Outraged Muslims....OH MY!!!!!

[mingez]

I just can't believe they get so up in arms about a freakin' cartoon! There is nothing---nothing----that you or anyone else could draw about Jesus that would make me run rampant through the streets maiming and killing. Why? Because that is opposite of the message of my religion. Isn't that also opposite of the message of Islam, a supposedly peaceful religion?.

Well, me either. I can't believe anyone get's up in arms about anything religious. But that's because you and I aren't religious fanatics. Just like MANY muslims aren't religious fanatics...important to remember in my opinion. We as westerners are "Lumpers" and tend to want to put all muslims in the same category. Thats like putting Koresh in the same category as you as a Christian.

I don't feel any less safe with one whacko Muslim in the world than I would with 10 billion whacko Muslims because it only takes one to fly off the handle and start killing over a cartoon.

I feel just as unsafe with a wacko Christian or a wacko Buddhist (although I've never met a violent Buddhist).

But I think we both agree on the point that they are being extreme in their response.

You are mixing christianity and catholicism , not the same. But I agree that catholicism used (dark ages) the same techniques that the muslims are using today, kill. The history is there...

Ah, and to you I say that Catholicism is a sect of the overall body of Christianity, and the idea of a nondenomiantional christian faith is a recent advent. In that time, there were much fewer options for those of christian faith. That form of Catholicism isn't even that similar to today's catholic.

That's no different than mixing up Shi'ite Fundamdentalists (or any violent Jihad sect) with Islam itself. They aren't the same either. We, in the states are mixing up our fundamentalist Jihadists with our peace-loving non-Jihadist muslims. (and there are plenty)
It's just that the violence makes headlines in the media, and in the west we are ONLY exposed to the fundamentalist muslims, creating an air of belief that ALL muslims are violent...which just isn't even close to the truth.

We need to win over the hearts of the moderates...

 

[mingez]

Damn Mingez, that's twice in one thread I agree.
QUOTE]

Hahaha, well, it's happened many times before! urple:

 

[Sparky-Watts]

that's because you and I aren't religious fanatics. Just like MANY muslims aren't religious fanatics...important to remember in my opinion.

That's true, and I try to keep from "lumping" them all together, however, I'll state again that you don't hear any outcry from the non-fanatical sect about how the fanatics are tainting their religion and their global image. A sin of commission is just as bad as a sin of omission. In other words, silence on the issue by the non-violent can be viewed as condoning the acts of the radicals in the eyes of many.

 

[dekies]

"Ah, and to you I say that Catholicism is a sect of the overall body of Christianity, and the idea of a nondenomiantional christian faith is a recent advent. In that time, there were much fewer options for those of christian faith. That form of Catholicism isn't even that similar to today's catholic. "

Actaully it is, minus the direct killing, but that wasn't the point. The point is most don't have a clue of, what is a christian (I'll keep catholicism out of it, too easy to discredit). This nation is a perfect example. To most we are a christian nation, but we aren't even close, more refined, a few more morals when it is convient, etc.

"nondenomiantional christian faith is a recent advent" couldn't disagree more. I would agree that most 'main stream religion' is major controlling structure (control, power, etc.) and that is what is on the world stage, and is always courting the state.

kind regards.

 

[mingez]

That's true, and I try to keep from "lumping" them all together, however, I'll state again that you don't hear any outcry from the non-fanatical sect about how the fanatics are tainting their religion and their global image. A sin of commission is just as bad as a sin of omission. In other words, silence on the issue by the non-violent can be viewed as condoning the acts of the radicals in the eyes of many.

That's partly due to the fact that they can be ostricized or hurt (depending on which country) for condemning Jihad. But mostly due to the fact that it just isn't reported in the west. It's not sexy and doesn't sell newspapers.

 

[mingez]

"nondenomiantional christian faith is a recent advent" couldn't disagree more. I would agree that most 'main stream religion' is major controlling structure (control, power, etc.) and that is what is on the world stage, and is always

So, what you're telling me is that you feel that (aside from the time of Christ itself) that the modern idea of non-denominational Christianity was evident from 100 AD to 1800 AD? I'm open to you showing me evidence of this. Perhaps it's just the semantics of what I consider "Recent".

In my 1 year as a history major, which certainly is pretty cloudy, but I recall nothing of the sort.

Like it or not, Catholicism WAS christianity from around 107 AD on... although they didn't really have an established governing body like they do today.

I. Christianity, in modern times, exists under diverse names. These variously named groups, Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Catholics, Chistian (non-denom) etc. are called denominations.

