Funny how the tables have turned on this guy, mostly from one show, though he's been consistent about his belief that all Muslims are bad.
It's based on a recent Real Time episode with Ben Affleck as a guest who showed complete disdain for Maher after Maher said somethign to the effect that Islam is inherently evil.
I just find it ironic because Maher is always hailed as a liberal and leftie.
http://www.salon.com/2014/10/27/uc_berkeley_students_are_petitioning_against_bill_maher_as_commencement_speaker
as usual by the way....the comments are more interesting than the article.
Yeah, I saw a bit of that show. I thought he was being ironic trying to out Colbert Colbert. Instead he was serious and out did anything Fox might put on the air. Affleck was clearly furious. Afflect tried to explain why the Grallonist view of the world was daft but then just started staring at Maher in disbelief.
That wasn't the first time Maher said that so I knew he was serious. It's his next big thing after bashing Republicans and Fox.
He's a like Viking and has contempt for all religion, and like many in the "New Atheist" movement he has sort of piggy-packed on Islamophobia.
Given his views on religion as a whole, this doesn't surprise me.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 27, 2014, 06:12:19 PM
Yeah, I saw a bit of that show. I thought he was being ironic trying to out Colbert Colbert. Instead he was serious and out did anything Fox might put on the air. Affleck was clearly furious. Afflect tried to explain why the Grallonist view of the world was daft but then just started staring at Maher in disbelief.
Affleck thought criticism of Islam was racist. :rolleyes:
I don't believe in Athiests.
Affleck is a bit of a dimbulb.
Maher also said Michael Brown was not a gentle giant. OMG BOYCOTT
Quote from: citizen k on October 27, 2014, 06:32:10 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 27, 2014, 06:12:19 PM
Yeah, I saw a bit of that show. I thought he was being ironic trying to out Colbert Colbert. Instead he was serious and out did anything Fox might put on the air. Affleck was clearly furious. Afflect tried to explain why the Grallonist view of the world was daft but then just started staring at Maher in disbelief.
Affleck thought criticism of Islam was racist. :rolleyes:
Ah no.
Quote from: derspiess on October 27, 2014, 07:07:36 PM
Maher also said Michael Brown was not a gentle giant. OMG BOYCOTT
I use the term 'Thug'.
Quote from: Josephus on October 27, 2014, 06:06:45 PM
I just find it ironic because Maher is always hailed as a liberal and leftie.
He is vehemently anti-religious, in all its forms. Just so happens that Islam is the latest one that smites thee in His Mercy. Insha'allah.
It's more ironic that other supposed liberals turn a blind eye when Muslims are involved.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 27, 2014, 07:11:49 PM
Quote from: Josephus on October 27, 2014, 06:06:45 PM
I just find it ironic because Maher is always hailed as a liberal and leftie.
He is vehemently anti-religious, in all its forms. Just so happens that Islam is the latest one that smites thee in His Mercy. Insha'allah.
I think he's vastly misunderstood, and mostly has been turned into a Left icon by Fox. For instance, he's quite pro-Israel--although that may have something to do with the peeps Israel is fighting.
The difference between Maher and other so-called liberals, is that the liberals see a difference between Islam and Islamism. Maher does not. Even on the most recent episode he brought it up again and argued, again, against the liberal argument that "the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful."
Quote from: Josephus on October 27, 2014, 09:04:42 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 27, 2014, 07:11:49 PM
Quote from: Josephus on October 27, 2014, 06:06:45 PM
I just find it ironic because Maher is always hailed as a liberal and leftie.
He is vehemently anti-religious, in all its forms. Just so happens that Islam is the latest one that smites thee in His Mercy. Insha'allah.
I think he's vastly misunderstood, and mostly has been turned into a Left icon by Fox. For instance, he's quite pro-Israel--although that may have something to do with the peeps Israel is fighting.
Maher isn't really a leftist, no. He has too much common sense for that.
Well he has long been hated by some on this board for being a left wing dude beyond the pale. I enjoyed his sense of humor and his show when my wife would watch it, but yeah he never had much good to say about the Muslims. But to be fair it is nothing he does not hold against other religions.
Quote from: dps on October 27, 2014, 09:13:00 PM
Quote from: Josephus on October 27, 2014, 09:04:42 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 27, 2014, 07:11:49 PM
Quote from: Josephus on October 27, 2014, 06:06:45 PM
I just find it ironic because Maher is always hailed as a liberal and leftie.
He is vehemently anti-religious, in all its forms. Just so happens that Islam is the latest one that smites thee in His Mercy. Insha'allah.
I think he's vastly misunderstood, and mostly has been turned into a Left icon by Fox. For instance, he's quite pro-Israel--although that may have something to do with the peeps Israel is fighting.
Maher isn't really a leftist, no. He has too much common sense for that.
:o
Quote from: Valmy on October 27, 2014, 09:14:49 PM
But to be fair it is nothing he does not hold against other religions.
Yay, bigotry for all?
I find his show unwatchable. Four cloned people sitting around a table laughing uproariously at each other's lame ass jokes.
Quote from: garbon on October 27, 2014, 09:16:09 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 27, 2014, 09:14:49 PM
But to be fair it is nothing he does not hold against other religions.
Yay, bigotry for all?
I don't recall saying 'yay' but perhaps your imagination saw something different?
Anyway he has been doing this for 20+ years.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 27, 2014, 09:18:40 PM
I find his show unwatchable. Four cloned people sitting around a table laughing uproariously at each other's lame ass jokes.
Shocking.
Quote from: dps on October 27, 2014, 09:13:00 PM
Quote from: Josephus on October 27, 2014, 09:04:42 PM
I think he's vastly misunderstood, and mostly has been turned into a Left icon by Fox. For instance, he's quite pro-Israel--although that may have something to do with the peeps Israel is fighting.
Maher isn't really a leftist, no. He has too much common sense for that.
I don't consider him that much of a leftist at all, he's a bit more complex than that. The fact that conservatives draw most of his ire is because, well, they do really stupid shit.
Quote from: Valmy on October 27, 2014, 09:19:12 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 27, 2014, 09:16:09 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 27, 2014, 09:14:49 PM
But to be fair it is nothing he does not hold against other religions.
Yay, bigotry for all?
I don't recall saying 'yay' but perhaps your imagination saw something different?
Anyway he has been doing this for 20+ years.
Well, what was the point in mentioning that he doesn't reserve his scorn for just Islam?
As to your other point, well doesn't mean that everyone is paying attention / there have been a lot of people who have grown up in the last 20 years.
Quote from: Valmy on October 27, 2014, 09:14:49 PM
But to be fair it is nothing he does not hold against other religions.
He hates all religions, but he doesn't hate Jews because they're Jews the way he hates Muslims. MOre specifically, and he lets this slip when he gets over excited, he particualry hates Arabs...who happen to be Muslims.
Quote from: garbon on October 27, 2014, 09:22:51 PM
Well, what was the point in mentioning that he doesn't reserve his scorn for just Islam?
Just that this is the kind of thing one would expect from him.
QuoteAs to your other point, well doesn't mean that everyone is paying attention / there have been a lot of people who have grown up in the last 20 years.
People were paying attention. Just they didn't care until now. Sensitivity to saying bad things against Islam is high on the left now since the Right is doing it. If the Right loved Islam those Berkeley students would be laughing with him.
Quote from: Josephus on October 27, 2014, 09:28:51 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 27, 2014, 09:14:49 PM
But to be fair it is nothing he does not hold against other religions.
He hates all religions, but he doesn't hate Jews because they're Jews the way he hates Muslims. MOre specifically, and he lets this slip when he gets over excited, he particualry hates Arabs...who happen to be Muslims.
Most American Arabs are not Muslims :hmm:
But alright maybe he has gotten more shrill lately.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 27, 2014, 09:18:40 PM
I find his show unwatchable. Four cloned people sitting around a table laughing uproariously at each other's lame ass jokes.
Yi and I agree! I thought he was an asshole when he his show on network TV back in the 1990's.
Also he used to describe himself as a libertarian. Maher, not Yi. I don't know what Yi called himself back in the 1990's.
Quote from: Valmy on October 27, 2014, 09:31:37 PM
People were paying attention. Just they didn't care until now. Sensitivity to saying bad things against Islam is high on the left now since the Right is doing it. If the Right loved Islam those Berkeley students would be laughing with him.
Well, I'm glad at least someone is standing up to it.
Me, Yi and Raz form an invincible Troika of good taste.
In the mid 90s he seemed like a garden variety libertarian. But some time around Clinton's second term he moved a bit to the left. I'd call him a left libertarian and I don't see how it's so far off to call him a leftist.
Quote from: derspiess on October 27, 2014, 09:38:13 PM
In the mid 90s he seemed like a garden variety libertarian. But some time around Clinton's second term he moved a bit to the left. I'd call him a left libertarian and I don't see how it's so far off to call him a leftist.
He was liberal who liked to smoke pot and wanted to feel extra special by not being boxed in by your stifling labels, man.
Quote from: Valmy on October 27, 2014, 09:31:37 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 27, 2014, 09:22:51 PM
Well, what was the point in mentioning that he doesn't reserve his scorn for just Islam?
Just that this is the kind of thing one would expect from him.
QuoteAs to your other point, well doesn't mean that everyone is paying attention / there have been a lot of people who have grown up in the last 20 years.
People were paying attention. Just they didn't care until now. Sensitivity to saying bad things against Islam is high on the left now since the Right is doing it. If the Right loved Islam those Berkeley students would be laughing with him.
Now you are just being absurd. How in the hell could most of those Berkeley students been paying attention in the last 2 decades? Many haven't even been alive for 2 decades let alone caring about Bill Maher.
Personally, I can't really say anything about him other than a general impression that he is an ass. Never watched anything he has done, never had any interest.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 27, 2014, 09:34:55 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 27, 2014, 09:31:37 PM
People were paying attention. Just they didn't care until now. Sensitivity to saying bad things against Islam is high on the left now since the Right is doing it. If the Right loved Islam those Berkeley students would be laughing with him.
Well, I'm glad at least someone is standing up to it.
Indeed. I just wish people would be more self aware about it.
Quote from: garbon on October 27, 2014, 09:48:59 PM
Now you are just being absurd. How in the hell could most of those Berkeley students been paying attention in the last 2 decades? Many haven't even been alive for 2 decades let alone caring about Bill Maher.
Nonsense, he has been a well known comedian for years.
QuotePersonally, I can't really say anything about him other than a general impression that he is an ass. Never watched anything he has done, never had any interest.
That is a good impression he is a bit of an ass.
Quote from: Valmy on October 27, 2014, 09:53:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 27, 2014, 09:48:59 PM
Now you are just being absurd. How in the hell could most of those Berkeley students been paying attention in the last 2 decades? Many haven't even been alive for 2 decades let alone caring about Bill Maher.
Nonsense, he has been a well known comedian for years.
That hardly means that many people pay attention, particularly among the younger set. There are lots of well known people out there - more than one person could reasonably pay attention to.
Maher is one that I have set on ignore and before this, I couldn't tell you one stance that he takes.
Maher's politics and personal hatreds aren't the reason he's a lousy comic, it's that being a smug, condescending son of bitch isn't particularly funny. Turning on his show is like having Grumbler come over to your house and insult your cooking for an hour.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 27, 2014, 10:00:09 PM
Maher's politics and personal hatreds aren't the reason he's a lousy comic, it's that being a smug, condescending son of bitch isn't particularly funny. Turning on his show is like having Grumbler come over to your house and insult your cooking for an hour.
