|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Islam and violence
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You do qualify with -ists, isms, and "radicals".
Islamist and Islamism are technical terms for the particular movements within Islam that believe in restoring a single non-secular government over all Muslim territory. If there were such a thing as 'Christendomism' it would be the equivalent.
There is, at least in the US. It's called, variously, Dominionism, Dominion Theology, or Christian Reconstructionism (per TheocracyWatch).
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
as can nationalist enthusiasm - as can the sheer energy and fearlessness of youth.
Indeed. But much as special measures were taken within the world of football in the UK to combat hooliganism, something could be done in the world of Islam.
These are pragmatic approaches that do not seek to decide whether football, or Islam, are inherently violent, merely to address the problem in the appropriate forum.
Yes - and that is one area in which there is apparently some confusion in Islam in some countries. But how much you can specifically blame Islam? For instance in Iraq, there are entire militias based round a particular Imam. If they happened to pursue a different religion, would it really be any different? I suspect not. It's an entire culture
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But all these suggestions as to what imams or the Muslim community should be saying in the way of counter-interpretation - they all hinge on the idea that the violence has religious foundations.
Not necessarily. Rather, they include the idea that religious enthusiasm in the wrong hands can be exploited to achieve political ends through acts of violence.
The example that keeps leaping out at me recently is the shift from AQ to IS. It's not that long since Western commanders and politicians were saying that Al Quaeda were degraded, many of their leaders dead, they were on the run, and so on. But hello, suddenly an offshoot of AQ takes over large chunks of territory in Syria and Iraq and proclaims the caliphate and so on, and also, great hostility to AQ.
If the causes of this are religious, what striking theological insight did IS achieve, that have given it so much success?
I am really saying that IS capitalized on various social and political alignments; I am not saying there is no religious propaganda.
Just saying to European youth that Islam isn't like that, and is full of peace and mercy - I don't think that will work. Of course, the British imams are doing that anyway, but I think the 'cure' for IS will be political and on the ground. I don't know if bombing them is part of that or not; it might work; and it might be a recruiting sergeant.
The West has become part of the problem of course; how on earth we extract ourselves from that I don't know.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't know if bombing them is part of that or not; it might work; and it might be a recruiting sergeant.
The West has become part of the problem of course; how on earth we extract ourselves from that I don't know.
It's not simple.
My old 'friend' Robert Pape is one of the contributors to
this article discussing the strategy, which you might find interesting.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
PS Back in the middle of 2014 he also wrote, solo, this article which was very strongly against military involvement.
I'm not sure whether his stance has changed a little, or whether what he had in mind in the earlier article was a 'troops on the ground' scenario. Being against troops on the ground but supportive of other strategies would certainly be consistent with his views some years ago when I heard him speak.
[ 15. January 2015, 08:56: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think the 'cure' for IS will be political and on the ground.
I've said this is a political issue since my first post after the Charlie Hebdo attacks. But the political ends are being clad in religious discourse. I can't do much about sorting out IS in Syria or wherever, nor can I do much about domestic security.
Where I, in terms of my current role, could conceivably make a difference is in helping to detoxify the religious landscape.
And where I as an individual can make a difference is in my default attitude to my fellow-humans.
Echoing Adrian Plass in his social work experience, as a prison chaplain I often feel that if the only contact with Christianity some marginalised youth has is "that bloke who smiled and said hello to me in the prison corridor" it might not be a complete waste of time.
--------------------
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
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Kaplan Corday (presumably trying to stave off a welter of violent verses from the OT)
Christianity interprets the OT in the light of the NT, and always has.
Your argument is not with me, but with orthodox, credal, historic Christianity.
quote:
Show me one verse from the NT which endorses violence on the part of Christians to defend, promote or extend their religion.
Matthew 10:34, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword", sprang to my mind this morning.
Golly, you've really nailed me with that one.
I'm going to have to bring all the exegetical and hermeneutical big guns to bear on it - just as soon as I've finished using them to decide whether, when Jesus said, "I am the door", he was or wasn't claiming to be an upright rectangle of wood with hinges and a handle.
[code]
[ 15. January 2015, 09:33: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Came across a news story that I think fits in well with trying to figure out how to handle public attacks with some grace and humor, rather than doing something regrettable.
"Ellen De Generes Responds to 'Gay Agenda' Accusations With Humor." Her response to the "OMG, gays!" pastor is priceless, and very Ellen.
--------------------
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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Kaplan Corday (presumably trying to stave off a welter of violent verses from the OT)
Christianity interprets the OT in the light of the NT, and always has.
If you'd bothered to read anything else I've posted in this respect, you'd know I agree with you.
However, you cannot expect non-initiates to realise that, and that is the point at issue here.
quote:
Golly, you've really nailed me with that one.
