|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What should we do about 'our own' terrorists?
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No, not disappointed. I don't support the death penalty. And in any case it would make a terrorist into a martyr.
What I was suggesting was that treason seems to have with it a sense off disgrace and shame because it's an offence against us as a people as well as the Crown. Life imprisonment is a good enough sentence as long as life meant life.
I think treason is a lot more complicated than you're making out here. Who is being treasonous in the Northern Ireland conflict? Who is acting against "the people", who is determining who "the people" are etc and so on?
In practice, treason can only be acts against the Powers. "The People" only exist as a proxy for the Powers.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Question
What is the motive for Daesh?
1) In western Europe?
2) In their own Islamic/Arab context?
In the Arab context a big motive for the rank and file is the marginalization that Sunni Muslims have experienced in Iraq since Saddam's departure, and the long-standing marginalization in Syria.
The West is involved in both those geopolitical situations.
That doesn't take away from the darkness with which some in Daesh are pursuing their cause, much of which reads like the accounts of medicalized Nazi torture from Nuremberg and can only be motivated by pure sadism.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Terrorists with a political motive, loyal to another regime, (as supporters of Daesh have) should be openly declared to be traitors.
Purges here we come. Do we need to make a special case for murderers with a motive based on faith or politics? Frankly, I would prefer to treat all of these exactly the same, whether they use a gun, a bomb or a knife, and whatever they say.
It moves us away from the notion of "Hate crime" but I'm inclined to reserve that for speech and incitement, not direct physical action.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I hate the word 'traitor', partly because it is bandied about by the right wing, to refer to anyone who disagrees with them. Thus, it is used to refer to anti-Brexit people quite commonly.
Why have a special category? You will only create martyrs.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Question
What is the motive for Daesh?
1) In western Europe?
2) In their own Islamic/Arab context?
In the Arab context a big motive for the rank and file is the marginalization that Sunni Muslims have experienced in Iraq since Saddam's departure, and the long-standing marginalization in Syria.
The West is involved in both those geopolitical situations.
That doesn't take away from the darkness with which some in Daesh are pursuing their cause, much of which reads like the accounts of medicalized Nazi torture from Nuremberg and can only be motivated by pure sadism.
Yes, some Sunni tribes supported IS, and before that, Al Qaeda, as a means of self-defence against what they saw as sectarian rule by Baghdad, and also the Iran-backed militias.
Something similar in Syria, although more complicated. The fact that the West has managed to get embroiled is madness, and the blowback is inevitable.
One should also cite the influence of Wahhabism, sponsored by one of our great allies, of course.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
(except in Northern Ireland in the Troubles)
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
And Northern Ireland doesn't count because...?
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Because I thought we were talking about the sort of attacks in the OP ie: far-right Islamophobic acts of violence
The original quote was
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
There is however a recent track record of correlation between radical Islamism and violence which is established in the way that there isn't (except in Northern Ireland in the Troubles) between 'radical' (in the same way) Christianity and violence.
So writing that back into your original quote would give us;
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
There is however a recent track record of correlation between radical Islamism and violence which is established in the way that there isn't (except in Northern Ireland in the Troubles) between 'radical' (in the same way) Christianity and violence narrowed to considering far-right islamaphobia only.
That doesn't make sense.
I mentioned Norn Iron partly as an aside on the basis that someone would probably bring it up if I didn't. But, on reflection, I don't consider it terribly recent (20+ years ago) so not particularly relevant to the current situation discussed in the OP
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
The use of violence by Islamists goes back a long way. I remember Nasser being targeted by Egyptian Islamists, in the form of assassination attempts. But Nasser supposedly tortured them brutally in his jails, and eventually executed Sayyid Qutb, who was reckoned to be one of the intellectual leading lights.
However, to really go into this in depth, you would also have to grapple with the secular regimes in the Arab world, (even called 'Arab socialism'), which tended to play fast and loose with religion.
But of course, the secular regimes became immensely corrupt and brutal, and Qutb had pointed out that the West was corrupting the Arab leaders, a theme still picked up by Islamists. A friend of mine refers to secularism as a stinking dead dog in the Arab street, a kind of tragedy really.
