Social Experiment. Perception of Quran vs. Bible | Page 3 | INFJ Forum

Social Experiment. Perception of Quran vs. Bible

Did you read that article? The title isn't even the main point of the article, and the historian doesn't do anything of the sort. It's a whole lot of opinion and absolutely zero facts. Personally, I'd be embarrassed to admit I read that if I posted that, because the title is just click bait.

You also did realize that unlike Christianity and the bible which contain both the NT and the OT that the Quran is only 14% of their religious texts, right? Taking the Quran itself isn't genuine just like using just the NT isn't genuine. Did you know that if something appears later, in the Sira or Hadith then it gives more weight than what is in the Quran? Wow, I wonder what we'd come up with if we compared them all to each other.

I read the article that you dismiss as “click bait” because it makes your point look ridiculous.

Don’t like the link…I bet you hate NPR even more - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788
Again…you’re defending what exactly?
Woe is me…us Christians always getting picked on…we don’t kill people, or own slaves, or cut off hands/heads or any of that anymore…except in a few places...
 

I have never heard of people being physically attacked by a book.

Regardless of whether one book contains more accounts of violence than another is immaterial and a very stupid assessment. One week's run of newspapers probably contains more accounts/descriptions/etc. of violence than the Bible and Quran put together.

What is relevant is the intended interpretation of that account: a newspaper is reporting, usually with some political/legislative agenda in the background; the Bible is a variety of reporting, allegory, parable, etc. with an emphasis on the gravity and deadly/maiming effect of sin on the soul (how bad is it to let one's eyes lead on into sin? It would be better to pluck them out, etc., etc.). The Quran has also has a variety of accounts of violence - but the problem is that many of these are meant to be applied in a literal, practical, physical sense.

Even one verse of violence, which is intended to promote violence is fundamentally different to even 10,000 which simply illustrate violence.
 
I read the article that you dismiss as “click bait” because it makes your point look ridiculous.

Don’t like the link…I bet you hate NPR even more - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788
Again…you’re defending what exactly?
Woe is me…us Christians always getting picked on…we don’t kill people, or own slaves, or cut off hands/heads or any of that anymore…except in a few places...

I read the NPR link before I posted because the point of the article was so far from the title I started clicking the links inside the article to figure out how you connected what I said to that article besides the actual title. How did it make my point ridiculous?
 
I have never heard of people being physically attacked by a book.

Regardless of whether one book contains more accounts of violence than another is immaterial and a very stupid assessment. One week's run of newspapers probably contains more accounts/descriptions/etc. of violence than the Bible and Quran put together.

What is relevant is the intended interpretation of that account: a newspaper is reporting, usually with some political/legislative agenda in the background; the Bible is a variety of reporting, allegory, parable, etc. with an emphasis on the gravity and deadly/maiming effect of sin on the soul (how bad is it to let one's eyes lead on into sin? It would be better to pluck them out, etc., etc.). The Quran has also has a variety of accounts of violence - but the problem is that many of these are meant to be applied in a literal, practical, physical sense.

Even one verse of violence, which is intended to promote violence is fundamentally different to even 10,000 which simply illustrate violence.

I disagree. Considering the vast difference in the amount violence between the two religious doctrines and texts, it is a good objective place for someone to start.
 
Most people never devel deep into the religious texts of their religion. They are happy enough with having their religious leader pick and choose the best parts.
I really believe that if more people took the time to look into it you would see a mass exodus from religion. Oh wait, thats kind of already happening.

It had the opposite effect on me. I also read Quran. Was glad to get back to the King James version of the Bible. Most people read with a closed mind and hardened heart.
 
Probably because the point was to show people, Christians in particular, how much prejudice and ignorance they have and that doesn't sit well since the faithful of each major religion exhault the word of God but practice hate

Interesting nonsense. Do you hate religion?
 
Why do we always push responsibility onto a religion. It's the extremists who are causing the problem.
 
It had the opposite effect on me. I also read Quran. Was glad to get back to the King James version of the Bible. Most people read with a closed mind and hardened heart.

Both the bible and Quran were exceptionally difficult for me to read and I am a reader. I did not finish either. I saw them both as texts of ideas.
 
Because belief systems enable the existence of extremists and religion is the practice of a belief system. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-critical-thinkers-lose-faith-god/

Critical Thinkers are less likely to follow a radical belief system.

if you mean belief systems in a very broad sense, then sure. But then you have to include us vs. them belief systems. At that point though it becomes uninformative. otherwise, I think extremists and belief systems are separate things. It is just that within certain belief systems, the extremists are very loud.
 
I agree... I think. I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say in the first sentence. I agree upon the latter though: there is too much of a "pick and choose" attitude in not only the Church, but in humankind overall. We are "pick and choose"-ers! On the topic of homosexuality we can't compare it with another "rule", as you call it, because what if they aren't comparable? I'm not stating any opinion of mine about homosexuality, I'm just saying that just because we "got rid of one rule", we can't get rid of them all, believing that they are all the same. We have to, again, look at the scripture at a whole and ask what it's trying to say - not what a single verse tells us.

I for one have a lot of thoughts and questions when it comes to the topic of homosexuality, but I feel there is too much "war" going on between the two parties/opinions, that I would never be able to even start without getting back stabbed by either one. Think about this for starters: "It gets even more interesting when people pick and choose what to keep and what bits get glossed over to fit with modern society". How do we know homosexuality isn't just "a bit to fit with modern society"? I'm not saying it is, I'm just asking a retorical question. I'm not up for a heated discussion about it - I'm sick of it! I seek peace.

Can I offer a different opinion? There is no record in the Torah of two like genders seeking to share their lives together as companions and lovers. What we see is condemnation formed around the word "homosexuality" which depicts acts of gang rape, temple prostitution, idolatry and pederasty.

Why do we need to care about whether someone is heterosexual or homosexual or pansexual or bi or ... who cares. It's so much more important to focus on the aspect of seeking and giving love to another, including healthy relationships.
 
I have never heard of people being physically attacked by a book.

