|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Islam and violence
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
In other words the failure of Christendom spawned Islam in bile and fed it bile and continues to. Gives it raison d'ętre.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Martin - with the best will in the world, I have no idea what you are talking about.
The genesis of Islam was well away from anything that could have been described as christendom, though of course it subsequently encountered it as it spread.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
I thought that somewhere 400 or so posts ago it was stated that Islam may have originally risen from a branch of Christianity...?
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Muhammad's first wife was Christian. Syriac Christianity bordered Arabia. The Byzantines - Orthodox Christians - and Persian Sassanids were at constant war, Islam arose below that exhausted crucible. That.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
I heard something to the effect that the Prophet sought counsel from Christian and Jewish friends, when he was working out his faith. Maybe one of the Christians was his father-in-law??
--------------------
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
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
It makes me wonder how much distortion there is in both the Koran and NT - both were not really compited until maybe 200 or more years after the event
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Muhammad's first wife was Christian.
I think that's a minority view. It certainly isn't the traditional view in Islam.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
It makes me wonder how much distortion there is in both the Koran and NT - both were not really compited until maybe 200 or more years after the event
Everything in the NT was written by 100AD on a cautious estimate. The latest documents are probably the pastoral epistles, some of the other minor epistles, and Revelation. There is no official decision recognising it as a single collected body of work until the middle of the fourth century AD, although that decision was recognising de facto practice among a wide range of Christian communities.
The Qu'ran I know less about; but two hundred years seems highly unlikely. Shia Islam and Sunni Islam split definitively about fifty years after Muhammad's life - if there were any substantial development in the Qu'ranic text after that date one would expect one or other group to reject it as a corruption.
--------------------
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
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
Martin60 and itsarumdo - would it be expecting too much to ask you to provide sources for the extremely questionable claims you're both advancing here?
t
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
which particular claims? Dafyd has provided a very scholarly correction to my rather broad handwaving on dates (thankyou)
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Muhammad's first wife was Christian. Syriac Christianity bordered Arabia. The Byzantines - Orthodox Christians - and Persian Sassanids were at constant war, Islam arose below that exhausted crucible. That.
Even if Mohammed's first wife was a Christian (looks doubtful), I'm not sure why that should lead to him "spawning Islam in bile".
Syriac christianity - specifically that part of the church of the east which came to be called Nestorian - not only bordered Arabia, but was actually present in Arabia - several Arab tribes on the Arabian peninsula were believed to have been Christians, and it is surmised (though hard evidence is another matter) that these were the Christians that Mohammed was in contact with. The input they had to the formation of Islam is vigorously debated at present. The more intriguing theories are probably those of Luxenberg and followers we had a thread on recently. Here's a link summarising them.
But central Arabia was never part of the Sassanian lands. The northern Arabs fought against the Sassanids (with the Romans) because they distrusted their expansionist aims. And at the time of their greatest success, they only ever conquered the north and south borderlands - roughly where Yemen and the Gulf States are now.
Yes, the continuous wars between Rome and its eastern successor Byzantium with the Sassanids served to weaken and enervate both. So much so that the rise of Islam as a religio-political force could not be resisted. But that surely is a case for Byzantium and the Sassanids ultimate feebleness being what facilitated Islam's initial sweeping out of the Arabian peninsula. I see no evidence for the genesis of Islam being in reaction (bilious or otherwise) to christendom.
(Christendom, I take it, means the relgious and political power as exemplified by Byzantium. This was not the christianity that Mohammed was in contact with. Nestorian christianity was effectively devoid of political clout, beyond, at the most, tribal influence.)
[ 10. February 2015, 20:43: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Islam arose against at least a backdrop of apostatic Christianity. That stew of bile. Of violence begetting violence.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Islam arose against at least a backdrop of apostatic Christianity. That stew of bile. Of violence begetting violence.
Again, I'm asking you for a source. And an explanation, in this case. Why is apostasy automatically 'a stew of bile'? Even if you believe the orthodox position to be uniquely correct, it is possible for people to be wrong peacefully and without malice.
t
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Apostasy is a religion renounced. The Nestorians were not apostates - they were heterodox and heretical (as judged by orthodox standards) but they had in no way renounced Christianity.
If the theories aired in the links I posted to earlier are correct, then you could say that Islam was an apostasy from Christianity. But that would be an entirely different proposal.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The Qu'ran I know less about; but two hundred years seems highly unlikely. Shia Islam and Sunni Islam split definitively about fifty years after Muhammad's life - if there were any substantial development in the Qu'ranic text after that date one would expect one or other group to reject it as a corruption.
There is a divergence of opinion between Sunni and Shia about the formation of the Quran. One of the things Uthman (on the Sunni side) did as well was destroy competing texts. There is no original or codex that I think can even be dated to Uthman's time though. I think the scholarly consensus tends towards a later dating with incorporation of inputs from multiple pieces of oral and then written tradition within Islam, as well as usage of non Islamic and non Arabic sources (Syro-Aramaic for instance). That of course is counter to the "official" version, just as higher criticism showed that traditional understandings of Jewish or Christian sacred texts did not hold together. They are all very human creations.
