Muslims

[Nurvingiel]

Well, I haven't seen Lawrence of Arabia (???), if that's where the quote is from.

Out of context it is definitely racist. Maybe in context of the movie it would not seem that way?

Let's examine:

T.E. Lawrence: So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people - greedy, barbarous, and cruel, as you are.

1. If Arabs were not called Arabs then, why does he say that?
2. If his point is that if the people of the area want to do something great they need to stop fighting amongst each other and get organised, calling them little, silly, barbarous, and cruel is not only uncalled for, but still racist. (Especially the last three.)

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

1# First, work at putting an end to Islam altogether by bringing them to Christ through a loving Christian witness and through prayer.

Purify our church and witness, and use evangelization to reach out to those countries. That I see as the only final solution, since I don't believe that in the final analysis we can change Islam's true and bloody nature through normal methods. Several Christian groups are working at bringing Muslims to Christ and supporting Christian minorities that already live in Muslim lands. I won't underestimate the Holy Spirit's ability to accomplish incredible feats through his church. The real nature of Islam is a violent nature, and it must be destroyed. The only lasting way to do that is to destroy the whole religion, in my view, though again, NOT VIOLENTLY. Violence cannot be the final answer, here. Love and showing God's goodness through our actions, as well as praying in the Spirit is the answer.

But if so many muslims in this world are in fact both peaceful and devout in their beliefs (you admit it yourself), and take a much more peaceful interpretation to their scriptures, why complicate matters by also insisting that they must convert to christianity?

If they can all be made more aware of the benefits of living at peace with the rest of the world, why does the christian part matter? Is the goal peace or converts?

Your points seem to imply that in the end only christians can be peaceful, even after I have given many examples when christians have been anything but that.

The problem in my mind is people relying too much on scripture and too little about the real world. If anything, we should encourage them to free themselves of that restraint. Not embrace a different one.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

But if so many muslims in this world are in fact both peaceful and devout in their beliefs (you admit it yourself), and take a much more peaceful interpretation to their scriptures, why complicate matters by also insisting that they must convert to christianity?

Because it is not the real nature of Islam that we're seeing in the current Muslim liberalism. Rather, what we're currently observing is a temporary and highly recent phenomenon that is already losing power to fundamentalism. I don't think liberalism can dominate in the long run- only in the short term. Therefore working to strengthen liberalism is fighting a delaying action, beneficial in the short-term (and the short-term does matter), but there needs to be a long-term course of action as well. From a secular viewpoint, strengthening liberalism may be the only positive option available. The Christian worldview presents another option that in theory takes peace an extremely important step further. Don't worry- Jesus called Christians to spread the gospel of peace around the world. I'm not asking you to do the same .

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Your points seem to imply that in the end only christians can be peaceful, even after I have given many examples when christians have been anything but that.

I have to differentiate here between real Christians and fake Christians. Real Christians are Christians who have Jesus living in them. Fake Christians are Christians who don't. Real Christians do what Jesus says because Jesus is transforming them and making them pure. Fake Christians don't do what Jesus says as often because Jesus is not inside them, transforming them. Both Jesus and Paul spoke about fake believers. They are real, and many of the faults with Christianity is due to this. I'm not talking about spreading fake Christianity either, but real Christianity, and therefore spreading peace rather than violence.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The problem in my mind is people relying too much on scripture and too little about the real world. If anything, we should encourage them to free themselves of that restraint. Not embrace a different one.

You think this way because you don't believe either religion is true. I strongly disagree. My strategy point number 1 comes strictly from my Christian worldview, and I wouldn't ask any non-Christian to share it.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

2. If his point is that if the people of the area want to do something great they need to stop fighting amongst each other and get organised, calling them little, silly, barbarous, and cruel is not only uncalled for, but still racist. (Especially the last three.)

I think that this is what he meant. Lawrence had a lot of experience with the Arab natives, and based on his experience he called them lilttle, silly, barbarous and cruel. He may very possibly have been right. I don't know what the Arab tribes he was dealing with were like at that time. But he was saying that they were this way because of the violence. That's not racism. He never said, "So long as Arabs exist, so long will they be a little people, a silly people - greedy, barbarous, and cruel, as you are." He said, "So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people - greedy, barbarous, and cruel, as you are." There's a major difference. The way he actually said it is not racist- it's a commentary on the violence he's seen and how it weakens and reduces to a low state all the Arab tribes involved. There is a critically important difference.

