got tonkaed wrote:well i think we also run into the issue of doctrine vs praxis. I dont know how much you have read of the Quran, i must admit i have read much less than i have out of the bible, but it seems that you can take as much as youd like out of that texts as you could out of the bible to twist it the way that you would like.
Seemingly if we look at the praxis of the two religions (excluding judaism because it seems to qualify slightly less for now) islam for a number of centuries was rather progressive in nature. The sharia law was interpreted in ways that were fairly positive to those who were of the book, but not practicing islam. Christianity for much of the same period, was much more hostile to those who did not practice their faith. So if we look at how individuals are behaving you could certainly say that in praxis, if not necessarily in doctrine, xianity was less tolerant than islam for quite some time.
Currently it would certainly seem that more of islam is engaged in militaristic fundamentalist thought than christianity is, though we should be fair in saying there are sects of christianity which are very fundamentalist in nature. Seemingly if we look at the praxis now, islam is perhaps less defendable as far as being a religion of peace, though many are working to make it so. Christianity in many cases struggles to be a religion of peace, but perhaps not to the degree of islam.
If you want to look at the future of both religions its difficult to be certain. Certainly if you politicize any religion enough, it is going to potentially be that much more antagonistic in a modern world which is becoming less friendly to religious expression.
However, id also ask you if you wish to critically look at this, to examine some of your own personal biases given the current situation of islam in your region of the world, which you clearly have strong views of.
Let me suggest an alternate reading of the changes that have occurred through history. Obviously it will reflect my point of view/prejudices, but that doesn't mean it is incorrect.
Islam, as has been pointed out, taught and practiced proselytization by the sword pretty much from inception. Admittedly, the time during which “Christianity” (I will explain the “” later) did so as well is about half of its history, but it neither began that way nor has it ended that way. As for the teachings, any scriptural support for violence, being old testament, can, and should, be interpreted figuratively/spiritually for the Christian. Winning the internal battle to purify the mind/soul/behavior etc, winning the external battle by winning others over with love, reason, and prayer.
The period of time during which “the Church” practiced violence began (forgive me OnlyAmbrose) when it was adopted as the state religion of Rome, lost sight of what Jesus actually established, and became just another pagan religion of rituals, just giving everything “Christian” names. It ended when the protestant reformation ended. Once the opposing sides were done fighting with each other, people were allowed to read the Bible for themselves and make their own decisions. Consequently we were back to a place where all competing entities had to justify what they taught and practiced according to what Jesus actually said and did, and the teachings of those who actually talked to him.
Since then, any wars “in the name of God” were really for nationalist or profitable ends, and though religion was used as an excuse, it is not actually the reason. I would include in that northern Ireland, and the treatment of the native Americans, among others.
Then there are idiocies like bombing abortion clinics which are the acts of misguided psychos who sought counsel neither from Christians nor from Christ.
ahhhh how does one get a US passport 