The first account of Muhammad's life came something like 120 years after his death, and is only known through a text that itself was lost and recorded by a later author.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Christendom wasn't peaceful. It had left it's place. Assuming it ever had it. That's apostasy.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Now I'm confused, Martin60. Are you classifying as apostasy the processes (or at least some of the processes) of mainstream Christian development? Christianity was taken from its roots down a more violent path by the processes of codifying belief?
At this distance, and being a gentle soul, I'm not keen on declaring folks to be anathema because their beliefs were judged to be heterodox. Bad behaviour is another matter. But the necessity for some form of codification and boundary drawing seems pretty obvious from the history of those times. That's not intrinsically violent, surely?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
I don't think it is quite right to see Islam as a reaction against 'Christendom' – rather that Muhammad only knew two versions of a Christianity, a local version which was theologically heterodox (Nestorian if I remember rightly), and the Roman imperial version of the faith which was orthodox in its teaching about God and Christ but practically heterodox in being a state church.
As far as I can see Muhammad reacted to the local heterodoxy by rejecting Trinitarianism which he never properly understood because of that heterodoxy. He didn't react against 'Christendom' but the problem was that version of Christianity wasn't giving him an alternative model of state-and-religion relations to counter the temptation to set Islam up as a state religion like the distorted Christianity of Christendom.
Islam set up as a state religion is 'inherently violent' in pretty much the same way, and following the same logic, as Christendom with its crusades, inquisitions, etc. The difference is that Islam was actually founded by Muhammad to be like that, as can be seen from his own involvement in warfare and state-based persecution of dissent. 'Christendom' in contrast is not an authentic version of Christianity but a centuries-later development which contradicts key NT teachings; thus the conflict between 'Christendom' and NT Christianity ultimately led to the kind of religious freedom we now see in most of 'Christendom'. In Islam there is no such conflict to ultimately moderate jihad and persecution so such violence is truly inherent from the original teaching.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
None of this sophistry helps the three Muslims murdered in their home yesterday, apparently for being Muslims. Would it be too much to ask that we - as Christians, or indeed just as human beings - regard adherents of other faiths as worthy humans and children of the living God first and foremost?
Supposing that we could somehow prove that Islam was 'inherently' violent - whatever that means? That would not excuse us from serving and loving our neighbours. It would not justify a single act of aggression. And yet we have people on this very site calling for 'mass graves' of Muslims.
Are we not ashamed of our own violence?
t
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
None of this sophistry helps the three Muslims murdered in their home yesterday, apparently for being Muslims. Would it be too much to ask that we - as Christians, or indeed just as human beings - regard adherents of other faiths as worthy humans and children of the living God first and foremost?
Note that these murders were (allegedly) committed by a man identifying as a militant atheist, who would presumably view nobody at all as children of the living God.
I'm not sure that there's anything fundamentally different between a militant Muslim who murders people and a militant atheist who murders people. (Or indeed murdering grievance-mongers of other faiths.)
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Then I'm in good company Barnabas62. Yes. No. Agreed. Indeed. Of course. No. It's got nowt ter do wi' codification. Christianity lost by winning. By becoming the state religion.
Steve. You contradict your first line disagreement with everything else you write there. With which I mainly agree.
Little devil. It certainly doesn't. No. Prove it isn't. True. Agreed. People? What apart from deano? Yes.
--------------------
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
Sorry Martin; I think I tried to say something complex too briefly. The relationship of Islam to Christianity isn't simple and developed over some years. My basic point remains that Islam developed in a world that didn't have strong Christianity in the NT style; Muhammad I think did not consciously model his new faith on Imperial Christianity, the trouble was that as he developed Islam, he didn't have another model of Christianity to provide an alternative to the 'religious state' model of Islam that he ended up with.
Parallel to that view, Imperial Christianity and its derivatives through to the CofE etc are like Islam in ways that neither is like NT Christianity; when those who do 'Christendom' and other forms of 'Christian country' look at Islam and see jihad and other violence, they are effectively looking in a mirror. Neither historic nor modern Christendom have a good answer to Islam because on several important issues Christendom is actually on the same side of the argument as Islam, and using the same logic.
Teufelchen; I hope I'm not just dealing in 'sophistry' - I care a great deal about getting this stuff right. The incident you refer to - IF it is about religion (and there does seem to be some dispute about that) it seems to be an atheist who objects to exactly the same thing in Islam that I object to - and also like myself seems to object to the same kind of thing when it is done in the name of Jesus. Where that atheist seems only able to find the destructive solution of violence and killing on his own part, I'm trying not to simply blame Islam, but to offer to all sides a constructive alternative in considering the ideas of NT Christianity.
At 100am however, I'm not really up to exploring this in more detail right now - I'll see how the thread develops overnight....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton, emphasis mine:
Islam set up as a state religion is 'inherently violent'
That was carefully worded, but I'm not sure I agree with the implication you seek to give it. Islamic or otherwise, state authority inevitably has a degree of "inherent violence" even if only as a last resort - and according to Paul in Romans 13, is ordained by God, is it not? It's hardly peculiar to Islam.
