Discussion and Debate Community Thread

[Abdülmecid I]

The remarkably influential and equally honourable Cardinal Segura, almost a century after his country had signed a Concordat with the Holy See, had some really interesting views about the relations between State and Church, popular culture and religious tolerance (including non-Catholic Christians), during times when it was perfectly possible that his opinions would have been endorsed by the regime in power. Now, obviously in Spain, the Church has much fewer chances to intervene in secular affairs than in the majority of Muslim countries, but that concerns more the larger percentage of religious piety, due to the ideologic exportation committed by the Wahhabi monarchies and the fact that industrialisation and capitalism still haven't developped in the Middle East as extensively as they already did in Western Europe. However, I agree that Islam is closer to a political guide than Christianity, as it rose dramatically fast from a persecuted sect into prominence, with the Prophet himself ruling over the Arabian Peninsula and his immediate successors controlling the richest part of the western hemisphere soon after. On the other hand, though, every religion will quickly adjust itself into forming a political doctrine, if it ever happens to come to power (from the Papal States and the Holy Roman Empire's bishoprics to the Greek orthodox and Armenian millets of the Ottoman Empire), regardless of its original dogma.

[WhiskeySykes]

On the other hand, though, every religion will quickly adjust itself into forming a political doctrine, if it ever happens to come to power (from the Papal States and the Holy Roman Empire's bishoprics to the Greek orthodox and Armenian millets of the Ottoman Empire), regardless of its original dogma.

You make a very important distinction, so I'd like to emphasize where doctrines are pliable, dogma is incontestable without committing heresy. Doctrines are adaptations guiding internal teaching and meeting external pressures. Church dogma is aploitical.

[Infidel144]

Did we miss the part where Christianity was inherently part of the European political system until the inception of secular thought?

I don't know, did you?
I must have missed the part where Jesus set up a temporal State and ruled over it enforcing his laws.
Or was that Muhammad?
'Cause as I recall, Jesus said:
'Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's.'
'They are no part of the world as I am no part of the world.'
'My kingdom is no part of this world.'
Spiritual rather than temporal, and unlike the Muhammad who forged a political-religious temporal state.

Ever since the end of Roman persecution, Christianity has always been a political system. And fighting for God as a path of salvation isn't some novel Islamic invention. Christianity pioneered that long before Muhammad.

Notice here, after the end of the Roman persecution, not from its inception, and it was then co-opted by the secular authorities, Constantine, yet still maintained division between the secular and religious with the Emperors vs. the Pope.
Muhammad was both the political and religious leader and with the Caliphs following. No distinction between church and state.
Christianity has within itself a distinction between church and state.

Pretending that Christian religion is inherently peaceful is a nice fantasy that ignores all history.

Strawman. I made no such argument.
However, when offered violence Jesus said turn the other cheek. When one of his disciples attempted to defend him at Gethsemane with the sword, Jesus rebuked him ('live by the sword die by the sword'). Muhammad actually waged wars, killed people, or had them killed, ordered assassinations enforced his laws etc.

[WhiskeySykes]

There's no Christian dogma or doctrine condoning violence against others. None, Sukiyama.

[Love Mountain]

I don't know, did you?
I must have missed the part where Jesus set up a temporal State and ruled over it enforcing his laws.
Or was that Muhammad?
'Cause as I recall, Jesus said:
'Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's.'
'They are no part of the world as I am no part of the world.'
'My kingdom is no part of this world.'
Spiritual rather than temporal, and unlike the Muhammad who forged a political-religious temporal state.

The Bible teaches that God is the ultimate authority and that we are to disobey Governance if it goes against God. In fact that's a recurring theme in Christianity and one of the reasons why the Papacy had such enormous political power. There are different sets of laws outlined by the bible, ridiculous ones I should say, and the Bible advocates the death penalty, not to mention the implication of divine punishment in the mortal realm and the one beyond it.

Notice here, after the end of the Roman persecution, not from its inception, and it was then co-opted by the secular authorities, Constantine, yet still maintained division between the secular and religious with the Emperors vs. the Pope.
Muhammad was both the political and religious leader and with the Caliphs following. No distinction between church and state.
Christianity has within itself a distinction between church and state.

And? That's a virtue of secular thought, not Christians. Christianity makes no argument that Government and Church should be separate.

