|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The origin of Islamic extremism
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
If our approach is that it's OK to be in the army - and kill people,remember - it's pretty much only a matter of time before you start thinking "If I can use the army or in general 'warfare with physical weapons', on behalf of the worldly state, why can't/shouldn't I use it for the more important cause of God?"
I don't think that's an obvious progression at all. Although I am basically a pacifist and do find it hard to understand how Christians can be in the armed forces (or work for armaments companies), nevertheless I am sure very few of those folk in a country such as Britain have made the leap to think they are fighting for God.
Yes; I accept that they might have done in the past - some of the pronouncements made by British religious figures in 1914 were quite horrific, for example; and some Christians agonised over taking up arms in WW2 and ultimately decided that it was the lesser of two evils. But I can't see folk thinking in the way you suggest in today's secular society - Established Church or not (and, by the way, I hate "civic religion").
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Anyway, to return to the topic we're supposed to be discussing:
To what extent do we believe that Islamic extremism is a logical consequence of a dominant secular/free (in concept if not always in actuality) paradigm?
Consider these (overly simplified) steps;
1. Accepting and secular society seeks to treat all belief systems fairly.
2. This allows space for fundamentalist (in the sense of hardline) conservative beliefs to develop without impediment by the state
3. The freedoms provided by the internet allow for the exchange and nurturing of those ideas
4. Both of which tend to harden the already hardline and push some to even greater extremes.
5. Until, ironically, the most hardline seek an idealised religious country where they can practice their religion-of-compulsion in opposition to the very ideals of acceptance and freedom which allowed them to develop in the first place.
Maybe extremists are just what you get for having freedom. Maybe they're not a failure, they're a mark of success. Maybe a liberal democracy which didn't enrage the most angry of critics isn't actually doing a very good job.
Of course, this paradigm doesn't help the countries where the craziest extremists hide out. The fact that so many of IS came from western countries is of course a tragedy mostly felt by the people of Syria.
[ 22. September 2016, 07:01: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Yes; I accept that they might have done in the past - some of the pronouncements made by British religious figures in 1914 were quite horrific, for example; and some Christians agonised over taking up arms in WW2 and ultimately decided that it was the lesser of two evils. But I can't see folk thinking in the way you suggest in today's secular society - Established Church or not (and, by the way, I hate "civic religion").
I certainly think there was something of public religious ritual about both WW1 and WW2 even though some agonised about fighting. Most baptist churches have some kind of memorial to the war dead. I think it isn't a stretch to say that Remembrance as a thing has become a form of civic religion.
That said, I think we've come to the point where the ritual (of remembering the war dead) has come full-circle, to the extent that we're now repeating the liturgy without believing any of the underlying residual religion behind it.
And I don't think it is just Anglicans who are participating in that form of civic religion - although it has to be said that I've not been in a Remembrance Day service in a baptist church for many years.
It is hard to imagine what non-military people would think they were doing if they were called up for WW3 (of course, that kind of warfare is really unlikely to imagine from our position in Western Europe today), but I think the main urge is likely to be to protect the nation and there might well be some residual notion that one was fighting for largely undefined Western and Christian values.
Of course, I think it might also be very hard in a post-Vietnam Western world to see how a whole country could be mobilised for war. I'm not sure that's ever going to happen again.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I'm not going to comment as I don't want to send this thread off onto a tangent - except to say, "I agree".
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Steve--
When you get a chance, would you please address what I said here? Particularly about the Ordnung.
Thanks.
Sorry GK; I did intend to respond to that one. I hope you'll understand that in a situation where I've been rather on my own here with stuff being thrown at me from several often contradictory directions I've not been able to keep up with it all. I'll copy your post off now into my 'SoFdrafts' file so I've got it readily accessible, and work on it. To avoid tangents on the thread your response may be a PM.
The Ordnung is largely an Amish practice; or at any rate, its Mennonite equivalent is much less strict. It is essentially the practical rules developed by the community for living together. In the UK we have the interesting situation that Mennonites have effectively recognised that not all the (small-t) traditions developed in different circumstances and under persecution are actually a necessary part of Christianity and rather than set up 'clone' Mennonite churches have set up a Centre - currently in Birmingham - which works with the UK's homegrown 'Anabaptist Network' to make the best and most universally relevant of Anabaptist ideas available to all who might be interested. That is the situation I work in after initially independently rediscovering Anabaptist ideas.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
If our approach is that it's OK to be in the army - and kill people,remember - it's pretty much only a matter of time before you start thinking "If I can use the army or in general 'warfare with physical weapons', on behalf of the worldly state, why can't/shouldn't I use it for the more important cause of God?"
