I think it is obvious that Christianity has become mostly benign and secularized for the most part and I don't see Christians subjugating their women and executing gays in the ways that take place in the Islamic world due to the quran and Hadith (the Hadith is the so-called writings of the prophet and his followers in which Islamic Shariah law is based from); but I see too many atheists tending to bash Christianity and giving excuses for Islam. Why is this so when according to the Islamic faith, we atheists are "kafar" should be the first ones killed before the Christians and Jews (especially me, since I am an apostate since I was "born" a Muslim); therefore, why do atheists tend to give excuses for the true evils of the Islamic faith??
Jesus Christ as a symbol (whether he was a real person or not) is a much better role model than the child molesting, murderous, and evil "prophet" called Muhammad. The Bible doesn't demand governments to be Christian but the Quran demands that all governments be Islamic by nature and the punishments are much more bizarre. In Islam, you can not even ask any questions about Muhammad or Allah but Christians and Jews are able to debate within themselves and ask questions. When a cartoon is drawn or a quran is burnt you see how savagely Muslims act throughout the world and those who are "moderate" instead of condemning the barbaric acts blame the "Salman Rushdie's" or the "Pastor" instead of placing blame on the perpetrators and culture of violence in the Islamic world. So why is it, that Christianity is often (in my opinion) overly criticized and Islam is not criticized enough when the gravest threat to the existence of the human race is surely an Islamic regime with nuclear weapons?? I'd like to get your opinions..
I came late to this discussion. I am glad I didn't get sucked into it earlier. I've noticed two things I'd like to share:
1. Some people want to lump extremist (i.e. medieval thinking idiot) Christians in a group with extremist Muslims as if all extremism were bad, but they do not understand that Islam has yet to have a majority tame version. The Islam that is practiced throughout the world is far more consistently violent and dangerous to human well being than Christianity post enlightenment. The conversations about Islam need to be honest about where it is in its development.
2. When Sassan starts a discussion, he is only looking for people who agree with him. This is a trend I have noticed. He will argue ad absurdum with the sole focus on winning,, not advancing dialogue. I acknowledge this as a trait in myself and will use this realization to try and improve further discourses I have in the future, because whatever that is, I don't want to be like it. It's really annoying.
In one sentence you say "Many people have disagreed with me on this thread and I have respected their opinions", and yet you continue seemingly trying to disrespect the honest opinions of others throughout the entirety of your post.
Like Ryan said, you are only looking for others to agree with you entirely. When that doesn't happen, you try to take passive aggressive jabs at anyone who holds an opinion separate from yours.
If you had been paying attention, you would have seen that I specifically mentioned that I do not give islam precedence over christianity, or favor any one religion over another. I have more familiarity with the negatives of christianity, as it is something I have to put up with on a daily basis, but that in itself does not qualify as making an "excuse" for any other religion.
Also, who are you to determine who is or isn't a "self hating masochistic excuse maker"? Again, you keep saying that you "value free speech and exchange", yet you continue to counter those statements with passive aggresive ad hominems. And to do so is only detrimental to your argument and yourself.
Mark, all good points. I guess my problem is with the attitude. You can argue and fight to defend the position, but I've seen at least five or six ad hominems in the brief time I've been on this discussion thread. I havent even looked through them all yet, because frankly, his responses have been so virulent. I think a good debate has a give and take on both sides and each come out having learned a little more, and the spirit of the argument is in play.
So, perhaps I should modify clause two to clarify the conflicting feelings I have regarding this discussion:
1) Sassan's desire to win a debate trumps any care for civility or self-reflection. That is a trait I do not wish to have. etc, etc.