Let's talk - Religion

[Edward64]

Good to see some interest in this particular matter. Appreciate the opportunity to learn and debate "peacefully" on this matter.

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Ugh... Was it meant to be academic of more of a memoir?

Not a memoir, probably more towards "academic" but obviously not to the level of research scientist peer reviewed.

Originally Posted by AENeuman

1.Nearly every Muslim has been peaceful (accidentally?...hypocritically?)

Not sure I understand the parenthesis? I think the book is saying that the Quran + Hadiths (examples of what Mohammed has done/said) have many examples that show Mohammed to be violent/not peaceful.

Are you disputing this? e.g. those violent passages are taken out of context, mis-interpreted etc.?

If you are saying Christians have done alot of violent stuff in the name of Christianity, I would agree. However, I am saying that Jesus did not do anything violent or asked his followers to be whereas Mohammed & Quran have.

Originally Posted by AENeuman

3. For most Christians, their church and its interpretation of Jesus is the central focus. (This also includes supporting genocide in the name of God- #2)

My statement said Jesus and not the Bible was the central focus (vs Muslims where the Quran is the central focus). My original statement was an attempt to explain why the burning of a Quran is so offensive to a Muslim whereas the burning of a Bible, relatively, isn't that big of a deal.

You also introduced the Church into the discussion which I think is valid. However, if Christians had to pick one - Bible, Church, Jesus ... I think its Jesus as the central focus.

Originally Posted by AENeuman

4. Crusades were much more political and economic than getting land back from the evil doers. The peaceful economic success of Islam in Christian lands was a factor, for example. So was a the very political Pope Urban II

From what I understand, you have the Pope, you have the Christian Byzantine Emperor. The Emperor asked the Pope for help because he was losing land, being threatened etc.

I'm sure there were many other motives and an argument could be made the Pope's motives were likely much more political and economic. However, I think the Emperor's motives (e.g. his empire was on the front lines) were primarily self-preservation from Muslim aggression and hence my statement of a "defensive war".

Because you said "peaceful economic success of Islam in Christian land" ... do you dispute the Crusades occurred after persistent and long term Muslim aggression?

If you are, I would like to read more about this pov and would appreciate a link.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Yes, men have made a mess of the Word of God, which is why I'm not buying the uniqueness of Christianity over Islam.

Also, I wonder if it is more fair to say Quran is to Hadiths as Old Testament is to New Testament. Both have peaceful origin documents that then use the supplemental text to strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers.

TBF, I don't think the book author I'm readying is saying "uniqueness". But he is saying they are very different.

In your analogy in the second paragraph, I take the "peaceful origin documents" to read the Quran?

In my prior reply to you, I stated the book I am reading says there are many examples of Mohammed, Quran, Hadiths promoting, justifying etc. violent acts. How do you rationalize your "peaceful origin documents" statement?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by lungs

Anybody ever heard of the Two By Twos (aka No-name Sect)?

That's what I was brought up in. Never really knew much about it until I actually figured out what it was called this summer. Kind of frightening when you realize you were brought up in a cult

I had not heard of them and had to look it up. Interesting.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by tarcone

The Romans are the ones who perverted Christianity into what it is today called Catholicism. There was power and money to be had and they jumped on board.
Thus a powerful group of "Christians" was formed.
And a very powerful one the pope is throughout history. Wielding all sorts of economic, religious and political power.
That isnt as true today as back in the day.

It's like you think that Protestants haven't jumped at power and money to be had, which is especially laughable when you consider that "Prosperity Gospel" arose through Protestant denominations. Nor have wielded economic, religious, and political power at the same time (Henry VIII would have a word with you).

Of course the Romans who may have 'perverted' Christianity weren't in the Western empire, but in the Eastern empire. There is a reason that Constantinople was in modern day Turkey (as was Nicea and Ephesus and Chalcedon - those 4 cities held the first 7 Ecumenical Councils of the Church). So really your beef should be with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

It appears that most of your complaints are simple anti-Catholic bigotry, and since you making a Lutheran, of all people, defend Catholicism you know you really fucked up.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by tarcone

As a vent my anti-catholic rhetoric. I know man is a flawed beast. And, thus, perverts everything it touches.
This is true with all religions. None are exempt.

