http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,2...318-663,00.html

So, What do some of the Christians and Muslims in here think about that? Feel free to talk if you're not one of them, as well.

Being a former Christian, I think it was kind of extreme from him to criticize their religious basis and their prophet. Fundamentalists exist in every religion, not only in Islam, so that was a pretty much biased statement.

Even if he already apologized for it, I think that might lead into more religious problems in the future.

I think a nun was killed because of this. :(

It just wasn't the best idea to say what he did. But you know what? I don't think that some of the Muslims should be getting this worked up over it either. If someone said that my beliefs are evil (which they have), I would just brush it off. Their loss. If they don't want to understand my beliefs, and just remain ignorant to them, why should I care?

Oh dear. Religious debates. I am a Christian, by the way.
I just read a news article about this and he did not out and out call the Muslims evil. He was quoting a Byzantine Emperor.

It's not worth starting a war over, though I'm afraid some terrorists might see it as an opportunity.

Gee, this doesn't surprise me. <_< I agree with Sadhana, they should just brush it off... but..... no offense to any Islamic believers, but the Muslims tend to be pretty violent.... :unsure: So, it wasn't too swell of pope to say that..... but..... I guess peace between Muslims and Christians won't work. :(

Uhh, I don't know if the Muslims tend to be particularly violent. Every Muslim I know isn't anymore violent than anyone else out there. But it's the violent acts they carry out that get put on Fox News. I could just as easily say that Christians tend to be much more violent (*cough* blowing-up-abortion-clinics *cough* the crusades *cough*). Americans could so quickly be called extremely violent (*cough* secret-torture-chambers *cough*). But I don't think it's right to generalize like that, or for the Pope to say "Muslims are teh evil." But you know what? He's entitled to his opinion, and he's entitled to quote whatever Byzantine emperors he'd like to quote. I just think it's an overreaction. They really shouldn't care what the religious leader of some other religion has to say about them.

LOL, ok, ok, ok, you win. :D I'm sorry, but...... some of the rules of the Koran...are kinda scary. :unsure: I mean, I've read alot alot of the rules, and their very much like of the Bible, but..... who am I to say anything against them.

I've lived and grown up all my life in a Muslim country, and I'm a Christian. My best friends are Muslims, my teachers are Muslims, and some of the most amazing people I've met in my life are Muslims. Peace between races can exist, if only people try. Malaysia is a multi-cultural country (which is why I'm using it as a good example :P) and you can find people of all different races mixing together in harmony. Everytime I return to the country, it's still a kind of sight that awes me. People think it's not possible to treat each other 101% as pure human beings regardless of race and religion, but it is possible. It's possible because I've seen it with my own two eyes.
I never found Muslims to be any more violent than any other race. Most of them just want to live a normal, peaceful life, like any other human being. The terrorists may be Muslim, but it doesn't mean that every single Muslim out there has "omghiddenterroristurges". It's the kind of stereotype that unfortunately is very rampant nowadays. You wonder sometimes how it would be if those 9/11 terrorists were American and not Muslim.

Just as we might say "the rules of the Koran is scary", to them it's a belief, and it's a familiar thing. They just as well might say "the rules of the bible is scary." or "the rules of buddhism is scary", because it's unfamiliar to them. If we were Muslim, we might say that too, don't you think?

Actually I'm more worried about Thailand than this.

Mmm, well I'm christian, but I'm not Catholic so he doesn't represent me!

Anyways, leaders of world wide churches need to watch what they say carefully O.o I'm glad he was just quoting, and HOPE he doesn't really believe that, but if that's the case he should've been more careful.

And I'm with Yin. I've moved to California which is like...the entire world in one state O.o Every Muslim I've met has always been SO nice, very quiet and peaceful. I wonder if those who are using Muslim as an excuse to be violent really know much about their own religion/culture, or if they're just using it as a cover. I really hate it when people use religion as a reason to be cruel.

GIP, if you feel I'm being a bit over-preachy here, feel free to ignore me.

But I think it's important you don't brush this aside. Your earlier impression that Muslims are violent is a serious misunderstanding of Muslims, one constantly propagated by the mass media insisting on labelling terrorists as "Islamic terrorists" (as if terrorists are a breed unique to that religion!).

