General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Spread Of Christianity Was Just As Violent As Islam Historically.
If one were really honest about violence and religion Christianity should not throw stones at Islam. Of course what I am saying does not excuse the recent violent actions in the name of Islam. Historically the destruction of the Library of Alexandria was instigated by a Christian bishop. That event set back civilization probably 1000 years because of all the knowledge lost. Then you look at the Spanish Inquisition. Columbus was a genocidal maniac and rapist if you carefully examine his history shortly after he entered the Caribbean. The carnage of the Spanish in the Americas is another example of destroying people in the name of religion, even though it was more about the gold.
Now I was raised as a staunch Catholic with 16 1/2 years of Catholic schools. It tool a long time to discover how fictional Church history was as I was told it. And it too me many years to over come effects of that fraud. As a matter of fact violence seems to come from the bowels of religion itself and not peace. And it all comes to to the argument over whose god is the truest.
Such violence does not make religion in itself bad or evil. There is legitimacy in seeking to understand our existence in the light of a higher power. Being spiritual and spirituality is actually a noble human endeavor. When you cross the line in forcing what you believe on other, then that is another matter.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Stephen Retired
(190 posts)TheMastersNemesis
(10,602 posts)Sadly it was so distorted as to be pretty much fiction. Religion seems to bring out the worst in mankind when it is supposed to bring out the best. .
rug
(82,333 posts)
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)were 'backward' then.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)behead people? Stone people to death?
MerryBlooms
(11,770 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)person is shot it's the Christians who did it.
DebJ
(7,699 posts)most likely case, wouldn't it?
Wiki isn't the best source, but it's good enough for the point here:
The majority of Americans (73%) identify themselves as Christians and about 20% have no religious affiliation.[3] According to the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) of 2008, 76% of the American adult population identified themselves as Christians, with 51% professing attendance at a variety of churches that could be considered Protestant or unaffiliated, and 25% professing Catholic beliefs.[4][5] The same survey says that other religions (including, for example, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, and Hinduism) collectively make up about 4% of the adult population, another 15% of the adult population claim no religious affiliation, and 5.2% said they did not know, or they refused to reply.[4] According to a 2012 survey by the Pew forum, 36 percent of Americans state that they attend services nearly every week or more.[6] According to the 2011 Gallup poll, Mississippi is the most religious state in the country, while Vermont is the least religious state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States
Government data:
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0075.pdf
Gallup:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/159548/identify-christian.aspx
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)in the 20th century.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)but they were so much further & often way ahead of us (Muslim majority countries have had several female Heads of State which the US has yet to have) when this off-brand followers wanted to go back to a "purer" time such as 0-700 AD but even they were more further advanced than their vision. Saudi Arabia was taken over and the dominant minority was very brutal, our Christian cults overload on the Hell rhetoric and even say Catholics are going to hell for instance -- the Wahabbis kill & use old school punishments (such as cutting off hands for someone accused or guilty of theft) for keeping the others in line and the petro dollars the first state sponsored Wahabbism helped spread this present day Islamic World. See Afghanistan before the Taliban arrived for an earlier reference. Also much of the area is suffering from the results that are typical for most post-colonization countries in different continents (a rise in the identity politics being the primary one)
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)lopped off the heads of thousands of petty criminals and major criminals, this is not Inquisition nor about religion, this was punishment for civil offenses. The Vatican continued this practice until the Italian Republic forced them to stop by taking their civil authority.
The last Papal Executioner personally executed 516 criminals upon orders from the Pope. This ended in 1861 or so.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)
blm
(113,065 posts)?
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)the Islamic world?
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)So I guess you could say violent start .
ChosenUnWisely
(588 posts)and died as a member of a sect of the Jewish faith.
The very earliest 'organized' Christians and original people who actually followed the Jesus did not start until after Jesus was dead. As it was slowly spreading Saul of Tarsus AKA St Paul, not to be confused with the Apostle Paul who actually hung out with Jesus, was one of the leading people who was into whacking the early Christians and was very good at it, in fact so good Saul and his pals pretty much killed all the earliest Christians who actually knew and saw Jesus.