I'm going to have to bring all the exegetical and hermeneutical big guns to bear on it - just as soon as I've finished using them to decide whether, when Jesus said, "I am the door", he was or wasn't claiming to be an upright rectangle of wood with hinges and a handle.
Very amusing, and entirely beside the point, which has already been addressed several times. Instead of attempting ridicule as a substitute for discussion, Green Mario actually went to the trouble of doing the explanation, and you can follow the interaction of several of us with him in that respect on this thread from there on (notably me, orfeo and Gamaliel).
I'm glad you've shown up though, because last night I came up with another NT passage that, without some explanation, could look like promotion of Christianity through violence. And you will have trouble bringing subsequent scripture to bear on it, because it's virtually right at the end, Revelation 19:11, 13-15: quote:
Then I saw heaven opened, and there was a white horse! Its rider is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war (...). He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, wearing fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron; he will tread the wine press of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.
Now again I can doubtless explain all that as well as you can, but the point is that it does take some explaining. And if you weren't familiar with the Bible, with relatively little tweaking you could probably be convinced that it came from the pen of some self-proclaimed jihadist, and indeed might well be using it to prove that Islam is inherently violent.
[ 15. January 2015, 09:49: 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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Eutychus, I went through all of that with Kaplan Corday on the previous thread.
It doesn't matter how many times we explain that the issue is whether it's possible to arrive at an interpretation, rather than whether the interpretation is correct or orthodox, we are still going to keep getting the response "that's a wrong interpretation".
It's bizarre because it seems to assume that somehow, when it comes to Biblical interpretation, being wrong is impossible, as if the Holy Spirit successfully prevents anyone from getting the wrong end of the stick. Which makes me wonder how anyone ever got labelled as a heretic.
[ 15. January 2015, 09:52: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think the 'cure' for IS will be political and on the ground.
I've said this is a political issue since my first post after the Charlie Hebdo attacks. But the political ends are being clad in religious discourse. I can't do much about sorting out IS in Syria or wherever, nor can I do much about domestic security.
Where I, in terms of my current role, could conceivably make a difference is in helping to detoxify the religious landscape.
And where I as an individual can make a difference is in my default attitude to my fellow-humans.
Echoing Adrian Plass in his social work experience, as a prison chaplain I often feel that if the only contact with Christianity some marginalised youth has is "that bloke who smiled and said hello to me in the prison corridor" it might not be a complete waste of time.
Well, I wasn't really quarelling with you, as your ideas sound very good. I'm still tilting at the idea that Islam is the problem.
One odd thing about the idea that Islam is per se violent, is that IS would agree with this enthusiastically!
The other odd consequence is that it can't be changed, if it is intrinsically violent. This is the flaw in the argument that Western Muslims aren't violent because of the civilizing effect of the West - but then Islam isn't intrinsically violent, no more than Germans are intrinsically militaristic. (Again, this is not directed at you). Most religions and ideologies are chameleons really.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Islam isn't intrinsically violent, no more than Germans are intrinsically militaristic.
The difference is that practicing Islam involves signing up to a belief system, whereas being German doesn't.
As explained upthread, to be honest I'm not 100% sure that "Islam" (whatever that is defined as) is not intrinsically violent (in other words, that the fundamental belief system, consistently followed through and acted upon, inevitably leads to violence).
But given that I'm really not at all sure it is and have yet to be swayed from that position, I'm very much prepared to give it the full benefit of the doubt.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Islam isn't intrinsically violent, no more than Germans are intrinsically militaristic.
The difference is that practicing Islam involves signing up to a belief system, whereas being German doesn't.
Can't really agree with that, for two reasons:
1. People can behave as if they were born into a religion just as much as they were born into a country.
2. You can change countries. If you do, in the long term you might end up going through a citizenship ceremony. You'll be asked to make commitments.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Islam isn't intrinsically violent, no more than Germans are intrinsically militaristic.
The difference is that practicing Islam involves signing up to a belief system, whereas being German doesn't.
As explained upthread, to be honest I'm not 100% sure that "Islam" (whatever that is defined as) is not intrinsically violent (in other words, that the fundamental belief system, consistently followed through and acted upon, inevitably leads to violence).
But given that I'm really not at all sure it is and have yet to be swayed from that position, I'm very much prepared to give it the full benefit of the doubt.
I suppose IS would agree with that to an extent, since presumably they would say that these peace-loving Western Muslims have betrayed the truth faith.
One of my oldest friends was a Sufi, and he was certainly 'God-intoxicated' or whatever word Sufis use, but very non-violent. He also loved Christianity and Jesus - strange world, isn't it? In fact, he used to explain some Christian ideas to me better than Christians! But the really ecstatic Sufis will say that they are neither Muslim, nor Christian nor Jew, hmm, sounds interesting.
