Hey, at least we can take comfort from the words of the Orlando shooter’s father

[The Jorge]

Nonsense, I'm afraid. Nowhere have I said any religious violence is OK - that's simply a slur you've chosen to throw at me for some reason.

Christianity has certainly been abused and used as a justification for all sorts of dreadful things - from anti-semitic persecution to the Crusades and God knows what else. However, none of those justifications stands up for a moment when you actually look at the teachings of Christ. Any justification for 'Christian' violence requires monumental levels of sophistry and self-delusion such as those practised by St Thomas Aquinas in his 'Just War' nonsense. Such efforts are notable for their transparently self-serving attempts to ignore or circumvent Christ's rather inconveniently explicit strictures against all and any violence.

Where Islam differs is that it does not require any effort of sophistry on the part of those seeking to justify 'Islamic' violence to do so. Much of it is there in black and white not merely justifying violence, enslavement and subjugation of unbelievers, but actively encouraging and even demanding it.

That is the point I am making - that Christianity's doctrine is explicitly non-violent and Islam's is explicitly not. And therein, I'm afraid, lies both a fundamental problem with Islam and the reason why it is not valid to draw equivalency between the respective holy texts of Christianity and Islam.

The question is not whether people will always find some justification for their violence. That, unfortunately, is a given. The question is whether these two religions explicitly offer such justifications. One doesn't, while the other clearly does.

Does it really matter whether the bits you've chosen to include/preclude say whether they're cool with it or not? There's clearly all sorts of deaths from either flavour.

[Ash]

Now, I have not read either of these 2,000+ year old guidebooks of how to conduct oneself.

I take it both say killing someone is a generally a bad thing. Are there appendices which list when it is actually acceptable?

Much of the book of Deuteronomy. Though, as has been pointed out, the OT is full of nasty stuff completely with odds of what Christianity is supposed to be about, and the NT supercedes all the rules of acceptable smiting and slavery and raping.

At this point we need the Ganpati chap to expound his theory that what Jesus was preaching was the Eastern philosophy he'd learned in the 'wilderness'. I find it quite plausible really, seeing as the OT seems so obviously a handbook of the leadership of a primative tribal culture where stuff was generally done according to violence, then along comes Jesus saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change. Radical stuff.

[Ash]

Does it really matter whether the bits you've chosen to include/preclude say whether they're cool with it or not? There's clearly all sorts of deaths from either flavour.

I can see why you say that it doesn't make a difference, historically, as there has been much smiting in the name of both religions, but in a contemporary context, and with some exceptions, Christianity in a modern secular and liberal society does seem the more chilled and tolerant brand, certainly when it comes to bumders. Let's face it, happy-clappy Christians sitting in a circle with acoustic guitars are pretty gay.

[Pokster]

Much of the book of Deuteronomy. Though, as has been pointed out, the OT is full of nasty stuff completely with odds of what Christianity is supposed to be about, and the NT supercedes all the rules of acceptable smiting and slavery and raping.

At this point we need the Ganpati chap to expound his theory that what Jesus was preaching was the Eastern philosophy he'd learned in the 'wilderness'. I find it quite plausible really, seeing as the OT seems so obviously a handbook of the leadership of a primative tribal culture where stuff was generally done according to violence, then along comes Jesus saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change. Radical stuff.

Didn't the Bible start mass genocide with a sodding great big flood that was meant to kill practically everything?

[The Jorge]

I can see why you say that it doesn't make a difference, historically, as there has been much smiting in the name of both religions, but in a contemporary context, and with some exceptions, Christianity in a modern secular and liberal society does seem the more chilled and tolerant brand, certainly when it comes to bumders. Let's face it, happy-clappy Christians sitting in a circle with acoustic guitars are pretty gay.

Yeah, but then again the guys protesting, and in some cases nailbombing/shooting up abortion clinics, arent exactly chilled, godly types.

[Ash]

Didn't the Bible start mass genocide with a sodding great big flood that was meant to kill practically everything?

Kind-of sets the tone, doesn't it?

KILL THEM! KILL THEM ALL!

[The Jorge]

Kind-of sets the tone, doesn't it?

KILL THEM! KILL THEM ALL!

No, all that stuff doesnt count because Jeebus came along and he was all like a hippy and stuff.

Which would completely invalidate the following 1900 years of christianity, but there you go.

[Burney]

Kind-of sets the tone, doesn't it?

KILL THEM! KILL THEM ALL!

I've always liked the way the Noah story is told as a really kid-friendly Bible story (cuddly animals, etc), with no-one apparently seeming to notice that it represents God as a capricious, indiscriminate psychopath who, like a spoiled toddler, decides to smash up his toy because it's not doing what he wants, causing the deaths of (presumably) millions - and loads of innocent animals (except the fish, of course - they get off the hook entirely, as it were).

I appreciate that this is hardly an original sentiment, but it is amazing how quick churches are to use this frankly terrifying story to suck in kids. Even more terrifying is how successful they are in doing so.

[Burney]

No, all that stuff doesnt count because Jeebus came along and he was all like a hippy and stuff.

Which would completely invalidate the following 1900 years of christianity, but there you go.

So you don't accept that there is a difference between the Old and New Testaments? Or that Christianity is based on one and not the other?

You don't seem to understand much about Christianity, if I may say so.

[The Jorge]

So you don't accept that there is a difference between the Old and New Testaments? Or that Christianity is based on one and not the other?

You don't seem to understand much about Christianity, if I may say so.

I think you missed the point here. I was saying that Christians tend to miss the point of most of the teachings of the NT. Ironic, given their name and all, but there you go.