Christianity ruins families.

[MrFun]

So then why did Barnabas feel that he had to make a statement concerning that?

[giblets]

MrFun: I don't know. I, personally, was only reacting to Ben's demonizing of Muslims and determination to justify everything ever done by Christians.

With protestantism the seperation of church and state was introduced, which was more or less adopted soon by the Roman Catholics as well. (The RC was forced to rethink their theology because of the reformation)

I'm not very positive of true Muslims adopting the separation of church and state.
Such a doctrine can easily be based on the Bible or Jesus, but not on the Quran.

I think that people too easily consider all religions alike, and therefore conclude that all religions will follow the same path. (like: islam will go through a reformation as well).

I think it's entirely possible for people to change with the times without abandoning their religion. For example, the Bible has plenty of sexist garbage, but most Christians have moved with the times and reinterpreted the religion and they're now completely at odds with what early Christians thought.

[MrFun]

When I quoted Barnabas in my response, I reacted to this with my "for record" comment:

Why are islamic conquests sacred, good and to be respected, while christian attempts to reconquer former christian lands (which were generally predominantly christian lands under islamic rule) seen as unjustified outrageous attacks?

[Elok]

Thanks for the history lesson, BeBro.

With protestantism the seperation of church and state was introduced, which was more or less adopted soon by the Roman Catholics as well. (The RC was forced to rethink their theology because of the reformation)

I'm not very positive of true Muslims adopting the separation of church and state.
Such a doctrine can easily be based on the Bible or Jesus, but not on the Quran.

I think that people too easily consider all religions alike, and therefore conclude that all religions will follow the same path. (like: islam will go through a reformation as well).

Protestants didn't introduce the separation of church and state. Protestants everywhere were quite glad to have kings backing them up, when they didn't live in strict communes like Calvin's Geneva. But that's beside the point.

Islam, as originally preached by Mohammad, cannot be easily reconciled with anything like our First Amendment. But then, the teachings of Jesus cannot be easily reconciled with "rich people are rich because God loves them more," and yet the Prosperity Gospel is doing pretty well in some circles. And there are tons of Muslims, in America at least, who are perfectly content to do their own thing in peace.

If by 'true Muslim' you mean 'terrorist nutjob,' then yes, they are going to undergo a Reformation sooner or later. It's almost inevitable, because their worldview makes them incapable of existing in modern society. Either they're going to learn to play nice or they'll be squished into nothing. They can't simply hide from modernity like the Amish; they're too violent. And I don't think they're going to come charging out of Afghan caves and subdue Western civilization to the will of Allah any time soon. They're going to keep going for Jihad, and keep getting shot and bombed and shot and bombed until Jihad is dead. They'll cause us a good deal of trouble in the process, but they can't win.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm not sure that anyone claims Muslims conquests were "good" (maybe aside from Muslim partisans). However, o the whole, they did treat Christians and Jews better than Christians treated Muslims and Jews (Jews much more preferred to live in Muslim Spain than Christian Spain for one). That's probably because Muslims considered Christians and Jews as "people of the Book", while Christians just considered Muslims as "infidels".

Regardless, the argument is that the Crusaders were un-Christian. They committed mass atrocities and for someone to forgive that because they were "reconquering land" is what causes the grief.

[Robert]

MrFun: I think it's entirely possible for people to change with the times without abandoning their religion. For example, the Bible has plenty of sexist garbage, but most Christians have moved with the times and reinterpreted the religion and they're now completely at odds with what early Christians thought.

IMHO you make the mistake that you think that muslims can change because christians have changed. But Islam and Christianity are two very different religions.

Christianity could change everytime by going back to it's roots.
And christianity has always been a religion that adapted to local culture.
Your statement that the Bible has sexist garbage is true compared to today. But compared to the time in which the Bible was written, especially the New Testament, what the Bible said about women was very pro-women. (compared to it's environment). (ie. in Christ everybody is equal, man and woman, slave and slave holder)

Now is cultural adaption a core value of christianity, Islam's core value is that it applies the Islamitic culture to all new believers.
That's why Bibles are translated. (even the Roman Catholic Bible is a translation, even the 2nd latin translation. The Old Testament in the vulgate is based on the Greek translation of the Old Testament)
Muslims read the Quran always in Arabic.
Christians pray according to their local culture. (hands in the air, holding hands together, folding hands together, kneeling to the ground). Muslims all more or less pray the same way.

Even Sunis and shiites are very close to each other. Compared to RCC and Protestantism and Eastern Orthodox, (not to mention the coptic christians, etc.) muslims are all much more alike and the same, also in their doctrine.

Just 2 examples on how christianity and islam are very the same.

