Theological Opinions

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Rian - My response to the OT verses on circumcision of the heart is the same as I've said before... yes, you do have to also follow God's laws (circumcision of the heart), to be Jewish you also need the other circumcision.

CC - I don't have your Jewish heritage, but I might well agree with you on this. I think Paul, who wrote much of the New Testament would as well (he was Jewish, of course).

You probably know about Messianic Jews, don't you? They are Jews by birth, but they have become convinced that Jesus is the Messiah for whom they were waiting. My understanding is that they continue to be "Jewish" in every way - following all of their traditions, but that they consider Jesus to be the Messiah. I've even heard use of the term 'Completed Jew' rather than 'Converted Jew' (and I don't know what kinds of experiences, if any, you may have had in these regards, so I don't intend any offense here).

It was similar in the early days of the Christian Church. All of the earliest Christians were Jewish. They all continued to keep the whole law. Finally, the gospel of Jesus reached the Gentiles as well (through the Jewish-Christian messengers), and the Jewish leadership was of two minds; some thought that all Gentiles who became Christians should have to accept all the traditions of Judaism. Others thought that was too much for them to bear - and suggested more minimal requirements. It was the latter group who won out - there's an interesting account of it in Acts 15 (and in fact - we see outreach to the Gentiles beginning more substantially from Acts 10 onward). I wonder if they were thinking, "Oi vey ( ),... Jesus didn't tell us what to do about THIS!"

Anyway - when the Romans came in and booted everyone out of Palestine in about 65 to 70 AD, I think that triggered further separation between Jews who were Christians and Jews who were not. And... I think it became difficult for later generations of Christians who were descended from Jews to continue their Jewish practices - when those they worshipped with did not do so.

I think it is very valid though for Jews who become Christians to follow the entire Jewish Law - especially if their conscience dictates that they do so. I also think though that most of them do not consider themselves saved by following the Law, but by the grace of Jesus - but that it's right for them to follow the Law anyway.

If you're at all interested in checking it out, I've heard that the gospel according to Matthew (the first book in the New Testament - and the first four are all 'gospels' - accounts of the life of Jesus) resonates most easily with Jews. Acts (fifth book) is early church history after Jesus - and can be fun if you're interested in the historical aspect. Most of the rest of the NT is 'epistles' or letters - and some good basic ones are Romans (lots of exposition on 'law' vs 'grace'), Hebrews and James (both of which are specifically addressed to Jews) (if you want to sort of take a 'self-guided' tour to see how Christianity is so tightly tied to Judaism - and how much more so it was perceived to be in the First Century AD).

[inked]

An interesting review of a book re: the fastest growing religion in the world:
evangelical Christianity- http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/m...p?storyid=2415

[inked]

And, for those who might be interested in the warm fuzziness of Islam in Saudi Arabia:

http://www.nysun.com/article/13103

Note particularly the last sentence of the article...rather chillingly direct.

[Insidious Rex]

More christian cheerleading I see. Goooooo CHRISTIANS! Beat those Muslims! We're the BEST because theres so many of us! And Muslims play dirty and KILL people! Yay!

[inked]

IR, I see you still suffer from situs inversus! Seriously, if it were reversed, would you be saying the same? Just a genteel reminder that all religions are not created equal............ .

Visualize whirled peas!

[Spock]

I think before we start bashing religions of the world, remember the Crusades which basically was fighting to stop Islam from conquering the known world. *check your history and see the extent of Islam conquered states at that period*. Then there is China which is systematically arresting and killing Christians within its borders and Tibetians, to this very day.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

Seriously, if it were reversed, would you be saying the same?

If this message board was dominated by muslims who continually spouted on about how much better Islam is then Christianity and how christianity was just a religion of death? Yep I sure would. In fact I have and I do on a number of other message boards with a much less christian bend. Thats what happens when you can have an open mind about the situation.

[inked]

IR,
Excellent. Equal opportunity criticism on Islamic and Christian issues on boards. So how do "feel" about the situation in Saudi Arabia in regards to human rights and freedom of religion as, say, compared to the EU or USA?

[inked]

IR,

Criticise this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../04/do0402.xml

I'd transpose it but then I'd be accused of verbosity!

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

IR,
Excellent. Equal opportunity criticism on Islamic and Christian issues on boards. So how do "feel" about the situation in Saudi Arabia in regards to human rights and freedom of religion as, say, compared to the EU or USA?

Wont catch me too often cheerleading Saudi Arabi for their often backward policies and their restrictions on human rights. At the same time keep in mind that their government is largely western friendly and that we (the US) is a lot better off with the super rich largely secular royal family involved then having them collapse and winding up with super conservative intollerant radicals in power and in control of the largest oil reserve on earth. religion and government is almost always a bad combination. whether is muslims with oil or christians with the strongest army on earth and a supposed mandate to wipe out "immoral" behavior. you see... this is the danger of having religious fanatics in charge of governments...

