killimg? lets see... the Christians quit 1000 years ago, the goathumpers on the other hand are still going strongAre Christians taught to emulate Jesus? Are Muslims taught to emulate Mohammed? Did Jesus form an army and engage in warfare? Did Mohammed? Can an indivdual engage in acts of terrorism and be a good Christian? Can an individual engage in acts of terrorism and be a good Muslim?
Also, I happened to nitice that Wikipedia’s pages on Islam have apparently been edited by very Islam-friendly hands. The articles on Christianity, much lsess so - at least that’s how it appeatred to me.
So far, no one has been able to win a debate with me on this point:
Christians follow the example of Christ. You simply can not pattern your life after the life of Christ and justify killing others for not believing the same.
Islams follow the example of Mohammed. If you pattern your life after Mohammed, you actually have to justify killing others for not believing the same.
Regardless of who has killed more, can’t they even agree that it is wrong? This is a typical strategy of liberals to use flawed logic to justify their positions. They don’t know how to think critically, they only know how to attack. When do two wrongs make a right? Only in the world of the liberal thinker.
Next time someone says that, don’t try to prove them wrong. Point out the flaw in their logic. They hate that. Mostly because they usually don’t know how to respond. Expect ad hominems to follow.
In this case, if the issue is the recent rise in Muslims killing Christians in the Middle East, just ask them if it’s their position that in their worldview, if more Muslims have been killed by Christians, then it’s fine for Muslims to keep killing Christians until they’re even? How does that fit their liberal mindset of tolerance?
The problem with liberals is they can’t logically defend their positions. They can’t because their positions contradict each other on so many issues. In this case, they are trying to seem tolerant by understanding the Muslim point of view—even to the point of arguing that killing people is, if not justified, is at least understandable. It’s nonsense.
Don’t argue numbers. Throw it back on them and ask which religion CONTINUES to murder THOUSANDS of people every year for their religion?
Which religion has REFUSED to move out of the 6th century?
Which religion says that it is okay to murder people who will not convert?
Which religion says that you can MURDER your way into heaven?
Which religion says that women are little more than property and continues to treat them as such?
Which religion tells their followers that it is okay to LIE about their religion in order to advance it?
God will finish the job with the muslims.
Kind of like debating which animal eats more zebra, cheetahs or lions.
It sure as heck don't matter to the zebras...and the lions and cheetahs are fine with it as long as their bellies are full.
In other words... WHO THE HECK CARES???
Table of Selected pre-twentieth century democide and totals
killimg? lets see... the Christians quit 1000 years ago, the goathumpers on the other hand are still going strongReligeous zealots are extremely dangerous and usually murderous, regardless of which god or God they champion. The world has seen most of its carnage in the name of god.
I have come to the conclusion that the only good Muzzie is a dead Muzzie.
That said, we have not made enough “good Muzzies”
Git some!
Semper Fi!
When I’m confronted with the “crusades” canard I respond with this:
By your logic, modern Christians should hate Italians and hold them responsible for the Roman persecution of early Christians.
I didn’t think the body counting was done yet...
Tell your lib friend to put down the ___ and get the ___ out of his ___.
LoL!
/private joke
How many innocent people did Islamic terrorists murder on 9/11/2001?
How many terrorists who wanted to commit mass murder against innocent civilians did our military hunt down and kill before those terrorists could come after our wives and our children?
Who but an amoral liberal would even consider these numbers to be comparable, regardless of which is larger?
How many innocents did either Christians or Moslems kill centuries ago? Again, why would either number matter, except to the extent that today’s followers of either faith consider that sort of behavior admirable?
I’ve searched the ‘net with no real definite answer. Anyone?
A nation full of people that are called Christians do not make a Christian government, called and being is not always the same.
The net is a very poor source, but the answer is obviously and overwhelmingly Mohammedans. Mohammedanism has always been spread by fire and sword as a specific tenet of Mohammedanism - Jihad. The Mediterranean Sea was a Christian “lake” and the Middle East were Christian until Mohammed’s caravan raiding ideology/religion came sweeping through those areas. The Crusades were defensive and thoroughly justified. Most of what you read about them today is anti-Christian propaganda produced by lying secularists. If you look farther to the east, you would find that Indian sources argue that the Mohammedans killed about 100 million Indians over the centuries (and, of course, are continuing to kill them now).
If you want a current Western source, read Robert Spencer if you want to learn something about Mohammedanism.
