muslims PART 2

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Non-Christians so often use the wrong translation of that verse! I'm just mentioning this so that in the future you'll use the correct translation that comes from the actual Greek, "thou shalt not murder."

That's funny, I thought Exodus was originally in Hebrew, not Greek.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

That's funny, I thought Exodus was originally in Hebrew, not Greek.

I'm continually amazed at what people say is and isn't the correct translation as if they had traveled back to when a passage was written and got the answer from the authors mouth.

[inked]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

You're the one stuck on absolute certainty. I'm just saying that it appears that way. Your absolute thought patterns can't seem to grasp the idea that someone could actually admit to just not being sure but at the same time express an opinion about observations. You leave no room for middle ground or compromise.

I understand your point of view, yet you can not understand mine. That is the problem with the fundamentalist. They can not understand any point of view but their own.



I'd have to think that if there was a creator he would actually understand his creation better than you seem to and realize that some people would eventually come to the conclusions that I do.

BJ, you're the fundamentalist here. You insist on absolute relativism certainly and complain no one understands who states otherwise.

I on the other hand assert that there are absolutes. You understand that. You just don't like it!

Your conclusions are regarded by yourself with the same certainty as I regard mine. We both tell each other the other is wrong.

Are we two fundamentalist peas in a pod or are we two opinionated folks who disagree goodnaturedly?

Hmmmmm! I don't have any terrorist plans for you (humorous remarks about depleted uranium projectiles to the side, of course ). I'm not gonna take you to the Inquisition. I'm continuing dialogue with you. I'm really, really, really nice. Pretty much the same for you. ERGO, I'm not a fundamentalist unless you are!

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Ah, but the problem, Leify, is BJ is here changing what he means by 'fundamentalist'. He claims to define 'fundamentalist' as essentially anyone who considers religious rather than secular truths to be higher, but here he is using it in the more common sense of 'bigoted and intolerant'.

BJ, I say to you, good sir, sophistry! Shame on you and your sophistical ways!

No, fundamentalists are people who insist they know the answer, have always know the answer and will always know the answer. Non-fundamentalists (like me Inked ) admit that one can not be sure of anything. So we judge everything case by case, relative to the society at hand. What is good for one place/time is not always good for another.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

Hmmmmm! I don't have any terrorist plans for you (humorous remarks about depleted uranium projectiles to the side, of course ). I'm not gonna take you to the Inquisition. I'm continuing dialogue with you. I'm really, really, really nice. Pretty much the same for you. ERGO, I'm not a fundamentalist unless you are!

I don't mean to imply that fundamentalists can't be nice people. I'm just trying to illustrate that there are real world reasons behind the violent muslims, and real world examples of fundamentalist muslims who are in fact non violent (and the same can be said of any other fundamentalist religion). All I'm asking is for people to let go of the stereotypes a bit. The first step to peace is losing the "us and them". Looking past the belief systems.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

That's funny, I thought Exodus was originally in Hebrew, not Greek.

(excuse --> ) He's probably talking about Matthew 5, where Jesus quotes that I wonder if Jesus quoted it in Hebrew, or if he translated it into Aramaic, or what? Anyway, I believe it would have been written in Greek. Anyway, I can't see what the problem is about that verse, anyway it's TOTALLY obvious from context that it's "murder".

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

But I suggest you read more about the early KKK. You'll find that their motivations and actions had a lot more to do with reaction to northern occupation of the south than you may think. They were trying to protect their way of life. This involved slavery to a large degree, but that was only part of the picture.

Well I must say, I find the "you're wrong; go research" argument very convincing!

Though I know you put it far more politely.

But my point is that racism as an ideology was very strong in America long before the KKK. The KKK was the new expression of it, after slavery was abolished. But it was the same thing really, violence based on ideology. That's what it was by the time of the KKK. There was a great deal of fear of blacks with their ignorance and inferiority gaining power over whites and endangering society. I'll close down this line of speaking for now though, and wait for your evidence. And for you to respond to the rest of my post!