I like smug condescending son of a bitch humor. Must be why I like it here. Anyway it is like a Viking-Grumbler hybrid coming over...only wittier.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 27, 2014, 10:00:09 PM
Maher's politics and personal hatreds aren't the reason he's a lousy comic, it's that being a smug, condescending son of bitch isn't particularly funny. Turning on his show is like having Grumbler come over to your house and insult your cooking for an hour.
Raz: I made Lasagna...
Grumbles: WHOOSH
Quote from: garbon on October 27, 2014, 09:57:06 PM
That hardly means that many people pay attention, particularly among the younger set. There are lots of well known people out there - more than one person could reasonably pay attention to.
He was well known to be invited to speak at Berkeley's commencement. And the Younger set is ignorant of HBO comic shows? They would at least see it on reddit.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 27, 2014, 10:03:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 27, 2014, 10:00:09 PM
Maher's politics and personal hatreds aren't the reason he's a lousy comic, it's that being a smug, condescending son of bitch isn't particularly funny. Turning on his show is like having Grumbler come over to your house and insult your cooking for an hour.
Raz: I made Lasagna...
Grumbles: WHOOSH
:lol:
Quote from: derspiess on October 27, 2014, 09:38:13 PM
I'd call him a left libertarian and I don't see how it's so far off to call him a leftist.
I guess I don't consider him a leftist because most of the people I think of as leftists are not at all libertarian.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 27, 2014, 10:03:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 27, 2014, 10:00:09 PM
Maher's politics and personal hatreds aren't the reason he's a lousy comic, it's that being a smug, condescending son of bitch isn't particularly funny. Turning on his show is like having Grumbler come over to your house and insult your cooking for an hour.
Raz: I made Lasagna...
Grumbles: WHOOSH
:lol:
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 27, 2014, 10:03:17 PM
Raz: I made Lasagna...
Grumbles: WHOOSH
:lol:
What you *meant* to make was beef wellington.
Quote from: dps on October 27, 2014, 10:05:32 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 27, 2014, 09:38:13 PM
I'd call him a left libertarian and I don't see how it's so far off to call him a leftist.
I guess I don't consider him a leftist because most of the people I think of as leftists are not at all libertarian.
I used to watch his show but it's been years since I tuned in for more than a couple minutes. I also used to think of him as a lefty but he's more like all over the place politically.
Quote from: Valmy on October 27, 2014, 10:04:03 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 27, 2014, 09:57:06 PM
That hardly means that many people pay attention, particularly among the younger set. There are lots of well known people out there - more than one person could reasonably pay attention to.
He was well known to be invited to speak at Berkeley's commencement. And the Younger set is ignorant of HBO comic shows? They would at least see it on reddit.
Dana Gioia spoke at my commencement. Yeah that well known guy.
Knowing that Bill Maher exists doesn't mean that you spend two shits thinking about his views. It is ridiculous to suggest that anyone (let alone someone of college age) might be unaware of his stance on Islam and could be outraged now.
Quote from: KRonn on October 27, 2014, 10:08:54 PM
Quote from: dps on October 27, 2014, 10:05:32 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 27, 2014, 09:38:13 PM
I'd call him a left libertarian and I don't see how it's so far off to call him a leftist.
I guess I don't consider him a leftist because most of the people I think of as leftists are not at all libertarian.
I used to watch his show but it's been years since I tuned in for more than a couple minutes. I also used to think of him as a lefty but he's more like all over the place politically.
I haven't seen his show on HBO. To be honest, until recently, I didn't even know he still had a show. I used to watch his old show; I thought it was better when it was on Comedy Central, because I thought he generally had more interesting guests than he had during the ABC years.
Maher is much smarter than Affleck. In fact over the years, I think the only thing I ever disagreed with Maher about was his stance on vaccines.
Quote from: Josephus on October 27, 2014, 06:06:45 PM
I just find it ironic because Maher is always hailed as a liberal and leftie.
I don't know. We had this discussion recently - there are three sides to the triangle. Maher is clearly on the liberal end, Berkeley students are clearly on the collectivist end. They hate liberals and conservatives with the same passion.
It's only in the US, where the collectivist side has never been strong, that it got so conflated with liberals.
As for liberals/collectivists supporting or defending Islam, I always applied what could be called a reverse Kantian imperative - "never support a principle which, if made the universal law, would mean you are put to death".
I'm not especially fond of Bill Maher, but I don't think he said anything outrageous in this case.
Quote from: dps on October 27, 2014, 10:05:32 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 27, 2014, 09:38:13 PM
I'd call him a left libertarian and I don't see how it's so far off to call him a leftist.
I guess I don't consider him a leftist because most of the people I think of as leftists are not at all libertarian.
I wouldnt call him a libertarian. Maybe he was once. But he's definitely in favour of gun control and socialized medicine, to name a couple of things.
In a sense, he's like me, and others, who can't be pigeonholed on some socio political measuring stick. I am left on some issues, but swing right on others.
Quote from: Josephus on October 27, 2014, 09:09:44 PM
The difference between Maher and other so-called liberals, is that the liberals do not see a difference between Islam and Muslims. Maher does. Even on the most recent episode he brought it up again and argued, again, for the liberal argument that Islam is an idea that needs to be treated on it's own merits .
FYP
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 27, 2014, 08:10:20 PM
It's more ironic that other supposed liberals turn a blind eye when Muslims are involved.
Yeah it never ceases to amaze me. How can one be so opposed to religious conservatism when it is practiced by Christians but be so happy to embrace Muslims who, on average, make the likes of Pat Robertson and Huckabee look positively liberal.
And before someone tells me there are liberal Muslims - so what? There are also sexually active gay Christians. The thing is in both cases it means one thing: you are reading the goddamn script wrong.
I am not really sure what the Maher point is though - do liberals excuse radical Islam? I don't really see that.
Or is Maher just trying to equate having a nuanced view of religious extremism and how it is received my non-extremists as "excusing radicalism"?
I mean, I've never heard "liberals" say anything about Islam that I thought "OMG, they are so in denial!" Mostly they say what everyone says, right? The problem is the radicals, and most non-radicals are pretty much just like everyone else.
Quote from: Berkut on October 28, 2014, 07:35:08 AM
I am not really sure what the Maher point is though - do liberals excuse radical Islam? I don't really see that.
Or is Maher just trying to equate having a nuanced view of religious extremism and how it is received my non-extremists as "excusing radicalism"?
I mean, I've never heard "liberals" say anything about Islam that I thought "OMG, they are so in denial!" Mostly they say what everyone says, right? The problem is the radicals, and most non-radicals are pretty much just like everyone else.
The HARRIS point was that liberals often respond to legitimate criticism of Islamic theology, dogma, practice and consequences by accusing the critic of islamophobia and racism. Y'know, like Affleck did just after Harris said it as if on queue.
Maher was agreeing with Harris.
Quote from: Viking on October 28, 2014, 07:43:58 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 28, 2014, 07:35:08 AM
I am not really sure what the Maher point is though - do liberals excuse radical Islam? I don't really see that.
Or is Maher just trying to equate having a nuanced view of religious extremism and how it is received my non-extremists as "excusing radicalism"?
I mean, I've never heard "liberals" say anything about Islam that I thought "OMG, they are so in denial!" Mostly they say what everyone says, right? The problem is the radicals, and most non-radicals are pretty much just like everyone else.
The HARRIS point was that liberals often respond to legitimate criticism of Islamic theology, dogma, practice and consequences by accusing the critic of islamophobia and racism. Y'know, like Affleck did just after Harris said it as if on queue.
Maher was agreeing with Harris.
Hmmm. I don't think you get a "Get out of jail free card" by saying "If I say XYZ, then people will accuse me of ABC!" then note that when you say exactly that they accuse you of exactly that, if in fact accusing you of ABC is a pretty reasonable response to you saying XYZ.
For example "Every time we criticize those meddling, do-gooder civil rights assholes, we get accused of being racist douchebags!"
See, noting that ahead of time doesn't really make the criticism itself invalid.
You need to actually show that the criticism is not warranted - that in fact the "legitimate" criticism is in fact legitimate, reasonable, and most importantly rationally scoped and doesn't over-reach.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 27, 2014, 10:00:09 PM
Maher's politics and personal hatreds aren't the reason he's a lousy comic, it's that being a smug, condescending son of bitch isn't particularly funny. Turning on his show is like having Grumbler come over to your house and insult your cooking for an hour.
:lol:
Quote from: Berkut on October 28, 2014, 07:53:53 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 28, 2014, 07:43:58 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 28, 2014, 07:35:08 AM
I am not really sure what the Maher point is though - do liberals excuse radical Islam? I don't really see that.
Or is Maher just trying to equate having a nuanced view of religious extremism and how it is received my non-extremists as "excusing radicalism"?
I mean, I've never heard "liberals" say anything about Islam that I thought "OMG, they are so in denial!" Mostly they say what everyone says, right? The problem is the radicals, and most non-radicals are pretty much just like everyone else.
The HARRIS point was that liberals often respond to legitimate criticism of Islamic theology, dogma, practice and consequences by accusing the critic of islamophobia and racism. Y'know, like Affleck did just after Harris said it as if on queue.
Maher was agreeing with Harris.
Hmmm. I don't think you get a "Get out of jail free card" by saying "If I say XYZ, then people will accuse me of ABC!" then note that when you say exactly that they accuse you of exactly that, if in fact accusing you of ABC is a pretty reasonable response to you saying XYZ.
For example "Every time we criticize those meddling, do-gooder civil rights assholes, we get accused of being racist douchebags!"
See, noting that ahead of time doesn't really make the criticism itself invalid.
You need to actually show that the criticism is not warranted - that in fact the "legitimate" criticism is in fact legitimate, reasonable, and most importantly rationally scoped and doesn't over-reach.
The point here is that the question at hand is if the criticism is legitimate and well reasoned. You need to establish that before calling somebody a racist. When you call somebody a racist the burden of proof is on you, not on the alleged racist.
Harris and Maher are precisely the kinds of people who make this case the best. They have been going after ALL religions for some time now (well, Harris has been going after all but Jainism and is consequently a "heretic" among us atheists) and they only get accused of racism when they criticize Islamic theology and it's consequences.
Jains are fruitcakes.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 28, 2014, 08:53:12 AM
Jains are fruitcakes.
A good friend of mine is a Jain :angry:
I didn't see that Affleck show but I did see the one after (?) He brought up the point again. Mary Matalin (off all people) had a good point in response but it got lost in Maher's ranting. Whatever his point is, it isn't just a an aspect of a pox on all religions policy. he specifically singles out Islam as uniquely bad and worse than other religions.
The panel was Matalin, Cornel West(!) and some white guy from the Daily Beast. Didn't fit the Yi description.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 28, 2014, 09:15:15 AM
I didn't see that Affleck show but I did see the one after (?) He brought up the point again. Mary Matalin (off all people) had a good point in response but it got lost in Maher's ranting. Whatever his point is, it isn't just a an aspect of a pox on all religions policy. he specifically singles out Islam as uniquely bad and worse than other religions.
The panel was Matalin, Cornel West(!) and some white guy from the Daily Beast. Didn't fit the Yi description.
He clearly fails to realize that Unitarianism is the uniquely worst religion. :mad:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 28, 2014, 09:15:15 AM
I didn't see that Affleck show but I did see the one after (?) He brought up the point again. Mary Matalin (off all people) had a good point in response but it got lost in Maher's ranting. Whatever his point is, it isn't just a an aspect of a pox on all religions policy. he specifically singles out Islam as uniquely bad and worse than other religions.