I don't think that's an obvious progression at all. Although I am basically a pacifist and do find it hard to understand how Christians can be in the armed forces (or work for armaments companies), nevertheless I am sure very few of those folk in a country such as Britain have made the leap to think they are fighting for God.
Yes; I accept that they might have done in the past - some of the pronouncements made by British religious figures in 1914 were quite horrific, for example; and some Christians agonised over taking up arms in WW2 and ultimately decided that it was the lesser of two evils. But I can't see folk thinking in the way you suggest in today's secular society - Established Church or not (and, by the way, I hate "civic religion").
You've slightly misunderstood my point, I think. it's not that those who are involved in armies will automatically think their country is fighting for God. It's the logic that having accepted 'physical weapons warfare' at all, in a non-Christian state, the anomalies of killing for a not always 'godly' worldly state can lead to a line of thinking that it's better to fight for God, rather than to re-thinking the fighting at all bit.
I was trying to outline how we got where we are, in effect. And point out that in that process, accepting fighting for the state has had the risk of turning into it being OK to fight for God as well, whereas if you strongly DON'T fight for God you are at least considerably more likely to think fighting acceptable in the state's lesser causes.
And bringing it back to Islam, it seems fairly clear - and AFAICS, especially if you have a Quran in approximate order of composition, rather than as it usually is - that Muhammad did have aspirations to peace and initially thought he could achieve his goals peaceably.
But he did ALSO in exile set his followers up in a de facto Islamic state, rather than in a non-conformist 'free church' situation, and that led to a state of war between Mecca and that new state in which Muhammad went down the slippery slope via 'self-defence' to the point where he attacked and conquered Mecca, and his new de facto Islamic state remained in a warfare posture after his death.
We - and other Shipmates have been right, Muslims as well - are still suffering the consequences of that confused progress in Muhammad's ideas. And the Christian response needs to be to be more biblical ourselves and set Muslims and the world a better example, including repentance of the centuries of state churches and the warfare they brought.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Steve Langton, MLK went TOO FAR?! How? Where? When?
When are you going to put MLK right then Steve?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
I was trying to outline how we got where we are, in effect. And point out that in that process, accepting fighting for the state has had the risk of turning into it being OK to fight for God as well, whereas if you strongly DON'T fight for God you are at least considerably more likely to think fighting acceptable in the state's lesser causes.
Oops! That should of course have been
quote:
...considerably LESS likely to think fighting acceptable...
I think I had in mind alternative versions one of which was 'more likely to think fighting UNacceptable' and somehow the wrong version actually got typed...
Sorry...
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Steve Langton, MLK went TOO FAR?! How? Where? When?
When are you going to put MLK right then Steve?
Where did he go wrong Steve?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
At the risk of setting up even more tangents, how could Mohammed, whether he was peaceful or otherwise, have set up some kind of 'non-conformist' option?
He was setting up some kind of community. In those days that inevitably meant something all-encompassing. He wasn't within the Roman Empire in its pagan days where religious tolerance generally prevailed, unless you refused to say prayers to the Emporer.
Likewise, when Christian missionaries arrived in Kent r Northumbria, what other strategy was open to them other than to influence the court and work out from there? Same with 18th century missionaries in the Pacific. They had to get the king and tribal elders n board before they could preach to the people.
We can't project 16th and 17th century _non-conformist' values and practices back into the 7th century.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by mr cheesy;
quote:
Maybe extremists are just what you get for having freedom.
Extreme beliefs, maybe; but actual fighting? That arises when the beliefs are put into practice and cause real-world problems. And if the belief is that you should have your beliefs enshrined in a state which necessarily discriminates against other beliefs, the fighting is likely to happen sooner rather than later. IS is not just a vague reaction to our freedom - it is a consequence of Muhammad having set up his new faith as a state religion, and having himself engaged in warfare for it.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Mr Cheesy:
quote:
To what extent do we believe that Islamic extremism is a logical consequence of a dominant secular/free (in concept if not always in actuality) paradigm?