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

But they were christians, so any evidence that might parallel the muslim experience would be justified away I suppose.

I don't know. I think they do parallel the Muslims somewhat. I don't believe that Muslim extremism is caused solely by environment, but by ideology. I think the KKK also was ideology based, though doubtless influenced and by environment as well.

Originally Posted by Rian

(excuse --> ) He's probably talking about Matthew 5, where Jesus quotes that

I'm afraid you're being more generous than I deserve. It was a lapse of ignorance. I was under the impression that our earliest translations of all the Bible were in Greek. My bad .

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

So what is the solution?

Last time I explained what I thought was the solution, I got attacked from all quarters! And I know you'll disagree as well, with point 1 of my solution, anyway. You'd probably have to be a Christian to think there was value in point 1.

My solution basically is:

1# Bring an end to Islam through PEACEFUL PEACEFUL PEACEFUL evangelism ( people keep accusing me of trying to spread Christianity through force of arms; I MUST make this point clear!). Anyone Muslim isn't interested doesn't need to listen to the Christians. We'd leave alone anyone who isn't open. But Islam is a violent, dangerous religion, and the only way to bring a final solution to that problem in the long run is to end the religion completely.

2# Our government should support liberal, peaceful Muslim groups.

3# We should befriend Muslims on a personal, family level.

4# Our government should provide helpful and fair policies in the Middle East.


My view is that because Islam is an innately violent religion, so I don't believe that points 2-4 can be effective in the long term. We can always try though, of course. Doing these things may slow extremism down enough for us to gain time. Christians should involve themselves in point 1, and I know that many already are. I don't expect you or any non-Christians to agree with point 1. We could still work together, though, on points 2-4.

I think our government already is providing helpful and fair policies in the Middle East to some extent, though changes in some parts of our policies are necessary.

Point 3, I just don't know how much is being practiced. We probably need to do more with this.

Point 2 I think is happening.

Point 1 I know is happening, though if there were a greater emphasis on it in the Christian community, better results might be visible.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'm afraid you're being more generous than I deserve. It was a lapse of ignorance. I was under the impression that our earliest translations of all the Bible were in Greek. My bad .

[whisper]Don't admit it! It's a darn good excuse! Use it! [/whisper]

(just jokin', of course!)

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

[whisper]Don't admit it! It's a darn good excuse! Use it! [/whisper]

Oh, okay.

Everybody, I was quoting Jesus from the New Testament, NOT quoting the Old Testament!!!

Honest.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

But my point is that racism as an ideology was very strong in America long before the KKK. The KKK was the new expression of it, after slavery was abolished. But it was the same thing really, violence based on ideology. That's what it was by the time of the KKK. There was a great deal of fear of blacks with their ignorance and inferiority gaining power over whites and endangering society. I'll close down this line of speaking for now though, and wait for your evidence.

Read this entire page when you get the chance.

The Klan's first incarnation was in 1866. Founded by veterans of the Confederate Army, its main purpose was to resist Reconstruction, and it focused as much on intimidating "carpetbaggers" and "scalawags" as on putting down the freed slaves. It quickly adopted violent methods, and was involved in a wave of 1,300 murders of Republican voters in 1868. A rapid reaction set in, with the Klan's leadership disowning it, and Southern elites seeing the Klan as an excuse for federal troops to continue their activities in the South. The organization was in decline from 1868 to 1870, and was destroyed in the early 1870s by President Ulysses S. Grant's vigorous action under the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act).

The founding in 1915 of a second distinct group using the same name was inspired by the newfound power of the modern mass media, via the film The Birth of a Nation and inflammatory and anti-Semitic newspaper accounts surrounding the trial and lynching of accused murderer Leo Frank. The second KKK was a formal membership organization, with a national and state structure, that paid thousands of men to organize local chapters all over the country. Millions joined and at its peak in the 1920s the organization included about 15% of the nation's eligible population.[1] The second KKK typically preached Racism, anti-Catholicism, nativism, and anti-Semitism and some local groups took part in lynchings and other violent activities. Its popularity fell during the Great Depression, and membership fell again during World War II, due to scandals resulting from prominent members' crimes and support of the Nazis.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

1# Bring an end to Islam through PEACEFUL PEACEFUL PEACEFUL evangelism ( people keep accusing me of trying to spread Christianity through force of arms; I MUST make this point clear!). Anyone Muslim isn't interested doesn't need to listen to the Christians. We'd leave alone anyone who isn't open. But Islam is a violent, dangerous religion, and the only way to bring a final solution to that problem in the long run is to end the religion completely.

