Christianity does indeed have a tradition of holy war. This is totally unrefutable. Anytime a group raises the banner of Christianity in the context of war, you have holy war, whatever the circumstances.
This really is grossly unfair, because the assumption behind it is that I can sully the name of any religion or ideology I like simply by raising its banner and doing something reprehensible. In any event, this claim fails to address the point which I made earlier:
The Christian "core," if you will, has no tradition of holy wars of conquest. Though the pope may not have criticized the Conquistadors (I don't know), one can mount a good argument against them from the New Testament. Jihaddi, on the other hand, are much, much tougher to refute from the Qur'an. In other words, Christians who criticize those who kill in the name of Christ have much, much firmer ground on which to stand than Muslims who criticize those who kill in the name of Muhammad's Allah.
no subject
This really is grossly unfair, because the assumption behind it is that I can sully the name of any religion or ideology I like simply by raising its banner and doing something reprehensible. In any event, this claim fails to address the point which I made earlier:
The Christian "core," if you will, has no tradition of holy wars of conquest. Though the pope may not have criticized the Conquistadors (I don't know), one can mount a good argument against them from the New Testament. Jihaddi, on the other hand, are much, much tougher to refute from the Qur'an. In other words, Christians who criticize those who kill in the name of Christ have much, much firmer ground on which to stand than Muslims who criticize those who kill in the name of Muhammad's Allah.
Like I said, the question is one of theology.