Muslims

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Well, Hitler was a Christian.

false

[Lief Erikson]

I don't have time at the moment to respond to you, Nurv, but just to let you know, we were discussing the Holocaust and Christianity on page 43.

[Serenoli]

Ah, where to start replying?

Firstly, its wonderful to find so many people opposing the 'Condemn Islam as violent' theory... I don't feel nowhere as bad as I did when I started out...

And, I find myself nodding at so many things Nurv has been saying. Particularly:

It bears mentioning that Christians, Jews, and Muslims worship the same God. We're closer in doctrine than most other religions, and yet it's "West" and "East" that divides us until it seems like we have nothing in common.

At any rate, Islam does count Jews and Christians among the faithful, though that aspect seems to be ignored often by people. For example:

"Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the
Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day
and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there
is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve." The Quran, Chapter 2, Verse 62

And, yet, we quarrel. :sigh:

I suppose that more or less sums up my view of Earniel's mountain quote... at least regarding these religions, they are paths leading the same way. I haven't really given much thought to the other ones.

And, I don't remember where you asked me this, but Lief, you were quizzing me as to Sharia law. Anyway, let me make that completely clear. In my opinion, Sharia law is too harsh, and at times, quite unjust. However, Islam is a strict religion, and therefore, even when its not legalized, much of the moral values of the religion are imprinted on the society (I guess, its more of an effect on the unwritten laws of society). That, at least, is what I've seen in practice. Whereas Christianity is more lenient, or less effective.

BTW, Valandil, maybe, Hitler wasn't a Christian. But all those Germans who followed him, heart and soul, surely they were? Or at least a lot of them. A horrific case of Christian fundamentalism? or are you going to say they weren't true Christians? In which case, why am I not allowed to disown Muslim extremists as false Muslims, but must have them thrust at my face all the time?

This may be my last post here for quite some time; I'll be leaving entmoot for a while, as my exams are coming up quite soon, and I really need to find more time to study. It was very enlightening, and quite fun, to discuss here, and in an odd way, I shall miss it. I suppose I shall be popping in here now and then, to read up a little...

[Grey_Wolf]

One major problem and difference between Muslims and Christians are that Christians get an eduction worth the name, while poor Muslims get the only education there is to be had for them - the one from their religious leaders, with a heavy dose of intoctrination.

There are perhaps Christian fools too, people who do not question what their priests tell them, as well muslim ones, but they are few and far between.

Indeed these fools are more prolific among Muslims than Christians.

These people are the ones that make up the lion's share of the extremists.

They remind me of the Comunist saying of "having useful fools" to further the revolution.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Well, Hitler was a Christian.

Originally Posted by Valandil

false

Hitler was a Christian, thought not a practicing one. Or what do you mean by "false", Val?

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Hitler was a Christian, thought not a practicing one. Or what do you mean by "false", Val?

Hitler was not a Christian. Didn't even pretend to be.

Interesting book: Hilter's Cross by Erwin Lutzer... check it out.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

re: 1

The scale and the goal? Well, Hitler was a Christian. I think we all know the scale and goal there.

About Adolf Hitler himself, I don't know what evidence Valandil has to present (curious though I am to know ), but he loathed the Apostle Paul, the one who wrote much of the New Testament. He examined scripture from the perspective of, "what of its true nature remains?" (that was a note found in his writing, among other notes about the scripture) because it was so different from his philosophy. He didn't even pretend to accept all scripture, but picked out certain bits of it. Hitler was involved in the occult, and I've heard it said that he believed himself to be the reincarnation of Woden. He believed Jesus was the bastard son of a Roman soldier. He did not practice Jesus' ethical commands in his life.

However, Hitler did give some speeches that gave a pretense at Christianity, because about 30 million of the people in his country were Christian.

Originally Posted by Serenoli

BTW, Valandil, maybe, Hitler wasn't a Christian. But all those Germans who followed him, heart and soul, surely they were? Or at least a lot of them. A horrific case of Christian fundamentalism? or are you going to say they weren't true Christians? In which case, why am I not allowed to disown Muslim extremists as false Muslims, but must have them thrust at my face all the time?