2# Our government should support liberal, peaceful Muslim groups.

3# We should befriend Muslims on a personal, family level.

4# Our government should provide helpful and fair policies in the Middle East.

I'd say #1 is unnecessary because of the existance already of #2. 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".

[Lief Erikson]

I find your evidence regarding the Klan strong, BJ, so I'll drop part of my Klan argument. You've proven to me that environment did provide fuel for the Klan, and I already accept that it provides fuel for Muslim extremism. I was making assumptions earlier that I shouldn't have made. Like you're saying, the Klan was trying to defend its way of life, and being occupied and feeling threatened did certainly provide food for the Klan to grow on.

It still is a big stretch, and an inaccurate one, to say environment was the only reason for the Klan, however. It was surely caused by environment as well as ideology. Any modern White Power person, and they'll say that the blacks are inferior to them. If you'd have asked most people in the South at that time, you'd have gotten the same answer. That's ideology, and much of the racism in the US is founded on that ideology.

You know, there were many race crimes going on against the blacks long before the Klan emerged. The Klan was really just a continuation of those race crimes. It would be pretty amazing if all such crimes stopped right after the Civil War!

The conquered still had the same mindset as they did before the war, as well as now anger against oppression, which (as you have now convinced me) provided fuel for their group and was one of its reasons for existing. Yet criminal behavior like the Klan represented would have certainly continued to exist after the Civil War, because of the mindset of the people.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Originally Posted by brownjenkins
The Klan sprung out of a christian society who felt occupied and threatened by another christian society after defeat during the civil war, and their methods were very similar to those of the muslims in the middle east today.

True that they are similar. And just as with the Muslim extremists, their violence would have existed whether there was an environment for it or no, but the environment fueled it. Their criminal behavior went back to before the Civil War, just as Islamic extremism finds its root throughout their history.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Oh, okay.

Everybody, I was quoting Jesus from the New Testament, NOT quoting the Old Testament!!!

Honest.

I'm convinced.

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Last time I explained what I thought was the solution, I got attacked from all quarters! And I know you'll disagree as well, with point 1 of my solution, anyway. You'd probably have to be a Christian to think there was value in point 1.

My solution basically is:

1# Bring an end to Islam through PEACEFUL PEACEFUL PEACEFUL evangelism ( people keep accusing me of trying to spread Christianity through force of arms; I MUST make this point clear!). Anyone Muslim isn't interested doesn't need to listen to the Christians. We'd leave alone anyone who isn't open. But Islam is a violent, dangerous religion, and the only way to bring a final solution to that problem in the long run is to end the religion completely.

.......
Point 1 I know is happening, though if there were a greater emphasis on it in the Christian community, better results might be visible.

I'll skip points 2,3, and 4- all good and necessary ideas, though it's certainly a question of how well they're being implemented; and also skip that I disagree that Islam is so fundamentally violent that there's no chance of it being reformed.

The problem with point 1 is that, even if it were desirable, there is, realistically, about 0% chance of it working.

If you look at the three great Western monotheisms (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) and the main Eastern religions (Hinduism, Buddhism and that Buddhist/Taoist/Confucianist syncretism we can call 'Chinese' religion),
you can group them as 'developed' religions- their main teachings are written down, they have fully developed ethical systems and cosmologies, they all claim to be universalist (Judaism and Hinduism in their own way).

Cases of conversion from one of these to any of the others are few and far between, especially in modern times; almost all examples of missionary success have come against more quote unquote 'backward' religions- animists and pagans; usually in the context of a more powerful civilisation confronting a weaker one, peacefully or otherwise.

