Judeochrislam, communalism and power

[Elok]

This is just a branch thread to contain the little argument between Siro, GePap and myself regarding the similarities and differences of the three Abrahamic faiths, the relative community-centeredness of each and how their development was influenced (or not) by their political clout and prestige.

My position (roughly) is that I can't speak for Islam or Judaism but I know Christianity began as a very communal faith where daily ritual was of enormous importance, and still is in the more traditional churches. Also, the thousand years of Papal rule in the West and Imperial patronage in the East left just as strong an imprint as the early days of persecution, and I think GePap is drawing an arbitrary and meaningless distinction by saying the Bible was written before the days of power.

Just saying. Now we can stop diverting the thread about Mumbai.

[Zevico]

God. Religions are abstractions.
People do things, not religions.
This ends the discussion.
If you want a discussion of the history of certain people who define themselves as Christians, Jews, or Muslims, go read some history books on the matter.

[Barnabas]

I agree with both, with you (Elok) and GePap

Gepap is right, Christianity can always go back to "Early christianity mode" being a minority among non christians, and having no political power.
And christianity won't have any theological problem with that because Jesus himself separated Church and State (Give to Caesar etc), and we have the example of all those christians who lived as a minority of the population of Pagan rome. (and of all those christians who still live as a minority of the population of islamic middle east countries)

Perhaps not in the USA because there the christian right is powerful, but in many european countries christians already feel that way, like a small minority with no political power. One priest said last year that Scotland and the Netherlands are pagan.


The same could not happen to Islam because it was a religion which always, since it was born had great political power and expanded through violence, they were never just a small minority in some country with no political power.


And yes, christianity is communal, at least pre protestant christianity, but I don't see how that is related to the power thing.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by GePap


As I told Elok, this is an issue of theology, not history.

You call Islam militaristic as compared to Christianity because of the alleged different messages of Jesus and Mohammed - yet historically speaking, Christianity spread itself just as viciously and bloodily

1) Does or does not the bible contain verses calling for the destruction of foreign idol followers?

2) I very clearly state that current Christianity has 'evolved' beyond the concept of forcefully subjugating other religions and nations, and christian countries generally embraced the values of enlightenment. A similar process of enlightenment regarding the status of religion and the place of man did not happen in Islam. You avoid this point completely.

And it was Christians who took the most violent actions against the Jews while they were religiously minded. While Mohammed might have been no friend of the jews of Mecca, I can't think of a single great Muslim state that expelled all its Jews, unlike England in the 13th century and Spain in the 15th.

There's a variety of Quran quoes regarding how the jews should be viewed and treated, and what relation do they have with the devil.

Btw, you're doing a great job showing how Christianity is similar to Islam, while Judaism is different from it.


In any case, you have not contested the point that Christianity has mostly matured, and the population in christian countries have mostly embraced humanist and secular values.

This is while Islam nation citizens have mostly not done so.

Christianities age of power comes AFTER its most important holy writing had been laid down - again, all those empires you mention aren't mentioned in the bible. They are things that happen AFTER. In Islam, Mohammed creates his own large empire, and this is writen about in the Q'uran.

Not correct.

First, Quran does not cover the entire empire scope.

Second Much of the militant tradition is laid out in the post-Quran hadith scripture, and was further evolved by relevant imams. You can not limit your analysis to holy books alone because many traditions and Interpretations have been written since.

You have to judge a religion by how it behaved along a path in history.

Judaism has probably never enjoyed a time of subjugation of other empires. Nor has judaism ever prescribed to similar aspirations.

Christianity has at many points, but it mostly grew out of it with the rise of enlightenment.

Islam has not, and what little values have diffused - there's a regression to middle ages values, that does not exist in Judaism and Christianity.

As for your claim of Judaism lack of religious authority, I have to say that seems implausible given the importance of the Temple and the religious significance given to the kings of old, say for example on the birth of the idea of the Messiah.

I really lost your point there, so I went to your original arugment:

Islam grew up in power and its big theological developments happend while it was the religion of those holding temporal power. In the end, it is far more difficult for Islam to accept the idea that the temporal and spiritual realms are seperate.
[...]

For that reason, Islam becomes a viable POLITICAL force, one to replace what people percieve as the failed politics of the West,
[...]
And on a side note, Judaism is far more similar to Islam than Christianity,

The most significant theological developments that define todays Judaism happened much after Judaism was in power.