And of course, Sufis have been violently persecuted by some militants, so maybe the militants offer the true Islam, (irony).
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
orfeo, you are being downright silly. Are you next going to compare having a religion to having a job, or an intimate relationship, or going to a university, or picking up a new hobby, or what have you? Turns out that all major commitments people undertake have some things in common. That does not however mean that they are all the same sort of thing.
For one thing, what it means to be a Muslim invariably has to do with what a certain person said at a certain time, as it has been written down in a certain book. Variations are possible in what that means in detail, but in general this will hold as long as there is such a thing as "Islam". What it means to be German is much more difficult to define, but if there is a kind of "centre" to it, then it is a complex combination of geographical, linguistic and culture correlations. And history suggests that this is so much in flux as to not apply far back into the past other than in a very loose sense ("Germanic", not "German") and in all likelihood the current constellation will also not last more than a century or two into the future.
Likewise, we can find essential differences between a religion and a job, a religion and an education, a religion and a hobby, etc. There is a reason why we have different words for these, and the reason is that it rarely makes sense to treat them as the same. In particular, the question whether something is "inherently violent" cannot be asked in the same way about a nationality and a religion, simply because where such violence could inhere in is different.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
orfeo, you are being downright silly.
Nudging the C3 line IngoB.
"That's a silly post" = OK in Purg
"You are silly" = Not OK in Purg.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
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
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm still tilting at the idea that Islam is the problem.
Tilt at that if you like. You are arguing with yourself. I can't see anyone currently making contributions to this thread arguing that Islam is intrinsically violent. I am opposing the opposite view that Islam has nothing at all to do with it. Culture minister Sajiid Javid called this view lazy. But it is more accurate to say that Islamism (a politico-religious ideology) plays a significant part in inspiring militancy and terrorism.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
What it means to be German is much more difficult to define, but if there is a kind of "centre" to it, then it is a complex combination of geographical, linguistic and culture correlations. And history suggests that this is so much in flux as to not apply far back into the past other than in a very loose sense ("Germanic", not "German")
Of course, being a Christian also has some similar characteristics combining "geographical, linguistic and culture correlations", and historical flux. I would be very surprised if Islam also isn't influenced by geography, liguistics, culture and shows historical variations. In fact, from my perspective from outside Islam, it certainly seems to. Even in majority Muslim countries, where Western cultural influences would be less, there are considerable variations in what is considered appropriate clothing, as an obvious cultural phenomenum. There have been comments on the news recently that state that the current Islamic teaching on depicting animals, people, even the prophets in art is relatively modern and there are examples from the first few centuries of the Islamic faith of pictures of Mohammed himself used within Mosques and private residences. Which would indicate a substantial change in the interpretation of the Islamic texts over time.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
orfeo, you are being downright silly. Are you next going to compare having a religion to having a job, or an intimate relationship, or going to a university, or picking up a new hobby, or what have you? Turns out that all major commitments people undertake have some things in common. That does not however mean that they are all the same sort of thing.
But my entire point is that it's not really correct to say that having a religion necessarily involves a commitment. Plenty of people treat themselves as 'Christian' just because that's the religion they were born into. When people talk about being a 'Christian' country, that's what they're doing as well. And I already talked about, I think in this thread, Anders Breivik and his notion of being a 'cultural Christian'.
I wouldn't have thought you would have trouble with this idea, because it seems to me that people are especially prone at labelling themselves as 'Catholic' even if they haven't been to church in years or just go at Christmas. It's not really expressing a commitment, beyond still going to Mass when visiting Mum and Dad during the holiday season.
My converse point is that for a lot of people 'being German' just happens, but for some people it involves a commitment.
I just don't think it's correct to simply characterise having a nationality as being automatic, and having a religion as being the result of choice. I think both of those things can bleed into the other category.
[ 15. January 2015, 11:27: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I just don't think it's correct to simply characterise having a nationality as being automatic, and having a religion as being the result of choice.
Perhaps not, but I think terrorists acting in the name of religion, especially those that put up videos detailing their "religious" motives, can be said to have made some form of deliberate choice about it over and above any milieu they were brought up in.
As it happens I became French by choice. At that time it didn't involve making any commitments. The whole thing was characterised by bureaucracy and a nationality formality - certainly not a ceremony - that positively dripped reluctance.
There have been times since then when I've unexpectedly found being French has given me a sense of national identity I didn't previously have (walking past a familiar memorial to executed Resistance fighters with a sudden awareness that "they died for my country", most odd feeling), but becoming French was not an ideological choice on my part in the way that, deceived or brainwashed or otherwise, we see some of these terrorists exhibit.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I just don't think it's correct to simply characterise having a nationality as being automatic, and having a religion as being the result of choice.