Regardless of whether one book contains more accounts of violence than another is immaterial and a very stupid assessment. One week's run of newspapers probably contains more accounts/descriptions/etc. of violence than the Bible and Quran put together.

What is relevant is the intended interpretation of that account: a newspaper is reporting, usually with some political/legislative agenda in the background; the Bible is a variety of reporting, allegory, parable, etc. with an emphasis on the gravity and deadly/maiming effect of sin on the soul (how bad is it to let one's eyes lead on into sin? It would be better to pluck them out, etc., etc.). The Quran has also has a variety of accounts of violence - but the problem is that many of these are meant to be applied in a literal, practical, physical sense.

Even one verse of violence, which is intended to promote violence is fundamentally different to even 10,000 which simply illustrate violence.

I read the NPR link before I posted because the point of the article was so far from the title I started clicking the links inside the article to figure out how you connected what I said to that article besides the actual title. How did it make my point ridiculous?

The difference is the western version of “Christianity” has moved past things like the Spanish Inquisitions and such, though in certain areas of Africa in particular, “Christians” are killing homosexuals, burning witches, stoning women to death, etc.
There is a greater majority of the Muslim religion that hasn’t moved into the 21st century, and I have always agreed that places like Saudi Arabia in particular, breed this type of religious extremism through their very society of religious police, etc.
The books are both full of things that we in “modern” western society would deem unacceptable now, which is why most Christians like to play up the idea of the NT being the new message that negates the old…okay.
As for pedophilia existing only in the Muslim faith and not in the Christian religion, you have got to be joking right?
I mean there are tasteless Halloween costumes you can buy of a Priest with what appears to be a child blowing them…even I think that’s in poor taste (no pun intended).
But that’s how much it’s a part of our society even today.
It’s more of a national mentality of a particular society that determines the age of consent more than any holy book.
I’m not defending pedophila, owning slaves, beating my wife, killing witches, etc.
And I’m by no mean defending the shitty parts of the Quran any more than I’m defending the shitty parts of the Bible….but somehow those parts don’t seem to exist to those who claim to follow it.

I’m out…this thread has now devolved into a which religion is better than the other one again…so fuck that…so tired of such circular discussions with no resolution.
 
Last edited:
The difference is the western version of “Christianity” has moved past things like the Spanish Inquisitions and such, though in certain areas of Africa in particular, “Christians” are killing homosexuals, burning witches, stoning women to death, etc.
There is a greater majority of the Muslim religion that hasn’t moved into the 21st century, and I have always agreed that places like Saudi Arabia in particular, breed this type of religious extremism through their very society of religious police, etc.
The books are both full of things that we in “modern” western society would deem unacceptable now, which is why most Christians like to play up the idea of the NT being the new message that negates the old…okay.
As for pedophilia existing only in the Muslim faith and not in the Christian religion, you have got to be joking right?
I mean there are tasteless Halloween costumes you can buy of a Priest with what appears to be a child blowing them…even I think that’s in poor taste (no pun intended).
But that’s how much it’s a part of our society even today.
It’s more of a national mentality of a particular society that determines the age of consent more than any holy book.
I’m not defending pedophila, owning slaves, beating my wife, killing witches, etc.
And I’m by no mean defending the shitty parts of the Quran any more than I’m defending the shitty parts of the Bible….but somehow those parts don’t seem to exist to those who claim to follow it.

I’m out…this thread has now devolved into a which religion is better than the other one again…so fuck that…so tired of such circular discussions with no resolution.
The Spanish inquisition was principally intended to kick muslims out, who had violently invaded areas of Spain. Outside of Spain, the majority of people who were investigated by the inquisition were clergy and religious for heresy and moral crimes.

IMO, even though priests abuse at rate slightly less than half the rate at which all other males abuse minors (and the vast majority of all reported cases occurred between 1960 and 1990), I think the inquisition should be brought back. That would sort the Catholic clergy out.


I find it funny how ignorant you are of the Church's position in respect of the Old Testament. The Church always took a very strong anti-Old Law/anti-Old Covenant position up until the Second Vatican Council (1960's); and the lessening of rhetoric, was just to gloss over any impression of anti-semitism, given the hypersensitivity to antisemitism after World War 2. This position is clear in New Testament, especially clear in the ancient liturgy, and implicit in virtually all theology. You can look up "supersessionism" for yourself.
 
The Spanish inquisition was principally intended to kick muslims out, who had violently invaded areas of Spain. Outside of Spain, the majority of people who were investigated by the inquisition were clergy and religious for heresy and moral crimes.

IMO, even though priests abuse at rate slightly less than half the rate at which all other males abuse minors (and the vast majority of all reported cases occurred between 1960 and 1990), I think the inquisition should be brought back. That would sort the Catholic clergy out.


I find it funny how ignorant you are of the Church's position in respect of the Old Testament. The Church always took a very strong anti-Old Law/anti-Old Covenant position up until the Second Vatican Council (1960's); and the lessening of rhetoric, was just to gloss over any impression of anti-semitism, given the hypersensitivity to antisemitism after World War 2. This position is clear in New Testament, especially clear in the ancient liturgy, and implicit in virtually all theology. You can look up "supersessionism" for yourself.

Yes…and those “laws” the Christians followed only applied to other “Christians”…in other words, they just slaughtered all the non-christian infidels.
Don’t try and tell me the Christian religion is peaceful and always has been, that is such utter nonsense.


