Protest the past

It would be different if there were 'moderate' people of faith criticizing the extremists (and preferably demonstrating that they are any different). And in some faiths this is possible. However, if the extremists happen to do what their scriptures are ordering them, you have little theological grounds on which to criticize them and the only ones left to do this are people who are criticizing those actions on secular grounds.

Also, if you have a faith part of which tells you not to question or evaluate it or consider other opinions or evidence, hostility towards people who think differently is but a question of time. This is why adult people who grew beyond the dark ages understand that no belief, religious or not, is above inquiry. Unfortunately, at least in the western monotheisms this is typically associated with blasphemy - the act of daring to attack the pride of those who declare themselves to be in the right and have a god on their side.

So yes, many faiths give people an excuse or in many cases even a mandate to do wicked things which no sane human being would ever think of performing. Or, in the words of Steven Weinberg: "With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
Oh, and the moderates, who are only covering the extremists by saying that not all people of their faith are like this and therefore one cannot or even must not blame the faith, aren't big of a help in the issue.

Gisteron wrote: It would be different if there were 'moderate' people of faith criticizing the extremists

There are. We're shouted out by the extremists, and people assume we don't exist to make arguments such as this one possible.

However, if the extremists happen to do what their scriptures are ordering them, you have little theological grounds on which to criticize them...

They aren't, especially not in this case. Nothing in Christian scriptures supports this kind of behavior after the death of Christ. Neither, to my knowledge, do the other Abrahamic religions support such things in their most recent incarnations. I will admit to a dearth of knowledge about Islam and Baha'i, so I cannot speak for them, however.

Also, if you have a faith part of which tells you not to question or evaluate it or consider other opinions or evidence, hostility towards people who think differently is but a question of time.

Again, there is no support for this in any Abrahamic scripture I've ever read. Period. While each text says it is the truth-with-a-capital-T, each also has numerous examples of how and why this Truth can and should be tested.

Oh, and the moderates, who are only covering the extremists by saying that not all people of their faith are like this and therefore one cannot or even must not blame the faith, aren't big of a help in the issue.

Then why are you calling for them in the first paragraph?

Fight, fight, fight!!!!!

:evil:



hahahhahahahahhaha :woohoo:

I am joking! :whistle:

You both bring up valid points to the same topic viewed from different aspects. Which is kewl!

I don't agree with making symblic jestures out of spite (which is what I saw the person mentioned in the OP doing JMHO). I understand the effectiveness of symbolism and agree that it is a good tool... that should not be missused!

What was it.. "the road to hell is paved with good intensions." I think a lot of it has to do with people becoming too emotionally involed. Having a passion for something is good, so long as you don't let it cloud your judgemnet. Just my opinion.

The problem I've seen with most religious extremists, Christian, Muslim, or any other is that they will find one line of text that justifies how the feel, think, or act. They will take that one line out of context of all the surrounding text and it becomes their doctrine, no matter what the doctrine of their religion actually is. that one line justifies their view of the world.

With the Christian extremist, the line "Love thy God above all others and love thy neighbor as thyself" they see the love thy neighbor as thyself only apply to fellow Christians, not someone of a different religion and in most cases not someone of a different denomination.

I don't see this changing anytime soon, there have always been zealots, and sadly there always will be.

I think that people are slowly letting religion die nowadays. They are forgetting that religion is supposed to be between you and your beliefs. It isn't something you bring out every now and then when you go to church or some service, it isn't even something you "carry with you" every day. Your religion IS you, and you are the religion.

Think about it, if all Jedi communities disappeared and you were left with no way to interact with any other Jedi would you still call yourself a Jedi? If you can't honestly say yes than the reality is that you were never a Jedi in the first place. We don't need others to validate our beliefs. Others can be used for discussion and learning but in the end it all comes back to you. I feel no need to prove the validity of Jediism to anyone, I simply believe in the Force and Jediism and that is enough for me.

If you leave the motive of religion behind, which is really just an excuse in the first place, you are left with simply vengeance over 9/11. If on 9/11 you feel that it is more important to hurt someone through "protest" than it is to remember and respect those who died that day you need to reevaluate your priorities. The burning of the Qu'ran serves no real purpose other than to call attention to yourself and to gain publicity and as I said that is what religion has fallen to. The minute you make your religion more about others than yourself you have lost the point of religion and invalidated that which you have sought to follow.

