. These figures are a little out of date:

Branch	Number of Adherents
Catholic	1,050,000,000
Orthodox/Eastern Christian	240,000,000
African indigenous sects (AICs)	110,000,000
Pentecostal	105,000,000
Reformed/Presbyterian/Congregational/United	75,000,000
Anglican	73,000,000
Baptist	70,000,000
Methodist	70,000,000
Lutheran	64,000,000
Jehovah's Witnesses	14,800,000
Adventist	12,000,000
Latter Day Saints	12,500,000
Apostolic/New Apostolic	10,000,000
Stone-Campbell ("Restoration Movement")	5,400,000
New Thought (Unity, Christian Science, etc.)	1,500,000
Brethren (incl. Plymouth)	1,500,000
Mennonite	1,250,000
Friends (Quakers)	300,000

But certainly - the denominations you mentioned do look like they are (or at least were) the fastest growing. It's all beside the point. Whatever way you want to read it, a considerably large section of Christianity has engaged in persecution. It is inescapable, and today's Christians are right to condemn these acts. What is not excusable is pretending like they weren't true Christians. They were: but they erred greatly by becoming tempted with the lust for power. They failed their test, hopefully today's Christians can do better, and hopefully tommorrow's Muslims will do better too.

Any pictures of it? I can't find any. Islam is a stupid religion. That's how much I believe your non sequitur. That modest, humble, obedient, honest people that surrender to Allah, have perseverance in righteousness, give to charity, fast, and remember Allah will gain forgiveness and a vast reward that has been prepared for them by Allah. Not that I can see, maybe we have different Qur'ans? Perhaps one of us is looking at the wrong one? They also watched TV and lived in America. Are you sure that you want to start going all Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc on us? Really? Was Nathan Gale a Muslim? Do you realize how insane you sound when you engage in this kind of hyperbole? It is not true, not at all. In fact, its quite false.