UBB.classicTM 6.5.0
quote:Or conversely, how might they police you?
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
How might any religion 'police' those who claim to represent it?
quote:That's the problem. Extremists like Boko Haram are an attempt to "police religion". They just differ with the majority as to who the "fringe" is.
Originally posted by que sais-je:
quote:Or conversely, how might they police you?
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
How might any religion 'police' those who claim to represent it?
quote:By disowning those extreme expressions of that religion, perhaps?
Originally posted by Raptor Eye
How might any religion 'police' those who claim to represent it?
quote:You (both) nailed it.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:That's the problem. Extremists like Boko Haram are an attempt to "police religion". They just differ with the majority as to who the "fringe" is.
Originally posted by que sais-je:
quote:Or conversely, how might they police you?
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
How might any religion 'police' those who claim to represent it?
quote:Saying that something is right or wrong is in my opinion fair enough. But the only "policing" that in my opinion makes some sense is the "border patrol": if you want to be part of us, stay within these bounds. There is a practical difference between saying "you are not a true Christian" and "you are not my kind of Christian". On the former the opposing parties will never agree, on the latter they might agree all too readily. The former is a cause for holy war, the latter for legal fights about property, and the like. That is also not pretty, but a lot less devastating.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
By disowning those extreme expressions of that religion, perhaps? In other words, by daring to say "They are not true Christians / Muslims".
quote:But would you say the same about atheism?
Originally posted by Porridge
But that just leaves the followers of any given religion as a whole in the midst of a 'he-said, she-said' situation. The followers will likely line up according to pre-existing prejudices, beliefs, misunderstandings, etc. This is likely especially true in the case of a sect with no recognized, central authority, like a pope.
quote:I'm sure every time the IRA or UDF bombed something in "defence" of their own twisted interpretation of Christianity you were right out in front saying "not in my name". Or maybe you just assumed that everyone would know you deplore the murder of innocent people.
Originally posted by lapsed heathen:
TBH kidnapping and enslaving young girls is not a matter of religion, it's a straight civil policing matter. Go catch and prosecute the bastards now!
Anyone who thinks this is a religious action is a fool. Any religion that doesn't do more than distance themselves from this kind of thing is not just foolish but accomplices to it.
Funny how Islam could orchestrate mass demos, flag burning and letters to the press over some cartons but are not so good at organising a reaction to this? I can sorta see how they might say it has nothing to do with them but as the preps have claimed Islam as justification Islam must either shout 'not in our name' or accept that it will be seen as in their name.
quote:I find it interesting that you categorize the Westboro Baptist Church as only being "remotely controversial" by Christian standards. If that's only "remotely controversial", what would something truly inflammatory look like?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Oh please every time a Christian anywhere even says anything remotely controversial other Christians line up to condemn them if for no other reason than to kowtow to Christianity's cultured despisers. Take the Phelps clan for instance.
quote:Wow. I imagine that's pretty much what Boko Haram would say about Muslims who criticise them (and, judging from news reports, there are plenty who do).
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Oh please every time a Christian anywhere even says anything remotely controversial other Christians line up to condemn them if for no other reason than to kowtow to Christianity's cultured despisers.
quote:Sorry? Are you claiming I said this? I didn't. Pressed, I'd say that Christianity is a viewpoint with multiple definitions (though not necessarily limitless ones). Presumably, if one labels oneself Christian, one adopts a definition from among the available collection within that viewpoint, and one becomes a Roman Catholic or a Baptist or a Presbyterian, etc. Alternatively, I suppose one can found a new denomination (many have), but it's hardly likely that this founder can claim Mohammed or Moses as God's sole spokesperson and the Koran or the Torah as sole scripture and also successfully claim Christianity as his/her spiritual "brand."
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If Christianity is a viewpoint with absolutely no definition at all,
quote:There probably are Christians who could accurately be described this way. Certainly there are atheists who can be. I fail to see how the existence, actual or speculative, of either group renders Christianity meaningless, especially for sincere adherents who strive to live by the specific tenets of the denomination they belong to.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
and merely describes the bounds of a set of beliefs which have only one thing in common, namely, that they are held by people who claim to be 'Christian', then Christianity is meaningless.
quote:To be fair, a Christianity which in some instances claims a wrathful, punitive, excluding God over against a loving, all-embracing, inclusive God, does come across this way to many outside the faith. Different denominations do appear to offer contradictory dicta. Is abortion a sin? Is homosexuality? Is divorce? Can women be ordained? Some Christian groups say yes, others say no, and these are issues that can profoundly affect people at a very personal level. All these groups claim to offer 'Christianity.' How does one choose among them? Alternatively, how does one determine, among a competing chorus of truth claims, all held forth by representatives as human and imperfect as oneself, which is 'true?'
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
It is simply a synonym for "any opinion communicated by means of a certain lexicon" - even if those opinions strongly contradict each other, and have widely and wildly differing effects on people's lives.
quote:For good or ill, you seem to be arguing for an 'exclusive' version of Christianity -- as is your right. However, you also seem to rely heavily on Christian scripture to make your argument. Why is this more persuasive than the argument others make, on the basis of the same scripture, for a 'salvation' which is universal? And why is either argument, dependent as it is on an all-powerful divinity which has, for reasons of its own, apparently set strict limits on its omnipotence (to the profound distress of the species the divinity's alleged to be so tenderly concerned about), particularly persuasive to anyone utterly unpersuaded of that divinity's existence in the first place?
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
This is to reduce Christianity - and any religious viewpoint - to the status of a mere language game (which is, I guess, what some atheists would like to do - and I remember arguing with some atheists some years ago, who insisted that Hitler was a Christian, simply because he said he was!). And why stop at religion? Why not say the same for any viewpoint, for any philosophy or opinion?
It's interesting that the Apostle Paul was not squeamish about referring to "false brethren" (2 Corinthians 11:13-15,26). And, of course, Jesus made clear that many call Him "Lord, Lord" who shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 7:21-23). Interestingly, Jesus did not link true spirituality with doctrine, but moral actions. And then there's the saying about discerning wolves in sheep's clothing - "you will know them by their fruit" - a clear indication that Christians have permission from our Lord to judge in this way (Matthew 7:15-20).
If there are Christians who have nothing but contempt for the poor, and who hanker after war and bombing innocent people into oblivion, then I have no qualms about stating that they are not true Christians, irrespective of whether they claim to be Christians. It's about time the majority of the Church had the willingness to disown these evil people in the same way.
quote:Yes but like lapsed heathen says we aren't seeing the same outrage as we did over some cartoons in a Danish newspaper. The Phelps clan have neither killed nor kidnapped a single person. "They are suers not shooters," Kevin Smith has John Goodmans character say in Red State.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:Wow. I imagine that's pretty much what Boko Haram would say about Muslims who criticise them (and, judging from news reports, there are plenty who do).
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Oh please every time a Christian anywhere even says anything remotely controversial other Christians line up to condemn them if for no other reason than to kowtow to Christianity's cultured despisers.
The difference with the Phelps clan is that what they're saying only differs in degree, not in kind, from what a lot of "mainstream" church leaders say about gay people.
quote:Ahem I dont recall anyine from either the 'ra or udf claiming any kind of religious basis for their actions. Religious basis for their choice of targets but that's why it was referred to as a sectarian conflict. Oh and yes I did roundly condemn the murders done 'in my name'.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:I'm sure every time the IRA or UDF bombed something in "defence" of their own twisted interpretation of Christianity you were right out in front saying "not in my name". Or maybe you just assumed that everyone would know you deplore the murder of innocent people.
