muslims PART 2

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Oz!

You don't need to explain it, nor am i painting christians with anything.....

You said, "i love the fact that the christians are finally being seen for what they really are....." This is a generalization that virtually all Christians are bad and/or doing evil.

Originally Posted by Oz!

we can assume tho' that the mass of the christian population (in particular, the organised relgious leaders and their churches here in the west) do, in fact, believe that GW Bush is in fact doing God's work.... no?

I wish that were so. Liberal Christians such as John Kerry and others have argued strongly against Bush's policies, however. The Pope asked Catholics to join him in a fast for peace, directly before the Iraqi war, and millions of Catholics were involved in it.

There are many Christians who object strongly to Bush's policies .

Originally Posted by Oz!

It is odd tho', for a coupla decades there after WW2 the church tried, once again, to bring people back to their churches by preaching peace and love.....and now their most popularised member is doing it again with war and terror..... i guess nothing really changes for long, as long as it fills the pulpits eh

Another slur. You're now saying Christians accept war and terror so long as it fills their churches and presumably their money bags.

[Oz!]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

You said, "i love the fact that the christians are finally being seen for what they really are....." This is a generalization that virtually all Christians are bad and/or doing evil.

No, it's not a generalization..... i said exactly what i said... and i'm glad that the world can see, a number of events taking place, that a man is in control of..... and that man also claims that he is simply enacting on the will of God.... wether those actions are good or evil, well, that depends on your own ethics, morals and individual religious beliefs (if a person subscribes to such a thing) ....... and yes, i do love the fact that he is being honest about it. Let the people know that it is god's will and all that...makes it easier for them to make their own opinions of the religion

I wish that were so. Liberal Christians such as John Kerry and others have argued strongly against Bush's policies, however. The Pope asked Catholics to join him in a fast for peace, directly before the Iraqi war, and millions of Catholics were involved in it.

There are many Christians who object strongly to Bush's policies .

Yet not one of them will say directly to Bush "you are wrong, this is not God's will" ....... noticing a pattern here? Your most public figure is never debunked for his beliefs.... so we must assume, as no leading religious figure/theolgen will publically disclaim him ..... that Bush is leading a common belief, his actions are God's Will

Another slur. You're now saying Christians accept war and terror so long as it fills their churches and presumably their money bags.

Nope, again, you are looking for a slure where there isn't one, simply observation. I'm saying that the churches are quite happy to have GW Bush as their most media covered member....... and back his actions..... they would excommunicate him otherwise, obviously.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Oz!

No, it's not a generalization..... i said exactly what i said...

And what you said was that Christians are being shown for what they really are. You also said that they are accepting of their most prominent member acting in war and terror, which means we find terror acceptable. You also said "as long as it fills the pulpits," which shows you think Christians are accepting of violence and terror because it brings them money. Your more recent comments "the churches are quite happy to have GW Bush as their most media covered member....... and back his actions..... " show you think it is all or most Christians who are like this. In short, we're greedy mindless terrorists.

You are making terrible accusations against all or most Christians. Which is interesting for me to observe, I guess .

Originally Posted by Oz!

Yet not one of them will say directly to Bush "you are wrong, this is not God's will"

If they spoke against the war, it's obvious they didn't think the war was God's will .

Originally Posted by Oz!

Nope, again, you are looking for a slure where there isn't one, simply observation. I'm saying that the churches are quite happy to have GW Bush as their most media covered member....... and back his actions..... they would excommunicate him otherwise, obviously.

Not obviously . The churches aren't all one massive organization. If one church were to throw Bush out, he could just go to a different one.

[Oz!]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

And what you said was that Christians are being shown for what they really are. You also said that they are accepting of their most prominent member acting in war and terror, which means we find terror acceptable. You also said "as long as it fills the pulpits," which shows you think Christians are accepting of violence and terror because it brings them money. Your more recent comments "the churches are quite happy to have GW Bush as their most media covered member....... and back his actions..... " show you think it is all or most Christians who are like this. In short, we're greedy mindless terrorists.

You are making terrible accusations against all or most Christians. Which is interesting for me to observe, I guess .

Lief, i don't know if you realise it.... but the only person remarking on "war and terror" is you..... maybe you are realising that war and terror might not be the best actions for a man who claims to follow God?

Your also the only person to mention the correlation between filling the pulpits and making money.... aren't collection plates used these days? isn't donating money to the church a voluntary action?

It seems you, as a christian, have very strong feelings about Bush's policies on certain issues........ but I guess that is a subject for another thread, i'm remarking on how christianity is portrayed in the modern media....and how christians conduct themselves.

