|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Islam and violence
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
just got home from a day out to find a lot of stuff here on the thread waiting for me; hopefully a fairly considered view tomorrow, rather than an instant and perhaps not well-thought-out response.
I do want to comment on something back up-thread where Eutychus and Gamaliel said similar things;
I am NOT saying that many people Shipboard are 'Constantinians' - though there are certainly a few, for example one who on another thread made a comment about 'Convert the king, convert the kingdom'.
I am saying the following (inter alia);
First, that 'Constantinianism' in various degrees remains a significant ongoing problem in the world outside the Ship. Sometimes it is very emphatic, sometimes rather incoherent, but it is there, it's a real problem, and it needs discussing both in terms of its effects among Christians and because it affects how others view Christianity - in the current time particularly Muslims, but also atheists/agnostics many of whose 'objections to Christianity' are actually in reality 'objections to the past and present behaviour of Christendom'. Just because most people Shipboard may have 'moved on' doesn't mean it's gone away in a wider context.
Secondly, most on the Ship may have moved on - but to what? It seems to me all too often that Christians have moved on from the worst of Christendom but in a rather incoherent way that owes more to secular liberalism than to Christian/biblical teaching on the issues in question. Often this is done in a way that suggests the bad side of Christendom is original Christianity which our nice modern liberals have somehow 'improved'. Whereas I am trying to assert that there is an NT or 'original Christian' alternative to 'Constantinianism/Christendom' which Christians should positively follow.
This is in some ways a tangent to the thread; I'm trying by this statement to avoid further unnecessary tangents by clarifying my position, since Gamaliel and Eutychus seem to have misunderstood it, so that we can concentrate on the proper issues of the thread.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Steve, they haven't misunderstood.
What your looking for in the Bible, the NT, the gospels, isn't there except by disposition.
It certainly isn't there beyond the example of Christ as Acts 5 & 12 and Romans 13 and Revelation demonstrates.
And it ISN'T clear in Christ's threatening words.
And I'm a pacifist all but universalist because of my disposition toward Christ's overall and above all behavioural example, despite the odd threat.
And I smile in His presence as I say that. At my audacity. We'll see.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
your?! Shoot me in the face someone.
--------------------
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
{Helpfully throws lemon meringue pie in Martin's face.} ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
You might think the tangents are unnecessary, Steve Langton, but I'm not sure I do. I can't speak for Eutychus but I would imagine he doesn't either, otherwise he wouldn't interject in a similar way to how I have done.
You accuse me of misunderstanding your position. I might equally say the same in reverse. I'm not entirely sure you understand my objections.
But as we only have one another's written words to go on, I'm prepared to let that slide.
I can see the parallels you are drawing between 'Constantinian' Christianity and Islam - but one might equally draw comparisons and parallels between Christian and Islamic fundamentalism.
Not so much on the violent aspects - although some forms of Christian fundamentalism can incline towards violence - but on the adoption of a rather one-size-fits all reductionist view of the world.
That's solely the point I'm making.
The more reductionist we are the greater the scope for problems.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Meanwhile, custard pies in everyone's faces all round ... then we can soberly get on with Lent ...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
And no, I'm not a theological liberal - and nor are some of the other Shipmates who have taken issue with some of your points, Steve.
Just thought I ought to clarify that.
There's more than one way to skin a cat and I'm suggesting that there are more nuanced ways than a kind of full-on 'secularised' liberalism on the one hand and a kind of pietistic or reductionist sectarianism on the other.
There are not just two choices. It's not that binary.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Martin 60;
quote:
Steve, they haven't misunderstood.
What your looking for in the Bible, the NT, the gospels, isn't there except by disposition.
It certainly isn't there beyond the example of Christ as Acts 5 & 12 and Romans 13 and Revelation demonstrates.
And it ISN'T clear in Christ's threatening words.
Ah, right, you're struggling with the idea that God can be a just God who judges sin and yet tells his church to be peaceable.
God's love is not slushy sentimentality which will let evil and untruth get away with it forever. God's love is a deep caring which is rightly indignant at evil and positively responds to it.
Because of that deep caring, God doesn't want us to suffer the natural consequences of our sinfulness and has offered a forgiveness which takes sin and its cost seriously. That forgiveness involves not God arbitrarily punishing Jesus for our sins, as 'PSA' theory can imply, but 'God in Christ' lovingly taking those consequences on himself.
I'm not going to go booklength here on all the implications of that. But the gospel is definitely a message that God cares about human sin and that nobody just 'gets away with it'. To present it otherwise sounds really nice and warm and fuzzy but if you think deeper that view also basically means a God who doesn't care, who is appallingly indifferent to sin.
The NT point is that in an unbelieving world Christians are to spread the gospel peaceably; we are not charged with doing the judgement ourselves, as both 'Constantinian' Christians and 'religious-state' religions like Islam think should be done, we are specifically told to leave that to God.
