Which More Violent: Bible or Quran?

[sr71plt]

This is 100% bullshit, and you know it. At this point, you are doing mental gymnastics to avoid conceding that he's right.

The thread is about violence in the Bible and Quran based on a scientific content comparison story. It's not just about violence in religious conversion. That said, and although it is irrelevant to the OP article, both Islam and Christianity have been guilty of forcible conversion historically and neither does it now to any extent. You're just being ignorant by dogmatic choice, Chris.

The 100 percent bullshit here is you and other Trumpsters.

Sorry that the results of the study aren't to the like of you and others. (No, I'm not.)

 

[JackLuis]

The thread is about violence in the Bible and Quran based on a scientific content comparison story. It's not just about violence in religious conversion. That said, and although it is irrelevant to the OP article, both Islam and Christianity have been guilty of forcible conversion historically and neither does it now to any extent. You're just being ignorant by dogmatic choice, Chris.

The 100 percent bullshit here is you and other Trump Chumps.

Sorry that the results of the study aren't to the like of you and others. (No, I'm not.)

Fixed your post.

 

[ishtat]

Just a thought: The Koran is about 60% of the NT in size and the NT is what? - 20% of the bible as a whole so how can they be comparable.

However, if you must have a violence fix, consider the Hindu holy texts, they're about 50 times bigger than the Bible, so are the Hindu's the real problem?

 

[Hypoxia]

Just a thought: The Koran is about 60% of the NT in size and the NT is what? - 20% of the bible as a whole so how can they be comparable.

However, if you must have a violence fix, consider the Hindu holy texts, they're about 50 times bigger than the Bible, so are the Hindu's the real problem?

My hypothesis: Expansionist monotheism is the problem.

Polytheists, with several deities running around, must necessarily that yet other deities are out there. Polytheists usually find non-religious excuses for rampage, pillage, rape, enslavement, conquest, genocide, etc.

Monotheists must believe that THEIR god is the ONLY god and that all others are thus evil / demonic / satanic / etc and their followers must be converted or destroyed, 'cause that's what their doctrine says.

Hinduism is a stew of invader's Aryan myths enveloping many 'country' faiths, not unlike cancerous Xianity's absorption of pagan traditions. But Hinduism doesn't pretend to be monotheistic. (The Xian trinity looks like polytheism to Muslims.)

Hinduism isn't expansionist as are Xianity and Islam. Like Judaism, one generally needs to be born into Hinduism. So the "convert or die" dynamic is missing. Hinduism has other problems, but that ain't one.

 

[Chris_Michael]

The thread is about violence in the Bible and Quran based on a scientific content comparison story. It's not just about violence in religious conversion. That said, and although it is irrelevant to the OP article, both Islam and Christianity have been guilty of forcible conversion historically and neither does it now to any extent. You're just being ignorant by dogmatic choice, Chris.

The 100 percent bullshit here is you and other Trumpsters.

Sorry that the results of the study aren't to the like of you and others. (No, I'm not.)

Okay dude, I'm just curious... How many Journal Clubs have you sat through? Because I've sat through once a week from 2009 to 2012 and then I occasionally volunteered (against my will) to grade presentations by student pharmacists afterwards.

I literally have a doctorate which is grounded in gathering information from primary sources, and I really hate doing it in my private time. Seriously, I tried to avoid this at all costs because I hate doing it.

So, from position of authority of what constitutes a "study," this was NOT a study to any extent. Was it a project? Sure. Was it an analysis of the text? Sure. Was it a "study"? Absolutely not. It's not even in the ballpark of studies.

There's no way to even place it under the scrutiny of actual studies because it's just an analysis of the texts, which is NOT a study. I can't even apply strengths and weaknesses to this so-called "study" because there's no foundation to do it.

And let's say it were true, real, and had a strong foundation... why is this not headline news across the fucking country? Why is this just on some silly media outlet and not in the actual scientific community?

It's because this "study" does not show ANYTHING that we didn't already know. It has done nothing to revolutionize the way we deal with religion. It does not give us any new models to predict anything, it does not give us any new insight on the actual religions, and it's just a hit piece with a clickbait title.

