Infidel

[Lineareagle]

Just finished a book by Ayann Hirsi Ali called INFIDEL.

 

As one of the infidels I found it a little disturbing that we are categorized to such an extent.

 

Anyone else read this book?

[Wooster]

No but I can recommend the Dylan album "Infidel".

 

Wooster

[Agent_Orange]

+1

[motorman587]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uwOL4rB-go

[Hermes]

You will probably feel better after reading 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins.

In fact, I highly recommend it.

 

Jurgen

[Tony_K]

Didn't read the book but damn he was one cute kid!

 

 

sorry couldn't help myself

[Ron_B]

Somehow, I foresee a short life for this thread. (a subject that can't help but get political)

 

No, I've not read the book (yet) but I've read some articles by her and a great deal about her.

 

She's one brave soul.

[beemerman2k]

I've listened to her being interviewed on a couple of public radio stations lately. Real brave soul and I happen to agree with what she has to say.

 

One terrible way to respond to an alleged wrong doing is through hatred and bitterness -- a real lust to see the perpetrator suffer pain and suffering. Once a people (or a person) adopts such values, they become worse than the alleged perpetrator they are reacting to in my view. I saw this phenomenon at work in so many movements in this world including various race based "<color> power" movements, certain gender based movements and anti-movements, and of course, terrorism.

 

Ayann Hirsi Ali points out the obvious hypocrisy among certain individuals, groups, and societies in her culture. This is ultimately why Dr Martin Luther King, Jr swore so heavily by non-violence; he wanted to stop the alleged perpetrator, but by no means did he seek to conquer, destroy, hurt, or even hate him. One certain path to self destruction -- in his view -- is to allow bitterness and hatred into your heart. Once that happens, you become blind to your own evil and then you become worse than the so-called "evil" you are supposed to be fighting!

 

It's a universally, global and historical phenomenon, and Ayann Hirsi Ali merely cites the latest example of it.

[Gregori]

I'm just glad to be an infidel, heathen, goy, or what have you...

 

Here in the US (and other civilized countries) I have the choice to think for myself, and be affiliated (or not) with whatever religion or group I choose to.

 

I think I'll stay right here - thanks.

[Wooster]

beemerman2k,

 

Well said.

 

wooster

[Lineareagle]

What really bothers me and something she points out is that we are being led to believe that at its core the Muslim faith is non-violent and emphasies harmony and good will.

This is true BUT it only applies to the faithful, the infidel is expressly outside of this mandate.

Thus there will never be a reconciliation between Islam and the rest of the world, from their point of view there never can be.

That leaves us with very few choices as we generally believe that we can all live in harmony, perhaps in this instance we never will be able to so we must, what?

[Dave McReynolds]

Thus there will never be a reconciliation between Islam and the rest of the world, from their point of view there never can be.

That leaves us with very few choices as we generally believe that we can all live in harmony, perhaps in this instance we never will be able to so we must, what?

 

I think we can see parallels if we look back at Christianity at the time of the crusades and the inquisition. The Christian leadership at that time believed they were under a mandate to convert the world to Christianity through whatever means were available: war, torture, active involvement in governments, etc. They believed that failure in this mission would condemn those they failed to reach to eternal damnation, which justified any means to convert the unfaithful. What were a few moments of agony now compared with an eternity of bliss to follow?

 

That movement died under its own weight, and left us with the comparatively peaceful Christian churches of today. One still hears the Christian faith called on in support of acts of violence from time to time, but seem to be isolated instances and not an organized effort by the Christian churches as a whole.

 

Violent movements, whether Hitler's Germany or Muslem terrorists, have to be resisted until they die out or mutate into something we can live with. Intelligently resisted, as you would a lingering infection or cancer in your body, in such a way that you preserve your energy for the long haul and are actually fighting the infection and not fighting yourself.

[beemerman2k]

I think we can see parallels if we look back at Christianity at the time of the crusades and the inquisition.

 

I would agree with this viewpoint. In fact, I'll raise it a couple of notches. Ever wonder why Moses writes in the Old Testament book of Deutoronomy, "Thou shalt not kill", yet in the very next book of Joshua, God orders the Israelites to kill all the people of Canaan? There would appear to be a contradiction in theology here, but there isn't.

 

In the minds of the ancient Jews, the Law of Moses only applied to fellow Jews, not to mankind in general. Therefore, the 10 commandments were rules for inter-Jewish relations, not for Jewish/non-Jewish interactions.

 

Obviously, that was then and this is now as I think its a very rare occasion that we see a member of this faith justifying violence based upon the Law of Moses. Jews I meet today clearly apply the Law of Moses to all people in that they consider it as a moral code for all inter-human relations: Murder is always wrong regardless of who the victim is. One could look at the tensions in the Middle East and argue that these age old hostilities are still at work today, but I would counter that the reason for today's tensions are due to todays events. Nobody over there is fighting over what took place a century ago, let alone a few millennium.

