Text Analysis: Is the Quran really more violent than the Bible?

a reply to: dollukka

I think that the old testament was put in our bible to show us what not to do. How the Jewish people screwed up so bad in the old days. They are constantly getting squashed for doing things god did not approve of. Making things of gold and putting them on display just attracts thieves and the greedy people with the armies. Hiding them in a temple where noone can access the temple keeps the gold and silver from being seen by the spies these people send out.

It seems that those who desired riches used religion to get these riches from people. That seemed to be the practice by Christians later on, they used the old testament to justify their plundering instead of seeing that god did not like people having these kind of things. They screwed up a lot in the old testement, god was always punishing the Jewish people. What Jesus taught was actually almost the same as what god had wanted the Jewish people to live like. But in the time of Jesus a bunch of corruption plagued their hierarchy of their religion. I am sure that the way things are now in Israel, god is not happy with a lot of the ones in power.

Do I believe in god....Yes. I believe there is something out there structuring everything. It really doesn't matter, the basis of what Jesus taught was good for society and even what Mohammad taught was good. The difference is Mohammad would wage war if he could not talk others into peace, Jesus was that way. But Christianity strayed far from the way of Jesus over the centuries and even now his words are twisted. I like the Buddha too, he seemed to be almost in the same class as Jesus and Mohammad.

a reply to: Morrad

Where did you find the source for the graphs and their usage?

There's a fundamental flaw in this methodology.

There's a significant difference between reporting violence and mandating violence. Context does matter. I'd love to see this same study repeated with contextualisation.

Let me give you an example.
There's a passage in the Old Testament (Judges 19) in which a priest finds one of his concubines has been killed (through rape, presumably) by a number of Benjamites.
In response, he then cuts the concubine into 12 pieces and sends those pieces throughout all Israel. Israel is stirred to respond, and goes to war against Benjamin.

Now... context.
There is no approval of the violence here; no approval of cutting up a concubine (not to mention the fact that the priest had a concubine in the first place!), nor of rape. It's just stating historical fact. This is what happened. Likewise, the Bible tells us that David murdered Uriah to get to his wife Bathsheba, Saul consulted a medium, and so on. That's not condoning these events, just presenting the reality that these men were flawed... and obviously so, given that each of these things violates God's own law in Exodus 20.

That's the point and thrust of the whole Old Testament: not that sin and violence is okay, but that they're a reality of our own broken state before God. It's precisely this that God promises to set right in the Millennial Kingdom (Isaiah 65+), where swords will be beaten into ploughshares, and so on.

So...
context matters.
If this same test could be repeated contextually - separating out incidents of violence from specific calls TO violence, then perhaps you'd have something meaningful.

a reply to: Morrad

Violence in and of itself is not bad. Whom it is directed towards matters.

a reply to: Morrad

Yes, but is Miss Peach's Sunday School class more violent than ISIS?

originally posted by: spirit_horse
a reply to: Morrad

I don't think it matters really. The Christian and Jewish religions have gone through a reformation and are not violent today in most cases. Islam needs a reformation because they seem hell bent on subjugation and killing the disbelievers.

I agree. What it does is point to the fact that Christians that look through the Koran and point out how violent it is and therefore Islam is evil are being hypocrites, because according to the OP, the New Testament features more violence and less mercy.

The answer is not that Islam is wrong or evil, its people need to learn to discard the bad parts of their book, as many Christians have and are continuing to do, though progress there is even slow on some fronts, and for that you just need to look to the people that think the "promotion" of homosexuality is some sort of satanic conspiracy, but they will never mention that the "promotion" of working on Sunday was part of the same, or the fact we don't throw people in jail for being an atheist or a different sect of Christianity anymore.

It's easy to look back on history or another culture and see how backward it is, but it's difficult to see the same within your own.

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay

originally posted by: spirit_horse
a reply to: Morrad

I don't think it matters really. The Christian and Jewish religions have gone through a reformation and are not violent today in most cases. Islam needs a reformation because they seem hell bent on subjugation and killing the disbelievers.

I agree. What it does is point to the fact that Christians that look through the Koran and point out how violent it is and therefore Islam is evil are being hypocrites, because according to the OP, the New Testament features more violence and less mercy.

