Berkely students petition to stop Bill Maher from delivering commencement addres

[The Minsky Moment]

1. Amongst the Jews they did not think themselves quite so powerless, as they rose in revolt a few decades after Jesus.  Of course that led to their defeat and the destruction of the Temple, but they didn't know that at the time. 

My understanding is that to the best of our knowledge, the Judeo-Christians stayed out the revolt.  The Jews generally did revolt, but the Jews still had a political identity and of course the Old Testament is far from hostile to military conflict (indeed at times it encourages genocidal campaigns)

And you can see that impulse reflected in the Bible - people asking Jesus to help establish the Kingdom and free the Jews from Roman rule, but he refused.

Jesus claimed to be the Jewish messiah, and one widely understood role of the Messiah was that he would overthrow the rule of foreign oppressors.  So this is a key theological point that the Gospels need to explain - Jesus is the messiah, but a different kind than what the tradition had led most Jews to expect.

But even so, your interpretation is one that you come to if you view the Bible as a purely historical document.  But if someone does accept the Bible as the Word of God, well then you kind of have to take Jesus at His word.

But I am.  He is saying he comes with a sword and so I take that at his word.  He is saying he (or the Father with him at his side) will rain destruction and hellfire on the unbelievers and I am taking him at his word.   

What I really am suggesting here is that you are applying a sympathetic reading to a faith you identify with, but are not as willing to extend the same sympathy to another faith.  I don't really quibble with your interpretation.

[Admiral Yi]

No on both counts.
Only the Ismailis accept it as a pillar, but not in the strictly military sense in the present day.

Yes on both counts is what Wiki says.

[Barrister]

What I really am suggesting here is that you are applying a sympathetic reading to a faith you identify with, but are not as willing to extend the same sympathy to another faith.  I don't really quibble with your interpretation.

Yes and no.  I am a Christian for the same reasons I am not a Muslim - I find the Christian Bible to be the Word of God, which means I don't share the same belief about the Koran.

But I'm not unsympathetic to Islam.  And I think that both Christians and Muslims will agree that our faiths and religions are different in ways that are important and meaningful to us.

[Barrister]

I couldn't resist this one last answer though:

1. Amongst the Jews they did not think themselves quite so powerless, as they rose in revolt a few decades after Jesus.  Of course that led to their defeat and the destruction of the Temple, but they didn't know that at the time. 

My understanding is that to the best of our knowledge, the Judeo-Christians stayed out the revolt.

Perhaps because that was what Jesus taught them to do?

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Yes on both counts is what Wiki says.

No, Wiki does not.  In Twelver theology, jihad is an Ancillary of the Faith; the Principles of the Faith are the "pillars".

Second, there are no Sunnis who take jihad as the sixth pillar.  The sixth pillar, for the minority who accept it, is Duty to do Good.

[Admiral Yi]

Yes on both counts is what Wiki says.

No, Wiki does not.  In Twelver theology, jihad is an Ancillary of the Faith; the Principles of the Faith are the "pillars".

Second, there are no Sunnis who take jihad as the sixth pillar.  The sixth pillar, for the minority who accept it, is Duty to do Good.

This is what I read:

Jihad means "to struggle in the way of Allah". Jihad appears 41 times in the Quran and frequently in the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of God (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)".[3][4][5] A person engaged in jihad is called a mujahid; the plural is mujahideen. Jihad is an important religious duty for Muslims. A minority among the Sunni scholars sometimes refer to this duty as the sixth pillar of Islam, though it occupies no such official status.[6] In Twelver Shi'a Islam, however, Jihad is one of the 10 Practices of the Religion. Ahmadi Muslims consider only defensive jihad to be permissible while rejecting offensive jihad.

[The Minsky Moment]

Perhaps because that was what Jesus taught them to do?

Well yes - he taught them to obey the existing secular authority, i.e. the Romans.

It's not that fought to understand why the followers of Jesus would stay out - the leaders of the Jewish revolt were the same class of people that were in conflict with the nascent Christians, and since it is likely the Christians were anticipating the imminent arrival of the end times, the Revolt would have been viewed at as signal of the beginning of the end.

[grumbler]

I said the seven pillars of faith are the central components of Islam.  One of them is jihad, armed struggle to bring those outside the House of Submission within the House of Submission. 

There are five pillars of Islam.  Jihad is not among them.  Nor is the concept of Dar Al-Islam and Dar Al-Harb which is not even in the Qu'ran.  The concept of jihad predates the Dars by quite a bit and the meaning is broader and more complex.   

I'm sorta curious as to how Yi could possibly have believed that there were seven pillars of Islam.  It's like saying there are Twelve Commandments in the Old Testament, and one of them is "Preserve Israel by blockading Gaza."

[crazy canuck]

What I really am suggesting here is that you are applying a sympathetic reading to a faith you identify with, but are not as willing to extend the same sympathy to another faith.  I don't really quibble with your interpretation.