To a certain extent modern Islamic extremism is perfectly intelligible in terms of Muslim history. The first Muslims conquered large parts of the world and settled down and established governments. In time the governments were viewed as corrupt and were overthrown by other Muslims seeking renewal of the original vision. This is not something that was invented by the Muslim Brotherhood or Ibn Wahab or Khomeini. Modern Islamic extremists define themselves against the modern west because of the western presence in Islamic societies and the Islamic presence in the west which, in turn, defines the nature of the contest. But the whole "let's overthrow the government and establish a proper Islamic regime" thing is a recurring theme in the history of the Muslim world.
There is probably a distinction to be made between Islam and Christianity between the existence of a sphere which exists somewhere between being legitimate and being a necessary evil (depending upon which Christian and at which point in time you are talking about) which we may loosely call secular, a belief in natural law and a belief in conscience which I think does explain some differences between the way the Islamic world and the west have developed. But then there is also the way in which modernity has been experienced as a foreign import and the failure of secular governments in the Islamic world to do very much for their people or to provide the sort of military triumphs which will sometimes serve as a substitute. In eastern Europe it used to be joked that communism was the longest and hardest road to capitalism. I suspect that Islamism will turn out to be the longest and hardest road towards secularism. Sooner or later the whole thing will come crashing down and at conventions of atheists and secularists the heirs of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris will be saying "steady on old chap, there's no need to overdo it", when their guests from the erstwhile Muslim world make speeches on the evils of religion.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
He was setting up some kind of community. In those days that inevitably meant something all-encompassing. He wasn't within the Roman Empire in its pagan days where religious tolerance generally prevailed, unless you refused to say prayers to the Emperor.
Well Jesus did set up a non-conformist option - and yes, the risk was martyrdom and the early Christians took that risk to keep Jesus' teaching, and the kind of 'kingdom' they established in his name, clear.
Christianity had in fact engaged in non-conformist style mission to the Saxons - but by that time there was already a 'state church' situation which kind of unnaturally overrode that.
We've discussed the Pacific situation in our local Anabaptist group. We've yet to come up with a clear solution; but again, most of the missionaries were coming from a 'state church' or at least 'Christian country' situation and maybe didn't really consider alternatives. Even Baptists (as distinct from Anabaptists) could be a bit ambiguous in that area.
And may I remind you that Anabaptism is basically 1st Century original Christian ideas - not the 16thC-17thC ideas which were developed in a state church situation and in cases like Cromwell were to say the least ambivalent....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Extreme beliefs, maybe; but actual fighting? That arises when the beliefs are put into practice and cause real-world problems. And if the belief is that you should have your beliefs enshrined in a state which necessarily discriminates against other beliefs, the fighting is likely to happen sooner rather than later. IS is not just a vague reaction to our freedom - it is a consequence of Muhammad having set up his new faith as a state religion, and having himself engaged in warfare for it.
A consequence possibly, but not the only consequence as people keep telling you. If you follow M you don't automatically get to IS.
Also - if you are setting up a small religious state (and, of course that's exactly what the anabaptists did several times) and you are attacked from the outside, what options do you have?
You can flee to a safer space. Or you can defend your nation.
The latter is not an unreasonable thing to do.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Christianity had in fact engaged in non-conformist style mission to the Saxons - but by that time there was already a 'state church' situation which kind of unnaturally overrode that.
What on earth do you mean? How can Christians coming into a pagan country be entering a State Church situation?
Let's be honest: a lot of us here are getting totally fed up with you (a) banging on, at length, about this point to the exclusion of all others and (b) saying that we don't (or even refuse to) understand you. People such as myself are actually pretty sympathetic to your position; but we don't want it to become the central theme of every debate.
[ 22. September 2016, 10:41: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And may I remind you that Anabaptism is basically 1st Century original Christian ideas - not the 16thC-17thC ideas which were developed in a state church situation and in cases like Cromwell were to say the least ambivalent....
Things that come out of your head are not necessarily the truth, Steve Langton. Just because you said it does not mean everyone - or anyone else - here accepts it.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
We've discussed the Pacific situation in our local Anabaptist group. We've yet to come up with a clear solution; but again, most of the missionaries were coming from a 'state church' or at least 'Christian country' situation and maybe didn't really consider alternatives. Even Baptists (as distinct from Anabaptists) could be a bit ambiguous in that area.
I think we've hit peak Steve Langton.
It is hard to imagine a small pacific island run on Steve's Anabaptist lines. The Mennonites didn't manage it in the Pacific or in South America.
