Karen Armstrong’s books about different religions, including her highly acclaimed “A History of God,” have made her one of the most prominent authors on religious history. The London-based “On Faith” panelist also is the author of three television documentaries and took part in Bill Moyers’ television series “Genesis.” Since September 11, 2001, she has been a frequent contributor to conferences, panels, newspapers, periodicals and broadcast media on the subject of Islam. Comparative theology is a particular interest of the author, who entered a Roman Catholic convent in 1962 at age 17, but after seven years as a nun left her order to pursue English literature at Oxford University. Her books, which have been translated into 40 languages, also include “Through the Narrow Gate,” “Islam: A Short History,” “Buddha,” a spiritual memoir, “The Spiral Staircase,” and most recently “The Great Transformation.”
Close.
Karen Armstrong
Prominent author on religious history
Karen Armstrong’s books about different religions, including her highly acclaimed “A History of God,” have made her one of the most prominent authors on religious history. The London-based “On Faith” panelist also is the author of three television documentaries and took part in Bill Moyers’ television series “Genesis.”
more »
From all her 'knowledge' of the Quran Karin Armstrong still doesn't understand that in the Quran the deliberate (!!!) attempt to destroy both Christianity and Judaisme.
Therefore again: Islam/Quran attempted TO DESTROY both Christianity and Judaisme in favour of Islam through wholesale twisted plagerisme of the Holy Scriptures of Judaisme and Christianity, by attacking ALL central Sprituality in Christendom, by denying the Crucifiction of Christ, by degrading, blaspheming Jezus-Christ God/Messias of Christendom by making Him into a 'prophet'(!!!) by MISUSING the angel Gabriel to 'Announce the Beginning of Islam' (whereas this Angel previously 'Announced the Beginning of Christianity').
In the Quran CHRIST is removed from Christianity -hence, according to the Quran Christianity and christians 'no longer exist', backed up by 'Allah' hating christians and threathening them with "eternal damnation" also becáuse they believe in Christ.
Therefore what is Karin Armstrong talking about? Islam is the self-declared enemy of both Christianity and Judaisme, and an insult to both religions - therefore the twain shall, cán never meet - and the blame lies by Islam.
It is about time that Karen Armstrong opens her eyes to the real intentions of Quran/Islam and stops her idealised propaganda for Islam!
I'm with Deb Chatterjee on the issue of "cherry picking" verses. Muslims usually refer to abrogated verses when highlighting such things as "there is no compulsion in religion" just to make Islam seem tolerant. Apologists for Islam are going to have a hard time of it as time goes on. I would hate to be them and have to answer for such lies that they have perpetrated. Their legacy will be infamy.
MIKE- I applaud the gentleness of your posts.
It is also gracious of you not to return evil with evil. I am trying to do the same.
People seem to be very threatened by a moderate and reasonable voice. By the very pacificity of a gentle response- the aggresive intentions of others are revealed. You are not alone in being dogged by right wingers here and i am also considering not visiting this site any longer due to the aggressive hate-mongering i am witnessing.
peace brother
AS JESUS INSISTED,"ONE CANNOT POINT OUT THE SPLINTER IN THEIR BROTHER BROTHERS EYE, WHILE NEGLECTING THE BEAM IN THEIR OWN."
Christians can only help to bring peace to the world, by first confronting their own faults.
The only way forward is to promote the ideal of compassion and loving kindness rather than making inflammatory and exaggerated remarks about another religious tradition, which will simply exacerbate the situation.
KAREN ARMSTRONG'S SEEMINGLY PRESCIENT REMARKS AT THE TOP OF THIS PAGE.
Thanks for attacking me, by assuming I am something less than acceptable in your eyes.
How Christian of you. You could have simply addressed my arguement. It wasn't a feel good arguement. It's premised in peoples' need to control, dominate and attack. And of course you just did that.
Today I'm a "Liberal" which you couldn't possibly know, having never met me.
Tomorrow, you can deny me rights because I don't believe in your faith.
This has happened through history by proponent of all faiths. You really ought to check you personal feelings at the door.
Not feel good kid. Not feel good at all.
Thanks for proving my point.
Please continue to quote verses. You actions speak much, much louder.
MS. ARMSTRONG- I appreciate your scholarship.
I agree that 911 was politically motivated.
It is ironic that Ms. Armstrong's message was an appeal to christians to examine themselves deeply before casting aspersions at others- and yet many of the posts (completely missing her point) have degenerated into reactionary finger pointing and slanderous language.
Getting back on point- this is the best behavior for all people- (pointing the finger of accusation at one's self first).
Thank you for the reminder.
You said,
"Written something like 100 years after the fact, the picture painted in the Gospel of John reflects the people and the times, history and current situation in which the author lived."
I have never heard of the gospel of John being dated that late (130s A.D.), you might want to double check that - but I guess that's somewhat besides the point. It is only an assumption that the portrait reflects the times it was written in. I guess it must in some sense, but that has no bearing on how true and reliable it is.
You said,
"If Jesus had claimed to be the Messiah, it seems odd that the three synoptic gospels written in the decades before John, Matthew, Mark and Luke, would have neglected to mention it."
Try Mark 14:61-62, Matt 26:63-64, and Luke 22:70 for His own claims (and there are more), and Luke 1:31-35 among many other places for the gospel writers' own claims. I cannot imagine a good reason outside of pure bias to think these words are put in Jesus' mouth - after all isn't it what He was crucified for?
You said,
"Nevertheless, millions of Christians have and do believe that Jesus is uniquely divine. That He is the one and only way to relate to God."
I would not call someone a Christian who did not believe those things (assuming by "relate" you mean find acceptance with God).
You said,
"Many Christians don't necessarily believe the central message of Jesus Christ is himself, apart from what he said, did and was. Millions of other Christians know the message of Jesus as the message of Jesus – a path to the divine, to God."
I'm not sure what you're saying here.
You said,
"It seems that your answer to my question about the origins of Christian exclusivism doesn't really address the question. Still, it is clear that you not only express an exclusive view of Christianity, but seem also to embrace exclusivity as an essential core of Christianity: without exclusivity, it's not Christianity. Wow!"
I would definately say that without the exclusivity it's not Christianity. Do you remember what Jesus said about the way, truth, and life? And what the apostles said about the way of salvation in Acts 4:12? To see some kind of salvation outside of Christ, to reject the exclusivity of salvation in Jesus Christ, runs utterly counter to the whole of scripture. It might fit with modern notions of tolerance and acceptance, but I am more concerned that my beliefs conform to scripture. And scripture will not allow anything but Jesus Christ alone, embraced in faith as Savior and Lord, as the only way of salvation.
You said,
"That may be true for your subset of Christians, but it is not for all. There are other views, other realities."
Other realities? I must admit I have no idea what that means. I am aware of other views... but to say that there are other realities strikes me as a denial of objective truth.
Matthew 5:11 ¶ Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
Jesus is Lord !
You're right that the Crusades were a millennium ago. But I think it's pointless to compare religions to see which has the best or worst history.
Instead, I think it's important to acknowledge that Christianity has violence in its history just like any other religion. Both Christians and Muslims have found justification in their holy books for murdering unbelievers. And this is recent history for Christianity as well as for Islam. The pogroms against Jews continued in parts of Europe into the early 20th century. The Holocaust was perpetrated by maniacs who considered themselves defenders of Christianity. That fact that those men were delusional is beside the point.
Christians of today are absolutely right in condemning the violence committed in the name of Islam. But they shouldn't pretend that their fellow believers are above committing similar atrocities. All dogma is capable of leading to bloodshed, simply because dogma is about requiring people to accept or reject certain beliefs "because we say so."
JUST A CORRECTION. Historical fact; The crusades were conducted by Western Christians. Eastern Christians fought to defend their territory from invading Muslim hordes, but did not join the effort to roust them from the Holy Land. For periods of time, the Eastern Christians were tolerated by the invading occupation, and co-existed. They were persecuted by the Ottomans in later years when they tired to revolt and millions were killed, but the worst Crudase was conducted by Western Christains against their Eastern borthers when they sacked Constantinople in 1204 and raped it ifor 50 years, building Venice from its spoils, and weakening the Byzantine Empire for good, which left it defenseless against future Muslim invasions.
Pope John Paul II recently apologized for that act and the Ecumennical Patriarch of Constantiople asked for the return of two fo the relics taken in that seige, the bones of two former Pattriarchs of Constnainople, Saint Gregory and St. John Chrysostom, both of which were venerated in the joint liturgy clebrated by Pope Bendict and Patriarch Bartholomew last week in Constantinople, where Orthodox Christians, keepers of the orignial Christian docntirnes, continue to be opressed by the Turks to this day.
The argument that Christianity still holds responsibility as much as Islam is so old and tired. The crusades happed 1,000 years ago, and the idea of conversion by force has long been discredited by Christian leaders and scholars.
Where are the Muslim leaders today discrediting and criticizing Jihad?
Today, we don't see Christians driving car bombs into busy marketplaces, or Christian suicide bombers setting off explosions during wedding receptions and killing innocent women and children.
The Christian faith created great universities, the hospital system, orphanages, and more. It's a bit of a stretch to think that the faith that drove Mother Theresa is similar in any way to the faith that drove the 9/11 terrorists.
We need to face reality here, and understand real evil for what it is, and it isn't the Christian faith.
hehe...what an awkward state this is for some, being a human...... I hope that your god's allow us to exist until science perfects gene therapy to help you deal with your ( real and understandable ) perceptions of helplessness, fear of death, lack of meaning etc....until then I guess arguing about what some guy or other said hundreds of years before we were around will have to suffice.