The only perfect teacher died on the cross 2000 years ago.

Sorry if I am derailing this thread.

Definitely appreciate your perspective and thank you everyone for politely debating so far.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I think the book is saying that the Quran + Hadiths (examples of what Mohammed has done/said) have many examples that show Mohammed to be violent/not peaceful.

Are you disputing this? e.g. those violent passages are taken out of context, mis-interpreted etc.?

If you are saying Christians have done alot of violent stuff in the name of Christianity, I would agree. However, I am saying that Jesus did not do anything violent or asked his followers to be whereas Mohammed & Quran have.

This always seems like a strange argument, because in the Old Testament, it isn't just patriarchs or prophets calling for violence (my favorite is when Elisha prays for bears to kill teens that call him 'baldy') but God Himself. You can't even really say that well the New Testament superceeds the Old Testament here, because the God of the Old Testament is the exact same God as Jesus the Christ (if you deny that, then you deny the Trinity). And, of course, Revelation describes Jesus striking down the nations with a sword wearing a robe dipped in blood while riding a white horse at the end of days (and yes, that can be read figuratively or metaphorically).

Now one can argue that Scripture is not literal and a record of people's experiences with God and therefore their context needs to be taken into account. But that same contextual analysis would have to occur for 7th Century Arabia.

And I think what he was getting at is that if Muslims weren't peaceful you'd have a forever war going on with every single one of the billion+ Muslims on the planet and you don't.

From what I understand, you have the Pope, you have the Christian Byzantine Emperor. The Emperor asked the Pope for help because he was losing land, being threatened etc.

Alexios I just wanted some mercenary forces. He was pretty shocked when you had all these military forces (under the command of Western leaders as well) show up at his door. Interestingly enough, these first Crusaders engaged in massive anti-Jewish pogroms on their way to the Holy Land (and of course slaughtered Jews when taking Jerusalem). Probably killed more Jews than Muslims, at least in the first Crusade.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Edward64

TBF, I don't think the book author I'm readying is saying "uniqueness". But he is saying they are very different.

In your analogy in the second paragraph, I take the "peaceful origin documents" to read the Quran?

In my prior reply to you, I stated the book I am reading says there are many examples of Mohammed, Quran, Hadiths promoting, justifying etc. violent acts. How do you rationalize your "peaceful origin documents" statement?

I guess I was reacting to your statement “importance of the supplementary Hadiths”, which I took as meaning more of the radical/violent instigator than the Quran (which I think is true). If that is so, then I think the it can be said the OT is more of the violent instigator to the more peaceful NT.

Also, Isiddiqui pretty well summed up my points. I’ll just say, I don’t see how it can be called a violent religion or violent teachings when nearly every Muslim, who has ever existed, has been peaceful.

If anything, given the Catholic genocide of the Western Hemisphere, and profound Christian antisemitism (including by the way in every Crusade) I would say the Christian God has been historicaly more destructive than Muhammad.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It's like you think that Protestants haven't jumped at power and money to be had, which is especially laughable when you consider that "Prosperity Gospel" arose through Protestant denominations. Nor have wielded economic, religious, and political power at the same time (Henry VIII would have a word with you).

Of course the Romans who may have 'perverted' Christianity weren't in the Western empire, but in the Eastern empire. There is a reason that Constantinople was in modern day Turkey (as was Nicea and Ephesus and Chalcedon - those 4 cities held the first 7 Ecumenical Councils of the Church). So really your beef should be with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

It appears that most of your complaints are simple anti-Catholic bigotry, and since you making a Lutheran, of all people, defend Catholicism you know you really fucked up.

Funny. I am a member of a Lutheran church myself.

