|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Islam and violence
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Did He now? Did He uphold their killing? Or their faith? Or their faithful killing? He used the material He had.
And gave us NO example of killing, of how to kill faithfully, in His name.
Of the mythic figures Jesus invoked, less than half were killers.
•Moses X
•David X
•Abel
•Zechariah
•Daniel
•Noah
•Abiathar
•Elijah X
•Widow in Zarephath
•Elisha
•Naaman X
•Jonah
•Lot
•Queen of Sheba
•Solomon X
•Abraham X
•Isaac
•Jacob
•Isaiah
What point are you trying to make across categories Kelly?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
I struggle to understand the parameters of this discussion.
It seems clear to me that although it is possible to construct a violent Jesus out of the NT, it involves a lot more special pleading and outright distortion of the texts than it takes to construct a violent Muhammad out of the Qur'an and Hadith.
I have said many times that I don't think that Islam is inherently violent, but I can't agree that the character and life of Muhammad has had no effect on the common Islamic views of God.
Jesus and Muhammad were different people who taught and embodied different views of God.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
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.
Sorry but the comparison was somewhat random which is why I sneered. But I really don't know what more I can say than constantly posting that there is sometimes a link between Christianity and violence. First there is just war theory which in my opinion often justifies unjustifiable conflict and then there is other violence done in the name of the Christian faith be that reaction of the SPLA in Sudan, or the violence of ostensibly catholic or prot paramilitaries in Northern Ireland. And I haven't even touched upon religious involvement in Rwanda.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Christian armies haven't slaughtered each other and their grandmother and laid waste to whole civilizations for centuries then? Under their priests' blessings?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
Martin, you're misreading what Spawn said.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Did He now? Did He uphold their killing? Or their faith? Or their faithful killing? He used the material He had.
Did I say he did? Did I? Did I now? Because I believe I said he didn't.
quote:
Of the mythic figures Jesus invoked, less than half were killers.
•Moses X
•David X
•Abel
•Zechariah
•Daniel
•Noah
•Abiathar
•Elijah X
•Widow in Zarephath
•Elisha
•Naaman X
•Jonah
•Lot
•Queen of Sheba
•Solomon X
•Abraham X
•Isaac
•Jacob
•Isaiah
What point are you trying to make across categories Kelly?
The one I made twice-- Jesus did not let the flawed humanity of his subjects prevent him from appreciating their worth.
I am not prepared to write off the spiritual devotion of millions of peaceful, law-abiding folk as the sole product of a killer, killer, killer no matter how many times you use the word. The fact that most people are finding benevolent ways to use the Koran tells me that there are plenty of benevolent ways to use it.
[ 15. January 2015, 23:11: 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
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Martin, you're misreading what Spawn said.
Thanks, I was just going to tell him to piss off. You've got more patience.
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:
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.
Sorry but the comparison was somewhat random which is why I sneered. But I really don't know what more I can say than constantly posting that there is sometimes a link between Christianity and violence. First there is just war theory which in my opinion often justifies unjustifiable conflict and then there is other violence done in the name of the Christian faith be that reaction of the SPLA in Sudan, or the violence of ostensibly catholic or prot paramilitaries in Northern Ireland. And I haven't even touched upon religious involvement in Rwanda.
It's not a random comparison. It's a comparison with the leader on the other side of the conflict at a certain point in time.
My basic problem here, the more I think about it, is that in the West we have a tendency to want to separate political and religious power. We even pride ourself on it.
And so we put a leader in the 'political' category and any religious language he uses is just religious language. We don't emphasise that what inspired people to vote for him was based in religion.
The degree to which religion is overt in our systems varies considerably of course. It's far more overt in America than it would be in Australia or Europe, but right now we've got a thread on the UK election where people are talking about deciding their vote based on which party they think better aligns with their Christian principles.
In Russia we've got a situation where Putin and the head of the Orthodox Church are generally seen as being in cahoots. And this bothers us. But we still say Putin is the political leader and the other guy is the religious one.
Meanwhile, when we get to the Middle East and something like ISIS, we look and decide that it doesn't belong in our 'political' box and conclude that it must belong in the 'religious' one. It doesn't have the right trappings of a State to our eyes, and they talk about religion far too much, so 'religious' it is.
And we then try to view everything through that lens.
