Religion of Peace: Why Christianity is and Islam Isn’t (Video Interview)

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Datajack Franit



Christians willing to liberate Christianity's holy city from the infidels? Mystifying!

Crusades were not always for Jerusalem.
One of the most brutal crusades, the Albigensian crusade was against christians in southern france.

It was started because many of the lords there became catharans (which was a christian sect) and refused to pay money to the pope.

2 Examples of the atrocities commited:
After the successful siege of a city the general asked the papal legate how he should divide felow catholics from catharans.
The answer of the legate was:
"Kill them all, god will know its own"
And so the entire population was killed.

Another example after the siege of another city was,
that the catholic forces put out the eyes of all inhabitants of the city, except for one person who was left with one eye.
This person then had to lead all other (blind) inhabitants to the next catharan city.

Or remember the 30 years war in germany which also was a religious war full of atrocities and depopulated whole regions in grmany (although it wasn´t started at the command of the pope)

[Dracon II]

That's an interesting notion: after christians began to read the Bible, the violence ceased to exist...

Indeed... there's certainly no evidence to suggest that violence has decreased as a direct result of the Protestant vernacular translations of the Bible which made scripture more widely readable.

Christians willing to liberate Christianity's holy city from the infidels? Mystifying!

Not really... I can fully understand it. My point is that it has no scriptural authorization. If Jesus or Paul, were at all concerned with Christian control of Jerusalem as a matter of theological necessity... they would have dedicated a lot more effort to overthrowing the Roman Governor and the Jewish establishment in the city, no? The crusades are an example of Chauvenistic piety which is more at home in the Old, rather than New, Testament.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by CyberShy

I believe you could fill a whole library with books contradicting that position

Well, maybe I should have stated: "slowly started to cease to exist", since it's indeed still there.
I do dare to state nevertheless that the people who use violence in the name of Jesus hardly have any knowledge of the Bible and the words of Jesus.

My wife has interviewed catholics and protestants terrorists in Northern Ireland (few years ago, she's a journalist) and both admitted that they didn't really knew the Bible, but used their faith as a tool for their hate against the others.

but this is always the case, they use the christianity (or the variationsin NI), islam, nacionalism, even buddhism etc... as a tool of hate... nothing changes apart from the tool used.

edit: so what the author wants to tell us is that Islam is an easier tool to use (or religion to abuse) than Christianity... but looking at history, it is not hard at all to abuse Christianity so in the end they are both about the same in this "ease of abuse" aspect...

[Robert]

but looking at history, it is not hard at all to abuse Christianity so in the end they are both about the same in this "ease of abuse" aspect...

In an invalid way: yes
In a valid way: no

I'm the first to say that (parts) of the Bible can be interpretated in different ways.
But I simply do not believe that one can be a true follower of Jesus, and still use violence.

Someone that uses violence in the name of Jesus either:

- doesn't know what Jesus said and did (according to the bible)

- doesn't trust the accounts of Jesus as written in the Bible (which makes him a non-Biblical christian)

- values other powers (ie. the crusade popes) as more important sources for information (which make him more follow the other 'power' then Jesus)

- Is a hypocrite who simply doesn't do what he believes.

With Islam and Muhammed, this is slightly different.
Muhammed was a warlords. That's a fact.
It's much easier to interpretate his words against christians/jews/non believers in a violent way.

Not to mention that christianity has clear messages against political abuse of christianity (obey the emperor, give to the emperor what belongs to the emperor, my reign is not from this world) while the Quran is clearly indicating on an earthly Islamtic empire.

But maybe it just all comes down to the simple statement that Jesus is clearly not a warmonger but someone who'd rather die then fight, while Muhammed is a warmonger pur sang.

Someone who uses violence in the name of Jesus is like someone who uses violence in the name of Ghandi, or loves Jews in the name of Hitler.

It's obviously possible, since humans are weird beings who corrupt all kinds of information to their needs, but it's stupid and ignorant.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

- Is a hypocrite who simply doesn't do what he believes.

describes north of 90% christians... those are also called nominal christians, but they would fight in the name of the faith if aroused enough...

in the end it does not matter too much, as I have had muslims who say that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the "warmongering" interpretations are false...

one way or another, you can abuse both systems, and while you might like to claim that warmongering Christians are ignorant, so will a "peacefull/moderate" muslim for his warmongering brothers of faith.

To simply call on the actions of the founder, it is a bit tough, as Christianity as a whole is very far from the "original intent" religion created by Jesus, it has the name but lacks the substance... at least organized religion, the same could be (I have no Idea, but I gues the principle should apply) said about Islam as well...

gullible people are always a problem, once the conditions are ripe, no matter what idea is abused. To use this "Christianity is more peaceful" idea on any level is just adding more fuel to the fire.

