| Welcome to The Comm. We hope you enjoy your visit. So, you, uh, you're viewing this as a guest. That's fine, that's cool. I guess. Yeah, ok, it's not. You should definitely join if you're cool people, and if you're actually all ready a member, move your lazy phalanges and sign in! Jump in! |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| New Religion thread | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Nov 10 2009, 06:24 PM (376 Views) | |
| RotenDrache | Nov 12 2009, 08:15 PM Post #16 |
*playing a piano*
|
Ok, now I heard the mention of Christian terrorists and I believe that terrorism is in the eye of the beholder. Let us take for instance the soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, to the Muslims the destruction caused by Coalition tanks, helicopters, and planes is terrorism. Does the destruction of homes and offices, sound like terrorism to you? What about the genocide of Muslims by Christian Serbs in the former Yugoslavia? Is that terrorism or is it a victory over the other religion? Are you familiar with the Northern Republican Army, the separatist/terrorist group of Northern Ireland? They were terrorists against Protestants, and yet they were also Christians too. Terrorists are in every religion, Muslim terrorists just get more media attention but there are terrorists in other religions. So you can not say that Christianity has no terrorists. -Love, the Buddhist Christian |
 Hehehe...Edgeworth!Austria. "Ich werde diese Klavier spielen, weil ich böse bin." People that know my real name go ahead and use it, I don't care as much if you do anymore. | |
 |
 
|
| Millskelly1 | Nov 12 2009, 08:22 PM Post #17 |
|
I was referring to religion and the rest, yes. |
| Ekke Ekke Ekke Ekke Ptang Zoo Boing Zow Zing | |
|
|
|
| dinowoman | Nov 13 2009, 01:48 PM Post #18 |
Living Fossil
|
I think that’s a very valid question, and it’s an issue that hasn’t escaped my notice. For a fundamentalist like Thuk there isn't a problem, since the whole Bible is seen as the literal word of God. But I am well aware that if you start to suggest that some books of the Bible are allegorical or subject to the human failings of the author and shouldn’t be taken literally, then where do you draw the line? You could end up wondering if any of it is true. I’m no Biblical scholar, but I have no reason to doubt that the majority of the events depicted in the Bible did actually happen in roughly the way they are described, but since people in the distant past had no concept of “scientific truth”, I don’t suppose the writers made too much effort to be objective, and I wouldn’t put it past them to include the occasional embellishment in order to get across their message. I do believe that the scriptures are inspired by God (as St. Paul says in one of his letters) but that doesn’t mean everything has to be literally true. The important thing is to provide a means of understanding something about God and his will for us. That may be achieved by accounts of what God has done for or through people in the past, or it may be done through parables. Jesus regularly taught through parables and I think a few of the stories in the Old Testament are probably also intended as parables. Balaam’s Donkey is one such story. Although it’s included within the historical account of the Israelites’ journey through the wilderness, it’s so improbable that I can’t believe it started out as a serious piece of history. (I remember when that story turned up in the Sunday school syllabus one year, the teacher who was due to be teaching it asked to swap with someone else because the book we were working from taught it as though it were literally true and she wouldn’t teach something that she didn’t believe herself.) I personally also think that the story of Adam and Eve is probably a parable, although I know that many Christians would violently disagree with me. (The fact that Cain had a wife, and he was worried about other people wanting to kill him after he killed Abel, implies that there were people around, other than Adam, Eve, and their offspring.) I think the message is just as valid either way. Whether or not a tree and a snake were involved, and whether there were 2 people or many, the message is basically the same. It indicates that mankind reached a stage where they were capable of understanding the concepts of good and evil. The point at which people were able to recognise that a particular action was bad, but do it anyway, was the point at which sin came into the world. I also think that some parts of the Bible are open to interpretation, so there may be passages where we, as modern people, reading them from our modern point of view, don’t interpret their message in quite the same way as the writer intended. Anyway, enough about the general stuff. With regard to your specific question about slavery, I doubt if many people would dispute that that particular remark was one of the context-specific pieces of teaching that I referred to in my previous post. For us the idea of slavery is anathema, but at that time it was perfectly normal. Jesus was merely using something that his listeners would have understood to make his point. The whole paragraph was actually talking about role models (presumably implying that his disciples should model themselves on him). Using the Good News translation (just because I happen to have it to hand), Jesus’ words were: “No pupil is greater than his teacher; no slave is greater than his master. So a pupil should be satisfied to become like his teacher, and a slave like his master. If the head of the family is called Beelzebul, the members of the family will be called even worse names!” Actually, if you wanted to suggest that the Bible condones slavery, I’d have thought Paul’s exhortation in Ephesians would have been a more controversial example: “Slaves, obey your human masters with fear and trembling; and do it with a sincere heart, as though you were serving Christ.” But again, this was written very much in the context of the society in which they were living at the time. He was basically urging all Christians of whatever status to honour Christ by behaving in an exemplary fashion. (He had already talked about wives, husbands, children and parents.) But at the time, given that slaves were nothing more than property and a slave-owner was free to treat his slave in whatever manner he liked, Paul’s following statement would probably have been more controversial: “Masters, behave in the same way towards your slaves and stop using threats.” Jesus, and the early Christians, were actually quite revolutionary in encouraging far more equality than was normal at that time. Jesus regularly associated with, and treated with respect, women, non-Jews, and "undesirables" who had been branded as sinners. Sorry. I seem to have rambled on rather a lot. Your question sent my mind off on all sorts of tangents.  Oh, and in response to Red, I agree with you about terrorism being in the eye of the beholder. You do get psychotic individuals who are drawn to terrorist activities because they are violent by nature, but the majority of terrorists would see themselves as freedom-fighters, fighting to protect what they believe in. History sees the members of the Resistance movement in WWII as heroes, but they used the same sorts of tactics as the people we brand as terrorists today. I don't condone terrorism, but I can understand what motivates some people to resort to it. As for whether there are Christian terrorists, I think you and Thuk are both right. Obviously there are people who use terrorism in the name of Christianity (think of the Catholic/Protestant problems in Northern Ireland, or the whole of the Crusades), but because such actions are totally contrary to the teachings of Christ, it can be argued that these people are not truly Christians at all. |
| |
|
|
|
| Another Random Geek | Nov 13 2009, 07:37 PM Post #19 |
Emperor's Faithful
|
I realize that Paul was more blatantly pro-slavery than Jesus, but I figured nobody was going to argue that Paul was perfect, seeing how he used to persecute Christians and whatnot. Perhaps a more damning (hurr... pun... ) quote of Jesus. For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death. -Mark 7:10 If my parents had listened to Jesus, I'd have been dead at 13. I find that rather... disturbing. |
| "War without fire is like sausages without mustard" – Jean Juvénal des Ursins on Henry V's firing of Meaux in 1421 | |
|
|
|
| Experiment 1337 | Nov 13 2009, 07:55 PM Post #20 |
Can't see an invisible ninja.
