455 replies to this topic

[a1s]

ahem. are you a radical christian?   if not (and I should hope that's how it is), chill. and enjoy the show.

[taikara]

Ha! Rosie O'Donnell is too smart for that show.

I particularly liked the comment in this article (linked off the one greywolf posted):

http://www.statepres...opinions/697748

"Yet, the world has yet to see radical Christians blow up embassies, commit honor killings or behead non-Christians."

Oh really, Hilary Wade, is that so?

Apparently, someone didn't bother paying attention in world history...

[Blood-Pigggy]

Lol, what an idiot, I bet she didn't even read the bible.

Almost every religion has a violent history, it's just the way things are, some people take things too seriously, especially those kind of people that don't interpet their holy texts as metaphors and guidelines for living a fulfilling life, instead they just take every word literally.

[DeathDude]

Any sort of radicalism is bad really, and indeed Christians have done their fair share of things in history which were not all things they would be proud of today. It's sort of like the radical black metal fans who are really into the whole santanic nature, burning churches and such. What really is bad is that the media loves to generalize this and say all metal is like that, when in reality black metal is so far away from the other sub genres, it just makes you shake your head that they do it.

[greywolf]

Let me first define radical in terms of the christian view, and then in terms of the nonchristian view, because I think a lot of the controversy is over this particular word, as it means different things to different groups of people:

Religious view: Being "radical" is a good thing, as it means that you're willing to sacrifice personal things for the greater good of God's glory and kingdom, be it donating money to missions efforts overseas, suffering the rejection of friends for constantly trying to witness to them, or anything else that might relate to that. Note that extreme violent actions are not even considered, as that goes against the very thing that Christians believe. Unfortunately, it would seem that some "Christians" have a rather warped view of the world, and some wish harm upon their enemies, although, as Tom mentioned, it goes against the very thing that they are supposed to represent. Some even take it to the extreme of violence, which I don't think the vast majority of Christians agree with, much less condone.

Nonreligious view: Someone who is a "radical" is a terrorist, and they do things accordingly. In this sense, "Christians" that carry out acts of terrorism are indeed radical, and are therefore as dangerous as Islamic terrorists.

I think the biggest problem is that most Christians are taking this to mean that they can't live how the Bible and Jesus himself instructed them to live, while everyone else sees the phrase "radical Christian" as interchangeable with "terrorist," which it *can* be.

@Tom: Yes, I agree with you; radical in terms of the second definition is indeed generally bad, and is *always* bad when applied in terms of violence.

@a1s: Yes, I indeed am; by my christian definition, anyway. Of course, not as much as I should be, but then again, no one's perfect... And I am chilling, as you say - I'd just like to hear some discussion. (although I guess I answered my own question )

@Tai: I think she meant in this day and age, not hundreds of years ago. Unless you're referring to something I haven't heard about...  

@Pigggy: Have *you* read the Bible?   Heh - not that I'm disagreeing with you or anything...

@DD: I totally agree.

[Tom Henrik]

greywolforiginal, on Sep 20 2006, 09:02 PM, said:

Religious view: Being "radical" is a good thing, as it means that you're willing to sacrifice personal things for the greater good of God's glory and kingdom

That's exactly what the danger is, as some people will always go way out of line with what they are willing to do for their god.

greywolforiginal, on Sep 20 2006, 09:02 PM, said:

Nonreligious view: Someone who is a "radical" is a terrorist, and they do things accordingly. In this sense, "Christians" that carry out acts of terrorism are indeed radical, and are therefore as dangerous as Islamic terrorists.

That's stretching it a bit far, I think. I would not call any religious zealot a terrorist, unless that person performs an act of great violence or destruction on a huge group of people or a country.

However, I would call a pro-lifer who murders people, for a contradicting murderer

[Blood-Pigggy]

Duh, I've read the Bible, they're constantly killing people in that thing.

[taikara]

greywolforiginal, on Sep 20 2006, 05:02 PM, said:

@Tai: I think she meant in this day and age, not hundreds of years ago. Unless you're referring to something I haven't heard about...  

Are you saying Christians were something other than Christian hundreds of years ago?

Wow, that whole forgiveness thing must really work wonders. Christian groups can slaughter thousands of innocents in the name of Christ and not have it marr their clean Christian record, but Muslims are condemned as terrorists. Cool.