Instead of taking over the state and being involved in its inevitable use of at least force if not outright 'violence', we are told to form a different community outside that framework, a community without worldly power, a community which is international and therefore neutral in the world's wars, and we are told to call people out from the world into a 'kingdom not of this world'.
And that teaching, I submit, very much IS in the Bible. The alternative, whether in the form of 'Christendom' or 'Islamic State', of compelling people by use of worldly power, is not 'fit for purpose' in terms of leading people to true reconciliation with God and free acceptance of his kingship in their lives. That kind of coercion simply doesn't do the job.
The balance involved in this is not easy to keep - but we must come at it from that understanding that as Christians we are 'resident aliens' whose job is to preach God's reconciliation.
And I repeat - Romans 13 is in that context; it's not a prescription for Christian rule, and to try and apply it to a so-called 'Christian country' in a 'Constantinian' context is to distort it. It is (especially when read in the full context of also Romans 12 and of the wider NT including I Peter), advice on how to relate to a non-Christian government which we are NOT meant to control, but which we can be sure is nevertheless under God's providential control.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
PS - my last was x-posted with Gamaliel's comments. Back later....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Apologies for the tangent, but could not God's 'providential control' involve Christians becoming involved in government and the political process?
You see, this is where the binariness and other-worldiness comes in ...
What are you saying here?
That it's ok for God to somehow providentially and sovereignly govern and direct human affairs in some kind of unseen, behind the scenes way ... but it isn't alright for Him to do so by actually having Christians - as agents of the Kingdom - involved in these things?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I repeat my earlier point, nobody, but nobody on these boards that I can see - no matter how 'Constantinian' you take them to be - is advocating religious coercion or compulsion.
Yes, that certainly existed within Christendom at one time.
I'm not aware of anywhere where it still does. I'll certainly accept that certain traditions and churches can be more Erastian that both you and I would like them to be ... but that's another issue.
I'm not sure where this 'original' Christianity you're talking about actually happens to be. Whatever tradition we are involved in we've all had 2,000 years of development to draw on ... not to mention however long it specifically happens to be since our particular tradition - whether Reformed, radical reformed, RC, Anglican, Orthodox or whatever else - developed.
--------------------
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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It's fun that this thread has turned into 'Christianity and violence'. After all, it is a Christian forum! Islam - well, who knows.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
That it's ok for God to somehow providentially and sovereignly govern and direct human affairs in some kind of unseen, behind the scenes way ... but it isn't alright for Him to do so by actually having Christians - as agents of the Kingdom - involved in these things?
What I'm saying is that the appropriate Christian involvement is to do what God has told us to do and not kid ourselves that we 'know better' and should do something else.
When we so kid ourselves, as Constantine and Theodosius did, it tends not to end well for anyone. It harms the world instead of contributing to saving the world, it harms the Church which becomes distorted in all kinds of ways, and it harms Jesus by distorting his reputation and confusing his intentions which the Church is supposed to be carrying out.
by quetzalcoatl;
quote:
It's fun that this thread has turned into 'Christianity and violence'. After all, it is a Christian forum! Islam - well, who knows.
I do see the irony; the problem, of course, is that the temptation to avoid God's way and do our own 'easier' thing applies to Christians as well as Muslims. It is also a general problem affecting many religions. The difference which I'm pointing out is that from the original teaching of the NT, Christians should know better. Islam had an at best confused beginning which makes it difficult for them to know better; that they depart from the NT at this point demonstrates that they are not truly the successors of Christianity that they would claim to be....
by Gamaliel;
quote:
I repeat my earlier point, nobody, but nobody on these boards that I can see - no matter how 'Constantinian' you take them to be - is advocating religious coercion or compulsion.
Again, I have seen a few; my point is that
First, as I said above, Constantinianism and its analogues in other religions are still alive and well off the Ship, and they won't go away just because it's ignored as not happening on the Ship, and
Second, as Christians we shouldn't be rejecting coercion etc just because to do so is a warm and fuzzy attitude; we should be rejecting those because that's what Jesus and the Apostles taught and because we've made the effort to know what they said and to understand it, and to positively follow the Jesus alternative. That is, our approach should be based on following Jesus; which in turn means following the NT.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Ah, right, you're struggling with the idea that God can be a just God who judges sin and yet tells his church to be peaceable.
Ah, right you're struggling with the reality that God is a child-murdering, genocidal, hypocritical, vacillating, passive aggressive bastard who sets up his creations for suffering and psychologically tortures his favourites.
There are some sick and twisted directions for violence in the bible. Check.
Jesus confirms he does not supplant the OT. Check.
The bible is a continuous work and all this "but Jesus" stuff is sophistry.
Now, one can take the route that the whole work is contextual and interpretive, but that is the same thing the rest of us are saying about the Quran.
--------------------
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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Neat stuff, lilBuddha.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
So what if someone were to tell you that they believed God was 'calling' them to political involvement in some way? Would you say that you 'knew the mind of Christ' better than they did themselves?
I can think of some more Erastian Shipmates here but none that conform completely to your 'Constantinian' stereotype. Unless I am missing something I suspect it's in the eye of the beholder.
