|
Helsing posted:You're being silly. If the Romans had been as hardcore about their religion as, say, the Spanish were in 1492 then we would be reading a lot more historical accounts from the period describing how various towns were forced to convert. You're assuming the 1492 Spanish are a good reference point for Christianity in general. In fact, they're notable particularly for how zealous they were. computer parts fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Apr 3, 2016 |
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 12:24 |
|
|
computer parts posted:You're assuming the 1492 Spanish are a good reference point for Christianity in general. That's all I'm saying though: evangelical religions have this potential within them. Fortunately for us most humans, including most Christians, are hypocrites. I don't want to blow this up into a bigger point than it's supposed to be. The Romans exterminated entire cities without needing any kind of evangelical religion to guide them after all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Helsing posted:That's all I'm saying though: evangelical religions have this potential within them. Fortunately for us most humans, including most Christians, are hypocrites. The only hypocrites, as far as Christians go, are those who would advocate violence in the advancement of their name. I mean really, look at the example Jesus set. Look at the way he lived. The man was basically Ghandi, except he happened to have magic powers. And as though that weren't enough, the New Testament is constantly telling us to be like him. In fact, the name "Christian" itself literally means "little Christ". That is LITERALLY what it means in the original Greek language. We are literally called to be "little Christs" in our religion. As I said, if the Catholic Church keeps traumatizing it's little kids, that's more a reflection on them than it is on us. Calling the entire religion bad, then, is like calling sexual intercourse bad just because there are people who use it to harm others. It would be like saying that the concept of free will is bad because some people choose to be criminals. Anything good can also be twisted into something evil. Fionordequester fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Apr 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Helsing posted:That's all I'm saying though: evangelical religions have this potential within them. All religions have this potential. You mention Christians being persecuted by Romans earlier- there's your potential. Fionordequester posted:The only hypocrites, as far as Christians go, are those who would advocate violence in the advancement of their name. I mean really, look at the example Jesus set. Look at the way he lived. The man was basically Ghandi, except he happened to have magic powers. And yeah, this. Jesus literally said "When someone hits you, turn the other cheek and offer that one as well". If anything it's a clear example of not being an "evangelical" religion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
blowfish posted:despite being loving cracked of all things this is actually a pro click Yeah, Dabiq magazine is a super interesting read and Cracked does a pretty decent job of synopsizing parts of the philosophy without making people read a horrifying publication. I read the whole drat thing every issue, but I support people's right to not subject themselves to that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Ah time for the "Christanity is really Mithraism" part where someone who has read the 12 crucified saviors and Davinci Code pretends that reading those two books makes them knowledgeable on matters of faith in antiquity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Ah time for the "Christanity is really Mithraism" part where someone who has read the 12 crucified saviors and Davinci Code pretends that reading those two books makes them knowledgeable on matters of faith in antiquity. I'm basing this on an entirely different half-assed background 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 20:04
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
An important thing to note about Roman religion was that it was very much an elite (and in fact explicitly state) institution, and for those elites took it as seriously as any Christian. It was really the weakness of the ruling elites that let Christianity sweep to power under Constantine and his successors, and while I can see how Christianity might be more theologically appealing to an ordinary Roman I wouldn't overstate it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Ah time for the "Christanity is really Mithraism" part where someone who has read the 12 crucified saviors and Davinci Code pretends that reading those two books makes them knowledgeable on matters of faith in antiquity. Actually, that does bring up a good point. The argument I see sometimes goes something along the lines of get is "clearly you don't know the Bible well enough, or you wouldn't be saying this". So, just for reference, here are my credentials thus far, as someone who has made Religion their Minor and Psychology their