• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Christianity & Islam: Are Either of them a Religion of Peace?

Status
Not open for further replies.

|~~ANT~~|

Ex-Bluelighter
Joined
Oct 11, 2018
Messages
444
Let me start off by saying that I sort of identify as Christian, so obviously I'm a little biased. I say "sort of" Christian, because I don't believe Jesus was a real person and - if he was - he wasn't literally the son of God. But, I believe in the teachings of the New Testament (more or less) and I think Christianity has had a hugely positive effect on humanity... taking into account all the terrible things that have resulted from it.

I change my mind all the time... I used to be strictly atheist, convinced that when we die there are no surprises. Then, gradually, I became an on-the-fence agnostic. Now I very strongly believe in life after death and some sort of transference of consciousness... I also used to be far left wing (in terms of politics) and now I am approaching far right...

A lot of discussions are nothing more than intellectual competitions. More often than not, from my experience, people aren't willing to consider if they are wrong. They go to great lengths constructing increasingly complex arguments to convince themselves they already know the truth.

I want to know the truth. I want to be wrong. That is how I try and approach things, but sometimes ego gets in the way... I'm just trying to make it clear that I don't want to offend anyone. I want to have a civil discussion with people who want to discuss this topic. If you feel any bitterness or negativity about the following, I'm genuinely sorry to triggered that and it's probably best if we just agree to disagree.

...

Having said all that, this is my opinion: the world is better with Christianity and better without Islam.

It is socially acceptable in Australia to say the church is an abomination and that all priests are paedophiles, but it isn't socially acceptable to similarly criticise Islam. There are two primary reasons for this: (1) you don't have to be afraid of the Catholic church sentencing you to death, or someone killing you in the name of Christ; and, (2) there is confusion about differentiating between nationality/culture and religion when it comes to Islamic countries.

Not being able to be critical of other races, cultures, or religions means that we tolerate things in society that we would not otherwise tolerate. Most people in this country that are openly homophobic or sexist are condemned. But if you happen to belong to a powerful organisation that fits under the religion-umbrella, then we - as a society - are not sure if we should condemn these attitudes.

Do we care more about so-called racism / Islamophobia than we do about women or homosexuals?
Do we care more about so-called racism / Islamophobia than we do about our own social standards?

Compared to Christianity, twelve times as many people have been murdered in the name of Islam... Mohammed was a warlord and a rapist. Whereas Jesus is a symbol of purity and self-sacrifice... Both religions have contributed massively to charity, but Islamic charitable donations typically stay within Islam.

If either of them is a religion of peace, isn't it Christianity?

Why should we tolerate an organisation (religious or otherwise) that promotes values we steadfastly disagree with?

The Nazi holocaust killed maybe 10 million people.
The Islamic holocaust killed over 80 million people.

Some 25 million people have died in the name of Christianity.
Over 300 million people have died in the name of Islam.
 
If you don't believe Jesus was a real person and you reject the idea of him being the son of God, why consider yourself even 1% Christian? I mean, that's the whole point of Christianity. It's like saying, "I consider myself a vegan...well, kind of, because I do sometimes eat meat". You say it's because you agree with most of the ideas in the New Testament. Thing about that is, there aren't any original ideas in the New Testament...they're all based on myths and other teachings that predate Christianity by hundreds or thousands of years.

So in all honesty, you really have no reason to identify as Christian at all.

As to your other points, I generally agree with a few major exceptions. When you say we should be able to be critical of other "races, cultures, and religions..." well, that's kind of fucked up because religions are ideas and principles that are picked apart and criticized because they make big claims about the origin of the universe, what happens when we die, etc. How would one go about criticizing a race ? Race has nothing to do with what kind of life you lead or what kind of ideas you promote.

I would like to see your sources for all the statistics and whatnot. They seem very specific.

The problem with Islam globally is that it has not modernized and reformed the way Christianity has. That's really all there is to it.
 
The argument that there aren't any new ideas in the New Testament revolves around common denominators... You can apply this to any fictional/mythological work ever printed. If you're talking about morality, point me to another text that predates the Bible that attempts to document morality to such an extent? I like Christianity because it is what we have learnt as a species, to some extent. It is a part of ancient history... There is always a link between the past and the present.

