DescentBB

A real comparison:

Christianity or Islam: which is the real \"religion of peace\"?

Almost any liberal pundit will tell you that there's a religion bent on destroying our Constitution, stripping us of our liberties, and imposing religious rule on the U.S. And that religion is . . .Christianity! About Islam, however, the Left is silent--except to claim a moral equivalence between the two: if Islam has terrorists today, that's nothing compared to the Crusades, inquisitions, and religious wars in Christianity's past.

But is this true? Are conservative Christians really more of a threat to free societies than Islamic jihadists? Is the Bible really \"just as violent\" as the Qur'an? Is Christianity's history really as bloodstained as Islam's? In Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't, New York Times bestselling author Robert Spencer not only refutes such charges, but also explains why Americans and Europeans must regain an appreciation of our Christian heritage if we ever hope to defeat Islamic supremacism. In this eye opening work, Spencer reveals:

* The fundamental differences between Islamic and Christian teachings about warfare against other religions: \"Love your enemies\" vs. \"Be ruthless to the unbelievers\"

* The myth of Western immorality and Islamic puritanism and why the Islamic world is less moral than the West

* Why the Islamic world has never developed the distinction between religious and secular law that is inherent in Christianity

* Why Christianity has always embraced reason--and Islam has always rejected it

* Why the most determined enemies of Western civilization may not be the jihadists at all, but the leftists who fear their churchgoing neighbors more than Islamic terrorists

* Why Jews, Christians, and peoples of other faiths (or no faith) are equally at risk from militant Islam

Spencer writes not to proselytize, but to state a fact: Christianity is a true \"religion of peace,\" and on it Western civilization stands. If we are not to perish under Islam's religion of the sword--with its more than 100 million active jihadists seeking to impose sharia law--we had better defend our own civilization.

n/m

Christianity embraces reason? Wow, I've the wool over my eyes on that one...

Both religions are bent on destroying the country, one passively, one actively. They are both real threats.

ThunderBunny wrote:Spencer writes not to proselytize, but to state a fact: Christianity is a true "religion of peace," and on it Western civilization stands.

The real fact is that Christianity (more aptly, Christendom) has been the key instigator of many of the wars of all time (WW1, WW2 etc). Their religious leaders have blessed war efforts, troops, and in essence the killing of billions of lives.

The overall truth is that all religion is like this; and one day the Governments of this world will see this problem and remove religion from it's throne.

Regardless of how much of that is hogwash, the opinions after that are also wrong. Religion is not the root of all evil, it is nothing more then a convenient excuse and has always been. The Islamic extremists would be murderers and terrorists even if there was no religion involved. It has little or nothing to do with religion and is instead a problem with society and humans in general.

People will always find some excuse to let their violence rampage and to kill other people because they have been at it since the dawn of time and it is the only way we know how to live.

Islam is a insignificant threat because if we really wanted to we could erase all traces of it's existence from history. The biggest threats to western society are political correctness and the rampaging \"free\" mega-press.

Krom wrote: The biggest threats to western society are political correctness and the rampaging "free" mega-press.

yup.

Sniper wrote: The real fact is that Christianity (more aptly, Christendom) has been the key instigator of many of the wars of all time (WW1, WW2 etc).

uh.. how do you figure that? Please elaborate.

Krom wrote: It has little or nothing to do with religion and is instead a problem with society and humans in general.

Preach it, Krom! I agree.

delicious copypasta


Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't (Hardcover)

Editorial Reviews
From the Inside Flap

Christianity or Islam: which is the real \"religion of peace\"?

...

About the Author
Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch, a program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Truth about Muhammad and The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to Islam (and the Crusades), as well as four other critically acclaimed books on Islam and terrorism, including Islam Unveiled and Onward Muslim Soldiers. He has also written eight monographs and hundreds of articles. Spencer lives in a secure, undisclosed location.

All religions have their skeletons and all have killed millions in their name but Islam is the most violent by its very nature.

I believe Islam will eventually kill us all.

Bettina

we've been through this already a couple months back.

Testiculese wrote:Christianity embraces reason? Wow, I've the wool over my eyes on that one...