Then as the story goes, Saul, suddenly got Jesus and decided HE would be in charge of Christianity now and run the show so to speak.
So yes Christianity had a very violent start based upon murder, lies and power.
One cannot spread a religious message without killing people, it is just the way it works, always has.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)from my knowledge. Paul claimed Jesus appeared to him and gave him his mission. I'm not sure where the title Apostle comes from; at least at one point in the New Testament he's defending it as if it's a self-assigned title (or whoever wrote that part portrayed him as such).
Of course, the Bible is a tangled web of rewritten and mashed together writings that reflect the early political battles of the Church. It's kind of like stumbling on one of those edit wars in Wikipedia, but with a lot less context.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)And in fact the jesus myth was constructed within the context of actual violence, the jewish uprisings of the first century, and argued against militaristic messianism.
Pooka Fey
(3,496 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)amazing!
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)take what is useful from the myth, like compassion for others, incorporate that into their lives, let the bullshit about heaven and hell and the rest of the crap fade into obscurity, and get on with the project of building a world civ that lives within sustainable limits and provides a good life for all.
Pooka Fey
(3,496 posts)According to classical historian Michael Grant the idea that Jesus never lived has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'. In recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus'—or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary. [212]
Go to link for entire criticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory
Scientific inquiry is the best tool we have to destroy myths and superstitions, like claiming on a public message board that Jesus never existed. It's the equivalent of claiming on DU that the world is only 6000 years old. Someone rational will destroy your superstition.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)The rest has no historicity. It is a myth.
Pooka Fey
(3,496 posts)
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Christianity was a means for controlling the people, telling them their station in life (serfs for most folks) was predestined and should not be challenged.
rug
(82,333 posts)The Edict of Thessalonica?
Who issued that edict should tell you who was actually asserting control.
It was not the people who spread the church in the previous three and a half centuries.
hunter
(38,317 posts)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junipero_Serra
A well meaning fool, at best.
And if you don't think the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not largely another "Christian Crusade" you don't know anything.
jaysunb
(11,856 posts)
El Supremo
(20,365 posts)He changed the whole damn thing.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)which are small minority practice beliefs & rituals different from the vast majority, they continually destroy Muslim architecture & regulate the Hajj which was something they were against in the first place & still preach against it.
Islam civilization was advancing at a similar or higher pace during the rise following the foundation laid by Babylonians. Also in mathematics & were so further ahead of the Roman Empire in terms of freedom & multiculturalism. Contrast the Constitution of Medina from Muhammed himself to what these cults preach about the same guy.
TheMastersNemesis
(10,602 posts)JonLP24
(29,322 posts)We have certainly made great strides in many areas, one of the great things is the internet which can function as a great tool with access to a wide variety of sources & information. Also, there is a lot of talk about the communication skills someone may suffer from spending too much time on the internet but communication is the most impressive advancement.
Though there are still many unresolved issues as a result of the World Wars & the geopolitics involving oil have really corrupted things and set us back further. Agreeing to trade weapons for oil as a response to the embargo set that region back in epic proportions.
Unknown Beatle
(2,672 posts)
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)ErikJ
(6,335 posts)which is full of a very vengeful god who advocates Jihad against non-believer people/ tribes. They both believe in Creationism Adam and Eve, Abraham, Moses, Jesus etc. Mohammed took most of his ideas in the Koran from the O
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)That lived in the same area of the Arabian peninsula. When one compares their writings to the Koran, it's obvious that Muhammad got many of his ideas from this particular off-branch of Judaism.
