Jesus commanded his followers to go out and preach the gospel to the whole world. This is not done through violence and coercion, but with love and truth. Christians bear witness to their faith and tell the good news of the resurrection of Jesus, and that evil and sin are vanquished. And anyone who voluntarily accepts this message gets down on his knees for Jesus Christ.

To the extent that people, throughout history, have been forced to become Christians, this has had nothing to do with true Christianity. Nowhere in the teachings of Jesus (which defines the Christian faith), can one find support for the use of force or coercion when it comes to convert people to Christianity.

Yes! This is the exact definition of jihad. Sura 9;29 says:

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what has been forbidden by Allah and his Apostle, and who do not adopt the religion of truth even (if they are) of the People of the Book [i.e. Jews, Christians and Zoroasters] — fight until they give the Jizyah [a penalty tax that these groups have to pay for being protected by Islam] willingly while they are humbled".

Islam has for the most part been spread through war and coercion and threats. Even today Islam is propagated in this way in Africa, Afghanistan etc. Purely demographically, Islam also propagates by the Muslim baby boom (which all available statistics show). The latter is particularly noticeable in Europe, where the birth rate of the indigenous peoples is only a fraction compared to the birth rate of the Muslim immigrants. There are a number of demographic research reports concluding that the Muslims will be in majority in Europe within 100 years or less (probably much sooner than so).

In principle, yes. Hitler was primarily out for Europe and parts of Asia (Soviet etc), but who knows how far his ambitions had extended had Germany won the war. Under all conditions, his main target was to eradicate all Jews around the world and reach his goals by using military (and other types of) force and violence.

Definitely, yes. It was (and is) the target of world communism.

No! No thought coercion exists within the Christian faith. Everything is by free will. But the person who meets Jesus finds that he/she begins to think differently. Starts seeing people in a new light….. the light of love. And perceives the entire Creation in a new and different way.

Yes!

Yes!

Yes! This was (and is) the target of world communism, and was fully applied in the Soviet Union, China etc.

The Christian philosopher C.S. Lewis once said something like this:

"There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done’, and those to whom God says, ‘Thy will be done (i.e. all right, then, have it your way)’." In other words, you get what you want. It is up to each one if you want to become a child of God, or continue to live in rebellion against God. God does not violate our will, but respects it.

Yes!

Yes!

Yes!

Jesus says in John 18:36, "My kingdom is not of this world." Christianity is not a political system with police, military etc, which sustain the Christian faith and force people to live according to the Christian doctrine.

As a Christian, you are free to renounce your faith and religion whenever you want. There will, however, be consequences, just like most things you do brings consequences. But no-one forces you to be a Christian. Nor does Christianity compel anyone to a particular view on sexuality or politics.

Christianity has, of course, views on sexuality and politics. Paul says in 1 Cor. 6:12, "Everything is permissible for me — but not everything is beneficial". Sexuality, which is perhaps the most beautiful thing two people can enjoy, can, if abused, also be a destructive force. It appears quite clear from the Bible, at least as I interpret it, that God’s purpose for sexuality is that it has its place in a lifelong relationship between a man and a woman. Now, it doesn’t always turn out to be this way, but this is another issue. But even if Christianity has views on sexuality, it is not about forcing anyone. Everyone can choose to live the way he wants to, as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody else. And may also take the consequences of the choices he or she makes.

Abortion is another difficult topic. According to the Christian faith, abortion is compared with murder (to deliberate and planned kill a human being is murder, and nothing else). Christians have the right and duty to proclaim this. But as a Christian you have no right to force anyone to embrace such a view.

Christianity also speaks of our responsibility to take care of the weak and the sick and the poor. A political system that provides an unjust inequality, economic and otherwise, is contrary to the Christian faith. But Jesus does not urge his followers to take up arms to fight injustice. Instead, the Christians shall through their own lives show mercy and compassion. According to Christianity, Man does not change because society changes, but society changes when Man is changed (borne again).

