Years ago I took a survey that asked, “Is Islam a more violent religion than Christianity”?
I’m ashamed to say that I answered yes.
I’m not ashamed of my answer because it was wholly informed. I’d studied Islam and read the Quran as an undergraduate, and there’s no doubt that you can find violence in the sacred writings of our Muslim brothers and sisters.
I’m ashamed of my answer because I didn’t see, or chose not to see, the violence in my own tradition. In reality the Bible contains just as much violence, some would even say more, than the Quran.
Don’t believe me? Check out the body count.
- God hardens Pharoah’s heart so that he will not grant the Israelites their freedom, then kills the first born of each Egyptian family as punishment (Exodus 12:29).
- As punishment for Israel’s worship of the golden calf, God orders Moses to have the sons of Levi take up their swords and kill their brother, friend and neighbor (Exodus 32:27).
- When Israel defeats the Midianites, they follow God’s directions and execute all the men, women and boys … except for the virgin girls (Numbers 31).
And although there may be less bloodshed in the New Testament, there is still plenty to go around. Just ask poor Herod, who was struck down by an angel of the Lord and “eaten by worms” for refusing to acknowledge God’s role in his success (Acts 12:23).
So what are we to do with all this bloodshed?
Well, there are several options. One is to say “God is God, don’t question it”! But I’m guessing that answer is less than satisfying for most of us.
Another option is to sanitize the Bible by ignoring its violence and stick with the Sunday school version. But eventually you grow up and realize that just pretending something isn’t there doesn’t make it go away.
I think most Christians opt for the third alternative, reading these violent parts of the Bible in light of the overall message of Scripture. This is where I come down on the issue. I don’t believe that God is violent. I believe that God’s true nature is most clearly revealed on the cross where we see God as a victim, rather than a perpetrator, of violence.
But there’s still something that doesn’t feel completely satisfying about this option.
Maybe it’s because I’ve listened to too much commentary about the senseless deaths in Tucson, Ariz., following the attempted murder of Gabrielle Giffords, a member of the Arizona delegation in the U.S. House of Representatives.
So much of the coverage has attempted to pin blame on one group or another.
I do think that the conversation about our political rhetoric is important, especially in a time when we are drawing cross hairs over the seats of our political enemies.
But I’m also concerned with how quickly we become self-righteous when pointing the finger at others.
If the story of God’s people tells us anything about human nature it’s that even our heroes are capable of justifying violence when they think they’re right. Sometimes even using God’s name to do it.
So I’m glad that there’s a lot of violence in the Bible. Not because I like violence but rather because I know that I’m as capable of it as anyone.
Brian Beckstrom is campus pastor at Wartburg College in Waverly, Iowa.
Hi Brian, Thanks for this amazing post. I think we think alike. Greetings from Des Moines -- and from Bob. Terri Speirs
What if the Bible is violent because we're violent and fighting an open rebellion against God? And Scripture tells us how that rebellion ends. In Genesis 3, God certainly isn't a victim here-- it's 'Get out of my garden!'. And right in the 10 Commandments (Exodus 20:5) is the promise to punish children for the sins of the parents. Or even Genesis 5: "and he died", "and he died", "and he died" over and over again through the generations. None of it is good news, but aren't we still trying to sanitize God when we presume God cannot be violent, or is only responsible for the 'good' things that happen to us?
And what do we really need Christ for, if God Himself isn't our enemy?
Thanks Terri. I've been enjoying your posts as well. Give my best to Bob!
Thanks for the questions Peter. My argument is admittedly biased because I see the cross as the climax of the Biblical narrative and therefore the lens through which all of scripture is viewed. On the cross we see clearly that God is for us, not against us, despite our rebellion and sin. I simply can't see Jesus hanging on the cross, willingly submitting to violence, and say that this looks like a violent God.
Sir,
Muslims are not our brothers and sisters. God isn't violent He is just. Jesus on the cross is not a victim....he is the Victor. Lastly, read your bible.
John -
Because Muslims are created in the image of God, as are all human beings, that makes them our brothers and sisters.
I'm not sure why violence and justice are entwined in your understanding, but they aren't in mine. We may have to agree to disagree on that one.
Jesus on the cross is a victim. He was tried and convicted on false charges and put to death. What else could we call that besides victimization?
I do agree that Jesus is also the victor, conquering the forces of sin, evil, and death...but his victory came not through domination and violence (as it do for his Roman executioners) but rather through a willing embrace of suffering.