Originally posted by lapsed heathen:
TBH kidnapping and enslaving young girls is not a matter of religion, it's a straight civil policing matter. Go catch and prosecute the bastards now!
Anyone who thinks this is a religious action is a fool. Any religion that doesn't do more than distance themselves from this kind of thing is not just foolish but accomplices to it.
Funny how Islam could orchestrate mass demos, flag burning and letters to the press over some cartons but are not so good at organising a reaction to this? I can sorta see how they might say it has nothing to do with them but as the preps have claimed Islam as justification Islam must either shout 'not in our name' or accept that it will be seen as in their name.
quote:Do you actually know, or know of, people who call themselves Christians, but hate the poor and drool over the prospect of innocent victims being blown up?
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If there are Christians who have nothing but contempt for the poor, and who hanker after war and bombing innocent people into oblivion, then I have no qualms about stating that they are not true Christians, irrespective of whether they claim to be Christians.
quote:Apparently, the American Muslim has some evidence that Nigerian Christians kidnap children as well. Again, lapsed heathen asked why we didn't see the same level of outrage as seen over those Danish cartoons. Where are the mass protests outside Nigerian embassies in the Middle East?
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
How many of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims are you in regular enough contact with to know whether they have condemned Boko Haram or not?
Just for reference, it's pretty easy to find Muslim organisations who have condemned Boko Haram in general and presumably would in the most recent specific case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boko_Haram#Criticism
quote:Can you provide a source for your assertion that the Nigerian government is behind the actions of Boko Haram?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Apparently, the American Muslim has some evidence that Nigerian Christians kidnap children as well. Again, lapsed heathen asked why we didn't see the same level of outrage as seen over those Danish cartoons. Where are the mass protests outside Nigerian embassies in the Middle East?
quote:How you think 'Islam' can organise anything is beyond me. That's like saying that 'Joy' should write letters or 'Economics' needs to respond.
Originally posted by lapsed heathen:
TBH kidnapping and enslaving young girls is not a matter of religion, it's a straight civil policing matter. Go catch and prosecute the bastards now!
Anyone who thinks this is a religious action is a fool. Any religion that doesn't do more than distance themselves from this kind of thing is not just foolish but accomplices to it.
Funny how Islam could orchestrate mass demos, flag burning and letters to the press over some cartons but are not so good at organising a reaction to this? I can sorta see how they might say it has nothing to do with them but as the preps have claimed Islam as justification Islam must either shout 'not in our name' or accept that it will be seen as in their name.
quote:We only 'see' what The Media (oh look, another generic collective) point cameras at. Just because it's not appearing on your TV screen doesn't mean it's not happening.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Yes but like lapsed heathen says we aren't seeing the same outrage as we did over some cartoons in a Danish newspaper.
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday
Do you actually know, or know of, people who call themselves Christians, but hate the poor and drool over the prospect of innocent victims being blown up?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)quote:It's not so much that the media can't be bothered, it's that the area is so dangerous that sending anyone in would be too great a risk. No point adding more hostages to the situation.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:We only 'see' what The Media (oh look, another generic collective) point cameras at. Just because it's not appearing on your TV screen doesn't mean it's not happening.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Yes but like lapsed heathen says we aren't seeing the same outrage as we did over some cartoons in a Danish newspaper.
And besides, it has been appearing on my TV screen a little bit. There's just a limit to the number of cameras The Media can bother to take all the way to northern Nigeria. Much easier to give you endless reruns of a building fire in your local metropolis or something.
quote:Interesting.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday
Do you actually know, or know of, people who call themselves Christians, but hate the poor and drool over the prospect of innocent victims being blown up?
quote:And you explain the events of '12 Years A Slave' how, exactly? An otherwise inexplicable outbreak of Islam in the southern United States in the mid-19th century?
Originally posted by lapsed heathen:
The fact that we see this most clearly in Islam is because some of it's interpretations are so anathma to our western enlighenment minds that things like kidnapping and enslaving girls seem to be obviously outside the bounds when for a Muslim, their is suficent justification for these actions.
Islamic Views on Slavery
quote:For the vast majority of Muslims, kidnapping and selling girls into slavery is just as abhorrent as it is to the vast majority of Christians. Using Boko Haram as evidence that Muslims are in favour of slavery is like using the FCJCLDS as evidence that Christians favour polygamy and underage marriage.
Originally posted by lapsed heathen:
The fact that we see this most clearly in Islam is because some of it's interpretations are so anathma to our western enlighenment minds that things like kidnapping and enslaving girls seem to be obviously outside the bounds when for a Muslim, their is suficent justification for these actions.
Islamic Views on Slavery
quote:Woah, hold on a minuet, I never said that Muslims are in favour of slavery. You missed the point.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:For the vast majority of Muslims, kidnapping and selling girls into slavery is just as abhorrent as it is to the vast majority of Christians. Using Boko Haram as evidence that Muslims are in favour of slavery is like using the FCJCLDS as evidence that Christians favour polygamy and underage marriage.
Originally posted by lapsed heathen:
The fact that we see this most clearly in Islam is because some of it's interpretations are so anathma to our western enlighenment minds that things like kidnapping and enslaving girls seem to be obviously outside the bounds when for a Muslim, their is suficent justification for these actions.
Islamic Views on Slavery
quote:Walid Shoebat, a fake Christian, who wants to nuke all Muslims.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday
quote:Interesting.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday
Do you actually know, or know of, people who call themselves Christians, but hate the poor and drool over the prospect of innocent victims being blown up?
Specifics?
Evidence?
quote:One, out of roughly one third of the world's population.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:Walid Shoebat, a fake Christian, who wants to nuke all Muslims.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday
quote:Interesting.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday
Do you actually know, or know of, people who call themselves Christians, but hate the poor and drool over the prospect of innocent victims being blown up?
Specifics?
Evidence?
quote:The fact that some Christians emphasise what they perceive as the virtues of capitalism and small government does not mean that they hold the poor in hatred and contempt, and are therefore not really Christians at all.
As for 'Christians' hating the poor: there are so many articles and analyses detailing the attitudes of the 'Christian' Religious Right in America, that I really think a quick use of Google will tell you all you need to know about fake Christians who despise the poor and needy.
quote:Actually more than one, because Walid Shoebat has a profile as a speaker and writer, and therefore it follows that many people agree with his views.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday
quote:One, out of roughly one third of the world's population.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
Walid Shoebat, a fake Christian, who wants to nuke all Muslims.
Well, it's a start.
quote:Neither does it mean that they don't.
The fact that some Christians emphasise what they perceive as the virtues of capitalism and small government does not mean that they hold the poor in hatred and contempt, and are therefore not really Christians at all.
quote:But, of course, that does not let all economic systems off the hook. Clearly there are principles in Scripture, which are flatly contradicted in certain economic systems.
No economic system can claim the clear imprimatur of Scripture.
quote:If it were some sort of game.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
only one person is required in order for me to successfully answer your question
quote:There is nothing here about Christians hating and despising the poor.
It seems that some of them do.
quote:There is nothing in the passages you cite about using economics as a criterion.
I'd be interested to know what you make of the Scripture references that speak about fake believers. I referred to them here.
quote:In extreme cases, yes, such as rapacious, "might is right" warlordism, or regimes which deliberately employ mass starvation.
