As an aside to this, any of you who are no longer on B77 will have missed Gimli's link to his photos of Auschwitz. They are chilling, but they need to be seen. I hope he doesn't mind me sharing the link here.
http://fotowithanf.blogs.com/photos/aus ... index.html
Cartoons?
Alatar, thank you for posting that here. I can't quite make myself look at it right now, though... I'm not strong, that way. 
I think that BECAUSE I have beliefs that matter to me, I can 100% understand someone having beliefs that matter to them as well. It seems that you know people who feel they way you describe, and are extrapolating the feelings of those people to the general American populace. I must say, though, that in my little bible study of seven women, we, as a group, have a HUGE amount of empathy for the “legitimacy” of the “beliefs of foreigners”. We all came to the table with that same viewpoint; it was not a collective decision to feel that way. We understand the feeling of people willingly and deliberately trashing what we feel is important, simply because they don’t think we SHOULD feel it is important. We feel that is what’s happening to the Muslim faith, right now.
We are more accustomed to this treatment than the Muslims, that’s all (and, of course, generally speaking, at least in recent history, sacrilege to Christian symbols is not met with the advanced level of retribution that I have noticed in the wake of the cartoon issue for Muslims). Bible literalists, especially, see that sort of treatment a lot. In fact, it often is written as something like:
It’s like… live and let live, poor Muslims should be able to retain something as sacred, that’s what any reasonable civilization would do, you know, allow for the sacred beliefs of those who believe differently, even if we shallow Americans don’t hold anything as sacred, we just wave the occasional flag and call it important, we don’t really get how it is to have anything important, that’s how we are. Except for those unsophisticated enough to see, you know, the bible as “literal truth”. Tee-hee. ‘Course, everyone knows that those people really ARE silly.
And then there is the obligatory comment about how such a belief makes Bible literalists intolerant of other’s beliefs. They see that a lot, too.
For the record, I am not personally affected by the comments above, nor am I sure the Bible should be taken literally… I am still on a journey myself, as far as that goes. But I AM close enough to that community to easily see how that one group is so often made an exception in any of these talks about fairness to all religions. I still am not sure why, but, occasionally, I will get “enough” of it to speak up, just a bit.
Today is one of those days.
I completely disagree with such a blanket statement.Jn wrote:but what we have trouble doing is imagining that 'foreigners' find their own beliefs as legitimate as we find our own;
I think that BECAUSE I have beliefs that matter to me, I can 100% understand someone having beliefs that matter to them as well. It seems that you know people who feel they way you describe, and are extrapolating the feelings of those people to the general American populace. I must say, though, that in my little bible study of seven women, we, as a group, have a HUGE amount of empathy for the “legitimacy” of the “beliefs of foreigners”. We all came to the table with that same viewpoint; it was not a collective decision to feel that way. We understand the feeling of people willingly and deliberately trashing what we feel is important, simply because they don’t think we SHOULD feel it is important. We feel that is what’s happening to the Muslim faith, right now.
We are more accustomed to this treatment than the Muslims, that’s all (and, of course, generally speaking, at least in recent history, sacrilege to Christian symbols is not met with the advanced level of retribution that I have noticed in the wake of the cartoon issue for Muslims). Bible literalists, especially, see that sort of treatment a lot. In fact, it often is written as something like:
Where “literally” is in quotes, with an exclamation point behind it. How silly, it seems to read, that someone would believe such a ridiculous thing! Not a whole lot of “live and let live” in that statement, now is there?The only thing I can think of that has analogous strength is the belief in that Genesis should be interpreted 'literally' ! Yet the people who hold that belief seem to be the ones least likely to be tolerant of analogous feelings among 'heathens.
It’s like… live and let live, poor Muslims should be able to retain something as sacred, that’s what any reasonable civilization would do, you know, allow for the sacred beliefs of those who believe differently, even if we shallow Americans don’t hold anything as sacred, we just wave the occasional flag and call it important, we don’t really get how it is to have anything important, that’s how we are. Except for those unsophisticated enough to see, you know, the bible as “literal truth”. Tee-hee. ‘Course, everyone knows that those people really ARE silly.
And then there is the obligatory comment about how such a belief makes Bible literalists intolerant of other’s beliefs. They see that a lot, too.
For the record, I am not personally affected by the comments above, nor am I sure the Bible should be taken literally… I am still on a journey myself, as far as that goes. But I AM close enough to that community to easily see how that one group is so often made an exception in any of these talks about fairness to all religions. I still am not sure why, but, occasionally, I will get “enough” of it to speak up, just a bit.
Today is one of those days.
"What do you fear, lady?" Aragorn asked.
"A cage," Éowyn said. "To stay behind bars, until use and old age accept them, and all chance of doing great deeds is gone beyond recall or desire.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
"A cage," Éowyn said. "To stay behind bars, until use and old age accept them, and all chance of doing great deeds is gone beyond recall or desire.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
Anth, Whoa!
Let me start with the 'literally.' I put it in quotations because different groups of Christians disagree about what Genesis says. And the Jewish interpretation is unlike most Christian interpretations that I've heard. The word 'literally' has to be qualified with regard to Bible interpretation, imo, and that is why it is in quotes.
I'm sorry that you disagree so strenuously, but I do feel that this issue (legitimacy of a particular interpretation of Genesis) and the abortion debate are the only two areas of American culture that stand in an analogous relationship to Moslem feelings about political cartoons that satirize the prophet ... where the motivation is religious but the implications and consequences are political, and the feelings run very, very high. (Possibly we might add the debate about gay marriage, but even that does not come up to quite the same level in terms of the lengths to which those working from a religious perspective will go in order to see accomplished what they consider to be necessity.)
Are you suggesting that most of the Christians involved in those political campaigns will be sympathetic to Islam because they understand that it is just as valid as Christianity? Anthy, trot through any religious thread on this messageboard or B77 or TORC and you will see what Christianity says about the legitimacy of other religions.
If we define tolerance as being nice to members of other religions, not reminding them every day that they are going to hell, then yes, lots of us are tolerant. But if we define tolerance as understanding that we ourselves might be WRONG, and that something different might be RIGHT, and agreeing to suspend judgment and attribution for that reason, to be able to say, "this is right for me but it might not be right for you" ...
...among those who are on the religious side of the questions above, have you ever heard them admit that it is possible to come to God by any means other than through Christ? That very statement - only through Christ - was made by at least three people in the Tol Eressëa thread on "Hell" and these are among the most tolerant and open-minded people that I know.
Christianity does claims to be the only true religion - this is part and parcel of Christian dogma - and it is the only religion that holds such a dogma.
That I why I say that those who stand in an analogous situation here in the US with regard to their perspective on religion and politics are the least likely to be able to have empathetic feelings toward Islam. One cannot possibly appreciate the urgency with which someone else wants their views honored if one believes that those views are fundamentally wrong.
A parallel might be the other issue we were discussion here - Holocaust denial. As a matter of political opinion, I do not believe that Holocaust denial should be criminalized. But I could not be the one to lead a campaign for changing the laws of Europe (assuming I were European) because I'm a Jew and would like to see all those people who deny the Holocaust fall off a cliff at their earliest convenience. Not only do I know those people to be utterly wrong, but also they are emotionally offensive to me, and I could not be the one to publicly defend them.
I doubt that most Christians feel toward Islam or Judaism what I feel toward Holocaust denial - though there certainly are some who feel that way because I've been on the receiving end of their damnation - but it is nevertheless nearly impossible, if not completely impossible, to be the primary defender of something you believe to be wrong. Christianity as an institution will not be the vehicle by which Americans better understand the Islamic perspective. I simply cannot imagine how it could be so, given the underlying premise of Christianity coupled with the antipathetic feelings toward Islam among even secular Americans at this moment in history.
It is my opinion that the only people who might bring Americans as a whole toward a better understanding of Islam are American Moslems.
I think that BECAUSE I have beliefs that matter to me, I can 100% understand someone having beliefs that matter to them as well. It seems that you know people who feel they way you describe, and are extrapolating the feelings of those people to the general American populace.
Or else you are extrapolating from your sample of seven people. The problem is that neither of us really knows which way the wave of American sentiment will swing when the chips are down. We are all extrapolating from personal experience. You are certainly in a better position to understand Christian sentiment than I am, but because you are looking out from within that group, you are more likely to attribute benevolent intentions to them, just as I am more likely to attribute benevolent intentions toward Israel - to see them as defenders rather than aggressors most of the time - and both of us are more likely to attribute malevolent intentions toward those who are different from ourselves. That's just human psychology, and the truth of course is always somewhere in the middle.
