Posted on 06/08/2009 11:04:36 AM PDT by ventanax5
“There is far more violence in the Bible than in the Qur’an; the idea that Islam imposed itself by the sword is a Western fiction, fabricated during the time of the Crusades when, in fact, it was Western Christians who were fighting brutal holy wars against Islam.” So announces former nun and self-professed “freelance monotheist,” Karen Armstrong. This quote sums up the single most influential argument currently serving to deflect the accusation that Islam is inherently violent and intolerant: All monotheistic religions, proponents of such an argument say, and not just Islam, have their fair share of violent and intolerant scriptures, as well as bloody histories. Thus, whenever Islam’s sacred scriptures — the Qur’an first, followed by the reports on the words and deeds of Muhammad (the Hadith) — are highlighted as demonstrative of the religion’s innate bellicosity, the immediate rejoinder is that other scriptures, specifically those of Judeo-Christianity, are as riddled with violent passages. …
(Excerpt) Read more at meforum.org ...
Let's say charitably that Karen's strong suit isn't history.
http://www.meforum.org/2159/are-judaism-and-christianity-as-violent-as-islam
yes. a good article.
every christian (and every american, for that matter) should compare the conventional wisdom about the crusades with the reality.
No it isn’t.
The Quran, and all its violence, is also part of what gives meaning to this Allah character.
Without one, the other is meaningless!
Nazis were old-fashioned pagans.
Well, it’s funny, but what’s hilarious is the story of a supposed infallible, omnipotent being having to test its own creation.
This is true--and the big atheistic regimes of the 20th century saw Christianity and Judaism as challenges to State authority--the god of those atheistic regimes--and so atheism killed off the Christians and Jews.
The initial post regarding this was correct.
>.a supposed infallible, omnipotent being having to test its own creation.
Omnipotency and Eternity can get boring.
Hence, you need entertainment.
Hence, humans.
It's not the fault of Atheism that someone kills people for a grip on power, and political mobility.
Atheism is merely not believing in a certain product of the human imagination, and that's it.
And... other than Joshua's entry into Canaan (with God's command to exterminate this and that foe) and David's killings to build the Jewish state, most of OT violence is the Jews getting their a**es kicked. And in these situations, it was the waywardness of the Jews and their kings that lead God to use pagan rulers (Assyria, Babylon, et al.) to do the kicking. Life in the OT was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Christ offered a revolutionary alternative. Christians took him up on it. Life under Muhammed remains nasty, brutish, and short, as that is what Muhammed and his Quran and his successors practiced and preached. Folks can check this out themselves by actually reading the Bible and Quran, and reading the actual history of Christian vs Muslim civilization.
Depends if it is militant atheism or merely personal atheism.
Me, I view my and my tribe’s very existence, despite concerted efforts of the entire world (at various times) to destroy us, as proof of the G-d of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.
Indeed, I view the world’s bizarre desire to kill my tribe (for no apparent reason) as proof of the world’s rebellion against G-d, and thus of G-d Himself. The world’s hatred of Israel is so bizarre and nonsensical that it almost must be supernatural.
(These are not the only proofs, of course -— for there can be no “proof” of such things, just feathers on the scale.)
It is moronic to compare the Old Testament violence of thousands of years ago with the vicious, sadistic, murderous behavior that routinely is practiced by today’s muzzies.
Atheism as practiced is an evangelical religion. The adherents try to convert others to their religious beliefs, mock the beliefs of others, try to establish atheism as the de-facto state religion through the courts.
A religion does not require a god, just a belief system involving a god. Atheism is a belief system around the idea the there is no God.
God tests the millions of pieces of creation that have free will. Will they choose to cleave to Him - their literal Maker - or will they do the other thing? That is the test.
That's where (spiritual) emptiness leads.
In order for the state to assume the powers of life and death and definition of morality,
atheism MUST first be enforced. Otherwise, people have an unappealable source of the definition of right and wrong, and it isn’t the state.
The denial and removal of God from society is a pre-requisite for total statism.
It's only the religions that have spun off of Judaism's base that view it with vengeance, or used to. Because, in many ways more than one, the derivative religions based their existence on changing the status-quo of Judaism.
Sort of like the Protestant/ Catholic divide, or, the Shia/ Sunni divide. One thrives on denying the other.
Truly, if the atheists simply did not believe in the existance of God, and had no further agenda,
they wouldn’t be actively working to destroy everyone else’s belief.
A being created by an infallible being, should technically not err when given free choices as well...
It is impossible for there to be a religious vacuum. In a sentient being only 3 possible states can exist:
1) A godless worldview
2) A God-centered worldview
2) Not sure
The above is axiomatic.
Each worldview has political, religious, and cultural consequences that are **never** neutral. This to is axiomatic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.