I'm not actually arguing for a complete ignorance of the fact there's Islam involved and the language of Islam involved. I'm arguing that we are going to end up barking up the wrong tree entirely if we focus on that and ignore the political side. If all our solutions are focused on 'fix Islam' or 'fix this brand of Islam' the solutions are going to fail.
ISIS claims to be a caliphate. Lots of historical claimed caliphates, we treat as political powers. I can't recall ever seeing anyone talking about the Ottoman Empire depicting it as just a religious power.
--------------------
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
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I am not prepared to write off the spiritual devotion of millions of peaceful, law-abiding folk as the sole product of a killer, killer, killer no matter how many times you use the word. The fact that most people are finding benevolent ways to use the Koran tells me that there are plenty of benevolent ways to use it.
Sure. I'm not reading anyone on this thread who disagrees with this.
However to reiterate my point, Jesus and Mohammad were different people who embodied and taught differing visions of God.
And as a matter of historical fact Mohammad did order executions, lead armies and own slaves as well as teaching about God.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I am not prepared to write off the spiritual devotion of millions of peaceful, law-abiding folk as the sole product of a killer, killer, killer no matter how many times you use the word. The fact that most people are finding benevolent ways to use the Koran tells me that there are plenty of benevolent ways to use it.
Sure. I'm not reading anyone on this thread who disagrees with this.
However to reiterate my point, Jesus and Mohammad were different people who embodied and taught differing visions of God.
And as a matter of historical fact Mohammad did order executions, lead armies and own slaves as well as teaching about God.
One vital difference is that Jesus was and remains divine. I don't think anyone claims that of Mohammed.
Both have since inspired others to go to war, order executions and own slaves.
[ 15. January 2015, 21:59: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Yeah, that's what I said. Who the heck is going to measure up to a religious figure portrayed as divine? To say (in a Christian perspective) that Mohammed doesn't measure up to Jesus is redundant.
--------------------
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
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Both have since inspired others to go to war, order executions and own slaves.
Yes indeedy. People have ingeniously constructed pretty evil Christianities. And evil Islams.
But at the risk of banging my head against a brick wall, only one of Jesus and Muhammad actually themselves lead armies, ordered executions and owned slaves.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
1. See the divine thing.
2. I am not an expert in World History, but is Mohammed the only religious leader that was a warrior, kept slaves, and was in a position to order executions?
--------------------
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
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Both have since inspired others to go to war, order executions and own slaves.
Yes indeedy. People have ingeniously constructed pretty evil Christianities. And evil Islams.
But at the risk of banging my head against a brick wall, only one of Jesus and Muhammad actually themselves lead armies, ordered executions and owned slaves.
The brick wall is of your own making. Even according to "their own" religions, Jesus and Mohammed are very different and there was never any need for Jesus to lead an army: that after all is why He was not generally perceived as the Messiah.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Also see: you can't please anybody. Sioni's right, Jesus was a disappointment to some folk because he didn't lead a revolution against Rome.
--------------------
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
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
1. See the divine thing.
I really don't understand what the relevance of this is. Because Jesus is divine therefore we shouldn't point out that he actually led a pretty blameless life, devoid of slave-owning, execution-ordering and army-leading?
quote:
2. I am not an expert in World History, but is Mohammed the only religious leader that was a warrior, kept slaves, and was in a position to order executions?
Of course he wasn't. My point is that unlike Muhammad, Jesus was not a warrior, did not keep slaves and when given the opportunity to approve of an execution talked everyone out of it.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
Kelly and Sioni I was quite perplexed by your point. Are you saying that we shouldn't look at Jesus and Mohammed as being comparable revelations of God? I have to admit that although I understand nobody has claimed divinity for Mohammed, i suppose one does tend to view Mohammed as an "islamic Jesus" in practice even when you know the theory isn't quite right.
Should we see Mohammed as a prophet-to make a rough analogy in the same way Moses was a prophet-they have a message of God but do not reveal God in the way that Christians see Jesus as God and hence as "perfect' rather than part of flawed humanity but who has an insight into God. Is that closer to how some/many/most Muslims see Mohammed?
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
The fact that Jesus is portrayed as divine is important for two reasons -- 1. nobody but nobody can measure up to divine , so to say that Jesus was purer and closer to a divinely portrait of unconditional love and acceptance is-- redundant. In other words, why are we comparing this one religious leader to Jesus rather than every other religious leader that participated in a war, or the many that practiced slavery and polygamy and honor killing and so forth? They all fall short, and I would imagine all of them have some shady business in their closets that was culturally acceptable at the time. Even Siddhartha.