I will definitely continue to read my Bible. Thanks for reading this post.
Brian
Understanding is different than truth. Yes muslims are created in the image of God, however we, those of us that are saved, are not akin to those unsaved. A Muslim is not saved unless he receives Jesus as his Lord and Savior. You cannot be a devout Muslim and be have knowledge of the saving grace of Jesus Christ. Oil and water my friend. Darkness and light. Sorry you're wrong.
I respectfully disagree with you John. Being "saved" doesn't change one's status as a human being. If one has to qualify for being a Child of God by "understanding" the Gospel; where does that leave children, the mentally challenged, and those with dementia? Are they any less our brothers and sisters?
Because salvation is a gift, being "saved" doesn't make one superior to non believers. It may grant us freedom but it also calls us to love and serve our neighbors, whether or not they are Christians.
As Luther said "A Christian is a perfectly free Lord of all and subject to none...A Christian is a perfectly free servant of all and subject to all". This is the paradox in which we live as baptized children of God. To ignore one or the other is unwise, in my opinion.
I agree that on the cross, God demonstrates that He is for us. And yet, why is it necessary that Jesus be on the cross in the first place? Is it not to bear God's judgment against us? Isn't this the Law/Gospel distinction-- that God is both our greatest Critic and yet also our Savior?
I'm not sure that Jesus is a victim on the cross, largely because He could have prevented it. Maybe this gets into semantics, though, or else atonement theory.
Peter -
One of my favorite parts of Luther's theology is the concept of the Hidden God. Namely that God chooses to be revealed in the least likely places; particularly in weakness and on the cross.
I understand what you're saying about Jesus technically being able to prevent his victimization. Everything in us resists the idea of God being vulnerable, yet that is exactly what God was on the cross. But when we qualify God's vulnerability on the cross (which I've certainly done before) because of our discomfort, we begin to drift away from a theology of the cross toward a theology of glory. (Brian McLaren articulates this well when he argues that we don't really want a vulnerable God...what we want is Superman).
I'm not sure there's a clear cut answer to the question about why Jesus is on the cross in the first place. As you mention it is tied up with the theory of the atonement which is far from definitive.
As Gustaf Aulen demonstrates in his excellent book "Christus Victor" there is more than one atonement theory in scripture. The idea that Jesus makes satisfaction for our sin on the cross by paying off God is probably the most commonly accepted theory of the atonement. But I prefer Aulen's "Christus Victor" theory in which the purpose of Jesus' work on the cross is to defeat the powers of sin and death. (Of course one might still say that human sin is what makes the cross necessary in the first place).
Thanks for making me think more deeply about these important issues!
Peace,
Brian
Brian,
The difference between the Koran and the Bible is that the Koran instructs it's reader to commit violence, kill Jews, infidels etc... The old testament reads as a historical book; and like the new testament, the only instruction it gives is righteous. Nowhere in the Bible will you find instructions for it's reader to commit violence. Islam means submission.
Davebob,
That's not a material difference between the Bible and Koran. There are parts in both where violence is commanded in the name of God, and plenty of justification for that violence as being 'righteous' because it is directed against sinners.
That's all well and good, assuming you are righteous. Unfortunately, St Paul writes in Romans 3:23 "All have sinned". If violence against sinners is righteous, guess what *we* sinners ought to be given.
What sets the Koran and the Bible apart is not this judgment of death to the sinner. What sets it apart is God's promise of mercy to the sinner through Jesus' death and resurrection. In the place of God's righteous wrath, instead we given God's love, as a free gift and not because we've done *anything*. That promise of mercy is God's new way of dealing with all of us sinners. All that a Christian is, is someone who trusts that promise of mercy is FOR them. That's the difference between a Muslim and a Christian-- the Muslim must obey their understanding of God's Law to be righteous. Ours is a free gift from Jesus, regardless of our failures to obey our understanding of God's Law.
Brian,
The Hidden God is what I'm trying to get at. Without Christ, we see the face of God the Judge, telling us that we are not righteous enough, that we deserve to be punished as sinners. Since the Bible is about sinners, it's not that surprising that there are judged sinners in it. IIRC, when Luther talks about the Turks, he talks about the Germans having two enemies there-- the Turks on one hand, and God on the other. It is only through Jesus on the cross that the rod of God's wrath is broken.
