Community > General Religion Chat

Topic: which is more Violent, D BIBLE OR THE QUARAN
Sin_and_Sorrow Joined Sun 01/01/12 Posts: 5757	Tue 01/31/12 08:51 AM
A book cannot be violent, it can only depict, condone or advocate violence. The Bible depicts violence, but does not condone or advocate violence. I won't comment on the Quran because I've never read it. This is true. However, it's words lead to some disturbing and horrid translations. You ask me, Qur'an and the Bible are rather similar. The reason, IMO, they believe the Qur'an is more reliable then than Bible lies wholly in the fact that instead of man simply writing the bible; Mohammed (Qur'an) was given the knowledge of what to write by Allah himself; and double, triple, and quadrupled checked his work and those that would later 're-write' it to ensure that there was no misinterpretations nor mistranslated forms of it. So, to say 'which is more violent', isn't an accurate question as Spider pointed out, because ultimately the violence erupts from the translation or misinterpretation of its contents and words. I.E.: Al-Queda, Crusaders, Nazis, etc.

Sin_and_Sorrow Joined Sun 01/01/12 Posts: 5757	Tue 01/31/12 08:54 AM
The Quran. Only because of Allah's influences, as in terrorism. It's taught many indians to become suicide bombers. It's not fair game, to be fair. ..true, but you both are forgetting about the Crusades. The massacred thousands, mercilessly, in the name of the Bible. Terrorism from the Qur'an is more recent in memory. ..but the Crusaders have their bloody shining moment too. Plus, the Nazis-- Jews killed Jesus, remember? Hitler used this 'fact' to create the Holocaust. I'm not going to get into the subject of the crusades other than to say this: The Crusades began only after most of the Christian world had been forcefully converted to Islam. When the Muslim armies were marching into Europe, simple people formed an army to drive them back. The first crusade was without a doubt purely self defense. Later crusades are definitely debatable, but the first crusade is the only reason you aren't a Muslim right now. As for the Nazis, Hitler had nothing but contempt for Christians and Christianity. He admired Islam and encouraged Nazis to convert. Huh. Didn't know that last part. I just know the bible or maybe now the Qur'an was one of the main principles behind the drive to exterminate the Jews. Come to think of it, that would make more sense because don't Islams have an issue with the Jewish? And, regardless of the Crusade outcome, I'd still not believe wholly and fully in either.

Conrad_73 Joined Sat 09/29/07 Posts: 22488	Tue 01/31/12 09:17 AM
The Quran. Only because of Allah's influences, as in terrorism. It's taught many indians to become suicide bombers. It's not fair game, to be fair. ..true, but you both are forgetting about the Crusades. The massacred thousands, mercilessly, in the name of the Bible. Terrorism from the Qur'an is more recent in memory. ..but the Crusaders have their bloody shining moment too. Plus, the Nazis-- Jews killed Jesus, remember? Hitler used this 'fact' to create the Holocaust. I'm not going to get into the subject of the crusades other than to say this: The Crusades began only after most of the Christian world had been forcefully converted to Islam. When the Muslim armies were marching into Europe, simple people formed an army to drive them back. The first crusade was without a doubt purely self defense. Later crusades are definitely debatable, but the first crusade is the only reason you aren't a Muslim right now. As for the Nazis, Hitler had nothing but contempt for Christians and Christianity. He admired Islam and encouraged Nazis to convert. yeah right! Hitler was and remained a Catholic and "Christian" all his life!None of the Top-Nazis were ever excommunicated by Rome! http://the-doomsday-machine.blogspot.com/2008/11/irrefutable-truth-of-hitlers.html http://nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