Major. I have taken... -Old Testament Theology -New Testament Theology -Art of Interpretation (basically, this involves reading and understanding the Bible. Because, surprise surprise, we modern Europeans tend to interpret things just a LITTLE differently than someone who lived something like 3000 years ago in the Ancient Near East. Truly understanding the Bible involves a little more than just picking it up and hoping the translators truly understood what they were translating. You have to understand things like "ancient writers had a habit of using hyperbole to give added punch to their message". That was a popular literary technique back then) -Psychology and Christian Thought (Turns out, modern science is something that should be embraced, not labeled as an extension of Satan's influence)
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:An important thing to note about Roman religion was that it was very much an elite (and in fact explicitly state) institution, and for those elites took it as seriously as any Christian. It was really the weakness of the ruling elites that let Christianity sweep to power under Constantine and his successors, and while I can see how Christianity might be more theologically appealing to an ordinary Roman I wouldn't overstate it. It had as much to do with the fact that the traditional pantheon was no longer much respected the 3rd century saw several attempts to impose Henotheism on the empire. Christianity had the benefit of both appealing to the lower classes and to the philosophers. I would even argue that at least at first Constantine was a Henotheist who became a Arian.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Yeah, Dabiq magazine is a super interesting read and Cracked does a pretty decent job of synopsizing parts of the philosophy without making people read a horrifying publication. I sincerely hope some social scientist is doing their PhD on this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:An important thing to note about Roman religion was that it was very much an elite (and in fact explicitly state) institution, and for those elites took it as seriously as any Christian. It was really the weakness of the ruling elites that let Christianity sweep to power under Constantine and his successors, and while I can see how Christianity might be more theologically appealing to an ordinary Roman I wouldn't overstate it. Julian the Apostate did nothing wrong 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Fionordequester posted:Actually, that does bring up a good point. The argument I see sometimes goes something along the lines of get is "clearly you don't know the Bible well enough, or you wouldn't be saying this". So, just for reference, here are my credentials thus far, as someone who has made Religion their Minor and Psychology their Major. I have taken... Wait, you've taken FOUR college courses?! gently caress me sideways, we have an expert here people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
blowfish posted:I sincerely hope some social scientist is doing their PhD on this. At least a hundred theses and a thousand more once intelligence documents and analyses on that are declassified, you bet blowfish posted:Julian the Apostate did nothing wrong When I was a kid I first read his name as "Julian the Aprostate" and got really confused
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Wait, you've taken FOUR college courses?! gently caress me sideways, we have an expert here people. Lol  Well obviously I've taken more, these are just the ones that are relevant to the discussion. I'm just saying that I'm educated in the Old Testament as well as the new, and have more than emotions backing my argument. I thought that was important to say this, because again, an argument I sometimes see is "you wouldn't be saying that if you read the Old Testament".
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Julian the Apostate did nothing wrong Besides going to Antioch.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
What just happened in that comment is that sort of modern left's lazy equivocation. That broad hollow claim that because moderates exist in all religions then they are all the same. Now the honest position should look more like all religions are different and some are more violent than others because that is likely more statistically an ideologically demonstrable than the left's claim that Christianity Islam, Judaism, Maharajah, Jainism whatever are just interchangeable and if that is the case then they don't impact human behavior.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
