|
|
Post by moritz on Sept 7, 2010 0:14:12 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Sept 7, 2010 7:19:45 GMT -8
Its a stupid thing to do, and I think its stupid for people to get upset over this kind of thing (I'm not calling anyone here stupid). People like this should simply be ignored. But I do agree with you Moritz, this wont do the image of Christianity any favors.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Sept 7, 2010 11:28:44 GMT -8
"Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings." - Heinrich Heine
My question for the folks at Dove World Outreach is what good does this serve? What do they hope to gain other than publicity?
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Sept 7, 2010 14:22:46 GMT -8
I'm sure publicity is exactly what they are looking for. Goal accomplished.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 7, 2010 16:07:47 GMT -8
At least they're not burning their Led Zepellin albums ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by rbbailey on Sept 7, 2010 17:03:25 GMT -8
I think this is just so ironic considering the whole mosque at GZ thing.
Both groups have the 'right' to do what they want to do, but both are a few grapes short of the salad when it comes to doing the 'right' thing.
What gets me though, is this... I can disagree and agree and argue and debate with people all day and it doesn't bother me. What bothers me is the double standard.
When a crucifix is put into a dung heap, or immersed in a jar of piss, it is called art, and tax payer dollars are shoveled over to make sure these things are displayed; and no one says a word about it.
But when someone says they are going to burn a Koran (they don't even have to actually do it) the president, the general, the news agencies all come out and have a fit.
Neither of them bother me for what they are. Mosque... whatever, build one down the street from me if you want. The Quran burning... errr... it bothers me because of the 'affiliation' I supposedly have with these people. But really, it's the double standard that gets me. But you guys are right, these idiots should actually just be ignored.
The 'christians' are becoming extremists for the purpose of showing religious extremists what's what! Yeah!
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Sept 8, 2010 1:39:23 GMT -8
What gets me though, is this... I can disagree and agree and argue and debate with people all day and it doesn't bother me. What bothers me is the double standard. ... When a crucifix is put into a dung heap, or immersed in a jar of piss, it is called art, and tax payer dollars are shoveled over to make sure these things are displayed; and no one says a word about it. ... But really, it's the double standard that gets me. Inspiring comment. There certainly is a double standard and it’s understandable that it bothers you. But then again, why does it? Has Christianity not always consciously and deliberately proclaimed higher standards for itself? Is it not a Christian ambition to lead by good example, to be a “city upon a hill”, to turn the other cheek? Is the double standard not a good sign for Christianity in the end? To me, the fact that the reaction to this issue has called the president, the general etc. to the scene is indicating the general behavioral superiority of Christians over Muslims. What the heck? Let me explain from my personal perspective: I’m used to see angry yelling Muslims going berserk on the streets somewhere in the Middle East, burning people in effigy, waving guns, threatening with holy war and making a fuss over every tiny little thing. What do I think about such a behavior? Idiotic. Childish. They are making complete fools of themselves and while they probably think they are being impressive and intimidating, one can only sigh in pity. What image of Muslims is being transported? Ill-tempered rowdies, entirely unable of reflection and self-criticism, no intellectual potential, no manners whatsoever. Of course these are selected images chosen by the media precisely because of their strong emotional potential and it goes without saying, that these images are not representative. However, the images are real: every slight provocation of Muslims is potentially ending up in bloodshed. And that’s what separates them from Christians. And that’s why the authorities intervene. Why don’t they step up when Christians are being insulted? Because they know that Christians can take it and that’s a sign of dignity in my opinion. Burning books in general - and supposedly “holy” books in particular - is a symbolic act of destruction and chauvinism. By acting this way, this church will join the Arabic mobs in the bottom drawer. Robin is right: they are idiots and we shouldn’t give it any attention. But the fact that it receives attention and that a double standard is being applied is simply because we expect better from Christians. And we expect better because we are used to better behavior of Christians. And that’s a good thing, isn’t it? |
|
|
|
Post by robin on Sept 8, 2010 8:45:06 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by rose on Sept 8, 2010 9:36:01 GMT -8
To quote the journalist on this piece, "lunatic fringe of christianity"...enough said. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 8, 2010 15:45:38 GMT -8
What gets me though, is this... I can disagree and agree and argue and debate with people all day and it doesn't bother me. What bothers me is the double standard. ... When a crucifix is put into a dung heap, or immersed in a jar of piss, it is called art, and tax payer dollars are shoveled over to make sure these things are displayed; and no one says a word about it. ... But really, it's the double standard that gets me. Inspiring comment. There certainly is a double standard and it’s understandable that it bothers you. But then again, why does it? Has Christianity not always consciously and deliberately proclaimed higher standards for itself? Is it not a Christian ambition to lead by good example, to be a “city upon a hill”, to turn the other cheek? Is the double standard not a good sign for Christianity in the end? To me, the fact that the reaction to this issue has called the president, the general etc. to the scene is indicating the general behavioral superiority of Christians over Muslims. What the heck? Let me explain from my personal perspective: I’m used to see angry yelling Muslims going berserk on the streets somewhere in the Middle East, burning people in effigy, waving guns, threatening with holy war and making a fuss over every tiny little thing. What do I think about such a behavior? Idiotic. Childish. They are making complete fools of themselves and while they probably think they are being impressive and intimidating, one can only sigh in pity. What image of Muslims is being transported? Ill-tempered rowdies, entirely unable of reflection and self-criticism, no intellectual potential, no manners whatsoever. Of course these are selected images chosen by the media precisely because of their strong emotional potential and it goes without saying, that these images are not representative. However, the images are real: every slight provocation of Muslims is potentially ending up in bloodshed. And that’s what separates them from Christians. And that’s why the authorities intervene. Why don’t they step up when Christians are being insulted? Because they know that Christians can take it and that’s a sign of dignity in my opinion. Burning books in general - and supposedly “holy” books in particular - is a symbolic act of destruction and chauvinism. By acting this way, this church will join the Arabic mobs in the bottom drawer. Robin is right: they are idiots and we shouldn’t give it any attention. But the fact that it receives attention and that a double standard is being applied is simply because we expect better from Christians. And we expect better because we are used to better behavior of Christians. And that’s a good thing, isn’t it? I like your point here Mo. It makes me think of how in Islam it is a high offense to speak poorly of Mohammed, yet Jesus himself said that in His kingdom*"anyone who speaks a word against the son of man" will be forgiven. There is a world of difference there. *(the church) |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Sept 8, 2010 23:32:58 GMT -8
