|
Replies: 19
| visibility 1
|
Ring of Honor [32958]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 53106
Joined: 3/5/02
|
|
|
|
 |
Orange Blooded [2762]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2554
Joined: 2/1/11
|
It's amazing that a guesstimate at best is taken for fact
May 1, 2013, 7:58 AM
|
|
with a mix of membership vs. in the name of.
First Crusades are mentioned as those awful westerners coming in and ruining our Muslim peace out. When the Crusades were in response to Muslim agression starting in the 600's (7th century). Rashidun and Umayyad caliphs during early Muslim conquests, Seljuq Turks invasions, etc. Recommend studying Byzantine Empire.
Also, just because your parents made you go to a Lutheran Church, does not in any way make you a Christian versus yelling a religious slogan, posting a video, or acknowledging as a group that "we caused that act of violence". That's probably the biggest "advertising" error in winning over the general populace for a peaceful takeover. If these groups would have secretly pushed for their followers to carry out the acts of violence and then came in and said, Oh-em-gee we're here to help. But, alas it's hard to recruit people to blow themselves up with love.
That being said, I will not say there have not been a butt-ton (little more than a helluva lot) that have not performed acts of violence in the name of Christianity. Most notably the persons that have blown up abortion clinics. But then again...How many lives were saved because of the loss of a few? I could speculate as well as that Professor and say by blowing up one abortion clinic and killing 5 abortion providers I saved over 5000 lives.
So care and caution should always be used when reading any op-ed or opinion piece as well as watching or listening to those. Without all the facts, it's just a bunch of hot air.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [32958]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 53106
Joined: 3/5/02
|
I think a key factor when considering violence and
May 1, 2013, 8:16 AM
|
|
religion is "in the name of" vs. demonstrated conviction (and not so much "membership").
Those who will defend their particular faiths often decry bad actors as not being true 'fill in the blank'.
As to the question of whether one rellgion is more inherently violent, again, the faithful will always see any hostile interpretation of their own religion as biased while claiming objectivity in their own hostile interpretations of other religions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2762]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2554
Joined: 2/1/11
|
My dates are accurate, the Arab-Byzantine wars started
May 1, 2013, 8:35 AM
|
|
in the 7th Century as well as others. The Crusades did not start until around the 11th Century. Is that what you were referring to?
When you go to sea on Submarines for 14+ years and then on to carriers, you can only read Stephen King and Tom Clancy so much before you start reading History texts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [32958]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 53106
Joined: 3/5/02
|
I had wanted to avoid rearguing the crusades, as the
May 1, 2013, 8:59 AM
|
|
posted article was not about the crusades.
The Muslims that ruled Jerusalem historically were quite tolerant of Jews and Christians, until the Turks came calling. In addition to taking Jerusalem, they took quite a bit of Byzantium.
The first crusade was a response to a request from the Byzantine emperor who (arguably) was more worried about his own territory than the hapless Jews & Christians in Jerusalem. Considering how the crusaders slaughtered so many of those same Jews & Christians, and decided to set up their own feudal states, I guess it's up to the individual historian to interpret that story as well.
But as I said, I really don't want to argue the crusades; I just don't agree with the casting of them as a response to the 7th Century Muslim conquest of the Levant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2762]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2554
Joined: 2/1/11
|
I didn't even get into the Saul misrepresentation. The
May 1, 2013, 8:40 AM
[ in reply to I think a key factor when considering violence and ] |
|
time was "not several generations back" as so eloquently put, acts of agression were ongoing. As well as the reason for the curse was implied because it was not "brutal" enough. Where the curse was because his "army" kept the booty from their conquest, subequently bringing "spoiled" goods into the "Holy" victory. Now if Saul would have still not killed everything and would have left said booty behind, would he have been cursed? It's kind of like how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop. The world may (will) never know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5156]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5757
Joined: 5/15/05
|
Perhaps a more nuanced question would be
May 1, 2013, 10:32 AM
[ in reply to I think a key factor when considering violence and ] |
|
"Which faith is a more efficient conduit for violence?"
I think in both rhetoric and in practice, Islam wins, hands down.
Islam was, in its genesis, a geopolitical movement nearly as much as it was religious. It was spread by the sword in its very infancy. And not to steal from Sam Harris, but the entire notion of "true Islam" not being violent is simply whitewashing history; the real problem is that the "violent" reading of the Q'uran is a wholly practical and common sense reading of the document.
Finally, I'd say the proof is in the proverbial pudding. Christianity has had its violence, but over time has proven to be a rather ineffective long-term incubator of violence.
