- Navigation
- Hot
- New
- Recent Comments
- Activity Feed
- Marketplace
- Members Directory
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
Again - that is a gross generalization and fallacy of inclusion. If "most" religions endorse such as you say, please be specific and cite sources of doctrine. To my knowledge, only one religion endorses the use of violence explicitly as doctrine. All others eschew or outright prohibit it except in self-defense. That is not to say that some adherents have disregarded their religion and committed atrocities, but if they do this contrary to the doctrine, are they truly representatives of their respective faith, or merely apostates and pretenders?
I agree with you that America is a singular and unique place.
lol. nice.
My understanding of the Shia/Sunni dispute is that it was over which of Mohammed's sons retained the right of leadership of Islam as a whole - and more particularly the military leadership. Part of Islam's doctrine is that only Mohammed is/was allowed to declare God's word. The current clerics are allowed to interpret applicability over certain things (fatwas), but no new doctrine may be added. (It is of note to see the advancement of theology in the Qu'ran, which is organized by surrahs which are largely chronological. The tendency toward militancy and conquest is heavily tilted toward the latter sections.)
I differentiate because there had already been a schism in Christianity when the original Church fractured into the Egyptian Coptic, the Eastern Orthodox (both Greek and Russian deriving from that body) and the Roman Catholic churches - largely based on geographical separation. The Protestant Reformation (as you correctly pointed out) started with Luther, but was hardly unique to him. With the advent of the Gutenberg press and its resulting Gutenberg Bible (thanks to Tinsdale's translation into English), there were many (Luther, Wesley, Rogers among others) who began to point out doctrinal errors which had crept in to the practice of the Catholic Church. They then derived that if such doctrinal errors existed and had not been corrected as seen by plentiful example in the New Testament epistles, that it could only be the result of willful apostasy (foretold by Paul) which itself would indicate loss of authority. What should be noted about Luther was that he did not start the Lutheran - or any other Protestant - church. He did not feel he had the authority to do so.
The Catholic Church still claims right of authority back to Peter and with it the right to speak in the name of God and "create" new doctrine. Thus pronouncements by the Holy See are regarded by Catholics as the "will of God", but largely ignored by all other Christian faiths as the non-authoritative rantings of a usurper. By comparison, the Greek and Russian Orthodox churches are run by priests called Bishops and headed by an Archbishop, but their claim to authority does not go back to Peter, but to the individual Bishops who were called to preside over the original seven churches in Asia (modern day west coast of Turkey). The Copts have been so decimated by Islam that they barely exist as a formal religious sect anymore, and are largely regarded as just another of the many sects despite their origins. The Protestants are notable in that they reject the claim of authority professed by the Catholic Church - including the right to proclaim doctrine - but have little claim to an alternative line of authority.
You must be kidding. Most of them endorse the hard core brutal violence. I think the trick is to find one that does not endorse violence. Maybe Buddhism/Taoism/Confucianism.
"I just reject the religion itself as being founded upon incorrect (or in the case of Islam - downright evil) principles."
I reject religion too. I accept that religion calls for those evil things. I reject the idea that we must change people's religion to get them to stop the evil.
The answer is America: A place and an idea where you're completely free to gather and read books about rape, hearing voices telling you to kill your kids, etc, but if you actually hear voices and then try to act any of that out in the modern world, we have citizens and police ready to stop you because it's against the law.
It was in 1529, some 12 years after Luther had nailed his Theses to the church door, that the word “Protestant” became a popular term describing those who supported Luther’s protests against the Church. These opponents of the Church declared their allegiance to God and protested any loyalty or commitments to the emperor. Thereafter, the name “Protestant” was applied to all who argued that the Church be reformed. Luther died in 1546 with his revolutionary Theses forming the foundation for what is known today as the Protestant Reformation." In stating the lineage of authority was man to God vs men to God through church and Emperor?"
Islam's was man to god thoruogh direct descendent of Mohammand vs. self appointed clergy - much the same.
Bahai goes several steps further and defends not only it's church but the other breakaway churches stating the lineage is Man to God by the most direct route.and does not forbid nor any of the nine major monthestic religions.
