Christian Extremists are NOT as Bad as Islamic Extremists

The ones who compare the 2, do so on 2 levels.  One is the history of Christians and they push the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition for their justification.  That of course falls flat as anyone can trace atrocities of any ethnic or religious group if they go back far enough.

The second is they tout the ones like Roberts.  And while he had some supporters, it fails on 2 aspects.  One is that Roberts was targeting the institution of his hatred.  That does not make it right, but that does make it different from the Islamic extremist who target anyone, not the source of their hatred.  The second aspect in which it fails is that mainstream Christians, almost to a man, rose up and decried it vociferiously (sp) and that has not occured with Muslim extremist.

In short, the ones that want to compare the 2, are just appologist for Osama Bin Laden, and in the final analysis, not really any better than the rest of the 'silent majority' of muslims that fail to condemn vociferously the hatred of those who pretend to profess their religion.

Either that, or we have to believe they represent it.  Which is it?

While the violent Christian extremist is rare, they do exist. Abortion clinic bombers come to mind. The biggest differences are that they are so rare and the mainstream Christians are quick to publicly denounce their actions (as they well should).

While the violent Christian extremist is rare, they do exist.

Not ONE of these came out of a Pentecostal summer camp, to my knowledge, Mason.

I have known MANY Christians of VERY conservative, and VERY extremist persuasions. While they may have a very negative view on the activities of many of these groups (as, frankly, do I), NOT ONCE in any sermon or bible study led by these people have I EVER heard a call to violence. Not ONCE. Almost all of the instances of violence you can cite of Christian extremists have been perpetrated by loners, and NOT as part of a larger group.

And yes, I AM sick of people portraying these extremists as typical. You may think my response on your thread to have been "starting shit", Mason, but the truth is, on a blog written in the last few days, the comparison WAS made between Christian conservatives and Islamic extremists. I won't link it here, but it's easy enough to find. And it was NOT from someone on the "fringe" of JU, but from a fairly prominent blogger and one I generally respect.

While the violent Christian extremist is rare, they do exist. Abortion clinic bombers come to mind.

That's what I was going to say.  They DO exist, Gid, whether you've met one or not. They may not be AS extreme as Muslims who blow themselves up and take 50 other people with them, but they ARE around. 

 

They may not be AS extreme as Muslims who blow themselves up and take 50 other people with them, but they ARE around.

The Ku Klux Klan and many of the 'Mountain Men' style organisations are Christian organisations. While they're less active these days than they were in the past all it would require is a catalyst for them to return in barbaric glory.

The ones who compare the 2, do so on 2 levels. One is the history of Christians and they push the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition for their justification. That of course falls flat as anyone can trace atrocities of any ethnic or religious group if they go back far enough.

That's the level I would have highlighted too. I don’t think it falls flat, however, and it’s not something we should sweep under the carpet. It was ‘where we were at’, at the time, and it’s a significant phase of Christianity’s journey and path.

Imagine, hypothetically, that that particular phase of Christianity’s life manifested itself now – in today’s media age. Every killing of non-Christians, in the name of Mother Church - which was executed on a massive scale - would be beamed around the world on TV into people’s living rooms for everyone to see.

How would the popular mindset react? Naturally, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, humanists, atheists, and whoever else would understandably conclude, “What a horrible and violent religion Christianity is!”

Yet those with wisdom and a sound mind – Christians included - would conclude, “No. Christianity is not a horrible and violent religion. It is those misguided Christians who are off the ball. Fair enough”, they would continue, “the Bible contains many verses that encourage mass extermination and violence toward the so-called opposition - as does the Qu’ran. But the majority of Biblical writings - like the majority of the Qu’ran’s writings – indeed encourage goodness, love, compassion and forgiveness. No. It is those misguided Christians who are off the ball. There is much room for growth for Christians and for the popular interpretation of the Christian message.”

And that’s how I view Islam today. Islam is a younger religion than Christianity, remember. Muslims are simply ‘where they are at’. There is room for growth, and they can mature in their views and interpretations. As can people who judge Islam as a horrible and violent religion.

That's the level I would have highlighted too. I don’t think it falls flat, however, and it’s not something we should sweep under the carpet. It was ‘where we were at’, at the time, and it’s a significant phase of Christianity’s journey and path.

it falls flat because it was a period of the history, not the whole history. Islamic terrorists are trying to make it their whole history. They had their crusades and inquisition, and are still having them. The world has grown up a lot in the last 1000 years, but Islam apparently has not.