Yes! Renouncing Islam, and refusing to return to Islam when offered the opportunity, is always punished with death (according to Sharia law o8.0 onwards)

If we look around a little bit to see how the world ticks, we note, among other things, that the Islamic world has very little democracy. It seems, that the more influencial Islam is in a country, the less room there is for democracy. Countries like Egypt and Turkey (the latter has for a long time been the Moslem country in which Islam has had the least influence — this has unfortunately changed during the last years) are certainly, at least officially, democracies, but have mostly been governed by military or other juntas or dictators. In Egypt all changes of power since WW2 have been done through coup d'etats or happened because the dictator died (either from natural causes or by murder). Not one single change of power has been caused by free elections!

Some freedom when it came to sexuality and religions. In Nazi Germany, Islam was a much-favored religion. Christians who stood up for human values etc lived, however, dangerously, but as long as your faith and actions were not seen as a threat to Nazism, you were left in peace.

Nazi Party membership was not mandatory but gave huge benefits. To openly criticize Nazism meant normally that you were sent to a concentration camp (not death camps like Treblinka, but camps like Buchenwald), where you had to work extremely hard and got very little food. Most of the prisoners died within a few months. Few lasted a year. Some were executed directly on arrival at the camp.

Some sexual freedom. No political freedom or religious freedom. According to Marxism; first you change society (the Revolution) and then Man will change for the better. That this does not work is quite obvious when looking at the Soviet state and today's Russia. Christianity says that it is Man and not society that is at fault. Society is just a reflection of Man. And when Man changes to the better, society changes to the better.

To criticize Marxism and the Communist Party meant that you became an outcast, excluded from the community, and were unable to get a job etc (often your own family would also distance themselves from you — to save their own skin) During certain periods all dissidents and critics ended up in Gulag or were shot more or less immediately (tens om millions of people were executed in the Soviet Union for such reasons). In China and many other Marxist countries conditions were about the same (sometimes even worse).

Christianity supports these freedoms. After all, it is the Jewish-Christian cultural sphere that has been leading these issues. Israel, incidentally, is the only Middle Eastern country enjoying free speech etc. The Jewish-Christian part of the world (America, Europe and Israel) have been forerunners concerning freedom and human rights och has inspired the rest of the world to encompass democracy and stand up for human dignity (it was the Western democracies that forced the Islamic countries to abandon slavery — e.g. 1962 in Saudi Arabia and 1970 in Oman).

In the worldview of the cultural "elite", the equal value of all beliefs is often portrayed. Everyone is supposed to be entitled to his/her opinion. And so it is. But everyone being entitled to have and express an opinion, does not make all opinions true. In the real world some statements are false while others are true.

Christianity is very careful to distinguish between true and false and right and wrong. To be honest there are opinions that are objectively wrong (like the proposition "The Earth is flat"). To say that someone is wrong (in an absolute sense) is thus neither racism or inteolerance, which is often claimed by the politically correcte so called elite. Some things are objectively true, whether we like it or not. Ideology and politically correct majority opinions will eventually have to bow to Truth!

Yes! Very severe limitations when it comes to these freedoms.

Yes!

Yes!

No! Everyone can freely choose whether he wants to become a Christian, and if he wants to live like a Christian.

According to the teachings of Jesus, the choice that you make in this regard will have tremendous consequences. Not only in this life, but especially after death. But that is another story. Most people who deny the existence of the Christian God, do not believe in anything supernatural at all, including life after death. To renounce God brings in this perspective no consequences (as he does not exist). But the truth is, unfortunately, not subject to what we believe. What is absolutely true is independent of our views and wishes. If God exists, then our personal approach on this will have very serious consequences.

Regarding the consequences in this life, this is (in a Christian society) not about external coercion or punishment of any kind, by religious or ideological security police (nowhere, neither in the New Testament nor in the teachings of Jesus, is anything of that type ordered). What I mean with this is that, by becoming a Christian, you will get a different life than if you reject the Christian faith. I am not saying that all Christians are constantly happy and walk around incessantly smiling. Neither do I claim that all atheists are constantly unhappy. But I think, yes, I am convinced, that as a Christian you can have a safer, and ultimately, happier life.

Yes! The very word "Islam" means "submission". To express any doubt on Islam, the existence of Allah and that Muhammed was Allah's prophet is, according to the Shariah, punished by death through stoning or beheading. In the Islamic world people are thus controlled by exterior force and threats.