Daniel Hoffman: November 30, 2006 5:36 PM. In response to my contribution of November 30, 2006 1:39 AM
Dear Daniel Hoffman:
Thanks for your thoughtful response to my question/comment, I appreciate this opportunity we have been given, and you appear to have thought about these things for some time.
You began with a quote from my contribution:
"QUOTE"I, for one, would like to know more about how the Christian church came to behave in ways that seem so obviously counter to the teachings of Jesus, as exemplified by the Golden Rule. What are the origins of Christian exclusivism, intolerance, extremism, and violence that have stained the legacy of Jesus, the 'Prince of Peace' over the centuries, and why have they persisted?"QUOTE"
Your reply begins:
DH "It might help to understand that the central teaching of Jesus was not the Golden Rule. The sum and substance of the law is to love God with all one's heart, soul, mind and strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself. Our failure to honor the law is what Jesus came to deal with, by obeying it Himself and then dying in the place of sinners who would not and could not obey the law of God, to restore us to God. His message was that He Himself was the Savior (and only Savior) of man, and that salvation was now being obtained for all who would receive Him."
I may be mistaken, of course, but I don't know that we can definitively know that Jesus himself claimed to be the Messiah, the Savior of man, Son of God. The Truth of that proposition, however, is Known, and very passionately so by lots of people. Some know it to be True, others know it to be False, and others don't know or care. Dialog between the two passionate camps is not easy. Add to the conversation those holding to infinite shades of gray in between, and yet others sideways to it all, mutual understanding becomes a real challenge.
The Gospel of John is clear. Jesus says
I am the bread of life... 6:35);
I am the light of the world. (8:12),
I existed before there was an Abraham (8:58);
I am the good shepherd... (10:11);
I am resurrection and life... (11:25).
I am the way, and I am the truth, and I am life. (14:6), and,
I am the authentic vine (15:1)
These statements and others paint a picture, where, to use the words of the Jesus Seminar …"the reader is being confronted with the language of the evangelist and not the language of Jesus." (The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus, page, 419).
Written something like 100 years after the fact, the picture painted in the Gospel of John reflects the people and the times, history and current situation in which the author lived. If Jesus had claimed to be the Messiah, it seems odd that the three synoptic gospels written in the decades before John, Matthew, Mark and Luke, would have neglected to mention it. Neither did the Gospel of Thomas, which dates from something like 20 – 50 years before John. Although scraps of it were known, the whole text was found in a buried clay pot near Nag Hammadi, Eqypt in 1945. Nevertheless, millions of Christians have and do believe that Jesus is uniquely divine. That He is the one and only way to relate to God. He IS the message.
Many Christians don't necessarily believe the central message of Jesus Christ is himself, apart from what he said, did and was. Millions of other Christians know the message of Jesus as the message of Jesus – a path to the divine, to God.
DH: "The highest virtue is love, but it must be a love centered in the God of the Bible, exemplified by Christ, and worked in us by the Holy Spirit.
Christianity is exclusive. Without the exclusivity Christianity ceases to be Christianity. In all this inter-faith dialogue what is usually missing is the person of Christ as He is actually set out in scripture. He is inclusive in that NONE who come to Him will be cast out, but exclusive in the sense that everyone will be cast out who DOES NOT come to HIM."
It seems that your answer to my question about the origins of Christian exclusivism doesn't really address the question. Still, it is clear that you not only express an exclusive view of Christianity, but seem also to embrace exclusivity as an essential core of Christianity: without exclusivity, it's not Christianity. Wow! That may be true for your subset of Christians, but it is not for all. There are other views, other realities. Indeed, I think the point of view you express reflects the 'monopoly on truth' perspective that is in the first question asked by Meacham and Quinn.
DH: "Now to get the original question, it seems to me that much of the trouble centers in a confusion of the Kingdom of God with the Kingdom of Man. When Jesus was on trial before Pilate, He made the statement that His kingdom was not of this world, and that if it was His servants would be fighting. What the Crusaders did (and others before and since) was fight for Him as if His Kingdom were earthly. Earthly violence was the result. But the fact that the Kingdom of God is spiritual allows us to live alongside Muslims and Hindus in this world and to respect them as people and not threaten them physically or fight against them physically, but at the same time utterly reject their beliefs and warn them in love about the consequences of rejecting Christ."
Yes, but, where the rubber hits the earthly road is what some people do to other people, in the name of God. Real acts, with real consequences, echo through the ages. They happened in the past, they are happening now. Christian exclusivism, intolerance, extremism, and violence have over the centuries stained the legacy of Jesus, the 'Prince of Peace'. But Islam is not without its exclusive, intolerant, and extremely violent adherents. While Christians launched the Crusades a thousand years ago, Islamic violence is at a peak now. Not good, either one.
And, I hope we would all know, as my parents taught me, two wrongs do not make a right. (But, as my son once responded, "No, but three lefts do.")
DH: "I abhor a lot of the Muslim teaching I am familiar with, but that does not make me want to go to Arabia and start killing people, it makes me burdened for their souls and desire the gospel to reach them so that they can be saved. This doesn't mean Christians should be pacifists, it means that when it comes to spiritual matters swords and guns will accomplish nothing."
I glad, and I agree! When it comes to matters spiritual, swords and guns accomplish nothing, nothing positive, at least.
DH: "Anyways that's a partial answer, there really is more to it."
I should say so, and again, thanks for your thoughts.
Well, all Muslims en masse are not evil/bad. But, there is a problem that "moderate" Muslims are not willing to recognize. For example, the Quran contains in each of its surah that calls for genocide, or in the least commands the observant faithful (Muslim) to bear hatred for others who will not accept Islam. If you ask a moderate Muslim, he/she will be upset with you stating that you are quoting out of context, or worse that you are racist. If you ask them why moderate Muslims are not rejecting the portions of Quran that cal for such hatred and violence, there is no answer. The issue is that liberals (such as Karen Armstrong) have arbitrarily assigned equality of all religions and hence Islam gets equal status with other religions. However, ask the moderate Muslim to convince you to that Islam is a peaceful religion, then s/he will backtrack and ultimately label you as a racist bigot, without being able to convince you that you are incorrect.
To prove my point, I am "cherry-picking" special verses from the Holy Quran:
(005:051)"O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust."
And again:
(005:057)" O ye who believe! take not for friends and protectors those who take your religion for a mockery or sport,- whether among those who received the Scripture before you, or among those who reject Faith; but fear ye Allah, if ye have faith (indeed)."
Well, these two verses clearly state that Muslims must not take any friends from other religions. If we have observant Muslims, then according to their religious text, they are compelled to hate people from other religions (Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus).
So, given the existing status quo: Islam vs. non-Islam how can there be a compromise and harmony ?
Karen you neglected to mention that the Crusades were a reaction to islamic imperialism. Also, jews were subjugated by muslims and forced to pay high taxes in order to continue practicing their religion.
Another look at the facts: “Mohammadism was born by the sword in 624-628 AD when Mohammed slaughtered Meccans, Jewish tribes and Merchant traders. After his death, beginning in the 8th century Mohammadens began persecution of all Christians and Jews they could get their hands on. Most were killed or forced to flee Syria, Eygpt and Palestine. Through the centuries, the muslims advanced into asia minor and to Istanbul.”
I also agree with Dave’s comments posted December 1, 2006 9:58 AM
Christians follow Jesus who said turn the other cheek and lived that way all the way to the cross. That same spirit which crucified Jesus the truth teller is very much alive on this, On Faith Forum. Muhammad's actions and words have been shown to be clearly violent but no one cares to listen.
A Tree and Its Fruit
"For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit, for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thornbushes, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks" (6:46-49.
They choose not to see the truth so clearly laid before them. Relativism is going to be our destruction. We have lost all sound judgment in this country and if we do not wake up soon it will be too late.
Your feel-good arguments are representative of the liberal counterculture that is weakening the Western (and US) society.
Accepting (your assertion) that Muslims do not believe in those "cherry picked" Quranic verses, I would thus find it very hard to explian why in the recent times (most prominently since 1970s) we see that violence caused is mostly due to Muslims or involving Islam ? I am leaving aside the violence associated with Islam in the recent times since 2001. (Islam has bloody borders.)
And, while the Old Testament does contain equally unacceptable lines (as you have quoted), I do not see Jews and Christians practicing them. However practice of the antiquated and orthodox Islam is still prevalent in parts of the world today - Pakistan, Saudi Arabia - where militant Islamic (Wahabi/Salafi) sects still remain vibrant with no sign of diminihing their influence in all spheres of life. Consider the recent resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
This shows the widening gulf of difference between Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
And hopefully you shall come to agree with the facts.
(Exodus 21:7)When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out free, though male slaves may. (Glad I have the right body parts)
(Exodus 35:2)Any person who works on the Sabbath shall be put to death (Would that be Saturday, Sunday or both?)
The idea of using handpicked verses to bolster an argument is rather like looking at the universe and choosing to see only the Earth: shortsighted and pointless.
Don’t you get it? It’s what we do, not what a book says that reflects on EVERY religion.
If you have an opinion use facts to support it not scribbles. Not all Muslims believe the things you cherry picked as not all Christians think it's peachy to kill someone for working on the Sabbath.
God gave you free will. And look to how you exercise it.
As for the little AP posting on the killings, I can only say to you, imagine the news stories that came from the Middle East during the Crusades. Both sides did horrible things in the name of their "exclusive" God.