It also shows just how ineffective the current campaigns are to create awareness among non-Muslims that Islam is actually a peaceful religion, Muslims are peaceful people and figures like Osama bin Laden are exceptions rather than the norm (an exception that happens in just about every faith).

I come from the same country as yin-chan, and we've both grown up surrounded by a plethora of religions, Islam being the official religion. While tensions have, and will probably always, exist in Malaysia because of this huge melting pot of different faiths, at the same time, no one faith is more violent than the other.

Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and a host of less mainstream religious worshippers living with each other IS possible. Malaysia still standing and not being a potato-shaped hole in the sea floor is testimony to that.

Yeah, there are tons of similarities between the two religions. Many of the harsher punishments were the norm centuries ago and should not, IMHO, be used to judge the religion now.

I agree. Although I can see why they might resort to such demonstrations-- with the fiasco of the Prophet Muhammad's caricature probably still lingering in most of their minds (I don't recall if there was any closure to that problem, or if it simply faded into the background), and the demonising of their religion thanks to terrorism, and all the damn wars taking place in the Mid East; many might feel as if their voices wouldn't be heard unless they struck out in clearly visible ways.

But Muslims aren't doing their own religion any favours by reacting so drastically to this.

Then again, tensions are so high, all it takes are a couple of well-placed nudges by a couple of troublemakers to get the masses moving.

Much like my feeling about that idiotic caricature, I feel this was badly timed. That's it. Although I believe the caricature was made to purposefully create an uproar and sell papers/stories/etc., I won't speculate why the Pope chose to quote someone who was pretty much calling Islam evil.

But I do wonder if any of his office/advisors/what-have-you have any sense of good timing. -_-

I don't believe the Pope is at fault for calling Muslims evil. I think he is at fault for a terrible lack of thought in his speech.

The aforementioned comment has been grossly misunderstood by the media (I would argue misrepresented and well understood, but it's not important). His comment was from a reading in a certain section of the Bible, and it wasn't so blatant as "Muslims are evil". The man should not be castrated or represented as an intolerable person. He simply lost all sense of forethought in putting that in his speech. I'm sure there would have been other, less contentious, ways for delivering the same message.

He's doing everything to patch things up:Pope Meets With Muslim Diplomats
I hope and pray that things work out fine.

BTW, whatever did happen to the whole cartoon fiasco?

The whole speech thing was stupid,but I'm not gonna take any sides. He was quoting something that was like 100 years,the world is not like that. I dunno why people get so upset about it.

If it's from a Byzantine emperor, I think it's more likely to be about 1,000 years old.

I don't know what became of that cartoon. It probably blew over eventually as these things tend to do. I assume the same will happen with this case of the Muslims don't accept the Pope's attempts to reconcile things. In due time, this'll all be forgotten I expect.

Their Religion is really, no differant from ours, I mean we all worship the same god so, of course I'm offened, -_- well, at least alittle :sweat: I'm not Catholic. But, honestly, I don't like this new Pope, cause he seems like he lacks of speech :unsure: if you get my meaning?! ^^' I mean it seems like he doesn't think before he talks for some reason. :lol:

That's what I tried to say. He didn't have to make a speech about it when he kinda new it would cause a lot of havoc.

Well, If you don't mind me writing about what I truely think about Islamic beliefs.....

People seem to claim that the Islamic religion is peaceful. To some extent it can be, but not always. In the Muslim belief people who do not accept the religion, are enemies.

VIII.12 Cut off the fingertips of unbelievers
XLVII.4 Smite the neck of unbelievers
X.4 ; V.10 ; V.86 Severe Punishment for atheists
XXII.19-22 ; LXXII.23, XCVIII.6 Severe Punishment for non-believers
III.91 Punishing for rejecting faith
IV.140 ; VII.36 Non believers go to hell

The prophet Mohammed once said:
"A cheap rug is more valuable in a man's home than a woman"

Woman aren't exactly treated with respect in the Islamic belief. I mean, you see many woman in Iraq and such, having their faces completely cover, only to see but just eyes. They aren't even to have their faces allowed in public.

But, it really all depends on the person, and their belief to the Koran. Other's have different view points of the Koran, and the rules of it.
I'm not saying Muslim believers are bad people. I'm simply stating the rules.

