The question of whether Islam is more dangerous than Xianity is stupid

[lew]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Jesus Christ, this is like explaining something to my 5 year old niece...

If you can show me an abbreviation for "hypersensitivity" that people readily understand with the same ease as "xian," I will gladly use it.

...and you give the muslims a hard time for being easily offended.

My posts thus far in this thread have been tongue-in-cheek comments.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Jesus Christ, this is like explaining something to my 5 year old niece...

If you can show me an abbreviation for "hypersensitivity" that people readily understand with the same ease as "xian," I will gladly use it.

...and you give the muslims a hard time for being easily offended.

u r hprsnstv

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by lew

My posts thus far in this thread have been tongue-in-cheek comments.

Sorry, every time I've used the word "xian" on OT, someone seriously argues what you just did.

[lew]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Sorry, every time I've used the word "xian" on OT, someone seriously argues what you just did.

[imind]

u r hprsnstv

i don't think the potential versus real harm has anything to do with which religion is more dangerous past, present, or future.

the real indicator should be what that religion proposes (scripture), but the real indicator is who is behind these religions, as both sides have had their moments of violence, and those moments apparently are driven more by those individuals in power (and their interpretation of scripture) than by scripture itself.

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by imind

i don't think the potential versus real harm has anything to do with which religion is more dangerous past, present, or future.

the real indicator should be what that religion proposes (scripture), but the real indicator is who is behind these religions, as both sides have had their moments of violence, and those moments apparently are driven more by those individuals in power (and their interpretation of scripture) than by scripture itself.

That's a good point. And it might have alot more with what the leaders in power of these religious have as an agenda, instead of what the actual religion teaches.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by imind

i don't think the potential versus real harm has anything to do with which religion is more dangerous past, present, or future.

the real indicator should be what that religion proposes (scripture), but the real indicator is who is behind these religions, as both sides have had their moments of violence, and those moments apparently are driven more by those individuals in power (and their interpretation of scripture) than by scripture itself.

I think you'll find that religions alternate between destructive and constructive people in power, as well as dangerous and innocuous interpretations of their scriptures. And, in kind, there have been violent and passive histories of all religions. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that religions are completely fluid things that can change at any time, posing no danger or a severe one, and acting as if religion is some static thing, the danger of which can be measured, is silly. One thing is certain though...every major monotheistic religion has displayed a propensity toward violence in the past, and will continue to in the future, so if anything, you can conclude religion itself is dangerous.

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

I think you'll find that religions alternate between destructive and constructive people in power, as well as dangerous and innocuous interpretations of their scriptures. And, in kind, there have been violent and passive histories of all religions. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that religions are completely fluid things that can change at any time, posing no danger or a severe one, and acting as if religion is some static thing, the danger of which can be measured, is silly. One thing is certain though...every major monotheistic religion has displayed a propensity toward violence in the past, and will continue to in the future, so if anything, you can conclude religion itself is dangerous.

That's what happens when man tries to play the "My God is the Only God and the Baddest God in town".

At least with the Pagans, they didn't have to compete...

[KatKanPlay]

In this century, it appears that Islamic extremists are more dangerous simply by virtue of the news we hear everyday. These extremists are a small fraction of the Muslims worldwide. I do believe however that even though we are not seeing the same kind of dangerous violence out of Christians during this time frame, they continue to be the most hate-mongering group on the planet, and this is not just the extremists but a fair majority. This seems to be a right given to them by a leader who's teachings were at the most basic level were of love and tolerance. I dont get it.