They may not be AS extreme as Muslims who blow themselves up and take 50 other people with them, but they ARE around.

My challenge remains: Please link me to ONE story of anyone coming from a PENTECOSTAL church who bombed an abortion clinic or shot a doctor who performed an abortion. You won't find these stories, because they don't exist.

The challenge is as specific as it is because the charge specifically identifies Pentecostal youth camps as being morally equivalent to alQaeda training camps. if they are morally equivalent, why aren't they producing the same results?

I would also like to say that, while it is still a morally reprehensible act, even bombing an abortion clinic is still terrorism on a different level than bllowing up people in a crowded shopping mall or in a New York skyscraper.

It seems to me the more "extreme" a Christian gets, the more peaceful they'd become.

I submit that anyone who does terrorism in the name of Jesus, is not familiar with Him at all. And would use the name of any deity, to which they are familiar, to justify their murder.

It is my understanding from portions I've read of the Koran, that the more extreme one becomes in that faith, the more violence is required toward those who will not be converted.

it falls flat because it was a period of the history, not the whole history. Islamic terrorists are trying to make it their whole history. They had their crusades and inquisition, and are still having them. The world has grown up a lot in the last 1000 years, but Islam apparently has not.

Islamic terrorists form an extreme minority of Muslims. If we identify Islam with the extreme minority, and also assume that Muslims will never grow up, then in my opinion we’ll come to conclusions that won’t stand the test of time.

it was a period of the history, not the whole history

This is not Islam’s whole history as long as there is a tomorrow. I believe that Christianity’s sins are no worse than Islam’s, with all things considered, and we can treat both parties with understanding, compassion and forgiveness.

This particular time might be a dark chapter in Islam’s history, but in my view, the principle that Muslims will never grow up runs contrary to human nature, and doesn’t quite square with the deeper dynamics of spiritual growth and enlightenment. There is a lot for Muslims to learn in these dark times, just as Christians can learn a lot by observing the futility of their own violent and intolerant behaviour from the past.

It is my understanding from portions I've read of the Koran, that the more extreme one becomes in that faith, the more violence is required toward those who will not be converted.

it will not serve Christians to continue to turn a blind eye to the reams of verses from the Bible which encourage zero tolerance and murder and execution for the so-called opposition, i.e. God’s ‘not-chosen’ ones

This is not Islam’s whole history as long as there is a tomorrow.

HISTORY is not tomorrow. History is the past. You can debate me to the cows come home, but the facts are against your arguement.

I believe that Christianity’s sins are no worse than Islam’s, with all things considered, and we can treat both parties with understanding, compassion and forgiveness.

One on one, perhaps. Many to one? You kill a Jew, you are a murderer. You try to kill them all and you are Hitler.

HISTORY is not tomorrow. History is the past.

You’re right. Sorry about that. I was talking in terms of Islam’s “whole story”, which you’re right, has a different meaning to “whole history”.

You can debate me to the cows come home, but the facts are against your arguement.

Hope you didn’t make a straw man out of that, otherwise you might have missed my main point.

One on one, perhaps. Many to one? You kill a Jew, you are a murderer. You try to kill them all and you are Hitler.

I don’t understand what you’re saying here. How does it relate to Islam and Christianity?

I don’t understand what you’re saying here. How does it relate to Islam and Christianity?

At a point in history, Christianity persecuted Jews and Muslims. A point.

At almost every point in its history, Muslims have been in a jihad against non-believers. A point, versus MANY points.

I would also like to say that, while it is still a morally reprehensible act, even bombing an abortion clinic is still terrorism on a different level than bllowing up people in a crowded shopping mall or in a New York skyscraper.

I believe I understand what you're trying to express here but I must respectfully submit that you are splitting a pretty fine hair here. A violent terrorist act is a violent terrorist act and I don't think we should start trying to define degrees of terrorism.

what exactly was the core issue in the balkans following the breakup of jugoslavia?

keep in mind i live in a community in which there still reside men and women who lived there thru wwii, immigrated here afterwards and were--no more than 15 years ago--still fighting that war. for several weeks, serbs and croats lined opposite sides of a main, each group costumed in full old world folk dress. (depending on which way i was going, i'd honk and snap a nazi salute or wave a red flag   

also remember most of the muslims who were killed there in pursuit of 'ethnic' cleansing (with the possible exception of albanians in kosovo) as well as the women who were forcibly impregnated with 'christian' children share the same bloodline as those who were doing the killing and raping. in other words, they weren't ethnic arabs or turks, but descendants of balkans who converted to islam hundreds of years ago.