And it was Luther himself and his 95 Theses that caused the Reformation. Wasnt that is response to how the Catholics were running the show?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by tarcone

And it was Luther himself and his 95 Theses that caused the Reformation. Wasnt that is response to how the Catholics were running the show?

Did I say that the Catholic Church wasn't corrupt at that point (of course Luther wasn't initially interested in schism, he wanted to reform the Catholic Church)? I will point out that the Lutheran Church sold out to the Nazis in World War 2. Corruption regarding religion & state is not merely a Catholic thing.

Funny. I am a member of a Lutheran church myself.

And as I pointed out, there are American Lutheran denominations that practice closed communion - Missouri Synod (which is confusing a nation-wide denomination), Wisconsin Synod (same).

[tarcone]

I am in Missouri and we allow anyone to take communion at our Church. The church is a member of the Missouri Synod. But our pastor is pretty much a teacher of Christ and has said we are basically a member in name only.
Though they have given s lots of money for church plantings.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Also, Isiddiqui pretty well summed up my points. I’ll just say, I don’t see how it can be called a violent religion or violent teachings when nearly every Muslim, who has ever existed, has been peaceful.

If anything, given the Catholic genocide of the Western Hemisphere, and profound Christian antisemitism (including by the way in every Crusade) I would say the Christian God has been historicaly more destructive than Muhammad.

I am obviously not a scholar but do disagree with you on the first paragraph. What I've read so far does indicate the Quran/hadiths which Islam is based on is pretty violent and Mohammed condoned and did many of them.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

This always seems like a strange argument, because in the Old Testament, it isn't just patriarchs or prophets calling for violence (my favorite is when Elisha prays for bears to kill teens that call him 'baldy') but God Himself. You can't even really say that well the New Testament superceeds the Old Testament here, because the God of the Old Testament is the exact same God as Jesus the Christ (if you deny that, then you deny the Trinity). And, of course, Revelation describes Jesus striking down the nations with a sword wearing a robe dipped in blood while riding a white horse at the end of days (and yes, that can be read figuratively or metaphorically).

I know I'm going to get in trouble here because my words won't be precise, but I'm going to attempt it ...

I think you can say the NT supercedes the OT or at least many Christians today believe that. Even in Quran, it talks about the OT was appropriate for that time, the Gospels were appropriate for that time and now the Quran is what you should believe in.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Now one can argue that Scripture is not literal and a record of people's experiences with God and therefore their context needs to be taken into account. But that same contextual analysis would have to occur for 7th Century Arabia.

Yes, I've always believe context is needed (I say that all the time in my line of work!). TBF, the author of the book I am reading also says context is needed for what we read in the Bible, the Quran and Hadiths.

I think the key difference is what Jesus said vs what Mohammed said. Even with "context" there is a world of difference IMO.

This would be an interesting exercise I think. If you are willing, I would like to go deeper and come up with 3-5 examples and discuss the "context" of what Jesus vs Mohammed said/condoned.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And I think what he was getting at is that if Muslims weren't peaceful you'd have a forever war going on with every single one of the billion+ Muslims on the planet and you don't.

Would the situation be different if the Muslims were the technological and economic power the west has been since 18-19th (?) century. Meaning they did not have the means to or the western powers "controlled, influenced, prevented etc." it from happening. I don't think this is 100% right but interesting to consider how much of this may be true.

Nevertheless, per my other post "I am obviously not a scholar but do disagree with you on the first paragraph. What I've read so far does indicate the Quran/hadiths which Islam is based on is pretty violent and Mohammed condoned and did many of them."

We can say things are different now (thankfully) but in the early years of Islam it was pretty violent and Mohammed played a direct part in it vs comparison to Jesus.

