Rhian, you're making a good point about the darkness in Christianity, but you seem to be making it without the context of the First and Second Testaments. I think you're also reading the Bible too literally. The Old Testament can be very confronting, but the New Testament is a counterpoint to it which totally transforms it.

The Bible can really only sensibly be read as an evolving understanding of God and his will. It would be a great surprise to me if the God of the New Testament could have sprung to life 2,000 years earlier in the context of the exile in Egypt. The intellectual and cultural equipment weren't available. So the God of the Old Testament has a lot in common with the gods around him. Over time he changes. A Christian can't be authentic, and operate on Old Testament mores, because they have been superseded. Christ preaches the God of love. BTW, I think you're taking the swords comments out of context. He didn't say, take the sword to each other - he was foretelling conflict.

That is the key to the argument for me. The Islamic version of God and religion hasn't evolved much, if at all. So a Muslim can be authentic and subscribe to a version of God that condones violence. The Crusades were an abberation in a way that suicide bombers are not.

Graham – I agree with much of what you say. I don’t take the bible literally, but was using these passages as examples of the kinds of texts that could be thrown at Christianity in much the same way that some posters in these forums select texts from the Koran to show that Islam is violent. I also agree that, in the “sword” quote, Jesus was foretelling conflict, not advocating it. But these texts have been used to justify engagement in conflict by Christians and sometimes justify violence in the name of Christianity, which was the point I was trying to make (not that they actually do prove that Christianity is, or should be, violent).

And while I don’t take the bible literally I do take it seriously –we can tend to gloss over these difficult passages, or dismiss them too readily as part of the dark “old” testament that is superseded by the loving and forgiving “new” testament. In fact there are huge continuities between the Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament, and in some respects the new is starker and more judgemental than the old – the concepts of hell and eternal damnation, for example, are almost entirely absent from the Hebrew Scriptures.

There’s much to be said for the idea that Christianity has evolved in a way that Islam hasn’t, but Islam is as complex and multifaceted as Christianity, and it’s dangerous to over-generalise – witness Irfan’s consistently tolerant, humane and dignified contributions to OLO, and the shrill and vicious comments he often attracts.

The crusades are not consistent with my understanding of Christianity, either, but the sad fact is that history is full of appalling acts of cruelty committed by Christians and in the name of Christianity. Whether our record on this is better or worse than Islam seems to me impossible and pointless to calculate.

Baumeister is worth reading on how the highest ideals can sometimes lead to the worst behaviours.

... here's a link to a summary article on Baumeister's book

http://homepages.which.net/~radical.faith/reviews/baumeister1.htm

Don't have a problem with the idea that high ideals can lead people to do dreadful things, but I do have a problem with the proposition that there is some sort of equivalence between Islam and Christianity. While we're advertising off-site links you might want to look at my blog post on Pope Benedict's speech at Regensburg University http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/001639.html.

Rhian,

I believe that you misunderstood me and I am not doubting your scriptures.

I was just saying that you were reading in too much thought into the comments of that Anglican article writer. You were taking his clueless comments and relating them to an actual argument about the complexity of religion. I suspect that you are more intellectually gifted than he but you are assuming he is of a similar mind.

I reserve the right to disagree upon a careful analysis of your comments but did not intend to do so in that post and I certainly did not question your integrity. If I understand you correctly religions are complex and people can read in all manner of things. I agree with that proposition. Having said that I believe some interpretations have more validity.

Id be quite happy to allow Muslim terrorists the opportunity to push down buildings with their bare hands or flee to another country...

I wouldn't be chasing them though.
So if God decided to flood the airport that'd be ok with me.