This is not to say that I believe the religions to be the same, they are not. Nor should it be taken to mean that I believe the Qur’an and the Bible to equally support violence. It merely points out that some people’s arguments could be easily turned against them. A special thanks to: Hal Lindsey, John MacArthur, Ann Coulter, and Franklin Graham.

As for Ms. Coulter, her tongue was definitely planted in her cheek when she made that remark (or for that matter, when she makes any remark).

Seriously. The principles that the Right-wing evangelicals are using to support their cause are almost identical (in principle, not details, mind). This is the kind of mentality that impedes progress, peace and learning.

http://www.sonsofapesandpigs.org

http://www.sonsofapesandpigs.org”

So the Qu’ran calls Christians and Jews, “Sons of apes and pigs”. Does that mean that we should return the favor? Not if you actually follow Jesus - the Bible Jesus, that is.

“But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you

-Jesus (Matthew 5:44)

I think one can be individually peaceful and loving to Muslims you come in contact with while fighting the corporate rise of radical Islam. Fighting evil is something Christians are commanded to do.

I did not get this article at all.

Jasen, were you writing in jest? Actually, it didn’t seem like your writing in any case. Did you copy if from somewhere? Do you know enough about Muslims to “demonstrate how a Muslim might make an argument that Christianity is an inherently violent religion if they adopted the arguing technique of some conservative Christians.”?

Sorry, I guess I’m too dumb to play this game.

I was interested to see that while all religions had many quotes about peace Christianity and the Bah’i Faith seemed to stand out as having inculcated the word of peace significantly. As for quotes regarding war Islam was head and shoulders above all other religions. And though Judaism was a distant second it also was an order of magnitude above all other religions.

The question is: how are Christians commanded to fight evil? This passage in 1 Peter 3 is quite telling.

8Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:

9Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.

10For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile:

OK, I agree with that. We shouldn’t refrain from speaking out against wrongdoing just because it might offend Muslims. We should unequivocally proclaim that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation, and that Islam is a false religion.

The object of ridicule in Jasen’s article isn’t Islam or Muslims, though. It’s Christianity. Jasen is pointing out how some Christians are intellectually dishonest in their depictions of Islam. We ought to speak the truth boldly, but Christians ought not intentionally misrepresent Islam in order to do so. That calls into question our character.

Jasen, if I’m wrong about the intent of your article, please feel free to correct me.

Agreed. Islam is no more a peaceful religion than it is a violent religion (except that by being a false religion, it is inherently more likely to be violent). It was spread much more by the sword than was Christianity, but again, those were the adherents doing it. So when speaking of terrorism, I would say that Al Qaeda and the like are a violent sect of Islam and don’t represent mainstream tenets. But when speaking of sharia, dhimmihood, and the forceful spread of Islam, then that is very much representative of mainstream Islamic thought.

My point is that if we are talking about what Christians are commanded to do according to scripture, we cannot be speaking about fighting evil by military or ideological means.

I’m not saying the military doesn’t have it’s place. I’m simply saying if we are going to be biblical about it, fighting evil with good involves putting into practice those principles Jesus spoke of in Matthew 5:44, “…Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” Peter’s comments on the matter must be interpreted in the same light, because he says, “Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing..” He is reinforcing the same principles Jesus introduced.

My point is that if we are talking about what Christians are commanded to do according to scripture, we cannot be speaking about fighting evil by military or ideological means.

I agree. There is a difference between an “enemy” who is directly threatening your life and an “enemy” who is merely ideologically opposed to your nation/group/religion. Christian are not commanded to wage wars of ideology, religion or nation. We are permitted to defend ourselves from direct aggression against our person.

I agree that a distinction must be made. Governments have a particular God-given function to punish evildoers, of course. But if we are talking about what Christians are commanded to do, that is another matter altogether. Are Christians in any instance of evil, individual or corporate, commanded to fight evil in the way you have suggested?

“Are Christians… commanded to fight evil in the way you have suggested?” Just so we’re clear, what have I suggested?

If Islam is fighting an ideological and cultural war against the Western world, the West should stand up for its own ideology and culture, not fold like a house of cards

I’d love to see the biblical justification for this. Someone kills your wife - reply with “love” - but if some people 7,000 miles away don’t like your religion or government in general - bomb the crap out of them while singing “Our God is an Awesome God.”

