Violence in Christianity and Judaism?

[F0uad]

Exactly, context is everything.

The most famous example of OT warfare is The God's instructions to wipe out the Canaanites. It says God had pleaded and worked with them for years and they had abjectly refused to repent. It was only when the Bible says their cup of iniquity was finally full that God reluctantly gave the order to attack them. Even secular scholars claim they walled up live children in foundations for their false God's and forced them to walk through fire. Compare that with the context of Muhammad’s acts. He hated poems that a few people had written so he killed the authors, someone complained about that in a poem so he killed them as well. He raided caravans of fellow Arabians for what even the Islamic scholars said was simple monetary reasons. He forced treaties at pain of death and then killed groups who did not live up to them. He beheaded people long after the battle was over and they were no threat to anyone. On one occasion it was so many people it literally wore him out. He had babies stripped from a mother’s arms so she could be stabbed to death. He condemned to death many for the soul crime of thinking Islam was nuts. Context is everything. There is violence in all religions. Only in Christianity do we find comprehensive explanations of the moral justification for them. However there are a couple that are hard to swallow but virtually all fall under the obvious just sovereignty of an all knowing and perfectly just God. He was the lamb of God, but he was also the lion of Judah.

Lol what a strange comment "Context is everything" when its Islamic we dont mention the context but when your own belief is on the line you invent a whole theory.

 

[1robin]

Lol what a strange comment "Context is everything" when its Islamic we dont mention the context but when your own belief is on the line you invent a whole theory.

There is little beyond context that is discussed when anyone criticizes Islam. The facts are not even debatable. Muhammad killed many people including unarmed people that posed no threat whatever. In fact I have suggested several times that the context of Muhammad's assisinations and mass murders makes all the difference and here is the actual statement from that post ("Compare that with the context of Muhammad’s acts"). The only defense left to Islam is context and no other faith IMO missuses that issue half as bad. Only "approved" (meaning convenient) Hadiths are allowed. At times only parts of them are allowed. I do not care what a Muslim is restricted by, I am only restricted to reliable evidence and the overwhelming bulk of it is not in Muhammad's favor. In short context is the only argument a Muslim has and 90% of any discussion I have with them is context related so I have no idea, yet again what you are talking about. As always you will not do so, however honor would demand you find any statement I have ever made that context is not to be "mentioned" when discussing Islam (as you falsely claim) or withdraw the pathetic accusation.

 

[F0uad]

There is little beyond context that is discussed when anyone criticizes Islam. The facts are not even debatable. Muhammad killed many people including unarmed people that posed no threat whatever. In fact I have suggested several times that the context of Muhammad's assisinations and mass murders makes all the difference and here is the actual statement from that post ("Compare that with the context of Muhammad’s acts"). The only defense left to Islam is context and no other faith IMO missuses that issue half as bad. Only "approved" (meaning convenient) Hadiths are allowed. At times only parts of them are allowed. I do not care what a Muslim is restricted by, I am only restricted to reliable evidence and the overwhelming bulk of it is not in Muhammad's favor. In short context is the only argument a Muslim has and 90% of any discussion I have with them is context related so I have no idea, yet again what you are talking about. As always you will not do so, however honor would demand you find any statement I have ever made that context is not to be "mentioned" when discussing Islam (as you falsely claim) or withdraw the pathetic accusation.

If you are so sure of yourself like your always are lets discuss the "Events" that took place in Islamic literature and compare them with the biblical narratives of the prophets to see which is one "violent" and has real content regarding the events.

Lets have a friendly one on one debate about the events that took place in Mohammed's(saws) time with all honesty to see if your claims really stick or not and after that lets take a look at the bible. Because i get the idea that you read Anti-Islamic websites that miss presented the hadiths to you without mentioning the whole story, have you for example ever read a biography about the Prophet Mohammed(saws)?

 

[1robin]

If you are so sure of yourself like your always are lets discuss the "Events" that took place in Islamic literature and compare them with the biblical narratives of the prophets to see which is one "violent" and has real content regarding the events. Lets have a friendly one on one debate about the events that took place in Mohammed's(saws) time with all honesty to see if your claims really stick or not and after that lets take a look at the bible. Because i get the idea that you read Anti-Islamic websites that miss presented the hadiths to you without mentioning the whole story, have you for example ever read a biography about the Prophet Mohammed(saws)?