--------------------
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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
That it's ok for God to somehow providentially and sovereignly govern and direct human affairs in some kind of unseen, behind the scenes way ... but it isn't alright for Him to do so by actually having Christians - as agents of the Kingdom - involved in these things?
What I'm saying is that the appropriate Christian involvement is to do what God has told us to do and not kid ourselves that we 'know better' and should do something else.
Steve - in the stories in the NT featuring the conversion of various people who wielded the sword of Romans 13 (Cornelius, the jailer at Phillipi etc), do you have any indication that they actually gave up doing what they were doing, or any indication that they were called to do so?
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by lilBuddha;
quote:
Jesus confirms he does not supplant the OT. Check.
The bible is a continuous work and all this "but Jesus" stuff is sophistry.
Jesus does not 'supplant' the OT; he does FULFIL it, which makes a considerable difference. The Bible is indeed a continuous work; and it develops towards that fulfilment. In a world with developing history, 'but Jesus...' is a great deal more than sophistry.
by lilBuddha;
quote:
Now, one can take the route that the whole work is contextual and interpretive, but that is the same thing the rest of us are saying about the Quran.
Yes, contextual, interpretive, whatever - but note that in the NT, the interpretation/contextualisation is being done by God who raised Jesus from the dead, not just by human self-interest; and also by a Jesus who gives us some reason to doubt your view of God.
And as for the Quran, it claims to be a follow-up and supposed improvement on Jesus, yet goes massively backwards on the principles from Jesus that give us a foundation of peace, so that peace-desiring modern Muslims have to invent a whole new interpretation/contextualisation to achieve that peace in Islamic terms, as Muhammad's/the Quran's teaching has effectively deprived them of the teaching of Jesus on the issue. In this case comparing Bible to Quran is really NOT the 'same thing'.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
So what if someone were to tell you that they believed God was 'calling' them to political involvement in some way? Would you say that you 'knew the mind of Christ' better than they did themselves?
I can think of some more Erastian Shipmates here but none that conform completely to your 'Constantinian' stereotype. Unless I am missing something I suspect it's in the eye of the beholder.
To answer the last first again (very NT, that!), I don't have a "'Constantinian' stereotype". The problems Constantine/Theodosius started have over the centuries taken many and varied forms but there are common factors.
But I'd also point out that in this particular thread I've mostly avoided using the word 'Constantinian' till others were using it so freely it was difficult to avoid. I concentrated rather on the notion of 'Christendom' in contrast to its 'twin' of an Islamic state (and in this case it's not the good twin and the evil twin, both twins are decidedly problematic even though well-meaning).
I wanted to make the point that the violence of Islam and of Christendom are similar and come from the same kind of thinking, and in particular the idea of a 'religious state' built into Islam from the beginning, but in Christianity clearly a later imposition. I wanted to contrast both with the NT teaching to give actually a quite nuanced and sophisticated
view of the Islam/violence connection.
I also tried purposely to avoid the word 'Anabaptist' in describing my views, and concentrate on simply pointing to the biblical foundations. In fact I may be wrong but I'm not sure I've personally used the word yet, though others like Eutychus have brought it in.... I wanted if possible to avoid the limitations of the label and the baggage it might bring with it, and just get at the foundational ideas.
As regards your political intentions, I'm honestly somewhat uncertain. I and other modern Anabaptists do recognise that a plural democratic state is not quite the same as an old style Empire or kingdom; though perhaps we recognise as others don't that coercion by a democracy is still coercion, and that Christians may still need to 'obey God rather than men' (though not militarily rebel). Ideally, I'd like to see the CofE establishment cleared up so that at least Christians going into politics are in a properly pluralist situation rather than a still nominally 'Christian' country. The history of Anglican establishment, and that it is still nominally there, does distort this kind of issue.
May I suggest that that's matter for another thread specifically on the place of Christians in the democratic/modern state. We are as I understand in basic agreement here even though you are currently connected to an Anglican church.
chris stiles, I don't know the answers to your question about people like Cornelius and the jailor. I do know broadly that ideas on that developed over the next few centuries; and I also know that in those situations there was a simple two-way choice, without the confusing third alternative provided by a 'Christian state'.
I'm also aware that these days among Mennonites, no longer needing to be quite so separate due to persecution, and being more evangelistic, there are cases of soldiers joining the Mennonites and at least being given room/breathing-space to work out the answers as their situation develops. Some such was probably also the case for the early church?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I've certainly heard it said that Islam can't really go back on being 'political' - in the broader sense - without somehow losing its 'heart' ...
So, in that sense, and if this is the case, then it is always going to be more politically engaged than, say, more quietist forms of Christianity are.
Whether this means it's necessarily more violent is a different point, I'd suggest. Involvement in the murk and grime of politics may well corrupt, but I don't see how it always necessitates some kind of violent response.
Then there are always the more 'mystical' elements within Islam - such as Sufism, which I know is very much a minority thing but it is there nevertheless.
