

quran vs bible 2The world has watched in horror while members of ISIS justify the next mass murder or icy execution with words from the Quran, followed by shouts of Allahu Akbar—God is the greatest! If beliefs have any power whatsoever to drive behavior—and as a psychologist I think they do—there can be little doubt that the Quran’s many endorsements of violence play a role in how exactly ISIS has chosen to pursue religious and political dominion.

At the same time, it should be equally clear a sacred text filled with violence is insufficient to trigger mass brutality unless other conditions are present as well. Culture, empathy, education and empowerment—and other factors that scholars understand only in part—appear to have a protective influence, safeguarding even most fundamentalists against the worst teachings of their own tradition. We know this in part because the Bible contains commandments and stories that are as horrific as those being used to justify butchery in Iraq and Syria.

The following 30 violent exhortations are a mix, drawn from Jewish, Christian, and Muslim scriptures. The generic word God is used for all deity names, and names of places or people have been replaced with generic terms. How well do you know your Torah, Bible, or Quran and Hadith? Can you tell which is which? Give it a try and then check the key at the bottom.

  1. Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the [holy man] who represents God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged.
  3. All who curse their father or mother must be put to death.
  4. Fight them until there is no more [disbelief or worshipping of other gods] and worship is for God alone.
  6. Whoso fighteth in the way of God, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.
  7. Make ready to slaughter [the infidel’s] sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants.
  8. [God’s messenger]… was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The [holy man] replied, “They [women and children] are from them [unbelievers].”
  11. Keep [my holiday], for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die.
  16. I shall terrorize the [heathens]. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them, because they oppose God and his apostle.
  17. A [holy man’s] daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death.
  19. Everyone who would not seek God was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.
  21. But if [a girl wasn’t a virgin on her wedding night] and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her father’s house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against God’s people by her unchasteness in her father’s house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst.
  22. The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say.”O [believer]! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.”
  24. God’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but God’.
  25. Cursed be he who does God’s work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood.
  26. God said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. [Prophet], you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But God desires killing them to manifest the religion.’
  27. Anyone who blasphemes God’s name must be stoned to death by the whole community of [believers].
  28. When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) [your religion]; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them… If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them [a tax]. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek God’s help and fight them.
  29. Anyone else who goes too near the [Holy Place] will be executed.
  30. Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us.

Is the Quran more violent than the Bible as most Americans believe? The question is hard to answer. A tally at the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible counts 842 violent or cruel passages in the Bible as compared to 333 in the Quran. That said, the Bible is a much thicker tome, and even though the New Testament endorses and adds to the violence in the Old, when percentages are compared, the Quran comes out ahead. In addition, the kinds of cruelty and violence vary as do the perpetrator and victim and the extent to which any verse can be interpreted as divine sanction for the behavior in question. Either way, endorsements of violence abound in both.

Bible and Quran believers who recognize verses in this list will no doubt protest that they have been taken out of context, as indeed they have. I think the appropriate response to such a complaint is a question: What context, exactly, would make these verses uplifting, inspiring or worthy of praise? In what context are passages like these some of the most important and holy guidance that the creator of the universe might think to impart to humankind? In what context is a book that contains these passages and many, many more like them the apogee of divine goodness and timeless wisdom?

Members of each Abrahamic tradition are quick to point out the rational and moral flaws in the others. I wonder sometimes, what this world might be like if they were as quick to examine the flaws in their own.


Key: Odd numbered quotes are from the Bible, even numbers from the Quran or Hadith. 1. Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT; 2. Bukhari 11:626; 3. Leviticus 20:9 NLT; 4. Quran 2:193; 5. Matthew 10:34-35; 6. Quran 4:74; 7. Isaiah 14:21 NAB; 8. Bukhari 52:256; 9. Ezekiel 9:5 NLT; 10. Quran 8:12; 11. Exodus 31:12-15 NLT; 12. Quran 5:33; 13. Leviticus 20:10 NLT; 14. Quran 8:67; 15. Numbers 31: 17-18 KJV; 16. Quran 8:12; 17. Leviticus 21:9 NAB; 18. Quran 9:5; 19. 2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB; 20. Quran 17:16; 21. Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB; 22. Bukhari 52:177; 23. Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB; 24. Bukhari 8:387; 25. Jeremiah 48:10 NAB; 26. Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 484; 27. Leviticus 24:16 NLT; 28. Muslim 19:4294; 29. Numbers 1: 51 NLT; 30. Tabari 9:69




About Valerie Tarico


55 Responses to Bible vs Quran—Test Your Knowledge of Who Deserves Death in Which Religion

  1. mriana says:

    I found reading the Quran worse than reading the Bile because there is violence more frequently in the Quran. I found as a read it, I felt more anger about what I was reading in the Bile because of the more frequent violence. In other words, I liked the Quran even less because of all the higher frequency of violence.


