Link back to comment

"So Christians may act violently, but they cannot legitimately claim to be acting in the name of Jesus."
This is such a strange and gobsmacking statement that it's hard to know where to begin. Is Peter saying that he can arbitrarily tell all Christians who have embarked on organised violence over many centuries, going back to the Crusades and before, that they weren't legitimately acting in the name of Jesus?
Where does the idea that there is only one interpretation of what Jesus wants come from? It's completely ahistorical. The same goes for his view that there's only one interpretation of the Koran, that Muslims are obliged to go to war against liberal democracy.