With regard to American flag-waving, yes, I have a jaundiced view of the political sophistication of most Americans. I think that we do not receive adequate information to be truly well-informed and that the information we receive is diddled far more than we wish to know. I think that we are fatally misguided by materialism, that we are overly emotional, strategically myopic, and historically forgetful. These are generalizations about our culture ... they cannot all be true of everyone, but enough of them can be true of enough of us to justify serious questions about our political decisions.
Jn
Let me start with the 'literally.' I put it in quotations because different groups of Christians disagree about what Genesis says. And the Jewish interpretation is unlike most Christian interpretations that I've heard. The word 'literally' has to be qualified with regard to Bible interpretation, imo, and that is why it is in quotes.
I'm sorry that you disagree so strenuously, but I do feel that this issue (legitimacy of a particular interpretation of Genesis) and the abortion debate are the only two areas of American culture that stand in an analogous relationship to Moslem feelings about political cartoons that satirize the prophet ... where the motivation is religious but the implications and consequences are political, and the feelings run very, very high. (Possibly we might add the debate about gay marriage, but even that does not come up to quite the same level in terms of the lengths to which those working from a religious perspective will go in order to see accomplished what they consider to be necessity.)
Are you suggesting that most of the Christians involved in those political campaigns will be sympathetic to Islam because they understand that it is just as valid as Christianity? Anthy, trot through any religious thread on this messageboard or B77 or TORC and you will see what Christianity says about the legitimacy of other religions.
If we define tolerance as being nice to members of other religions, not reminding them every day that they are going to hell, then yes, lots of us are tolerant. But if we define tolerance as understanding that we ourselves might be WRONG, and that something different might be RIGHT, and agreeing to suspend judgment and attribution for that reason, to be able to say, "this is right for me but it might not be right for you" ...
...among those who are on the religious side of the questions above, have you ever heard them admit that it is possible to come to God by any means other than through Christ? That very statement - only through Christ - was made by at least three people in the Tol Eressëa thread on "Hell" and these are among the most tolerant and open-minded people that I know.
Christianity does claims to be the only true religion - this is part and parcel of Christian dogma - and it is the only religion that holds such a dogma.
That I why I say that those who stand in an analogous situation here in the US with regard to their perspective on religion and politics are the least likely to be able to have empathetic feelings toward Islam. One cannot possibly appreciate the urgency with which someone else wants their views honored if one believes that those views are fundamentally wrong.
A parallel might be the other issue we were discussion here - Holocaust denial. As a matter of political opinion, I do not believe that Holocaust denial should be criminalized. But I could not be the one to lead a campaign for changing the laws of Europe (assuming I were European) because I'm a Jew and would like to see all those people who deny the Holocaust fall off a cliff at their earliest convenience. Not only do I know those people to be utterly wrong, but also they are emotionally offensive to me, and I could not be the one to publicly defend them.
I doubt that most Christians feel toward Islam or Judaism what I feel toward Holocaust denial - though there certainly are some who feel that way because I've been on the receiving end of their damnation - but it is nevertheless nearly impossible, if not completely impossible, to be the primary defender of something you believe to be wrong. Christianity as an institution will not be the vehicle by which Americans better understand the Islamic perspective. I simply cannot imagine how it could be so, given the underlying premise of Christianity coupled with the antipathetic feelings toward Islam among even secular Americans at this moment in history.
It is my opinion that the only people who might bring Americans as a whole toward a better understanding of Islam are American Moslems.
I think that BECAUSE I have beliefs that matter to me, I can 100% understand someone having beliefs that matter to them as well. It seems that you know people who feel they way you describe, and are extrapolating the feelings of those people to the general American populace.
Or else you are extrapolating from your sample of seven people.
The problem is that neither of us really knows which way the wave of American sentiment will swing when the chips are down. We are all extrapolating from personal experience. You are certainly in a better position to understand Christian sentiment than I am, but because you are looking out from within that group, you are more likely to attribute benevolent intentions to them, just as I am more likely to attribute benevolent intentions toward Israel - to see them as defenders rather than aggressors most of the time - and both of us are more likely to attribute malevolent intentions toward those who are different from ourselves. That's just human psychology, and the truth of course is always somewhere in the middle. With regard to American flag-waving, yes, I have a jaundiced view of the political sophistication of most Americans. I think that we do not receive adequate information to be truly well-informed and that the information we receive is diddled far more than we wish to know. I think that we are fatally misguided by materialism, that we are overly emotional, strategically myopic, and historically forgetful. These are generalizations about our culture ... they cannot all be true of everyone, but enough of them can be true of enough of us to justify serious questions about our political decisions.
Jn
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
Jn, what Christianity says about the legitimacy of other religions has nothing to do with whether or not certain individual Christians are tolerant of the rights of others to believe as they will.Jnyusa wrote:Anthy, trot through any religious thread on this messageboard or B77 or TORC and you will see what Christianity says about the legitimacy of other religions.
If we define tolerance as being nice to members of other religions, not reminding them every day that they are going to hell, then yes, lots of us are tolerant. But if we define tolerance as understanding that we ourselves might be WRONG, and that something different might be RIGHT, and agreeing to suspend judgment and attribution for that reason, to be able to say, "this is right for me but it might not be right for you" ...
Jn, I think you are mixing some things up here.
Tolerance can't be defined as understanding we might be wrong about a matter of faith, because faith (at least to some) means believing absolutely and without doubt. Tolerance must have to do with our interactions with others, not with the quality of our faith, or with the tenets of what we believe. My belief that the Bible teaches that Christ is the only way to God doesn't mean I'm intolerant of your right to believe what you believe!
I think tolerance by Christians in this country, for example, is marked by the recognition that we are a representative democracy that assures freedom of religion, and so we do not try to impose our faith on others. Contrast that to the Muslims who have been marching calling for the death of those who produced the cartoons. That is the difference between tolerance and intolerance.
My impression is that at least certain segments of Islam believes this. Otherwise, what would be the rationale behind advocating death to non-believers?Christianity does claims to be the only true religion - this is part and parcel of Christian dogma - and it is the only religion that holds such a dogma.
To do so would be blasphemy to me! What you seem to be saying is that in order to be considered tolerant, I must blaspheme my own faith. That can't be right. Tolerance means respecting the rights of others to believe what they believe, not accepting their beliefs as possibly true, which for some would mean rejection of one's own....among those who are on the religious side of the questions above, have you ever heard them admit that it is possible to come to God by any means other than through Christ?
No, I disagree. Those people who share a similar certainty and exclusivity of faith are the people who can best understand that urgency!One cannot possibly appreciate the urgency with which someone else wants their views honored if one believes that those views are fundamentally wrong.
I could defend the right of a Muslim in this country to practice their faith as strongly as I could defend the right of a Christian to do so! What I could not defend would be the right of a Muslim (or a Christian) to kill someone who offends their faith.I doubt that most Christians feel toward Islam or Judaism what I feel toward Holocaust denial - though there certainly are some who feel that way because I've been on the receiving end of their damnation - but it is nevertheless nearly impossible, if not completely impossible, to be the primary defender of something you believe to be wrong.
No, of course not. Why would it be? (Perhaps I missed something earlier in the discussion.)Christianity as an institution will not be the vehicle by which Americans better understand the Islamic perspective.
Yes, that makes perfect sense.It is my opinion that the only people who might bring Americans as a whole toward a better understanding of Islam are American Moslems.
Jn, I detect a certain amount of bitterness in your post when you talk about Christian belief. It's as though you take it as personally damning of yourself, that Christians believe that Jesus is the only way to come to God. This strikes me as curious; for example, I don't take it personally that some Muslims regard Christians positionally (i.e., me) as infidels and, I would assume, not destined for heaven. I understand that is a function of their belief; in other words, it's about them, not about me. It seems that you take the very existence of Christian belief as an insult to yourself. Am I off the mark?
Anth, Whoa!
No, I am not extrapolating our behavior or beliefs to any larger group. Which is why I carefully wrote it in the first person singular.I think that BECAUSE I have beliefs that matter to me, I can 100% understand someone having beliefs that matter to them as well. It seems that you know people who feel they way you describe, and are extrapolating the feelings of those people to the general American populace.
Or else you are extrapolating from your sample of seven people.