You seem to be the one intent on villifying christians as a whole..... i didn't attack anyone's indidvidual's beliefs...... maybe all christians are "greedy mindless terrorists" I don't know. If you come to that conclusion from my posts, and the acts of the president of USAmerica we all see in the media, well...... i shudder to think how christians come accross to non-conforming world at large.

If they spoke against the war, it's obvious they didn't think the war was God's will .

No, it isn't........ being against a war means you turn your back on the warmongers, total, finite......

I'll ask again..... as a christian, do you, Lief, think Bush is acting directly in accordance to the will of God?.... I'd like to hear a Christians honest opinion

Not obviously . The churches aren't all one massive organization. If one church were to throw Bush out, he could just go to a different one.

You must have very shallow religious convinctions. Most people of faith i know stick with their church through thick and thin......and keep their deep personal faith with their God(s) through thick and thin.....

"he could just go to a different one" gives personal religious conviction seem as superficial as chooseing between chocolate bars at the K-mart shelf....

You talk as if a person finds a church to suit their own needs.... i can almost hear the souls of thousands of christian matyrs screaming in rage

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Oz!

Yet not one of them will say directly to Bush "you are wrong, this is not God's will" ....... noticing a pattern here? Your most public figure is never debunked for his beliefs.... so we must assume, as no leading religious figure/theolgen will publically disclaim him ..... that Bush is leading a common belief, his actions are God's Will

Actually, many leading religious figures have publically disclaimed him. One of the problems is that in the US the religious right has bamboozled the media to the point that anytime they seek a "Christian" view, they automatically go to people like James Dobson, Jerry Falwell , Bill Bennett etc.- ignoring the views of millions of main-stream and liberal Christians.

Nope, again, you are looking for a slure where there isn't one, simply observation. I'm saying that the churches are quite happy to have GW Bush as their most media covered member....... and back his actions..... they would excommunicate him otherwise, obviously.

You keep saying "the churches" or "Christians" say this or that, ignoring the huge differences among them

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Oz!

You must have very shallow religious convinctions. Most people of faith i know stick with their church through thick and thin......and keep their deep personal faith with their God(s) through thick and thin.....

"he could just go to a different one" gives personal religious conviction seem as superficial as chooseing between chocolate bars at the K-mart shelf....

You talk as if a person finds a church to suit their own needs.... i can almost hear the souls of thousands of christian matyrs screaming in rage

Does the term "Protestantism" ring a bell?

[Oz!]

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

Actually, many leading religious figures have publically disclaimed him. One of the problems is that in the US the religious right has bamboozled the media to the point that anytime they seek a "Christian" view, they automatically go to people like James Dobson, Jerry Falwell , Bill Bennett etc.- ignoring the views of millions of main-stream and liberal Christians.

Examples of these people who publically disclaimed him..... to say that a man is publically lying about the will of his God is pretty heavy stuff..... two hundred years ago he would be punished by law for publically lying in such a fashion........ i've yet to see a head of a public church publically call Bush a liar, and tell their congregation so..... names please

You keep saying "the churches" or "Christians" say this or that, ignoring the huge differences among them

There are of course, many different churches and many interpretation of the bible (probably as many individuals interpretations as there are practicing christians, at least, i hope there are) ....... they all have a common ground tho', following the Will of God, no?

[Oz!]

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

Does the term "Protestantism" ring a bell?

It does....... Maybe Martin Luthor shouldn't have spoken out all those centuries ago.. or Henry VIII driven out the catholics.....are you saying that a church should only have religious dogma if the Pope (who is after all, God's own envoy at earth, if you believe such things) isn't presiding over your organisation? Or simply that protestants are allowed a certainly leniacy over where they worship, and who's instruction they do it under?

[GreyMouser]

Lief, you keep arguing that the scriptures and historical origin of Islam show it to be a religion more based on violence than Christianity or, say, Buddhism, and I agree with you their (But how about Judaism? Nothing in the Koran equals the bloodiness inflicted on the Canaanites and Midianites, among others.)

The test is, though, by their fruits shall ye know them. As you yourself have shown, throughout most of its history Christianity has been used to endorse violence. From the time Christians first became widespread they have fought both each other and outsiders in the name of the Prince of Peace. From the early heresy conflicts where various factions slaughtered far more of each other than the Romans ever did, to the Wars of Religion - taking in the Crusades, Teutonic Knights, Inquisition, Albigensians, etc along the way- I'd say Christendom could hold its own with Islam in terms of violence.