Clearly there are principles in Scripture, which are flatly contradicted in certain economic systems.
quote:It's seen as sufficient when it comes to Muslims all the time. The media drags up one Islamic nutter and, hey presto, this is what 'Muslims' thank.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
In reality, trawling the net and finding some remote, unrepresentative outlier fruitcake whom no-one has heard of is scarcely proving your point.
quote:If characters such as the Phelps family and the nutter on EE's link were represented in Christianity in the same proportion as movements such as Boko Haram, Al Quaeda, Al Nusra, Jemaah Islamiyah and the Taleban are represented in Islam, and did proportionately as much harm, I would gladly concede your point.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:It's seen as sufficient when it comes to Muslims all the time. The media drags up one Islamic nutter and, hey presto, this is what 'Muslims' thank.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
In reality, trawling the net and finding some remote, unrepresentative outlier fruitcake whom no-one has heard of is scarcely proving your point.
It's a beautifully unbalanced game where a nutty Christian is never a true representative of the religion, and a nutty Muslim always is.
quote:How about we talk about the Lord's Resistance Army? They're about as Christian as Boko Haram is Muslim.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:If characters such as the Phelps family and the nutter on EE's link were represented in Christianity in the same proportion as movements such as Boko Haram, Al Quaeda, Al Nusra, Jemaah Islamiyah and the Taleban are represented in Islam, and did proportionately as much harm, I would gladly concede your point.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:It's seen as sufficient when it comes to Muslims all the time. The media drags up one Islamic nutter and, hey presto, this is what 'Muslims' thank.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
In reality, trawling the net and finding some remote, unrepresentative outlier fruitcake whom no-one has heard of is scarcely proving your point.
It's a beautifully unbalanced game where a nutty Christian is never a true representative of the religion, and a nutty Muslim always is.
quote:To a very great number of people the world over, the US military is a Christian army.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
If characters such as the Phelps family and the nutter on EE's link were represented in Christianity in the same proportion as movements such as Boko Haram, Al Quaeda, Al Nusra, Jemaah Islamiyah and the Taleban are represented in Islam, and did proportionately as much harm, I would gladly concede your point.
quote:Really? Despite the Rwandan genocide, the Srebenica Massacre, violence by Christian militias such as the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda (and elsewhere) ... despite the "taunting Christian mobs" in the Central African Republic who reportedly "deliberately targeted" children and carried out what Amnesty International called 'ethnic cleansing' of Muslims (source), you won't accept orfeo's point that "It's a beautifully unbalanced game where a nutty Christian is never a true representative of the religion, and a nutty Muslim always is." ... ?
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
If characters such as the Phelps family and the nutter on EE's link were represented in Christianity in the same proportion as movements such as Boko Haram, Al Quaeda, Al Nusra, Jemaah Islamiyah and the Taleban are represented in Islam, and did proportionately as much harm, I would gladly concede your point.
quote:I can't see how it can be this cut and dried. Surely someone can be a representative Christian and also work within the military or the government! In fact, I'd be very happy if all who worked within them were Christians. The military has an important defence role to play.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
If one accepts the Anabaptist style of thinking, whereby the Church is and should always be a voluntary body separate from the state and acting without legal or military/police coercion, then examples like the US Army (or the UK Army which fights alongside it), the LR Army, the Rwandans who massacre,and the ethnic cleansers of Serbia and elsewhere are indeed not true representatives of Christianity but perversions thereof.
quote:So 'our' bad guys aren't truly ours, but theirs are?
Originally posted by Steve Langton (emphasis added):
... the LR Army, the Rwandans who massacre,and the ethnic cleansers of Serbia and elsewhere are indeed not true representatives of Christianity but perversions thereof. [...] Even sensible Islam is therefore basically repressive, persecutory, and warlike ....
quote:Yes, I'm familiar with the fallacy - though I wasn't aware of that name for it till k-mann accused me of it on another thread.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton (emphasis added):
... the LR Army, the Rwandans who massacre,and the ethnic cleansers of Serbia and elsewhere are indeed not true representatives of Christianity but perversions thereof. [...] Even sensible Islam is therefore basically repressive, persecutory, and warlike ....
So 'our' bad guys aren't truly ours, but theirs are?
Are you familiar with the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy?
quote:The first, in terms of armies, would be counter the Christian faith, as the scriptures clearly indicate invitation, not coercion. Shaking the dust off of feet doesn't equate to using violence to force the religion onto people. However, there is a point at which the moral values of the religion are and should be enforced, if failure to do so puts its people in danger, so that eg thieves and murderers are kept from causing harm to others.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
It can be argued that there are grey areas here to do with general defence. However;
First, the use of armies or police to enforce the Christian religion as such is surely unacceptable; and;
Secondly, one of the current problems is that the army of a 'Christian country' can be seen as doing that even when in its own eyes it's attempting a more secular/liberal goal. Thus US & UK armies fighting in Muslim lands can all too easily be interpreted as a renewed anti-Islamic 'Crusade' which in turn can appear to justify the actions of groups like Boko Haram.
quote:Not in the least.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:To a very great number of people the world over, the US military is a Christian army.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
If characters such as the Phelps family and the nutter on EE's link were represented in Christianity in the same proportion as movements such as Boko Haram, Al Quaeda, Al Nusra, Jemaah Islamiyah and the Taleban are represented in Islam, and did proportionately as much harm, I would gladly concede your point.
Does that give you pause to reconsider?
quote:Given that, are there no excesses of a Christian army (Abu Ghraib, Fallujah, drone strikes on wedding parties) that spring to mind?
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:Not in the least.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:To a very great number of people the world over, the US military is a Christian army.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
If characters such as the Phelps family and the nutter on EE's link were represented in Christianity in the same proportion as movements such as Boko Haram, Al Quaeda, Al Nusra, Jemaah Islamiyah and the Taleban are represented in Islam, and did proportionately as much harm, I would gladly concede your point.
Does that give you pause to reconsider?
I was already quite familiar with the differences between Westerners and some Muslims over the issue of the identification with, or separation of, church and state.
quote:OK - but I wasn't finding it easy to work out at this time of night...
Um, I thought we were roughly on the same side, SL!
quote:Yes, these are excesses by an Army nominally Christian or at least seen that way by many. I'd prefer "quotes" round "Christian" in a case like this. Not as a comment on the personal sincerity of those involved, and still less on their ultimate salvation, which isn't up to me, but because such acts are incompatible with the NT teaching, and indeed illustrate the need for that NT teaching in the first place....
Given that, are there no excesses of a Christian army (Abu Ghraib, Fallujah, drone strikes on wedding parties) that spring to mind?
quote:What worries me is more the similarities between too many Westerners and most Muslims on these issues, and the difference between both and NT Christian teaching.
I was already quite familiar with the differences between Westerners and some Muslims over the issue of the identification with, or separation of, church and state.
quote:I know Muslims who would say that your description of Islam is an unfair distortion. Why should I prefer your view of Islam to theirs?
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
...If it is correct interpretation of Scripture that "the Church is and should always be a voluntary body separate from the state and acting without legal or military/police coercion,..."[...]
Likewise if Islam is, as its history, its holy book, and the acts of its founder say, a religion founded on an idea of setting up an Islamic version of a state church, to be legally enforced internally and spread/defended by warfare, then acting accordingly is integral to the religion rather than a distorted exception.
quote:You have missed the point completely, which is that the American army is not a Christian army.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
are there no excesses of a Christian army (Abu Ghraib, Fallujah, drone strikes on wedding parties) that spring to mind?
quote:There have certainly been unscriptural attempts in the past to conflate church and state, or church and society, but I don't know of any Christians who do so these days.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
What worries me is more the similarities between too many Westerners and most Muslims on these issues, and the difference between both and NT Christian teaching.
quote:Again, you're missing the point. It's *not* about what you assert to be true, and neither is it what you deem to be self-evident.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:You have missed the point completely, which is that the American army is not a Christian army.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
are there no excesses of a Christian army (Abu Ghraib, Fallujah, drone strikes on wedding parties) that spring to mind?
quote:It is not about what I assert, connections in people's minds, or what they believe, but the objective fact that the American army is not a Christian army.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Again, you're missing the point. It's *not* about what you assert to be true, and neither is it what you deem to be self-evident.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:You have missed the point completely, which is that the American army is not a Christian army.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
are there no excesses of a Christian army (Abu Ghraib, Fallujah, drone strikes on wedding parties) that spring to mind?