i realize it's a localized abberation but it is conversion by the sword in our lifetime--and i've seen it advocated and supported in forums like 'littlegreenfootballs'.

will not serve Christians to continue to turn a blind eye to the reams of verses from the Bible which encourage zero tolerance and murder and execution for the so-called opposition, i.e. God’s ‘not-chosen’ ones

What are you talking about? Let me guess. The holy wars? If you know anything about them, then you know they were not started by "Christians" but by controlling individuals who wanted more power. It had nothing to do with Christ. Christ was the "excuse" but greed was the reason.*

That shoulda been the first clue they weren't Christians, when they started slaughtering non believers.

Again, the closer a follower of Christ gets to Him, the less violent they will become. Show me one instance where Christ killed or wanted someone killed. JUST ONE.

Now what did Mohamed do when coming down from the Mt after his "vision?" Slaughtered a caravan of Jews. And what does He advocate in the Koran for those unwilling to convert. DEATH.

Night and Day.

*In the brutal era of wars that tore Europe apart in the closing days of the first millennium AD, no period was more confusing, or more tragic, than the nearly two hundred years Europe spent locked in bitter fighting in the Middle East. This era, known as the Age of Crusades, would lead to some of the most atrocious acts and miserable failures ever made in the name of religion. But what was the point of these ceaseless wars, then, and how did they change the course of history?

The story of the Crusades actually begins centuries before the First Crusade was launched in AD 1096. When the center of the Roman Empire shifted East, to Constantinople, it began to grow a new culture which would become known as Byzantium. However, the Church had begun to develop with Rome as its centre, and the churches of the East turned to Constantinople rather than the developing Papacy in Rome. The first Popes were warlike and power-hungry, however, and they wanted all of the Christian world under their control. Then, during the latter half of the first millennium AD, the teachings of Islam began to spread throughout North Africa and Asia Minor at an alarming pace. The Popes of Rome, fearful that this new religion would displace them from their still-tenuous position, needed a way to suppress this new, peaceful religion coming out of the East.

Then, the final piece of the puzzle came into focus under the Western concept of primogeniture. The younger sons of European nobility, with no hope of ever ruling their family lands, became unruly as they sought to establish themselves, and began slaughtering each other. Rome, anxious to get these disruptive young nobles out of Europe, saw their chance to solve three problems at once. In AD 1096, Rome began preaching a Holy Crusade to free the Holy City of Jerusalem from the clutches of heretics and infidels. Rome preyed on the greed and pride of Europe’s young knights with promises of indulgences in exchange for service, the wealth of gold and lands available in the East, and honour and glory to all those who took up the holy cause.

Read more here: http://vt.essortment.com/crusadesholywa_rhvy.htm

it will not serve Christians to continue to turn a blind eye to the reams of verses from the Bible which encourage zero tolerance and murder and execution for the so-called opposition, i.e. God’s ‘not-chosen’ ones

What are you talking about? Let me guess. The holy wars?

I was referring to events described in the Bible. It’s teaming with cruelty and violence, verses like Exodus 32:27-29; Deuteronomy 3.3-6; Judges 1.3-6, to name but three.

Now what did Mohamed do when coming down from the Mt after his "vision?" Slaughtered a caravan of Jews. And what does He advocate in the Koran for those unwilling to convert. DEATH.

There is a website that lists all verses in the Bible that describe God encouraging violence and death. It also lists all such verses from the Qu’ran. The author concludes, “The Quran pales in comparison”

WWW Link

I agree with Jennifer’s point, from another thread, that the God described in these verses simply doesn’t exist. How can such verses be an accurate representation of “the Truth”? Is the Bible inerrant and infallible? Ask your heart of hearts, and the answer will be found, fot that’s where the Holy Spirit will come to abide.

the closer a follower of Christ gets to Him, the less violent they will become. Show me one instance where Christ killed or wanted someone killed. JUST ONE.

I agree with you Tova. Jesus was more aligned with love, forgiveness and harmony.
So how can God change personality so dramatically? I believe the answer lies in the fact that the hand that wrote the Bible was man’s. Mankind’s insights have clearly evolved and matured toward principles of love, goodness and harmony.