The Muslim conversion of Bangla Desh is one, and that took a combination of political conquest, the Hindu caste system which condemned much of the Bengali population to a low status, and the development of a Sufist brand uf Islam which incorporated a lot of local Hindu/Buddhist beliefs and practises, and is viewed suspiciously by other Muslims.


The only other one I can think of is the partial success of Christianity in South Korea, where about one-third of the population have been converted ( and I suspect that a lot of Koreans are Christian the same way that Poles are Catholic).

To convert a population that is 1.3 billion, is growing fast, and lives primarily in countries controlled by members of their own religion?- I don't think that there's much chance of that happening, certainly not fast enough to have any effect on the GWoT.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

The problem with point 1 is that, even if it were desirable, there is, realistically, about 0% chance of it working.

You say that because you don't believe in the power of the Holy Spirit.

I actually also find it unlikely that God will choose to completely end Islam in this way, though I think it is possible and there is a historical precedent of God moving in this way. However, I believe it is essential that Christians make a stab at this, whether Islam is completely eliminated or not. I am convinced that Christians' dedication at this in the hands of God will save lives.

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

If you look at the three great Western monotheisms (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) and the main Eastern religions (Hinduism, Buddhism and that Buddhist/Taoist/Confucianist syncretism we can call 'Chinese' religion), you can group them as 'developed' religions- their main teachings are written down, they have fully developed ethical systems and cosmologies, they all claim to be universalist (Judaism and Hinduism in their own way).

Cases of conversion from one of these to any of the others are few and far between, especially in modern times; almost all examples of missionary success have come against more quote unquote 'backward' religions- animists and pagans; usually in the context of a more powerful civilisation confronting a weaker one, peacefully or otherwise.

Then there also are major counter examples, such as the millions of people converting to Christianity right now in Africa, the way the Lord peacefully transformed Ireland through Saint Patrick, and the way Christianity spread like wildfire under the oppression of Jewish and Roman authorities.

I disagree with your terming currently weakened or nonexistent historical religions "backward" religions. Historical religions, animist and pagan, often drew as much belief as the major religions of today do. The major peaceful transformations of historical times were just as significant as major peaceful transformations in modern times would be. Historical major religions were powerful in their time. Modern major religions are powerful in our time. In the future, different major religions will probably exist in great power. Let's keep a sense of perspective .

[Rían]

I certainly don't think Islam will disappear, and I think there is no solution, in this world, to the problem of world peace (or lack thereof, actually). If you solve one area, another will pop up. Not that we should stop striving, because it's always right to strive for good, but IMO that problem will never be solved in this world.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I certainly don't think Islam will disappear, and I think there is no solution, in this world, to the problem of world peace (or lack thereof, actually). If you solve one area, another will pop up. Not that we should stop striving, because it's always right to strive for good, but IMO that problem will never be solved in this world.

I agree.

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

You say that because you don't believe in the power of the Holy Spirit.

No, I don't, so I can only go on the historical record.

Then there also are major counter examples, such as the millions of people converting to Christianity right now in Africa, the way the Lord peacefully transformed Ireland through Saint Patrick, and the way Christianity spread like wildfire under the oppression of Jewish and Roman authorities.

None of which fit the conditions I was talking about.
In Africa,they are converting from animism; Islam is also growing by conversion there. Historically far more Christians have converted to Islam than vice-versa, (North Africa and the Eastern Roman Empire) but even then it took conquest, legal discrimination- which you explicitly rule out- and hundreds of years.

I disagree with your terming currently weakened or nonexistent historical religions "backward" religions. Historical religions, animist and pagan, often drew as much belief as the major religions of today do. The major peaceful transformations of historical times were just as significant as major peaceful transformations in modern times would be. Historical major religions were powerful in their time. Modern major religions are powerful in our time. In the future, different major religions will probably exist in great power. Let's keep a sense of perspective .