If you want to get rid of state-associated violence, what you need to get rid of is not Islam or "Christendom" (sic), you will need to get rid of the state and government. In discussions on that topic you have yet to present a credible, contemporary alternative this side of the eschaton. quote:
In Islam there is no such conflict to ultimately moderate jihad and persecution so such violence is truly inherent from the original teaching.
That is quite a different and weaselly-worded proposition from the one above, and with it you are on far shakier ground. For one thing, it is a nonsense to talk in terms of something being "inherent from". It is either "inherent in" or it is derivative, in which case it is not inherent.
I think the subtle difference between your opening and closing statements above reflects the backwards mindset at work here. People look at the violence of ISIS et al. and work backwards by dint of slight changes in vocabulary to conclude that "Islam", taken in the broadest or most fundamental sense possible, is inherently and peculiarly violent.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
No Eutychus, you need to get rid of religion, our religion, Christianity that is apostatic. That is complicit in state violence in all its forms. Islam isn't apostatic.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Maybe I do, but what do you make of Romans 13, then?
--------------------
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
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I think Eutychus is right. States need to assert themselves against challenges to law and order. They can't do that with some degree of physical force. This is true whether or not you do away with religion.
States are inherently violent. And the empiric evidence behind that is way better than the empiric evidence on Islam and violence. There are billions of non-violent Muslims in the world, I don't know of any non-violent states.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Paul was shortly after the inversion point of the arc of the moral universe that was Christ. The point where it reached escape velocity. Like the rest of us, he lagged in his response. And Caesar has loved that ever since. The Christians who followed in the next three centuries went further along the arc. Caesar didn't like that. Until he realised he could use it.
We've been Caesar's puppets ever since in the very main. 'Civilized'. Tamed. Complicit. Blessing his wars for 1700 years. Fighting them. (Significant by our absence as in Ferguson, the Ukraine, Syria-Iraq AND whinging about it: 'Something must be done'.) Islam innocently arose three hundred years in to that example.
[ 12. February 2015, 12:20: 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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
By Eutychus
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton, emphasis mine:
Islam set up as a state religion is 'inherently violent'
That was carefully worded, but I'm not sure I agree with the implication you seek to give it. Islamic or otherwise, state authority inevitably has a degree of "inherent violence" even if only as a last resort - and according to Paul in Romans 13, is ordained by God, is it not? It's hardly peculiar to Islam.
I agree that the state 'inevitably has a degree of “inherent violence”', though I would regard some of that rather as 'legitimate force', as the word 'violence' does carry implications of violation and illegitimacy. Yes, the state authority is 'ordained by God' – but you should bear in mind that Paul was talking about an imperial authority which wasn't simplistically 'good' and indeed not so far down the road would execute Paul himself – he is talking about God's providential arrangements rather than necessarily saying God actually approves of the authority in question and of everything it does. He is advising Christians how to live in a 'kingdom of this world', rather than giving a prescription for government.
“It's hardly peculiar to Islam”. Agreed – the point is precisely that a religion which becomes the state religion, which in effect becomes a 'kingdom of this world', will take on this violence and the (apparent) 'need' to persecute and war on behalf of the religion. If you go back to my previous post you'll note that in full I said “Islam set up as a state religion is 'inherently violent' in pretty much the same way, and following the same logic, as Christendom with its crusades, inquisitions, etc”.
quote:
By Eutychus;
If you want to get rid of state-associated violence, what you need to get rid of is not Islam or "Christendom" (sic), you will need to get rid of the state and government. In discussions on that topic you have yet to present a credible, contemporary alternative this side of the eschaton.
As I understand it we are indeed NOT, 'this side of the eschaton' to get rid of the state and government. What we are also very much NOT meant to do is ally Christianity with the state/government so as to produce the violence of a religious state in the name of Jesus. What we (Christians) are meant to do is live in the various states of the world as peaceable representatives of God's peaceable kingdom. In the context of a sinful world that is a thoroughly credible alternative.
quote:
By Eutychus
SL: In Islam there is no such conflict to ultimately moderate jihad and persecution so such violence is truly inherent from the original teaching.
EU; That is quite a different and weaselly-worded proposition from the one above, and with it you are on far shakier ground. For one thing, it is a nonsense to talk in terms of something being "inherent from". It is either "inherent in" or it is derivative, in which case it is not inherent.
SL: Sorry, supply the ellipsis “Such violence is truly inherent ... in Islam ... from (ie, as a result of) the original teaching”. That is, Islam by its original teaching is a state religion and therefore the violence is inherent, as it is also inherent in the 'Christendom/Christian country' form of Christianity.
The distinction is that the violence is not inherent in Christianity itself, as originally taught, because NT Christianity is not supposed to be a state religion. Thus when the Roman Empire set itself up as a nominally Christian state, there was a conflict between the original NT teaching and the different version of church/state relations in the Empire – a conflict between original Christianity and 'Christendom' as a 'kingdom of this world'.
That conflict has eventually considerably moderated the behaviour of 'Christendom' to produce the kind of religious freedom we now see in most of former 'Christendom'. In Islam, the original teaching is of Islam as a religious state which Muhammad set up by warfare and conquest and enforced in a 'kingdom of this world' way. Thus there is no conflict between the original Islamic teaching and the fact of an Islamic state.
