Unfortunately, all religious texts have been written and translated by less than perfect beings (that would be us humans). What was originally meant (in word or spirit) has, most likely, been lost in the translation.

???

This is a common trend in quite a few european countries, more crime committed by people without roots in the region. But it's not what HT is saying.

Saying that they are massively over-represented in an age demographic is different than saying muslims are responsible for ten times the level of murder, beatings, and sexual assault than someone from a non-muslim background or religion.

Your own post points to a ratio of general criminality to somewhere between 2 and 3. Happy Times says 10. This may qualify as "some truth".
I want to know if he has anything to back it up with. Or if he picked the number ten out of the air, or parts unknown.

Can't back it up with links out of the blue, but you should double these values for crimes conducted by young men below an age of early 20s and with a migration background from Muslim countries, namely Turkey and Albania , I read last year and the year before that they are customers for law enforcement up to 6 times as often as native german juveniles, if you calculate different group sizes of foreigners and natives out of the equation (you do a standardisation to eliminate that group size effect, that is).

Regarding Biblical violence - the Old Testament was when the Jews were under the Law of God - and there were VERY violent passages there. However, when the Jews rejected Jesus, the gift of Salvation ushered in GRACE - which is why the New Testament is SIGNIFICANTLY less violent.

Also - before you make a comparison - kindly take into account that there is not a threat to the security of people and nations due to a bunch of "fundamentalist" Christians who are using the Old Testament to blow up innocent people and create a worldwide empire. Yes - there is the OCCASIONAL wacko - but they are a real rarity - whereas Islam and its "moderate" followers shield and tacitly condone the actions of their own "wackos".

When you see a bunch of "Fundamentalist Christians" toting guns in the streets and killing anyone who disagrees - while hiding behind the shield of innocents and their religion - on the news every day - in 1/10 of the countries in the world - you let me know.

Until then - your attempt to equate the two beliefs shows only a total lack of understanding, or a deliberate attempt to subvert the truth.

Do you mean me...?

No Skybird - that was in reply to Platapus. He tried to say that Islam is no more violent than modern Chrisitianity.

While you and I disagree on many things - including theology and its place in society - we both agree on the threat that Islam is to modern civilization.

Did I say that? I just pointed out that there were verses in the bible that advocate the killing of unbelievers just like you pointed out there were verses in the Qur'an that advocate the killing of unbelievers.

I did not make any statements on the relative violence between Islam and christianity.

Platapus - I reread your post and your correct - my mistake and I apologize. However, the inference in there that due to the words of the Bible - Christianity must be as violent as Islam. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way - and if so then I regret taking it that way. I simply have gotten tired of people comparing the two and claiming everything from what the old testament says - to the violence of the crusades - as a way of saying that what modern Islam is doing - both by extremists and the moderates who condone and silently support it - is ok.

And my apologies if my post was not clear.

This does bring up an interesting question. In Christianity what part does the Old Testament play?

Do Christians just ignore the Old Testament? Is the entire Old Testament "Christianity 1.0" and the New Testament "Christianity 2.0". Does 2.0 replace 1.0? Or only if there is a conflict between 1.0 and 2.0 does 2.0 take precedence (and if so where does the bible state this?)

I know what my upbringing was, but I would be interested on how others deal with this.

If the Old Testament states that it is god's will that Christians kill unbelievers, what do what do they do? Well the vast majority of Christians don't do that. There are Christian nutters who do and at times there have been large numbers of Christian nutters that have killed unbelievers. Fortunately, in our times, the number of Christian nutters are rather small and isolated

I would imagine that the vast number of Muslims (about two billion of them) when reading in the Qur'an that it is god's will that Muslims kill unbelievers also don't do it. There are Muslim nutters who do and at times there are large numbers of Muslim nutters who do kill unbelievers. Unfortunately, in our times the number of Muslim nutters seem rather large and organized.

To be honest none of these nutters can be called Christian or Muslim. Both may CLAIM to be either Christian or Muslim but in actually both are apostates perverting their respective religions.

There is, after all a big difference between saying you are a Christian/Muslim and actually being a Christian/Muslim. :D

True , you have the recent spate of killing people for witchcraft by people who call themselves christian and you have the rather pleasant Lords Resistance Army who really go for that death to the unbelievers stuff in the name of christianity , but you notice a lack of people focusing on these nutters and saying oooo look at how christianity is evil and violent like they do with Islam .

I think "Christian" is way to broad a term to give a single answer to that question.

Well I cannot speak to every "branch" of Christianity, but Protestantism - and all its facets and subsets - tend to agree on this theological question.

The OT was written prior to the birth of Jesus. To be saved you had to meet specific requirements - one of which you had to be Jewish. The second requirement was that you have faith in the coming of the Savior as had been prophesied. Third, you had to obey the 10 commandments. Fourth, atone for screwing up #3 via ritual sacrifice. There were some other minor things, but those 4 were key. Doing this kept you in line with God's will. Yes, that meant if you were a Gentile before the birth of Jesus - you were simply $hit out of luck.

Now, when Jesus was born, his gift of salvation was initially meant only for the Jews. However, they rejected him (as was intended) and thus salvation was opened up to both the Jew and the Gentile. At the time that Jesus died, the Law ceased to be the way to God, for as Jesus said, no man cometh to the Father but by me. By Faith and acceptance the way was opened to spiritual salvation. The Law is still a guideline for righteous living, but the need to sacrifice an animal is no longer necessary as the Lamb of God has paid the price already.

The 10 commandments are now simply instructions on how one should live a righteous life, whereas before they were laws that had a price to be paid should you violate one of them.

Today, you can hate your neighbor, and ask forgiveness. Before, you had to go slaughter a lamb or some such. It cost you to "pay for" that sin - now many people just say "oops, sorry" and swipe their Jesus credit card.

Yes - that was sarcasm. Sad fact is - many who CLAIM to be Christian do exactly that.

The OT now for Christians (Protestant types) - is basically a mixture of history, lessons of growth, praise, and guidelines on righteous living.

We Christians already had our fun with the Crusades.

Good point , because Christians came in many flavours , but as Muslims also come in many flavours isn't all this "its the Muslims" talk way too broad aswell .