And you, you're an idiot. I am sure of this now. Well, either you're an idiot, you're not college educated, or you're just being a disingenuous fuck just because you have to fight for a conclusion instead of observing the facts without bias. That's what lawyers do. Lawyers take a stance on a conclusion and then create the best case they can for it. Scientists take information without bias and come to a completely neutral conclusion.

I'm feeling deja vu. This is awfully similar to how I actually debate real hardcore Christians. That's really really sad. I think I'm actually arguing a religious fanatic right now.

 

[phrodeau]

Okay dude, I'm just curious... How many Journal Clubs have you sat through? Because I've sat through once a week from 2009 to 2012 and then I occasionally volunteered (against my will) to grade presentations by student pharmacists afterwards.

I literally have a doctorate which is grounded in gathering information from primary sources, and I really hate doing it in my private time. Seriously, I tried to avoid this at all costs because I hate doing it.

So, from position of authority of what constitutes a "study," this was NOT a study to any extent. Was it a project? Sure. Was it an analysis of the text? Sure. Was it a "study"? Absolutely not. It's not even in the ballpark of studies.

There's no way to even place it under the scrutiny of actual studies because it's just an analysis of the texts, which is NOT a study. I can't even apply strengths and weaknesses to this so-called "study" because there's no foundation to do it.

And let's say it were true, real, and had a strong foundation... why is this not headline news across the fucking country? Why is this just on some silly media outlet and not in the actual scientific community?

It's because this "study" does not show ANYTHING that we didn't already know. It has done nothing to revolutionize the way we deal with religion. It does not give us any new models to predict anything, it does not give us any new insight on the actual religions, and it's just a hit piece with a clickbait title.

And you, you're an idiot. I am sure of this now. Well, either you're an idiot, you're not college educated, or you're just being a disingenuous fuck just because you have to fight for a conclusion instead of observing the facts without bias. That's what lawyers do. Lawyers take a stance on a conclusion and then create the best case they can for it. Scientists take information without bias and come to a completely neutral conclusion.

I'm feeling deja vu. This is awfully similar to how I actually debate real hardcore Christians. That's really really sad. I think I'm actually arguing a religious fanatic right now.

That's such a typical right-wing argument. Question the work that was done and cast doubt on the results, without offering one shred of evidence to back up a contrary position. I've seen it again and again. Evolution, the Holocaust, abortion, gun violence, the Civil War, climate change, and the current presidential covfefe.

 

[sr71plt]

Okay dude, I'm just curious... How many Journal Clubs have you sat through? Because I've sat through once a week from 2009 to 2012 and then I occasionally volunteered (against my will) to grade presentations by student pharmacists afterwards.

I literally have a doctorate which is grounded in gathering information from primary sources, and I really hate doing it in my private time. Seriously, I tried to avoid this at all costs because I hate doing it.

My specialty is propaganda analysis, and you rate high as a right-wing propagandist.

 

[colddiesel]

I literally have a doctorate which is grounded in gathering information from primary sources, and I really hate doing it in my private time.

So, from position of authority of what constitutes a "study,"

And you, you're an idiot. I am sure of this now. Well, either you're an idiot, you're not college educated, or you're just being a disingenuous fuck just because you have to fight for a conclusion instead of observing the facts without bias.

.

Chris. Take a good hard look at these statements. Are they those of an educated man - or a pompous ass.

I suspect few here have the slightest regard for your self proclaimed "position of authority."

Then you decide to insult instead of argue - the educated man again?

There are a lot of idiots on this site Chris, but a lot of people here who are smart, smarter than you are. I have already seen you soundly thrashed in arguments a few times. I wonder if you can learn.

Just trying to help.

 

[Chris_Michael]

That's such a typical right-wing argument. Question the work that was done and cast doubt on the results, without offering one shred of evidence to back up a contrary position. I've seen it again and again. Evolution, the Holocaust, abortion, gun violence, the Civil War, climate change, and the current presidential covfefe.

He made the claim. He is the one with the burden of proof. I don't have to prove otherwise. I don't have to argue by countering with sources claiming the opposite of his claim is true.

What level of education did you guys even make it through? I'm just curious at this point.

 

[Chris_Michael]

Chris. Take a good hard look at these statements. Are they those of an educated man - or a pompous ass.