Strawman. I made no such argument.
However, when offered violence Jesus said turn the other cheek. When one of his disciples attempted to defend him at Gethsemane with the sword, Jesus rebuked him ('live by the sword die by the sword'). Muhammad actually waged wars, killed people, or had them killed, ordered assassinations enforced his laws etc.

What of the part where the Old Testament depicted the conquest of Canaan? Walls of Jericho? And by the way, you may not have the argument, but the original claim was that,

"Islam does have a religious aspect yes, but Islam is much more than "just a religion", its a social and political system too, a nasty authoritarian ideology.

Islam isnt comparable to Christianity, that 600 years lag is too large for that."

There's no Christian dogma or doctrine condoning violence against others. None, Sukiyama.

Really? Capital punishment?

[WhiskeySykes]

It isn't a doctrine of the Church, nor a dogma. Its a conviction millions hold, but it isn't canon.

Christians throughout history have failed in the faith, or held convictions besides, which they reasoned (erroneously or correctly) from doctrines. This doesn't make them the Author of their faith. It doesn't mean that with every new church, mass movement, sociopath, or popular opinion the faith changes at their discretion.

[Iskar]

Funnily, accusations against Christianity (or any other religion for what it matters) are usually based on a far more literal reading of its sacred texts and traditions than most followers of it would condone. Of course it is easy to find reprehensible passages in the bible if you take it all at face value, but you'd be surprised how many clerics and theologians would agree with that criticism of the literal text. There is a reason why we have exegesis, the historic-critical method, etc.

Also, one doesn't need to be a prejudiced far right-winger to adhere to Christianity, at least not to Catholicism, Orthodoxy or reasonable forms of Protestantism (Lutheranism, Anglicanism, ...) and probably not even where silly neo-evangelicalism is concerned.

[Infidel144]

The Bible teaches that God is the ultimate authority and that we are to disobey Governance if it goes against God.

As Jesus said, Caesars things to Caesar, Gods things to God. Notably Jesus was not 'Caesar'. Muhammad was.

In fact that's a recurring theme in Christianity and one of the reasons why the Papacy had such enormous political power. There are different sets of laws outlined by the bible, ridiculous ones I should say, and the Bible advocates the death penalty,

Jesus when offered the chance to inflict the death penalty on an adulteress said 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'. There is no death penalty inherent in Christianity. Christians are not under OT law.
And to be clear, I do note your attempt to shift here.

not to mention the implication of divine punishment in the mortal realm and the one beyond it.

Yeah, yeah, invisible sky creatures gonna do something to bad people or bad people who are dead.

And? That's a virtue of secular thought, not Christians. Christianity makes no argument that Government and Church should be separate.

Incorrect. Because Christianity was not the Government. The pagan Roman Empire was. Christianity was co-opted by the state after centuries of persecution, Islam was the state and made the state by its founder.

What of the part where the Old Testament depicted the conquest of Canaan? Walls of Jericho?

The discussion was Christianity here, do you want to switch to Judaism now?

And by the way, you may not have the argument, but the original claim was that,

"Islam does have a religious aspect yes, but Islam is much more than "just a religion", its a social and political system too, a nasty authoritarian ideology.

Islam isnt comparable to Christianity, that 600 years lag is too large for that."

And? How does that change the fact that you were strawman-ing? And Mithradates does not mention violence or lack there-of either.

[WhiskeySykes]

Hey, add Presbyterians to that list of Protestants

Its American congregations you need to scrutinize. There are so many, that walking into a church becomes a shot in the dark, and its no longer mainstream to identify with the Creeds and Confessions. Way too experiential.

[PikeStance]

A lot of black and white discussion.

In theory, the church and state in Islam is not separated. However, despite adherence to this, there many countries that practice Islam but still does not persecute those. (e.g. UAE, Qatar, and Indonesia).
Moreover, even though such a concept does not exist in Christianity, leaders often rule through their faith. (e.g. prohibition against gay marriage is usually based on religious beliefs).
From a sociological perspective, all religions would hold non- believers with benign indifference to outright hostility. Even if tolerant, then non- religious are viewed with apprehension to suspicion.
I wouldn't say one is better than the other. I am also not very optimistic that we can ever have a society in which a discipline philosophy doesn't push its adherents to remove threats to their "existence."

Many protestant sects have church groups that varied widely from fundamental to very liberal interpretations.