    • shatara46 says:

      I like how you spell Bible: Bile. Best name I ever heard for that book – thanks, it deserves no better!

      Liked by 3 people

    • Qet says:

      Maybe if the secular war mongers were killed, we could be rid of the Most violent regime ever to exist in history. 300,000,000 dead men women and children in a hundred years takes the prize. Can you top that? 300,000,000 ? Eye on the ball people. Look behind the curtain. Don’t fall for these smoke screens


      • mriana says:

        Actually, more religious people have started wars than non-religious. Hitler was Catholic and 6 million Jews, along with others, were killed and that’s just for starters. This war in the Middle East has little to do with oil and plenty to do with religion- Islam and Xianity. So I’d do some more research before you blame Secularists for war and the death of billions. It’s not Secularists fault that wars are started.


      • shatara46 says:

        I realize your tongue in cheek reply about killing secular war mongers – to do that you’d have to wipe out most of mankind for in one way or another, as I have observed while engaging them about the real meaning of peace, they are at heart all war mongers, religious or not, though they believe themselves not to be (denial of their basic human nature). But I think your 300 million dead in a hundred years is way low. I’m not good at math but if you take the UN estimate of approximately 40,000 innocents dying daily of preventable causes primarily because of oppression from resource quests, meaning being forcibly driven from their homes and ancestral lands lands and deprived of available food and health care and multiply that by 365 (1 year), I get 14 million 600 thousand/year. Now multiplying that by 100 years for a crude result equals 1 billion, 600 thousand. To get a “fair” number assuming logically that less died in 1900 than in 2000, I divide that by 2 which gives me 730 million dead people due to violent exploitation. That is not including the dead in the major wars and in religious conflict. I am not one to focus on any silver lining on the edge of the storm cloud. Coming from generations of seafarers on the “tall ships” plying the Atlantic, I know instinctively where to look for trouble. Man is in such deep s**t at this time his only remaining refuge is in rhetoric and denial.


  2. thanks Valerie,
    Especially appreciated what you wrote on the accusation by believers who often will say:”you’re taking this verse of context” :
    so well said!


  3. Valerie, wonderful response to “aren’t you taking this out of context?”


  4. sorry for double posting….didn’t think the first one took :-)


  5. shatara46 says:

    The religions that we know, mainline, official, recognized religions, have always had fear as their ace in the hole. Without the ability to propagate fear they falter and can be replaced by other “powers” which take a different approach to bringing people to their side. For example, the power of money uses greed as its drawing card. The power of the state uses control. While the latters (Money or State) methods are equally violent, they can hide it or justify it better than religion can at this time, using subtlety, advertising, subterfuge, in other words, through blatant lies. If one looks at the overall effects of these powers’ violence, organized religion actually doesn’t come off too badly. Look up the UN statistics on how many innocent people die daily of preventable causes. The problem is with religions’ claims: that they represent a God, or gods, of love. Adding to the mix, today’s world is confusing peoples’ trust in the old trinity of powers with infiltration from science, technology, information, which have caused many borderline believers to question the reason for their faith in invisible “sky wizards” (term borrowed from a book I read recently) who more often than not are proved to be in error regarding nature and certain events, and certainly remain in the realm of fiction. Result? Powers never die quietly. Organized religion is grinding back, wherever it finds fertile soil, or even just a foothold, using its tried and true method of evangelizing: through overt violence. What has erupted in Islam is currently festering in the US religious “right” – and the bottom line is political power and money. My prediction is, overtly violent religion is making a comeback, first regionally, and eventually, globally. Main reason, apart from the fact it’s its turn back on the earthly throne, people are becoming both blase and sick from the corruption oozing from their political systems and the corporate stranglehold choking the planet. The people of earth are not spiritually or mentally evolved enough to consider their fourth and final option that would unseat and dis-empower their controlling and murdering “powers.” It’s too simple and too demanding: compassion with total self-empowerment on an individual basis.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. john zande says:

    Of all the abhorrent justifications for the violence I’ve ever heard, none is worse than Divine Command Theory.

    Great post. Need more of exactly this.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Powerful post, excellent questions.