It is completely irrelevant if the Bible is original.
It claims to be the word of God, written by man.
So, why wouldn't religion reflect religion?

If you don't believe Jesus was a real person and you reject the idea of him being the son of God, why consider yourself even 1% Christian? I mean, that's the whole point of Christianity. It's like saying, "I consider myself a vegan...well, kind of, because I do sometimes eat meat".


Jesus never said he was the Son of God.
So the real question is why do people who claim to be Christians ignore this fact?
I don't think I'm ignoring anything.
 
The father, the son, and the Holy Spirit...come on man. You have to believe that God sent Jesus to die for your sins. If you don't, you aren't Christian, despite however you choose to define yourself.

Maybe look into Buddhism or Hinduism ...Zoroastrianism...ancient Egypt
 
Is there really such thing as 'a religion of peace'? Perhaps initially both doctrines were trying to provide a moral framework for society, but this soon became bastardised by the rich and powerful as a tool to control the superstitious and ignorant and make them do their bidding. As a result, neither Christianity or Islam are particularly renowned for tolerating other beliefs. The irony is that they're the same story, different authour...
 
I don't believe any religion can be about peace. The nature of religion is to believe regardless of experience, or to seek an experience that validates the belief. Conflicting beliefs all backed by invisible faith being held absolutely by adherents does not result in peace.

Belief, all on its own, disrupts peace.


I attend a Christian (evangelical) church but I don't believe what they believe, I just don't see a big issue is working with them as long as they are doing something of value. I don't behave as they behave either but while I'm in their presence I'm not being offensive toward them.

Because I'm openly gay and have been on a medical marijuana prescription for 5 years my lifestyle is a catch 22 for them. Most people who call themselves Christian have wildly differing beliefs, I try to only promote humanity, compassion love and, when there is opportunity, education. My approach to people comes from the teachings of the new testament. The character portrayed in the Jesus story isn't really tough to follow once you realize he dismissed all previous religious beliefs the Jews had. His story is far different when you simply read it from the perspective of someone who was teaching love for all including self and not attempting to see it as an extension of a bitter angry religion that forced people to obey. If he existed at all, Jesus may not have been Jewish.

Jesus was not named Jesus and although his words are probably very misquoted in the bible there is still the undertone of the oneness of man and God (Jesus didn't call himself the son of God but he did say he and the father were one, more specifically to be one with him as he is/was one with the father.) I agree that he may not have existed and may have only been a story much older being rewritten into the current culture of the day.

For me Christianity was like kindergarten to spirituality. There are a lot of accurate truths in this religion but like most religions it closes the door on learning because faith and belief are absolute, it is frowned upon to question these teachings.

Today I see myself as awakening, it hasn't been instant and it has been painful at times. It was challenging to look long and hard at the beliefs I had carried my whole life and begin dismissing them as wrong. For a brief period I was angry at the lies I'd been told and bitter over the waste of so much time chasing my tail around thinking belief and faith worked out by people thousands of years ago could possibly apply to me.

I try to completely separate myself from the old Jewish religion that has been stapled onto the teachings of Jesus. I dont take much of the old Jewish stories as accurate, true or even profitable for humanity, I also don't believe we ever should have a singular authority (the Jewish Christ belief). The term or belief in a singular ruler is a Jewish story and the title Christ means something to their religion. I don't believe a single being should or could rule. I don't believe Jesus was trying to rule either, he was teaching humanity to awaken.

Today more of humanity is awakening but religions have placed obstacles in the path for almost all of us. Overcoming these added rules and sometimes outright lies to see a clear picture of life on a planet In space is a challenge. finding the place in yourself where you do become one with God was not at all what I expected to encounter. I feel Christianity didn't properly prepare me for life but the teachings of Jesus did. They are not the same thing sadly.
 
I think religions can be about peace if that's their purpose, e.g. Unitarian-Universalists. I also believe the core of many beliefs are genuine reflections on humanity expressed allegorically. I don't think Jesus or Buddha were real people as much as they were early visions of how humanity should act.