It is certain that you can accurately accuse Christians in Germany of anti-Semitism and racism, though you must note that Hitler persecuted many Christians as well, and that many Christians in his country protected the Jews of their churches from him.

However, you must remember that the Christians of Germany trusted Hitler, and Hitler was brilliant with propaganda. He knew how to make his invasions look good and ethical. He also was the man who had rescued their country from an abyss of economic oppression from the rest of Europe. This gave them a bias to believe him. Furthermore, only a very small number of people knew about the Concentration Camps or the Final Solution. This was all top secret. The world was shocked to find out about those atrocities when we broke into those camps after the war was over. The German people did not know. So while many German Christians of that time can be condemned for racism and anti-Semitism, it is important to understand that they were hoodwinked and they had no knowledge of the deeds that have made Hitler most infamous, in hindsight.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

"Muslims, on the other hand, have attempted to conquer the whole world and nearly succeeded, in the 7th and 8th centuries AD." The whole world now? Maybe you meant the whole of the civilized world at the time?

The Islamic state they conquered in the first century of Islam's existence stretched from the Atlantic Ocean on the west to Central Asia in the East, and they would go much further. They would in later centuries attack Europe with strong invasion armies at least twice that I know of, and would conquer India over a period of 500 years in a swath of bloodshed that diminished the Hindu population by 80 million. Historian William Durant wrote that this was "probably the bloodiest story in history." Many of the earlier Muslim invasions may or may not have been highly violent- history is sparse on details from many of those periods of massive Muslim expansion.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

The British Empire once covered one third of the Earth's land mass. Do you think England is a violent country?

Much of this expansion was not violent but economics, and also many times the European oppression of native peoples was opposed by Christian missionaries.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Under Genghis Khan, the Mongols conquered from Turkey to China. Is Mongolia a violent country?

No comment. I don't know enough about this war- only about his attempt to invade Japan.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I think parallels between a country and a religion are valid in this case.

In the case of European expansion, as I said, much of this was not violent conquest, and Christian missionaries objected to much of the fighting.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

And "apparently evil groups" can be, and have been, just about everyone.

That is not true.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

But that's less bad than Muhammed declaring war on his neighbour (which I'm not condoning either) because the Christians of the time thought they were evil. I do not think so.

I'm not objecting to Mohammed fighting his war with the Qur'aysh. The Qur'aysh persecuted him and his people. It was self defense. The conquest of the other Arabian tribes was not self defense, though. Neither was it self defense for his immediate followers to invade the Sassanid and Byzantine Empires. They conquered huge countries and powers that had done nothing to them, following the jihad practice. This was a general practice too, not one that ordered an attack on specific groups.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

"Apparently evil groups" does not justify or lessen the impact of violent acts.

No it does not. However, it is not even slightly close to what Muslims historically have done (and what a growing number of Muslims now do): declare war on all the world that does not join Islam or submit to jizya.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Until proven otherwise by a Qu'ran sholar or a knowledgable Muslim, I firmly believe that there is a perfectly valid liberal interpretation of jihad.

Well, the Supreme Ayatollah of Iran is not exactly a dunce where it comes to his religion, and he says that Muslims must conquer the world. There are plenty of imams and Muslim scholars who have been saying that, but they're all called extremists.

Anyway, Islam's history proves how Mohammed and his earliest supporters interpreted jihad.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I think that is jihad is a spiritual battle within one's own soul. I like this concept and it also does exist in Christianity (though I like the concept here too).

I like the modern interpretation of jihad too, and agree that it definitely parallels Christian teachings in a very close way.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

re: 3

My violence is less violent than your violence? At some point we just have to say that in history, human beings have been (and still are) violent.

Oh yes, I totally agree.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I'm not condemning Christianity with citations of various violent or mad things that we've done in the past because of the same reason I don't think Islam is violent - it would be an unfair and IMO inaccurate assessment of the religion.