I appreciate what you say about how God not being vulnerable leads us to a theology of glory. I think it's mostly semantics that bother me at this point. Jesus took up his cross, which is activity on his part, whereas I see a victim as having a more passive role. The victim can't help what happened to them, nor could the victim avoid what happened. Bad things that happen to us just because aren't us 'taking up the cross'. That's when we go into a situation knowing that we will most likely be hurt, possibly unto death, because we trust God's Easter promise. It may just be that I'm still tied to penal substitution models of atonement, and the victim language doesn't fit with the model.
Peter-
The initial question from Brian was, "Is Islam a more violent religion than Christianity?" The keyword here is "is". This indicates present action. The Koran and therefore Islam "is" violent. The Koran and the Bible have linked histories, both bloody. But, what do the two religions preach and do today?
You ask....where does that leave children, the mentally challenged, and those with dementia? Are they any less our brothers and sisters?
No they are not...
Matthew 18:2-4
2And He called a child to Himself and set him before them,
3and said, "Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and (A)become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.4"Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
There was no weakness by Jesus..ever..not in the temple...not on the highest point with Satan....not in the garden...AND MOST DEFINITELY NOT ON THE CROSS!!!!!!Jesus Christ came into the world headed right to the cross.
You shouldn't rely on heretics like Brian McClaren.
John -
I don't think we're going to agree on these issues but I appreciate your comments. I'm wondering what translation you're using for the Matthew text? Both the NIV and NRSV translate the word as "change" not "convert". It would seem that Jesus is lifting up the trust and dependance of a child as desirable characteristics, not a cognitive assent to certain principles.
I disagree with your denial of the human characteristics of Jesus. In the garden at Gethsemene Jesus certainly expressed doubt by asking that the cup might be taken from him.
It's a bit ironic that you call Brian McLaren a heretic when your position could be viewed as a restatement of the Monophysite heresy in which the human nature of Jesus is swallowed up by his divine nature.
John -
I don't think we're going to agree on these issues but I appreciate your comments. I'm wondering what translation you're using for the Matthew text? Both the NIV and NRSV translate the word as "change" not "convert". It would seem that Jesus is lifting up the trust and dependance of a child as desirable characteristics, not a cognitive assent to certain principles.
I disagree with your denial of the human characteristics of Jesus. In the garden at Gethsemene Jesus certainly expressed doubt by asking that the cup might be taken from him.
It's a bit ironic that you call Brian McLaren a heretic when your position could be viewed as a restatement of the Monophysite heresy in which the human nature of Jesus is swallowed up by his divine nature.
Davebob,
I see a lot of violence preached in the name of Christianity. It's more marked in places like Egypt, Nigeria and other African/Middle Eastern nations, but even our so-called Christian nation has killed ~100,000 Iraqis and ~5000 of its own soldiers in the last 10 years. Or even look at your local newspaper, and all of the shootings and other violence. Chances are, those were Christians committing that violence. Compare the violent Muslims in the US vs the violent Christians in the US.
John,
Mark 15:34: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
Peter,
Are we talking about what is done in the name of Christianity, or what the Christian Holy book instructs us to do? There are going to be people of all stripes commit violence, but the question still begs an answer; does the Koran instruct it's readers to commit violence? The answer to that is a resounding YES! Then ask yourself, and please provide examples if you find one, does the Christian Holy book or religious writing call for violence? On the contrary, the new testament calls for us to pray for our enemies. Christianity was spread by missionaries, Islam was spread by armies. What more can be said?
Davebob,
That's because you tune out all of the violence in Scripture. Check 1 Samuel 15:3. God commands the murder of all of the Amalekites, specifically including infants and children. That's hardly a unique circumstance in the OT, especially considering Jael is remembered favorably for driving a tent stake through a sleeping man's head (Judges 4:21) For an NT reference, see Rev 2:27 where God promises one who "will rule them with an iron scepter and will dash them to pieces like pottery". That leaves out all of the parts about hating various people, sects, etc, such as the Gospel of John where the Jews are called the children of Satan (and in which MUCH Christian anti-Semitism is grounded), Revelation speaking of hating various people, including Nicolatians, Jezebel, etc.
Similarly, in Islam, there are repeated injunctions to avoid perpetrating violence-- Christians and Jews, as "People of the Book" are especially NOT to be attacked, and there are stern warnings against hurting civilians.