I'd agree that comparing the Bible and Quran isn't comparing 'like with like' ... but the point about context and interpretation applies equally to both.
The NT didn't simply 'plop' down ready-made from heaven like Joseph Smith's tablets ...
Nor is a high view of scriptural inspiration necessarily the same as the approach adopted by conservative Muslims - that the Quran is nothing other than the very words of God dictated to Mohammed by the Angel Gabriel.
I would by no means defend or condone some of the actions of a Constantine, a Justinian or any of the other Christianised Roman Emperors - but I would place their actions in some kind of historic context rather than entering into some kind of moral judgement based on post-Enlightenment principles. They were of their time, just like we are of ours.
Besides, we can't turn back the clock and act as if Constantine and Christendom had never happened.
I think it's axiomatic, though, that Christendom has had its day and we're unlikely ever to see the social conditions which led to is development ever again.
How we go about creating 'plausibility structures' and operating 'as church' in a post-Christendom paradigm does intrigue and exercise me, though. Because whatever our views on these things we're all heading in the same direction - to an increasingly post-Christian and secularised future.
In that context, withdrawal from the public domain doesn't strike me as an option. I don't see anything to be gained from withdrawing from the public arena into a completely privatised form of faith.
That doesn't mean that I want to see some kind of resurgence of the 'religious right' or anything of that kind - I'd far rather see a resurgence of the religious left ...
Nor do I believe that comparisons between Christianity and Islam are particularly helpful under the terms in which they've largely been framed here on this thread ...
I'd say that the 'darker' aspects of both share certain characteristics - but then, the darker side of human nature in general does. Whatever faith or persuasion we adopt, we are all still people and we all still make mistakes.
More positively, I think there is common ground that both Christians and Muslims can co-operate on. I'd rather consider those than whether one or other belief system is intrinsically violent.
That's not to sell-out to liberalism or adopt a wishy-washy set of vaguely do-gooder principles based loosely on the Judeo-Christian tradition. No, I believe it's possible to walk and to work within the traditional understanding of orthodox, creedal Christianity within the context of a more pluralist society.
For all its faults and imperfections - and every system has those - I think the US model has shown that it's possible for faith to thrive in a pluralistic environment ... although there is the issue of a steady decline in church attendance etc there ...
It might appear like there's a tight-rope at times between the vaguest of vague liberalism and the more full-on types of literalism and fundamentalism - but this is the way to walk, it seems to me.
We will teeter at times and sometimes tumble from the rope onto one side or the other - but this is the rope we have to walk, I believe.
--------------------
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
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Steve Langton wrote:- quote:
I'm also aware that these days among Mennonites, no longer needing to be quite so separate due to persecution, and being more evangelistic, there are cases of soldiers joining the Mennonites and at least being given room/breathing-space to work out the answers as their situation develops. Some such was probably also the case for the early church?
I'm speaking from memory here, so please make allowances for that. But as I recall, I don't think you were allowed to be a full baptised member of the early church if you were in a military occupation. Though back then they had a much higher view of the catechumenate which could last for several years, and I think you could join that. Presumably they anticipated you would change your way of life as a result of what you learned. Was this perhaps what you were thinking about, Steve?
It all changed later of course.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sorry, I cross-posted with Steven Langton ...
To clarify: I wasn't necessarily thinking of myself when I mentioned Christians feeling 'called' to engage with politics. I was talking in more general terms.
I don't tend to use that kind of language - 'I feel called to this ... I feel called to that ...' but I wouldn't criticise anyone who did - unless they were being annoyingly 'illuminist' about it ...
For me, it's more a sense of 'whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might ...' as well as the conviction that Christians ought to be involved in every aspect of life - be it sport, the arts, politics, health or whatever else.
The issue of Establishment in terms of the privileged status of the Anglican Church here in England (but not Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland) is a different one - I don't see how that impinges at all on the kind of local town/borough council politics that I'm looking to be involved in.
Nor, as has exhaustively been argued on other threads, do I see Establishment as any real threat or hindrance to religious pluralism ... and I say that as someone who has been involved with an independent 'house-church' network and with the Baptists. Other than certain dorkish and stuck-up Anglican clergy, who undoubtedly exist, I don't see how Anglican Establishment adversely affects any of the other churches or denominations in any real sense ... although I'd certainly say there was room for improvement in some quarters in terms of attitude etc.
Whatever the case, on the level of local 'parish pump' politics it's hardly likely to be an issue.
Anyhow, this is getting away from the main point, which is about Islam ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think that's right, Honest Ron - there were reservations about admitting soldiers to full communion in the early Church.
I believe I'm right in thinking that there are still certain stipulations about that in the Orthodox Church to this day - if anyone takes someone else's life in battle as a member of the armed forces they are automatically excommunicated until after repentance and confession.
One of the Orthodox Shipmates may be able to shed some light on that.
Of course, from an Anabaptist perspective they shouldn't be serving in the armed forces in the first place ...