The answer is not that Islam is wrong or evil, its people need to learn to discard the bad parts of their book, as many Christians have and are continuing to do, though progress there is even slow on some fronts, and for that you just need to look to the people that think the "promotion" of homosexuality is some sort of satanic conspiracy, but they will never mention that the "promotion" of working on Sunday was part of the same, or the fact we don't throw people in jail for being an atheist or a different sect of Christianity anymore.

It's easy to look back on history or another culture and see how backward it is, but it's difficult to see the same within your own.

The Christian response is that true Muslims are peaceful and beautiful people searching for self improvement and truth.

Those who use a faith as a rallying call for violence and hatred are not being true to their faith.

a reply to: rickymouse

Of course, just like the bible, religion has sometimes twisted things out of context

There is plenty in the Bible and the Quran that is very twisted when read in proper context.

it seems to be a peaceful book

It's like the Bible in that respect. If you're very selective then it's a book of peace and love.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: rickymouse

Of course, just like the bible, religion has sometimes twisted things out of context

There is plenty in the Bible and the Quran that is very twisted when read in proper context.

it seems to be a peaceful book

It's like the Bible in that respect. If you're very selective then it's a book of peace and love.

When we read something, interpretation is based on your beliefs and knowledge that you hold. The religious books are way more open to different interpretations because of the way they were written. Often one passage in the bible is used to preach a sermon. Taking one sentence out of a paragraph causes it to be out of context and it can be interpretted to say something completely different than it's intended use.

I see this happening all the time, cherry picking of evidence in science makes science nothing but pseudoscience many times because the evidence is not correctly applied. This practice makes many people rich in science or gives them prestige by their believers. So our science is actually turning into another form of religion because of differences of interpretation of the evidence. Some of the most widely accepted interpretations in science are nothing but a poorly derived on evidence taken out of context or misinterpreted..

Everything we think we know is plagued with conditioning of past generations and ongoing deception that is influencing our society. Not all conditioning is bad, not all deception is bad. Never the less it is happening. I see more possible harm from marketing procedures and scientific misinterpretation than I see in the words of Jesus.

a reply to: rickymouse

I'm not denying the reality of scriptural verses being taken out of context. Happens often. Or interpreted by someone who doesn't have the theological basis to do so. Some verses require that.

It sure sounds to me like you're undermining the reality that there is plenty of verses that are quite straightforward in their literal intent, and those verses would easily be identified as immoral to modern standards of morality.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: rickymouse

I'm not denying the reality of scriptural verses being taken out of context. Happens often. Or interpreted by someone who doesn't have the theological basis to do so. Some verses require that.

It sure sounds to me like you're undermining the reality that there is plenty of verses that are quite straightforward in their literal intent, and those verses would easily be identified as immoral to modern standards of morality.

Most of the bad things in the bible are in the old testament. There are a few things in the new testament that are not quite what we consider moral nowadays but remember, the society in the US including many of our laws, is based on the moral attitude of our ancestors who were Christians. I feel morality is going downhill here. Jesus tried to get people to share what they had with each other. In America now the "what is in it for me" rule of thumb is dominant. People making megabucks off of other people as they climb the ladder give crumbs to the poor. The deceivers corral the bucks from those people and hardly nothing is given to the poor in the end. There are good programs out there, but there are lots of bad ones, especially donating to medical research where the money goes to people who are not poor.

Jesus actually seems to have been pushing true communism or pure socialism. The reason that we do not have these pure types of society is because of greed among the people. Social class would not be a part of either of those, no royal families, no one would be better than anyone else.

Religion is a tool that can be used by both good and bad. Science is a tool that can be used by both the good and bad. If you find a twenty dollar bill on the sidewalk, it is good for you but bad for someone else. Good and bad are opinions we hold

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay

originally posted by: spirit_horse
a reply to: Morrad

I don't think it matters really. The Christian and Jewish religions have gone through a reformation and are not violent today in most cases. Islam needs a reformation because they seem hell bent on subjugation and killing the disbelievers.

I agree. What it does is point to the fact that Christians that look through the Koran and point out how violent it is and therefore Islam is evil are being hypocrites, because according to the OP, the New Testament features more violence and less mercy.