Incidentally, the latter was rather attractive to German Nazis fleeing the post-WW2 chaos. I guess they weren't proper anabaptists - just fascist racists who happened to be in an anabaptist tradition.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Christianity had in fact engaged in non-conformist style mission to the Saxons - but by that time there was already a 'state church' situation which kind of unnaturally overrode that.
What on earth do you mean? How can Christians coming into a pagan country be entering a State Church situation?
Let's be honest: a lot of us here are getting totally fed up with you (a) banging on, at length, about this point to the exclusion of all others and (b) saying that we don't (or even refuse to) understand you. People such as myself are actually pretty sympathetic to your position; but we don't want it to become the central theme of every debate.
No, the missionaries to paganism were obviously NOT 'entering a State Church situation'. Though they were entering a situation which effectively had a different pagan 'state religion'. The point is that by Saxon times there was already a 'state church' situation outside Britain/England in the Roman Empire which effectively took over the mission in a state church way.
Sorry I assumed that would be understood.
Unfortunately the effects of 'Constantinianism' once you've got it are pervasive and affect many areas of Christian practice. But whatever you may think of my views elsewhere it seems to me that it requires a considerable proverbial ostrich act to ignore its relevance to discussing another state religion which claims to be derived partly from Christianity and unfortunately copied the Constantinian form rather than Jesus' original - or at least, because of the Roman church, Islam went the state religion way in ignorance of Jesus' better alternative.
Comparable 'Christian extremism' like the Crusades and Inquisition was based on a state church situation and could not have happened without that situation; ditto the Islamic equivalent. 'Elephant in the room'?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
'Elephant in the room'?
Hahahahahha
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by mr cheesy;
quote:
Incidentally, the latter was rather attractive to German Nazis fleeing the post-WW2 chaos. I guess they weren't proper anabaptists - just fascist racists who happened to be in an anabaptist tradition.
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) ![[Confused]](confused.gif) ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
What, you haven't heard of the Mennonite Nazis in Paraguay and Canada?
You surprise me.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
"Elephant in the room"
Google check produced this;
quote:
Elephant in the room or Elephant in the living room is an English metaphorical idiom for an obvious truth that is going unaddressed. The idiomatic expression also applies to an obvious problem or risk no one wants to discuss.
Looks to me that the phrase exactly fits what I'm talking about.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Steve--
Thanks for your reply. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) You don't need to PM me. My point was just that even Anabaptists have their own interpretations and traditions. And I suspect that, at least for the Amish, Old-Order Mennonites, and Hutterites (I think they're Anabaptist), many of the traditions are Traditions.
Nobody's got mere Christianity, objectively. They may well have their understanding of it. Kind of like Queen Elizabeth I said, that all that matters is "Christ and Him crucified; all the rest are trifles". But which things are the trifles? One person's mere Christianity may simply be doing good works, because at least that much is clear. Someone else might consider an Orthodox service part of mere Christianity, because it contains the essence of the whole thing. For someone else, it might involve memorizing the King James Bible, and learning Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic to understand every nuance. Etc.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Looks to me that the phrase exactly fits what I'm talking about.
Given the volume of your posts on the topic, I don't think it can be claimed to be any kind of elephant in this room. If anything it is an animal who has rather overstayed its welcome.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
What, you haven't heard of the Mennonite Nazis in Paraguay and Canada?
You surprise me.
Anabaptists, or hiding out as Anabaptists?
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Anabaptists, or hiding out as Anabaptists?
Actual Mennonites holding actual Nazi views. Google it if you don't believe me.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Sorry to go off-topic, but it struck me that the Sunni tribes in Syria have a massive political vacuum in their midst. Revolting against the Assad regime has provoked massive violence against them, while IS offer a barbaric alternative.
Where is the political leadership, which will enable them to steer a course between the two barbarisms? Possibly, they need a mini-state of their own, or a self-determining province of some kind.
But perhaps things have gone too far now, for any talk of mini-states. Some journalists are predicting 10 more years of war, partly because of its proxy nature.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Sorry to go off-topic,
It looks to me that you're actually going back on-topic.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Sorry to go off-topic,
It looks to me that you're actually going back on-topic.
Irony, old bean.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
What, you haven't heard of the Mennonite Nazis in Paraguay and Canada?
You surprise me.