I suspect few here have the slightest regard for your self proclaimed "position of authority."

Then you decide to insult instead of argue - the educated man again?

There are a lot of idiots on this site Chris, but a lot of people here who are smart, smarter than you are. I have already seen you soundly thrashed in arguments a few times. I wonder if you can learn.

Just trying to help.

Not only am I educated, I'm licensed to practice. I can be a pompous ass all day long. It doesn't matter.

 

[sr71plt]

He made the claim. He is the one with the burden of proof. I don't have to prove otherwise. I don't have to argue by countering with sources claiming the opposite of his claim is true.

What level of education did you guys even make it through? I'm just curious at this point.

What claim? I posted a context study on the topic of comparative violence (not forceful conversion--which both religions have indulged in) between the Bible and the Quran. Rightist propagandists like you didn't like the study's results so you went off on distraction and deflection. When a couple of posters tried to separate off the Old Testament from the Christian Bible as not relevant, I pointed out that it's relevant as long as the Christians themselves include it in the Bible (which they do) and it's certainly relevant to this study.

I don't believe for moment, Chris, that you have a doctorate in anything. As I've noted before, I don't think, from the quality of your posts, that you are old enough to have even a BA in anything (or to be posting to Literotica).

 

[Chris_Michael]

What claim? I posted a context study on the topic of comparative violence (not forceful conversion--which both religions have indulged in) between the Bible and the Quran. Rightist propagandists like you didn't like the study's results so you went off on distraction and deflection. When a couple of posters tried to separate off the Old Testament from the Christian Bible as not relevant, I pointed out that it's relevant as long as the Christians themselves include it in the Bible (which they do) and it's certainly relevant to this study.

I don't believe for moment, Chris, that you have a doctorate in anything. As I've noted before, I don't think, from the quality of your posts, that you are old enough to have even a BA in anything (or to be posting to Literotica).

I don't care what you believe. It's not a study. It's an analysis and a comparison of the two texts.

Do you understand that?

 

[sr71plt]

I don't care what you believe. It's not a study. It's an analysis and a comparison of the two texts.

Do you understand that?

More deflection from being called on what you challenge me on claiming on this thread, right, Chris?

Of course it's a study. Who do you think you're fooling? (Not that I care about your lame excuses).

 

[Hard_Rom]

Doctor of Pharmacy (Pharm.D.) are generally regarded internationally as professional degrees rather than doctorates, as they are not research degrees and no defense of any dissertation or thesis is performed.

Mengele was a doctor!

 

[Chris_Michael]

Doctor of Pharmacy (Pharm.D.) are generally regarded internationally as professional degrees rather than doctorates, as they are not research degrees and no defense of any dissertation or thesis is performed.

Mengele was a doctor!

You are 100% correct. It's not STEM. But there are 3 Velvet Striped on my gown. The practice itself involves critiquing primary studies at Journal Clubs to decide whether a new medication or therapy is safe and effective.

I never said I participated in research, though some pharmacists do. We all, however, participate in Journal Club, which is a god awful process of scrutinizing study after study. Somebody presents a study and we must find the strengths and weaknesses of the study. And the ultimate goal is to decide whether it's a solid study proving that a drug is safe and effective.

We do a Grand Rounds at the end of our curriculum in place of a dissertation. It's essentially Journal Club on steroids.

 

[colddiesel]

Not only am I educated, I'm licensed to practice. I can be a pompous ass all day long.

I accept your argument - you're definitely right on one of those three counts.

 

[ChloeTzang]

I accept your argument - you're definitely right on one of those three counts.

Sadly, Chris is on vacation, leaving me to fill the gap, which I doubt I shall be able to do adequately. Nevertheless, I will do my poor best, but I can't promise the same level of vituperation that Chris can exude so easily. It's just not me and I apologize in advance for my shortcomings. I'm better with the sickly cynical humor.

That said, I have to agree. Chris is indeed educated. Licensed, I'm not sure. Pompous? I have NEVER found Chris pompous. Bombastic, opinionated and mindlessly insane perhaps, but NEVER pompous

https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/game_of_thrones_desktop_top.jpg?strip=all&w=980&h=180&crop=1

 

[Gotham_Central]

Should I be surprised that, on encountering disagreement, one side has decided to attack the voice of dissent rather than the dissent itself?