The point is, is that these connections have already been made in the minds of those people against whom atrocities have already been committed. Bluntly put, they don't believe you. Bombing them more isn't going to change their minds.
quote:So when muslims say that Boko Haram isn't a muslim army, no matter what Boko Haram say, you'll take that on board?
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It is not about what I assert, connections in people's minds, or what they believe, but the objective fact that the American army is not a Christian army.
If someone wants to believe otherwise, that is their problem.
quote:Medieval torture was used to try to police the religion. It didn't work, and as we see here it harmed its reputation into the future. Policing a religion is not the same thing at all as trying to enforce conversion with violence. AFAIK there have always been atheists and people of other religions living in Britain, who lived with the majority Christian consensus. It was when prominent Christians spoke out against the centrally controlling Christian grain that there was trouble.
Originally posted by agingjb:
Oh come on. Western Christianity permitted the use of torture in or about 1252. And there's an end on't.
quote:I'm going by the simple fact that the Qur'an does teach a lot about Muslims conducting warfare, and that Muhammad clearly practised exactly that in a protracted warfare that culminated in a march on Mecca where only surrender by the Meccans averted what would clearly have been a costly battle. He set up as effectively the king of the Muslim world and his successors continued the warfare (which is how the Muslims reached Spain).
I know Muslims who would say that your description of Islam is an unfair distortion. Why should I prefer your view of Islam to theirs?
quote:Do you get out much? Here in the UK we have lots of such 'Christians'....
There have certainly been unscriptural attempts in the past to conflate church and state, or church and society, but I don't know of any Christians who do so these days.
quote:What happened to the first 39 books of your Bible? Did you drop them somewhere?
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
This is in considerable contrast to the NT presentation of the nature of the Church and of how Christianity is to be spread.
quote:As someone with a currently peripheral involvement with Unitarianisn, no, I don't think you could call Unitarianism, as a whole, Christian. At least the UU variety practiced in the US and Canada.
(For that matter does Christianity include the Unitarians, the Latter Day Saints, or the Quakers?)
quote:Far from it! but I recognise that the 'New Covenant' truly does bring new things; in this case a transposition from a preparatory work by God carried on basically through one regular earthly nation, Israel, to a fulfilment opened up to all nations on the basis of spiritual rebirth. Since that rebirth is, from a human viewpoint voluntary and 'not by the will of man' as it's put early in John's Gospel, the idea of 'Christian nations' in the normal worldly sense just doesn't work (indeed causes problems, both in theory and in practice!)
What happened to the first 39 books of your Bible? Did you drop them somewhere?
quote:[whisper] Dude! I'm the birthday cake candles, orfeo's the flaming lyre. At least, I think it's a flaming lyre. [/whisper]
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Alwyn ...
quote:So can we have chapter and verse from The Holy Qur'an? Christians tend to quote the Holy Qur'an out of context on this one.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
the simple fact that the Qur'an does teach a lot about Muslims conducting warfare, and that Muhammad clearly practised exactly that in a protracted warfare that culminated in a march on Mecca where only surrender by the Meccans averted what would clearly have been a costly battle. He set up as effectively the king of the Muslim world and his successors continued the warfare (which is how the Muslims reached Spain).
This is in considerable contrast to the NT presentation of the nature of the Church and of how Christianity is to be spread.
quote:Well, just from the index of my copy, under 'fighting' (and it at least doesn't seem easy to make these texts refer to anything but warfare),
So can we have chapter and verse from The Holy Qur'an? Christians tend to quote the Holy Qur'an out of context on this one.
quote:which is why I'm not dealing with these traditional variations - one of the reasons 'tradition' is a dodgy source of authority is precisely that it does vary and how does one decide between them - but trying to go back to the original teaching. In this and other threads people have been having some trouble showing that the NT teaches the 'Christian country' idea and the consequences such as warfare; which suggests that the NT is, as I suggest, teaching a different view from some later traditions. Original Islam does teach warfare.
It turns out that Muslims, like Christians, vary in their interpretation of their beliefs
quote:This is true. Though as I understand it, the Islamic ideal would be that the 'ummah' should be expressed as a single earthly state in the conventional 'kingdom of this world' sense. That is, it would not be transnational in the way that the Church is.
Worth pointing out that statehood within Islam is not as important as ummah, the Muslim equivalent of the Body or Church.
quote:Boko Haram is overtly and explicitly Muslim and functions as an army (of sorts, but then the word army is fairly broad).
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:So when muslims say that Boko Haram isn't a muslim army, no matter what Boko Haram say, you'll take that on board?
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It is not about what I assert, connections in people's minds, or what they believe, but the objective fact that the American army is not a Christian army.
If someone wants to believe otherwise, that is their problem.
quote:Christians are, by definition, those who believe that God's final revelation is contained in the NT, which does not contain a single verse calling on Christians to use violence in order to defend or propagate their religion.
Originally posted by orfeo:
how much the Bible encourages Christians to engage in aggressive warmongering
quote:No problem - I've made the same mistake.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Sorry, Alwyn
quote:Interpretations of the original teaching vary, both in Islam and Christianity. I haven't seen anything to convince me that your interpretation of Islam is more authentic than that of Muslims I know who would reject your claim that "Muslims who fight and persecute for their faith are faithful to the Qur'an". You can quote all of the difficult texts you want, and people on my side of the debate can quote the problematic bits of the Bible.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
... which is why I'm not dealing with these traditional variations - one of the reasons 'tradition' is a dodgy source of authority is precisely that it does vary and how does one decide between them - but trying to go back to the original teaching.
quote:Well, having typed into Google "is Boko Haram a muslim army", this guy says they're not. Of course, by the rules you appear to operate under, anything he says can be dismissed because you (a non-muslim) know more about what represents Islam than he does (a muslim).
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:Boko Haram is overtly and explicitly Muslim and functions as an army (of sorts, but then the word army is fairly broad).
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:So when muslims say that Boko Haram isn't a muslim army, no matter what Boko Haram say, you'll take that on board?
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It is not about what I assert, connections in people's minds, or what they believe, but the objective fact that the American army is not a Christian army.
If someone wants to believe otherwise, that is their problem.
Which Muslims are claiming that it is not a Muslim army, and why should they be afforded greater credence than Boko Haram itself on this matter?
quote:(My bold) So, why do you think that is? Could it possibly be an attempt to counteract the claim that it is, in fact, a Christian army?
The American army contains many non-Christians, makes no claim to be Christian and, far from privileging Christianity, has in recent years taken a number of measures against the outward practice of Christianity by its members.
quote:That may be your opinion. That may be my opinion. But it's not everybody's opinion, as you would know if you hadn't decided to lift out half of a sentence and ignore the context, which was to say that non-Christian critics of Christianity can find the 'evidence' they want in a way remarkably similar to how non-Muslim critics of Islam can find the 'evidence' THEY want.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:Christians are, by definition, those who believe that God's final revelation is contained in the NT, which does not contain a single verse calling on Christians to use violence in order to defend or propagate their religion.