[Blood-Pigggy]

You should be I don't find this offensive, L + O = L, cause I'm a Muslim myself.

[greywolf]

taikara, on Sep 20 2006, 03:56 PM, said:

greywolforiginal, on Sep 20 2006, 05:02 PM, said:

@Tai: I think she meant in this day and age, not hundreds of years ago. Unless you're referring to something I haven't heard about...  

Are you saying Christians were something other than Christian hundreds of years ago?

Wow, that whole forgiveness thing must really work wonders. Christian groups can slaughter thousands of innocents in the name of Christ and not have it marr their clean Christian record, but Muslims are condemned as terrorists. Cool.

I don't consider the Crusaders to be Christians; even if they were fighting for what they *thought* God wanted, they were not. Anyone looking at what the Bible says and then looking at what they did can see that. Things got a *bit* convoluted in the Middle Ages, with a ridiculously small literacy rate that meant that only priests and such could read the Bible and thus "interpret" it to their congregation. Christianity in those times was more like superstition; they prayed to God when they were trouble, hoping that'll help their situation, but don't really follow any other principles. Anyone can call themself a "Christian," but you're not really one unless you act upon the Bible's principles.

Anyway, I don't want to get into an argument, and I certainly don't think that *all* Muslims are terrorists. That's ridiculous; only extremist groups that carry out acts of terrorism are terrorists.

[Sinke]

Actually, most sacred  values of all societies were literally always used as means of distinction in conflicts and wars. God, faith, freedom, love- they are all used as terms of propaganda in specific scenario.

Hitler was killing Jews and Slavs because he considered them filth of human kind , prosecuting them meant freeing Germany from "pollution" and providing healthy and powerful nation. How much was he faithfull to that idea is discussable. For example, Hitler allied with Croats at one point -who were Slavs. I don't even want to touch the subject of quite strong arguments that Hitler himself was a Jew.

Napoleon wanted to conquer the whole Europe because he thought conquered nations would gain more by being part of France then staying in poverty of their own governments.

Inquisitors thought killing heretics was duty of Christians.

Today, Bush turned democracy as a main reason for invading other countries, where bringing it to other nations meant spreading freedom, even by invasion.  

However, we can't ignore that faith, even radical, in those same values brought peace and prosperity in the world. For example, Mother Teresa, Saint Francis of Assisi, Martin Luther King Jr,  Jean d'Arc etc....

[BeefontheBone]

By the same token, then, "Islamic" terorists can't truly be described as Muslims, since their actions are as un-Islamic as the Crusaders' were un-Christian. You can't apply a different standard to each, that's just hypocrisy.

@Sinke: Distinct lack of Muslim examples at the end there - those with faith in Islam have brought as much peace and prosperity to the world, we in the West just tend not to have heard of them. The history of science and mathematics is full of Arabs who made invaluable contributions, and it's hard to deny that Haroun al-Rashid (and a number of other Caliphs) presided over a golden age in the Middle East.

[taikara]

I concur with Beef, but I just wanted to say a bit more...

greywolforiginal, on Sep 20 2006, 06:39 PM, said:

I don't consider the Crusaders to be Christians; even if they were fighting for what they *thought* God wanted, they were not.
...
Anyone can call themself a "Christian," but you're not really one unless you act upon the Bible's principles.

See, now that's the curious thing about egocentrism. Everyone seems to think that their interpretation of the principles of their religion is the correct one. If you haven't noticed, even modern Christians can't agree on what the principles of the Bible actually are. It also probably doesn't help that the Bible as we know it today has been retranslated many, many times.

I imagine those Crusaders would probably listen to your interpretation of the Bible for 5 seconds and then slaughter you as a filthy heretic, and absolutely believe that they were acting correctly in accordance to their faith.

In any case, if you're going to claim a religion, you can't deny its past. Well, you can, but it's rather narrow - all of those "ugly" things that happened in Christiandom hundreds of years ago led to Christianity as it is today. If Christians didn't brutally slaughter thousands of non-Christians, the status of Christianity today would be completely different. You can probably thank those Crusaders (and others, as they weren't the only Christian group responsible for slaughter) for buying in blood your freedom to practice your chosen religion without persecution. Whether you like it or not, religious groups tend to be either persecuted, or persecutioner. With the possible exception of Asian religions - curiously, they didn't have quite so many religious upheavals in their history, as the major religious groups were fairly harmonious with each other... at least, until Christianity was introduced to the area.

