muslims PART 2

[brownjenkins]

/sigh

[Lief Erikson]

Well, I do thank you for putting up with me . I realize I may seem pretty crazy.

[ElvenLover]

Everyone in this thread is very passionate, it seems, about this discussion. I was just passing through and decided to say a little something.

Whatever the subject of the conversation, make sure that is all it is, a conversation.
Whatever the subject of the discussion, be sure it stays a discussion.
Whenever a conversation or a discussion becomes a public arguement and people feel they have to apologise for their opinions, bad things tend to happen. Bad feelings are formed and uncomfortable interactions make the entire conversation/discussion sour.

Sometimes others are offended by things that are said offhandedly and this should be taken into consideration.

I think that's all I wanted to say.
Hope you all have a nice day and a good life!

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Well, I do thank you for putting up with me . I realize I may seem pretty crazy.

Not crazy, just different. Which is a good thing.

I was just dismayed that you seem to have selectively read what I've posted for the last few weeks.

Understanding the real issues behind conflicts and trying to deal with them does not have to mean appeasement.

Not basing a society upon fundamentalist viewpoints isn't the same as not allowing fundamentalists to participate as part of a democratic system.

The world has changed a lot in the sixty years since world war two. Positively, I would say.

On "us and them", I said:

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

If I thought peaceful evangelism was possible, I might say "go for it". But I'd say history is against you. Evangelism, not matter how peaceful it's intentions, creates an "us and them" atmosphere, which allows people to twist these kind of movements to their own ends. It's happened before, and it will happen again. I'd rather see peace itself as the goal, unshrouded in scripture and mysticism, not "christianity".

Whether you personally try to "make" people change or not. The very definition of people as us and them is going to lead other people to try to do just that.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by ElvenLover

Sometimes others are offended by things that are said offhandedly and this should be taken into consideration.

Tell me about it! That's why I preview my posts three of four times.

Good points though

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Peace comes from truly knowing your neighbor, and from them knowing you, not by trying to make them become just like you.

Peace comes from relative perspective. What we need is a galactic enemy! Then we could all unite against a new "them".... Thats how humans work unfortunately. Otherwise there will always be squabbling among each other for mostly petty and stupid reasons like you see here.

[brownjenkins]

True. I have to stop fighting human nature.

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

But then it also is true that many of the pagan religions of the past were extremely widespread, rather than centered on a specific tribe or nation. The Babylonian, Sumerian, Assyrian, Pheonician, Greek and Roman religions were all highly entwined with one another. The religions took gods from one another and believed in them, and striking parallels are visible between the deities of their religion. Sometimes they actually have the same names for their gods. Baal worship was extremely widespread. These were major religions of the past that existed in many major cultures, with only slight variations. Yet despite the popularity of these religions, they largely collapsed when Christianity emerged. It could be argued that some remnants of those religions remained within Christianity, but not much.

Pagan religions being based on personifications of natural forces or human society, it was easy for them to identify in this way.
"The War God's name is Ares"
"We call him Mars. The Northern Barbarians call him Tiu"

And, yeah, the Romans were the past masters of co-opting this for political purposes, with their Pantheon, where every god from every obscure part of the Empire was given his or her niche.
I like the Gibbons quote from "Decline and Fall" about the myriad gods worshipped in Rome: "To the people they were all equally true, to the philosophers all equally false, and to the government all equally useful."

But long before that dissatisfaction with the old pagan gods had set in.
The Greek philosophers scorned their scandalous stories; mystery cults like those of Osiris, Mithras, Pythagoras, (and even Judaism before it fell under a political cloud), swept through the Empire and the Hellenistic world before that.

And the same thing happened in all the great ancient civilisations. Buddhism and Jainism arose out of disssatisfaction with Aryan Brahmanic polytheism,and Hinduism itself was born out of a reaction to that challenge.
Same thing in China, with Confucianism and Taoism.