2. His example as that divine person tell us the ideal of how we should act, and Jesus very much had a thing about not discounting someone's worth based on their status as a sinner. whether it be a killer, killer, killer (army commander, that is), a Roman soldier (killer, killer, killer), or some serial monogamous hill-worshiping pagan with a smart mouth and a water jug.
My take on that as a Christian, is, in order to better love and serve my brothers and sisters who are Muslim, I must be humble enough to take a second or two to listen to them about what in Islam feeds them. This is the example I believe Jesus has set for me, and that I am striving to follow.
Not to shake my head and feel sorry for them because their cut-rate prophet is NotJesus. We've covered that. But now that we know Mohammed is NotJesus, what is he to his followers? I think it is common respect to ask that question.
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
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.
Once again, this is not the way Christians in general use the bible. The OT is used to justify ignoring Jesus injunction quote:
A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
Quit failing this and we will quit calling you on it.
--------------------
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
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Mohammed would have freaked right the hell out of anyone suggested he was calling himself God.
I have read enough of the Koran to figure that out.
[ 15. January 2015, 22:45: 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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
On the subject of interpretation: the Bhagavad Gita happens when Arjuna is about to fight a battle, and decides that it would all be a senseless waste of human life. The Bhagavad Gita is where Krishna, the incarnation of Vishnu, talks him into going into battle anyway.
On Gandhi's interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita, it was an inspiration for his pacifism.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
why are we comparing this one religious leader to Jesus rather than every other religious leader that participated in a war, or the many that practiced slavery and polygamy and honor killing and so forth?
Because Muhammad is the founder of Islam, which is the topic of this conversation. Happy to compare Jesus with other religious leaders in other threads if you want.
quote:
My take on that as a Christian, is, in order to better love and serve my brothers and sisters who are Muslim, I must be humble enough to take a second or two to listen to them about what in Islam feeds them. This is the example I believe Jesus has set for me, and that I am striving to follow.
Sure. I agree. Many of our Muslim brothers and sisters have found beauty in Islam, in the same way that many of our Buddhist brothers and sisters have found beauty in the teachings of Siddhartha. I have been in conversations with ex-Muslims who say that the feeling of being part of a great universal brotherhood of the Ummah was the thing they miss most about Islam.
quote:
Not to shake my head and feel sorry for them because their cut-rate prophet is NotJesus. We've covered that.
No, we haven't covered that. We've squirmed and twisted and gone to extreme lengths of obfuscation to avoid covering that.
We owe our brothers and sisters who are Muslim love, empathy, humility, and also the truth as we see it.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
IME Love, empathy, and humility is best expressed by shutting up and listening . I'm not being flip. We are not doing enough of that.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Because Muhammad is the founder of Islam, which is the topic of this conversation.
I've already commented once on the foolishness of basing your assessment of a creation on the perceived character of its creator.
--------------------
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
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Sure. I agree. Many of our Muslim brothers and sisters have found beauty in Islam, in the same way that many of our Buddhist brothers and sisters have found beauty in the teachings of Siddhartha. I have been in conversations with ex-Muslims who say that the feeling of being part of a great universal brotherhood of the Ummah was the thing they miss most about Islam.
Excellent. Good start. More.
--------------------
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
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Because Muhammad is the founder of Islam, which is the topic of this conversation.
I've already commented once on the foolishness of basing your assessment of a creation on the perceived character of its creator.
... and if the repeated comment is being made that the creation is reflective of the creator, it is only fair to ask if other people share similar characteristics to the creator.
--------------------
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
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Because Muhammad is the founder of Islam, which is the topic of this conversation.
I've already commented once on the foolishness of basing your assessment of a creation on the perceived character of its creator.
I am not basing my assessment of a creation of the perceived character of its creator. I am merely commenting on that perceived character.
I haven't even started to talk about the complex ways in which the differing characters of Jesus and Muhammad have impacted on the religions which formed after them and I think it would honestly be impossible to do so in this thread.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
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.
There's a branch of Sufism where you don't have to be Muslim at all. Something I've been meaning to look into.
