Christianity, the religion of peace...

[pErvinalia]

yeah right..

[Blind groper]

To give those Christians a little credit, they are a lot less violent today than at any stage in their history. Today, violence tends to begin in so-called Christian countries at the top. With some asshole president.

[rainbow]

To give those Christians a little credit, they are a lot less violent today than at any stage in their history. Today, violence tends to begin in so-called Christian countries at the top. With some asshole president.

[cronus]

[mistermack]

To give those Christians a little credit, they are a lot less violent today than at any stage in their history. Today, violence tends to begin in so-called Christian countries at the top. With some asshole president.

Christians might have mellowed, but god is just as violent as ever.
George Bush might have made the decision to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, but only after god told him to.

If the Christians let him down in the future, god might send a plague, or giant earthquake or meteor.
He likes a steady stream of tragedies to keep heaven topped up.

[Seth]

yeah right..

No true Christian...

[pErvinalia]

No true Muslim...

[Seth]

No true Muslim...

Yeah....problem is that Islam explicitly commands Muslims to kill and enslave infidels, which makes it pretty hard to argue that it's a religion of peace...unless you define "peace" as "enslaving or killing everyone who isn't a Muslim."

[Hermit]

No true Muslim...

Yeah....problem is that Islam explicitly commands Muslims to kill and enslave infidels

That's a problem the Qor'an shares with the Bible: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." Luke 19:27

[Seth]

No true Muslim...

Yeah....problem is that Islam explicitly commands Muslims to kill and enslave infidels

That's a problem the Qor'an shares with the Bible: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." Luke 19:27

We've been over this before. You're balancing your condemnation on a slender reed indeed.

[Hermit]

No true Muslim...

Yeah....problem is that Islam explicitly commands Muslims to kill and enslave infidels

That's a problem the Qor'an shares with the Bible: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." Luke 19:27

We've been over this before. You're balancing your condemnation on a slender reed indeed.

Slender? It was crucial for justifying several crusades and quite number of wars between Christian sects. The difference between the Qor'an and the Bible in respect to advocating violence and death is for all practical intents and purposes negligible. The difference that matters is that today the relevant passages in the Bible are ignored by all but a the tiniest number of nutters while a tiny but significant number of Muslims still take the equivalent sections of the Qor'an seriously. Ultimately, both texts are equally idiotic and contradictory.

[Blind groper]

George Bush might have made the decision to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, but only after god told him to.

You are being hard on a deity who is innocent in this matter, if not in others.

Dubya was totally capable of going to war as a result of the machinations of his own twisted mind, with no input from Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, Odin, or Krishna.

[JimC]

No true Muslim...

Yeah....problem is that Islam explicitly commands Muslims to kill and enslave infidels

That's a problem the Qor'an shares with the Bible: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." Luke 19:27

We've been over this before. You're balancing your condemnation on a slender reed indeed.

Slender? It was crucial for justifying several crusades and quite number of wars between Christian sects. The difference between the Qor'an and the Bible in respect to advocating violence and death is for all practical intents and purposes negligible. The difference that matters is that today the relevant passages in the Bible are ignored by all but a the tiniest number of nutters while a tiny but significant number of Muslims still take the equivalent sections of the Qor'an seriously. Ultimately, both texts are equally idiotic and contradictory.

(although I think "tiny" for the number of muslims who take such violent aspects of the Qor'an seriously is something of an understatement. For muslims settled in the West, perhaps, but for muslims in their heartland, still a minority, but not tiny...)

[Seth]

No true Muslim...

Yeah....problem is that Islam explicitly commands Muslims to kill and enslave infidels

That's a problem the Qor'an shares with the Bible: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." Luke 19:27

We've been over this before. You're balancing your condemnation on a slender reed indeed.

Slender? It was crucial for justifying several crusades and quite number of wars between Christian sects. The difference between the Qor'an and the Bible in respect to advocating violence and death is for all practical intents and purposes negligible. The difference that matters is that today the relevant passages in the Bible are ignored by all but a the tiniest number of nutters while a tiny but significant number of Muslims still take the equivalent sections of the Qor'an seriously. Ultimately, both texts are equally idiotic and contradictory.

Wayback Machine fallacy.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

Wayback Machine fallacy.

So what if we are commenting on violent episodes in christianity's past? They certainly existed, and it is a very important question as to why that is no longer the case. Essentially, christianity has had its teeth pulled by centuries of secularisation in the west; it did not voluntarily become meek and mild and no longer interested in crusades and wielding worldly power...

The key present day issue is that this process has not yet occurred with Islam...