Sethex posted:What just happened in that comment is that sort of modern left's lazy equivocation. Nobody thinks all religions are the same. What people object to is the supposition that religions have essential characters which can be deduced mostly by reading their scriptures, and that these essential characters are the primary motivator of violent extremism above, and often to the exclusion of, historical and political causes. The people who are being reductionists are the Sam Harrises of the world who look at Hamas suicide bombs and say "it must be Islam causing this" while ignoring their roots in the larger (secular) Palestinian struggle.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Sethex posted:Now the honest position should look more like all religions are different and some are more violent than others because that is likely more statistically an ideologically demonstrable 40 years ago you could statistically prove that Catholicism (specifically Irish Catholicism) was inherently more violent than other forms of Christianity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
computer parts posted:40 years ago you could statistically prove that Catholicism (specifically Irish Catholicism) was inherently more violent than other forms of Christianity. Even then though, there are always socio-cultural backgrounds to keep in mind. I mean, presuming that Computer is correct, what is it about "Irish Catholicism", specifically, that made them more violent? I mean, they presumably followed the same scriptures as the rest of the "Catholics"... so what, were indeed "more faithful"? Or were the people simply reading Scripture through the lens of their own flawed values? That's really the kind of question you have to ask when looking at any ideology. Why? Because regardless of whether or not Christ was perfect, his followers are still every bit as human as they were before. They're GOING to do an inferior job of carrying out their faith! For example, going back to Ephesians 5:22, the only reason so many people try to somehow twist that into "Men shall DOMINATE WOMEN!" is because...well, almost ALL cultures seem to have a bad habit of belittling their women. Even China, which has historically been opposed to the Abrahamic faiths, seems to treat its women as a nuisance. Fionordequester fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Apr 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Your problem is you're still painting this as primarily a problem of domestic policies. Materially, belgium muslims live a better life than the people they identify without outside belgium, and conversely, belgium (and the eurozone in general) is better on all those issues than any other country they could immigrate to, where they can't identify with the majority. It's not perfect, but relative to the rest of the world, it's quite good. The EU in general doesn't support Israeli policy - yet all this apparently isn't enough. Well I'm sorry but it is. The Eurozone has racist white supremacist groups and several major anti-Mulsim groups such as the EDL and PEGIDA. Not to mention the rise of literal fascist parties. Muslims may live better materially, but socially they lose out. You say it's otherwise? Cite your sources. rudatron posted:You call 'the nebulous everyone' (read - the demos, ya know, as in democracy) 'super reactionary', but I think that's incredibly elitist and infantilizing. Of course most people aren't well informed on these issues, it's not their job to be, but they have concerns that aren't being addressed. You're handing them platitudes, without telling them how they could both be moral and safe. You want to do that, you have to tell them something they can believe. Saying 'you, the people, have failed, because you weren't tolerant enough' isn't going to work, and it's wrong. When you perform this maneuver, you are giving the opposition (by which I mean far-right) ammunition, because you're out of touch. If most people are not informed on these issues, then they shouldn't look down on peaceful muslims for the act of terrorism by the radicals. But that's not what's happening in society. They don't have actual concerns, they have nebulous whims. Like "bomb ISIS" and "close borders". They want bombast and tangeable actions while at the same time wanting to hold on to their biases. They want to make their society safer, without changing anything about their way of life. I'm not pointing fingers, this is a structural problem, but nobody wants to fix it. They just want the elimination of people and their religion. I was unaware this point of view was elitist, especially here on SA, but okay whatever. Interesting that you say "infantilizing" though. It was not my intention, but it does make for an apt comparison. "Extremist Muslims commit attacks -> I know some Muslims -> they are extremists who will commit attacks" is pretty infantile. I get the desire to feel safe, but if it makes you subscribe to Trump-esque logic, well what can I do. If this gives ammunition to the far right then so be it. Not like those fuckers will ever be happy with whatever the left does anyway. rudatron posted:Let me give you an example of something that does work, and isn't infantilizing - These attacks are a result of regional actors in the middle east making power plays, namely Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Iran. The first two are guilty of either ideologically justify, creating a space for, or using, groups such as ISIS, for their own narrow benefit. These groups are ideological organizations that have a fundamentally antagonist relationship with the West, on not just a strategic or geopolitical level, but a cultural level. Areas of this conflict range across gender, sexuality, religiosity/secularism, and governance. These attacks are part propaganda, part recruiting, and partly financial, in that they motivate foreign donors. Even assuming all this is true, what's your point? What are you trying to say by bringing it up? How is this related to this thread's OP? How does this "motivate foreign doners" (also I'd appreciate a source here)? I think I see where you're going with this, but I want you to explain first so I don't put words in your mouth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