Yes! Not submitting to the Nazi doctrin led, as said before, to concentration camps or capital punishment.

Yes!

No! Christianity is not a worldly system. Christianity transforms people’s hearts and this in turn leads to the world changing for the better. But this is another issue. It was deeply devout Christians who put an end to slavery (e.g. William Wilberforce in England — please read about him on Wikipedia), since the Christian view of human nature is impossible to reconcile with slavery.

Martin Luther used to talk about “the worldly and the spiritual regiment”. By that he meant the State and the Church. These should not interfere in each other’s affairs. When the king is trying to control the Church, or the bishops are trying to run the country, it leads to disaster, according to Luther.

The Church of Sweden of today is governed mostly by politicians and has, because of this, very little to do with original Christianity (as taught by Jesus Christ). This sad condition is clearly apparent when you listen to statements made by the leadership of the Church. They ooze political correctness and exhibit an almost total absence of the teachings of Jesus (of course there are many, many ordinary priests in the Church of Sweden, who are faithful Christians and what I say does not reflect on them).

Yes! Islamic clergy have a total control over all aspects of society in a country where Sharia law prevails.

Yes! Despite the fact that Hitler initially relied on professional soldiers, eventually the Nazis began regarding the professional militaries as potential traitors, and at the end of the war, Himmler was on his good way to replace Wehrmacht with Waffen SS (as viewed by the Nazis as ideologically reliable, since they first and foremost were not loyal to Germany and the German people, but to Hilter).

Yes! In the Soviet Union, its defense was led by political commissars (politruks) during the beginning of WW2 (the bulk of the higher, capable officers had been executed by Stalin a few years before the war broke out). The politruks were generally ignorant regarding military matters and therefore useless as military leaders, and Stalin finally realized that this did not work, and handed the leadership over to professional soldiers (and thus “rescued” Soviet from total defeat). After the war, when all-clear was given, they returned partially, however, to the old order.

No! The Jewish-Christian culture is open to other cultures’ way of looking at things. The West, although by now quite atheistic, still has its basic thinking and values built on the Christian world view. The West is open for "the others". How they think and function. This does not mean that Christians embrace everything, but they are prepared to learn from others. This is the key to the West’s enormous success in science and living standards and humanitarian values.

Yes! And that is exactly why those countries where Islam is strictly applied and where Sharia law is implemented, still largely find themselves in the 1100s (Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan). Even if they apply Western technology, it is only on the surface (as proved by the fact that hardly any science or technology development worth its name, exist in these countries — with some exceptions, such as Pakistan, which is a strange mix between the 1100s and the 2000s). They find themselves compelled to adopt modern technology in order to assert themselves, e.g. militarily (much like Stalin, who was forced to remove the politruks as military commanders). But the Islamic leaders (in general) do not want science, as they perceive it as a threat to Islam. For a detailed discussion on Islam’s view on science and other cultures, click here!

Both yes and no. On the one hand, they despised "Jewish physichs" (there were several conferences in Germany during the 1930s, where Einstein's relativity theories were ridiculed and dismissed as scam — and the ones who did this were no fools, but included a.o. two Nobel Prize winners in physics, Johannes Starck and Philip Lenard, which shows how a fanatical ideology can transform the most intelligent person into a brain-dead zombie).

Technology and science from the outside world was simultaneously absorbed and quickly applied (e.g. the jet engine was an English invention, but the Germans were quick to jump on the train and were soon at the forefront of the development of the jet). When later in the war they attempted to construct atomic bombs, they had, in spite of everything, to concede and apply Einstein's theories. Truth does not obey ideological pipe dreams!

Yes! The Soviets argued frequently that they had invented almost everything. It was quite entertaining to read about farfetched arguments trying to prove that Soviet had invented both the airplane, the computer etc, etc. Much of the Soviet technology and science had been "snatched" from the West through espionage and the like, such as the atomic bomb. Soviet built its own Concorde (supersonic passenger plane), in the West jokingly known as "Concordsky". Today we know that through espionage they managed to get hold of all the blueprints of the Concorde, except for a few important ones. Unfortunately they did not succeed in figuring out what was printed on the missing blueprints, which led to Concordsky being wrecked before hundreds of thousands of spectators during a major air show in England, and the project was brought to an end.

