Political cartoons

[Jon Miller]

Abraham is far older than Zoroaster.

He's back about the middle bronze age, around 1650-1800 BC. The earliest evidence we have for Zoroaster puts him at about 600-700 BC, in the early Iron Age.

You don't think that he was influenced?

JM

[chequita guevara]

Infidel merely means "one without faith". Of course to followers of Islam christians are infidels. The opposite is also true, however. OTOH, christians and jews have special status within Islam in that they are not "non-believers". Thats why they were not persecuted during the various caliphates (although they had "second class rights"). In fact, jews lived better under Islamic rule than Christian rule.

Hell, second class rights under Islam was usually better than first class rights under Christianity. The reason why the Austrians built so many forts along the Ottoman frontier wasn't to keep the Turks out. It was to keep the Christians in. Their serfs kept trying to escape and become second class citizens. Christians under Islam may have had to pay more in taxes than Muslims, but they paid less than Christians under Christian lords.

[Drake Tungsten]

Christians under Islam may have had to pay more in taxes than Muslims, but they paid less than Christians under Christian lords.

Lower taxes

[notyoueither]

Felch calls them 'implacably evil' and you go after me? Man. I'm on his left here. I believe you can convert Muslims.

As for the Q'Uran, it permits them to slaughter anyone who doesn't believe in Mohammed. That definition includes Christians and Jews.

I find it ironic that the catholic with a persecution complex mischaracterises other faiths. Maybe I shouldn't. Amusing might be a better word.

[Zevico]

Some of the points made here are demonstrably wrong.

They regard Christians, as infidels. For a religion that claims to love Christ, they sure hate Christians and Jews.

A religion is an abstraction that cannot by definition hate, think, or feel. To the contrary, it is people who make and interpret their respective religious beliefs. It is a gross error of analysis to suppose that a religion is an entirely cohesive set of beliefs subscribed to by all of its followers.
Do keep in mind that not just a few hundred years ago, Catholicism was a blight upon society. With it came intolerance, genocide, prejudice, censorship and absolutism. Such may have been common everywhere, of course, but that does not lessen the sin in the eyes of God (assuming He exists).

First off, they don't believe he was God. That's huge. It, for them, means that Christians are committing the ultimate sacrilege against the 'unity of God' in the Trinity. So yeah, they would attack him as a blasphemer for claiming to be God himself.

Not an outstanding explanation as such, because it contemplates the possibility of Christ returning, claiming to be God, and Muslims rejecting him. But I suppose that's fair enough given you believe Christ will return.
It should be noted that religious Jews also regard this idea as blasphemous for the same reason as the Muslims do.
Conversely, Christians regard Jews and Muslims as blasphemers for not accepting Christ.

Yeah, except for those parts where Christians slaughter Muslims, you'd be accurate there.

Many years ago, Christians (and Catholics) were quite happy to kill and maim others for these differences. Probably anyone who refused to do so would be regarded as a blasphemer himself.

Going even further back to a few millenia ago, we may see that the Jews of the bible did the same. Today that is not the case.

This ought to be instructive to you as to how the beliefs of a given set of persons, who purport to follow a faith, can change drastically whilst retaining the same name. It ought to be instructive as to the fact that religion is nothing without a person to believe and interpret it as he will.

If they refuse to submit and pay the Jizya, then they can be killed. IMO, not much of a distinction.

It was a distinction that mattered for many, many Christians and Jews of a certain time. I can understand why liberty or death is a preferred choice for you, but that is not to say that everyone, dead Christians and Jews of the past included, agrees with you. See also: absolutist Catholic regimes of times gone by. Note also that some, but not all Islamic empires were quite willing to term idolaters such as Hindus and so forth "People of the Book."

[Ben Kenobi]

You don't think that he was influenced?

Influenced? Yes. By Zoroaster? No. The two are on opposite sides of the catastrophe. I'm not sure we can say that the Avesta is bronze age either. From what I can see it only comes about after the collapse of the bronze age societies. Abraham is another 6-700 years past.

[Ben Kenobi]

Hell, second class rights under Islam was usually better than first class rights under Christianity. The reason why the Austrians built so many forts along the Ottoman frontier wasn't to keep the Turks out. It was to keep the Christians in.

It had nothing to do with the fact that the Turks routinely captured and enslaved Christians they could get their hands on? Why on earth do the Sardinians have a flag with a Moor's head on a pike? Islamic nations were well known for piracy and kidnapping, well up until the dawn of the modern age.

[chequita guevara]

So were Christian nations, dumbass.

[Ben Kenobi]

A religion is an abstraction that cannot by definition hate, think, or feel. To the contrary, it is people who make and interpret their respective religious beliefs. It is a gross error of analysis to suppose that a religion is an entirely cohesive set of beliefs subscribed to by all of its followers.

I'm assuming that Islam, as it is practiced and written enforces a brutal code of submission and attempts to eradicate cultures contrary to their own. We see it in Iran with the Zoroasterians, in Pakistan with the Buddhists, and in Egypt with the Copts. Why do you think when the Americans came to Iraq that the Eastern churches were pleading with them to protect and free them?

That being said, there are Muslims who believe and act to the contrary. I would argue they are being 'bad muslims' and good people in doing so.

Do keep in mind that not just a few hundred years ago, Catholicism was a blight upon society. With it came intolerance, genocide, prejudice, censorship and absolutism. Such may have been common everywhere, of course, but that does not lessen the sin in the eyes of God (assuming He exists).