Now take modern western values like the importance of the individual person (compared to the group) and the seperation of church and state;
both are very well represented in the Bible.
Jesus, Peter and Paul both hold the (non christian) emperor and government in heigh value, and order the people to listen to them. Jesus says that his kingdom is not from this world.
In christianity it's about the individual who has a relation with God. We're not there to judge each other. People can have different opinions on how to serve God. Jesus stopped Peter from using violence to gain christian goals.

Compare that with Islam, then Islam is a different religion. Muhammed was a ruler of a reign. Muhammed's kingdom was on this earth. He used force to gain his goals. The Quran is filled with political statements on how to rule a nation.

I'm not saying that christianity is therefore better then Islam. With Jesus christianity has the great example on being humble and turn the other cheek. With Muhammed muslims have this great example of a brave warrior and leader.

And of course through history people depart from these key values. And reformation is in fact turning back to the origins.
That's my reason to believe that Islam will never reform like christianity did, and accept the right of the individual and seperation of state and church.
Islam is about the society (which is also a good value, btw!). And it will use political and military means to gain it's targets. (just as Muhammed did).

Once again, this is not a way to judge Islam, it's only an attempt to show that Islam is a completely different religion then christianity.
The believe that islam will change is not based on scientific rational arguments, but just based on the lack of knowledge of Islam and the hope that people will always slowly evolve into western-value-thinking people.

In fact the idea that Islam will reform and adapt our values is a huge form of disrespect towards Islam.
But if you think that I'm wrong, then please explain me on which you base the belief that Islam will change through time. Did it change through time in the past? (like christianity has changed?)

[giblets]

Your statement that the Bible has sexist garbage is true compared to today. But compared to the time in which the Bible was written, especially the New Testament, what the Bible said about women was very pro-women. (compared to it's environment). (ie. in Christ everybody is equal, man and woman, slave and slave holder)

See, instead of interpreting your scriptures as the word of God you seem to think they were created by fallible humans and therefore should be taken within the context of the culture in which they were written. I don't see why Muslims can't make the same change in thinking and decide that context should be taken into account when interpreting Muhammad's actions. For example, instead of thinking it's okay to marry a six year old because Muhammad did it, they could think that Muhammad did it because he lived in a different time when people didn't know it was wrong.

[Robert]

Protestants didn't introduce the separation of church and state. Protestants everywhere were quite glad to have kings backing them up, when they didn't live in strict communes like Calvin's Geneva. But that's beside the point.

Protestantism wanted (not initially! not Calvin, ie. but later) that the church would not be influenced by the state.
But protestantism later went back to the biblical message of Jesus and Paul that Jesus reign is not from this world, and christians should give to the emperor what belongs to the emperor.
After protestantism catholicism also reformed, and also turned back to these basic values of christianity.

Islam, as originally preached by Mohammad, cannot be easily reconciled with anything like our First Amendment. But then, the teachings of Jesus cannot be easily reconciled with "rich people are rich because God loves them more," and yet the Prosperity Gospel is doing pretty well in some circles. And there are tons of Muslims, in America at least, who are perfectly content to do their own thing in peace.

Of course, every religion will always adapt things that are not a part of the ancient teachings of this religion. And over time those changes will disapear again. If a religion changes, it's in the non-core values of the religion, I believe. Unless of course complete new core values are adapted (Mormons, in example).

If by 'true Muslim' you mean 'terrorist nutjob,' then yes, they are going to undergo a Reformation sooner or later.

true muslim = a person who's a moslim by heart and deeds, not only by saying so. thus someone who takes Islam, Muhammed and the Quran serious in his every day life. Not people who say that they're muslims but go against all laws and meanings of Islam on purpose. Of course true muslims will also make mistakes, but they feel guilty about doing so.

Regarding terrorist nutjobs in fact go back to the basics (Al Qai'da = the base!) of their religion, and follow Muhammed. Muhammed was a warrior, they want to follow Muhammed. Personally I think that Muhammed was quite a fair warrior, especially for his day and age. Al Qai'da is not. I don't think that Muhammed would approve what OBL does. But the bottom line is that muslim terrorists are inspired by their true example: Muhammed.

Now I do not want to judge all muslims in one line, but in general it can be said that the general muslim has great respect for someone like Osama Bin Laden. It's the exception to the rule that Muslims take distance in clear words from terrorism. Often they understand terroristic actions. And if muslims condemn it clearly, it's mostly political muslims.
I don't say that all muslims support it (or do it themselves!) defenitely not. But most muslims still have respect for someone like OBL, he reminds them of Muhammed.

It's almost inevitable, because their worldview makes them incapable of existing in modern society. Either they're going to learn to play nice or they'll be squished into nothing.