I'll agree with your observational assessment, but disagree with your interpretation. I think the pretty clear difference with pagan religions is that paganism was very social in nature - these are our gods, those are their gods, if we beat them then our gods were better, but neither was invalid. It wasn't just a matter of reinterpretation, though you get that, but a direct association between one specific political/cultural grouping and a pantheon. Christianity by contrast is it's own, specific, transnational grouping, which can lay claim to every single human being. So the roman trials represent two very different interpretations going on at a kind of subconscious level - the pagans see this insanity of not acknowledging the power structures you're in, the reality you inhabit, because they're refusing to make an even token effort to respect that society. The Christians otoh, seeing themselves as part of an (undefeated) transnational grouping, cannot bring themselves to betray that group. So in my mind, it's not the 'truth' that's in play here (I don't think the pagans thought that what they believed wasn't true, or that not knowing what is true might not be bad for you - not doing sacrifices sounds like a bad idea!), it's "who do you lay claim to?", who does that truth apply or not apply to. With the evangelizing, it's 'everyone', with pagans, it's 'the family' (whoever that is). Something to note though: you see this exact stuff in Liberalism, international Communism, etc. All enlightenment derived ideologies functionally derive from evangelizing religions, by which I mean Christianity, so maybe you can think of Christiantiy and Islam as like an immature version of a political ideology, it has the impulse without the more practical grounding. Juffo-Wup posted:But you haven't done this either. All you've done is reassigned blame from Western interventionism to the geopolitical motives of the Islamic-majority regional powers. And maybe also laid some blame on the fact that Islam is an evangelizing religion. But assigning blame, even correctly, is not the same as a giving plan of action. And the line I've been pushing in this thread generally has been that, in this particular case, it isn't even a necessary precondition for developing good policy responses. edit: Do you know why those anti-muslim groups are gaining power? Because of the lack of an effective response, that doesn't blame the people who feel scared as the source of the problem. Surprise, that breeds resentment. If you keep assuming that the public are incurably racist and stupid, you're not giving a realistic response, you're throwing a temper tantrum. You even do it here. 'Well what can I do', yes what can you do when you have done nothing wrong, made no error, yet everyone else has? I'm sure that's not a self-serving excuse. This is what I mean when I say 'giving ammunition', not making the far-right hate the left (they will, always, because that's what they do), but pushing the center right, by assuming that they're already 'super reactionary' when they loving aren't. They just want an effective response that solves the problem. rudatron fucked around with this message at 01:55 on Apr 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
Helsing posted:That's all I'm saying though: evangelical religions have this potential within them. Fortunately for us most humans, including most Christians, are hypocrites. I don't think it's hypocritical for Christians interested in evangelizing to not force conversions at the point of a sword, though. It's obviously hard to gauge proportions, but I think it's pretty likely that a lot of Christians throughout history have adopted St. Francis' famous (possibly apocryphal) maxim: "Preach the gospel, and if necessary, use words."
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