The panel was Matalin, Cornel West(!) and some white guy from the Daily Beast. Didn't fit the Yi description.
But I think it is pretty much proven empirically that while all religions are shit, Islam is worse than others.
I don't think you understand what the word "Empirical" means.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 28, 2014, 09:15:15 AM
The panel was Matalin, Cornel West(!) and some white guy from the Daily Beast. Didn't fit the Yi description.
It never does. Maher often has people from all over the spectrum.
But relying on Yi's commentary about television is like relying on Martinus' commentary about anal sex: it's not really his thing.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 28, 2014, 09:59:23 AM
It never does. Maher often has people from all over the spectrum.
But relying on Yi's commentary about television is like relying on Martinus' commentary about anal sex: it's not really his thing.
Back in the day, it was frequently 3 lefty actors and 1 conservative pundit or politician.
Quote from: Martinus on October 28, 2014, 09:44:01 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 28, 2014, 09:15:15 AM
I didn't see that Affleck show but I did see the one after (?) He brought up the point again. Mary Matalin (off all people) had a good point in response but it got lost in Maher's ranting. Whatever his point is, it isn't just a an aspect of a pox on all religions policy. he specifically singles out Islam as uniquely bad and worse than other religions.
The panel was Matalin, Cornel West(!) and some white guy from the Daily Beast. Didn't fit the Yi description.
But I think it is pretty much proven empirically that while all religions are shit, Islam is worse than others.
Raz has a point there. Empricial is one of those words that actually means something. Define the meaning of "worse" and somehow quantify it and you can start getting empirical.
You could for example use hte
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
and compare the regions with lots of Islamic influence (south asia, middle east and sub saharan africa) with the rest of the world and by compare I mean compare the ratings on the HDI.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fd%2Fd7%2FHuman_Development_Index_trends.svg%2F280px-Human_Development_Index_trends.svg.png&hash=328b341835d14a797f3d1a878ee88bdc1a62b8a4)
the green (arabs) blue (south asia) and pink (subsaharan africa) lines here.
Odd that you classify sub-Sahran Africa as having a lot of Islamic influence but not Europe. I'm not clear what you wish to show here. That the Arab states are improving at a faster rate then Europe does and at the same speed as East Asia? That doesn't seem to be reinforce arguments that the Islam is uniquely bad.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 27, 2014, 10:03:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 27, 2014, 10:00:09 PM
Maher's politics and personal hatreds aren't the reason he's a lousy comic, it's that being a smug, condescending son of bitch isn't particularly funny. Turning on his show is like having Grumbler come over to your house and insult your cooking for an hour.
Raz: I made Lasagna...
Grumbles: WHOOSH
:D
Quote from: Razgovory on October 28, 2014, 11:07:37 AM
That doesn't seem to be reinforce arguments that the Islam is uniquely bad.
Good religions are all alike, bad religions are all bad in their own unique way.
The problem with Maher is that he makes the same mistake he accuses the fundies of - takes something that is basically defensible, then takes it to an extreme, which weakens that basic point he was trying to make in the first place.
All religions are not the same - to say they are is specious.
Since from the stance of the non religious, there is no particular objective truth to any of them, then religiion, by its definition, is whatever it's adherents say it is - and since people can (and do) say almost anything, then clearly there is very real differences in a practical sense between religions.
A religion that holds as its core principle that humans should never ever harm other humans is clearly very different than one that holds as its core principle that all humans should be killed, for example. Neither might be objectively true, but one is clearly more problematic than the other.
Now, whether or not Islam is more problematic than other religions...well, it seems kind of self-evident that it is in fact more prone to violence, at least at first glance. But of course there is a lot of wiggle room in there - how much of the violence is due to the differing message of the religion (compared to the other two major religions) and how much is due to the radically different social and cultural structures behind those who follow it? How do you even separate them?
Is there so much Islamic violence because Islam is a violent religion, or is there so much Islamic violence because Islam is the religion that happens to be followed by parts of the world that are completely fucked up?
Other: :Joos
Quote from: The Brain on October 28, 2014, 11:15:07 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 27, 2014, 10:03:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 27, 2014, 10:00:09 PM
Maher's politics and personal hatreds aren't the reason he's a lousy comic, it's that being a smug, condescending son of bitch isn't particularly funny. Turning on his show is like having Grumbler come over to your house and insult your cooking for an hour.
Raz: I made Lasagna...
Grumbles: WHOOSH
:D
I didn't get it. Can you explain the joke to me? :blush:
Quote from: Martinus on October 28, 2014, 11:29:54 AM
Quote from: The Brain on October 28, 2014, 11:15:07 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 27, 2014, 10:03:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 27, 2014, 10:00:09 PM
Maher's politics and personal hatreds aren't the reason he's a lousy comic, it's that being a smug, condescending son of bitch isn't particularly funny. Turning on his show is like having Grumbler come over to your house and insult your cooking for an hour.
Raz: I made Lasagna...
Grumbles: WHOOSH
:D
I didn't get it. Can you explain the joke to me? :blush:
Sure.
Quote from: Berkut on October 28, 2014, 11:25:48 AM
Is there so much Islamic violence because Islam is a violent religion, or is there so much Islamic violence because Islam is the religion that happens to be followed by parts of the world that are completely fucked up?
It is a valid question for an intellectual debate, indeed, but in practical terms, when talking about socio-political impact of either, does the distinction really matter? The fact that you have "normal" Westerners converting to Islam and then travelling to Middle East to kill unbelievers - whereas the same is, generally, not true for converts to Christianity (not to mention, Buddhism) seems to be telling, though.
I'm sure God can sort them out.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 28, 2014, 11:07:37 AM
Odd that you classify sub-Sahran Africa as having a lot of Islamic influence but not Europe. I'm not clear what you wish to show here. That the Arab states are improving at a faster rate then Europe does and at the same speed as East Asia? That doesn't seem to be reinforce arguments that the Islam is uniquely bad.
Because, y'know, hundreds of millions of muslims as opposed to about 10 million; dozens of muslim majority countries as opposed to 2 in europe.
Odd you ignore the argument being made, but then again your position has no merit.
In a sense, you could draw similarities to certain other behaviours that we try to curb or prohibit even if they are not harmful (or at least not as harmful) in themselves, but can serve as a gateway to more harmful phenomena.
Take virtual child pornography or cruelty to animals, for example. The first clearly does not have anyone who is being harmed. The second harms animals, but not human beings (and we, generally, allow animals to be harmed e.g. when they are slaughtered for food or fur).
Yet, as a society, we recognise each as something that should at least be frowned upon or prohibited outright (depending on jurisdiction), because we see them as potentially leading to more harmful behaviours.
Now, I recognise that the freedom of religion has, historically, been given a much wider breadth than most other liberties, so we should proceed with caution before we ban, say, the practice of Islam, but surely it should at least be possible to discuss some religions as being more harmful than others.
Quote from: The Brain on October 28, 2014, 11:45:38 AM
We could just, you know, ban murder. AND ENFORCE IT. No more Islam.
The problem with (just) banning murder and enforcing it is that it usually takes place after someone has been killed, though.
This is a reason why we try to catch and prevent a number of actions that could lead to murder, before it happens. But you know that.
Islam is an immature religion. Still needs a few more centuries to settle down.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 28, 2014, 11:49:16 AM
Islam is an immature religion. Still needs a few more centuries to settle down.
I don't think this argument works any more in the age of globalisation and 24 hour media coverage. As a civilization we have reached the point when we are unable to ignore atrocities happening on the other side of the globe.
Quote from: Martinus on October 28, 2014, 11:51:05 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 28, 2014, 11:49:16 AM
Islam is an immature religion. Still needs a few more centuries to settle down.
I don't think this argument works any more in the age of globalisation and 24 hour media coverage.
Which have been, what, the last 20 or so years? Nigga, please. You don't just to Tweet the evolution of doctrine.
The Catholic Church is still an international pedophile ring. How many more centuries can we afford to let it exist? Won't someone other than the priests please think of the children.
Quote from: The Brain on October 28, 2014, 11:57:44 AM
The Catholic Church is still an international pedophile ring. How many more centuries can we afford to let it exist? Won't someone other than the priests please think of the children.
I would gladly accept the destruction of the Catholic Church as the price for the destruction of Islam. :secret:
It is actually quite funny, because when I get into discussions on religion on Polish websites and forums, the usual retort from right wing conservatives I get is "why don't you go ahead and criticise Islam instead of Catholicism". :lol:
You'd probably get more traction if you weren't such a one-note songbird.
"Starving children in Guatemala? Are they gay? Meh."
Quote from: Berkut on October 28, 2014, 11:25:48 AM
Is there so much Islamic violence because Islam is a violent religion, or is there so much Islamic violence because Islam is the religion that happens to be followed by parts of the world that are completely fucked up?
To paraphrase Martinus, the empirical evidence would strongly suggest the latter. Because the same kind of violence was going on in the same parts of the world in the recent past, only under the rubric of socialist liberationism, or Arab Nationalism. Instead of medieval-style beheadings, they would hijack airplanes and execute people, or through them off cruise ships, or machine-gun people at the Olympic Games. Islam is the flavor now because all politically-based ideologies have been discredited, and "Islam" can fill whatever meaning one wants to propogate.
The religious differences between the Saudi monarchy and its followers on the one-hand, and ISIS jihadists on the other hand, are pretty minor. But they are mortal foes in the political realm. That is a big hint that religious doctrine is not really at the heart of what is going with these movements. I'm sure the leaders do believe much of what they say, but the existence and success of radical Sunni jihadism as a political phenomenon is not because it represents a logical and compelling working out of religious commandments; it is because it is a useful and effective rallying point for frustrated and angry young men to find political efficacy and to have an outlet for violence.
Yeah the angry violent young men could just as easily have rallied around liberal democracy. :rolleyes:
QuoteThe religious differences between the Saudi monarchy and its followers on the one-hand, and ISIS jihadists on the other hand, are pretty minor. But they are mortal foes in the political realm.
Saudi clergy are a different matter. ISIS's ties with Wahhabism are extremely close, far closer than Al Qaeda ever was.
QuoteI'm sure the leaders do believe much of what they say, but the existence and success of radical Sunni jihadism as a political phenomenon is not because it represents a logical and compelling working out of religious commandments; it is because it is a useful and effective rallying point for frustrated and angry young men to find political efficacy and to have an outlet for violence.
I'm not convinced these are mutually exclusive.
Quote from: The Brain on October 28, 2014, 12:13:48 PM
Yeah the angry violent young men could just as easily have rallied around liberal democracy. :rolleyes:
Valmy - time to get into the thread . . .
Democracy with the guillotine isn't very liberal.
Is there something uniquely liberal about drug cocktails?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 28, 2014, 12:26:18 PM
Is there something uniquely liberal about drug cocktails?
Other than some posters seem to take them liberally?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 28, 2014, 12:26:18 PM
Is there something uniquely liberal about drug cocktails?
Capital punishment for economic or political offenses is illiberal.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 28, 2014, 12:38:04 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 28, 2014, 12:26:18 PM
Is there something uniquely liberal about drug cocktails?
Capital punishment for economic or political offenses is illiberal.
Assuming a country has capital punishment where would you stand on the issue of treason?
It's generally a bullshit charge.
In cases where it's not, I think stripping the person's citizenship is the harshest appropriate response, unless they have broken other laws.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 28, 2014, 12:44:24 PM
It's generally a bullshit charge.
In cases where it's not, I think stripping the person's citizenship is the harshest appropriate response, unless they have broken other laws.