So what happened? Basically, the Enlightenment- religion became much less important in public life. Thomas Jefferson's comment that "I care not whether my neighbor has one God or twenty- it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket" would have been blasphemy 150 years earlier.

Unfortunately, the Devil finding work for idle hands, the Enlightenment , through the French Revolution on down to Communism and its reaction Fascism, found a new source of intolerance based on political ideology.
(Fukuyama's "The End of History" actually should have been titled "The End of Ideology"- a lot less catchy.)

Islam's problem is that, through most of its sphere, it has not been driven from the public square. Kemal Attaturk did it fairly successfully in Turkey.
His imitators in the Arab world - Nasser, Assad, Saddam- were less able- their secular pan-Arab nationalism broke down in failure to deliver either prosperity or power (i.e. regularly getting their butt whipped by Israel).

In those places where Islam was spread by the word rather than the sword-Malaysia and Indonesia- it was generally more tolerant. In Indonesia (the most populous Muslim state) there has been some radicalizing based on a combination of economic and political stability and a flood of Saudi money-as all through the Sunni Muslim world- spreading their particularly fanatical brand of Wahabbism.

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Oz!

It does....... Maybe Martin Luthor shouldn't have spoken out all those centuries ago.. or Henry VIII driven out the catholics.....are you saying that a church should only have religious dogma if the Pope (who is after all, God's own envoy at earth, if you believe such things) isn't presiding over your organisation? Or simply that protestants are allowed a certainly leniacy over where they worship, and who's instruction they do it under?

No- that Protestantism is based on the individual's relationship to God, as interpreted through Scripture, and that therefore nothing is more characteristic of Protestants than the tendency to split into different denominations- abandoning your church doesn't mean abandoning your faith, if you believe your church is mistaken- it means founding your own church which holds to the True Faith- as reveald by God, to you.
Old joke:

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, "Stop! Don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well, are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are your Christian or Buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, Me too! Are your Episcopalian or Baptist? He said, "Baptist!" I said, "Wow! Me too! Are your Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord? He said, Baptist Church of God!" I said, "Me too! Are your Original Baptist Church of God or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God!" I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

Lief, you keep arguing that the scriptures and historical origin of Islam show it to be a religion more based on violence than Christianity or, say, Buddhism, and I agree with you their (But how about Judaism? Nothing in the Koran equals the bloodiness inflicted on the Canaanites and Midianites, among others.)

I agree with you that historically, Judaism was a very violent religion.

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

The test is, though, by their fruits shall ye know them. As you yourself have shown, throughout most of its history Christianity has been used to endorse violence. From the time Christians first became widespread they have fought both each other and outsiders in the name of the Prince of Peace. From the early heresy conflicts where various factions slaughtered far more of each other than the Romans ever did,

Just to mention, the bloodshed over heresy was many hundreds of years after Christianity's birth.

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

to the Wars of Religion - taking in the Crusades, Teutonic Knights, Inquisition, Albigensians, etc along the way- I'd say Christendom could hold its own with Islam in terms of violence.

I'd say differently, and I have argued so in Part 1 of this discussion. The Wars of Religion took place one and a half thousand years after Christianity originated, but the Muslim religious wars, the ridda wars, took place right after Mohammed died, when large numbers of tribes tried to break away from Islam. The Crusades aren't even remotely comparable to the early invasions of Islam of the nations and empires that surrounded Arabia. The Inquisition and other such atrocities aren't comparable to the Muslim conquest of India, in which 80 million Hindus were killed over 500 years. This isn't talking about the Ottoman invasions, either, and neither is Christian violence in modern times comparable in scale or kind (attempting to conquer a specific perceived evil to conquering the whole world are two very different things) to the Muslim violence.

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

So what happened? Basically, the Enlightenment- religion became much less important in public life. Thomas Jefferson's comment that "I care not whether my neighbor has one God or twenty- it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket" would have been blasphemy 150 years earlier.

Unfortunately, the Devil finding work for idle hands, the Enlightenment , through the French Revolution on down to Communism and its reaction Fascism, found a new source of intolerance based on political ideology.
(Fukuyama's "The End of History" actually should have been titled "The End of Ideology"- a lot less catchy.)

You're right to point out Communism. The Enlightenment quenched much of religion's fire, so non-religious nations took over the role of violence and oppression. Neither the doctrines of Christianity nor the views of the non-religious (I think . Haven't researched that much, though) actually urge violence. As a natural consequence, there is less violence in Christianity's history than in Islam's.

I'll respond to the rest of your post and to Oz's posts soon.

[Oz!]

