Christianity is more peaceful and tolerant than Islam

ROUND 3 FIGHT (figured it was only fair to keep the chain going) While I respect my opponents views as valid opinions, there are several errors and questionable aspects of his Rebuttal. My opponent claimed that the Bible condones violence just as much as the Koran. While it is true that the Bible contains some violence, when compared to Koranic violence and acceptance of violence, The few passages of violence in the bible are vastly overshadowed by hundreds of verses where Muhammed, the patron of Islam, clearly condones violence against ALL nonbelievers. The Bible however, only condoned violence in the old testament against specific tribes that were threatening to destroy the early Jewish faith. Another point to consider is that nearly all violence in the Bible is located in the Old testament, before the advent of christ and the christian message. Old testament violence was also only used to DEFEND the Jewish race from extinction and they never fought wars of conquest as the Muslims did. the verses condoning violence in the old testament also do not apply to christians because when Christ came to earth, he made a NEW covenant with humanity abolishing mosaic law and clearly stated that the things forbidden by it, ( shellfish, pork, working on the sabbath etc.) no longer applied. All violence in the bible is in the Old testament, or the torah, so if you have a problem with Mosaic law and violence in the bible, take it up with the Jews. The old testament only exists as a history and a background for christ, as it contains many prophecies for his coming, and is not meant to be looked to for moral guidance but rather to understand the new testament better. On the fact that there are hundreds of Christian charities for no believers and no such muslim charities, my opponent stated that quote "Charity is not specific to religious organizations, for example, Amnesty International, arguably the best charity, is adamantly secular." This argument, while logically sound and for the most part true, does not pertain whatsoever to the issue. Charity is not specific to religion, but there are religious charities that exist. Christianity operates hundreds of charities for Christians and non believers alike. (Salvation Army, Coptic Orphans, Samaratains purse, etc.) But I never claimed that charity was specific to religion. My opponent also stated that muslim charities do not exist because the countries there are so war torn and impoverished, they can give nothing. This assumption is true only for some Middle eastern countries that are primarily muslim, and many of those countries could afford at least ONE charity, but choose not to. The simple fact is that there are muslims in western and prosperous countries who could easily start Islamic Charities there. In fact, 60% of Muslims live OUTSIDE the arab world. With this staggering statistic, one would assume that the muslims living in western nations would be very able and willing to create charities, however, there are none. This means that it is not a lack of stability that keeps muslims from starting charities, but the nature of the religion itself. My opponent argued that the only reason America and western nations have religous freedom is because they are wealthy and they have adopted secularism and that African Chrsitian nations, namely Uganda, persecute Muslims and kill them just as Muslims kill Christians in the middle east. I was curious as to whether or not this argument was true in reality and did a quick google search about religious freedom in Uganda. I also looked for christian terrorist groups operating in Uganda that killed the minority groups he mentioned. What I found however, was quite the opposite of what my opponent stated. In fact when I searched "religious persecution in Uganda" expecting to find these extreme christians I could not find a SINGLE article about the alleged christian extremists that my opponent claimed to exist. All articles I found were about the Muslim minority demanding the Ugandan government and education change and killing those who converted to christianity. This either means that my opponent was terribly misinformed or fabricating statistics to justify his argument. The fact is that even in impoverished Christian countries, the Ugandan government does not persecute or restrict the 12 percent minority of Muslims despite war and poverty. Even in circumstances much like Muslim countries. Christians exercise the love and respect taught to them by the bible. as a response to my opponents rebuttal of sharia law, I clearly stated that NEARLY ALL muslim countries consider islamic sharia as the supreme law. My opponent immediately rushed to the defense of Indonesia and malaysia, who do not exercise such law. As I said, most, but not all Muslim countries exercise sharia, making his rebuttal collapse under its own weight. The largest flaw in my opponents Rebuttal however, is that he refused to comment on the differences between Jesus and Mohammed, claiming that he does not believe that either exists. Almost all scholars and historians, most of them atheists, confirm the existence of both Jesus AND Muhammed as real people. The question isn't whether or not they exist but whether their messages are the true word of god or not. He also claimed that neither can be looked to for moral guidance. This claim is incredibly erred for one simple reason. Jesus and Mohammed both started their respective religions, so they are the ULTIMATE people to look to for moral guidance. So it is obvious that to understand the religion, it is not only important but critical to compare the violence and hatred preached by Mohammed and the love and peace preached by Jesus Christ as they formed the bedrock of the religion and all its future dealings. Either my opponent was unwilling to debate Jesus vs Mohammed because he could not refute the overwhelming superiority of Jesus's message, or he has not properly educated himself on the topic. (I dont mean any of this in an insulting way, its a valid debate tactic) On my opponents last point, he took the Christian message grotesquely out of context assuming that when god says he will "deal" with the non believers, he will automaticlly use violence. This is not the case. When we look at the chapter more carefully, Jesus says not to worry about converting hardened non believers because God will "Deal" with them by opening their eyes and bringing them to the Light of Christ. Id also like to take this opportunity to raise a few points about the Bible vs the Koran 1. The word "Love" is located almost twice as often as it is in the Koran, appearing in an impressive 2 percent of all verses in the bible. 2. The words "Slave" and "enemy" are used in the Koran more than twice as often as it is in the bible. 3. The Koran progresses from peace to violence while the Bible progresses from violence to peace 4. The Koran contains exactly 6,666 verses, which was the christian mark of satan and the antichrist several hundred years before the koran was written. (Not really an argument, just something to consider)