[Edward64]

Some other interesting (at least to me) tidbits as I read the book

(Again, any mistakes are my own as I did not take copius notes as I read the book)

1. The different Muslim faiths have different Hadiths (or sets of examples of what Mohammed said/did).
2. There is a small % of Muslims that go by the Quran only and not the Hadiths. They believe if it was not written down in the Quran that it wasn't that important.
3. The Quran does believe in Jesus the prophet but does not believe he died on the cross (or resurrected). There are some Muslims that interpret that Jesus swapped with someone else and/or death was faked; or Jesus did not die while crucified
4. The Quran equates the Trinity to polytheism. The word Trinity is actually used in the Quran.
5. Muslims believe Paul messed up what Jesus really was (prophet, not divine) and was a "corrupter" of Christianity

I am in the book where it tries to "prove" the author's point of view (pro-Jesus). I'm not buying some of his arguments but still think this book is a fascinating read as I am learning alot about the Islam faith (albeit some would say inaccurately) and how they view Christianity.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Would the situation be different if the Muslims were the technological and economic power the west has been since 18-19th (?) century. Meaning they did not have the means to or the western powers "controlled, influenced, prevented etc." it from happening. I don't think this is 100% right but interesting to consider how much of this may be true.

It's also interesting to think about how much of the "death to the Western infidels" stuff might come from the role the West has played in the "heartland" of Islam since the final days of the Ottoman empire up until now, rather than just "Islam is a religion of violence". I wonder what the world would look like today if there had been no oil in the Middle East. The west played a huge role in creating the power vacuum that allowed these sects to come to power, and saying otherwise is being dishonest.

The extreme form of fundamentalist Islam sprouting from parts of the Middle East is a scary reminder of why we have separation of church and state in the West... For me, I don't think in essence there's a huge difference between extreme fundamentalists of any religion. I'm sure there are a bunch of evangelists who are jealous of the position some of these extremist leaders have, whether they'd admit it or not.

[miami_fan]

How does religion judge those that benefit from sin but do not commit the sin themselves? Are they considered sinners as sinners as well?

For example, a hit-man murders someone and is paid for his services. Obviously the hit-man has committed a sin. The hit-man gives the money that he received for killing someone to his mother who knows what he has done to get that money.

How does religious law/doctrine/ethics (I am not sure what the proper term should be) judge the mother or is she not judged at all?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

How does religion judge those that benefit from sin but do not commit the sin themselves? Are they considered sinners as sinners as well?

For example, a hit-man murders someone and is paid for his services. Obviously the hit-man has committed a sin. The hit-man gives the money that he received for killing someone to his mother who knows what he has done to get that money.

How does religious law/doctrine/ethics (I am not sure what the proper term should be) judge the mother or is she not judged at all?

Don't know how religion would judge your use case. But if I got $10k cash and knew it came from a hitman ...

Assuming the victim did not deserve it (yeah, know its wide open to interpretation), I would return it.

Now, if the money was $10M, I would honestly try to rationalize it ...

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Don't know how religion would judge your use case. But if I got $10k cash and knew it came from a hitman ...

Assuming the victim did not deserve it (yeah, know its wide open to interpretation), I would return it.

Now, if the money was $10M, I would honestly try to rationalize it ...

That is the reason for the question.

In the extreme situation I laid out, the mother can say "Hey I did not kill anyone" and move along with her day no matter what the amount. It feels like she doing something wrong to me. I know it is criminally wrong in certain cases. I don't know if that is the case in the world's religions.

[Izulde]

That's a really interesting question.

From my perspective, let's look at the eight-word version of the Rede: "An ye harm none, do what ye will."

The mother did not cause or initiate the harm of the murder, but received, as you said, the *benefit* of that harm.

Looking at other aspects of the full Rede that might seem relevant: "Fairly take and fairly give." and "When ye have a true need, hearken not to others' greed."

Is accepting the money fairly taking? That's a thorny issue, but it can I *think* be resolved by the last line.

If the mother has a true need, and if the hitman committed the murder for the sake of his mother's need, then I think the mother would be absolved, but the hitman is still on the hook theologically speaking (he did, after all, cause harm).

If she doesn't have a true need, and accepts the money, then she's on the hook, too.