Perhaps not, but I think terrorists acting in the name of religion, especially those that put up videos detailing their "religious" motives, can be said to have made some form of deliberate choice about it over and above any milieu they were brought up in.
I'm not at all sure about that.
The Kouachi brothers may well be a demonstration of the falsity of the idea that terrorists are particularly religious or devout.
It's already been observed how one of them did things like smoke pot and sleep with this girlfriend at the time that he first came to the attention of the authorities.
And today I saw an interview with the lawyer of the wife of one of the brothers (not sure if the same brother). She was detained initially and then released. Part of the story is that her husband just kissed her goodbye in the morning and said he was visiting his brother because he was ill - she had no idea what was happening. But the other part is that in her view he had no real interest in religion. He didn't stand out from the average person of the same background.
I've also observed before that the study of suicide bombers by Robert Pape came up with the rather startling information that suicide bombers frequently have no history of either notable religious devotion or of association with terrorism or violence. For many of them, their suicide has been their one and only criminal action. They essentially volunteer for that one task, having not been closely connected with the relevant group or its ideology before that.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
And if we're talking about ISIS, and people declaring their support for ISIS, the very idea of the 'Islamic State' is just as much a political one as a religious one.
It's supposed to be a state for Muslims to come to, free from the influence/control of the West, in exactly the same way that Israel is supposed to be a homeland for Jews.
[ 15. January 2015, 11:56: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
On the issue of interpretation of scripture, it would be quite easy to go off on a tangent - and potentially into dead-horses territory too ...
However, I think there are some cross-purposes discussions going on here.
It's not an issue of suggesting that Green Mario's interpretation of the 'sword' reference is right or wrong nor whether Kaplan, say, has a better exegetical approach than Eutychus or Orfeo or myself or whoever else ...
The point is that interpretation is required in the first place. It's not simply a matter of selecting a particular verse and saying, 'look, this is what it means, it's self-evident ...'
If that makes me all po-mo and relativistic in Kaplan's eyes, then so be it ... but that's not where I'm coming from.
As it happens, my own understanding of the 'sword' reference that Green Mario has been addressing hasn't involved the persecution element at all ... I've always tended to understand it in the context of divisions and challenges towards the status quo ... the religious status quo that Christ both endorsed and challenged in equal measure it seems to me ...
The same Christ who said that he came not to subvert the Law but to fulfil it, also said that the walls of the physical Temple would be torn down, that there would be emnity and division within families on account of his teaching and that unless we 'hated' our close relatives in relation to our love for him we couldn't be his disciples ...
So, I've not seen it in terms of a 'physical' sword or physical persecution as such - although there are clear references to the latter in the Gospels too, of course.
At any rate, how I interpret those verses isn't the point. The point is that they require interpretation and some people could interpret them in a way that differs from the way both Green Mario understands them and the way I've always understood them.
That's not to kow-tow to post-modernism or post anything else.
It's a simple statement of reality.
Green Mario has mentioned the need for imams to interpret and reflect on the apparently violent verses and injunctions within Islamic writings - and they are doing so. Some understand these in a more figurative way or apply them to inner struggles and inner battles rather than to physical jihadist violence.
The fact that these verses are apparently capable of being understood in that way tells us nothing about whether they are 'inherently' violent - although I'd agree that at face-value they appear to be.
These things don't work in isolation.
Those verses that Eutychus has highlighted from Revelation are a case in point. It's completely understandable - in my view - why some parts of Christendom were reluctant to accept Revelation into the canon of the NT for many years. They were concerned that it would be taken too literally or applied in a over-realised sense ... an over-realised eschatology.
Which is, of course, what has subsequently happened down the years - be it the fanatical behaviour of the Munster Anabaptists or the more peaceful yet odd and idiosyncratic eschatalogical speculations of the Dispensationalist variety.
That doesn't mean that we should excise the Book of Revelations from our NT, of course, but it does mean that we should look for consensus - and yes, to tradition (small t and Big T) in the way we tackle and approach these issues.
I can certainly see what Kaplan Corday is trying to do - and I respect what I take to be his motives (as I understand them). But it's not the point or issue that is at stake here.
Nor do I believe that asserting that one's own scriptures and belief system is essentially non-violent means having to accuse other people's of being intrinsically violent in order to provide greater contrast and difference between them.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm still tilting at the idea that Islam is the problem.
Tilt at that if you like. You are arguing with yourself. I can't see anyone currently making contributions to this thread arguing that Islam is intrinsically violent. I am opposing the opposite view that Islam has nothing at all to do with it. Culture minister Sajiid Javid called this view lazy. But it is more accurate to say that Islamism (a politico-religious ideology) plays a significant part in inspiring militancy and terrorism.
Whether Islamism is the right word I don't know.- - there is some argument about that. But anyway, to pick up a point you made earlier, Salafism* certainly is relevant. Salafism is involved in every single one of the current violent manifestations of radical Islam.
