• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

  • Total voters
    65
spud_meister said:
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),
Click to expand...

I agree that the invasion of spain by the moors was less about spreading Islam and more of a political power play.

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)?
Click to expand...

Islam had reached india long before the Mongols swept through the middle east in the 1200s.

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.
Click to expand...

The visigoths didn't overtly cloak their sacking of Rome within any overtly religious context--and neither the Islamic conquest of spain--I agree with you. The early islamic conquests of arabia, the byzantine levant, and north africa, however, did.
 
ludahai said:
Why do so many forget that the Crusades were a RESPONSE to centuries of Islamic aggression?
Click to expand...

...and I would also argue that the medieval crusades had much more of a lasting impact on europe than the middle east. Frankish powers held jerusalem for about a century and a few major levantine coastal cities about another century. It wasn't some grand conquest and much of the military action was never successful. By the 1300s the egyptian mamluks had extirpated them entirely from the region.

Overall effect, europe--especially the Italians-- got great access to trade and eastern and old western concepts that they had lost. The middle east actually ended up more unified after the crusades. The mongols were actually considered much more of a threat to the Islamic states than the latin chrisitians in the 1200s--that's why some Islamic rulers initially reached out to the christians for military help against them.
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
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.
Click to expand...

It compiled - that's what I said:

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...

I should have re-read my post and edited for clarity - but you get my point.
 
other said:
I agree that the invasion of spain by the moors was less about spreading Islam and more of a political power play.



Islam had reached india long before the Mongols swept through the middle east in the 1200s.
Click to expand...

Oh, I didn't know that, thanks.


The visigoths didn't overtly cloak their sacking of Rome within any overtly religious context--and neither the Islamic conquest of spain--I agree with you. The early islamic conquests of arabia, the byzantine levant, and north africa, however, did.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that Islam took an overt part in the conquest of Arabia, however, I can't find any sources on the reasons behind the conquest of North Africa, and the conquest of Levant seemed to me to be a war of opportunity, as the Muslims had just united after fighting the War of Apostasy, and Levant was not yet back under firm Roman control due to the last Persian (or should that be Zoroastrianist:mrgreen:) invasion, and the main defences of the region were built to protect against more Persian aggression, rather than an invasion from the south.
 
spud_meister said:
I don't doubt that Islam took an overt part in the conquest of Arabia, however, I can't find any sources on the reasons behind the conquest of North Africa, and the conquest of Levant seemed to me to be a war of opportunity, as the Muslims had just united after fighting the War of Apostasy, and Levant was not yet back under firm Roman control due to the last Persian (or should that be Zoroastrianist:mrgreen:) invasion, and the main defences of the region were built to protect against more Persian aggression, rather than an invasion from the south.
Click to expand...

Yes, the success of the early Islamic military campaigns against the Byzantines was probably due to their exhausting wars against the persian sassanids, but for the "motivation" look to the fact that the Islamic armies were effectively separate tribes united, socially and politically, by Islam under a single caliph--who was the "successor to muhammad." They took advantage of social and political weakness to militarily bring in new population/tribes/cities under the caliph--a religious leader. But you're right. I wouldn't say, that they took territory because the territories were not muslim, and they didn't forcibly convert all their subjects--at least not militarily. But they were politically theocratic and militarily expansionist.

Medieval Europe, on the other hand, while being incredibly religious throughout, was not a theocracy. Rulers jostled for religious authority to justify their rule, but actual ultimate religious authority in the Church was, more often than not, witheld from lay rulers. That's why you see the investiture contraversy between Henry IV and Pope Gregory the VII--Henry was accepted as the "Roman Emperor" but since Charlemagne the emperors had been anointed by the pope--and were seen by the pope as subordinate. Meanwhile, nearly all of the church's secular--especially military--power was dervied from alliances with (not political authority over) secular powers. Islamic states, early on, did not have such distinctions between secular and clerical authority--they were effectively the same.
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
It compiled - that's what I said:



I should have re-read my post and edited for clarity - but you get my point.
Click to expand...

Aunt Spiker said:
Quoting to you and the post within yours:

The Holy Roman Empire WROTE the Bible.
Click to expand...

Really? You said WROTE, which is a complete fallacy. The Chruch ommitted certain books from the Holy Scriptures because they were not deemed as the holy inspired word of God by people who have far more expertise in the subject than either you or I have...
 
spud_meister said:
I don't doubt that Islam took an overt part in the conquest of Arabia, however, I can't find any sources on the reasons behind the conquest of North Africa, and the conquest of Levant seemed to me to be a war of opportunity, as the Muslims had just united after fighting the War of Apostasy, and Levant was not yet back under firm Roman control due to the last Persian (or should that be Zoroastrianist:mrgreen:) invasion, and the main defences of the region were built to protect against more Persian aggression, rather than an invasion from the south.
Click to expand...

The war between the Safavid Empire and the Roman Empire left both to be basically sitting ducks for the expanding Muslim empire. The Safavid's fell, opening up the Indian subcontinent and Central Asia to expanding Islamic influence while the Roman empire was only saved by the fact that the defenses around Constantinople were near impregnible until the technical innovations that the Ottomans had centuries later...
 