Islam has a passage that I think says all it needs to about the religion and the people who misinterpret it, "To you be your way, and to me mine." I believe this clearly expresses tolerance and the acceptance that people will form their own conclusions. Not everyone will agree, but so be it, they have their way and I have mine.

Also Middle-eastern people might hate you, but they will treat you like a king in their home. I appreciate their hospitality. Southern people and middle-easterners are who's houses you want to get invited too.
 
mal3volent said:
The father, the son, and the Holy Spirit...come on man. You have to believe that God sent Jesus to die for your sins. If you don't, you aren't Christian, despite however you choose to define yourself.


It's not up to you to tell people if they are or are not Christian.
I believe the early Christians understood the analogical nature of these stories.
You don't need to literally believe in the story of Moses or Noah to be Jewish.

Maybe look into Buddhism or Hinduism ...Zoroastrianism...ancient Egypt

I have and there are no texts I've discovered that are as devoted to peace and kindness. Whenever anyone mentions Zoroastrianism, I wonder if they've ever bothered to read the texts. Because, it is not comparable to the New Testament in tone. And Ancient Egyptian religions are so far removed from the Christian doctrine that I'm not sure why you're mentioning them.

If this is your argument - that religions which predate Christianity are superior or even equal versions of what appeals to me in the New Testament - the onus is on you to prove your argument. I've challenged people to do this before, yet nobody can.

With all due respect, you have no reason to tell people whether or not they're Christian. Whether or not he was a real person is irrelevant. The message is irrelevant. People focus too much on literal interpretations. The same thing applies to Genesis, Noah's Ark and countless other stories that people insist are literal (even when they're obviously not) in order to paint religion as absurd.

The irony is that they're the same story, different authour...


No, they're not.

One of them is a story of a man who devoted his life to God and did not discriminate against anyone. He transcended racism during a time when that was an extraordinary thing to do. He was all-inclusive.

The other story is about a fascist warlord who rapes women and is hell-bent on conquering the world.

Yourbaker said:
I feel Christianity didn't properly prepare me for life but the teachings of Jesus did. They are not the same thing sadly.


The teachings of Jesus are the real Christianity.
The church (and all of it's ceremonious nonsense) are irrelevant.
If a book is adapted, poorly, the book is still the book - not the adaptation.

People who pretend to be Christians aren't Christians.
Going to church doesn't make you a Christian.
Living by the word of Christ does.
 
Last edited:

And Ancient Egyptian religions are so far removed from the Christian doctrine that I'm not sure why you're mentioning them.

If this is your argument - that religions which predate Christianity are superior or even equal versions of what appeals to me in the New Testament - the onus is on you to prove your argument. I've challenged people to do this before, yet nobody can.

One of them is a story of a man who devoted his life to God and did not discriminate against anyone. He transcended racism during a time when that was an extraordinary thing to do. He was all-inclusive.

The other story is about a fascist warlord who rapes women and is hell-bent on conquering the world.
I wouldn't say it's surprising that as humans evolved the religions became more complex, what I think is interesting is that on a fundamental level they are very similar: don't steal, don't kill, you will be rewarded for a virtuous life, etc.

As for your statements on the Quran I would urge you to read a passage or two.

[FONT=pt_sans]“There is no compulsion in religion…” [/FONT][FONT=pt_sans](Quran 2:256).[/FONT]
Meaning forced conversion is impossible and wrong, if the religion is true people will accept it as such.

This is the verse that is used as justification by extremists. I ask you to read it and consider what it means to you.

"Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than killing; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.
And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.
The sacred month is for the sacred month, and for the prohibited things, there is the Law of Equality (Qisas). Then whoever transgresses the prohibition against you, you transgress likewise against him. And fear Allah, and know that Allah is with Al-Muttaqun (the pious)."