I am curious, what "bullshit charges" have there been? It seems to me to be a very seldom used charge.
Admiral Byng?
I dunno, it's just bandied about a lot. There's people who consider Jane Fonda a traitor, for instance. /shrug
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 28, 2014, 12:53:16 PM
Admiral Byng?
I dunno, it's just bandied about a lot. There's people who consider Jane Fonda a traitor, for instance. /shrug
There is a signficant difference between political rhetoric of branding an adversary a "traitor" and the criminal offence of treason.
Quote from: Viking on October 28, 2014, 11:40:34 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 28, 2014, 11:07:37 AM
Odd that you classify sub-Sahran Africa as having a lot of Islamic influence but not Europe. I'm not clear what you wish to show here. That the Arab states are improving at a faster rate then Europe does and at the same speed as East Asia? That doesn't seem to be reinforce arguments that the Islam is uniquely bad.
Because, y'know, hundreds of millions of muslims as opposed to about 10 million; dozens of muslim majority countries as opposed to 2 in europe.
Odd you ignore the argument being made, but then again your position has no merit.
You said "influence", not "how many millions of Muslims". It was my understanding that Europe was a lot Muslim influence (as well as four times as many Muslims as you claim). Still I don't understand what you think this graph means: From what I can tell the Arab world (which has lots of Muslims), is developing as about the same speed as Latin America (which has few Muslims). So perhaps you can tell the class exactly what you are trying to express with this graph here.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 28, 2014, 11:49:16 AM
Islam is an immature religion. Still needs a few more centuries to settle down.
Thats a bullshit position. They were much more mature and responisible in the past.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 28, 2014, 12:09:34 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 28, 2014, 11:25:48 AM
Is there so much Islamic violence because Islam is a violent religion, or is there so much Islamic violence because Islam is the religion that happens to be followed by parts of the world that are completely fucked up?
To paraphrase Martinus, the empirical evidence would strongly suggest the latter. Because the same kind of violence was going on in the same parts of the world in the recent past, only under the rubric of socialist liberationism, or Arab Nationalism. Instead of medieval-style beheadings, they would hijack airplanes and execute people, or through them off cruise ships, or machine-gun people at the Olympic Games. Islam is the flavor now because all politically-based ideologies have been discredited, and "Islam" can fill whatever meaning one wants to propogate.
The religious differences between the Saudi monarchy and its followers on the one-hand, and ISIS jihadists on the other hand, are pretty minor. But they are mortal foes in the political realm. That is a big hint that religious doctrine is not really at the heart of what is going with these movements. I'm sure the leaders do believe much of what they say, but the existence and success of radical Sunni jihadism as a political phenomenon is not because it represents a logical and compelling working out of religious commandments; it is because it is a useful and effective rallying point for frustrated and angry young men to find political efficacy and to have an outlet for violence.
How about you leave open the option that the reason they give is relevant to what they do and why?
The various groups of islamists do hate each other because the revolution eats it's children. But the case you are making here is analogous to saying that communist revolutions weren't about communist ideology because people have always been fighting. I don't accept that. Ideas and values do matter. When your self proclaimed ideology instructs you to fight, kill and oppress other regligious groups and you do just that then Ideology matters.
Quote from: Viking on October 29, 2014, 03:23:21 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 28, 2014, 11:49:16 AM
Islam is an immature religion. Still needs a few more centuries to settle down.
Thats a bullshit position. They were much more mature and responisible in the past.
Meh, debatable. They didn't make it all the way to Spain by selling copies of
Grit magazine.
Quote from: Viking on October 29, 2014, 03:33:03 AM
The various groups of islamists do hate each other because the revolution eats it's children. But the case you are making here is analogous to saying that communist revolutions weren't about communist ideology because people have always been fighting. I don't accept that. Ideas and values do matter. When your self proclaimed ideology instructs you to fight, kill and oppress other regligious groups and you do just that then Ideology matters.
Revolution is central to Communism. But the ideology of ISIL is not all at the core of Islam at all - the vast majority of Muslims and schools of Islamic theology and thought reject it. If you were correct than Indonesia - the largest Muslim country on the planet - should be a murderous hell-hole. But quite to the contrary.
I am not questioning the sincerity of what the individuals say anymore than I would question the sincerity of the 1970s era terrorists who claimed they were murdering Jews for the sake of the international proletariat.
Yet there have been, and still are, self proclaimed communists who do not engage in revolution.
Conquest and forced submission is as central to Islam as revolution is to communism.
Science, Minsky-style: ionizing radiation doesn't cause cancer because there are people who have receieved high doses who haven't developed cancer.
People say that about Indonesia to Bill Maher (to go back to the OP), but Maher then rudely changes subject and talks about Arab Muslims.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 29, 2014, 11:40:51 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 29, 2014, 03:33:03 AM
The various groups of islamists do hate each other because the revolution eats it's children. But the case you are making here is analogous to saying that communist revolutions weren't about communist ideology because people have always been fighting. I don't accept that. Ideas and values do matter. When your self proclaimed ideology instructs you to fight, kill and oppress other regligious groups and you do just that then Ideology matters.
Revolution is central to Communism. But the ideology of ISIL is not all at the core of Islam at all - the vast majority of Muslims and schools of Islamic theology and thought reject it. If you were correct than Indonesia - the largest Muslim country on the planet - should be a murderous hell-hole. But quite to the contrary.
I am not questioning the sincerity of what the individuals say anymore than I would question the sincerity of the 1970s era terrorists who claimed they were murdering Jews for the sake of the international proletariat.
Yes, and for most the the past 20 years it has been. Aceh, East Timor, Borneo, Irian Jaya etc.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.cdn.turner.com%2Fcnn%2Fdam%2Fassets%2F120621055338-bali-bomb-7-horizontal-gallery.jpg&hash=225eed33cf5ca65fe5041aada3eecdab5d2d8163)
This was one of the things done. 10 years Jemaah Islamiah was not only bombing places where tourists spent their money it was murdering christians by burning their churches with people inside.
That is with the huge and amazing islamic civic organizations it has, unique in the islamic world, which primarily run schools which teach teh three "R"s and run mosques of the least radical type.
Those aren't true Moslemmen.
Quote from: The Brain on October 29, 2014, 12:31:11 PM
Those aren't true Moslemmen.
true muslims wear skirts and eat sheeps bellies stuffed with offal.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 29, 2014, 12:13:19 PM
Conquest and forced submission is as central to Islam as revolution is to communism.
Care to explain why you believe that to be true?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 29, 2014, 12:13:19 PM
Conquest and forced submission is as central to Islam as revolution is to communism.
That is nonsense. It is certainly no more central to Islam than to Christianity, which has a long history of conquest and forced conversion.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 29, 2014, 01:12:29 PM
That is nonsense. It is certainly no more central to Islam than to Christianity, which has a long history of conquest and forced conversion.
Christianity has one golden rule. Islam has seven pillars of faith. Can't get more central than that.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 29, 2014, 01:14:23 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 29, 2014, 01:12:29 PM
That is nonsense. It is certainly no more central to Islam than to Christianity, which has a long history of conquest and forced conversion.
Christianity has one golden rule. Islam has seven pillars of faith. Can't get more central than that.
You mean these seven?
"I believe in Allah, His angels, His books, His messengers, in the Day of Judgment, and that Fate good and bad is given by Allah, and the life after death"
No
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 29, 2014, 01:14:23 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 29, 2014, 01:12:29 PM
That is nonsense. It is certainly no more central to Islam than to Christianity, which has a long history of conquest and forced conversion.
Christianity has one golden rule. Islam has seven pillars of faith. Can't get more central than that.
Christianity does not have one "Golden rule".
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 29, 2014, 01:14:23 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 29, 2014, 01:12:29 PM
That is nonsense. It is certainly no more central to Islam than to Christianity, which has a long history of conquest and forced conversion.
Christianity has one golden rule. Islam has seven pillars of faith. Can't get more central than that.
The golden rule isn't originated by Christianity, and Islam even has its own formulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule) of it.
Quote from: Viking on October 29, 2014, 12:29:35 PM
Yes, and for most the the past 20 years it has been. Aceh, East Timor, Borneo, Irian Jaya etc.
I assume you are joking. These were regional separatist movements, not Islamic jihadists.
Quote10 years Jemaah Islamiah was not only bombing places where tourists spent their money it was murdering christians by burning their churches with people inside.
That is with the huge and amazing islamic civic organizations it has, unique in the islamic world, which primarily run schools which teach teh three "R"s and run mosques of the least radical type.
Exactly. JI is a tiny organization with a few thousand adherents in a country of over 200 million people. It is a drop in an ocean dominated by moderate, mainstream religious foundations. Pointing to JI as illustrative is like making Fred Phelps or Anders Behring-Breivik exemplars of Christianity or Baruch Goldstein and exemplar of Judaism.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 29, 2014, 01:14:23 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 29, 2014, 01:12:29 PM
That is nonsense. It is certainly no more central to Islam than to Christianity, which has a long history of conquest and forced conversion.
Christianity has one golden rule. Islam has seven pillars of faith. Can't get more central than that.
Seven pillars?
You'll need to elaborate on that.
First rule of Christianity- Love God with all your heart and mind and soul and strength. Second, Love thy neighbor as thyself. So it should really be the Silver Rule. :D
Quote from: frunk on October 29, 2014, 01:23:03 PM
The golden rule isn't originated by Christianity, and Islam even has its own formulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule) of it.
So what? Mohammed didn't invent fasting either.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 29, 2014, 01:28:01 PM
Quote from: frunk on October 29, 2014, 01:23:03 PM
The golden rule isn't originated by Christianity, and Islam even has its own formulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule) of it.
So what? Mohammed didn't invent fasting either.
If someone says - as it seemed you did - that Christianity is substantially different from Islam because Christianity has the Golden Rule and Islam doesn't, pointing out that both religions have the Golden Rule is a pretty solid refutation of that point.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 29, 2014, 01:28:01 PM
So what? Mohammed didn't invent fasting either.
Then why are you comparing something that is in both religions as if it was only in one of them?
The other question is which pillar of Islam Admiral Yi finds so offensive.
Quote from: Jacob on October 29, 2014, 01:30:52 PM
If someone says - as it seemed you did - that Christianity is substantially different from Islam because Christianity has the Golden Rule and Islam doesn't, pointing out that both religions have the Golden Rule is a pretty solid refutation of that point.
It might be if I had said that, which I didn't.
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 is no eighth pillar that states: "but only conquer others if you would like to be conquered yourself."
There is nothing remotely similar in the teachings of Jesus as recounted in the Gospels. Exactly the opposite as a matter of fact.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 29, 2014, 01:36:16 PM
The other question is which pillar of Islam Admiral Yi finds so offensive.
Quote from: the Five Pillars of Islam
- Faith or belief in the Oneness of God and the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad;
- Establishment of the daily prayers;
- Concern for and almsgiving to the needy;
- Self-purification through fasting; and
- The pilgrimage to Makkah for those who are able.
http://www.islam101.com/dawah/pillars.html
:hmm:
I didn't invent the 2 hour lunch.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 29, 2014, 01:37:11 PM
It might be if I had said that, which I didn't.
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 is no eighth pillar that states: "but only conquer others if you would like to be conquered yourself."
There is nothing remotely similar in the teachings of Jesus as recounted in the Gospels. Exactly the opposite as a matter of fact.
Ah, I see. So if Muslims only had five pillars - none of which were Jihad - then it'd be cool?