The first major reforms happened during the babylonian exile, and the most important trends in modern Judaism happened after the 2nd temple destruction and mostly during the middle ages.

If you're looking for a version of Judaism as it was right after the Torah, you should look at the Samaritans sect.


Regarding your point about united religious and temporal power - that is completely false if you know a little Judaism.

Unlike Muhammed that was both the prophet and the temporal leader, there were no similar characters in Judaism.

The closest who come to his image as temporal and local leaders are Moses, Aaron and the Judges. They are not in any way followed, revered or iconized by the religion.

All subsequent temporal and religious establishment rulers were NOT presented as asbolute holy figures and were NOT god's messengers.

Most of the Torah criticizes the hebrew power-establishments through the figures of prophets who come out against kings, and religious figures alike.

Judaism has no "pope" figure which leads and symbolizes the word of god. The chief priest does not carry the word of God. he's a servant that operates the temple.

God is always present through prophets - side figures who are anti-thesis to temporal or religious authority, but turn out to be the true messengers of god by virtue of conscience.

[Barnabas]

I think we are speaking of different things, in beliefs and religious practices Islam is more similar to Judaism than to Christianity.

But yes, Islam and Christianity are universal religions, while judaism is only the religion of one ethnic group, and they don't think non jews should or need to convert. In that way Islam and Christianity are similar (be christian muslim or burn in hell) and Judaism is the odd one.

The last wars of religion among christians were the wars between Spain-Holy Roman empire against protestants.
There, you see France, which shows the future by not caring about religion, being alliest first with the Turks against Spain, and later with the protestant dutch, all to defeat Spain. And it was Richelieu, a catholic priest who did that.

After those wars, never again Europe had wars about religion and all the conflicts between England, The Netherlands, France, Spain, Portugal, Sweden
were just normal geopolitics and colonial competition.


Perhaps the wars between croats, serbs etc in the 90's are an exception, or the irish situation.

[GePap]

Siro:

1. The Christian bible includes much of the Jewish bible, so the early Christians would follow various older custom. Again, all of the New Testament books were written before Constantine converted.

2. The issue is the idea that Christianity the faith "evolved" VS. societies that had Christianity as their religion underwent a shift in values and adopted the split of temporal and spiritual power that the Enlightenment calls for. I am arguing that there has been no sea change in the underlying message of Christianity, but that the basic message of Christianity allows for a clean split of the spiritual and temporal.

3. On the treatment on Judaism by Islam and Christianity, I saw no evidence that Islam did treat Jews worse than Christianity. MOre to the point, while Islam codified a second-class status for Jews and Christianity didn;t, that again has to do with the fact that Christianity divorces itself from temporal issues to an extent that Islam doesn't.

4. On you statements about historical progression, the historical progression of a religion is an issue of chance, not an issue of doctrine. Had Constanine lost on the Milvian Bridge then the historical development of Christianity would have been fundamentally different, but that would not have changed the writing so the apostles, which was done prior to the battle.

To simplify the issue:

The discussion you started is about why we have Islamist terrorism, as opposed to say Christian or Jewish terrorism. You claimed that Christianity is a more "developed" faith that had adopted the values of modernity while Islam hadn't (the 'no Islamic reformation' arguement).

I hold this view to be incorrect. If Islam is being used as a justification for political violence today it is because Islam is a faith that does not allow for the simple split of temporal and spiritual issues like Christianity does. This is a fundamental issue of doctrine.

Jesus preached a message of PERSONAL salvation through faith and love. Mohammend preached a message of submitting oneself to the will of the one creator, the source of all morality, and trying to create a perfect and just SOCIETY on earth, by having all men submit to HIS will.

Judaism is a faith built upon the notion that there is a sacred covenant between the creator and A PEOPLE, not each individual Jew, but the Hebrew nation. As long as the Hebrew nation honored this sacred covenant, the creator would protect them. This basic, underlying core belief means that you can't separate the issues of ruling a Hebrew people in a Jewish state from the covenant, and the sacred rules of that creator. Like Islam, and unlike Christianity, the divine rules laid out are not just there to regulate an individual's behavior, but a people's behavior.

[Blaupanzer]

England's conquering of Ireland in the initial instance appears to have a very identifiable religious element. I'm guessing that one of the broadbush conflicts you named sweeps up the 30 Years War, despite the fact that Spain was not really a major player in that one. That whole period of warfare was obviously about religion as much as anything else.

[Straybow]

No, religion was just a tool for political ambition on that level.