I do not know how the rest of Christianity feels; I am not them. I do not know how to answer your question "are you suggesting that most of the Christians involved in those political campaigns will be sympathetic to Islam because they understand that it is just as valid as Christianity?" I cannot speak for those people, to whom you attribute these thoughts. I cannot assume their individual beliefs. My own are certainly not within the mainstream that you describe, nor are the honest, heartfelt feelings of the women with whom I study, and I thought it was worthwhile pointing that out.
You wrote "but what we have trouble doing is imagining that 'foreigners' find their own beliefs as legitimate as we find our own;", in which "we" would include "me", I suppose, and my seven friends, who all came to that study with similar beliefs, not introduced at the pulpit, btw. The blanket statement you wrote about Americans would not be true of us. Or me.
Just wanted to point out that even in a Christian Bible study, (surely the lair of the least inclusive people of all?
) a level of understanding and empathy exists that is not being acknowledged in blanket statements such as you have made.With this, from personal experience, I continue to disagree.One cannot possibly appreciate the urgency with which someone else wants their views honored if one believes that those views are fundamentally wrong.
Well, that's certainly interesting. I would define tolerance as your first choice, because I believe that people need to have the freedom to believe whatever they want to believe, but I do not feel that they have the freedom to squash the religious choices of others.If we define tolerance as being nice to members of other religions, not reminding them every day that they are going to hell, then yes, lots of us are tolerant. But if we define tolerance as understanding that we ourselves might be WRONG, and that something different might be RIGHT, and agreeing to suspend judgment and attribution for that reason, to be able to say, "this is right for me but it might not be right for you" ...
If people feel like someone believing in Islam, for example, is being intolerant because they believe that Islam is right, I would find that... interesting.
I would find the intolerance to come in where they will kill you if you blaspheme their religion. But that's just me. Well, you certainly opened my eyes, there. Really? So Muslims do not believe that Islam is the only true religion? I didn't know that. In their Islamic dogma, Christianity is just as legitimate a choice as Islam? Or Judaism, for that matter? What is all this talk of infidels, then?Christianity does claims to be the only true religion - this is part and parcel of Christian dogma - and it is the only religion that holds such a dogma.
I'm not being as sarcastic as I sound, btw. I'm sure you know a lot more about comparative religions that I do! I learn a lot from you...
Well, there are a lot of lawyers who do just that.but it is nevertheless nearly impossible, if not completely impossible, to be the primary defender of something you believe to be wrong.
If you believe the religion to be wrong (because you believe in something else) that's one thing; if you believe the way they are being treated for their views is wrong, that is entirely something else.
I'm NOT a Jew, and I feel exactly the same way, Jn. It just makes me so MAD. I even started a thread about that on b77. I feel it is worse than misinformed, it's... evil. But there I go with my emotions, again.I'm a Jew and would like to see all those people who deny the Holocaust fall off a cliff at their earliest convenience.
I am truly sorry you have endured this, Jn, and I cannot possibly say that I understand how that feels. I don't. I've never been a Jew on the receiving end of Christian damnation.I doubt that most Christians feel toward Islam or Judaism what I feel toward Holocaust denial - though there certainly are some who feel that way because I've been on the receiving end of their damnation
It's just so odd to me, though, to be reminded of how badly Jews have been sometimes treated by Christians, when I know how highly our Christian church regards the Jewish faith. We are often reminded that Jews are God's Chosen People... (must be a part of the Old Testament that both religions share, there, and one taken "literally" by both
) and that we who are not Jews do not have that same level of specialness. We talk quite a bit about the longevity of Jews throughout history (one of my pastor's favorites: "The Jews were around when the Hittites were around. Spoken to any Hittites lately?") and how that is evidence of the protectiveness of God to His people. We disagree about who Christ was, of course, but other than that... there is a lot of honor for Jews presented in my non-denominational church.I just don't feel this way, Jn. I just feel like they are different. Unless they are actively trying to behead me because I am different, of course... then it gets a bit more personal.and both of us are more likely to attribute malevolent intentions toward those who are different from ourselves.
Edit: I see that Cerin has been here, as I was composing my massive response, and has said many things that I was trying to say, only better. That figgers. Cerin:
"What do you fear, lady?" Aragorn asked.
"A cage," Éowyn said. "To stay behind bars, until use and old age accept them, and all chance of doing great deeds is gone beyond recall or desire.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
"A cage," Éowyn said. "To stay behind bars, until use and old age accept them, and all chance of doing great deeds is gone beyond recall or desire.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
Cerin: Jn, what Christianity says about the legitimacy of other religions has nothing to do with whether or not certain individual Christians are tolerant of the rights of others to believe as they will.
Anth: I cannot speak for those people, to whom you attribute these thoughts. I cannot assume their individual beliefs. My own are certainly not within the mainstream that you describe, nor are the honest, heartfelt feelings of the women with whom I study, and I thought it was worthwhile pointing that out.
Hm ... I think maybe I got off the train at the wrong station.
tp was talking about what Americans and Moslems need to do to understand one another. And although I agree with her analysis, I am not as optimistic that Americans on the whole will be able to arrive at the middle which she describes. It may be that Moslems are not able to do that either, but I am more familiar with the quirks of America than I am with the quirks of the Islamic world and for that reason spoke only about American capability.
She began by stating her belief that Americans do hold some things sacred, or at least enough of us hold enough things sacred that we should be able to appreciate the Moslem view in this instance. I am not optimistic about that because, as I repeated in my answer to Anthy, I only see one slice of political thought in America that strikes me as fully analogous, and I do not believe that empathy for Islam will come primarily from that quarter, again for the reasons that I stated in my answer to Anthy.
I consider it irrelevant that the people on this messageboard give more cause for optimism than an ‘average’ or ‘typical’ American ... and I hear what I consider to be the ‘typical’ view in other places. If everyone were more like us - as logical as Cerin, as questioning as the seven people in Anthy’s Bible study class, as open-minded as the people in her Church ... if more people were like the Quakers ... I would be more optimistic. But I do view these minorities as exceptions to the general rule of what Americans believe in and how they respond to crises.
You are both able to distinguish, for example, between accepting a belief as true, and accepting another person’s right to hold that belief. In my experience, most people are not able to make such distinctions. If a belief is false, then it is also indefensible. That, in my experience, is the typical perspective.
I also think that the the momentum of large groups will cause many of us to behave less tolerantly as citizens than our private views would suggest.
It would be nice to speak about individual potential, but I was talking about the political and cultural capability of the American People and I believe that is quite different from the capability of my friends on this board and their friends in the larger world. I would not consider other professors at my U. to be typical of the population at large; and I do not consider the groups to which we Halofirias gravitate likely to be typical of the population at large because we ourselves are not.
I know that blanket statements are generalizations and cannot possibly be true of everyone. But I don’t consider it necessary in a political discussion to list all the people who might be exceptions to the rule. If we are talking about how people are going to vote, or whether there will be public support for a war, for example, it is the rule that matters and not the exceptions.
Cerin: I think tolerance by Christians in this country, for example, is marked by the recognition that we are a representative democracy that assures freedom of religion, and so we do not try to impose our faith on others. Contrast that to the Muslims who have been marching calling for the death of those who produced the cartoons. That is the difference between tolerance and intolerance.
I agree with you that this is a most important difference between tolerance and intolerance, but I do not agree that the American group in question - Christians who promote a particular political position for faith-based reasons - are practicing such tolerance in the strict sense, nor do I agree that Islam as a matter of doctrine fails to do so in the strict sense. There is a minority of Christians who would like to see their religious doctrine made the law of this land, and there is a minority of Moslems who equate the war against the West with ‘jihad.’ Both views fail to make the kinds of distinctions that you and I would be careful to make.
Terrorism, or any faith-based war among Christians, Jews and Moslem, cannot be ‘jihad’ under Moslem law. The fact that some mullahs refer to the cartoonists as ‘infidels’ does not makes them so. Islam acknowledges the truth of both Christianity and Judaism. We (C&J) are the People of Book and one cannot legitimately make jihad against us. To say that Osama bin Laden is true to Islam when he calls for jihad against Jews is like saying that Pat Robertson is true to Christianity when he says that Hinduism is witchcraft and has to be expunged from our culture. Both of them are diddling their dogma, and I would guess for much the same reasons: power, fame, money. Moslems can go to war with Jews or Christians but that is not jihad; that is, jihad as a “pillar of faith” does not include war against J&C or any need to convert them to Islam.
Jihad can only be practiced against non-monotheists. I do consider this to be intolerant, by the way, but the question was not whether there are religions that Islam does not accept - the question was whether there are religions that Islam does accept, and there are. They accept both Judaism and Christianity as true paths to Allah.