Early Christianity was also antagonistic towards gladiatorial combat - although less so towards chariot racing it would seem from the popularity of that sport in Byzantium ... although I have heard it said that the situation in the arenas actually became worse for a time as the Empire became Christianised as there were suddenly more sins and crimes that were deemed worthy of capital punishment ... and those partaking in the bloodier 'games' tended to be condemned criminals ...
I'm not sure whether that's right, though ... I suspect the situation was pretty mixed. From what I can gather, though, the broad and default Patristic position tended towards pacifism - albeit with certain caveats and 'economeia' and so on to reflect messy realities ...
--------------------
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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
chris stiles, I don't know the answers to your question about people like Cornelius and the jailor. I do know broadly that ideas on that developed over the next few centuries;
So in other words, you rely on tradition?
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Holy battle of the tl;dr.
SL,
Way to miss or dance around the point.
Both Christianity and Islam have peace and violence in their source material. Both Christians and Muslims have drawn from both those sides.
God of the OT is a straight-up bastard. Jesus is God therefore.......?
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
chris stiles, I don't know the answers to your question about people like Cornelius and the jailor. I do know broadly that ideas on that developed over the next few centuries;
So in other words, you rely on tradition?
whole lot of irregular verb in his arguments, so good luck.
--------------------
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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
I would by no means defend or condone some of the actions of a Constantine, a Justinian or any of the other Christianised Roman Emperors - but I would place their actions in some kind of historic context rather than entering into some kind of moral judgement based on post-Enlightenment principles. They were of their time, just like we are of ours.
I do my best to be understanding of those 'Christianised' emperors. But I would point out that in terms of Church/State relations the position they should have taken was not some far future 'post-Enlightenment principles' - the relevant principles were already there in the NT. It's the modern Church that tends to have the problem of acting on such 'post-Enlightenment principles' rather than following the NT.
by chris stiles
quote:
So in other words, you rely on tradition?
Where only tradition is available, yes; but ipso facto, I'm not drawing an authoritative conclusion from it to impose on others, as some followers of 'Tradition' would, especially in a case like this where the tradition is negative rather than positive. The Bible remains authoritative.
by lilBuddha;
quote:
Both Christianity and Islam have peace and violence in their source material. Both Christians and Muslims have drawn from both those sides.
God of the OT is a straight-up bastard. Jesus is God therefore.......?
And your alternative?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
just a further point;
by Gamaliel;
quote:
To clarify: I wasn't necessarily thinking of myself when I mentioned Christians feeling 'called' to engage with politics. I was talking in more general terms.
OK, sorry; but today I've been replying in sporadic haste and I connected your comment with your mention of your intention to stand for your local council. I think most of my comments were pretty general anyway.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I don't struggle at all mate. Ancient human rationalization resulting in stories of sin, judgement, justice, condemnation, damnation, all the nonsense that goes with the myth of redemptive violence, that is no different from that, that allows God to do it while us not, is that. Nonsense. And hypocrisy. On the part of those who can square that circle and God Himself, were He not to be solely revealed in Christ.
For you and me and Rob Bell and Brian McLaren and Richard Rohr and Phyllis Tickle etc, etc (MLK, Spurgeon, The Quakers, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyprian, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Aristides, Tatian) to assert pacifism is an act of faith.
--------------------
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 Martin60;
quote:
all the nonsense that goes with the myth of redemptive violence
For me, the primary image of the atonement is of payment of debt, or more accurately, forgiveness through the creditor footing the bill. That I think is a slightly different thing to that myth of redemptive violence.
Also by Martin 60;
quote:
to assert pacifism is an act of faith.
Agreed; but an act of faith in the teaching of the NT, not just what we might want.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by lilBuddha;
quote:
Both Christianity and Islam have peace and violence in their source material. Both Christians and Muslims have drawn from both those sides.
God of the OT is a straight-up bastard. Jesus is God therefore.......?
And your alternative?
Once again, point missed.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It's no different at all in that we made it all up and compound it since to explain our contingently being and feeling like dirt.
As there is no difference at all in the faith we make up in the teaching of the NT - whatever that is - and what we want.
We don't want to feel like struggling dirt. Whilst knowing that's what we are.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Steve Langton - sure, I understood your points to be pretty general and not specifically addressed at my particular case - so please don't misunderstand me, I wasn't at all irritated by your allusion to my own possible political involvement.
To an extent, I was trying to distance myself from the kind of overly pietistic 'God told me to stand in my local elections' type of approach that one may hear from time to time from more illuminist types.
I think it is pertinent to the topic at hand - because - as I'm sure we'd both agree - God gets dragged into the equation to take the blame or credit for all sorts of things we actually do ourselves ...
On the Constantine thing, without either condemning or condoning, I think his actions are only what we could or should expect from a 4th century ruler. That applies as much to his superstitious belief that God had given him the sign of a cross in the clouds in order to assure him of victory at the Milvian Bridge as much as it does to anything else he got up to - good, bad or indifferent.
