It's not that Christianity has never been violent. It's that Christian violence is mostly in the past while Islamic violence is a very real problem in the present.

Cry about the Crusades all you want, but it's irrelevant now. Christianity has no modern equivalent to ISIS and Al-Qaeda.

Does modern Christian terrorism exist? Yes, but it's very small and only a threat to small regions. Islamic terrorism is a global threat and far more extensive.

Bigger problems take priority.

It's not that Christianity has never been violent. It's that Christian violence is mostly in the past while Islamic violence is a very real problem in the present.

And you should ask yourself why are Muslim societies facing currently this problem? It has been proved with historical facts that Islam is not inherently worse than Christianity. 2 easy explanations: Wars (decades of foreign interference and dictators playground) which generated Misery, a very powerful combustible to violence and terrorism.

Western colonialism and then interventionism created the situation we're in now. Don't blame Islam for the current situation. Blame Bush, blame the Clintons, blame Brezhnev, blame all the foreign leaders that brought misery and war for the region.

No, Christianity when wrongly interpreted is just as dangerous as Islam in its true form

Christianity in its true form is actually less dangerous than Islam in its true form.

It's that Christian violence is mostly in the past while Islamic violence is a very real problem in the present.

Cry about the Crusades all you want, but it's irrelevant now. Christianity has no modern equivalent to ISIS and Al-Qaeda.

The point is, it's from irreligion that Christianity is so moderate today. Moderate = ignoring some things of the faith so not to be a total loon. It's not inherently Christian, it's inherently apatheist, that Christianity is more peaceful today.

Does modern Christian terrorism exist? Yes, but it's very small and only a threat to small regions. Islamic terrorism is a global threat and far more extensive.

Bigger problems take priority.

Islamic terrorism is not a "global threat". American weapons given to these loons and these loons being supported, like Mashriq, for example. The freedom fighters of today become the terrorists of tomorrow. There's only 3 or so countries where violent Islamic extremism is a "threat" that came from practically nowhere, and I'm going to be liberal: NE Nigeria site (and technically, no, since Mashriq was funded by American government), Israel (Israeli gov's in great bit to blame for that, though), and Egypt.

Terrorism in Egypt is largely imputable to the military coup that took out of office the elected vote. In Nigeria, government anti-muslim policies created Boko Haram, and in Israel, it's imputable to the country's policies as well there.

In Egypt, yeah, it came from loads of instability and revolt, and Mashriq managed to get a hold in Sinai, and in Israel, you're right, too (and I said this). In Nigeria though - HA HA HA. Heck no, really? West-Provinz is a successor of previous Muslim-Christian violence there, I will say that, but you know, the north half of Nigeria is governed by Islamic theocratic law for all, and 3 states I think that have Islamic theocratic law for Muslims only. There have been many Nigerian Muslim leaders recently, and the states in Nigeria get somewhat good self-rule. It's far from Nigerian policies that made West-Provinz.

Don't blame Islam for the current situation.

Stop apologizing and making excuses. It just empowers them

Terrorism in Egypt is largely imputable to the military coup that took out of office the elected vote.

Since Morsi was supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical terrorist organization, I fail to see how you can say that the military coup is responsible for a problem that was there before. While they might have made terrorists angry, it's not over democratic issues but rather that they took away the terrorist organizations political backing.

Looks like there are some abrahamic religions fight. *grab popcorn*

I misread the "Christian" in the title and thought it said "Chinese".

Would've been more exciting.

^ Dyslexia and racism... ahmmm what a shame.

Stop apologizing and making excuses. It just empowers them

Hypocrite.

Christianity in its true form is actually less dangerous than Islam in its true form.

Prove it.

Monks kill less than Jihadis. Case closed.

^ Pathetic answer. Imams kill less than Crusaders and Christian zealots as well. What a stupid comment again.

Imams aren't doing what Mohammed did. Jihadis are. Monks do what Jesus did (or as close as you can get). Violent zealots aren't.

Edited 3/30/2016 15:49:45

And Imams and their teachings still kill a lot of people. More today than Christian terrorists, maybe. I would have to look at it.