Listed are only events that solely occurred on command of church authorities or were committed in the name of Christianity. (List incomplete)

[h=3]Ancient Pagans[/h]
  • As soon as Christianity was legal (315), more and more pagan temples were destroyed by Christian mob. Pagan priests were killed.
  • Between 315 and 6th century thousands of pagan believers were slain.
  • Examples of destroyed Temples: the Sanctuary of Aesculap in Aegaea, the Temple of Aphrodite in Golgatha, Aphaka in Lebanon, the Heliopolis.
  • Christian priests such as Mark of Arethusa or Cyrill of Heliopolis were famous as "temple destroyer." [DA468]
  • Pagan services became punishable by death in 356. [DA468]
  • Christian Emperor Theodosius (408-450) even had children executed, because they had been playing with remains of pagan statues. [DA469]
    According to Christian chroniclers he "followed meticulously all Christian teachings..."
  • In 6th century pagans were declared void of all rights.
  • In the early fourth century the philosopher Sopatros was executed on demand of Christian authorities. [DA466]
  • The world famous female philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria was torn to pieces with glass fragments by a hysterical Christian mob led by a Christian minister named Peter, in a church, in 415.
    [DO19-25]

[h=3]Mission[/h]
  • Emperor Karl (Charlemagne) in 782 had 4500 Saxons, unwilling to convert to Christianity, beheaded. [DO30]
  • Peasants of Steding (Germany) unwilling to pay suffocating church taxes: between 5,000 and 11,000 men, women and children slain 5/27/1234 near Altenesch/Germany. [WW223]
  • Battle of Belgrad 1456: 80,000 Turks slaughtered. [DO235]
  • 15th century Poland: 1019 churches and 17987 villages plundered by Knights of the Order. Victims unknown. [DO30]
  • 16th and 17th century Ireland. English troops "pacified and civilized" Ireland, where only Gaelic "wild Irish", "unreasonable beasts lived without any knowledge of God or good manners, in common of their goods, cattle, women, children and every other thing." One of the more successful soldiers, a certain Humphrey Gilbert, half-brother of Sir Walter Raleigh, ordered that "the heddes of all those (of what sort soever thei were) which were killed in the daie, should be cutte off from their bodies... and should bee laied on the ground by eche side of the waie", which effort to civilize the Irish indeed caused "greate terrour to the people when thei sawe the heddes of their dedde fathers, brothers, children, kinsfolke, and freinds on the grounde".
    Tens of thousands of Gaelic Irish fell victim to the carnage. [SH99, 225]

[h=3]Crusades (1095-1291)[/h]
  • First Crusade: 1095 on command of pope Urban II. [WW11-41]
  • Semlin/Hungary 6/24/96 thousands slain. Wieselburg/Hungary 6/12/96 thousands. [WW23]
  • 9/9/96-9/26/96 Nikaia, Xerigordon (then turkish), thousands respectively. [WW25-27]
  • Until Jan 1098 a total of 40 capital cities and 200 castles conquered (number of slain unknown) [WW30]
  • after 6/3/98 Antiochia (then turkish) conquered, between 10,000 and 60,000 slain. 6/28/98 100,000 Turks (incl. women & children) killed. [WW32-35]
    Here the Christians "did no other harm to the women found in [the enemy's] tents—save that they ran their lances through their bellies," according to Christian chronicler Fulcher of Chartres. [EC60]
  • Marra (Maraat an-numan) 12/11/98 thousands killed. Because of the subsequent famine "the already stinking corpses of the enemies were eaten by the Christians" said chronicler Albert Aquensis. [WW36]
  • Jerusalem conquered 7/15/1099 more than 60,000 victims (jewish, muslim, men, women, children). [WW37-40]
    (In the words of one witness: "there [in front of Solomon's temple] was such a carnage that our people were wading ankle-deep in the blood of our foes", and after that "happily and crying for joy our people marched to our Saviour's tomb, to honour it and to pay off our debt of gratitude")
  • The Archbishop of Tyre, eye-witness, wrote: "It was impossible to look upon the vast numbers of the slain without horror; everywhere lay fragments of human bodies, and the very ground was covered with the blood of the slain. It was not alone the spectacle of headless bodies and mutilated limbs strewn in all directions that roused the horror of all who looked upon them. Still more dreadful was it to gaze upon the victors themselves, dripping with blood from head to foot, an ominous sight which brought terror to all who met them. It is reported that within the Temple enclosure alone about ten thousand infidels perished." [TG79]
  • Christian chronicler Eckehard of Aura noted that "even the following summer in all of palestine the air was polluted by the stench of decomposition". One million victims of the first crusade alone. [WW41]
  • Battle of Askalon, 8/12/1099. 200,000 heathens slaughtered "in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ". [WW45]
  • Fourth crusade: 4/12/1204 Constantinople sacked, number of victims unknown, numerous thousands, many of them Christian. [WW141-148]
  • Rest of Crusades in less detail: until the fall of Akkon 1291 probably 20 million victims (in the Holy land and Arab/Turkish areas alone). [WW224]
    [SUB]Note: All figures according to contemporary (Christian) chroniclers.[/SUB]

[h=3]Heretics[/h]
  • Already in 385 C.E. the first Christians, the Spanish Priscillianus and six followers, were beheaded for heresy in Trier/Germany [DO26]
  • Manichaean heresy: a crypto-Christian sect decent enough to practice birth control (and thus not as irresponsible as faithful Catholics) was exterminated in huge campaigns all over the Roman empire between 372 C.E. and 444 C.E. Numerous thousands of victims. [NC]
  • Albigensians: the first Crusade intended to slay other Christians. [DO29]
    The Albigensians...viewed themselves as good Christians, but would not accept roman Catholic rule, and taxes, and prohibition of birth control. [NC]
    Begin of violence: on command of pope Innocent III (greatest single pre-nazi mass murderer) in 1209. Bezirs (today France) 7/22/1209 destroyed, all the inhabitants were slaughtered. Victims (including Catholics refusing to turn over their heretic neighbours and friends) 20,000-70,000. [WW179-181]
  • Carcassonne 8/15/1209, thousands slain. Other cities followed. [WW181]
  • subsequent 20 years of war until nearly all Cathars (probably half the population of the Languedoc, today southern France) were exterminated. [WW183]
  • After the war ended (1229) the Inquisition was founded 1232 to search and destroy surviving/hiding heretics. Last Cathars burned at the stake 1324. [WW183]
  • Estimated one million victims (cathar heresy alone), [WW183]
  • Other heresies: Waldensians, Paulikians, Runcarians, Josephites, and many others. Most of these sects exterminated, (I believe some Waldensians live today, yet they had to endure 600 years of persecution) I estimate at least hundred thousand victims (including the Spanish inquisition but excluding victims in the New World).
  • Spanish Inquisitor Torquemada alone allegedly responsible for 10,220 burnings. [DO28]
  • John Huss, a critic of papal infallibility and indulgences, was burned at the stake in 1415. [LI475-522]
  • University professor B.Hubmaier burned at the stake 1538 in Vienna. [DO59]
  • Giordano Bruno, Dominican monk, after having been incarcerated for seven years, was burned at the stake for heresy on the Campo dei Fiori (Rome) on 2/17/1600.