Saying that these Arab tribes are silly, barbarous and cruel is not racist unless he's saying they are that way because they are Arab. But he says they are that way because of internal fighting. That is very different.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Saying that these Arab tribes are silly, barbarous and cruel is not racist unless he's saying they are that way because they are Arab. But he says they are that way because of internal fighting. That is very different.

Hmm... *ponders*

[HOBBIT]

If a muslim were to read this he would be very offended :P

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Saying that these Arab tribes are silly, barbarous and cruel is not racist unless he's saying they are that way because they are Arab. But he says they are that way because of internal fighting. That is very different.

My point exactly.

And if he were to visit America and observed a bunch of, say, Bostonians doing the same thing, then he could make that same comment about Bostonians.

He was OBSERVING a BEHAVIOR among people he was CURRENTLY LIVING AMONG, and made a judgement on the BEHAVIOR, and said that the BEHAVIOR (i.e., the infighting) made them, IHO, "a little people, a silly people - greedy, barbarous, and cruel."

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The problem in my mind is people relying too much on scripture and too little about the real world. If anything, we should encourage them to free themselves of that restraint. Not embrace a different one.

Everyone has their own "restraint", whether or not it's written down, even you! It's called a worldview.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I disagree. I think it would be an interesting question because it would SHOW what one ACTUALLY thinks, regardless of PC-ness or other motives, known or unknown.

It would SHOW what one ACTUALLY thinks about which is best, Christendom or Islam, though wouldn't it?

Also, your comment implies an accusation of dishonesty, as if people like me don't genuinely believe what we are saying.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Hang with me a minute, Gaffer, because I think you're wrong. Here's why - that could be said about ANY group of people that was caught up in in-fighting. Lawrence happened to observe a particular group of people that was actually doing just that, and so he made that comment about the particular group that he saw, and qualified it with a "so long as", which means that IHO, they might stop one day. If he had said something like, "Arabs ALWAYS will do such-and-such merely because they're Arabs", then I think that would qualify as racist. DO you see the subtle but important difference?

I see that is a possible interpretation of that statement, and I know enough about T.E. Lawrence to know it is the context in which he meant it. However, when we take the words of others and put them into another context, things may be different. The statement on its own is saying that Arabs, whether through nature or circumstance, are "greedy, barbarous, and cruel". In what way is that NOT racist?

A big thank you to spock for providing empirical evidence of my thesis.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

It would SHOW what one ACTUALLY thinks about which is best, Christendom or Islam, though wouldn't it?

And is anything wrong with that? If so, why? What's wrong with evaluations? We do it all the time, and many times it's vitally important. As long as we realize that it's not a wholesale statement about all Christians or Muslims, why would it be wrong?

You seem to have opinions about your gov't (IIRC, you once told me that I, as a descendant of Robert the Bruce, should make a run for the crown and I would prob. be better than Charles! ) So why not have an opinion about which (Islam/Christianity) is a better base for a government/society in general? Why are you so hesitant about doing that?

Also, your comment implies an accusation of dishonesty, as if people like me don't genuinely believe what we are saying.

No, no, I don't think you're dishonest at ALL! Although I think some people are dishonest, I don't think YOU are, by any means! What I meant by that comment, as far as it concerned YOU, was that I think you might have something going on here that I often find in myself - I think theoretically that I would do one thing, but when it comes down to it I do another thing. I was suggesting that you apply kind of a "rubber meets the road" test in order to see IF - repeat IF - your theoretical might be different than your actual without you realizing it. That's why I used the word "unknown".

I hope that makes some sort of sense. I don't think you are dishonest at ALL, Gaffer! You know I really appreciate and like you! What I was doing was pressing you to further self-examination, in the same way that I press myself and have found informational (for lack of a better word - it's very late here on this side of the pond).

I see that is a possible interpretation of that statement, and I know enough about T.E. Lawrence to know it is the context in which he meant it. However, when we take the words of others and put them into another context, things may be different. The statement on its own is saying that Arabs, whether through nature or circumstance, are "greedy, barbarous, and cruel". In what way is that NOT racist?

I just don't see that statement saying that I see it saying that IF they stay in the infighting state that was observed, then they are, but that could apply to ANY race/people ...

But I don't know squat about Lawrence, either ...

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And is anything wrong with that? If so, why? What's wrong with evaluations? We do it all the time, and many times it's vitally important. As long as we realize that it's not a wholesale statement about all Christians or Muslims, why would it be wrong?

You seem to have opinions about your gov't (IIRC, you once told me that I, as a descendant of Robert the Bruce, should make a run for the crown and I would prob. be better than Charles! ) So why not have an opinion about which (Islam/Christianity) is a better base for a government/society in general? Why are you so hesitant about doing that?

