JK Rowling assails Murdoch tweet about Muslims

[arjunadawn]

Wasn't the same true regarding Christianity back when?

It took Christianity over a millennium to accept different schools of thought within itself. Many nowadays Christians would be considered heretics, apostates and whatnot by earlier standards. Not sure that the concept of a "moderate" Christian got too much mileage as far history goes. There were times when mainstream view held it inconceivable to live as a Christian outside of the boundaries laid by the church.

I read your post a few times trying to tease out whether this was true or not; it is true. While for 300 years or so christianity was peaceful and actually fairly mystical and gnostic in many ways, after the coup at the council of nicsa the catholic church became, IMO, barbaric and very worldly. This lasted for over 1,000 years before the reformation. Why could there even have been a reformation?

Because there is no inherent authority in scriptures for a worldly chrisitian empire and assuming secular roles. While clearly it was done, it was a vacant authority. This is why some chrisitan denominations assert there was an actual apostasy of Jesus' church after the 4th century; theosophically arguing the church was recalled to heaven. OK, enough of that. So, we have an example where the two are similar but the dissimilarity is the issue- islam proscribes earthly secular authority and has a highly evolved system of law, living, and all manner of chain of being and interactions proscribed by the faith. Islam has no real mechanism for reformation other than returning to the orthodox; though I do applaud al Sisi of Egypt for his recent remarks.

I am uncertain finding a comparison in the evolution of another religion serves any value. If it is thus suggested wait until they go through growing pains, no! I don't want to be part of that. I dont want to live through the bloodshed and dying and decaying underlying the notion that perhaps on the other end will be a relative social partner. Islam does not have inherent this blueprint. From Shar'ia to the Hirjah, Islam is designed for war. There are carefully laid out designs on how to enter a non muslim country, resolve to decieve, live with one's own, make demands, then force the host to adhere to Shar'ia. This is not controversy; this is fact. So it has always been, so it will always be. Murdoch may be a clown but he is correct here.

Thanks for taking the time to lay out some very relevant facts. I agree with a lot of what you say, but I have to take issue with the idea that Christianity has no foundation in a worldly church. Isn't it true that Jesus used the old testament and the new testament was actually never "approved" by him? The OT has ample reference to a worldly church.

The other point is that I agree totally that Murdoch is a clown for posting like that - worse - he is guilty of dividing populations. Hence I disagree -- he was not right in word or intention. His post was publicity seeking and damaging to all. Witness the polarisation of the posters in here.

Jesus represented a new dispensation; the jews didn't buy it, the gentiles did. The Pentateuch (5 books- the law) was effectively turned on its head for gentiles, the jews continued waiting for the savior. Yes, Jesus specifically stated his kingdom was not of this earth. From Adamic, to Noah, to Moses, etc., each period represented a dispensation regarding the divine's relationship with man. Christ clearly wanted earthly matters rendered unto Cesar alone for His kingdom was already "at hand." Therefore the christian equivalent of what you cite was never legitimate earthly authority to rule as christian emperor whereas islamic intrusion into all spheres of life is an integral part of islam, shar'ia. Its binding on believers and not equally. Murdoch spoke to this point, I suppose.

[Morch]

People keep saying this, but interpretation is not the problem. They are following their religion literally. They have to ignore many of the teachings in the Qur'an to qualify as moderate Muslims, which means that the religion is a big part of the problem. .

Yes, the western invention of the "moderate" muslim is the apostate muslim by islamic standards. Western people little realize the moderates they know are actually apostate and this is among the most vital reasons for the global silence.

Wasn't the same true regarding Christianity back when?

It took Christianity over a millennium to accept different schools of thought within itself. Many nowadays Christians would be considered heretics, apostates and whatnot by earlier standards. Not sure that the concept of a "moderate" Christian got too much mileage as far history goes. There were times when mainstream view held it inconceivable to live as a Christian outside of the boundaries laid by the church.

I read your post a few times trying to tease out whether this was true or not; it is true. While for 300 years or so christianity was peaceful and actually fairly mystical and gnostic in many ways, after the coup at the council of nicsa the catholic church became, IMO, barbaric and very worldly. This lasted for over 1,000 years before the reformation. Why could there even have been a reformation?

Because there is no inherent authority in scriptures for a worldly chrisitian empire and assuming secular roles. While clearly it was done, it was a vacant authority. This is why some chrisitan denominations assert there was an actual apostasy of Jesus' church after the 4th century; theosophically arguing the church was recalled to heaven. OK, enough of that. So, we have an example where the two are similar but the dissimilarity is the issue- islam proscribes earthly secular authority and has a highly evolved system of law, living, and all manner of chain of being and interactions proscribed by the faith. Islam has no real mechanism for reformation other than returning to the orthodox; though I do applaud al Sisi of Egypt for his recent remarks.