We've also got a major problem here with people searching for single causes. If ever a subject were shouting "multiple causes", it is surely this one!
Historically, ignoring what went before (the dereliction of secular governments in largely Islamic lands) won't do. Many of these movements in Salafism arose as a response to that dereliction.
And as has been pointed out, identity has a big part to play. I'd be reluctant to use the phrase "identity politics" in its western sense here as it's not entirely the same thing. But there is definitely grief at having your borders laid out by remote historical colonial powers, and your internal affairs interfered with by those whose aims and morals you do not share.
These causative factors all seem to be involved. There are other causative factors involved in the recruitment of disaffected youth in "western" countries and in suicide missions. But given the above, it seems to me that many of the suggestions in this thread are relevant. Where they come unstuck is when people advance them as primary causes. There are multiple causes, and a proximate cause (a better idea surely) may just be some small thing that triggered a pent-up tide of resentment.
* Salafism is essentially an "ad fontes" (back to the source) movement. Currently it draws its inspiration from the Hanbali school of interpretation, which is currently centred in what is now Saudi Arabia. It points to an early saying of Mohammed that authenticity diminishes the further you get away from the source (I'd need to look up the exact words). This Salafism seeks to return to the situation where Sharia without any further developments from the prophet's time is the law of the land. Not all Salafism is violent - some Salafists deprecate the use of armed force to achieve their ideal of the Islamic state.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm still tilting at the idea that Islam is the problem.
Tilt at that if you like. You are arguing with yourself. I can't see anyone currently making contributions to this thread arguing that Islam is intrinsically violent. I am opposing the opposite view that Islam has nothing at all to do with it. Culture minister Sajiid Javid called this view lazy. But it is more accurate to say that Islamism (a politico-religious ideology) plays a significant part in inspiring militancy and terrorism.
Whether Islamism is the right word I don't know.- - there is some argument about that. But anyway, to pick up a point you made earlier, Salafism* certainly is relevant. Salafism is involved in every single one of the current violent manifestations of radical Islam.
We've also got a major problem here with people searching for single causes. If ever a subject were shouting "multiple causes", it is surely this one!
Historically, ignoring what went before (the dereliction of secular governments in largely Islamic lands) won't do. Many of these movements in Salafism arose as a response to that dereliction.
And as has been pointed out, identity has a big part to play. I'd be reluctant to use the phrase "identity politics" in its western sense here as it's not entirely the same thing. But there is definitely grief at having your borders laid out by remote historical colonial powers, and your internal affairs interfered with by those whose aims and morals you do not share.
These causative factors all seem to be involved. There are other causative factors involved in the recruitment of disaffected youth in "western" countries and in suicide missions. But given the above, it seems to me that many of the suggestions in this thread are relevant. Where they come unstuck is when people advance them as primary causes. There are multiple causes, and a proximate cause (a better idea surely) may just be some small thing that triggered a pent-up tide of resentment.
* Salafism is essentially an "ad fontes" (back to the source) movement. Currently it draws its inspiration from the Hanbali school of interpretation, which is currently centred in what is now Saudi Arabia. It points to an early saying of Mohammed that authenticity diminishes the further you get away from the source (I'd need to look up the exact words). This Salafism seeks to return to the situation where Sharia without any further developments from the prophet's time is the law of the land. Not all Salafism is violent - some Salafists deprecate the use of armed force to achieve their ideal of the Islamic state.
Don't disagree with anything you say. The arbitrary or convenient drawing of lines on maps when Beitain, in particular, 'decolonised' ispart of the mix. Also the strong sense in Islamist ideology of the shame and humiliation of the Umma.
I differ from you in that I don't think that Salafism conveys comprehensiveness as a term for describing militancy and terrorism because virtually all militancy and terroism comes from groups and individuals which have an Islamist outlook but not necessarily Salafi connections.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
Just to add, that Islamism includes Shi'ite political ideology. Salafism strongly rejects Shia Islam.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Muhammad was a killer. Islam is foundationally violent.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Muhammad was a killer. Islam is foundationally violent.
Phil Spector was a killer. All of the records he produced are foundationally violent.
All of Rolf Harris' art is fundamentally evil.
You might think I'm being facetious but I seriously, seriously hate the way that people tend to take something about a person's life and treat it as summing up everything about them. As if human beings aren't complex and contradictory creatures. As if anyone who ever committed a crime therefore contributed nothing whatsoever to society.
Heck, you can get a dozen different conceptions of Jesus, one for every sign of the Zodiac, and he was perfect.
If you want to show that Islam is 'foundationally violent' then you should be playing the ball not the man.
[ 15. January 2015, 12:47: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you want to show that Islam is 'foundationally violent' then you should be playing the ball not the man.