No, no, I don't think you're dishonest at ALL! Although I think some people are dishonest, I don't think YOU are, by any means! What I meant by that comment, as far as it concerned YOU, was that I think you might have something going on here that I often find in myself - I think theoretically that I would do one thing, but when it comes down to it I do another thing. I was suggesting that you apply kind of a "rubber meets the road" test in order to see IF - repeat IF - your theoretical might be different than your actual without you realizing it. That's why I used the word "unknown".

I hope that makes some sort of sense. I don't think you are dishonest at ALL, Gaffer! You know I really appreciate and like you! What I was doing was pressing you to further self-examination, in the same way that I press myself and have found informational (for lack of a better word - it's very late here on this side of the pond).

Thanks for your reply, considerate as ever. (You might well make a better job of it than Charles.) I didn't take it as a direct accusation, by the way. It does make sense, but I think you've got the wrong end of the stick.

Just because I strongly disagree with your position doesn't mean I want to run off and live in Syria. I honestly don't see how that fact has any bearing on the discussion. I just don't see how the "better" and "worse" debate is a helpful level of detail at which to inform cross-cultural understanding..

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I just don't see that statement saying that I see it saying that IF they stay in the infighting state that was observed, then they are, but that could apply to ANY race/people ...

But I don't know squat about Lawrence, either ...

OK, that's how you see it. Fair dos.

Lief, I totally agree with your points #2 to #4, but have a massive problem with #1, which amounts to:


Can't we just agree to get to work on 2, 3 and 4 and, who knows, maybe 1 will follow?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Everyone has their own "restraint", whether or not it's written down, even you! It's called a worldview.

Yes, but my worldview attempts to embrace the fact that individuals will always have different worldviews, yet tries to find common ground because I've seen it found in my own country. People with vastly different moralities can live side by side and respect one another's differences.

Lief's worldview basically says that the only real solution is to make everyone the same. Something that many have tried in the past and has eventually ended in nothing but grief.

When I bring up the peaceful muslim he says it is a "temporary and highly recent phenomenon", and when I bring up the violent christian it is a "fake christian".

To me, this is the essential flaw with the fundamentalists on both side (muslims as well). There is absolutely nothing anyone can say or do to get the other side to even consider compromise. I won't say that it is good or bad, because that is a subjective judgement, but it is a worldview that is doomed to perpetuate the current issues for all eternity.

It's depressing, 'cause I do appreciate your intelligence Lief, and RÃ*an as well.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Well, I haven't seen Lawrence of Arabia (???), if that's where the quote is from.

Out of context it is definitely racist. Maybe in context of the movie it would not seem that way?

TRUE

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Let's examine:

T.E. Lawrence: So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people - greedy, barbarous, and cruel, as you are.

1. If Arabs were not called Arabs then, why does he say that?

HE coined the phrase and in the film the ruling prince said "who are these arabs, I know of no such people, I know of hawitat, etc.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

2. If his point is that if the people of the area want to do something great they need to stop fighting amongst each other and get organised, calling them little, silly, barbarous, and cruel is not only uncalled for, but still racist. (Especially the last three.)

NO it isn't. At that time they were all three (all the tribes) and if in today's context you don't think that decapitation, killing for changing religions, cutting off hands, etc. etc., is not barbarous, then I don't wonder your confused.
And with all the wealth of 'some' of the countries, the fact that they don't suuport (humanitarian and monetary aide) their brothers, is petty and a bit silly when those countries badger the US for more aid.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by HOBBIT

If a muslim were to read this he would be very offended :P

If anyone with an open mind and a knowledge of the film and the times of T.E. Lawrence were to read this, THEY would understand.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Yes, but my worldview attempts to embrace the fact that individuals will always have different worldviews, yet tries to find common ground because I've seen it found in my own country. People with vastly different moralities can live side by side and respect one another's differences.

Even Buddhists have turned to violence (Sri Lanka). Any worldview can, because people can.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

When I bring up the peaceful muslim he says it is a "temporary and highly recent phenomenon", and when I bring up the violent christian it is a "fake christian".

Remember that when we were actually debating the subject, I never made this argument, because I'm aware that it is rooted in my personal faith and not in anything tangible that you can see. I argued instead on another basis I consider to be very valid- the basis of history. I looked at the number of examples of Christian or Muslim atrocities that have been done of the name of each faith and drew up evidence that the Muslims are responsible for more. I also argued that while of course you must look at history and culture, you must also look at how religion influences man, and based on the ideological nature of modern and some historical invasions in the name of Islam, it is clear that Mohammed interpreted Islam in a violent way and so have many of his followers. I compared Christianity and Islam based on their histories, NOT by the claim the only real Christians are good and the only real Muslims are bad.