It does have an aggressive tone to it and it's quite obvious how an extremist could use this to justify war, but I think what should be noted is the mentions of mercy, to even an enemy and the context of the quote. In this passage Muhammed is talking to people who must pick a side, either they will join the Arabs in fighting the Muslims or they will join the Muslims. If they do not join the Muslims they will be fought as an enemy, until they concede. Any enemy who submits will be shown mercy and forgiveness. I wouldn't say it's the most peaceful of words, but given the context it shows a humanity that is not often seen in conquering forces.
 
I would like to see your sources for all the statistics and whatnot. They seem very specific.


I didn't quote statistics, I don't think. Exactly how many people died hundreds or thousands of years ago is very difficult to determine. The numbers get less accurate as I go further into the past, for obvious reasons... But, I've tried to be as accurate as possible. Which number do you think is inaccurate?

The estimate of how many people died in the Nazi holocaust is commonly accepted to be between 6 and 10 million. I chose the conservative end of the spectrum, so it wouldn't seem like I was trying to make a false comparison. There are Nazi documents detailing how many people were killed in certain camps and the Jews kept fastidious records of their population / genealogy... I assume you're not questioning this number. so I'll move on.

The estimate for how many people died in the Indian (Islamic) holocaust wasn't specific. I averaged it down to the nearest 10 million. I don't have a source that you can verify for this number. It is what I have consistently discovered reading and cross-referencing historical articles / documents...

Do you believe the historical consensus that 50-100 million people died as a result of the black plague?
Or should we assume for some reason that the number is completely inaccurate?

Most people unaware of the Indian holocaust. When people say "The Holocaust" they almost always refer to the Nazi/Jewish Holocaust... It's interesting stuff. You should look into it.

For 800 years, Indian people were murdered in the name of genocide by occupying Islamic forces. Each year, in the Bahamani Sultinate, they had a minimum of 100,000 Hindu people to kill... This was a period of genocidal slavery and it is one of the worst periods of recorded history. India has never recovered.

This is all widely accepted historical fact. So, you can just Google it and chose your source.

But, I suspect you're concerned more about the 25 million vs 300 million (killed in the name of Christianity and Islam, respectively).

Since it is impossible to accurately determine the number of people killed by the Nazis - estimates vary from 5 to 12 million - even though both sides kept fairly meticulous records... It's obviously not going to be possible to accurately determine an accurate death toll of either religion. So, again, I went with conservatively low figures for both religions. It may well be considerably higher than 25 million for Christianity, or considerably higher than 300 million for Islam. Or it might be less. But this is the best information we have available... It is unlikely that historical researchers are off by a significant margin.

Christianity has existed for twenty centuries, whereas Islam has existed for 14 centuries... So even if the death toll for Christianity is 40 million (which no respected historian would argue), that's 2 million a century versus over 20 million a century for Islam.

The problem with Islam globally is that it has not modernized and reformed the way Christianity has. That's really all there is to it.

No, that's not all there is to it... Islam is struggling to modernise because the ideals expressed within it are incompatible with modern (or at least Western) ideologies. Whenever anyone criticises the Bible, they go straight to the Old Testament (OT). They do this because it's quite easy to compare the Qur'an to the OT. They're both books that inspire violence, genocide, sexism, homophobia and racism. Modern Christianity is the result of the New Testament (NT), which is a beautiful book about sacrifice and love.

Judaism is Christianity without the New Testament. But, it too is easier to re-interpret for the modern world. Christians are very particular about the OT. Certain (less offensive) chapters like Genesis and some of the stories of Moses are incorporated into sermons with stuff from the NT. But there are also books - like Deuteronomy and Ecclesiastes, among many others - that are cherry picked by modern Christianity to avoid all the archaic ass-backwards xenophobic sexist nonsense.

The Qur'an doesn't lend itself to re-interpretation... It was written by one man. Not only that, but he's the Jesus figure for Islam. And, everything he wrote down - every letter & every word according to Islamic people - is the word of God... Furthermore - unlike the Bible - his followers know that it hasn't been edited.

The Bible has a companion book called the Apocrypha, which is a collection of books that were removed from the Bible over time. Obviously, it is not possible to do this with the Qur'an. They can't change a word, let alone remove a book without admitting that Mohammed was wrong about something... and if they do that, the whole religion collapses.