That is exactly what I have always done and it is you that keeps having emotional melt downs. You do not like criticism and seem to be on the intolerant side. However you may certainly reply to what I post in either this thread or the Muhammad thread but I have ran across so much information that it is taking a while to get through and narrow it down to 1 or 2 post sized selections. I have always known Muhammad fought many battles but even I have been appalled at the number, type, and arbitrary nature of his acts of brutality, that I have discovered. If you remain civil in your reply’s to that or those posts, of course we can discuss it.

BTW Muslim sites are just as, or far more potentially biased than any anti-Muslim site and definately far more so than sites that give simple historical information. You are at least as guilty of bias as anyone else. The Christian never says that only non-Islamic scholars are allowed, however it is the Muslims that say only Islamic sources are valid and many times only parts of them is just one example. As all military historiana know the most likely to be biased accounts are from the victors. To answer your questions I have read pieces and parts of all major Muslim works. To me Islam is just another false religion (a major one but a false one) and it would almost not matter to me at all, like Egyptology or pantheism. It is only because they are unfortunately so heavily involved in terrible tragedies that occur to Jews, Christians, and the US and just about every other culture on Earth, that I have spent years looking into it. I do not mean any disrespect but there is little motivation to learn about what I believe another false prophet in a very long line of them has said about God. I have read large parts of the Quran but it just gets monotonous and the lack of chronology does not allow retention easily, as it was meant for recitation not comprehension. However that makes virtually no difference because countless scholars over more than a thousand years have studied and discovered everything needed to understand Islam and I take advantage of their superior access to information, brilliant instructors, and huge amounts of time spent in study and read what they conclude and why, if it appears to be reliable I use it.


So I will discuss anything with you as long as you are civil but it will be a few days before I can post what I wish to, out of this mountain of stuff.

 

[F0uad]

That is exactly what I have always done and it is you that keeps having emotional melt downs. You do not like criticism and seem to be on the intolerant side. However you may certainly reply to what I post in either this thread or the Muhammad thread but I have ran across so much information that it is taking a while to get through and narrow it down to 1 or 2 post sized selections. I have always known Muhammad fought many battles but even I have been appalled at the number, type, and arbitrary nature of his acts of brutality, that I have discovered. If you remain civil in your reply’s to that or those posts, of course we can discuss it.

BTW Muslim sites are just as, or far more potentially biased than any anti-Muslim site and definately far more so than sites that give simple historical information. You are at least as guilty of bias as anyone else. The Christian never says that only non-Islamic scholars are allowed, however it is the Muslims that say only Islamic sources are valid and many times only parts of them is just one example. As all military historiana know the most likely to be biased accounts are from the victors. To answer your questions I have read pieces and parts of all major Muslim works. To me Islam is just another false religion (a major one but a false one) and it would almost not matter to me at all, like Egyptology or pantheism. It is only because they are unfortunately so heavily involved in terrible tragedies that occur to Jews, Christians, and the US and just about every other culture on Earth, that I have spent years looking into it. I do not mean any disrespect but there is little motivation to learn about what I believe another false prophet in a very long line of them has said about God. I have read large parts of the Quran but it just gets monotonous and the lack of chronology does not allow retention easily, as it was meant for recitation not comprehension. However that makes virtually no difference because countless scholars over more than a thousand years have studied and discovered everything needed to understand Islam and I take advantage of their superior access to information, brilliant instructors, and huge amounts of time spent in study and read what they conclude and why, if it appears to be reliable I use it.


So I will discuss anything with you as long as you are civil but it will be a few days before I can post what I wish to, out of this mountain of stuff.

Sure ill be waiting.

I would like to advice to discuss the events one by one, just tell me when you are ready.
If i am correct our old Topic on the one vs one section is still open.

 

[1robin]

Sure ill be waiting.

I would like to advice to discuss the events one by one, just tell me when you are ready.
If i am correct our old Topic on the one vs one section is still open.

I am way ahead of you. I started a draft of the post and the first two events took probably more than one post so I included a statement saying I would list them a few at a time. Well, I have promised this new list to a few other folks in the "was Muhammad a good man thread". I will post it there, if there is some real good reason, I can post it in the other thread in necessary. The violent events of Muhammad is far far larger an issue than I had ever known and this will take a while. My first post will be up on Monday or Tuesday. If you’re bored there was a small list at post #1080 in the Muhammad thread that no one every contended significantly and contains the first two events I am expanding on in this new post.