Conrad_73 Joined Sat 09/29/07 Posts: 22488	Tue 01/31/12 09:19 AM
A book cannot be violent, it can only depict, condone or advocate violence. The Bible depicts violence, but does not condone or advocate violence. I won't comment on the Quran because I've never read it. This is true. However, it's words lead to some disturbing and horrid translations. You ask me, Qur'an and the Bible are rather similar. The reason, IMO, they believe the Qur'an is more reliable then than Bible lies wholly in the fact that instead of man simply writing the bible; Mohammed (Qur'an) was given the knowledge of what to write by Allah himself; and double, triple, and quadrupled checked his work and those that would later 're-write' it to ensure that there was no misinterpretations nor mistranslated forms of it. So, to say 'which is more violent', isn't an accurate question as Spider pointed out, because ultimately the violence erupts from the translation or misinterpretation of its contents and words. I.E.: Al-Queda, Crusaders, Nazis, etc. small wonder it is similar,since the Prophet borrowed quite heavily from the Old and New Testament!

Sin_and_Sorrow Joined Sun 01/01/12 Posts: 5757	Tue 01/31/12 09:29 AM
The Quran. Only because of Allah's influences, as in terrorism. It's taught many indians to become suicide bombers. It's not fair game, to be fair. ..true, but you both are forgetting about the Crusades. The massacred thousands, mercilessly, in the name of the Bible. Terrorism from the Qur'an is more recent in memory. ..but the Crusaders have their bloody shining moment too. Plus, the Nazis-- Jews killed Jesus, remember? Hitler used this 'fact' to create the Holocaust. I'm not going to get into the subject of the crusades other than to say this: The Crusades began only after most of the Christian world had been forcefully converted to Islam. When the Muslim armies were marching into Europe, simple people formed an army to drive them back. The first crusade was without a doubt purely self defense. Later crusades are definitely debatable, but the first crusade is the only reason you aren't a Muslim right now. As for the Nazis, Hitler had nothing but contempt for Christians and Christianity. He admired Islam and encouraged Nazis to convert. yeah right! Hitler was and remained a Catholic and "Christian" all his life!None of the Top-Nazis were ever excommunicated by Rome! http://the-doomsday-machine.blogspot.com/2008/11/irrefutable-truth-of-hitlers.html http://nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm ..that's what I thought, but I wasn't going to argue, cause I don't really know.

Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Tue 01/31/12 09:30 AM
yeah right! Hitler was and remained a Catholic and "Christian" all his life!None of the Top-Nazis were ever excommunicated by Rome! http://the-doomsday-machine.blogspot.com/2008/11/irrefutable-truth-of-hitlers.html http://nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm Well, I can't compete with your conspiracy blogs, but I will say that a look at the historical truth, rather than the mad rantings of bigots, would show that the Nazis weren't a Christian movement and Hitler was most definitely not a practicing Catholic.

Sin_and_Sorrow Joined Sun 01/01/12 Posts: 5757	Tue 01/31/12 09:30 AM
A book cannot be violent, it can only depict, condone or advocate violence. The Bible depicts violence, but does not condone or advocate violence. I won't comment on the Quran because I've never read it. This is true. However, it's words lead to some disturbing and horrid translations. You ask me, Qur'an and the Bible are rather similar. The reason, IMO, they believe the Qur'an is more reliable then than Bible lies wholly in the fact that instead of man simply writing the bible; Mohammed (Qur'an) was given the knowledge of what to write by Allah himself; and double, triple, and quadrupled checked his work and those that would later 're-write' it to ensure that there was no misinterpretations nor mistranslated forms of it. So, to say 'which is more violent', isn't an accurate question as Spider pointed out, because ultimately the violence erupts from the translation or misinterpretation of its contents and words. I.E.: Al-Queda, Crusaders, Nazis, etc. small wonder it is similar,since the Prophet borrowed quite heavily from the Old and New Testament! Aye. I don't believe either, so, lol. I think this began the age when marijuana was introduced to man. >.>

Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Tue 01/31/12 09:51 AM Edited by Spidercmb on Tue 01/31/12 10:03 AM
yeah right! Hitler was and remained a Catholic and "Christian" all his life!None of the Top-Nazis were ever excommunicated by Rome! http://the-doomsday-machine.blogspot.com/2008/11/irrefutable-truth-of-hitlers.html http://nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm ..that's what I thought, but I wasn't going to argue, cause I don't really know. http://www.zenit.org/article-28937?l=english EDIT: Removed the URL BBCode tags as they didn't work properly with the URL.