 

[PrincepsCyberius]

That's not what the thread is about. It's not about violence in conversion; it's about violence. So, you're just being irrelevant to the thread.

Except that the purpose of the article upon which this thread is based was to somehow equate Christians today with what the a sizable percentage of Muslims still believe and a frightening number actually practice: that conquest and violence are appropriate means of proselytization and conversion.

Which leads to my friend Hard_Rom's points:

As I am not a pagan Arab during the time of Mohammed I'm not overly worried about rabble rousing during a dispute between Arabic clans and cities. That is after all who and what the calls for violence in the Quran are directed at.

As an atheist straight Canadian I'm am not worried too much about the raging fundamentalists in the US preaching death to homosexuals either.

The calls to violence in the Quran are specifically targeted at political enemies. Even if the reference is usually non-believers.

You can distort both the Bible and the Quran to preach hatred and violence equally.

The Bible prescribes the death penalty for the following activities, among others:
Murder[13]
Adultery[13]
Bestiality[14]
Rape of a betrothed virgin[15]
Male-male sexual intercourse[16]
One man picked up sticks on the Sabbath, he was taken into custody because a punishment was not known. The LORD told Moses that the man in custody must be killed. This particular crime and punishment is isolated case law.(Numbers 15:32–36)
The man and woman when a man meets a betrothed woman in town and sleeps with her. But if it is a case of rape where out in the country she called for help and no one heard, the death penalty only applies to the man[17]
A woman who is found not to have been a virgin on the night of her wedding[18]
Worshiping other gods[19][20]
Witchcraft (Exodus 22:18)
Taking the LORD's name in vain or cursing his name[21]
Cursing a parent[22][23][24]
Kidnapping[25]
Disobeying a parent[26]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_and_punishment_in_the_Bible

Really doesn't sound all that much different than the Sword verses.

Considering their was not an execution for apostasy in the Ottoman Empire for 400 years while Germany was losing 50% of it's population to religious wars.

Your last point is interesting and actually has some validity, excpet for at least two flaws:

1) The Thirty Years War and other "religious wars" of the Counter-Reformation had far more to do with economics and dynasty than with religion (the same is true of the later Crusades); and

2) When it comes to setting policy today, what occurred centuries ago provides little guidance. Let's instead focus on the here and now.​

Looking at the present, of course, undermines your points regarding about whom you should be "worried," as well as your points about what is condemned in the Bible versus what is commanded in the Qur’ān.

We do not have Christian entities setting up aggressive theocratic states where they are executing people for practicing witchcraft, cursing their parents, taking the Lord's name in vain, or even for gathering sticks on the Sabbath. On the other hand, we do have Muslim entities setting up aggressive theocratic states where they are executing people under the parts of the Qur’ān I quoted above (and others). That is the worry.

 

[dan_c00000]

That's such a typical right-wing argument. Question the work that was done and cast doubt on the results, without offering one shred of evidence to back up a contrary position. I've seen it again and again. Evolution, the Holocaust, abortion, gun violence, the Civil War, climate change, and the current presidential covfefe.

That's how the right has operated since the 1960s. Soon they'll find a crack pop who'll start questioning the Heliocentric model.

 

[srgreene]

Not that the scientific method is given much credence in the Trump world, but here's the result of a scientific study of which book promotes more violence, the Bible or the Quran. Conclusion? The Bible shows both more anger and less trust than the Quran does. And when you take the New Testament out, the Old Testament is twice as violent as the Quran.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...han-quran-text-analysis-reveals-a6863381.html

So, the next time you Trumpettes lay the claim of Islam being violent at its foundation, especially in contrast with Christianity . . .

More of this banal person's piffle.

Nowhere in the Bible is there an exhortation to murder the non-believer wherever you find them. Violence in the Bible is descriptive- after all, it is, in part, a historical record of the Jewish people, and like all people, they engaged in warfare. Nowhere are soldiers defending Christians promised sex slaves upon victory. and I'm fairly confident the same can be said of Judaism. Mohammad did promise them to his jihadis.

