Which Religion is more "pushy?" Christianity or Islam?

Which Religion is more "pushy?" Christianity or Islam? When I say "pushy" I mean which religion did more to spread itself by any means necessary and which one had more oppressive governments?

For me, it's Christianity, seeing as how it was spread from Europe around the world and was used as a reason to screw over the indigenous peoples of the world.

Mr. Invisible said:

Which Religion is more "pushy?" Christianity or Islam? When I say "pushy" I mean which religion did more to spread itself by any means necessary and which one had more oppressive governments?

For me, it's Christianity, seeing as how it was spread from Europe around the world and was used as a reason to screw over the indigenous peoples of the world.

Click to expand...

You can't really quantify a question like that. There were spikes and declines in early phases in history which paved the way for more complex patterns of spikes and declines in later phases. A lot of their conversion-focused aggression was based on mutual provocation, making who is responsible for specific developments even more difficult to follow. Overall, the web of causality is too complex to decipher mathematically.

The histories of both religions showcase human fallibility and difficulties one must face in order to develop authentic spirituality.

Depends on what area you live in, depends on what time period your talking about. There are alot of variables

Your Star said:

Depends on what area you live in, depends on what time period your talking about. There are alot of variables

Click to expand...

:yt

That's why I didn't answer.

What YourStar said. I can't pick one over the other. Both have way too much of a bloody history.

I'd like a "no opinion" option, but okay.

The two religions are in very different circumstances. On one hand Islam resides in one of the poorest and most poverty stricken areas on Earth, while on the other Christianity is hugely popular in first world nations, particularly the United States.

Islam is certainly no religion of peace. Neither is Christianity. By this I don't mean how the majority of adherents interpret the books, but by how I personally interpret them. I know Christians and Muslims that are brilliant people.

I dislike the whole idea of saying one is more pushy than the other, and more often that not it's not the people of a nation that wage war, but the elite who control it.

Historically? The Crusades and Inquisition are often mentioned, but less commonly spoken of is the Caliphate, the Ottoman Empire, the Muslim invasion of Eastern Europe, the Moors invasion of Spain.

Modern Christianity does not expand by the sword, or execute "heretics".

Modern Islam does.

/thread

Well, we do have here either an Islamist or worse yet a supporter.
Both religions, down thru the years , have been infested with extremists.
However, today, there is no doubt.
If one can stomach it, read the Koran.

earthworm said:

Well, we do have here either an Islamist or worse yet a supporter.
Both religions, down thru the years , have been infested with extremists.
However, today, there is no doubt.
If one can stomach it, read the Koran.

Click to expand...

I've read the Koran, it was easier than the bible.

You Star really put it perfectly.

It really depends on time, location, and what you mean as "pushy".

For example, in the modern day America, I would consider fundamentalist Christians that constantly inform you how sinful you are and urge you to save your soul despite you in no way asking for such information to be "pushy". In contrast, in modern Iran and some other Muslim dominated states, its potentially a death sentence...literally...for converting from Islam to Christianity. I don't call that "pushy". That's like calling someone stabbing you in the face a "pin prick".

Many religions at some point in their history have violent or forceful spreading of their religious beliefs, usually when people are using those beliefs for their own ends. However, its difficult to talk about all of history as if it is one giant and equally relevant entity.

Zyphlin said:

You Star really put it perfectly.

It really depends on time, location, and what you mean as "pushy".

For example, in the modern day America, I would consider fundamentalist Christians that constantly inform you how sinful you are and urge you to save your soul despite you in no way asking for such information to be "pushy". In contrast, in modern Iran and some other Muslim dominated states, its potentially a death sentence...literally...for converting from Islam to Christianity. I don't call that "pushy". That's like calling someone stabbing you in the face a "pin prick".

Many religions at some point in their history have violent or forceful spreading of their religious beliefs, usually when people are using those beliefs for their own ends. However, its difficult to talk about all of history as if it is one giant and equally relevant entity.

Click to expand...

Good post.

I am with YourStar here where variables play an important role. Islam's first 300 years were much, much different than Christianity's. Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire. Islam was already in northern Africa and parts of India. And the capital had been moved multiple times (Mecca, Damascus, Baghdad, Cairo).

Goshin said:

Historically? The Crusades and Inquisition are often mentioned, but less commonly spoken of is the Caliphate, the Ottoman Empire, the Muslim invasion of Eastern Europe, the Moors invasion of Spain.

Modern Christianity does not expand by the sword, or execute "heretics".

Modern Islam does.

/thread

Click to expand...

I was going to reply with something along the same lines. So many people who bring up Christian atrocities like the Inquisition, the Crusades, or the Salem witch trials conviently forget to mention how Islam spread from one tiny corner of Arabia to a world wide religion. People neglect to mention that Muhammad wasn't just a prophet, he was also a military leader who conquered the Arabian penisula, and his followers would continue to expand his empire after his death into North Africa, Persia, the Balkans, and Spain.