I was aware that Mennonites in Germany had supported Hitler; partly this was because Germany (pre-Hitler) had provided them refuge from communist persecution in Russia, and Hitler was big on anti-communism. Partly like many in the West, eg the UK's Edward VIII, they didn't realise the full evil. Indeed many in Germany didn't realise the full picture and AIUI the reality of the extermination camps was concealed even from many Germans. Mennonites were far from alone in mis-estimating Hitler.
The situation was complex - but Mennonites outside Germany were disapproving, to say the least. The German group were NOT typical Mennonites and indeed went against many fundamental Mennonite ideas. If anything they are a lesson in why the more usual Anabaptist ideas are really important.
I wasn't aware of the element of those Nazi supporters in the South American migration, as opposed to many including Hutterites who had to flee Germany because of their Anabaptist beliefs which despite or perhaps because of their pacifism was seen as quite threatening by the Nazis. My concern is with the important basic beliefs, not just because they are Anabaptist but because they are biblical and therefore the Christian ideal.
And that is definitely a tangent to the issue of 'state religion or would-be state religion as relevant to Islamic extremism'.... So can we get back to that
quote:
obvious problem or risk no one wants to discuss.
or at least you don't want to discuss it for reasons you haven't yet made clear....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Sorry to go off-topic,
It looks to me that you're actually going back on-topic.
Irony, old bean.
I'd been looking for a way to nudge things back away from the current tangent, without having to get all official and heavy handed. You just gave me an easy way in.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And that is definitely a tangent to the issue of 'state religion or would-be state religion as relevant to Islamic extremism'.... So can we get back to that
quote:
obvious problem or risk no one wants to discuss.
or at least you don't want to discuss it for reasons you haven't yet made clear....
Riiiight, yes I'm obviously the cause of the tangent. No you're right I don't really want to discuss it with you any more, given that the only thing you seem to want to discuss is your own understanding of Constantinism.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Steve--
Thanks for your reply. You don't need to PM me. My point was just that even Anabaptists have their own interpretations and traditions. And I suspect that, at least for the Amish, Old-Order Mennonites, and Hutterites (I think they're Anabaptist), many of the traditions are Traditions.
Nobody's got mere Christianity, objectively. They may well have their understanding of it. Kind of like Queen Elizabeth I said, that all that matters is "Christ and Him crucified; all the rest are trifles". But which things are the trifles? One person's mere Christianity may simply be doing good works, because at least that much is clear. Someone else might consider an Orthodox service part of mere Christianity, because it contains the essence of the whole thing. For someone else, it might involve memorizing the King James Bible, and learning Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic to understand every nuance. Etc.
From that I probably do still need to PM you further; but I won't if you positively refuse. In original context 'Mere Christianity' is the huge mass of common ground between denominations, as opposed to the things they differ on. It was so conceived by Baxter at the time of the ECW and CS Lewis picked it up as the title of his book
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Sorry to go off-topic,
It looks to me that you're actually going back on-topic.
Irony, old bean.
I'd been looking for a way to nudge things back away from the current tangent, without having to get all official and heavy handed. You just gave me an easy way in.
God knows what any Muslim lurkers will think of this thread. Christian imperialism?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Sorry to go off-topic, but it struck me that the Sunni tribes in Syria have a massive political vacuum in their midst. Revolting against the Assad regime has provoked massive violence against them, while IS offer a barbaric alternative.
Where is the political leadership, which will enable them to steer a course between the two barbarisms? Possibly, they need a mini-state of their own, or a self-determining province of some kind.
But perhaps things have gone too far now, for any talk of mini-states. Some journalists are predicting 10 more years of war, partly because of its proxy nature.
Could you express an opinion on my suggestion that a lot of the trouble is precisely the concept of an 'Islamic state' that can fight/be-fought-for, as opposed to a plural democracy with religions operating as 'free churches' (and yes I know Islam doesn't have churches - I just mean following that model)?
And that if so it's important in understanding the situation that Muhammad seems to have quite consciously set Islam up on the 'state church' rather than 'free church' model?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Sorry to go off-topic, but it struck me that the Sunni tribes in Syria have a massive political vacuum in their midst. Revolting against the Assad regime has provoked massive violence against them, while IS offer a barbaric alternative.
Yes, this is a good point. It also seems quite telling to me that so many have sort refuge in Europe. Which suggests that they're more inclined to head towards liberal democracy of some kind than into the arms of extremists.
Of course, the whole scene in the wider Middle East is highly fractured and complicated. There are many militias and strongmen and powers, so it isn't just one religious minority or majority against another.
quote:
Where is the political leadership, which will enable them to steer a course between the two barbarisms? Possibly, they need a mini-state of their own, or a self-determining province of some kind.