The “Inquisiton” is largely a myth. For anyone who is interested in the actual history of the Inquisition, the two best scholarly works are Henry Kamen’s The Inquisition (Yale Unversity Press) and Edward Peters’ Inquisition (University of California Press). Both explain at length how our ideas about the “evils” of the Inquisition largely stem from Protestant propaganda that was later embellished by the secular humanists. Of the 5k who were put to death over 400 years by the Inquisition, many of those executed committed serious crimes that we would recognize today. So, only a fraction were executed for heresy.
Sometimes the 30 Years War is mentioned, but most died from disease and, in any event, the underlying causes were probably much more political disputes rather than religion (the Spanish Hapsburgs wanted to dominate Euroe, and the German princes and the French had a different view of the matter, which is why Catholic France sometimes was allied with the Protestants, and the Protestants were at one point allied with the Mohammedans. This would never have happened in a truly “religious” war).
There is also disinformation about Charlemagne, Hypatia, and other falsehoods or distortions that sometimes come up.
Suffice it to say that the numbers aren’t close. Moreover, all killings are not morally equivalent. Some people need to be killed. For example, the Knights of Malta killed a lot of Turks and N. Africans at Malta during the seige, as did the Poles at the Gates of Vienna and on Juan of Austria at Lepanto.
Christianity isn’t pacifism. Theodore Roosevelt places the importance of the Christian warriors from Charles Martel (grandfather to Charlemagne), through the Crusaders, Graf von Salm and his Landsknecht, the Knights of Malta, and Don Juan of Austria to Jan Sobieski and his Poles in their overall context: “Christianity was saved in Europe solely because the peoples of Europe fought. If the peoples of Europe in the seventh and eighth centuries, and on up to, and including, the seventeenth century, had not possessed a military equality with, and gradually a growing superiority over, the Mohammedans who invaded Europe, Europe would at this moment be Mohammedan and the Christian religion would be exterminated.
Wherever the Mohammedans have had complete sway, wherever the Christians have been unable to resist them by the sword, Christianity has ultimately disappeared. From the hammer of Charles Martel to the sword of Sobieski, Christianity owed its safety in Europe to the fact that it was able to show that it could, and would, fight as well as the Mohammedan aggressor.”
The civilization of Europe, America, and Australia, exists today at all, only because of the victories of civilized man over the enemies of civilization—because of victories through the centuries from Charles Martel, in the eighth century, and those of John Sobieski, in the seventeenth century. ...There are such “social values” today in Europe, America and Australia only because during those thousand years, the Christians of Europe possessed the warlike power to do what the Christians of Asia and Africa had failed to do—that is, to beat back the Moslem invader.”—
As an aside, there has been a remarkable effort by many to whitewash Mohammedanism by many academics and members of the press – abetted, oddly enough, by both the Bush and Obama administrations. In earlier generations in the West we had many public men who spoke straight-forwardly about Mohammedanism.
John Wesley, for example, described Mohammedanism as “…Ever since the religion of Islam appeared in the world, the espousers of it…have been as wolves and tigers to all other nations, rending and tearing all that fell into their merciless paws, and grinding them with their iron teeth…”
Churchill said of Mohammedanism that “No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.”
For an honest academic’s assessment of modern-day Mohammedanism, see Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations. The intellectually curious would also benefit from reading Dario Fernandez-Morera’s relatively short article titled “The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise”, which is now available online. In summary, Fernandez-Morera, a professor at Northwestern University, punctures the PC lie that Moorish Spain was a vibrant, multicultural paradise.
Remember, when you argue with leftists and secularists you are generally arguing with people who really don’t care much about the truth.
One billion people are currently muslim, but they have NO religious freedom to be anything BUT muslim in many of those nations.
That right there speaks out about the tyrannical nature of Islamic theocratic rule of nations.
Add to that the Islamic conquest of formerly Christian and other nations (conversion by the sword).
The uberleft live in a propaganda fantasy world. They will spout stats about the millions of kids supposedly killed by our sanctions on Iraq and then push for sanctions against Iran rather than military response to their nuclear weapon development.
The Muslims 'win' this contest hands down.
Don’t let anyone frame the debate in such general terms as Muslims and Christians.
The debate should be about which religion is militant against any other religion and the militant tenets drive the religionists to war and plunder areas under control of other religions.
There may have been a very small window of time—1096-1270 years of the Crusades—in which Christians were urged to make war against Muslims—but that was a very small slice of history.
On the other hand, Islam has been at war with neighboring areas which are not Muslim since its inception in 622 , virtually without pause. It is a basic tenet of the relgion and the only religion to have that warlike position as a foundation.
The argument should be, "Who is killing more RIGHT NOW?"
Arguably, Islamic terrorists around the world are the number on killers of innocent civilians today.