Christianity was spread by the sword and Islam was spread by the sword. The main difference is that Christianity got out of the holy war business a long time ago, while significant portions of the Islamic world still embrace the concept.

Goshin said:

Historically? The Crusades and Inquisition are often mentioned, but less commonly spoken of is the Caliphate, the Ottoman Empire, the Muslim invasion of Eastern Europe, the Moors invasion of Spain.

Modern Christianity does not expand by the sword, or execute "heretics".

Modern Islam does.

/thread

Click to expand...

A little bit. The era of modern states diminishes the ability of any religion to spread through violence, so there isn't anything happening that compares with the Moorish conquest of Spain or the Crusades.

Was it really Christianity that spread religion by the sword? Or the Roman Empire using religion as an excuse to conquer lands? It was Roman practice to conquer people and convert them to believing in the Roman gods. I would say the blame is with the Roman Empire and not Christianity. The early Christians were heavily persecuted and murdered for their faith, they didn't spread their faith by the sword until the state adopted Christianity as its religion (and thus corrupting it theologically). Muhammad spread Islam by the sword while he was living and such practices still go on today. The Crusades didn't reflect Biblical principals, but rather the will of the Roman Empire.

Goshin said:

Historically? The Crusades and Inquisition are often mentioned, but less commonly spoken of is the Caliphate, the Ottoman Empire, the Muslim invasion of Eastern Europe, the Moors invasion of Spain.

Modern Christianity does not expand by the sword, or execute "heretics".

Modern Islam does.

/thread

Click to expand...

This post sounds honest if you ignore South America and Africa where Christianity was indeed spread by the sword or if you'd like, the rifle. Up until 50 years ago most African countries bellow the Sahara had Christianity imposed on them by colonial powers. South America has the biggest number of Christians because millions of people were terrorized into Christianity. Ask people why Mayan culture has been lost in El Salvador and they'll tell you it's because the white Catholic population made their culture a death sentence.

The answer to this question depends on who are are where you are from and how you were raised amount a number of there factors.

Islam is more demanding of it's followers as far as adhering to the Cults percepts and standards, and hands out punishment that is unwavering it's it's brutality and severity. It is pretty damn unforgiving and sets murder in the name of Allah as path to forgiveness and the afterlife.

As we all know Christianity is very forgiving and sets up a harmless past to forgiveness.

We also have to consider where you live, because the Middle East is Islamic for the most part and places like Italy and the Southern U.S. are very Religious in their own ways, so the attitudes can vary much based on your location.

It's not generally a had and fast answer to this question but then Islam is a Cult not a religion.

Your Star said:

Depends on what area you live in, depends on what time period your talking about. There are alot of variables

Click to expand...

Exactly.

In my personal life: Christianity - other than Islamists being involved in political-related issues they really have no direct effect on my life.

But if we were talking business-issues I'd say it's a draw - they both push their religious agendas - rally in mass, lead boycotts, bans - and the more extreme lead riots and religious warfare.

Christianity is more deeply rooted in our government and overall values and society, though.

Mr. Invisible said:

Which Religion is more "pushy?" Christianity or Islam? When I say "pushy" I mean which religion did more to spread itself by any means necessary and which one had more oppressive governments?

For me, it's Christianity, seeing as how it was spread from Europe around the world and was used as a reason to screw over the indigenous peoples of the world.

Click to expand...

Definitely... Muslims have no Hell to threaten converts with, don't have to be baptized, no inquisition or anti medicine history, no baby killing God, and don't believe in miracles.

Those who say Muslims are more pushy are politically correct lemmings.

ricksfolly

Degreez said:

Good post.

I am with YourStar here where variables play an important role. Islam's first 300 years were much, much different than Christianity's. Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire. Islam was already in northern Africa and parts of India. And the capital had been moved multiple times (Mecca, Damascus, Baghdad, Cairo).

Click to expand...

But if you want to talk about the first 300 years of each faith, Christianity spread peacefully through missionaries throughout the Roman Empire, despite a brutal persecution at times while Islam spread almost entirely through the sword for the first three hundred years of its existance...

Morality Games said:

A little bit. The era of modern states diminishes the ability of any religion to spread through violence, so there isn't anything happening that compares with the Moorish conquest of Spain or the Crusades.

Click to expand...

Why do so many forget that the Crusades were a RESPONSE to centuries of Islamic aggression?

digsbe said:

Was it really Christianity that spread religion by the sword? Or the Roman Empire using religion as an excuse to conquer lands? It was Roman practice to conquer people and convert them to believing in the Roman gods. I would say the blame is with the Roman Empire and not Christianity. The early Christians were heavily persecuted and murdered for their faith, they didn't spread their faith by the sword until the state adopted Christianity as its religion (and thus corrupting it theologically). Muhammad spread Islam by the sword while he was living and such practices still go on today. The Crusades didn't reflect Biblical principals, but rather the will of the Roman Empire.