Anth: So Muslims do not believe that Islam is the only true religion?
No, they do not. And neither do Jews. Nor Hindus nor Buddhists.
Jn, I detect a certain amount of bitterness in your post when you talk about Christian belief. It's as though you take it as personally damning of yourself, that Christians believe that Jesus is the only way to come to God. This strikes me as curious; for example, I don't take it personally that some Muslims regard Christians positionally (i.e., me) as infidels and, I would assume, not destined for heaven. I understand that is a function of their belief; in other words, it's about them, not about me. It seems that you take the very existence of Christian belief as an insult to yourself. Am I off the mark?
It is not bitterness that I feel but a certain amount of annoyance that Christians often seem unable to grasp that this belief in an exclusive hold on the truth is ... eccentric and ... yes, intolerant to some degree. If I posted here that Judaism is the only true religion, there really is no other way to reach God except through diligent observance of the 613 halachah, and that all of you who have met a Jew and have therefore been exposed to the truth are going to go to hell if you don’t accept it as the truth? And my only argument in favor of this view is the fact that I and all other Jews believe in it?
Yet I hear this kind of thing from Christians all the time, in real life and on messageboards.
Christianity is the only true path for those who believe in it, for those to whom this particular faith has been given. I firmly believe this. But I don’t believe that it is the only true path for everyone.
I think that tolerance is a bit more than live-and-let-live when times are good and things are going smoothly. Sooner or later we run into some issue where our religious views are genuinely different and the outcome of adopting one view or the other has broad, non-religious implications., e.g. social or political implications. Perhaps I am overly pessimistic toward humanity, but I do believe that when such disagreements arise, the person who is unable to imagine the potential truth of the other position will also be unable to be content with the middle ground, and that will be where tolerance ends. There are people of every religious stripe, of course, who are unable to do this, for various reasons.
Please note that I am not defending the Moslems who have called for the death of the cartoonists. But they are not “real Moslems,” just as the Christians who have committed atrocities in the name of Christ are not “real Christians” and the Jews who hate all Arabs are not “real Jews.” We would all prefer that all members of our own group be above reproach so that their failings will not be attributed to us as well; but alas it is hardly ever so.
One final comment, to Anth: Well, there are a lot of lawyers who do just that.
I don’t believe that these lawyers are defending something they believe to be wrong. Well, maybe some of them are ... but what most of them are defending is the right of a wrongdoer to be judged fairly.
That is a kind of tolerance ... the ability to rise above the tactics of the wrongdoer and adhere to a different basis for judgment. And as a society we are committed to that; but we also see how uncomfortable it makes us at times to grant such rights to people who have committed heinous acts. It all looks good on paper, but when that rapist gets off on a technicality ... it’s very difficult to remain committed to a system that allows such flaws to happen. We sort of have to keep talking to ourselves about the potential dangers of the alternative.
So I guess what I’m saying is that tolerance is not just a feeling ... and appreciation of the sacred is not just a feeling either ... it’s a commitment that requires hard work and self-questioning and imagining oneself in the shoes of the other. There exists in the American character, I believe, a kind of ... prideful obliviousness ... that makes it very difficult for us to sustain this kind of effort as a nation. This is not to say that as individuals we cannot do it, but as a culture, as a society, I don’t believe it is native to our repertoire. We’ve managed it within our court system, but I always feel that the balance is fragile. Within our political system, historically, we have rarely succeeded.
Anth: I cannot speak for those people, to whom you attribute these thoughts. I cannot assume their individual beliefs. My own are certainly not within the mainstream that you describe, nor are the honest, heartfelt feelings of the women with whom I study, and I thought it was worthwhile pointing that out.
Hm ... I think maybe I got off the train at the wrong station.
tp was talking about what Americans and Moslems need to do to understand one another. And although I agree with her analysis, I am not as optimistic that Americans on the whole will be able to arrive at the middle which she describes. It may be that Moslems are not able to do that either, but I am more familiar with the quirks of America than I am with the quirks of the Islamic world and for that reason spoke only about American capability.
She began by stating her belief that Americans do hold some things sacred, or at least enough of us hold enough things sacred that we should be able to appreciate the Moslem view in this instance. I am not optimistic about that because, as I repeated in my answer to Anthy, I only see one slice of political thought in America that strikes me as fully analogous, and I do not believe that empathy for Islam will come primarily from that quarter, again for the reasons that I stated in my answer to Anthy.
I consider it irrelevant that the people on this messageboard give more cause for optimism than an ‘average’ or ‘typical’ American ... and I hear what I consider to be the ‘typical’ view in other places. If everyone were more like us - as logical as Cerin, as questioning as the seven people in Anthy’s Bible study class, as open-minded as the people in her Church ... if more people were like the Quakers ... I would be more optimistic. But I do view these minorities as exceptions to the general rule of what Americans believe in and how they respond to crises.
You are both able to distinguish, for example, between accepting a belief as true, and accepting another person’s right to hold that belief. In my experience, most people are not able to make such distinctions. If a belief is false, then it is also indefensible. That, in my experience, is the typical perspective.
I also think that the the momentum of large groups will cause many of us to behave less tolerantly as citizens than our private views would suggest.
It would be nice to speak about individual potential, but I was talking about the political and cultural capability of the American People and I believe that is quite different from the capability of my friends on this board and their friends in the larger world. I would not consider other professors at my U. to be typical of the population at large; and I do not consider the groups to which we Halofirias gravitate likely to be typical of the population at large because we ourselves are not.
I know that blanket statements are generalizations and cannot possibly be true of everyone. But I don’t consider it necessary in a political discussion to list all the people who might be exceptions to the rule. If we are talking about how people are going to vote, or whether there will be public support for a war, for example, it is the rule that matters and not the exceptions.
Cerin: I think tolerance by Christians in this country, for example, is marked by the recognition that we are a representative democracy that assures freedom of religion, and so we do not try to impose our faith on others. Contrast that to the Muslims who have been marching calling for the death of those who produced the cartoons. That is the difference between tolerance and intolerance.
I agree with you that this is a most important difference between tolerance and intolerance, but I do not agree that the American group in question - Christians who promote a particular political position for faith-based reasons - are practicing such tolerance in the strict sense, nor do I agree that Islam as a matter of doctrine fails to do so in the strict sense. There is a minority of Christians who would like to see their religious doctrine made the law of this land, and there is a minority of Moslems who equate the war against the West with ‘jihad.’ Both views fail to make the kinds of distinctions that you and I would be careful to make.
Terrorism, or any faith-based war among Christians, Jews and Moslem, cannot be ‘jihad’ under Moslem law. The fact that some mullahs refer to the cartoonists as ‘infidels’ does not makes them so. Islam acknowledges the truth of both Christianity and Judaism. We (C&J) are the People of Book and one cannot legitimately make jihad against us. To say that Osama bin Laden is true to Islam when he calls for jihad against Jews is like saying that Pat Robertson is true to Christianity when he says that Hinduism is witchcraft and has to be expunged from our culture. Both of them are diddling their dogma, and I would guess for much the same reasons: power, fame, money. Moslems can go to war with Jews or Christians but that is not jihad; that is, jihad as a “pillar of faith” does not include war against J&C or any need to convert them to Islam.
Jihad can only be practiced against non-monotheists. I do consider this to be intolerant, by the way, but the question was not whether there are religions that Islam does not accept - the question was whether there are religions that Islam does accept, and there are. They accept both Judaism and Christianity as true paths to Allah.
Anth: So Muslims do not believe that Islam is the only true religion?
No, they do not. And neither do Jews. Nor Hindus nor Buddhists.
Jn, I detect a certain amount of bitterness in your post when you talk about Christian belief. It's as though you take it as personally damning of yourself, that Christians believe that Jesus is the only way to come to God. This strikes me as curious; for example, I don't take it personally that some Muslims regard Christians positionally (i.e., me) as infidels and, I would assume, not destined for heaven. I understand that is a function of their belief; in other words, it's about them, not about me. It seems that you take the very existence of Christian belief as an insult to yourself. Am I off the mark?
It is not bitterness that I feel but a certain amount of annoyance that Christians often seem unable to grasp that this belief in an exclusive hold on the truth is ... eccentric and ... yes, intolerant to some degree. If I posted here that Judaism is the only true religion, there really is no other way to reach God except through diligent observance of the 613 halachah, and that all of you who have met a Jew and have therefore been exposed to the truth are going to go to hell if you don’t accept it as the truth? And my only argument in favor of this view is the fact that I and all other Jews believe in it?