Now, times have changed. Rules may have been removed, changed, whatever. Even in the Bible, rules and scripture have been changed lightly, and will more than likely changed through the times. I'm simply stating the rules of the hard, core believers that do/act out the rules of the Original Koran.

What the pope did was wrong. He should of just kept his thoughts quiet, and kept to himself. Even if people are of different religion, we have no right to criticize.

I know that it's easy to look at the Islamic faith from the outside and see that it's violent people calling themselves peaceful. But honestly, can't the same be said for Christianity (or at least Catholicism)? According to the Bible, it's okay and right in God's eyes for a man to beat his wife as if he is her father and must guide her. According to the Bible, the first woman, Eve, fell into the temptation of the serpent by eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and then proceeded to encourage Adam to do so, essentially damning all of humanity and woman symbolically being the cause of humanity's original sin. If that's not sexism, I don't know what is. According to Catholicism, a person who is so great and richeous that they could be considered a saint but is not a Catholic will go to hell for all eternity. However, someone who has been baptized yet commited homicide and confessed it, can still go to heaven. How's that for being a bit backwards?

And what about the Crusades? If you think that the select group of terrorists are violent, what about the series of wars that Pope Urban II endorsed, telling all Catholic knights to "take up the cross" and purge the holy land of all the heretics? The Crusades lasted hundreds of years and were immensely more violent and had immensely more casualties than the work of a tiny group of Islamic fundamentalists with their suicide bombings. Some of the raids from the Crusades were said to be so horrible that the city streets were filled knee-deep in blood.

And what about the Salem Witch Trials? They burned hundreds of innocent women at the stake because they believed that they followed the devil and his evil works. This was because it says in the Bible that astrologers and witches are tools of Satan used to corrupt the hearts of man, therefore being enemies of Catholics.

And what about the bombing of abortion clinics?

My point is this: you can find a lot of things that you disagree with in Islam, but that does not mean that it is any worse or anymore violent than any other religion. I used Catholicism as an example because it's generally accepted as a "peaceful" faith. Many of the things you mentioned disliking about Islam are also heavily prevalent in the Bible.

This is probably taken out of context. I'm not a Muslim, but I've read much of the translated Koran and I've visited a Mosque twice in my life. From what I know about the faith, Islam actually accepts the prophets from Christianity and Judaism (including Jesus) as being valid prophets. The main difference is that the Islamic faith teaches that Muhammad was the last of the prophets. So I do not see how those who don't accept the religion can be considered enemies according to the Koran if the traditional prophets are accepted by them.

(I'm really not trying to insult any Catholics here, I'm just trying to make a point)

All what you have said is very, true.

For the quote of Eve damning all human, they BOTH had free will. It wasn't Eve's fault, both fell. As said in older, primary books, "In Adam's sin, we all fell". Eve's not to blame for all of humanities faults.
Their's many different types of Christianities. Catholics are one.

When someone is so called "Great and richeous", who exactly is saying this? men? Lots of Christians call themselves "saved" but in the eyes of god, they could be dead wrong. The flesh may claim someone is "holy" but, no one is quote "holy" if said by men. Men like to call lots of people holy and "filled with the works of god" but, many men are only speaking by the flesh, and not by what God said.
Catholics say that if you don't believe in god the way they do, your going to hell. But, thats a different belief of Christianity.

Crusades: Thats a toughy. But, you must also keep in mind, that those were Catholics. Which, they were so called "following the word of God", and doing gods "works". But, the only reason the crusades were doing this was because they wanted possession of the land that Jesus was born and lived. But, I'm really, really weak there.... I wish I had my text book about this...

Salem Witch trials: I read about this, and it was dreadful indeed. But, those were Puritians who did this. They misjudged, and wrongly accused. Again, which is a good example of men so called "doing God's works".

As for the bombing of Abortion clinics, its actually scripture thats strongly against abortion. I really can't say much there..... I mean, I'm not for abortion, but I don't go out bombing the clinics. What men creates, will only lead to their own defeat. It all depends on how strongly the person follows the rules of the Bible, really.

I have friends from Iraq and Nigeria. They have experienced Islamic rules there, and from what they say, the Islams there are very violent people. I'm not saying that all of them are violent. I'm only telling you what my friends experienced. And, over in those countries, their are MANY Islams.