I am uncertain finding a comparison in the evolution of another religion serves any value. If it is thus suggested wait until they go through growing pains, no! I don't want to be part of that. I dont want to live through the bloodshed and dying and decaying underlying the notion that perhaps on the other end will be a relative social partner. Islam does not have inherent this blueprint. From Shar'ia to the Hirjah, Islam is designed for war. There are carefully laid out designs on how to enter a non muslim country, resolve to decieve, live with one's own, make demands, then force the host to adhere to Shar'ia. This is not controversy; this is fact. So it has always been, so it will always be. Murdoch may be a clown but he is correct here.

I think that for ordinary folk back when, things were not all that different then they are for some Muslims today. Theology aside, there were many periods in history when the church (or religious establishment, if that works better) wielded tremendous power and influence. This was not merely political and economical, but was part of the normative psych.

Islam may not, currently, have a proper mechanism for reform. It does not necessarily mean that it will always be thus. Evolution of religions may not be identical, but comparisons are possible, certain processes and factors may be common. Not suggesting waiting for this to happen, just wondering what other choices are there? Acknowledging that historical processes occur does not mean that humans should seat idle. We're not capable of waiting that long by definition of our being. So by all means - action is welcome, but with the knowledge that its scope and effect may be limited.

[Morch]

The UN was built with a prayer room to Gaia, Mother Earth. To assert is is christian in any way is silly.

Check out the balance of voters in the UNHCR, for example. How many christian countries vs how many muslim, vs how many "others"

UN bodies change membership constantly, choosing one at random and at a specific time does not make the claim stronger.

Additionally, nations being nominally Christian, or having a Christian majority in the population does not necessarily mean that their vote pattern got much to do with Christian values and ideals.

[jpinx]

The UN was built with a prayer room to Gaia, Mother Earth. To assert is is christian in any way is silly.

Check out the balance of voters in the UNHCR, for example. How many christian countries vs how many muslim, vs how many "others"

UN bodies change membership constantly, choosing one at random and at a specific time does not make the claim stronger.

Additionally, nations being nominally Christian, or having a Christian majority in the population does not necessarily mean that their vote pattern got much to do with Christian values and ideals.

Whilst I agree with a fair amount of what you've posted, I really can not agree with this one. Almost every country has a religion held as "official" in one way or another, by word or practice. To suggest that the representatives in UNHCR are immune to their own national background is somewhat naive.

Regarding the basis of the earthly church of christianity, one only has to look at the vast wealth amassed by the various sects of the religion you hole out as "heavenly". As my granny used to say - don't worry too much about what people say -- watch what they do. Actions speak louder than words.

Indeed Islam will mature, but in what direction is unknown. Meantime we need to take stock of the current trend in western nations to be so inclusive. Not only is religion causing problems for nations trying to include everyone because of some mistaken humanitarian policy, the whole structure of society needs to change if such inclusion is not going to cause the host considerable pain, not least by the need to retract occasionally.

What's the next religion currently taking baby steps which will lead us to more interesting integration problems? Scientology?

Having said all that -- I am in favour of what I've seen described as "multi-culturalism" - but with one very big caveat. Incomers must obey the laws of the land they come into and the hosts need to be considerably more robust in enforcing those laws without fear of reprisals from the international bodies.

[Jai Dee]

One post that quoted another member and modified the content has been removed from this topic.

From the Forum Rules:

2. Please do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes or wording. Such posts will be deleted and the user warned.

[Steely Dan]

To apply Godwin's Law, would the haulocast better be described as "Christian massacre of Jews"?

Hitler was very anti-Christian and he was in charge. He disparaged the Bible as "too Jewish." Nazism itself was consistently a racial ideology - not religious - so no it could not be described that way accurately.

A left wing one at that, which is another point that gets overlooked - This leads to a leftist inversion of fact when they warn of the dangers of Antisemitism from the far right whilst they themselves are riddled with it.

[wilcopops]

so now who do we blame for hacking NOTW - the Australians? Americans? or Christians?

[wilcopops]

To apply Godwin's Law, would the haulocast better be described as "Christian massacre of Jews"?

Hitler was very anti-Christian and he was in charge. He disparaged the Bible as "too Jewish." Nazism itself was consistently a racial ideology - not religious - so no it could not be described that way accurately.

I think you might look at the role of the Catholic church and the churches within Germany. Just as illogical to blame the islamic religion too.

[wilcopops]

To apply Godwin's Law, would the haulocast better be described as "Christian massacre of Jews"?

Hitler was very anti-Christian and he was in charge. He disparaged the Bible as "too Jewish." Nazism itself was consistently a racial ideology - not religious - so no it could not be described that way accurately.

I think you might look at the role of the Catholic church and the churches within Germany. Just as illogical to blame the islamic religion too.