As to the spread of the various faiths, Christianity has been spread by the sword as much as Islam. Once Constantine became Christian, it was expected that the rest of the Empire would be Christian, enforced by death, and especially highlighted later by the Inquisition. One thing we forget about the Council of Nicea was that the Arians were persecuted as a result. Not just told to leave the church or told that they were wrong, but persecuted in the hunted and killed sense. Peter the Great did a similar thing in Russia, where he marched the Russians to the river, shaved their beards and baptized them whether they wanted it or not. Even in Lutheranism, Gustavus Adolphus fought the 30 Years War specifically as a Protestant against the Catholics. And do we need to get into the Papal armies?
It's certainly a conceit of ours that Christianity is "better" than Islam, but as far as people go, we're just as warlike and nasty as the rest of them. Worse, we even hold up parts about 'loving our enemies' with pride, and then promptly ignore those admonitions. What we have that is unique is that we are not judged by the Law, but saved by grace through faith and specifically NOT our ability to be good and follow the right law.
Peter,
You seem to be avoiding answering the original question, "Is Islam a more violent religion than Christianity" and you prefer to answer the question "Was Islam a more violent religion than Christianity. Poll after poll taken of today Muslims around the world makes the case. Muslims today by large numbers believe in Sharia Law, honor killings, physical discipline of spouse, stoning, amputations, suicide bombings, etc... Almost every deadly conflict in the world today is where Islam borders some other culture. Nobody better even dare to speak out or make a joke about Mohamed lest you get your throat slit or blown up. I believe this is because of the Quran, not despite of it.
I am afraid none your example Bible verses are speaking to its reader, and "instructing" them to go and do anything. Samuel 15:3. "God commands"? No, God commanded, past tense. Judges 4:21, "Jael is remembered"
past tense. Rev 2:27 "one who will come" its not telling us to do anything bad.
Now here are some Quran verses. Please note the present tense and instructive nature.
Quran 4:89: "They (infidels) desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper."
Quran 8:12: "Instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers;"
Quran 2:191: "... kill the disbelievers wherever we find them …"
Quran 22:19-22: "… for them (the unbelievers) garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skin shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods."
Quran 8:12: "Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: 'I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.'"
Quran 8:7: "Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: 'Wipe the infidels out to the last.'"
Quran 8:59: "The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them. They are your enemy and Allah's enemy."
Quran 8:60: "Prepare against them whatever arms and cavalry you can muster that you may strike terror in the enemies of Allah, and others besides them not known to you."
Quran 9.29" "Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."
Quran 47:4: "Strike off the heads of the disbelievers" and, after making a "wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives."
Hadith Sahih Muslim (41:6985): "Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: 'The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.'"
Quran 9:5: "When the sacred forbidden months for fighting are past, fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."
Sura 3:151: "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers for that they joined companions with Allah for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be the fire; and evil is the home of the wrong-doers!"
Sura 8:60: "Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power including steeds of war to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies and others besides whom ye may not know but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah shall be repaid unto you and ye shall not be treated unjustly."
Tabari IX:113: "Allah permits you to shut them (women) in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Quran."
Tabari I:280: "Allah said, 'It is My obligation to make Eve bleed once every month as she made this tree bleed. I must also make Eve stupid, although I created her intelligent.' Because Allah afflicted Eve, all of the women of this world menstruate and are stupid."
Ishaq:327: "Allah said, 'A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.'"
These quotations are not out of context. They are representative of dozens and dozens of other messages in the Islamic "holy" texts. Clearly, they have inspired the violent and hateful behavior of followers.
I know there are many peaceful Muslims who view them allegorically rather than literally. Yet, it not outside the bounds of civil public discourse to challenge such statements?
I think it would be irresponsible to ignore how the Quran instructs its followers.
http://secure.afa.net/afa/activism/takeaction.asp?id=384
davebob,
My point is that Christianity has its own violent past, and while we might want to say that our superior commandments are why we're better than they are, the historical evidence is that those commandments have been powerless to save us. The poor treatment of sexual minorities here in America and worse treatment elsewhere is directly viewed as a command coming from the Bible. The Christians fighting the Muslims and each other in Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere have been doing it over belief. Consider Northern Ireland, where Christians have been fighting Christians. If the people to whom God has given His promises do this, why should it be any surprise that other faiths also do this? And more importantly than 'who's most violent', is 'how can we be saved from God's wrath kindled against us for OUR violence'.
