I can't speak for God or Allah, but the key difference between Jesus and Muhammad is that Jesus refused to be a political leader, whereas Muhammad became a political leader, uniting church and state in a manner that is the Islamic world's greatest failing to this day.

Eric, I wouldn't have bothered replying, but since you did...

There seems to me to be a considerable difference between a specific instruction to kill a specific group of people and a general instruction to kill all people who don't practice a certain set of actions or hold a certain set of beliefs.

Additionally, comparing the Koran and the Torah gives you a comparison between Islam and Judaism. For a comparison to Christianity, you must include the New Testament as well, and Jesus was quite clear in his refusal to accept a military or political role. He taught submission, mercy and self-discipline, reserving His wrath for those who called themselves by the name of God but practiced shameful actions.

Christianity is obviously more complex than just that, based as it is on the foundation of Judaism, and I'm radically oversimplifying even that relationship since the theology of it can be quite detailed, but I think that it is clear that both the historical past of Christianity and the present reality of Christianity demonstrates some important differences from Islam. Especially interesting given that Mohammed was born more than 500 years after Christ's death.

All of that said, I am much heartened by editorials and statements I've seen recently from Saudi Arabia (with the exception of one particular prince) that show signs that the "silent peaceful majority" of Moslems are waking up to what is happening to them and might be ready to take their religion back from the extremists. I hope it happens.

Were the Crusaders Christians?

Christianity has indeed been responsible for some pretty awful things over the last 2,000 years, and we shouldn't forget it. In fact, I'm feeling better about that whole World Trade Center thing already!

I wouldn't concider the crusaders "christian". They certainly didn't uphold Christian ideals.

Let me see if I have this right:

It's okay to malign Islam by cherry-picking the worst aspects of its scripture and history, but to do the same with Christianity is wrong.

You know, when you get right down to it, though -- it's not religion that kills so much as it is governments. Human beings in power like killing other human beings, and they absolutely don't need God as an excuse. Atheistic governments have butchered more people than the Crusades ever did. Look at Stalin, look at Mao, look at Pol Pot -- totally godless and they ran their countries the same way.

Brian, this is silly. You've turned a relatively easy to answer question (which I did, in #2) into a contest of "who is worse?" From that contest, there can be no winners.

I'll spell out how it works, to hopefully shortcut the process: When a question you seemed to think would be unanswerable is answered, you drop "The Crusades," as if unable to distinguish between things done in the name of somebody without their approval and things done at the behest of somebody. Then, when people come into the conversation late and respond to certain points, you take the whole thing off into nit-picking territory, all the while ignoring the original question.

Then somebody points out that blaming a particular religion is as pointless as blaming all religion-less people or humanists or athiests for the actions of noted mass-murderes like Stalin an others. I was going to mention this myself, but Rodney beat me to it.

Next, people will start nitpicking about the difference between Stalin representing athiesm versus the Crusaders representing Christianity, all the while ignoring the distinction between those people and the Jewish people of the Torah.

Finally, names will be called, ad hominem attacks will escalate, and probably Godwin's Law will surface somewhere or another. Heck, that's even more inevitable that usual given that dictators are already part of the conversation!

Anyway, it's all pointless. You're look for things to hurl at Christians, and there is always something. Somebody out there might find a reason to be as bitter at humanists or athiests, but I doubt it. Despite the much more deadly and much more modern actions of athiest killers around the world, people don't seem to get as worked up as you do about God.

You see, people are bad. I believe we are born that way. So no matter how pure of an institution you start, it will always end up corrupt and perverted and used as an instrument of power to hurt others. Blaming the institution is pointless. Blaming the label they take upon themselves is pointless. Blame the people themselves. But not too harshly - we're all the same, more or less.

That's why I favor as limited a government as possible. But a powerful enough government to similarly limit corporations. Keep every group as powerless as possible, while keeping every individual as powerful as possible - that's the best way (in my opinion) to offset the beastly nature of humans.

Phillip,

You wrote;

You've turned a relatively easy to answer question (which I did, in #2)...

Wow, you've got a bad memory! In your post, right there at the top of this page, you stated:

So the real question here is, Who is the most murderous bad-ass, God or Allah?

Eric said 'uniting church and state in a manner that is the Islamic world's greatest failing to this day'
I disagree. Think the Islamic worlds greatest failing to this day is their lack of unity in the face of the almighty Dallah.

Phillip,

My point:

The tendency of Christian evangelicals to demonize an entire religion based on a selective reading of history and scripture is the equivalent of a person who lives in a glass house throwing stones.

For all the words you have spilled on other subjects, I still have no clue if you agree or disagree with this point.

Brian, I never said either one was exceptable.

The worst thing Christian and Muslim faiths alike have done is to ritualise their worship of god, for example, the pre-islamic god allah was worshiped using the same methods as post islamic allah did and the christian ritualistic aproach to worshipping god could best be described as pagan utilising old roman festivals and others instead of looking to god to provide the answer. Merely replacing Gods can not be satifactory to god and therefore one should read all the scriptures for themselve to find out for themselve what is an aceptable way to worship/walk with God? Would a true god be so cruel as NOT to provide the answer.... Questions are retorical, but would be interested to see the responses... will check back again