For a bit of light reading, consider the following verses and compare them those tyrannical OT verses:

“You have learned that they were told, “Love your neighbor, hate your enemy.” But what I tell you is this: Love your enemies and pray for your persecutors; only so can you be children of your heavenly Father, who makes his sun shine on good and bad alike, and sends the rain on the honest and the dishonest. If you love only those who love you, what reward can you expect? Surely the tax-gatherers do as much as that. And if you greet only your brothers, what is there extraordinary about that? Even the heathen do as much. There must be no limit to your goodness, as your heavenly Father’s goodness knows no bounds.”
- Matthew 5:43-48

"Love your enemies; do good to those who hate you; bless those who curse you; pray for those who treat you spitefully. When a man hits you on the cheek, offer him the other cheek too; when a man takes your coat, let him have your shirt as well. Give to everyone who asks you; when a man takes what is yours, do not demand it back. Treat others as you would like them to treat you. If you love only those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. Again, if you do good only to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do as much. And if you lend only where you expect to be repaid, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to each other to be repaid in full. But you must love your enemies and do good; and lend without expecting any return; and you will have a rich reward: you will be sons of the Most High, because he himself is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be compassionate as your Father is compassionate."
- Luke 6:27-36

"You have learned that they were told, “Love your neighbor, hate your enemy.” But what I tell you is this: Love your enemies and pray for your persecutors; only so can you be children of your heavenly Father, who makes his sun shine on good and bad alike, and sends the rain on the honest and the dishonest. If you love only those who love you, what reward can you expect? Surely the tax-gatherers do as much as that. And if you greet only your brothers, what is there extraordinary about that? Even the heathen do as much. There must be no limit to your goodness, as your heavenly Father’s goodness knows no bounds."
- Matthew 5:43-48

For a bit of light reading, consider the following verses and compare them those tyrannical OT verses:

Hey Andy, I think we should start calling you Dr. Love. You love to talk about the love of God and I think that's a great thing. Love conquers all after all. But you forget, there is also some, shall we say, tyrannical NT verses as well. For your consideration,

"And out of His mouth (Christ) goes a sharp sword that with it he should smite the nations; and He shall rule them with a rod of iron (same as Ps 2)and He treads the winepress (figure of judgment) of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God." Rev 19:15[/B]

[B]"And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion that they should believe a lie. That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness" 2 Thess 2:5

I would love to see some backup from Dharmagrl on the extremist Christian abortion bombers. I believe for the most part they are making a political statement, not a religous one. There is not one Christian I know of that would approve of such a thing. Look what happened to the Amish this past week. They are great examples of extreme Christian living in my book and there's no way you'd find them bombing a clinic. So exactly how many do we have here?

Hey Andy, I think we should start calling you Dr. Love

Surely that’s not a bad thing?

But you forget, there is also some, shall we say, tyrannical NT verses as well. For your consideration, "And out of His mouth (Christ) goes a sharp sword that with it he should smite the nations; and He shall rule them with a rod of iron (same as Ps 2)and He treads the winepress (figure of judgment) of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God." Rev 19:15[/B] [B]"And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion that they should believe a lie. That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness" 2 Thess 2:5

First we have Christians complaining that other religions encourage too much violence and cruelty, now we have Christians competing and boasting that their own Holy Book encourages violence and cruelty too.

Even though we might be able to find a couple of tyrannical verses in the NT, my point was that it’s still a world away from the monstrous behaviour of the God of the OT. Jesus' words in particular, from those verses quoted above, completely contradicts the OT God's attitudes

Another problem, comparison-wise, is that while Islamic schools teach their kids about the horrors and barbarism perpetrated against Islam during the Crusades, they fail to teach about the horrors and barbarism perpetrated against others by Islam AT THE SAME TIME.

The mindset seems to be that Christianity used to be really bad, and Islam was this really elevated thing that didn't bother anyone, but the roles have reversed. Not so. Islamic conquest of the Mediterranean was ruthless, all the way to Spain. To the East they had even less respect for Hindu and Buddhist cultures, who weren't people "of the book".

So what we really have is two cultures, both born in barbarism, but one who continued evolving and reforming and one who remains locked somewhere around the 15th century. The Protestant Reformation didn't have its parallel in Islam. They had their early division, like the early East/West Christian division, but nothing in the way of reform later.

