Christianity vs Islam - Battle of the Centuries

[Bloodcinder]

Continuing from that other thread where people were arguing about which is a more positive religion both currently and in historical context, let's discuss the virtues of Christianity and Islam. Compare and contrast with each other. Argue with your friends. Win the internet!

I believe several people were suggesting that, as Christianity was founded by a prophet who promoted grace and peace and Islam was founded by a prophet who promoted military victory, Christianity is inherently more beneficial or benign for humans than Islam is.

FIGHT!

[Gio Takahashi]

This thread is a continuation from a discussion that started in this article (http://www.unitedempire.net/forums/showthread.php?t=305):

Remember, no flaming, no trolling, no flame baiting, keep it above the belt.

Let's get it on!

[RonDo]

To me, it seems like practically any religion is inherently violent towards those who are not in line with their own beliefs no matter on what principals they were founded upon.

Doesn't Christianity have the highest body count when it comes to deaths due to religious fanaticism? Sure, maybe lately the count hasn't been quite so apparent, but man..in the past they let the blood spill.

[Detrevni]

Major organized religion in general is just an excuse for war. DOH!

God thinks they're all sillycakes for fighting over nothing.

[deathofcheese]

My original comment in the other thread was based on the premise that Islam was founded as a religion that would forcibly convert, by war if need be, any one that didn't follow that religion, whereas Christianity was founded on the teachings of some dude name Jesus who said be nice to each other. Over-generalized, yes, but it wasn't necessarily supposed to be a comment to argue a point.

[chefTENGU]

Doesn't Christianity have the highest body count when it comes to deaths due to religious fanaticism? Sure, maybe lately the count hasn't been quite so apparent, but man..in the past they let the blood spill.
I assume you're talking about the Crusades. Now, I'm not advocating violence of any sort, I just want to point out that early Islam spilled plenty of blood as well. Although it is true that more people have died for the sake of Jesus than for any other human being in the history of the world.

It seems to me that there are a few folks in both religions that think the wars are still going on, and continue to spill blood out of a misguided sense of devotion.

FUN FACT: More crusades were waged against other christians than against Islam.

Major organized religion in general is just an excuse for war. DOH!
Let me share with you something my mother explained to me, when I was but a wee TENGU. The more I think about it, the more I feel she was right:

War, all wars, throughout history, always comes down to the same thing: power and money. Religion merely makes a convenient scapegoat. Case in point: the 4th Crusade.

No true man of God, no matter what religion he belonged to, would wage war in His name.

My original comment in the other thread was based on the premise that Islam was founded as a religion that would forcibly convert, by war if need be, any one that didn't follow that religion, whereas Christianity was founded on the teachings of some dude name Jesus who said be nice to each other. Over-generalized, yes, but it wasn't necessarily supposed to be a comment to argue a point.
Here's the funny thing about all the major world religions: they all agree on what's best, most important, most precious in life: peace. The question is, how do we achieve it?

For Christians and Buddhists, the answer is startlingly similar: both of these religions preach compassion for others, foster a sense of brotherhood between all people, and the need to let go of the material things that tend to clutter up our lives and distract us on our way.

I don't know as much about Islam, but from what I do know it sounds like it's in the exact same boat. It's just another part of the same whole of how mankind has tried to make sense of divinity.

So essentially, the way I see it, we've all just been squabbling and nitpicking over the little things. I suppose it's true what they say, "the devil's in the details..."

[Seegtease]

Doesn't Christianity have the highest body count when it comes to deaths due to religious fanaticism? Sure, maybe lately the count hasn't been quite so apparent, but man..in the past they let the blood spill.

It's so depressingly common for people to judge a true faith by the actions of those who claim to be of that faith. To some people, the claim of being a part of a faith is enough to assume that they really are a part of the particular faith.

If a man goes out and kills 1,000 random innocent people, and says he did it in the name of Jesus, blockheads would use that against the true Christian faith. I mean it's absolutely out of the question that maybe he was wrong about the faith he thought he was following, right?

I can tell you right now that the mass murdered I just made up is NOT a follower of Jesus, but ignorant people will look for any way to bring true Christianity down even if the crime has nothing to do with true Christianity.