In this period, the Islamists led an underground existence to an extent.
Iran provides a fascinating template (although not Arab), with its Western-linked leader (the Shah), underground opposition by both Islamists and the left, and let's not forget, a juicy Western plot to overthrow the democratic government.
It sounds like a fat melodramatic novel, but the West has always been fascinated by this region, partly for mercantile reasons, also for 'strategic' influence. As you sow, so shall you reap.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
I think we are missing what these 'Islamist' attacks are against. They are attacks on Western materialism, they are anti British/ American/ European, anti what they see as corrupt moral standards (homosexuality and promiscuity etc.). The point is there is another justification other than just Islam.
We can see these as Anarchist Revolutionaries/ Racist /Homophobia/ Islamophobia when they come from our culture even if the perpetrators cry " in the name of God and St George" . We can divide the Christians in Northern Ireland up in to the political groups of Republicans and Loyalists. Likewise we can identify our reasons for wars when the Generals use the same rallying call. Yet we fail to see the same motives when it is wrapped in an Isis flag and the cry is "Allah Akbar".
If we look at those reasons maybe we can even say "I can see the point you are making" and do something about that.
i'm not at all happy with that: it skates close to co-belligerence and apologetics for grotesque criminality.
I wasn't happy with it either, hence why I put it in quotes. I prefer your word.
Fair enough, I put it badly. I'm trying to get across the need to understand the real reasons. Real reason isn't Islam.
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Because I thought we were talking about the sort of attacks in the OP ie: far-right Islamophobic acts of violence
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
There is however a recent track record of correlation between radical Islamism and violence which is established in the way that there isn't (except in Northern Ireland in the Troubles) between 'radical' (in the same way) Christianity and violence. So, apples and oranges still.
Care to explain exactly why the Ku Klux Klan don't count as both Christian and violent? They certainly viewed their own activities through a Christian lens.
For that matter, why don't the folks who shoot up or bomb women's clinics in the U.S. count as "Christian terrorists"?
They do. As does Dylan Roof. But I refer you to the answer I gave just now to mdijon. If you want to widen the scope of terrorist acts, then I'm more than happy to include him, the KKK and abortion clinic bombers (plus possibly Anders Breivik) as Christian terrorists and condemn them as such.
In which case I'm wondering why you consider the Troubles in Northern Ireland to be a variety of "far-right Islamophobic acts of violence"?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I don't. I consider them acts of Christian terrorism.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
This thread has me baffled now. Islamist terrorists are Islamists, and there are some Christian terrorists, and they are Christians. How am I doing?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Yep. So far so good.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Terrorists with a political motive, loyal to another regime, (as supporters of Daesh have) should be openly declared to be traitors.
Why should you qualify 'loyal to another regime' with 'terrorists with a political motive' - the plain meaning of 'traitor' would cover everyone who is 'loyal to another regime'.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
This thread has me baffled now. Islamist terrorists are Islamists, and there are some Christian terrorists, and they are Christians. How am I doing?
Nope, either the Islamist terrorists are Islamic or the Christian terrorists are Christianist.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
This thread has me baffled now. Islamist terrorists are Islamists, and there are some Christian terrorists, and they are Christians. How am I doing?
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yep. So far so good.
And there's a correlation for the former pairing but not for the latter? And only events in the last 20 years are valid for determining this correlation, and perhaps Islamaphobic but not, for instance, terrorism directed at abortion clinics, is relevant for the latter as well?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Ok I really think we are talking past each other now.