Yes and no.  I am a Christian for the same reasons I am not a Muslim

Yeah, you were born into a society that is predominantely Christian and you probably have family members who are Christian.  Your parents and family were probably not Muslim.  If you were born into a society that was predominantely Muslim and you had family members who were Muslim you would probably be Muslim.

[The Minsky Moment]

Yi - the notion of a Sunni 6th pillar is new to me, I would be interested in knowing what the quoted source is.

As for the Twelve Shi'a doctrine, the 10 branches of the faith are distinct from the pillars.  Jihad is included among those 10 but it is important to remember that legitimate authority for  Twelve Shia ultimately comes from the Imams, the most recent of whom has been "hidden" (missing) for over 1000 years.  The hidden Imam is the only one who is supposed to be able to authorize offensive war (jihad).  That impossible requirement has not always been strictly adhered to but it is part of the accepted doctrine. 

[Maximus]

Who could be more harmless than the Mennonites?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnster_Rebellion

Conflating the Muenster group with nonresistant Annabaptists just because they both happened to practice adult baptist makes about as sense as conflating ancient Egyptian religion with the religion of the druids because they were both "pagan".

That is not to say the Mennonites are harmless, but they are generally radically pacifistic.

[Malthus]

I said the seven pillars of faith are the central components of Islam.  One of them is jihad, armed struggle to bring those outside the House of Submission within the House of Submission. 

There are five pillars of Islam.  Jihad is not among them.  Nor is the concept of Dar Al-Islam and Dar Al-Harb which is not even in the Qu'ran.  The concept of jihad predates the Dars by quite a bit and the meaning is broader and more complex.   

I'm sorta curious as to how Yi could possibly have believed that there were seven pillars of Islam.  It's like saying there are Twelve Commandments in the Old Testament, and one of them is "Preserve Israel by blockading Gaza."

Confusion with the Seven Pillars of Wisdom, from Proverbs (and T. E. Lawrence)?

[crazy canuck]

I said the seven pillars of faith are the central components of Islam.  One of them is jihad, armed struggle to bring those outside the House of Submission within the House of Submission. 

There are five pillars of Islam.  Jihad is not among them.  Nor is the concept of Dar Al-Islam and Dar Al-Harb which is not even in the Qu'ran.  The concept of jihad predates the Dars by quite a bit and the meaning is broader and more complex.   

I'm sorta curious as to how Yi could possibly have believed that there were seven pillars of Islam.  It's like saying there are Twelve Commandments in the Old Testament, and one of them is "Preserve Israel by blockading Gaza."

Confusion with the Seven Pillars of Wisdom, from Proverbs (and T. E. Lawrence)?

[Malthus]

Who could be more harmless than the Mennonites?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnster_Rebellion

Conflating the Muenster group with nonresistant Annabaptists just because they both happened to practice adult baptist makes about as sense as conflating ancient Egyptian religion with the religion of the druids because they were both "pagan".

That is not to say the Mennonites are harmless, but they are generally radically pacifistic.

You are way overstating your case. It is true that the movement split after the Munster rebellion, but it is not true the one had nothing to do with the other, like Egyptians and Druids.

The Münster Rebellion was a turning point for the Anabaptist movement. It never again had the opportunity of assuming political importance, the civil powers adopting stringent measures to suppress such agitation. It is difficult to trace the subsequent history of the group as a religious body, through changes in the names used and beliefs held.

The Batenburgers under Jan van Batenburg preserved the violent millennialist stream of Anabaptism seen at Münster. They were polygamous and believed force was justified against anyone not in their sect. Their movement went underground after the suppression of the Münster Rebellion, with members posing as Catholics or Lutherans as necessary. Some nonresistant Anabaptists found leaders in Menno Simons and the brothers Obbe and Dirk Philips, Dutch Anabaptist leaders who repudiated the distinctive doctrines of the Münster Anabaptists. This group eventually became known as the Mennonites after Simons. They rejected any use of violence, preached a faith based on love of enemy and compassion.

In August 1536 the leaders of Anabaptist groups influenced by Melchior Hoffman met in Bocholt in an attempt to maintain unity. The meeting included followers of Batenburg, survivors of Münster, David Joris and his sympathisers and the nonresistant Anabaptists (Williams, p. 582). At this meeting the major areas of dispute between the sects were polygamous marriage and the use of force against non-believers. Joris proposed compromise by declaring the time had not yet come to fight against the authorities, and that it would be unwise to kill any non-Anabaptists. The gathered Anabaptists agreed to the compromise of no more force,(Williams, p. 583) but the meeting did not prevent the fragmentation of Anabaptism.

[Maximus]

You are way overstating your case. It is true that the movement split after the Munster rebellion, but it is not true the one had nothing to do with the other, like Egyptians and Druids.

Do you have any evidence for that, other than that wiki quote which doesn't support your assertion (and is wiki)? I don't think it is clear that they ever were part of the same movement. They just happened to share one facet of belief and so were clumped together by outsiders.