Totally agree with you in opposing the nonsense posted by Martin, but remember playing the ball rather than the man next time you suggest that because a Muslim smokes pot or does not appear particularly devout they cannot simultaneously hold strong religious beliefs.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you want to show that Islam is 'foundationally violent' then you should be playing the ball not the man.
Totally agree with you in opposing the nonsense posted by Martin, but remember playing the ball rather than the man next time you suggest that because a Muslim smokes pot or does not appear particularly devout they cannot simultaneously hold strong religious beliefs.
I didn't say they cannot. I said it was not immediately obvious that they did. Which is entirely consistent.
I also referred to the testimony of his wife.
If we want to talk about playing the actual ball, how many people are actually aware of the content of the videos bin Laden used to make? Did he actually fill them with truly religious content?
The major thrust of his grievances wasn't "stop drinking alcohol and eating pork", it was "get out of our lands". Despite the popular image, he didn't spend a heck of a lot of time talking about how horrible and sacrilegous the lifestyle of the infidels was. He spent far more time saying "you don't belong here". Which is not a particularly religious statement. It's the statement of self-determination movements everywhere.
[ 15. January 2015, 13:02: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
If you want a NT passage that apparently endorses violence, I think I've a better one:
"Luke 22:35-39New American Standard Bible (NASB)
35 And He said to them, “When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?” They said, “No, nothing.” 36 And He said to them, “But now, [a]whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and [b]whoever has no sword is to sell his [c]coat and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘And He was numbered with transgressors’; for that which refers to Me has its [d]fulfillment.” 38 They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”"
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Spawn wrote: quote:
Just to add, that Islamism includes Shi'ite political ideology. Salafism strongly rejects Shia Islam.
I think that Khomeini was very strongly influenced by Salafist thought. quote:
The first modern "Islamist state" (with the possible exception of Zia's Pakistan)[123] was established among the Shia of Iran. In a major shock to the rest of the world, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini led the Iranian Revolution of 1979 to overthrow the oil-rich, well-armed, Westernized and pro-American secular monarchy ruled by Shah Muhammad Reza Pahlavi.
The views of Ali Shariati, ideologue of the Iranian Revolution, had resemblance with Mohammad Iqbal, ideological father of the State of Pakistan, but Khomeini's beliefs were placed somewhere between beliefs of Sunni Islamic thinkers like Mawdudi and Qutb: He believed that complete imitation of the early Muslims for restoration of Sharia law was essential to Islam, that secular, Westernizing Muslims were actually agents of the West serving Western interests, and that the "plundering" of Muslim lands was part of a long-term conspiracy against Islam by the Christian West.
So the links are there. I've just quoted that one at length as it also illustrates most of the other points conveniently (thank you Wikipedia!)
Also: quote:
I differ from you in that I don't think that Salafism conveys comprehensiveness as a term for describing militancy and terrorism because virtually all militancy and terroism comes from groups and individuals which have an Islamist outlook but not necessarily Salafi connections.
I hope from the above that by connections, I would understand followers of certain schools of thought that have their origins in Salafism. There's probably an issue of definition I need to tighten up on lurking in here somewhere.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I've certainly heard this passage used by a US Christian who is something of a gun and knife enthusiast - he makes vicious looking Bowie knives and so on for a living - cite this passage to suggest that it is our 'God-given' right to bear arms to defend ourselves ...
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If you want a NT passage that apparently endorses violence, I think I've a better one:
"Luke 22:35-39New American Standard Bible (NASB)
35 And He said to them, “When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?” They said, “No, nothing.” 36 And He said to them, “But now, [a]whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and [b]whoever has no sword is to sell his [c]coat and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘And He was numbered with transgressors’; for that which refers to Me has its [d]fulfillment.” 38 They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”"
His argument was that back in antiquity and throughout the 'Dark Ages' and the medieval period, almost everyone would have been armed.
He cites the swords carried by Elizabethan gentry (for defensive as well as fashion purposes) as well as the quarter-staffs, daggers and cudgels that medieval people had readily to hand.
He takes this NT verse to suggest that Jesus was endorsing the right to bear arms for self-defence.
I'm not sure how to interpret this particular passage to be honest ...
If Jesus saying, 'That's enough ... we don't want any weapons around here ...'
Or is he saying, 'It is sufficient. We need a few sidearms to protect ourselves but not enough to give the impression we are embarked on armed rebellion ...'
At the risk of a tangent - how do Shipmates interpret these verses? And why?
Or is that a Kerygmania question?
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
At the risk of a tangent - how do Shipmates interpret these verses? And why?
Or is that a Kerygmania question?
Definitely a Kerygmania question. And, one that I would find interesting. I've never really thought about those verses before.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
It's a very good Kerygmania question, Gamaliel. Do you want to set up an OP there?