I'm quite happy - as I have stated - to call Christians who commit terrorist acts Christian terrorists. I just don't think that the Finsbury Park attack - the subject of the thread - is an incidence of this, and I question why some are asking that we think about calling it that when there is no evidence to support that call.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
The reason why is to draw attention to the fact that when a guy with an Arabic name is involved, or a guy who is a Muslim, we often hear talk of Islamist terror. I don't think many of those pointing this out would be satisfied if we adopted similarly lazy standards for talking about Christian terror, rather that we suspended judgement on both waiting for evidence.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
But I don't see such double standards: the Finsbury Park attacker didn't shout "This is for Jesus", so why would anyone jump to the conclusion that he was a Christian terrorist? Conversely, the London Bridge attackers did shout "This is for Allah", the 7/7 bombers did explicitly state that they did it for (extremist) Islamic reasons in their videos, so it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that they were Islamists. That was just the - to my mind fairly obvious - point I was trying to make about 100 years ago; sorry if it got lost in translation.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
We should recognise that there are interpretations of the Bible that can be used to support violence, and likewise that many Muslims read the Koran without accepting the interpretations that call for violence. And, recognising that there are Christians who see the Bible calling for violence [, it] is necessary for us to address those people within our faith traditions who act in ways that we all find unacceptable and rightly condemn. Which includes trying to make amends for past actions in the name of our faith that still have ramifications today (eg: Crusades). It isn't enough to simply say that those interpretations of the Bible that were used to justify violence were mistaken, especially when we don't allow Islamic scholars make the same argument.
This seems very much to the point, Alan, but I'm not yet convinced you have it quite right. I don't know what the right answer is - what follows is just thinking aloud.
If there are people (right now, in the news) committing murder in the name of x-ism, and I publicly claim to be an x-ist, what are my options ?
A) I publicly denounce them in the name of x-ism. X-communicate them. They mis-use the sacred name of x; I deny that they are x-ists. I claim it is self-evident that x does not mean what they say it means. I contend for the good name of x-ism that they have betrayed.
B) I recognise that they have a logically valid interpretation of x, but it's one I don't share. I offer you a label to distinguish my brand of peaceful x-ism from their murderous brand. I acknowledge x-ism as ambiguous and qualify my statements to make clear which flavour I advocate.
C) If asked, I condemn their actions and deny knowledge of their motive. I have no part or involvement in what they do. Nothing to do with me, guv.
D) I agree with their ends but not their means.
Do I have a moral duty to do or avoid any of these ? Or a prudential duty (meaning that if I want people to think well of me I need to... And if I don't do that then the consequences are down to me.) ?
Don't think I believe in a moral duty to keep up with the news and respond to what news editors think is significant. It may be good PR, but since when was that a moral obligation ?
It's to do with the notion of community. A community is not to blame for someone who (through mental illness or rebellion) acts contrary to the values of that community.
But how far should we blame a community that talks up smiting others but doesn't do anything about it for the actions of rogue members who take it on themselves to do some smiting ?
We can't influence the past, but the values we profess do influence the future.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
The reason why is to draw attention to the fact that when a guy with an Arabic name is involved, or a guy who is a Muslim, we often hear talk of Islamist terror. I don't think many of those pointing this out would be satisfied if we adopted similarly lazy standards for talking about Christian terror, rather that we suspended judgement on both waiting for evidence.
Please show the lazy standards. In responsible organs. Or by politicians in responsible positions. The Express and Nuthall don't count.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
This thread has me baffled now. Islamist terrorists are Islamists, and there are some Christian terrorists, and they are Christians. How am I doing?
I'm baffled too, but I regard all of them as terrorists and that applying a loaded term connected with a faith is no help at all. Unless you want to sell newspapers.
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
We should recognise that there are interpretations of the Bible that can be used to support violence
We should recognise that there are interpretations of the Bible that can be - and are - used to teach the arcane spiritual significance of the Great Pyramid (Isaiah 19:19-20), but that doesn't mean we recognise their validity.
The old cliche of "You can use the Bible to teach anything" is simplistic, broadbrush and lazy, and no Christian who repeats it really believes it.
Anyone can say anything preceded by "The Bible teaches...", but unless it has some valid exegetical basis it is a waste of breath to which no-one else need listen.
Some propositions are biblically sounder than others, and the fact is that there is absolutely no sanction for Christian violence in the NT, and anyone who claims otherwise is wrong.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I don't. I consider them acts of Christian terrorism.
What is the Christian motive behind those acts?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I don't. I consider them acts of Christian terrorism.
What is the Christian motive behind those acts?