--------------------
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
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Re why people become Islamist extremists and jihadis:
On today's "Fresh Air" (NPR), Terri had along conversation with a former Islamist extremist. He joined up when he was 16, and is now working to keep other people from joining. Really interesting. (I'd heard him before, and was trying to remember enough about him to look him up, so I was glad he was the guest today.) Link has transcript, audio, download, and an article.
--------------------
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
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Jesus and Muhammad were different people who taught and embodied different views of God.
I tend to think of Mohammed as something like Moses, with maybe Gideon and Joshua thrown in. (And there is a Muslim tradition of linking Moses and Mohammed.) I tend to see Mohammed as more of a social reformer than a religious teacher. Some of those reforms were religious (like focusing on one God, instead of the many worshiped in that area), and others more practical. (IIRC, he improved the inheritance rules for women--something Moses did, too.)
Mohammed isn't meant to be God. When he died, one of his disciples said, "if any of you worshiped Mohammed, he is dead; God is alive".
--------------------
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
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Jesus and Muhammad were different people who taught and embodied different views of God.
I tend to think of Mohammed as something like Moses, with maybe Gideon and Joshua thrown in. (And there is a Muslim tradition of linking Moses and Mohammed.) I tend to see Mohammed as more of a social reformer than a religious teacher. Some of those reforms were religious (like focusing on one God, instead of the many worshiped in that area), and others more practical. (IIRC, he improved the inheritance rules for women--something Moses did, too.)
Mohammed isn't meant to be God. When he died, one of his disciples said, "if any of you worshiped Mohammed, he is dead; God is alive".
Come to think of it, I think I look at Mohammed much the same way myself. That, and as a phenomenal poet.
--------------------
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
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Kelly--
Although, if Muslim tradition and interpretation of the Quran are right, then Muhammed was illiterate. So the poetry would've been given to him.
--------------------
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
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Well. somebody wrote it down, and the stuff I have read is phenomenal.
--------------------
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
|
|
Green Mario
Shipmate
# 18090
|
Posted
I think I understand the point that is made about it not being fair to compare Mohammad and Jesus because Mohammad was just a prophet and his very life didn't wholly reflect God as far as Muslims are concerned.
Does this mean (some, many, or all) Muslims though are able to say "Mohammad did or said this but he we think he was wrong"? "Mohammad spread Islam with violence, we understand because of the culture he lived in and don't condemn him for it, but he was wrong?" If so it leaves the Quran intact but takes a lot of authority away from anyone who would justify violence using the hadith (which I think all the justifications for killing apostates come from)
Posts: 121 | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
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.
Another one?
Quelle diligence!
Do you ever sleep?
Sorry, but although you think you have hit the jackpot, unfortunately this one doesn’t make the cut either.
As I explained upthread, people can and do read anything into anything, so it is possible that someone, sometime, somewhere, might read it as a command to Christians to go out and commit violence.
But it doesn’t.
In the same way, it is possible that someone might believe that Christ’s comparison of himself to “a thief in the night “ constitutes a call to Christians to go out and commence a career of burglary.
Don’t give up, though - I am prepared to assess each submission on its merits.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
romanlion, lilBuddha
The Hell Board exists for pissed off venting as you know. Looks like that particular vent is over here so keep it that way please. Others please note. Next warning will be with my Host Hat on and will get offenders a reference to Admin.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Martin, you're misreading what Spawn said.
Thanks, I was just going to tell him to piss off. You've got more patience.
Host Hat On
Spawn, that gets you a formal warning for an obvious Commandment 3 violation despite my prior line. It also gets you an Admin reference.
By saying you would have done it, you've done it. And dropped yourself in it to boot. That's an old rule here as well.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Host Hat Off
--------------------
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
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
GM--
I know next to nothing about the hadith, except that they're Mohammed's sayings. However, the Quran is believed to have come directly from God. So I would think that it would take priority, and the hadith might have a little more wiggle room. But that probably depends on the sect, etc.
As to how Mohammed's viewed: in Omid Safi's article on the Paris shootings, he said in point 8:
quote:
Let me put objectivity and pretense towards scholarly distance aside. The Prophet is my life. In my heart, Muhammad’s very being is the embodied light of God in this world, and my hope for intercession in the next.
The "embodied light" phrase caught my attention. I don't think I've ever heard Mohammed referred to that way before.
Maybe personal understandings of who the Prophet is vary as much among Muslims as do Christians' personal understandings of Jesus?
--------------------
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:
Don’t give up, though - I am prepared to assess each submission on its merits.