--------------------
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
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The major thrust of his grievances wasn't "stop drinking alcohol and eating pork", it was "get out of our lands". Despite the popular image, he didn't spend a heck of a lot of time talking about how horrible and sacrilegous the lifestyle of the infidels was. He spent far more time saying "you don't belong here". Which is not a particularly religious statement. It's the statement of self-determination movements everywhere.
Good luck in trying to establish Bin Laden's secular credentials. I've never heard that his beliefs were in any doubt, including his view that Muslims who weren't seeking to impose sharia law were themselves apostates. I was aware of the contents of his video and audio messages but you wouldn't expect his preoccupation to be pork and alcohol (a bit of a stereotype there). He was mainly addressing non-muslims and presented the strategic aims of his movement. Again you are guilty of secularising, or at least misunderstanding Islam in that the territorial is sacred - especially the presence of non-muslim military in proximity to Islam's holy sites.
About the Paris terrorists, it'll be a while before we can do more than speculate. I'd be taking the wife's testimony with a pinch of salt - no-one wants to admit that they might have a clue something was going on because it might make her an accessory. We can reasonably say that there is some evidence of radicalism and a link to Al-qaeda.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
orfeo wrote:
The major thrust of his grievances wasn't "stop drinking alcohol and eating pork", it was "get out of our lands". Despite the popular image, he didn't spend a heck of a lot of time talking about how horrible and sacrilegous the lifestyle of the infidels was. He spent far more time saying "you don't belong here". Which is not a particularly religious statement. It's the statement of self-determination movements everywhere.
Yes, some radical Islamists seem to fear (and envy), not so much Christianity, as the secular West, which they see as invading their lands, and polluting the ummah with its materialism and hedonism.
Thus, 9/11 didn't attack a Christian cathedral, but symbols of American power (Twin Towers, the Pentagon).
And it is complicated also by the Arab experience of 'pan-Arab secular socialism' which was not good, of course; I don't know whether or not this has turned Arabs against secularism; hopefully not in the long term.
Hence comparing Islamism with Christianity seems inaccurate to me; they are not pari passu.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Muhammad was a killer. Islam is foundationally violent.
God is a killer, Christianity is fundamentally violent.*
For those without the ability to discern, this is sarcasm to make a point, not a declaration of belief.
and the point is that people will use whatever tool they have to justify what they do, to draw others to do their bidding.
Folks are getting caught up on the violence in Islam; look at it from another angle. Buddhism has far less in it to justify violence than either Christianity or Islam and yet people have used it as a basis for killing and warring with others.
People are the problem, regardless of belief system. People and what we do to each other.
Do a tiny bit of research into the history of the Middle East and North Africa. And if you cannot see a causal link between what the west have done and terrorist violence; please step away from sharp objects, heavy machinery and important decisions as you are not qualified.
*and can we please end this OT v. NT bullshit? Same God throughout. Same unchanging God.
--------------------
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
Riiight. I'm not criticizing Muhammad in the slightest. It's a fact. He was a killer. That is enshrined in the religion he started. Epitomized by it.
It's epitomized by Christianity too. But not in Christ.
And lilBuddha, the God we can only know in and through Christ is no killer.
Sorry to cut through the pretentious pseudo-intellectual crap with my bet-a-buck simplisticity I'm sure.
[ 15. January 2015, 17:28: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And lilBuddha, the God we can only know in and through Christ is no killer.
Sorry, not true. God is not separate from Jesus. And God was a bloodthirsty bastard in the OT. If you can reconcile this, you can reconcile Islam.
Focusing on Islam as the problem does not solve the real problem. It merely allows one to wash their hands of responsibility, to avoid addressing the real issues.
It makes one more the disciple of Dick Cheney than Jesus Christ.
--------------------
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
|
|
Garden Hermit
Shipmate
# 109
|
Posted
The Qur'an 5:51 'Believers have neither Jew nor Christian for your friends'.
The Qur'an 5:82 'You will surely find that the nearest in affection to believers are those who say ' 'we are Christians''.
Take your pick.
Posts: 1413 | From: Reading UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ha ha ...
Someone'll now come along and tell us that there are no apparent contradictions in the NT.
Or, as a preacher I once heard said, 'The Bible is full of contradictions ... and I believe them all ...'
--------------------
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
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Riiight. I'm not criticizing Muhammad in the slightest. It's a fact. He was a killer. That is enshrined in the religion he started. Epitomized by it.
It's epitomized by Christianity too. But not in Christ.
And lilBuddha, the God we can only know in and through Christ is no killer.
Sorry to cut through the pretentious pseudo-intellectual crap with my bet-a-buck simplisticity I'm sure.
Jesus was a rabbi preaching pacifism. Not only that, but he was billing himself as the Messiah. Most religious leaders are going to fall short in comparison to someone held up as a divine or semi- divine being.
