Christianity is more peaceful and tolerant than Islam
Debate Rounds (3)
1. Most Muslim countries are failed states while primarily Christian nations are wealthy and prosperous
2. Islam currently has the most extremists of any religion with hundreds of Islamic terrorist groups killing innocent civilians every day in the name of Allah. While it is true that Christian terrorist groups exist, they are very small compared to their muslim counterparts and their acts of terror are much less severe and find little to no backing from the Bible.
3. Several hundred Christian charities exist for non Christians and they provide aid and relief for displaced muslims while Islam does not operate a single charity for international aid. Christian Aid workers are also often at risk for kidnapping from islamic terrorists for helping in those countries
4. When Christians live in Muslim countries, they are constantly persecuted and are denied churches and houses of worship. When Muslims come to Christian countries, they are accepted as useful members of society and are allowed to gather and build mosques freely.
5. Christians in Muslim countries are killed for peacefully expressing their desire for equality. Muslims in Christian countries violently protest and demand that the government and schools change to fit their needs, claiming racism whenever they are criticized for their behavior.
6. Sharia law is considered higher than constitutional law in almost all Muslim countries. Sharia law promotes oppression, veiling of women, mandatory beards, religious police and a tax for non muslims. Christianity has no concept of religious law and separates church and state. with the exception of canon law, which only applies to clergy and is much less restricting than sharia.
there are also several differences between the patrons of Islam (Muhammed) and Christianity (Jesus Christ).
1. Muhammed was a bandit and a warrior while Jesus was a preacher and a carpenter
2. Muhammed preached violence and demanded bodyguards while Jesus preached peace and chastised anyone who attempted to defend him with force
3. Muhammed took 12 wives and claimed revelations from god to justify his sex harems and polygamy. Jesus was celibate and never looked upon a woman in a lustful way
4. Muhammed married a 9 year old girl, fondled her and BATHED with her. Jesus ... well... didn't do that.
5. Muhammed spread his message through hate and war, killing anyone who wouldn't convert and taxing non muslims. Jesus spread his message through peace and baptism, using the gospel to bring people to god.
6. Early Muslims persecuted and killed non Muslims. Early Christians lived in constant persecution from the Roman government.
7. Jesus was said to do many miracles, with several eye witnesses bearing testament to his divinity while Muhammed was never able to do one miraculous thing in his life.
8. Muhammed: Demanded others die for him
Jesus: Suffered one of the most agonizing death for the sake of Humanity.
9. Jesus = most praised spiritual leader. Muhammed = most criticized spiritual leader.
I had to.
Now, Christianity is not more peaceful than Islam. On point one, the affirmative posits that most Muslim countries are failed states. This is true by number of countries, but not by population of Muslims living in said countries, all "failed states" as you call them, predominantly in the Middle East, have more problems than Islam contributing to their failures, the situation with Israel occupying Palestine for example.
Point two is factually invalid, the bible condones all sorts of violence, the stoning of women who have sex before marriage, slavery, and that doesn't even start to account for the multiple genocides, plagues and downright unpleasantness of Yahweh in the Old Testament. The bible even condones eternal fire for thought crimes, to argue that it is nonviolent to punish people for eternity for having the wrong belief is illogical, it is exactly what the radicals from all religions hold to.
Charity is not specific to religious organizations, for example, Amnesty International, arguably the best charity, is adamantly secular. I concede that the bible promotes this in the New Testament, but it is not logically sound to say that good people do good things because the bible tells them to. As you stated, "Christian" nations are statistically wealthier, and have more disposable income to donate to charities, an American or Australian citizen doesn't have to worry about bombs dropping in the night, it makes it much easier to help other people.
The religious freedom clauses you speak of were instituted by people who believed in secular society, the freedoms you speak of are not there in African Christian nations, such as Uganda, where American Christian Evangelicals, converted the population, and now they kill Muslims, gays and basically anyone else they can find a justification for in the bible.
