Interesting recap: Christian violence vs. Muslim (church, Jews, exist, Jesus)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's one of those "humdingers" I have spoken of in other posts. If you read and actually believed that Christianity is more violent than Islam....
Just....wow.
I got a bridge I can sell you...you in?
long with Armstrong, any number of prominent writers, historians, and theologians have championed this "relativist" view. For instance, John Esposito, director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, wonders,
How come we keep on asking the same question, [about violence in Islam,] and don't ask the same question about Christianity and Judaism? Jews and Christians have engaged in acts of violence. All of us have the transcendent and the dark side. … We have our own theology of hate. In mainstream Christianity and Judaism, we tend to be intolerant; we adhere to an exclusivist theology, of us versus them.[2] Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam? :: Middle East Quarterly
But in his 2011 book Laying Down The Sword: Why We Can't Ignore The Bible's Violent Verses by Philip Jenkins, one of the more respected scholars of religion in America, challenges the second claim head on; the Bible, demonstrates Jenkins, contains scriptural violence that is categorically more extreme than scriptural violence found in the Koran. The Bible even offers, according to Jenkins, a much more specific scriptural justification for suicide terrorism than does the Koran. | Top Christian Scholar: The Bible is More Violent Than the Koran
Seven times more people have died in Christian wars: 113.8 million compared to the 16.4 million who died in Muslim wars.
There are more Christians, but only about 50% more, nothing like seven times more.
Western history is Eurocentric, so we know more about wars in Christian lands than in Muslim ones. But not for wars since 1900, and there the imbalance is even worse: 73.3 million compared to 4.4 millon – 17 times more dead in Christian wars.
But in terms of ordering violence and bloodshed, any simplistic claim about the superiority of the Bible to the Koran would be wildly wrong. In fact, the Bible overflows with "texts of terror," to borrow a phrase coined by the American theologian Phyllis Trible. The Bible contains far more verses praising or urging bloodshed than does the Koran, and biblical violence is often far more extreme, and marked by more indiscriminate savagery. The Koran often urges believers to fight, yet it also commands that enemies be shown mercy when they surrender. Some frightful portions of the Bible, by contrast, go much further in ordering the total extermination of enemies, of whole families and races - of men, women, and children, and even their livestock, with no quarter granted. One cherished psalm (137) begins with the lovely line, "By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept"; it ends by blessing anyone who would seize Babylon's infants and smash their skulls against the rocks. Violent passages in the Koran and the Bible - The Boston Globe
If anything, Obama didn't go far enough in his remarks. Christianist violence isn't a relic of the Crusades; it continues today, and in many of its forms is just as violent as what we are seeing from ISIS.
Christian Violence in the Past Century
In the spring of 2013, Middle East historian Juan Cole decided to compare the body counts between violence committed by Christians and that committed by Muslims in the 20th century. He found that Muslim violence has claimed the lives of around 2 million people, mostly during the Iran-Iraq war and the war in Afghanistan, while violence by Christians claimed the lives of close to 100 million people. Despite Wingnut Freakout, Obama Is Right: Christian Violence Is Just as Bad as Muslim Violence | Alternet
How come we keep on asking the same question, [about violence in Islam,] and don't ask the same question about Christianity and Judaism? Jews and Christians have engaged in acts of violence.
It is important to remember just because it is not constantly in the news, that it is not happening.
All the more important it is for us as consumers and readers need to always be aware that media is biased.
In simple terms:
In Islamic nations you will find limited reporting on events committed by Muslim terrorists.
In Christian nations you will find limited reporting on events committed by Christian terrorists.
DEFINITIONS:
ISLAMIC NATION--A NATION IN WHICH THE MAJORITY PROFESS TO BE MUSLIM
CHRISTIAN NATION-- A NATION IN WHICH THE MAJORITY PROFESS TO BE CHRISTIAN
yet if you were in a non Christian nation you would see it being told
1 terrorism in the name of Allah=10,000 terrorisms in the name of Jesus
Woodrow, if thats your attempt at humor...well its not working.
there are some crazy muslim conspiracy theories about 9/11 and ISIS as perpetrated by jews and the CIA. are you saying that muslim countries are stupid enough to believe that?
Woodrow, if thats your attempt at humor...well its not working.
there are some crazy muslim conspiracy theories about 9/11 and ISIS as perpetrated by jews and the CIA. are you saying that muslim countries are stupid enough to believe that?
My intent was to point out that
All media is biased.
Media is a profit based business. News even when honest, will be worded in a manner acceptable to the targeted audience.
In an Islamic nation if a criminal is Muslim it is not likely his religion is mentioned. However, if he is not Muslim that will probably be mentioned.
The same happens in Christian nations. if a criminal is Christian his religion will probably not be mentioned, but if he is Muslim it will probably be mentioned.
That's all your response is? You realize the actual number isn't important right?
Let me try and explain this one more time because you clearly didn't get it the first time.
1) Your article completely ignores all casualties related to the spread of Islam across the ME, North Africa, India, Spain, Byzantium, Hungary, etc. I.e. it lists the number of deaths at 0.
2) Anyone with even half a brain knows the actual death count for several centuries of war is not 0. I'm not going to go look up the death count of every single one of these battles because it's a complete waste of my time. Therefore, arguing about the specific number is irrelevant. The bottom line is; it's not 0 like your article claims by completely ignoring hundreds of years of muslim conquest. Just like I'm sure I could find sources that have a different number for the amount of people Stalin or Pol Pot killed, the minute details really don't matter for this argument.
3. I take it you didn't read the article I linked since the answer to your question was in the first few paragraphs. According to some calculations, the Indian (subcontinent) population decreased by 80 million between 1000 (conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 (end of Delhi Sultanate). -- Koenrad Elst as quoted on Daniel Pipes site
If you still don't understand what my point is, please ask again about the actual number of deaths and I'll try to dumb it down even further to a level you can comprehend.
Great post !
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
