Toto

Is The Bible More Violent Than The Quran? NPR report by Barbara Bradley Hagerty.

Philip Jenkins decided to take a look, and was shocked! shocked! to find that the Bible is more violent!

Barbara Bradley Hagarty manages to find an opposing viewpoint in Andrew Bostom, editor with Ibn Warraq of The Legacy of Jihad (or via: amazon.co.uk), but then interviews an Islamic scholar who condemns suicide bombers and says they are going to hell.

The link above includes an excerpt from Jesus Wars describing the Christian on Christian violence of the 5th and 6th centuries, over a fine theological point that seems irrelevant to most moderns: "Dark Passages" by John Philip Jenkins introduces a new term - "holy amnesia."

I find this whole approach a bit bizarre. There is an underlying assumption that religion is a given, a part of our being, which can evolve and "mature" - but can't be rejected.

No atheists appear to have been interviewed for this story.

mountainman

Additionally, many people either claim or assume that both of these religions were never actually rejected by anyone in history at the time they were first brought into the spotlight by them becoming a centralised state religion supported by the warlord and the army of the warlord (ie: Constantine and Muhammad). The reality of the situation is that the religions were greeted with great controversy by the respective populaces of each epoch, and it is known that in both cases the respective warlords ordered for the execution of people (authors) who were satirising the religion.

This indicates that both religions were utterly rejected at one point in time, in contrast to the histories written by the (repective) victorious "orthodox" who present a fictitious harmoniousness at reception.

The satirists who were executed were treated as either "atheists" or "heretics" with respect to the new state religions (of Christianity and Islam). The history of these two religions share a number of common traits --- the major one being that they were enforced by the sword of supremely victorious military commanders and their "orthodox minions".

ApostateAbe

I take the imprints that the scriptures leave on adherents as far more important than what an outsider may find. The Bible has an "Old Testament" and a "New Testament." The New Testament seems to neuter the encouragement to violence that you see in the Old Testament. Jesus and the apostles revoke many of the rules of the Old Testament, dismissing strict adherence to Jewish law as a practice of the hated Pharisees. A late addition to the New Testament has Jesus save an adulterous woman from execution.

But, for the Koran, there is only one testament, and it encourages far more violence than a Christian's understanding of the Bible. The single violent element of the New Testament--hell--is taken to an even greater extreme in the Koran, where specific sorts of unbelievers are punished with very specific and illustrative tortures.

Therefore, I rate the Koran as far more worthy of hate.

avi

Sure Pete, and I agree with you, however, the question posed in the OP by Toto, summarizing an NPR report, contrasting the Bible with the Quran is this: Which of the two "holy" books is more prone to suborn violence directed against heretics?

What we need, to address this issue, is not more opinion, undoubtedly wise though that opinion surely is, rather, we need DATA.

Oops. Now comes the problem. WHICH version of the "bible" does one use?

So, I think we can agree that the portion of the Quran which remains, after the goat ate some of the pages for lunch, is probably (but who knows for sure?) constant. Yet, the same cannot be said for the "bible". We have no agreement on which version to use, in counting the occurrence of exhortation to murder and violence against non-believers.

In other words, prior to offering a realistic answer to this question, one must first define WHICH version of the "bible" one will use, and THEN, and only then, can one proceed with an objective count of the quantity of horrific invocations of violence against people like us, in the two different religions, christianity and islam.

avi

Toto

I don't think that the different versions of the Bible differ on the issue of violence against unbelievers.

And to get back to Pete's new hobbyhorse, satire is usually tolerated as a release of social tension. Satirists are the fools and clowns who are allowed to mock the king (at the proper time and place) so everyone can laugh and then get back to being good citizens. The dissenters who were executed were quite serious.

archaeologist

I find it interesting to see how atheists and other non-beievers think they get to judge God and His actions. You all are certainly not on His level nor above Him yet you feel you get to cast dispersionon things you cannot understand, either willfully or involuntarily.

You forget that God owns everything and HE has set the rules thus He gets to punish as He sees fit, whether you agree withit or not, whether you like it or not. Unlike you, He is fair and just.