[bigdaddy1204]

It's arguable that Islam doesn't even exist as a meaningful concept. Which Islam? Shia? Sunni? Wahhabi? Sufi? Ismaeli? Ahmadiya? Between them there are so many differences that they cannot really be described using a single word, since their tennets are so different. Particularly contrasting Sufi versus Wahhabi, those guys are like night and day. The former is all about freedom and love, the latter is all about hell fire and punishment. Then you get to groups like the Mutazila or the Nizari, with ancient Greek philosophical influences - it's a fascinating world and one which cannot really be serviced by a single term in any meaningful way. One of my biggest frustrations is that in the popular imagination in the west, the Wahhabi version is the only version that is ever seen, and for many people they think the Wahhabi version is Islam. That's why I tend to switch off these days if I see those kind of discussions. I find it boring beyond measure.

I agree with the general thrust of PikeStance's post. No pun intended

[WhiskeySykes]

Even if tolerant, then non- religious are viewed with apprehension to suspicion.

Maybe I misunderstand you, but what do you mean by this? Practically speaking, the average person, in America at least, conducts their business without alarm or suspicion of religious/non-religious people. Its when you isolate individuals from the business of society, say with polling, family, or internet forums, that the average person blooms thoughts and emotions about others' faith.

I've had to learn that, and its why I don't qualify Muslims as "radical" for the sake of their faith, because its only when you isolate the body social from society that you end up with individuals and organizations devoted to death and mayhem. It is my belief most humans understand the dynamics, even if its left inarticulate, because society would collapse otherwise.

What I'm saying is , I go a whole day without suspecting "the other."

[Love Mountain]

Funnily, accusations against Christianity (or any other religion for what it matters) are usually based on a far more literal reading of its sacred texts and traditions than most followers of it would condone. Of course it is easy to find reprehensible passages in the bible if you take it all at face value, but you'd be surprised how many clerics and theologians would agree with that criticism of the literal text. There is a reason why we have exegesis, the historic-critical method, etc.

Also, one doesn't need to be a prejudiced far right-winger to adhere to Christianity, at least not to Catholicism, Orthodoxy or reasonable forms of Protestantism (Lutheranism, Anglicanism, ...) and probably not even where silly neo-evangelicalism is concerned.

I agree. As somebody who's an atheist but is affiliated with the Church I know that the majority don't even do a cursory reading of the Bible, let alone condone some of the crazy stuff that's written in it. As somebody who has read it a long time ago, I struggle how anyone can claim Christianity is "better" than Islam. Christianity is better because the majority of people who are Christian are better than Muslims. We live in better countries, we have better freedoms, and Western ideology promotes better values. In fact, Western culture is often at odds with Christianity. Moreover, I've met many Muslims in America and the majority of them are just like Christians. Their culture is quite different but they simply pay "tribute" to God and their religion rather than strictly adhere to everything it tells them to do.

Quite frankly, a strict Christian adherent has more in common with the Muslims in Afghanistan who sell their daughters into marriage than any regular Muslims or Christian living in America.

As Jesus said, Caesars things to Caesar, Gods things to God. Notably Jesus was not 'Caesar'. Muhammad was.

That doesn't change anything. Muslims don't adhere to Islam because Muhammad is going to strike them down, they do it because they think Allah will strike them down. Same with Christians. What relevance does the existence of Muhammad have to do with comparisons between Islam and Christianity?

Jesus when offered the chance to inflict the death penalty on an adulteress said 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'. There is no death penalty inherent in Christianity. Christians are not under OT law.
And to be clear, I do note your attempt to shift here.

Shift from what?

Romans 13:1-5 "Authority does not bear the sword in vain!"
Acts 25:11 "If, however, I am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I do not refuse to die."

Yeah, yeah, invisible sky creatures gonna do something to bad people or bad people who are dead.

I like how you make light of the entire basis that the institutions is based on.

Incorrect. Because Christianity was not the Government. The pagan Roman Empire was. Christianity was co-opted by the state after centuries of persecution, Islam was the state and made the state by its founder.

This does not refute anything I've said. Christianity makes no statements on whether the Church is allowed to make a Gov. But it does imply Gov. legitimacy is based on whether it follows God's word. The secular nature of the Church is the virtue of human thought, not because the Bible said so. Good on Islam for being more successful than Christianity.

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."