I have no real contest to point 5, as I think I covered it in my previous argument.
Sharia is not followed by the 200 million Indonesians, nor does it hold weight in Malaysia, the two highest Islamic populated countries, yes Sharia is oppressive, but so are the premises of the Old Testament, and a lot of the New, the reason Christianity is in the "progressive" state it is now is because after the Crusades and the Inquisition, society realized the pervasive influence of the Church and sought to prevent such atrocities in the future, thus secularism was born.
I refuse to debate about the differences between Jesus and Muhammad, I don't think either existed, nor do I think that either of them can be looked to for moral guidance, they are caricatures of different times, Islam as an offshoot of Judaism happened as a reaction to the growth of Christianity and its influence in the Middle East pre-Crusades.
I will make one point regarding your assertions about killing in the name of "Christianity". The premise of the New Testament is "don't kill for God anymore, he'll deal with everyone who doesn't believe, and He will deal with them for eternity" that is pretty messed up as a message to send to non believers. On the other hand, can you disregard all the killing King David did? Samson? Even Jesus said to trade your robes for a sword when it is time to fight for God.
(figured it was only fair to keep the chain going)
While I respect my opponents views as valid opinions, there are several errors and questionable aspects of his Rebuttal.
My opponent claimed that the Bible condones violence just as much as the Koran. While it is true that the Bible contains some violence, when compared to Koranic violence and acceptance of violence, The few passages of violence in the bible are vastly overshadowed by hundreds of verses where Muhammed, the patron of Islam, clearly condones violence against ALL nonbelievers. The Bible however, only condoned violence in the old testament against specific tribes that were threatening to destroy the early Jewish faith. Another point to consider is that nearly all violence in the Bible is located in the Old testament, before the advent of christ and the christian message. Old testament violence was also only used to DEFEND the Jewish race from extinction and they never fought wars of conquest as the Muslims did. the verses condoning violence in the old testament also do not apply to christians because when Christ came to earth, he made a NEW covenant with humanity abolishing mosaic law and clearly stated that the things forbidden by it, ( shellfish, pork, working on the sabbath etc.) no longer applied. All violence in the bible is in the Old testament, or the torah, so if you have a problem with Mosaic law and violence in the bible, take it up with the Jews. The old testament only exists as a history and a background for christ, as it contains many prophecies for his coming, and is not meant to be looked to for moral guidance but rather to understand the new testament better.
On the fact that there are hundreds of Christian charities for no believers and no such muslim charities, my opponent stated that quote "Charity is not specific to religious organizations, for example, Amnesty International, arguably the best charity, is adamantly secular." This argument, while logically sound and for the most part true, does not pertain whatsoever to the issue. Charity is not specific to religion, but there are religious charities that exist. Christianity operates hundreds of charities for Christians and non believers alike. (Salvation Army, Coptic Orphans, Samaratains purse, etc.) But I never claimed that charity was specific to religion. My opponent also stated that muslim charities do not exist because the countries there are so war torn and impoverished, they can give nothing. This assumption is true only for some Middle eastern countries that are primarily muslim, and many of those countries could afford at least ONE charity, but choose not to. The simple fact is that there are muslims in western and prosperous countries who could easily start Islamic Charities there. In fact, 60% of Muslims live OUTSIDE the arab world. With this staggering statistic, one would assume that the muslims living in western nations would be very able and willing to create charities, however, there are none. This means that it is not a lack of stability that keeps muslims from starting charities, but the nature of the religion itself.