Yet I hear this kind of thing from Christians all the time, in real life and on messageboards.
Christianity is the only true path for those who believe in it, for those to whom this particular faith has been given. I firmly believe this. But I don’t believe that it is the only true path for everyone.
I think that tolerance is a bit more than live-and-let-live when times are good and things are going smoothly. Sooner or later we run into some issue where our religious views are genuinely different and the outcome of adopting one view or the other has broad, non-religious implications., e.g. social or political implications. Perhaps I am overly pessimistic toward humanity, but I do believe that when such disagreements arise, the person who is unable to imagine the potential truth of the other position will also be unable to be content with the middle ground, and that will be where tolerance ends. There are people of every religious stripe, of course, who are unable to do this, for various reasons.
Please note that I am not defending the Moslems who have called for the death of the cartoonists. But they are not “real Moslems,” just as the Christians who have committed atrocities in the name of Christ are not “real Christians” and the Jews who hate all Arabs are not “real Jews.” We would all prefer that all members of our own group be above reproach so that their failings will not be attributed to us as well; but alas it is hardly ever so.
One final comment, to Anth: Well, there are a lot of lawyers who do just that.
I don’t believe that these lawyers are defending something they believe to be wrong. Well, maybe some of them are ... but what most of them are defending is the right of a wrongdoer to be judged fairly.
That is a kind of tolerance ... the ability to rise above the tactics of the wrongdoer and adhere to a different basis for judgment. And as a society we are committed to that; but we also see how uncomfortable it makes us at times to grant such rights to people who have committed heinous acts. It all looks good on paper, but when that rapist gets off on a technicality ... it’s very difficult to remain committed to a system that allows such flaws to happen. We sort of have to keep talking to ourselves about the potential dangers of the alternative.
So I guess what I’m saying is that tolerance is not just a feeling ... and appreciation of the sacred is not just a feeling either ... it’s a commitment that requires hard work and self-questioning and imagining oneself in the shoes of the other. There exists in the American character, I believe, a kind of ... prideful obliviousness ... that makes it very difficult for us to sustain this kind of effort as a nation. This is not to say that as individuals we cannot do it, but as a culture, as a society, I don’t believe it is native to our repertoire. We’ve managed it within our court system, but I always feel that the balance is fragile. Within our political system, historically, we have rarely succeeded.
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
Jn, sorry for making you explain all that again. That's the problem with responding to specific comments outside of the larger context (which is what I did).
I don't think there's much hope of Americans and Moslems coming to understand one another as long as there is such a visible and vocal segment of Moslems (whether doctrinally sound or not) declaring their hatred for the West and their desire to kill Americans, and the rest not roundly, repeatedly and consistently condemning their actions and words. I don't think it's a matter of not being able to understand considering things sacred, but not being able to understand an uncivilized response to the things held sacred being despised.
I generally agree with your observations on the dynamic of the American public, though I think I estimate it a bit higher on the optimism scale.
I respect your right to believe that.
I don't think there's much hope of Americans and Moslems coming to understand one another as long as there is such a visible and vocal segment of Moslems (whether doctrinally sound or not) declaring their hatred for the West and their desire to kill Americans, and the rest not roundly, repeatedly and consistently condemning their actions and words. I don't think it's a matter of not being able to understand considering things sacred, but not being able to understand an uncivilized response to the things held sacred being despised.
I generally agree with your observations on the dynamic of the American public, though I think I estimate it a bit higher on the optimism scale.
Yes, I agree with this.There is a minority of Christians who would like to see their religious doctrine made the law of this land, and there is a minority of Moslems who equate the war against the West with ‘jihad.’ Both views fail to make the kinds of distinctions that you and I would be careful to make.
But practically speaking, that does not matter, any more than it matters practically to our political climate that Pat Robertson is in error. The practical reality is that there are large nunmbers of people around the world warring against the West in the name of Islam or supporting those doing so. So what if they are misled as to the actual truths of that faith? So what if the lunatic disrupting soldiers' funerals in this country is misguided? It doesn't lessen the distress of those families, nor does it prevent an attachment of disgust to 'Christianity' in the public mind.Terrorism, or any faith-based war among Christians, Jews and Moslem, cannot be ‘jihad’ under Moslem law. The fact that some mullahs refer to the cartoonists as ‘infidels’ does not makes them so.
But that's nonsense. Islam may acknowledge what they believe to be the truth of Christianity, but if they acknowledged the Christian truth of Christianity, they would be Christians, not Muslims. In the same way, Mormons calling themselves Christians doesn't mean their beliefs are actually consistent with mainstream Christian belief.Islam acknowledges the truth of both Christianity and Judaism.
Well there you are. They therefore reject the truth of Christianity (speaking of that definition that incorporates the belief that Christ is the only way to God). It's just bandying about words. The words are meaning different things to different people, and therefore they are meaningless.They accept both Judaism and Christianity as true paths to Allah.
I don't think it would bother me in the least. I would privately think you are wrong, just as you privately think I am wrong in believing Christ is the only way.If I posted here that Judaism is the only true religion, there really is no other way to reach God except through diligent observance of the 613 halachah, and that all of you who have met a Jew and have therefore been exposed to the truth are going to go to hell if you don’t accept it as the truth? And my only argument in favor of this view is the fact that I and all other Jews believe in it?
But I don’t believe that it is the only true path for everyone.
I respect your right to believe that.
-
Túrin Turambar
- Posts: 6153
- Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:37 am
- Location: Melbourne, Victoria
It’s worth noting that, unlike Christianity, Islam is a deeds-based religion. As such, it’s theoretically possible for non-Muslims (specifically Christians and Jews) to attain salvation (although they end up in lesser paradise than Muslims). That being said, it doesn’t matter practically. There are as many Muslims who believe that all non-believers are going to hell as there are Christians, and very possibly more. In traditional Shai’ra law, apostasy (abandoning the faith) is punishable by death. The Qur’an is also split on the issue. There are verses that say that Christians and Jews should be tolerated, and others saying that they should be killed and cast into hell.
The problem with Islam today is that, regardless of whether Al-Qaeda or the cartoon rioters or Van Gough’s killers represent the mainstream or lunatic fringe of Islamic thought, their views have a lot of purchase.
The problem with Islam today is that, regardless of whether Al-Qaeda or the cartoon rioters or Van Gough’s killers represent the mainstream or lunatic fringe of Islamic thought, their views have a lot of purchase.
-
JewelSong
- Just Keep Singin'
- Posts: 4660
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:35 am
- Location: Boston, MA
- Contact:
I just want to step in here (quickly and quietly) to say that I am a Christian and I do not believe that the only way to God is by professing belief in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.
It is definitely the only way for me.
But I believe that the Divine is infinite, and thus there are many (if not infinite) paths to reach It. Jesus laid out a path; I follow it, for that is what my heart tells me to do. But the Ways of the Divine are infinite, for God is infinite.
Now, I know some would say that means I am not a Christian. Luckily, Jesus and I have a very good relationship and I feel very comfortable with my beliefs.
*leaves as quickly and quietly as she came*
It is definitely the only way for me.
But I believe that the Divine is infinite, and thus there are many (if not infinite) paths to reach It. Jesus laid out a path; I follow it, for that is what my heart tells me to do. But the Ways of the Divine are infinite, for God is infinite.
Now, I know some would say that means I am not a Christian. Luckily, Jesus and I have a very good relationship and I feel very comfortable with my beliefs.
*leaves as quickly and quietly as she came*
"Live! Live! Live! Life is a banquet, and most poor suckers are starving to death!" - Auntie Mame
Well, fair enough. But when I see you write a statement like "That I why I say that those who stand in an analogous situation here in the US with regard to their perspective on religion and politics are the least likely to be able to have empathetic feelings toward Islam", and I happen to know a dozen people off the top of my head, including me, whose honest feelings would make that generalization incorrect, and, in fact, DO have empathetic feelings towards Islam, I am going to mention it.I know that blanket statements are generalizations and cannot possibly be true of everyone. But I don’t consider it necessary in a political discussion to list all the people who might be exceptions to the rule. If we are talking about how people are going to vote, or whether there will be public support for a war, for example, it is the rule that matters and not the exceptions.
Especially when it is what I see day after day. Yes, you are right, I live in a bit of a bubble, as do we all. However, I am not as isolated as one may thing; I associate with many groups in the course of my days. I just had a huge talk with someone who had a horse whisperer out to speak to her horse, and that is a concept not normally accepted by the general public. My work buddies are a very divided lot, and have many ethnic backgrounds... many, many different opinions there, I must say.