You must keep in mind, that their are Christians, and their are many others that believe in god, but worship differently, and study the Bible differently. I myself, am a Fundlementalist.(or, however you spell it) My parents were Catholics, but not anymore.

*takes a deep breath*

Starting with Eve. Yes, Eve is not entirely responsible. I haven't read the Bible in a while (and I am by no means a Christian and never have been), but didn't God condemn Eve for being tempted by the serpent when he strictly forbid her from eating from the Tree of Knowledge? Isn't that why she had the "curse of blood" and the "curse of subservience" put upon her? I could be oh so totally wrong on this, but I remember reading the Book of Genesis last summer, and it said that because Eve fell into temptation, she was damned to being lower than man or something along those lines...

The Bible is written very carefully. The way that original sin plays out is that Eve is tempted by the serpent to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, and then she tempts Adam to do the same. There is much simple symbollism here that is not hard to decipher.

Oh, yes. I know this all too well. I may not be a Christian, but I did take AP World History and scored a 5. I was using Catholicism as my example as it's the sect of Christianity that I happen to know the most about. I'm not insulting Christians, I'm just providing similar examples from the Bible and Catholic practices that you disliked in Islam.

What I meant by "great and richeous" was that... hmm. Let me provide a fictional anecdote to explain what I mean. Pretend there is a man named Bob. Bob is a great guy. He is completely selfless. He loves all people, is forgiving, is constantly donating time and money to every charity he comes across, and he is saintly in that he is so completely unconcerned with himself. He has an immense love for God and humanity. However, he hasn't accepted Jesus Christ as a personal savior. According to Catholicism, Bob will go to hell. On the other hand, there's another man named Joe. Joe is a horrible guy, but he is baptized. He beats his wife, he drinks, he womanizes. He actually ends up killing a man. He goes to a priest, and confesses the murder. According to Catholicism, Joe will eventually go to heaven. That was what I meant to say.

Yes, but my point was that the doctrines and actions of Catholics are highly comparable to those you didn't like about Islam. In actuality, the purpose and cause of the Crusades goes beyond the Pope and Catholics wanting to have the land where Jesus lived. In fact, that's almost a misconception. It's a good thing that I'm taking AP European History. :lol: Here's the story of the Crusades (if this doesn't interest you, skip the following paragraph):

In the eleventh century, the Byzantine empire suffered invasions by the Islamic seracens. The Byzantine emperor of the time called to Pope Urban II in hopes of getting help from him. Pope Urban II was indifferent to the idea spiritually. The reasons that he actually decided to ask knights to "take up the cross" are because of the Great Schism. Earlier, the Church has split into the western and eastern Church. By helping the Byzantine emperor, Pope Urban II hoped to gain politcal influence in the eastern church. Also, the knights at the time didn't have a common enemy. This was causing horrible problems because the knights were going to brutal battles with one another as they had no one else to fight. For these reason, Pope Urban II famously gave a speech, calling for the Crusades. The excuse he gave in the Speech of Clermont was that the Catholics must drive the heathens from the holy land. This was not the true reason he wanted to go to war. (If I'm wrong about this, someone please correct me, I did this all out of memory)

But the Bible actually says that witches are followers of Satan. Therefore, aren't they actually doing God's work by purging the Earth of Satan's tools?

Just for future reference, those who follow Islam (the name for the faith) are called Muslims (those who follow the faith).

You can't really blame Islam for the actions of their followers. It's fundamentalism that is to blame. As you've been saying, people misjudge what is considered as God's work. The same goes for the leaders of these countries. They may believe that they are following the word of Allah, but they are actually being slaves to Dogma which misleads them to do the very thing that the Koran preaches against.

I know that I sound like I'm contradicting myself, so let me try to clarify this. I do not believe that Catholicism is a violent faith. What I'm trying to illustrate to you, GIP, is why you could view Islam is a violent faith. The actions of the people and certain excerpts from their holy text can be misconstrued to say that the faith itself is violent. This is often not the case. It's just the singular actions of some people who happen to follow the faith that make the faith itself seem violent. I've been just showing you how, if using your standards, Catholicism could also be considered violent if not more so.