This leads to one conclusion: neither group as an organized body, represents God. Both simply take liberties in His name. The fact is that organized religion, Christian or Muslim or any other does not reflect God; they reflect the egos, fears, and desires of those who dominate them. And that is true whether it is the Pope, an Imam, a Rabbi, or James Dobson.
Also if you have an opinion, why not put your real name down? Are you that afraid of the weakness of your own arguments?
Following in the footsteps of Qur'an I'd like to add the translations (by Abdullah Yusuf Ali) of the following lines:
(004:095)"Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,- "
(This verse apparently justifies suicide bombers to do what mayhem they cause in the name of Islam.)
(005:033)"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;"
(This verse states what happens if anyone criticizes Islam. Poor Theodore van Gogh did not know it.)
(009:029)"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
(Well, that's the objective of Islam. Plain and Simple and Unambiguous.)
(047:004)"Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost."
(Sounds familiar to the message in Quran(009:005) ???)
And Islam is a religion of peace and compassion ? Can someone please fax this to Pope Benedict who is visiting Turkey ?
An unprovoked attack during a midnight worship service. By Maria Mackay for Christian Today, with thanks to Twostellas:
The US-based human rights group International Christian Concern (ICC) has learned a mob of 300 Muslims killed six Christians in early October while 15 others were left seriously wounded by the attack during a midnight worship service in Beshasha, a town located in the Agaro province in Ethiopia.
On 14 October, a group of three hundred Muslims, carrying guns and knives approached the church where the Orthodox Christians were holding a midnight worship service. When the locked doors prevented the mob from entering the church they forced the congregation out of the church by pouring gasoline around the building.
The men of the church came out first and attempted to defend the men and women but because they had no real weapons in comparison to the guns and knives used against them they were attacked by the mob.
Fifteen individuals from the church suffered severe knife wounds and six people died as a result - two priests, two elderly women, and two men.
Two weeks later, the Ethiopian media announced that the police had arrested the leader of the massacre. But ICC warns that the violence against Christians continues to increase steadily despite the arrest.
Koranic Verses in Referring to Judaism and Christianity
5:72 They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah (himself) said: O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evil-doers there will be no helpers.
5:73 They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is no God save the One God. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve.
5:74 Will they not rather turn unto Allah and seek forgiveness of Him ? For Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
5:75 The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) had passed away before him. And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat (earthly) food. See how We make the revelations clear for them, and see how they are turned away!
9:5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
9:30 And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!
9:31 They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only One God. There is no God save Him. Be He Glorified from all that they ascribe as partner (unto Him)!
9:32 Fain would they put out the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah disdaineth (aught) save that He shall perfect His light, however much the disbelievers are averse.
9:33 He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the idolaters may be averse.
I am actually Catholic, at least raised so. I freely acknowledge the many disreputable and horrible things the RC church did. And though you may not believe me, I don’t count Protestants in that mess. However, the Reformation didn't give any special graces to those who decided to leave the fold.
I won't brand Protestants with the same sword, but remember that their various sects found their way to burn women at the stake (Puritans), find Biblical acceptance for people to hold slaves in the American south and sit silently as in Hitler’s Germany as millions died simply because of their faith. This last one, by the way, was a joint effort of Catholics and Lutherans who looked the other way. But my responses were not an attempt to pin blame on Protestants
My point is simple. People make up "organized religions." People are corruptible and to hold one person's strain of faith up as untainted or irreproachable by the acts of its adherents is folly. Last I heard there is no perfection on this little planet.
All religions have made errors. Some small; some large. Some inconsequential; some devastating. All religions have done things of great value and worth.
But no organized religion can look another other in the eye and say of its time on earth: “You are worse than I because I didn’t harm as many people, or I have done nothing wrong”
Finally, I do know people of great kindness both of faith and not. I have always believed that the greatest good comes from individuals reaching out to other individuals.
"Forgiveness means giving up all hope for a better past." --- Lily Tomlin
I am so tired of hearing why the conduct of people living in midevil times is an excuse for modern-day behaviour, especially religion bashing. Get real!
Most pre-Reformation Christians could not read anything, much less the Bible. Nor could most Muslims from that same time read the Koran for themselves. For the common man, the God said whatever the people in authority said He said. Faith back then was two-stage: first a faith in God and secondly a faith that the religious elite actually taught the Truth of their respective religions.
The reason peace is next to impossible in the middle east is that almost everyone sees today throught the prism of the past - a historical prism not a religious one.
The other thing that is wrong but largely ignored in these blogs is that a lot of people use religion as a rallying point without really caring whether God would really endourse their actions. Think about it. If I buy a Billy Graham t-shirt and wear it while robbing a convenience store, does that mean that Billy Graham endorses robbery? Of course not.
Then you get to the really hard-core anti-religious. They say, 'We should abolish all religions because of the wars that have been fought because of religion'. What utter drivel. More wars have been fought because of government than religion. The Mexican-American War was a territorial land grab. People from the same congregations fought on opposite sides of the American Civil War. During the Spanish-American War, was our intent to fight the Catholics? What religion were we fighting for or against in World War I. Hitler = religious? Give me a break.
If you believe religions should be abolished because of the violence of some of their supposed followers, then either governments should be abolished first (for that very reason) or you are a hypocrite.
"QUOTE"If you look at this passage, God is speaking with Noah and makes reference to Cain and Abel at the end of this passage [. . . ] That doesn't sound like God granting permission for violence to me."QUOTE"
Well, two things to keep in mind: 1) The word to Noah that I quoted is explicit, if anyone sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed.
2) It is not good interpretation to let one specific instance (in which God gave particular direction accompanied by a "mark") overrule the general principle that God later lays down to Noah. Cain was a specific case that God dealt with directly, it is not our general rule for dealing with crime.
"QUOTE"As for the Romans passage, I see why you chose that to explain your view, but again I don't see the ok for violence."QUOTE"
Use of the sword is "not in vain", and he is God's messenger to "execute vengeance"... that doesn't sound like warrant for violence in some cases?
Hus, Tyndale and others succeeded in ultimately placing the 66 book Bible into the hands of "ploughmen" who could read English in England and the New World. I borrowed their names hoping that some readers would make an encyclopedia or Google query and learn that a non-Protestant church made a raft of Bible translaters die miserable deaths in the name of church authority.
And as for lumping "all Christians" as opting for the sword, I can only refer you to the Quakers and 7th Day Adventists - like Desmond Doss - who won the Congressional Medal of Honor during WWII for heroism under fire while discharging their duties as medics/conscientious objectors.
I believe that Jesus would not take a life under any condition (to acknowledge the Commandment that is interpreted by some to read "Thou shalt not kill" and by others to read "Thou shalt not murder") Anyone wishing to trifle with Him about that would probably be told not to strain at gnats, or to reach for the plank.
Lay down one's life for his brother
Turn the other cheek
What is it about Christ's teachings that Christians (little-Christs) don't understand?
And if you're going to reach for the hot brand, please don't brand a Protestant with the brand reserved for Catholics and Byzantine Orthodox, Eastern Church people.
Mercy was displayed by the Sultan whose forces entered Constantinople in 1453 and he spared some Christians who fought valiantly, giving them their freedom as the city was sacked.
As apologies were offered to Islam during the previous twenty years (for things occurring between the 10th and 16th centuries) by men in Italy - they were not speaking for me, the Protestant Christian. I am hoping that distinctions can be made by the readers and when they see names like Hus, Wycliff and Desmond Doss they will understand, after performing research, that there are little Christs out in the world that take their faith very seriously, even unto death, while not picking up the sword but instead a bandage or a pen.
In my view, we miss the point when we compare Jesus and Mohammad and the statements attributed to these men. It's more relevant to talk about the entire Bible (including the Old Testament) and the entire Koran, and whether both books command believers to murder unbelievers. And it's much, much more relevant to discuss the actions taken by Christians and Muslims over the centuries, people who claimed to act in Jesus' name or Mohammad's name. I believe the most evil thing in the world is when any dogma, including a "political religion" such as fascism or communism, advocates the death of people who do not subscribe to that dogma.
Sorry I left my last name off. It's Angelini, not anonymous (although that would be a clever last name to have. Now that we've gotten past that.
I see the issue as larger than just the Crusades, regardless of Armstrong's thesis. Since Catholics were the first organized Christian faith, there are tons more examples of how the tenets of a faith can, and often are, manipulated for individual use.
All organized religions are subject to the inherent contradiction of "holy warfare", whether it be in middle-eastern crusades or southern slavery and the ensuing civil war, invasion of the Balkans by Turks, or scapegoating of other Jews using pogroms.
I believe there are as many peace loving Muslims as Christians in the world. I know that the opposite is, sadly, true also.
Gen 9:5-6 "And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.
"Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image."" (ESV)
If you look at this passage, God is speaking with Noah and makes reference to Cain and Abel at the end of this passage. If you look back to Genesis 4:14 (where the footnote leads to) you see that Cain is in fear of being killed by other men for killing his brother Abel - but, it doesn't stop there. God goes on to say 'Not so, if anyone kills Cain," (footnote: or the man) "he will suffer vengeance seven times over. Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him."
That doesn't sound like God granting permission for violence to me.
As for the Romans passage, I see why you chose that to explain your view, but again I don't see the ok for violence. Maybe the problem is that we assume the government as a whole is appointed by God but those 'chosen' don't always act in the ways of their 'God-given' authority. I agree that Jesus taught us to obey man's law unless it goes against God's law. I suppose that may be a fine line to walk at times.
