A Day Without Sharia

[giblets]

Over 500 trillion people killed by Christianity

[Kidlicious]

Don't you do the same if you call christianity a religion of peace, despite the millions of people killed by christians?

Of course I call Christianity a religion of peace, and I don't have a problem with peaceful muslums calling their religion a religion of peace. I do however have a problem with anyone calling ISLAM a religion of peace, because that's a lie. It would be just as much a lie to say that fascism or communism is peaceful.
There might be peaceful communists. That doesn't mean that communism is peaceful. It just means that the person who thinks communism is peaceful is a silly person. And that person is problematic also because that promote a violent ideology, even though they say not to use violence.

Otoh, if you want to call Christianity inherently violent or complain about people being Christian because it causes violence I will disagree with you. I will likely disagree with your statistics, because you will likely exaggerate. And in away I think you will do so because you have a prejudice about Christians. This is the difference, when a Christian kills someone I will say that that's not what Christ taught, but I won't try to cover up that fact that Christians kill people, which is what muslims and liberals do, and it's horrific.

[Proteus_MST]

....

Otoh, if you want to call Christianity inherently violent or complain about people being Christian because it causes violence I will disagree with you. I will likely disagree with your statistics, because you will likely exaggerate. And in away I think you will do so because you have a prejudice about Christians. This is the difference, when a Christian kills someone I will say that that's not what Christ taught, but I won't try to cover up that fact that Christians kill people, which is what muslims and liberals do, and it's horrific.

Well, it would cause no problems to bring in a smiliar exaggerated statistics (about people killed by christians) than your sourse for the 270 million deaths made for muslims.

See:
Your source didn't make any distinction between people killed by muslims for religios reasons (including jihads) and people killed for non religious reasons (normal wars, or enslavement (the latter being definitely ecnomic reasons and not religious ones))

So, to make comparable statistics for christians, we would have to sum up (among others)
1. All victims in a war (religous or not) in which a christian nation was involved
2. Victims by actual persecutions of by christians
3. Slaves killed by christian slaveholders (for example in the southern states)
4. People of nnon christian faiths that got killed in christian territory (no matter whether it ws the result of violence, starvation or diseases)

I am sure we can come up with fairly high numbers of people killed by christians with such a statistics

Not to forget that, if you look for the nation with the most waged wars in the 20th century, you will likely get the name of a christian nation

It can also not be denied that persecutions and wars for religion were done by christians ... be it the crusades, the inquisition or the bloody enforced christianisation in nothern euope or in southern america.
Claiming that this isn't what christianity is about (and that the people who did this in the name of their faith were "no true christians" is akin to the "no true scotsman"-fallacy.

The change in christianity (towards the softer version of the faith we know today) was mainly the result of the changing european society (thanks to people getting more and more indepenent from the religion) and therefore changing morals from the renaissance onwards.
Which doesn't mean that the chistianity of a few hundred ears ago cannot come back ... there were and still are christian groups that commit acts of terror (for example the NLFT in india, LRA in Uganda, various violent anti abortion groups in the USA) ... and there are many christians (for example in fundamentalist protestants in the USA) who justify violence with the OT.

Violence has been justified with christian beliefs/the christian holy book before ... it still is justified by certain groups today ... and to think that nowadays society is totally immune to a recession into the violent christian societies before is IMHO futile

[Kidlicious]

There is no "softer version." There is only one Christianity. You don't seem to understand that 1) anyone can say they are a Christian and start killing people even though Christ condemned those who do that. 2) Christians can make mistakes often in groups. 3) It's somewhat understandable that Christians would unite together and fight those aggressive to them because Christ did not say anything about what Christian nations should do, and 4) When those Christians unite some of them are going to be especially fanatical.

But none of that changes the fact that Christianity and Islam are qualitatively different.