I'm going to assume, for the purposes of constructive debate, that you have inadvertently missed my point rather than deliberately missing it.
I'm having trouble doing this, because you appear incapable of responding without some sniping, but I'm doing my best.
I'm on this thread because I want to think through these issues with people prepared to engage sensibly with them. I don't know about you, but for me discussions here will have a bearing on what I actually do with my life and ministry.
I'll be going to the prison I'm chaplain at this afternoon, and I'll doubtless be bumping into Muslims, some of whom could potentially be radicalised (Muslim radicalisation in prison was a top concern in France before these attacks and and even bigger one now).
If all you're seeking to do is reassert that your mind is made up on this, then I'm not going to bother interacting with you about it.
If you actually want, as it says on the packet here, "serious debate", then you should start by reformulating the point you think I've been trying to make in quoting these verses.
Care to try? I'm happy to try reformulating yours if it helps.
--------------------
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 orfeo:
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.
You appear to think that if you keep sticking your fingers in your ears and running around shouting, “Everything in the Bible is merely a matter of interpretation”, that eventually everyone will believe you.
Instead, you will keep being corrected.
As a psychotherapist I know likes to say, “If you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always got”.
At the most trivial level, yes, everything, not just the biblical text, is a matter of interpretation – beginning each day with how you analytically respond to the first “Good morning” you receive.
When it comes to the Bible, as I have already pointed out, there are many things which undoubtedly are matters of (often competing) interpretation.
However, there are also many things which the Bible self-evidently, and without the need for sophisticated exegetical and hermeneutical techniques, teaches, and others which it just as self-evidently doesn’t.
The NT, in supersession of the OT (as Christianity believes), self-evidently does not teach holy war.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
But that's the point, KC--they aren't self-evident to everyone.
Even with a pure heart, a sound mind, and the best of intentions, people can perceive things differently--whether that's the Bible, the Koran, or the menu at McDonald's.
And *that's* all people are trying to tell you.
--------------------
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
Kaplan Corday: You are mistaken in what I'm trying to say.
I'm not trying to reduce the message of the Bible to being in the eye of the beholder alone (i.e. all legitimately open to any interpretation).
I'm trying to point out that to someone who is wholly ignorant of the Bible, there are passages taken out of context (which was the challenge you laid down on the other thread, and I quote, "show me one verse") which, without supporting context and explanation, appear to endorse violence.
I've done so to argue that people who are as ignorant of the Qu'ran as practically everybody taking part here appears to be, myself first and foremost, cannot simply throw out random bits of the Qu'ran to argue that Islam is inherently violent.
Can you make a substantiated argument on the basis of the Qu'ran that Islam is inherently violent? If so, please do. If not, why does your default position on Islam appear to be so antagonistic?
[ 16. January 2015, 07:19: 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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The NT, in supersession of the OT (as Christianity believes), self-evidently does not teach holy war.
I think it does, but not a jihadist-type approach to other human beings. The NT moves the battleground to another place. Ephesians 6 puts it this way.
quote:
12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13 Therefore put on the full armour of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.
The armour of God is described in terms of metaphor, not literal armaments. And the stance is defensive, not aggressive. Stand your ground.
I agree with you that that is a clear New Testament distinctive. It coheres with the general thrust of the gospels about who or what the "real enemy" is.
--------------------
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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Because Muhammad is the founder of Islam, which is the topic of this conversation.
I've already commented once on the foolishness of basing your assessment of a creation on the perceived character of its creator.
I am not basing my assessment of a creation of the perceived character of its creator. I am merely commenting on that perceived character.
I haven't even started to talk about the complex ways in which the differing characters of Jesus and Muhammad have impacted on the religions which formed after them and I think it would honestly be impossible to do so in this thread.
It would also ignore the current geopolitical situation, since the Western powers are now secular, not Christian. So the violence being rained down on the Middle East by the West is not Christian, and the jihadists tend not to target Christians for that reason.
Hence, comparing Christianity and Islam misses this point - Christianity has largely become irrelevant today.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Come to think of it, I think I look at Mohammed much the same way myself. That, and as a phenomenal poet.
The prophet Mohammed has written poems? Where can I find those? Or are you considering the Qur'an itself, or parts of it, as poetry?
--------------------
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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
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.
There's a branch of Sufism where you don't have to be Muslim at all. Something I've been meaning to look into.
