|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 8:04 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Pligganease wrote: |
People...
The point of the message isn't that Christians are better than everyone, nor that because Jesus had to face so much adversity we're supposed to let it happen to us.
The message is that when Christ was mocked, he "turned the other cheek." He didn't call for the smiting of those that mocked him. He asked God to forgive them and went on his merry way.
The article is merely pointing out the difference between the way Jesus handled and told his followers to handle adversity, and the way Mohammed did the same, and how those apply to current events. |
Quoting from the OP:
| Quote: |
| It means that this religion is destined to bear the impossible load of upholding the honor of one who did not die and rise again to make that possible. It means that Jesus Christ is still the only hope of peace with God and peace with man. |
Christianity isn't the solution to religious extremism- it's part of the problem.
The article compares Christianity and Islam and figuratively concludes 'yeah, we're better, see?'
Sort of like comparing Hirohito and Hitler- sure Hitler was responsible for killing alot more people, but does that mean Hirohito's empire is one to be emulated?
Somewhere out there are Buddhists smirking and clucking their tongues at this thread... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 8:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Somewhere out there are Buddhists smirking and clucking their tongues at this thread... |
Unless they're too busy beating on Tamil's in Sri Lanka.
| Quote: |
Communal tensions continued to rise over the following years. In 1972 the nation became a republic under a new constitution, which was a testimony to the ideology of Sirimavo Bandaranaike, and Buddhism was accorded special status. These reforms and new laws discriminating against Tamils in university admissions were a symbolic threat the Tamil community felt it could not ignore, and a vicious cycle of violence erupted that has plagued successive governments. Tamil agitation for separation became associated with gruesome and highly visible terrorist acts by extremists, triggering large communal riots in 1977, 1981, and 1983. During these riots, Sinhalese mobs retaliated against isolated and vulnerable Tamil communities. By the mid-1980s, the Tamil militant underground had grown in strength and posed a serious security threat to the government, and its combatants struggled for a Tamil nation--"Tamil Eelam"--by an increasing recourse to terrorism. The fundamental, unresolved problems facing society were surfacing with a previously unseen force. Foreign and domestic observers expressed concern for democratic procedures in a society driven by divisive symbols and divided by ethnic loyalties.
|
(of course according to the OP none of this should have happened because Buddha was all about peace and harmony and as we all know religious people always act exactly the same as their founder)
http://countrystudies.us/sri-lanka/2.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Somewhere out there are Buddhists smirking and clucking their tongues at this thread... |
Unless they're too busy beating on Tamil's in Sri Lanka.
|
No doubt.
Or beating each other up over the next succession, as they did in Seoul.
Such is the folly of trying to claim the religious high ground, which is what is in evidence in the OP's article and what I am arguing against.
I thought we had an established separation of Church and State in 'Western' nations.
Why do some people seem so anxious to turn the clock back a few hundred years? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jinju wrote: |
Have you ever picked up a copy of any Islamic holybook? Muhammad was pure?
Here are some words from islam's holy books about Muhammad. Tell me if he is pure and how you could compare him with Christ.
Tabari IX:128 ��When the Prophet married Aisha, she was very young and not yet ready for consummation.�� This is how it happened: Tabari IX:131 ��My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old.��
Bukhari:V4B52N211 ��I participated in a Ghazwa [raid] with the Prophet. I said, ��Apostle, I am a bridegroom.�� He asked me whether I had married a virgin or matron. I answered, ��A matron.�� He said, ��Why not a virgin who would have played with you? Then you could have played with her.�� ��Apostle! My father was martyred and I have some young sisters, so I felt it not proper that I should marry a young girl as young as them.����
You like that? Pure? If you want to read abut Muhammad and his life then go to http://www.prophetofdoom.net/toc.html and have a blast. Pedophilia, murder, anti-semitism, war, profiteering. Compare that to Christ's simple life of devotion to God. |
"holybook" Quite the scholar of Islam I see.
If you're going to bash a religion, at least know your terms correctly. I might disagree with BigVerne a great deal of the time, but at least he comes across as knowing what he's talking about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AbbeFaria
Joined: 17 May 2005
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
I thought we had an established separation of Church and State in 'Western' nations. |
The speration of Church and State, atleast in the U.S. is a joke. It's a mockery of the term. It's sort of a draw back of having a nation originally founded by Puritans. It's everywhere you go. And I do mean everywhere.
��S�� |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To give John Piper his due I'd have to say that his Desiring God website is very professional and he has really got the product merchandizing aspect nailed down (pardon the pun). He's got so much stuff for sale he's giving Amway a real run for its money.
http://www.desiringgodstore.org/store/index.cgi?cmd=view_category&id=4
"These miniature knights can be earned by memorizing Fighter Verses.
Knights remind children that each time they memorize Scripture they are putting on the "full armor of God.""
Cool. I like knights, so I'm down with that.
Some people might question the whole martial aspect of it though, given that, well, knights basically killed people, right?
