Christians do not limit themselves to only what Jesus said, so you don’t get to either.
OK, so I’m wrong about the bombings. I got that one wrong. I can’t see any thing to do but admit I was wrong in that case.
But christians in Palestine, Christians in Indonesia, Christians in Syria don’t mistreat women or put people to death for blasphemey or adultery, do they?
Jesus actually clearly refutes the violence of the OT
Although the OP is obviously spam, the title alone is decent grist for a debate.
I would say that the dichotomy posed in the opening statement is a false one. In theocracies, religion and culture are inextricably linked. That’s what theocracy means, after all. There are numerous verses in the Koran and the Hadith which make virtues of barbarous acts. Indeed, numerous is an understatement. Radical Islamic violence is simply the name we give to the actions of the people who take those verses seriously.
Every religion starts out as a cult. This is undeniable. Indeed, the word religion could arguably be considered a synonym for ‘Large cult’. When members of a small cult, like the Heaven’s Gate cult, for instance, engage in irrational violent and self-destructive behaviour, we don’t parse their texts for loopholes or chalk it up to a “hijacking” of the faith. We just shrug our shoulders and say, correctly, that these people acted the way they acted because they really believed the things they professed to believe. The same is true of violent Islamists. Mohammed Atta didn’t hurl himself into a building at four hundred miles per hour to strike a blow against Western foreign policy. There were countless ways he could have done that without killing himself. No, he did what he did because he believed, sincerely, that to die in the way that he did was the best possible thing that could happen to him. One need look no further than the Koran and the Hadith to find out where he acquired this idea. One also need look no further than the Koran and the Hadith to learn that the version of Islam to which he ascribed, while far from mainstream, is still plausible given what these books actually say.
Do the Bible and the Torah contain barbaric sentiments? Of course. And there’s no shortage of people using these sentiments to justify barbaric acts. There are differences, however, between Christianity and Judaism on the one hand, and Islam on the other. The first difference is that Islam uniquely contains and glorifies the doctrines of martyrdom and jihad. This is not to say that nobody has ever died in service of Christianity, of course. However, the notion that dying in battle against the enemies of the faith will earn one special rewards in the hereafter is not found in Christian or Jewish scripture. It is found in Islamic scripture. Moreover, it is substantiated by quite literally hundreds of verses in which Allah makes it perfectly clear just how abhorrent and unworthy he considers unbelievers to be. It is easier for Islamic fundamentalists to justify suicide terrorism on religious grounds than it is for fundamentalists of any other mainstream religion, which is why there are so many of them relative to other faiths.
The second difference is that the Koran is, on balance, a more cohesive text than the Bible and the Torah. This makes sense when one considers that it was written over a far shorter period of time. This makes it less open to non-literalist readings. Of course, such non-literalist readings are possible. Indeed, the majority of Muslims are, obviously, non-violent. However, that doesn’t change the fact that the version of Islam espoused by people like Atta is a defensible one.
There are some religions (like Jainism, for instance) which simply do not allow for this kind of violence. Islam does. Amply.
Sadly, it appears they do. Blasphemy not so much ( though non-Muslim apostasy to marry other guys will apparently play into honour killings at times, as with the above case ). But although honour killings are so heavily identified with Islam in the media that it tends to swamp out searches, material I’ve run across appears to indicate that it is very much a provincial cultural practice. It’s much like FGM in that sense, another practice often erroneously associated solely with Muslims. Beyond that poor Yazidi girl or the Palestinian girl above, there are persistent reports of honour killings of Coptic girls in rural Egypt for example.
You don’t even have to go that far away. Christians in America kill abortion doctors and blow up abortion facilities, and aChristian terrorist blew up the Olympics in Atlanta in 1996.
I can only conclude that Christianity is a violent religion.
Well all that means is that Islam is a violent religion that most people choose to practice in a non violent manner.
Or, Islam is a non-violent religion that some people choose to practice in a violent manner. Cuts both ways.
Ok, look, I actually really really mean this. If you can show me that such acts are “common” for Christians in Palestine then you have actually defeated my proposition. respectfully, however, I am not sure if you have done that if all we have are a couple of examples. I’m really not trying to play “gotcha”. If you can demonstrate it is a common trend, to the same (or close) degree it is with Palestinian muslims then my point is completely defeated.
No, it doesn’t. If the text actually calls for violence then it’s a violent religion.