My friend's Sufi group had non-Muslims in it; I think some of the Muslims protested at this, but the sheikh insisted that this was his tradition. Also, quite a lot of them converted in the end.
'Chasm of Fire' by Irina Tweedie is a famous account of Sufi training, where Tweedie faces the 'ordeal of love'.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
On the subject of interpretation: the Bhagavad Gita happens when Arjuna is about to fight a battle, and decides that it would all be a senseless waste of human life. The Bhagavad Gita is where Krishna, the incarnation of Vishnu, talks him into going into battle anyway.
On Gandhi's interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita, it was an inspiration for his pacifism.
Ah - lots of rooms for interpretations. On one level, Arjuna is Consciousness, his Chariot is his body and Krishna is his higher/spirit self. On another the Hindu Caste system could be interpreted as being clearly defined because Arjuna has been born to be warrior king, and so has no option other than to fulfil his destiny as a warrior-king. Or one could take a softer line, saying where we are born is a function of reincarnation and we have important lessons to learn. Or it could just be taken as an analogy for the many manifestations of evil, with Krishna pointing out that one must "kill" even things that one has been taught to love because they are evil. Heck - if I then say this is literal physical way of interpreting the Baghdad Gita is true, then why not just kill anyone who gets in my way? Interesting that Ghandi took it as an inspiration, and that the vast majority of Hindus do not interpret it in a physical literal sense. If any spiritual text is entered via a dictionary rather than via love, we can get into all kinds of predicaments.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Because Muhammad is the founder of Islam, which is the topic of this conversation.
I've already commented once on the foolishness of basing your assessment of a creation on the perceived character of its creator.
I am not basing my assessment of a creation of the perceived character of its creator. I am merely commenting on that perceived character.
I haven't even started to talk about the complex ways in which the differing characters of Jesus and Muhammad have impacted on the religions which formed after them and I think it would honestly be impossible to do so in this thread.
It would also ignore the current geopolitical situation, since the Western powers are now secular, not Christian. So the violence being rained down on the Middle East by the West is not Christian, and the jihadists tend not to target Christians for that reason.
Hence, comparing Christianity and Islam misses this point - Christianity has largely become irrelevant today.
I really don't understand how your comment connects to mine.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
However, there are also many things which the Bible self-evidently, and without the need for sophisticated exegetical and hermeneutical techniques, teaches, and others which it just as self-evidently doesn’t.
There are a great many things that I feel are self-evident, and yet every now and then I find someone to whom the same things are not self-evident.
As Golden Key and Eutychus have said, that's all anyone is attempting to point out to you.
What do you think of the atheist who posted the list of 'violent' Bible verses I linked to? The list which you think is wrong, and in fact I think is pretty much wrong as well - certainly, some of his examples seemed ridiculous to me. Do you think that the verses are not violent is self-evident to him, and that he's just lying?
It's not just that I think that everything in the Bible is interpretation, by the way. It's that I think almost everything everywhere is a matter of interpretation. I made a perfectly standard rotatable "Clean/Dirty" sign for the dishwasher at work, the kind you can buy, and one guy managed to interpret it the exact opposite way to how it was intended. He thought "Clean" meant that the dishwasher was 'clean', meaning he had the all-clear to throw unwashed items into the dishwasher, in amongst the clean items that needed to be unloaded.
What he therefore thought "Dirty" would mean, I honestly don't know. I don't know if he'd thought the context through - which is kind of the point, when people don't look at context, they miss contextual signals.
Then there's the woman who raged against the wonderful silent sequence at the beginning of the Pixar movie "Up" because it depicted an abortion. 99.95% of the world would say WTF to this, as it clearly shows the wife being pregnant and then dreadfully sad because she miscarries and loses the baby, but this woman managed to see the wife as being sad because she was remorseful over having terminated her child.
Basically, I think you're underestimating the capacity of people to get the wrong end of the stick.
[ 16. January 2015, 09:48: 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 made a perfectly standard rotatable "Clean/Dirty" sign for the dishwasher at work, the kind you can buy, and one guy managed to interpret it the exact opposite way to how it was intended. He thought "Clean" meant that the dishwasher was 'clean', meaning he had the all-clear to through unwashed items into the dishwasher, in amongst the clean items that needed to be unloaded.
Heaven thread started for some light relief.
--------------------
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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
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.
I'm inclined to agree with you, but the accusations of Marcionism should be in within the day.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