Still there were (and are) very prominent Russian scientists (it is perhaps more relevant to speak about Russian than Soviet, as the Soviet communism by itself was hardly the cause of their skills). Mathematics is incidentally an area in which the Russians excel, and there are a large number of talented Russian mathematicians.

No! In the Christian perspective there are no prohibitions to explore Creation and try to understand how it works. The more we discover how amazing the universe, life etc is, the greater becomes God. Kepler, Galilei, Newton, Linné, Maxwell and Einstein all saw the tracks of an Intelligence, when studying the Universe and its constituents. So there is absolutely no conflict between science and being a Christian (Einstein was per se not a Christian, but still he thought he could see a superior Reason behind the laws of the Universe). Newton, who is considered one of the absolute foremost natural scientists ever, was deeply religious and 2/3 of his literary production was about God, and 1/3 about science.

Yes! The Sharia law states the following (section w10.0) under the heading "Why is philosophy illegal" (illegal here is equal to blasphemy, which is punishable by death): "Every opinion that contradicts any well-known dogma of Islam, and is in consensus among the scholars, is infidelity (kufr) and illegal to learn or teach, except to explain that it is illegal. And Allah knows best."

In the following section, we read, "The illegitimacy of the materialistic sciences refers to the materialistic belief that things in themselves or in their own nature have a causal (cause and effect) influence independent on the will of Allah. To believe so is unbelief, and sets you outside of Islam."

Thus, according to Islam, there are no natural laws. To believe such, is punishable by death. That science is conspicuous by its absence in countries where Sharia law is applied, is hardly surprising.

Yes, partly! An example of this is the Nazi racial biology. See also previous question!

Yes, partly! The Soviet "biologist" Trofim Lysenko represents a shining example of this. His incorrect theories on plant breeding mediated exactly what Stalin and his politruks wanted to hear, and were therefore raised to absolute truth, even though they lacked any scientific basis. Those Soviet scientists who opposed Lysenko ended up in Sibiria or were executed. Through Lysenko, the Soviet biological research was moved decades back in time (read about Lysenko on Wikipedia). Also see previous question!

No! Paul writes in Galatians 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, man and woman. For you are all one in Christ Jesus". There exists no other ideology or religion, that as powerfully as Christianity asserts human equality and rights. It is no coincidence that modern democracy arose in the West, whose view of human value and freedom is rooted in the Bible.

Yes! According to Islam’s sacred documents, Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians are admittedly entitled to keep their faith whenever a country is conquered by Islam. But this requires that they subordinate themselves to Islam and live in a kind of apartheid system, and also pay a penalty tax for not being Muslims. All other groups have to become Muslims when the country is conquered (there are different interpretations here, some are less intolerant, but no-one will fully tolerate other groups).

But not only non-Muslims are oppressed. The oppression of women is the norm in Islam. When a woman marries, it is, according to Sharia law m3.2(a), not herself who says yes, but her male representative (“guardian” — a woman must always be subordinate to a man, be it her father, a brother, an uncle or her husband, yes it can even be her own son if she is a widow).

We witness today how Christians are evicted from many Muslim countries (and are even murdered and persecuted). In the Qur'an 4:94 we read, "It is not permissable for a righteous [i.e. a Muslim] to kill a righteous [i.e. another Muslim], so far it is not done through ignorance." To kill another Muslim is therefore prohibited in Islam. But what about killing a non-Muslim? Well, a famous Hadith says:

...and the judgment that no Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for killing a Kafir (disbeliever) (Hadith according to Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 83, Number 50)

The clear message here is that if a Muslim kills a kafir (a non-Muslim), he shall not be killed. This Hadith does not exclude the possibility that a Muslim could be punished in some way, if he killed a Christian or a Jew, but different groups seem to have different values according to islam.

The Islamic view of human life and value, when it comes to non-Muslims, seems to be rather shaky. Christians and Jews, who subordinate themselves under Islam (and live under apartheid-like conditions), do have some protection, but other non-Muslims have basically no human value at all.

Yes! Hardly any need for comments. Auschwitz and Treblinka tell it all.