Originally posted by orfeo:
how much the Bible encourages Christians to engage in aggressive warmongering
quote:This sounds like a PR issue. The answer, then, is simply to be better at good PR than the 'fringe sectors' that you don't like.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
What can the majority within a religion do about those inevitable fringe sectors whose actions bring the whole religion into disrepute?
[...]
How might any religion 'police' those who claim to represent it?
quote:Suggestions as to how to be better at PR would be very welcome. As you can see from this thread alone, when we say what Christianity is about in positive terms, we're likely to be reminded of what happened in Medieval times, or in our time by the fringe element, as if that disproves our words.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
This sounds like a PR issue. The answer, then, is simply to be better at good PR than the 'fringe sectors' that you don't like.
There's no policing of any global religion. The existence of so many denominations makes it impossible in Christianity, and secularisation makes it very hard even among those who practise with a particular denomination or remain nominally attached. Mainstream, moderate denominations now hardly ever formerly expel someone from membership.
AFAIK Islam doesn't have one worldwide authoritative body that every Muslim has to obey.
quote:You're plucking verses out of context.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
large portions of Sura 2, then Suras 4;74-6, 8; 39,65, 9; 5-6,29,123, 12; 13-16, 22; 39-41, 47; 4,20, 48; 17.
quote:Yes, Islam is different from Christianity. The point is that Christianity is a religion developed over 2000+ years through a long process of God teaching and Israel learning, culminating in the massive ‘fulfilment’ brought through Jesus and the changes that the ‘New Covenant/New Testament’ makes. What happened on the way is far from irrelevant and I certainly don’t airbrush out such OT stories as Joshua. I tend to take it that AT THE TIME, such events were the best option to bring about the eventual result. It is anachronistic to expect OT events to work out as if they then already knew what we now know through Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection and the instructions he then gave to the New Covenant people. Without that later knowledge, Israel is still largely better than the surrounding pagans, but that needed considerable faith on their part.
And yet you claim that Islam is different from Christianity because "Islam is ... a religion founded on an idea of setting up an Islamic version of a state church, to be legally enforced internally and spread/defended by warfare". It seems only a religion without texts which endorse the killing of "man and woman, child and infant" should get to throw stones, not Christianity.
quote:So do we agree that Christians disagreed in the past and disagree in the present about what Christianity requires (e.g. some Christians prefer 'just war', others pacifism)?
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
... there isn’t much to choose between Islam and the distorted ‘Christian country’ form of Christianity and I don’t pretend there is.
... Comparing Islam with ‘Christian country Christianity’ is comparing like for like; original Christianity is really different….
quote:It is six of one and half-dozen of the other.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
having typed into Google "is Boko Haram a muslim army", this guy says they're not. Of course, by the rules you appear to operate under, anything he says can be dismissed because you (a non-muslim) know more about what represents Islam than he does (a muslim).
quote:(My bold) So, why do you think that is? Could it possibly be an attempt to counteract the claim that it is, in fact, a Christian army? [/QUOTE]
The American army contains many non-Christians, makes no claim to be Christian and, far from privileging Christianity, has in recent years taken a number of measures against the outward practice of Christianity by its members.
quote:I can pretty much rest my case here. If you can't see the inherent contradiction in your argument yet, I'm clearly not the one to show it to you.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:It is six of one and half-dozen of the other.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
having typed into Google "is Boko Haram a muslim army", this guy says they're not. Of course, by the rules you appear to operate under, anything he says can be dismissed because you (a non-muslim) know more about what represents Islam than he does (a muslim).
Why should I, a non-Muslim, believe "this guy" who claims to represent Islam, rather than Boko Haram, which also claims to represent Islam?
quote:You don’t have a case.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I can pretty much rest my case here.
quote:That Christians have disagreed in the past and present is hardly disputable. But you are just ignoring the main point I made, which is the history of how this disagreement developed. Original, New Testament, Christianity has a straightforward approach which rejects the concept of 'Christian countries' and of physical (as opposed to spiritual) warfare in the name of the faith, and proposes a different view of the relationship between Christians and the surrounding world, including being prepared to suffer martyrdom rather than fight those who persecute. The version which accepts 'Christian' states, 'just war' etc is a centuries later alien imposition on the original faith and a distorted version of the faith which those who seriously seek to follow Jesus should repudiate. That is objective history and you should not just glibly dance around it in whatever your cause may be (which is not clear, by the way).
So do we agree that Christians disagreed in the past and disagree in the present about what Christianity requires (e.g. some Christians prefer 'just war', others pacifism)?
quote:The United States Army does not claim to be a Christian army.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
(My bold) So, why do you think that is? Could it possibly be an attempt to counteract the claim that it is, in fact, a Christian army?
quote:With your swipe about 'glibly dancing' and your apparent implication that I have some sort of hidden agenda, you seem to want to add heat, not light, to this debate.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
... That is objective history and you should not just glibly dance around it in whatever your cause may be (which is not clear, by the way).
quote:Who are you to tell a pacifist Muslim that there is no pacifist version of Islam?
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
... There has never been a pacifist version of Islam; there once was a pacifist version of Christianity
quote:These ignorant people include not a small number of Americans, of course, who believe exactly that.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
That is the difference. If ignorant people wish to call the US Army "Christian" they are simply that, ignorant.
quote:If I had the answer to that question I hope some church somewhere would be paying me handsomely for my advice! (But churches have very little money, alas!)
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Suggestions as to how to be better at PR would be very welcome. As you can see from this thread alone, when we say what Christianity is about in positive terms, we're likely to be reminded of what happened in Medieval times, or in our time by the fringe element, as if that disproves our words.
quote:That's neither here nor there.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:These ignorant people include not a small number of Americans, of course, who believe exactly that.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
That is the difference. If ignorant people wish to call the US Army "Christian" they are simply that, ignorant.
quote:This is consistent, but not logical.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Every Muslim in the world may say that Boko Haram is not Muslim, however Boko Haram says that it is. Therefore it is not inappropriate to refer to BH at least as an Islamist group. I've already mentioned the Branch Davidians and Kaplan Corday has mentioned the Westboro church. Expecting people not to refer to either group as Christian sects is ridiculous because both groups said they were Christian.
quote:Not a single Baptist organization recognizes Westboro Baptist Church as a member. Most of the larger umbrella groups have openly condemned it. And yet that's what it calls itself and what everyone else calls it too. I'm sure this bothers 99% of Baptists. As an outsider however I have no obligation not to call WBC by its name because it might upset other Baptists.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
This is consistent, but not logical.
Group X calls itself Christian, thereby forcing everyone else to call it Christian even when every Christian who is not in Group X says they're not Christian.
Nope. There has to be some external test on their claims of Christianity, otherwise the term is meaningless.
quote:I don't disagree with anything you say here. Yet there are many Americans both inside and outside the US military who see the US as a Christian country and the US armed forces as 'holy warriors' (google the term if you want to terrify yourself).
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Not a single Baptist organization recognizes Westboro Baptist Church as a member. Most of the larger umbrella groups have openly condemned it. And yet that's what it calls itself and what everyone else calls it too. I'm sure this bothers 99% of Baptists. As an outsider however I have no obligation not to call WBC by its name because it might upset other Baptists.
Boko Haram's official name is "People Committed to the Propagation of the Prophet's Teachings and Jihad." They claim to be motivated by a verse in the Quran which reads "Anyone who is not governed by what Allah has revealed is among the transgressors." That is why they think anything to do with the West including education is a sin.