 

[F0uad]

I am way ahead of you. I started a draft of the post and the first two events took probably more than one post so I included a statement saying I would list them a few at a time. Well, I have promised this new list to a few other folks in the "was Muhammad a good man thread". I will post it there, if there is some real good reason, I can post it in the other thread in necessary. The violent events of Muhammad is far far larger an issue than I had ever known and this will take a while. My first post will be up on Monday or Tuesday. If you’re bored there was a small list at post #1080 in the Muhammad thread that no one every contended significantly and contains the first two events I am expanding on in this new post.

Ok if they are to much to post just do one so we can investigate the event that took place, are you alright with that?

 

[1robin]

Ok if they are to much to post just do one so we can investigate the event that took place, are you alright with that?

Yes, the first one will be two I think but I will try and limit them to one in the future. Even this first post is long, and it is very minor. I should have it up today or tomorrow.

 

[Straw Dog]

Religion is beside the point. People can be more or less violent depending on a plethora of personal and social variables. What good comes from generalizing based on superficial criteria like one's religious label?

 

[John Martin]

There are two types of religious traditionsrophetic tradition and the wisdom traditions. In the wisdom traditions the main focus is Moksa, liberation, freedom from birth and death.The focus is inner purification and the conquering of the senses and the mind.
In the prophetic religions there is a sense of community, exclusivity and external conquering.
Violence in the so called Abrahamic religions have to be looked upon something that belongs to the evolutionary process of human consciousness. It is not wise to pass on absolute moral judgments.

 

[1robin]

Religion is beside the point. People can be more or less violent depending on a plethora of personal and social variables. What good comes from generalizing based on superficial criteria like one's religious label?

Religion is many times a motivation for violence. However atheism seems to be a much greater motivation or at least corollary. Some religions like Islam IMO were began by violence, are perpetuated by it, and are currently thriving on it. To claim the two are exclusive of one another is meaningless. They yell "Allahu Akbar" right before the bomb goes off, they do not yell "in the name of nothing theologically related" and them kill a bunch of people who have nothing to do with either concept. I do not believe that Christianity allows for violence in its name but that certainly did not stop a hundred thousand crusaders from yelling "God wills it" and then killing Muslims, Jews, and Christians. Religion is integrally involved in violence and the hatred of religion is integrally involved in far more.

 

[Straw Dog]

Religion is many times a motivation for violence. However atheism seems to be a much greater motivation or at least corollary. Some religions like Islam IMO were began by violence, are perpetuated by it, and are currently thriving on it. To claim the two are exclusive of one another is meaningless. They yell "Allahu Akbar" right before the bomb goes off, they do not yell "in the name of nothing theologically related" and them kill a bunch of people who have nothing to do with either concept. I do not believe that Christianity allows for violence in its name but that certainly did not stop a hundred thousand crusaders from yelling "God wills it" and then killing Muslims, Jews, and Christians. Religion is integrally involved in violence and the hatred of religion is integrally involved in far more.

Yes, certain religious interpretations are one variable among many contributing to violence, but what good comes from pointing the finger at large groups of people? What manner of fruit does this mentality produce?

Every Christian, Muslim, and atheist that I personally know is non-violent. Should I abandon my direct observations in favor of gross generalization?

 

[1robin]

Yes, certain religious interpretations are one variable among many contributing to violence, but what good comes from pointing the finger at large groups of people? What manner of fruit does this mentality produce?

Every Christian, Muslim, and atheist that I personally know is non-violent. Should I abandon my direct observations in favor of gross generalization?

I am unclear where you are getting gross generalizations. In my case I have said that Muhammad was violent, that Islam is violent as a theology, but I have never said all Muslims are. In what context are you speaking?

I claim that Islam is violent and has survived by violence and offer evidence.

1. In the first 13 years of Islam's peaceful history Muhammad barely managed to get a few hundred followers together. The following ten years of almost constant violence he acquired about 100,000. They were mainly interested in power, loot, and women and the violence in Islam allowed them to acquire it.
2. Most of the peaceful verses in the Quran were written when Muhammad was weak and when he wished to recruit the Jewish population. However as soon as he acquired some military strength the entire character of Islam and the Quran changed. It was now violence, violence, violence. What’s worse, is the later violent verses abrogate the peaceful verses.
3. Islam was spread by the sword and submission. Muhammad indicated death was the punishment for apostasy.

