godelian wrote: ↑Thu Apr 17, 2025 1:30 am
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 17, 2025 1:20 am
Is that true about Islam? And if so, should no religion endorse violence under any circumstances?
That would be
contradictory because the enforcement of societal law and order ultimately always rests on violence.
But then again,
inconsistency and contradictions are the hallmark of Christian doctrine.
For example, on the one hand Christians somewhat pay lip service to monotheism and the principle that there is just one God, but on the other side they worship the fake divinity of a man and his single mother.
Christianity and logic are like water and fire.
Therefore, don't ask Christians to logically explain their position on the use of force.
There simply is no logic in the Christian madness.
When Martin Luther argued that,
if you can show me through scripture and reason that I am mistaken, I will retract what I have written, the prosecutor of the Church responded,
But dear Martin, the Bible itself is the arsenal whence each heresiarch from the past has drawn his deceptive arguments.
Again, don't use logic ("scripture and reason") on Christians, because it won't work.
"AI Assisted Response"
["]
Response-A {Godelian} unfortunately reads more like a polemic than a reasoned answer, relying on ridicule rather than respectful engagement with the actual question. Let’s step back and unpack this properly:
Violence and Religious Justification
The original question makes an important distinction: Islam doesn't preach violence indiscriminately, but permits it under defined theological and political circumstances. This is accurate. Traditional Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) includes a comprehensive system for regulating violence: laws of jihad, enforcement of hudud punishments, and doctrines that permit coercion for divine or communal ends. Violence is not merely reactionary but, in many cases, theologically instrumental.
Christianity, by contrast, is based on an ethic that emphasizes radical nonviolence, especially in the New Testament. Teachings like "turn the other cheek," "love your enemies," and the model of Christ's own non-retaliatory suffering form a moral trajectory that restrains evil through internal transformation rather than external force.
Framing the Core Thesis Equation – A Comparative View
This contrast between Islam and Christianity can be captured through what I call the Core Thesis Equation of each tradition:
For Islam, the equation reflects a structural persistence of evil due to ideological rigidity:
Islamic Ideological Persistence of Evil (I.I.P.E.) =
(Total Moral Theocracy + Doctrine of Immutability + Covenant Theology + Fasads [corruption accusations] + Superiority Complex) – (Critical Thinking + Reformist Minority)
In other words, Islam tends toward ideological stasis. The fusion of political power with religious doctrine (TMT), the belief that its core laws are unchangeable, and the embedded claim of superiority over other belief systems create a persistent structure where violence—both theological and social—can be justified perpetually. Reformist voices exist but are marginal, often suppressed or discredited within the tradition.
In contrast, Christianity’s Core Moral Equation encourages a movement away from violence and evil:
Christian Restraint of Evil =
(Ethic of Forgiveness + Self-Sacrifice + Nonviolence Idealism + Individual Moral Accountability) – (Political Theocracy + Legalistic Rituals)
Christianity—especially in its post-Constantinian and Protestant expressions—tends to decentralize religious authority, shift moral responsibility to the conscience, and emphasize the inner life over outward coercion. Its moral arc bends toward restraint rather than dominance.
Rebutting the Misrepresentation of Christianity
The accusation that Christians “worship a man and his single mother” is a gross mischaracterization. Christian doctrine affirms the divinity of Christ, but this is embedded in a rich theological framework (e.g., the doctrine of the Trinity) developed over centuries. Not all Christians “worship Mary,” and even where veneration exists (e.g., Catholicism), it is sharply distinguished from the worship due to God.
Interestingly, similar criticisms have been made against Islam—such as claims of excessive veneration of Muhammad, or the ritualized kissing of the Black Stone at the Kaaba. If the accusation of shirk (idolatry) is fair against Christians, it must be consistently applied and examined within Islam too.
On Law, Logic, and Scripture
The argument that “violence undergirds all law” is a philosophical overreach. While the state may ultimately rely on enforcement, that’s a far cry from sanctifying violence as divine will. What makes religious violence especially problematic is its insulation from critique—what is divinely sanctioned becomes unquestionable. In Christianity, appeals to reason and scripture (as seen with Martin Luther) opened up reform. In Islam, the Doctrine of Immutability severely constrains reform efforts, again contributing to I.I.P.E.
On Logic and Scripture
The quote about Martin Luther is cherry-picked and misused. Luther’s insistence on scripture and reason as the basis for belief was revolutionary and helped break the Church's monopolistic hold on truth. Yes, scripture can be interpreted to support various views—but that reflects the interpreter, not the fault of scripture per se. This applies equally to the Qur’an, the Bible, or any religious text.
Conclusion
To summarize:
–
Islam’s theological structure allows for the perpetuation of violence under divine authority.
–
Christianity’s structure pushes toward the restraint of violence through spiritual internalization and personal accountability.
– ResponseA, rather than clarifying this vital distinction, devolves into hostile generalizations and theological distortion. It contributes little to understanding and avoids the critical moral question: Should any religion normalize violence, even if conditionally?
If we are to judge religions not by isolated verses but by their overall trajectory—by what they systemically produce in moral terms—then the comparison is not difficult to make. One restrains evil; the other, under its current
core equation, perpetuates it.["]
[Mathee] 15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.
The empirical evidence above:
>
>47,000 incidents with fatalities committed by Islamists in the name of God, since 911.
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/