I voted for Christianity mostly because I was thinking local and modern day.
 
Eh, I think that, contrary to a lot of Americans' fear-driven beliefs, Islam isn't really trying to expand any more, either. Now, I do agree that, for the most part, the Middle-East is a rather unpleasant place (to use our famous British understatement), and that's largely due to Islam.

But Islam certainly isn't trying to spread into Europe, as so many Americans seem to think, and the only advances it has made have been through small immmigration floes, like refugees or migrant workers, and they don't amount to anything like colonisation. More importantly, Islam doesn't factor into the reason why some Muslims come to Europe -- so I'd say that, whether Islam is growing or not, it's certainly not expanding into Europe.
 
Psychoclown said:
Christianity got out of the holy war business a long time ago
Click to expand...

It hasn't been as long as you think.

gott_mit_uns.jpg
 
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...

Surely the Religion of Peace and Tolerance!
 
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...

Yes, the Koran calls for blood when spreading religion, the Bible does not.
 
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...

oh. well by the standard you have set up... for history (rather than 'for me'), it would be Islam. The Prophet himself said that he who died without taking part in a campaign against the unbelievers died in a sort of unbelief himself.
 
Last edited:
CompSciGuy said:
I voted for Christianity mostly because I was thinking local and modern day.
Click to expand...

if you went modern day, how on earth did you vote Christianity?
 
Le Marteau said:
Eh, I think that, contrary to a lot of Americans' fear-driven beliefs, Islam isn't really trying to expand any more, either. Now, I do agree that, for the most part, the Middle-East is a rather unpleasant place (to use our famous British understatement), and that's largely due to Islam.

But Islam certainly isn't trying to spread into Europe, as so many Americans seem to think, and the only advances it has made have been through small immmigration floes, like refugees or migrant workers, and they don't amount to anything like colonisation. More importantly, Islam doesn't factor into the reason why some Muslims come to Europe -- so I'd say that, whether Islam is growing or not, it's certainly not expanding into Europe.
Click to expand...

yes, yes, good point; Muslims would never attempt to impose any kind of Islamic rules on the public life of Europe.


hey, whatever happened to that guy who drew Mohammed in a cartoon? he still alive?
 
Christianity in my opinion. Taking into account its history and how it is in modern days.
It is still very much a religion that seeks to spread throughout the world only this time instead of its main tool of expanding being war and colonialism/slavery (In Africa especially), it uses other methods such as in Africa by handing out medicine, food but with it a Bible. It's missionary and encouragement of it included, which isn't really found amongst Muslims or Islam. We don't do missionary work
 
Isn't it pretty obvious that Jehova's Witnesses are the most pushy of any religion? They are unrelenting... it isn't even close.
 
With regards to the thread... Islam is more likely to kill you and Christianity is more likely to love you.
 
cpwill said:
yes, yes, good point; Muslims would never attempt to impose any kind of Islamic rules on the public life of Europe.


hey, whatever happened to that guy who drew Mohammed in a cartoon? he still alive?
Click to expand...

Oh, please, come up with something better than that. If you want examples of how bad religious extremists CAN be, I'll match you on both sides. How's Jim Jones and his cult doing, then?

The point is, there are extremists from both beliefs, but the governments of our respective nations aren't bowing down to those extremists, and they never will.
 
Le Marteau said:
Oh, please, come up with something better than that. If you want examples of how bad religious extremists CAN be, I'll match you on both sides. How's Jim Jones and his cult doing, then?

The point is, there are extremists from both beliefs, but the governments of our respective nations aren't bowing down to those extremists, and they never will.
Click to expand...

It's pretty obvious that Islamic extremists will resort to killing far more that Christian extremists...
 
Laila said:
Christianity in my opinion. Taking into account its history and how it is in modern days.
It is still very much a religion that seeks to spread throughout the world only this time instead of its main tool of expanding being war and colonialism/slavery (In Africa especially), it uses other methods such as in Africa by handing out medicine, food but with it a Bible. It's missionary and encouragement of it included, which isn't really found amongst Muslims or Islam. We don't do missionary work
Click to expand...

that's correct. Muslims are instead still into the slavery side of things. So much less pushy than handing someone a copy of the Bible along with free food and medical care :roll:
 
Le Marteau said:
Oh, please, come up with something better than that. If you want examples of how bad religious extremists CAN be, I'll match you on both sides. How's Jim Jones and his cult doing, then?
Click to expand...

they killed themselves. and they did it in relatively small numbers. care to talk about the body count that Islamist fundamentalism has racked up in the last 10 years alone?

The point is, there are extremists from both beliefs, but the governments of our respective nations aren't bowing down to those extremists, and they never will.
Click to expand...

:lol: yes, the governments of the West would never do such a thing as bow down before extremists, noooooo.....

hey, Michael Savage, is he allowed in Britain these days? :)

that Geert Wilders guy, he been in the courtroom for anything in particular recently?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom