The Barbarity of Christianity (as compared to Islam)

You tell me. Did he come to bring peace, or a sword?

Well, great. So Jesus will bring the same armageddon that the Muslims believe in, but what's different is, the Christians believe that only the bad people will die.Oh, wait. That's exactly what the Muslims believe, too. So, your peaceful god of love brings the most destructive war the world will ever know. Gotcha. Hey, who cares, right? As long as Christians get theirs, who cares who else dies? They're just filthy heathens anyway.

My statement would have to be wrong for that to be the case. Specifically which part of my statement do you challenge? I mean, if God isn't a god of love, that's fine. The only things I know about your god are what you tell me.

I don't believe that any additional attributes would make such a war acceptable, but regardless, that's beyond the point.Is it the case, or is it not, that the peaceful future of Christianity involves the death of many, many millions? Yes or no?Should I accept as "peaceful" a religion that says "join us or face certain death?" Isn't that exactly the sort of conversion by threat that Islam is regularly criticised for?

A nonsense distinction, and one that even the Muslims you criticize make. It's rarely the threat of violence through their own initative; it's generally the threat of violence if that is Allah's will, and they do hold out the option that Allah's will be done through the speaker. Right. It's the same kind of victim-blaming that all abusers rely on. "You make me do this to you." Heard it time and time again.

I'm blaming he who made the pit. Why is it you insist on applying mortal standards of culpability to an infinite God, who, by definition, is culpable for everything that ever happens?This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-18-2006 10:28 AM

I don't see the relevance. It's fairly common, in fact, for a third party to be held responsible for another's actions, even though nobody involved is an automaton.

We've already established that this idea of "Christ-influenced Christian" is nonsense; it's just a rhetorical bolthole for you to duck into when the long, bloody history of forced Christian conversion is raised. Those people were "Christ-influenced", objectively; they just had a difference of opinion about what it was that Christ wanted to influence them to do. The threat is there, regardless. The method and the means of violence is irrelevant; the promise is "convert to Christianity or you'll be sorry." Exactly like every other religion that has expanded itself via conquest. And I'm pretty confident I can convince him otherwise.I'm a pretty confident guy. I've never found the idea of "Hell" particularly compelling, or particularly Biblical, for that matter. It's merely a rhetorical framework for you to phrase your violent threats in the most ominous terms possible. The Muslims have the exact same thing, of course.