[h=3]Witches[/h]
  • from the beginning of Christianity to 1484 probably more than several thousand.
  • in the era of witch hunting (1484-1750) according to modern scholars several hundred thousand (about 80% female) burned at the stake or hanged. [WV]
  • incomplete list of documented cases:
    The Burning of Witches - A Chronicle of the Burning Times

[h=3]Religious Wars[/h]
  • 15th century: Crusades against Hussites, thousands slain. [DO30]
  • 1538 pope Paul III declared Crusade against apostate England and all English as slaves of Church (fortunately had not power to go into action). [DO31]
  • 1568 Spanish Inquisition Tribunal ordered extermination of 3 million rebels in (then Spanish) Netherlands. Thousands were actually slain. [DO31]
  • 1572 In France about 20,000 Huguenots were killed on command of pope Pius V. Until 17th century 200,000 flee. [DO31]
  • 17th century: Catholics slay Gaspard de Coligny, a Protestant leader. After murdering him, the Catholic mob mutilated his body, "cutting off his head, his hands, and his genitals... and then dumped him into the river [...but] then, deciding that it was not worthy of being food for the fish, they hauled it out again [... and] dragged what was left ... to the gallows of Montfaulcon, 'to be meat and carrion for maggots and crows'." [SH191]
  • 17th century: Catholics sack the city of Magdeburg/Germany: roughly 30,000 Protestants were slain. "In a single church fifty women were found beheaded," reported poet Friedrich Schiller, "and infants still sucking the breasts of their lifeless mothers." [SH191]
  • 17th century 30 years' war (Catholic vs. Protestant): at least 40% of population decimated, mostly in Germany. [DO31-32]

[h=3]Jews[/h]
  • Already in the 4th and 5th centuries synagogues were burned by Christians. Number of Jews slain unknown.
  • In the middle of the fourth century the first synagogue was destroyed on command of bishop Innocentius of Dertona in Northern Italy. The first synagogue known to have been burned down was near the river Euphrat, on command of the bishop of Kallinikon in the year 388. [DA450]
  • 17. Council of Toledo 694: Jews were enslaved, their property confiscated, and their children forcibly baptized. [DA454]
  • The Bishop of Limoges (France) in 1010 had the cities' Jews, who would not convert to Christianity, expelled or killed. [DA453]
  • First Crusade: Thousands of Jews slaughtered 1096, maybe 12.000 total. Places: Worms 5/18/1096, Mainz 5/27/1096 (1100 persons), Cologne, Neuss, Altenahr, Wevelinghoven, Xanten, Moers, Dortmund, Kerpen, Trier, Metz, Regensburg, Prag and others (All locations Germany except Metz/France, Prag/Czech) [EJ]
  • Second Crusade: 1147. Several hundred Jews were slain in Ham, Sully, Carentan, and Rameru (all locations in France). [WW57]
  • Third Crusade: English Jewish communities sacked 1189/90. [DO40]
  • Fulda/Germany 1235: 34 Jewish men and women slain. [DO41]
  • 1257, 1267: Jewish communities of London, Canterbury, Northampton, Lincoln, Cambridge, and others exterminated. [DO41]
  • 1290 in Bohemian (Poland) allegedly 10,000 Jews killed. [DO41]
  • 1337 Starting in Deggendorf/Germany a Jew-killing craze reaches 51 towns in Bavaria, Austria, Poland. [DO41]
  • 1348 All Jews of Basel/Switzerland and Strasbourg/France (two thousand) burned. [DO41]
  • 1349 In more than 350 towns in Germany all Jews murdered, mostly burned alive (in this one year more Jews were killed than Christians in 200 years of ancient Roman persecution of Christians). [DO42]
  • 1389 In Prag 3,000 Jews were slaughtered. [DO42]
  • 1391 Seville's Jews killed (Archbishop Martinez leading). 4,000 were slain, 25,000 sold as slaves. [DA454] Their identification was made easy by the brightly colored "badges of shame" that all jews above the age of ten had been forced to wear.
  • 1492: In the year Columbus set sail to conquer a New World, more than 150,000 Jews were expelled from Spain, many died on their way: 6/30/1492. [MM470-476]
  • 1648 Chmielnitzki massacres: In Poland about 200,000 Jews were slain. [DO43]
(I feel sick ...) this goes on and on, century after century, right into the kilns of Auschwitz.