    It seems all religions deal in violent texts. Years ago, I tried to escape the Old Testament admonitions for lethal violence by moving toward Hinduism (since I had just read Gandhi’s book on nonviolence, but then I had a Hindu priest in Los Angeles tell me it was the Hindu God’s will that I go and kill in Viet Nam:-( I learned about the Mahabharata which is filled with slaughter and the Bhagavad Gita where the God Krishna tells Arjuna to kill his relatives in war…

    So I left Hinduism
    and eventually became a Quaker, who are also known for nonviolence…
    Or so I thought
    until a Quaker historian, David Boulton proved me wrong. In Militant Seedbeds of Early Quakerism, he shows originally the Quakers were pro-war. George Fox called on Oliver Cromwell to extend his war into continental Europe: “Consider this message to Cromwell, signed “George Fox” and dated January 1658, where the Protector is lambasted for not carrying his military conquests into Europe and on to Rome itself—even to the Turkish empire:

    “Oliver, hadst thou been faithful and thundered down the deceit, the Hollander had been thy subject and tributary, Germany had given up to have done thy will, and the Spaniard had quivered like a dry leaf wanting the virtue of God, the King of France should have bowed his neck under thee, the Pope should have withered as in winter, the Turk in all his fatness should have smoked, thou shouldst not have stood trifling about small things, but minded the work of the Lord as He began with thee at first … Let thy soldiers go forth… that thou may rock nations as a cradle.”
    And even Quakerism’s Margaret Fell said that the English Puritan army was “the Battle-axe in the hand of the Lord.”

    I wonder why all religions at some point are given to war.

    Maybe, it’s not just religion, but that war and violence are inherent in the human species. Peacemaking and nonviolence aren’t easy to follow.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I had no idea!

      Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________


    • shatara46 says:

      War and violence aren’t necessarily inherent in the “human” species, but they are in the Earthian pseudo-human species. Peace and non-violence demand and entail controlling the emotional mechanism, replacing it with logic and common sense. Hence it means complete detachment from anything System, or Matrix, whatever one chooses to call “it” and refusing to listen to “they” who rule within this controlling apparatus. It means going against the social programming and agenda. If man truly desires to resolve his overwhelming social and environmental problems he needs to get a grip on defining who or what he actually is. It’s not that hard to figure out. Solutions to problems mean fully understanding the root cause of the problem. Is MAN, man’s number one problem? The question I asked myself many years ago is, “What is wrong with man?” Then it was a matter of going through a veritable labyrinth of false leads until I discovered a way out. What I found there was quite unexpected but the problem of “man” (in juxtaposition to the natural environment of earth) was explained, and that was a beginning. My next question was, predictably, “Is man human?” To answer that one, one has to define in strict terms what is meant by “a human being.” Once that is resolved a lot of pieces of the man puzzle fall into place.


      • You raise fascinating points, but I don’t understand some of your points.

        For instance, what do you mean by the term “Earthian pseudo-human species”?

        You mention “a veritable labyrinth of false leads.” A poetic phrase worth remembering, but what specifics such as?

        So what is the “problem of ‘man'”?

        What “pieces of the man puzzle fall into place”?

        A lot of ‘hooks’ in your comment. I’ll jump (like a curious salmon or catfish;-)

        Or send me a few urls to my email so I can pursue your comments further.


      • shatara46 says:

        I try to let people think for themselves first, then explain if necessary. Answers arrived at “alone” are always best – my explanations should take second place. Can I do this in relative short order?
        The people of earth are not human – that they are human is a perpetrated lie by their “makers” or gods, or handlers, if you will. First basic trait of a human being: it is empathic. A human being does not cause harm to others for its own ends, ever. Period. Hence, Earthians are pseudo-human. They have the potential to become human but are more likely to terminate themselves before they achieve this giant step.
        False leads: System teachings from public educ. (history), religion, news media. The way out was to find threads of “truth” in non-conforming science (anthropology and archeology) done by non-mainline individuals (ex: Zecharia Sitchin, for one), and lucky for me, I also had non-earth teachers (oh, oh… that’s a no-no! No more credibility for you!) who were very helpful to me as I was defining myself “away from” run of the mill earthianity.
        Man’s problem is he is an incomplete cloned creature – basically a GMO. He has designer genes and was put together some 400,k years ago, give or take 50 k either way. Physical evidence is now available that proves this but it’s not Matrix approved. Man is an artificial invention with the potential to evolve – “they” could not keep that out and still make an ISSA (Intelligent, Sentient, Self-Aware) being that would serve their purpose – an intelligent, obedient, programmed slave.
        The puzzle of man: why is man inherently evil? A destroyer of nature? A killer for pleasure or as a violently militant servant of rulers? A life hater and rapist as he proliferates uncontrollably over this little world? What falls into place is becoming aware that man is incomplete, and realizing what would make him complete – self-empowerment through personal compassion – by deliberate choice which eventually would make man into an empath at which point the problem of man is solved.
        I don’t have any url’s, sorry. But if you want my email address, ask in a comment and we can “talk” as time permits.