My own take would be that the notion of 'signs' and portents arose after the event and were applied retrospectively to give some kind of divine sanction for Constantine's victory.
We can get all prim and Puritanical at this point and see that as quasi-pagan - if not downright pagan - but the fact remains that everyone thought like that in those days - whether Christian or pagan.
In fact, I'd suggest that we can similar dynamics in the pages of the NT itself. Herod being 'struck down by an angel' in Acts 12:23 - http://biblehub.com/acts/12-23.htm
What's all that about? Was it an observable occurence? Did people see a winged seraph?
Or was it some kind of post-mortem rationalisation on the part of the early Christians to account for how their inveterate enemy had suffered an untimely death?
I suspect the latter.
Why? Because, by and large, that's how these things work.
So saying that pacifism and plurality were somehow already enshrined in the pages of the NT in a post-Enlightenment kind of way is anachronistic.
Sure, the balance of the NT is towards love and peace towards all men and I'm as convinced as you are that the way of Christ is the way of peace.
However, to suggest that Constantine or any other ruler or personality from the 4th century was somehow acting 'against' the NT doesn't make a great deal of sense in the context of the time.
It only makes sense if you say, 'Constantine was acting in a way that went against NT teaching as I understand it ...'
Which is what you are doing.
Which is fair enough, provided you realise that's what you are doing.
We cannot disentangle the NT from interpretation of the NT. The NT doesn't 'stand above' interpretation. It's meaning isn't self-evident in and of itself without the whole panoply of interpretative frameworks that we bring to bear.
That in no wise diminishes its status as the word of God. Why should it?
Context, context, context.
The same with the Quran. Even if we accepted, as conservative Muslims do, that the text was dictated verbatim to Mohammed by the Angel Gabriel, there would still be the need for interpretation.
At any rate, whatever was good, bad or indifferent about Constantine - and one could argue that the calling of the Council of Nicea was a 'good thing' - others might say otherwise - the fact is we can't turn back the clock and 'de-Constantinise' history.
Where we're at now is at a point where the concept of Christendom is crumbling and we are going to have to salvage things from the ruins - some aspects we may choose to leave beneath the rumble ...
Other elements we may need to burnish and blow off the dust ...
We'll end up with some useful things, some bad things, some indifferent things ... it has ever been thus.
--------------------
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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
So in other words, you rely on tradition?
Where only tradition is available, yes; but ipso facto, I'm not drawing an authoritative conclusion from it to impose on others, as some followers of 'Tradition' would, especially in a case like this where the tradition is negative rather than positive. The Bible remains authoritative.
Except that the actual text militates against the principle you propose (and in other cases where a change of life is part of repentance, scripture is quite clear in making this point), so the only positive support you can get from your principle is from extra-biblical sources.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
So saying that pacifism and plurality were somehow already enshrined in the pages of the NT in a post-Enlightenment kind of way is anachronistic.
Except that's NOT what I'm saying; I'm saying that a distinctive Christian view is enshrined in the NT, which is significantly different from the 'post-Enlightenment' stuff which many modern Christians thoughtlessly follow. Starting with it isn't a general call for 'freedom of religion'...
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
It only makes sense if you say, 'Constantine was acting in a way that went against NT teaching as I understand it ...'
Which is what you are doing.
Which is fair enough, provided you realise that's what you are doing.
We cannot disentangle the NT from interpretation of the NT. The NT doesn't 'stand above' interpretation. It's meaning isn't self-evident in and of itself without the whole panoply of interpretative frameworks that we bring to bear.
That in no wise diminishes its status as the word of God. Why should it?
Fine. So instead of just making vague woffly noises about it all being interpretation, how about actually doing some interpretation. At least we might be able to rule some options out.
chris stiles, I do see what you mean - but I also see that the NT teaching is quite revolutionary and it took a while for the implications to work out.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Fine. So instead of just making vague woffly noises about it all being interpretation, how about actually doing some interpretation. At least we might be able to rule some options out.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) quote:
I also see that the NT teaching is quite revolutionary and it took a while for the implications to work out.
As far as I can see, you haven't managed to put forward a single practical action that you personally might engage in, with respect either to the actual topic (Islam and violence) or the topic you are trying to impose (dealing with vestigial Constantinianism).
All you can do is assert - or at least imply - the inherent moral and intellectual superiority of your position, without any actual evidentiary basis, and pour scorn on the rest of us.
Every time somebody asks you a direct practical question, you strenuously avoid it by posting walls of the text-based equivalent of hand-waving.
Which is why I have dropped out of this discussion for now.
[ 20. February 2015, 10:32: 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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Fine. So instead of just making vague woffly noises about it all being interpretation, how about actually doing some interpretation. At least we might be able to rule some options out.
quote:
I also see that the NT teaching is quite revolutionary and it took a while for the implications to work out.
As far as I can see, you haven't managed to put forward a single practical action that you personally might engage in, with respect either to the actual topic (Islam and violence) or the topic you are trying to impose (dealing with vestigial Constantinianism).
