Hypothetical: What if ISIS makes a successful Caliphate?

[exploited]

It's interesting because I've actually read both books, the Bible and the Qur'an, and I know that you have not because the idea that the Bible is as violent is simply false on every level. And this is coming from a person who despises both books as hopelessly derogatory and anti-human.

In terms of violent passages, the Bible has twice the amount. However if you express the passages as a percentage of the total work, the Qur'an is over twice as violent. This isn't all that useful of a metric though - what matters is the qualitative level of violence, not the quantitative.

So if you actually read the books, you'll find that the Qur'an is vastly more vicious, more political and more aggressive. Unlike much of the Bible, it's violent verses are not limited by context - they are treated as applicable outside of that particular situation, and of course are still used to this day. Which isn't to say that there aren't plenty of violent suggestions in the Bible... There are, but they are not nearly as all-encompassing as the Qur'an, which advocates violence against literally the entire planet.

As for the issue of historical violence, there are currently more people living under theocratic Islamic law than were ever impacted by the Inquisition or the Crusades combined. Further, there are quite literally hundreds of examples of jihad being waged all over the ME and Africa, over the course of millennia, and continuing to this day.

[The Dharma Bum]

[exploited]

Yes, please continue. Remember that we are talking about violent suggestions, not merely descriptions of violence.

Saying "David killed Goliath" is not what I am referring too. Saying "You should kill or tax any non-believer anywhere in the world" is.

[The Dharma Bum]

see, there it is. the goalpost moving

ambiguous statement is ambiguous

also that thing when jesus is riding his horse in the blood, it will be from all the evil people who HE and his army of "resurrected saints" killed because they would not get the f**k out of jerusalem

so there's that

[exploited]

That doesn't move the goal posts lol. We are talking about the interaction of people and scripture, and which interaction produces more violence.

This isn't ambiguous at all. The Qur'an issues far more violent instructions than the Bible. Period. Those instructions are then carried out more than they have been by Christians. Again, not ambiguous, not really even disputable.

[The Comrade]

"john killed dave" is different from "you should kill dave"

only a potato wouldn't understand this

[The Dharma Bum]

Consider that christianity's history is three times as long and it's various cultural actors conquered far more of the globe than Islam's various cultural actors ever did, that if there is a "most violent religion" it's christianity.

that is unless you want to include religions that are based on violent acts, such as the worship of Kali, known as Thuggee. Murder and robbery were literally the sacrament, so by one metric that could be judged to be most violent religion. And then there are religions based on human sacrifice etc.

However, saying that this or that religion is the most violent postulates an objective value but it derives from ambiguous terms and as such is a statement that just can't be quantified, objectively speaking. To attempt to do so is to commit a logical fallacy, in effect comparing apples to oranges.

[exploited]

Ketchup sandbox.

[The Comrade]

[exploited]

My reply was better.