  8. All religions as a source of ideas for what might be useful for us as individuals to live care, compassion and ultimately love yes, nothing more though as it invariably becomes a tool for oppression, which is a tool for power. How much we long for comfort and warmth and are attracted by the concept of “belonging” even in the face of atrocities perpetrated by our own. How true Harvard’s Robert Sutton is, when he points toward the fact that in the course of the last 50 years. we allowed the “violents” and “aggressives” to become our leaders (governments and private), misinterpreting their violence for strength. And how important it is for those who strive for human values of compassion, tolerance, collaboration, equality, transparency to stand up in our everyday lives.
    Valerie, thank you again, for the zillion times :-)


    • Well said. Thank you.

      Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________


    • richardzanesmith says:

      its not so much that we “allow” the violent and aggressors to become leaders. Its THESE are the ones who RUN for office. We are simply given the choice to choose one aggressive person or another. (The wise don’t have a chance) The present system encourages aggressive fiercely competitive leadership who make promises they often cannot fulfill. In our traditional Wendat (Huron) Confederacy and also the Iroquois Confederacy there is actually a much better governing system in place that lasted for hundreds of years before being toppled by war based patriarchal influences. Clanmothers(who are respected grandmothers) appoint certain men to represent their clans and who only speak for the clan, not giving opinions of their own, knowing their position of authority could be simply taken away (by Clan mothers) and given to a more qualified spokesman. Imagine in OUR world if wise Grandmothers were sitting behind every politician and could yank his strings when he was becoming out of line. what is missing is the ying/yang, masculine/feminine balance. BOTH these “Religions of the BOOK” are OVERLY patriarchal systems in which conquest is always the option.


      • shatara46 says:

        Most people have no understanding of political ponerology, how a handful of psychopaths gain control of all sorts of power groups, but particularly “democratic” type governments, then turn it to suit their twisted sociopathic natures. The following gives a detailed expose of this major and mounting problem for Earth people. Much to read on the subject at the following link.

        by Andrew M. Lobaczewski
        with commentary and additional quoted material by Laura Knight-Jadczyk

        Andrew M. Lobczewski’s book is available from Red Pill Press now in both paperback and E-Book formats

        Anyone who has read “Oliver Twist” by Charles Dickens will recognize several psychopathic personalities in that story. Particularly, Mr. Monks, Bill Sikes, Mrs. Corney and the workhouse board members stand out. A world-class ponerologist is currently dictator of North Korea. This individual had his ex-girlfriend publicly executed by firing squad and her family and friends sent to concentration camps for alledgedly “conspiring” against his regime. There was, according to reports, no trial. But most ruling sociopaths are not that blatant. They use lies and subterfuge and send others to do their dirty work. Some may have heard of George Bush and Stephen Harper.


  9. Shatara46,

    Thanks for your further explanation.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. I’m anticipating an Epic Rap Battle of History–Bible vs. Koran.


  11. mriana says:

    I just noticed the “most out-there religious beliefs” are Western religions. Did you not find any in the Eastern religions? I can help you with that- Shinto belief is that the spirits (Kami) stay on the island of Japan. Must be really crowded with all those kami around. lol


    • shatara46 says:

      Yeah, well, problem with that “argument” is that any “thing” in spirit form doesn’t take up physical space, nor does it need any physical sustenance. Bonus, spirits can live just as comfortably in space, in the earth, in the ocean – they’re not bound by physical constraints. Of course that’s a matter of belief, I suppose, so I’ll quote my now famous disclaimer: believe all things, believe in nothing. Works for me!
      At least the Japanese spirits do not appear to promote violence being more in keeping with the ancestors of Native American peoples.


      • mriana says:

        It was a joke. Japan is overpopulated with humans. You can take the joke about kami from there, but still it was a joke.

