Berkely students petition to stop Bill Maher from delivering commencement addres

[Martinus]

But clearly Jesus doesn't isn't calling on his followers to destroy the unbelievers.  He's promising them that God will do so.

Whoever wrote "Onward Christian Soldiers" wants to talk to you.

Don't recall the author off the top of my head, but I'm quite sure it wasn't Jesus.

I thought it was Malaclypse the Younger, who has that advantage over Jesus that he actually existed:

Onward Christian Soldiers,
Onward Buddhist Priests,
Onward Fruits of Islam,
Fight 'til you're deceased!

Fight your little battles,
Join in thickest fray
For the Greater Glory,
Of Dis-Cord-I-A!"

Yah, yah, yah
Yah, yah, yah
Bfft

[Viking]

But clearly Jesus doesn't isn't calling on his followers to destroy the unbelievers.  He's promising them that God will do so.

Whoever wrote "Onward Christian Soldiers" wants to talk to you.

It's an "analogy" you do understand that word right? I'm the rabid atheist and even I know that song is a call to group piety.

[Viking]

If ABB was a christian then he was one who didn't actually believe in god.

You don't need millions of adherents to create chaos and murder. You just need the hundreds of millions to agree that the tenents are good and the objectives are good.

An odd choice for you.  His anger was that too many of those evil Muslims are getting in the country, and he acted to prevent it  I suppose those millions that agree that Islam is uniquely evil are causing those few to create chaos and destruction.

Make a mistake once and it is  mistake, make it twice and it is a sign of carelessness make it a hundred times and that suggests you are doing it on purpose.

Breivik is and was an atheist. He did not believe in any kind of god. He merely used christian symbolism as an identity crutch.

[grumbler]

Whoever wrote "Onward Christian Soldiers" wants to talk to you.

It's an "analogy" you do understand that word right? I'm the rabid atheist and even I know that song is a call to group piety.

It's was a "tongue-in-cheek comment" you do understand that phrase right?  I don't even know the words to that song, just the title and maybe the first line.  The author is probably, in fact, dead and doesn't want to talk to anyone.

[Viking]

Whoever wrote "Onward Christian Soldiers" wants to talk to you.

It's an "analogy" you do understand that word right? I'm the rabid atheist and even I know that song is a call to group piety.

It's was a "tongue-in-cheek comment" you do understand that phrase right?  I don't even know the words to that song, just the title and maybe the first line.  The author is probably, in fact, dead and doesn't want to talk to anyone.

It's just your languish persona is methhusalemic-analretentive-pedantic without much humor or joy in life, so I immediately dismissed the possibility that it might be a joke.

[grumbler]

It's just your languish persona is methhusalemic-analretentive-pedantic without much humor or joy in life, so I immediately dismissed the possibility that it might be a joke.

  I have a great deal of joy in my life, and posts like this are part of it.  Nothing much more fun than people telling me what I (or my online persona) am like, and getting it so wrong.

[Agelastus]

Whoever wrote "Onward Christian Soldiers" wants to talk to you.

It's an "analogy" you do understand that word right? I'm the rabid atheist and even I know that song is a call to group piety.

It's was a "tongue-in-cheek comment" you do understand that phrase right?  I don't even know the words to that song, just the title and maybe the first line.  The author is probably, in fact, dead and doesn't want to talk to anyone.

It's the rest of the first line that ruined your "tongue in cheek" comment, so I guess you're right about only "maybe" knowing the first line.

[Malthus]

The notion that Menno and his group was unrelated to other Anabaptists = unfounded. Though of course, he was directly opposed to the Munsterites, he wasn't as different from them as Druids were from Egyptians.

I didn't say that he was unrelated to other Annabaptists. Clearly this is false as there were Annabaptists around for him to join.

What I am saying is the claim that the radically pacifistic Annabaptists were connected with the extremely violent Muenster Annabaptists is extraordinary and requires extraordinary evidence. I'm not sure whether the link you gave provides that. I would have to dig into the sources.

I will say that I was raised with a specific version of events based on the writings of Simons and the Philips brothers. I try hard not to present those as fact, but they may well provide me with an extra dose of skepticism for the official versions.

My impression is that the true version of events went something like this:

(1) When Anabaptism arose, it was part of a larger intellectual ferment of the times.

(2) Originally, there were multiple Anabaptist groups, who agreed on points of doctrine by disagreed - wildly - on such matters as whether they were, in fact, living in the end times, or whether a violent approach was proper.

(3) People switched quite freely between different factions, which were at the beginning closely related (his own brother was killed as part of an Anabaptist group). For example, Menno was ordained as an Anabaptist by a disciple of Melchior Hoffman - some of whose other disciples went on to join the Munster rebellion; his prediction of the "end times" is credited (or blamed) with, in part, inspiring the Munster rebellion. 