Look at the actions of Mohammed and his earliest supporters, though. They ought to know what their religion is about.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Let's just say for the sake of argument that Muslim holy wars (or whatever) killed more people than Christian holy wars (or whatever).

By your reasoning, the religion of the perpetrators of the greater amount of acts would be a more violent religion. I know have an odd mental image of God/Allah with a clipboard, keeping track of who killed whom.

My point in bringing up Islam's being responsible for more violence was that this is largely because the religion sanctions violence against non-Muslim populations. The fact that Islam has been more violent doesn't prove that the religion is more violent, but it is what one would expect if the religion is more violent. It's not conclusive by itself, but it is rather what one would expect.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

It bears mentioning that Christians, Jews, and Muslims worship the same God. We're closer in doctrine than most other religions, and yet it's "West" and "East" that divides us until it seems like we have nothing in common.

And the fact that they attacked us, and we attacked them, and we're also supposed to submit (though I know modern liberal Muslims don't believe that) .

But I do understand we have some close similarities in doctrine between Judaism, Christianity and Islam. That's true, and I find it helpful, often, when talking with people.

For example, I'm befriending a Muslim at college named Ash, and last semester our English class was turning into a religious debate. It turned out to be me and him arguing together against the existentialism philosophy others were supporting. That was a very interesting experience, arguing side by side with a Muslim against other views we both disagreed with.

Originally Posted by Serenoli

Islam does count Jews and Christians among the faithful, though that aspect seems to be ignored often by people. For example:

"Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the
Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day
and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there
is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve." The Quran, Chapter 2, Verse 62

And, yet, we quarrel. :sigh:

I suppose that more or less sums up my view of Earniel's mountain quote... at least regarding these religions, they are paths leading the same way. I haven't really given much thought to the other ones.

I personally don't think we are worshipping the same God, I'm afraid .

Originally Posted by Serenoli

And, I don't remember where you asked me this, but Lief, you were quizzing me as to Sharia law. Anyway, let me make that completely clear. In my opinion, Sharia law is too harsh, and at times, quite unjust. However, Islam is a strict religion, and therefore, even when its not legalized, much of the moral values of the religion are imprinted on the society (I guess, its more of an effect on the unwritten laws of society). That, at least, is what I've seen in practice. Whereas Christianity is more lenient, or less effective.

I'd say Christianity can only be effective when Jesus enters people's hearts. He said, "you must be born again." When people are born again, Jesus enters their hearts and begins to transform them from inside out. That is why we do not need a law, enforced or unenforced, for us to follow. Because God is inside us creating good in and through us by default, morality is innate, natural. Laws are unnecessary, for they are automatically fulfilled by our actions whether they're written or not. That's why Jesus said, "I am the fulfillment of the law."

However, millions of people don't receive Jesus in their hearts and don't dedicate their lives to following him, but they think of themselves as Christians anyway. Thus for them the law is not fulfilled, but they think it is. They need a law to live by, for they think they're saved and therefore "in," and can live the rest of their lives as they choose. Since Jesus is the fulfillment of the law and he is not in their hearts making them good, they fall. They would be better off as members of Islam or Judaism, where there is structured morality for them to live their lives in accord with.

Originally Posted by Serenoli

This may be my last post here for quite some time; I'll be leaving entmoot for a while, as my exams are coming up quite soon, and I really need to find more time to study. It was very enlightening, and quite fun, to discuss here, and in an odd way, I shall miss it. I suppose I shall be popping in here now and then, to read up a little...

Come back when you can. It was great reading your posts .

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

The scale and the goal? Well, Hitler was a Christian. I think we all know the scale and goal there.

True. Hitler did profess to be a christian, (at one point even wanted to be a priest!) just as Osama Bin Laden professes to be a muslim. Whether or not Hitler was a "good christian," or Osama bin Laden is a "good muslim," well...

-from About.Com, Adolf Hitler & Christian Nationalism: Nazis Program of Positive Christianity

A popular image of the Nazis is that they were fundamentally anti-Christian while devout Christians were anti-Nazi. The truth is that German Christians supported the Nazis because they believed that Adolf Hitler was a gift to the German people from God. German Christianity was a divinely sanctioned religious movement which combined Christian doctrine and German character in a unique and desirable manner: True Christianity was German and True German-ness was Christian.