"*The foundation of all the divine religions is one. All are based upon reality. Reality does not admit plurality, yet amongst mankind there have arisen differences concerning the manifestations of God. Some have been Zoroastrians, some are Buddhists, some Jews, Christians, Mohammedans and so on. This has become a source of divergence whereas the teachings of the holy souls who founded the divine religions are one in essence and reality All these have served the world of humanity.... All have guided souls to the attainment of perfections, but among the nations certain imitations of ancestral forms of worship have arisen. These imitations are not the foundation and essence of the divine religions. Inasmuch as they differ from the reality and the essential teachings of the Manifestations of God, dissensions have arisen and prejudice has developed. Religious prejudice thus becomes the cause of warfare and battle. If we abandon these time-worn imitations and investigate reality all of us will be unified. No discord will remain; antagonism will disappear. All will associate in fellowship."
Bahai's often thought to be the most peaceful did preach against any church trying to hold superiority over another calling for the nations of the world to rise up and destroy such a church, but otherwise live in peace - referring to Islam as Mohammedans a clear indication of the direct route.
When adding the 80 breakaway sects of Islam it appears they had indeed their own 95 theses over direct lineage. Thus a reformation and ended up the same as the Chritstian Church, add those breakaways, well over a 100 it appears each had their own reformation.....
I'm not theologian but it works for me...The vertical path of power is from whatever each group sees as the divine authority or source of power through man to such entities as man may authorize including churches and governments. i see secular progressives as equal to the breakaway Muslims in the Shia Sunni struggle. and just as much enemy as islamics no doubt view their own allegiences.
"Most" is a pretty broad term. Please name one other than Islam for which violence is an explicit tenet. There is a huge difference in my mind between what one does in the name of religion in spite of the express tenets of such, and what one does with the full endorsement of religious tenets.
"I reject arguments that go "but religion X is evil b/c it calls for stoning adulterers, religious wars, raping prisoners of war, etc. We must fix religion X."
I just reject the religion itself as being founded upon incorrect (or in the case of Islam - downright evil) principles. Just like one would reject socialism for its artificial "equality", communism for its elite ruling class and repression of theoretically "equal" populace, etc. There are plenty of competing ideologies. I'm not going to waste my time trying to change one I don't agree with. It's much easier to go find another option.
Violent extremism been with us forever, and as a broad trend it's decreasing.
I do not know why we see a surge of it now and why more than a handful of people even tolerate ISIS. I think it has to do with people feeling caught between two worlds. This could be a family that moves. The parents keep connections with other people from their culture. The kids can't quite be accepted into the new culture, and then an extremist comes along and says "your parents don't understand you, and the new culture will never accept you. I have a way to be a part of something pure and righteous." It also happens when as Thomas Friedman describes it, people feel like the Lexus is squeezing out their Olive Tree in their own country.
My explanation does not account for everything that's happening. I think there's more going on.
This is a common theme among most religions. In the modern world, though, most people say the religion informs us about our ancestors and they do not take it literally. I reject arguments that go "but religion X is evil b/c it calls for stoning adulterers, religious wars, raping prisoners of war, etc. We must fix religion X."
This supposes that the causal vectors flow clearly from religion to modernity. The church didn't bring modernity to Europe. Christianity and Judaism has many fewer people who believe in killing people for questioning holy books, but I don't think that's because Christian authorities do a good job of quelling extremism.
You mean my solution to violent extremism? It's been with us forever, so I'm unlikely to have a plan to stop it for good. The liberty-loving people of the world need to stay armed, protect frameworks like the US Constitution, and maintain a criminal justice system to catch the bad guys.
I reject the premise that violent extremism is causally tied to religion. I know it's correlated and Islam has far more extremists, but I don't think it's causal. So 1.6 billion people is not the issue, and even if we could change billions of people, it wouldn't necessarily work.
BTW, I did not downvote your comment.
People like liberty, and people commit violent crimes, sometimes atrocious ones. I don't claim to have a plan to stop that. Violence in the world is way down in recent centuries (despite the world wars) compared to human history, but we obviously have a long way to go.
Load more comments...