Totally pointless and outright insulting, and can only be used for alienating moderate muslims further away.

[Robert]

describes north of 90% christians... those are also called nominal christians, but they would fight in the name of the faith if aroused enough...

Yes, we christians are, like all humans, hypocrites.
I do not claim here that christians are good people. Christians make war and use violence. But that's an act of hypocritism, not an act of christianity.
That's what I'm trying to say.

in the end it does not matter too much, as I have had muslims who say that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the "warmongering" interpretations are false...

And Muhammed, was he a man of peace or a man of war in their eyes?

one way or another, you can abuse both systems, and while you might like to claim that warmongering Christians are ignorant, so will a "peacefull/moderate" muslim for his warmongering brothers of faith.

While his prophet, Muhammed, is the prime example of a warmonger.

To simply call on the actions of the founder, it is a bit tough, as Christianity as a whole is very far from the "original intent" religion created by Jesus, it has the name but lacks the substance...

That's a good base for a nice theological debate, but it's not relevant to this discussion.
Christians claim that Jesus is their founder, and even if he isn't, and Paul is the real founder, who abused Jesus words, even then Paul is only changing Judaism into Christianity, and not changing Jesus' religion of hate into a religion of peace (or the other way around).

Even if Jesus is not the real founder of christianity, christians (and the violent once in particular) do believe so, and count his words, as written in the gospels, as being the highest revealed authority.

at least organized religion, the same could be (I have no Idea, but I gues the principle should apply) said about Islam as well...

Not from the perspective of the believer.
The believing muslim believes that Muhammed is the prime prophet of Allah. And he believes that the Quran desribes the words and acts of Muhammed.
And he believes that Muhammed, in the name of Allah, formed the Caliphat (or the pre-caliphat), also by the use of force.

It's not important if Muhammed is the real founder of Islam, and if the stories about him are true or not.
What matters here is that the believers, and the violent believers of Islam in particular, believe that those stories are of a key importance.

And it only makes sence that they interpret the Quran from the image they from Muhammed.

Totally pointless and outright insulting, and can only be used for alienating moderate muslims further away.

Thus you're saying that the words of non-muslims make moderate muslims, who claim that Islam is peace, change into violent muslims?

A question (open question)
Are there (many) ex-muslims or atheists, who think that the Quran is a beautiful book, they just don't believe in?
I know that many atheists / ex-christians still love the Bible, for all kinds of reasons, but just don't believe that it holds any important information, except cultural information, etc.

It appears to me, but I may wrong, and that's why I ask that question, how many non-muslims (and ex-muslims in particular) do consider the Quran to be beautiful and interesting.

I have a Quran myself, and I've read a lot in it. I must say that it's quite a boring book, it's hard to read it. I'd never put it in line with the Bible, except that it's the 'holy' book of the Muslims as the Bible is the 'holy' book of the christians (however even that comparison fails).
But I'm not the right person to judge between the Quran and the Bible, since I'm biased

[Pekka]

I think these have little to do with religion itself and more to do with power.

When crusades were happening, it was just an extension of power IMO most of all than anything else.

Now you look at the more radical section of Islam, and you see where it grows the most. Even though some intelligent individuals in the West have joined the cause, it mostly attracts those who are poor. You see, this is where you can recruit EVERYONE and not break a sweat. Just claim their situation is the fault of someone else, hopefully an entity that has no strong presence in the area. Focus on that, not your own problems created by yourself.

So all these play into easy recruiting and people listening to you. And it is in your interest to do so, because oyu get massive amounts of peopel following you, so that's power. It is easy to get power through this channel.

So that's why I think it has more to do with power than anything else. Of course the "followers" are in it for the "truth" and the message, but they're all brainwashed into it because of the lust for power by some people. Just like any other cult.

[Proteus_MST]

It´s similar to how neonazis get their followers.

The leaders are more or less intelligent and educated. Their followers however are often recruited from the poor, jobless and less educated classes in society, as especially they are attracted to the thought of being "superior" because of their race and getting a job once all the inferior races are cast out of the country and their jobs are given to true Arians.

Put in a certain religion instead of a race and it can be well applied to fundamentalist religious systems (although their rewards normally come after death and not before )

[Pekka]

Proteus, Bingo.

And it's EASY. And you get power. The ideology is often just some kind of... mandatory script people put together fast.

It's always appealing. It always appeals to a man to think that he would be better off if it wasn't for someone else, and that someone else can be pointed out, there's a group of people who already do that and they want you to join to make it all better.

It's one of them "the weak become strong"-illusions. Rarely that is the case at the end. But it feels nice for the people attending so that's what they do. Blame other people for their own crap.

So this is why I think ideology behind is secondary. It's not totally irrelevant though, it has to have a clause where removing your opponents is a viable solution. It has to have some kind of "we are superior" statement so the removal of others becomes acceptable.