Menno Simons rejected the Catholic Church and the priesthood on 12 January 1536,[4] casting his lot with the Anabaptists. The exact date of his new baptism is unknown, but he was probably baptized not long after leaving Witmarsum in early 1536. By October 1536 his connection with Anabaptism was well known, because it was in that month that Herman and Gerrit Jans were arrested and charged with having lodged Simons. He was ordained around 1537 by Obbe Philips. Obbe and his brother, Dirk Philips, were among the peaceful disciples of Melchior Hoffman (the more radical of Hoffman's followers having participated in the Münster Rebellion). It was Hoffman who introduced the first self-sustaining Anabaptist congregation in the Netherlands, when he taught and practiced believers' baptism in Emden in East Frisia. Menno Simons rejected the violence advocated by the Münster movement, believing it was not Scriptural.[6] His theology was focused on separation from this world, and baptism by repentance symbolized this.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menno_Simons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melchior_Hoffman

(4) Menno directly opposed the violent millenialists within Anabaptism. His teachings were directly contrary to theirs on these significant points: violence and immediate millenialism.

(5) The Munster rebellion was, of course, a disasterous failure - very traumatic for surving Anabaptists, who naturally enough did not want to be associated with it - partly because it was nuts, and widely seen as nuts; and more significantly, because the authorities (Catholic and Protestant) used Munster as an excuse to persecute Anabaptists.

(6) This lead surviving Anabaptists to heavily emphasize the role of Menno to the exclusion of other early figures in Anabaptism - his teachings were the perfect antidote to "Munster!".

(7) Later reappraisals are discovering that Menno wasn't all that significant a figure (except in hindsight). What he was, was right on the value of violent millenialism, which had not worked out well for Anabaptists. Anabaptists who were attracted to violent millenialism either (i) were killed off, or (ii) joined the non-violent faction.

(8) Hence, "Mennonites".

This isn't exactly uncommon. When I was in university, I did a thesis on millenial groups. They usually went one of two ways: (1) violent burn out (like the Ghost Dance Movement among Native Americans), or evolve into an ordinary religion in which the "millenial" aspect is moved to some indefinite future date (early Christianity would be the leading example). The Anabaptists demonstrated both trends: the Munster burn-out, followed by the nonjoiners/survivors becomming a regular religion.

[dps]

Whoever wrote "Onward Christian Soldiers" wants to talk to you.

It's an "analogy" you do understand that word right? I'm the rabid atheist and even I know that song is a call to group piety.

It's was a "tongue-in-cheek comment" you do understand that phrase right?  I don't even know the words to that song, just the title and maybe the first line.  The author is probably, in fact, dead and doesn't want to talk to anyone[/].

I do know that  the hymn dates to the 19th century, so it's pretty certain that the author is dead.

[The Minsky Moment]

The problem is that mode of life of desert bandits is normative in the religion. That is the central problem. That is why it is more violent than other religions. When a society is under stress the religion of islam causes it to break with what we today would call human decency and to behave like desert bandits would. The religious impulse is not to forgive your enemy or to break with the human passions and fears driving you, it is to embrace those passions and to revenge yourself.

The mode of life of Iron Age hill dwellers is normative to the OT.  The mode of life of radical millenarian 1st century Jews is normative to the NT.  The roots of extraordinary violence are there and at times in history have emerged.  But there is NOT a causal relationship here.  Baruch Goldstein didn't slaughter innocents because he was returning to Iron Age mentalities, he did it because he adhered to a modern ideology of virulent anti-Arab racism.  The Albigensian Crusaders or the Spanish Inquisition weren't playing out 1st century Judean zealotry, or even late classical Roman imperial behavior.   Godse didn't murder Gandhi because he was reverting to life as an ancient Indo-European pastoralists.  And so on.

If you actually believe the tenets of your religion you must de-contextualized

That is the fundamentalist mindset.  This point has been made to you before (and I don't think you deny) - but you do seem to view religion in a similar way as fundamentalists do.  But what seems to you as such a natural viewpoint is in fact quite radical and modern.  Focusing on the Abrahamic religions I am familiar with, the usual practice and understanding throughout history is that religious ideas and practice are embedding in complex historical tradition, and mediated through a kaleidoscope of historical-cultural settings and variants.

The idea of going back to unadorned and ahistorical reading of revelatory and religious texts - reading them as instruction manuals from God - is a modern one that arises out Christian Protestantism, the first true modern ideology.  It never really takes root in Judaism because it doesn't fit easily within the Talmudic mode or the realities of the diaspora, although the Schulchan Aruch's attempt to create a single simple codification of law is a product of that era and mode of thinking.  It also doesn't take root in Islam until Wahabbism.  It is a variant mode of religious thought that is no longer accepted in most mainline Protestant denominations, but lives on in the various "fundamentalist" movements.

[The Minsky Moment]

But clearly Jesus doesn't isn't calling on his followers to destroy the unbelievers.  He's promising them that God will do so.

But if you accept as most post-Nicene Christians do, that we are dealing with the same ousia here, then it is a distinction without a difference.