What was Positive Christianity?:
The NSDAP Party Program stated in part: “We demand freedom for all religious confessions in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or conflict with the customs and moral sentiments of the Germanic race. The party as such represents the standpoint of a positive Christianity, without owing itself to a particular confession....” Positive Christianity adhered to basic orthodox doctrines and asserted that Christianity must make a practical, positive difference in people’s lives.

Christian anti-Semitism:
Anti-Semitism was an important aspect of the Nazi state, but the Nazis didn’t invent it; instead, they drew upon centuries of Christian anti-Semitism and extensive anti-Semitic theology in Germany’s Christian community.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

True. Hitler did profess to be a christian, (at one point even wanted to be a priest!) just as Osama Bin Laden professes to be a muslim. Whether or not Hitler was a "good christian," or Osama bin Laden is a "good muslim," well...

As I said earlier, I would like to see a citation for Hitler's wanting to be a priest, still. It might have been true (I know he claimed to be a Christian, and practiced a very, very wierd and particularly unusual form of "Christianity"), but I'm not convinced without seeing the citation.


Quote from Lief Erikson:

About Adolf Hitler himself, I don't know what evidence Valandil has to present (curious though I am to know ), but he loathed the Apostle Paul, the one who wrote much of the New Testament. He examined scripture from the perspective of, "what of its true nature remains?" (that was a note found in his writing, among other notes about the scripture) because it was so different from his philosophy. He didn't even pretend to accept all scripture, but picked out certain bits of it. Hitler was involved in the occult, and I've heard it said that he believed himself to be the reincarnation of Woden. He believed Jesus was the bastard son of a Roman soldier. He did not practice Jesus' ethical commands in his life.

However, Hitler did give some speeches that gave a pretense at Christianity, because about 30 million of the people in his country were Christian.

Originally Posted by Lotesse

-from About.Com, Adolf Hitler & Christian Nationalism: Nazis Program of Positive Christianity

A popular image of the Nazis is that they were fundamentally anti-Christian while devout Christians were anti-Nazi. The truth is that German Christians supported the Nazis because they believed that Adolf Hitler was a gift to the German people from God.

Some German Christians supported the Nazis because Adolf Hitler had dragged them from economic despair and restored to them national pride. However, other German Christians rejected Hitler's ways. Hitler persecuted church leaders who opposed him and sent Christians who objected to his ways into his concentration camps. Many of the major churches in Germany were weak. While they never supported Hitler's actions, they were scared and so didn't speak out against him. This is all recorded by the Washington Holocaust website.

Adolf Hitler was no Christian, and the Christians who followed him were biased in his favor because of all he'd done for their country, hoodwinked by his lies, and unaware of his real character. Hindsight is 20/20, to coin a common phrase, but we here and now have a heck of a lot better information about Hitler than people living under the control of his regime did, and it's much easier from our current comfortable chairs in our free houses half a century later to say, "they should have never listened to him!" when it isn't our families he resurrected from economic collapse and from humiliation and despair, and it isn't us who would have the Gestapo knocking on our door for even thinking of speaking up against him.

And as has been pointed out, there were Christians who did object and were tortured and killed in the concentration camps for their actions. The major Catholic and Protestant churches did not speak out in support of Hitler. According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, there was a "strained relationship," between the Nazi regime and the German Christian churches.

Originally Posted by United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

The term "Church Struggle" refers to the strained relationship between church and state in Germany in the 1870s and then again during the Nazi regime. Although Nazi policy at first seemed to tolerate church autonomy, it soon became clear that official tolerance of Christian religious groups would last only as long as the churches accepted synchronization--the alignment of the church, along with other areas of society, with Nazi goals. The Roman Catholic and Protestant churches met the Nazi rise to power with attempts to retain control of their respective institutions and the rights of their brethren to worship freely and openly.

Here is the link to the full article.