Fionordequester posted:Even then though, there are always socio-cultural backgrounds to keep in mind. I mean, presuming that Computer is correct, what is it about "Irish Catholicism", specifically, that made them more violent? I mean, they presumably followed the same scriptures as the rest of the "Catholics"... so what, were indeed "more faithful"? Or were the people simply reading Scripture through the lens of their own flawed values? I probably harp on about this a lot but I never like the comparison with the PIRA and its successors with something like ISIS or the sort of ideology they promulgate. If you look at the nature of the Republican struggle in the North of Ireland is doesn't take long before the veneer of religion falls away. Now maybe I'm being a big 'ol nationalist but the root of the Conflict in Ireland is that of a nationalist struggle for the ethnic group of 'the Irish' against British domination, this is displayed in ways that have absolutely nothing to do with Catholicism for example sports (GAA is popular among Catholic Irish) or language (Sinn Fein puts a lot of emphasis on reviving the Irish language), but as it stands religion is the single most important dividing factor between those that would call themselves Nationalists and those that call themselves Unionists, mostly for historical reasons. The IRA and its parliamentary politics companion, Sinn Fein, first and foremost are secular parties of a leftist, nationalist bent, they didn't go around attempting to justify what they did by quoting cherry picked parts of the bible and they never really viewed the whole of Protestantism as the enemy, else they would have probably found more time to Bomb Germany and Mississippi. To compare it to something in the Muslim world, look at the FLN that led the resistance to French rule in Algeria, at its root it was basically a vehicle for North African nationalism against the French. Similar to Ireland religious identity was hugely important but it wasn't utterly overriding and I wouldn't describe them as Islamist in the same way something like the Muslim Brotherhood or Jabhat al-Nusra is. If you had to press me for a christian equivalent of something like the aggressive militant Salafist organisations we have today I think Carlism in Spain might be a slightly better fit. khwarezm fucked around with this message at 05:31 on Apr 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
computer parts posted:40 years ago you could statistically prove that Catholicism (specifically Irish Catholicism) was inherently more violent than other forms of Christianity. Was part of the motivation for Irish statehood a desire to create a Catholic state? Sure! Part of it was motivated by that, was the state they ended up making nearly as radical as the religiously inspired state of ISIS? Nope; a Catholic state under those religious tenets seems to be pretty compatible with democracy, Islam an democracy has demonstrated itself to be a bit of a more difficult fit. The argument presented isn't "Islam is the only bad religion" it is religions have features that exist and those features are worth mentioning. The Vietnam war was a much more severe event for the people of Vietnam an yet somehow their populations weren't looking to throw down on the public transit; acknowledging that different people from different social and religious traditions respond differently to social pressure shouldn't be impossible for the far left to do; but it seems it is. Thug Lessons posted:Nobody thinks all religions are the same. What people object to is the supposition that religions have essential characters which can be deduced mostly by reading their scriptures, and that these essential characters are the primary motivator of violent extremism above, and often to the exclusion of, historical and political causes. The people who are being reductionists are the Sam Harrises of the world who look at Hamas suicide bombs and say "it must be Islam causing this" while ignoring their roots in the larger (secular) Palestinian struggle. Statehood an all that is a primary motivator for the Palestinian struggle, but the way Hamas is now the face of that is irrefutably religious. In that sense the religion is a bolstering tactic. But in the element of routine suicide bombing, the nature of the ISIS state and the fact that international recruitment is fueled entirely by religious nostalgia is demonstrative of religion's primacy. If you made ISIS a different religion you would likely have unrest but it would look completely different but certainly less vicious an barbaric. Sethex fucked around with this message at 04:17 on Apr 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
Sethex posted:If you made ISIS a different religion you would likely have unrest but it would look completely different but certainly less vicious an barbaric.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
Sethex posted:If you made ISIS a different religion you would likely have unrest but it would look completely different but certainly less vicious an barbaric. This counterfactual is gay black Hitler territory, but even then basic reason would tell you no, it would look pretty much the same
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
Sethex posted:Was part of the motivation for Irish statehood a desire to create a Catholic state? Sure! Part of it was motivated by that, was the state they ended up making nearly as radical as the religiously inspired state of ISIS? Nope; a Catholic state under those religious tenets seems to be pretty compatible with democracy, Islam an democracy has demonstrated itself to be a bit of a more difficult fit. Actually, going by your analogy it seems Sunni Islam is not compatible with democracy. ISIS is, after all, a Sunni rebellion against a Shia state (which is being supported by another Shia state with democratic elections).