Mohammed was leading an army of people in exile. Of course that will impact the things he wrote. But not everything he wrote was about war. There is plenty of insight in the Koran that even the most rigid pacifist could appreciate.
Jesus himself had no problem discussing the spiritual value a sometime murderer/ warrior might provide. Abraham organized one of the most savage honor killings recorded in the Bible, and Moses lead tribal battles ( remember Aaron holding up his arm?) and Jesus cites them as authority. David abducted a woman and killed her husband-- one of his own soldiers-- and Jesus quotes him. He offers no " understand, these guys ate murdering scum and in no way do I endorse this" disclaimer, probably because he assumed most people were smart enough to understand how his new teachings incorporated the useful insights. He took what insight he could from them and used it to inform his own ideas.
If the forgod'ssake Son of God could be so humble, why the hell can't we? And if we really, really can't, can we at least back off of the many, many peace loving people who do draw insight from Islam and remain peace loving? Or the people who are genuinely trying to listen to them?
[ 15. January 2015, 18:40: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Believe me Muhammad and his followers have my every sympathy and respect. Every.
And I'm more than conversant with the stories of God the Killer I revelled in for 30 years and more and thank you for making my point again for me, Kelly Alves, that Jesus was completely, 100%, a man of His culture - and not - and used it against itself.
There is no comparison with literary tropes and being a killer.
Muhammad, peace be upon him, was a killer.
Jesus, blessings and peace be upon His name, was not.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Jesus held up killers as examples of faith. How do you answer his decision to do so?
Especially if he is indeed the Son of God and the primary example we are to follow?
[ 15. January 2015, 19:20: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
*and can we please end this OT v. NT bullshit? Same God throughout. Same unchanging God.
No, (most) Christians can't do that. It is the same, unchanging God but the whole point of God sending Jesus was that the understanding of God reflected in the OT is wrong!
Yes Jesus referenced the OT and said he came to fulfil the prophecies but they WAY in which he did so was to turn the OT on its head. If the way God was depicted in the OT was what we should be following and believing about God-then God didn't need to send Jesus. Time and again Jesus subverts the OT rules, Moses said it's ok to divorce but Jesus said no it's not. The OT was strict about the Sabbath, Jesus said the Sabbath was designed for man not as a God pleasing thing, we should not cease from doing good on the Sabbath, the Ot said people should be stoned for adultery but Jesus said "Let him who has not sinned cast the first stone/" You can't say that Jesus endorses the OT just because he references it a few times-he's here to reveal true God. The OT led Jews to believe the Messiah would be a warrior to free them from the oppression of the Roman empire, n'ah God sends them a peasant from a backwater who preaches peace and submission. Can't get less warlike and murderous than that.
Jesus is God revealed to us once and for all "in the flesh". This is not a warlike God who wants us to use violence it is a a God who calls on us to love our enemies and as he is being subjected to a cruel death he says "Father, forgive them they know not what they do." It is this message Jesus came to bring-a true understanding of God, in the only way that could be truly effective-cos there can be no competing prophets, no competing stories, Jesus is God revealed to us.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Good luck in trying to establish Bin Laden's secular credentials. I've never heard that his beliefs were in any doubt
Why on earth do you think I'm trying to suggest his beliefs were in doubt?
I've never heard that George W Bush's beliefs were in any doubt, either, but people in the Western world don't generally try to paint him as a a religious crazy who was motivated to invade Iraq by his beliefs about God. They 'secularise' him just fine.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Muhammad, peace be upon him, was a killer.
Jesus, blessings and peace be upon His name, was not.
Well, he did do in a fig tree once, in what always read like a fit of pique to me. Ananias and Sapphira might count, too.
On the other hand, whatever his various followers have made of him, Muhammad has not been elevated to the status of 1/3 of a Triune God.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Good luck in trying to establish Bin Laden's secular credentials. I've never heard that his beliefs were in any doubt
Why on earth do you think I'm trying to suggest his beliefs were in doubt?
I've never heard that George W Bush's beliefs were in any doubt, either, but people in the Western world don't generally try to paint him as a a religious crazy who was motivated to invade Iraq by his beliefs about God. They 'secularise' him just fine.
Your comparisons are getting ever more desperate and absurd. Every self-respecting left-of-centre comic portrays George W. as a crazed religious, neanderthal whacko. But your problem with these unusual comparisons is that they reflect an outlook that essentially just views Christianity as being basically the same faith with a few modifications.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Every self-respecting left-of-centre comic portrays George W. as a crazed religious, neanderthal whacko.
Why then, do we have people insisting that there's no connection between Christianity and violence?
And you could actually address the point properly without throwing in the sneering commentary. Thanks.
[ 15. January 2015, 20:49: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
