Which religion is worse for killing, Christianity or Islam

Originally posted by googlefudge
Go join them if you like them so much. do they pay you for PR?

You are talking about sub-sets of societies not whole nations, In which case you could
trivially easily find other (and non-religious) groups that are equally (if not more) peaceful.

However if you are talking about nations then the Amish and Hutterites live in and are
protected by cussing the moral values and teachings of the religions, and not the people following them.

In terms of the religion (as espoused in the relevant holy books before 'interpretation'😉 they are about par, Sharia law being pretty similar to Mosaic law, and both espousing slavery and genocide.

*Helping Runaway Slaves in the Old Testament*

Deuteronomy 23:15-16 - "You shall not deliver to his master the slave who has escaped from his master to you:

He shall dwell with you, [even] in your midst, in the place which he chooses among your towns, wherever he pleases; you shall not oppress him."

Why did Moses write this law concerning run away slaves if the promotion of slavery was the intention of God ?

At least there was no such provision in the American Southern States. Check Fugitive Slave Law which legally required runaway slaves to be returned to their masters.

Compare the instruction of Deut. 23:15-16 with the ancient near eastern Code of Hammurabi. Hammurabi even demanded the death penalty for those helping runaway slaves.

In the Lipit-Ishtar, Eshunna and Hittite laws FINES were exacted for sheltering fugitive slaves.

*Anti-Kidnapping Laws of the Old Testament*

Exodus 21:16 - "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death."

If slavery is the intention of the Mosiac Law, why was there a death penalty upon those who kidnap men ?

Would a biblical passage such as Exodus 21:16 encourage or discourage the Atlantic Slave Trade and its kidnapping of millions of Africans into slavery ?

Deuteronomy 24:7 (Compare 1 Timothy 1:10) - "If a man is caught kidnapping any of his countrymen of the sons of Israel, and he deals with him violently or sells him, then that thief shall die; so you shall purge the evil from among you. "

It seems not at all so easy to just generalize as googlefudge has done, that the Holy Bible espouses slavery. Googlefudge says, before interpreting, it does. I suppose he means you are not allowed to consider context and specifics, not if it interferes with his blanket statement.

Does the Old Testament of the Bible represent any social improvement in its specifics over a widespread custom of slavery ? I say definitely YES.

I would not say that the Old Testament promoted slavery. But the laws of Moses accomodated for its social existence with moral improvements. Otherwise, like Hammurabi the runaway slave would have been put to death and kidnapping would have not been prohibited among the covenant people.

Originally posted by jaywill
I would not say that the Old Testament promoted slavery. But the laws of Moses accomodated for its social existence with moral improvements.

Why didn't Moses outlaw slavery? Why didn't God punish Moses for not outlawing slavery?

Originally posted by FMF
Why didn't Moses outlaw slavery? Why didn't God punish Moses for not outlawing slavery?

Why didn't Moses outlaw slavery? Why didn't God punish Moses for not outlawing slavery?

I think I would consider some of these injunctions as essentially doing that to a degree. You do not consider the putting to death of the kidnapper a punishment ?


You don't consider the command to offer safe harbor to the runaway slave as essentially an outlaw of at least the harsh slavery that would cause one to flee for his life ?

What you are looking for is there in part. It seems to be moving in that direction. Paul said that the Law of Moses was a "schoolmaster" leading the people to grace of the New Testament.

If I conclude that some gradual education was going on in the Mosiac Law I would assume that by gradual and successive levels it might have intended to move in that direction.

Slavery of different kinds was a social reality among ancient peoples. Debt Servitude is called "slavery" too. Do you see any moral improvement built into the laws ?

If you had been a slave would you have prefered to be one under the Code of Hammurabi or under the Law of Moses ? If I HAD to choose, I would rather be able to run away without being executed, as Moses prescribed. Its an improvement, I think.

Now, I will not find and quote the passages now. But God had told the Israelites on one hand that IF they followed closely His laws there would BE no poverty among them or a need for debt servitude (slavery).

1.) God made some provision for some customery cultural practices of the day. But He did so with some moral improvements.

2.) God assured that there would be no poverty among them or associated servitude, if they fully followed His laws with their blessings.

Originally posted by jaywill
1.) God made some provision for some customery cultural practices of the day. But He did so with some moral improvements.

2.) God assured that there would be no poverty among them or associated servitude, if they fully followed His laws with their blessings.