(Incidentally, what constitutes harm is a subject of considerable debate. Obviously, violation of someone else's free will is a harm, but what if you asked for something that personally benefits you that doesn't appear to harm anyone? According to some, not a violation. According to others, a violation because it's done for selfish reasons and isn't fairly taking, and there will be a price to be paid.)

For those interested in the full Rede: THE WICCAN REDE (or Witches' Rede)

[miami_fan]

United Methodist Church: 261 Georgia congregations leave the denomination over LGBTQ divide | CNN

Apologies for any misuse of terminology. I am just trying to understand this process

I think I get the basics. They can't agree with various LGBT issues and are going their separate ways. I looked at the terms of the disaffiliation process and it is basically a business/financial document. How does this work in a religious sense? Would the disaffiliated congregations be creating another denomination of the Protestant faith? Is it just about creating their own version of the Book of Discipline? I am assuming that the disaffiliated congregations will continue to use the Bible as its guiding document. Would they go as far as using a different version of the Bible? The only thing I can compare it to is the creation of the AME Church because of disagreements on discrimination. Is this basically the same thing?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

United Methodist Church: 261 Georgia congregations leave the denomination over LGBTQ divide | CNN

Apologies for any misuse of terminology. I am just trying to understand this process

I think I get the basics. They can't agree with various LGBT issues and are going their separate ways. I looked at the terms of the disaffiliation process and it is basically a business/financial document. How does this work in a religious sense? Would the disaffiliated congregations be creating another denomination of the Protestant faith? Is it just about creating their own version of the Book of Discipline? I am assuming that the disaffiliated congregations will continue to use the Bible as its guiding document. Would they go as far as using a different version of the Bible? The only thing I can compare it to is the creation of the AME Church because of disagreements on discrimination. Is this basically the same thing?

They will be creating a separate denomination with its own leadership structure. They will have their own charter and creeds probably largely exactly what they had before, just removing any tenants that were the cause of the rift. I very seriously doubt they will be picking or creating their own Bible version. There might be other doctrines they mat role back to earlier church positions. It depends on how conservative the new leadership will swing. I know of several churches (rather large ones at that) they had already left the UMC. I wonder if they will stay independent or rejoin with this splinter denomination?

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

They will be creating a separate denomination with its own leadership structure. They will have their own charter and creeds probably largely exactly what they had before, just removing any tenants that were the cause of the rift. I very seriously doubt they will be picking or creating their own Bible version. There might be other doctrines they mat role back to earlier church positions. It depends on how conservative the new leadership will swing. I know of several churches (rather large ones at that) they had already left the UMC. I wonder if they will stay independent or rejoin with this splinter denomination?

I saw that. I had trouble finding if they were for or against LGBT+. I think they were FOR. shrug. I'm guessing this is how all religious sects started. People want to do their own thing. There are so many of them.

I wouldn't be surprised if the catholic church had another schism soon.
The pop fired a bishop in texas for being a loud mouth and bashing him to his congregation and ignoring everything he said.

[GrantDawg]

The ones leaving are against it. It is largely conservative churches that are leaving. The reason is that even though the Methodist conference did not change ordination or marriage rules in 2019 to allow LGBTQ entry, they have not enforced those rules. Ministers who are openly gay or perform gay marriage ceremonies are not being defrocked. There is to be another vote in 2024, and most can see the writing on the wall that they will remove those rules, or separate the church into zones that can choose to open up the rules or not.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

FWIW, this guy is pretty interesting, he "charts" religious stuff - Christian, Islam, Hindu, Jewish faiths/denominations, misc stuff like identifying real historical figures in the Bible etc. He does alot of other non-religion stuff also.

He's agnostic, he just likes details, charting, organizing and breaking things down (e.g. like me).

