Except not. Last I heard, the Japanese aren’t christian. And they carried out a bunch…China, the Philippines, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore. How many others have there been?
The many, many overseas (or otherwise non-bordering) military actions of the US, UK, Soviet Union and Russia, and other European nations. Adding up to many more than Imperial Japan (I did say “almost all”, not “all”).
Seriously, with the exception of Japan, what non Christianish country had the tech or the wealth to even attempt these? We can draw conclusions from that.
So you’re saying that it’s not the tenets of Christianity that was responsible? Alert the media!
That was one of the most impressive uses of rhetorical judo I have ever seen. He had had you right where you wanted him!
“As An Openly Gay Muslim, I’m Terrified Of The Muslim Community”
He calls it the religion of homophobia, and it can’t be the religion of peace and homophobia at the same time.
I never said it was the majority. I said it was a substantial number, as in 400 MILLION.
What part of that are you not able to comprehend? We have attack after attack based on religious beliefs and you keep coming back with excuses. No other religion is experiencing this kind of violence.
You keep arguing against straw men, since no one is denying that there is a disproportionate association between persons with the Muslim religion and terrorism.
What the dispute is about is the cause – is it the tenets of Islam, as you say? Or is it other factors, just like there are other factors responsible for the massive disproportionate association between overseas invasions and military interventions responsible for many, many more deaths than terrorism and Christian majority countries over the last century or so?
There is no dispute that people killing in the name of their religion based on the actions and words of it’s progenitor are doing so because of the action and words of it’s progenitor.
Seems like you’re denying it to me. Any other factor you care to discuss is found by people practicing other religions and they are disproportionately less violent.
And the attack of the day is a two-fer. An attack on a German train and a mother and 3 daughters stabbed in France for how they’re dressed.
You were attempting to rebut my observation that only a minority commite crimes. 400 million is a substantial number, but not a majority, and only a majority serves to rebut a claim made about a majority.
Your argument style consists in throwing bananas at the wall to see if they’ll stick. You aren’t even bothering to debate in good faith any more, but just repeat your “talking points” whether or not they are relevant.
What part of “majority” do you not comprehend? You made a claim about the majority of members of Islam, you were shown to be incorrect, and you now hide behind irrelevant claims. Why can’t you just admit you fucked up? You made a statement that was not true, and making other statements which might (or might not) be true doesn’t correct your egregious blunder.
But for some reason, when people have killed in the name of their Christian religion based on the words of its holy scriptures, you find endless excuses for ascribing their actions not to the religion’s “progenitors”, but rather to Christianity’s being “used as a political tool”, or some such waffle.
Why we dispute (and despise) your assertions is not because we don’t recognize and acknowledge that there are serious problems with religious ideologies encouraging violence, and that various branches of Islam these days have more of those problems than other religions do. It’s because your flagrant and shameless clinging to double standards, to blame the contemporary problems of Islam on Islam itself while you blame the historical (and current) problems of Christianity on “politics” and “exploitation” and so on, makes your arguments hopelessly illogical as well as grossly bigoted.
No more than the incredibly bloody violence associated with the vast majority of Christian history occurred because of the actions and words of the bloodthirsty God they follow.
Poverty, political instability, tribal conflicts, resource conflicts, geopolitical conflicts, and much more- in essence, the things that have always caused instability and violence, and always will. Religion is involved with some of it, but there’s nothing special or unique about Islam.
We happen to be going through a part of history in which there is more violence associated with majority Muslim countries. It’s not unusual, and there have been many parts of history in which other religious groups, including Christians, were more violent.
Basically, flukes and details of history are the explanation, not the Quran.
There’s nothing special about Islam or the Quran. Muhammad is no more violent or more peaceful than Moses or God in the Bible, and Muslim countries now are no more violent than European countries were in the early 20th century (in body count, probably far less so).
It’s not the fault of the Bible that the vast majority of overseas invasions and military actions of the past century were performed by Christian countries, and it’s not the fault of the Quran that a disproportionate amount of terrorist violence now is associated with Islam. It’s the fault of the perpetrators, and their specific interpretation, which is a choice they make.
Also, although I’ve pointed this out before, it is worth reminding people:
The Koran and the Bible both contain very violent commandments from God, applicable only to the specific time of the battles specified.
Joshua was told to lay waste to the cities of the Canaanites, and kill everyone within. But that was in that case. God did not command Jews or Christians to practice all their wars in that fashion. Many of the commandments are only one-time orders.
To take one rather amusing example, Judges 7:5. “So Gideon took the men down to the water. There the LORD told him, ‘Separate those who lap the water with their tongues as a dog laps from those who kneel down to drink.’” That was how God told Gideon to select the troops for a specific battle.
This is not general Jewish or Christian practice in preparing for battle! God didn’t tell all Jews and all Christians to do this, only Gideon, and only the once!
Many of Mohammed’s violent commands are of the same nature: they only apply to very specific battles.
Except all the violence directly associated with Mohammad’s words and actions. When you find a way to remove that from the religion he created then there will be a mechanism to remove the violence.
My favorite biblical passage is Numbers 31. Moses apparently commanded his army to commit genocide against the people of Midian because he was angry when, upon the army’s return, he found out they only killed the adult men and brought the women and children back to camp as war booty. Moses immediately orders the army to massacre the little boys and non-virgin females, which left only the virgin girls alive. These 32,000 virgins were then given to the 12,000-man army which went to the war. What is that? Almost 3 virgins apiece? The text is very specific on the numbers but rather ambiguous about the end result for the virgins. However, it seems to stress their virginity as an important consideration (it’s mentioned several times) so it’s hard to imagine there wasn’t a sexual design here. Mass rape anyone? Of course, since Moses was merely passing on the direct orders of “the Lord”, I suppose it’s okay.
But he did command Jews to stone all blasphemers to death, in Leviticus 24, whether they were Jews or not (i.e. “as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land”). I quoted the passage above.
It’s a tad strange that’s your your favorite passage except Moses isn’t the progenitor of Christianity and Jesus never said or did anything like that. The Christian progenitor’s message was one of forgiveness and self sacrifice. Mohammad’s message and actions were much more aligned with Moses. And there is the difference in belief structures that drives hundreds of millions of people today to approve of killing someone for leaving the faith or talking against their prophet. That is an absurdly large number of people with a very violent belief. It’s not based on some hidden message or actions. It’s in the direct words they believe Mohammad said and the acts he committed.
Christians revere Moses as a prophet and routinely reach back to Mosaic law when it suits their fancy. I’ve probably heard Leviticus 18:22 quoted at me by Christians more than any other verse in either testament. When they’re denouncing me for being a gay person, they aren’t saying anything about love and forgiveness, I assure you. In fact, they’ve often explicitly condemned me to hell for refusing to repent.
Tell that to the victims of the inquisitions. You realize there were several of them spanning several centuries, right? And what about the African slaves held in the United States up through the 1860s? You do realize the African slave trade began with explicit papal approval and was championed by “Christian” churches in the southern United States, right?
(Colors removed from quote.)
Agreed. The fact that neither Christianity nor Judaism follow this commendment is a promising sign. It ought to indicate to our resident guilt-by-associationist that people who are “correlated” to bad laws have the ability to move beyond those laws, and adopt an enlightenment.
Just as a majority of Muslims have.
It seems such an easy concept to grasp but I think some people just can’t face the prospect of pulling their heads out of the sand. Admitting one’s beliefs have no logical foundation is very hard to do.