Islam is violent. Many Muslims are not. They are not violent in spite of the Quran not because of it. The denial of this truth produced the fear of Islamaphobia claims from our PC media and allowed the Boston bombers to succeed as well as they did. Truth must be spoken whether the left thinks it offensive or not. Political correctness has caused way more harm than good, as anything that suppresses truth usually winds up doing.

 

[Breathe]

Every Christian, Muslim, and atheist that I personally know is non-violent. Should I abandon my direct observations in favor of gross generalization?

Of course you should; hasn't being a member of RF taught you anything?

 

[F0uad]

I am unclear where you are getting gross generalizations. In my case I have said that Muhammad was violent, that Islam is violent as a theology, but I have never said all Muslims are. In what context are you speaking?

I claim that Islam is violent and has survived by violence and offer evidence.

1. In the first 13 years of Islam's peaceful history Muhammad barely managed to get a few hundred followers together. The following ten years of almost constant violence he acquired about 100,000. They were mainly interested in power, loot, and women and the violence in Islam allowed them to acquire it.
2. Most of the peaceful verses in the Quran were written when Muhammad was weak and when he wished to recruit the Jewish population. However as soon as he acquired some military strength the entire character of Islam and the Quran changed. It was now violence, violence, violence. What’s worse, is the later violent verses abrogate the peaceful verses.
3. Islam was spread by the sword and submission. Muhammad indicated death was the punishment for apostasy.

Islam is violent. Many Muslims are not. They are not violent in spite of the Quran not because of it. The denial of this truth produced the fear of Islamaphobia claims from our PC media and allowed the Boston bombers to succeed as well as they did. Truth must be spoken whether the left thinks it offensive or not. Political correctness has caused way more harm than good, as anything that suppresses truth usually winds up doing.

Stay on topic.



“I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind… I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet’s biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life.”

-Ghandi



You can't say Islam is violent but Muslims aren't because Islam makes Muslims as how they are. We already have seen which religion is more violent in the past in history. The Christians were persecuting there own religion, Jews, atheists and many others. They were oppressing its civilian, oppressing science and free speech what led to Secularism. Wherein the Islamic empire taught that science is a good virtue, accepting other religions with ''limits'', and was mainly peaceful in comparison with the Christian one.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The most famous example of OT warfare is The God's instructions to wipe out the Canaanites. It says God had pleaded and worked with them for years and they had abjectly refused to repent. It was only when the Bible says their cup of iniquity was finally full that God reluctantly gave the order to attack them.

Scary message. I am always startled to hear people reciting the history of war-winners as if it is honest truth.

The Israelites wanted Canaan so they slaughtered the Canaanites and took their land. Then they wrote history books claiming that their enemies sacrified their own children, etc.

I thought you said you had an interest in history?

 

[F0uad]

Scary message. I am always startled to hear people reciting the history of war-winners as if it is honest truth.

The Israelites wanted Canaan so they slaughtered the Canaanites and took their land. Then they wrote history books claiming that their enemies sacrified their own children, etc.

I thought you said you had an interest in history?

Yeah and the guy says Islam teaches violence yet the Bible is full with these kind of stories. No where are the actions condemned but actually justified because they were ''god's men'' but when it comes to Islam.. o its so violent.

For example Mohammed(saws) fought armies in a period of 23 years to protect the city of Medina in the total year of 23 the maximum of deaths on both sides were around 1500. In the bible its told that Moses(pbuh) had to wipe out a city and he killed over 3000 people in one single day not saving the innocent or defending whatsoever.

 

[1robin]

Stay on topic.

Don't give me orders.

“I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind… I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet’s biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life.”
-Ghandi

I like Gandhi and he was certainly courageous. However he was not the wisest man who ever lived and he certainly was not a historical scholar. He was well known to tell anyone what they wished to hear to advance his agenda. He told the British he was a Christian, his own peopple he was a Hindu, and I imagine the future Pakastani's that he was a Muslim. His efforts kicked Britain out of India and plunged the entire country into yet another war between Islam and whoever else happened to be in the vicinity and he claimed to have regretted his actions in the end. The same British authorities who were run out were called back in to facilitate the end of the fighting which their mere presence had prevented previously. When the British are away the Muslims will play (kill) I guess. It is quite odd for you to use an example where Muslims killed thousands, as an example of Islamic peace.