 

Anyhow, I point it out merely to state that we (I would argue that our western culture derives more of it's moral values from Judaism than from any other faith) have a bit of a plank in our own eye with regard to the strict doctrine of our faith versus what we believe to be the right way to treat one another.

[Dave McReynolds]

James, your post made me reflect on how long these things can persist. It's a good 2,000 years from the time you describe in the old testiment to the end of the inquisition, encompassing times of religious calm and other times when people such as Charlemagne used Christianity as a motivation, or at least an excuse, for expanding their empires.

 

Viewed in that context, I don't know if we can view the last few hundred years as evidence that those in the Judeo/Christian religion have evolved beyond promoting religious wars of conquest or as just a short rest. And if we use our own history to predict what may transpire with the Muslems, we may be in for a really long haul. What do you think?

[beemerman2k]

On one hand, I believe that the vast majority of members of the major religions have evolved beyond the bad old days, but on the other hand, I see it only as a "circumstantial" evolution What I mean is that let the social, political and economic context change and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see another inquisition arise.

 

To me, there are 2 major reasons for this:

 

1) Holy Writ: these rather extreme doctrines are still with us even if they aren't being practiced. As long as that's the case, there is a psychological "hook" a leader can use to rally those who regard the source of such radical views as "holy". I listened to an interview with an ex member of a terrorist group in London. He was arguing this very point: that as long as such radical passages are in these religious texts, then leaders have a strong lever with which to recruit fresh, young, new members into their cause.

 

Of course, we today often latch on to these doctrines without understanding of their true meaning or the historical context the doctrine was addressing.

 

2) Youth: Young people haven't learned the painful lessons of the past, nor are they necessarily educated enough to know what happened. Therefore, you get enough young people together in a bad context and once again, the harmful policies of the past see a new light of day.

 

If we had this same conversation prior to World War 2, I'd agree that we have "evolved" beyond the brutal sectarian days of old. Yet along would come Adoph Hitler to shatter our illusions of progress.

 

I fear that if and when times get tough here in the west, there very well could be a resurgence of some of the bad old days of religious and political extremism. But I think this is a trait of all religious groups so long as they're populated by people

[Pilgrim]

I think we can see parallels if we look back at Christianity at the time of the crusades and the inquisition.

 

I would agree with this viewpoint. In fact, I'll raise it a couple of notches. Ever wonder why Moses writes in the Old Testament book of Deutoronomy, "Thou shalt not kill", yet in the very next book of Joshua, God orders the Israelites to kill all the people of Canaan? There would appear to be a contradiction in theology here, but there isn't. We need to have David Baker, our resident archaic linguist (in the sense of student of old languages, not in his persona as an old dude who studied languages) weigh in here. It is my understanding from someone else who purported to be such that the text we now read as saying "Thou shalt not kill" was, in the original, "Thou shalt do no murder", an entirely different thing.

 

In the minds of the ancient Jews, the Law of Moses only applied to fellow Jews, not to mankind in general. What's your source of information for that statement? Not that I necessarily disagree; I just never heard it said before and I'm skeptical, absent some justification. Therefore, the 10 commandments were rules for inter-Jewish relations, not for Jewish/non-Jewish interactions.

 

Obviously, that was then and this is now as I think its a very rare occasion that we see a member of this faith justifying violence based upon the Law of Moses. Jews I meet today clearly apply the Law of Moses to all people in that they consider it as a moral code for all inter-human relations: Murder is always wrong regardless of who the victim is. One could look at the tensions in the Middle East and argue that these age old hostilities are still at work today, but I would counter that the reason for today's tensions are due to todays events. Nobody over there is fighting over what took place a century ago, let alone a few millennium. Uh-uh. See comments below.

 

Anyhow, I point it out merely to state that we (I would argue that our western culture derives more of it's moral values from Judaism than from any other faith) have a bit of a plank in our own eye with regard to the strict doctrine of our faith versus what we believe to be the right way to treat one another.

 

I don't agree about the fighting being over current events and neither does Bernard Lewis. Islam had a long history of assault on Europe and it was not because they wanted territory; it was because Allah demanded that they go find the infidel and convert him or kill him. We overlook the fact that the crusades arose, not from European desire to convert Moslems to Christianity, but from the fact that Islam had taken over holy places in Israel and was denying access to them to Christian pilgrims. Long before the First Crusade in 1095 Charles Martel had to beat back the Moslems at the battle of Tours - in France, AD 732, only a century after Mohammed died. It wasn't until 1492 that Ferdinand and Isabella kicked the last of them out of Spain. Then, as late as 1529 Islam laid seige to Vienna, Austria in their last attempt at expansion.

 

Many Moslems, particularly the fundamentalists, see that turn-around in their fate as reason enough for war now.

 

In the days immediately after 9/11 Bernard Lewis appeared on a panel of talking heads. They all had their say (typically ignorant and shallow) while Lewis kept his counsel. Finally, at the closing moment, the moderator observed that Mr. Lewis had been pretty quiet, and asked what he thought. "It's just the Crusades, continued," was his response. Their jaws, and mine, dropped at the thought.