To put it another way – truly fundamentalist Christianity will not be a state religion but will produce a peaceable international 'holy nation' living as peaceable resident aliens in the world. Fundamentalist Islam teaches itself as a state religion and will end up doing whatever it takes to sustain that and to expand the worldly rule of Islam.
quote:
By Eutychus;
I think the subtle difference between your opening and closing statements above reflects the backwards mindset at work here. People look at the violence of ISIS et al. and work backwards by dint of slight changes in vocabulary to conclude that "Islam", taken in the broadest or most fundamental sense possible, is inherently and peculiarly violent.
I don't know about 'people', but that certainly isn't my thought process here. I'm actually applying things I worked out in dealing with the problem of violence in the name of Christianity, and showing that Islam is indeed not 'peculiarly violent' but an example of the same kind of thing.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Martin, I think you and I are at different points on the "now and not yet" spectrum.
I empathise with your heart, but my head says that pending Christ's return, we have to get on in this world as it is - and this, I believe, is very much where Paul, ever the pragmatist, is coming from in Romans 13.
Nation states look (to me) like having the potential to restrict the use of force and the need to resort to it, and being able to create the space for religious diversity in which Christianity can prosper in a healthy manner.
They often fall short of this, but as citizens of states (as well as "strangers and pilgrims") we can make a difference in this respect.
I have continued to think long and hard about the OP and had the benefit, off-board, of theological reflection from Christian experts in the Muslim world; I am also to be making my small contribution to the ongoing debate about post-Charlie Hebdo laďcité by appearing before a specially appointed commission in my city.
The upshot of all this is that I don't believe Islam is inherently violent; I think the best way of countering any violence it may nurture is to give religion in general, including Islam, a place in the public sphere that it does not yet enjoy. In other words, to replace secularism by secularity (laďciser la laďcité).
That involves acknowledging the state as a potential force for good in all this, rather than pretending it doesn't exist or is unfit for purpose.
[x-post]
[ 12. February 2015, 12:59: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Possibly tangentially, Melanie Phillips was trying to make the case that there is something inherently violent about Islam on the Moral Maze yesterday:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qk11
She was pulled up by Giles Fraser when she said that Judaism had contextualised scriptural violence in a way that Islam and Christianity had not.
I think this is a weak argument by Phillips, most forms of religion have some elements of violence within their ancient scriptures.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Paul... is talking about God's providential arrangements rather than necessarily saying God actually approves of the authority in question and of everything it does.
I think Rom 13:4 quite clearly implies that Paul saw the use of force to uphold the rule of law as both legitimate and God-sanctioned, if not God-ordained, irrespective of how justly (or otherwise) any particular state implemented this principle. quote:
What we are also very much NOT meant to do is ally Christianity with the state/government so as to produce the violence of a religious state in the name of Jesus.
Of course not. The argument on that issue revolves around what we variously mean by "ally", but we have done that to death already elsewhere. quote:
Islam by its original teaching is a state religion and therefore the violence is inherent
You have had to qualify "Islam" ('by its original teaching') again.
There seems to be a fair bit of consensus about the context of violence in which Islam arose; the big disagreement is about whether this context defines what Islam looks like for all its followers for ever after; the evidence is that this is not the case.
quote:
The distinction is that the violence is not inherent in Christianity itself, as originally taught, because NT Christianity is not supposed to be a state religion.
You have conveniently avoided the OT.
It's hard to get much of an understanding of the NT without the OT, which is largely about nationhood and territoriality, esablished by the sword.
If you want to be allowed to distance Christianity from its foundational context (by throwing away large chunks of the OT), why won't you extend the same courtesy to Islam?
quote:
truly fundamentalist Christianity will not be a state religion but will produce a peaceable international 'holy nation' living as peaceable resident aliens in the world. Fundamentalist Islam teaches itself as a state religion and will end up doing whatever it takes to sustain that and to expand the worldly rule of Islam.
You implication here is that if Muslims took their religion as seriously as you would like all Christians to, they will end up as jihadists whereas Christians will end up nice and peaceable. This strikes me as rather a slur on serious-minded, peaceable Muslims.
Perhaps your mistake is to think that "fundamentalism" is the noblest approach to one's religion.
[another x-post]
[ 12. February 2015, 13:24: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Mr. Cheesy wrote - quote:
... Melanie Phillips...
No thanks!
Eutychus wrote:- quote:
You implication here is that if Muslims took their religion as seriously as you would like all Christians to, they will end up as jihadists whereas Christians will end up nice and peaceable. This strikes me as rather a slur on serious-minded, peaceable Muslims.
Perhaps your mistake is to think that "fundamentalism" is the noblest approach to one's religion.
Agreed. There is always a case to be made for re-examining the foundations of any movement, religious or otherwise. Real live fundamentalisms, however, rather resemble ahistorical reconstructive projections.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Aye Eutychus. As St. Brian said, we have to work it out for ourselves. I'm just representing the bit we always seem to miss out. The 'ideal' for Christians in the face of violence.
God bless you in that vastly responsible work.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Possibly tangentially, Melanie Phillips was trying to make the case that there is something inherently violent about Islam on the Moral Maze yesterday:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qk11
She was pulled up by Giles Fraser when she said that Judaism had contextualised scriptural violence in a way that Islam and Christianity had not.