[Bloodcinder]

The question then becomes: what is true religion? If the majority of those folks claiming to adhere to a particular religion wish to spread their faith by violence, is the religion still defined by the peaceful minority?

[RonDo]

It's so depressingly common for people to judge a true faith by the actions of those who claim to be of that faith. To some people, the claim of being a part of a faith is enough to assume that they really are a part of the particular faith.

If a man goes out and kills 1,000 random innocent people, and says he did it in the name of Jesus, blockheads would use that against the true Christian faith. I mean it's absolutely out of the question that maybe he was wrong about the faith he thought he was following, right?

I can tell you right now that the mass murdered I just made up is NOT a follower of Jesus, but ignorant people will look for any way to bring true Christianity down even if the crime has nothing to do with true Christianity.

People believe in what they wish to believe in and act accordingly to how they believe their "faith" would wish them to, misguided or not. If someone is taught to act in a certain way based on religious beliefs and they take it to heart, how are they to know what is a true faith or not. I would be willing to bet that they believe what they follow would be "true faith" and that those who question how they follow their beliefs to be heretics.

I don't believe in a default "true religion" that everyone does or should follow. I believe more in an individual's interpretation of their religion to be true in their own mind.

But that is just how I feel about the matter..coming from a person who has, generally speaking, lost quite a bit of faith.

[tjkitsune]

I would agree with Rondo. It's whatever belief people were raised with is their religion and it's up to them to decide if it's "right" or "wrong."

[Seegtease]

The question then becomes: what is true religion? If the majority of those folks claiming to adhere to a particular religion wish to spread their faith by violence, is the religion still defined by the peaceful minority?

Fortunately for Christianity, we have a book to go by.

Problem is, I think it makes a person very misinformed to just lump all people who claim to follow the Bible in the same category, because many do not.

I do not want my faith put in the same category as some people who go around killing "in the name of God." That may have worked under the Abrahamic covenant, but not in the new covenant.

But you have to agree it's unreasonable to judge a faith held by one person because of another person who claims to share that faith, and they go around killing people. One of them is doing it wrong, and it doesn't even matter which one, what matters is that they must be distinguished as very different faiths.

That being said, whatever the Crusaders believed and what I believe (Biblical Christianity) are two different faiths, and I'd appreciate it if mine does not get the blame for their bloodshed.

Also on another note: if you follow the Quo'ran properly, the 9/11 terrorists were right. The minority of extremists are the ones following the faith properly, sadly.

[Bloodcinder]

I cracked up when you said "one of them is doing it wrong."

You're doing it wrong!

But I think that's a valid analysis of the issue, and a good point about the Muslims.

[Arainach]

Fortunately for Christianity, we have a book to go by.

Problem is, I think it makes a person very misinformed to just lump all people who claim to follow the Bible in the same category, because many do not.

I do not want my faith put in the same category as some people who go around killing "in the name of God." That may have worked under the Abrahamic covenant, but not in the new covenant.

But you have to agree it's unreasonable to judge a faith held by one person because of another person who claims to share that faith, and they go around killing people. One of them is doing it wrong, and it doesn't even matter which one, what matters is that they must be distinguished as very different faiths.

That being said, whatever the Crusaders believed and what I believe (Biblical Christianity) are two different faiths, and I'd appreciate it if mine does not get the blame for their bloodshed.

Also on another note: if you follow the Quo'ran properly, the 9/11 terrorists were right. The minority of extremists are the ones following the faith properly, sadly.This is like the people who argue 'Bush isn't a true Republican' or similar things. It doesn't MATTER what the "true" way is. It matters how MOST of the group acts. Actions speak louder than words. A LOT louder.

[chefTENGU]

The point I want to make about that, though, and what I think Zeit is trying to say as well, is that a majority can still be wrong.

Both Christianity and Islam hold that morality is objective for all people. People, no matter how holy they may appear to be, are still capable of terrible sin (just look at all the clergymen Dante put into The Inferno).