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Christian anti-Semitism:
Anti-Semitism was an important aspect of the Nazi state, but the Nazis didn’t invent it; instead, they drew upon centuries of Christian anti-Semitism and extensive anti-Semitic theology in Germany’s Christian community.

How widespread and successful was this strategy? And again, I'm curious what your source on this is. I've always been taught that the anti-Semitism came from the German people wanting a scapegoat for their misfortune.

The Jews were better off than most Germans economically, because they had far better jobs and great mathematical skills. They were a source of resentment because of their success, when many Aryan Germans were in suffering. Hitler leveraged off of this natural resentment to persecute the Jews and turn anger into anti-Semitism. I've never heard the claim that the anti-Semitism was because of Christianity in any of the history studies I've had so far.

[Lotesse]

Lief, I am curious to see what your sources of information are, for you to make the assumptions and claims that you do, with such exhaustive relentlessness. If you are to give us long pages of what you say is the truth on an issue, then the least you can do is provide a bibliography and referencable sources, so that we who read your lengthy statements can reference for ourselves your statements of what you call fact. This is what history books do, and what responsible essayists do, or even anyone writing an article in a newspaper or other publication, if they want to be taken seriously or expect to get any kind of real respect from the general intelligensia.

I, personally, do not have either the time nor the energy to "get into it" in this or any other thread with you, my dear Lief, and I say this with nothing but cordial friendliness, but I cannot argue with people such as yourself about world events when it comes down to religion and the "goodness" or "badness" of one religion as opposed to another. It is a ridiculous and potentially endless waste of time, in my opinion, to dicker religious semantics with anyone, much less someone who has a very clear & present, defined bias due to being religiously fanatical him- or herself.

The stuff about Hitler I put out there because I like to illustrate the very real point that each and every religious movement of any power - read, the Big Three of the last 2,000 years - have done evil things, and have the potential to do more evil things, and have a fair number of tyrannical hypocrites to their credit. Christianity is no more exempt from this phenomenon as is Judaism or Islam, in fact christianity already has a very long rap sheet of crimes against humanity in the name of the Lord, streching over the past couple thousand years. This is an indisputable fact in and of itself, many, many times over. So, also, has Islam racked up an impressive list of crimes against humanity over the past two thousand years. This, also, is an indisputable fact in and of itself.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Lief, I am curious to see what your sources of information are, for you to make the assumptions and claims that you do, with such exhaustive relentlessness. If you are to give us long pages of what you say is the truth on an issue, then the least you can do is provide a bibliography and referencable sources, so that we who read your lengthy statements can reference for ourselves your statements of what you call fact. This is what history books do, and what responsible essayists do, or even anyone writing an article in a newspaper or other publication, if they want to be taken seriously or expect to get any kind of real respect from the general intelligensia.

No debater on Entmoot has ever made a bibliography to their posts, to my knowledge. In the absence of stated doubts about my claims, I see no need to waste time. I have cited those of my claims that I suspect people are most likely to question, and I will willingly provide a citation for any of my claims that people question, if they have doubts. This is provided they don't overwhelm me with an unreasonable number of such requests, of course.

Originally Posted by Lotesse

The stuff about Hitler I put out there because I like to illustrate the very real point that each and every religious movement of any power - read, the Big Three of the last 2,000 years - have done evil things, and have the potential to do more evil things, and have a fair number of tyrannical hypocrites to their credit.

Well, I agree with your main point, then. But I think Hitler and the Nazis are a very bad example . Hitler wasn't a Christian, the Nazi Party wasn't a Christian movement, there was tension between Hitler and the German Churches (and the major churches didn't voice support of his politics) and ruthless persecution of all Christians who objected to Hitler, and furthermore the German people didn't know about Hitler's worst crimes, and they had a strong and highly logical bias in favor of him, and they had strong reasons for keeping silent even if they did object (the Gestapo). For all these reasons, Germany under the Third Riech really isn't that good an example of Christians being evil. Though there are far better examples you could point to. The Inquisition is probably the very best example of absolutely twisted wickedness practiced by Christians.

[Spock]

that's enough for this part; new section open