I think this is a weak argument by Phillips, most forms of religion have some elements of violence within their ancient scriptures.
Much as I loathe Phillips and like Fraser, that isn't quite true - she said that the violent quotations in Torah were 'contextualized' - there wasn't time for her to develop her argument but what she must have meant was that the ongoing commentaries in Talmud and Mishnah do not condone violence.
The most ridiculous thing that Fraser said, at the end, was that those who think theologically would never condone violence - methinks he has not remembered the likes of German theologians like Kittel who supported the nazis.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
All the peoples of the Book are united in justifying, 'contextualizing', the myth of redemptive violence.
Even Jesus couldn't escape it in language and thought. But at LEAST He did in deed.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
All the peoples of the Book are united in justifying, 'contextualizing', the myth of redemptive violence.
Even Jesus couldn't escape it in language and thought. But at LEAST He did in deed.
No they are not. To claim that they are is bearing false witness, which is itself a well-known first step on the spiral into violence. By all means blame the guilty, but please stop demonizing the innocent.
Though at the risk of endorsing yet another cliché, all have a track record of embracing or condoning violence certainly, and the "state religion" link is a potentially fruitful source of this I agree. But this is now quite a long way from your original statement that quote:
...the failure of Christendom spawned Islam in bile and fed it bile and continues to.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Everything in the NT was written by 100AD on a cautious estimate. The latest documents are probably the pastoral epistles, some of the other minor epistles, and Revelation. There is no official decision recognising it as a single collected body of work until the middle of the fourth century AD
Does that prevent each individual book having recognised authority an d divine inspiration even from the outset?
M'lud, I present to you Simon Peter, whose testimony is relevant to the case at this point:
"2 Peter 3:15-16New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
15 ... So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.
Peter regarded Paul's letters as Scripture.
Who needs a council - except to decide what is out (rather than what should be brought in).
--------------------
"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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
M'lud, I submit that diverting this thread into proof-texting discussions of inspiration of Scripture and the canon will bring out the hosts' inherent violence...
--------------------
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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
In reply to Eutychus about my last post;
It's tempting to try a point-by-point response – but I suspect everyone else would be a bit bored by it. But picking key items and starting at the end (I always was a contrary so-and-so)....
quote:
by Eutychus
Perhaps your mistake is to think that "fundamentalism" is the noblest approach to one's religion.
I've elaborated on my approach elsewhere but broadly while I accept the idea of doctrinal development I also think there comes a point where people are not truly developing the original but simply changing it to suit themselves and ending up with something which isn't really the original at all. Influences on my approach included Jim Packer's “Fundamentalism and the Word of God” and CS Lewis – see Purtill's book on CS Lewis and Scripture, and Lewis' essay 'Fernseed and Elephants'.
Anyway, why is 'fundamentalism' such a problem to you in this case ? It actually produces the best answer of a peaceable non-domineering Christian faith. My point in this thread of course is that in the case of Islam fundamentalism produces the opposite and there is no easy way round that stubborn and very solid fact.
by Eutychus
quote:
This strikes me as rather a slur on serious-minded, peaceable Muslims.
You joined the 'offenderati' or something??
by Eutychus;
quote:
Your implication here is that if Muslims took their religion as seriously as you would like all Christians to, they will end up as jihadists whereas Christians will end up nice and peaceable.
My implication is that ANY religion that does the 'religious state' thing, whether they succeed in attaining that state or whether they remain merely people attempting to set up such a state for their religion, will, as that guy Eutychus put it, “inevitably have a degree of "inherent violence" even if only as a last resort ". As has been repeatedly shown in Christendom as well, this can remain relatively last resort or it can go all the way to crusades/jihads and/or inquisitions and similar forms of persecution. What it ain't gonna do is end up just peaceable....
My secondary point is that both in the Qur'an and in the acts of the prophet Muhammad, that 'state religion' approach seems to be inherent in Islam from the very beginning – certainly from within the period during which the Qur'an was being revealed (circa 610-632CE). In contrast, that approach is NOT inherent in Christianity from the beginning, but was a centuries later import/distortion in a religion which Jesus and the apostles set off in a very different style. Attempts to make Christianity a state religion will result in war/persecution/etc., but are not part of the original/fundamental teaching.
by Eutychus;
quote:
You have conveniently avoided the OT.
Er, no.... I don't need to avoid it anymore than the NT does (see, as a major example, the epistle to the Hebrews). But the NEW Testament/Covenant, foretold and promised in the OLD Testament/Covenant, please note, does change things. The Christian people of God are not nationally or geographically limited like the OT Hebrew people of God.
by Eutychus;
quote:
You have had to qualify "Islam" ('by its original teaching') again.
Surely it is anything other than the 'original teaching' that would constitute a 'qualification' of Islam????
I'll leave it there for now....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Yes they are HRB. The rare exceptions prove the rule.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Anyway, why is 'fundamentalism' such a problem to you in this case ? It actually produces the best answer of a peaceable non-domineering Christian faith.[...]