[h=3]Native Peoples[/h]
  • Beginning with Columbus (a former slave trader and would-be Holy Crusader) the conquest of the New World began, as usual understood as a means to propagate Christianity.
  • Within hours of landfall on the first inhabited island he encountered in the Caribbean, Columbus seized and carried off six native people who, he said, "ought to be good servants ... [and] would easily be made Christians, because it seemed to me that they belonged to no religion." [SH200]
    While Columbus described the Indians as "idolators" and "slaves, as many as [the Crown] shall order," his pal Michele de Cuneo, Italian nobleman, referred to the natives as "beasts" because "they eat when they are hungry," and made love "openly whenever they feel like it." [SH204-205]
  • On every island he set foot on, Columbus planted a cross, "making the declarations that are required" - the requerimiento - to claim the ownership for his Catholic patrons in Spain. And "nobody objected." If the Indians refused or delayed their acceptance (or understanding), the requerimiento continued:
I certify to you that, with the help of God, we shall powerfully enter in your country and shall make war against you ... and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church ... and shall do you all mischief that we can, as to vassals who do not obey and refuse to receive their lord and resist and contradict him." [SH66]
  • Likewise in the words of John Winthrop, first governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony: "justifieinge the undertakeres of the intended Plantation in New England ... to carry the Gospell into those parts of the world, ... and to raise a Bulworke against the kingdome of the Ante-Christ." [SH235]
  • In average two thirds of the native population were killed by colonist-imported smallpox before violence began. This was a great sign of "the marvelous goodness and providence of God" to the Christians of course, e.g. the Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony wrote in 1634, as "for the natives, they are near all dead of the smallpox, so as the Lord hath cleared our title to what we possess." [SH109,238]
  • On Hispaniola alone, on Columbus visits, the native population (Arawak), a rather harmless and happy people living on an island of abundant natural resources, a literal paradise, soon mourned 50,000 dead. [SH204]
  • The surviving Indians fell victim to rape, murder, enslavement and spanish raids.
  • As one of the culprits wrote: "So many Indians died that they could not be counted, all through the land the Indians lay dead everywhere. The stench was very great and pestiferous." [SH69]
  • The indian chief Hatuey fled with his people but was captured and burned alive. As "they were tying him to the stake a Franciscan friar urged him to take Jesus to his heart so that his soul might go to heaven, rather than descend into hell. Hatuey replied that if heaven was where the Christians went, he would rather go to hell." [SH70]
  • What happened to his people was described by an eyewitness:
    "The Spaniards found pleasure in inventing all kinds of odd cruelties ... They built a long gibbet, long enough for the toes to touch the ground to prevent strangling, and hanged thirteen [natives] at a time in honor of Christ Our Saviour and the twelve Apostles... then, straw was wrapped around their torn bodies and they were burned alive." [SH72]
    Or, on another occasion:
    "The Spaniards cut off the arm of one, the leg or hip of another, and from some their heads at one stroke, like butchers cutting up beef and mutton for market. Six hundred, including the cacique, were thus slain like brute beasts...Vasco [de Balboa] ordered forty of them to be torn to pieces by dogs." [SH83]
  • The "island's population of about eight million people at the time of Columbus's arrival in 1492 already had declined by a third to a half before the year 1496 was out." Eventually all the island's natives were exterminated, so the Spaniards were "forced" to import slaves from other caribbean islands, who soon suffered the same fate. Thus "the Caribbean's millions of native people [were] thereby effectively liquidated in barely a quarter of a century". [SH72-73] "In less than the normal lifetime of a single human being, an entire culture of millions of people, thousands of years resident in their homeland, had been exterminated." [SH75]
  • "And then the Spanish turned their attention to the mainland of Mexico and Central America. The slaughter had barely begun. The exquisite city of Tenochtitln [Mexico city] was next." [SH75]
  • Cortez, Pizarro, De Soto and hundreds of other spanish conquistadors likewise sacked southern and mesoamerican civilizations in the name of Christ (De Soto also sacked Florida).
  • "When the 16th century ended, some 200,000 Spaniards had moved to the Americas. By that time probably more than 60,000,000 natives were dead." [SH95]
Of course no different were the founders of what today is the US of Amerikkka.