Islam is showing no sign of reformation. I imagine it's pretty difficult to object to immoral religious practices - the way Jesus did - if you live in a society that disowns you, tortures you, imprisons you, or kills you for doing so... Jesus (real or fictional) was super critical of Judaism. He was killed for doing so... And, he would have been even more critical of Islam.

Reformation is not going to happen by itself. People need to stop turning a blind eye and, instead, stand up and object to Islam. Why just wait around and see if it gets better? That's not how change happens. Change happens through honest, open dialogue... And we're all afraid to speak the truth.

Islam is history's most violent organisation (religious or otherwise). People say Christianity was corrupted by power. But Islam was corrupt to begin with. It is a religion dictated by a rapist and a warlord.

There's a passage in the Qur'an - I forget the verse - where Mohammed is confronted by his soldiers. They ask him if it is appropriate to forcibly ejaculate inside women after killing their husbands in front of them. The concern (from the soldier's perspective) is pregnant sex slaves will sell for less money. He doesn't say it is wrong to rape women or to sell them as sexual slaves. He says it is wrong to pull out... So the soldier's continue doing what they're doing: murdering and raping.

This is a far worse message than anything in the OT. Comparing it to the NT, is like comparing Sesame Street to American Psycho... Tolerating Islam, in my opinion, is wrong. It is wrong - I think - to not be outspoken against it. But, that's a lot easier for me to do in Australia with no consequences. So, I have an enormous amount of respect for the brave Islamic women who renounce their religion and become anti-Islamic activists.

If you look at Islam historically, it has become more fundamental since it began... not less. Reformation has always failed spectacularly. Post-reformation, they double down on fundamentalism in order to re-enforce it as a religion that cannot change. So, how/why is it going to happen now? There doesn't appear to be much sign of significant change.


The thing about Christianity (and, by Christianity, I mean the NT) is this: there's something pure and good at the core of it. It is a book about love and understanding. One of the central teachings is to not judge others and to help strangers. These values might seem obvious, but maybe they're obvious to people in the Western world because we live in a Christian society (regardless of whether or not we identify as Christian).

I don't think it's possible to salvage a peaceful religion from Islam. The core is rotten. The centre figure of the religion is a murderer and a rapist and you can't remove him from the story. So, how can you possible work around that?

Maybe look into Buddhism or Hinduism


I also sort of identify as Buddhist. Buddhism mixes well with (non-literal) Christianity.
It is a beautiful religion. Not sure, between the two, which one I like more.

Hinduism isn't a modern religion. It's like reading Ancient Greek mythology. It makes less sense than the more obscure passages in the OT. There's some beautiful poetry in there and certainly some wisdom, but it doesn't compare to Christianity or Buddhism. There isn't a lot of consistency in the Vedas. They feel like they were written by someone on psychedelics (like ancient mythology and some of the OT prophets) rather than written by a philosophical meditative person who calmly understands the nature of humanity (like the Buddha).

You mentioned Zoroastranarianism. I seriously doubt you've read the Avesta... People generally reference this obscure ancient religion as a criticism of Christianity. But, like I said, common denominators are irrelevant. The Avesta is not like the NT... There are icons that recur throughout religions, but there is also countless repetition in literature and music throughout history. Those guys suing Led Zeppelin for plagiarising part of Stairway to Heaven: their song is garbage, by comparison. Similarly, cave paintings that predated fine art don't negate the value of fine art.

Everything is progressive.

I haven't read most of the Avesta, but I spent at least a couple of hours reading through excerpts and idly flicking through the text itself. Personally, it doesn't move me. The Qur'an doesn't move me either. I am moved - spiritually - by reading the NT (and parts of the OT) plus the writings of Buddha... This is why I somewhat identify as Christian and Buddhist.

We live in a world that says you can identify as a woman if you're a man, so I don't see why I can't identify somewhat as Christian despite not believing literally in the story of Jesus. Like I said, his teachings are far more important than whether or not he's fictional (everything in the Vedas is fictional). And the events in his life have the same function symbolically regardless of whether or not he literally was a person or not. It's an insignificant distinction that -unfortunately- receives more focus than the point of the story.
 