Reading the "religious dialogue" in the posts above certainly gives a better understanding of why George W. Bush has twice (well, maybe once) been elected President by the American people.
After strangling me for translating most of the Bible into English, they also burned me at the stake in 1536.
To Mike/anonymous
Yes, all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God. However, Armstrong in her opening apology for "Christian" misdeeds, only pre-Reformation/Martin Luther example(s) were cited.
All sides should write what they mean and be specific. There were no Protestants carrying flags adorned with the cross marching or riding off under Papel calls to arms.
"When the panelists use the word Christian as they acknowledge the errors of the Catholic and Orthodox crusaders, do you think they could remind the readers that there were no Protestants involved in any of the crusades?"
Acknowledged.
But that by no means that Protestant Christians did not and have not committed acts that were contradictory to the tenets of their faith. They may not have participated in the Crusades, but they certainly allowed slavery in the American south and burnt innocent women at the stake. Remember that Catholics were persona non-grata in the Ante-bellum south. So we all have dirty hands.
No institution governed by humans is infallible and all are subject to human frailty and weakness.
"QUOTE"Thanks for your response. Could you explain where in the Bible God gives the government the right to violent behavior?"QUOTE"
Gen 9:5-6 "And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.
"Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image."" (ESV)
Rom 13:1-7 "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. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed." (ESV)
Luke 3:14 "Soldiers also asked him, "And we, what shall we do?" And he said to them, "Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages."" (ESV) - Note here that John the Baptist makes no condemnation of the profession of ROMAN soldiers. In fact he seems to indicate that it is good for them to be paid.
I hope you are having a good day. I stated above that Christians have not always acted consistently with the words and commands of Jesus. I know some of my posts are long but I do hope that people are reading them. Do not forget all the murder that has been done by atheistically based societies and people like Stalin, Pol Pot, Mau Zedong, Kim Jung Ill, etc. When you reduce people into machines like the atheism does the result is murder.
Hey, the Catholic Christians excommunicated me in 1411 and burned me at the stake, using Wycliffe's translated Bible pages for kindling, following a "trial" at the Council of Constance in 1415.
Whoever was right or wrong, justified or non-justified in the crusades, the fact is that much of the violence in the history of mankind was and is being caused by religious differences. Quick to point the fingers at others, Muslims and Christians alike remain silent regarding the harm their members do to others in the name of their respective "gods". If there is a devil, he uses these differences to inflict the most unimaginable evil on human kind by using the blind, unquestioning religious sheep as pawns. If there is not a devil, it is the egos of the religious leaders that cause the same effect. Quoting to me your scriptures that I don't believe infallable is a waste of you time trying to convert me.
When the panelists use the word Christian as they acknowledge the errors of the Catholic and Orthodox crusaders, do you think they could remind the readers that there were no Protestants involved in any of the crusades?
"QUOTE"I don't see how you distinguish between government and individuals. You say it is ok (dare I say necessary), for the government to take the task of punishing wrongdoing upon itself, even to the point of taking another's life, yet if we called this entity Christianity instead of Government, somehow it would no longer be acceptable to kill?"QUOTE"
The government is an institution ordained by God to keep order in society. It has the authority, given by God to punish evil with physical violence. Of course that can and has been abused in all kinds of ways because the government is made up of sinful humans, but that doesn't change the principle itself. The Christian church is not a civil government and deals with sin by urging repentance and if that doesn't have effect, we excommunicate. But the kinds of sins the church deals with are often different than the kinds of sins the government would deal with. A church can and should condemn wrong belief, for example, but the government's authority can only extend to actions.
PS. I find it interesting that the scholars on this post say their piece but do not interact with the people who respond. Their assertions should be tested.
Christians are to follow Jesus words and example but have not been perfect in their behavior. One also must remember that there are and have been people who are Christian in name only and that Jesus preached very strongly against hypocrisy. That is one of the things that first drew me to Him when I began reading the Gospels.
Muhammad on the other hand began peacefully and interacted with the Jews and Christians but when they did not receive his message he resorted to violence. His followers have been following his example ever since. In Qur’an 9 the repentance chapter Muhammad’s example became the blueprint for Jihad that is used by Muslims to this day. Muhammad had made a covenant with the people of Mecca that he would not kill them but later Muhammad changed his mind and gave them four months to convert to Islam or die. Verse 5 was given to cancel out the covenant he had made. Qur’an 9:5 follows:
“But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful” (Qur’an 9:5).
The Highly regarded Islamic commentary published by the Azhar gave commentary on the verse in 1983 as follows:
"The chapter of Repentance was revealed to raise the level of security which the infidels enjoyed because Muhammad had earlier made a covenant with them not to kill them. After that, this verse was given (9:5) in order to free God and Muhammad from any covenant with the infidels. It gives them four months in which they will be protected, but by the end of the four months (the end of the grace period), the order comes: Kill the infidels wherever you find them. Capture them, besiege them in their castles and fortresses until they are forced to accept Islam or be killed."
The highly respected Ibn Hisham: - Al Sohaily in his book, "al-Rawd al-Anaf" which is the most famous book about Muhammad’s life (part 4, p. 194); we read the following commentary on verse 5:
"When Muhammad conquered Mecca and the Arabs realized that they were not able to wage war against Muhammad, they accepted the Islamic faith. But some of the infidels continued to be as they were. (They used to make pilgrimages also because this practice was in vogue among the people hundreds of years before Muhammad). Then suddenly Muhammad sent someone to announce to the Tribe of Quraysh that no pilgrimage would be allowed for the infidels after that year (9H); none would enter paradise unless he were a Muslim. Muhammad was going to give the infidels a respite for four months, and after that there would not be a covenant except the covenant of the sword and war (lit: piercing and the strike of the sword). After this period, people entered Islam by hook or by crook, and anyone who did not become a Muslim fled the Arabian Peninsula."
So you can see that when Muslims wage Jihad it is for the purpose of Islamic expansion and they are following the example of the “prophet.” Osama Bin Laden followed this example of giving time for repentance before Jihad by calling the USA to turn to Islam before he brought down the world trade center. This may be one of the reasons the president of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called on Americans to convert to Islam. Personally, I believe he is preparing for Jihad.
In conclusion, followers of Jesus have a different blueprint to follow than followers of Muhammad. Jesus was peaceful and turned the other check all the way to the cross. He told Peter to put away his sword and said “those who live by the sword will die by the sword” (Matthew 26:5). So-called Christians who have not and do not follow Jesus’ example are living in direct disobedience to Jesus’ words and example. Muhammad on the other hand took up the sword himself and commanded his follower to do likewise. People all over the Islamic world have followed his example and are following his example and words today.
It is true that some Muslims do not follow Muhammad’s example. In fact, some do not even know about his violent example and do not understand the Qur’an. But the consensus in the Islamic world is mostly in lock step with Muhammad’s words and actions. A person would have to be an ostrich to miss this truth.
I pray that those who are ensnared in Islam would see the truth about Jesus and be set free.
I have read some articles and books by Karen Armstrong. Her reasoning fails me. The central argument seems to be that because Christianity is also guilty of the Crusade and some other aggressions committed hundreds of years ago, we should now understand the violence carried out in the name of Islam. This argument is obviously absurd apart from the fact that two wrongs don't make a right.
It is absurd that Muslims should still be carrying the grudge against Christians for what happened long, long ago. By the same token, I suppose Hindus should be carrying the grudge against the Muslims or the British for attacking and conquering India and for the Japanese against America for the two atomic bombs that destroyed Japan. Is Ms. Armstrong condoning the violence and terrorism perpeptuated by Islamic radicals because she feels that we should understand their mindset within the historical context? Besides being totally absurd, such arguments are dangerous because radicals of all hues may come to believe that it is alright to settle old scores.
All Comments (74)
deeryard piemag ampullaria dacelonine fluviograph wimble chirogale tikur
IMDb: Rocko's Modern Life
http://www.catterline-arts-festival.co.uk/
December 16, 2007 3:51 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 16, 2007 15:51
From all her 'knowledge' of the Quran Karin Armstrong still doesn't understand that in the Quran the deliberate (!!!) attempt to destroy both Christianity and Judaisme.
Therefore again: Islam/Quran attempted TO DESTROY both Christianity and Judaisme in favour of Islam through wholesale twisted plagerisme of the Holy Scriptures of Judaisme and Christianity, by attacking ALL central Sprituality in Christendom, by denying the Crucifiction of Christ, by degrading, blaspheming Jezus-Christ God/Messias of Christendom by making Him into a 'prophet'(!!!) by MISUSING the angel Gabriel to 'Announce the Beginning of Islam' (whereas this Angel previously 'Announced the Beginning of Christianity').
In the Quran CHRIST is removed from Christianity -hence, according to the Quran Christianity and christians 'no longer exist', backed up by 'Allah' hating christians and threathening them with "eternal damnation" also becáuse they believe in Christ.
Therefore what is Karin Armstrong talking about? Islam is the self-declared enemy of both Christianity and Judaisme, and an insult to both religions - therefore the twain shall, cán never meet - and the blame lies by Islam.
It is about time that Karen Armstrong opens her eyes to the real intentions of Quran/Islam and stops her idealised propaganda for Islam!
April 26, 2007 4:02 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 26, 2007 16:02
Faith is God & God is Faith, He came to save the World. It is time you all opened your eyes. God Bless!
March 2, 2007 6:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 2, 2007 18:03
Faith is God & God is Faoith, He csame to save the World. It is time you all opened your eyes. God Bless!