  • Although none of the settlers would have survived winter without native help, they soon set out to expel and exterminate the Indians. Warfare among (north American) Indians was rather harmless, in comparison to European standards, and was meant to avenge insults rather than conquer land. In the words of some of the pilgrim fathers: "Their Warres are farre less bloudy...", so that there usually was "no great slawter of nether side". Indeed, "they might fight seven yeares and not kill seven men." What is more, the Indians usually spared women and children. [SH111]
  • In the spring of 1612 some English colonists found life among the (generally friendly and generous) natives attractive enough to leave Jamestown - "being idell ... did runne away unto the Indyans," - to live among them (that probably solved a sex problem).
    "Governor Thomas Dale had them hunted down and executed: 'Some he apointed (sic) to be hanged Some burned Some to be broken upon wheles, others to be staked and some shott to deathe'." [SH105] Of course these elegant measures were restricted for fellow englishmen: "This was the treatment for those who wished to act like Indians. For those who had no choice in the matter, because they were the native people of Virginia" methods were different: "when an Indian was accused by an Englishman of stealing a cup and failing to return it, the English response was to attack the natives in force, burning the entire community" down. [SH105]
  • On the territory that is now Massachusetts the founding fathers of the colonies were committing genocide, in what has become known as the "Peqout War". The killers were New England Puritan Christians, refugees from persecution in their own home country England.
  • When however, a dead colonist was found, apparently killed by Narragansett Indians, the Puritan colonists wanted revenge. Despite the Indian chief's pledge they attacked.
    Somehow they seem to have lost the idea of what they were after, because when they were greeted by Pequot Indians (long-time foes of the Narragansetts) the troops nevertheless made war on the Pequots and burned their villages.
    The puritan commander-in-charge John Mason after one massacre wrote: "And indeed such a dreadful Terror did the Almighty let fall upon their Spirits, that they would fly from us and run into the very Flames, where many of them perished ... God was above them, who laughed his Enemies and the Enemies of his People to Scorn, making them as a fiery Oven ... Thus did the Lord judge among the Heathen, filling the Place with dead Bodies": men, women, children. [SH113-114]
  • So "the Lord was pleased to smite our Enemies in the hinder Parts, and to give us their land for an inheritance". [SH111].
  • Because of his readers' assumed knowledge of Deuteronomy, there was no need for Mason to quote the words that immediately follow:
    "Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. But thou shalt utterly destroy them..." (Deut 20)
  • Mason's comrade Underhill recalled how "great and doleful was the bloody sight to the view of the young soldiers" yet reassured his readers that "sometimes the Scripture declareth women and children must perish with their parents". [SH114]
  • Other Indians were killed in successful plots of poisoning. The colonists even had dogs especially trained to kill Indians and to devour children from their mothers breasts, in the colonists' own words: "blood Hounds to draw after them, and Mastives to seaze them." (This was inspired by spanish methods of the time)
    In this way they continued until the extermination of the Pequots was near. [SH107-119]
  • The surviving handful of Indians "were parceled out to live in servitude. John Endicott and his pastor wrote to the governor asking for 'a share' of the captives, specifically 'a young woman or girle and a boy if you thinke good'." [SH115]
  • Other tribes were to follow the same path.
  • Comment the Christian exterminators: "God's Will, which will at last give us cause to say: How Great is His Goodness! and How Great is his Beauty!"
    "Thus doth the Lord Jesus make them to bow before him, and to lick the Dust!" [TA]
  • Like today, lying was OK to Christians then. "Peace treaties were signed with every intention to violate them: when the Indians 'grow secure uppon (sic) the treatie', advised the Council of State in Virginia, 'we shall have the better Advantage both to surprise them, & cutt downe theire Corne'." [SH106]
  • In 1624 sixty heavily armed Englishmen cut down 800 defenseless Indian men, women and children. [SH107]
  • In a single massacre in "King Philip's War" of 1675 and 1676 some "600 Indians were destroyed. A delighted Cotton Mather, revered pastor of the Second Church in Boston, later referred to the slaughter as a 'barbeque'." [SH115]
  • To summarize: Before the arrival of the English, the western Abenaki people in New Hampshire and Vermont had numbered 12,000. Less than half a century later about 250 remained alive - a destruction rate of 98%. The Pocumtuck people had numbered more than 18,000, fifty years later they were down to 920 - 95% destroyed. The Quiripi-Unquachog people had numbered about 30,000, fifty years later they were down to 1500 - 95% destroyed. The Massachusetts people had numbered at least 44,000, fifty years later barely 6000 were alive - 81% destroyed. [SH118] These are only a few examples of the multitude of tribes living before Christian colonists set their foot on the New World. All this was before the smallpox epidemics of 1677 and 1678 had occurred. And the carnage was not over then.
  • All the above was only the beginning of the European colonization, it was before the frontier age actually had begun.
  • A total of maybe more than 150 million Indians (of both Americas) were destroyed in the period of 1500 to 1900, as an average two thirds by smallpox and other epidemics, that leaves some 50 million killed directly by violence, bad treatment and slavery.
  • In many countries, such as Brazil, and Guatemala, this continues even today.
[h=3]More Glorious events in US history[/h]
  • Reverend Solomon Stoddard, one of New England's most esteemed religious leaders, in "1703 formally proposed to the Massachusetts Governor that the colonists be given the financial wherewithal to purchase and train large packs of dogs 'to hunt Indians as they do bears'." [SH241]
  • Massacre of Sand Creek, Colorado 11/29/1864. Colonel John Chivington, a former Methodist minister and still elder in the church ("I long to be wading in gore") had a Cheyenne village of about 600, mostly women and children, gunned down despite the chiefs' waving with a white flag: 400-500 killed.
    From an eye-witness account: "There were some thirty or forty squaws collected in a hole for protection; they sent out a little girl about six years old with a white flag on a stick; she had not proceeded but a few steps when she was shot and killed. All the squaws in that hole were afterwards killed ..." [SH131]
    More gory details.
  • By the 1860s, "in Hawai'i the Reverend Rufus Anderson surveyed the carnage that by then had reduced those islands' native population by 90 percent or more, and he declined to see it as tragedy; the expected total die-off of the Hawaiian population was only natural, this missionary said, somewhat equivalent to 'the amputation of diseased members of the body'." [SH244]

[h=3]20th Century Church Atrocities[/h]
  • Catholic extermination camps
    Surpisingly few know that Nazi extermination camps in World War II were by no means the only ones in Europe at the time. In the years 1942-1943 also in Croatia existed numerous extermination camps, run by Catholic Ustasha under their dictator Ante Paveli, a practising Catholic and regular visitor to the then pope. There were even concentration camps exclusively for children!

    In these camps - the most notorious was Jasenovac, headed by a Franciscan friar - orthodox-Christian serbians (and a substantial number of Jews) were murdered. Like the Nazis the Catholic Ustasha burned their victims in kilns, alive (the Nazis were decent enough to have their victims gassed first). But most of the victims were simply stabbed, slain or shot to death, the number of them being estimated between 300,000 and 600,000, in a rather tiny country. Many of the killers were Franciscan friars. The atrocities were appalling enough to induce bystanders of the Nazi "Sicherheitsdient der SS", watching, to complain about them to Hitler (who did not listen). The pope knew about these events and did nothing to prevent them. [MV]
  • Catholic terror in Vietnam
    In 1954 Vietnamese freedom fighters - the Viet Minh - had finally defeated the French colonial government in North Vietnam, which by then had been supported by U.S. funds amounting to more than $2 billion. Although the victorious assured religious freedom to all (most non-buddhist Vietnamese were Catholics), due to huge anticommunist propaganda campaigns many Catholics fled to the South. With the help of Catholic lobbies in Washington and Cardinal Spellman, the Vatican's spokesman in U.S. politics, who later on would call the U.S. forces in Vietnam "Soldiers of Christ", a scheme was concocted to prevent democratic elections which could have brought the communist Viet Minh to power in the South as well, and the fanatic Catholic Ngo Dinh Diem was made president of South Vietnam. [MW16ff]

    Diem saw to it that U.S. aid, food, technical and general assistance was given to Catholics alone, Buddhist individuals and villages were ignored or had to pay for the food aids which were given to Catholics for free. The only religious denomination to be supported was Roman Catholicism.

    The Vietnamese McCarthyism turned even more vicious than its American counterpart. By 1956 Diem promulgated a presidential order which read:
    • "Individuals considered dangerous to the national defense and common security may be confined by executive order, to a concentration camp."
Supposedly to fight communism, thousands of buddhist protesters and monks were imprisoned in "detention camps." Out of protest dozens of buddhist teachers - male and female - and monks poured gasoline over themselves and burned themselves. (Note that Buddhists burned themselves: in comparison Christians tend to burn others). Meanwhile some of the prison camps, which in the meantime were filled with Protestant and even Catholic protesters as well, had turned into no-nonsense death camps. It is estimated that during this period of terror (1955-1960) at least 24,000 were wounded - mostly in street riots - 80,000 people were executed, 275,000 had been detained or tortured, and about 500,000 were sent to concentration or detention camps. [MW76-89].