No, I think there is a qualitative difference between the modern religions I cited and their predecessors. For a start, most if not all pagan religions were tied to a particular tribe or nation and its customs or history. It's been argued that the universalist religions arose with the appearance of multinational Empires, when people realised that their own local gods were pretty small in the overall picture.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

No, I don't, so I can only go on the historical record.

And the historical record is valuable to go by. But as I said before, "You'd probably have to be a Christian to think there was value in point 1." I still think that's true, so your disagreeing doesn't surprise me at all. If I was listening to a Hindu talking about doing the same thing, I also would have very high doubts about the possibility of transforming the whole religion. But all I'm talking about now is saving lives. I don't really believe there will be a complete transformation. Every little bit helps.

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

None of which fit the conditions I was talking about.
In Africa,they are converting from animism; Islam is also growing by conversion there. Historically far more Christians have converted to Islam than vice-versa, (North Africa and the Eastern Roman Empire) but even then it took conquest, legal discrimination- which you explicitly rule out- and hundreds of years.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

No, I think there is a qualitative difference between the modern religions I cited and their predecessors. For a start, most if not all pagan religions were tied to a particular tribe or nation and its customs or history. It's been argued that the universalist religions arose with the appearance of multinational Empires, when people realised that their own local gods were pretty small in the overall picture.

There is some truth in this, but we shouldn't take it too far and make it into a generalization. I know there were pagans in Russia who were seeking the true God, and they came to Byzantium to find out if Christ was the true God. Upon seeing the splendor of the city and its courts and palaces, they declared, "here God dwells on Earth!" So I know there is some truth in that.

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.

Many religions of the past didn't deny that gods aside from their own existed. They accepted the existence of many gods, so their beliefs were universalist, or all accepting. They weren't theologically limited. The Roman religion was a spectacular example of this. When they encountered new gods, they accepted them and moved on. Their religion was little different from the ones that came before, but it was universalist enough that they could just embrace everyone. Christianity, on the other hand, wasn't nearly so accepting. In spite of the efforts of Roman and Jewish authorities, it spread like wildfire. It started out small and with every disadvantage, but it won everywhere.

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.

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.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I certainly don't think Islam will disappear, and I think there is no solution, in this world, to the problem of world peace (or lack thereof, actually). If you solve one area, another will pop up. Not that we should stop striving, because it's always right to strive for good, but IMO that problem will never be solved in this world.

I disagree. I think the solution is bringing people together. Much of the large-scale violence in our world is a result of cultures misunderstanding one another and thus seeing each other as threats. The "us and them" I spoke of, instead of thinking of the whole world as "us". The USA is a great example of how radically divergent cultures can learn to live with one another, yet still keep their unique cultures. We have our disagreements all the time, but it rarely comes down to real violence.

Now we just have to spread that acceptance and tolerance which we have among our fellow citizens to the rest of the world. No easy task, but it will happen in time. I think we've come a long way in the past few thousand years and will keep moving towards a more global society, though many will continue to fight it kicking and screaming.

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

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I disagree. I think the solution is bringing people together. Much of the large-scale violence in our world is a result of cultures misunderstanding one another and thus seeing each other as threats.

Then I rather expect you would approve of Chamberlain's response to Hitler.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The "us and them" I spoke of, instead of thinking of the whole world as "us".

Except fundamentalists, people who shouldn't be allowed into the government . The only "us" you accept are fellow liberals.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The USA is a great example of how radically divergent cultures can learn to live with one another, yet still keep their unique cultures. We have our disagreements all the time, but it rarely comes down to real violence.

Now we just have to spread that acceptance and tolerance which we have among our fellow citizens to the rest of the world. No easy task, but it will happen in time. I think we've come a long way in the past few thousand years and will keep moving towards a more global society, though many will continue to fight it kicking and screaming.

The 20th century has been marked by two World Wars, as well as the Cold War and other major conflicts. Our technology has improved and our philosophies and religious views have changed. Anyone at almost any stage in human history could say the same, looking at the past. Yet violent, sinful human nature has not changed at all.

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.

AGAIN, you accuse us of trying to "make" them become like us.