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)which have most of the same laws and commandments from God fundy Muslims still practice.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)also gives a special shout-out to the Book of Moses. Most of it is very supportive & Christians and Jewish people. Mentions both will be rewarded in the afterlife. The Jihad thing, taken from chronological starts as something self-defense but certainly goes further after that but it is interesting the same ideology that uses the verses to influence others to take a very literal & strict interpretation also destroy mosques the second mention (the first mention describes more of an internal conflict with Allah) to not fight back until they attack you inside the mosque. With all the taking away the risk (such as alcohol & any and all images when it merely mentions don't worship images of Muhammed) they even take away the mosque too.
[2.190] ...fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you...[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
There is certainly a lot when it relates to a war against unbelievers (which starts as a self-defense and Allah makes that call anyways) but not so much in how it relates to tribes. Certainly not a war against Christians or Jewish people, most of the negative things relates to a specific action taken but even mentions "There shall be no compulsion in religion" but the ones who corrupt the interpretation go as far as slaughtering anyone that doesn't view their narrow definition of a real Muslim.
Not saying any of this means anything to me as I'm an atheist & view it all has explanations & theories people came up with their limited understanding & technology available at the time (which adjusted to now was way more logical than the beliefs & citing their opinion to justify them) but like Christianity, it is very diverse when it comes to sects, beliefs, rituals, interpretation (a preacher even said, "who can fit a cow through a needle of a pin (or whatever that was)? God. Suggesting it is possible for rich people to get into heaven (though much of that came from a person that hated rich people) even though it is clearly implied it is impossible.
I agree, everyone that believes one or the other or both versions of one uses it as a tool for a wide ranging purposes & intentions such as MLK to the KKK (which Christian morality was used to justify their actions).
DebJ
(7,699 posts)accept of the Old Testament. She said that a basic concept is that God did give His true word to the world,
but the world then corrupted the word He had provided, so God used Muhammad to give the original
correct version back to the people.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)They take the more rational than Christian view Jesus as not divine, but a prophet but takes a strange view of the crucifixion which could be interpreted several different ways, for example. The Qu'ran basically works as a verification of the other 2 testaments (whether it is, they are all highly dubious but it certainly comes across as more reasonable but sometimes less reasonable depending on the claim) but it shows a large amount of love for the Book of Moses & reference it to explain why all believers of God's message. It basically goes through all the claims, dwell at length on some, offer alternative explanations which most take a pro-science POV but basically the entire book is Muhammed's opinion. Which leads to the prophet claims & taking the book very seriously & absurd lengths based on a literal interpretation mainly because he didn't take the other books too seriously but claims all believers in god's message
This is the Qu'ran's comment on the crucixion
That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-
Both are used as a foundation though mainly the old testament, they differ especially when it comes to Christianity & new testament though all these people claiming this person Jesus is the son of god was very controversial even for its times, the "King of Jews" title upset the powerful folks more than any divinity claims or "dying for our sins". Though all 3 are closer together than they're apart.
DebJ
(7,699 posts)I've had lots of interesting conversations with my friend and her mother about Islam.
What has had the greatest impact on me was the prayers five times a day, and the total devotion
to Allah expressed in those actions five times a day. I had several Muslims work for me over
the years, and they were much more 'Christian' than most of the self-identifying Christians I
have known.
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)Mormons - believe God chose Joseph Smith to restore the original correct version.
Jehovah Witnesses - believe their sect of Christianity is the restoration of the "purer" first Century version.
GeorgeGist
(25,321 posts)God should write his own books.
cally
(21,594 posts)Here's the Wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_the_Library_of_Alexandria
The library was not destroyed all at once but over many conquests. What I learned in Library school is that the lore that it was burned and destroyed all at once is a myth. Funding continually decreased and support for it diminished.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I think that such violence is exactly what makes religion in itself bad or evil.
Certainly the two biggies that you mention.
If either of them had more of a "live and let live" attitude, then everything would be fine.
Unfortunately, that's not the case for a good portion of those Christians and Muslims who appear to be set on telling other people how to live their lives based on their interpretation of the religion.
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)You filled a much needed hole in the study of Heywaityoudidittoology.