Good post, by the way, GIP. ^_^

[Edit]:

*cackles*

Edit : Argh! Sadhana you posted at the same time as me! :lmao:

*is a 100% purebred Catholic* :P

Eh, for some reason I'm not offended by all the Catholicism speak in this thread because I myself don't believe in some of the rules of the Church. I'm going to hell anyway, but I don't believe that people will go to Hell just because they don't follow something that doesn't seem right to them. If God is so great and loving, He wouldn't damn people to hell because they were gay or didn't beat their wives, or didn't go to church 4 times a day or whatever.

So are you saying that this is a forgivable act because they wanted the land? It's alright, oh, because they're Catholics who are extremist anyways, so oh yeah, let them do as they please! Oh, the land might be theirs, let them kill for it! That's not violent, oh no, of course not!
Just because they use God as their excuse doesn't make their actions justifiable. It's the same with the Muslim terrorists. If you follow what you said, the Muslims were also acting under the 'word of God'. Does that make them right, then?
No excuse is acceptable for innocent killings. Same goes both ways.

Again, does it make it acceptable because it was the Puritans? No, it doesn't. You say they were misjudged and wrongly accused (and I have no idea because I've never studied this) but in that case, can't the same be applied to the Muslims? They've always been condemned as violent, shady people - isn't that a case of misjudgement as well? If you push and push too hard, someday it will burst.
I don't see how you can defend the Crusaders and the Puritans and at the same time condemn the Muslims. It's outrageous.

I don't read the Bible, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't tell people to go out bombing abortion clinics. In most cases, it's a point of people misinterpreting what is said in Holy scriptures, because in the end, it is just a case of interpretation.

Some women do it out of their own will. I have friends who are covered up in head to toe and nobody forced them into it. It's merely another part of their belief that they choose to believe in. I don't think it should be constituted as berating of women. Even the Virgin Mary was pretty covered up, no?
Don't trust everything you see in the media. Lots of propaganda is twisted around to form a different picture than what it originally is.

Agreed. I've seen this living in a Muslim country, other religions are in no way enemies at all. That's completely absurd. There are lots of similarities between all the religions. Sometimes I believe that the original religion was one and the same, and over time and evolution, it just spread out into different branches.

I do think that people should step back and look at the big picture - problem with people as a whole, and not by religion i.e. Muslims / Catholics etc. If only we could look at those terrorists and say, "Oh those people, geez!" instead of "Oh those darned Muslims, geez!" then the world would maybe, just maybe, be a better place.

Eve was not the only one who let mankind fall. Eve was cursed and so was Adam. Both partook of eating from the tree. Anyone who says that Eve solely was responsible for the fall of mankind is incorrect. God is no respector of persons as it says in the book of Romans.
I'm sorry if I still didn't answer the Eve and Adam question....I'm not very knowledged about the Bible ( I sit in church everyday Sunday, and what have I learned?)

The Bob and Joe story: Bob: Even if Bob did do good deeds, and dedicated his life to the good of mankind, and never did anything wrong in his life, but didn't accept god in his heart and wasn't saved in God's name, he will go to hell according to the Bible. Someone can do as many good things as they could, but they wouldn't get him to heaven.
Joe: True, it was very wrong of Joe to do all those sinful acts, but if he simply confessed about the murder, he wouldn't just go to heaven. He would have to accept god in his heart, and stop his sinful acts. He would have to ask god to forgive him, and help him. You can't just go heaven by saying "oh, I did so and so, but I was forgiven, so I'm going to heaven." Thats incorrect. The only way to get to heaven is to follow god's word, and become saved. According to the Bible, that is.

And, as for the crusades.... You got me there. I havn't studied up on the Crusades in a few years..... I'm sorry. But, what the Catholics did was wrong.

Salem Witch trials: True, it does say in the bible witchcraft is work of Satan, and what the Puritans did was wrong indeed. I read a book about it, and they had last words of what some of the woman said. One was "God knows I'm innocent." Men may think someone is wicked, but the true judgement is in Gods eyes.
They claimed they were following the Bible by killing innocent woman, which shows you that man will take the lives of people, and simply slap the word "God" on their evil plots to cover it up.