So who is being unrealistic? We keep getting beaten over the head with the Crusades, but the Muslims of the time were out committing the same acts of genocide. Who deserves more credit, the religion that grew out of Inquisition mentality, or the one that is holding on to it tooth and toenail?

Modern violence in Christianity is the aberration. Peace in Islam is the aberration. MOst of the people who end up bombing abortion clinics we find weren't all that "Christian" in behavior and morals anyway. They usually end up using Christianity as an excuse.

Maybe it is the same for Islam. If so, though, a lot more people are using it as an excuse.

MOst of the people who end up bombing abortion clinics we find weren't all that "Christian" in behavior and morals anyway. They usually end up using Christianity as an excuse. Maybe it is the same for Islam. If so, though, a lot more people are using it as an excuse.

Personally I believe this to be the case. My fault with the majority of mainstream Muslims is their failure to speak out publicy to both decry these perversions of their religion and to distinguish themselves from the perpetrators.

My fault with the majority of mainstream Muslims is their failure to speak out publicy to both decry these perversions of their religion and to distinguish themselves from the perpetrators.

That's really annoying, you know. I've pointed out to you on multiple occasions times where large Muslim organisations - including the two biggest in the world - have spoken out in English against terrorists and religious extremists and yet you persist in this blatant falsehood. Just because you don't read the press release or see it on your TV doesn't mean it's not happening.

Most of the religious condemnations are happening in Arabic, Malay and French; if you can read those, I'm sure you'll have more luck in your attempts to avoid looking ignorant.

They had their early division, like the early East/West Christian division, but nothing in the way of reform later.

Actually they had more or less constant divisions based on territory. Islam was like Christianity in that respect. Every territory they conquered ended up with its own special breed of Islam, one that tended to incorporate whatever the social mores of the location were at the time. You are right though that reform has been long-coming. Even today probably only half to three quarters of Muslims are even aware that there are other ways of being Muslim than what they do in their own area.

Another problem, comparison-wise, is that while Islamic schools teach their kids about the horrors and barbarism perpetrated against Islam during the Crusades, they fail to teach about the horrors and barbarism perpetrated against others by Islam AT THE SAME TIME.

Yeah. It's a problem that's very expensive to fix. In most cases it's not the teachers' faults either. They have often only been trained in Islamic schools. No one has ever even told them about Islam's dirty historical secrets. The general access to news sources is fairly appalling throughout the 3rd and dictatorial world too, which doesn't help much either. Programs like the US' (in Pakistan and elsewhere) and Australia's (in Indonesia and the Pacific) are probably the best hope here. Teachers from outside are sent to religious schools and proceed to teach general subjects and train the teachers. They have the added bonus of being a friendly (generally white) foreign face who doesn't want to shoot or bomb them.

I've pointed out to you on multiple occasions times where large Muslim organisations

Microcosm, vs. Macrocosm. A minority does not make a majority, until they take the air from the voice of the macro. Right now, your friends are whispers. They best get together and make it a shout. Do not blame us for not hearing them. A whisper is a whisper until it is shouted.

I've pointed out to you on multiple occasions times where large Muslim organisations - including the two biggest in the world - have spoken out in English against terrorists and religious extremists and yet you persist in this blatant falsehood. Just because you don't read the press release or see it on your TV doesn't mean it's not happening. Most of the religious condemnations are happening in Arabic, Malay and French; if you can read those, I'm sure you'll have more luck in your attempts to avoid looking ignorant.

Despite your rudeness I'll respond to your comments. A couple of organizations putting out press releases does not a majority make. I clearly stated that I have a problem with the fact that the majority are not speaking out. Look up what the word majority means and it may help you in your attempts to not look ignorant.

And you could stand to learn how to express yourself in a more civil fashion.

Microcosm, vs. Macrocosm. A minority does not make a majority, until they take the air from the voice of the macro. Right now, your friends are whispers. They best get together and make it a shout. Do not blame us for not hearing them. A whisper is a whisper until it is shouted.

I'm talking about a majority. The major Muslim organisations in every Muslim country have all condemned terrorist attacks on civilians if not armed foreigners. There hasn't been a petition circulated world-wide so far as I'm aware so the smaller congregations aren't in on it, but I think it's not a dangerous thing to say that when the largest churches in the world condemn something it's a pretty widespread condemnation. It would be akin to statements from the Catholic Church, the Anglicans, the Baptists, the Mormons and the Orthodox Churches all condemning something.

Obviously that's not enough for either of you though, so I suppose there's no point arguing.