To support this kind of government in the next decade thousands of American GI's lost their life....
  • Rwanda Massacres
    In 1994 in the small african country of Rwanda in just a few months several hundred thousand civilians were butchered, apparently a conflict of the Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups.
For quite some time I heard only rumours about Catholic clergy actively involved in the 1994 Rwanda massacres. Odd denials of involvement were printed in Catholic church journals, before even anybody had openly accused members of the church.
Then, 10/10/96, in the newscast of S2 Aktuell, Germany - a station not at all critical to Christianity - the following was stated:
"Anglican as well as Catholic priests and nuns are suspect of having actively participated in murders. Especially the conduct of a certain Catholic priest has been occupying the public mind in Rwanda's capital Kigali for months. He was minister of the church of the Holy Family and allegedly murdered Tutsis in the most brutal manner. He is reported to have accompanied marauding Hutu militia with a gun in his cowl. In fact there has been a bloody slaughter of Tutsis seeking shelter in his parish. Even two years after the massacres many Catholics refuse to set foot on the threshold of their church, because to them the participation of a certain part of the clergy in the slaughter is well established. There is almost no church in Rwanda that has not seen refugees - women, children, old - being brutally butchered facing the crucifix.

According to eyewitnesses clergymen gave away hiding Tutsis and turned them over to the machetes of the Hutu militia.
In connection with these events again and again two Benedictine nuns are mentioned, both of whom have fled into a Belgian monastery in the meantime to avoid prosecution. According to survivors one of them called the Hutu killers and led them to several thousand people who had sought shelter in her monastery. By force the doomed were driven out of the churchyard and were murdered in the presence of the nun right in front of the gate. The other one is also reported to have directly cooperated with the murderers of the Hutu militia. In her case again witnesses report that she watched the slaughtering of people in cold blood and without showing response. She is even accused of having procured some petrol used by the killers to set on fire and burn their victims alive..." [S2]
As can be seen from these events, to Christianity the Dark Ages never come to an end....
[h=3]References:[/h][DA]
K.Deschner, Abermals krhte der Hahn, Stuttgart 1962.
[DO]
K.Deschner, Opus Diaboli, Reinbek 1987.
[EC]
P.W.Edbury, Crusade and Settlement, Cardiff Univ. Press 1985.
[EJ]
S.Eidelberg, The Jews and the Crusaders, Madison 1977.
[LI]
H.C.Lea, The Inquisition of the Middle Ages, New York 1961.
[MM]
M.Margolis, A.Marx, A History of the Jewish People.
[MV]
A.Manhattan, The Vatican’s Holocaust, Springfield 1986.
See also V.Dedijer, The Yugoslav Auschwitz and the Vatican, Buffalo NY, 1992.
[NC]
J.T.Noonan, Contraception: A History of its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists, Cambridge/Mass., 1992.
[S2]
Newscast of S2 Aktuell, Germany, 10/10/96, 12:00.
[SH]
D.Stannard, American Holocaust, Oxford University Press 1992.
[SP]
German news magazine Der Spiegel, no.49, 12/2/1996.
[TA] A True Account of the Most Considerable Occurrences that have Hapned in the Warre Between the English and the Indians in New England, London 1676.
[TG]
F.Turner, Beyond Geography, New York 1980.
[WW]
H.Wollschlger: Die bewaffneten Wallfahrten gen Jerusalem, Zrich 1973.
(This is in german and what is worse, it is out of print. But it is the best I ever read about crusades and includes a full list of original medieval Christian chroniclers' writings).
[WV]
Estimates on the number of executed witches:

  • N.Cohn, Europe's Inner Demons: An Enquiry Inspired by the Great Witch Hunt, Frogmore 1976, 253.
  • R.H.Robbins, The Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology, New York 1959, 180.
  • J.B.Russell, Witchcraft in the Middle Ages, Ithaca/NY 1972, 39.
  • H.Zwetsloot, Friedrich Spee und die Hexenprozesse, Trier 1954, 56.

This page 1996 by kelsos. So there. (Reprinted with permission from author.)
 
Now can we be done with “my religion is better than your religion.”?

They all have good and they all have negative aspects…evil people will find those evil parts and use them to do evil things.
And vice-versa.
 
Now can we be done with “my religion is better than your religion.”?

They all have good and they all have negative aspects…evil people will find those evil parts and use them to do evil things.
And vice-versa.
I rarely go in for "mine is better than yours".

What rubs me up the wrong way is that the faults of one are exaggerated and the faults of another are hyper-energetically down-played, for no other reason than that various media have portrayed the latest acceptable and acceptable opinions.

You gave the example of halloween costumes of a clergyman with child attached - what the media owners allow as acceptable ridicule. I'll bet you could never find a costume of Muhammad with 6yr old wife attached; or muslim with explosive vest costume. One is wrong-funny (Christian); the other is racist/bigot/Islamophobic/offensive/etc.

My issue is not "mine is better", but just how inconsistent and stupid people are - selectively holding one standard against one and in favour of another.
 
I rarely go in for "mine is better than yours".

What rubs me up the wrong way is that the faults of one are exaggerated and the faults of another are hyper-energetically down-played, for no other reason than that various media have portrayed the latest acceptable and acceptable opinions.

You gave the example of halloween costumes of a clergyman with child attached - what the media owners allow as acceptable ridicule. I'll bet you could never find a costume of Muhammad with 6yr old wife attached; or muslim with explosive vest costume. One is wrong-funny (Christian); the other is racist/bigot/Islamophobic/offensive/etc.

My issue is not "mine is better", but just how inconsistent and stupid people are - selectively holding one standard against one and in favour of another.


I don’t hold one in any higher standard of practice than any other (but it certainly sounds like you do)…the Buddhist Monks that are slaughtering people right now is not agreeable with me certainly.
The Jewish people who mistreat and kill Palestinians because they claim some “holy right” to the land is just as fucked.
I just spelled it out that I do think that there are many in the Muslim religion that because of the societies where they live they are the extreme version of Islam.
No one exaggerated that list of fucked up things that Christians have done in the name of their religion…in fact, it is probably is missing quite a few victims I’m sure.
You think I am playing up the faults of one while downplaying the other?
Fuck that.
I think you’re just upset that anyone pointed out the religion you follow has any faults at all.
You have nice fine sounding reasons for the slaughter and destruction “oh, it was the Muslims who invaded first…so…it was totally justified.”
Whatev.
Nice try.
 