Unfortunately, a lot of modern Christians have the wool over their eyes.

Jesus embraced reason. A lot of modern Christians have made the mistake of ignoring reason because their beliefs are too naive to stand up to it.

Both religions are bent on destroying the country, one passively, one actively. They are both real threats.

Islam is bent on destroying the country because Muhammed's teachings REQUIRE the destruction of unbelievers, the implementation of religious law, and so on.

Certain sects of Christianity are bent on destroying the country because they've ignored Jesus' teachings.

Sniper wrote:Christianity (more aptly, Christendom) has been the key instigator of many of the wars of all time

When you restate it as "Christendom" I have far fewer qualms with your statement -- there were many wars started by kingdoms and countries seeking their own power and glory that called themselves "Christian". Though, it's not really fair to blame WWI or WWII on such things -- those were wars caused by alliances and power brokering and bad treaties.

Krom wrote:Religion is not the root of all evil, it is nothing more then a convenient excuse and has always been. The Islamic extremists would be murderers and terrorists even if there was no religion involved.

Yes and no. Religions and philosophies often provide people with excuses to do evil to each other. They also often provide people with motive to do evil to each other. There would still be war even if there were no religions and every country in the world had the same type of government and economic system... but some wars really are caused by specific teachings of specific religions, philosophies, etc.

That's why it's important to speak up about those religions that have dangerous teachings at their core, and also why it's important to argue against those who twist religious teachings that aren't violent in order to make them violent. Because religion isn't the cause of all violence, but certain religions (whether true to their origins or not) are the cause of SOME violence.

I've said this before, mabye on the DBB:
Any radical religious doctrine paired with Low Educated People creates terrorism, hate, and bigetry.

America has the radical religious doctrine in places, but we have better education in this country. Therefore some people can ignore stuff like \"Kill the fags\" or \"Men own Women\" parts of religion, and instead more on \"Love your fellow man\" or \"The Golden Rule\".

Islam is the Bible (Old Testament and New Testament) with the Suras added on. Islam has more violence attached to it than christianity, but both are very violent and evil with niceness here and there.

To sum it up, islam is worse a little bit, but they have the poorer education over there in the middle east. I don't think Cat Stevens has killed anyone yet, and he is an educated muslim.

I honestly don't know why I bothered typing this to a \"Hit and Run\" post.

The End

Dakatsu wrote:I've said this before, mabye on the DBB:
Any radical religious doctrine paired with Low Educated People creates terrorism, hate, and bigetry.

America has the radical religious doctrine in places, but we have better education in this country. Therefore some people can ignore stuff like "Kill the fags" or "Men own Women" parts of religion, and instead more on "Love your fellow man" or "The Golden Rule".

Islam is the Bible (Old Testament and New Testament) with the Suras added on. Islam has more violence attached to it than christianity, but both are very violent and evil with niceness here and there.

To sum it up, islam is worse a little bit, but they have the poorer education over there in the middle east. I don't think Cat Stevens has killed anyone yet, and he is an educated muslim.

I honestly don't know why I bothered typing this to a "Hit and Run" post.

The End

In parts of the mideast, its the other way around. They are uneducated because their curriculum is aimed at teaching Islam, hate, bigotry, kill the Jewish, etc etc. There is little room left for higher learning. Remember Afghanistan where girls over 8 years old were not allowed to go to school and the Taliban is trying to regain power and implement that all over again.

Religion in school has always been detrimental.

Bettina

Bet51987 wrote:

Dakatsu wrote:I've said this before, mabye on the DBB:
Any radical religious doctrine paired with Low Educated People creates terrorism, hate, and bigetry.

America has the radical religious doctrine in places, but we have better education in this country. Therefore some people can ignore stuff like "Kill the fags" or "Men own Women" parts of religion, and instead more on "Love your fellow man" or "The Golden Rule".

Islam is the Bible (Old Testament and New Testament) with the Suras added on. Islam has more violence attached to it than christianity, but both are very violent and evil with niceness here and there.

