Peaceful Islam?

[Drake Tungsten]

Because it is true that Christianity had nothing to do with ending slavery while having a lot to do with saying it was ok.

Facts are facts.

This is the biggest load of horse**** I've read in a long time. It's up there with your "Chinese can't be nationalist" statement in terms of idiocy...

[Saint Marcus]

Saint Marcus, once upon a time I spent a few years in the seminary studying to be a priest. I know a little about the Catholic faith and the Bible.

you seem to know a lot about the history of the church, but little about the Scripture.

I think we are not communicating because you assume that the initial acceptance of the civil order of the Empire means that for all time the Church remained neutral on slavery.

I didn't say the Church remained neutral on slavery, I said the Scripture is neutral (and even condoning) of slavery.

However, it's role in ending slavery evovled.

Yes. Christianity evolved. The Islam evolved. Every religion evolves. That's why you can't look just look at the present state of any religion, and make claims about it. You can't say, Christianity is peaceful and tolerant, while Islam is violent and bigotted. This may seem the case now, but it was different a century ago, and will be different a century from now. That's why you can't look at just how things are now. You have to look at the basis of the religion.

Strangely, you do look at the Quran when making arguments about the Islam's violent nature, but are completely ignoring similar things written in the Bible. What's up with that?

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Once can easily see in revelations that the government(s) of man are compared to the government of Christ in the second coming. By doing so it implicitly states that the church and man's government are separate until the second coming of Christ, wherein teh unificationof Church and State take place.

That's a stretch. It does not implicitly state that Church should not have influence or control over government.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

In one particular case it does indicate that the church does become perverted and become a tool of the antichrist. In that one could say that the church does meddle in the secular realm.

Other than that it pretty much leaves governments to be run by man until such time as Christ decides enough is enough.

[gsmoove23]

Revelations is a prediction of what is to come, not an instructional. Nowhere does it say church should not become involved in matters of politics, it simply paints a picture of what will be, certainly not what is desirable.

[GePap]

I don't think Christianity had in anyway a central role in ending slavery in the Empire. After all, the Byzantine Empire had the Chrsitian faith as a pillar and yet slavery within it continued. If it collapesed in the West is because the sociao-economic situation that made slavery work collapsed with Imperial rule and law and order. Yes, many churchmen through history argued strongly against slavery, but manya rgued strongly for it. I have had the ability to read parts of books written by preachers in the early 19th century that argued vehemently, based on scriptural passages, that not only did Christianity allow for slavery, but that for a good Christian society to exist slavery (race based slavery) HAD to be manitained. IT was the temporal powers that eneded Slavery, not theological ones, and while groups of religiouslyy mided individul may have been at the forefront in various places, they were at best instrumental but not central. After all, Brazil is as Chrsitian as the US, yet slavery ended there only in 1883 (I believe), and in deeply religious US in 1865.

Which birngs me to a point I made earlier. Scripture means NOTHING. It is a bunch of words and lessons made long ago- for any of those words and lessons,e xcept for ther most fundamental, to have any meaning, they must eb constantly re-interpreted to fit the facts of the day. For the facts fo the day rule, not scripture. Modern Christian fundamentalism is non-violent NOT because Chirsitanity is inherently non-violent (history more than proves that wrong) but becasue the sociao-political situation in which these types of Christian fundamentalist groups exists discourages acts of violence and revoltuionary acts. And Islamic fundamentalism today is violent because the socio-political situations in the Islamic world breed violence and revoltuion.

The answer to Islamic violence is NOT CULTURAL, NOT ENDEMIC TO THE SCRIPTURES, IS NOT ABSOLUTE . It lies with the study of the socio-economic and political reality of each individual place in which this violence is taking place, and the possibility that an overarching, modern political movement of Islamist political ideolgy is spreading is also something that must be studied as a political reality, not a cultural one. Which is why I fervently oppose the notion that the answers to Islamist violence lie in scripture. As I said, Islam has characteristics that make it more political than Christianity, but being more political does not mean inherently more violent, just easier to spin that way.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus

Yes. Christianity evolved. The Islam evolved. Every religion evolves. That's why you can't look just look at the present state of any religion, and make claims about it. You can't say, Christianity is peaceful and tolerant, while Islam is violent and bigotted. This may seem the case now, but it was different a century ago, and will be different a century from now. That's why you can't look at just how things are now. You have to look at the basis of the religion.

Strangely, you do look at the Quran when making arguments about the Islam's violent nature, but are completely ignoring similar things written in the Bible. What's up with that?

Agreed.

The problem seems to be those who read the Bible or the Koran "literally." In the context of the Roman Empire, the Church accepted slavery. Later it condemned it.

Just as an asside, I have severe problems with Christian sects who take the Bible literally and who ignore all the wisdom of two millenia of development since.