The answer is not that Islam is wrong or evil, its people need to learn to discard the bad parts of their book, as many Christians have and are continuing to do, though progress there is even slow on some fronts, and for that you just need to look to the people that think the "promotion" of homosexuality is some sort of satanic conspiracy, but they will never mention that the "promotion" of working on Sunday was part of the same, or the fact we don't throw people in jail for being an atheist or a different sect of Christianity anymore.

It's easy to look back on history or another culture and see how backward it is, but it's difficult to see the same within your own.

I concur. The Baptists here go to church on Saturday, i.e. Keeping Holy the Sabbath. When the Catholic church tried to move into Rome which had pagan gods including Sun Day to worship the sun changes were made because Roman society would not accept a complete disrespect of their worship days. Hence the Roman Catholic church.

There is no doubt that it is the individuals or groups of same that pick out verses and are radical. West-borough baptist church comes to mind and the Inquisition. I have some real good friends from Iran that were political prisoners for 10 years. They are the nicest people you could ever know. I think the real problem is those from certain areas of Africa and the Middle East. Their home countries and culture there is not ready for prime time in a 1st world civilization. They want to reign over the others and many become violent. I could be wrong, but I don't think muslims born and raised in the US want to be ruled by Sharia law. It is one reason I suspect that as the parents and grandparents die off and the young raised here may be the ones that bring a reformation to Islam. I hope for the future anyway.

a reply to: rickymouse

You have some astute understanding there. I recall Jesus saying I did not come to change the law (of the OT). However he also contradicted the OT law. For example when the woman was going to be stoned to death and he said, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". He didn't say the act was wrong, but achieved the same result.

a reply to: Morrad

There is no comparison at all it is simply a fact that the Bible is more violent than the Qur'an and by a very, very, very long shot. × 10.

The Qur'an is much shorter and doesn't tell war stories all throughout, it just promotes God and reiterates slightly different versions of some of the myths in the Old Testament and about Mary and Jesus

It promotes peace with their cousin religions and denounces violence, while the Old Testament promotes it as a call from God to commit acts of (violence) and even genocide.

The Jewish Talmud doesn't consider goyim to be human and promotes any kind of act commited towards on as not a crime, including violence.

Talmud prescribes proper conduct for commiting pedophilia and method of sacrificing to Moloch.

The New Testament is better, at least the Gospels anyway, except why would God crucify the Messiah?

That was never part of the plan.

The Qur'an even tones down the violence of the New Testament. Jesus isn't crucified, and Mary is highly honored.

Hadith is what should be discussed if controversy over violence is sought, although they are not all reliable historically there is violence in Hadith.

But the Qur'an is all about peace, unless it is about judgement day and done by God, which is rare, other than the acknowledged OT sagas.

originally posted by: spirit_horse

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay

originally posted by: spirit_horse
a reply to: Morrad

I don't think it matters really. The Christian and Jewish religions have gone through a reformation and are not violent today in most cases. Islam needs a reformation because they seem hell bent on subjugation and killing the disbelievers.

I agree. What it does is point to the fact that Christians that look through the Koran and point out how violent it is and therefore Islam is evil are being hypocrites, because according to the OP, the New Testament features more violence and less mercy.

The answer is not that Islam is wrong or evil, its people need to learn to discard the bad parts of their book, as many Christians have and are continuing to do, though progress there is even slow on some fronts, and for that you just need to look to the people that think the "promotion" of homosexuality is some sort of satanic conspiracy, but they will never mention that the "promotion" of working on Sunday was part of the same, or the fact we don't throw people in jail for being an atheist or a different sect of Christianity anymore.

It's easy to look back on history or another culture and see how backward it is, but it's difficult to see the same within your own.

I concur. The Baptists here go to church on Saturday, i.e. Keeping Holy the Sabbath. When the Catholic church tried to move into Rome which had pagan gods including Sun Day to worship the sun changes were made because Roman society would not accept a complete disrespect of their worship days. Hence the Roman Catholic church.

Interesting.

I'll keep open the possibility that most all religions have some sort of benevolent divine influence, but it's unquestionable that they've been through many human hands in their shaping. I think part of the test of free will is discerning for ourselves the good in them.

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay

originally posted by: spirit_horse

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay

originally posted by: spirit_horse
a reply to: Morrad

I don't think it matters really. The Christian and Jewish religions have gone through a reformation and are not violent today in most cases. Islam needs a reformation because they seem hell bent on subjugation and killing the disbelievers.