To take back the nation from liberal atheist scum.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
[qb]
The old cliche of "You can use the Bible to teach anything" is simplistic, broadbrush and lazy, and no Christian who repeats it really believes it.
Well, it would be difficult to use to teach String Theory, but it has been used to justify murder, torture, oppression...
quote:
Some propositions are biblically sounder than others, and the fact is that there is absolutely no sanction for Christian violence in the NT, and anyone who claims otherwise is wrong.
The NT has been used to teach things that don't really fit Jesus message and plenty of Christians have used the OT to ignore the message in NT. Until you throw out the OT, or at least the egregious bits, you are going to carry around that baggage.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
the London Bridge attackers did shout "This is for Allah", the 7/7 bombers did explicitly state that they did it for (extremist) Islamic reasons in their videos, so it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that they were Islamists. That was just the - to my mind fairly obvious - point I was trying to make about 100 years ago; sorry if it got lost in translation.
And the point I made at that time is that there are other instances where there is little evidence, yet it is still the assumption made.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
We should recognise that there are interpretations of the Bible that can be used to support violence
We should recognise that there are interpretations of the Bible that can be - and are - used to teach the arcane spiritual significance of the Great Pyramid (Isaiah 19:19-20), but that doesn't mean we recognise their validity.
The old cliche of "You can use the Bible to teach anything" is simplistic, broadbrush and lazy, and no Christian who repeats it really believes it.
Anyone can say anything preceded by "The Bible teaches...", but unless it has some valid exegetical basis it is a waste of breath to which no-one else need listen.
Some propositions are biblically sounder than others, and the fact is that there is absolutely no sanction for Christian violence in the NT, and anyone who claims otherwise is wrong.
Going back to the question "What to do with about our own terrorist" to suggest we need to improve their exegesis, hermeneutics and general biblical interpretation skills is important. Of course you need to reach some 'Christians' who only turn up to church to get baptised as a baby, married for the photogenic back ground and buried (before hand preferably- cause it would be too late!).
If we can agree on this may be we can move onto the how? I would be willing to bet that a majority of 'Christians' have never read the whole bible so maybe unaware of some of the genocide-y bits and other tricky passages unless they are pointed out by the Sceptics Annotated Bible or other useful text. Sweeping the issue under the carpet isn't going to solve anything.
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
We should recognise that there are interpretations of the Bible that can be used to support violence
We should recognise that there are interpretations of the Bible that can be - and are - used to teach the arcane spiritual significance of the Great Pyramid (Isaiah 19:19-20), but that doesn't mean we recognise their validity.
The old cliche of "You can use the Bible to teach anything" is simplistic, broadbrush and lazy, and no Christian who repeats it really believes it.
Anyone can say anything preceded by "The Bible teaches...", but unless it has some valid exegetical basis it is a waste of breath to which no-one else need listen.
Some propositions are biblically sounder than others, and the fact is that there is absolutely no sanction for Christian violence in the NT, and anyone who claims otherwise is wrong.
I don't think I was clear enough. I wasn't saying we need to accept the validity of whacky interpretation. I was saying that we need to acknowledge that people do believe such things, and as a result engage in a discussion of why they're mistaken. That's especially true of those who believe that the Christian scriptures and tradition teach them to commit actions that impact others - in the context of this thread, those who think that the Christian faith justifies violence.
That would, must, include prominent¹ Christians being vocal after acts committed by "Christians" (anyone either claiming to be Christian nations, or otherwise viewed as Christian), being clear that there is no justification for that. It also includes preachers and others making that clear such that people inclined towards such acts don't, or at least don't drag the name of our faith into their actions.
And, in our dealings with the Islamic community after attacks carried out in their name we need to treat them in the same was as we treat ourselves - which includes recognising that very often they're working even harder than we are to counter the views that violence is justified by their faith, and not constantly undermining their efforts by saying that they're wrong because we can pick a few verses of the Koran that can be interpreted as supporting violence (as though they couldn't do the same with the Bible). And, just as we expect our statements that "Christian" terrorists are not faithful Christians be accepted, we should accept statements from the Islamic world that "Muslim" terrorists are not faithful Muslims.