A. Denominations - Denominationalism is an ideology, which views some or all Christian groups as being, in some sense, versions of the same thing regardless of their distinguishing labels. Not all denominations teach this, however; and there are some groups which practically all others would view as apostate or heretical: that is, not legitimate versions of Christianity.

The Christianity I believe you are speaking of isn't in the larger sense, but in the denominational sense. Many mix the 2 up. Terrymason was talking about Christians as a whole, regaurdless of denomination, as believers in Christ as lord. The details of how they believe is irrelevant- as he was talking about the development as a whole.

 

[dekies]

The history of religion in college/school would be from a state/religion point of view; also from my experience the instructors are often very biased in their selection of what history books they use (prefer/bias). If someone is REALLY interested in the history of “religion” study it on your own. Just my personal experience.

“Catholicism WAS christianity from around 107 AD on” NO! catholicism is/was/will never be what Christ taught.

I’m coming from a point of view of what is the actual technical definition of Christianity/Christian. Lets just use definition of the American Heritage® Dictionary:
n.
1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.


The above general definition isn’t too bad. So all these denominations, non-denominations, sects, groups, countries, states, individuals are claiming to be Christianity/Christian. Based upon what? Normally it is we are not this so by default we are Christian. We’ve come a long way from when the term was first used.


”The Christianity I believe you are speaking of isn't in the larger sense, but in the denominational sense” wrong on both counts, see above.

kind regards.

 

[TwistedCU]

Although many Catholics, non-Christians, and especially the media view it as such, Catholicism is not, and never has been, "Christianity". There was a time when Catholic nations ruled over the majority of Christians, but this does not mean they were Catholic.

Like dekies was getting at, history is very subjective to the source of information.

 

[KrazyJeeper]

Much like the victors of war write the history.

 

[mingez]

Much like the victors of war write the history.

True! And Christians were victors more often then not, so if that statement were true (and I agree that it is) then academia should be Western/Christian biased (which it is) This is why Western Civ is a requirement, but Islamic History, Eastern Civ, etc is not. It's ethno-centric no doubt about it.

The history of religion in college/school would be from a state/religion point of view; also from my experience the instructors are often very biased in their selection of what history books they use (prefer/bias). If someone is REALLY interested in the history of “religion” study it on your own. Just my personal experience.

But in your original post you said:

The history is there...

So, you invited me look into history with that statement. When I did, you disagreed with the info, and all of a sudden history's "biased"... and that if you REALLY want to study the history of religion you should "study it on your own."

It seems that whenever someone disagrees with a particular historical take, the "History is biased" angle comes out. But those very same people site history as springboard to back an arguement.

And again, while I agree that it's subjective, you still need to show me something that will "hold up in court" so to speak. Because even more subjective, is your personal opinion of what history was. Studying it on your own isn't the most objective way to discover things. One's individual biases are just as active and perhaps more so. Atleast a textbook has millions of readers both Religious and non, to scrutinize it's writings. And, Anthropologically you can support or refute, much of history, and thus rewriting it. Unfortunatley, humans aren't perfect and bias will always play a part. I could use the same arguement of bias to suggest your angle is refutable. After all, I have no emotional investment in believing which belief system- be it Christian, muslim, jewish- is the correct one.

Now then, I want to clarify,
When I made the statement: "Catholicism WAS christianity from around 107 AD on.." I meant that in the sense that - they were the "Big player" on the christianity block, and most ot he doctrine used today survived as a result of their rise to power.

Similar to saying: "Jordan WAS the NBA in the 90's" ... That statement doesn't literally mean that Jordan WAS the NBA. There were other players as I recall, but it makes the point that he was the reason a lot of folks even watched basketball in the 90's.

“Catholicism WAS christianity from around 107 AD on” NO! catholicism is/was/will never be what Christ taught.

Irrelevent, and I wasn't refuting this. But modern nondenomination Christianity never is/was/will be what Christ taught either. I know it makes people feel warm and fuzzy inside to think so, but I'm sure most Christians would agree that much of the teachings have been ba$tardized over the years.
The point I was making was that the actual nondenom Christian religion of the time of Christ did NOT survive as a separate entity of Catholicism, or Orthodox etc. This was what I'd need you to show me proof of, to make me believe that modern nondenom Christianity is the same as what was around during the time of Christ. Otherwise, it's someone's interpretation of those teachings.

I’m coming from a point of view of what is the actual technical definition of Christianity/Christian. Lets just use definition of the American Heritage® Dictionary:
n.
1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

I agree 100%. I wasn't refuting this.

