The Barbarity of Christianity (as compared to Islam)

Jar, what you point to are practices of Christianity that did not exist for the first several centuries and don't exist now either. Historically, we all know that early Christianity mutated with Roman Empire as the empire decided to adopt Christianity but with conditions rather than keep trying to stamp it out. So the Roman Empire and those believers inclined towards certain beliefs changed Christianity, and from that stemmed all the persecutions you refer to.But as reading and understanding the Bible became more prevalent again, the views justifying violence began to fade and Christianity began to return to it's original doctrines leaving the Catholic (and early Protestant) aberrations aside.Islam, on the other hand, started and spread through violence, and it's more peaceful and tolerant periods are more of the aberration, and can be explained not as real tolerance, but as part of their intolerance. For example, Muslims wanted the Jews because they felt usury and thus banking was inappropiate for a Muslim. So yea, they welcomed the Jews, but not as equals.

A weasel statement...we have plenty of evidence actually. Moreover, historically you are just plain wrong to assert that Christianity has been the most violent and oppressive force on earth.Let me ask you this. Do you believe that Jesus commanded violence and oppression? Is Jesus the originator of an evil force on earth, in your opinion?

A spiritual sword, not a natural one.

Uh, how do you know what is Christ-like? You discount the early church, the gospels as authoritative, etc,...So why do you think you know what Christ was like, jar?

You going to answer or not, jar?I don't discount the things you do, and so it is consistent with my beliefs to say what is Christ-like, but you, on the other hand, have no real basis, do you, for knowing what is Christ-like?

No, but my point jar is you say you are a Christian but then claim Christianity is a force for evil. Are you then a force for evil?How do you know your ideas of Christ-likeness are correct?And if you are asserting that Christ's real teachings are not a force for evil in the world, then shouldn't you qualify your claims that Christianity is the greatest force of evil in the world, and say that false Christianity is?The way you put it, being a Christian means that you are part of a great, evil force, and Jesus is not part of Christianity because Christianity is evil and unChristlike, right?This message has been edited by randman, 02-10-2006 03:13 PM

But jar, you yourself admit that true Christianity, which you call Christ-likeness, is not the same as oppression.So why do you mischaracterize all of Christianity as one thing when in reality, there have been and are different versions of it?

But Shraf, you are not a member of the government. Jar is saying that the belief system and religion called Christianity is evil, but then says he is a Christian. So my question is whether he is evil since he is a Christian.I think the relevant point is that jar wants to have it both ways. He wants to be able to say Christianity is evil, but he also wants to say he is good and a Christian. In other words, he wants the Christian label for whatever reason, but in all fairness, he really does not consider himself to be a member of what he rightly considers what is commonly known as "Christianity" because if he did, he would say some forms of Christianity are evil. By saying "Christianity" is evil, he assumes that there is a commonly known thing called "Christianity" and by his logic suggests he is not part of that but is rather in some minority viewpoint he calls Christianity (let's say Christianity-jar) but is not "the Christianity" he derides as evil.

I am responding to Shraf on threads and points made awhile back. if you feel you have been misrepresented, please clarify.In the past, you have not been willing to clarify, usually hiding behind claims of being off-topic or other means of avoiding clarity. So we have to go by what you have posted.My recollection is you claimed Christianity is evil, period, not historically that Christians have committed evil. I understand the Christianity you consider (or so I thought) to be evil is not the form of Christianity you yourself hold to, but that doesn't change the claim.Are you saying Christianity is not evil, but that merely many Christians have committed evil in the name of Christianity or exactly what is your claim in this regard?

Read the first page of this thread and many other comments on other threads, jar, and you can see where you continually make comments like this: When pointed out that nothing in Jesus' teachings suggest violence as a means of promoting his teachings is something Jesus sanctions and that early Christianity never held onto to such beliefs, but persecutions only came in with Constantine, you waffled, as usual, erroneously claiming we know practically nothing of early Christianity, that it was a minor sect.I believe you know your comments are wrong or that you should know, as the many threads discussing early Christianity have been evident, and the cause for the Empire seeking to make peace with Christianity had a lot to do with the fact it had become so prevalent, but maybe you have forgotten these things?Whatever the case may be, your arguments are clear. In the past and present, you argue Christianity is perhaps the greatest force of evil on the planet earth.My questions to you still remain unanswered by the way. So you have little reason to demand I answer you?Why won't you answer the questions raised earlier?For example, did Jesus teach such violence?How do you know who Jesus is and what is Christ-like if you think the scriptural presentations of Christ are doctored and false?Are you evil too since you claim to be a Christian and so promote Christianity as something presumably good?Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Jar is pretending he isn't dodging the issue. Here is some of the exchange from the first page.my comment jar responds my comment jar responds my comment jar's response (note a total evasion of the question and line of reasoning, as usual imo) my retort jar evades again I respond: Jar's comment, best comment yet, and not being as evasive. (Note the comment that the bad Christians are the real Christians, suggesting to me he considers Christianity itself to be wrong or evil) my response jar concludes with 2 points The relevant point, imo, is the comment that Christianity should not be considered in subgroups, but as a whole, and so my point is that jar claims that Christianity is evil, both in the past and present, as this thread shows.I tried to raise some issues on how to know what is "Christ-like" so there could be some logical understanding here. For example, the Pope probably says the papacy is Christ-like and always has been. I disagree, of course, and so does jar, but my point is that actually reading the gospels gives us a picture, a historical account of who Jesus is, and as people read the gospels in their own language, they tended over time to drop the Catholic heresy of persecution.So true Christianity, meaning Christianity in accord with the teachings and person of Christ, is not, nor ever has been a force for evil, as jar claims, and moreover, it is somewhat silly to say Christianity has no subgroups when in reality the main people killed by RC persecutions were Christian subgroups.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

I provided a lengthy qu0tation of our exchange where you did indeed say that Christianity is evil, both in the past and present.Now, as far as board moderators, I personally think your behaviour here warrants a suspension for suggesting dishonesty and lying on my part when it is clear that you did, in fact, say Christianity is a force for evil but insinuate you did not and that I was lying.

It's deeply offensive to me to see jar get away with snidely suggesting I am or have been evasive of deceptive on this thread when I think our exchange shows I brought up legitimate issues, which were largely ignored, and that jar here has the gall to suggest I am being deceptive and evasive.I apologize for stating this on this thread, but honestly, I'd like to see jar at least somewhat reminded he is suppossed to respond and substantiate his points as well.

How much clearer do you need this to be?Jar's "contention" is that Christianity is evil, both in the past and today. Now, he may now be backtracking....who knows, but this WAS his argument.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

I suppose you can get away with suggesting others are lying. I am not surprised, but to answer you jar.You said: You make it plain that Christianity, in your opinion, is still oppresive today, right?You have said this on other threads, right?You claimed Christianity cannot be split up into subgroups, right?What's your beef?It IS YOUR CLAIM that Christianity is evil, not mine. There is no misrepresentation of you here.