I believe that when you get down to it, Christians and Muslims agree on more things than they both realize. And nowadays, at least, the majority in both religions genuinely want peace and harmony.

[Seegtease]

This is like the people who argue 'Bush isn't a true Republican' or similar things. It doesn't MATTER what the "true" way is. It matters how MOST of the group acts. Actions speak louder than words. A LOT louder.

Ironically, this is the foundation for racism. A group is judged by the actions of others.

And in my last post I did specifically say it does not matter which one is true, but only that they are differentiated between. It is absolutely unreasonable to associate people who share the same faith as I do as those who share the same faith as the Crusaders. I don't care if they call it by the same name.

If 90% of people named George were murderers, it is absolutely unreasonable to pass judgment on the other 10% based upon those other 90% who share the name.

[Arainach]

Unreasonable to pass judgment on those individually, but entirely reasonable to pass judgment on the group as a whole.

[chefTENGU]

But I don't think people make their judgments based on the actions of the majority of the individuals of any given group.

It seems to me that people tend to think of other groups based not on the members' actual behavior, just the things the most vocal and noisy individuals say and do. You know, the kind of folk who see nothing wrong with blowing up abortion clinics (and the people therein) so long as they can save the life of an unborn fetus, or the kind of folk who feel that strapping a bomb to their child so they can sacrifice him or her in order to take out as many jews or christians happen to be in the same area is a completely rational and sane thing to do.

The same thing happens in politics. Who are the people that get media attention? The party crazies that want to promote whatever nutty idea they most recently pulled from the dark recesses of their nether regions.

It comes down the the same idea behind "a chain is only as strong as its weakest link." We tend to think (being outsiders) that a group, be it religious following, political party, or anything else, is only as sane as its most insane members. I wish I could say we as a people are better than that, making baseless assumptions when we really ought to know better, but we just can't help being human after all.

So, to make a long story short, while your statement is true in theory, I doubt the vast majority of people in the world actually form their opinions about others that way, even if they think they do.

[Seegtease]

Unreasonable to pass judgment on those individually, but entirely reasonable to pass judgment on the group as a whole.

No, because they are two separate groups sharing the same name. When a large amount of people claiming one name have radically different views, it becomes necessary to distinguish them as separate groups.

What the crusades did was not Christianity as Christ intended it, and is thus an entirely different religion. It's as different as Islam and Buddhism. You wouldn't judge Islam by the actions of Buddhists, so why would you judge Biblical Christians by the actions of those in the crusades? Because they shared the same name "Christian"?

You cannot legitimately pass judgment on one group because of the actions of another group, no matter if the name is shared or not.

[Arainach]

If we're talking about splitting off, the 'not-so-Jesus-following' group has more members, so they maintain all rights to the term 'Christianity'. Not sure what you want to call yourselves. Jesus Pals might still be available.

[Seegtease]

We can use the name too. It's not like you have to change your name whenever you're around another person with the same, do you?

I just hope people become smart enough to know the difference.

[chefTENGU]

I can tell you exactly what that difference is. Heathen. :)

[Seegtease]

No matter what Paladins can do, Christian's do NOT have a "smite evil" ability. Some think they do, but it really doesn't work.

[Gio Takahashi]

Kinda reminds me of Family guy when Peter was telling God to "smite him". I forgot the exact story.

[chefTENGU]

You're thinking of the Pope asking God to smite Brian and Stewie. Seth McFarlane also voiced him, so I can see why you'd think it was Peter.

No matter what Paladins can do, Christian's do NOT have a "smite evil" ability. Some think they do, but it really doesn't work.
According to PHB 3.5, "If the paladin accidentally smites a creature that is not evil, the smite has no effect, but the ability to use it is still used up for that day."

Which explains everything. Muslims are not evil, so our Paladins need to save their smites for demons and devils. But unfortunately, all our Paladins are gone. Unless someone wants to recreate the Knights Templar or the Order of St. John.

Then maybe they can level up to the point where they'll get their supernatural mounts and SMITE EVIL 4 REAL.

[Gio Takahashi]

Ah, that explains why I could picture Peter doing that. Thanks.

[Seegtease]

I think chef is truly enlightened.