You can't say Islam is violent but Muslims aren't because Islam makes Muslims as how they are.

Apparently I can because I did so. I also knowing this silly objection would not be far away said they are peaceful in-spite of Islam not because of it. BTW the hundreds of terrorist organizations would agree. They think the peaceful Muslims are not true Muslims.

We already have seen which religion is more violent in the past in history.

If you mean the OT then since yours did not even exist it is hardly a meaningful comparison. If you mean since Islam first took the sword in about 624AD then Islam is by far the most violent even including the crusades and inquisitions.

The Christians were persecuting their own religion, Jews, atheists and many others.

Yes it happened but since you did not post how much of it occurred or where that's as far as I can go. Christianity sure had its dark moments. Islam has only had one. Start to finish.

They were oppressing its civilian, oppressing science and free speech what led to Secularism. Wherein the Islamic empire taught that science is a good virtue, accepting other religions with ''limits'', and was mainly peaceful in comparison with the Christian one.

Yes, Christianity is not guiltless but given only assertions and no facts I can say little beyond that. BTW I have said this very things including examples many times before and you know this well so what was the point here.

 

[Straw Dog]

Islam is violent. Many Muslims are not. They are not violent in spite of the Quran not because of it. The denial of this truth produced the fear of Islamaphobia claims from our PC media and allowed the Boston bombers to succeed as well as they did. Truth must be spoken whether the left thinks it offensive or not. Political correctness has caused way more harm than good, as anything that suppresses truth usually winds up doing.

I don't live in the past. Sure, both the Bible and Qu'ran contain descriptions of a wrathful deity, but I try to see individuals as they are rather than through the filter of preconceived biases and labels. You even admit that most Muslims are non-violent.

Religion was made for mankind and not mankind for religion. People are responsible for their own actions, regardless of religious/theological association. I agree that political correctness shouldn't distort the truth, but I don't see this sort of argument furthering the cause of peace, understanding, or truth. It just seems to culminate in intellectual violence with all sides being equally delusional in believing they possess a monopoly on truth.

Besides giving you a sense of superiority over Muslims, can you can tell me what good actually comes from attacking Islam as a violent religion? Doesn't this just spread further discord and anger? Wouldn't it be better to focus on the positive aspects and encourage that which is commonly virtuous within all people?

 

[F0uad]

Don't give me orders.
I like Gandhi and he was certainly courageous. However he was not the wisest man who ever lived and he certainly was not a historical scholar. He was well known to tell anyone what they wished to hear to advance his agenda. He told the British he was a Christian, his own peopple he was a Hindu, and I imagine the future Pakastani's that he was a Muslim. His efforts kicked Britain out of India and plunged the entire country into yet another war between Islam and whoever else happened to be in the vicinity and he claimed to have regretted his actions in the end. The same British authorities who were run out were called back in to facilitate the end of the fighting which their mere presence had prevented previously. When the British are away the Muslims will play (kill) I guess. It is quite odd for you to use an example where Muslims killed thousands, as an example of Islamic peace.
Apparently I can because I did so. I also knowing this silly objection would not be far away said they are peaceful in-spite of Islam not because of it. BTW the hundreds of terrorist organizations would agree. They think the peaceful Muslims are not true Muslims.
If you mean the OT then since yours did not even exist it is hardly a meaningful comparison. If you mean since Islam first took the sword in about 624AD then Islam is by far the most violent even including the crusades and inquisitions.
Yes it happened but since you did not post how much of it occurred or where that's as far as I can go. Christianity sure had its dark moments. Islam has only had one. Start to finish.
Yes, Christianity is not guiltless but given only assertions and no facts I can say little beyond that. BTW I have said this very things including examples many times before and you know this well so what was the point here.

So are you making the suggestion that the Old-testament is not part of Christianity? If you do think so why don't you condemn the actions that were taken place?
Are you saying that Christian history (without the Old-Testament) was more peaceful then the Islamic one?

As for Ghandi he actually did read the biographies of the Prophet because hes son became Muslim when did you, o and the Brits who prosecuted the Hindu's and Muslims in India were Christians.