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 06:48
|
|
|
Sethex posted:If you made ISIS a different religion you would likely have unrest but it would look completely different but certainly less vicious an barbaric. Ah there is the ole' chestnut about violent Islam. Hey rudatron, here is your "demos in democracy" in action. Anyhow, you got a large burden of proof dude because I see no reason why ISIS would be less violent if they were Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or what have you. The Aum Shinrikyu cult was a doomsday cult that warped Buddhist teachings and culminated in the Japan Subway Saryn Gas attacks and that's about as peaceful as you can get. The only reason they weren't bigger is because Japan had the resources to button down on them. I posted the article about how Christianity fanned the flames of homophobia in central America. Gay people were killed because of Christianity, in brutal ways. Okay we don't have a Christian ISIL, but that's because Christianity wasn't ever in a region that led to ISIL's creation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 07:35
|
|
|
I don't think it would work with Jainism, but even then I think humans could twist it enough to suit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
Sethex posted:the religiously inspired state of ISIS? I know I'm taking a snippet of your post out of context here, but it really does seem to be one of the cruxes of your argument, ie: that the so-called Islamic State is, in fact, religiously inspired. I think that assumption may be a little more contentious than you think - not that it's religiously inspired, but rather, that it has been inspired by Islam specifically (as opposed to a centralized doomsday cult mentality that uses Islam as a fig leaf). As counterterrorism experts have been pointing out for years now, ISIS is pretty heretical to mainstream Muslims. Saying that they've been inspired by Islam is like saying that the FLDS or the Lord's Resistance Army were inspired by Christianity, which, while technically true, would be kind of misleading.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 08:42
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:This counterfactual is gay black Hitler territory, but even then basic reason would tell you no, it would look pretty much the same You're right All Religion interchangeable = true Majorian posted:I know I'm taking a snippet of your post out of context here, but it really does seem to be one of the cruxes of your argument, ie: that the so-called Islamic State is, in fact, religiously inspired. I think that assumption may be a little more contentious than you think - not that it's religiously inspired, but rather, that it has been inspired by Islam specifically (as opposed to a centralized doomsday cult mentality that uses Islam as a fig leaf). As counterterrorism experts have been pointing out for years now, ISIS is pretty heretical to mainstream Muslims. Saying that they've been inspired by Islam is like saying that the FLDS or the Lord's Resistance Army were inspired by Christianity, which, while technically true, would be kind of misleading. The creation of a theocratic nation state, although not unique to Islam (I'm sure some types of Christianity are into this sort of thing too) is still a feature of Islam, Sharia Law exists, and isn't some external or shared feature of their social or political history as it is a religious artifact. I don't think moderates within Islam naturally gravitate toward ISIS but at the same time I think that the features of Islam create this outcome. The use of suicide attacks although not unique to Islam seems to be a central strategy in many cases which is likely precipitated by the religion's promises of salvation. The individualistic nature of Sunni Islam seems to help foster radical interpretations of the religion as well. The Shiite tradition seems to have more theocratic traditions making these radical interpretations less the case. The contrast to me seems similar when comparing radical Protestant Christians vs Catholic/Orthodox Christians. To me the thread is more about how the left interprets religion in the global political context, an example of I think what OP is criticizing is when 'icantfindaname' says ISIL would exist pretty much the same today irregardless of what religion they practice. The left wing reductionism of religion to being a 'worldview' label rather than a psychological disposition that impacts people's behaviour and actions alienates a lot of people. For some observing a lot of population's suffering similarly or worse than those in the middle east 'social, political or economic causes' isn't a satisfactory explanation as to why a pan-nationalist death cult intent on re-implementing Slavery and ultra orthodox religious law exists. Then you have a sort of 'blame the west' attitude that perculates from the fringe bloggers which the right uses as ammunition to dissuade moderates from considering the modern left: http://thefederalist.com/2016/03/22/europes-fear-of-islamophobia-led-directly-to-the-belgium-attacks/ I think US foreign policy is largely to blame for the circumstances but the does seem to be a glaring dissimilarity to the way the US's victims respond to imperialistic violence; maybe I'm oversimplifying but religion to me seems to play a pretty big role in how people cope with the savagery that the US military has unleashed. Sethex fucked around with this message at 13:02 on Apr 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 12:36
|
|
|