I mean, that's what the armor and the swords were for...
It sort of flies in the face of the whole 'turn the other cheek' thing, doesn't it?
And well, the Crusades and all..
Still, that doesn't matter, because it's Christianity!
Not bloodthirsty Islam!
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 2:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just a couple brief points - in ancient Vedic culture, whose influence extended throughout the planet, girls were usually married by age 12 (though consummation was usually a few years later...)
Also, in U.S. colonial history I don't believe that Catholics were the main culprits in 'witchhunts" culminating in "burnings at the stake"... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinglejangle
Joined: 19 Feb 2005
Location: Far far far away.
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Somewhere out there are Buddhists smirking and clucking their tongues at this thread... |
Unless they're too busy beating on Tamil's in Sri Lanka.
| Quote: |
Communal tensions continued to rise over the following years. In 1972 the nation became a republic under a new constitution, which was a testimony to the ideology of Sirimavo Bandaranaike, and Buddhism was accorded special status. These reforms and new laws discriminating against Tamils in university admissions were a symbolic threat the Tamil community felt it could not ignore, and a vicious cycle of violence erupted that has plagued successive governments. Tamil agitation for separation became associated with gruesome and highly visible terrorist acts by extremists, triggering large communal riots in 1977, 1981, and 1983. During these riots, Sinhalese mobs retaliated against isolated and vulnerable Tamil communities. By the mid-1980s, the Tamil militant underground had grown in strength and posed a serious security threat to the government, and its combatants struggled for a Tamil nation--"Tamil Eelam"--by an increasing recourse to terrorism. The fundamental, unresolved problems facing society were surfacing with a previously unseen force. Foreign and domestic observers expressed concern for democratic procedures in a society driven by divisive symbols and divided by ethnic loyalties.
|
(of course according to the OP none of this should have happened because Buddha was all about peace and harmony and as we all know religious people always act exactly the same as their founder)
http://countrystudies.us/sri-lanka/2.htm |
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha
Right on!
I would venture that the Aisha thing is less than relevant to his morality. That was the way things were often done back then. Still is some places. Ghandi was married to his wife when they were both like, 6 or 8 or something.
Yes, I know, Ghandi wasn't in his 50's. But I'm just pointing out that this is not unusual outside of Europe. At least one tribe that I've studied actually married all of it's females at birth. Did they consumate it then? No. But still that was done quite young.
There is a great deal of difference between some drunk trailer trash F@#$ raping his daughter, and what was then a socially acceptable practice, done openly, and where the girl probably had the support and approval of all or most of the adults involved. She was probably even respected for it, and no doubt it broguht great honor upon her house.
Is it the best way to do things? Probably not, but it's still a great deal different than it would be in American society.
Now, don't get me wrong. I don't buy into the "Islam is a religion of peace and terrorists are not following it" jive. I'd love to argue that Islam IS in fact an inherently violent religion, and that Mohammed was a guy of questionable charachter. It's just that in this matter I don't believe he was doing anything other than what his culture accepted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinglejangle
Joined: 19 Feb 2005
Location: Far far far away.
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
On the other hand wrote:
From the Catholic Encylopedia:
Quote:
Medieval canon law punished the blasphemer most severely. By a decree of the thirteenth century one convicted of blasphemy was compelled to stand at the door of the church during the solemnities of the Mass for seven Sundays, and on the last of these days, divested of cloak and shoes, he was to appear with a rope about his neck...
What you are really saying is that any group of people that regulate blasphemy like that are medieval in nature, right?
You can't use the old Catholic church, which was merely a powerful "government" that was trying to prevent their power from being usurped, to modern Christianity. You can, however, compare that to modern day Islam.
The Catholic church of old fought crusades, held the Inquisition, and was generally everything that we revile in modern day Islamic cultures. Christians, and Christianity for that matter, have evolved since those days. The same cannot, unfortunately, be said for Islam.
|
I am not disputing that the "Christian" world is more tolerant than the Islamic one. What I AM disputing is that this tolerance is rooted in the life and example of Jesus Christ, since if that were the case than we would expect a similar attitude to be present throughout the history of Christianity, since Christians have always worshipped the sacrificed Christ. |
I would like to argue that in general, one can expect that large numbers of adherents to a belief would be likely to exibit some of that beliefs characteristics. I would also like to point out (again) that the "Christians" who were in power back in the middle ages (and many of the "Christian" leaders today) were not even remotely close to acting as though they actually believed the Bible.
I would also argue that the average joe does not fully understand, nor has carefully studied the teachings of their religion, and that therefore ANY religion (including my own pacifistic one) is quite suseptible to having it's less well educated adherents coopted for evil purposes.
Witness the afore mentioned Catholics, the Sri Lankans, and the Ugandans.
Nonetheless, let's take a very extreme (and fictional) example to make this point further.
The villan in the movie Seven.
If he were real, and those were real events, does anyone really think that he would be a valid representation of Christianity in general or of the teachings of Christ?