Last edited:


I've read most of the Qur'an. There is some beautiful poetry in there and certainly a fair amount of wisdom. There are passages, in fact, that I think are better written than any passages in the New Testament.

This is the verse that is used as justification by extremists.


There are many verses used as justification by extremists.

what I think is interesting is that on a fundamental level they are very similar: don't steal, don't kill, you will be rewarded for a virtuous life, etc.


We can all tap into truth and love. Some people call this God. If you tap into God or Truth and Love or whatever you want to call it, it is clear that being good to people rewards you. This is the spiritual truth... It is not a truth animals abide by because s
urvival is inherently selfish. Animals aren't generous or selfless, unless it comes to their own family. And even them sometimes they are not. Religion is part of the evolutionary transition from animal to human. It is ever present (in all cultures) for this reason and all religions are similar for this reason.

Having said all that, it makes a big difference who delivers the message and how they deliver it. I'm not suggesting Islam has done no good or that it has no good messages within it, but - overall - it has a negative impact... Mohammed was not a pious man. The message of God should not be delivered by a rapist or a murderer, because it confuses the message. The Qur'an serves as the moral code for the Islamic world: the good parts of this code come from that universal truth and love; and the bad part come from Mohammed's past and his unprocessed sin.
 
I'd be quite interested to have a discussion about whether or not Christianity has done more harm or good. Nobody has broached that subject yet... Also does anyone disagree that Islam has been far worse for the world than Christianity?

For the non-religious folks out there: if you had a button that could erase Islam from history and another that could erase Christianity, which one would you push? And why?
 
Last edited:
Too many things are attributed to Christianity and too little things are attributed to Islam. We remember the Christian atrocities more. We're taught more of them in school. Assuming the death toll is around 25 million for Christianity and 300 million for Islam, that's 21.5 million deaths per century in the name of Sharia law.

Break down the Christian death toll.

The 30 Year War
- 8 million / 30 Years -

The Crusades
- 1.7 million / 20 Years -

That's 2.5 percent of the years taking up about 40% of the deaths.

The Indian holocaust alone killed 100,000 people per year for 8 centuries, without a break.
When people think about the Crusades, they fail to realise it happened for a couple of decades.

If subtract you the death toll of the Thirty Year War and the Crusades from 25 million, you get about 15 million, across 1950 years.
That's 21 per day for Christianity, minus two relatively short bloodbaths that can't represent Christianity as a whole.
Then divide Islam's death toll - of 300 million - across 1400 years and it comes to 587 a day.

Christianity has 21 killings a day for 1950 years + 50 years of 531 killings a day.
Islam has averaged 587 a day since it's conception.

So, the bloodiest parts of the Christian history book - The Thirty Year War and the Crusades - average less dead per day than Islam. It's been a consistently bloody and violent religion with few exceptions since it's conception. Whereas Christianity is the opposite. There have been moments of extreme violence and we remember those when we define Christianity, but they shouldn't define it any more than incidences of war between capitalist societies should define capitalism.

Christianity isn't as bloody as people think it is.
That's just white guilt.

The amount of good the church has done is immeasurable and, sadly, forgotten.
 
No... not as bloody... just slavery, rape, and the decimation of entire cultures... peaceful ya know
 
Now for the immeasurable harm.

Priests are more likely to sexually assault girls than boys.
The only exception to this that I'm aware of is the United States.

Similarly, women are more likely to be raped (including prison populations) world-wide.
Again, the only exception to this is the United States.

So, in the US, for whatever reason, men have a higher rate of homosexual and (specifically) male paedophilic tendencies. Also, interestingly, the priests in the United States are also committing assaults at a much higher rate than priests in other countries. Some countries have less than a tenth of the rate of assault by priests than the United States. Most countries have a fraction of the male rape that exists in the United States.

My point is: there must be other factors than the church.

Sadly, the rates of sexual assault from priests aren't far removed from the rates of sexual assault from: family members; teachers; child care workers; or the general public... Rape - particularly child rape - has been irreversibly stamped on the church's public image, and so it should be, but now I think we've grown so accustomed to dramatising it and making fun of it that we've blown it out of proportion.