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

No- that Protestantism is based on the individual's relationship to God, as interpreted through Scripture, and that therefore nothing is more characteristic of Protestants than the tendency to split into different denominations- abandoning your church doesn't mean abandoning your faith, if you believe your church is mistaken- it means founding your own church which holds to the True Faith- as reveald by God, to you.
Old joke:

Excommunication and voluntarily splitting from a church are two very very different things aren't they?

Does anyone know which church Bush actually belongs to.... it's a given that most chirstians in the west actively agree that he is doing the will of God, but i'd be facinated to talk to someone who belongs to his church....

I have to leave for a while (again) ..... but think on this.... if you're a christian who thinks they have a full view of the Muslim culture.... spare a thought about how people from other cultures and ( as we see from Lief's posts today) .... how you yourselves see yourselves as christians... it'll do ya soul good

[BeardofPants]

Isn't GWB an Evangelist?

[Lief Erikson]

I think so, BoP. Evangelical , not evangelist, of course.

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

Islam's problem is that, through most of its sphere, it has not been driven from the public square. Kemal Attaturk did it fairly successfully in Turkey.
His imitators in the Arab world - Nasser, Assad, Saddam- were less able- their secular pan-Arab nationalism broke down in failure to deliver either prosperity or power (i.e. regularly getting their butt whipped by Israel).

In those places where Islam was spread by the word rather than the sword-Malaysia and Indonesia- it was generally more tolerant. In Indonesia (the most populous Muslim state) there has been some radicalizing based on a combination of economic and political stability and a flood of Saudi money-as all through the Sunni Muslim world- spreading their particularly fanatical brand of Wahabbism.

And in Malaysia, non-Muslims aren't equal to Muslims under law, according to a BBC News article I linked for Nurvingiel earlier in this discussion. Though I agree that places like Malaysia and Indonesia are often more tolerant than Muslim countries in the Middle East.

I don't really think driving Islam out of power is the answer, though it would probably help. Many modern terrorists didn't begin their terrorism because of governments, you know. I'm thinking specifically of the insurgency in Iraq, the terrorism against Israel and the birth of al'Qaeda.


Oz, I'm just going to respond to you over PM.

[Oz!]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Oz, I'm just going to respond to you over PM.

Recieved. Thanks Leif, you never could respond to a direct question, could you?

Regards (Coney)

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Plainly you've never gone looking to find truth .

No, I prefer to live in the real world.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'm defining truth here as the state of reality.

It's very hard to compromise with someone who claims to know "the truth".

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'd say differently, and I have argued so in Part 1 of this discussion. The Wars of Religion took place one and a half thousand years after Christianity originated, but the Muslim religious wars, the ridda wars, took place right after Mohammed died, when large numbers of tribes tried to break away from Islam. The Crusades aren't even remotely comparable to the early invasions of Islam of the nations and empires that surrounded Arabia. The Inquisition and other such atrocities aren't comparable to the Muslim conquest of India, in which 80 million Hindus were killed over 500 years. This isn't talking about the Ottoman invasions, either, and neither is Christian violence in modern times comparable in scale or kind (attempting to conquer a specific perceived evil to conquering the whole world are two very different things) to the Muslim violence.

So it's simply a numbers game?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

So it's simply a numbers game?

No. But doctrines impact how people live their lives. If one religion commands peace and the other violence, one would expect this to show up in the number of acts of violence each religion is responsible for, and their scale. And it does. That's all.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

It's very hard to compromise with someone who claims to know "the truth".

My current views I believe are truth. I wouldn't hold to them as views if I didn't believe them. You believe your current views are the state of reality. Why would you argue with me, if you didn't even think you were right? You think you were right, and I think I am right. We each have beliefs about what the state of reality is, but at the same time, we both admit that they are beliefs about truth.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

My current views I believe are truth. I wouldn't hold to them as views if I didn't believe them. You believe your current views are the state of reality. Why would you argue with me, if you didn't even think you were right? You think you were right, and I think I am right. We each have beliefs about what the state of reality is, but at the same time, we both admit that they are beliefs about truth.

Not at all. To me, there is no such thing as "the truth". Reality and morality are relative to the individual. I don't think I'm right. Instead, I accept the fact that every living person on this planet basically thinks they are right from their own point of view, and always will. So, the best way to get along is to try not to get too hung up on philosophical "truths" and concentrate more on the real world day to day stuff. Basically allowing people to hold contrary views of reality and actually respect these views, eventhough you think they are completely wrong, for the greater good.

You believe one view is right and the others are wrong. I believe all views are right, or at least can be.