All you can do is assert - or at least imply - the inherent moral and intellectual superiority of your position, without any actual evidentiary basis, and pour scorn on the rest of us.
Every time somebody asks you a direct practical question, you strenuously avoid it by posting walls of the text-based equivalent of hand-waving.
Which is why I have dropped out of this discussion for now.
Well, quite. I have been dismayed by the way in which this thread has been violently wrenched off-topic, towards a discussion of Christian views of state and violence.
Talk about parochialism and narcissism - hopefully it is not characteristic of Christian attitudes to Islam and Muslims. If it is, then we are in worse trouble than I thought.
[ 20. February 2015, 11:02: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Gamaliel. Superb.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Nice of you to say so, Martin, but it's not at all deserved ... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
@quetzacoatl - I'm sorry you feel that this thread has become narcissistic and parochial - playing out concerns that are primarily Christian rather than Islamic. I suspect that this was always going to happen given that:
- There are no Muslims contributing to this thread as far as I'm aware.
- We are most of us Christians and therefore inevitably view the world through that particular lens.
- Some of the issues that have cropped up have derived from 'unfinished business' on other threads - particularly, perhaps, those where Steve Langton, Eutychus and others - including myself - have been discussing the relationship between church and state and 'Constantinianism' and so on and forth.
So, apologies for that.
I think, though, that there are parallels to some extent between those kind of discussions and the main one here - which is about Islam and violence - although I fully accept your point and can understand why you have been so 'dismayed' by it.
@Steve Langton - the thing is, all of us are approaching the scriptures as well as anything and everything else from a post-Enlightenment perspective. Even the Orthodox, who didn't experience the Reformation and Counter-Reformation are, of course, aware of these things and they critique the influence of the Enlightenment on Western theological thought.
Evangelicals do too, of course, but we have to remember, as D H Williams observed, that evangelicals are as much children of the Enlightenment as they are grandchildren of the Reformation.
Ok - so Anabaptism predates evangelicalism but its stance both challenges and reflects the Enlightenment and - in some ways - both anticipated and fed into its development. Not that there's anything 'wrong' with that - there is light in the Enlightenment - but, as our Orthodox and RC brothers and sisters remind us, the rejection of tradition which was the love-child of the Reformation could very well lead us astray ...
There's a lot of untangling to do ...
Meanwhile - that's enough about 'in-house' Christian concerns ... on the issue of Islam, it has indeed been suggested that it is - or will be - more difficult for Islam to develop a more privatised, interiorised modus operandi without somehow compromising its own integrity ... I don't know enough about Islam to pontificate or even speculate about that.
I would certainly welcome a more interiorised, privatised form of Islam rather than the most radical, jihadist form - but as has been said, any reforms or re-jigging within Islam is a matter for the Muslims themselves. The fact that not all Muslims are violent jihadists suggests that there are ways of living out 'political Islam' in ways that are not intrinsically violent - unless one believes that ALL or any form of politics are intrinsically violent, of course ...
I think we do have to be aware of inbuilt 'coercion' within any of our communities and political systems - there is always, in any society, some kind of pressure to conform.
If that is what Steve Langton is referring to in terms of the way Anabaptists can perhaps better critique democracy than the rest of us, then perhaps he has a point ...
However, I certainly take issue with his assertion that Christians are 'unthinkingly' imbibing post-Enlightenment principles - many who have done so have certainly thought long and hard about it.
I would also suggest that Steve Langton - like all of us - has also imbibed some of those principles. How can he not have done so living where and when he does? I'm more than happy to put my hand up to that one. Why? Because I acknowledge that I live in a society which has been shaped by Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment values against a background of broadly Judeo-Christian ones ... and one could argue that 'Constantinianism' and Christendom supplied some of the glue to bring that about - for better or for worse.
Now, 'as things fall apart, the centre cannot hold' we need to retrieve those things that can best help us as we move forward into post-Christendom and post-Christian times ...
Which is probably matter for another thread rather than this one.
--------------------
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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Talk about parochialism and narcissism - hopefully it is not characteristic of Christian attitudes to Islam and Muslims. If it is, then we are in worse trouble than I thought.
Well, it was 'wrenched' off track by an assertion on the part of some that there was a qualitative difference between Christianity and Islam in a way in which made violence inherent to Islam in which it wasn't in Christianity.
We are the tail end of arguing about the second point - so maybe we can go back to debating the first.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
But there is. Real Islam is foundationally violent. Real Christianity, in the person of Christ, isn't. Go a step beyond Him and ... it's really violent. And ideally not.
--------------------
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
No. No and No. No again. And yes to the last one.
They are just assertions Martin, I don't think making and countering them really achieves much do you?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870
|
Posted
To return to the original subject of debate: "Is Islam intrinsically violent?"...
I have just read an article written by a Muslim responding to this very question. It is worth reading since, as as been pointed out, there do not appear to be any Muslims contributing to this thread. It might be interesting to interact with the opinions expressed.