Yes! After the Russian Revolution, hundreds of thousands of people were systematically murdered because they belonged to the wrong class, or suspected of being critical of the Bolsheviks. Not much need to be said here either. Gulag suffices! It is difficult to estimate, but many historians believe that several hundred million people have been murdered by Marxist regimes (Soviet, China, Kampuchea etc) during the 1900s.

No! There is absolutely no racism or support for racism in the Christian faith. See also previous paragraph!

Islam is both racist and not racist. Everyone can become a Muslims, even black Africans. At the same time, the Arabian slave trade in Africa continued for over 1,000 years and added up to somewhere between 12 million and 30 million black slaves. The Arab slave trade was additionally much more cruel than the European. All male slaves were castrated (except those who would become soldiers) to prevent them from having children and to make them more docile. Many died from the procedure itself, due to infections or blood loss (the Arab slave trade is described here — not yet translated).

Today there is, for this reason, virtually zero percent black Africans in North Africa (see e.g. CIA's World Fact), where most of the slaves ended up. When black Muslims make their pilgrimage to Mecca, which every Muslim is expected to do once in his/her lifetime (if possible), the black Muslims live separately from other groups. Now it can be said that this reflects perhaps more on Arab racism than Muslim racism. But on the other hand, Islam is born out of the Arab culture, so the difference might not be so great.

Islam is therefore not entirely in the clear when it comes to racism, although racism is not something that distinguishes Islam. In the governing documents of Islam (the Qur'an, the hadiths etc) I have not found anything that directly encourages racism. But I have neither found anything that even comes close to the tolerance and love of mankind and equal rights of all human beings, that Jesus calls his followers to show.

Yes! Definitely no comments are necessary. Racism is the lifeblood of Nazism. Its very essence.

Marxism as such is not racist. Then there are of course groups in Soviet/former Soviet Union that were/are racists. Among the Cossacks, hatred for the Jews is flourishing even today (at this moment of writing we can see it right now in Ukraine). I am pretty sure that many Cossacks still applaud the Holocaust. Not all Cossacks are anti-semites of course — I saw recently a documentary on TV where a Cossack leader was mentioned, who had converted to the Jewish faith some time between WW1 and WW2. Most people in his village followed him.

No! Christians have died in all times for their right to believe and their right to preach the gospel. But Christians do not kill others (unlike Muslims) to impose their faith on them (to the extent that such has occurred, it has nothing with Christian faith to do). Christians are forbidden to kill (for any reason) and the Muslims are ordered to kill when spreading their faith.

Yes! Within what today is called Islamism, the culture of death is particularly prominent. To die for Allah, which is seen as a holy act, will guarantee you a place in paradise, plus will you be greeted as a hero in your country.

The problem for those who argue that this has nothing to do with Islam, is that most Islamists are very well versed in Islam's sacred texts. Plus, they take their faith very seriously. It is therefore difficult to reduce all Muslim suicide bombers and terrorists to confused people, totally ignorant of what Islam really says. That Islam and Islamism are closely related, is also exposed in that we rarely hear any prominent Islamic clergyman vigorously condemning this type of actions. On the contrary, it is the mullahs who inspire and encourage suicide bombings etc.

Personally, I believe that the Islamists are the true Muslims. Those are the ones who truly follow Islam's sacred documents and demonstrate what Islam really stands for. They are the Islamic equivalent of Pentacostals.

Yes! It can be said, without exaggeration, that there existed a death culture within Nazism. To die for Hitler was the most supreme action a man could make.

Even the Nazi ally, the Japanese, had a death culture. This had its roots in the Japanese bushido culture, according to which dying for the emperor was the most glorious thing any one man could do (an expression of this were the Kamikaze pilots during WW2).

Marxism is not a culture of death in the same way as Islam and Nazism, even if the respect for human life is extremely low within Marxism. On the other hand, I believe that an ideological system, which kills hundreds of millions of people (of its own people), in some sense is a culture of death!

That all the Russian soldiers who gave their lives during WW2 and were (rightly) hailed as heroes, have nothing with death culture to do. But in the Marxism system of thought, a man’s value is extremely low. Man exists for the community, and is in fact reduced to a consumable. Human individuals mean nothing. This is the opposite of Christianity, where society exists for Man, and the individual is everything.

