Why is compairing the violence of the Quran and Old Testament problematic

Some guy was going off about the violence in the quran and i countered that the old testament has violence in it, he replied thats a problematic comparison

why is it?

Because it's a valid comparison and undermines his attempt to portray Islam as somehow uniquely violent among the Abrahamic religions.

This.
However, violence in Islam is in most cases a depiction of the epic battles fought by Muhammad. The violence in the Bible is mythological, which makes it even more grotesque et gratuitous.

that is not true, their is different contexts to the texts


the Old Testament violence is mostly descriptive, it explains what happened, but is not commanding an act

the violence in the Quran is commanding, it is commanding muslims to wage these acts

No Christian says "well I just destroyed this town because Joshua did in the book of Joshua"

plus the bible was never viewed as being the literal world of god like the quran is


so sorry, no, its not a valid comparison at all

Because Christians don't follow the Old Testament, it's just included in the Bible as worldbuilding lore, and the New Testament is the actual story that matters.

I've never read the Quarn so it is hard for me to contextualize the violence in it. However it was written hundreds of years after the old testament.

I've read the old testament, and it has a lot of death (in fact God wipes out everyone on the planet during the great flood).

Afterwards the violence is more of a struggle of preservation by the Jews, against foreign invaders (except when God tells them to attack a city as it rightfully belongs to them anyways).

New Testament still the lowest key of the rest of the Abrahamic religions, but considering it's closely attached to the Old I still have a hard time separating the old and new.

Did he say exactly why it is problematic?

exactly this

>plus the bible was never viewed as being the literal world of god like the quran is

>the Old Testament violence is mostly descriptive, it explains what happened, but is not commanding an act

This is quite literally not true at all. Why did you even bother posting?

>Because Christians don't follow the Old Testament

10 commandments

The greatest commandments were given by Christ and are two
If you follow them, then the you can't go against the 10
I really think the Church should only use the gospel and use the OT for prophecies related to Christ

no modern christian doctrine uses the old testament to justify violence


muslims use the quran to do so

Wrong. The commandment are only valid in a precise context because, contrary to common misconceptions, the Quran IS descriptive.

The Quran is supposed to be the literal unabridged word of God, while the Bible is a collection of books of various genres that are all divinely inspired in some way.

The Bible contains violence in its histories but that's not supposed to be a promotion of violence, any more than the Song of Solomon is supposed to be a promotion of comparing your wife's breasts to castle towers.

what does "problematic" mean in this context

"It's offensive."

Game

Set

Match

>Why is compairing the violence of the Quran and Old Testament problematic
Because after the enlightenment nobody takes literally The Bible other than some retard cults from USA and have no power over the state but the Quran is part of the legislation of lots of muslims countries
Leviticus 18 for example
20 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor’s wife and defile yourself with her.
22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
29 “‘Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people. 30 Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the Lord your God.’”

>Some guy was going off about the violence in the quran and i countered that the old testament has violence in it, he replied thats a problematic comparison
>why is it?
Because Muslims are not hypocrites and actually follow what is written in their holy book. They don't cherrypick shit like most modern Christians do with the New testament/Old Testament and say their holy book shouldn't be take literally, as if the people who wrote the Bible were writing poetry or some shit. Every word that is written in the Bible was meant to be Literal, but Christians don't want to admit it because they want to pander to Liberals and Secularists,

Please refer to it as the Jewish Bible or the Tanakh. It is the only Testament.

It's a complete fair comparison but I don't see what it accomplishes. If you're comparing Christianity and Islam it doesn't really work because the teachings of Jesus emphasize non violence, and the gospels are much more important in Christianity than the Old Testament.
t. Atheist

>20 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor’s wife and defile yourself with her.
>22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
>29 “‘Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people. 30 Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the Lord your God.’”
There is unironically nothing wrong with any of these laws.

>They don't cherry pick shit like most modern Christians do
I'm sorry, but this is too funny because most of the modern Islamic thought is based on cherry picking. From Al-Qaeda to ISIS, everyone uses what they think truer than other parts.

>I'm sorry, but this is too funny because most of the modern Islamic thought is based on cherry picking. From Al-Qaeda to ISIS
No they don't. They literally follow it to tee and completely refuse to sugarcoat it for Liberals/Secualrists.
>modern Islamic thought
lol ''modern Islamic thought'' is literally Salafism and Wahabism. Ideologies that are based on practicing Islam exactly as it was practiced in the 7th century.