The Axial Age; 6th Century B.C.- Gore Vidal wrote a novel called "Creation" in which an (admittedly long-lived ) Persian met Zoroaster, the Buddha, Confucius and Socrates- and he could have thrown in Deutero-Isaiah as well. There was something that caused the old standard beliefs to be seen as inadequate

Saint Patrick in Ireland is another good example. This wasn't a situation of empire confronting little pagans, but one little man with a handful of followers confronting an entrenched religion that had existed there for . . . fiddlesticks; I'm having trouble finding out how long. Here's a helpful article about what life was like when Saint Patrick came to Ireland. It mentions that the druids there had "spiritual hegemony," and describes the Irish as people who lived on pastorialism and farming, and didn't use writing. This doesn't sound like a people that would have been well acquainted with Christianity at all before Saint Patrick. Nonetheless, in 200 years, Saint Patrick and his successors had completely brought Ireland into the Christian religion. In his own lifetime, Patrick baptized 120,000 people and founded three hundred churches.

Exactly- he was a product of a sophisticated tradition, who intellectually and spiritually was well prepared to confront the Druids

When you say, "most pagan religions were tied to a particular tribe or nation and its customs or history," it is worth pointing out that while of course most of those religions were probably tied to particular tribes or nations, that doesn't mean most pagans were tied to religions that related only to particular tribes or nations. There were vast numbers of pagans who participated in religions that were accepted over huge amounts of territory. The Roman Empire is a great example of this, as are the major religions I already mentioned that came before. Those religions were all tied tightly together and had enormous numbers of adherents. They would also have seemed much more universalist in that time period than Christianity, for Christianity rejected everyone who deviated from the major tenents of their religion, rather than accepting all people with whatever gods they worshipped.

There were a lot of reasons why Christianity triumphed over both paganism and the mystery cults- sociologically the most important being its appeal to outcast or marginal groups- diaspora Jews, other displaced people from the East -note that when Paul wrote to the "Romans" he wrote in Greek- and very importantly, women. The egalitarianism of Christianity was its major advantage, though its strong moral code was a large part of its appeal to those of the higher classes ; converted Stoics and Neo-Platonists etc.

[Rían]

A bit of a new angle, but I thought this was interesting ... from an article in a book called "Encountering the World of Islam"

..Akbar was tempted to go inside this foreign church and see for himself what was going on. ... he looked up at the cross standing tall on the top of the buildilng. How awful! The cross! What a symbol of hatred that represented to Akbar. It reminded him of the grotesque storeis he had learned in school about the Crusades - how his Muslim ancestors had been killed by cross-carrying Crusaders.

Akbar decided not to think about it but to go on in. ... Akbar reached down to unbuckle his sandals, but he noticed that there were hardly any shoes outside compared to the number of people inside. How repulsive! In a mosque, no one is allowed to wear shoes. ...

His eyes swept the room. It was full of chairs - new ones. Where did the white man get all his money? "How different from the mosque where you sit on the floor," he thought. ....

On the front row, sitting all together, was the missionary's family - husband wife, and two daughters. Akbar was amazed to see them all together on the women's side. He hoped no one else would be offended like he was.

His eyes fell on a picture on the wall. It was of a man who looked nice enough, with long hair and a beard. But then, slowly Akbar read the words under picture: "Jesus Christ." He couldn't believe it! No Muslim would have a picture of a prophet hanging on a wall! It was totally forbidden. ...

He found a seat and sat down. Picking up one of the books, he saw that it was thick and nicely bound. He opened it and tried to read it, but he couldn't really understand the words. One word he saw was "Bible". This was the Christian's Holy Book! Did they just let it lay around where it could get messed up? Didn't they care if someone dropped it or touched it with dirty hands? ... The children were playing with the same type of book he had in his hands - the Bible. Didn't the missionaries care if their children showed disrespect to a Holy Book? ...

