Ignorant people assume that Muslims are, for the most part, violent by nature and that their book, the Qur’an, preaches for religious war. In reality, the Qur’an is no more violent than the Old Testament of the Holy Bible.
A brief look at the two religions may explain why Muslims seem more barbaric to Americans. Christianity was founded sometime around the year 0 A.D. whereas Islam was founded in the year 647. If each religion follows the same timeline, then while Christians are in the year 2007, Muslims are in the year 1360, relatively. That is the Middle Ages for Christians. Think of the things Christians did during that time…The Crusades, the Inquisition, Witch Trials, etc.
Muslims aren't any more violent in the fourteenth century after the founding of their religion than Christians were during the same period after their religion was founded.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Any religious groups that exist in this world have some history of violence, and I don't think it would be right to try to judge which group is more violent. It's a shame that some people think all Muslims are terrorists. Well, I guess it's our job to inform them!
Everyone likes to blame violence on religion. Last I checked, WWI, WWII, the Civil War, which is the bloodiest war ever fought by US, had nothing to do with religion. Would you care to explain why they happened anyway? Or, on second thoughts, it can be argued they were all Christian wars, because the majority of westerners of the time were Christian.
I never said all violence was because of religion. I just said that Christianity is no less violent than Islam.
Interesting point. I never thought of looking at it from that perspective. I think so compare the violence of two religions serves no purpose. It is all based around the context from which the evidence is taken.
Jesus never killed poets for criticizing Him.
No, but God did 'order' the Israelites to kill every man, woman, and child in Jericho.
The incidents of God ordering Israelites to kill off towns are restricted to the very first few books of history. One theory springs from a passage in Genesis 6 where it talks about sons of God (possibly fallen angels) coming into daughters of men and giving birth to, nephilim, which could have inspired the traditional "demi-gods" of classical mythology. Big deal, right? Well, if you think about the central idea of Christianity, that God's son came as a man to die for man, it kind of relies on his ability to come as a man, specifically through an all human line. If anyone in his mother's line (his genetic line) had this demi-god in them, he wouldn't be fully human, so he couldn't die for humanity. Well, this is kind of... essential. Which would be why it would be important enough for God to want to make sure that those genes didn’t stay in circulation, thus, the flood, and later killing all the people in certain villages.
It’s a much better reason than someone writing a poem that questions your motives. I’ve questioned God’s motives an awful lot this past year, I’m still here.