The principles he was following weren't even biblical to begin with. They were later add-ons of church policy. The same applies with most of the justifications for the various evils of the various christian churches.
The Crusades were originally started over the Ottomans' blocking of pligrim's routes to Jerusalem. But there is nothing about such pilgrimages in the Bible. Even if they were biblical, the biblical response to such a blockade would be to go anyway, and suffer whatever problems were handed to you without resorting to violence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flakfizer
Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
To give John Piper his due I'd have to say that his Desiring God website is very professional and he has really got the product merchandizing aspect nailed down (pardon the pun). He's got so much stuff for sale he's giving Amway a real run for its money.
http://www.desiringgodstore.org/store/index.cgi?cmd=view_category&id=4
"These miniature knights can be earned by memorizing Fighter Verses.
Knights remind children that each time they memorize Scripture they are putting on the "full armor of God.""
Cool. I like knights, so I'm down with that.
Some people might question the whole martial aspect of it though, given that, well, knights basically killed people, right?
I mean, that's what the armor and the swords were for...
It sort of flies in the face of the whole 'turn the other cheek' thing, doesn't it?
And well, the Crusades and all..
Still, that doesn't matter, because it's Christianity!
Not bloodthirsty Islam!
|
Right, the Bible using "armor of God" imagery (to describe our spiritual battles which are not against "flesh and blood") really flies in the face of "turn the other cheek." Is this deliberate ignorance or otherwise? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So you are saying that the knights WEREN'T Christians? Cause I think they dealt a lot with flesh... and blood too.
Is this deliberate ignorance or otherwise?
And would it be a bad time to mention that there many interpretations of the word 'jihad', some which define jihad as a personal and spiritual battle, and not neccessarily a physical one?
Now, if you want to scoff at that interpretation, that's fine.
I find it a little weak myself.
But then I would also say the same of your interpretation or armour and battles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| jinju wrote: |
Have you ever picked up a copy of any Islamic holybook? Muhammad was pure?
Here are some words from islam's holy books about Muhammad. Tell me if he is pure and how you could compare him with Christ.
Tabari IX:128 ��When the Prophet married Aisha, she was very young and not yet ready for consummation.�� This is how it happened: Tabari IX:131 ��My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old.��
Bukhari:V4B52N211 ��I participated in a Ghazwa [raid] with the Prophet. I said, ��Apostle, I am a bridegroom.�� He asked me whether I had married a virgin or matron. I answered, ��A matron.�� He said, ��Why not a virgin who would have played with you? Then you could have played with her.�� ��Apostle! My father was martyred and I have some young sisters, so I felt it not proper that I should marry a young girl as young as them.����
You like that? Pure? If you want to read abut Muhammad and his life then go to http://www.prophetofdoom.net/toc.html and have a blast. Pedophilia, murder, anti-semitism, war, profiteering. Compare that to Christ's simple life of devotion to God. |
"holybook" Quite the scholar of Islam I see.
If you're going to bash a religion, at least know your terms correctly. I might disagree with BigVerne a great deal of the time, but at least he comes across as knowing what he's talking about. |
I dont need to bash it. The muslims have source material of their own that shows what Muhammad was like. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Holy books!
Source material!
See? He knows his stuff!
What a retort!
Boy, he really put you in your place, Bucheon.
Islam too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flakfizer
Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
So you are saying that the knights WEREN'T Christians?
What are you talking about here? Are you back on that old Crusades chestnut? You're talking with yourself. I said nothing about the Crusades, you did. I said that "putting on the armour of God" does not fly in the face of "turn the other cheek." Ah, but you will keep talking about events from hunderds of years ago involving "Christendom" rather than actually looking at the teachings of Christ.
Cause I think they dealt a lot with flesh... and blood too.
Is this deliberate ignorance or otherwise?
And would it be a bad time to mention that there many interpretations of the word 'jihad', some which define jihad as a personal and spiritual battle, and not neccessarily a physical one?
Now, if you want to scoff at that interpretation, that's fine.
I find it a little weak myself.
But then I would also say the same of your interpretation or armour and battles. |
My interpretation of what? The Bilical passages you alluded to but don't actually know? Here they are:
10Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. 12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. 18And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.
Yeah, this can be interpreted in so many ways. Clearly we are being told to fight a physical battle with large books as our only weapons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So Christianity is a totally non-violent religion then?
Listen, I don't care to quibble over this biblical scripture or that quranic scripture, and I would certainly agree with you if you were to say that I am no religious scholar of any religion.
But my ignorance of scripture makes absolutely no difference to my point.
As I have already said, it's folly to try to claim religious high ground in present real world conflicts, which is what the OP's article is clearly trying to do.
You want to 'don your armour' to fight spiritual battles against Lucifer?
Knock yourself out.
A quick and simple question for you- do you agree with John Piper's scriptural analysis and conclusions as put forth in the OP?
P.S. What do you think of the merchandizing at John Piper's website?
It doesn't strike anyone as a little over the top? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