Nowadays, things tend to be less bloody (which is probably the main reason people are so shocked by Islamic terrorists), but that doesn't mean that religions no longer persecute people that don't follow their beliefs. It just tends to be overall more "civilized" than it used to be - such as when the Southern Baptist Convention boycotted Disney for supporting homosexual partnership rights. Personally, I didn't find that very "Christian." But again, that's my own interpretation. I'm sure they felt they were doing the right thing.

[DeathDude]

Also depends on interpretation of the bible. You will always have groups that try to analyze it so closely that it tends to end up getting skewed the real message of what was being said. It's really hard to deny the past for Christians and can understand why, but still it happened and you can't deny it did and the intent of such things like the Crusades.

Look at the Knights Templar, a noble christian knights order that at first was fighting in the crusades, yet as time progressed they grew more and more corrupt, all using the excuse that they were knights sanctioned by the pope, yet collecting much in terms of money and land.

As with most religions, every one will always have extreme elements, but the main point in order to stand out from them, is that the practioners and representatives need to stand out, condemn the extremism that is being practiced and show the world what they really are practing and teaching, not be so secretive, otherwise the media especially will generalize as they seem to do.

[greywolf]

BeefontheBone, on Sep 21 2006, 12:45 AM, said:

By the same token, then, "Islamic" terorists can't truly be described as Muslims, since their actions are as un-Islamic as the Crusaders' were un-Christian. You can't apply a different standard to each, that's just hypocrisy.

You're absolutely right. On that note, I should say that Islamic terrorists shouldn't be considered real followers of Islam, just as I say that Crusaders shouldn't be considered real followers of Christ, since they both do not follow the tenets of their stated religion. I should have gone further with my statement.

taikara, on Sep 21 2006, 08:27 AM, said:

If you haven't noticed, even modern Christians can't agree on what the principles of the Bible actually are.

I understand that, but there aren't any major differences to the point where a group will advocate death or violence to all who oppose their religion. That is  _not_ Christianity - it is the ideas of *people* (not the written Word).

taikara, on Sep 21 2006, 08:27 AM, said:

I imagine those Crusaders would probably listen to your interpretation of the Bible for 5 seconds and then slaughter you as a filthy heretic, and absolutely believe that they were acting correctly in accordance to their faith.

Probably. But I can't blame them, because they didn't even know what they believed. Mass in churches was always done in Latin in the Middle Ages, and literacy was restricted to the elite and religious leaders. Hence, the people (even the Crusader knights) did what the Pope, bishops, and priests told them to do, because the people figured that they knew what they were talking about, when, in reality, they were using/abusing religion to gain power.

taikara, on Sep 21 2006, 08:27 AM, said:

It also probably doesn't help that the Bible as we know it today has been retranslated many, many times.

It's been translated from the original Greek and Hebrew into English many times, yes. The New Testament was basically written in Greek. It's not like the Bible has been translated back and forth into different languages and has lost its meaning.

taikara, on Sep 21 2006, 08:27 AM, said:

In any case, if you're going to claim a religion, you can't deny its past.

I'm not denying the past - like I said before, I don't consider Crusaders to be Christians because they were not abiding by the tenets that the Bible lays down. It may be true that the Crusaders paved the way for a free America, but I still don't consider them Christians. Non-Christians have done lots of things that have contributed to our way of life today (obviously).

DeathDude, on Sep 21 2006, 08:47 AM, said:

As with most religions, every one will always have extreme elements, but the main point in order to stand out from them, is that the practioners and representatives need to stand out, condemn the extremism that is being practiced and show the world what they really are practing and teaching, not be so secretive, otherwise the media especially will generalize as they seem to do.

I agree with the condemnation of extremism part, but I don't think that Christianity is being secretive at all. All a reporter has to do is go to a church, interview the pastor, and get the basics of what s/he believes (there are indeed women pastors). I just think that the media, being liberal as it is, doesn't like anything conservative. Christians are conservative, hence, the media generalizes.