Yin-chan:

What the Catholics did was wrong, and I simply imply that back then, when they wanted something done, they simple put God in there plots to try and convince people to join their war. The Catholics thought they were the supreme rulers of Europe, so they did whatever they pleased, and fights for Church control and politics raged. You can't tell me that is what god would of wanted. Which is why Men do many wicked things, and will take pretty much any measurements to get the job done. I wasn't defending the Crusades or Puritans. What they both did was terrible. I'm sorry If I offended you.
And, for the Puritans, what I meant was that they misjudged and falsely accused innocent woman, and that wasn't right. As I said to Sadhana, they "claimed" to be doing gods "works", but who are they to judge? Isn't it God's job to true judge someone? Example: Men claim someone is saved. Well, its not men to say who's saved and who's not. Its god who will truely say that.

And, it is actually scripture thats strongly against abortion. It says it so in the Bible. I'm not sure where, but I've heard my father tell me, so I'd have to ask him.
I'm not for abortion, but I don't bomb the clinics. What men creates will only lead to mens destruction.

I'm sorry if I offended you Yin... I didn't mean too.... :cry: I'm trying to debate, but I'm not very smart....

*spins around and faints* :dizzy:

I know that Eve isn't solely responsible, otherwise men would be born without the original sin. I don't have a copy of the Bible, but I am pretty sure that it says after they are banished from the Garden of Eden, God condemned woman to subserviance (or something like that) because she disobeyed God's command.

That's exactly my point. A great man like Bob would go to hell according to the Bible. I brought this up because you mentioned disliking Islam for:

Isn't being sent to hell for not accepting Christ a pretty harsh punishment, even if you're a wonderful person? Isn't it a "punishment for rejecting the faith"?

Actually, according to Catholicism, anyone who is baptized will go to heaven eventually unless they commit a mortal sin that they do not confess.

Regarding the Crusades and the Salem Witch Trials: This is precisely my point. These were examples of men using Catholicism to commit horrible, violent acts. The same happens with Islam sometimes. It's not the faith that is to blame in these situations, it's the followers who are assuming they are acting in God's will.

Hush, yes you are. :hug:

I think the perceived difference between Crusaders and Jyhadists is the following.

Crusaders:Crusaders were Knights in Shining Armor, wearing white tabards with Red Crosses. They had holy orders of Knights called the Templars. Templars are the RL Basis of Paladins. Paladins, as our D&D players know, are Holy Knights garunteed to be Lawful Good and stand up with sword and shield for everything right in the world. In Final Fantasy, you see guys like FF4's Cecil running around smiting evil with his holy sword in the name of righteousness. There's several other 'Holy Knights' or 'Paladins' in other RPG genres. And they're always about the holiest type of warrior you can have. And so, for the most part, thanks to fiction and role playing games, Crusaders have become noble heroes smiting evil. They had the honor and the nobility and the code of chivalry backing them up. In short, Crusaders might as well be King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. You also see Crusaders showing up in Robin Hood as the noble Richard the Lionhearted coming in to take over after Robin Hood owns the badguys. In everything but history books, the Crusaders always get the classification of 'good guys.' And for most part, that sticks.

Jyhadists:Those are the guys you see on the news blowing American troops up and sending them home in flag draped coffins in the name of their god who inspired Osama to blow up the twin towers on 9/11. Nothing romantic or heroic about that. It's just senseless killing.

Mind, this is just the perceived difference. Not an actual difference. The real Crusades were as bloody as advertised. Though I've heard some people say the war in Iraq is simply the last version of the Crusades. Trying to finish a war some people think should've been finished off 1000 years ago to save us the trouble of dealing with suicide bombers in the present.

oh my god, too many long posts! :lmao:

Oh no, I'm not offended at all, GIP! O_O Perhaps I came across a little aggresive, but that's how I'm like when I debate. xD Sorry!
And whatchatalkingbout, you're a good debater with good posts, so don't say you're not smart. Mod orders! :P

I agree with your point there. In my view, I've always seen it as a little ridiculous that a good person should be sent to Hell just because he doesn't follow a certain religion. Which makes me wonder about free-thinkers and where they go when they die...

That's right, and that's the same as the terrorists who bombed 9/11. Humans committing crimes in the name of God does not make it right.