There is one big reason we've been hearing a lot about Islamic violence in the news. We're fighting a war against them, and if we didn't talk up their evils, we wouldn't be interested in having the war. So if a Christian man hits his wife, it's an example of a bad man. But if that man was Muslim, it's an example of how Islam itself is intrinsically evil. Think for a moment about Tea Party events where everyone brings their assault rifle in support of gun rights. What if instead of white folks, those Tea Partiers were Arabic? How fast would you assume they were terrorists just because they're Arabic? Note that all of this violence is either in Africa or the Middle East, both of which have a long, long history of wars and conflicts, regardless of the religions therein. How much Islamic terrorism have you heard coming out of Indonesia or Bangledesh? They read the same verses from the same Quran. Your commentary on them is about as helpful as atheists' commentary on the Old and New Testaments. The question isn't 'do you see them as violent', it's 'do Muslims see these verses as violent'. If you look at the numbers, most of the world's Muslims do not. It is a subset of the ~20% or so of the Muslims who live in the Middle East that views it violently. If we Christians could cut our violent tendencies down that far, we'd be doing pretty well.
Peter,
First, thank you for a heartfelt, vigorous debate on a subject that is pretty much taboo these days. I think we need much more serious dialog on what many are beginning to see as a revision of history and/or truth.
You have said a great deal here; this time I agree with much more of your statements, but I still have some problems with some of your presuppositions.
I will address them in order:
1) I think that Muslims and Christians have the same commandments. And yes they (the commandments) are powerless to save us.
2) If what you mean by "sexual minorities" is lgbtq's (if I have that right) ; is gays and such; I would like to add here that I would much rather be gay in Christian Alabama than in even the most liberal of Muslim nations.
3)"The Christians fighting the Muslims and each other in Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere have been doing it over belief. Consider Northern Ireland, where Christians have been fighting Christians. If the people to whom God has given His promises do this, why should it be any surprise that other faiths also do this? And more importantly than 'who's most violent', is 'how can we be saved from God's wrath kindled against us for OUR violence'."
These are the statements that are most puzzling. Ever since Adam and Eve got evicted from paradise, violence has followed. Starting with Able, right through to whoever just died by violence the second you are reading this, THE WORLD has been subject to VIOLENCE. You seem to want to blame it on religion. I would direct your attention to the 100s of millions killed from the Godless Soviets (Russian) Communist's/Socialists, German National Socialist Party ( NAZI), Pol Pot, Mau say Tung, etc... You seem to want to take all of the worlds violent deaths and blame them on Christians, and there for God. PLEASE REDIRECT YOUR ANGER! It's not the TEA Party,
Peter,
First, thank you for a heartfelt, vigorous debate on a subject that is pretty much taboo these days. I think we need much more serious dialog on what many are beginning to see as a revision of history and/or truth.
You have said a great deal here; this time I agree with much more of your statements, but I still have some problems with some of your presuppositions.
I will address them in order:
1) I think that Muslims and Christians have the same commandments. And yes they (the commandments) are powerless to save us.
2) If what you mean by "sexual minorities" is lgbtq's (if I have that right) ; is gays and such; I would like to add here that I would much rather be gay in Christian Alabama than in even the most liberal of Muslim nations.
3)"The Christians fighting the Muslims and each other in Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere have been doing it over belief. Consider Northern Ireland, where Christians have been fighting Christians. If the people to whom God has given His promises do this, why should it be any surprise that other faiths also do this? And more importantly than 'who's most violent', is 'how can we be saved from God's wrath kindled against us for OUR violence'."
These are the statements that are most puzzling. Ever since Adam and Eve got evicted from paradise, violence has followed. Starting with Able, right through to whoever just died by violence the second you are reading this, THE WORLD has been subject to VIOLENCE. You seem to want to blame it on religion. I would direct your attention to the 100s of millions killed from the Godless Soviets (Russian) Communist's/Socialists, German National Socialist Party ( NAZI), Pol Pot, Mau say Tung, etc... You seem to want to take all of the worlds violent deaths and blame them on Christians, and there for God. PLEASE REDIRECT YOUR ANGER! It's not the TEA Party,
Davebob,
I think we're narrowing in on our differences of opinion. I'm a little surprised by your first point, as if Muslims and Christians really do have the same commandments, I don't understand how you can claim that Islam is inherently more violent of a religion. To get a little bit into your third point, I don't think religion is responsible for violence; I agree that it is the fact that we are sinners. One corollary of that, though, is that if violence is independent of religion, you can't claim that one religion is worse than another.