[The Minsky Moment]

It's an "analogy" you do understand that word right? I'm the rabid atheist and even I know that song is a call to group piety.

Good contextualization.   

[Viking]

movements.

Yes, I take the claims religions make for themselves seriously. If a religious text claims to be the unalterable and perfect word of god then that is the context I judge it. If religious truth claims to be absolute then I judge it on those terms. Find me the prophet that admits that he might not be presenting the correct and sophisticated interpretation then I will listen to the contextualization done by latter day theologians.

[Viking]

It's an "analogy" you do understand that word right? I'm the rabid atheist and even I know that song is a call to group piety.

Good contextualization.   

I can do that because grumbler isn't the purveyor of absolute truth, even his cold black heart does not claim to do that.

[Maximus]

The notion that Menno and his group was unrelated to other Anabaptists = unfounded. Though of course, he was directly opposed to the Munsterites, he wasn't as different from them as Druids were from Egyptians.

I didn't say that he was unrelated to other Annabaptists. Clearly this is false as there were Annabaptists around for him to join.

What I am saying is the claim that the radically pacifistic Annabaptists were connected with the extremely violent Muenster Annabaptists is extraordinary and requires extraordinary evidence. I'm not sure whether the link you gave provides that. I would have to dig into the sources.

I will say that I was raised with a specific version of events based on the writings of Simons and the Philips brothers. I try hard not to present those as fact, but they may well provide me with an extra dose of skepticism for the official versions.

My impression is that the true version of events went something like this:

(1) When Anabaptism arose, it was part of a larger intellectual ferment of the times.

(2) Originally, there were multiple Anabaptist groups, who agreed on points of doctrine by disagreed - wildly - on such matters as whether they were, in fact, living in the end times, or whether a violent approach was proper.

(3) People switched quite freely between different factions, which were at the beginning closely related (his own brother was killed as part of an Anabaptist group). For example, Menno was ordained as an Anabaptist by a disciple of Melchior Hoffman - some of whose other disciples went on to join the Munster rebellion; his prediction of the "end times" is credited (or blamed) with, in part, inspiring the Munster rebellion. 

Menno Simons rejected the Catholic Church and the priesthood on 12 January 1536,[4] casting his lot with the Anabaptists. The exact date of his new baptism is unknown, but he was probably baptized not long after leaving Witmarsum in early 1536. By October 1536 his connection with Anabaptism was well known, because it was in that month that Herman and Gerrit Jans were arrested and charged with having lodged Simons. He was ordained around 1537 by Obbe Philips. Obbe and his brother, Dirk Philips, were among the peaceful disciples of Melchior Hoffman (the more radical of Hoffman's followers having participated in the Münster Rebellion). It was Hoffman who introduced the first self-sustaining Anabaptist congregation in the Netherlands, when he taught and practiced believers' baptism in Emden in East Frisia. Menno Simons rejected the violence advocated by the Münster movement, believing it was not Scriptural.[6] His theology was focused on separation from this world, and baptism by repentance symbolized this.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menno_Simons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melchior_Hoffman

(4) Menno directly opposed the violent millenialists within Anabaptism. His teachings were directly contrary to theirs on these significant points: violence and immediate millenialism.

(5) The Munster rebellion was, of course, a disasterous failure - very traumatic for surving Anabaptists, who naturally enough did not want to be associated with it - partly because it was nuts, and widely seen as nuts; and more significantly, because the authorities (Catholic and Protestant) used Munster as an excuse to persecute Anabaptists.

(6) This lead surviving Anabaptists to heavily emphasize the role of Menno to the exclusion of other early figures in Anabaptism - his teachings were the perfect antidote to "Munster!".

(7) Later reappraisals are discovering that Menno wasn't all that significant a figure (except in hindsight). What he was, was right on the value of violent millenialism, which had not worked out well for Anabaptists. Anabaptists who were attracted to violent millenialism either (i) were killed off, or (ii) joined the non-violent faction.

(8) Hence, "Mennonites".

This isn't exactly uncommon. When I was in university, I did a thesis on millenial groups. They usually went one of two ways: (1) violent burn out (like the Ghost Dance Movement among Native Americans), or evolve into an ordinary religion in which the "millenial" aspect is moved to some indefinite future date (early Christianity would be the leading example). The Anabaptists demonstrated both trends: the Munster burn-out, followed by the nonjoiners/survivors becomming a regular religion.

That makes a fair amount of sense. The history I was taught was more of an oral one and certainly not academically rigorous. I don't recall it mentioning Muenster at all, or even Hoffman though I am sure it did. I do recall accounts of exchanges with "Annabaptists" outside of the Netherlands, in Switzerland, in Moravia, and iirc, in Greece. Also according to that tradition, during the 80 years war over 100,000 Annabaptists migrated to the Netherlands where they had some freedom of religion. Most of these were from upper Germany, Switzerland and the Rheinland, and likely included my own ancestors.