Indeed, either they'll be squashed, or they'll turn away from this basic idea of following Muhammed.

They can't simply hide from modernity like the Amish; they're too violent. And I don't think they're going to come charging out of Afghan caves and subdue Western civilization to the will of Allah any time soon. They're going to keep going for Jihad, and keep getting shot and bombed and shot and bombed until Jihad is dead. They'll cause us a good deal of trouble in the process, but they can't win.

indeed. And worst of all: they don't do that because they lost sight of their religion and founder, but because they follow him in his footsteps.

[BeBMan]

In fact the idea that Islam will reform and adapt our values is a huge form of disrespect towards Islam.
But if you think that I'm wrong, then please explain me on which you base the belief that Islam will change through time. Did it change through time in the past? (like christianity has changed?)

I agree with gribbler, in the end any more complex system of ideas is open to interpretation. Just see how 'Jihad' is interpreted differently by different (groups of) Muslims. If that is possible I don't see why any other (modern) interpretations would be per se impossible.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And in addition, Christianity does stress an individual's relationship with God, but ALSO stresses how you act in the community of believers and to non-believers outside of it. Remember, Jesus's second commandment is to love thy neighbor. Also in Acts we see the apostles join together in communes, with all property shared among them. They believe that honoring God is both an individual goal and also through group action - and the group can help an individual reach God, and can bring the Kingdom to Earth.

[OzzyKP]

Regardless, the argument is that the Crusaders were un-Christian. They committed mass atrocities and for someone to forgive that because they were "reconquering land" is what causes the grief.

The debate seems to be more that atrocities were done by both sides and war and conquest were the fault of both sides. No side is immune to the horrors of war.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, I don't want to insult you, but I think you bring a lot of protestant baggage with you when you say that Jews have a claim to the Holy Land, no catholic would ever say that (I also see that when you oppose state intervention to help the poor, as if catholic countries had a history of free market capitalism like England or the Netherlands)

They do have a claim to the Holy Land.

I've never seen a Catholic deny that this was the homeland of the Jews. It's a historical fact.

As for England and the Dutch, they both have substantial Catholic heritage too, Utrecht and Canterbury are both Catholic sees, and have nothing to do with the House of Orange.

That territory you mentioned from the Euphrates to the Nile, was never ever controlled by jews in their History, Israel was from Dan to Beersheba, not from the Nile to the Euphrates, that was just wishful thinking.

Not in it's entirety. The land from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates was given to Israel. That they settled from Dan to Beersheba is what they controlled, which at times grew as in the time of Solomon.

And that territory would include most holy christian sites like the church of the Nativity, and the patriarchate of Jerusalem, one of the 5 most important sees (Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople), you can't have both christians and jews having a valid claim over the same territory.

Why not? That was the way that it was historically. Jews and Christians together.

By the way, the Islamic conquest was great for the Papacy, Rome is the only "free" apostolic see, all others fell in control of muslims.

I think Rome would have rather had all the other sees together then lose most of Christendom.

The islamic conquest is probably the only reason why I am a Catholic and not Eastern Orthodox.

Where do you live, Barnabas? The catholic part of my family was sort of on the border too, in OstPreuben. They were Catholic for the same reason the Knights were Catholic. They didn't convert over like most of the Germans did later on.

I don't see anything outrageous or unjustified about the crusades, and I don't think the muslims thought the crusaders had outrageous beliefs. They were enemies, infidels, but they were only acting like the muslims who conquered everything in sight from Spain to China. The muslims understood the pshychology of Holy War too well to be outraged by the crusaders.

Thank you. That's what I've been trying to say.

[Ben Kenobi]

Which is the main reason why I don't find the Muslim conquests quite as abhorrent as the Crusades.

Alexandria anyone?

[Ben Kenobi]

'm not sure that anyone claims Muslims conquests were "good" (maybe aside from Muslim partisans). However, o the whole, they did treat Christians and Jews better than Christians treated Muslims and Jews (Jews much more preferred to live in Muslim Spain than Christian Spain for one). That's probably because Muslims considered Christians and Jews as "people of the Book", while Christians just considered Muslims as "infidels".

You are aware that what made Cordoba so successful was their proximity to Christendom, not the opposite? They raided considerably. They captured Christians and sold them into slavery. The heavy burden on the Jewish folks and the Christians was another reason.

The only people who said they preferred to live in Muslim spain, were in the 16th century, not the 9th. I think they would have had a different perspective back then.

[MrFun]

I was enjoying Barnabas, gribbler, Imran and others lifting this thread up to intelligent discussion by reading their posts.

Unfortunately, BK has come back to the thread now.