840high
(17,196 posts)DebJ
(7,699 posts)Pooka Fey
(3,496 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Last edited Mon Jan 26, 2015, 10:27 AM - Edit history (1)
unblock
(52,253 posts)at a personal level, sure, individuals and small groups certainly commit violence in the name of religion without a particular economic motive.
but at a national level, at a historical level, these things are usually motivated primarily be economics. religion is used to disguise these crass motivations and to sell the war to the masses.
it's hard to get a lot of people willing to lay down their lives so that some rich and powerful people can get richer and more powerful. it's a whole lot easier to get them to lay down their lives if you can convince them that those heathens (who won't hand over their riches) will be saved if you convert them (or killed with the blessings of your god) and you will be rewarded in the afterlife and so on.
those in power here want access to the resources of the middle east, and those in the middle east want more of a share of the wealth of the west. that alone explains the violence, and the asymmetry of power explains the asymmetric of tactics.
but do we here much discussion of this? any, really? no, instead we are told that it's only their religious intolerance that leads to their violence and it's only our freedom of religion that requires us to quell such uprisings.
though this certain subgroup clearly uses religion & is motivated in their beliefs to this doctrine (and use Jannah verses as their primary recruiting tool) they tend to tolerate things contrary to their views or beliefs for the very same reasons. To gain wealth, prestige, and keep it to their selves but certainly invest their profits into this ideology.
Post-colonization is a very rarely viewed in context in dealing with Muslim majority countries. The identity politics & the Rwanda example gives us a better understand but since the majority of both ethnic groups are Roman Catholics it is quickly viewed as irrelevant to the problems there.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)It is very important to the ruling economic elite to have as many fundamentalist followers as possible.
The flock of sheep becomes so much easier to control.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)If you desire to put everything into a single box, you can make the argument, but you have to completely ignore inconvenient facts to do so.
unblock
(52,253 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)Since others did it 1000 yrs ago
840high
(17,196 posts)Rhinodawg
(2,219 posts)Eom
Joe Turner
(930 posts)when Muslim Terrorists continue to kill, maim, butcher thousands more innocent people in their Jihad with the West.
TheMastersNemesis
(10,602 posts)My post does not excuse Islam or Christianity for the violent tendencies of its radical. ISIS & the Taliban just like the Khmer Rouge are better exterminated from the planet.
Joe Turner
(930 posts)I think your post by way of condemning Christianity for past misdeeds many hundreds of years ago, does indirectly, defend radical Islam. Like it or not radical Islam is the problem of today and it needs to be addressed. Equating it to the early days of Christianity whether accurate or not makes light of a very serious situation we have with Muslim-driven terrorism.
DebJ
(7,699 posts)I might state that it is equally horrific that Billy bullied Mike by beating him up with his fists, and that John bullied George by hitting him with a piece of wood, or something to that effect. That does not mean that I am 'defending' either of them in any way whatsoever.
And as far as 'hundreds of years ago'.... that doesn't make it less relevant; it is a valid comparison of how religious systems are used to gain, as another DUer pointed out in this thread, economic and political control. And I would call people who murder abortion doctors, or bomb clinics, or try to close them, terrorists as well, in that they are trying to force upon everyone their system of morality. It is also terrorism to try to insure that a woman who will bleed to death without the assistance of birth control hormones is prevented from accessing them, and it is terrorism to attempt to insure that a pregnant mother of four will die by carrying a deformed fetus full-term: it is a death sentence. And it's none of their damn business. Nor is trying to prevent single women from getting birth control.
Binding a gay man to a fence, brutalizing him, and leaving him to die because he is gay is religious terrorism. Destroying a couple's ability to have access to medical care/insurance and forcing them to pay a higher tax rate simply because they are gay is economic terrorism.
And those are just two ways that people who self-identify as Christians wish to incur sorrow, pain, death, and other ravages upon those who do not except what these terrorists have determined is the only way for all people to live.
