Jesus verses Muhammad
Jesus saved people
Muhammad killed people
Jesus offered forgiveness
Muhammad offered execution
Jesus preaches love and peace
Muhammad preached Jihad
Jesus taught to love one another
Muhammad taught to subject one another
I could go on and on all day long. But Jesus is the complete opposite of Muhammad
The rules are as follows. You have to be liberal to follow the logic, but bear with me :
Any actions done by Christians, even those who don’t commit acts in the name of their religion, are examples of Christian violence.
Whoopi Goldberg said that Timothy McVeigh was a Christian terrorist. There you have it. Whoopi has weighed in.......
But the rule also is, that even if some dude shouts Allah Akbar(sp) in committing violence, we are not allowed to say that he has committed his atrocities in the name of Islam.
So, to sum up, any actions by even nominal or lapsed Christians are examples of Christian violence.
Actions committed by Muslims even if explicitly said by those committing the acts to be in the name of Allah and Mohammed, are NOT considered examples of Muslim violence.
In fact, since Islam is a religion of peace, per liberal criteria, by definition, there can be no violence done in the name of Islam.
So the liberals got us coming and going here. We have to be ready to talk about what happened in the Crusades, if we are going to say anything about perceived Islamic violence today.
Catholic ping!
The Bible, the Old Testament and the New Testament, have only superficial relationship to the Koran. The Koran was written using some of the elements of both Old and New Testaments, but in a very selective manner. It is significant that in most Muslim countries there is an absolute prohibition on the distribution or even the carrying of a Bible, and practicing Muslims are forbidden to read any part of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. This surely shuts down any critical examination of the sometimes contradictory and often inflammatory language of the Koran.
And for so long as that critical review of the doctrines and meanings of the Koran are not undertaken, then it shall be impossible to define what a “moderate” Muslim might be.
But he still gets it wrong about the Crusades. The Crusades were counteroffensive operations against invading Islamists, who had been invading for centuries.
Intereting, because despite muslims claiming Christ is also their prophet, they do nothing for Him.
Deeds speak louder than words, and they are capable, in their progressist religion of Mohammed, of blaming Christ indeed.
The Crusades were wars fought for the liberation of Christians. Your problem is that you have bought into the liberal historical narrative that forgets about the extent of the Muslim threat to the very existence of Christian Europe. You may have heard of Charles Martel but doubt you remember Don Juan of Austria, or Princ Eugene of Austria.