My opponent argued that the only reason America and western nations have religous freedom is because they are wealthy and they have adopted secularism and that African Chrsitian nations, namely Uganda, persecute Muslims and kill them just as Muslims kill Christians in the middle east. I was curious as to whether or not this argument was true in reality and did a quick google search about religious freedom in Uganda. I also looked for christian terrorist groups operating in Uganda that killed the minority groups he mentioned. What I found however, was quite the opposite of what my opponent stated. In fact when I searched "religious persecution in Uganda" expecting to find these extreme christians I could not find a SINGLE article about the alleged christian extremists that my opponent claimed to exist. All articles I found were about the Muslim minority demanding the Ugandan government and education change and killing those who converted to christianity. This either means that my opponent was terribly misinformed or fabricating statistics to justify his argument. The fact is that even in impoverished Christian countries, the Ugandan government does not persecute or restrict the 12 percent minority of Muslims despite war and poverty. Even in circumstances much like Muslim countries. Christians exercise the love and respect taught to them by the bible.
as a response to my opponents rebuttal of sharia law, I clearly stated that NEARLY ALL muslim countries consider islamic sharia as the supreme law. My opponent immediately rushed to the defense of Indonesia and malaysia, who do not exercise such law. As I said, most, but not all Muslim countries exercise sharia, making his rebuttal collapse under its own weight.
The largest flaw in my opponents Rebuttal however, is that he refused to comment on the differences between Jesus and Mohammed, claiming that he does not believe that either exists. Almost all scholars and historians, most of them atheists, confirm the existence of both Jesus AND Muhammed as real people. The question isn't whether or not they exist but whether their messages are the true word of god or not. He also claimed that neither can be looked to for moral guidance. This claim is incredibly erred for one simple reason. Jesus and Mohammed both started their respective religions, so they are the ULTIMATE people to look to for moral guidance. So it is obvious that to understand the religion, it is not only important but critical to compare the violence and hatred preached by Mohammed and the love and peace preached by Jesus Christ as they formed the bedrock of the religion and all its future dealings. Either my opponent was unwilling to debate Jesus vs Mohammed because he could not refute the overwhelming superiority of Jesus's message, or he has not properly educated himself on the topic. (I dont mean any of this in an insulting way, its a valid debate tactic)
On my opponents last point, he took the Christian message grotesquely out of context assuming that when god says he will "deal" with the non believers, he will automaticlly use violence. This is not the case. When we look at the chapter more carefully, Jesus says not to worry about converting hardened non believers because God will "Deal" with them by opening their eyes and bringing them to the Light of Christ.
Id also like to take this opportunity to raise a few points about the Bible vs the Koran
1. The word "Love" is located almost twice as often as it is in the Koran, appearing in an impressive 2 percent of all verses in the bible.
2. The words "Slave" and "enemy" are used in the Koran more than twice as often as it is in the bible.
3. The Koran progresses from peace to violence while the Bible progresses from violence to peace
4. The Koran contains exactly 6,666 verses, which was the christian mark of satan and the antichrist several hundred years before the koran was written. (Not really an argument, just something to consider)
I didn't have the right country, well, maybe I did, but Boku Haram obviously is much worse than anything else going on, not because of Islam, but because they are radicals, for point of argument, that particular group kills and pillages indiscriminately for the most part, killing basically everyone they encounter. Here is a link to an article about the Central African Republic however.
" Almost all scholars and historians, most of them atheists, confirm the existence of both Jesus AND Muhammed as real people. " The counter to that is that while there is relative consensus on the existence of a man named Jesus, that number goes down when you ask how many believe he is God. The same is true for Muhammad, he probably existed, but Michael the angel didn't speak to him in a cave, or at least, the evidence supports that Michael didn't tell Muhammad the things he did, but Muhammad was rallying his people to fight for their lands, but like David did. The end goal can be described as peaceful if you look at it from the context of a believer, it's fine because paradise, basically.
mikethedebater forfeited this round.
Nathan_Pulbrook forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||2|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct was even and S/G was even. Pro's arguments were numerous and better supported with reason. Con's rebuttals were not very strong. Con dropped a few arguments, such as Sharia Law, and didn't address some of Pro's additional arguments from Round #2, i.e. comparative points between the Bible and Koran. Arguments to Pro. Con used the only source, so Sources to Con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.