¹ "Prominent" may include any of us, if (say) we're the only professing Christian at work and the subject of the latest atrocity by a "Christian" is talked about during the coffee break.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Please show the lazy standards. In responsible organs.
Here's a true Scotsman with no salt in his porridge.
OK, apparently very sloppy, but secondary to the immediacy of attacks and the common sense response.
And Alan, you cannot even begin to orthodoxly commit acts of terrorism in the name of God in Christ.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And Alan, you cannot even begin to orthodoxly commit acts of terrorism in the name of God in Christ.
I know.
But, the question is what we should do when people who claim to share our faith consider that the Christian faith justifies acts of violence? Simply repeating in an echo chamber that it's not possible to commit acts of terrorism in the name of Christ doesn't seem very productive.
--------------------
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 Kaplan Corday:
We should recognise that there are interpretations of the Bible that can be - and are - used to teach the arcane spiritual significance of the Great Pyramid (Isaiah 19:19-20), but that doesn't mean we recognise their validity.
Let's go back a few steps. Why shouldn't we accept as valid the scriptural significance of the Great Pyramid? What criteria are you using here to assess validity?
quote:
The old cliche of "You can use the Bible to teach anything" is simplistic, broadbrush and lazy, and no Christian who repeats it really believes it.
Wrong. I'm a Christian and I believe that the bible can be used to teach almost anything.
Like you, I'm sure that there are valid and invalid interpretations. I'm just not sure what criteria you are using to make this assessment - and I suppose it is fair to say that I'm not entirely sure what criteria I am using either.
quote:
Anyone can say anything preceded by "The Bible teaches...", but unless it has some valid exegetical basis it is a waste of breath to which no-one else need listen.
Interesting.
So are you saying that there are "valid" exegetical teachings which are still wrong? Does "validity" mean "correct"? Or are they two separate ideas which overlap somewhere in the middle?
quote:
Some propositions are biblically sounder than others, and the fact is that there is absolutely no sanction for Christian violence in the NT, and anyone who claims otherwise is wrong.
I'm a pacifist and I've been very influenced by the New Testament, so clearly I agree that I don't believe one can justify violence from it.
I'm less sure that this is the only sound and valid exegetical teaching one could derive from the whole bible. I think one could derive a theory of redemptive violence from the Old Testament and carry it through to the New Testament "soundly" by making some kind of argument that states that if one is fighting for God then that is valid - and that Christ was talking about peace within personal relationships.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I know.
But, the question is what we should do when people who claim to share our faith consider that the Christian faith justifies acts of violence? Simply repeating in an echo chamber that it's not possible to commit acts of terrorism in the name of Christ doesn't seem very productive.
I'm not really convinced that acts of violence are "wacky" interpretations of Christian faith.
To take just one example; plenty of Christians thought it was an expression of Christian faith to take up arms to resist the Nazis.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And Alan, you cannot even begin to orthodoxly commit acts of terrorism in the name of God in Christ.
I know.
But, the question is what we should do when people who claim to share our faith consider that the Christian faith justifies acts of violence? Simply repeating in an echo chamber that it's not possible to commit acts of terrorism in the name of Christ doesn't seem very productive.
I know you know.
But you obviously can in the name of Allah by a strong, minority, traditional, orthodox Qur'anic interpretation.
Historically Christian cultures have done every Church sanctioned evil imaginable in the name of the two swords and I have argued they still did until recently, until I accepted Just War in extremis. My former rejection of Just War led to a rejection of the state's monopoly of violence which was exposed as ... foolish in me at Bataclan, when, with morally flawless courage that Jesus would not just give the nod to, police advanced on terrorist machine gunners with shields to stop them with necessarily lethal force. Would Jesus have refused to be deputized in that? I don't think so. They've come a long way since Béziers.
Like you I cannot see Jesus giving the nod to a Christian equivalent of Salman Abedi at the Manchester Arena. I can see ordinary, decent Muslims doing that to him, whilst shaking their heads in horror. Being understanding. Sympathetic. More so than I am. I can hear the repressed 'Yeah but'. I can articulate it for them. With them. I can see why. As I could in Northern Ireland. Both sides. 9 11. I HEARD it.
