“Let's not bicker and argue over who killed who.” Christian terrorism or Christians attacking other people is a favorite topic of atheists and other unbelievers. Recently, a friend on Facebook shared an article about a Muslim who “schooled” a white supremacist about Christian terrorism. There was so much misinformation given (without a single source, mind you) that I felt it was a great topic for a blog post. So here we are.
This stemmed from this article, as I said, that was shared on Facebook. We all know that Facebook is a wealth of knowledge and most of the memes and articles we read there are documented, factual, and vetted for accuracy. My sarcasm level there was turned to 11, by the way. You can see a great number of atrocities and terrible “Christian” organizations that this person references as being equivalent to ISIS—a Muslim terrorist group.
First and foremost, there is something very important to note here that nearly completely eliminates the need for further discussion (although I will discuss it further since that’s why I’m writing here). This point is simple: Islam's founder promoted, participated in, and taught violence. The Quran records much of this, as do history books. Violence in the name of Allah is what the founder of the religion called for and did. The insanity of political correctness has revised much of this, but the truth is easy enough to find. Over the course of 1400 years or so, Islam amassed an empire far larger than the British Empire at its height. The hordes of Islam have been imperialistic since its founder conquered Mecca in 624 AD. He conquered lands in Arabia until his death in 632 AD. His successors continued to conquer and subjugate neighboring nations for the next millennium and more. This has been the norm since this religion's birth: bloody conquest. Conversely to this is the fact that Jesus Christ never promoted violence. Forced conversion is absurd and Christ never advocated it. Killing unbelievers is also not something Jesus taught or did. Christianity is a faith built on grace, love, and forgiveness. If a person kills in the name of Jesus, it's difficult to make the claim that this is in line with Christ's teachings. If our actions are consistent with the faith we profess or the teachings of the founder of our faith, we are acting in line with that faith. If our actions are inconsistent or actually the opposite of what the founder of our faith taught or our holy book teaches, then we are not acting in the name of that faith. Does this make sense? The bloody history of Islam speaks for itself.
In this article I've linked above, the first glaring inconsistency is that the person who asks for the list of “Christian groups like ISIS” is a white supremacist. There is no such thing as a Christian white supremacist. It's not possible to follow Christ and hate people, especially if that hatred is born out of something as irrelevant as a skin color. The Bible clearly teaches that racism is 1) a man made idea, and 2) absolutely foolish. So the fact that this conversation even occurred is puzzling to me. But let's move on to the content here of the claim of Christian terror groups.
Let me say here, as well, that my intent with this post is not to slam Islam. The point is to use this Muslim's claims about Christianity to demonstrate the point that misinformation about Christianity is rampant and the misunderstandings about Christianity are huge.
He begins with the slave trade between Africa and the Americas and Europe. The very curious thing here is that the slave trade was fueled by Africans, many of which were Muslims. The slaves that were bought and sold were most often from central and western Africa and were sold by other west Africans. They were sold to the Americas, Europe, and even Muslim nations. In fact, because the Muslims of north Africa were attacking American trade ships and enslaving their crews, the US Marines were born. So the first thing this person brings up is something his religion promoted. Let's be honest here: the Muslim faith promotes slavery if we can take the Quran and acts of its leaders as a representation of Islam. Slavery is not so consistent with Christianity—a religion of freedom and grace (although, again, due to misinformation or Bible passages taken out of context or twisted, the unbeliever likes to say the Bible is for slavery). But the telling thing in this man's claim is the fact that he says the purpose of the slave trade was to bring the “heathens to Christ.” This is obviously not true, especially in light of the fact that Muslims were heavily involved, but he's trying to manipulate the information he's shared to mean something no one believes it means to further his point. A sure sign of weakness in your argument is that you need to lie about it.
The next point he makes is Native American genocide. He again claims this was done in the name of Christ. I say this is nonsense. The early American government did send missionaries to the Native Americans and paid for churches to be built for them, but the Native Americans were not murdered for the glory of Jesus Christ. The tragedy of the Native Americans is a very dark chapter in the Unites States, but to suggest it was out of America's Christian heritage that these people had their lands, and far too often their lives, taken is absurd. Not to beat it to death, but killing the Native Americans in the name of Jesus (which didn't happen) would not be in line with Christ's teachings.
He then goes on to the killing of Aboriginal peoples in Australia, trying again to claim such tragic violence was the result of Christianity. Not so at all. Christ never promoted such acts and saying that this was an result of Christianity, simply because the nation responsible claimed to adhere to follow a Christian worldview, is nonsense. He also notes that “90% of their population” was killed by Europeans. I'm not exactly sure where he got this figure, but what I've found is that Australia had roughly 250,000 natives when Europeans made first contact. Disease killed many of the Aborigines. Europeans killed many, as well. But the figure I'm finding is there were at least 60,000 left after disease and war. That's closer to 75% and it includes those who fell to sickness. Again, embellishing the figures to make your point seem stronger is a sure sign your argument is hollow. An interesting side note here is that because of atheism and its love for Darwinism, Aborigines were caught and forced into zoos in the West because the evolutionists believed they represented a less developed form of human. I don't feel that the conquest of Australia or the Americas is the same sort of thing as the Islamic conquest of the entire world, which was their goal. The method and intent are very different.
That's all I wanted to tackle for this week's post because these were related in that none of these things were done in the name of Christ—not by a long shot. To suggest they were is absolutely insincere. The politically correct crowd has decided that 15 centuries of blood shed on the part of Islam is nothing to write about, but manipulating history to seem like Islam was the passive victim is the way to go.
Christ taught something very different than Muhammad. John records for us a new command from Jesus that He gives us. He says, “Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.” There’s nothing in there about killing infidels or suppressing unbelievers. No killing in the name of God. No calls for beheadings. Jesus and Muhammad teach polar opposite ideas. The difference is easy to see, and you can see it in how Islam spread over the world and compared to how Christianity spread. The former spread by the sword; the latter in love. These are consistent with the teachings of their founders.
Next week we'll look at a few things that are brought up here concerning past actions that were actually done in the name of Christ. This will be interesting and I think you'll gain a new or fresh perspective on the topic of the Salem witch trials, the Spanish Inquisition, and the Crusades. Thanks for reading.
by Steve Risner
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.