No!

Saint Patrick is usually called "Ireland’s apostle" (read about him on Wikipedia). Patrick, who was an Englishman and a believing Christian, was abducted at age 16 by Irish “pirates” and was a slave there for six years. This occurred in the 400’s. Ireland was not yet Christianized. He managed to escape, but experienced a few years later a call from God to return to Ireland as a missionary, and so he did. He preached the gospel, at the risk of his own life, and baptized thousands of people and is now Ireland’s patron saint and is widely considered to be the one who Christianized Ireland. He did not come with weapons and armies, but he came with the love of Jesus Christ and the "Sword of the Holy Spirit" — the Bible. And transformed an entire country. This is true Christianity! And that is how Christianity largely has been spread. And is also spread today. Christianity is right now growing rapidly in China. Teenagers, having met Jesus, continue to the next village and witness about their faith, and people are saved.

Unfortunately, the opposite has also occurred. You only have to be reminded of the Spaniards’ rampage in South- and Central America. Tragic! But that has nothing to do with Jesus. You can never make anyone a Christian by coercion, because Christianity is not about external rites and confessions or membership in an organization. It is about a relationship with God himself! The faith that Jesus speaks of is the faith of the heart. And this can never be forced into someone by external means. Forced faith might perhaps have a semblance of Christianity, but has nothing to do with true Christian faith.

Yes! Islam has for the most part been spread by wars and conquests and threats and coercion. This is apparent from the Muslim history description. Muhammad was a war chieftain, which is clearly reflected in the religion he created. Rather few people have voluntarily become Muslims, e.g. through marriage (a non-Muslim woman who marries a Muslim man must convert to Islam, according to Islam’s sacred documents). After hundreds of years of inaction and seemingly peaceful coexistence (the explanation being that they were not strong enough to threaten the Western world), Islam has now awakened and passivity has been replaced by an increasing aggressiveness. We need only look at the situation in Africa to realize that such is the case. Slowly but relentlessly Islam propagates to the Christian parts of southern Africa. This is done through civil wars, threats, terror, and even demographically. This we read about almost every day.

All Muslims are commanded to participate in jihad, i.e. the holy war, to spread Islam (see point 1 above). Those Muslims, who die for their faith, die when they try to force others to become Muslims. Christians who die for their faith, die for their right to believe, and for their right to preach the Gospel.

Yes! That Nazism was spread through violence and war is hardly something that can be questioned. This is clearly established in the light of history. Hitler and his henchmenm were proud of their ability to conquer nations through violence, threats and war.

Largely, yes! Marxism is propagated in several ways. Violence has been used very extensively. The Marxist idea harbors a good idea of fairness and equality. It is no surprise that poor people in the Tsar’s Russia or the industrialized nations of Europe became Communists. Greedy and unjust capitalists exploited the working class as much as they could. Of course, not all business leaders were like this, but enough to awaken the righteous anger of the masses. The problem is that the Marxist idea is not based on love, but on hatred, and can therefore never create a better world. That which is borne out of hatred and violence and evil is perverted from the outset.

In the countries that fell under Marxist regimes, the oppression was at least as severe as before, but of a different kind (a few months after the Russian Revolution the Bolsheviks executed the same number of people per month, as had the Tsar done during the last 10 years). The capitalist or royalist ruling class was replaced by a new ruling class, with equal privileges as the former. There were certainly Communists who were real idealists, who opposed the leaders’ lives of luxury and extravagance, but they were soon executed scared to silence.

Following the Russian Revolution, it was not long before thoughts of a worldwide Communism arose. To accomplish this, both cunning and violence were applied. Stalin and Mao were, as I see it, just as evil as Hitler. Their evil just showed different expressions. Essentially, Marxism has been spread largely by force or fraud (which is a form of violence — intellectual violence).

No! Christianity creates a better world. It is no coincidence that modern democracy is so strongly linked to the Jewish-Christian culture. Nor is it a coincidence that the West has been a leader in science, technology and much more. We can today discern a decline in the Western world and the explanation is, as I see it, a downturn in the Christian influence. Read more about this in my article on the consequences of the Christian faith (not yet translated to English).