Conrad_73 Joined Sat 09/29/07 Posts: 22488	Tue 01/31/12 09:58 AM Edited by Conrad_73 on Tue 01/31/12 10:18 AM
yeah right! Hitler was and remained a Catholic and "Christian" all his life!None of the Top-Nazis were ever excommunicated by Rome! http://the-doomsday-machine.blogspot.com/2008/11/irrefutable-truth-of-hitlers.html http://nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm ..that's what I thought, but I wasn't going to argue, cause I don't really know. Archives Show Church Excommunicated Nazis Pius must have kept it pretty quiet! Must been as not to jeopardize the Churchtax he received from Germany all throughout the Nazi-Era! You Link actually only leads to the Frontpage of the Site! http://www.zenit.org/article-28937?l=english Claim flies in the Face of all the photo-evidence from Germany Hitler wth Archbishop Cesare Orsenigo, the papal nuncio in Berlin, 1935 On April 20, 1939, Archbishop Orsenigo celebrated Hitler's birthday. The celebrations, initiated by Pacelli (Pope Pius XII) became a tradition. Each April 20, Cardinal Bertram of Berlin was to send "warmest congratulations to the Fuhrer in the name of the bishops and the dioceses in Germany" and added with "fervent prayers which the Catholics of Germany are sending to heaven on their altars." Just one of many here. http://nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm Site takes a while to load sometimes! Possibly low bandwidth. Hitler's Concordat with the Holy See! It was a marriage of convenience between Hitler and the Vatican, one which disenfranchised the Catholic laymen. As Hitler cynically put it: "We should trap the priests by their notorious greed and self indulgence. We shall thus be able to settle everything with them in perfect peace and harmony. I shall give them a few years' reprieve. Why should we quarrel? They will swallow anything in order to keep their material advantages. Matters will never come to a head. They will recognize a firm will, and we need only show them once or twice who is master. They will know which way the wind blows." [Quoted in Guenter Lewy, The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany (2000), pp. 25-26] This marriage of convenience between Hitler and the Church hierarchy was deeply confusing to Catholics who looked to their church for guidance. Jared Israel explains the signals they received when Hitler was granted a concordat: "Put yourself in the position of a 1933 German Catholic as you read the text of the Concordat between Nazi Germany and the Vatican, the Reichskonkordat. "The German Catholic Church has rescinded its ban on joining the Nazi Party. The Catholic Centre party has dissolved itself. [And Articles 31 and 32 prevent any revival of this democratic Catholic party which had opposed the Nazis.] In the Reichskonkordat, the Vatican has promised that German Bishops and their subordinates will be obedient to and honour the Nazi state (Article 16). It has promised that German Catholic educators will teach children patriotic love for the Nazi state (Article 21). It has requested and received the Nazi dictatorship's promise to enforce internal Church decisions (Article 10). Cardinal Bertram of Breslau has called on Catholics to avoid all subversive or illegal (by Nazi definition) activities. "How should you respond to the Nazi's new nightmare state? Doesn't the Catholic Church teach you to view Church officials as exemplary? Shouldn't they be emulated? Isn't the Pope's word law, and didn't the Pope sign the Reichskonkordat, an agreement with the Nazi dictatorship, that [in Article 16 contains this pledge for new bishops]: In the performance of my spiritual office and in my solicitude for the welfare and the interests of the German Reich, I will endeavour to avoid all detrimental acts which might endanger it. http://www.concordatwatch.eu/showtopic.php?org_id=858&kb_header_id=752

Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Tue 01/31/12 10:05 AM Edited by Spidercmb on Tue 01/31/12 10:06 AM
Pius must have kept it pretty quiet! Must been as not to jeopardize the Churchtax he received from Germany all throughout the Nazi-Era! You Link actually only leads to the Frontpage of the Site! Or perhaps he didn't want to publicly humiliate the Nazis, since the Catholic Church was smack dab in the middle of Hitler's strongest ally? EDIT: The link was broken by the use of the URL tags. I removed them, now if you copy/paste the URL, it will work.