But the group that I associate with who have been singled out as the least likely to be empathetic to Islam are, in my experience, the MOST empathetic.
Go figure.
I would certainly be politely interested in what you believe, as I hope to be with all beliefs (even the horse whispererIf I posted here that Judaism is the only true religion, there really is no other way to reach God except through diligent observance of the 613 halachah, and that all of you who have met a Jew and have therefore been exposed to the truth are going to go to hell if you don’t accept it as the truth? And my only argument in favor of this view is the fact that I and all other Jews believe in it?
I don't think it would bother me in the least. I would privately think you are wrong, just as you privately think I am wrong in believing Christ is the only way.
) However, I would not feel that your belief challenged or invalidated mine, nor would I be sure that you even knew what I thought. I've found that most people who want to talk to you about religion, in such a way as your hypothetical describes, don't actually care what the other guy thinks. They just want you to hear what THEY think."What do you fear, lady?" Aragorn asked.
"A cage," Éowyn said. "To stay behind bars, until use and old age accept them, and all chance of doing great deeds is gone beyond recall or desire.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
"A cage," Éowyn said. "To stay behind bars, until use and old age accept them, and all chance of doing great deeds is gone beyond recall or desire.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
I didn't know that. But then I've not read the Koran.Lord_Morningstar wrote:There are verses that say that Christians and Jews should be tolerated, and others saying that they should be killed and cast into hell.
I was going to dispute the idea that Islam accepts Xianity and Judaism as equal ways to God because there seems a huge disconnect between that theory and the practice. Many Christians are treated with incredible harshness in the more autocratic Muslim lands.
Yup. Islam has a real branding problem right now. It's been Christianity's problem for a long time, of course ... and obviously still is.The problem with Islam today is that, regardless of whether Al-Qaeda or the cartoon rioters or Van Gough’s killers represent the mainstream or lunatic fringe of Islamic thought, their views have a lot of purchase.
Jn, I think a lot of Christians are acutely aware - and even embarrassed - of the seeming eccentricity and intolerance of such a view. Some Christians simply abandon the idea (frankly, I don't blame them). It's just too contentious. Obviously there are other types of Christians who make a lot of noise and behave as if non-Christians are just plain stupid for not believing the same thing as them. I wouldn't say that the reason why Xians think Jesus is the only way is that, well, there's a lot of us and that's why we believe it. The true crux of the matter is how people view Scripture, how they view the words of Christ. It's Christ's own words that many people would regard as non-negotiable.It is not bitterness that I feel but a certain amount of annoyance that Christians often seem unable to grasp that this belief in an exclusive hold on the truth is ... eccentric and ... yes, intolerant to some degree. If I posted here that Judaism is the only true religion, there really is no other way to reach God except through diligent observance of the 613 halachah, and that all of you who have met a Jew and have therefore been exposed to the truth are going to go to hell if you don’t accept it as the truth? And my only argument in favor of this view is the fact that I and all other Jews believe in it?
I think that partly what's happening right now is that many Christians are having to rethink their attitudes on Islam. Many Christians are thinking: 'well, there's no way we can justify the violence but in some ways we can understand the sense of outrage over holy things being profaned.'
This may well lead to some bridge-building between the two faith communities. For example, I work for a Christian agency and one of my colleagues was recently in the Middle East. Among other things, he met a number of Islamic scholars and their students. One morning he gave a seminar at an Islamic college on Jesus the Peacemaker.
Gimli's photos are remarkable. I've not been to Auschwitz, and am not sure I would want to. I suspect I would find it too overwhelming. That dreadful place seems to exude an icy power that chills my blood even just through a photograph. This vision of hell is not red-hot ... it's ice-cold, permanent winter.
I felt profound gloom about Iraq tonight. That country is staring into the abyss. I found myself thinking: What price religion?
((((Jewel))))
"Frodo undertook his quest out of love - to save the world he knew from disaster at his own expense, if he could ... "
Letter no. 246, The Collected Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien
Avatar by goldlighticons on Live Journal
Letter no. 246, The Collected Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien
Avatar by goldlighticons on Live Journal
Cerin: But practically speaking, that does not matter, any more than it matters practically to our political climate that Pat Robertson is in error.
Yes, I agree. But if we know a particular representation is mistaken, then we are more likely to be on the lookout for members of the religion who do not espouse that extreme, those with whom we can initiate dialogue. Our estimate of the probability of their existence increases, if that makes sense. Looked at the other way, if it really were a pillar of Islam that all Christians and Jews must be converted or destroyed, then we should fear all the Moslems in America as well. Some of us do. Similarly, those Moslems who are rioting in Pakistan or elsewhere fear all Christians and Jews, and this is equally without foundation.
But that's nonsense. Islam may acknowledge what they believe to be the truth of Christianity, but if they acknowledged the Christian truth of Christianity, they would be Christians, not Muslims.
You are correct of course that if Moslems believed in Christianity as Christians do they would be Christians and not Moslems! But it is only nonsense if the only truth about Christianity is the Christian truth about Christianity. What if there is more than one truth about Christianity?
They therefore reject the truth of Christianity (speaking of that definition that incorporates the belief that Christ is the only way to God). It's just bandying about words. The words are meaning different things to different people, and therefore they are meaningless.
Which is the same as saying that their religious belief is meaningless - that it is impossible to accept Christianity without accepting it as a Christian. Or else Christianity is wholly false and it is your belief that is meaningless.
But I don’t believe that either of these are correct. It is possible to believe that the Christian story has given the Christian people their stairway to heaven - that this is the gift that God has given to them and they can only reach God by accepting it - while other people have been given a different stairway, a different gift, and would be just as remiss for rejecting it.
I suspect that it might come down to a difference of opinion about the nature of truth. I don’t believe that any one person or religion can capture all of it, so it is possible for me to believe that a thing can be true for one person and yet not for another, because both of them are seizing upon pieces of a larger whole. If we could see the whole, the paradox would disappear. But in this realm we see only the part and not the whole.
Lord M: It’s worth noting that, unlike Christianity, Islam is a deeds-based religion.
As is Judaism. Though that hasn’t seemed to advance our understanding of one another.
The problem with Islam today is that, regardless of whether Al-Qaeda or the cartoon rioters or Van Gough’s killers represent the mainstream or lunatic fringe of Islamic thought, their views have a lot of purchase.
But not necessarily for religious reasons ....
I dread to enter a hair-splitting contest, but ... for example: the war in Ireland is not really about religion but the sides have tallied up on the basis of religion for so long that it is fatuous to speak of underlying reasons as being more important. Nevertheless, it is useful to point out that economic reform would take the wind out of a lot of angry sails.
The same is true in the Mideast, imo.
Jewel: But the Ways of the Divine are infinite, for God is infinite.
Thank you, Jewel. I’m also very comfortable with your beliefs.
Anth: But when I see you write a statement ... and I happen to know a dozen people off the top of my head ... I am going to mention it.
Also fair, Anth.
But the group that I associate with who have been singled out as the least likely to be empathetic to Islam are, in my experience, the MOST empathetic.
Here is where I suspect that your experience is atypical, Anth. But I might be wrong! I would be happy, in fact, to be proven wrong.
I would not feel that your belief challenged or invalidated mine
Cerin asked whether I felt bitter, which is not quite the same thing as feeling invalidated; and I think that bitterness or anger would be much too strong to describe my feelings about this. It is difficult for a member of the majority to appreciate quite what feeling goes along with this (and a bit difficult for me to describe), because although you can imagine hearing those words from me and disregarding them with little more than curiosity, you probably can’t quite imagine what it is like to hear this view expressed incessantly, and to wonder how often it is thought but left unsaid, which is the way a minority experiences a denigrating majority opinion. (I hope you won’t mind my characterizing, “hell for all eternity,” as a denigrating destination.) I don’t think I could ever completely appreciate what African Americans feel about similar statements because I am White and will never have to hear them or wonder whether my friends think them. Though such sentiments appall me, I simply can’t imagine what it would be like to confront them day in and day out .
Pearl: Many Christians are treated with incredible harshness in the more autocratic Muslim lands.
Yes, and also Jews. But Jews had equal rights under Moslem law for a good 600 years at a time when they were brutally persecuted by Christians.
Naturally we have to deal with the world as it is now and not as it was during the 14th century ... I would not argue for idealism in politics but at this moment in history, after several centuries of economic persecution by Christian nations and rule by autocrats put in place by the Christian nations, it misses the mark, I think, to attribute such harshness to religion alone. In the same way that we view terrorism as a Moslem phenomenon, they view the colonial age as a Christian phenomenon. And they still remember the Crusades. 