Then they said they would take an offering. Some men got up and passed around a plate so that people could drop their money into it. In a mosque this would not be done in such a manner. The church system seemed like begging to him. He wondered what the money was used for. Surely the white man had plenty already! ...

Again, the missionary got up and began to speak. Akbar listened for awhile, but at the word "Jesus", he could no longer listen. As a Muslim, he only saw Jesus as a good prophet that lived long ago - not as the "Son of God." How repulsive to think of God having relations with Mary and having a son whom they named Jesus.

The missionary stopped talking and began to pray. Akbar noticed the people all closed their eyes, but they didn't change positions. None prostrated themselves. They just sat in their chairs ...

I thought the bit about the Bible and how Westerners are casual with it was interesting...

[Rían]

Originally Posted by GreyM

...and very importantly, women.

Yes, Christianity was pretty radical for its time in regards to women. Even Judaism was.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I was just dismayed that you seem to have selectively read what I've posted for the last few weeks.

Understanding the real issues behind conflicts and trying to deal with them does not have to mean appeasement.

So would you see the European nations' declaring war on Germany as a counter-example to your claim that "much of the large-scale violence in our world is a result of cultures misunderstanding one another and thus seeing each other as threats"?

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Not basing a society upon fundamentalist viewpoints isn't the same as not allowing fundamentalists to participate as part of a democratic system.

Yes it is! If fundamentalists aren't allowed to be voted into governmental office, fundamentalists aren't being allowed to participate in the democratic system.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The world has changed a lot in the sixty years since world war two. Positively, I would say.

The Cold War ended in 1991, and in it, the human race was nearly wiped out more than once.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

On "us and them", I said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by brownjenkins
If I thought peaceful evangelism was possible, I might say "go for it". But I'd say history is against you. Evangelism, not matter how peaceful it's intentions, creates an "us and them" atmosphere, which allows people to twist these kind of movements to their own ends. It's happened before, and it will happen again. I'd rather see peace itself as the goal, unshrouded in scripture and mysticism, not "christianity".


Whether you personally try to "make" people change or not. The very definition of people as us and them is going to lead other people to try to do just that.

Any belief has the potential of creating an "us and them" atmosphere. If we were to discard all those beliefs that might create an "us and them" atmosphere, we'd have to discard all beliefs.

It's intrinsically unworkable also, because even saying there shouldn't be an "us and them" view creates an "us and them" boundary. There are those who, like you, are against the "us and them" perspective, and there are those who are for the "us and them" perspective. Thus you're logically automatically stuck with an "us and them" perspective.

Furthermore, it's clear from the fact that you feel fundamentalists should be forbidden from government office that they are a "them" to you, and not an "us."

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

A bit of a new angle, but I thought this was interesting ... from an article in a book called "Encountering the World of Islam"



I thought the bit about the Bible and how Westerners are casual with it was interesting...

It's something that bothers me as well. I try to make a habit of praying for guidance before reading Scripture, and kissing the holy words when I finish.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Yes it is! If fundamentalists aren't allowed to be voted into governmental office, fundamentalists aren't being allowed to participate in the democratic system.

Naw, you get to vote for the irreligious fellow you like best. Ain't BJ nice?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Naw, you get to vote for the irreligious fellow you like best. Ain't BJ nice?

I agree with most of your post, GreyMouser. I just don't see how it invalidates any of what I said .

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I thought the bit about the Bible and how Westerners are casual with it was interesting...

The big ones make good doorstops.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

So would you see the European nations' declaring war on Germany as a counter-example to your claim that "much of the large-scale violence in our world is a result of cultures misunderstanding one another and thus seeing each other as threats"?

World War One was largely about imperialism. At the time it had to be opposed. World War Two was much of the same, with the added pressure of the reparations imposed upon Germany post-ww1. This also had to be opposed, though this time the victors wisely avoided some of the reparation issues that may have lead to a third world war. This kind of mass-imperialism via warfare has largely (though not completely) been culturally-evolved out of western thought. And I think it will continue to be as society progresses. Governments have realized that there are better ways to spread influence.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Yes it is! If fundamentalists aren't allowed to be voted into governmental office, fundamentalists aren't being allowed to participate in the democratic system.