Are they distorting the Quran? According to most Muslims, certainly they are. That does not mean that they are not Muslims. It just means they are deluded and dangerous ones.
quote:Right - so if we're in Surah 9, we are still dealing with people who break peace treaties. The Qur'an deals with them very mercifully compared with the Bible, where god instructs genocide.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
leo; I've done a bit of re-checking of the index to my Qur'an; my reference to Sura 12 is incorrect, it's actually verse 12 of Sura 9, then vv13-16. The arrangement of punctuation in the index misled me and unfortunately 'Sura 12' was one of a few I hadn't checked.
Otherwise Islam seems pretty typical of human war in general,including 'Christian'. Not, I agree, simple conquest without any morality - but 'self-defence all the way to Spain' demonstrates how war tends to carry away those who engage in it. Once people are doing war and armies, who eventually is provoked by what/defending themselves against what becomes a moot point. Even my nicer Muslim friends don't believe in 'turning the other cheek', and Muhammad's conquest of Makkah/Mecca shows he didn't.
And of course, once war is actually going, good intentions tend to go astray... whatever the religion.
quote:OK, mea culpa; I'm having a hectic week for reasons 'ashore' so to speak, and I responded to your first comment without reading right to the end. BUT - the trouble I'm having with your argument, and which I think the 'Professor of Fairness etc' might have trouble with too, is that you seem to be chucking out the idea that "There are all these differences of opinion" as if it meant that the differences are all of equal status and can be used indiscriminately to bounce against each other.
Who are you to tell a pacifist Muslim that there is no pacifist version of Islam?
quote:If someone tries to convince you of something by SHOUTING, repeating the same argument and claiming that their opinions are "facts" or "objective facts" - as you have done - does it work?
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Islam, which claims in many ways to be the successor of Christianity and an alleged improvement, has also, ACCORDING TO ITS HOLY BOOK AND THE ACTS OF ITS FOUNDER, turned back the same clock and produced essentially the same bad consequences - as is indeed the natural tendency of those particular ideas (of a religious state and of so-called 'holy war').
quote:There you go again, comparing 'the form of Christianity which you like' with 'Islam'. Like is not being compared with like.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Looking from an NT perspective, can I realistically accept Islam as equally valid with the decidedly good pacifist teaching of Christianity? Absolutely not.
quote:Previously you claimed that Islam requires itself to be spread through war and that "Muslims who fight and persecute for their faith are faithful to the Qur'an". You know of the Islamic principle that there must be no compulsion in religion, but when you compare Islam with Christianity, you act as if that principle did not exist.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
'Pacifist Islam'? Well there has I guess always been an aspiration to peace, and such statements as 'Let there be no compulsion in religion'. But in adopting, as Muhammad clearly did, the ideas of a state religion and of leading/commanding military operations on behalf of his new faith, Muhammad made those aspirations to peace practically impossible.
quote:You want historical perspective? Let's have some. You claimed that warfare to spread the religion is inherent in original Islam. Karen Armstrong in her book Islam: A Brief History (Phoenix, 2000, pp. 25 to 26) says "Western people often assume that Islam is a violent, militaristic faith which imposed itself on subject populations at sword-point. This is an inaccurate interpretation of the Muslim wars of expansion. [...] The Quran does not sanction warfare. It develops the notion of a just self-defence to protect decent values, but condemns killing and aggression. ... once the Arabs had left the peninsula, they found that nearly everybody belonged to the ahl ah-kitab, the People of the Book; indeed, until the middle of the eighth century, conversion was not encouraged"
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I do not find in your arguments much trace of historical perspective - you treat differences of opinion 'flat' rather than perceiving developments.
quote:When did Karen Armstrong become the last word on Islam?
Originally posted by Alwyn:
[B]
Karen Armstrong in her book Islam: A Brief History (Phoenix, 2000, pp. 25 to 26) says "Western people often assume that Islam is a violent, militaristic faith which imposed itself on subject populations at sword-point. This is an inaccurate interpretation of the Muslim wars of expansion. [...] The Quran does not sanction warfare. It develops the notion of a just self-defence to protect decent values, but condemns killing and aggression. ... [/QB]
quote:Yes. Yes she does.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
When did Karen Armstrong become the last word on Islam?
No doubt she knows more about it than I do
quote:What about Paul's stuff about putting on the armour of Christ, the sword of righteousness etc. and fighting the good fight?
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The NT, on the other hand, never even hints at holy war, and renders the OT examples of it as obsolete as animal sacrifices.
quote:Did you not bother reading my last post about how the 'range of opinions' are not just flat and equal but need to be assessed as to whether they are legitimate or illegitimate extensions of the original? NO, not all Christians are pacifists - but historically this is because of the adoption, centuries after Jesus, of a bad principle contrary to the original teaching - namely, the idea of a 'Christian state' and the necessary consequence of the state religion becoming involved in worldly warfare and persecution contrary to the original teaching. 'Historical perspective' shows that - you ignore it so where is your historical perspective?
Isn't pacifist teaching (which you approve of, if it's held by Christians) 'decidedly good' if it's in Islam? Here you don't say 'the pacifist teaching of some Christians', but 'the pacifist teaching of Christianity'. You write as if there was no range of opinions within Christianity about war, as if all Christians are pacifists - do you believe that?
quote:And this second march was entirely non-military in nature?????????? And Marmaduke Pickthall, translator of the Qur'an, was just lying when he recorded many incidents of Muhammad leading and ordering military expeditions - many of which were effectively pirate raids on desert caravans (and my memory is that Armstrong does register that)??
Later on, when the Quraysh broke the treaty and Muhammad marched on Mecca, Armstrong says that the Quraysh conceded defeat and Muhammad "took Mecca without shedding a drop of blood" (p. 20).
quote:I know of the Islamic aspiration; I also know that as in the distorted imperial development of Christianity, the notions of a religious state and having 'holy war' at all have the effect of either abrogating or very severely compromising such aspirations.
You know of the Islamic principle that there must be no compulsion in religion, but when you compare Islam with Christianity, you act as if that principle did not exist.
quote:If you're prepared flat out to say that Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and non-pacifist Protestants are not Christians, this line of argument would work. If you're not then you're going to admit that your characterisation of Christianity is one interpretation from which other Christians dissent.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Did you not bother reading my last post about how the 'range of opinions' are not just flat and equal but need to be assessed as to whether they are legitimate or illegitimate extensions of the original? NO, not all Christians are pacifists - but historically this is because of the adoption, centuries after Jesus, of a bad principle contrary to the original teaching - namely, the idea of a 'Christian state' and the necessary consequence of the state religion becoming involved in worldly warfare and persecution contrary to the original teaching.
quote:The first sentence is probably true. The second is a non-sequitur. The NT explicitly abolishes animal sacrifices. It does not explicitly abolish holy war. It never even hints at endorsing holy war; it never even hints at abolishing it.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The NT, on the other hand, never even hints at holy war, and renders the OT examples of it as obsolete as animal sacrifices.
quote:Actually I'm not prepared to say flat out that those various groups are 'not Christians'; I even think Ian Paisley is a Christian, despite really, really objecting to many of his views. But the part of those various traditions with which I disagree derives from a historical misstep centuries after the NT and incompatible with NT teaching. They are following, in that aspect, a misguided and errant idea of Christianity rather than the original teaching, and that needs sorting out for everybody's benefit. Or do you favour Crusades, Inquisitions, and the other bad results of that misstep?
If you're prepared flat out to say that Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and non-pacifist Protestants are not Christians, this line of argument would work. If you're not then you're going to admit that your characterisation of Christianity is one interpretation from which other Christians dissent.
quote:The NT does do at least two relevant things (and I would argue many, many more). It supplies the information that Jesus' kingdom is 'not of this world' in a context (Jesus' trial before Pilate) where Jesus possibly fighting a holy war was precisely at issue. And it mentions explicitly that 'our warfare is not with physical weapons'.