As to the OBL and his merry band of terrorists, it seems that they might be reading the Koran literally. If so, they are like the Christian fundamentalists who ignore the doctrinal developments made over the centuries.

But as I am somewhat ignorant of the development of Islam, I am at this point only making observations and asking questions.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
Have noticed something Interesting glancing through some of the last pages. When it came to Islam and violence Ned took the words in the Koran very seriously as the essence of the religion. When it comes to the bible, christianity and slavery not so. In this case we have to look at the history he says. Oh well...

Kropotkin, I have asked many times over the past half year about what changed Islam into a peaceful religion. We all know how it started and what is said in the Koran. But, if it changed, when did it and why?

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Ned
The problem seems to be those who read the Bible or the Koran "literally." In the context of the Roman Empire, the Church accepted slavery. Later it condemned it.

Just as an asside, I have severe problems with Christian sects who take the Bible literally and who ignore all the wisdom of two millenia of development since.

I agree completely here. If christianity were simply the words of Christ I would get baptized tomorrow. Instead, because I had a Catholic grandmother who had the right priorities when deciding what parts of the Bible to introduce me to I have simply integrated many of the teachings of Christ into my atheist philosophy.

As for OBL I've been lead to believe by the media that he isn't a particularly religious man or very learned in the Koran. He tries to assume these airs for his target audience. I don't think the muslims that support him do so because of he's holy or wise, but because hes got the nut and hes nut enough to take on the western world. Sorta like American blacks supporting OJ cause he got off.

[Ned]

GePap, I agree with your post, to a degree. The major problem I have with Islam is its mixture of Church and State. When Church and State are mixed, discrimination is the inevitable result. When a religion is "universal," its mixture has led to conquest for the very purpose of spreading the religion. It has also led to military action in defense of religion or for access to territory "holy" to the religion.

The history of Christianity in modern times has led to an increasing separation of Church and State. Perhaps America and its constitution is the inspiration for this movement. But the result is far less religious violence.

Most of the nations that have a significant Islamic majority are today led by secular governments. We call these countries "moderates." Islam within these countries is largley peaceful. But the fundamentalist movements led by OBL have declared war on these moderate governments just as much as they have declared war on the United States. Perhaps are best policy here is to support secular governments against the fundamentalists. But this might be a trap. We did the same thing when communism was the issue. Our actions to support oppressive regimes against communists brought us the enternal emnity of the affected people.

[Imran Siddiqui]

GePap, exactly.

While you can point to Churchmen that disagreed with slavery, you can easily point to those that backed it. The change in slavery came as a result of other factors, not the Church. To say slavery ended because of the Church is ludicrous.

[GePap]

Well, the relation of temporal to theological power varies. After all, the most openly Tehocratic state in Islam is Iran, and while Iran has supported violence against its enemies, it does not in any way have an expansionistic government, and the treatment of minorities in Iran is not very bad (in relative terms)
In Saudi Arabia, the Clergy (more like portestant clergies than A Catholic or Orhtodox Church) is not part of the state itself: they are allied but don't hold government post.

What I see with OBL is a man leading a group uterly disatisfied with how the secular governments of the Middle East have acted, and in seeking a solution, has not turned to the political systems of the west, but has turned inward: His movement is a utopian revisionist system, tyring to "purify" the people by returning to "their cultural roots", since they view modernity as the cause for the fall. There is certainly a small streak of Fascism, in the way cultural solutions take precedent, but just a streak. Still, i think OBL's political ideology is highly unstable and would fail in ruling amodern state effectively. For that reason, what Osam wants to build (and the Taliban represnts) would never come to power in a modern state (Afghanistan was a state turned premordenr just by the beating it took)

[Ned]

Originally posted by gsmoove23


I agree completely here. If christianity were simply the words of Christ I would get baptized tomorrow. Instead, because I had a Catholic grandmother who had the right priorities when deciding what parts of the Bible to introduce me to I have simply integrated many of the teachings of Christ into my atheist philosophy.

I personnaly am an agnostic because I do not have evidence and therefor do not know whether there is a god or not.

Even so, I have often argued that we can learn much from the moral teachings of Jesus Christ and of Greek and Roman pagan philosphers. I could care less whether Jesus was a god, a human or something of both. What he had to say changed the world for the better.

Even today on new issues of morality, the first thing I want to know is what is the position of the Roman Catholic Church on the issue. At times I agree. At times I disagree. But always I find their thinking helpful.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
GePap, exactly.

While you can point to Churchmen that disagreed with slavery, you can easily point to those that backed it. The change in slavery came as a result of other factors, not the Church. To say slavery ended because of the Church is ludicrous.

OK, Imran, what were the "other" factors that ended slavery.

[Kropotkin]

Slavery is a economically inferior way of production compared to wage labour in most cases.