I only made the point about real Christians and fake Christians to describe what kind of Christianity would be spread in Muslim lands and why it wouldn't be violent. I personally have enough respect for Muslims that I am convinced no Christianity could stick to them except the real deal, because they have grown up so strongly rooted in Islam. Islam is a highly moral faith in many respects, and I don't think many of them would abandon it for anything less.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

To me, this is the essential flaw with the fundamentalists on both side (muslims as well). There is absolutely nothing anyone can say or do to get the other side to even consider compromise.

If I didn't view Islam as by nature violent, I wouldn't claim that it must be destroyed. But if I viewed it as by nature violent and aggressive, and said "let's compromise," I'd be making the same mistake Chamberlain made when dealing with Hitler (not that I'm claiming all Muslims or many Muslims are like Hitler- I'm talking about Chamberlain). Of course, I think all religions other than Christianity lead people astray from God in one way or another, but Islam I see as a particularly dangerous religion.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I won't say that it is good or bad, because that is a subjective judgement, but it is a worldview that is doomed to perpetuate the current issues for all eternity.

You say that because you have no faith in God. If you believe that the Holy Spirit is powerful and interacts with society, it is nonsensical to say that he is incapable of making a dramatic impact in current issues.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Can't we just agree to get to work on 2, 3 and 4 and, who knows, maybe 1 will follow?

I think it is important to work on all four points immediately. I'll elaborate on this more fully when I find the time- now I don't have time.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

You say that because you have no faith in God. If you believe that the Holy Spirit is powerful and interacts with society, it is nonsensical to say that he is incapable of making a dramatic impact in current issues.

No, faith in god is irrelavant. I say it because I have seen muslims, christians, atheists, buddhists, etc. live together peacefully eventhough many of them are still firmly rooted in their individual, and sometimes even morally opposed, belief systems. If some people can do it, all people can do it. They have learned to separate private belief from public interaction instead of being bound by their belief system.

God may be able to make a dramatic impact on current issues, but he simply is not necessary. The same goals can be attained without god, and some of the negatives can be avoided at the same time.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

If anyone with an open mind and a knowledge of the film and the times of T.E. Lawrence were to read this, THEY would understand.

T.E. Lawrence was a man of his time. He appreciated the arab way of life more than most westerners and thought that they got a bad deal by the west in the end. But they were also a foreign culture to him, and in some statements like the one quoted earlier judged them through the lense of his own upbringing. In essence, this is a "racism" we all have. A lack of ability to understand what we see as so different and sometimes even incomprehensible.

But, it is also not "racisim" in the same way as many define it in TE's sense, because he tried to understand and work within the framework of a culture he was not 100% comfortable with.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

No, faith in god is irrelavant.

Faith in god is as relevant as YOUR faith. Faith is faith, and mine is just as unproven as yours and is just as unproven as a devout Muslim's. We ALL go by faith for what we think is the correct worldview, and our faith in our worldview is critically important to almost everything we do.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

God may be able to make a dramatic impact on current issues, but he simply is not necessary.

*wonders if God will say that about brownie some day... *

Seriously, the disconnect here is that you consider religion to be a philosophy, as opposed to a truth claim, which is what I consider it to be. If it is a truth claim, then it is either true or false (or partially true), and if it is true, then it has a VERY strong bearing indeed on reality.

[Spock]

To you I'm an atheist; to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition.
--Woody Allen--

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Faith in god is as relevant as YOUR faith. Faith is faith, and mine is just as unproven as yours and is just as unproven as a devout Muslim's. We ALL go by faith for what we think is the correct worldview, and our faith in our worldview is critically important to almost everything we do.

My point is not to argue whether or not any faith is true. We have other threads for that.

My point is that the problems that exist in the world can:

a) definitely be solved without involving religion as it has been done in the past

b) maybe can only be solved by both sides putting the religious fundamentalism aside, much like how the US has done it's best to separate religion from state matters and find the common ground as opposed to trying to change the uncommon ground

Religion has been trying to solve these problems for thousands of years and frankly hasn't done all that well. Maybe it's time to take the more recent, and often successful, tact of secular solutions.

[Spock]

"World Peace through Superior Fire Power".

not said to irk anyone, just to make one pause

oh, well