So Moses didn't outlaw slavery because it was "customary"? And God didn't punish Moses for not outlawing slavery because it was "customary"?

Originally posted by jaywill
Slavery of different kinds was a social reality among ancient peoples. Debt Servitude is called "slavery" too. Do you see any moral improvement built into the laws ?

Why didn't God forbid it? Why didn't God punish those who practised it?

Originally posted by jaywill
I think I would consider some of these injunctions as essentially doing that to a degree. You do not consider the putting to death of the kidnapper a punishment ? You don't consider the command to offer safe harbor to the runaway slave as essentially an outlaw of at least the harsh slavery that would cause one to flee for his life ?

It would seem that if someone kidnapped a Jew then the kidnapper would be punished by death. But why didn't God just outlaw slavery?

Originally posted by jaywill
If I conclude that some gradual education was going on in the Mosiac Law I would assume that by gradual and successive levels it might have intended to move in that direction.

Why would the "education" about the utter abomination of slavery need to be "gradual"? Why wasn't it included in an "Eleven Commandments"?

Originally posted by FMF
So Moses didn't outlaw slavery because it was "customary"? And God didn't punish Moses for not outlawing slavery because it was "customary"?

So Moses didn't outlaw slavery because it was "customary"? And God didn't punish Moses for not outlawing slavery because it was "customary"?

The matter of slavery is to me like the matter of divorce. God, in the laws given to Moses, made provision for a custom that was prevalent. He did so with improvements.

While you may focus on why there is no "Thou Shalt Not Have a Slave - Period" why that is not a commandment, I focus on other aspects of the situation. For example, the year of Jubilee commanded the wholesale release of all deptors and slaves in the Hebrew society. That is every 50 years the year of Jubilee commanded that ALL slaves go free. I think provision was made for those who wished not to be free.

So I give at least equal time to meditating upon "the year of Jubilee" as to why there is no "Thou Shalt Have NO Slaves - PERIOD, no ifs, ands, or buts about it."

Incidently, the LAW was given to expose man's inability to live up to the standard God commanded. Therefore the last of the TEN COMMANDMENTS was a catch all - You Shall Not Covet.

Not coveting covers so many types of envy, anxiety, jealousy or material possessions, and the like that "You Shall Not Covet" as the last of the ten commandments, might well be a death blow to the desire to have slaves in the first place.

I know this is not a satisfactory reply for you. But I include aspects like this in my considerations. I want a balanced appreciation of the Bible.

Originally posted by sonhouse
The only thing I worry about as far as Islam goes, is the idea they would push for a totally religious state, enforcing those barbaric Sharia laws, women can't work, can't drive, get stoned if they are even accused of adultery, guilty until proven innocent.

Kind of like what happened in the Salem Witch trials.

They would also make you kneel and bow your head to the ground in
worship of Allah. Of course, you will have to make sure you are facing
in the right direction. I am not sure how many times you will have to
do this each day, but I am sure you will be happy to learn these simple
rules, since this will be only a minor inconvience for you.

Originally posted by rwingett
That was a lot of time wasted.

Right on. 😉

Originally posted by jaywill
The matter of slavery is to me like the matter of divorce. God, in the laws given to Moses, made provision for a custom that was prevalent. He did so with improvements.

Why would God "make provision" for an outright abomination?

Originally posted by FMF
Are you saying that all the Muslims killed by Christians during the nine Crusades should be chalked up on the 'Islam killing' side of the scorecard?

Do you want to just ignore the Muslim killings before the crusade?

Originally posted by jaywill
For example, the year of [b]Jubilee commanded the wholesale release of all deptors and slaves in the Hebrew society. That is every 50 years the year of Jubilee commanded that ALL slaves go free. I think provision was made for those who wished not to be free.[/b]

So every 50 years there was an amnesty at a time called 'Jubilee'? But then God allowed slavery in the intervening 50 years: why? Why not simply forbid it?

Originally posted by FMF
Are you saying that all the Muslims killed by Christians during the nine Crusades should be chalked up on the 'Islam killing' side of the scorecard?

that would be rather impossible. a christian would never kill for any purpose, ergo no christians were involved in the crusades.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Do you want to just ignore the Muslim killings before the crusade?

I certainly do not. Their victims go on the 'Islam killing' side of the scorecard, clearly. So, will you answer I wonder: are you saying that all the Muslims killed by Christians during the nine Crusades should be chalked up on the 'Islam killing' side of the scorecard?