And the new Repub Congress will be brimful of more ways to enact such terrorism and control.
On edit: sheesh I seem to be having trouble with my sentence structure...time for bed!
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)I suspect that the vast majority of the victims of the likes of ISIS and Boko Haram would be very surprised to find out they're 'the West', seeing how they're Shia and other minorities and most of them are dead and can't tell you anyway.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)
Skittles
(153,169 posts)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)He did not choose violence. He chose peace.
Constantine began the use of violence in the name of Christianity.
Prior to that the Christian Church dd not use violence to fight the oppressors of Christian people. That's why there are so many stories of Christian martyrs in the early days of Christianity.
The Moors, Christians and Jews lived in peace in Spain during a Golden Age The Muslim religion was from the beginning a religion that set out to conquer to spread its faith. Unlike Jesus, Mohammed responded to violence against him with violence.
The Christian religion started out as a peaceful group and changed. Hopefully, Christians are no longer going to fight over religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Christianity_and_pacifism
In contrast with the pacifist response to violence of Jesus, the Muslim religion advocates for returning violence with violence.
n response to these charges, Ram Puniyani assert that, "Islam does not condone violence but, like other religions, does believe in self-defence".[10]
(Our law recognizes the defense of self-defence, but originally, Christianity did not advocate for violence even in self-defense. There is at least one instance of the use of violence reported among members of the Christian fellowship in Acts of the Apostles. But it was not violence by members of the early Christian fellowships.
http://atheism.about.com/library/KJV/acts/bl_bib_act05.htm)
Mark Juergensmeyer describes the teachings of Islam as ambiguous about violence. He asserts that, like all religions, Islam occasionally allows for force while stressing that the main spiritual goal is one of nonviolence and peace.[11] Hood, Hill and Spika write that "
a)lthough it would be a mistake to think that Islam is inherently a violent religion, it would be equally inappropriate to fail to understand the conditions under which believers might feel justified in acting violently against those whom their tradition feels should be opposed."[12]
Similarly, Chandra Muzaffar asserts that, " t)he Quranic exposition on resisting aggression, oppression and injustice lays down the parameters within which fighting or the use of violence is legitimate. What this means is that one can use the Quran as the criterion for when violence is legitimate and when it is not."[1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_violence
Constantine did not follow the teachings of Jesus. Neither did those who led the Crusades or the Inquisitions.
Joe Turner
(930 posts)That is a defining difference that has characterized Islam from the beginning. Their founder unlike Jesus was a violent, murderous man. It is the one religion that cannot co-exist with other religions because that is not in their mandate.
greytdemocrat
(3,299 posts)But I think the BFEE had a hand in it too.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Augustus
(63 posts)You have done well in overcoming the abuse you suffered as a child, but you haven't recovered completely. Your second last step is in the realization that there is zero legitimacy in so called "spirituality". Making up fiction in lieu of science to explain the natural world only advances ignorance, and in fact, is the very genesis of religion in the first place.
The final step in making a full recovery from it is to be proud of yourself and to lose the "respect" that you feel you need to show to religious people and religion in general. There is no need to put in those little caveats like your last paragraph. Everybody need to "come out of the closet", so to speak when it comes to freeing yourself of religion. Stand up and shout it from the roof tops.
Joe Turner
(930 posts)Knowing for sure there is no God. No spirituality. Preening with arrogance yet armed with no more facts than the average religious zealot and never afraid of making absolutist statements. You aren't even on your first step towards any kind of understanding about life.
7962
(11,841 posts)It's the same old nonsense coming from the religiously brainwashed. One can't prove a negative. It's a simple tenet of logic.
7962
(11,841 posts)Augustus
(63 posts)You're committing the negative proof fallacy.
7962
(11,841 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)GeorgeGist
(25,321 posts)Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)Or if you'd tell a gathering of Native Americans that the shit they believe is worthless.
Or if you'd scorn a gathering of Wiccans.
Probably not.
