The Old Testament was found to be more than twice as violent as the Quran

[Luger]

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...han-quran-text-analysis-reveals-a6863381.html

Investigating whether the Quran really is more violent than its Judeo-Christian counterparts, software engineer Tom Anderson processed the text of the Holy books to find which contained the most violence.

Using text analytics software he had developed, named Odin Text, he analysed both the New International Version of both the Old and New Testaments as well as an English-language version of the Quran from 1957.

It took just two minutes for his software to read and analyse the three books.

By categorising words into eight emotions - Joy, Anticipation, Anger, Disgust, Sadness, Surprise, Fear/Anxiety and Trust - the analysis found the Bible scored higher for anger and much lower for trust than the Quran.

Even the New Testament is a bit more violent.

"Killing and destruction are referenced slightly more often in the New Testament (2.8%) than in the Quran (2.1%), but the Old Testament clearly leads—more than twice that of the Quran—in mentions of destruction and killing (5.3%)."

Definitely the religious text of peace, compared to the other 2 Abrahamic crazy texts.

 

[SammyPops]

Well thankfully Christians/Jews have moved on from actualizing that book

 

[ripskater]

The Old Testament is full of sex and full of violence.

 

[Luger]

Well thankfully Christians/Jews have moved on from actualizing that book

Like when Bush jr. said that God told him to invade Iraq and many other nutters use those text.

 

[bad seed]

why indulge them by comparing which is worse? its all the same cult of Abraham in 3 different flavors. if you arent a desert dwelling semite, none of the Judeo-Christian faiths are relevant to you.

 

[IDL]

Religious Jews follow the old Testament.

Let the shaming begin.

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

I'd like to see their methods. Saying it "mentions" violence is vague. For example, what if 99% of cases of violence in the NT are presented as negative? For example, something like "And then so and so killed so and so, which was a sin," versus most cases of violence in the Quran being praised, like "And then Allah smote the nonbelievers and it was good."

EDIT: Upon reading a little more, it looks like a completely useless, superficial analysis. Just looked for words but not for context. What I wrote above could certainly be the case then, in which case labeling the NT as "more violent" is obfuscatory.

 

[Luger]

The Old Testament is full of sex and full of violence.

That is what I like about it. It/they is/are a hilarious text/texts.
But even the New Testament lost from that test.

 

[Hearse Lightning]

Edit.

 

[Luger]

I'd like to see their methods. Saying it "mentions" violence is vague. For example, what if 99% of cases of violence in the NT are presented as negative? For example, something like "And then so and so killed so and so, which was a sin," versus most cases of violence in the Quran being praised, like "And then Allah smote the nonbelievers and it was good."

I haven't looked into it, but here is the homepage: http://odintext.com

 

[spin]

I wouldn't doubt it, it's a terrible book.


The current concern, however, is the sheer amount of horrendous people that use one of those books to justify their monstrous deeds.

 

[FinalFight]

The old testament is like reading the ramblings of someone suffering from psychopathy.

 

[ShinkanPo]

The Old Testament is full of sex and full of violence.

Yet in my years studying in a Catholic school we have always been taught love,acceptance and forgiveness not ones I sense that the clerics wants me to kill people of other faiths.

 

[Luger]

Edit.

Look up LRA, Antibalaka, National Liberation Front of Tripura... and many others.

 

[Zankou]

It is a fairly useless analysis because the author (a software engineer) has no knowledge whatsoever of the terminology that the texts are using, nor their context. He's running a program on English translations.

For example, it is true that the Qur'an ceaseless calls Allah "merciful" (literally "Rahman"). But why? Mercy implies *guilt*, that he was going to smash you, but has (like a good tyrant) decided to be kind. Allah, in the Qur'an, is barely restraining himself from annihilating everybody with hellfire. That's why he is merciful. You are guilty, and you should pay, but Allah shall forgive you and extend you his mercy. Here, for example, are all the uses of terms in the Qur'an equivalent to 'mercy':

http://corpus.quran.com/search.jsp?t=1&q=mercy

Just look at 'em.

"Indeed, those who have believed and those who have emigrated and fought in the cause of Allah - those expect the mercy of Allah. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."

Another simple example:

And obey Allah and the Messenger that you may obtain mercy.

Now, one could say this is pleasant, or one could actually look at these references and say holy fuck, why is Allah constantly talking about how he shall be merciful and forgiving to those who obey him? And why is he merciful to believing jihadis who have fought for Allah? It's all about divine punishment, and its avoidance by submission to God's will. None of this can be resolved by simply taking the word 'merciful' and assuming it means something like 'loving,' when in context it normally means that Allah mercifully forgives the submitting believers of their sins .... unlike the non-believers, who he will smash for their disobedience and sentence to eternal hellfire. They get no mercy.

Likewise, the New Testament certainly talks a lot about killing ... but it condemns it. To take numerical frequency of such references as meaning that the text is 'violent' is a logical fallacy equivalent to taking an anti-war protestor to be pro-war because they talk about war so much. It is, I suppose, superficially true that anti-war protestors talk about violence a lot, using words like 'war' and 'killing'. Does that mean they are super-violent? Only if you are profoundly confused.

 

[colby25]

Outside of the book of Revelation which is about God's wrath being poured out onto the earth (and the persecution of Christians as well)- the New Testament violence is violence against Christians....not Christians committing violence, unless you want to count Peter cutting the man's ear off and then Jesus rebuking him and healing the ear.

Old Testament isn't necessarily condoning all violence but instead are stories of people and stories of nations an account on how people live according to God and sometimes live not to according to God's ways and the consequences.

The difference between the Quran and Christianity is Quran condones violence and to spread their beliefs by the sword while Christianity does the exact opposite- Love your enemies and pray for those that persecute you.

 

[Luger]

Yet in my years studying in a Catholic school we have always been taught love,acceptance and forgiveness not ones I sense that the clerics wants me to kill people of other faiths.

Of course the Catholic preaches teach the pupils to always forgive, since they are often abusing the pupils.

 

[Luger]

Where is leklok?
He'll set this straight, very peacefully.

 

[Seano]

The problem isn't what book the people read, its how literally they translate the symbolism.

 

[mrsenor]

all books are violent the difference is that secularism has impacted christianity and judaism more than islam