 

And I think he's right.

 

The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is another thing entirely. That's about land, not theology, and it is of recent development.

 

Pilgrim

[Jones]

These are all excellent reasons to own a motorcycle.

[beemerman2k]

It is my understanding from someone else who purported to be such that the text we now read as saying "Thou shalt not kill" was, in the original, "Thou shalt do no murder", an entirely different thing.[/color]

 

In the minds of the ancient Jews, the Law of Moses only applied to fellow Jews, not to mankind in general. What's your source of information for that statement? Not that I necessarily disagree; I just never heard it said before and I'm skeptical, absent some justification. Therefore, the 10 commandments were rules for inter-Jewish relations, not for Jewish/non-Jewish interactions.

 

First of all, I would agree that "kill" does mean "murder". I don't know that I therefore agree that killing in the context of war (Israel clearing out the land of Canaan) is therefore not murder. What was the justification for the war aside from the fact that the Israelites wanted their land? (Yes, I am aware of the argument that God promised it to Abraham, but does that morally justify Joshua's conquest?)

 

Secondly, my sources for the interpretation of the Law of Moses. This understanding arose primarily from my own inquisitiveness on the matter. I used to study the Bible quite a bit in my youth, and I remember having a real problem with Joshua's conquest and how it seemed to me to fly in the face of the 10 commandments. God either values life or He doesn't; it's either wrong to kill or it isn't. Can't have it both ways. So what's up with this apparent contradiction? My conclusion came from asking Jewish professors and theologians that I was privileged to have met over the years. I also took a course in college called "Ancient Jewish History" which also shaped some of my views.

 

Can I say for certain that this is the correct interpretation? I don't feel I can contend anything from antiquity with certainty, I can only assert my current understanding at the time with the caveat that I reserve the right to continue in my learning and growth. But this is my current (and relatively confident) understanding.

 

I don't agree about the fighting being over current events and neither does Bernard Lewis. Islam had a long history of assault...

 

I was speaking of Israel when I made that statement, not of Islam. Israel has conflicts today with it's neighbors, but Israel does not fly the flag of Joshua nor do they seem to harbor ambitions of taking their land in the spirit of Joshua's conquest. Their conflicts are born of modern issues. (Now, having said that, I know there are Jews to this day who do see things through Joshua's eyes. Basically, fundamentalist Jews, just like there are fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims.)

 

Many Moslem's, particularly the fundamentalists, see that turn-around in their fate as reason enough for war now.

 

In the days immediately after 9/11 Bernard Lewis appeared on a panel of talking heads. They all had their say (typically ignorant and shallow) while Lewis kept his counsel. Finally, at the closing moment, the moderator observed that Mr. Lewis had been pretty quiet, and asked what he thought. "It's just the Crusades, continued," was his response. Their jaws, and mine, dropped at the thought.

 

And I think he's right.

 

The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is another thing entirely. That's about land, not theology, and it is of recent development.

 

He probably is right; I don't doubt it at all.

 

Your last point about Israel and Palestine substantiates my point entirely.

[beemerman2k]

These are all excellent reasons to own a motorcycle.

[Dave McReynolds]

I think the point that Pilgrim, James and I might agree on, perhaps coming at the question from entirely different directions, is that it's likely to be a long, long struggle.

 

A struggle where we have to conserve our resources if we hope to prevail. More like climbing Mt. Everest than playing the Superbowl.

 

A struggle where no living terrorist is likely to be persuaded otherwise. Maybe their children or grandchildren will turn their interests to other pursuits.

 

Where we might disagree is in tactics. Should we take into account, in our tactics, the likelihood that our own actions will result in more terrorists than we started with? Should we pace ourselves so we still have resources to fight with 10 or 20 years from now? Are we more likely to ultimately prevail if we focus on the defense of our own borders or aggressively seek out the terrorists where they live? To what extent should we sacrifice our own freedoms and morality to expedite our own efforts to win?

 

I purposely leave these in the form of questions, because posing my own opinions as to the answers would quickly get this discussion locked down as political.

[Ken H.]

James,

 

You're obviously much more learned on this than I, so I will only weigh in with a -

[Ken H.]

You will probably feel better after reading 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins.

In fact, I highly recommend it.

 

Jurgen

Yes, and 'Letters to a Christian Nation' and 'The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason' both by Sam Harris. And 'God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything' by Christopher Hitchens.

 

When you think back on the millions and millions of people that people have killed over the centuries in the name of "God", it seems like the ultimate oxymoron of humanity itself.

[Pilgrim]

You will probably feel better after reading 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins.

In fact, I highly recommend it.

 

Jurgen

Yes, and 'Letters to a Christian Nation' and 'The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason' both by Sam Harris. And 'God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything' by Christopher Hitchens.