Augustus
(63 posts)Beliefs are not facts. It's easy, really.
DebJ
(7,699 posts)If everyone doesn't have your viewpoint, they were abused as children. Emotional terrorism? Certainly not a liberal viewpoint you hold there.
Augustus
(63 posts)Facts are facts, and there's nothing you can do to change them.
DebJ
(7,699 posts)that all facts are known; that man knows all he needs to know; that man's five senses can perceive all that their
is to perceive. (Like alternate dimensions proposed in phyics...what is your personal experience of those?)
And from this hubris, you then expand to infer that anyone who doesn't agree with you is brainwashed. And so,
you wish to force your perspectives on everyone else...which is what organized religions have too often done.
The problem is that hubris is a Catch-22. You can't see hubris because you are suffering from hubris.
Augustus
(63 posts)Just in case you delete it.
Your logic and facts are based upon the assumption that all facts are known; that man knows all he needs to know; that man's five senses can perceive all that their is to perceive. (Like alternate dimensions proposed in phyics...what is your personal experience of those?)
And from this hubris, you then expand to infer that anyone who doesn't agree with you is brainwashed. And so,
you wish to force your perspectives on everyone else...which is what organized religions have too often done.
The problem is that hubris is a Catch-22. You can't see hubris because you are suffering from hubris
You have just described religion almost as well as any dictionary could define it. The assumption that all facts are known, that man's five senses can perceive all that there is to perceive...It is religion that does this, not logically reasoned critical thinking, not the scientific method, not mathematical proofs.
Religion is what claims to have all the answers without any evidence. Religion is what claims supernatural explanations for things human senses cannot perceive, again without evidence. It is religion that is the ultimate hubris, and I think you know this, deep down.
But you were told - repeatedly - as a child, to halt the natural critical thought processes which eventually led to your ability to discern fact from fiction in other areas: Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. Black cats or walking under ladders or breaking mirrors. Astrology. (Admittedly, I am assuming you don't believe in those things, though I could be wrong about that, which only bolsters my case even more.)
In any case, that repeated drilling into your head when you were a child to keep on believing objective fantasy is, in fact, brainwashing. It's not an opinion, it's a a definition of the word.
Brainwashing
Any method of controlled systematic indoctrination, especially one based on repetition or confusion.
btrflykng9
(287 posts)result of brainwashing or a cultist mentality as one could call a belief in a god (of whatever sort).
The assumption that not believing in a god somehow by definition makes that person an individual thinker is faulty logic as well.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)
- I beg to differ. Particularly with respect to the BIG THREE. They were all founded in the blood and murder of so-called ''infidels'' and in the conquest of their lands and resources -- and with the rape, pillage and enslavement of those people.
All. Of. Them.
Religion, from ''ligo'' meaning to bind........
pecwae
(8,021 posts)"Violence does not make religion bad or evil"! Maybe the OP can explain how he arrives at such a conclusion.
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts). . . So if you want to compare them, have a look at what Christianity was up to 600 years ago, and then get back to me!
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)JI7
(89,252 posts)religions of anything they do just based on how long they have been around.
7962
(11,841 posts)
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)no matter how much they may deny it.
So, for example, the emphasis on iconoclasm in Sunni Islam is at least partly a response to what was going on in the Byzantine world when Islam was still expanding and the rules that form the culture were still being worked out.
Anyhow, if the age of a religion were a good indicator of how advanced it's adherents are, we'd be setting up Hindu household shrines on Mars.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)though this was more of a problem in the Western & Eastern Christian world than it was in Muslim. Christians only needed the "graven images" from their own bible in the image debate which the context was basically a class struggle. This period led to Eastern Orthodox Christianity which is a major Christian sect and the identity politics involved with that make better sense of the Yugoslavia Wars & the Russia & Ukraine situation which is both part civil war, part invasion but a continuation of those conflicts.