As an aside - I've frequently been told that Jihad means "utmost struggle" and can just as easily be applied to things like looking after the needy as to warfare. You know... like being a moral crusader doesn't necessarily mean that you support invading the Middle East and installing a Christian ruler on the throne in the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
I wonder what's so controversial about the notion that different religions with different Holy Books might influence their believers in different ways.
I think Yi probably went too far when he tries to compare conquest in Islam to marxism (really, it's a tortured analogy that should not have been attempted), but the point still stands - there is an emphasis of jihad and struggle against nonbelievers in Islam that has no comparable notion in Christianity.
That doesn't mean that Muslims are inherently violent, or that Christians are inherently peaceful, but there is a difference there.
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2014, 01:44:18 PM
I think Yi probably went too far when he tries to compare conquest in Islam to marxism (really, it's a tortured analogy that should not have been attempted), but the point still stands - there is an emphasis of jihad and struggle against nonbelievers in Islam that has no comparable notion in Christianity.
Yeah, I don't think there's a Christian equivalent to the Muslim concept of crusading, right?
Quote from: Jacob on October 29, 2014, 01:46:49 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2014, 01:44:18 PM
I think Yi probably went too far when he tries to compare conquest in Islam to marxism (really, it's a tortured analogy that should not have been attempted), but the point still stands - there is an emphasis of jihad and struggle against nonbelievers in Islam that has no comparable notion in Christianity.
Yeah, I don't think there's a Christian equivalent to the Muslim concept of crusading, right?
There's nothing in the Bible about Crusading.
In fact the word is never used.
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=crusade&qs_version=NIV
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2014, 01:44:18 PM
I wonder what's so controversial about the notion that different religions with different Holy Books might influence their believers in different ways.
I think Yi probably went too far when he tries to compare conquest in Islam to marxism (really, it's a tortured analogy that should not have been attempted), but the point still stands - there is an emphasis of jihad and struggle against nonbelievers in Islam that has no comparable notion in Christianity.
That doesn't mean that Muslims are inherently violent, or that Christians are inherently peaceful, but there is a difference there.
I guess the counter-observation is that the details of theology don't seem to translate or map into differences in actual practice - Jesus meek and mild, turn-the-other-cheek stuff is all very well, but Christianity isn't really notable for its pacifism.
Also, present-day sects notable for pacifism and good works often had a very violent and fanatic past, without much change in actual doctrine.
Who could be more harmless than the Mennonites?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnster_Rebellion
What about the Aga Khan? All he does is fund charities and stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassins
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 29, 2014, 01:37:11 PM
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.
QuoteThere is nothing remotely similar in the teachings of Jesus as recounted in the Gospels. Exactly the opposite as a matter of fact.
Not so:
QuoteDo not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
The Gospels are full of dire threats of death and destruction to be visited in the those who do not accept the teachings of Jesus.
They're not treated as gospel though.
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2014, 01:50:39 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 29, 2014, 01:46:49 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2014, 01:44:18 PM
I think Yi probably went too far when he tries to compare conquest in Islam to marxism (really, it's a tortured analogy that should not have been attempted), but the point still stands - there is an emphasis of jihad and struggle against nonbelievers in Islam that has no comparable notion in Christianity.
Yeah, I don't think there's a Christian equivalent to the Muslim concept of crusading, right?
There's nothing in the Bible about Crusading.
In fact the word is never used.
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=crusade&qs_version=NIV
"Not appearing in the bible" is somewhat different from " no comparable notion in Christianity" which was your initial claim.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 29, 2014, 01:12:29 PM
Christianity, which has a long history of conquest and forced conversion.
To be fair, by now it has a long history of basically every single conceivable thing possible.
Quote from: Jacob on October 29, 2014, 01:54:10 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2014, 01:50:39 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 29, 2014, 01:46:49 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2014, 01:44:18 PM
I think Yi probably went too far when he tries to compare conquest in Islam to marxism (really, it's a tortured analogy that should not have been attempted), but the point still stands - there is an emphasis of jihad and struggle against nonbelievers in Islam that has no comparable notion in Christianity.
Yeah, I don't think there's a Christian equivalent to the Muslim concept of crusading, right?
There's nothing in the Bible about Crusading.
In fact the word is never used.
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=crusade&qs_version=NIV
"Not appearing in the bible" is somewhat different from " no comparable notion in Christianity" which was your initial claim.
Then I cheerfully correct my claim. Replace Koran for Islam, and Bible for Christianity. :)
Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2014, 01:54:49 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 29, 2014, 01:12:29 PM
Christianity, which has a long history of conquest and forced conversion.
To be fair, by now it has a long history of basically every single conceivable thing possible.
I can think of several things that it doesn't have a long history of.
Quote from: Jacob on October 29, 2014, 01:54:10 PM
"Not appearing in the bible" is somewhat different from " no comparable notion in Christianity" which was your initial claim.
Again if we are going to include everything that has happened in a Christian country as part of Christianity I wonder if anything is not part of Christianity. I mean we do have hundreds of nations over nearly 2000 years here.
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2014, 01:55:56 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2014, 01:54:49 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 29, 2014, 01:12:29 PM
Christianity, which has a long history of conquest and forced conversion.
To be fair, by now it has a long history of basically every single conceivable thing possible.
I can think of several things that it doesn't have a long history of.
Typically a statement like this includes an example.
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2014, 01:55:39 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 29, 2014, 01:54:10 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2014, 01:50:39 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 29, 2014, 01:46:49 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2014, 01:44:18 PM
I think Yi probably went too far when he tries to compare conquest in Islam to marxism (really, it's a tortured analogy that should not have been attempted), but the point still stands - there is an emphasis of jihad and struggle against nonbelievers in Islam that has no comparable notion in Christianity.
Yeah, I don't think there's a Christian equivalent to the Muslim concept of crusading, right?
There's nothing in the Bible about Crusading.
In fact the word is never used.
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=crusade&qs_version=NIV
"Not appearing in the bible" is somewhat different from " no comparable notion in Christianity" which was your initial claim.
Then I cheerfully correct my claim. Replace Koran for Islam, and Bible for Christianity. :)
The Christian Bible includes the Old Testament - plenty of support for militancy there. Just label your enemies as modern-day Amalakites and have at them. ;)
Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2014, 01:56:39 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2014, 01:55:56 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2014, 01:54:49 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 29, 2014, 01:12:29 PM
Christianity, which has a long history of conquest and forced conversion.
To be fair, by now it has a long history of basically every single conceivable thing possible.
I can think of several things that it doesn't have a long history of.
Typically a statement like this includes an example.
Sure. How supportive has Christianity been of homosexual relations/unions? I don't think an appeal to some tepid acceptance by Episcopalian church would compare to say the Crusades/Reconquista as example of militant Christianity.
Quote from: Malthus on October 29, 2014, 01:50:56 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2014, 01:44:18 PM
I wonder what's so controversial about the notion that different religions with different Holy Books might influence their believers in different ways.
I think Yi probably went too far when he tries to compare conquest in Islam to marxism (really, it's a tortured analogy that should not have been attempted), but the point still stands - there is an emphasis of jihad and struggle against nonbelievers in Islam that has no comparable notion in Christianity.
That doesn't mean that Muslims are inherently violent, or that Christians are inherently peaceful, but there is a difference there.
I guess the counter-observation is that the details of theology don't seem to translate or map into differences in actual practice - Jesus meek and mild, turn-the-other-cheek stuff is all very well, but Christianity isn't really notable for its pacifism.
Also, present-day sects notable for pacifism and good works often had a very violent and fanatic past, without much change in actual doctrine.
Who could be more harmless than the Mennonites?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnster_Rebellion
What about the Aga Khan? All he does is fund charities and stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassins
I think history has shown us that sadly people will tend to do whatever they want, no matter what their faith and religion tells them to do. Christians and Muslims (and Buddhists, Hindus and the rest) have much more in common than they have differences because of their faiths.
But around the edges I continue to think the point still stands. There is a difference between the teachings of the Bible, and of the Koran, and the teachings of the Koran have a noticeable more sympathy and endorsement or war and struggle.
Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2014, 01:54:49 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 29, 2014, 01:12:29 PM
Christianity, which has a long history of conquest and forced conversion.
To be fair, by now it has a long history of basically every single conceivable thing possible.
Yes quite so. And Islam is no different. After a millennium or so any broad-based comprehensive social construct will have gathered enough baggage and commentary that just about any set of ideas can be hung onto it. And so our present day fundamentalists can take their radically anachronistic hermeneutics and their present-day political hangups and project them back on some imagined view of a timeless Islamic past.
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2014, 01:58:53 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2014, 01:56:39 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2014, 01:55:56 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2014, 01:54:49 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 29, 2014, 01:12:29 PM
Christianity, which has a long history of conquest and forced conversion.
To be fair, by now it has a long history of basically every single conceivable thing possible.
I can think of several things that it doesn't have a long history of.
Typically a statement like this includes an example.
Sure. How supportive has Christianity been of homosexual relations/unions? I don't think an appeal to some tepid acceptance by Episcopalian church would compare to say the Crusades/Reconquista as example of militant Christianity.
You're fucking kidding us, right? You may have heard about a little something called the Catholic Church?
There's a long history of priests and nuns having homosexual relationships.
And Valmy's statement was about things that could be associated with Christianity, not specifically with any official policy.
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2014, 01:58:53 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2014, 01:56:39 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2014, 01:55:56 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2014, 01:54:49 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 29, 2014, 01:12:29 PM
Christianity, which has a long history of conquest and forced conversion.
To be fair, by now it has a long history of basically every single conceivable thing possible.
I can think of several things that it doesn't have a long history of.
Typically a statement like this includes an example.
Sure. How supportive has Christianity been of homosexual relations/unions?
Very. Many churches have been completely behind these things. Many decades before this became mainstream. Like...you know...mine.
QuoteI don't think an appeal to some tepid acceptance by Episcopalian church would compare to say the Crusades/Reconquista as example of militant Christianity.
I guess I do not understand what this means. I said everything has happened in the name of Christianity or has been done by Christians. I did not say that they all are equally sexy in the historical sense. Obviously the Reconquista is more interesting than being gay friendly or helping Lepers or whatever.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 29, 2014, 01:52:09 PM
QuoteThere is nothing remotely similar in the teachings of Jesus as recounted in the Gospels. Exactly the opposite as a matter of fact.
Not so:
QuoteDo not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
The Gospels are full of dire threats of death and destruction to be visited in the those who do not accept the teachings of Jesus.
That's not what that phrase means. It's part of a call to the disciples to go out and preach his teachings. He warns that it will not be easy, that families will be turned against each other, but that their ultimate reward will be with God.
Jesus' teachings are that what happens on this earth does NOT matter. The Kingdom of God will not be established on earth, but rather in heaven.
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2014, 02:00:03 PM
But around the edges I continue to think the point still stands. There is a difference between the teachings of the Bible, and of the Koran, and the teachings of the Koran have a noticeable more sympathy and endorsement or war and struggle.
This is making the same mistake the fundamentalists do - historical de-contextualization.
Jihad is used in a variety of contexts in the Qu'ran and the Islamic tradition generally, of which the military aspect is only one. But focusing solely on the military implications, the relevant historical context is the pre-industrial tribal societies of pre-Islamic Arabia, in which warfare was endemic. Early Islam sought to transcend tribal boundaries and put an end to incessant tribal warfare. "Jihad" in that context is actually a concept design to
restrain war by creating rules or law of war and channeling conflict away from internal and civil wars (ultimately unsuccessfully of course). Jihad permits conflict against "Others" but of course in most pre-WW1 societies (and many since) such conflict has always been justifiable. Jihad does not permit forced conversion as Islam requires toleration of people of the Book, which was then defined to include just about every major religion Muslims came into contact with.