The Old Testament is included in the Bible as context for the ministry of Jesus. It is there to show his ancestry and that he was foretold. That's it.

>Ideologies that are based on practicing Islam exactly as it was practiced in the 7th century.

please, PLEASE if you know jackshit about something then abstain from talking about it you illiterate fuck

>please, PLEASE if you know jackshit about something then abstain from talking about it you illiterate fuck
Pray tell then. What are those ideologies based on?

Because it's okay when God's chosen people do it, silly goyim.

>Salafism
>Wahhabism
>Ideologies that are based on practicing Islam exactly as it was practiced in the 7th century.
Holy shit you're stupid.

>Pretending the Old Testament is somehow separate from Islam when the Koran builds off the Old testament.

>what are American fundamentalist Christian sects

Jewish

>hey that Joseph Kony guy was a muslim r-right?

The least fearsome people imaginable.

Not militant organizations, that's for damn sure.

Absolute LARPing and cherrypicking.

Like everybody specified ITT the verses of the quran are descriptive, they describe th pre-islamic state and the muslim-pagan war
But retards like Ibn-abdul-wahhab said "lol if the early arabs did it why don't we" despite that those actions having nothing to do with islam.

LOOK AT HIM

LOOK AT HIM GUISE

LOOK AT HIM AND LAUGH

And not only that, Christians aren't supposed to follow the old laws, theologically speaking Christ came to do away with those laws and to die for mankind's sins as opposed to some of the teachings of Islam that call for the deaths of infidels

Muslims believe that the Quran was verbally revealed by God to Muhammad as a whole text.
Wheras the bible is a collection of accounts from random jews.

Because the violence served different purposes. Also it's not historical. People like to use the conquest of Canaan (which most likely never happened) to say it's no different than a historical conquest (Muhammadans). Ironically these people are usually Atheists who claim it's all fairy tales anyway.

>what are the Unionist paramilitaries in NI

Nice attempt at Christian apologism, but it won't work.
>Elizabeth Anderson criticizes commands God gave to men in the Old Testament, such as: kill adulterers, homosexuals, and "people who work on the Sabbath" (Leviticus 20:10; Leviticus 20:13; Exodus 35:2, respectively); to commit ethnic cleansing (Exodus 34:11-14, Leviticus 26:7-9); commit genocide (Numbers 21: 2-3, Numbers 21:33–35, Deuteronomy 2:26–35, and Joshua 1–12); and other mass killings.[7] Anderson considers the Bible to permit slavery, the beating of slaves, the rape of female captives in wartime, polygamy (for men), the killing of prisoners, and child sacrifice.[7] She also provides a number of examples to illustrate what she considers "God's moral character": "Routinely punishes people for the sins of others ... punishes all mothers by condemning them to painful childbirth", punishes four generations of descendants of those who worship other Gods, kills 24,000 Israelites because some of them sinned (Numbers 25:1–9), kills 70,000 Israelites for the sin of David in 2 Samuel 24:10–15, and "sends two bears out of the woods to tear forty-two children to pieces" because they called someone names in 2 Kings 2:23–24.[8]

>Blackburn provides examples of Old Testament moral criticisms such as the phrase in Exodus 22:18 that has "helped to burn alive tens or hundreds of thousands of women in Europe and America": "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live," and notes that the Old Testament God apparently has "no problems with a slave-owning society", considers birth control a crime punishable by death, and "is keen on child abuse".[9] Additional examples that are questioned today are: the prohibition on touching women during their "period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19–24)", the apparent approval of selling daughters into slavery (Exodus 21:7), and the obligation to put to death someone working on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2).[10]

Bible records the acts of the tribe of Israel throughout history. None of the Patriarchs are said to be perfect, and for Christians the Old Testament is irellevant to the actual religion.

Mohammed was a perfect man who is to be emulated in every way.

>Muhammad
>perfect
nice try, ahmed

>Some guy was going off about the violence in the quran and i countered that the old testament has violence in it, he replied thats a problematic comparison
>why is it?
There is nothing wrong with the comparison. Christianity is just as barbaric and Iliberal as Islam and Judaism. The only real difference is that Christianity has been basically castrated and suppressed by Secularism and Liberalism in the French revolution. Most Christians today are just hollow LAPR's playing pretend who don't really believe in anything the Bible says because they don't want to appear Morally Incorrect to modern day Western values and ideology.

Mahummad was a tax evader