The current problem in how it relates to a sect of Sunni Islam is an illiterate (I mention this in how it relates to an already problematic translation & verse interpretation issue from the original Arabic even for scholars) group of people in the area of Najd, Saudi Arabia were influenced by an 18th century preacher who took things to extreme. One devoted follower, started a bloody campaign that led to Saudi Arabia and capture of prime territory. One of their first acts was to destroy the graves of Muhammed's immediate family they put the brakes but eventually desecrated his grave too which was very controversial, they are very controversial to the vast majority of Muslims. It is all based on the idolatry thing, to go so far & beyond to prevent the option the choice. The Wahabbis were the only ones like this nearing the end of the Ottoman Empire when Turkey were the violent ones backed by the colonizers who were interested in trade routes.
They also got around to continue to destroy early civilizations the last 10 years
Though the Saudi rulers have a long history of destroying historical sites, activists say the pace and range of destruction has recently increased. A few months ago, the house of Hamza, the Prophet Muhammad’s uncle, was flattened to make way for a Meccan hotel, according to Irfan Al Alawi, executive director of the Islamic Heritage Research Foundation. There have even been rumored threats to Muhammad’s tomb in Medina and his birthplace in Mecca.
A 61-page report, published recently in Saudi Arabia’s Journal of the Royal Presidency, suggested separating the Prophet’s tomb from Medina’s mosque, a task “that would amount to its destruction,” Alawi says. “You can’t move it without destroying it.” Moreover, he alleges, plans for a new palace for King Abdullah threaten the library atop the site traditionally identified as the birthplace of Muhammad. Even now, signs in four languages warn visitors that there is no proof that the Prophet Muhammad was born there, “so it is forbidden to make this place specific for praying, supplicating or get [sic] blessing.”
Wahhabism, the prevailing Saudi strain of Islam, frowns on visits to shrines, tombs or religio-historical sites, on grounds that they might lead to Islam’s gravest sin: worshipping anyone other than God. In recent years, the twin forks of Wahhabi doctrine and urban development have speared most physical reminders of Islamic history in the heart of Mecca. The house of the Prophet’s first wife, Khadijah has made way for public toilets. A Hilton hotel stands on the site of the house of Islam’s first caliph, Abu Bakr. Famously, the Kaaba now stands in the shade of one of the world’s tallest buildings, the Mecca Royal Clock Tower, part of a complex built by the Bin Laden Group, boasting a 5-story shopping mall, luxury hotels and a parking garage.
<snip>
If Mecca’s new skyline is impossible to ignore, what with 48 searchlights beaming from the top of the Clock Tower, other changes to the landscape are more insidious. “Everyone’s focused on [the two mosque expansion projects], but people are not focusing on what we’re losing in the meantime,” says Saudi activist, poet and photographer Nimah Ismail Nawwab. After blue markings appear on sites mentioned in Islamic histories, says Nawwab, then the bulldozers come–often in the dead of night. “Everything happens at night,” she told TIME by phone from Saudi Arabia. “By the next day in the morning, the monument is gone.”
http://time.com/3584585/saudi-arabia-bulldozes-over-its-heritage/
If it isn't controversial to indict Islam all over one small & very controversial within Islam sect than why wouldn't it be appropriate to look at Christianity (though the Old testament is more of a foundation which the Quran is basically the two books but with commentary). Islam is basically a sect of the big 3 and Mormonism. They just have alternative theories & explanations much like all the sects of all the Abrahamic religions.
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)People are responsible for their actions. A younger religion is not granted a free pass to act like it's the middle ages. Religions are not some biological entity that grows up.
As an atheist, I reject any excuses people give to violent actions.
PatrickforO
(14,577 posts)So is religion. Those crusaders thought they knew God wanted them to smite those Muslims. Torquemada and his priests were absolutely certain God wanted them to torture heretics. Now we have a small group of Muslims who want to smite western civilization. They are certain God wants them to do it.
randome
(34,845 posts)Are we to promote a false equivalency and turn a blind eye to people being horribly mutilated and killed?