 

When you think back on the millions and millions of people that people have killed over the centuries in the name of "God", it seems like the ultimate oxymoron of humanity itself.

 

A common, but hollow, thought. By comparison, think of the other millions to whom it has brought peace, solace, courage, forebearance, a softening of heart and other things that improve the human condition individually and en masse. Religion will always be with us because, whether there is God or not, man needs religion. If there is a God, man indulges in it to celebrate Him. If there is not, if religion is purely a creation of man without underlying substance, it exists because man invented it to fulfill a need.

 

Pilgrim

[Pilgrim]

First of all, I would agree that "kill" does mean "murder". Who are you agreeing with on that, James? My point is that they are discernible and the difference matters in whether acts are justified or not. I think we agree, but I can't tell for sure. I don't know that I therefore agree that killing in the context of war (Israel clearing out the land of Canaan) is therefore not murder. What was the justification for the war aside from the fact that the Israelites wanted their land? (Yes, I am aware of the argument that God promised it to Abraham, but does that morally justify Joshua's conquest?) Well, yes. Assuming for argument purposes here that God exists and that he is the promulgator-in-chief of what constitutes moral behavior, if he says "Go get it" it's morally justified. You are never wrong doing what God says, but you will very likely do wrong if you misunderstand his commands. That's why the Commandments are few and simple, so idiots like mankind can keep them straight.

 

Secondly, my sources for the interpretation of the Law of Moses. This understanding arose primarily from my own inquisitiveness on the matter. I used to study the Bible quite a bit in my youth, and I remember having a real problem with Joshua's conquest and how it seemed to me to fly in the face of the 10 commandments. God either values life or He doesn't; Really? I never came to that black and white conclusion. I lean more towards the idea that He's not unwilling to see bad guys die since He's been so willing to bring to an end any number of them over the years. it's either wrong to kill or it isn't. Not so, and that's why the difference between killing and murder matter. Can't have it both ways. So what's up with this apparent contradiction? My conclusion came from asking Jewish professors and theologians that I was privileged to have met over the years. I also took a course in college called "Ancient Jewish History" which also shaped some of my views. That's good enough for me, James. I may disagree with some of your conclusions but I won't argue that the old Hebrews thought their laws applied to themselves only.

 

I don't agree about the fighting being over current events and neither does Bernard Lewis. Islam had a long history of assault...

 

I was speaking of Israel when I made that statement, not of Islam. I misunderstood.

 

Your last point about Israel and Palestine substantiates my point entirely.

 

Nice post, James. Thanks.

 

Pilgrim

[doc47]

Very interesting forum.

Trying to ascertain what was in the minds of "the ancients" is always dodgy. The Jewish Publication Society started a new translation of the Torah in 1947 and it took the foremost Hebrew scholars 40 years to accomplish it. Even so, they disagreed over interpretations of many words and footnoted them as such.

As a person who was raised a secular Jew and a Zionist, I spent time in Israel, and in the "Occupied Territories". I spent time in the homes of Jews, of Muslim Palestinians and Christian Palestinians. I found love and warmth in all of them.

I recently spent a year living in a country in West Africa that was 95% Muslim. I was welcomed and cherished. Imams of mosques laid their hands on my shoulders and told me to take the message home that there is love and tolerance and that they had no hatred for America. I was priviledged to pray alongside them.

I was particularly moved by the racial "color blindness" of Islam. It was what affected Malcolm X so deeply when he made his haj to Mecca and tramsformed his entire attitude towards change.

There is Scripture in every religion that can be warped to serve evil.

 

Pilgrim, I used to think that Martel stopping the Muslims at Tours was a good thing. It was taken for granted in all the histories of Western Civilization. I'm not so sure it was good.

In those days Christians were living like dogs while the streets of Islamic Granada and Damascus had public lighting and sanitation. Islamic scholars were reinterpreting and translating Greek science -- which furnished the later inspiration for European rationalists like Albertus Magnus and Roger Bacon. Martel's victory was more likely a step backward.

The "denial of holy places" argument was false. There were very few holy places that were denied to Christians. For example, they could not visit Abraham's Tomb in Hebron. There they were only allowed to mount to the seventh step. On the other hand, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, on the site where the Crucifixion supposedly occurred, was administered by Muslim caretakers so that the different Christian sects who worshiped there would not attack one another.

I don't believe today's Muslim extremism would be where it is today if there weren't historical/social/economic reasons, much of it related to the inequities of power and wealth in the world.

Civilizations don't collapse from without unless there exist the roots of that decay within.

Enough pontificating.

Pace!

[Ken H.]

If there is a God, man indulges in it to celebrate Him. If there is not, if religion is purely a creation of man without underlying substance, it exists because man invented it to fulfill a need.

Well you do raise an interesting point. Given we have no proof one way or another (that there is a God), it's all just one person taking the word of another, what need does mankind have that religion fulfills? Is it a shortcoming of some sort that we seem to have a need to believe in something beyond believing in ourselves? Is it our overwhelming need to have some sense of 'purpose'? Why we "are"? Is it that our psychic of self-worth or self-importance is so strong that we believe in or create a concept that will allow us each continue to exist (in some form or another) indefinitely?