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

IR,

Criticise this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../04/do0402.xml

Pretty pro-christian. The supposition being oh christianity always leads to perfect democratic peaceful civilizations and islam always leads to dogmatic restrictive religious societies where citizens have no rights and everything is like the Taliban. Funny how these folk complain about how awful good ole England could be under vicious evil Muslim rule now if it wasnt for the Crusades but no one complains about the Normans or the Saxons or the Angles or the Jutes who all invaded England in their day and all successfully conquered the local folk of that time and have since established much of their culture into the country as we know it today. The reason you dont hear much complaining about that is because, other then say deep in Wales or way up in the Highlands somewhere, these people ARE the descendants of those people. So what are they going to complain about? I protest being ME? And funny how we don’t hear complaints about the many other Christian empires over the centuries who have conquered territory under the dubious declaration of “gods will” or “manifest destiny”. Perhaps just perhaps if the Muslims had held their European territory they would now be the laid back "western voice of reason" in the world and the christians would be the foaming at the mouth militant crazies that the muslims often get painted as today. In fact that’s much how it was when the Moors were in power in Spain. They ushered in one of the most amazing eras of architecture and science and education among their citizenry the world has ever known. Meanwhile the Europeans were in a relatively barbaric age with no central power or source of connection. So if they “won” the crusades which apparently were quite necessary to “save the world” then why aren’t we all wild barbaric Europeans right now? Or at least still living in feudal communes composed of serfs and a rich lord? Its ridiculous to criticize an interpretation of an event from 1000 years ago from the context of the present day.

[inked]

Attribution to Erik Nelson at midwest conservative journal blog:

"This is one of those areas where the historical illiteracy of most Americans causes severe problems. Few seem to understand that the Crusades were a response to the invasion of Europe. Fewer seem to know that Christians eventually lost the battle with Islam in the Holy Land, even though it did eventually drive out the invasion from a good deal of Europe (though not, as we well know, from Eastern Europe and the Balkans). It is difficult to learn the difficult historical lessons of the Islamic invasions and the Crusades unless those telling the story are honest. Sir Ridley Scott's tale (like Sir Walter Scott's tale before him, and from which the new story is derived) paint fantasies, not histories. When shoehorned into modern political correctness, the lessons cannot be learned. In fact, they may be lost forever. Ridley Scott's tall tale will, in the end, only exacerbate the trends he wishes to avoid by sanitizing history and obscuring, rather than revealing, the truth."

If the Islamics had won, history would have been different, IR. So, too, if Germany had won either WWI or II.

What you did was rabidly attack Christianity again primarily. Now, how about that equal opportunity assessment ?

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Pretty pro-christian. The supposition being oh christianity always leads to perfect democratic peaceful civilizations and islam always leads to dogmatic restrictive religious societies where citizens have no rights and everything is like the Taliban. Funny how these folk complain about how awful good ole England could be under vicious evil Muslim rule now if it wasnt for the Crusades but no one complains about the Normans or the Saxons or the Angles or the Jutes who all invaded England in their day and all successfully conquered the local folk of that time and have since established much of their culture into the country as we know it today.

It's funny you should say that, because until about a hundred years ago there was still a clear distinction drawn between pre- and post-Conquest England, with the Normans very much imagined as oppressors of an idealised 'true' England. The Victorians were fascinated with the effect of the 'Norman yoke' , and it's possible to see Tolkien as engaging in the same kind of ideas with the Shire. Also, the Vikings don't exactly get a good press even today. Maybe it's only because these days most people couldn't tell you the date of the battle of Hastings that we don't complain any more

/diversion

And funny how we don’t hear complaints about the many other Christian empires over the centuries who have conquered territory under the dubious declaration of “gods will” or “manifest destiny”.

Well... maybe this is a US/UK difference, but religious empire-building is generally looked on as completely unjustifiable today. Britain, along with other European countries, carries a lot of guilt about its imperialist past.

In fact that’s much how it was when the Moors were in power in Spain. They ushered in one of the most amazing eras of architecture and science and education among their citizenry the world has ever known. Meanwhile the Europeans were in a relatively barbaric age with no central power or source of connection. So if they “won” the crusades which apparently were quite necessary to “save the world” then why aren’t we all wild barbaric Europeans right now? Or at least still living in feudal communes composed of serfs and a rich lord?

Not because of the Moors. We're talking about the 12th century - it wasn't that barbaric. European civilisation developed and grew, out of barbarism and out of feudalism, into what we have today. Certainly Islamic civilisation was in many ways ahead of the West at the time, but it doesn't follow that the West couldn't have developed independently.

Its ridiculous to criticize an interpretation of an event from 1000 years ago from the context of the present day.

Yes - isn't that Christopher Howse's argument? That should of course preclude adapting the Crusades to any of today's Islam/Christianity issues, in a way he doesn't quite avoid doing

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

What you did was rabidly attack Christianity again primarily. Now, how about that equal opportunity assessment ?