No it doesn't. You think your version of 'fundamentalism' does. quote:
My point in this thread of course is that in the case of Islam fundamentalism produces the opposite and there is no easy way round that stubborn and very solid fact.
As far as I know, the word "fundamentalist" was originally used by some Christians to self-define; this is not the case for Islam, for which the original term has been applied, disputedly, by outsiders. To argue that "Islam fundamentalism" means "this is what Islam is really about if you get to the core of it" is a misapplication of the original term.
(And, it seems to me, often used precisely to imply that Islam as a whole is intrinsically violent).
quote:
by Eutychus
quote:
This strikes me as rather a slur on serious-minded, peaceable Muslims.
You joined the 'offenderati' or something??
I am pointing out that the existence of serious-minded, peaceable Muslims is a stubborn and very solid fact to which your best response appears to be "well, they can't be proper ('fundamental') Muslims then, so they don't count".
You prefer to impose your own judgement of them and their beliefs rather than take their self-description and lifestyle into account. Which, I venture to suggest, is in its own way inherently violent.
quote:
My implication is that ANY religion that does the 'religious state' thing [...]
You argued elsewhere that aspiring to statehood inevitably leads to violence, yes, but your implication in the part I was addressing was that 'proper' Christians would inevitably be peaceable, whereas 'proper' ('fundamental') Muslims would inevitably be violent. Do you dispute that, or retract?
quote:
As has been repeatedly shown in Christendom as well, this can remain relatively last resort or it can go all the way to crusades/jihads and/or inquisitions and similar forms of persecution. What it ain't gonna do is end up just peaceable....
In a fallen world in which nation states exist, irrespective of any religious component, the potential for violence exists because the use of force remains - as a last resort in the least bad cases and as a first resort in the worst.
The fact (unpalatable as it may be for anabaptists...) is that nation states exist; they are part of the world we live in. Moreover, the idea of the state - and its right to resort to the use of force - appears to be at least accepted and quite possibly even endorsed in the NT, notably by Paul in Romans 13. Do you acknowledge that?
quote:
My secondary point is that both in the Qur'an and in the acts of the prophet Muhammad, that 'state religion' approach seems to be inherent in Islam from the very beginning – certainly from within the period during which the Qur'an was being revealed (circa 610-632CE).
Perhaps, but I think your mistake is to try to understand Islam through the lens of your personal biblical hermeneutic. Apparently, you think "getting back to the Bible" is the road to Christian orthodoxy. I'm not saying I disagree with that, but I think it's a mistake to apply the same logic to Islam and especially to contemporary Islam. As I understand it, views on Mohammed's legacy differ widely across Islam.
quote:
quote:
You have had to qualify "Islam" ('by its original teaching') again.
Surely it is anything other than the 'original teaching' that would constitute a 'qualification' of Islam????
This just highlights what I'm saying above.
To me, the issue is not about the original historical context of Islam but about whether what Muslims believe today is inherently violent.
In the overwhelming majority of cases, I don't believe it is, or that there is any sense in which it inevitably will become so.
I think that is a lie, and one that easily lends itself to racist, nationalist and indeed violent dialectics. Countering those requires engagement in civil society, not just being a "peaceable Christian".
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
And Steve, how do you explain Romans 13?
--------------------
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
by Eutychus;
quote:
You argued elsewhere that aspiring to statehood inevitably leads to violence, yes, but your implication in the part I was addressing was that 'proper' Christians would inevitably be peaceable, whereas 'proper' ('fundamental') Muslims would inevitably be violent. Do you dispute that, or retract?
I stand by what I said. NT Christianity builds from the foundation of the 'Old Covenant' of Judaism to produce a peaceable faith for those who follow Jesus; and does so to a large extent by breaking the 'religion/state' link. Unfortunately the issue is clouded by later Christians who were tempted to retrogress from that position and bring in, as a novel development, the idea of 'Christian countries'. Christians following the original teaching will be peaceable.
Islam, whether consciously imitating 'Christendom' or simply not being properly aware of the original Christian idea, starts its ideas on religion-and-state from that retrogressive position, with Muhammad very much setting up, and the Qur'an teaching, the idea of an Islamic religious state. As with Christendom this can produce, does produce, and has repeatedly historically produced, all kinds and degrees of violence, some by the Islamic state, some by people aspiring to that.
As you said yourself
quote:
Islamic or otherwise, state authority inevitably has a degree of "inherent violence" even if only as a last resort
and as is clear from Christendom as well as Islam, once in that way of thinking it is in practice difficult to put limits on that violence.
In comparing Christianity and Islam we seem to be looking at two movements in opposite directions, in a way. In Christianity, initial peaceableness was illegitimately developed into 'Christendom' with war and violence in disobedience to Jesus and the NT teaching, though over time the original has reasserted itself even within 'Christendom' and more so where Anabaptists and similar groups have more fully returned to the original.
Islam clearly starts from the 'religious state' position very similar to Christendom, but many Muslims have later developed a more peaceable teaching. The problem is that anyone attempting a return to the original will be returning to the original warfare/violence/persecution/etc. This means that the peaceable version of Islam you talk of is always fragile and always open to the accusation from other Muslims that it is heretical, that it goes against the original.