March 2, 2007 6:02 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 2, 2007 18:02
I'm with Deb Chatterjee on the issue of "cherry picking" verses. Muslims usually refer to abrogated verses when highlighting such things as "there is no compulsion in religion" just to make Islam seem tolerant. Apologists for Islam are going to have a hard time of it as time goes on. I would hate to be them and have to answer for such lies that they have perpetrated. Their legacy will be infamy.
February 19, 2007 1:57 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 19, 2007 13:57
Karen Armstrong,
You have made a massive tu quoque argument here. So what if Christians were never blameless? Who is?
Christians commit evil in spite of Jesus Christ but Muslims commit evil because of Muhammad.
I sincerely ask you to re-read the Quran, hadiths and sira to study the life and teachings of Muhammad.
Then compare the man to Jesus. If you have any questions or misunderstandings about how evil Muhammad was you only have to ask.
I will be happy to oblige you.
Salaam,
Ahmed
February 6, 2007 6:23 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 6, 2007 18:23
MIKE- I applaud the gentleness of your posts.
It is also gracious of you not to return evil with evil. I am trying to do the same.
People seem to be very threatened by a moderate and reasonable voice. By the very pacificity of a gentle response- the aggresive intentions of others are revealed. You are not alone in being dogged by right wingers here and i am also considering not visiting this site any longer due to the aggressive hate-mongering i am witnessing.
peace brother
December 5, 2006 11:14 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 5, 2006 23:14
AS JESUS INSISTED,"ONE CANNOT POINT OUT THE SPLINTER IN THEIR BROTHER BROTHERS EYE, WHILE NEGLECTING THE BEAM IN THEIR OWN."
Christians can only help to bring peace to the world, by first confronting their own faults.
The only way forward is to promote the ideal of compassion and loving kindness rather than making inflammatory and exaggerated remarks about another religious tradition, which will simply exacerbate the situation.
KAREN ARMSTRONG'S SEEMINGLY PRESCIENT REMARKS AT THE TOP OF THIS PAGE.
December 5, 2006 10:12 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 5, 2006 10:12
Miss Chatterjee,
Thanks for attacking me, by assuming I am something less than acceptable in your eyes.
How Christian of you. You could have simply addressed my arguement. It wasn't a feel good arguement. It's premised in peoples' need to control, dominate and attack. And of course you just did that.
Today I'm a "Liberal" which you couldn't possibly know, having never met me.
Tomorrow, you can deny me rights because I don't believe in your faith.
This has happened through history by proponent of all faiths. You really ought to check you personal feelings at the door.
Not feel good kid. Not feel good at all.
Thanks for proving my point.
Please continue to quote verses. You actions speak much, much louder.
Goodby.
December 5, 2006 6:14 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 5, 2006 06:14
MS. ARMSTRONG- I appreciate your scholarship.
I agree that 911 was politically motivated.
It is ironic that Ms. Armstrong's message was an appeal to christians to examine themselves deeply before casting aspersions at others- and yet many of the posts (completely missing her point) have degenerated into reactionary finger pointing and slanderous language.
Getting back on point- this is the best behavior for all people- (pointing the finger of accusation at one's self first).
Thank you for the reminder.
December 5, 2006 4:50 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 5, 2006 04:50
Ed,
You said,
"Written something like 100 years after the fact, the picture painted in the Gospel of John reflects the people and the times, history and current situation in which the author lived."
I have never heard of the gospel of John being dated that late (130s A.D.), you might want to double check that - but I guess that's somewhat besides the point. It is only an assumption that the portrait reflects the times it was written in. I guess it must in some sense, but that has no bearing on how true and reliable it is.
You said,
"If Jesus had claimed to be the Messiah, it seems odd that the three synoptic gospels written in the decades before John, Matthew, Mark and Luke, would have neglected to mention it."
Try Mark 14:61-62, Matt 26:63-64, and Luke 22:70 for His own claims (and there are more), and Luke 1:31-35 among many other places for the gospel writers' own claims. I cannot imagine a good reason outside of pure bias to think these words are put in Jesus' mouth - after all isn't it what He was crucified for?
You said,
"Nevertheless, millions of Christians have and do believe that Jesus is uniquely divine. That He is the one and only way to relate to God."
I would not call someone a Christian who did not believe those things (assuming by "relate" you mean find acceptance with God).
You said,
"Many Christians don't necessarily believe the central message of Jesus Christ is himself, apart from what he said, did and was. Millions of other Christians know the message of Jesus as the message of Jesus – a path to the divine, to God."
I'm not sure what you're saying here.
You said,
"It seems that your answer to my question about the origins of Christian exclusivism doesn't really address the question. Still, it is clear that you not only express an exclusive view of Christianity, but seem also to embrace exclusivity as an essential core of Christianity: without exclusivity, it's not Christianity. Wow!"
I would definately say that without the exclusivity it's not Christianity. Do you remember what Jesus said about the way, truth, and life? And what the apostles said about the way of salvation in Acts 4:12? To see some kind of salvation outside of Christ, to reject the exclusivity of salvation in Jesus Christ, runs utterly counter to the whole of scripture. It might fit with modern notions of tolerance and acceptance, but I am more concerned that my beliefs conform to scripture. And scripture will not allow anything but Jesus Christ alone, embraced in faith as Savior and Lord, as the only way of salvation.
You said,
"That may be true for your subset of Christians, but it is not for all. There are other views, other realities."
Other realities? I must admit I have no idea what that means. I am aware of other views... but to say that there are other realities strikes me as a denial of objective truth.
December 4, 2006 8:14 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 4, 2006 20:14
Matthew 5:11 ¶ Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
Jesus is Lord !
December 4, 2006 3:08 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 4, 2006 15:08
Phil Cooke,
You're right that the Crusades were a millennium ago. But I think it's pointless to compare religions to see which has the best or worst history.
Instead, I think it's important to acknowledge that Christianity has violence in its history just like any other religion. Both Christians and Muslims have found justification in their holy books for murdering unbelievers. And this is recent history for Christianity as well as for Islam. The pogroms against Jews continued in parts of Europe into the early 20th century. The Holocaust was perpetrated by maniacs who considered themselves defenders of Christianity. That fact that those men were delusional is beside the point.
Christians of today are absolutely right in condemning the violence committed in the name of Islam. But they shouldn't pretend that their fellow believers are above committing similar atrocities. All dogma is capable of leading to bloodshed, simply because dogma is about requiring people to accept or reject certain beliefs "because we say so."
December 4, 2006 2:54 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 4, 2006 14:54
JUST A CORRECTION. Historical fact; The crusades were conducted by Western Christians. Eastern Christians fought to defend their territory from invading Muslim hordes, but did not join the effort to roust them from the Holy Land. For periods of time, the Eastern Christians were tolerated by the invading occupation, and co-existed. They were persecuted by the Ottomans in later years when they tired to revolt and millions were killed, but the worst Crudase was conducted by Western Christains against their Eastern borthers when they sacked Constantinople in 1204 and raped it ifor 50 years, building Venice from its spoils, and weakening the Byzantine Empire for good, which left it defenseless against future Muslim invasions.
Pope John Paul II recently apologized for that act and the Ecumennical Patriarch of Constantiople asked for the return of two fo the relics taken in that seige, the bones of two former Pattriarchs of Constnainople, Saint Gregory and St. John Chrysostom, both of which were venerated in the joint liturgy clebrated by Pope Bendict and Patriarch Bartholomew last week in Constantinople, where Orthodox Christians, keepers of the orignial Christian docntirnes, continue to be opressed by the Turks to this day.
December 4, 2006 1:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 4, 2006 13:10
The argument that Christianity still holds responsibility as much as Islam is so old and tired. The crusades happed 1,000 years ago, and the idea of conversion by force has long been discredited by Christian leaders and scholars.
Where are the Muslim leaders today discrediting and criticizing Jihad?
Today, we don't see Christians driving car bombs into busy marketplaces, or Christian suicide bombers setting off explosions during wedding receptions and killing innocent women and children.
The Christian faith created great universities, the hospital system, orphanages, and more. It's a bit of a stretch to think that the faith that drove Mother Theresa is similar in any way to the faith that drove the 9/11 terrorists.
We need to face reality here, and understand real evil for what it is, and it isn't the Christian faith.
December 4, 2006 1:11 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 4, 2006 01:11
hehe...what an awkward state this is for some, being a human...... I hope that your god's allow us to exist until science perfects gene therapy to help you deal with your ( real and understandable ) perceptions of helplessness, fear of death, lack of meaning etc....until then I guess arguing about what some guy or other said hundreds of years before we were around will have to suffice.
December 3, 2006 10:35 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 3, 2006 22:35
Daniel Hoffman: November 30, 2006 5:36 PM. In response to my contribution of November 30, 2006 1:39 AM
Dear Daniel Hoffman:
Thanks for your thoughtful response to my question/comment, I appreciate this opportunity we have been given, and you appear to have thought about these things for some time.
You began with a quote from my contribution:
"QUOTE"I, for one, would like to know more about how the Christian church came to behave in ways that seem so obviously counter to the teachings of Jesus, as exemplified by the Golden Rule. What are the origins of Christian exclusivism, intolerance, extremism, and violence that have stained the legacy of Jesus, the 'Prince of Peace' over the centuries, and why have they persisted?"QUOTE"
Your reply begins:
DH "It might help to understand that the central teaching of Jesus was not the Golden Rule. The sum and substance of the law is to love God with all one's heart, soul, mind and strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself. Our failure to honor the law is what Jesus came to deal with, by obeying it Himself and then dying in the place of sinners who would not and could not obey the law of God, to restore us to God. His message was that He Himself was the Savior (and only Savior) of man, and that salvation was now being obtained for all who would receive Him."