I don’t hold one in any higher standard of practice than any other (but it certainly sounds like you do)…the Buddhist Monks that are slaughtering people right now is not agreeable with me certainly.
The Jewish people who mistreat and kill Palestinians because they claim some “holy right” to the land is just as fucked.
I just spelled it out that I do think that there are many in the Muslim religion that because of the societies where they live they are the extreme version of Islam.
No one exaggerated that list of fucked up things that Christians have done in the name of their religion…in fact, it is probably is missing quite a few victims I’m sure.
You think I am playing up the faults of one while downplaying the other?
Fuck that.
I think you’re just upset that anyone pointed out the religion you follow has any faults at all.
You have nice fine sounding reasons for the slaughter and destruction “oh, it was the Muslims who invaded first…so…it was totally justified.”
Whatev.
Nice try.
You can talk about how fucked it is that Buddhists, Jews, Christians (earlier posts), slaughter others. The last one, "in the name of the Church", no less. You just can't actually admit that Muslims slaughter people - and if there is a non-muslim slaughtered, it wasn't really a muslim, just some dysfunctional individual who have an "extreme version of Islam" aka the killer is "not a real muslim, bro".

I think it would be healthy if people, like you, just didn't have to live in suppressed denial of the fact that we've got an increasing problem of individuals and groups killing others - and that they have been explicitly led into this by the teachings/beliefs/practices of Islam. As said a few dozen posts ago in a thread far, far away. When Christians and Buddhists kill, they are going against their religion's teachings/beliefs/practices; but Islam is different, because when a muslim kills an infidel, he is actually following Islam.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sriracha
You can talk about how fucked it is that Buddhists, Jews, Christians (earlier posts), slaughter others. The last one, "in the name of the Church", no less. You just can't actually admit that Muslims slaughter people - and if there is a non-muslim slaughtered, it wasn't really a muslim, just some dysfunctional individual who have an "extreme version of Islam" aka the killer is "not a real muslim, bro".

I think it would be healthy if people, like you, just didn't have to live in suppressed denial of the fact that we've got an increasing problem of individuals and groups killing others - and that they have been explicitly led into this by the teachings/beliefs/practices of Islam. As said a few dozen posts ago in a thread far, far away. When Christians and Buddhists kill, they are going against their religion's teachings/beliefs/practices; but Islam is different, because when a muslim kills an infidel, he is actually following Islam.

You’re so dense sometimes.
I’m not disagreeing with your main points of contention with the negative aspects of the Muslim religion.

My point is all these religions give people reasons to do unreasonable things, all the justification you need is interpretive.
Organized religion of any kind is pointless bureaucracy and red tape as far as I’m concerned if you want to get all spiritual about it.
More ways to control the masses of people wanting to be lead around…too scared to seek the real spiritual life because it involves greater sacrifice than people are comfortable giving up.
 
The difference is the western version of “Christianity” has moved past things like the Spanish Inquisitions and such, though in certain areas of Africa in particular, “Christians” are killing homosexuals, burning witches, stoning women to death, etc.
There is a greater majority of the Muslim religion that hasn’t moved into the 21st century, and I have always agreed that places like Saudi Arabia in particular, breed this type of religious extremism through their very society of religious police, etc.
The books are both full of things that we in “modern” western society would deem unacceptable now, which is why most Christians like to play up the idea of the NT being the new message that negates the old…okay.
As for pedophilia existing only in the Muslim faith and not in the Christian religion, you have got to be joking right?
I mean there are tasteless Halloween costumes you can buy of a Priest with what appears to be a child blowing them…even I think that’s in poor taste (no pun intended).
But that’s how much it’s a part of our society even today.
It’s more of a national mentality of a particular society that determines the age of consent more than any holy book.
I’m not defending pedophila, owning slaves, beating my wife, killing witches, etc.
And I’m by no mean defending the shitty parts of the Quran any more than I’m defending the shitty parts of the Bible….but somehow those parts don’t seem to exist to those who claim to follow it.

I’m out…this thread has now devolved into a which religion is better than the other one again…so fuck that…so tired of such circular discussions with no resolution.

This thread was going to go that direction from the beginning because Islam apologists can't seem to defend Islam without pointing the fingers at some other religion to justify Islam. Why can't Islam apologists use Islam to defend Islam? I am not a Christian apologist or a religious apologist so I'm not defending anything. I was merely pointing out that it was interesting how this video was done. It was either dishonest or ignorant about both religions IMO. I think it's more of a western mindset that is acting like it's a traumatized abuse victim. It's a form of denial and disbelief about a situation that I normally see with people who have been abused. We make Islam out to be the victim, and the talk is deflected onto something else, someone else, anything else. We walk on eggshells, we don't print mocking cartoons, make fun of or say anything that might offend because we are afraid of the consequences. Just like an abuse victim tiptoes around his/her abuser. Unreal.

I think it's disturbing that no one can talk about Islam. No one wants to know about Islam. People are desperate to talk about Christianity, policy, anything instead of Islam, desperate to believe that makes sense, but you can't use another religion to get the true nature of Islam or even determine what will happen in the future with Islam. 25% of the Koran speaks about jihad. 68% of the Sira speaks about jihad. Yes, that was 68%. 21% of the Hadith speaks about Jihad. It's not a surprise that there are extremists when you have that much you have to ignore. There are fundamentalists in every religion but there are going to me more violent fundamentalists when you have more violence mentioned in a specific religion. We can keep talking about Christianity I guess, I just think that Islam itself is bad for Muslims and non-Muslims and when I see an Islam apologist using another religion or belief to justify Islam I say something. I don't know, maybe if we keep pretending that Islam is a twin of Christianity it will come true, since that seems to be what everyone wants.