Well, see, the problem with this is that small states don't really work in that part of the Middle East. The best example of this we have is the sub-state of Kurdistan, which is (arguably) a haven for a minority. But that's indirectly caused a whole lot of other trouble for other Kurds in the region, particularly when the Turks want to see - at least some of - them as terrorists against their state. Where there are princely states in the ME, they tend to be authoritarian in nature, and it appears that there isn't much hankering after that form of government from the throngs of people who have refugee-d north rather than south and east.
quote:
But perhaps things have gone too far now, for any talk of mini-states. Some journalists are predicting 10 more years of war, partly because of its proxy nature.
That wouldn't surprise me. Libya is essentially in a state of perceptual war, Iraq is a basketcase, Iran is fighting a war of words with Israel, Jordan is stretched and barely holding togther, Lebanon is looking East and is worried about how it might affect them. Turkey is getting stuck into Syria largely because they're worried about Kurdish instability in Turkey.
Any or all of these could turn into a Syria-style hot war at any moment.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Steve--
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
From that I probably do still need to PM you further; but I won't if you positively refuse. In original context 'Mere Christianity' is the huge mass of common ground between denominations, as opposed to the things they differ on. It was so conceived by Baxter at the time of the ECW and CS Lewis picked it up as the title of his book
I *do* positively refuse, though I prefer "politely decline". ![[Biased]](wink.gif) I want to contain this topic here, rather than having it spill over into my inbox.
I know the concept of mere Christianity, from CS Lewis and elsewhere. But even the common ground is full disagreement. E.g., what is Communion/Eucharist; is Hell real, and who's going there; did God inspire the Bible, and if so, how; is Jesus God; works vs. grace...ad infinitum.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
@Callan
I like it but Islam is forever. Like Western materialism.
No cultural institution has lasted ten thousand years, so there is hope, but I suspect Islam could. I went to a Salafist mosque for the first time yesterday. It was a very powerful experience. Moving, sublime, mysterious, male, beautiful, austere, respectful. I yearn for that kind of belonging.
I cannot see any emotionally intelligent (Richard Dawkins continues to fail miserably by calling pious SCIS rapists 'scum'), inclusive development in culture, especially media, that could ever embrace and elevate the masses from materialism and Islam. Apart from emergent Christianity of course.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
@Callan
I like it but Islam is forever. Like Western materialism.
No cultural institution has lasted ten thousand years, so there is hope, but I suspect Islam could. I went to a Salafist mosque for the first time yesterday. It was a very powerful experience. Moving, sublime, mysterious, male, beautiful, austere, respectful. I yearn for that kind of belonging.
I cannot see any emotionally intelligent (Richard Dawkins continues to fail miserably by calling pious SCIS rapists 'scum'), inclusive development in culture, especially media, that could ever embrace and elevate the masses from materialism and Islam. Apart from emergent Christianity of course.
Not convinced. A lot of western discourse about Islam tends to view it as this rather scary immutable religion which will carry on inspiring the faithful when the proverbial visitor from New Zealand sits down to sketch the ruins of St. Paul's. But the thing with religions is that they exist, primarily, inside people's heads. (The debated issue, of course, being the extent to which they live in peoples heads and live in the mind of God.) The other idea that exists in peoples heads is that governments exist to make their lives better. That sets up a tension. Given the frankly inadequate nature of government in the Middle East there is a kind of plausibility, for ignorant and desperate people, that an Islamic regime can solve their problems. But once the Islamic regime gets power, it then has the responsibility of solving those problems. At which point, disillusionment sets in. You or I may not live to see it but, eventually, the wall will come down and great will be the fall thereof.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I suspect that Islam will become more 'interiorised' over time, which is what has happened with Christianity too, over time, for all Steve's protestations that his version is THE NT model ...
Mohammed wasn't capable of working with a 'Free church' or, rather, 'Free mosque's model as that didn't exist.
The Celtic Church wasn't a 'Free church' model either. It'd been part of the overall Western Church until Roman administration ceased in the early 5th century. It differed from 'continental' Christianity only insofar as it had a monastic rather than an episcopal structure. The monks still cultivated the favour of tribal rulers. When St Aidan and St Cuthbert went to Northumberland, what did they do? They settled on Lindisfarne. Which is where? Within sight of the royal court at Bamburgh.