I imagine you would not hold your parents to the same standards as you do God yet you accept their punishing you when you disobeyed them and you cannot devise anything better for the way you punish your children or others so it would be best if you got off your high horses for you are not better than God.

By the way, books are not violent, they do not get up and bash somebody or push them down stairs or bring harm to another book or person. Plus your definition of the word 'violence' does not count.

avi

Well, smart as you undoubtedly are, and, in my opinion, you are one of the brightest people on this forum, this question is not one of "opinion", but fact.

It is not important what you, or anyone else, THINKS. What is important, to address this question, is FACT, not opinion. How many instances are there in the Bible, where the text reads, "kill the non-believer"? How many instances of the same notion are expressed in the Quran?

That's it. Simple numbers. Opinions, plus $0.75 will get you exactly one each copy of a newspaper. In other words, your opinion, or mine, or anyone else's, is worthless. What is required, here, is data, not opinions.

Now, then, there is another question here. Toto believes, perhaps with justification, I don't know, that there is no essential difference between the various versions of the Greek new Testament, or between the Sepuagint and the Masoretic text.

I disagree.

If something as simple as the route taken in traveling from Tyre to Lake Galilee, could provoke the ancient authors of the various texts, to revise, and rewrite, and change, and redact, and modify the text countless times, then, does it not stand to reason, that those many, many authors/scribes/editors would also disagree about something as fundamental as the appropriate treatment of non-believers?

Why should the default position represent that there is no difference between the various versions of the Bible, when it comes to treatment of infidels, rather than the position to which I adhere, namely, that one has no idea, without consulting the various versions, and comparing them? To me, Toto's position here is unduly optimistic, assuming that the different versions will all agree with one another, hence, no need to consult each of the various versions in quantifying the magnitude of the bestiality encountered.

I think I find this statement even more objectionable. First of all, throughout history, we find that ANYONE, in any culture, east or west, new world or old, north or south, ANYONE who challenges authority is attacked. Sometimes the attack results in nothing more serious than an obligation to stand in a corner wearing a dunce cap. Sometimes an entire clan is annihilated.

Constantine, in particular, since you mentioned Pete's hobbyhorse, murdered intimate friends, relatives and colleagues, for any number of reasons. Was his son executed because he represented a "serious" threat to the emperor? Perhaps. Do we know? No.

I think we need to adopt a more cautionary view, when attempting to generalize about the rationality of various totalitarian rulers' motivations. Some of them laughed at Court Jesters. Some ordered their execution. One ought not generalize, in my opinion.

Here's my question: Did Philip Jenkins QUANTIFY the incidence of exhortations to violence, found in any version of "the" bible versus the quran? Why is he, if he did not, convinced that the bible has a higher rate of violent outbursts, compared with the quran? Did he investigate any other religious tracts, for example those from Buddhism, or Zoroastrianism?

ApostateAbe

As you may expect, non-believers have a very different way of thinking about religious scriptures than believers. You can get to understand us better by imagining (not necessarily believing) the Bible as essentially man-made, sort of like how you may normally think of the Book of Mormon or the Hindi Four Vedas.

arnoldo

Is the Qur'an more violent than the Jewish or Christian Bible?

Isn't this an example of a loaded question?

steve_bnk

One thing is that the Jews were not and are not evangelist, they do not recruit converts and it is not a simple matter to be accepted as a convert.

Global domination was never a Jewish goal. Contrast to the Muslims as in Iran that want a Muslim empire in the region, dominated by them of course. The early Muslims were 'holy warriors'.

In the Old Testamant Jews were neither more or less agressive than others. They were a small arrognat and stiff necked(god's own words) group in a very tough neighborhood.

And the Lord said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people:
Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.
Exodus 32: 9-10

The Christian violence as I see it originated with Catholicism. Both against other Christians and Muslims. I read that on the first crusade Jews and Muslims both were on the walls together resisting the Catholics.

Making the world Catholic and taking converts by force orginated in the Vatican. I don't know if it is even correct to call the RCC Christian, many protestants do not.