--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine
Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sűr | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Use and misuse of Holy Books again. Personally I'm very glad that a Muslim who is familiar with both biblical and Qu'ranic texts can make such a case as the one quoted in Gracie's link.
The real issue is whether such readings are regarded as normative for Muslims in the standards of behaviour they set. I would like to believe that they could be so regarded, and that mullahs and Islamic scholars would, generally, even overwhelmingly, say so. Also that they would condemn as un-Islamic interpretative approaches which produce more aggressive, more warlike conclusions. But that is a matter for Islam.
I was impressed with this assertion from the article.
quote:
I choose to defend Islam not because I’m embarrassed or want to be politically correct, but because I love my religion. This understanding of Islam is not a “cotton candy” view of my faith, as some may naively suggest. Rather, the verses in this article get to the heart of Islamic belief.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
They are facts mdijon. Elephant in the room, ridden by a naked emperor facts. Not for you I realise, in this game of rhetoric. Muhammad and his God, texts, followers, acolytes, adherents, successors, the faithful, the religion, the history are killers. Jesus wasn't, His God WAS. The religion He founded, the text, the stories, the history, 'us' more so, almost immediately, going through a phase where the first and second circle of followers, as in Peter (and John) and Paul justified violence by God without being direct agents of it.
These things are so. Not debatable. Not questionable. So. Self-asserted. Nowt ter do wi' me.
But not for you in your side of the circle of assertion. That's fine. God bless you. Peace be upon you.
[ 21. February 2015, 09:38: 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
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I don't think you are distinguishing between facts and conclusions. That Muhammed killed people seems very likely to be true. That we conclude a thing is therefore foundationally violent isn't a fact. What we conclude about Muhammed's God rests a lot on whether we believe Muhammed's God was the real God, a version of the real God, imaginary, demonic or the same other entity. None of these views could be described as a fact.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Muhammad's violence is an historical fact. His story of his violent God is also an historical fact. God in Christ, the only God we've ever known, wasn't violent.
Fact.
--------------------
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
It's likely that Christ wasn't violent, I believe he is/was God but that's not a fact. It's likely that Muhammed was violent, it's likely that he told stories about a God who supported his violence, but I notice already you are phrasing things differently - the telling of the story is a fact now, not the substance of what he said. To talk about foundational violence implies something rather more strong than simply observing that violence was part of the early story of Islam.
Judaism was equally violent, I wonder how you would react to a description of Christ as "foundationally violent" - since that, afterall, was his culture and scripture that he preached from.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Oi, well done. Most engaging and gracious of you mdijon. Keep it up.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It's likely that Christ wasn't violent,
For you. For me He wasn't. Period. Ever. Although I'd like to know what it was like for Him growing up. What he had to experience up to thirty in fact. He would have seen a lot of violence.
quote:
I believe he is/was God but that's not a fact.
Aye, it's a FACT. It's the non-negotiable foundation of our reality. It makes no difference and all the difference.
quote:
It's likely that Muhammed was violent, it's likely that he told stories about a God who supported his violence, but I notice already you are phrasing things differently - the telling of the story is a fact now, not the substance of what he said.
I didn't change. Muhammad was violent. A killer. A mighty warrior. Like his admirable follower half a millennium later, Saladin. Like our mutual mythical spiritual ancestor Abraham. That's unquestionable for me. I have no rational reason to question it until someone gives me one based on the historical, scientific method.
There is no substance to what Muhammad said about God for me bar a man caught up in a powerful story. Like Abraham. Moses. But historical where they are not.
quote:
To talk about foundational violence implies something rather more strong than simply observing that violence was part of the early story of Islam.
Now THAT'S intriguing. How so? For me foundational violence is a given for being human and EVERY story bar one.
quote:
Judaism was equally violent, I wonder how you would react to a description of Christ as "foundationally violent" - since that, afterall, was his culture and scripture that he preached from.
I completely agree and have said everything BUT that explicitly. You've said it for me.
Again, thank you VERY much for persisting in sharpening my iron, friend.
En garde.
[ 21. February 2015, 11:13: 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
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
I believe he is/was God but that's not a fact.
Aye, it's a FACT. It's the non-negotiable foundation of our reality. It makes no difference and all the difference.
You appear to have confused the Incarnation with the laws of thermodynamics.
Martin, I'm pleased with your (relatively) new political stance, but you are as hard to debate with as ever.
t
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I completely agree and have said everything BUT that explicitly. You've said it for me.
Except for your "bar one" which seems to contradict this. But assuming you meant your agreement then saying that Islam is foundationally violent is, for you, absolutely no different from saying Martin60 is foundationally violent or that Christ is foundationally violent.
Which makes it a meaningless statement - it is a way of making a weasel-worded specific negative statement while keeping up one's sleeve the caveat that the negative statement could be general.
Its a bit like referring to someone as "a rather fallible human being" and then when challenged on whether they are really worse than anyone else saying "oh well we're all rather fallible". This is technically correct but if you make a statement about a specific person you are usually taken to mean something more than indicating a subset of the universal set.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