May the Force be with you,
Rai

Raikoutenshi wrote: I think that people are slowly letting religion die nowadays. They are forgetting that religion is supposed to be between you and your beliefs. It isn't something you bring out every now and then when you go to church or some service, it isn't even something you "carry with you" every day. Your religion IS you, and you are the religion.

Think about it, if all Jedi communities disappeared and you were left with no way to interact with any other Jedi would you still call yourself a Jedi? If you can't honestly say yes than the reality is that you were never a Jedi in the first place. We don't need others to validate our beliefs. Others can be used for discussion and learning but in the end it all comes back to you. I feel no need to prove the validity of Jediism to anyone, I simply believe in the Force and Jediism and that is enough for me.

If you leave the motive of religion behind, which is really just an excuse in the first place, you are left with simply vengeance over 9/11. If on 9/11 you feel that it is more important to hurt someone through "protest" than it is to remember and respect those who died that day you need to reevaluate your priorities. The burning of the Qu'ran serves no real purpose other than to call attention to yourself and to gain publicity and as I said that is what religion has fallen to. The minute you make your religion more about others than yourself you have lost the point of religion and invalidated that which you have sought to follow.

May the Force be with you,
Rai

I couldn't agree with this more.

People seem to be too concerned with trying to validate their beliefs through others, in what seems an attempt to prove to themselves that their beliefs are correct to begin with. When this doesn't happen, you end up with conflicts of varying degrees.

Also, you just made it into my quote book.

the whole post or just part?

steamboat28 wrote:

Gisteron wrote: It would be different if there were 'moderate' people of faith criticizing the extremists

There are. We're shouted out by the extremists, and people assume we don't exist to make arguments such as this one possible.

Fair enough. My apologies. One still would expect more though, if they were indeed acting in any way against their scripture.

However, if the extremists happen to do what their scriptures are ordering them, you have little theological grounds on which to criticize them...

They aren't, especially not in this case. Nothing in Christian scriptures supports this kind of behavior after the death of Christ.

Ooh, a challenge!

I don't know about burning books but there was something about unbelievers... Now, admittedly, Jesus said this before his death, but I don't think he ever said that what he said before would not apply after - and it would be paradoxic if he did.
So I quote:

Luke 19:26-27, KJ21 wrote: For I say unto you, that unto every one that hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away from him. But those mine enemies, who would not that I should reign over them, bring them hither and slay them before me.

And I mean, if you have a direct order to kill those who wish not for the Christ to rule them (i.e. be Christians), I'm not sure if there is anything left to be called a perverse or extreme interpretation of scripture.

Now, I could also quote the Quran on that topic but I leave that to others since there are just too many places to pick from. If there is one Sura without a direct mandate to destroy the enemies of Allah, there will at least be a lot about their suffering in hellfire wich is basically a threat of violence as a means to keep or win converts. There is no such thing as a violent interpretation of the Quran. There is a reading and taking it serious, or a reading and not taking it serious (the moderate position).

Since I have only a very superficial understanding of the Baha'i faith, I will not go into that, although I can see how to interpret the Baha'i truth claims to get it intolerant of other religions' practitioners. Yet other doctrinal details contradict such an interpretation, so I suppose its somewhere on the edge.

Also, if you have a faith part of which tells you not to question or evaluate it or consider other opinions or evidence, hostility towards people who think differently is but a question of time.

Again, there is no support for this in any Abrahamic scripture I've ever read. Period. While each text says it is the truth-with-a-capital-T, each also has numerous examples of how and why this Truth can and should be tested.

I'm not familiar enough with the Quran to agree here, but I know the Bible has some contradictory views on this. In the old testament there were a few occasions where God was tested, like in Judges and in first and second Kings. In Deuteronomy 6:16 however it said that one must not tempt the Lord and the same it said in Matthew 4:7 and Luke 4:12. As far as I know the Islamic doctrine though, it says that Mohammad is the last of the prophets ever to come and that the Quran is the final revelation, the last word that must never again be changed, revised or reinterpreted. So basically its literal sense is pretty much the only legitimate way to understand it and there is no way of questioning it. It may be that this doctrine is derived from some Hadith, so I won't go any deeper than this.