I just want to point out the fact that Catholics or Christians that have committed acts just as bloody in the past do not face as much discrimination, damnation and prejudicism as the Muslims nowadays. I guess people could argue it's because the vast majority of America's population - the most powerful nation - is Christian. If it had been reversed, and America were Muslim whereas the Jihadist were Christian, how would the situation be now? Most likely the ones being condemned would be the Christians.

Thanks for the definitions between the Crusaders and Jihadist, Alex! Again, an example of how acts of violence by Christians are masked with nobility and glorified, whereas the Muslims are snided upon.

While part of the reason that Pope Urban II decided to launch the crusades was to gain favour in the east, it was also a defensive manoeuvre against the Muslim invaders. By the time the first crusade was launched in the late 11th century, Islam had been around for a few centuries. In that time, it had conquered all the Christian settlements, kingdoms and cities in northern Africa and the Middle East. Muslim Caliphs and such had invaded all of the Iberian Peninsula some centuries earlier and were being repelled from there, their advance having been stopped by Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours in where is modern-day France. From their position in modern-day Turkey, the Muslims had every intention of advancing west, further into Europe. The First Crusade and most of the other ones were launched to stop Muslim expansion.

As interesting as this history is (and it's really interesting! I was reading some of it just last night :P), the larger issue at hand is about the teachings in the faiths. Do the Qur'an and the Hadeeth teach violence? We know Islam was a religion that was born in war and initially (for the first few centuries) spread in war. But was this kind of war antithetical to the faith? Was it neutral to the faith? Was it supported and/or caused by the faith? Something else?

And on the other side, do the Bible and, to a lesser extent, the writings of the early, post-Apostolic Christians teach violence and war? Christianity was born of a crucifixion, resurrection and ascension it was spread (almost) entirely by peaceful means for its first few centuries. Was this initial spreading antithetical to the faith? Does the faith more support war and spreading itself through war than through peaceful means? Is war neutral to the faith? Is it supported and/or caused by the faith? Something else?

I think these are better questions to ask. All religions aren't created equal. All religions don't teach the same things. Shariah Law, which is usually regarded as cruel by Christians and modern post-Christian (ie, Western) secularists alike, has no parallel in Christianity, either in the form of a formal code of law or in the restrictions it generally enforces. This is one of the many differences between Christianity and Islam. Are their attitudes towards war also different?

Well, Christianity had its roots started in blood too. The difference is, it was started by being persecuted by the Romans. So it was THEIR blood being spilled. The early Christians were Lion food, whipped, beheaded, shot with arrows, what have you. And yet their numbers kept growing.

It wasn't till Emporer Constantine came along and got a vision saying 'In this sign, conquer' that Christians started taking up shiny swords to smite the 'bad guys'. Or at least those who believed different things.

However, the core basis of Christianity was what Jesus actually said...all of which was peaceful to the extreme (turn the other cheek), and the early martyrs. I don't know, exactly, how Constantine got the idea of 'We'll kick ass for the Lord!', but that's when it started going astray.

By contrast, the predecessors to Christianity, Judaism, were shown to kick ass all the time in the Old Testament. The Jews went to the 'promised land' and kicked the crap out of anyone who happened to be living there at the time to make it theirs. And God himself sometimes took a hand, directly or not, in the fighting.

Yeah, Jesus' message was primarily about love and implicitly about peace by him not launching a war deposing the Roman authorities as many Jews back then thought the Messiah would do. But that doesn't mean that he never talks about war, or that he only speaks about it negatively. For example he says several times that he came to bring war, rather than peace, to turn family member against family member and such. He also at one point told his disciples to sell their garments to buy a sword if they don't have one [Luke 22: 36].

Yet all of these things were clearly not about waging actual physical warfare, and we can suppose that the conduct of the first Christians shows that they understood this very well. The war between siblings and Jesus' coming to bring war rather than peace seem to be in reference to spiritual warfare rather than physical warfare. This is echoed by the Apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians 10 : 3 - 6 and Ephesians 6: 12 - 13.

I'm saying all this just to show that it isn't best to characterise Jesus in a wholly gentle and mild manner as many people these days tend to do. He used a lot of fighting words from time to time, even if actual fighting for him was restricted to the spiritual. And even then, he doesn't ever actually condemn all physical war.