Can we dare to have that conversation? To extend the conversation to that level of discomfort? In the intelligence community, in detective work, one MUST put one's self empathically in the mind of one's prey.
So, what should we do when our own side indistinguishably mirror the enemy? Have the most open possible conversation. Admit everything that we all think. Vulnerably. Safely.
European Christianity is the beneficiary of the enlightenment, can European Islam be for a start?
[ 29. June 2017, 10:22: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And Alan, you cannot even begin to orthodoxly commit acts of terrorism in the name of God in Christ.
I know.
You are both incorrect.
Jesus said he was not here to challenge the OT. The OT very clearly justifies great violence and terrorism.
∴ Orthodoxy can justify terrorism.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Some propositions are biblically sounder than others, and the fact is that there is absolutely no sanction for Christian violence in the NT, and anyone who claims otherwise is wrong.
Those of us who lean towards pacifism have all heard the arguments about Jesus telling the disciples to sell their cloaks and buy swords and not telling the Centurion to give up his job.
Also, the New Testament endorses the Old Testament except when it clearly does otherwise.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Some propositions are biblically sounder than others, and the fact is that there is absolutely no sanction for Christian violence in the NT, and anyone who claims otherwise is wrong.
Those of us who lean towards pacifism have all heard the arguments about Jesus telling the disciples to sell their cloaks and buy swords and not telling the Centurion to give up his job.
Also, the New Testament endorses the Old Testament except when it clearly does otherwise.
The NT endorses the OT when the OT backs my beliefs; it does not when the OT is contrary to my beliefs. This is true for everybody.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Those of us who lean towards pacifism have all heard the arguments about Jesus telling the disciples to sell their cloaks and buy swords and not telling the Centurion to give up his job.
The issue is not pacifism versus any violence at all.
Pacifism is a possible legitimate NT position.
Christian participation in state-authorised violence in the cause of law enforcement or just war is also a possible legitimate NT position.
Crusading (ie violence specifically forcing Christianity or a particular version of it on the unwilling) on the other hand has no NT sanction whatsoever.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And Alan, you cannot even begin to orthodoxly commit acts of terrorism in the name of God in Christ.
I know.
You are both incorrect.
Jesus said he was not here to challenge the OT. The OT very clearly justifies great violence and terrorism.
∴ Orthodoxy can justify terrorism.
And the stoning of adulteresses.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I don't. I consider them acts of Christian terrorism.
What is the Christian motive behind those acts?
To take back the nation from liberal atheist scum.
So, when was there a terrorist event with that motivation and where possibly the bomber, knifeman, white-van-man cried out 'Jesus is Lord', Jesus loves you!' as he took 25 atheists with him to eternity?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I don't. I consider them acts of Christian terrorism.
What is the Christian motive behind those acts?
To take back the nation from liberal atheist scum.
So, when was there a terrorist event with that motivation and where possibly the bomber, knifeman, white-van-man cried out 'Jesus is Lord', Jesus loves you!' as he took 25 atheists with him to eternity?
Sure, but what about attacks on abortion clinics and staff in the USA? Those carrying out such attacks have claimed to be doing so in the name of Christ.
Then you've got whacky fringe groups like The Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda.
The issue, surely, isn't this, that or the other religion per se but forms of fundamentalism that crank up a kind of Puritanical, literalist approach to the point where it spills over into violence.
--------------------
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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Jut dine some background reading to the Lord's Resistance Army.
What comes out of that, for me, is that here is a very dangerous personality cult focused on one man and his very twisted view of God and with a powerful hold over a small group of people who have forced people to join them and fight for some perverted cause to establish the Ten Commandments as the rule of law!?
To me, what makes that different to IS is that IS is actually seemingly based on a Legitimate Islamic aim - to establish the Muslim Caliphate and to impose Sharia Law on non-Muslim nations and also to enforce that law of Muslim states that are not sufficiently Islamic.
It is said that the LRA "is not motivated by any identifiable political agenda, and its military strategy and tactics reflect this"
but that it also seems to be based in tribal warfare to asset the dominance of the Acholi tribe.