        Liked by 1 person

      • shatara46 says:

        … and my reply was also a joke… :-) But joke or not, wouldn’t it be a great idea to reduce 80% of Earthian population to spirit status – no longer could they do violence to one-another, or at least that’s my take. Could be very wrong on that – thinking here that all these religious bad-asses are happily sailing to heaven when they die. What’s to make them change their ways there? “Oh, please, no, not heaven, please… NO!!!!!”
        I read somewhere very recently that Japan is planning to INCREASE its population, and look China is doing the same. Boggles the mind that, doesn’t it?


      • mriana says:

        I don’t know what the difference is between a soul and a spirit, but looking at the Xians who say we go to heaven, I don’t see how much of a difference it would make unless the beliefs were peaceful like those in many Eastern religions.


  12. mumumugu says:

    Reblogged this on mumumugu and commented:
    Spot the religion of war


  13. Hemant says:

    Powerful post. I have my point wise response here below

    1. No man can be as holy or as evil like the Prophet himself.
    2. What if the man is not in a position to make the prayer; then does this justify his action.
    3. Everyone could curse their father or mother; even for fun.
    4. Someone could be worshipping their most loved person also who is other than God secretly without your knowledge. What would you do in this case?
    5. Does it mean that he who lives by the sword dies by it?
    6. So what about all the Heroes who really did fight. Did they get killed without your intervention? Most of them are still alive and still prophetizing in the name of peace and harmony.
    7. What if your father was a good person and you are the exact opposite?
    8. How do you know if they are a believer or not, without introspecting them?
    9. There are lot of them without marks on their forehead, do you say kill them all? Or you still have some other way like asking them to recite the Quran etc?
    10. Totally murderous and terrorist mentality. Cannot be equated with a peaceful Religion.
    11. Why cant I take the rest of the week day off? Why is that a sin? My boss is taking a day off, why shouldn’t I?
    12. Totally murderous and terrorist mentality. Cannot be equated with a peaceful Religion.
    13. They are meaning the opposite, at least by their actions, that are proved in courts every day.
    14. Is the prophet a Butcher?
    15. Are you insane?
    16. Ditto
    17. All of them? You must be nuts? Over 50 pc of your community?
    18. Why not in the sacred month? Are you bleeding from your other end?
    19. There are lot of happy atheists alive, why so?
    20. Very evident!
    21. You mean no broken pussies before marriage? Virgins, whatta joke!
    22. Your friend hides behind a tree and says he is jew. Would you kill him?
    23. My friend does not believe in any God. But he is still sane, what shall I do?
    24. You have failed miserably.
    25. There are lot of your so called cursed people who are leading a happy and sane life. What do you have to say to justify this?
    26. The prophet is no better than a butcherer
    27. What if there are “N” Gods, does that mean the whole of humanity must be sacrificed?
    28. What if they are so shrewd and clever that the manipulate you to live but don’t really care for your bullshit
    29. Which one? They have already destroyed many!
    30. Agree, the irony is that the smallest of coffins are the biggest burden for many.

    ISLAM is the winner here at least


    • mriana says:

      Really? How so? How is Islam the winner? Your statements make no sense, esp the last statement.


      • shatara46 says:

        Agreed – I cannot, for the life of me, follow what the comments refer to. Perhaps Hemant could re-write her/his thoughts in a different format or post references to Quran/Bible to clarify? There may be some gems there but they are in the rough, unrecognizable to the layman’s eyes.


  14. Pingback: How Religion Can Let Loose Humanity’s Most Violent Impulses | Freethought

  15. Pingback: Links and Comments: Bruni on ‘religious liberty'; love vs hate; godless kids do just fine; Biblical law; anti-science senators; Pinker on Shakespeare; io9 resources | Views from Medina Road

  16. Pingback: Kill in the name of religion | S.O.S. Kashmir

  17. Pingback: 12 Worst Ideas Religion Has Unleashed on the World | Satu Insan – Malaysia

  18. Pingback: 12 worst ideas religion has unleashed on the world | Believers vs Non-Believers

  19. Pingback: The 12 Worst Ideas Religion Has Unleashed On The World | Counter Information

  20. Pingback: Religion’s Dirty Dozen—12 Really Bad Religious Ideas That Have Made the World Worse | The Age of Blasphemy

  21. Joker says:

    What is wrong with you people? Don’t you folks remember when the backers of Darwin and Lamarck were slaughtering each other to decide whether learned traits could be inherited? No? OH, right. I am wrong. There never was such a war. Hmmmm; come to think of it now I can’t find a single instance where holders of one scientific point of view massacred the deniers for supremacy.
    Ken (The Fool)