In effect, Muslims who aspire to peaceableness should be asking if they are in the right religion. BUT, a balance I've kept making and that you seem to keep ignoring, many Christians need to be asking a similar question - not quite whether they are in the right religion, but whether, in following a 'Christendom' version of Christianity, they are following a legitimate development of Christianity or whether they are following a distorted and improper form.
Christians who follow any form of 'Christendom' thinking are on very dodgy ground when they criticise Islamic violence.
In both cases you have sounded, Eutychus, whether you quite mean to or not, as if you are supporting the 'revisionist' version of both faiths, against the original version and in serious contradiction thereof. This seems a rather odd position...?
To both Martin and Eutychus;
However else I interpret Romans 13, I interpret it in the context of a Christianity separate from the state or nation, with Christians in that position I've mentioned more than a few times of being 'resident aliens'. As I pointed out earlier, Paul is not being prescriptive about government, but is advising those resident aliens how to live in a kingdom very much 'of the world'.
It should also be noted first, that Romans 13 is very much in the context of Romans 12; and second, the issues are actually dealt with at greater length in I Peter, not only in the closely parallel passage but in the context of that epistle as a whole.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
What a lot of words with which to ignore the simple point that you don't have the insight to determine what "real" Islam is.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
In comparing Christianity and Islam we seem to be looking at two movements in opposite directions, in a way.
Again, I think that's where you go wrong, and stray further by seeing Islamic fundamentalism as mirroring, negatively, a Christian return to fundamentals (by which you mean anabaptism). This is attractively simple but also simplistic and binary. quote:
In both cases you have sounded, Eutychus, whether you quite mean to or not, as if you are supporting the 'revisionist' version of both faiths, against the original version and in serious contradiction thereof. This seems a rather odd position...?
Just what exactly do you mean by "revisionist"?
As to Christianity, I certainly don't believe that the Bible in general or the NT in particular provides an exact blueprint for how Christian life is supposed to be lived today. I think it provides some core values whose implementation needs to be assessed in the light of the world as it is today.
I'm not sure whether imagining that contemporary anabaptism is somehow closer to NT Christianity than any other contemporary expression is revisionist, but I certainly think it's in strong danger of being anachronistic. However, that's off-topic.
quote:
Paul is not being prescriptive about government, but is advising those resident aliens how to live in a kingdom very much 'of the world'.
That's not all he's doing. You must have missed the bit where he says that rulers are "ministers of God" who "bear the sword" as "avengers for him that doeth evil" (Rom 13:4, NASB). 1 Peter 2:14 makes much the same point. They both describe governments as divinely ordained. The use by rulers of force as a last resort also appears to be accepted in the NT.
While we may aspire to be resident aliens who have nothing to do with the state, the same passages make it abundantly clear that we are also called to be responsible citizens. On that basis, over time, there is bound to be intermingling of the spiritual and the political, and a range of Christian responses to that, none of which is perfect.
None of this makes Islam, especially as an issue today, inherently violent.
[ 14. February 2015, 12:09: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by mdijon;
quote:
What a lot of words with which to ignore the simple point that you don't have the insight to determine what "real" Islam is.
So what, in your understanding, is 'real Islam' if it's not what the Qur'an teaches and Muhammad (rather violently) practiced?
The 'lot of words' here is mostly to do with Eutychus and trying to clarify what he's on about in challenging my point. And turning to Eutychus -
by Eutychus;
quote:
Just what exactly do you mean by "revisionist"?
Trying to find a simple summary of how you seem on the one hand to reject the straightforward NT teaching for a modified later at least semi-Christendom version which as far as I can see is bound to be less peaceable, while on the other hand rejecting the original form of Islam for again a later but in that case less violent version. In both cases you seem to reject the original for a later version which significantly contradicts it. Also oddly, where NT Christianity and original Islam contradict each other one way round, your 'revisionist' versions seem to contradict each other the opposite way round.
by Eutychus;
quote:
You must have missed the bit where he says that rulers are "ministers of God" who "bear the sword" as "avengers for him that doeth evil" (Rom 13:4, NASB). 1 Peter 2:14 makes much the same point.
NO I have not 'missed' that bit; just that as I said, I interpret it in the context of the wider teaching. I've noticed you've done this to me before - assuming I've 'missed' or overlooked something rather than understanding that I'm reading it in a different overall context as I have stated. Perhaps in future you could try not to jump to the conclusion I've 'missed' things, but rather assume that (after having studied these issues since the mid 1960s!) I AM aware of them, and try and work out why I see them differently to you?
(See above for my comments when you accused me of 'conveniently avoiding the Old Testament'....)
by Eutychus;
quote:
While we may aspire to be resident aliens who have nothing to do with the state, the same passages make it abundantly clear that we are also called to be responsible citizens.
I'm not saying we have 'nothing to do with the state' - but we do it as 'resident aliens', whose first duty is to 'obey God rather than men'. Of course we are called to be responsible citizens - but that may not look the same from a Christian viewpoint rather than a 'kingdom of THIS world' viewpoint. And given that there can be such a difference of viewpoint, it's rather important that the Christians will be doing 'difference' peaceably rather than raising an army to 'resist (antitassO)' the authorities.
by Eutychus;
quote:
Again, I think that's where you go wrong, and stray further by seeing Islamic fundamentalism as mirroring, negatively, a Christian return to fundamentals
Perhaps it might have been clearer if I had said "In comparing the historical developments of Christianity and Islam respectively since their origins" we are looking at trends moving somewhat in opposite directions.