It might be terrorism but it has no Christian evangelical motivation. It isn't trying to spread the Christian Gospel through violent means in the way that IS is trying to spread Islam through violent means.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
[Sure, but what about attacks on abortion clinics and staff in the USA? Those carrying out such attacks have claimed to be doing so in the name of Christ.
Deranged, yes.
Hateful, yes.
Murderous, yes.
But terrorism?
Once you start calling every act of violence a 'terrorist act' when it's done by a religious person, the word ceases to mean anything; to my mind there is political and religious terrorism but it always seems to me that the religious kind will have a political motive mixed in. Islamic terrorism is religious and political. It's intertwined.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It might be terrorism but it has no Christian evangelical motivation. It isn't trying to spread the Christian Gospel through violent means in the way that IS is trying to spread Islam through violent means.
Christianity exists now because it was spread through violent means.
Explain to the billions of Muslims who do not relive they are urged towards violences how they are wrong.
Or go on playing your One True Christian Bingo.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It might be terrorism but it has no Christian evangelical motivation. It isn't trying to spread the Christian Gospel through violent means in the way that IS is trying to spread Islam through violent means.
Christianity exists now because it was spread through violent means.
Explain to the billions of Muslims who do not relive they are urged towards violences how they are wrong.
Or go on playing your One True Christian Bingo.
That may well be true of the Spanish Catholic activities in South America but it seems to m that Africa was converted by peaceful means.
The activities of colonial governments is another matter of course, but I don't see the Church of England blowing up villages in the jungles of Africa to force tribesmen to convert.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It might be terrorism but it has no Christian evangelical motivation. It isn't trying to spread the Christian Gospel through violent means in the way that IS is trying to spread Islam through violent means.
Christianity exists now because it was spread through violent means.
Explain to the billions of Muslims who do not relive they are urged towards violences how they are wrong.
Or go on playing your One True Christian Bingo.
That may well be true of the Spanish Catholic activities in South America but it seems to m that Africa was converted by peaceful means.
The activities of colonial governments is another matter of course, but I don't see the Church of England blowing up villages in the jungles of Africa to force tribesmen to convert.
Constantine? Hello?
ETA: How many followers of Zeus have you encountered. Odin?
AND WTF! Africa converted by peaceful means? That is colonisation apology rubbish.
[ 30. June 2017, 15:09: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
King Leopold's Congo, anyone? (B)Ugandan civil war in 1890s between Catholic wa-Fransi and Protestant wa-Inglesi?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The issue is not pacifism versus any violence at all.
Pacifism is a possible legitimate NT position.
Christian participation in state-authorised violence in the cause of law enforcement or just war is also a possible legitimate NT position.
Crusading (ie violence specifically forcing Christianity or a particular version of it on the unwilling) on the other hand has no NT sanction whatsoever.
It seems to me to be fairly self-evident that there is a very thin line between state authorised violence, just war and - for want of a better term - crusading.
And, perhaps most importantly, those who walk in this zone seem unable to reliably tell the difference. They end up condemning everyone else's "state authorised violence" and promoting as highly ethical their own.
This is basically why I am a pacifist, fwiw. Once you start saying that violence is ok, it is very hard to stop. Then Dresden becomes acceptable, then civilian deaths from drones become unavoidable and soon there is very little difference between pigs and men.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
It wasn't just the Conquistadores. In the 1630s the New England Puritans justified the massacre of Pequod non-combatants by referring to the Book of Joshua ...
The CofE may not have gone around blowing up villages to coerce indigenous peoples to convert but there's a lot of truth in the old adage, 'The white man brought the Bible in one hand and a whip in the other ...'
As for religious violence of whatever stripe being a syncretic religio-political mix - then sure, of course. That applies to sectarian violence in Northern Ireland, Kosovo, tensions between Islamic sects, Buddhists vs Muslim insurgents in Burma, Hindus vs Muslims in India ...
It doesn't make any of it less violent or any less reprehensible to acknowledge either the political aspects or the sectarian / religious elements.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