  22. Pingback: 12 Worst Ideas Religion Has Unleashed on the World | Patriots and Expats

  23. Pingback: Good Friday - Irish Secure

  24. gwpj says:

    Reblogged this on Musings by George Polley and commented:
    Since neuroscientist and author Sam Harris has again raised this issue in a recent blog of his own, and in a conference at Harvard, I’m reblogging this excellent article by Valeria Tarico, which she published a year ago.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. Both books speak of gentleness, tolerance and understanding but in an age of increasing cultural hostility your excellent post just demonstrates that those with hatred or fear in their hearts will always find something to justify what they do. The problem may not lie with the books but in the very nature of man.

    Liked by 1 person

  26. bbnewsab says:

    About the correlations between religion, xenophobia, racism and violence

    According to the social sciences religion increases trust among congregants (i.e. among those who already know each other by belonging to the same group). But at the same time religion causes trust to drop towards unfamiliar people (i.e. those outside the congregation or group).

    That’s why religion (religious faith) correlates so well with xenophobia and racism. For more details, see .

    Here’s an interesting quote from that article:

    [I]t is sometimes difficult to make a clear distinction between racism and xenophobia because they exhibit similar motivations for exclusive behavior designed to demean others and the exercise of political violence. However, there is one element missing in racism that is often present in xenophobia: religious identity. Manifestations of xenophobia occur not only against people with different physical characteristics but also against those of similar background who are believed to hold different and presumably dangerous and hostile religious convictions.

    When it comes to the point of relationship, specifically, between religion and violence, see for example .

    OK, I admit that not all pundits agree with my somewhat simplified correlations that seem to show how toxic religious faith can be with regard to interpersonal relationships. Karen Armstrong, for example, is of a different opinion, see this review of one of her books: .

    But if I am to be accused of being a cherry-picker, then all those denying or minimizing the correlations between religion, xenophobia, racism, and violence clearly must be cherry-pickers as well.

    As a matter of fact, my views on this relationship are more mainstream than Karen Armstrong’s. Have a look at .

    Let me quote from that Wikipedia article:

    Some critics of religion such as Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer argue that all monotheistic religions are inherently violent. For example, Nelson-Pallmeyer writes that “Judaism, Christianity and Islam will continue to contribute to the destruction of the world until and unless each challenges violence in “sacred texts” and until each affirms nonviolent power of God.”



    Regina Schwartz argues that all monotheistic religions, including Christianity, are inherently violent because of an exclusivism that inevitably fosters violence against those that are considered outsiders. Lawrence Wechsler asserts that Schwartz isn’t just arguing that Abrahamic religions have a violent legacy, but that the legacy is actually genocidal in nature.



    Anyhow, it would have been very interesting to ponder how Karen Armstrong and her followers would have answered, and commented on, this quiz of 30 holy verses, taken from the Bible or Qu’ran that Valerie Tarico, one of my favorite bloggers, wants her readers to take.

    You don’t even need to take the quiz to understand that Abrahamic religions have caused many sufferings and wrong-doings both past and present.

    So, thank you very much, Valerie, for this disclosing quiz and blog post!

    Liked by 1 person

  27. Pingback: The Weekly Upchuck November 22, 2015 | Being Christian

  28. Bill Gates says:

    Even if the old verses condone violence, that was during the time of the law of Moses. Eye for an eye. Jesus fulfilled that law and now it is love one another and no punishment by death. The Quran still preaches to subdue the infidel. Compare what Christians do now to what is happening in iran, Iraq, syria, Egypt is sobering. Just because the Bible has violent verses doesn’t mean it is okay for Islamic followers to execute people now based on their book.


  29. Hisham says:

    Unfortunately most of the quotes regarding the Quran being the subject of your study is misleading. I am so sorry to say because for instance the quote that says “I decided to order a man to lead the prayer and then take a flame to burn all those, who had not left their houses for the prayer, burning them alive inside their homes. All who curse their father or mother must be put to death.”
    is not from the Quran. The Hadeth is not the Quran and the sources of Hadeh are mostly unreliable. I personally don’t believe in the reliability of most of them. If you want to be unbiased in comparing two books do not refer to another source and indicate that you are literally comparing the Quran and the Bible.
    God bless you all


  30. Pingback: 12 de las peores ideas que las religiones le han dado a la humanidad – Neon_Knight's Blog

Leave a Reply


You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s