Yes! Looking at the Muslim world at large, you can see violence and oppression and narrow-mindedness and aggressiveness. Poverty and illiteracy. A flood of Muslims pour into Europe, Australia etc. Whilst many of these Muslims arrogantly declare that Islam is superior to all other systems. But if this was the case, why does not multitudes of Europeans etc flee to the Islamic world instead.

That some Muslim countries have a relatively high standard of living depends in part on the oil, which has made these countries unimaginably rich. In some of these countries the oil money have come its citizens to share, while in other countries the money have only enriched the ruling caste. But even in the richest oil states, repression is great. Moreover, if it had been up to the Islamic world only, there would have been no airplanes or cars and thus no need for crude oil. And without the "decadent" West, which is so deeply despised, especially by the Arabs, they (the Arabs) would have had no clue about all the oil under their feet (which the West discovered, pumped up and transported for them).

Yes! When the Nazi dictatorship in Germany fell in 1945, the country was in ruins. Millions of Germans were dead, including a very large portion of young people. The industry was almost completely obliterated, and without the urgent help from the Allies, the country might have collapsed. In hindsight, Nazism totaled about 50 million dead, a Europe largely in ruins, the unimaginable suffering and poverty for many years to come for those who survived the war. And an unimaginable suffering for tens of millions of people (including millions of children) during the war.

In the long term, this is always the fruit of evil (even though it may look good in a short perspective, which happened in Hitler’s Germany, where unemployment soon disappeared after the Nazis gained power — the problem is that you cannot create long-term prosperity by building highways and weapons and summon millions of young men to become soldiers).

Yes! Also Marxism seems incapable of creating a better world. When the Soviet empire collapsed 1989, it was not because of any external enemies, but the system collapsed as a consequence of its inability to create something better, to augment. During its existence, the Soviet Communism had murdered perhaps 30, perhaps even nearly 100 million people, both within its country as well as in neighboring countries (e.g. Poland). Marxism caused unimaginable suffering. The Soviet state was not conquered by the United States, but fell apart of its own weight. It seems as if Marxism can only loot what is already there. And when there is nothing more to loot, well then the system crumbles.

In simple terms, Marxism is saying "all yours is mine" while Christianity says "all mine is yours". They are each other’s mirror images. Marxism takes and Christianity gives. Grudging envy versus giving love. Jesus says in John 10:10, "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I have come that they may have life, yes, life in abundance". Death and life!

Of course I am not saying that all Marxists are evil and all Christians are good. There have been many good-hearted people who have believed in Marxism as a system to create a better world. Unfortunately, they were wrong and many of these good-hearted people ended up in Gulag. What I am trying to show is the principal difference between Marxism and Christianity. "Each tree is recognized by its own fruit", as Jesus says in Luke 6:44.

No!!! Jesus said, when he faced the Roman governor Pontius Pilate, "For this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me" (John 18:37). The Greek word here translated to truth is "aletheia", which means "complying with the facts, what is absolute true, as it is in fact". Christianity is the religion of truth, and lies are under no circumstances allowed. Christianity has no hidden agenda. All is made transparent and then it's up to each and everyone to take a stand for or against Jesus.

Yes! In Islam, there is a principle called Taqiyya. It says, among other things, that it is mandatory for a Muslim to lie to reach an objective which is mandatory in Islam (i.e. Jihad). Read more about taqiyya in my comprehensive dictionary of Islam (not yet translated to English).

The former Palestinian leader Yassi Arafat was known (from bitter experience) in Israel as "the man who never kept a promise". He was also known as "the man who never missed a chance to miss a chance" (considering how many Israeli peace offerings he turned down).

Yes! Just take a look at Hitler’s negotiations with England’s incredibly naïve Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain before WW2 broke out. Hitler promised repeatedly that he had no more territorial demands. And time and again he broke those promises.

Hitler also attacked in June 1941, completely unexpected and unprovoked, the Soviet Union, even though he had a non-aggression pact with this country. Evil is neither bound by promises nor by truth.

Yes! The party newspaper in the Soviet Union was called Pravda, which usually is translated as "Truth". But things are more complicated than that. The Russian word pravda roughly means, loosely translated, in this context, "the 'truth' that favors the party". There is however another Russian word for truth, istina, interpreted as what is normally meant by truth, i.e. what is consistent with facts.