Sure, St Aidan is said to have given away his horse to a poor man and they were certainly 'counter-cultural'. But they couldn't operate without the say-so of the Northumbrian court any more than Augustine of Canterbury could operate without the acquiescence of the King of Kent.
That's how things worked back then. Why would it be any different in 7th century Medina than 7th century Mercia or 7th century Madrid or 7th century anywhere else.
You can no more criticise Mohammed or St Aidan or St Cuthbert or St Augustine of Canterbury for acting in a 7th century way than you can criticise any of us for acting in a 21st century one.
Even if any of these guys wanted to act in what Steve takes to be THE NT way, they couldn't have done because the conditions for them to do so didn't actually exist.
If Steve believes there was some kind of 'Free church' expression in these islands in the 7th century he clearly has no understanding of how tribal and 'heroic 'societies' actually operated.
Of course the Church operated despite that - or through that - the leaven in the lump.
But to expect 7th century Muslims or Christians to act like radical reformation Anabaptists is completely anachronistic.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Even if any of these guys wanted to act in what Steve takes to be THE NT way, they couldn't have done because the conditions for them to do so didn't actually exist.
That's kind of the inherent contradiction of Steve's position. For the conditions necessary for his utopia to exist (rule of law, relative peace, etc.) there needs to exist a rather large infrastructure (the state, or a state-like entity) exactly contrary to the desired outcome.
Or to look at it from an economic perspective, it would seem to be a classic free rider problem.
[ 22. September 2016, 16:58: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
1) Fair enough GK. Perhaps when this thread winds down a bit somebody could start a thread on the 'Mere Christianity' idea.
2) Gamaliel;
quote:
Mohammed wasn't capable of working with a 'Free church' or, rather, 'Free mosque's model as that didn't exist.
A 'free church' model did in fact exist in the NT, Gamaliel, and in the early centuries till it was gradually eroded in the 4th Century. You find quite a few mentions of it in early writings outside the NT as well. It is true that by the 7th Century Muhammad didn't have ready access to it because the Roman Imperial Church didn't follow it and he seems not to have had much access to wider documents.
You missed my point upthread, I think, that IF Muhammad had been a true prophet in the Judeo-Christian tradition you'd have thought God would have used him to re-affirm Jesus' model rather than lead him in the direction of an Islamic state, and rather than give him in the Quran a word essentially affirming the State religion model and contradicting that previous word given through Jesus.
By G;
quote:
The Celtic Church wasn't a 'Free church' model either. It'd been part of the overall Western Church until Roman administration ceased in the early 5th century.
No, by the 5th Century the Church was already in State Church mode across the Roman Empire. And so yes it did tend to missionise in a state church mode. But there would also have been just ordinary Christians doing old style 'gossiping the gospel' into these areas as traders and travellers. If anything the awareness of Christianity as the official religion of 'the enemy' might have been a barrier to pagan acceptance in Britannia, Caledonia, Hibernia etc. and the free church view might have done better.
By G;
quote:
That's how things worked back then. Why would it be any different in 7th century Medina than 7th century Mercia or 7th century Madrid or 7th century anywhere else?
By the 7th Century, sadly yes - but even then, why not go back to the original even if it got you into trouble with the Empire? And I repeat, if Muhammad got that one wrong he certainly wasn't a true prophet of the God of Jesus...
by G;
quote:
Even if any of these guys wanted to act in what Steve takes to be THE NT way, they couldn't have done because the conditions for them to do so didn't actually exist.
Actually in that sense the conditions didn't exist in NT times either - but the apostles trusted that a Jesus who could rise from the dead could also get his message through despite the adverse conditions. Essentially like the apostles, the 7th century Christians could have done it if they'd tried.
quote:
But to expect 7th century Muslims or Christians to act like radical reformation Anabaptists is completely anachronistic.
Of course they wouldn't act exactly like radical Reformation Anabaptists because the situation was more than a bit different. The later Anabaptists had to react against a centuries-more-deeply-entrenched RCC and against a Reformation that had wimped out - consciously in Luther's case, I understand - from following the Bible as far as the Anabaptists had.
But would it really not have worked if the 7thC Christians had gone back and tried the earlier model? Things weren't so different from the 3rdC - they wouldn't have been all that 'anachronistic', and they'd have been more faithful to the gospel and the style of church Jesus intended.
