Difference Among Christianity, Judaism, and Islam

twocows said:
Your single example fails to convince me of the truth of this statement. There have been plenty of violent, militant Christian groups in history. The KKK comes to mind. Also: the Crusades.
Click to expand...
First off the crusades, was a catholic effort. Which is a type of Christianity. Second the KKK were not christian. It doesn't matter what you claim to be, what matters is how you act, and they did not act very Christian.

Christianity is not a religion, it is a theology/philosophy. The catholic church, and Lutheranism are forms of religion.
 
Livewire said:
Part of it is that Islamism (extremist Islam) and to another extent, the Islamic world, is still in its infancy in terms of development & technology compared to Judaism & Roman Catholicism. It's just that Christianity & Judaism have already gone through their violent phases for the most part. Islam is catching up, on account of being the newest and youngest of the three great Monotheistic faiths. When heath standards rise, when education rates rise, when the theocratic fanticism & censorship wanes, the violence too will wane.
Click to expand...
While I agree that low living standards and corrupt governments contribute to violence, I find the assertion that religions have a "violence phase" they go through and that it takes a long time to get over this phase troubling.

It assumes violence is inherent to these religions irrespective of the time, place, and culture in which it is practiced. Going by your own statement of the trouble a lack of health standards and education causes one could simply state that the "phases" of Christianity and Judaism are merely a reflection of the living standards in the past which, compared to today, were not very high. It also seems to assume that a "new" religion (Islam and Christianity are both over a millennium old) can't be peaceful, but there are plenty of modern religions which are just that.

KingCharizard said:
Osama bin Laden was a scapegoat not a "Terrorist"
Click to expand...
As much as the word "terrorist" gets thrown around way more than it should, I think bin Laden perfectly encapsulates the meaning of the word.

NarutoActor said:
First off the crusades, was a catholic effort. Which is a type of Christianity. Second the KKK were not christian. It doesn't matter what you claim to be, what matters is how you act, and they did not act very Christian.

Christianity is not a religion, it is a theology/philosophy. The catholic church, and Lutheranism are forms of religion.
Click to expand...
I would say that anyone who claims to be and feels that they are Christian is a Christian. So the KKK, Crusaders, and that guy who killed dozens of people in Norway last year are all Christians. It might sting to have people and groups who share an identity with you doing things (or having done things in the past) that you don't like, but their identity is something you have to accept as a fact. You don't, however, have to accept their theology or actions.

Just to clarify, I consider myself an environmentalist, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything Greenpeace does. I do accept that they're also environmentalists, just not the same kind as I am. Their actions don't reflect on me even if we share some ideas. It's only if and when the ideas and the actions they inspire are in agreement with my own that it's okay to make a big comparison between them and me.
 
Scarf said:
While I agree that low living standards and corrupt governments contribute to violence, I find the assertion that religions have a "violence phase" they go through and that it takes a long time to get over this phase troubling.

It assumes violence is inherent to these religions irrespective of the time, place, and culture in which it is practiced. Going by your own statement of the trouble a lack of health standards and education causes one could simply state that the "phases" of Christianity and Judaism are merely a reflection of the living standards in the past which, compared to today, were not very high. It also seems to assume that a "new" religion (Islam and Christianity are both over a millennium old) can't be peaceful, but there are plenty of modern religions which are just that.
Click to expand...

The three great montheistic faiths are all guilty of spreading their dogma by swordpoint and some point in their histories, some in the recent past, others today. The Israelites did it to settle the Canaan area and to subdue other tribes - assert Israelite dominance in the area. The Christians did it in the form of the Crusades and the Inquisition in order to expand Geopolitical influence and to root out heretics and undesirables from within. Islam has been embroiled in endless war of rightful secession since the 7th century, right after Muhammed died and left no heirs, root of the Sunni and Shia conflict. The three great monotheistic faith's histories are soaked in blood.
 
I personally believe that Islam, Christian, and Jew beliefs are all denominations of the same god.

I know, they are really different, but hear me out.

If I were god, I wouldn't just want to spread religion in one area, I would go worldwide. But from a business point of view, different cultures will have different reactions to certain things. So if I want to advertise in all regions, I wouldn't use the same commercial, would I? The Islam religion would be tailored for, well, the middle eastern areas, while Judaism would go well in...wherever Jews originated from. (Im sorry, I cant remember for the life of me...something about Abraham leading them somewhere) Christianity was to get people who weren't already jewish to believe in me too, and I would have to use different methods (send Jesus, the people will love that). Its kinda like when a company uses different gimmicks and promotions for different audiences. Now, how come we don't all get along? Well, simply because Humans are jackasses. Really. If people don't like what you like, send an army to take over their land. Forget living with then, they are bad people. <- thats pretty much how I imagine the crusades.

Now, I know this is a half-baked, sideways theory, but its how I've always imagined religion. For polytheism, I think it was just years and years of cultural changes morphing into it. Because from what I remember of 8th grade history, those civilizations were around for a long time, or derived from civilizations that had evolved, so to say. Jesus, Muhammed, Abraham, those are just reminders of what happened.

If this offends anyone, I'm sorry. You don't have to agree with me.
 
Hey guys, I saw this video earlier. I know it's a comedy video, and it's probably not very PC friendly, but if you'll bear with me...I think it's very relevant to this discussion...

Spoiler:
[if not PC friendly please remove it :)]

So basically, I think that they're just some time behind from us - we're down the same road, and we're past that spot where we're violent about our religion.

I find that to be very true - think back, 600 years ago, how much time the Muslims are behind of us. The 1400s. The Inquisition. That was a very violent situation. And then the Crusades - that's the modern-day equivalent of 9/11 and that "Jihad" thing that most Muslims can tell aren't for real. And neither were the Crusades. No, that was for personal glory rather than "in the name of God".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top