Wait, people legitimately think ISIS is trying to create a religious state? They're essentially Ottoman cosplayers who read once upon a time that there was a major Muslim empire that spanned a lot of the world and just sort of lost interest in it at that point because to a bunch of crazy people that seems like a good idea. ISIS want to create a Caliphate to rival the Ottomans. I mean, I guess you could claim that the Ottoman Empire was fundamentally a religious state but that sort of falls apart if you know even the most basic tenants of its history. ISIS might be trying to create a religious state because they might have the same fundamental misunderstanding about what the Ottomans were actually about as they do about its operation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
Sethex posted:The creation of a theocratic nation state, although not unique to Islam (I'm sure some types of Christianity are into this sort of thing too) is still a feature of Islam, Sharia Law exists, and isn't some external or shared feature of their social or political history as it is a religious artifact. Really? It seems to me that a lot of Muslims worldwide aren't that interested in building a theocratic state. Are they just bad Muslims, from your viewpoint? quote:I don't think moderates within Islam naturally gravitate toward ISIS but at the same time I think that the features of Islam create this outcome. The use of suicide attacks although not unique to Islam seems to be a central strategy in many cases which is likely precipitated by the religion's promises of salvation. You're going to have to connect the dots a little more visibly than that - Christianity promises salvation, too, and glorifies martyrs. It doesn't seem to me that the differences between the Bible and the Qu'ran can account for the distinction in behavior. Indeed, one of the most active anti-Israeli terrorists over the past several decades was George Habash, an Orthodox Christian (and also a Marxist). If one read his biography but didn't read anything about his religious and ideological affiliations, one would probably not see too much of a difference between him and other Palestinian insurgent leaders. It wasn't religion that brought him and Arafat together; it was sociopolitical and historical factors. quote:The left wing reductionism of religion to being a 'worldview' label rather than a psychological disposition that impacts people's behaviour and actions alienates a lot of people. Yet you seem to be reducing the causes for what we commonly label "Islamist" violence is a function of Islam, as a religion. That's not a terribly uncommon interpretation in the West, but don't you think that when Westerners take that viewpoint, it probably alienates Muslims as well?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Wait, people legitimately think ISIS is trying to create a religious state?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Ah there is the ole' chestnut about violent Islam. Hey rudatron, here is your "demos in democracy" in action. Ok so seriously what are the fundamental differences between the crusader states and isis. Religion is not a pillar of a state, religion is a tool used by the state. Religion is not what states are based on, religions is what states use to create states based on oppression and conformity and obedience.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
Majorian posted:You're going to have to connect the dots a little more visibly than that - Christianity promises salvation, too, and glorifies martyrs. It doesn't seem to me that the differences between the Bible and the Qu'ran can account for the distinction in behavior. Potentially minor point to the overall discussion, but in Christianity, martyrs are generally those who die in the service of upholding or serving the faith. The earliest martyrs set the example in that they were generally executed for preaching or their beliefs and they did not resist. The first martyr, Stephen, is recorded in the Book of Acts as getting stoned to death simply for explaining himself, and he died forgiving his killers (essentially following the example of Jesus on the cross). Likewise, the martyrs during the Roman persecution died likewise without resisting. The reason Christianity glorifies martyrs like these is because it was an act of imitating Christ to the very end, no matter the cost. While the propaganda of the Crusades, the Reconquista, and other military endeavors were to claim that the soldiers who die in such campaigns were martyrs, that is not theologically accurate. You can split hairs about whether ISIS or suicide bombers are theologically accurate to the Koran or whatever, but the Bible is very clear about what conduct constituted martyrdom, and violently killing yourself to kill others is not it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
SHISHKABOB posted:Ok so seriously what are the fundamental differences between the crusader states and isis. One disappeared centuries ago. One exists today. A minor point when discussing current events. It's like insisting on acknowledgment of Neanderthal violence while discussing appropriate sentencing for Charles Manson.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
If suicide attacks were uniquely Muslim then "Kamikaze" wouldn't be a well known term.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 12:24 |
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:One disappeared centuries ago. One exists today. I disagree that that is a fundamental difference between the two. In fact that is a fundamental similarity that all organized groups share. They exist, and then they don't exist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 21:31
|
|