And again, you're back to the one that IF Muhammad was a true prophet, he surely would have followed Jesus' model rather than do as he actually did. He didn't follow a 'free church' model not because it was impossible but because he wasn't a true prophet....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Good glad we've got that sorted out: anyone reading this and considering becoming a Muslim! Desist! The Langton has spoken!
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Here's a suggestion: how about we talk about this topic without anyone mentioning about Constantine or that Islam is a fake religion?
I think we might have done those tangents now, be nice to discuss the other, y'know, things that this was supposed to be about.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
mr cheesy, cool it or take it to Hell. Hosts are watching and will intervene as they deem necessary.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
But would it really not have worked if the 7thC Christians had gone back and tried the earlier model? Things weren't so different from the 3rdC - they wouldn't have been all that 'anachronistic', and they'd have been more faithful to the gospel and the style of church Jesus intended.
Have you not heard of a book called: "The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire"?
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Steve, the existence of a state-church by the 5th century didn't prevent anyone 'gossipping the Gospel' any more than the existence of state-churches prevents that today.
You cannot project your own idealised Anabaptist model back into church history. Sure, you'll find parallels but you won't find your idealised model in its entirety.
One could argue that for all the downsides of a state-church it does at least create conditions where 'gossipping the gospel' takes place. Ideally, if not in practice. There's the famous quip about visitors to Byzantium being asked by their barber or the bloke feeding their horse or pouring out their bathwater where they stood on various technical aspects of the Trinity and so on - the point of this clearly exaggerated and hyperbolic story being that theological discourse had become part of everyday life.
Now, like Baptist Trainman, I've got a lot of sympathy with your point of view. I have less sympathy with the way you express it and even less with what I take to be an unhistorical projecting back of your own views into cultures and settings that were very different from our own.
The Apostles were initially part of a movement within Judaism which burst its bounds and gathered Gentile converts. The Roman Empire was generally very tolerant of different religions and simply absorbed regional deities into its canon. It found itself facing a problem with Judaism as its principled monotheism didn't fit so easily into that mould. It also found itself with a problem with Judaism's offspring religion, Christianity. Hence the persecutions and martyrdoms.
Islam developed in a different place and time. Consequently, it went in a somewhat different direction - for all manner of reasons.
I'm not acting as an apologist for Islamist nor Mohammed, simply pointing out the context and the differences. I'm not saying anything about whether Mohammed was a prophet or anything of that kind - that's not the issue I'm addressing.
The origins of Islamic extremism - or Islamic anything else - are many, varied and complex. Would it have developed any differently if it had emerged in the 2nd or 3rd centuries rather than the 7th? We have no way of telling. That can only remain speculation.
As it is, it developed in the Arabian desert in the 7th century. As such, we can expect it to demonstrate characteristics commensurate with that. And yes, we can see that it does.
I'm not advocating Mohammed as a subsequent Prophet shedding further light on the Judeo-Christian revelation or anything of that kind.
Nor am I advocating a return to 7th century Byzantine practice or 5th century Anglo-Saxon ways of doing things.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Callan. Disillusionment with Islam hasn't set in anywhere for 1400 years. In all the failed Islamic states and regimes and all the robust ones; Turkey, Indonesia and everything in between; Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Turkic/Turkestan states of the former Soviet Union, most are becoming more conservative and Islam shows no sign of losing anyone's hearts and minds.
Why should it?
How can it 'interiorize' other than as part of the cycle?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
That assumes that all Muslims are becoming more conservative. There are plenty of 'nominal' Muslims even in the both conservative settings - same as there are plenty of nominal Christians even in the US Bible-belt.
I wouldn't expect all of Islam to 'interiorise' but suspect there's more interiorisation going on than might appearat first sight.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Many moons ago I had to write an essay on "Fundamentalism" for my MA. The thesis I took is one that still seems to hold a lot of water: that Fundamentalisms (which may include extremism) take hold where specific groups feel threatened in some way and worry they are losing influence.
Perhaps - as in American conservative Christianity - it's where a "safe" religious consensus is being challenged by a broad range of other religions and atheism. Perhaps - as I think is happening in some sectors of British Islam - it takes place where young people fear that their identity is being subsumed into a broader and possibly more secular culture.
That's not the whole picture of course; Isis is trying to recreate an idealised past Caliphate which is probably unrealisable in today's world - yet that too is a conscious attempt to "turn the clock back" and "restore the past". What's interesting is how it (and al-Qaeda too) are using expressly modern methods to achieve their aim.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