 

I don't know the answer to any of this. But I do think the question of why mankind has such an overwhelming need to have 'religion' and/or a belief in 'something' above/better/beyond itself is an interesting one.

[beemerman2k]

Well, yes. Assuming for argument purposes here that God exists and that he is the promulgator-in-chief of what constitutes moral behavior, if he says "Go get it" it's morally justified. You are never wrong doing what God says, but you will very likely do wrong if you misunderstand his commands. That's why the Commandments are few and simple, so idiots like mankind can keep them straight.

 

Ahhh, now we come to it. Now we come to the bottom line issue with respect to religion as far as I'm concerned. To me, resolving this issue is vital if I am ever to live a life that squares with both religion *and* peace of mind (a good, clear conscience). I remember a preacher said,"it does no good to believe in God if you don't believe God" I find that I take issue with many of the things I read in the Bible.

 

I love that George Gershwin song, "It Ain't necessarily So". In that song, questions are raised as to some famous stories in the Bible: on one hand, it would seem that the story presents this "truth", but upon further review (to coin a phrase from the NFL), the story also sends other messages that maybe it did not intent! In other words, we can debate "thou shall not kill" till this thread gets locked. How can we ever know what God's commands are such that we never 'misunderstand his commands'?

 

Here are some major problems I have with some of God's commands -- and they all have to do with God's commands versus mans conscience:

 

- Sodom and Gomorrah: I have no problem with this story. God wanted the towns cleared out and He did it himself. Even the insurance companies will call this an "act of God". Not a single person ended up with a soiled conscience over the killing of a fellow human being.

 

Now, what I LOVE about this story was Abraham's attitude: he made is clear that he did not agree with God on this one and in fact he begged God not to take all those lives! Abraham stood up for his conscience! Abraham was in touch with his own position on the matter and made his own perspective known to God!

 

- Abraham commanded to sacrifice Issac: what if Abraham responded, "I'm sorry God, but if you want Issac dead, kill him yourself. As a matter of personal policy, I don't kill if I don't have to, and I definitely don't kill my own offspring! There is no way I could ever violate my own principles yet have any peace of mind regardless of whoever else might be pleased with my acts." What would God have done to Abraham if he responded in this way?

 

- Joshua commanded to purge the land of Canaan: again, what if Joshua responded, "I'm sorry, but I don't kill when I don't have to. If you want these people dead, do to them what you did to Sodom and Gomorrah, but leave me out of it." Somewhere I read, "Thou shall not kill or muder or whatever...I have a conscience and it does not permit such acts, so you got the wrong guy. Sorry."

 

As soon as God "blessed" the act of a human killing another, then the act of killing becomes "blessed"! That's what I mean when I say "it's either right or it's wrong". If I say to my daughters, "it's ok in certain contexts to smoke dope", then all my "just say no" messages are a load of crock as far as they're concerned. If it was ever right to smoke dope, then it's always right to smoke dope because I have already "blessed" the act; I have taught them that it's not always a wrong thing to do.

 

How do I know that God really told Joshua to do this anyhow? How do I really know that God did NOT tell the countless blood-thirsty tyrants who followed Joshua to do the same thing? What's really wrong here: genocide? or genocide not specifically sanctioned by God? You mean God sanctions genocide?! What does that say about God? Can I really say I believe in a God like that? That's not the kind of God I signed up to follow. I thought I was worshiping a God of peace, of agape love, of redemption and reconciliation (I'm being difficult simply to make my point, so bear with me).

 

That's why this distinction between God's commands versus my own conscience is critical in my view; does faith in God require that I do things that violate my own personal ethics, policy, and principles of living? If the answer is "yes", then how on earth can I condemn terrorism?! They are simply doing the righteous acts as demanded by their faith, regardless of how they as individuals may feel about the matter. Their hate is "God sanctioned"! Should I look at the 9/11 footage and be horrified or should I look at that video tape and be moved by the strong faith of some of my fellow believers?

 

If I want the terrorist to use reason over religious fanaticism, then I had better do the same thing myself! I had better start putting ethics before my ideology (religion) if I want others to do the same with respect to their dealings with me. I wonder how many would-be terrorists rebelled against their God in that they did exercise their conscience and refused to blow up a marketplace full of innocent people? Unfortunately, we don't hear about these people, but I'm sure that there are those who did take such a stand even at the cost of their own lives.

 

To me, we (the religious community) had better draw some clear distinctions between what is right and what is wrong -- as a matter of policy and principle. We had better come up with rules that are never to be broken by anyone at anytime! Dr King used to say, "The time is always right to do right", and "hate is always wrong". These were unchanging, unbending, principles and policies that he stood by and never violated for anyone or any cause. If God ever appeared to me and asked me to kill another, I would hope -- after I peed my pants, that is -- that I would be able to find the courage to take a stand for my own conscience and tell God exactly how I feel about the matter and deny the request -- even if it means that I myself go punished!