I like your point here Mo. It makes me think of how in Islam it is a high offense to speak poorly of Mohammed, yet Jesus himself said that in His kingdom*"anyone who speaks a word against the son of man" will be forgiven. There is a world of difference there. *(the church) Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Christian faith is better than the Muslim faith contentwise. Neither am I saying, that the rude behavior of radical Muslims necessarily stands in direct correlation with the teachings of their religion. The Koran and the Bible not only share large parts of content, but have one more important thing in common: You can get absolutely everything out of that book - for better or worse. It is all up to translation, interpretation, personal selection, etc. And how we interpret things depends on so many factors (degree of education, personal experiences, socio-political context, historical background and most importantly cultural interpretative patterns). If you talk to apologetics of Islam, they will show you ways of interpreting Islam in a totally different light. They will highlight how peaceful the Prophet was, how he insisted of never using force in religion and how every thing that explicitly allows violence is a mistranslation. The radical and violent Muslims are on the news every day, because the media fancy this kind of behavior; because they can sell it. Just look at the present issue with this Christian pastor: He leads a congregation of - what: 50 people? And yet he is all over the news world wide.* The media don't work according to the code: true - untrue or representative - not representative or even fair - unfair but according to the code: saleable / unsaleable. it follows that they usually don't care much about putting things into perspective. What I'm trying to say is: The general behavioral superiority of Christians over Muslims I portrayed in my post above doesn't tell us anything about the superiority of the faith. It doesn't even tell us wether this superiority in behavior really exists in the real life or not. The post above was all about the image and the expectations that follow. Christianity has a better image and hence the expectations are higher. That it has a better image doesn't come as a surprise given that it is the dominant religion in our part of the world. And even if we could genuinely show that significant numbers of Christians behave better than significant numbers of Muslims, we still have to be careful with the possible explanations. After all, the entire West has made it's own unique historical, social and political progress. This progress has shaped Christianity and Christianity has shaped the progress. But I dare say that historical events like wars and revolutions played stronger parts. *When I started this thread it was only a sidenote over here. Now everybody is talking about how dangerous radical Christians are. It must be frustrating to see how much effort you put into displaying a good image of Christianity and how easy it is for someone to quickly tear down with his butt all the stuff you patiently built up with your brains.  You should see me defending Christians. I'm a natural born advocatus diaboli. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 9, 2010 16:11:58 GMT -8
Perhaps you know that I disagree that one can get ANYTHING out of a text such as the New Testament or the Koran. There is only so far one can stretch a text before it simply becomes academically irresponsible. But that's for another thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Sept 10, 2010 7:24:14 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Sept 10, 2010 9:57:40 GMT -8
Perhaps you know that I disagree that one can get ANYTHING out of a text such as the New Testament or the Koran. There is only so far one can stretch a text before it simply becomes academically irresponsible. But that's for another thread. Note the distortion: first you reduce the Bible to the New Testament and then you introduce academic responsibility as a standard… as if the billions of believers out there cared a fig about whether their (often fully gut-based) faith would endure academic methodological analysis. That’s actually pretty funny.  But please face the facts: The spectrum of Christian beliefs – I won’t tire to repeat this – reaches from left to right and top to bottom. From “fire and brimstone” to universal reconciliation, from gay-church-weddings to “God hates fags”, from “burn the Koran” to the golden rule. And the same goes for Islam. Do you deny this? |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 10, 2010 10:52:48 GMT -8
Moritz, (if you guys don't mind me jumping in) this is where I believe you continue to err, and I think it may simply be a blind spot for you.
If we merely read the bible as a collection of prescriptive religious commandments, universally applicable to all people at all times, we can fall into this trap very easily (and Christians do this even more than atheists IMO) and of course we'd see contradictions.
But if we read it as an unfolding story of God's restoration project for human kind, it's much easier to see how God is revealing His plan to humanity through various dispensations, each one illuminating the previous one.
So "contradictions" like the one you described need not be actual contradictions any more than a math teacher that commands his students to do long division by hand one semester, and then giving them calculators for the same problems the following semester. It's all part of the process.
You are correct though (IMO) about the literal interpretation being the most academically responsible. But the age old question is....which literal device should be used on a given passage to give us the true message of the passage. This is why there are so many interpretive variations (as you like to continually point out). For the adventuresome, the process is invigorating. But I can see how it can be perplexing for anyone who simply wants the "punch line".
But alas, I'm afraid we've derailed the thread. Maybe it can be split?
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 10, 2010 11:08:30 GMT -8
Robin wrote:
I guess we should've expected the Phelps' to be in there somewhere. Surprise, surprise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 10, 2010 16:41:33 GMT -8
Mo:
I don't disagree that weird interpretations of holy books* are legion. I disagree that all interpretations are academically responsible.
*or other books of literature
Chris:
What quote are you responding to two posts up?
And, yes, we can split this once it sorts out a bit.
|
|