The fact that support for anti-Christian or anti-Jewish views can be found in the Koran does not tell us much about the potential of Islam. Support for all sorts of atrocities and exclusions can be found in the Old and New Testaments as well, but we tend not to hear them voiced in public unless people feel threatened.
The true crux of the matter is how people view Scripture, how they view the words of Christ. It's Christ's own words that many people regard as non-negotiable. That's the issue.
Yes, I understand that; but first one must believe that Christ said those words. The only evidence for that is the assertion of other Christians. I’ll spare all of us the many alternative possibilities because I do not believe that historicity has, in the end, any bearing on the trueness of one’s faith. And I’ll also add that I view the books of Moses the same way. They are historical documents, with all the doubts attendent thereon, and not the word of God. This does not in any way invalidate their usefulness as a guide to right action and a path to spiritual fulfillment.
Many Christians are thinking: 'well, there's no way we can justify the violence but in some ways we can understand the sense of outrage over holy things being profaned.' ... This may well lead to some bridge-building between the two faith communities.
That is the approach I expect from thoughtful people.
Jn
Yes, I agree. But if we know a particular representation is mistaken, then we are more likely to be on the lookout for members of the religion who do not espouse that extreme, those with whom we can initiate dialogue. Our estimate of the probability of their existence increases, if that makes sense. Looked at the other way, if it really were a pillar of Islam that all Christians and Jews must be converted or destroyed, then we should fear all the Moslems in America as well. Some of us do. Similarly, those Moslems who are rioting in Pakistan or elsewhere fear all Christians and Jews, and this is equally without foundation.
But that's nonsense. Islam may acknowledge what they believe to be the truth of Christianity, but if they acknowledged the Christian truth of Christianity, they would be Christians, not Muslims.
You are correct of course that if Moslems believed in Christianity as Christians do they would be Christians and not Moslems! But it is only nonsense if the only truth about Christianity is the Christian truth about Christianity. What if there is more than one truth about Christianity?
They therefore reject the truth of Christianity (speaking of that definition that incorporates the belief that Christ is the only way to God). It's just bandying about words. The words are meaning different things to different people, and therefore they are meaningless.
Which is the same as saying that their religious belief is meaningless - that it is impossible to accept Christianity without accepting it as a Christian. Or else Christianity is wholly false and it is your belief that is meaningless.
But I don’t believe that either of these are correct. It is possible to believe that the Christian story has given the Christian people their stairway to heaven - that this is the gift that God has given to them and they can only reach God by accepting it - while other people have been given a different stairway, a different gift, and would be just as remiss for rejecting it.
I suspect that it might come down to a difference of opinion about the nature of truth. I don’t believe that any one person or religion can capture all of it, so it is possible for me to believe that a thing can be true for one person and yet not for another, because both of them are seizing upon pieces of a larger whole. If we could see the whole, the paradox would disappear. But in this realm we see only the part and not the whole.
Lord M: It’s worth noting that, unlike Christianity, Islam is a deeds-based religion.
As is Judaism. Though that hasn’t seemed to advance our understanding of one another.
The problem with Islam today is that, regardless of whether Al-Qaeda or the cartoon rioters or Van Gough’s killers represent the mainstream or lunatic fringe of Islamic thought, their views have a lot of purchase.
But not necessarily for religious reasons ....
I dread to enter a hair-splitting contest, but ... for example: the war in Ireland is not really about religion but the sides have tallied up on the basis of religion for so long that it is fatuous to speak of underlying reasons as being more important. Nevertheless, it is useful to point out that economic reform would take the wind out of a lot of angry sails.
The same is true in the Mideast, imo.
Jewel: But the Ways of the Divine are infinite, for God is infinite.
Thank you, Jewel. I’m also very comfortable with your beliefs.
Anth: But when I see you write a statement ... and I happen to know a dozen people off the top of my head ... I am going to mention it.
Also fair, Anth.
But the group that I associate with who have been singled out as the least likely to be empathetic to Islam are, in my experience, the MOST empathetic.
Here is where I suspect that your experience is atypical, Anth. But I might be wrong! I would be happy, in fact, to be proven wrong.
I would not feel that your belief challenged or invalidated mine
Cerin asked whether I felt bitter, which is not quite the same thing as feeling invalidated; and I think that bitterness or anger would be much too strong to describe my feelings about this. It is difficult for a member of the majority to appreciate quite what feeling goes along with this (and a bit difficult for me to describe), because although you can imagine hearing those words from me and disregarding them with little more than curiosity, you probably can’t quite imagine what it is like to hear this view expressed incessantly, and to wonder how often it is thought but left unsaid, which is the way a minority experiences a denigrating majority opinion. (I hope you won’t mind my characterizing, “hell for all eternity,” as a denigrating destination.) I don’t think I could ever completely appreciate what African Americans feel about similar statements because I am White and will never have to hear them or wonder whether my friends think them. Though such sentiments appall me, I simply can’t imagine what it would be like to confront them day in and day out .
Pearl: Many Christians are treated with incredible harshness in the more autocratic Muslim lands.
Yes, and also Jews. But Jews had equal rights under Moslem law for a good 600 years at a time when they were brutally persecuted by Christians.
Naturally we have to deal with the world as it is now and not as it was during the 14th century ... I would not argue for idealism in politics
but at this moment in history, after several centuries of economic persecution by Christian nations and rule by autocrats put in place by the Christian nations, it misses the mark, I think, to attribute such harshness to religion alone. In the same way that we view terrorism as a Moslem phenomenon, they view the colonial age as a Christian phenomenon. And they still remember the Crusades. The fact that support for anti-Christian or anti-Jewish views can be found in the Koran does not tell us much about the potential of Islam. Support for all sorts of atrocities and exclusions can be found in the Old and New Testaments as well, but we tend not to hear them voiced in public unless people feel threatened. The true crux of the matter is how people view Scripture, how they view the words of Christ. It's Christ's own words that many people regard as non-negotiable. That's the issue.
Yes, I understand that; but first one must believe that Christ said those words. The only evidence for that is the assertion of other Christians. I’ll spare all of us the many alternative possibilities because I do not believe that historicity has, in the end, any bearing on the trueness of one’s faith. And I’ll also add that I view the books of Moses the same way. They are historical documents, with all the doubts attendent thereon, and not the word of God. This does not in any way invalidate their usefulness as a guide to right action and a path to spiritual fulfillment.
Many Christians are thinking: 'well, there's no way we can justify the violence but in some ways we can understand the sense of outrage over holy things being profaned.' ... This may well lead to some bridge-building between the two faith communities.
That is the approach I expect from thoughtful people.
Jn
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
-
truehobbit
- Cute, cuddly and dangerous to know
- Posts: 6019
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:52 am
- Contact:
I disagree that there is any danger of misinformation spreading as witnesses pass away.Jnyusa wrote:
I also agree with you that Holocaust denial should not be criminalized. I noticed, while living in Germany, that the illegality of Nazi symbolism did not stop youth from painting swastikas on the walls of public buildings. Fresh air is better for debunking ideas, imo. But I also agree with Imp's observation that as time goes by and our living memorials of the Holocaust die, it will become harder and harder to counter misinformation.
But that's not the point I meant to make. The reason Nazi symbols are forbidden here is because, the first time round, "fresh air" did not debunk anything! I think it's very dangerous to trust to people's common sense.
In the 1930s it disappeared worldwide!
It's from the memory of how easily a dangerous idea can spread that the law here tries to quench what is considered the beginning of a pernicious trend: selling and using symbols that stand for Nazi-ideology.
Of course, Nazi symbols being forbidden might make it cooler for some people to use them - but I've not seen that. Kids I've known have had a pretty good idea of how detestable Nazis are. Maybe this is changing, I'm not very much in touch with modern youth (though the bit I have at the job-training school where I used to teach, I also didn't notice people taking Nazism lightly).
I don't know whether the swastikas graffitied on some walls are the work of young people playing at being rebellious or of real neo-nazis. If the former, it's pretty harmless, if the latter, making it legal isn't going to minimise the problem.
I couldn't tell whether freely allowing the sale and use of such symbols, as other countries do, has any influence on how many people actually turn Nazi in their world view.
But I do think it's ok to limit the expression of views that, basically, for example say that people of another race aren't human.