The NT explicitly abolishes animal sacrifices. It does not explicitly abolish holy war. It never even hints at endorsing holy war; it never even hints at abolishing it.
quote:You have missed the point entirely.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Yes. Yes she does.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
When did Karen Armstrong become the last word on Islam?
No doubt she knows more about it than I do
Which is why you should listen to her and weigh her opinions more highly than your own less-informed ones.
quote:With Revelation there is always some question, of course, which bits are literal and which symbolic... But actually I agree - there is indeed a reason why God is called "Lord of Hosts (armies)" and ultimately there is very much a war on which God is expected to win.
Quite a lot of Christians would interpret Revelation (at least) as promoting holy war...
quote:That last is a false dilemma. There are plenty of Christian theologies that fall in between pacifism and outright kill the infidels theology. They may or may not be wrong, but their adherents think they can find support for them in the Bible.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Dafyd;
quote:Actually I'm not prepared to say flat out that those various groups are 'not Christians'; I even think Ian Paisley is a Christian, despite really, really objecting to many of his views. But the part of those various traditions with which I disagree derives from a historical misstep centuries after the NT and incompatible with NT teaching. They are following, in that aspect, a misguided and errant idea of Christianity rather than the original teaching, and that needs sorting out for everybody's benefit. Or do you favour Crusades, Inquisitions, and the other bad results of that misstep?
If you're prepared flat out to say that Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and non-pacifist Protestants are not Christians, this line of argument would work. If you're not then you're going to admit that your characterisation of Christianity is one interpretation from which other Christians dissent.
quote:Really?
Originally posted by Garasu:
Quite a lot of Christians would interpret Revelation (at least) as promoting holy war...
quote:Yes. You mention 'the original'. As I and others have shown, there are problems with your claims about 'original Islam' and 'original Christianity'.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Did you not bother reading my last post about how the 'range of opinions'... need to be assessed as to whether they are legitimate or illegitimate extensions of the original?
quote:If original Christians were pacifists, then wouldn't surprising for one of Jesus' followers to carry a sword and be willing to use it? After following Jesus for years, that's what Simon Peter did in John 18. If your argument relies on one 'original Christianity' which all Christians agreed upon, then wouldn't it be surprising if early Christians disagreed on lots of things? Yet they did:-
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
NO, not all Christians are pacifists - but historically this is because of the adoption, centuries after Jesus, of a bad principle contrary to the original teaching...
quote:My historical perspective comes from sources which I have read and quoted.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
'Historical perspective' shows that - you ignore it so where is your historical perspective?
quote:No, it wasn't non-military. No, Pickthall wasn't lying about Muhammad leading military expeditions. You want to say that blood on Muslim hands stains Islam while blood on Christian hands doesn't stain Christianity. Your justification for this different treatment relies on your presentation of 'original Islam' and 'original Christianity'. I and others have shown that there are problems with your claims about what the originals believed.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And this second march was entirely non-military in nature?????????? And Marmaduke Pickthall, translator of the Qur'an, was just lying when he recorded many incidents of Muhammad leading and ordering military expeditions - many of which were effectively pirate raids on desert caravans (and my memory is that Armstrong does register that)??
quote:Original Christians were a religious minority living in the Roman Empire. They were hardly in a position to make treaties. Karen Armstrong showed that Muhammad 'risked martyrdom' when he made a pilgrimage to Mecca. Mecca was held by his enemies, the Quraysh, who had "vowed to exterminate the ummah in Yathrib" (Armstrong, p. 12). Muhammad could make treaties because he led one community surrounded by warring tribes. You claimed that Muslims who spread their faith by war and persecution are true to original Islam. In fact, in the community led by Muhammad, "Nobody was forced to convert to the religion of the Quran, but Muslims pagans and Jews all belonged to one ummah, could not attack one another and vowed to give each other protection. News of this extra-ordinary new 'supertribe' spread and though at the outset no-one thought it had a chance of survival, it would prove an inspiration that would bring peace to Arabia before the death of the Prophet in 632" (Armstrong, p. 12)
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Note that original Christianity doesn't need treaties - it just risks martyrdom.
quote:You can show me blood on the hands of Muslims, I can show you blood on the hands of Christians. Here's just one example: having reviewed examples of Christian leaders who colluded in ethnic cleansing in the Bosnian war, David McDonald concluded that: “their complicity in mass murder and forced expulsion of populations will remain one of the most enduring and disheartening aspects of the conflict.” David B. MacDonald (Political Studies Department in the University of Otago), “Balkan holocausts? Serbian and Croatian victim-centred propaganda and the war in Yugoslavia” Manchester University Press 2002 pp. 241 to 242.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
There are no Muslim states with a death penalty for apostasy? No Muslim states that forbid other religions trying to convert Muslims? No Muslim states that have fought other Muslim states over the Shi'a/Sunni controversy? No Muslim states that punish not only Muslims but people of other faiths for 'blasphemy' because they dispute the beliefs of Islam?
quote:Here is something I read recently about this. What do you reckon; convincing at all?
Originally posted by Alwyn:
If original Christians were pacifists, then wouldn't surprising for one of Jesus' followers to carry a sword and be willing to use it? After following Jesus for years, that's what Simon Peter did in John 18.
quote:I feel that my previous comment didn't do justice to the thoughtful blog post that you linked to. Do I find it convincing? I like it and would use it (giving credit to you as the source), in an argument about whether Christians should prefer non-violence to war.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
... convincing at all?
quote:The real problem here is non-Muslims setting up definitions of 'original Islam' and 'original Christianity' for the purposes of disparaging Islam in general.
Originally posted by Alwyn:
While I like your theory better than this theory, I'm not convinced that 'original Christianity' (insofar as early Christians agreed on anything) was pacifist.
quote:I'm not quite yet in a position to do really detailed answers, but on this one...
Steve Langton is entitled to argue for original Christianity in debate with Roman Catholics and or other Christian just war theorists. That's ok as an intra-Christian debate. It's when he starts bringing Muslims into it, especially when he doesn't ask the Muslims first.
quote:There is actually a tradition on those lines among early Anabaptists, some of whom attracted the nickname 'Staebler'/'staff-men' because they would carry a stout staff for self-defence. Partly this would be against animals in those days - I understand that both wolves and bears were still to be found in Europe at the time, but it also expressed the position that they would defend themselves against men - but not LETHALLY, as swords would imply. And of course like other Anabaptists they would not fight for their religion - they would very definitely object to anything like 'crusading'. It's perhaps not a totally consistent position - but one deserving of respect. (Muhammad himself, it must be said, went way beyond the 'Staebler' position personally even in the most favourable accounts of his life)
It's perfectly possible to be willing to use force in individual self-defence, but be unwilling to take part in warfare which by its very nature goes well beyond that.
quote:I think you're right that this is now a central issue for this debate. (I hope that the events you mention in All Saints go well).
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
On the 'original Christianity' issue I'll have to try and come back in more detail next week ...
quote:Actually I’m not quite arguing for inherent pacifism on one side and inherent violence on the other. The first issue is how you relate the religion to the state. If you accept the idea of a state religion, then it’s more that states are inherently violent and the state religion will be sucked in. In terms of the underlying principle, there will be religions which are not yet state religions but want to be, whose warfare will take the form of rebellion, and others already established or privileged in the state where their wars and the state’s wars will become pretty much the same thing.