Violence in the Koran, on the other hand,is prescriptive. The only guaranteed path to Paradise in Islam is to be killed in jihad- there is nothing comparable to that in Judaism and Christianity. Almost every sura contains references

I'm not going to read the posted links, at least not now, but possibly there are more references to violence in the Bible than the Koran. But aside from the aforementioned differences in those references, the Bible is quite a bit longer than the Koran- that might account for more numerous references to violence in the Bible (I am not saying that is the case).

In general, anything sr71plt has to say is intellectual garbage.

 

[sr71plt]

In general, anything sr71plt has to say is intellectual garbage.

Ooo, ouch. Hit a nerve did I?

 

[ChloeTzang]

Ooo, ouch. Hit a nerve did I?

Ah ha, you DO share my approach to debate on this board. I'm relieved. I'd come up with an appropriate biblical quote but I don't know any.

 

[Hard_Rom]

The Sword Verse (ayat as-sayf) is the fifth verse of the ninth sura (Surat at-Tawbah, or ) of the Qur'an[1][1] (also written as 9:5). It is a Qur'anic verse widely cited by critics of Islam to suggest the faith promotes violence against "pagans" ("idolators", mushrikun), by isolating the portion of the verse "fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them" ( fa-uq'tulū l-mush'rikīna ḥaythu wajadttumūhum فَاقْتُلُوا الْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدْتُمُوهُمْ ; trans. Abdullah Yusuf Ali).[citation needed] The next immediate verse (often excluded from quotes) appears to present a conditional reprieve within the statement: "if any of the idolaters seeks of thee protection, grant him protection till he hears the words of God; then do thou convey him to his place of security -- that, because they are a people who do not know."[2]

Qur’anic exegetes al-Baydawi and al-Alusi explain that it refers to those pagan Arabs who violated their peace treaties by waging war against the Muslims.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_Verse

According to several mainstream Islamic scholars, the verse relates to a specific event in Islamic history -- namely that Arabian pagans made and broke a covenant with Arabic Muslims. The verses immediately preceding and following 9:5, 9:4 and 9:6, make the context very clear: Only those pagans who broke the covenant were subject to violent repercussions, so that any pagans who honoured the covenant or repented their betrayal were to be spared.

It was these hardened polytheists in Arabia, who would accept nothing other than the expulsion of the Muslims or their reversion to paganism, and who repeatedly broke their treaties, that the Muslims were ordered to treat in the same way – to fight them or expel them. Even with such an enemy Muslims were not simply ordered to pounce on them and reciprocate by breaking the treaty themselves; instead, an ultimatum was issued, giving the enemy notice, that after the four sacred months mentioned in 9:5 above, the Muslims would wage war on them. The main clause of the sentence ‘kill the polytheists’ is singled out by some Western scholars to represent the Islamic attitude to war; even some Muslims take this view and allege that this verse abrogated other verses on war. This is pure fantasy, isolating and decontextualising a small part of a sentence. The full picture is given in 9:1–15, which gives many reasons for the order to fight such polytheists. They continuously broke their agreements and aided others against the Muslims, they started hostilities against the Muslims, barred others from becoming Muslims, expelled Muslims from the Holy Mosque and even from their own homes. At least eight times the passage mentions their misdeeds against the Muslims. Consistent with restrictions on war elsewhere in the Qur’an, the immediate context of this ‘Sword Verse’ exempts such polytheists as do not break their agreements and who keep the peace with the Muslims (9:7). It orders that those enemies seeking safe conduct should be protected and delivered to the place of safety they seek (9:6). The whole of this context to v.5, with all its restrictions, is ignored by those who simply isolate one part of a sentence to build their theory of war in Islam on what is termed ‘The Sword Verse’ even when the word ‘sword’ does not occur anywhere in the Qur’an.

 

[ishtat]

Nowhere in the Bible is there an exhortation to murder the non-believer wherever you find them.

.

Nowhere? Try Kings 1. Elijah exhorted his people to kill 450 priests of Baal who unarmed, were inoffensively pursuing their own faith and just trying to make it rain.

And yet Elijah never had the people kill the 400 priests of Asherah who were also present. Ever wondered why?