Islam still has millions of people convinced its ok to stone women for adultery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83116]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 80156
Joined: 11/29/99
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2762]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2554
Joined: 2/1/11
|
True, but the "intent" to save innocent lives was there. ;)***
May 1, 2013, 10:24 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10157]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13970
Joined: 7/31/04
|
I have to agree with what Bo Van Lee said,
May 1, 2013, 9:34 AM
|
|
when someone of Christian background shoots up the place they don't claim
it was for religious purposes, unlike many rampages by Islamic followers of today and in the days of Pursia where religion is the driving force.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83116]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 80156
Joined: 11/29/99
|
Many white supremacist groups have committed their
May 1, 2013, 10:01 AM
|
|
acts in the name of Christianity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2762]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2554
Joined: 2/1/11
|
Are you talking about the KKK and Aryan Brotherhood?
May 1, 2013, 10:10 AM
|
|
Or do you know of more?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83116]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 80156
Joined: 11/29/99
|
Most of the oaths of the groups I have read on-line
May 1, 2013, 10:16 AM
|
|
are probably off-shoots of those two.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2762]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2554
Joined: 2/1/11
|
I'm not denying there's some screwed up people
May 1, 2013, 10:23 AM
|
|
that claim Christianity. But usually, their claims aren't "the Bible says all ______ are beneath us", but something about a "pure blah, blah, blah". Resembling the Hitler youth movement and Naziism.
The social media, u-tube, etc. just seems more prevalent from the extreme islamists. The extreme Neo-christians it appears are more "underground". Maybe years of persecution of them because of their acts reduced their ranks and made them "hide". Versus, the extreme wing of Islam is being portrayed as "mis-understood". Can you agree with this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83116]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 80156
Joined: 11/29/99
|
Yea, but many do take the Bible too literally at times.***
May 1, 2013, 10:30 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
probably the key difference there is...
May 1, 2013, 12:09 PM
[ in reply to Many white supremacist groups have committed their ] |
|
that Christians can't really claim that carrying out violence is a duty directly commanded in scripture the way a Muslim can claim justification for jihad, or shari'a, or trying to establish a worldwide caliphate. The best a Christian can do is try to justify himself based on some sort of political theology interpreted from Christian spirituality or the persecution of Christians. But no orthodox form of Christianity recognizes any direct scriptural commands to violence or control of the state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5156]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5757
Joined: 5/15/05
|
This is a tad disingenuous.
May 1, 2013, 10:21 AM
|
|
Yes, if you chalk up deaths and correlate them directly to the professed religious beliefs of the nation or individual perpetrating the deed, of course Christianity will win.
It's older, and has more adherents than any other religion.
However, there is only one religion that kills people for apostasy. There is only one religion where you honor killings are a fact of life. There is only one religion that encourages violence or threats of violence for a depiction of the prophet.
Here is an interesting juxtaposition; what happened in the run up to the invation of Iraq? In most Christian countries, you had the largest grounswell of anti-war sentiment since Vietnam. Massive protests, hundreds of thousands in the streets.
After 9/11, what did we see in Muslim nations? Anything like that? I'm not talking about token gestures of solidarity from Westernized Muslim organizations. In Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia...
were their mass demonstrations against that violence?
Islam is, at its worst, an inherently violent religion, and at its best, wholly incapable of mollifying its (increasingly) radical fringe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5156]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5757
Joined: 5/15/05
|
Haven't had my coffee yet...
May 1, 2013, 10:22 AM
|
|
invitation= invasion
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
eh, that's just not correct
May 1, 2013, 11:59 AM
|
|
From the equation of of fringe Christian groups which all organized Christian denomination recognize as heretical to radical Islamism (which is the offical policy of many countries, and which is the opinion of majorities in nearly every Muslism majority country), to the attempt to boil the differences between Christianity and Islam down to a homogenous "religion" which can be used in equal measure to promote violence, the guy is way off.
Christianity makes peace an eschatological goal, but Christians don't expect that they can achieve peace on their own apart from the full immanence of God's grace. Christians think there will be peace when God's kingdom is fully established on Earth, but they know that as long as there is sin in the world the best we can do is hope for peace. So Christianity isn't a pacifist religion. However, it's for the very reason that Christianity is hopeful (of the future) rather than optimistic (about the here and now) that it's more difficult to use to justify violence than Islam and some other religions are. Christians also don't have the explicit calls for domination and violence that you can find in Islam. But without going into details on specific differences, this should be obvious: different religions have different different beliefs, and (at least the revealed ones) are based on different specific revelation. So why don't people recognize who irrational it is to talk about "religion" as if they were all the same?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8142]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 19775
Joined: 6/6/03
|
Dang Muslim-lovin' liberal media!
May 1, 2013, 12:18 PM
|
|
Oh yeah. Nevermind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 19
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