By Alwyn;
Instead of arguing that Christianity is intrinsically pacifist and Islam inherently violent, you could say that there are inspirations as well as horrors in both our histories.
quote:That sounds like a good argument for not having a state religion. What do you think that 'state religion' meant to early Christians and Muslims? I'm wondering how relevant state religion would have been to an emerging religious minority in a powerful Roman Empire or an emerging multi-tribal community surrounded by warring tribes. In the first case, they had no chance of seeing a state religion during their lives - or the lives of their children or grandchildren. In the second case, they didn't have much of a state.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
If you accept the idea of a state religion, then it’s more that states are inherently violent and the state religion will be sucked in.
quote:It seemed as if you were, before. I may have misunderstood and, anyway, there's nothing wrong with changing your argument. Are you still arguing that Islam is responsible for blood on the hands of Muslims and Christianity is not responsible for blood on the hands of Christians?
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I’m not quite arguing for inherent pacifism on one side and inherent violence on the other
quote:Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. 'If state religion is rejected' by who - by the state (not adopting an official religion), by citizens (not adopting the state religion) or by someone else? If your main point is that 'Christianity rejects violence', it sounds like you are arguing for inherent pacifism.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
If state religion is rejected, then it becomes how much you defend yourself – do you use violence in that context or not? I’m arguing that Christianity rejects violence in that context – see Romans 12-13 and big chunks of I Peter.
quote:I’m thinking two things here, and sorry, not quite being clear. First, there’s the issue of, on the one hand, the compatibility and continuity between the Old Testament/Covenant and the New Testament/Covenant, and on the other hand the considerable difference it makes when the New Covenant is brought in by Jesus’ coming and the revelation made through his life, death and resurrection. A big issue but I’ll leave it aside for now. But secondly, just that the ‘starting point’ on the pacifism issue is not at the level of pacifism v warfare; the starting point is at the level of the relationship of the religion to the state. One relationship of religion to state leads to pacifism, a different relationship leads to a non-pacifist religion. So you have to think about that relationship before dealing with the pacifism issue.
I’m not quite arguing for inherent pacifism on one side and inherent violence on the other.
quote:Do you mean Islam when you say “an emerging multi-tribal community surrounded by warring tribes”? Back then you didn’t entirely have ‘state religion’ as we might see it in, for example, the Anglican church. More that all tribes had their own gods to begin with and as larger civilisations developed you ended up with larger either ethnic groups like Israel or geographically defined kingdoms/empires like Sumer/Egypt/Babylon/Rome with a common religion (though also a pagan polytheism generally more tolerant than a monotheism). National (ethnic) or state religion was the ‘default position’ of the ancient world. As I’ve recently pointed out in another thread, Israel had a national religion despite its place in the Roman Empire; and in the ‘messianic’ belief it had an idea of restoring Israel’s freedom as a nation and even, under a renewed Davidic kingship, conquering other nations (the ‘Gentiles’). The common expectation was a Messiah who would be that kind of king of a religious Yahweh-centred state/empire, embodying God’s rule over the world.
“I'm wondering how relevant state religion would have been to an emerging religious minority in a powerful Roman Empire or an emerging multi-tribal community surrounded by warring tribes. In the first case, they had no chance of seeing a state religion during their lives - or the lives of their children or grandchildren. In the second case, they didn't have much of a state”.
quote:Not really about ‘by whom’ but just a general statement that if a religious body doesn’t follow the state religion option, how does that work out? In particular, how was it meant to work out in ‘original Christianity’?
If state religion is rejected….
quote:Er...yes!
By Alwyn;
quote:
________________________________________
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
If you accept the idea of a state religion, then it’s more that states are inherently violent and the state religion will be sucked in.
________________________________________
That sounds like a good argument for not having a state religion.
quote:There's no need to apologise. I struggled with the hot weather too, at night when trying to sleep. I'm embarrassed to admit that I was rude to a Jehovah's Witness who knocked on my door and tried to argue that my failure to interpret literally a verse in Psalms about people dwelling on Earth eternally meant that I wasn't 'respecting God's word.' Being tired and cranky and having heard one too many people say 'disgreeing with my interpretation of the Bible means not respecting God's word', I snapped at him. I'm a really bad Christian sometimes!
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Sorry, obviously still suffering a bit from the hot exhibition hall over the weekend.
quote:So if a religion refuses to be a state religion, this leads to pacifism, but if the religion accepts the temptation of state religion status, it gets corrupted by the state's warlike tendencies? I can see where you're coming from. I think there's some truth in that, particularly the part about states corrupting state religions.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
... the ‘starting point’ on the pacifism issue is not at the level of pacifism v warfare; the starting point is at the level of the relationship of the religion to the state. One relationship of religion to state leads to pacifism, a different relationship leads to a non-pacifist religion. ... As I see it, Christianity has, or should have according to the original ‘New Covenant’ teaching, the relationship with the state that leads to pacifism; Islam appears to start from the other position which leads to war
quote:That's right.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Do you mean Islam when you say “an emerging multi-tribal community surrounded by warring tribes”?
quote:You've convinced me that national or ethnic religion was familiar to people like the early Christians and Muslims. I see their experience of ethnic religion as different from the kind of state religion that you're talking about. For instance, you argued previously that original Islam was about spreading the faith through war and persecution. (Presumably, for you, this was because original Islam made the mistake of becoming a state religion). However, what I found in Karen Armstrong's book was a supertribe in which it people weren't forced to convert and which was surrounded by warring tribes, one of which had vowed to exterminate the early Muslims. If Muhammad told his friends that he did not want to risk open war, I can imagine one of them, like Aragorn in the second Lord of the Rings film, saying 'open war is upon you whether you would risk it or not'.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
... National (ethnic) or state religion was the ‘default position’ of the ancient world. ...
quote:State religion grew out of ethnic religion as states became more formal and grew into empires.
I see their experience of ethnic religion as different from the kind of state religion that you're talking about.
quote:I'm really trying not to play that kind of 'blame game' at all, if possible. And indeed I think one of the complications here is that Muhammad didn't know the original 'kingdom not of this world' church and was set a very bad example by the Imperial Church that had grown up since Constantine - putting some of the blame for Islam onto 'Christians' if not onto Christianity itself. I'm blaming the problem on the shift that was made in the 4thC (and because it wasn't entirely natural to the 'original Christianity' took decades to take effect).
Are you still arguing that Islam is responsible for blood on the hands of Muslims and Christianity is not responsible for blood on the hands of Christians?
quote:You may be right.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
We seem to be getting a bit closer?
quote:That sounds reasonable.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
State religion grew out of ethnic religion as states became more formal and grew into empires.
quote:Your comment about not wanting to play the 'blame game' sounds good to me. Maybe we'll 'agree to disagree' on some of the details - for instance, you seem more comfortable than I am with the idea that there was one original Christianity. For me, that fits uncomfortably with the way that early Christians seemed to argue so much about what their faith meant. We've already gone over that, so there may or may not be more to say about it. Either way, thank you for a thought-provoking debate.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm really trying not to play that kind of 'blame game' at all, if possible. And indeed I think one of the complications here is that Muhammad didn't know the original 'kingdom not of this world' church and was set a very bad example by the Imperial Church that had grown up since Constantine - putting some of the blame for Islam onto 'Christians' if not onto Christianity itself. I'm blaming the problem on the shift that was made in the 4thC (and because it wasn't entirely natural to the 'original Christianity' took decades to take effect).
quote:I hope that you feel better soon (I think I'm still getting over it too). You're right, of course (about my last post)! I'm keeping this short (by my standards), to avoid chucking even more stuff for you to reply to.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Still getting over the weekend; I'll get back with some more detailed stuff soon. Your last post hardly invites a 'quick sound bite' reply....