Where did Jesus call for such actions?
That was just 1 example. Muslims hold many other objectionable opinions in large numbers.
Again, since the real world is not a democracy, the opinion of the majority is meaningless. What matters is the opinion of those who are willing to inflict violence.
Well, I am of the opinion that the true nature of a religion comes out when the religion is practiced by the book with no restraints.
Edit: My apologies, Robert. When I wrote my last post I was responding to a thread started by a spambot entitled ‘Radical Islam is Violent Due to Culture and not Religion’. Apparently, the newest trick in the spammer’s arsenal is thread titles that sound like plausible topics.
I write my posts in Word and copy them over. At some point during the writing of my post that thread was deleted and, when I came back to GD, I clicked on your thread and, because the title of your thread is so similar to the original, I didn’t notice that the original spam thread had been deleted. So yeah. When I said the OP was spam, I wasn’t talking about you.
In response to your question, the answer is simple. Muslims, moderate and radical, and adherents to other faiths, moderate and radical, believe different things. Their beliefs dictate their behaviour. Thus, since they believe different things, they behave differently.
Look at Palestinian Christians, for example. Palestinian Christians are subject to the same conditions as Palestinian Muslims, yet virtually every single suicide attack perpetrated against Israel has been committed by a Palestinian Muslim. The reason for this is simple. Christian scriptures do not provide a rational basis for suicidal terrorism. Islamic scriptures do. I mean, it’s almost like a science experiment, isn’t it? Take two groups of people, put them in the same area, and expose them to the same oppressive social, political, and economic conditions, but give them different beliefs and then step back and see what happens. What happens, unsurprisingly, is that they behave differently.
Of course, this is not to say that Palestinian Christians have never committed acts of terrorism. They have. However, they are much less likely (if at all) to justify their terrorism on religious grounds. The most famous Palestinian Christian terrorist, George Habash of Black September justified his terrorism on Marxist grounds. Moreover, he took certain steps to avoid civilian casualties that one could never imagine a terrorist from Hamas ever taking.
This is also not to say that the majority of Palestinian Muslims are terrorists. Simply that for Palestinian Muslims who are terrorists, their particular brand of terrorism is easier to justify on scriptural grounds than the terrorism of Palestinian Christians. This is deeply problematic, of course, because, by its very nature, the suicidal terrorism of Palestinian Muslim terrorists is particularly destructive.
Of course, on preview, I can see that the thread has already been reduced to a tiresome conflation of criticism of Islam as a belief system with blanket denunciations of every Muslim on the face of the Earth, past, present, and future which is…dispiriting.
Perhaps I should just be quiet and let you do all the talking necessary to make my point…
The bible said it, Christians believe it, and that settles it.
I actually don’t have any/much problem with moderate Muslims as people. I knew/met a great many of them when I lived in NYC. By and large they were glad to answer questions about their faith but they were not evangelistic like christians are.
ok. consider the matter settled. christians have to reference the OT to justify their violent actions.
And here it goes, here it goes, here it goes again !
If that were true, why is it that Islamic terrorism is so distinctive?
In his book ‘The End of Faith’ Sam Harris begins with a short tale about a young man on a bus. I’ll quote from memory and try my best to keep it short:
*"The young man boards the bus as it leaves the terminal. He is wearing an overcoat. Underneath his overcoat is a bomb. His pockets are loaded with nails, ball-bearings, and rat poison. He waits until the bus is full and detonates the bomb, killing himself and nearly all the passengers. The shrapnel in his pockets ensures further casualties on the street.
His parents, when told of this, are saddened to have lost a son, but take consolation in the fact that he has gone to heaven and paved the way for them to follow.
This is all we can say for certain about the young man. Was he rich? Was he poor? Was he of low or high intelligence? Did he have a bright future as a doctor or an engineer? His behaviour is simply mute on questions of this sort and dozens like them. Why is it, then, so easy, so trivially easy, to guess the young man’s religion?*
It’s an important question. If, as you say, Islam is a peaceful religion practised by violently by a small number, then why are Islamic terrorists violent in the way that they are? Why are they so much more prone to suicide? Why do they seem to go so far out of their way to maximise civilian casualties? Why are their attacks not only more numerous, but also more devastating? The doctrines of martyrdom and jihad explain their behaviour far better than any other explanation I’ve come across. Indeed, one could fairly say they explain it perfectly.