To sum it up, islam is worse a little bit, but they have the poorer education over there in the middle east. I don't think Cat Stevens has killed anyone yet, and he is an educated muslim.

I honestly don't know why I bothered typing this to a "Hit and Run" post.

The End

In parts of the mideast, its the other way around. They are uneducated because their curriculum is aimed at teaching Islam, hate, bigotry, kill the Jewish, etc etc. There is little room left for higher learning. Remember Afghanistan where girls over 8 years old were not allowed to go to school and the Taliban is trying to regain power and implement that all over again.

Religion in school has always been detrimental.

Bettina

Whoops, true. Forgot that islam as a bonus tries to merge school/education with its religion alot more than other religions.

Dakatsu wrote:Any radical religious doctrine paired with Low Educated People creates terrorism, hate, and bigetry.

It's not about education level. Osama is well-educated, and something like 8 of the suspects in the recent London terror scare are medical doctors. You mention Cat Stevens, another well-educated man; here is a video where he speaks quite violently regarding Salman Rushdie (you can read more on Cat Stevens via LGF.) Looking back in time a little bit, many KKK members, Nazis, and various other bigots were well-educated and well-respected society members. Granted, such people do prey on the uneducated to inflate the power of their hate-filled movements, but these violent, bigoted, hateful movements are almost universally led by educated people.

It's not the level of education that's the problem. It's the content of education. Just as an example: if someone grows up in the Palestinian Territories, they will hear from early childhood that Jews are devil-worshippers, sons of monkeys and pigs, murderers, oppressive jerks, and so on. If that kid goes on to get a PhD, he's still got that information in the back of his mind. His high level of education doesn't undo the harmful doctrine he learned as a kid. (I had a friend who was a director of some sort in Israel's education system, in charge of curriculum. She said her biggest challenge was trying to deal with Muslim kids who'd grown up in Palestinian schools and had been taught to hate Jews, suddenly being in a classroom with a Jewish teacher and Jewish classmates. This is a VERY real problem.) To a lesser degree, some Christians, especially in the south US, grow up thinking atheists and gays and Jews are horrible people. Though, in my experience, the mainstream view is "preach to them and hope they repent" rather than "God hates them and you should kill them". (Most of the truly harmful church doctrine is naive understanding of God, rather than hateful views of others.)

(... continued below)

we have better education in this country. Therefore some people can ignore stuff like \"Kill the fags\" or \"Men own Women\" parts of religion, and instead more on \"Love your fellow man\" or \"The Golden Rule\".

This is one of the areas in which Islam and Christianity differ the most strongly.

The more educated one becomes about the Bible, the less \"extreme\" they'll be, overall. It's not that they ignore certain controversial ideas like \"men own women\", but rather, they recognize that as bad doctrine and as misunderstanding of the text. They recognize how the few passages that seem to subjugate women fit within the broader framework of the Bible, which is extremely liberating to women. Better education has a positive feedback effect because the core teachings of the Bible are about love and freedom and victory over sin and compassion and self-sacrifice.

The more educated one becomes about the Koran, the more \"extreme\" they'll be, overall. Because ideas like \"kill the infidels\" or \"force your enemies to be subject to you\" are not tangential or misunderstood; they're core to Islam. Better education has a negative feedback effect because the core teachings of Islam are about power and subjugation and victory over infidels.

Both religions have had a lot of violence attached to them over the years, and both books describe violent histories (the Old Testament speaks of God directing violence against Israel's enemies, but also of God directing violence against Israel itself because of their sins.) But Islam is unmitigated violence, while Christianity has this guy named Jesus who tells people to \"love your enemies\" and such. It's as TB said at the start of the thread -- Christianity actually IS a religion of peace; Islam is not.

Islam is the Bible (Old Testament and New Testament) with the Suras added on.

Islam claims to respect the Bible... \"as it was originally written\". Islam also claims the Biblical text was so horribly corrupted that it's now unrecognizeable. Which means, in practice, Islam is the Surahs alone, with lip service paid to the Bible.

You can see this in practice just by talking to a Muslim and using the Bible as a source.

Thanks Lothar about the \"Content of education\" thing. I am just not thinking well today!