 

I always teach my children this very concept. My girls go to a Catholic school. It is a very nice school and I am very thankful that they are there. But I always tell them that their own consciences *always* reign supreme! If a teacher or a priest or a nun or even God himself ever tells you to do something that you don't think is right -- don't do it! Always stand by your heart and your conscience! Tell God to tap someone else's shoulder if it's that important, but you protect your own soul and your own conscience.

[beemerman2k]

Very interesting forum.

Trying to ascertain what was in the minds of "the ancients" is always dodgy. The Jewish Publication Society started a new translation of the Torah in 1947 and it took the foremost Hebrew scholars 40 years to accomplish it. Even so, they disagreed over interpretations of many words and footnoted them as such.

As a person who was raised a secular Jew and a Zionist, I spent time in Israel, and in the "Occupied Territories". I spent time in the homes of Jews, of Muslim Palestinians and Christian Palestinians. I found love and warmth in all of them.

...

I don't believe today's Muslim extremism would be where it is today if there weren't historical/social/economic reasons, much of it related to the inequities of power and wealth in the world.

Civilizations don't collapse from without unless there exist the roots of that decay within.

Enough pontificating.

Pace!

 

Wow, beautiful post! Thanks.

 

(although I take it you mean, "Peace", right? )

[Pilgrim]

There is Scripture in every religion that can be warped to serve evil. True. Thus my comment about man misinterpreting God's commands.

 

Pilgrim, I used to think that Martel stopping the Muslims at Tours was a good thing. It was taken for granted in all the histories of Western Civilization. I'm not so sure it was good.

 

The "denial of holy places" argument was false. There were very few holy places that were denied to Christians. For example, they could not visit Abraham's Tomb in Hebron. There they were only allowed to mount to the seventh step. On the other hand, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, on the site where the Crucifixion supposedly occurred, was administered by Muslim caretakers so that the different Christian sects who worshiped there would not attack one another.

 

I don't believe today's Muslim extremism would be where it is today if there weren't historical/social/economic reasons, much of it related to the inequities of power and wealth in the world.

 

Civilizations don't collapse from without unless there exist the roots of that decay within.

 

Enough pontificating.

Pace!

 

Doc, I know you well enough to know that you may well have intended the almost-pun in your penultimate line, but I won't accuse you of it publicly. You will, however, have to answer for it when I see you.

 

First, I offer no opinion as to whether Martel stopping the Muslims was a socially (leaving out the religious aspect) good thing or not. It just was. Most societies, like most people, will protect themselves and European society was under assault, east and west, from the Saracens. Europe won, and as the losers usually do, Moslems resent it - even to this day, they resent it. That resentment is made all the more grievous because they believe we are thwarting Allah's will. So here we are today.

 

No, the "denial of holy places" argument is not false, but neither is it complete. Geopolitics seldom lend themselves to sole cause explanations and chat boards don't lend themselves to long ones. But in fact, the Turks massacred about 3,000 Christians when they conquered Jersulem in 1065 ( I am mindful of the fact that massacres were a normal practice nearly everywhere, not just a Moslem phenomenon.) Constantinople (seat of the Eastern branch of the Christian Church) was under attack from the Turks, too, and the eastern pope called for help in resisting them. Also, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre had been thrown down by the Caliph in 1009, about 90 years before the First Crusade. The C of the HS was only restored in the 1030s when a subsequent Caliph discovered the same thing Walt Disney did a thousand years later: there is money to be made in tourists. But pilgrims continued to have a hard time of it off and on for decades. In short, free access to Christian holy sites was not reliable.

 

On top of that, and never mind the religious aspects, the Moslems did continue to probe and push at the boundaries of Christendom. The Crusades were a push back, and in fact, were Europe's first excursion of conquest outside its boundaries since the Romans quit wandering.

 

So, IMHO, and to adapt a cry from my childhood: "They started it!" But - that's what stronger societies do to weaker societies, and Islam, with its unifying (sort of) ideology was the stronger, more organized society. Europe, as you point out, Doc, was in the midst of the Dark Ages. In this case, though, it didn't pay off: the Moors couldn't cover their geopolitical bets when push came to shove over the long run.

 

Your closing paragraphs about inequities of power and wealth and social collapse in the world may be on-point in a way you don't intend. Or perhaps you do. I believe that Islamic countries are near the bottom of the social heap precisely because they contain within themselves the roots of their own decay. The source of their third-rate status is not to be found in outside influence: the specific, particular root is unreformed Islam. Just as Christian societies did not progress until they freed themselves from the tentacles of an oppressive church (as opposed to belief in God), so will the Moslem countries stay third-rate until they cast off a theological structure (as opposed to belief in God) that locks them into the tenth century.