[Shrapnel12]

I will not argue that Islam is a violent religion and that other religions are not, however I will argue that Islam is the most violent religion and for whatever reasons, it attracts sociopaths who want nothing more then to kill everyone else. Islam seems to be the religion that people with extreme anger turn to as a justification for venting that anger in terms of death and mayhem.

[dannubis]

I am pretty sure the average standard of living has something to do with it as well

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by CyberShy

describes north of 90% christians... those are also called nominal christians, but they would fight in the name of the faith if aroused enough...

Yes, we christians are, like all humans, hypocrites.
I do not claim here that christians are good people. Christians make war and use violence. But that's an act of hypocritism, not an act of christianity.
That's what I'm trying to say.

agree

in the end it does not matter too much, as I have had muslims who say that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the "warmongering" interpretations are false...

And Muhammed, was he a man of peace or a man of war in their eyes?

one way or another, you can abuse both systems, and while you might like to claim that warmongering Christians are ignorant, so will a "peacefull/moderate" muslim for his warmongering brothers of faith.

While his prophet, Muhammed, is the prime example of a warmonger.

To simply call on the actions of the founder, it is a bit tough, as Christianity as a whole is very far from the "original intent" religion created by Jesus, it has the name but lacks the substance...

I guess if we had a muslim participant here (thought we had a few in the past) they would be able to argue better, but I think one point about Muhammed as a warmonger is that "war is the last option"... just looked up this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_as_a_general

Views

[edit]
Muslim View

Muslims view that the Muslims fought only when attacked, or in the context of a wider war of self-defense. They argue that Muhammad was the first among the major military figures of history to lay down rules for humane warfare, and that he was scrupulous in limiting the loss of life as much as possible.

Javed Ahmed Ghamidi writes in Mizan that there are certain directives of the Qur’an pertaining to war which were specific only to Muhammad against Divinely specified peoples of his times (the polytheists and the Israelites and Nazarites of Arabia and some other Jews, Christians, et al) as a form of Divine punishment -- for they had persistently denied the truth of Muhammad's mission even after it had been made conclusively evident to them by Allah through Muhammad, and asked the polytheists of Arabia for submission to Islam as a condition for exoneration and the others for jizya and submission to the political authority of the Muslims for exemption from death punishment and for military protection as the dhimmis of the Muslims. Therefore, after Muhammad and his companions, there is no concept in Islam obliging Muslims to wage war for propagation or implementation of Islam, hence now, the only valid reason for war is to end oppression when all other measures have failed. (jihad)[1][20]

[edit]
Non-Muslim view

Muhammad's critics often hold that the Muslims engaged in wars of aggression, that they caused much bloodshed and suffering, that they imposed Islam at the point of a sword, and that Muhammad's conduct is not an example to be imitated [original research?]. Conversely, other non-Muslim academics believe that Muhammad was a reluctant warrior, such that he disliked fighting except when he believed it to be absolutely necessary.[21]

so clearly there could be good grounds for further discussion. While I am not an Islamic expert, I can claim that - opposing to your view - there are grounds to say that Muhammed was not necessarily a "man of war" but merely he had to fight because this was the last option. In any case certainly not adequate that the only possible interpretation of him is as a "warmonger".

That's a good base for a nice theological debate, but it's not relevant to this discussion.
Christians claim that Jesus is their founder, and even if he isn't, and Paul is the real founder, who abused Jesus words, even then Paul is only changing Judaism into Christianity, and not changing Jesus' religion of hate into a religion of peace (or the other way around).

Even if Jesus is not the real founder of christianity, christians (and the violent once in particular) do believe so, and count his words, as written in the gospels, as being the highest revealed authority.

at least organized religion, the same could be (I have no Idea, but I gues the principle should apply) said about Islam as well...

Not from the perspective of the believer.
The believing muslim believes that Muhammed is the prime prophet of Allah. And he believes that the Quran desribes the words and acts of Muhammed.
And he believes that Muhammed, in the name of Allah, formed the Caliphat (or the pre-caliphat), also by the use of force.

It's not important if Muhammed is the real founder of Islam, and if the stories about him are true or not.
What matters here is that the believers, and the violent believers of Islam in particular, believe that those stories are of a key importance.

And it only makes sence that they interpret the Quran from the image they from Muhammed

Totally pointless and outright insulting, and can only be used for alienating moderate muslims further away.

Thus you're saying that the words of non-muslims make moderate muslims, who claim that Islam is peace, change into violent muslims?

I am sure that saying to someone that his base belief requires war to promote his beilef (if he himself does not hold that opinion) is not a good way to start a discussion...