(I'm not sure by the way whether denial of the Holocaust is illegal here - I've never heard it was. Generally speaking, AFAIK, the law here tries to distinguish between personal opinion, albeit reprehensible, and spreading that opinion in order to convince others of it. The first is legal, the second not.)
I'm sorry, but I don't believe that.Christianity does claims to be the only true religion - this is part and parcel of Christian dogma - and it is the only religion that holds such a dogma.
I think that all three monotheistic religions are defined by believing that they alone are the right belief!
Other religions, polytheistic ones, tend to just insert any new deity into their heavens, just to make sure that all are equally served and no one gets insulted. Which might prevent them from cutting your head off for not serving all the same gods they serve, but I'm pretty sure that they'd still believe that you're going to roast in whatever version of hell they have for neglecting some deities. (Or, more likely, to be struck down in life by the angry god.)
Isn't that logically impossible? By the definition of the idea of "truth", I mean?What if there is more than one truth about Christianity?
but being a cheerful hobbit he had not needed hope, as long as despair could be postponed.
Hmmmm....
I really am interested in your thoughts, Jn, whether they are about your faith, or your feeling of how my faith is exclusionary, or on almost any other topic (I still have issues with Bombadil, but there you go.)
I respect you, and trust you. Doesn't mean I'm always gonna agree with you. But I will (almost) always listen, politely, with interest.
Jn wrote:although you can imagine hearing those words from me and disregarding them with little more than curiosity,
I hope that what I wrote did not lead you to believe that I would disregard your profession of faith, with little more than curiosity, in your hypothetical situation as presented. I would hope that I would listen to you, politely, with interest.I wrote:I would certainly be politely interested in what you believe, as I hope to be with all beliefs
I really am interested in your thoughts, Jn, whether they are about your faith, or your feeling of how my faith is exclusionary, or on almost any other topic (I still have issues with Bombadil, but there you go.
) I respect you, and trust you. Doesn't mean I'm always gonna agree with you. But I will (almost) always listen, politely, with interest.
"What do you fear, lady?" Aragorn asked.
"A cage," Éowyn said. "To stay behind bars, until use and old age accept them, and all chance of doing great deeds is gone beyond recall or desire.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
"A cage," Éowyn said. "To stay behind bars, until use and old age accept them, and all chance of doing great deeds is gone beyond recall or desire.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
If a 'truth' about Christianity contradicts something I believe about Christianity, then it isn't possible for me to entertain the notion that they are both true. I would go further and say that if two ideas are mutually contradictory, then they cannot both be true. Jesus cannot be both the redeemer of all mankind and not the redeemer of all mankind. He either is, or He is not.Jnyusa wrote:What if there is more than one truth about Christianity?
Which is the same as saying that their religious belief is meaningless -
No, it is saying that either they are mistaken in their belief, or I am mistaken in mine.
that it is impossible to accept Christianity without accepting it as a Christian.
No, but that if two versions of Christianity are mutually contradictory, then it isn't possible that they are both true.
It is possible to believe that the Christian story has given the Christian people their stairway to heaven - that this is the gift that God has given to them and they can only reach God by accepting it - while other people have been given a different stairway, a different gift, and would be just as remiss for rejecting it.
It is not possible for one who believes the Bible, to believe this if they take the Bible to mean what it at face value appears (to me) to say, which is that there is no other way for humanity to be reconciled to God but by faith in Jesus Christ.
Yes. I think that's it in a nutshell.I suspect that it might come down to a difference of opinion about the nature of truth.
Hobby: I don't know whether the swastikas graffitied on some walls are the work of young people playing at being rebellious or of real neo-nazis. If the former, it's pretty harmless, if the latter, making it legal isn't going to minimise the problem.
I don't know either, and would agree that young people painting them for their shock value is not something to be overly worried about.
I'm less confident about the failure of 'fresh air' during the 1930s ... and generally hesitate to draw conclusions about the failure of liberal values during times of crisis. It is so difficult to compare one moment in history to another.
Those acquaintances of mine who are old enough to remember Hitler remember him with genuine hatred. Of course no one today will say that they admired Hitler in their youth, but the depth of disgust that shows on their faces when they talk about that period is not feigned. I did not think so anyway. I think the Germans themselves were Hitler's first victims and a great many of them knew it immediately, but against his gangsterism there was little they could do. And opposition to Hitler received no support from the rest of the world. If the rest of the world had been more supportive of Germany's attempt to establish a liberal regime after WWI, as they were after WWII, Hitler might not have gained the foothold in the Reichstag that he needed to overthrow it.
Just speculating, of course. There is no way to really know. I am not afraid of a resurgence of Nazism in Germany because the Germans know better than anyone how terrible those times were. If Nazism reappears at all it is more likely to reappear elsewhere, I think, and I debate within myself whether forcing it to proselytize underground is more dangerous than having it out in the open. I think I would rather know what they are up to.
Anth: I respect you, and trust you. Doesn't mean I'm always gonna agree with you. But I will (almost) always listen, politely, with interest.
It's mutual. And no, I did not think you meant that you would disregard my faith, or anyone else's. I'm sure you would not do that.
Cerin: I should have written the last sentence first!
Jn
I don't know either, and would agree that young people painting them for their shock value is not something to be overly worried about.
I'm less confident about the failure of 'fresh air' during the 1930s ... and generally hesitate to draw conclusions about the failure of liberal values during times of crisis. It is so difficult to compare one moment in history to another.
Those acquaintances of mine who are old enough to remember Hitler remember him with genuine hatred. Of course no one today will say that they admired Hitler in their youth, but the depth of disgust that shows on their faces when they talk about that period is not feigned. I did not think so anyway. I think the Germans themselves were Hitler's first victims and a great many of them knew it immediately, but against his gangsterism there was little they could do. And opposition to Hitler received no support from the rest of the world. If the rest of the world had been more supportive of Germany's attempt to establish a liberal regime after WWI, as they were after WWII, Hitler might not have gained the foothold in the Reichstag that he needed to overthrow it.
Just speculating, of course. There is no way to really know. I am not afraid of a resurgence of Nazism in Germany because the Germans know better than anyone how terrible those times were. If Nazism reappears at all it is more likely to reappear elsewhere, I think, and I debate within myself whether forcing it to proselytize underground is more dangerous than having it out in the open. I think I would rather know what they are up to.
Anth: I respect you, and trust you. Doesn't mean I'm always gonna agree with you. But I will (almost) always listen, politely, with interest.
It's mutual.
And no, I did not think you meant that you would disregard my faith, or anyone else's. I'm sure you would not do that.Cerin: I should have written the last sentence first!
Jn
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
to add a little to the debate - the Emperor Julian in the 3rd century criticised christianity because it wasn't able to co-exist with other faiths, moreover it's intolerance to schism marked it out as different.
He also criticised the Christians because as he saw it that virtue was not honoured, on the grounds that absolution was always obtainable for all sins.
In studying religion one has a number of comflicting elements to consider, the most problematic being the capacity for folk to re-invent religions in the light of their own real or imagined requirements - viz, Bin Laden - US evangelists -or any number of other nutters, who pretend to rely on some kind of religous experience which inevitably tell's them to go back to the roots of their faith, and of course they are usually too ignorant to have the slightest idea what that means.
Of course surprising things have happened with religion - Christianity became the chosen faith of the Roman Empire - Judaism survived oppression for almost 2000 years, and Islam rose in a matter of a couple of hundred years from being a small Arabic sect through to a dominant world force, pushing forward not only in respect of conquest, but also in in philosophy, medicine, mathematics creating a vastly more civilised society than existed in western europe.
As to any of those historical events are evidence of the divine, I doubt, although there will be many who claim it is God's hand at work
He also criticised the Christians because as he saw it that virtue was not honoured, on the grounds that absolution was always obtainable for all sins.
In studying religion one has a number of comflicting elements to consider, the most problematic being the capacity for folk to re-invent religions in the light of their own real or imagined requirements - viz, Bin Laden - US evangelists -or any number of other nutters, who pretend to rely on some kind of religous experience which inevitably tell's them to go back to the roots of their faith, and of course they are usually too ignorant to have the slightest idea what that means.
Of course surprising things have happened with religion - Christianity became the chosen faith of the Roman Empire - Judaism survived oppression for almost 2000 years, and Islam rose in a matter of a couple of hundred years from being a small Arabic sect through to a dominant world force, pushing forward not only in respect of conquest, but also in in philosophy, medicine, mathematics creating a vastly more civilised society than existed in western europe.
As to any of those historical events are evidence of the divine, I doubt, although there will be many who claim it is God's hand at work