 

Pilgrim

[Pilgrim]

Well, yes. Assuming for argument purposes here that God exists and that he is the promulgator-in-chief of what constitutes moral behavior, if he says "Go get it" it's morally justified. You are never wrong doing what God says, but you will very likely do wrong if you misunderstand his commands. That's why the Commandments are few and simple, so idiots like mankind can keep them straight.

 

Ahhh, now we come to it. Now we come to the bottom line issue with respect to religion as far as I'm concerned. To me, resolving this issue is vital if I am ever to live a life that squares with both religion *and* peace of mind (a good, clear conscience). I remember a preacher said,"it does no good to believe in God if you don't believe God" I find that I take issue with many of the things I read in the Bible.

 

And there you have it. The eternal argument of faith vs self.

 

"Solipsism" isn't quite the word I'm looking for, but it's close. By reliance on your own conscience rather than some external source you place your judgment in a superior position to God's. That makes you a superior being to God, and no religion I ever heard of permits that. The Greek and Norse gods acted like men, but there was no arguing with their ability to strike you dead. Maybe the Polynesian menehunes are at man's level or below; I don't know.

 

Faith, on the other hand, allows (demands) that you say 'Thy will be done," and to become an instrument of that will as you understand it. And yes, as has extravagantly shown through the ages, there is LOTS of room for misunderstanding.

 

So far, you've centered your expressions of confusion on the Old Testament. The New Testament changes the equation, to my way of thinking. If you allow your conscience to be formed by the New Testament you can't go morally too far afield.

 

Pilgrim

[azkaisr]

Might be a slight hijack here but on the way out of Phoenix for Florida, I stumbled on a book called "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman. For the most part he deals with the New Testament and not the old. Not being much of a biblical guy, reading this had me pulling out the Gideon's Bible at the Hotel and checking out his statements on how manuscripts have changed over time for a variety of reasons. Best part it is not really all that biased one way or the other theologically but just looks at the text over time.

 

Good read

 

Kaisr

 

[Dave McReynolds]

If you allow your conscience to be formed by the New Testament you can't go morally too far afield.

 

I almost had to laugh when I read that! My problems STARTED with the new testament. I was raised, and baptised, into a very fundamentalist religion in Texas. The central tenet of that religion was that by accepting Jesus Christ, you were forgiven of all your past and future sins, and could enter the kingdom of heaven. The corollary to that tenet was that if you didn't accept Jesus Christ, your sins were not forgiven and you were headed to hell. The catch 22 to that tenet was that you were either chosen to be forgiven or not chosen to be forgiven from before the foundations of the earth, meaning that you weren't really making a choice to accept Jesus Christ (which is a funny use of the word "accept") but just accepting the inevitable.

 

I had problems understanding why my Jewish friends had no possibility of salvation, and didn't really want to be saved if they couldn't be. Some of James's arguments with God seem familiar to me along these lines. I also wondered why there was so much exhorting about not sinning and doing good works from the pulpit, when absolutely nothing that I could do or not do would have any effect on my salvation or lack thereof.

 

At which point I decided I could make up a better religion on my own.

[beemerman2k]

At which point I decided I could make up a better religion on my own.

 

...And so this web forum hath come to pass. And now children, pass the BMW gift certificates to Dave McReynolds and goodness shall follow you from here on...or something like that!

[beemerman2k]

At which point I decided I could make up a better religion on my own.

 

...And so this web forum hath come to pass. And now children, pass the BMW gift certificates to Dave McReynolds and goodness shall follow you from here on...or something like that!

 

Oh wait, how could I forget the flip side! If you don't pass in those gift certificates, Dave has no problem sending you to a place of pain and torment! Right Dave?

[Dave McReynolds]

And don't forget the catch 22, either....

[David]

Groan. Just what we need--a [damn] accountant in charge of hell. And just when I thought it couldn't get any worse.

[russell_bynum]

Groan. Just what we need--a [damn] accountant in charge of hell. And just when I thought it couldn't get any worse.

 

[chrisolson]

Groan. Just what we need--a [damn] accountant in charge of hell. And just when I thought it couldn't get any worse.

Mmmmmmmm, maybe in charge of Heaven instead ???

[Pilgrim]

If you allow your conscience to be formed by the New Testament you can't go morally too far afield.

 

I almost had to laugh when I read that! My problems STARTED with the new testament. I was raised, and baptised, into a very fundamentalist religion in Texas. The central tenet of that religion was that by accepting Jesus Christ, you were forgiven of all your past and future sins, and could enter the kingdom of heaven. The corollary to that tenet was that if you didn't accept Jesus Christ, your sins were not forgiven and you were headed to hell. The catch 22 to that tenet was that you were either chosen to be forgiven or not chosen to be forgiven from before the foundations of the earth, meaning that you weren't really making a choice to accept Jesus Christ (which is a funny use of the word "accept") but just accepting the inevitable.