A question (open question)
Are there (many) ex-muslims or atheists, who think that the Quran is a beautiful book, they just don't believe in?
I know that many atheists / ex-christians still love the Bible, for all kinds of reasons, but just don't believe that it holds any important information, except cultural information, etc.

It appears to me, but I may wrong, and that's why I ask that question, how many non-muslims (and ex-muslims in particular) do consider the Quran to be beautiful and interesting.

I have a Quran myself, and I've read a lot in it. I must say that it's quite a boring book, it's hard to read it. I'd never put it in line with the Bible, except that it's the 'holy' book of the Muslims as the Bible is the 'holy' book of the christians (however even that comparison fails).
But I'm not the right person to judge between the Quran and the Bible, since I'm biased

no idea, and certainly Bible has great literary value from the period, but I know of no "muslim atheists"... at least who were active muslims before, but I am sure that when their societies move towards secularity, there will be scholars who will find the book interesting for other reasons...

[Robert]

I am pretty sure the average standard of living has something to do with it as well

Many terrorists are rich well educated people.
Low living standards has more to do with 'normal' criminal records.

I can claim that - opposing to your view - there are grounds to say that Muhammed was not necessarily a "man of war" but merely he had to fight because this was the last option.

I'm not denying that there are other possible interpretations. But you must agree with me that it's easy to reckognize a warlord in Muhammed. In fact, he is a warlords. If he's one agianst his will or not doesn't matter to all those wannabe warlords.

If you compare Jesus to Muhammed, then there are huge differences. When 'war was the last option' for Jesus, he still chosed dead. He'd rather die then his enemies.

I'm not trying to make it logical here that Jesus is better then Muhammed, or whatever. (eventhough I believe so )
What I try to say is that Muhammed gives much ground for violent interpretations.
I refuse to believe that Jesus gives any ground for violent interpretations. Maybe the Old Testament, but certainly not Jesus.

I am sure that saying to someone that his base belief requires war to promote his beilef (if he himself does not hold that opinion) is not a good way to start a discussion...

It works for me.
People are telling me every day that christians are as warlike as muslims. And that christianity is the cause for many deaths and murderings. I still stay polite and keep the discussion going.

And if christian terrorists will blow op the Empire State Building tomorrow, then I'll be protesting against those christian terrorists the day after tomorrow.
And I'll understand it perfectly if they want to double check my luggage on the airport, because I'm a christian.

I would in fact be ashamed.
I am ashamed for what christians have done in the name of God. The crusades, the burning of herretics, the abortion bombings, etc.
I'd never be angry at a person who lies a connection between me and the christians who did that, since I think that's a very natural thing to do.

All I do is trying to explain how all those very wrong things aren't 'christian' because they're done by christians. They're not acts of christianity, they're acts of hypocrism, or power-hunger, religious idiocy.
There's nothing in the OT or the NT that can validly be interpretated as a call for violence.

I think that, after reading many parts of the Quran, there are many parts in it that can (even without the meaning of the original author!) validly be interpretation as a call for violence. (I'm not saying that's the true interpretation, but it's a possible interpretation).

And with a valid interpretation, I mean that people who read the book (Bible or Quran) and study it, can conclude that it holds a violent order for them. (Thus excluding having knowledge of non biblical / quran sources)

no idea, and certainly Bible has great literary value from the period, but I know of no "muslim atheists"... at least who were active muslims before, but I am sure that when their societies move towards secularity, there will be scholars who will find the book interesting for other reasons...

Well, most dutch atheists who comment on both the Bible and the Quran praise the Bible for it's literary values, but consider the Quran to be pretty boring.
Same counts for dutch ex-christians (like Jan Wolkers, in example), who still consider the Bible to be a piece of art.

In fact the Quran is one huge big speech (or preach), while the Bible is a combination of everything.
The Quran is a message to it's readers. The violent parts of the Quran can be interpretated as being a violent message / order to it's reader.
The violent parts of the Bible (OT) are still only a description of the violent that happened, and not an order for today.

Like reading a history book about the bombing of hiroshima can't be understood as a call for me to nuke New York.

[Kataphraktoi]

The violence in the old testament consisted of one time orders to mostly jews and have nothing to do with christians today. The idea that god is bad because he used some violence back then is silly and based on the false premise that violence is inherently bad.

Im not ashamed of any violent acts commited by christians because commiting biolent acts automaticly makes them not christians(by definition a christian cant be violent) Its just the ussual rabble using a high minded excuse for their actions.


Note that suicide bombings are a recent thing because until the last few centuries the muslims-for example the ottoman empire-was strong enough to contend outright with other heathen nations without needing guerilla warfare tactics

[Proteus_MST]

God also allowed slavery.

If I remember correctly jesus never said anything against slavery.
So wouldn´t it be a good thing to introduce slavery again?
After all one should think it is worse than the violence ordered by god in the old testimony.