[grumbler]

No religion is a "religion of peace" except maybe Daoism (and there are damned few pure Daoists, from what I can tell). People are either people of peace, or they are not. Christianity has been as responsible for innocent deaths as any religion, and, again, isn't a "religion of peace" ("Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." - Mathew 10:34, KJB. Christian ignorance of their own religious history is no excuse for deciding that they know the history of Islam and can, without committing the worst hypocrisy, call Islam violent and their own religion's actions, like the Crusades, "peaceful." I am so tired of this ****.

[grumbler]

But none of that changes the fact that Christianity and Islam are qualitatively different.

To the sheep, every animal in the herd appears to be different. To someone looking at the flock, all you sheep look the same. Your "qualitative" difference disappears when one gets any perspective on religion at all.

[Berzerker]

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." - Mathew 10:34, KJB

he's talking about the strife resulting from his message as families and friends are divided on what path to follow, the sword represents the cleaving of relationships

[grumbler]

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." - Mathew 10:34, KJB

he's talking about the strife resulting from his message as families and friends are divided on what path to follow, the sword represents the cleaving of relationships

That's still not a message of peace; it explicitly rejects the idea that his is a religion of peace.

Which is okay, even if your interpretation is correct. Religions are inventions of humans, which means they share human flaws. One of those flaws is that some are likely to use violence for gain or ego gratification.

[Berzerker]

Jesus was telling his followers to expect strife and persecution, he was not commenting on the inherent peacefulness or violence of his message

[Proteus_MST]

There is no "softer version." There is only one Christianity. ...

There are many variants of christianity.
One of them, the version of Catholicism a few hundrred years ago found it totally O.K., to declare holy wars and believed that tthere are witches/magicians iin society, which have to be exeuted via fire. They also believed that you need to wage wars against otherr versions of christianity (for example protestants and Cathars), to kill all their believers (unless they reconverted to "true chrstianity"(tm)) and to burn all of their books.

Nowadays many diffeent versions of chistianity exist ... some maybe only different by few things from "mainstream christianity" (for example celebrating sabbath on saturday instead of sunday), others may have more grave changes.
And especially the most narrowminded and fundamentalist versions of christianity (often found with reborn christians in the USA) even believe that only their own versions of christianity is the correct one and all other versions are aberrant and deceived by Satan (and the same goes for the holy book ... in their opinion, only people who use the Kng James version of the bible use the correct holy book). The Comic Tracts of Jack Chick give a lot of insight into this mindset

[BeBMan]

Somehow I do get the impression that Kid isn't really interested in a debate about religion(s) or extremism(s)-of-whatever-background. He just needs someone to blame/whine about, whether it's women, leftists or muslims....Though I maybe wrong, and he's conducting an academic study of some sort....

[Aeson]

His thesis is "Mindless blather tolerances of aged gamers."

[Kidlicious]

Somehow I do get the impression that Kid isn't really interested in a debate about religion(s) or extremism(s)-of-whatever-background. He just needs someone to blame/whine about, whether it's women, leftists or muslims....Though I maybe wrong, and he's conducting an academic study of some sort....

Actually I'm not interested in your Christaphobic horse **** that you spew to cover up murder and rape. Shove it up your asss, right after you remove your head from there.

[Kidlicious]

No religion is a "religion of peace" except maybe Daoism (and there are damned few pure Daoists, from what I can tell). People are either people of peace, or they are not. Christianity has been as responsible for innocent deaths as any religion, and, again, isn't a "religion of peace" ("Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." - Mathew 10:34, KJB. Christian ignorance of their own religious history is no excuse for deciding that they know the history of Islam and can, without committing the worst hypocrisy, call Islam violent and their own religion's actions, like the Crusades, "peaceful." I am so tired of this ****.

I didn't call the Crusades peaceful you idiot. And why don't you study that verse in context before you continue making a fool of yourself?

[grumbler]

Jesus was telling his followers to expect strife and persecution, he was not commenting on the inherent peacefulness or violence of his message

Where does Jesus say that? Or is this just you telling us what Jesus actually meant, because you knew him and talked to him about what he meant?