I Knew it.  The twin towers shouldn’t have attacked that airplane.

Perhaps in the Old Testament, when God was directed the people of Israel to survive, yes.  However, the Quran provides direction on how Muslims are to treat outsiders from that moment forward.  I wonder if Prof. Jenkins’ book will be comparing the OT and the Quran moreso than the NT and the Quran..  the latter providing the “marching orders” so to speak for their followers.

Well, thank whom for Ottoman Turkey massacre of all those attacking Christians, eh?  Early 1900’s, no international intervention, and an inspiration for certain subsequent events in Europe in the 30’s and 40’s.  Darfur and Nigeria, today!  Tomorrow, the world.

The consequential application of the texts has some bearing on their interpretation in historical fact.

I think this guy misses the big point: in Holy Scripture vengeance is God’s alone, whereas in the Qu’ran individual followers are supposed to be carrying out the jihad. Individual Christians are not told to commit violence.

You can also pretty easily compare Jesus and Mohammed. Jesus turned the other cheek and died on a cross whereas Mohammed ransacked Mecca and killed a bunch of people.

Possibly, a more interesting question is why was this piece on NPR?  I would postulate that it was broadcast because it plays to the NPR demographic.  Just look at your typical pledge week broadcasts on PBS and you will see endless repeats of Wayne Dyer’s syncretistic, feel good theology.  The worrying thing, however, is that there is no counterpoint to the thesis advanced by the interviewee.  NPR, much like the cable and talk radio programming its demographic abhors, does not present enough factual counterpoint.  Overall, this was a shallow piece of reporting.

NPR is pro-homosexual and leftest oriented.  I hate the fact that any of my tax dollars go to its support.

Can’t anyone respond other than “Yes, but” and “NPR is liberal”?

It is meaningless to add up the number of violent verses and draw any conclusiona as to which religion is more violent. In the same manner, I reviewed the obituaries in this mornings paper, and draw the conclusion that more women die than men.

I think that Prof. Jenkins should ask which book’s adherents are engaged in more homicide bombings, “honor” killings, stonings, and other violence motivated by the teachings of that book.  Any guesses on the current ratio between Christians and Jews on the one hand, and those adherents of “the religion of peace” on the other?

“Much to my surprise, the Islamic scriptures in the Quran were actually far less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible,” Jenkins says.

and he just figured that out now?  such has been in evidence for centuries.  of course it is the CONTEXT in which the violence is presented that is important (even paramount).  but the Prof. does not want to go there for sure, there would be conclusions that would not fit his hyper secular world view.

Nope.

While there may be more violence in the Holy Bible than in the Quran, the violence in the Bible is directed at specific people - the Cannanites, the Amorites, etc.  It is not directed at “all unbelievers.”  The violence in the New Testament is either directed at God (e.g. the Crucifixion) or by the Angels (the battle in the Revelation to St. John).

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Perhaps the good professor would like to meet those who read the Quran daily and pray towards Mecca thrice daily.  He might change his mind….LOL

You have to expect a dog to bark, a bird to fly, an NPR to trash Christianity, water to flow downhill.  You also have to look at the calendar.  It’s the Other Season.  It’s time for Time & Newsweek to have cover stories to explain “What Really Happened” at Easter.  The Season like unto it is around December when there will (As predictably as phases of the moon) be the annual articles on “What Really Happened” at Christmas.

NPR doesn’t trash Christianity.  If it did, why would Kendall listen to it?  It’s an article that questions conventional wisdom about the violence in Islam and Christianity, by a scholar that lots of conservatives adore. 

I’ve often found their reporters to be very easy on conservative evangelicals.

Must respectfully disagree with John Wilkins re NPR. Does it “bash Christianity”? No. But it is consistently unkind toward “traditional” Christianity. That Kendall listens to it proves nothing one way or the other. I listen to NPR all the time even while I would argue it has a strong leftist aka liberal bias. It is a good source of news even if that news if often rather slanted. Often has interesting pieces even if they tend to reflect one end of the ideological spectrum.

It is precisely because I listen to NPR almost exclusively that I am aware of its consistent bias. Not against Christianity per se. But against traditional or conservative or evangelical Christianity. Liberal or just plain apostate Christians are treated quite favorably.

And yes I have committed the sin of “topic drift” since the original post is about Philip Jenkins. One of my best friends (classmate student colleague) serves at the parish which Jenkins attends.