Thainamu, you’re right that I probably don’t know enough about Muslims to make their argument for them. This article shows the argument of some Christians flipped around. At the simplest, strrike out Bible and put in Qur’an. Alot of the criticism applied to the Qur’an can be leveled at the Bible as well. Especially if you don’t know the elaborate context and theological systems of Christianity.

I did write it, although parts are pretty straightforward parody of Hal Lindsey and Franklin Graham.

John MacArthur and Ann Coulter are the quoted as the prominent preacher and political figure respectively.

BTW, the deaths cause by God stat is true - at least as far as I know I didn’t count myself.

And what I said about the Tamil Tigers and suicide bombing is true. Most of them are Hindus, but it’s not accurate to imply that they are religious motivated terrorists. They are a nationalist/separatist group. This confused by alot of people and isn’t always easy to sort out anyways.

And as for MacArthur’s point, when I read it in context (not that you were arguing against it necessarily), I would say I mostly agree with him. He basically was saying that based on what Jesus said, He implied that there was such a thing as a just cause for war. Granted, I think that particular verse was quite possibly more symbolism than literalism, but it’s not a complete stretch to say what he did.

Islam was responsible for the deaths of 80 Million Hindus over the span of 1000 years,the largest genocide in history…It was responsible overall for the deaths of 250 million people worldwide…more than all the wars,famines,diseases,etc…this author needs to go to Afghanistan and get gang-banged by some hairy Taliban to knock some sense into him…if he hates Christianity so much lets send him and his famile ona one way ticket to Kabul

Christianity was responsible for the deaths of 100 million Native Americans in 400 years, the largest genocide in history. It’s responsible for an estimated 400 million deaths worldwide during its history. You need to go to Rwanda and get ethically cleansed by one Christian group or another. If you hate Islam so much I’ll give you a one-way ticket to Kigali.

Meanwhile, Rwanda WAS an ethnic cleansing, with the intentional (and unnecessary) killing of hundreds of thousands of people.

400 millions deaths attributable to Christianity? This may be true, but if you’re including 100 million Native Americans, then I am willing to bet your source is quite wrong on other counts as well. Many Christians were coming as missionaries to the Indians, not as conquerors. Even many non- or nominal Christians were merely trying to find a place to live in peace from tyranny and had to defend themselves to do so. After all, most Indians were anything but peaceful. Read a book like Captured by the Indians, a compilation of personal accounts of people who survived life as an Indian captive, and you’ll see what I mean.

I assume that the Holocaust isn’t attributed to Christianity in that 400 million number. If so, that would be incorrect.

The warfare in India between Muslims and Hindus was national and tribal warfare much more than religious so a comparison with the Europeans in America is valid.

That comment was just for fun because he made it so easy.

“Christianity is responsible for every person who’s died since Jesus.” There, now THAT’S hyperbole.

The fact that many Christians held to the Western concept of “manifest destiny” makes it impossible to know to what extent the ideals of missionary efforts were corrupted by a mentality that draws a line between the conquerors and the conquered. Many of the early Bureau of Indian Affairs officials placed on the reservations were also ordained ministers, and this was not seen as a conflict of interest.

Christianity was, in many cases, introduced as a means of “killing the Indian to save the man.” It was used as part of a strategy to conquer without military force. That is not to say that most missionaries had ulterior motives, it’s just that the influence of the dominant mindset cannot be underestimated. One of the main “solutions” to the “Indian problem” was coercing parents into giving up their children to be educated at boarding schools. In some cases the children were kidnapped outright to be “civilized” and “Christianized” in these schools. Christianity was just a part of a curriculum designed to forcefully assimilate the indigenous population. The idea was that the remnant of the “dying race” would evolve culturally into darker-skinned white people.

Yeah, I started to read “Underground History of American Education” by John Taylor Gatto. It chronicles so much about the history of American public education that I had never heard of.

My last comment comes from Deut 13 (though I don’t remember exactly where the 2nd degree thing is).

From my article

OT quotes:
1: EX 32:17
2: NUM 31:17
3: EX 15:3
4: EX 22:20
5: Psalm 9:6
6: Zech 8:10
7: 2 Sam 5:20

NT quotes:
1: Mt 5:17
2: Mt 10:34
3: LK 14:26

If this pc revisionist garbage is what is being passed off for history at the university level these days i’m surprised you did as well as a c.