Remember, my response was due to your comment on Terrymason's post, who's statement you critiqued: (see earlier in thread)

Remember, Islam started ~700 years after Christianity, so they are still developing. Now, ask yourself what Christian people / leaders would have done if you published cartoons of the pope back in the 1300's. They'd have tried you as a heritic and burned you.

He was generalizing in the very same sense that you are defining Christians. So, your definition supports his statement, and isn't in line with your response:

You are mixing christianity and catholicism , not the same. But I agree that catholicism used (dark ages) the same techniques that the muslims are using today, kill. The history is there...

The history IS there, but evidentally it's biased.

My point was, he was talking about all Christians as an entire body of belief. Those who believe in "Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus." --just as your definition says. So, that actually clarifies my point.

Clearly you wanted to seperate Christians from Catholics, and that's fine (although is seemed as if you were suggesting there was something wrong with Catholicisim). But he wasn't talking about nondenom Christians. He was talking about Christianity as a whole. And that was all I'm talking about.

• 
  I. Christianity
  __A. Denominations
  ____1.Catholics, orthodox, protestants, non-denominational christians.

He was talking about the "Christianity" in bold.

Just semantics...tis all.

Great discussion guys, I appreciate what you've all had to say on this.

 

[TwistedCU]

BI'm sure most Christians would agree that much of the teachings have been ba$tardized over the years.

Mingez, I have never disagreed with you more. This is simply untrue. DO I really want to get into this? No. If you want me to go into depth on this to support what I claim? Absolutely.

What's really amusing here is how some speak of "protestant" churches like any non-catholic church is protestant or "Non-denominational" religion, like it is some sort of organization. The whole reson many churches are non-denominational is to avoid the political, financial, and legalistic problems that can coincide with big churches. Christ hated "religion".

Anyone who simply beieves in, studies, has accepted and follows God through Christ is a Christian in my book... whether they belong to a church or are deserted on an island and found a bible. People like this have endured the ages, not disappeared and re-appeared hundreds of years later.

It's not like a few guys were sitting around after Catholic Mass and decided:
"Hey, let's fire back up non-denominal churches again!"

You all are complicating the heck out of the simplest of things.

Carry on, and God Bless :shock:

 

[dekies]

mingez, we are not on the same page. You use the term Christian generically, I don’t. I hold to the way it was first used.

True! And Christians were victors more often then not, so if that statement were true (and I agree that it is) then academia should be Western/Christian biased (which it is) This is why Western Civ is a requirement, but Islamic History, Eastern Civ, etc is not. It's ethno-centric no doubt about it.

I would not agree with this statement. Most call the "crusades" as Christian, which it was not. They where "regious" war between two non-christian religions.

It seems that whenever someone disagrees with a particular historical take, the "History is biased" angle comes out. But those very same people site history as springboard to back an arguement

You missed my point here. When I said study on your own, what is there to study? History! Only don't just look at the history book that the biased teacher/instructor presents, or in some cases accepts money from the book publishers to choose a particular book. History books are someone's take on his/her research. I'm not knocking that, but read more than one and research the facts.

One's individual biases are just as active and perhaps more so. Atleast a textbook has millions of readers both Religious and non, to scrutinize it's writings.... After all, I have no emotional investment in believing which belief system- be it Christian, muslim, jewish- is the correct one.

I agree with the first part, it all comes down to a desire for truth and being honest, none of which anyone can give to another. Either someone wants to search or they don't. The last part of the statement is doesn't mean much to me. The majority says something.... it must be right.

Now then, I want to clarify,
When I made the statement: "Catholicism WAS christianity from around 107 AD on.." I meant that in the sense that - they were the "Big player" on the christianity block, and most ot he doctrine used today survived as a result of their rise to power.

See my original comments on calling catholicism Christianinty.

Irrelevent, and I wasn't refuting this. But modern nondenomination Christianity never is/was/will be what Christ taught either. I know it makes people feel warm and fuzzy inside to think so, but I'm sure most Christians would agree that much of the teachings have been ba$tardized over the years.
The point I was making was that the actual nondenom Christian religion of the time of Christ did NOT survive as a separate entity of Catholicism, or Orthodox etc. This was what I'd need you to show me proof of, to make me believe that modern nondenom Christianity is the same as what was around during the time of Christ. Otherwise, it's someone's interpretation of those teachings.

Totally disagree! I'm going to answer this question on the primise you believe that Christ existed and was a teacher.

"Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away." MAR 13:31

Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates? 2 Cr 13:5

My point was, he was talking about all Christians as an entire body of belief. Those who believe in "Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus." --just as your definition says. So, that actually clarifies my point.

You are calling anyone Christian that is not this or that. My point is there is a clear definition, and it doesn't take a lot of work to discredit most real quick. See below.

Clearly you wanted to seperate Christians from Catholics, and that's fine (although is seemed as if you were suggesting there was something wrong with Catholicisim). But he wasn't talking about nondenom Christians. He was talking about Christianity as a whole. And that was all I'm talking about.

Christianity it is not a lump sum. There is a lot worng with catholicislm, they don't follow the teaching of Christ.

 

[Sparky-Watts]

I think you are confusing catholicism with being a Catholic. They are not the same thing.

 

[TwistedCU]

:::crunch:::
:::crunch:::
:::crunch:::

 

[jay79cj7]

I NEVER jump in on these things, but...

To state that Catholics do not follow the teachings of Christ is downright ignorant. Catholics believe that they are following Christ just as what you term to be "Christians" believe to be following his teachings. Like or dislike Catholicism as you please, but don't spread false information.

 

[Sully]

Interesting read, please pass the pop corn.....

 

[dekies]

Jay, we disagree. You don’t need a historian for the history. Research of their own records will show what they practice and believe. Lot of discrepancies to what Christ taught. The intent was to try to limit what is a true Christian. The history of catholiscism provides a good example for my argument, but my intention is not to point out their specific doctrines that are contrary to the teachings of Christ. If you want to start a dialogue on specifics, I would love to have you remove my ignorance. I’m not sure this forum is the correct format, not sure what the tolerance level here is for this kind of “entertainment”.

Sparky,

catholiscim is doctrine, system of an entity called the catholic church, with that said doctrine, system being instructed from the “headquarters” aka Rome.

catholic is a member of such entity.

What am I missing?

Twisted,
Good comments, I would add the adjective "structure" to you religion comment.

kind regards

 

[TwistedCU]

Dekies,

I agree with alot of what you said and fully understand where you are coming from,

BUT

Although I, too, am not comfortable with some Catholic beliefs, I can not and would not in any way say they are not Christians. I know many Catholics. Some of which I would find it very easy to question their faith if it were my place to do so, just as I could with members of my own church - or most likely any church for that matter. I do, however, have a co-worker who is a Catholic. He, no doubt in my mind, has a strong relationship with Christ. Jesus taught against focusing on tradition and "religion". He made a point that it is easy to have a heart of sin and follow traditions and laws. Throughout the new testament he makes reference to the heart being the true target for judgement. He will judge us all the same no matter what traditions we practice. Although you (as do I) do not agree with Catholisicm, there is no doubt in my mind that there are Catholics going to heaven one day and there are Catholics who are not as fortunate. One thing I have been unfortunate enough to be a witness to is that hypocrites can be found almost everywhere. In Churches and out.

I feel that judging the Catholic church in the way you could be viewed as akin to how many secularists consider all Christians hypocrites. It is neither fair nor true.

 

[mingez]

I'm in class, and don't have time now, but suffice it to say that I have plenty to say.

Dekies, all do respect but it's like you and I don't even speak the same language. There is so much miscommunication and misinterpretation between our posts, it's mind boggling.

Again, by "Christians" Terrymason meant ANYONE who believes in Christ. HOW YOU BELIEVE IN HIM IS IRRELEVANT to his post. He IS lumping all Christian religions (or non-religions) together to comment on the length of time they have had to evolve as a belief system. Semantics are not important here. Pointing out the differences between Catholics and Christians is irrelevant. However, I will say that to suggest that Catholics aren't Christians is ludicrous.

As for whether or not there is continuity of belief and practice... now that's a different subject. One that came up in debate later in the thread.

But again, I'm open to either of you "Proving" to me that Christian teachings are exactly practiced as they were during the time of Christ. Show me... you can change my mind with sufficient proof.

TC, by stating: "Do you really want to get into this" implies that you think I want to get into an arguement. I don't. I want you guys to show me that my statements aren't true for the sake of discussion and debate. let's all keep emotion out of this.

I mean no disrespect, and mean nothing I type in this thread to come off ill-toned. If my beliefs themselves offend you, well there's nothing I can do about that.

 

[mingez]

I feel that judging the Catholic church in the way you could be viewed as akin to how many secularists consider all Christians hypocrites. It is neither fair nor true.

Very astute. And probably true for many more militant folks...but try not to lump all secularists as such, and I'll spread the word that not all Christians are hypocrites! See? We CAN all get along.