Anyone can participate in a democratic system by it's very nature. I only said to avoid basing a society on fundamentalism. They can participate, but they can't legislate morality purely on the basis of scripture. They have to convince the majority with real world examples.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The Cold War ended in 1991, and in it, the human race was nearly wiped out more than once.

"Nearly" is a relative term. I'd say the fact that we were not wiped out and the fact that a nuclear weapon has never been used against humans since the two we used in Japan says a lot about how far society has come.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Any belief has the potential of creating an "us and them" atmosphere. If we were to discard all those beliefs that might create an "us and them" atmosphere, we'd have to discard all beliefs.

Not "discard", just stop claiming that they are absolute.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

It's intrinsically unworkable also, because even saying there shouldn't be an "us and them" view creates an "us and them" boundary. There are those who, like you, are against the "us and them" perspective, and there are those who are for the "us and them" perspective. Thus you're logically automatically stuck with an "us and them" perspective.

Furthermore, it's clear from the fact that you feel fundamentalists should be forbidden from government office that they are a "them" to you, and not an "us."

Again, you don't read my posts. Unlike the fundamentalists, I don't think the best world is one where we all choose to follow the same moral belief system. I think it's perfectly fine that one person can be a devout christian and another a devout muslim, along people like myself who don't really favor one system over the other. I don't even think it's necessarily the end of the world if two people think of each other as totally misguided. All I'm asking is that people try to look at the bigger picture a bit more. The big "us".

Accept the fact that radically different worldviews can coexist peacefully and sometimes these different systems "work" even better for some societies. Sometimes they do not, as well. But, if so, concentrate on the specific issues.

There is no better and worse, only different. And, when issues arise, look towards dealing with the issues, not the esoteric philosophies behind them. Because you aren't going to be able to really change those anyway. But you can learn to live with them peacefully if (big if), you can first give them a chance.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Anyone can participate in a democratic system by it's very nature. I only said to avoid basing a society on fundamentalism. They can participate, but they can't legislate morality purely on the basis of scripture. They have to convince the majority with real world examples.

News flash, BJ; the "majority" are fundamentalist, by the def. we're working with.

"Nearly" is a relative term. I'd say the fact that we were not wiped out and the fact that a nuclear weapon has never been used against humans since the two we used in Japan says a lot about how far society has come.

The human race was never wiped out before.

Again, you don't read my posts. Unlike the fundamentalists, I don't think the best world is one where we all choose to follow the same moral belief system. I think it's perfectly fine that one person can be a devout christian and another a devout muslim, along people like myself who don't really favor one system over the other. I don't even think it's necessarily the end of the world if two people think of each other as totally misguided. All I'm asking is that people try to look at the bigger picture a bit more. The big "us".

Accept the fact that radically different worldviews can coexist peacefully and sometimes these different systems "work" even better for some societies. Sometimes they do not, as well. But, if so, concentrate on the specific issues.

There is no better and worse, only different.

You know you don't really believe this. Do you think secular humanism is better than the worship of Moloch which involves burning infants alive? Or is it just different, but still equal?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The big ones make good doorstops.

(and they're great for flattening things, too!)

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I think it's perfectly fine that one person can be a devout christian and another a devout muslim, along people like myself who don't really favor one system over the other.

What do you mean? Do you mean on a personal level, or on a societal level?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

You know you don't really believe this. Do you think secular humanism is better than the worship of Moloch which involves burning infants alive? Or is it just different, but still equal?

I think people's beliefs and actions must be judged separately. There are people who dress up as vampires and worship satan, yet are also nice law-abiding citizens. Let's not judge people just by what they believe in.

As long as that person does not actually burn babies alive, they are free to worship as they wish. What's the alternative you would suggest?