 

I had problems understanding why my Jewish friends had no possibility of salvation, and didn't really want to be saved if they couldn't be. Some of James's arguments with God seem familiar to me along these lines. I also wondered why there was so much exhorting about not sinning and doing good works from the pulpit, when absolutely nothing that I could do or not do would have any effect on my salvation or lack thereof.

 

At which point I decided I could make up a better religion on my own.

 

Dave, what I've turned green above is basic Christian theology; there's nothing "fundamentalist" about it. Taken as a part of the whole Christ-story, it makes sense. In a particularly painful, gruesome fashion, He sacrificed himself for you. Spurn the sacrifice, be ungrateful or deny it, and you're, uh, out of the picture, so to speak. You may not like it, may not accept it, but it's not basically confusing.

 

As to the blue stuff, that's predestination and it never made sense to me. My understanding is that it's based on the idea of God's master plan of the universe - that He decided long ago about everything, including the disposition of your ashes and your soul. But the concept as a part of theology fails to take into account the Christian concept of free will - you can accept the sacrifice of His son, or not, and on your head be the consequences of that decision.

 

But then, I'll bet you knew all that already.

 

Pilgrim

[Dave McReynolds]

As to the blue stuff, that's predestination and it never made sense to me. My understanding is that it's based on the idea of God's master plan of the universe - that He decided long ago about everything, including the disposition of your ashes and your soul.

 

Actually, it's not based on the "idea" of God's master plan of the universe; it's based on scripture, such as Romans 8:28-32 and many others. The blue stuff (and other things we haven't discussed) is what I meant by fundamentalist, not the basic Christian beliefs that you highlighted in green. If you literally interpret the bible, that's what you find. So if you use the bible as the basis of your religion, you do have to reconcile predestination with free will. I hope you have better luck doing that than I did!

[Ken H.]

At which point I decided I could make up a better religion on my own.

In that I'm still searching for one that makes any sense, tell me more about yours. Personally, so far Pastafarianism is getting my vote.

[Ken H.]

It seems to me the whole problem with the whole religion / god thing is this worldwide conncept that, 'Only my religion/believe/god is right/correct/true." In that impossible for everyone to be right and everyone but themselves is wrong, the only possible answer is that everyone is wrong.

[Ken H.]

When you think back on the millions and millions of people that people have killed over the centuries in the name of "God", it seems like the ultimate oxymoron of humanity itself.

A common, but hollow, thought. By comparison, think of the other millions to whom it has brought peace, solace, courage, forbearance, a softening of heart and other things that improve the human condition individually and en masse.

But that makes the presumption that those things; peace, solace, courage, forbearance, softening of the heart, could have only originated from a god, a belief in one, or from the direction of one. It dismisses the possibility, that mankind could have developed, created, grown into those things/characteristics/accomplishments on it's own. It short changes who we are and our abilities as humans to ultimately become those things you list for our own betterment.

[smiller]

Dave, what I've turned green above is basic Christian theology; there's nothing "fundamentalist" about it. Taken as a part of the whole Christ-story, it makes sense. In a particularly painful, gruesome fashion, He sacrificed himself for you. Spurn the sacrifice, be ungrateful or deny it, and you're, uh, out of the picture, so to speak. You may not like it, may not accept it, but it's not basically confusing.

Oddly enough, the idea that anyone who does not believe in one particular religion is somehow 'out of the picture' and will spend an eternity in Hell is kind of confusing to me.

[Couchrocket]

If you literally interpret the bible, that's what you find.

Poppycock. It is the result of too little understanding regarding scripture, not too much.

 

I'm always amazed at how we all here readily admit and understand all we DON'T know about motorcycles, engines, riding technique... but we're all experts on theology and philosophy.

 

Give me a break. And some Tums.

[Dave McReynolds]

Poppycock. It is the result of too little understanding regarding scripture, not too much.

 

I'm always amazed at how we all here readily admit and understand all we DON'T know about motorcycles, engines, riding technique... but we're all experts on theology and philosophy.

 

Give me a break. And some Tums.

 

I don't pretend nor desire to be a religious philosopher. However, people as disparate as Thomas Acquinas and John Calvin were religious philosophers, and both, along with many others, believed in pre-election.

 

Can you cite any recognized Christian religious philosophers who don't believe that the bible supports pre-election?

[David]

Can you cite any recognized Christian religious philosophers who don't believe that the bible supports pre-election?

 

There are all sorts of them. Start with Jakob Arminius, with a huge following. It's the opposite end of the spectrum from John Calvin.

 

Or John Wesley.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

...the only possible answer is that everyone is wrong.

 

Or everyone except for one is wrong.

[chrisolson]

...the only possible answer is that everyone is wrong.

 

Or everyone except for one is wrong.

Ah, yes ... and there's the rub.

[KMG_365]

...the only possible answer is that everyone is wrong.

 

Or everyone except for one is wrong.

Ah, yes ... and there's the rub.

Or perhaps everyone is right in their own way (perhaps without even realizing it) and judgments of right and wrong are just a matter of perspective!