Romans 13:1-2

The discussion was Christianity here, do you want to switch to Judaism now?
And? How does that change the fact that you were strawman-ing? And Mithradates does not mention violence or lack there-of either.

Considering Christianity is a brother culture to Judaism I hardly think it's off topic. And Mithradates didn't explicitly say that he's not talking about violence either. All he said was that Islam is "much more than a religion", saying it's an ideology that outlines social and political behavior, as well as arguing for an authoritarian society. Violence and force are intrinsic to maintaining an authoritarian society. There's plenty of violence in Islam and plenty in Christianity as well. Mithradates is trying to claim a higher moral ground where none exists. Christianity and Islam both advocate for social and political behavior, they both have scripture that advocates strict adherence and punishment for non-adherence.

[QUOTE=WhiskeySykes;15280581]It isn't a doctrine of the Church, nor a dogma. Its a conviction millions hold, but it isn't canon.

Modern dogma. I find the track record of Christianity telling me that Christian dogmas used to be very violent and wrong. Much like Islamic dogma today. This is why I oppose attacks on Islam. The answer to solving the human rights crisis in the Middle East is to change the people. Many people think that one of the key steps to doing so is to destroy Islam. I completely disagree. I think the key to stopping religious radicalism is secular governance, liberal values, and economic prosperity. Nothing to do with Islam.

[Condottiere 40K]

The New Testament has had a number of editors, and while it's Holy Script, no one claims it comes directly from God, so that leaves some leeway for interpretation. It's also a clear break with the Old Testament.

Jesus Christ, as presented, believed in peaceful co-existence, and certainly neither tried to impose his beliefs on anyone, nor did he incite or carry out forced conversions or massacres of heretics, infidels or heathens.

[WhiskeySykes]

It isn't a doctrine of the Church, nor a dogma. Its a conviction millions hold, but it isn't canon.

Modern dogma. I find the track record of Christianity telling me that Christian dogmas used to be very violent and wrong.

You're equivocating. The track record are Creeds and Confessions, and in which of them catholic (read united and universal) are corporal punishments meted for unbelief or heresy? None. Which establish a state Church? None.

You're confusing convictions and Systematics for Dogma.

[Mithradates]

That doesn't change anything. Muslims don't adhere to Islam because Muhammad is going to strike them down, they do it because they think Allah will strike them down. Same with Christians. What relevance does the existence of Muhammad have to do with comparisons between Islam and Christianity?

Mohammed is the example of the perfect muslim, his life should be a model for all muslims. Considering the horrible things he did thats more than troublesome.

This does not refute anything I've said. Christianity makes no statements on whether the Church is allowed to make a Gov. But it does imply Gov. legitimacy is based on whether it follows God's word. The secular nature of the Church is the virtue of human thought, not because the Bible said so. Good on Islam for being more successful than Christianity.

lol yeah the Church must be really jealous

Mithradates is trying to claim a higher moral ground where none exists.

Aha, wait for it...

Modern dogma. I find the track record of Christianity telling me that Christian dogmas used to be very violent and wrong. Much like Islamic dogma today. This is why I oppose attacks on Islam. The answer to solving the human rights crisis in the Middle East is to change the people. Many people think that one of the key steps to doing so is to destroy Islam. I completely disagree. I think the key to stopping religious radicalism is secular governance, liberal values, and economic prosperity. Nothing to do with Islam.

Yep, here we go.

Its not Islam, is just the people who dont want it, because of Islam.
Islam has nothing to do with Islam.

Secular governance? Liberal values? Really?
Yeah, thats totally gonna happen, good luck.


(ps. economic prosperity. Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain...)

[mishkin]

Beautiful thread regarding the terrorist attack at Westminster. Full of signs of respect and support for the victims; no one trying to promote their agenda.

[Condottiere 40K]

The police have to interview friends, family and acquaintances, confiscate the assailant's computers and have his ISP backtrack his internet activities, before we'll have an idea why he did it.

[mishkin]

That would be great, but I didnt even mean that. Less smileys, less comments about erdogan, less sarcastic comments that suggest that for some this attack is good because it reinforces its xenophobic stupidity. That would be enough for me.

[bigdaddy1204]

I'm sad that this has happened. Somebody suggested Russia might be behind it. I wouldn't be surprised if they paid the guy. Putin is the master of destabilising his enemies by covert means.