RKISIT Joined Tue 01/08/08 Posts: 16721	Tue 01/31/12 10:05 AM Edited by RKISIT on Tue 01/31/12 10:07 AM
The story of Noah and the great flood isn't enough to answer this question? I would say they're equal.

RKISIT Joined Tue 01/08/08 Posts: 16721	Tue 01/31/12 10:10 AM
Although the New Testament is much more mellow.

Conrad_73 Joined Sat 09/29/07 Posts: 22488	Tue 01/31/12 10:12 AM
Pius must have kept it pretty quiet! Must been as not to jeopardize the Churchtax he received from Germany all throughout the Nazi-Era! You Link actually only leads to the Frontpage of the Site! Or perhaps he didn't want to publicly humiliate the Nazis, since the Catholic Church was smack dab in the middle of Hitler's strongest ally? EDIT: The link was broken by the use of the URL tags. I removed them, now if you copy/paste the URL, it will work. Thanks,yes,I checked it out!

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Tue 01/31/12 06:09 PM
Neither books when viewed appropriately are particularly violent nor do they advocate violence. I agree ...really? Plagues? Murdering children? Genocide on a massive scale? Slavery? Torture? Abuse? ...so, what IS violent then? its semantics the statement wasnt made that they contain NO violence the statement was made that they arent PARTICULARLY violent

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Tue 01/31/12 06:12 PM
i think one which supports fighting a religious war called jihad is more violent. Take a look @ this? BOKOHARAM, meaning WESTERN EDUCtION IS AN ABOMINATION . And confirms it has direct links with AL- QUEDA, have been destroying lives and properties in nigeria 4 sometime now. Burning churches and massacre which has really being malevolent, though some may say its purely political, but there is still a modicum of religion instinct it possess considering its from the northern part of the country, and its NAME. So i think its more of violent than the christian bible. I rest my case. I think there are similar passages in the bible regarding taking out different groups at different times,,, I dont know where Bokoharam comes from or who has translated its meaning,,,

Dragoness Joined Wed 10/17/07 Posts: 23320	Tue 01/31/12 06:15 PM
Both books are equally violent in rhetoric. Also both books are equally discriminatory towards heathens, women, other "beliefs" and gays. They are both so similar that for one to judge the other as wrong is ludicrous

TBRich Joined Fri 11/07/08 Posts: 8232	Tue 01/31/12 06:25 PM
May I suggest Hitchens (RIP), G-D is not Great, it has excellent summaries of violence in religion.

Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Tue 01/31/12 06:37 PM
May I suggest Hitchens (RIP), G-D is not Great, it has excellent summaries of violence in religion. Does he mention the 262,000,000 people killed by atheist governments in the 20th century? That's more than every war in recorded history, combined. Plus the crusades. Plus 9/11. Plus the inquisition. Do I blame every atheist in the world for that? Of course not, that was be stupid. So what does it make Hitchens when he claims that every theist is capable of the violence exhibited by a mostly dead minority?

TBRich Joined Fri 11/07/08 Posts: 8232	Tue 01/31/12 06:47 PM
I think the term you want is "secular governments". And one needs to draw the distinction between religion and cult.

Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Tue 01/31/12 06:52 PM
I think the term you want is "secular governments". And one needs to draw the distinction between religion and cult. No, I mean atheist. That number includes people murdered by governments that rejected the idea of God and tried to prevent their people from worshiping.