Click to expand...

But how much expansion did the Roman Empire do after Christianity was adopted as the official religion in the mid-4th century?

ludahai said:

But how much expansion did the Roman Empire do after Christianity was adopted as the official religion in the mid-4th century?

Click to expand...

Quoting to you and the post within yours:

The Holy Roman Empire WROTE the Bible.

They didn't just receive it from somewhere and then learn from it and apply it's teachings - they crafted the entire thing beginning to end - carefully organizing it, interpreting it losely, applying it losely, and overall instilling theirs values and beliefs IN IT.

They compiled a large collection of various books/letters that different subjugated and widely diverse groups/sects of believers had in their precious posession - and worked it into the book.

They also took many books and decided not to include them, as well - thus - the Lost Books of the Bible.

So - yeah they used it as a means to see to their political agendas, expand on their desires and centralize their power, grow their strength and spread worldwide - that's the whole point of the entire thing being in existence.

digsbe said:

Was it really Christianity that spread religion by the sword? Or the Roman Empire using religion as an excuse to conquer lands? It was Roman practice to conquer people and convert them to believing in the Roman gods. I would say the blame is with the Roman Empire and not Christianity. The early Christians were heavily persecuted and murdered for their faith, they didn't spread their faith by the sword until the state adopted Christianity as its religion (and thus corrupting it theologically). Muhammad spread Islam by the sword while he was living and such practices still go on today. The Crusades didn't reflect Biblical principals, but rather the will of the Roman Empire.

Click to expand...

But can the same not be said of the Moorish invasion of the Iberian Peninsula (which was caused by a feud in the Visigoth royal family, with one side inviting the Moors for help), and the spread of Islam through Asia (which was spread by the Mongols who conquered the Middle East, and then took it back to Asia)?

Some things people seem to forget, is that at that time, and up to WW2, everyone was out to carve an empire, and the reasons were rarely purely religious, we don't look upon the Visigoth invasion of Rome as a Christian invasion, despite the fact that the Visigoths were Arian Christians, whereas the Romans, at the time, were Orthodox Christians, same with the Visigoth invasion of the Iberian Peninsula, another conquest by Christians. So as Digsbe said, the reasons for invasion rarely had anything to do with the conquerer religion of choice, and a lot more to do with whatever socio-economic-dynastical powers were at play at the time.

Aunt Spiker said:

The Holy Roman Empire WROTE the Bible.

.

Click to expand...

No ma'am. The Old Testament was written by various persons descended from Abraham (ie Jews), mostly before Rome existed as a nation. The books of the New Testament were written by 1st Century apostles and disciples and followers of Christ. Rome did not accept Christianity as the state religion until IIRC about the 3rd or 4th century AD. Rome did not "write" the Bible. They did compile a VERSION of the Bible... but not the only version by any means.

Aunt Spiker said:

The Holy Roman Empire WROTE the Bible.

They didn't just receive it from somewhere and then learn from it and apply it's teachings - they crafted the entire thing beginning to end - carefully organizing it, interpreting it losely, applying it losely, and overall instilling theirs values and beliefs IN IT.

They compiled a large collection of various books/letters that different subjugated and widely diverse groups/sects of believers had in their precious posession - and worked it into the book.

Click to expand...

First, are you talking about the actual late Roman Empire or the Holy Roman Empire? They are not the same, and there is no political or social continuity between them. (aside from the religion itself, of course)

From the context of your post I'll assume you were discussing the late Roman Empire. Either way, such "top-down" alterations and synods were not a driving force behind the spread of christianity in the Roman Empire. Both the Council of Nicaea and St. Jerome's Vulgate (latin translation), for instance, were written after the religion had already been implanted throughout the empire.

Such top-down councils and decrees were responses to the widespread adoption and popularity of a religion already in place and already splintering into many separate factions and already generating a plethora of new scripture. Christianity spread through rome, not by the sword, but as an underground popular movement, which the Roman aristocracy had begun to accept (at least nominally) long before it was even an official state religion.

They also took many books and decided not to include them, as well - thus - the Lost Books of the Bible.

Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with how christianity was spread for the first three centuries of its existence. The official canon was not decided until nearly three centuries after the religion had spread.

So - yeah they used it as a means to see to their political agendas, expand on their desires and centralize their power, grow their strength and spread worldwide - that's the whole point of the entire thing being in existence.

Click to expand...

In the earliest years of the spread of christianity, it was not politically popular at all. It was, at best, political suicide for any aristocrat who adopted it-- and more often than not maybe actual suicide. After centuries of its growing popularity with the non-aristocratic elements in society that changed, however, this was long after it had already spread and gained a strong foothold throughout the empire.

Alternatively, early Islam was spread by the sword and involved in the political suppression of other faiths... at least until it grew so large that its own internal divisions halted its advance into Europe, Asia, and Africa.