Little Difference Between Fundamentalist Christians And Muslims

[David Sklansky]

Here's why. Fundamentalist Christians believe (if I am not misken) that non believers will be sent to hell. Regardless of their actions. They also believe that God is "just". Meaning that those non believers "deserve" to be sent to hell. Now they also believe that they themselves deserve it and that they escape it only through God's mercy. But that is neither here nor there as far as my point is concerned.

Since everyone agrees that going to hell is far worse than merely being murdered, the fact that a Fundamentalist Muslim is willing to murder you and send you to the hell you deserve, unless you convert, is not that much different than the Christian who thinks you deserve hell but believes you should be given every chance to convert.

Of course as a practical matter there is a big difference. But that's only because there are now some Muslim murderers out there. Meanwhile many people decry less violent Muslims who don't try to stop them. But that shouldn't be surprising because they believe we deserve to go to hell and don't have a big problem sending us there early, especially when it is obvious we won't convert.

It's true that Fundamentalists don't want to send us there early but that's only because they think it's God's job, not theirs, and that we might convert. But for those who it is obvious to both us and them that we won't convert, it is a fine point.

Another way to put it: Both Christian Fundamentalists And Muslim Fundamentalists believe that non believers who will definitely not convert are people who God chooses justly to send to hell. The only difference is that some Muslims think that God wants their help. Fundamentalist Christians think God doesn't want their help. But their opinion of these non believers is essentially the same, given their unwillingness to convert. And if these same Christians were to ever believe that God did want their help, some would undoubtedly oblige.

[hmkpoker]

There is a big difference.

Christians DON'T want atheists going to hell, they want them to convert so they can be saved. Listen to any preacher. Muslims want infidels to go to hell, so they blow them up.

The Christian is not minimizing your chance to convert. The muslim terrorist is.

[FortunaMaximus]

And cause to force the issue and give the entity involved an early sorting-out? The timeline hardly matters. But using violence introduces an element of fear that truly is a negative feedback reaction.

There was a thread elsewhere today where a poster mentioned that to know the fear of living daily with suicide bombers, one need only ride the buses to and from work in Jerusalem.

It's an odd place to wage the ultimate battle. But, alas, it may be appropiate. More in the other thread that may wax a little too poetic for your tastes.

But I digress.

[David Sklansky]

"Muslims want infidels to go to hell, so they blow them up."

They want them to go to hell because they think that is what God wants. And I don't believe they want to blow up people who they think have a good chance of converting down the road.

The fact is that anybody who believes that people who don't think Jesus was resurrected not only will go to hell but also deserve to go to hell would not be that hard to nudge (through some sign from "God") into thinking it wasn't so bad to kill those who had no hope of changing their mind.

[Shadowrun]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's why. Fundamentalist Christians believe (if I am not misken) that non believers will be sent to hell. Regardless of their actions. They also believe that God is "just". Meaning that those non believers "deserve" to be sent to hell. Now they also believe that they themselves deserve it and that they escape it only through God's mercy. But that is neither here nor there as far as my point is concerned.

Since everyone agrees that going to hell is far worse than merely being murdered, the fact that a Fundamentalist Muslim is willing to murder you and send you to the hell you deserve, unless you convert, is not that much different than the Christian who thinks you deserve hell but believes you should be given every chance to convert.

Of course as a practical matter there is a big difference. But that's only because there are now some Muslim murderers out there. Meanwhile many people decry less violent Muslims who don't try to stop them. But that shouldn't be surprising because they believe we deserve to go to hell and don't have a big problem sending us there early, especially when it is obvious we won't convert.

It's true that Fundamentalists don't want to send us there early but that's only because they think it's God's job, not theirs, and that we might convert. But for those who it is obvious to both us and them that we won't convert, it is a fine point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really didnt think that eduacted people ever use that phrase but who knew

[hmkpoker]

It is entirely dependent on the individual. There are some crazy militant Christian fundamentalists for whom I think that is accurate, but there are also bleeding hearts who want to save everyone's soul. If this paradigm of savability/non-savability is influenced by the religion or religious culture, then I'd say that the disparity of those paradigms constitutes the difference.

Personally, I think Islam is more conducive to a paradigm of non-savability than Christianity, although there is probably more intra-religion disparity than inter-religion disparity.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
"Muslims want infidels to go to hell, so they blow them up."

They want them to go to hell because they think that is what God wants. And I don't believe they want to blow up people who they think have a good chance of converting down the road.

The fact is that anybody who believes that people who don't think Jesus was resurrected not only will go to hell but also deserve to go to hell would not be that hard to nudge (through some sign from "God") into thinking it wasn't so bad to kill those who had no hope of changing their mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is exactly why historically, even though the New Testament is very clear on conversion by peaceful persuasion, Christianity has repeatedly tipped into crusades, witch trials, inquisitions, etc.

[andyfox]

"I think this is exactly why historically, even though the New Testament is very clear on conversion by peaceful persuasion, Christianity has repeatedly tipped into crusades, witch trials, inquisitions, etc."

Maybe. But often religion was the justification, and perhaps not the real reason for the depredation. For example, some modern historians now see the First Crusade as essentially a religious experience, but one cannot overlook the military and politico-imperialist elements of the impetus to crusade. Similarly, the early European settlers of the New World spoke of the "heathen savages," but perhaps the fact that those savages had land and food the Europeans coveted was the more important factor.

[andyfox]

Good points, but I would add the influence of culture to the equation. Exchange the life situations of our Fundamentalist Christians with the Middle East's Fundamentalist Muslims and I think your point would be proven.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact is that anybody who believes that people who don't think Jesus was resurrected not only will go to hell but also deserve to go to hell would not be that hard to nudge (through some sign from "God") into thinking it wasn't so bad to kill those who had no hope of changing their mind.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this argument ignores some of the fundamental differences between Christianity and Islam. I am no expert on the Quran (so please correct me where I am misinformed) - but from everything I've read, Islam is simply a more violent religion. It preaches violence against non-believers as a routine tenet of the faith. For this reason I think it is much easier for the Islamic religion to spawn murderers. The idea that it's ok to kill non-believers is not only held by a handful of fanatical Muslims. It is much more mainstream than that. Now there are likely many Muslims who simply cannot bring themselves to commit murder - but that does not mean they disapprove of those who do, or that the murderers themselves are part of some fanatical fringe.

Violence against non-believers is not a central teaching of the Christian faith as it is in Islam. Christianity preaches for believers to try and convert non-believers. There is no approval of violence for those who seem to be hopeless cases for conversion. The story of Saul/Paul, and his conversion on the Damascus road, teaches Christians that no non-believer is beyond god's rescue.

So maybe the difference is in how much hope each religion holds out for the conversion of the other. Muslims see little hope and want to kill Christians, while Christians are more optimistic and want to convert Muslims.