No one virtue signals during a terrorist attack

Good point. Upvoted.

How would you feel if this meme said "You can pretend that Christianity is a religion of peace all you want . . ."? It's an ugly slander on hundreds of millions of people.

Abraham - First of the Hebrews/Jews. Started zero wars.
Jesus Christ - Creator of the Church. Started zero wars.
Muhammad - Creator of Islam. Invaded and violently killed most of the people at Mecca in order to solidify his religion.

One of these things are definitely not like the others.

I'll let you in on a secret. The oldest part of the Torah is the Book of Exodus, so if you want to know what the early legendary history of the religion is about, you read that (plagues!) and the Book of Joshua (wars! invasions!). And while Jesus (a jewish rabbi) certainly preached the wisdom of turning the other cheek, a great deal of cruelty has been done, allegedly in his name, by various denominations of Christians throughout the years. "Deus vult" was the Crusaders' cry before what we would certainly call crimes against humanity.

Come to it, the majority Buddhist country of Myanmar has a brutal ongoing civil war and a record of oppression of the Rohingya, a Muslim ethnic minority. (The Thai government has apparently been complicit in some of this as well.)

No religion has completely clean hands, but religion is part of our human culture. Just as with humans themselves, we want to consider the whole scope of a religion, rather than narrowing it to its most extreme and ugly end.

Dude, the oldest part of the Torah is book of Genesis. The only "secret" you've let us in on is that you're incredibly uneducated in this topic.

And the point of the meme is not disproven, because you can defend Islam all you want, you can attack other religions all you want, but no matter where in the world you are, you will react to shouts of "allahu akhbar" in fear, and rightfully so. You will never react like that to Jews shouting Baruch Hashem, or Christians shouting Christ has Risen ... so STOP PRETENDING that something inaccurate has been stated.

The book of Genesis tells the story that's set farthest in the past, but the part written first is the book of Exodus. This is from Wikipedia, so please fact-check it, but "A growing number of scholars have concluded that Genesis, a book traditionally assigned primarily to the Yahwist, was originally composed separately from Exodus and Numbers, and was joined to these books later by a Priestly redactor."

They cite Römer, Thomas Christian (2006). "The Elusive Yahwist: A Short History of Research". In Dozeman, Thomas B.; Schmid, Konrad (eds.). A Farewell to the Yahwist?: The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation. ISBN 978-1-58983-163-6.

I won't worry when the Christians shout "Christ has risen": that's their party chant. "Deus vult", "perfidious Jews", blood libel and "ZOG" concern me, plus the filth spewed out by various conservative denominations against LGBTQ+ people.

"This is from Wikipedia". LOL

And I provided the book citation. All you're doing is crackling like thorns under a pot.

Thank you for that citation. Did you read the book? Do you know the author? Do you know why Wiki chose this particular author's opinion on this topic and not one of dozens of others that disagree with him on this point?

That's the problem with using wiki as a trusted source. It helps people with no knowledge on a subject, look at a random article on a complicated subject and claim it as a canon.

I cited it because I didn't feel like going back to my college Bible as Literature class notes. You haven't cited anything except your opinion yet, so the burden of proof is on you.

I don't need to cite the fact that Genessis precedes Exodus in the Pentateuch. I site every Torah scroll and every Bible ever written.

I can't reply to your last, but here's the deal: the fact that it comes first in the text means absolutely nothing in terms of textual history.

"absolutely nothing" ... like, not even an iota of correlation ... A book from 2006 - NOW THAT'S a source you can count on! But thousands of years of history, means "ABSOLUTELY NOTHING".

Study actual history of the era around the time of Abraham or Moses. A lot of those places that God and Hebrews wiped out were not good places by anyone's standards. Take one of the biggest examples being Jericho. It was discovered by archeologists that bestiality, of all things, was very much legal and commonly practiced among other things.

Deus vult was a Catholic thing. Also Catholicism/Vatican is very much a state religion created by Constantine. It's one thing for a ruler/politician to say, "I just accepted Jesus and am going to live my live as He wants me to as a more forgiving, loving, kind person." It's another to say, "I accepted Jesus and will build a bureaucracy around it." No wonder a good chuck of Christians fled for the hills after Constantine's 'conversion'.

Better examples of Christians messing up would be things like the disaster that led to the First Thanksgiving. Also the Salem Witch Trials. Puritans while well meaning took things too far which hurt them directly and indirectly hurt others. Both are examples of what happens when Christians stop listening to God.

What percentage of people who are Islamic do you think are radicalized?

What percentage of people who are radicalized do you think are religious?

Good question. Answer mine first.

Probably the same percentage as for Christians, or for Hindus, or for Jews. The problem is, that in any group, it doesn't take a large percentage to create trouble.

So, I just checked numbers, and Muslims aren't just hundreds of millions, but somewhere around 1.9 billion people. The vast majority of those people are busy living their lives, doing their jobs and raising their children. if there were 500,000 radicalized Muslims, that would be about 0.025% of the Muslim population.