I may be mistaken, of course, but I don't know that we can definitively know that Jesus himself claimed to be the Messiah, the Savior of man, Son of God. The Truth of that proposition, however, is Known, and very passionately so by lots of people. Some know it to be True, others know it to be False, and others don't know or care. Dialog between the two passionate camps is not easy. Add to the conversation those holding to infinite shades of gray in between, and yet others sideways to it all, mutual understanding becomes a real challenge.
The Gospel of John is clear. Jesus says
I am the bread of life... 6:35);
I am the light of the world. (8:12),
I existed before there was an Abraham (8:58);
I am the good shepherd... (10:11);
I am resurrection and life... (11:25).
I am the way, and I am the truth, and I am life. (14:6), and,
I am the authentic vine (15:1)
These statements and others paint a picture, where, to use the words of the Jesus Seminar …"the reader is being confronted with the language of the evangelist and not the language of Jesus." (The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus, page, 419).
Written something like 100 years after the fact, the picture painted in the Gospel of John reflects the people and the times, history and current situation in which the author lived. If Jesus had claimed to be the Messiah, it seems odd that the three synoptic gospels written in the decades before John, Matthew, Mark and Luke, would have neglected to mention it. Neither did the Gospel of Thomas, which dates from something like 20 – 50 years before John. Although scraps of it were known, the whole text was found in a buried clay pot near Nag Hammadi, Eqypt in 1945. Nevertheless, millions of Christians have and do believe that Jesus is uniquely divine. That He is the one and only way to relate to God. He IS the message.
Many Christians don't necessarily believe the central message of Jesus Christ is himself, apart from what he said, did and was. Millions of other Christians know the message of Jesus as the message of Jesus – a path to the divine, to God.
DH: "The highest virtue is love, but it must be a love centered in the God of the Bible, exemplified by Christ, and worked in us by the Holy Spirit.
Christianity is exclusive. Without the exclusivity Christianity ceases to be Christianity. In all this inter-faith dialogue what is usually missing is the person of Christ as He is actually set out in scripture. He is inclusive in that NONE who come to Him will be cast out, but exclusive in the sense that everyone will be cast out who DOES NOT come to HIM."
It seems that your answer to my question about the origins of Christian exclusivism doesn't really address the question. Still, it is clear that you not only express an exclusive view of Christianity, but seem also to embrace exclusivity as an essential core of Christianity: without exclusivity, it's not Christianity. Wow! That may be true for your subset of Christians, but it is not for all. There are other views, other realities. Indeed, I think the point of view you express reflects the 'monopoly on truth' perspective that is in the first question asked by Meacham and Quinn.
DH: "Now to get the original question, it seems to me that much of the trouble centers in a confusion of the Kingdom of God with the Kingdom of Man. When Jesus was on trial before Pilate, He made the statement that His kingdom was not of this world, and that if it was His servants would be fighting. What the Crusaders did (and others before and since) was fight for Him as if His Kingdom were earthly. Earthly violence was the result. But the fact that the Kingdom of God is spiritual allows us to live alongside Muslims and Hindus in this world and to respect them as people and not threaten them physically or fight against them physically, but at the same time utterly reject their beliefs and warn them in love about the consequences of rejecting Christ."
Yes, but, where the rubber hits the earthly road is what some people do to other people, in the name of God. Real acts, with real consequences, echo through the ages. They happened in the past, they are happening now. Christian exclusivism, intolerance, extremism, and violence have over the centuries stained the legacy of Jesus, the 'Prince of Peace'. But Islam is not without its exclusive, intolerant, and extremely violent adherents. While Christians launched the Crusades a thousand years ago, Islamic violence is at a peak now. Not good, either one.
And, I hope we would all know, as my parents taught me, two wrongs do not make a right. (But, as my son once responded, "No, but three lefts do.")
DH: "I abhor a lot of the Muslim teaching I am familiar with, but that does not make me want to go to Arabia and start killing people, it makes me burdened for their souls and desire the gospel to reach them so that they can be saved. This doesn't mean Christians should be pacifists, it means that when it comes to spiritual matters swords and guns will accomplish nothing."
I glad, and I agree! When it comes to matters spiritual, swords and guns accomplish nothing, nothing positive, at least.
DH: "Anyways that's a partial answer, there really is more to it."
I should say so, and again, thanks for your thoughts.
December 3, 2006 3:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 3, 2006 15:43
Well, all Muslims en masse are not evil/bad. But, there is a problem that "moderate" Muslims are not willing to recognize. For example, the Quran contains in each of its surah that calls for genocide, or in the least commands the observant faithful (Muslim) to bear hatred for others who will not accept Islam. If you ask a moderate Muslim, he/she will be upset with you stating that you are quoting out of context, or worse that you are racist. If you ask them why moderate Muslims are not rejecting the portions of Quran that cal for such hatred and violence, there is no answer. The issue is that liberals (such as Karen Armstrong) have arbitrarily assigned equality of all religions and hence Islam gets equal status with other religions. However, ask the moderate Muslim to convince you to that Islam is a peaceful religion, then s/he will backtrack and ultimately label you as a racist bigot, without being able to convince you that you are incorrect.
To prove my point, I am "cherry-picking" special verses from the Holy Quran:
(005:051)"O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust."
And again:
(005:057)" O ye who believe! take not for friends and protectors those who take your religion for a mockery or sport,- whether among those who received the Scripture before you, or among those who reject Faith; but fear ye Allah, if ye have faith (indeed)."
Well, these two verses clearly state that Muslims must not take any friends from other religions. If we have observant Muslims, then according to their religious text, they are compelled to hate people from other religions (Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus).
So, given the existing status quo: Islam vs. non-Islam how can there be a compromise and harmony ?
Are we all happy with this ?
December 2, 2006 10:46 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 2, 2006 22:46
Karen you neglected to mention that the Crusades were a reaction to islamic imperialism. Also, jews were subjugated by muslims and forced to pay high taxes in order to continue practicing their religion.
Another look at the facts: “Mohammadism was born by the sword in 624-628 AD when Mohammed slaughtered Meccans, Jewish tribes and Merchant traders. After his death, beginning in the 8th century Mohammadens began persecution of all Christians and Jews they could get their hands on. Most were killed or forced to flee Syria, Eygpt and Palestine. Through the centuries, the muslims advanced into asia minor and to Istanbul.”
I also agree with Dave’s comments posted December 1, 2006 9:58 AM
December 2, 2006 9:26 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 2, 2006 21:26
Dear Friends,
Christians follow Jesus who said turn the other cheek and lived that way all the way to the cross. That same spirit which crucified Jesus the truth teller is very much alive on this, On Faith Forum. Muhammad's actions and words have been shown to be clearly violent but no one cares to listen.
A Tree and Its Fruit
"For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit, for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thornbushes, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks" (6:46-49.
In Jesus Loving Arms,
Alethia
December 2, 2006 9:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 2, 2006 21:19
Deb:
They choose not to see the truth so clearly laid before them. Relativism is going to be our destruction. We have lost all sound judgment in this country and if we do not wake up soon it will be too late.
Concerned for the Future of the USA
December 2, 2006 9:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 2, 2006 21:07
To Mike Angelini:
Your feel-good arguments are representative of the liberal counterculture that is weakening the Western (and US) society.
Accepting (your assertion) that Muslims do not believe in those "cherry picked" Quranic verses, I would thus find it very hard to explian why in the recent times (most prominently since 1970s) we see that violence caused is mostly due to Muslims or involving Islam ? I am leaving aside the violence associated with Islam in the recent times since 2001. (Islam has bloody borders.)
And, while the Old Testament does contain equally unacceptable lines (as you have quoted), I do not see Jews and Christians practicing them. However practice of the antiquated and orthodox Islam is still prevalent in parts of the world today - Pakistan, Saudi Arabia - where militant Islamic (Wahabi/Salafi) sects still remain vibrant with no sign of diminihing their influence in all spheres of life. Consider the recent resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
This shows the widening gulf of difference between Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
And hopefully you shall come to agree with the facts.
December 2, 2006 6:01 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 2, 2006 18:01
Cherry Picking and Random Newsreels
Let's play my verses vs. your verses, shall we?
(Exodus 21:7)When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out free, though male slaves may. (Glad I have the right body parts)
(Exodus 35:2)Any person who works on the Sabbath shall be put to death (Would that be Saturday, Sunday or both?)
The idea of using handpicked verses to bolster an argument is rather like looking at the universe and choosing to see only the Earth: shortsighted and pointless.
Don’t you get it? It’s what we do, not what a book says that reflects on EVERY religion.
If you have an opinion use facts to support it not scribbles. Not all Muslims believe the things you cherry picked as not all Christians think it's peachy to kill someone for working on the Sabbath.
God gave you free will. And look to how you exercise it.
As for the little AP posting on the killings, I can only say to you, imagine the news stories that came from the Middle East during the Crusades. Both sides did horrible things in the name of their "exclusive" God.
This leads to one conclusion: neither group as an organized body, represents God. Both simply take liberties in His name. The fact is that organized religion, Christian or Muslim or any other does not reflect God; they reflect the egos, fears, and desires of those who dominate them. And that is true whether it is the Pope, an Imam, a Rabbi, or James Dobson.
Also if you have an opinion, why not put your real name down? Are you that afraid of the weakness of your own arguments?