This is also related to your second point. I agree that although we still have a lot of progress to go in the US, it is generally safer to be LGBT in the US than in most Muslim nations. The problem, though, is that it doesn't segregate by religion. It is Christian Uganda that is publishing pictures of homosexuals with the suggestion to beat and kill them, and there are Christian groups in the US (ie The Family) that are directly funding this. I think it has a lot more to do with how well-developed the country is than major religion-- Canada, Australia and Europe are generally further ahead than the US, and it's increasingly difficult to designate those as "Christian" countries. Similarly atheist China still has a very long way to go before the LGBT community is welcomed there.
To clarify my third point, when we talk theologically, we need to talk first about ourselves. As Christians, we tend to boast not only that we have the best commandments (ie love your neighbor, love your enemy, etc), but that also have God's promise of forgiveness for failing those commandments. Yet, we remain murderers and generally sinners. If we've got the best possible things God can give us, and we can't do it, why should we expect Muslims, Atheists, Hindus or anyone else to murder less than we do? Much like the Israelites of the OT, we are squandering God's good gifts to us, and we know that there will be hell to pay for that. We need to get our affairs with God right before we can even hope to reduce violence in the world, and that means trusting God's promise to us on the cross and in the empty tomb.
My example of the Tea Party is not that they're a bunch of evil jerks; it's that we have been ingrained with prejudices that lead us to interpret events a certain way. White people with automatic weapons = standing up for gun rights. Arabic people with automatic weapons = terrorists. Why do we have difficulty assuming a bunch of Arabs with automatic weapons aren't similarly protesting for gun rights?
Hey Peter,
Muslims believe in the Bible. They believe in all the Old Testament prophets including Moses. They get there religious history from the Bible. They just think that some parts have been corrupted by the Jews. But the Ten Commandments are not one of those parts. So Muslims have the same Ten Commandments as we do. That’s just a point in fact.
And yes we can genuinely claim that one religion is worse than another by what it instructs its followers to do. I have demonstrated what the Quran instructs its reader to do. Anytime you have what is believed to be the holy book of God (the Quran) instruct its readers to commit violence over and over in the most explicit terms, you can legitimately call that a violent religion. It’s just the plain facts. There is such a thing as truth. We must be able to kindly speak the truth. I could be killed in Saudi Arabia, and other countries for what I am writing right now. There used to be religions that had human sacrifice. That is a worse religion than mine. The Quran instructs its readers to commit violence. That is a worse religion than mine. Christians commit violent sin like all the rest; but their word of God does not tell them to. That is the difference between a violent religion and a peaceful one.
If you believe that Christ is the only way to salvation, by default you have one better than the other.
If there is another way to gain favor with God than through the death of his only son, then I think I am going to hold a grudge against God. That is by far the worst prank I have ever heard. To put a man through the brutal torture and death on a cross and not tell him when he was suffering and asking the night before "please take this cup from me" that there is another way. No Peter, I can say there is only one religion that is better than all others.
davebob,
I think one point of confusion is that we've been talking about different commandments. By 'commandment' I've been meaning the entirety of the Law as we understand it. For us, that includes both OT and NT, for Muslims, that includes the Quran. And as you point out, some of those laws later on in the Quran and NT are a little different. However, I don't think the writings alone are sufficient to conclude that something is a violent religion. There are tons of atheist pages dedicated to trying to 'prove' that Christianity is a violent religion, replete with examples of the chosen people brutalizing any and everyone in their way in the name of God. Throughout the last 2000 years, we've used the Bible to justify acts of violence-- not just happen to be Christians who commit violent acts, but claim that the Bible orders us to do so. That the Quran is so used in parts of the world today is not any different.
It's interesting that you bring up freedom of religion. Yes, certain Middle Eastern countries lack that freedom along with lots of other freedoms. But try being a Huguenot in Catholic France, or a Puritan in England, or a Jew during the Spanish Inquisition. Or more recently, Northern Ireland. Or for non-Christian regimes, consider being Christian in Soviet Russia. It's not just a Christian-Muslim divide; it's a completely different culture.
It almost looks like you're using 'less violent' as your metric for 'better' as far as religions go. I think we need to keep these two ideas separate. As you're probably aware, I don't see Christians as any less violent than Muslims. However, I do believe that Christianity is "better", in that despite our violence, even when do it in God's name, we are promised God's mercy through Christ's death and resurrection alone and only. As I understand Islam, it's more of a 'be perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect' deal, and I think Jesus is the only person who has/does/will ever fit that bill.