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2014, 02:09:49 PM
That's not what that phrase means. It's part of a call to the disciples to go out and preach his teachings. He warns that it will not be easy, that families will be turned against each other, but that their ultimate reward will be with God.
That's a possible interpretation, just as a possible and common interpretation of jihad is to emphasize the spiritual access of its literal meaning, "striving" or "struggle".
But there is a clear literal reading here - Jesus speaks directly of the very real destruction of entire cities that is to come, and many scholars believe (with lots of textual support) that Jesus and his disciples understood that the day of judgment was coming very soon. Literally, Jesus is saying he is the emissary of God, and that he will report to God as to who fails to acknowledge him, so they will be marked for destruction.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 29, 2014, 02:10:57 PM
Jihad does not permit forced conversion as Islam requires toleration of people of the Book, which was then defined to include just about every major religion Muslims came into contact with.
Ghimmi somma dat Dhimmi!
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 29, 2014, 02:10:57 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2014, 02:00:03 PM
But around the edges I continue to think the point still stands. There is a difference between the teachings of the Bible, and of the Koran, and the teachings of the Koran have a noticeable more sympathy and endorsement or war and struggle.
This is making the same mistake the fundamentalists do - historical de-contextualization.
Jihad is used in a variety of contexts in the Qu'ran and the Islamic tradition generally, of which the military aspect is only one. But focusing solely on the military implications, the relevant historical context is the pre-industrial tribal societies of pre-Islamic Arabia, in which warfare was endemic. Early Islam sought to transcend tribal boundaries and put an end to incessant tribal warfare. "Jihad" in that context is actually a concept design to restrain war by creating rules or law of war and channeling conflict away from internal and civil wars (ultimately unsuccessfully of course). Jihad permits conflict against "Others" but of course in most pre-WW1 societies (and many since) such conflict has always been justifiable. Jihad does not permit forced conversion as Islam requires toleration of people of the Book, which was then defined to include just about every major religion Muslims came into contact with.
6th century Arabia was not all that different from 1st century Judea. In both warfare and violence was endemic.
Yet one gave birth to a religion that, in your own words, attempted to "restrain war", while the other gave birth to a religion that decried war.
Look, I'm not in the Grallonesque "Islam is a religion of war and death". I recognize there are many positive aspects of the faith, that most muslims are quite peaceable and peaceful, even devout adherents of the faith.
But "words have consequences". Islam and Christianity are noticeably different religions, and those differences mean something.
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2014, 02:20:52 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 29, 2014, 02:10:57 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2014, 02:00:03 PM
But around the edges I continue to think the point still stands. There is a difference between the teachings of the Bible, and of the Koran, and the teachings of the Koran have a noticeable more sympathy and endorsement or war and struggle.
This is making the same mistake the fundamentalists do - historical de-contextualization.
Jihad is used in a variety of contexts in the Qu'ran and the Islamic tradition generally, of which the military aspect is only one. But focusing solely on the military implications, the relevant historical context is the pre-industrial tribal societies of pre-Islamic Arabia, in which warfare was endemic. Early Islam sought to transcend tribal boundaries and put an end to incessant tribal warfare. "Jihad" in that context is actually a concept design to restrain war by creating rules or law of war and channeling conflict away from internal and civil wars (ultimately unsuccessfully of course). Jihad permits conflict against "Others" but of course in most pre-WW1 societies (and many since) such conflict has always been justifiable. Jihad does not permit forced conversion as Islam requires toleration of people of the Book, which was then defined to include just about every major religion Muslims came into contact with.
6th century Arabia was not all that different from 1st century Judea. In both warfare and violence was endemic.
Yet one gave birth to a religion that, in your own words, attempted to "restrain war", while the other gave birth to a religion that decried war.
:huh:
Have you read the old testament lately?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 29, 2014, 02:19:34 PM
Ghimmi somma dat Dhimmi!
Either that or the ghetto, Judenhut and badge. Pick your poison.
My error about jihad and seven pillars. However, it does appear jihad is one of the pillars of 12ver Shi'ism, and a minority of Sunnis accept it as a sixth pillar.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 29, 2014, 02:19:16 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2014, 02:09:49 PM
That's not what that phrase means. It's part of a call to the disciples to go out and preach his teachings. He warns that it will not be easy, that families will be turned against each other, but that their ultimate reward will be with God.
That's a possible interpretation, just as a possible and common interpretation of jihad is to emphasize the spiritual access of its literal meaning, "striving" or "struggle".
But there is a clear literal reading here - Jesus speaks directly of the very real destruction of entire cities that is to come, and many scholars believe (with lots of textual support) that Jesus and his disciples understood that the day of judgment was coming very soon. Literally, Jesus is saying he is the emissary of God, and that he will report to God as to who fails to acknowledge him, so they will be marked for destruction.
No, it's not a "possible interpretation", it's the only interpretation when you look at the wider text.
Quote from: Gospel of Matthew Chapter 1010 Jesus called for his 12 disciples to come to him. He gave them authority to drive out evil spirits and to heal every illness and sickness.
2 Here are the names of the 12 apostles. First are Simon Peter and his brother Andrew. Then come James, son of Zebedee, and his brother John. 3 Next are Philip and Bartholomew, and also Thomas and Matthew the tax collector. Two more are James, son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus. 4 The last are Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot. Judas is the one who was later going to hand Jesus over to his enemies.
5 Jesus sent these 12 out with the following orders. "Do not go among those who aren't Jews," he said. "Do not enter any town of the Samaritans. 6 Instead, go to the people of Israel. They are like sheep that have become lost. 7 As you go, preach this message, 'The kingdom of heaven is near.' 8 Heal those who are sick. Bring those who are dead back to life. Make those who have skin diseases 'clean' again. Drive out demons. You have received freely, so give freely.
9 "Do not take along any gold, silver or copper in your belts. 10 Do not take a bag for the journey. Do not take extra clothes or sandals or walking sticks. A worker should be given what he needs.
11 "When you enter a town or village, look for someone who is willing to welcome you. Stay at that person's house until you leave. 12 As you enter the home, greet those who live there. 13 If that home welcomes you, give it your blessing of peace. If it does not, don't bless it.
14 "Some people may not welcome you or listen to your words. If they don't, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. 15 What I'm about to tell you is true. On judgment day it will be easier for Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town.
16 "I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. So be as wise as snakes and as harmless as doves.
17 "Watch out! Men will hand you over to the local courts. They will whip you in their synagogues. 18 You will be brought to governors and kings because of me. You will be witnesses to them and to those who aren't Jews.
19 "But when they arrest you, don't worry about what you will say or how you will say it. At that time you will be given the right words to say. 20 It will not be you speaking. The Spirit of your Father will be speaking through you.
21 "Brothers will hand over brothers to be killed. Fathers will hand over their children. Children will rise up against their parents and have them put to death. 22 Everyone will hate you because of me. But anyone who stands firm to the end will be saved.
23 "When people attack you in one place, escape to another. What I'm about to tell you is true. You will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
24 "A student is not better than his teacher. A servant is not better than his master. 25 It is enough for the student to be like his teacher. And it is enough for the servant to be like his master. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebub, what can the others who live there expect?
26 "So don't be afraid of your enemies. Everything that is secret will be brought out into the open. Everything that is hidden will be uncovered. 27 What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight. What is whispered in your ear, shout from the rooftops. 28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but can't kill the soul. Instead, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
29 "Aren't two sparrows sold for only a penny? But not one of them falls to the ground without your Father knowing it. 30 He even counts every hair on your head! 31 So don't be afraid. You are worth more than many sparrows.
32 "What about someone who says in front of others that he knows me? I will also say in front of my Father who is in heaven that I know him. 33 But what about someone who says in front of others that he doesn't know me? I will say in front of my Father who is in heaven that I don't know him.
34 "Do not think that I came to bring peace to the earth. I didn't come to bring peace. I came to bring a sword. 35 I have come to turn
"'sons against their fathers.
Daughters will refuse to obey their mothers.
Daughters-in-law will be against their mothers-in-law.
36 A man's enemies will be the members of his own family.' (Micah 7:6)
37 "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me. Anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And anyone who does not pick up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 If anyone finds his life, he will lose it. If anyone loses his life because of me, he will find it.
40 "Anyone who welcomes you welcomes me. And anyone who welcomes me welcomes the One who sent me. 41 Suppose someone welcomes a prophet as a prophet. That one will receive a prophet's reward. And suppose someone welcomes a godly person as a godly person. That one will receive a godly person's reward. 42 Suppose someone gives even a cup of cold water to a little one who follows me. What I'm about to tell you is true. That one will certainly be rewarded."
There's also the fact that Matthew is of course one of the synoptic gospels. So this same story is also covered in Luke
Quote from: Gospel of Luke Chapter 1249 I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism to undergo [my death], and how distressed I am until it is completed! 51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.
Absolutely - Jesus taught that judgment would be coming, and those that did not believe in him would suffer. But he was clear that judgment came from God, not from man.
Quote from: Jacob on October 29, 2014, 01:40:57 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 29, 2014, 01:36:16 PM
The other question is which pillar of Islam Admiral Yi finds so offensive.
Quote from: the Five Pillars of Islam
- Faith or belief in the Oneness of God and the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad;
- Establishment of the daily prayers;
- Concern for and almsgiving to the needy;
- Self-purification through fasting; and
- The pilgrimage to Makkah for those who are able.
http://www.islam101.com/dawah/pillars.html (http://www.islam101.com/dawah/pillars.html)
:hmm:
Well I think it's pretty obvious. Concern for and Almsgiving to the needy.
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2014, 02:20:52 PM
Yet one gave birth to a religion that, in your own words, attempted to "restrain war", while the other gave birth to a religion that decried war.
The early Christians were a small sect, a tiny minority within a powerless and (in imperial context) small minority - and they believed the end of the world was nigh. They neither needed or had a theory of warfare. With respect to secular matters, the teaching was simple - submit to and accept the legitimacy of the governing authority:
QuoteBut if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
The moment Christianity became an official faith of an organized polity - i.e. a position equivalent to Islam during the conquest era - there was no question about the legitimacy of warfare carried out by the legitimate authorities. If Constantine wanted to slaughter his enemies, that was not only OK, but the fact that he marched under Christian banners would be celebrated.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 29, 2014, 02:31:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2014, 02:20:52 PM
Yet one gave birth to a religion that, in your own words, attempted to "restrain war", while the other gave birth to a religion that decried war.
The early Christians were a small sect, a tiny minority within a powerless and (in imperial context) small minority - and they believed the end of the world was nigh. They neither needed or had a theory of warfare. With respect to secular matters, the teaching was simple - submit to and accept the legitimacy of the governing authority:
QuoteBut if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
The moment Christianity became an official faith of an organized polity - i.e. a position equivalent to Islam during the conquest era - there was no question about the legitimacy of warfare carried out by the legitimate authorities. If Constantine wanted to slaughter his enemies, that was not only OK, but the fact that he marched under Christian banners would be celebrated.
Two thoughts:
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. 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.
2. 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. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 29, 2014, 02:24:58 PM
My error about jihad and seven pillars. However, it does appear jihad is one of the pillars of 12ver Shi'ism, and a minority of Sunnis accept it as a sixth pillar.
No on both counts.
Only the Ismailis accept it as a pillar, but not in the strictly military sense in the present day.
Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2014, 02:06:56 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2014, 01:58:53 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2014, 01:56:39 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2014, 01:55:56 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2014, 01:54:49 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 29, 2014, 01:12:29 PM
Christianity, which has a long history of conquest and forced conversion.
To be fair, by now it has a long history of basically every single conceivable thing possible.
I can think of several things that it doesn't have a long history of.
Typically a statement like this includes an example.
Sure. How supportive has Christianity been of homosexual relations/unions?
Very. Many churches have been completely behind these things. Many decades before this became mainstream. Like...you know...mine.
QuoteI don't think an appeal to some tepid acceptance by Episcopalian church would compare to say the Crusades/Reconquista as example of militant Christianity.
I guess I do not understand what this means. I said everything has happened in the name of Christianity or has been done by Christians. I did not say that they all are equally sexy in the historical sense. Obviously the Reconquista is more interesting than being gay friendly or helping Lepers or whatever.
What it means is that I think it is rather disingenuous to try to distance Christianity from rather large events-broad reaching attitudes by calling out that there were small communities doing other things. The point of the discussion wasn't to suggest that Christianity was evil but that what was being called out as uniquely part of Islam wasn't unique at all.
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2014, 02:20:52 PM
6th century Arabia was not all that different from 1st century Judea. In both warfare and violence was endemic.
While they were both violent, tribalist shitholes, the latter one was also under the sandal of an occupying imperial power. One that actively persecuted non-state religions except for the one that agreed to play ball.
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2014, 02:45:31 PM
What it means is that I think it is rather disingenuous to try to distance Christianity from rather large events-broad reaching attitudes by calling out that there were small communities doing other things. The point of the discussion wasn't to suggest that Christianity was evil but that what was being called out as uniquely part of Islam wasn't unique at all.
:yes:
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2014, 02:37:25 PM
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)
QuoteAnd 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.
QuoteBut 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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 29, 2014, 02:38:45 PM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 29, 2014, 02:50:06 PM
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.
I couldn't resist this one last answer though:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 29, 2014, 02:50:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2014, 02:37:25 PM
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? ;)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 29, 2014, 02:50:39 PM
Yes on both counts is what Wiki says.
No, Wiki does not. In Twelver theology, jihad is an Ancillary of the Faith (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelver#Main_doctrines); 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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Pillar_of_Islam).
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on October 29, 2014, 03:02:57 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 29, 2014, 02:50:39 PM
Yes on both counts is what Wiki says.
No, Wiki does not. In Twelver theology, jihad is an Ancillary of the Faith (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelver#Main_doctrines); 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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Pillar_of_Islam).
This is what I read:
QuoteJihad 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.
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2014, 03:02:17 PM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 29, 2014, 01:52:09 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 29, 2014, 01:37:11 PM
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."
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2014, 03:00:42 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 29, 2014, 02:50:06 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Malthus on October 29, 2014, 01:50:56 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on October 29, 2014, 03:37:48 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 29, 2014, 01:52:09 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 29, 2014, 01:37:11 PM
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)?
Quote from: Malthus on October 29, 2014, 03:50:50 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 29, 2014, 03:37:48 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 29, 2014, 01:52:09 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 29, 2014, 01:37:11 PM
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)?
:lol:
Quote from: Maximus on October 29, 2014, 03:47:57 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 29, 2014, 01:50:56 PM
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.
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: Malthus on October 29, 2014, 03:54:47 PM
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.
Splinter!
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2014, 02:45:31 PM
What it means is that I think it is rather disingenuous to try to distance Christianity from rather large events-broad reaching attitudes by calling out that there were small communities doing other things.
I don't think that is true at all. I think it is rather disingenuous to cherry pick events from a certain couple centuries in a millennia plus long phenomenon. Especially claiming that events over 600 years ago is more pertinent to Christianity than what is going on today, when for the most part even at the time the Church was mostly anti-war. How ridiculous is that?
QuoteThe point of the discussion wasn't to suggest that Christianity was evil but that what was being called out as uniquely part of Islam wasn't unique at all.
The fact you would bring this up suggests you completely missed my point.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 29, 2014, 02:00:25 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2014, 01:54:49 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 29, 2014, 01:12:29 PM
Christianity, which has a long history of conquest and forced conversion.
To be fair, by now it has a long history of basically every single conceivable thing possible.
Yes quite so. And Islam is no different. After a millennium or so any broad-based comprehensive social construct will have gathered enough baggage and commentary that just about any set of ideas can be hung onto it. And so our present day fundamentalists can take their radically anachronistic hermeneutics and their present-day political hangups and project them back on some imagined view of a timeless Islamic past.
Exactly. As I have said modern day radicals are about general rage and identity politics.
Quote from: Martinus on October 28, 2014, 11:32:52 AMIt is a valid question for an intellectual debate, indeed, but in practical terms, when talking about socio-political impact of either, does the distinction really matter? The fact that you have "normal" Westerners converting to Islam and then travelling to Middle East to kill unbelievers - whereas the same is, generally, not true for converts to Christianity (not to mention, Buddhism) seems to be telling, though.
But again isn't there a question of chicken and egg here.
In two ways, first of all Islam is associated in the West with groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda. This isn't a totally accurate picture but it does probably mean a certain sort of person might be more attracted to Islam than, say, Methodism. On the other hand it goes both ways Buddhism as practiced in Buddhist countries is pretty strongly misogynist in its belief and often used to justify violence (see the Rohingya in Burma and Sri Lanka) but our image of Buddhism is 'less a religion more a way of life' through which we can attain mystical experiences especially through meditation. Again that attracts a certain sort of person who may not, for example, look at Greek Orthodoxy.
Secondly I think there are lots of steps that make a person go and fight in Syria and I wonder with Western converts how far down the way of radicalisation they already are. My suspicion is they're angry, disenchanted, isolated young men (mostly) looking for an answer. Jihadism is a totalising ideology that provides that answer and says here is the action you can take. I think, in another age, they'd have ended up as street fighting communists or fascists.
For example despite their different groups I wouldn't be surprised if there were a fair few similarities from the reported few hundred Western Europeans fighting with Russians in Eastern Ukraine and those fighting in Syria.
QuoteThats a bullshit position. They were much more mature and responisible in the past.
In fairness so were Christians until they had 200 years of sustained sectarian bloodletting which ended up producing a desire and need for secularism and tolerance. I don't hold the view myself but this is Islam's fifteenth century and Christianity was fraying at this point. Which is why I never get Yi's view of what's needed is a Reformation :lol:
QuoteThe various groups of islamists do hate each other because the revolution eats it's children. But the case you are making here is analogous to saying that communist revolutions weren't about communist ideology because people have always been fighting. I don't accept that. Ideas and values do matter. When your self proclaimed ideology instructs you to fight, kill and oppress other regligious groups and you do just that then Ideology matters.
But isn't that his point. That the previous ideologies that enjoyed popularity in that part of the world also often called for violence: Arab nationalism, revolutionary socialism etc. This one does too. So to what extent can that really be pinned on it alone?
To use your example of a communist revolution it took a lot more than ideology to achieve, and if your analysis stops at the Manifesto then you'll struggle to fight it. There's a really interesting whose name I forget which was an analysis of the Islamic Revolution based on the historiography of Western revolutions (basically because it seemed so anomalous to any Western school of thought) - which isn't terribly relevant but it was really good.
QuoteChristianity has one golden rule. Islam has seven pillars of faith. Can't get more central than that.
There's Five Pillars of Islam - belief, prayer, charity, fasting and Hajj. There's seven pillars of wisdom or, alternately the Ismailis but I think it's very harsh to blame all this on the Aga Khan.
QuoteJihad is used in a variety of contexts in the Qu'ran and the Islamic tradition generally, of which the military aspect is only one. But focusing solely on the military implications, the relevant historical context is the pre-industrial tribal societies of pre-Islamic Arabia, in which warfare was endemic. Early Islam sought to transcend tribal boundaries and put an end to incessant tribal warfare. "Jihad" in that context is actually a concept design to restrain war by creating rules or law of war and channeling conflict away from internal and civil wars (ultimately unsuccessfully of course). Jihad permits conflict against "Others" but of course in most pre-WW1 societies (and many since) such conflict has always been justifiable. Jihad does not permit forced conversion as Islam requires toleration of people of the Book, which was then defined to include just about every major religion Muslims came into contact with.
And of course the early Muslims specifically discouraged conversion, forced or otherwise. The conversion of the Middle East took a good few hundred years which hardly indicates that it was forced.
QuoteMy error about jihad and seven pillars. However, it does appear jihad is one of the pillars of 12ver Shi'ism, and a minority of Sunnis accept it as a sixth pillar.
Interesting. Because I would have associated the whole jihadi concept and its baggage far more with Sunni Islam than the Shia, who I'd associate more with martyrdom.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 29, 2014, 04:54:31 PM
Secondly I think there are lots of steps that make a person go and fight in Syria and I wonder with Western converts how far down the way of radicalisation they already are. My suspicion is they're angry, disenchanted, isolated young men (mostly) looking for an answer. Jihadism is a totalising ideology that provides that answer and says here is the action you can take. I think, in another age, they'd have ended up as street fighting communists or fascists.
Yep. Being Muslim to these guys is about being anti-West than really being interested in Muslim Theology (which I am sure has its warts but...come on).
Quote from: Maximus on October 29, 2014, 04:04:39 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 29, 2014, 03:54:47 PM
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.
How about this?
http://www.webministries.info/papers/menno.htm
The conclusions:
QuoteMenno's name became synonymous with the main branch if Dutch and later world anabaptism, but made only a limited contribution to its origins and doctrines and significant growth was after his death.
Menno brought stability to his group after the debacle at Münster but probably only ensured its survival because he and his co-leaders managed to live for so long.
Menno and his group were strong evangelists, but the spread of Dutch anabaptism in the early sixteenth century was the product of much more complex social, political and economic factors.
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.
Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2014, 04:58:29 PM
Yep. Being Muslim to these guys is about being anti-West than really being interested in Muslim Theology (which I am sure has its warts but...come on).
Yeah. As I say I don't think it's a surprise that several have been buying books like Islam for Dummies.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 29, 2014, 04:54:31 PM
QuoteJihad is used in a variety of contexts in the Qu'ran and the Islamic tradition generally, of which the military aspect is only one. But focusing solely on the military implications, the relevant historical context is the pre-industrial tribal societies of pre-Islamic Arabia, in which warfare was endemic. Early Islam sought to transcend tribal boundaries and put an end to incessant tribal warfare. "Jihad" in that context is actually a concept design to restrain war by creating rules or law of war and channeling conflict away from internal and civil wars (ultimately unsuccessfully of course). Jihad permits conflict against "Others" but of course in most pre-WW1 societies (and many since) such conflict has always been justifiable. Jihad does not permit forced conversion as Islam requires toleration of people of the Book, which was then defined to include just about every major religion Muslims came into contact with.
And of course the early Muslims specifically discouraged conversion, forced or otherwise. The conversion of the Middle East took a good few hundred years which hardly indicates that it was forced.
I just wanted to pick up on this point because it I thik goes to my point - that the different religions are, well, different, and it goes right back to the Koran and Bible.
As you pointed out, Muslims are not really big on conversion. They allow it of course, but it's not required. You don't really hear about Muslim missionaries trying to spread the Koran, and Christian and minority groups have survived in the Middle East long past the Muslim conquests. And all because the Koran talks about various rights for dhimmis should have.
Christianity on the other hand is hugely into conversion. Because, of course, that's what Jesus said - "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation."
Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2014, 04:51:05 PM
I don't think that is true at all. I think it is rather disingenuous to cherry pick events from a certain couple centuries in a millennia plus long phenomenon. Especially claiming that events over 600 years ago is more pertinent to Christianity than what is going on today, when for the most part even at the time the Church was mostly anti-war. How ridiculous is that?
The contention is that Islam is a uniquely violent religion, primarily because of their religious beliefs. That doesn't seem to be born out. Other religions (including Christianity) have been just as or more violent in the past, and Moslem majority/minority regions have been peaceful both in the past and in the present. It's a lot more likely that there are cultural/sociological/economic reasons behind the current way of violence (as well as the current lack of violence among Christians), and it's the fanatics and their detractors that use the religion to justify/condemn.
Quote from: Malthus on October 29, 2014, 05:01:50 PM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 29, 2014, 04:54:31 PM
In fairness so were Christians until they had 200 years of sustained sectarian bloodletting which ended up producing a desire and need for secularism and tolerance. I don't hold the view myself but this is Islam's fifteenth century and Christianity was fraying at this point. Which is why I never get Yi's view of what's needed is a Reformation :lol:
Really peace and tolerance only came to Western civilization very recently. If one were to go back a mere 100 years the West would not be the shining example of a tolerant, peaceful and prosperous society.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Every news outlet asking me 4 comment on this Berkeley thing but then i remembered: I'VE got a show!And thats where I'll address it,Fri nite</p>— Bill Maher (@billmaher) <a href="https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/527573364932894720">October 29, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Bah...can't make that work, and now it won't let me modify it. :mad:
Anyways it's a tweet from Bill Maher that says
Every news outlet asking me 4 comment on this Berkeley thing but then i remembered: I'VE got a show!And thats where I'll address it,Fri nite
Quote from: Razgovory on October 29, 2014, 06:08:42 PM
Really peace and tolerance only came to Western civilization very recently. If one were to go back a mere 100 years the West would not be the shining example of a tolerant, peaceful and prosperous society.
If you go back 101 years though!
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 29, 2014, 01:23:13 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 29, 2014, 12:29:35 PM
Yes, and for most the the past 20 years it has been. Aceh, East Timor, Borneo, Irian Jaya etc.
I assume you are joking. These were regional separatist movements, not Islamic jihadists.
Quote10 years Jemaah Islamiah was not only bombing places where tourists spent their money it was murdering christians by burning their churches with people inside.
That is with the huge and amazing islamic civic organizations it has, unique in the islamic world, which primarily run schools which teach teh three "R"s and run mosques of the least radical type.
Exactly. JI is a tiny organization with a few thousand adherents in a country of over 200 million people. It is a drop in an ocean dominated by moderate, mainstream religious foundations. Pointing to JI as illustrative is like making Fred Phelps or Anders Behring-Breivik exemplars of Christianity or Baruch Goldstein and exemplar of Judaism.
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.
The peace terms ending the Aceh conflict were that Aceh got to have Shariah law, which the secular government was trying to prevent. In Borneo and Sulawesi you did have religious murder going on. In each case inter-muslim conflicts are about the religiosity of society, in the inter-religious conflicts religion always plays a part in making the conflicts more murderous and more violence. Religions own land, didn't you notice? OR at least ONE religion has a doctrine of land belonging to a religion.
The problem is that Indonesia is the best case scenario. Albania and Bosnia are majority atheist among all "confessions". In this best case scenario you still get the violent mass murder commanded by religion.
Now the apologists for islam being a religion of peace argue either that it is just as bad as any other (patently false in the lifetime of anybody living since the enlightenment) or that most muslims aren't violent. Neither is an argument against it's inherent tendency to violence. Unlike virtually every other religion or religious text Islamic theology codifies the instuction to violence that was merely implied or not-contradicted in other theologies. Even in the mildest interpretations of the scripture you still are instructed to take revenge. There are real world reasons for this, the prophet needing to find justifications for his evil deeds being the most important one.
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.
Even indonesia with its moderating muslim mass movements, with its syncretic and "heretic" islam, with it's long history of interdenominational co-existence, the best case scenario produces evil. Not just one man at one point in time, but many, for decades and decades.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 29, 2014, 02:10:57 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2014, 02:00:03 PM
But around the edges I continue to think the point still stands. There is a difference between the teachings of the Bible, and of the Koran, and the teachings of the Koran have a noticeable more sympathy and endorsement or war and struggle.
This is making the same mistake the fundamentalists do - historical de-contextualization.
Jihad is used in a variety of contexts in the Qu'ran and the Islamic tradition generally, of which the military aspect is only one. But focusing solely on the military implications, the relevant historical context is the pre-industrial tribal societies of pre-Islamic Arabia, in which warfare was endemic. Early Islam sought to transcend tribal boundaries and put an end to incessant tribal warfare. "Jihad" in that context is actually a concept design to restrain war by creating rules or law of war and channeling conflict away from internal and civil wars (ultimately unsuccessfully of course). Jihad permits conflict against "Others" but of course in most pre-WW1 societies (and many since) such conflict has always been justifiable. Jihad does not permit forced conversion as Islam requires toleration of people of the Book, which was then defined to include just about every major religion Muslims came into contact with.
If you actually believe the tenets of your religion you must de-contextualize. Jesus and Mohammed came to us with messages for all humanity for all time. They did supposedly have the answer to the question of life the universe and everything. They were the chosen vessels by the only perfect being to present that answer to us. They supposedly trancend their time and place, or so the believers and the tenets of the faith supposedly claim.
De-contextualizing is denying the divine character of the revelation itself. It is the act of putting oneself above god by "knowing better than him" what he was trying to express. This is not an analysis of Plato or Confusius or Descartes, fallible humans trying to make sense of their own world. This is god speaking to us.
Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2014, 04:51:05 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2014, 02:45:31 PM
What it means is that I think it is rather disingenuous to try to distance Christianity from rather large events-broad reaching attitudes by calling out that there were small communities doing other things.
I don't think that is true at all. I think it is rather disingenuous to cherry pick events from a certain couple centuries in a millennia plus long phenomenon. Especially claiming that events over 600 years ago is more pertinent to Christianity than what is going on today, when for the most part even at the time the Church was mostly anti-war. How ridiculous is that?
QuoteThe point of the discussion wasn't to suggest that Christianity was evil but that what was being called out as uniquely part of Islam wasn't unique at all.
The fact you would bring this up suggests you completely missed my point.
You didn't seem to have a relevant point.
The point was exactly that you said the point of the discussion was. :wacko:
Still intrigued why that was disingenuous.
Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2014, 06:48:11 PM
The point was exactly that you said the point of the discussion was. :wacko:
Yeah I don't see how I was supposed to get that from your post, but sorry we cross-talked. :( :hug:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 29, 2014, 02:50:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2014, 02:37:25 PM
QuoteBut 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. ;)
But clearly Jesus doesn't isn't calling on his followers to destroy the unbelievers. He's promising them that God will do so.
Quote from: dps on October 29, 2014, 07:25:17 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 29, 2014, 02:50:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2014, 02:37:25 PM
QuoteBut 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. ;)
But clearly Jesus doesn't isn't calling on his followers to destroy the unbelievers. He's promising them that God will do so.
Ah that's better then. Instead of fallible humans, an omnipotent God is the enemy of unbelievers.
Quote from: dps on October 29, 2014, 07:25:17 PM
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.
Quote from: Viking on October 29, 2014, 06:23:01 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on October 29, 2014, 07:31:59 PM
Quote from: dps on October 29, 2014, 07:25:17 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on October 29, 2014, 07:31:59 PM
Quote from: dps on October 29, 2014, 07:25:17 PM
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.
You might want to read that Hymn again.
Quote from: grumbler on October 29, 2014, 07:31:59 PM
Quote from: dps on October 29, 2014, 07:25:17 PM
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.
http://youtu.be/4t4TC6h9bpo
When I got confirmed i became a Soldier for Christ.
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2014, 07:31:15 PM
Ah that's better then. Instead of fallible humans, an omnipotent God is the enemy of unbelievers.
Well what it to you? You have some serious trouble if people come at you. If someone you don't even believe exists has in for you, you should be fine.
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2014, 07:31:15 PM
Ah that's better then. Instead of fallible humans, an omnipotent God is the enemy of unbelievers.
Yeah but strangely having fallible humans coming after you is typically more troublesome.
Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2014, 11:39:20 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2014, 07:31:15 PM
Ah that's better then. Instead of fallible humans, an omnipotent God is the enemy of unbelievers.
Yeah but strangely having fallible humans coming after you is typically more troublesome.
Yet somehow, fallible humans sometimes take it upon themselves to carry out what they feel their god intends to do, and go after the people they think he's designated as enemies.
Quote from: dps on October 29, 2014, 07:36:03 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 29, 2014, 07:31:59 PM
Quote from: dps on October 29, 2014, 07:25:17 PM
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:
QuoteOnward 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
Quote from: grumbler on October 29, 2014, 07:31:59 PM
Quote from: dps on October 29, 2014, 07:25:17 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 29, 2014, 07:34:33 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 29, 2014, 06:23:01 PM
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.
Quote from: Viking on October 30, 2014, 03:15:25 AM
Quote from: grumbler on October 29, 2014, 07:31:59 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on October 30, 2014, 05:07:51 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 30, 2014, 03:15:25 AM
Quote from: grumbler on October 29, 2014, 07:31:59 PM
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.
Quote from: Viking on October 30, 2014, 05:10:56 AM
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.
:lmfao: 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.
Quote from: grumbler on October 30, 2014, 05:07:51 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 30, 2014, 03:15:25 AM
Quote from: grumbler on October 29, 2014, 07:31:59 PM
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. :P
Quote from: Maximus on October 29, 2014, 05:36:55 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 29, 2014, 05:01:50 PM
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.
QuoteMenno 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.
Quote from: grumbler on October 30, 2014, 05:07:51 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 30, 2014, 03:15:25 AM
Quote from: grumbler on October 29, 2014, 07:31:59 PM
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.
Quote from: Viking on October 29, 2014, 06:23:01 PM
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.
QuoteIf 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.
Quote from: dps on October 29, 2014, 07:25:17 PM
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.
Quote from: Viking on October 30, 2014, 03:15:25 AM
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. ;)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 30, 2014, 11:18:30 AMmovements.
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 30, 2014, 11:25:32 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 30, 2014, 03:15:25 AM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on October 30, 2014, 08:28:15 AM
Quote from: Maximus on October 29, 2014, 05:36:55 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 29, 2014, 05:01:50 PM
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.
QuoteMenno 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.
Quote from: Martinus on October 30, 2014, 02:29:04 AM
I thought it was Malaclypse the Younger, who has that advantage over Jesus that he actually existed:
I think the evidence is pretty convincing Jesus existed. I mean we are talking ancient history here but it seems pretty definitive. Is there some particular issue with the historical evidence you take issue with?
Quote from: Viking on October 30, 2014, 11:26:36 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 30, 2014, 11:18:30 AMmovements.
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.
If someone were to commit mass muder quoting Locke, Burke and Mill would you take them seriously and assume that the ideologies of these men is murderous because of the mass murder? Or would you simply suggest that the person had in fact, missed the point?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2014, 10:58:21 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 30, 2014, 11:26:36 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 30, 2014, 11:18:30 AMmovements.
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.
If someone were to commit mass muder quoting Locke, Burke and Mill would you take them seriously and assume that the ideologies of these men is murderous because of the mass murder? Or would you simply suggest that the person had in fact, missed the point?
What about someone committing mass murder while quoting Bill Maher?