Sigh. I don't know what to say solomnwi. Do you not see the heritage of Europe right before your eyes? I don't see how any intellectually honest person can subscribe the crime against progress to the biggest patron of arts, science and history over the last 2 millenia. We would not have half the history that we do without the preservation of learning throughout the medieval period, and we would not be where we are today without the Church.

I speak as a convert. I did not see the influence on modern times until I began to dig and examine, and what did I consistantly see? Behind the very things which we boast and brag about as the pinnacle of Western culture and thought, we find the Church, actively promoting, preserving and defending.

I thought of making a list, but I'll instead ask you a question. What do you regard as essential to a civilised society? What thoughts, ideas and words could you not live without on a daily basis?

Not an outstanding explanation as such, because it contemplates the possibility of Christ returning, claiming to be God, and Muslims rejecting him. But I suppose that's fair enough given you believe Christ will return.

It should be noted that religious Jews also regard this idea as blasphemous for the same reason as the Muslims do.

The only difference is that the Muslims believe it will be the Mahdi, and the Jews believe he will return also. They believe that Elijah must come first.

Conversely, Christians regard Jews and Muslims as blasphemers for not accepting Christ.

Why are you quoting to me what Christians believe?

Christians believe that they have recieved a great inheritance from the Jewish people in the Old Testament and that the New is simply the fulfillment of the Old, as Christ is the fulfillment of the promises held to Israel by YHWH long ago. We believe that the Jewish people who reject Christ (for not all do so), are grievously mistaken, but they are not heretics. They are not infidels. Most certainly they do not blaspheme against God. We believe they are making a tragic mistake in not recognising that their Messiah has come.

Muslims on the other hand? What can we say. They are a moon cult that worships a moon god and a black asteroid in the desert. I see no evidence that they worship YHWH, and their antagonism to Israel and the people of God, is evidence of their faith.

This ought to be instructive to you as to how the beliefs of a given set of persons, who purport to follow a faith, can change drastically whilst retaining the same name. It ought to be instructive as to the fact that religion is nothing without a person to believe and interpret it as he will.

And here is where we differ. What need has God of people to be God? God is God, with or without his believers. God is not the creation of man, just the opposite.

It was a distinction that mattered for many, many Christians and Jews of a certain time. I can understand why liberty or death is a preferred choice for you, but that is not to say that everyone, dead Christians and Jews of the past included, agrees with you. See also: absolutist Catholic regimes of times gone by. Note also that some, but not all Islamic empires were quite willing to term idolaters such as Hindus and so forth "People of the Book."

And many did in fact choose to abide by the submission and to live under the rule of Islam. I acknowledge so. They have suffered terribly for their decision, and I will not question their faith in God in the face of persecution for centuries. In them, I believe is the wellspring of the faith that they are unwilling to give up their worship of God, much as our forefathers did before the faith was recognised.

[Ben Kenobi]

So were Christian nations, dumbass.

Why was the Greek revolution so important, Che? Did Christians really want to be ruled by the Turks to their own freedom? I don't buy it and much of the animosity in the region that percolates today has to do with these old conflicts.

[SlowwHand]

Some of the points made here are demonstrably wrong.

A religion is an abstraction that cannot by definition hate, think, or feel. To the contrary, it is people who make and interpret their respective religious beliefs. It is a gross error of analysis to suppose that a religion is an entirely cohesive set of beliefs subscribed to by all of its followers.
Do keep in mind that not just a few hundred years ago, Catholicism was a blight upon society. With it came intolerance, genocide, prejudice, censorship and absolutism. Such may have been common everywhere, of course, but that does not lessen the sin in the eyes of God (assuming He exists).

Protestant religions are certainly not all like the examples you cite. I know with certainty that the Methodists alone make this generalized statement incorrect. If you want to focus on Catholicism, don't say say "A religion".
Generalities are generally incorrect, such as this fine example.

[notyoueither]

Why was the Greek revolution so important, Che? Did Christians really want to be ruled by the Turks to their own freedom? I don't buy it and much of the animosity in the region that percolates today has to do with these old conflicts.

So, you are aware of history, yet you choose to misrepresent the position of christians and jews in muslim societies.

Colour me shocked.

[Nikolai]

Perhaps not true apostasy, but I defy you to find someone who bought a picture of Muhammed in a market today (especially in Iran despite its previous leniency). All it would take is a denounciation by a mullah who didnt like the idea. One might not die, but it would not be pleasant.

The hatred toward portraits and art in general is a part of the Hadith and it is no more "modern" than some christians opposition to wine and spirits.

I had one lecturer who bought a picture in the middle of the whole debacle, is that good enough?

[Felch]

The reason why the Austrians built so many forts along the Ottoman frontier wasn't to keep the Turks out.

WTF

[Zevico]

Two issues. Firstly, I don't think that patronage for the arts or sciences somehow means that the Church is excused from openly sanctioning and advocating violence against others solely because of their religious faith or ethnicity, which is precisely what the Church did for some time.

Secondly, I want to ask a philosphical/religious question that is totally unrelated to the matter at hand. Imagine that there is a device that capable of assessing how potent a person or thing was on a relative scale of natural numbers. A device that would, if you would imagine it, "scout" the "power level" of the thing or object before you. We may call the device a "scouter", for convenience. Imagine Jesus stood before you and you pointed the scouter at him. Now--Ben, what does the scouter say about his power level?