You say Christianity (a religion) was violent but then "Such violence does not make religion in itself bad or evil." Sort of a conflict in viewpoints, don't you think?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)
saltpoint
(50,986 posts)St. Francis in the garden.
For a pretty big part of it, there's blood on the tracks.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)So for me, this OP is not very meaningful. And that last paragraph I reject your premise and I do so on the basis of a teaching from Christianity. Jesus said that one knows the nature of a tree by the fruit that it bears. Thus, that which springs from a religion tells us the nature of that religion. Thus, a religion that produces violence and greed and abuse has those things in it's nature, according to Jesus.
So while such violence might not make a school of thought 'evil' it does in fact make it violent, the harvest is malign and thus such a school of thought is an illegitimate path for seeking peace or understanding even if such pursuits themselves are legitimate.
Pooka Fey
(3,496 posts)I love this teaching by Jesus. I always remember it.
The problem though is that all humans have free will, and many crave status, greed, and power in all its forms. The best way to cover up one's personal evil is to hide it under the disguise of being a "good Christian". If it is true for Christians, it must be true for Muslims.
That being said, the more I come to know what is in the Coran and the more I know about the life of Mohammed, the more I worry, because it seems that he was a warlord and a military conqueror. Still, there are Muslims calling for reform, even of the Coran, who dare to say that the seeds of the sickness of jihad are in the text.
dembotoz
(16,808 posts)tabasco
(22,974 posts)HELLLLOOOOOO!!
It's not like it's objectively the 21st century.
JCMach1
(27,559 posts)the death of the Prophet (PBUH)...
It took Christianity several centuries to get State sponsored violence in the name of religion going.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)in order to unite our tribe.
Oh, wait. That's what we have been doing since the beginning of time.
So many gods, so little time.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)I have no time for the wild guess-claims of either faith. Atrocities aplenty have been and continue to be done motivated by both too. I have no theological or cultural dog in this pissing match.
But Christianity never really had secular power in its initial growth phase. By the 4th century evangelism had done the heavy lifting and the post-Milvian Bridge religious wars were far more likely to be against heterodox believers than infidels. This in fact was the case for quite some time.
Now sure Charlemagne did plenty of ermm....pointed evangelism among the Saxons until Alcuin got him to knock it off, and the Crusades were certainly religiously motivated as well as a land grab, but that was more a failed attempt at reclamation than a failed attempt at evangelism by force of arms. Funnily enough in a combination of the above much of the Muslim expansion into the Levant in the first place was at the request of heterodox Christian prelates who preferred Muslim rule (they didn't give a shit if you were Nestorian for example and left folks more or less alone to pursue Christianity as they saw fit unless provoked) to the rigidly and violently enforced orthodoxy of some of the Byzantine emperors and Patriarchs.
On the contrary a huge percentage in fact almost all of Islam's initial expansion outside Arabian trade routes was military. The Persians didn't convert due to quiet door knocking and neither did the Turcoman tribes or the North Africans or the Balkan groups. In fact it really wasn't until the orthodoxy wars mentioned above that Islam DID expand significantly in territory due to peaceful means and then it was simply as a better choice than the theological OCD of the Byzantines rather than, initially, as a genuine preference for Islam. Additional taxes, privileges for believers and cultural norms did the rest and gradually turned the Levant Islamic by the 11th Century CE.
Again both have swords and blood in their diaspora, but Islam had much more of it and much earlier.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)"Ta da! I'm here, suckers who didn't believe in me! ... Game over!"
He was supposed to come back a loooong time ago. I wonder what is delaying him? Whatever could it be?
Hmmm ... 
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)...are pretty much invariably ignorant of Islam and its history-or that of Christianity, for that matter.
Irrational and ignorant prejudice go hand in hand with bigotry. And it's even worse when the bigots think that they are "rational" or "enlightened." 
Bad Thoughts
(2,524 posts)Or is there amnesia with regard to some types of violence?