Mike
December 2, 2006 3:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 2, 2006 15:55
Following in the footsteps of Qur'an I'd like to add the translations (by Abdullah Yusuf Ali) of the following lines:
(004:095)"Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,- "
(This verse apparently justifies suicide bombers to do what mayhem they cause in the name of Islam.)
(005:033)"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;"
(This verse states what happens if anyone criticizes Islam. Poor Theodore van Gogh did not know it.)
(009:029)"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
(Well, that's the objective of Islam. Plain and Simple and Unambiguous.)
(047:004)"Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost."
(Sounds familiar to the message in Quran(009:005) ???)
And Islam is a religion of peace and compassion ? Can someone please fax this to Pope Benedict who is visiting Turkey ?
December 2, 2006 2:23 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 2, 2006 02:23
Muslim Mob Kills Six Christians In Ethiopia
An unprovoked attack during a midnight worship service. By Maria Mackay for Christian Today, with thanks to Twostellas:
The US-based human rights group International Christian Concern (ICC) has learned a mob of 300 Muslims killed six Christians in early October while 15 others were left seriously wounded by the attack during a midnight worship service in Beshasha, a town located in the Agaro province in Ethiopia.
On 14 October, a group of three hundred Muslims, carrying guns and knives approached the church where the Orthodox Christians were holding a midnight worship service. When the locked doors prevented the mob from entering the church they forced the congregation out of the church by pouring gasoline around the building.
The men of the church came out first and attempted to defend the men and women but because they had no real weapons in comparison to the guns and knives used against them they were attacked by the mob.
Fifteen individuals from the church suffered severe knife wounds and six people died as a result - two priests, two elderly women, and two men.
Two weeks later, the Ethiopian media announced that the police had arrested the leader of the massacre. But ICC warns that the violence against Christians continues to increase steadily despite the arrest.
December 1, 2006 7:58 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 1, 2006 19:58
Koranic Verses in Referring to Judaism and Christianity
5:72 They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah (himself) said: O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evil-doers there will be no helpers.
5:73 They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is no God save the One God. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve.
5:74 Will they not rather turn unto Allah and seek forgiveness of Him ? For Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
5:75 The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) had passed away before him. And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat (earthly) food. See how We make the revelations clear for them, and see how they are turned away!
9:5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
9:30 And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!
9:31 They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only One God. There is no God save Him. Be He Glorified from all that they ascribe as partner (unto Him)!
9:32 Fain would they put out the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah disdaineth (aught) save that He shall perfect His light, however much the disbelievers are averse.
9:33 He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the idolaters may be averse.
December 1, 2006 7:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 1, 2006 19:50
Unmerited,
Hi.
Do you have a real name? :o)
I am actually Catholic, at least raised so. I freely acknowledge the many disreputable and horrible things the RC church did. And though you may not believe me, I don’t count Protestants in that mess. However, the Reformation didn't give any special graces to those who decided to leave the fold.
I won't brand Protestants with the same sword, but remember that their various sects found their way to burn women at the stake (Puritans), find Biblical acceptance for people to hold slaves in the American south and sit silently as in Hitler’s Germany as millions died simply because of their faith. This last one, by the way, was a joint effort of Catholics and Lutherans who looked the other way. But my responses were not an attempt to pin blame on Protestants
My point is simple. People make up "organized religions." People are corruptible and to hold one person's strain of faith up as untainted or irreproachable by the acts of its adherents is folly. Last I heard there is no perfection on this little planet.
All religions have made errors. Some small; some large. Some inconsequential; some devastating. All religions have done things of great value and worth.
But no organized religion can look another other in the eye and say of its time on earth: “You are worse than I because I didn’t harm as many people, or I have done nothing wrong”
Finally, I do know people of great kindness both of faith and not. I have always believed that the greatest good comes from individuals reaching out to other individuals.
I will continue to believe that.
Peace
December 1, 2006 3:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 1, 2006 15:50
SOC7
If you're tired, take a nap.
December 1, 2006 3:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 1, 2006 15:29
"Forgiveness means giving up all hope for a better past." --- Lily Tomlin
I am so tired of hearing why the conduct of people living in midevil times is an excuse for modern-day behaviour, especially religion bashing. Get real!
Most pre-Reformation Christians could not read anything, much less the Bible. Nor could most Muslims from that same time read the Koran for themselves. For the common man, the God said whatever the people in authority said He said. Faith back then was two-stage: first a faith in God and secondly a faith that the religious elite actually taught the Truth of their respective religions.
The reason peace is next to impossible in the middle east is that almost everyone sees today throught the prism of the past - a historical prism not a religious one.
The other thing that is wrong but largely ignored in these blogs is that a lot of people use religion as a rallying point without really caring whether God would really endourse their actions. Think about it. If I buy a Billy Graham t-shirt and wear it while robbing a convenience store, does that mean that Billy Graham endorses robbery? Of course not.
Then you get to the really hard-core anti-religious. They say, 'We should abolish all religions because of the wars that have been fought because of religion'. What utter drivel. More wars have been fought because of government than religion. The Mexican-American War was a territorial land grab. People from the same congregations fought on opposite sides of the American Civil War. During the Spanish-American War, was our intent to fight the Catholics? What religion were we fighting for or against in World War I. Hitler = religious? Give me a break.
If you believe religions should be abolished because of the violence of some of their supposed followers, then either governments should be abolished first (for that very reason) or you are a hypocrite.
December 1, 2006 3:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 1, 2006 15:20
"QUOTE"If you look at this passage, God is speaking with Noah and makes reference to Cain and Abel at the end of this passage [. . . ] That doesn't sound like God granting permission for violence to me."QUOTE"
Well, two things to keep in mind: 1) The word to Noah that I quoted is explicit, if anyone sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed.
2) It is not good interpretation to let one specific instance (in which God gave particular direction accompanied by a "mark") overrule the general principle that God later lays down to Noah. Cain was a specific case that God dealt with directly, it is not our general rule for dealing with crime.
"QUOTE"As for the Romans passage, I see why you chose that to explain your view, but again I don't see the ok for violence."QUOTE"
Use of the sword is "not in vain", and he is God's messenger to "execute vengeance"... that doesn't sound like warrant for violence in some cases?
December 1, 2006 2:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 1, 2006 14:07
To Mike Angelini,
Hus, Tyndale and others succeeded in ultimately placing the 66 book Bible into the hands of "ploughmen" who could read English in England and the New World. I borrowed their names hoping that some readers would make an encyclopedia or Google query and learn that a non-Protestant church made a raft of Bible translaters die miserable deaths in the name of church authority.
And as for lumping "all Christians" as opting for the sword, I can only refer you to the Quakers and 7th Day Adventists - like Desmond Doss - who won the Congressional Medal of Honor during WWII for heroism under fire while discharging their duties as medics/conscientious objectors.
I believe that Jesus would not take a life under any condition (to acknowledge the Commandment that is interpreted by some to read "Thou shalt not kill" and by others to read "Thou shalt not murder") Anyone wishing to trifle with Him about that would probably be told not to strain at gnats, or to reach for the plank.
Lay down one's life for his brother
Turn the other cheek
What is it about Christ's teachings that Christians (little-Christs) don't understand?
And if you're going to reach for the hot brand, please don't brand a Protestant with the brand reserved for Catholics and Byzantine Orthodox, Eastern Church people.
Mercy was displayed by the Sultan whose forces entered Constantinople in 1453 and he spared some Christians who fought valiantly, giving them their freedom as the city was sacked.
As apologies were offered to Islam during the previous twenty years (for things occurring between the 10th and 16th centuries) by men in Italy - they were not speaking for me, the Protestant Christian. I am hoping that distinctions can be made by the readers and when they see names like Hus, Wycliff and Desmond Doss they will understand, after performing research, that there are little Christs out in the world that take their faith very seriously, even unto death, while not picking up the sword but instead a bandage or a pen.
December 1, 2006 1:28 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 1, 2006 13:28
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Quran.htm
December 1, 2006 12:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 1, 2006 12:42
In my view, we miss the point when we compare Jesus and Mohammad and the statements attributed to these men. It's more relevant to talk about the entire Bible (including the Old Testament) and the entire Koran, and whether both books command believers to murder unbelievers. And it's much, much more relevant to discuss the actions taken by Christians and Muslims over the centuries, people who claimed to act in Jesus' name or Mohammad's name. I believe the most evil thing in the world is when any dogma, including a "political religion" such as fascism or communism, advocates the death of people who do not subscribe to that dogma.
December 1, 2006 12:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 1, 2006 12:21
Bill,
Sorry I left my last name off. It's Angelini, not anonymous (although that would be a clever last name to have. Now that we've gotten past that.
I see the issue as larger than just the Crusades, regardless of Armstrong's thesis. Since Catholics were the first organized Christian faith, there are tons more examples of how the tenets of a faith can, and often are, manipulated for individual use.
All organized religions are subject to the inherent contradiction of "holy warfare", whether it be in middle-eastern crusades or southern slavery and the ensuing civil war, invasion of the Balkans by Turks, or scapegoating of other Jews using pogroms.
I believe there are as many peace loving Muslims as Christians in the world. I know that the opposite is, sadly, true also.
December 1, 2006 12:18 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 1, 2006 12:18
Daniel,
Gen 9:5-6 "And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.
"Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image."" (ESV)
If you look at this passage, God is speaking with Noah and makes reference to Cain and Abel at the end of this passage. If you look back to Genesis 4:14 (where the footnote leads to) you see that Cain is in fear of being killed by other men for killing his brother Abel - but, it doesn't stop there. God goes on to say 'Not so, if anyone kills Cain," (footnote: or the man) "he will suffer vengeance seven times over. Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him."