|
Waaaay back up to Red, about the terrorism being in the eye of the beholder: I disagree. I think terrorism is terrorism. I think the Muslims who ran into the Twin Towers are terrorists just as much as the IRA or any other group who uses violence on citizens for political or religious means. I might agree with some of the terrorism (though probably not), but it's still terrorism. Even if it's terrorism I believe in. |
|
Releasing control art restriction systems 3… 2… 1. Approval of Situation A recognized. Commencing the Cromwell Invocation. Ability restrictions lifted for limited use until the enemy has been rendered silent. I have no name, only a bar code. The pen is indeed mightier than the sword...when launched out of a rail gun. By day, test subject. By night, ninja. Nightcrawler is the original BAMF. I'm just a fig newton of your imagination. Blink and you're dead. | |
|
|
|
| LivingProse | Nov 14 2009, 10:59 PM Post #21 |
|
Is this about terrorism or christianity? |
|
|
|
| Cataphrak | Nov 14 2009, 11:20 PM Post #22 |
The day needs my saving expertise.
|
In this case both, since it seems that grassroots violence and terrorism seem to get linked with organized religion so often. (Those who think that CERTAIN religions cause violence and death while OTHERS (usually the ones they subscribe to) don't will be told to take a good look at the respective religions of the instigators of Progroms, the Crusades, and of the fellow who shot Gandhi, those people will then be promptly told to shut the fuck up.) Violent extremism and misguided fanaticism seem to be a danger inherent in any organization, but organized religion moreso than anything else, why? Because no matter how the religious texts are mis-interpreted or twisted, the instigators of this religious terrorism can still claim that their cause is just because its source (AKA: "God") is beyond reproach and cannot be questioned. The leaders of religious terrorist groups are NOT responsible to any sort of logic or, as secular terrorist groups often are, to a political ideal which serves as a way for governments to work with them. If a separatist leader or the like is idolized and has a terrorist group formed on his behalf, he can denounce that group, or work with the government to make sure that group loses its relevance. You can't do that with religious terrorism because a lot of leaders genuinely believe that they are only emissaries for THEIR boss. This makes it hard to negotiate with these groups because as far as we are concerned, God does not politically exist. Just my thoughts on why religious terrorism is so persistent. |
Spambot Kills: x143 | |
|
|
|
| Experiment 1337 | Nov 16 2009, 05:21 PM Post #23 |
|
Can't see an invisible ninja.
|
To paraphrase Cata's rant (which I, for once, agree with in its entirety), the people who are committing the acts of religious terrorism don't see them as terrorism. They think it's what their god wants. So, they denounce other religions as being radical terrorists (though not themselves, because their god is the one true god) while continuing to commit these atrocious acts. |
|
Releasing control art restriction systems 3… 2… 1. Approval of Situation A recognized. Commencing the Cromwell Invocation. Ability restrictions lifted for limited use until the enemy has been rendered silent. I have no name, only a bar code. The pen is indeed mightier than the sword...when launched out of a rail gun. By day, test subject. By night, ninja. Nightcrawler is the original BAMF. I'm just a fig newton of your imagination. Blink and you're dead. | |
|
|
|
| tanooki_mario | Dec 1 2009, 09:33 PM Post #24 |
Self-proclaimed official nerd!!!
|
My turn to jump in! Personally, I'm a theistic agnostic type thing. I am fairly convinced that there is more to the universe than just matter and space, but I'm open to the fact that I might be wrong. Also, as most of you know, I'm a very sciencey guy, so all of my beliefs mesh with what I know to be physically possible. Personally, I'm starting to lean towards Christianity, but I still have many more questions that need answered. I'd like to thank Dinowoman specifically, actually, for making some good points that I, at least, find agreeable. My main roadblock for Christianity, though, is the concept of Hell... My question is--why? I don't understand why God would allow it to exist. Is it a metaphor? or truly an eternal torment? Arrg! Questions without answers! |
|
Bow before the Lord of the Raccoons!! Hexadecimal color!!! WOOT!! Warning: The entropy of rooms in which I reside is prone to exponential increase. | |
|
|
|
| Millskelly1 | Dec 9 2009, 10:16 PM Post #25 |
|
My view on the world is that it's fine to be a part of any religion that you want to...just as long as there's no hatred or violence directed at certain groups of people. |
| Ekke Ekke Ekke Ekke Ptang Zoo Boing Zow Zing | |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Serious Debate · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
6:29 AM Jul 29