The church has done a lot of other - non rapey - bad things, too. I'm not fond of blending charity with recruitment for example, particularly in foreign countries (Asia / Africa), nor am I particularly fond socially of pushy lecturing Christians or judgemental elitists.

But, the religion has done so much good.
I think we take it for granted.
 
bptubbs said:
just slavery, rape, and the decimation of entire cultures... peaceful ya know


Isn't capitalism guilty of that? Or is it democracy?
Who do you blame when their isn't a religion to scapegoat?
 
Not a scapegoat, politics are to blame for just as much
 
SheWasLvL18 said:
At least Islam gave us Algebra and greco-roman translations. Not to discredit all Christians like St. Aquinas and St. Anselm, but it seems much more anti-intellectual and dogmatic.

It's not fair to say Islam gave us Algebra. Islam is not a race. The lines are blurred a bit and this is why we can't criticise Islam. But, it is not a race. It is a religion and a political system, designed by a warlord and a self-confessed rapist. Mohammed shouldn't be credited with producing algebra any more than Hitler should be credited as the reason the internet was created in an alternative dimension where he achieved world power.


Look at Islam now and tell me if it seems like an intellectual place. They want to put homosexuals in jails. They treat women terribly (by most Western standards). They still stone people to death in many countries... I think you're cherry picking the positives, here, just as people do with the negatives of Christianity.


They have a much larger influence on the western world than Islam and it's a lot of hatred for other Abrahamic religions.


I'm not sure I understand this, but are you saying that Christian people hate on other Abrahamic religions? Isn't the opposite true? Jewish and Islamic people openly talk about wanting their kids to marry Jewish and Islamic people... There are some hardcore Christians that feel the same way, but most of them are flexible. I've lived in four countries across four decades and I'm certain of this...


There are stories in the New Testament about acceptance, but - obviously - people are petty. The church doesn't control them. There will be wars. There will be racism... But, the message of the book is that of acceptance... If you compare the NT to the Qur'an or the Torah, there are noticeable differences in this regard. Both the Qur'an and the Torah defines Muslims and Jewish people, respectively, as the chosen people. The chosen people are depicted to be God's people and they are better or more deserving in some vague way than others.


Now look at Jesus and the Samaritan. Compare the tone of these books, with an open heart. I challenge you.


Not sure if you realise: but the attitude of the Islamic "church" is basically world domination and their projected population (google it, seriously) mean this is a serious threat.
 


That renders your initial statement meaningless, then.

not if you add the word ecumenical before the word politics.

nothing is to be assumed about human history, nothing should be taken as fact either. finding out the truth of something is down right hard.

we tolerate things for two reasons. to respect them for continued success and to endure something we don't agree with but don't want to be judged for.

i could go point for point and idea for idea but i'm not going to because it's not going to get you what your looking for with all of these generalities.

you bring up good points (aside from contradicting yourself and playing devils advocate to yourself as well as those here) but many if not all of them have been discussed by minds brighter, simpler or more enlightened than most you are going to find here and lead you to questions you yourself might not be ready to face yet. sometimes the simplest answers are the truth and also the hardest to accept.

bottom line and to answer your question: peace is fleeting. conflict within the human condition (soul and spirit are both part of this) is non transferable nor is it something you can expunge from yourself. all beliefs hold this to be true via a constant struggle to attain an end goal regardless of benevolent or malevolent ideology. trying to remove the pure bad from one or all human beings is like trying to remove the pure good as well... not going to happen. we need that friction regardless of how disdainful it is to anyone or any group of people (water which is too pure has no fish). it's a simple fact of life that this step in evolution is trying to make aware to all human beings.

stay open minded, keep expressing interest and do lots of research but most of all try something for yourself. if that doesn't work try something else. don't stop until you are satisfied.

why is peace fleeting? so you can have something to live for. you obtain, hold onto it, enjoy it for what it is; learn, experience and grow from it just so you can lose it and start trying to obtain it again. just like why hot dogs come in packages of ten and hot dog buns come in packages of eight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top