Bettina wrote:Religion in school has always been detrimental.

Actually, religious schools were pretty much the only schools for most of history. BUT, they were also usually private schools.

I have no problem with religious schools, and the Islamic schools have done wonders at educating poor, underprivileged children in America.

I have SERIOUS problems when you combine government and religion. Religious schools become dangerous when they are supported by the government and attendance is mandatory.

Both religions have the same metaethical theory, that is, that the good is what God commands. They just squabble over the historicity of what God commanded. If the Christians could be effectively demonstrated that God commanded to kill sinners, then the Christians would more than happily think that killing sinners was good. In fact, there is scriptural precedence for God commanding some people to kill other peoples en masse for committing sins in the eyes of God, yet would any Christian here dare say that God was doing something short of the ethically best thing possible in these cases?

Jeff250 wrote:Both religions have the same metaethical theory, that is, that the good is what God commands.

The sort of objection you raise can be applied to any ethical system based on authority and I believe it is ultimately question-begging.

The objector begins with the hypothesis that the good (or more accurately, the right) is based on the commands of an authority, and then asks, "What if the authority commands X?", where X is something everyone accepts as wrong. The strength of the objection depends on the undeclared assumption that X is indeed wrong, which contradicts the original hypothesis.

IMO, attempts to justify ethics are problematic and an individual's commitment to ethics is based on something like faith.

Jeff250 wrote:In fact, there is scriptural precedence for God commanding some people to kill other peoples en masse for committing sins in the eyes of God..

Not since Christ walked the earth, and there were no Christians before that. Christ commands quite the opposite.

Jeff, the two are nothing alike docturnally. Lothar has elabortated on this very topic more than once in the last year...in detail; as have others. There should be no need or reason to debate this point.

It's also inappropriate to boil any combination of beliefs "down to the lowest commom denominator". It's "A"typical or pop culture to do so to simply "make things fit."

Duper wrote:Not since Christ walked the earth, and there were no Christians before that. Christ commands quite the opposite.

It was the same God, wasn't it? And if it happened all over again, would you do anything differently?

De Rigueur wrote:The objector begins with the hypothesis that the good (or more accurately, the right) is based on the commands of an authority, and then asks, "What if the authority commands X?", where X is something everyone accepts as wrong. The strength of the objection depends on the undeclared assumption that X is indeed wrong, which contradicts the original hypothesis.

IMO, attempts to justify ethics are problematic and an individual's commitment to ethics is based on something like faith.

I mostly agree here, but that's not quite the form of the argument I'm making. I'm not assuming that Christian ethics is immoral to demonstrate that it's immoral. I am attempting to appeal to ethical intuition here, with the assumption that if the ethical intuition is strong enough, then it does have utility in ethical evaluation. (E.g., if God ordered the holocaust, would that be good?)

When Christianity and Islam argue about what is good and what is evil, they're just squabbling about the historicity of what God has commanded. That is not what ethics is all about. It's about human flourishing and personal rights and individual happiness and world peace. This isn't an assumption. This is just something that I'm advocating that I hope you find intuitionally obvious.

Here's perhaps a more concrete point. Christianity is not a religion of peace--it's a religion of what God commands. We just so happen to be living in an era where the Judeo-Christian God is more peaceful than he's been in the past. And there's something perhaps to be commended in that. But I can't be completely at ease so long as the goodness of something like peace contingently hinges upon the dictates of a God.

Jeff250 wrote:

Duper wrote:Not since Christ walked the earth, and there were no Christians before that. Christ commands quite the opposite.

It was the same God, wasn't it? And if it happened all over again, would you do anything differently?

As we discussed in another thread. I'm not God. Read the Bible and take some time at it. Do the same with the Koran.

Same God sure, but you don't understand what you're illustrating. God never told anyone to kill "sinners" that were not apart of nation Isreal. God Himself killed only 2 people that we know of when they blasphemed against Him in the book of Acts.

You can't blame God for what unthinking people do and slap the label "christian" on themselves. I know you can figure that one out.