I agree. What it does is point to the fact that Christians that look through the Koran and point out how violent it is and therefore Islam is evil are being hypocrites, because according to the OP, the New Testament features more violence and less mercy.

The answer is not that Islam is wrong or evil, its people need to learn to discard the bad parts of their book, as many Christians have and are continuing to do, though progress there is even slow on some fronts, and for that you just need to look to the people that think the "promotion" of homosexuality is some sort of satanic conspiracy, but they will never mention that the "promotion" of working on Sunday was part of the same, or the fact we don't throw people in jail for being an atheist or a different sect of Christianity anymore.

It's easy to look back on history or another culture and see how backward it is, but it's difficult to see the same within your own.

I concur. The Baptists here go to church on Saturday, i.e. Keeping Holy the Sabbath. When the Catholic church tried to move into Rome which had pagan gods including Sun Day to worship the sun changes were made because Roman society would not accept a complete disrespect of their worship days. Hence the Roman Catholic church.

Interesting.

I'll keep open the possibility that most all religions have some sort of benevolent divine influence, but it's unquestionable that they've been through many human hands in their shaping. I think part of the test of free will is discerning for ourselves the good in them.

I agree. I personally like the idea of discerning something whether it bears 'good fruit' or 'bad fruit'. Whether one believes parts of written scripture is from God or not, man has changed many things on the road to where we currently are in the history of religion. Like the adding of suicide as a sin later because too many people were committing suicide to get to paradise. That bears good fruit by saving many lives. Something other religions seem to not have picked up on yet.

a reply to: dollukka

I recently started reading the Quran. I will bear in mind what you say.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I have often contemplated this when thinking about violence from radicalization. Does radicalization negate the concept of free will? Is the radicalizer partly responsible for the violent acts committed by devout followers?

a reply to: fractal5

I agree although the author did identify this as a limitation.

I think what is more interesting here is that The Old Testament portrayal of an angry and vengeful God does indeed seem to conflict with the New Testament peaceful portrayal of God. It does not make for a cohesive religion that you have God showing different characteristics by time period in the context of an unchanging all-knowing God.

I have heard the argument that Mohammed's child bride was an acceptable tradition at that time in history and that it was also practised by Christians. We now know how this is so wrong on many levels. I have often contemplated why an all-knowing God would have allowed this, particularly from his prophet.

a reply to: pirhanna

Maybe Im not entirely informed, but it seems to me that the major difference is that the Quran / Islam have edicts to violence

I seem to remember Charlie (Hazardous1408) mentioning that these come from interpretations of Hadiths and are not part of the Quran.

a reply to: starwarsisreal

I have read about this as well.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

But now I'm curious if say the Hindu or Buddhist scriptures have the public stonings, gay bashing, racism, etc in them as does the Q & OT?

The author mentioned other religions in his limitations. You make a valid and interesting point.

a reply to: tikbalang

Where did you find the source for the graphs and their usage?

In the links I provided. Sorry I did not make that clear.

a reply to: Awen24

Thank you for the examples. In retrospect it is something I should have considered, something the author should have considered as well. In his limitations, he mentions that he is in no way attempting to prove or suggest that the practice of Islam or Judaeo-Christian religion is violent.


I enjoy reading your posts rickymouse. Not a good day health-wise for me today and getting tired. I will try to respond to you and other posts tomorrow.

a reply to: Morrad

There is no guarantee that the Aisha consumation story is accurate, it was written 2-300 years after he died.

a reply to: Morrad

Are you trying to slander the Qur'an as violent when it is not by shifting the conversation to non Quranic issues like ISIS and radicals?

Because Islam hates ISIS and is at war with them right now, who do you think is doing the fighting on the other side, the side that wants freedom in a country that has been demolished?

And the Qur'an is not why they fight, or the Hadith.

Islam is trying to eliminate ISIS and terrorism so people stop associating them with violence when Muslims are no more war prone or violent than Christians.

a reply to: spirit_horse

Suicide is already forbidden by Islam, the Qur'an says you can't fall on your own sword if on your deathbed in battle.

Pretty sure the Qur'an, if not Hadith.