Imams aren't doing what Mohammed did. Jihadis are. Monks do what Jesus did

Perfect mix again of ignorance and hypocrisy.

And Imams and their teachings still kill a lot of people.

Sure, as much as some Priests and Monks teachings, see Inquisition, Crusades and many genocides and massacres committed in the name of Jesus. Fundamentalist Muslims and Christians are the cause of many crimes and wars.

Can we stay in the present? Inquisition killed less than ISIS has. They were in the name of Jesus, but not in his path. He never murdered, unlike Muhammed. Imam's teachings kill far more than priests - how many priests (outside of WBC) are preaching for the death of all Muslims? Your "fundamentalist Christians" aren't fundamentalist - just corrupted. Unlike the Muslims, who are just being good boys and doing as Mohammed did.

Edited 3/30/2016 15:59:21

@Koala

hotair.com/archives/2013/05/01/pew-64-of-muslims-in-egypt-and-pakistan-support-death-penalty-for-leaving-islam/

https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_-_Homosexuals

www.theguardian.com/world/2008/nov/03/somalia-rape-amnesty

www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/stoning-adulterers/

www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-women-in-society/

Inquisition killed less than ISIS has. They were in the name of Jesus, but not in his path.

Prove it again, Inquisition killed less than ISIS has? Do you really know what Inquisition is? And do not start again with your "in the name of Jesus, not in his path" this means nothing at all. And if you want to mean something with it, you can also say "they were killed in the name of Muhammad, not in his path", again there's no limit to your hypocrisy.

Can we stay in the present?

Sure we can, but as long as you refuse to see the truth of this there is no discussion possible with you PE: Violence and terrorism are growing thanks to misery and wars, and this is not about Islam in particular, lets be honest, if the Christian world was facing the same dire situation like in the Middle East, you would see Christian terrorist organizations as well as it happened in the past.
Your obvious lack of knowledge and ignorance in historical facts and socio-economic factors as well as your obvious total biased judgement against Islam is why you cant be taken as serious here PE. You have no solid arguments, nor any knowledge at all.

And you want to talk about present day Christianity? Ok. Since the beginning of the 20th century, in terms of political violence people of Christian heritage polished off tens of millions of people in the two world wars and colonial repression. This massive carnage did not occur because European Christians are worse than or different from other human beings, but because they were the first to industrialze war and pursue a national model. Sometimes it is argued that they did not act in the name of religion but of nationalism. But, really, how naive. Religion and nationalism are closely intertwined (see the genocide against Jews, it started with religious tensions in Europe between Christians and Jews all along the 18th and 19th century and it ended horribly with WW2). The British monarch is the head of the Church of England, and that still meant something in the first half of the twentieth century, at least. The Swedish or Danish church is a national church. Spain? Was it really unconnected to Catholicism? Did thr Church and Francisco Franco’s feelings toward it play no role in the Civil War? And what’s sauce for the goose: much Muslim violence is driven by forms of modern nationalism, too.

I don’t figure that Muslims killed more than 2 million people or so in political violence in the entire twentieth century, and that mainly in the Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988 and the Soviet and post-Soviet wars in Afghanistan, for which Europeans bear some blame (the secular nationalist Young Turks also committed genocide against the Armenians during an invasion of eastern Anatolia by Russia).

Edited 3/30/2016 16:30:07

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#Death_tolls

"It is likely that between 3,000 and 5,000 were executed"
I don't even know what it is bruh


Fascism and communism (which caused pretty much every major death toll after WWI - and even that one had the Ottomans) both hate religion. And the former loved and collaborated with Muslims.

if the Christian world was facing the same dire situation like in the Middle East, you would see Christian terrorist organizations as well as it happened in the past.

But we aren't, because we didn't fuck up our nations. Yes, you can say it was European colonialism, but that only happened because the Muslim Ottomans were horrible rulers and had an incompetent government. If they hadn't helped Germany and Austria, they would have just fallen apart internally, and terrorism still would've come about. And how come Australia, USA, Canada, South Africa, and even some African nations aren't fucked up as badly? They had a lot more colonialism.