Hey you posted yet another item attempting to yet again make islam the bad guy and christianity the good guy. Yah christianity! *pom poms* Try again with an equal opportunity commentary (and one that has a clue what they are talking about) and youll have your assesment.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by sun-star

Also, the Vikings don't exactly get a good press even today. Maybe it's only because these days most people couldn't tell you the date of the battle of Hastings that we don't complain any more

how do those of viking decent in England (they interbred quite a bit) find offense in their heritage exactly? or is the racial division still that clear? You guys certainly look all the same to us Yanks Ill tell you.

Well... maybe this is a US/UK difference, but religious empire-building is generally looked on as completely unjustifiable today. Britain, along with other European countries, carries a lot of guilt about its imperialist past.

yes religious empire-building (what we call "colonialism") is looked down upon here too because, conveniently, for the most part we missed out on it being a colony ourself. So its easy to cast dispersions on the old traditional big boys for imposing their iron fist on those who werent looking to be colonized. But then of course we choose to ignore the disgraceful episodes we have had here with the native american population. probably because they still live among us largely a broken people save a few casinos. But we justified stealing their land and attempting to exterminate them into extintion by saying it was our "manifest destiny" as gods chosen nation.

Not because of the Moors. We're talking about the 12th century - it wasn't that barbaric. European civilisation developed and grew, out of barbarism and out of feudalism, into what we have today. Certainly Islamic civilisation was in many ways ahead of the West at the time, but it doesn't follow that the West couldn't have developed independently.

12th century or 11th? Id say up until the 11th it was pretty much a fuedal mix of minor lords and land owners. No real central power source. They were fighting each other as much as if not more then they were fighting outsiders. Even in the centuries after that it was still true. Armagnacs against Burgundians in France. The War of the Roses in your jolly old England. Italian cities fighting each other. Spanish kingdoms fighting each other. Probably wasnt until the 14th or 15th century or so that we saw Europe really begin to blossom in all its glory. Then the Renaissance hit.

That should of course preclude adapting the Crusades to any of today's Islam/Christianity issues, in a way he doesn't quite avoid doing

yes my point exactly.

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

how do those of viking decent in England (they interbred quite a bit) find offense in their heritage exactly? or is the racial division still that clear? You guys certainly look all the same to us Yanks Ill tell you.

'Interbred' is a polite way of putting it... there have been some interesting studies done into Viking DNA and descent because of the raping part of 'raping and pillaging'. It's still a north/south divide though - you just have to look at the place names and local dialect of the north and south of England to see Saxon/Viking differences. The physical racial difference isn't that clear - though Saxons are supposed to be blond

As for the attitude to the Normans, most of the baddies in English literature have French/Norman names - look at the Harry Potter series for proof (Potter, Weasley, Dumbledore vs. Malfoy, Voldemort, Lestrange ). English dislike of the French starts in 1066 and shows no signs of ending yet.

12th century or 11th? Id say up until the 11th it was pretty much a fuedal mix of minor lords and land owners. No real central power source. They were fighting each other as much as if not more then they were fighting outsiders. Even in the centuries after that it was still true. Armagnacs against Burgundians in France. The War of the Roses in your jolly old England. Italian cities fighting each other. Spanish kingdoms fighting each other. Probably wasnt until the 14th or 15th century or so that we saw Europe really begin to blossom in all its glory. Then the Renaissance hit.

The Crusades are 11th-12th century, and this new film is set in 1186, so I said 12th. I certainly agree that there was infighting and feudalism at that time - Europe was fighting each other right up the 20th century. Even today there's 'no real central power source'. That doesn't mean Europe didn't blossom (to use your word) independently over the next few centuries. Infighting and cultural development aren't incompatible.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by sun star

As for the attitude to the Normans, most of the baddies in English literature have French/Norman names - look at the Harry Potter series for proof (Potter, Weasley, Dumbledore vs. Malfoy, Voldemort, Lestrange ). English dislike of the French starts in 1066 and shows no signs of ending yet.

hey, that's not fair! muy father's name (dawson) is not the saon variation of the name (dawson, davison, davidson etc = son of david) but a debased form of the french d'Orsonne, an ancient, noble family, or so i'm told

[Spock]

..that's ok Chrys, "it's only a flesh wound".

[Falagar]

Originally Posted by sun-star

'Interbred' is a polite way of putting it... there have been some interesting studies done into Viking DNA and descent because of the raping part of 'raping and pillaging'. It's still a north/south divide though - you just have to look at the place names and local dialect of the north and south of England to see Saxon/Viking differences. The physical racial difference isn't that clear - though Saxons are supposed to be blond

There weren't just rapings, lots of Vikings settled there, mixed with the original population and started more peaceful lives, if I'm not much mistaken (York is an example of one of their settlements)

[sun-star]

This is what I mean about the bad press they get...