Jeff250 wrote: I am attempting to appeal to ethical intuition here

Dependence on intuitions is not without its difficulties. One is a lack of consensus about which intuitions to follow. Also, I think intuitions are, to a large degree, culturally conditioned and so there is a danger of setting up culture (instead of God) as the ethical authority. Now we can wonder, "What if our culture/intuitions directed us to do X?", where X is something nasty. This is not a far-fetched possibility since the Nazis (with their ideas about eugenics, etc.) presumably thought the holocaust was a good thing.

(E.g., if God ordered the holocaust, would that be good?)

I don't mind biting the bullet on this one. The conquest of the Canaanites is commonly mentioned as an example of a moral failure on God's part. First, I don't think it's necessary to show that it was a good thing, only that the action was justifiable. (Those who hold to a finite God theology would only be held to the even weaker standard that the action was excusable.) IMO, the appropriation of the land can be interpreted in light of the legal doctrine of eminent domain. Since God is creator, he can distribute it as he sees fit.
And if any injustice was done to the Canaanites, God has the wherewithal to compensate them, either in this life or another.

That is not what ethics is all about. It's about human flourishing and personal rights and individual happiness and world peace.

What it boils down to is that you think the ultimate good is for human beings to have their preferences satisfied. I don't agree. I suppose I have a more pessimistic opinion of human nature than you have.

Christianity is not a religion of peace--it's a religion of what God commands.

IMO this is a caricature.

But I can't be completely at ease so long as the goodness of something like peace contingently hinges upon the dictates of a God.

It sounds like you've asked the question, "Should I trust God?", and concluded that the answer is "no." To me, the question is "Which is more trustworthy, God or human nature?"

Duper wrote:Same God sure, but you don't understand what you're illustrating. God never told anyone to kill "sinners" that were not apart of nation Isreal. God Himself killed only 2 people that we know of when they blasphemed against Him in the book of Acts.

The Israelite conquest of Canaan was what I had chiefly in mind. God commanded the Israelites to kill them, and they weren't apart of the nation of Israel. So this seems like a good example of God commanding to kill somebody outside of the nation of Israel.

I'm not sure what stock you put in the notion that God "Himself" only killed two people in the Bible. For example, if God sends a bear to kill somebody, I still consider that to be an example of God killing somebody, even if he used a bear to do it, and I don't think that doing it that way is any ethically better or worse than doing it "Himself." Even when there are other agents involved, like sending an angel of death to do the killing or commanding nations to do it, you can surely see why one might still hold God culpable.

De Rigueur wrote:Dependence on intuitions is not without its difficulties. One is a lack of consensus about which intuitions to follow. Also, I think intuitions are, to a large degree, culturally conditioned and so there is a danger of setting up culture (instead of God) as the ethical authority. Now we can wonder, "What if our culture/intuitions directed us to do X?", where X is something nasty. This is not a far-fetched possibility since the Nazis (with their ideas about eugenics, etc.) presumably thought the holocaust was a good thing.

I agree that intuition is problematic, but I don't think that it is fruitless, and I think that different factors can suggest how fruitful it might be. If, for instance, the ethical intuition is strong, or if it is universally shared, then that would lend to its utility in ethical judgment.

De Rigueur wrote:And if any injustice was done to the Canaanites, God has the wherewithal to compensate them, either in this life or another.

The greater criticism here is that God did something immoral, not that there is uncorrected injustice. If God did do something evil, no amount of righting the wrong can change that God did do something evil.

De Rigueur wrote:What it boils down to is that you think the ultimate good is for human beings to have their preferences satisfied.

Depends what you mean by this, but I can't envision any meaning of this being what my point boils down to. Don't think that because I think that ethical intuition is valuable in this context that every person should always use ethical intution in every circumstance or something like that.

De Rigueur wrote:It sounds like you've asked the question, "Should I trust God?", and concluded that the answer is "no."

I don't understand why this would be a matter of trust, although this question would largely involve what one thinks that God has promised in the first place. But to help understand where you're coming from here, perhaps you can answer the following question: if God commanded one nation to conquer another, how would you envision this violating your trust in God?