When I mentioned 'mirrors' my point was that 'Christendom Christianity' and original Islam (clearly set up as a state religion), are positively mirror images of each other and therefore similarly violent/persecutory/etc whereas NT Christianity is a radically different approach to how God's people are supposed to live in and relate to the surrounding world.
And that is my basic case; not that Islam is specially inherently violent, but that in attempting the idea of an Islamic state and the idea of 'jihad' to bring about/support/defend such a state, Islam is inevitably going to produce the same kind of inherent violence as the similar ideas in Christendom have over the centuries, and indeed over the centuries Islam has produced such effects.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What's that about Romans 13 Steve?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Steve L, in short and in haste:
You think Islam is inherently violent. You think so because it sets out as a state religion and as such will lead to violence just like any other form of the state.
You think Christianity took a wrong turn when it got itself mixed up with the state and that provided it doesn't, and reverts to its NT origins, it will be peaceable.
What you do not do, as Martin seems to have noticed and despite your protestations, is explain what you make of states (or at least rulers) being apparently being God-ordained and as such permitted to employ force if needs be.
I don't see anything in what you write to deter me from opting to facilitate, inasmuch as I can, the practice of Islam along with other religions in the public sphere of a properly secular state, and I think that doing so will on balance decrease, not increase, violence in the name of Islam.
(You have made a lot of incorrect assumptions about what I think on plenty of matters, by the way, but that is beside the point).
--------------------
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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
As a minor aside, a number of the questions being posed are similar to the questions posed in the other thread that Steve Langton started.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Eutychus;
quote:
You think Islam is inherently violent. You think so because it sets out as a state religion and as such will lead to violence just like any other form of the state.
You yourself made the point that "state authority inevitably has a degree of "inherent violence" even if only as a last resort". Combine that with the religion being a state religion, whether a 'Christian country' or an 'Islamic state' and that religion will be violent like the state it associates itself with. May I remind you yet again that I'm NOT regarding this as ONLY applicable to Islam, and so not saying that Islam is specially inherently violent. Even Buddhism can get violent when it becomes a state religion, in case you hadn't noticed more than a few relevant news items over the last many years.
Islam as originally taught (and practiced remember) clearly seeks to be a state religion; so violence is 'inevitable' by your own logic, from the state authority acting on behalf of the state religion.
by Eutychus;
quote:
You think Christianity took a wrong turn when it got itself mixed up with the state and that provided it doesn't, and reverts to its NT origins, it will be peaceable.
Wish I could guarantee perfect peace, but even Christians are human! Nevertheless Christianity done according to the NT will simply not have the state power or the aspiration to it which causes the war/rebellions and persecutions associated with such state religion.
by Eutychus;
quote:
What you do not do, as Martin seems to have noticed and despite your protestations, is explain what you make of states (or at least rulers) being apparently being God-ordained and as such permitted to employ force if needs be.
What God providentially ordains/permits - including for example Pharaoh back in Exodus (Romans 9v17) and Pilate and Co's involvement in the Crucifixion of Jesus (Acts 4vv27-8) is one thing. How he has told his people to behave in the world is a different thing. What God permits the state to do is for him - our concern is to do what he has told us to do; which is that the church operates in that 'resident alien' mode. It should be pointed out that the context of Paul's words is not a nice pluralist secular government but pagan rulers like Caligula and Nero - ditto for the parallel passage in Peter.
Paul's advice is not on how Christians are to be part of the government; it is how Christians behave relative to that non-Christian government. That is, they are to trust God that such governments are not beyond God's control even when they appear to do wrong and even to persecute God's people.
by Eutychus;
quote:
I don't see anything in what you write to deter me from opting to facilitate, inasmuch as I can, the practice of Islam along with other religions in the public sphere of a properly secular state, and I think that doing so will on balance decrease, not increase, violence in the name of Islam.
The problem here is that your 'secular state' (France? Yes?) is an ex-Christendom state and has benefited over the years from the gradual though still incomplete erosion of Christendom's bad side. That erosion has to a large extent happened because of the inherent tension between the original teaching of Christianity and those bad practices of Christendom.
Islam does not have that tension, or insofar as it does, it has that tension the other way round; that is, in Christianity the peaceable 'kingdom not of this world' teaching is the original, but in Islam the aspiration to being a state religion is there right from the start.
As I've said earlier, in Christianity going fundamentalist (or more accurately and less loaded a phrase, back to the original teaching) leads to the peaceable conclusion; that is not so in Islam. Your proposal to 'facilitate' may therefore be misguided.
by Eutychus;
quote:
(You have made a lot of incorrect assumptions about what I think on plenty of matters, by the way, but that is beside the point).
If so, sorry.Please feel free to enlighten me on your views perhaps by the less adversarial route of a PM? I was a bit nettled by the closely following accusations first of 'ignoring the OT' and then of 'missing' things in Romans 13.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