That doesn't sound like God granting permission for violence to me.
As for the Romans passage, I see why you chose that to explain your view, but again I don't see the ok for violence. Maybe the problem is that we assume the government as a whole is appointed by God but those 'chosen' don't always act in the ways of their 'God-given' authority. I agree that Jesus taught us to obey man's law unless it goes against God's law. I suppose that may be a fine line to walk at times.
Your thoughts?
December 1, 2006 12:14 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 1, 2006 12:14
Reading the "religious dialogue" in the posts above certainly gives a better understanding of why George W. Bush has twice (well, maybe once) been elected President by the American people.
December 1, 2006 11:59 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 1, 2006 11:59
To John Hus,
After strangling me for translating most of the Bible into English, they also burned me at the stake in 1536.
To Mike/anonymous
Yes, all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God. However, Armstrong in her opening apology for "Christian" misdeeds, only pre-Reformation/Martin Luther example(s) were cited.
All sides should write what they mean and be specific. There were no Protestants carrying flags adorned with the cross marching or riding off under Papel calls to arms.
December 1, 2006 11:43 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 1, 2006 11:43
Hi Bill,
"When the panelists use the word Christian as they acknowledge the errors of the Catholic and Orthodox crusaders, do you think they could remind the readers that there were no Protestants involved in any of the crusades?"
Acknowledged.
But that by no means that Protestant Christians did not and have not committed acts that were contradictory to the tenets of their faith. They may not have participated in the Crusades, but they certainly allowed slavery in the American south and burnt innocent women at the stake. Remember that Catholics were persona non-grata in the Ante-bellum south. So we all have dirty hands.
No institution governed by humans is infallible and all are subject to human frailty and weakness.
Thanks.
Mike
December 1, 2006 11:30 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 1, 2006 11:30
Zola,
"QUOTE"Thanks for your response. Could you explain where in the Bible God gives the government the right to violent behavior?"QUOTE"
Gen 9:5-6 "And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.
"Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image."" (ESV)
Rom 13:1-7 "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. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed." (ESV)
Luke 3:14 "Soldiers also asked him, "And we, what shall we do?" And he said to them, "Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages."" (ESV) - Note here that John the Baptist makes no condemnation of the profession of ROMAN soldiers. In fact he seems to indicate that it is good for them to be paid.
December 1, 2006 11:13 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 1, 2006 11:13
Roy,
I hope you are having a good day. I stated above that Christians have not always acted consistently with the words and commands of Jesus. I know some of my posts are long but I do hope that people are reading them. Do not forget all the murder that has been done by atheistically based societies and people like Stalin, Pol Pot, Mau Zedong, Kim Jung Ill, etc. When you reduce people into machines like the atheism does the result is murder.
In Jesus' Love and Truth,
Alethia
December 1, 2006 11:08 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 1, 2006 11:08
Hey, the Catholic Christians excommunicated me in 1411 and burned me at the stake, using Wycliffe's translated Bible pages for kindling, following a "trial" at the Council of Constance in 1415.
December 1, 2006 11:03 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 1, 2006 11:03
Daniel,
Thanks for your response. Could you explain where in the Bible God gives the government the right to violent behavior?
Thanks.
December 1, 2006 10:46 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 1, 2006 10:46
The Crusades were defensive in response to muslim invasion of Byzantium. Please get real people... They were not about converting muslims.
December 1, 2006 10:34 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 1, 2006 10:34
Whoever was right or wrong, justified or non-justified in the crusades, the fact is that much of the violence in the history of mankind was and is being caused by religious differences. Quick to point the fingers at others, Muslims and Christians alike remain silent regarding the harm their members do to others in the name of their respective "gods". If there is a devil, he uses these differences to inflict the most unimaginable evil on human kind by using the blind, unquestioning religious sheep as pawns. If there is not a devil, it is the egos of the religious leaders that cause the same effect. Quoting to me your scriptures that I don't believe infallable is a waste of you time trying to convert me.
December 1, 2006 10:31 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 1, 2006 10:31
When the panelists use the word Christian as they acknowledge the errors of the Catholic and Orthodox crusaders, do you think they could remind the readers that there were no Protestants involved in any of the crusades?
December 1, 2006 10:13 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 1, 2006 10:13
"QUOTE"I don't see how you distinguish between government and individuals. You say it is ok (dare I say necessary), for the government to take the task of punishing wrongdoing upon itself, even to the point of taking another's life, yet if we called this entity Christianity instead of Government, somehow it would no longer be acceptable to kill?"QUOTE"
The government is an institution ordained by God to keep order in society. It has the authority, given by God to punish evil with physical violence. Of course that can and has been abused in all kinds of ways because the government is made up of sinful humans, but that doesn't change the principle itself. The Christian church is not a civil government and deals with sin by urging repentance and if that doesn't have effect, we excommunicate. But the kinds of sins the church deals with are often different than the kinds of sins the government would deal with. A church can and should condemn wrong belief, for example, but the government's authority can only extend to actions.
December 1, 2006 10:07 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 1, 2006 10:07
PS. I find it interesting that the scholars on this post say their piece but do not interact with the people who respond. Their assertions should be tested.
In Jesus' Love and Truth,
Alethia
December 1, 2006 10:04 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 1, 2006 10:04
Hello Friends,
Christians are to follow Jesus words and example but have not been perfect in their behavior. One also must remember that there are and have been people who are Christian in name only and that Jesus preached very strongly against hypocrisy. That is one of the things that first drew me to Him when I began reading the Gospels.
Muhammad on the other hand began peacefully and interacted with the Jews and Christians but when they did not receive his message he resorted to violence. His followers have been following his example ever since. In Qur’an 9 the repentance chapter Muhammad’s example became the blueprint for Jihad that is used by Muslims to this day. Muhammad had made a covenant with the people of Mecca that he would not kill them but later Muhammad changed his mind and gave them four months to convert to Islam or die. Verse 5 was given to cancel out the covenant he had made. Qur’an 9:5 follows:
“But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful” (Qur’an 9:5).
The Highly regarded Islamic commentary published by the Azhar gave commentary on the verse in 1983 as follows:
"The chapter of Repentance was revealed to raise the level of security which the infidels enjoyed because Muhammad had earlier made a covenant with them not to kill them. After that, this verse was given (9:5) in order to free God and Muhammad from any covenant with the infidels. It gives them four months in which they will be protected, but by the end of the four months (the end of the grace period), the order comes: Kill the infidels wherever you find them. Capture them, besiege them in their castles and fortresses until they are forced to accept Islam or be killed."
The highly respected Ibn Hisham: - Al Sohaily in his book, "al-Rawd al-Anaf" which is the most famous book about Muhammad’s life (part 4, p. 194); we read the following commentary on verse 5:
"When Muhammad conquered Mecca and the Arabs realized that they were not able to wage war against Muhammad, they accepted the Islamic faith. But some of the infidels continued to be as they were. (They used to make pilgrimages also because this practice was in vogue among the people hundreds of years before Muhammad). Then suddenly Muhammad sent someone to announce to the Tribe of Quraysh that no pilgrimage would be allowed for the infidels after that year (9H); none would enter paradise unless he were a Muslim. Muhammad was going to give the infidels a respite for four months, and after that there would not be a covenant except the covenant of the sword and war (lit: piercing and the strike of the sword). After this period, people entered Islam by hook or by crook, and anyone who did not become a Muslim fled the Arabian Peninsula."
So you can see that when Muslims wage Jihad it is for the purpose of Islamic expansion and they are following the example of the “prophet.” Osama Bin Laden followed this example of giving time for repentance before Jihad by calling the USA to turn to Islam before he brought down the world trade center. This may be one of the reasons the president of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called on Americans to convert to Islam. Personally, I believe he is preparing for Jihad.
In conclusion, followers of Jesus have a different blueprint to follow than followers of Muhammad. Jesus was peaceful and turned the other check all the way to the cross. He told Peter to put away his sword and said “those who live by the sword will die by the sword” (Matthew 26:5). So-called Christians who have not and do not follow Jesus’ example are living in direct disobedience to Jesus’ words and example. Muhammad on the other hand took up the sword himself and commanded his follower to do likewise. People all over the Islamic world have followed his example and are following his example and words today.
It is true that some Muslims do not follow Muhammad’s example. In fact, some do not even know about his violent example and do not understand the Qur’an. But the consensus in the Islamic world is mostly in lock step with Muhammad’s words and actions. A person would have to be an ostrich to miss this truth.
I pray that those who are ensnared in Islam would see the truth about Jesus and be set free.
In Jesus’ Love and Truth,
Alethia
December 1, 2006 10:00 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 1, 2006 10:00
I have read some articles and books by Karen Armstrong. Her reasoning fails me. The central argument seems to be that because Christianity is also guilty of the Crusade and some other aggressions committed hundreds of years ago, we should now understand the violence carried out in the name of Islam. This argument is obviously absurd apart from the fact that two wrongs don't make a right.
It is absurd that Muslims should still be carrying the grudge against Christians for what happened long, long ago. By the same token, I suppose Hindus should be carrying the grudge against the Muslims or the British for attacking and conquering India and for the Japanese against America for the two atomic bombs that destroyed Japan. Is Ms. Armstrong condoning the violence and terrorism perpeptuated by Islamic radicals because she feels that we should understand their mindset within the historical context? Besides being totally absurd, such arguments are dangerous because radicals of all hues may come to believe that it is alright to settle old scores.
December 1, 2006 9:58 AM |