Oh, and the moderates, who are only covering the extremists by saying that not all people of their faith are like this and therefore one cannot or even must not blame the faith, aren't big of a help in the issue.

Then why are you calling for them in the first paragraph?

Touché, friend. The problem, as said, is that those who do speak up don't do a lot to speak up loudly and usually are saying just this: That not all are like the extremists and that the problem lies not within the faith. Which is wrong of course, because if it weren't for the faith, most of the atrocities it commands people wouldn't have even thought of performing. Besides, the least who say that the extremists are misinterpreting scripture actually have an answer, let alone a satisfactory one, when you point out that they aren't.

@Rai: Are you saying that what others think about your beliefs is irrelevant? Because if one doesn't care about what others think of one's beliefs that sounds above close-minded also like one wouldn't care if one's beliefs were true or not. I assume that's not what you mean, so I don't go into what apparent dangers this bears. Please, clarify, however. In the end, if it weren't for the community and reinforcement of belief rather than scrutiny through others, religion in the only form it ever had would never have emerged.

Here, too, (steamboat and/or Rai) feel free to contact me privately so we do not spam the thread with a discussion that may end up being barely on topic at all.

[quote="Brenna" post=118092
Im struggling to understand this. perhaps im just being dense....

Why? I just cant fathom it.

[/quote]

That's because you're not a fruit cake.

This is just an example of: ignorance, bigotry,and prejudice spawning misdirected hate.

He thinks he's making a statement...well you can burn what you want and say what you want in Americe.

Gisteron wrote: Ooh, a challenge!

Luke 19:26-27, KJ21 wrote: For I say unto you, that unto every one that hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away from him. But those mine enemies, who would not that I should reign over them, bring them hither and slay them before me.

Nice try. If you'll take a look at the context of that verse, you'll see that it is not a "direct order to kill," but a statement that compared to what awaits those who feel this way, death is the preferable option. It is a statement of comparison, akin to "I'm better off dead."

I'm not familiar enough with the Quran to agree here, but I know the Bible has some contradictory views on this. In the old testament there were a few occasions where God was tested, like in Judges and in first and second Kings. In Deuteronomy 6:16 however it said that one must not tempt the Lord and the same it said in Matthew 4:7 and Luke 4:12. As far as I know the Islamic doctrine though, it says that Mohammad is the last of the prophets ever to come and that the Quran is the final revelation, the last word that must never again be changed, revised or reinterpreted. So basically its literal sense is pretty much the only legitimate way to understand it and there is no way of questioning it. It may be that this doctrine is derived from some Hadith, so I won't go any deeper than this.

The verses in Matthew and Luke are directly parroting the verse in Deuteronomy for the specific purpose of rebuking Satan in the desert. The verse in Deuteronomy, by the way, is God taking a parent's tone when saying "Don't try me." It is a promise made in context:

Deuteronomy 6:14-16 wrote: Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you;

15 (For the Lord thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the Lord thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.

16 Ye shall not tempt the Lord your God, as ye tempted him in Massah.

Here, the God of Abraham is citing a specific instance, and telling Israel not to test Him on this command. Scripture must be taken in context in order to be properly interpreted.

those who do speak up...usually are saying just this: That not all are like the extremists and that the problem lies not within the faith. Which is wrong of course...

The issue isn't with the faith, it's with the adherents thereof. Usually, this is caused by non-scriptural doctrine, which usually results from (quelle surprise) taking scripture out of context. These doctrines then become "fact" to those who refuse to learn on their own, are parroted to the acolytes, and become firm in their falsehood, yet supported like gospel. That's the problem with religion: people are stupid. It has nothing to do with the religion itself being bad.

Here, too, (steamboat and/or Rai) feel free to contact me privately so we do not spam the thread with a discussion that may end up being barely on topic at all.

I'm all for this, but you said these statements publicly, so I will refute them publicly. Unlike many of the other folks you may or may not have discussed this with before, I do take matters of faith personally, because I am my faith, and my faith is me. Do not take me for an easy mark, do not refer to me or my arguments as a "challenge", and do not misinterpret my holy book in public if you do not wish to see me answer in public.