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...QLehVEHs7tOl5c

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

They will be creating a separate denomination with its own leadership structure. They will have their own charter and creeds probably largely exactly what they had before, just removing any tenants that were the cause of the rift. I very seriously doubt they will be picking or creating their own Bible version. There might be other doctrines they mat role back to earlier church positions. It depends on how conservative the new leadership will swing. I know of several churches (rather large ones at that) they had already left the UMC. I wonder if they will stay independent or rejoin with this splinter denomination?

Thank you for the information and clarifications.

[GrantDawg]

I did a little research. There was a large number of the South Georgia Methodist Conference that broke off earlier this year, and wondered where they went. A large number of congregations have formed the "Global Methodist Church", which now has about 3,000 congregations. It just formed in May of last year. They follow "The Book of Discipline" along with the " The Catechism of the Global Methodist Church". I imagine most of the congregations that split off in North Georgia will go there.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[CrimsonFox]

lol i said pop instead of pope in my last post. That made me needlessly giggle

[miami_fan]

I am once again asking for thoughts/opinions this time on this article and topic. This one is a bit more taboo so I am not expecting anyone to expose their personal lives in any way. I am just curious what the views of people of faith on the board.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/17/u...KiUzYjRDzsWXZA

Now I have discussed with a few religious leaders of different faiths that I go to for education on their faiths. They are all in agreement against the "Raunchy Christians" ethos. But I also see a great deal of research and have met a number of people who are into just about every sexual vice but are also self described Christians who attend church on a regular basis. It is why things like the Moms For Liberty "scandal" wasn't surprising or even out of the ordinary for me. The “I go to church because I’m a sinner not a saint!” is a motto I hear all the time.

[molson]

The connection between Christianity and being a prude seems more cultural and American than something that's part of the religion.

Growing up with a Lutheran pastor father, I never quite understood as a kid Christians' objection to stuff like swearing, violent and sexy movies, drinking, etc. I was no theologian, but, that didn't seem like the the stuff people were supposed to be concerned with based on the sermons and gospels and Jesus' whole schtick, etc. Same kind of thing later when I learned Christians in other parts of the country, in different churches, were all bothered by sexual preference or gender identity.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

I also see a great deal of research and have met a number of people who are into just about every sexual vice but are also self described Christians who attend church on a regular basis. It is why things like the Moms For Liberty "scandal" wasn't surprising or even out of the ordinary for me. The “I go to church because I’m a sinner not a saint!” is a motto I hear all the time.

Good post as usual.

I am 100% opposed to this approach. Jesus did thankfully say he came to call sinners not the righteous, but he didn't leave them there. He told the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more, not go and do whatever she pleased.

Or to molson's point, there's the statement in the Sermon on the Mount:

Originally Posted by Matthew 5:27-30, ESV

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

That's not to say that sexuality is any way bad - it was created by God who pronounced it good a number of times - but this idea of 'anything goes' or appealing to a lost culture by becoming more sinful is as wrong as it gets. Jesus said those who obey his commandments are the ones who love Him, fornicators and adulterers are those in I Corinthians 6:9-11 that Paul states will not inherit the kingdom of God, and so forth.

The really important part, and one that I missed for much of my life, is that it isn't the rule-following that is most important here. Jesus' statement quoted above directs itself it to the attitude and thoughts. But at the same time, you can't get your thoughts right and still live in a blatantly, repetitively disobedient way.

It's also vital I think to distinguish between being a prude or implying 'sex is bad' or any such thing, and being what I would describe as obedient or biblically holy. Many Christians have gone to the wrong side on that I think, and I'm sure I'm not innocent of it. It's about living in a controlled, Spirit-filled way. Or to put it another way, modesty is one thing, fearing/shaming sexuality is another.

[CrimsonFox]

It is impossible to talk about religion without so.e fascist getting banhappy

[miami_fan]

Thank you molson and Brian for your responses.

[Schmidty]

Well.

There is a God. And you will know the rest. Me? Nope.

And I know that QS Still wants to know why I’m a Calvinist. I’m not as smart as you QS.


Answer? It’s in my heart. I’m just some crummy meat puppet.