Therefore could Pravda, without being ashamed, publish articles that showed pictures of queues of "hungry youngsters in Stockholm waiting for what little food they could get" (in fact, the pictures showed young people queuing for tickets to a pop concert at Stockholm Concert Hall). But because these images benefited the Party and the World Communism, they were "true" (pravda), even if they were not true in the real sense (istina).

In the Soviet Union and China and the GDR and Romania etc you lied to your (brainwashed) friends, your (brainwashed) wife and your (brainwashed) children about how wonderful life was in the Workers Paradise (otherwise there was a risk that they would inform the police, and you would end up in the Gulag or worse). Yes, you even lied to yourself (to survive). All lied to everyone, to keep up the official Lie (i.e. that the communist countries were the best, richest countries in all the world, with most freedom and happiness).

No! Jesus himself was a Jew. The disciples were Jews. The Old Testament, which is part of the Christian Bible, is the Holy Scripture of the Jewish people. Therefore Christianity cannot possibly be anti-Semitic.

Christian anti-Semitism has unfortunately existed, but it has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus, but is a consequence of man’s wickedness and disobedience. The Christians often justified their anti-Semitism by saying "it was the Jews who killed Jesus". This statement is as wrong as it can be. Firstly, it was the Romans who physically killed Jesus. Secondly, it was ultimately you and I who killed Jesus. He died to save us from eternal death. And he sacrificed his life of free will, which he clearly says in several places. You can read more about this on my pages about the Christian faith.

Yes! The Qur’an and Hadith contain horrific statements about the Jewish people. Virtually the entire Islamic world is a fanatic enemy of both Israel and the Jewish people. Hezbollah and Hamas have vowed to exterminate the Jewish people etc, etc. For more details I refer to my sections on Islam and Israel respectively (keeping in mind that all articles are not yet translated to English). Also use text search on my blog and home page.

Yes! This hardly needs any further justification.

No! Karl Marx himself was a Jew. Many of the leaders during and after the Russian Revolution were Jews. Stalin appears to have been an anti-Semite, and is said to have planned pogroms against Jews shortly before he died. Maybe this has to do with the Russian anti-Semitism, which seems to be a part of the Russian culture. It is, in any case, not linked with Marxism.

Yes! Christianity respects other cultures and has also learnt a lot from other cultures. Christian love, which includes all peoples and nations, have made Christians to be curious about "the others", which have led to sciences such as history, geography, anthropology etc. This love for all people has also driven Christians, many times risking their own lives, to evangelize and also build hospitals, schools etc, in other parts of the world.

This does not mean that Christianity says that all cultures "are right" in everything. Even if you as a Christian respect Muslims, atheists etc, it does not mean that you consider their faith as being true. But this is mutual. One thing is certain, Islam and Christianity can possibly not, simultaneously, be objectively true, as they clearly contradict one another. The Qur’an is very distinct in that Jesus was never crucified (sura 4:156), while the death of Jesus on the cross is a central part of the Christian faith. Nor can atheism and Christianity be simultaneously true.

No! I discuss this in more detail here here

Generally not. The Nazis had, however, great respect for Islam, because Islam was a religion of war and not a "sissy love religion", like Christianity. A famous quote from Hitler is, "If Karl Martell had not won a victory at Poitiers [an important battle 732 AD in France, between Christians and Moslems. who tried to conquer Europe] …we would have converted to Mohammedanism, the cult that glorifies heroism and which opens the gates to the Seventh Heaven, which is only for the bravest warriors! Then the Germans would have conquered the whole world". For source see Wikipedia's article on Islam and Nazism

Himmler set up two SS battalions, consisting of Bosnian Muslims, who were found guilty of serious war crimes after the War (read more about this here — not yet translated to English). Also other warrior cultures (the Vikings, Alexander the Great etc) won the Nazis' admiration.

Both yes and no. But the basic answer is no, because the Marxist goal is to conquer the whole world (by unlimited violent means if necessary) and then force all people into this system and eliminate the ones who refuse to convert. It’s hard to call this respect.