smiliarities between Christian and muslim extremists

Page 3 of 3 [ 48 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3

Previous topic | Next topic

richardbenson
Xfractor Card #351
$Xfractor Card #351$

Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,553
Location: Leave only a footprint behind

13 Jan 2008, 12:34 am

nominalist wrote:

one general similarity between many extremists, as I define that term, in both Christianity and Islam is a belief in creationism.

you got that right

_________________
Winds of clarity. a universal understanding come and go, I've seen though the Darkness to understand the bounty of Light

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

13 Jan 2008, 1:19 am

nominalist wrote:

The main difference, IMO, is that extreme fundamentalist Christians generally live within stable, democratic Western republics which have benefited from the Enlightenment. (The countries in which Christian fundamentalism is most common are the U.S. and Australia.) On the other hand, fundamentalist Muslims generally come from theocratic or authoritarian societies.

To add to what I wrote, in the American South, up through the 1970s, lynchings of Blacks were often carried out with the support, even involvement, of law enforcement officers. From the standpoint of many African Americans living in the South at that time, the Southern states were terrorist states. All KKK groups, at least at the time, defined themselves as Christian - usually Southern Baptist.

_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

13 Jan 2008, 2:14 am

nominalist wrote:

Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were both influenced by right-wing fundamentalist groups when they collaborated in bombing the federal building in Oklahoma City.

Timothy McVeigh had right-wing political views but he was in no way a Christian fundamentalist. In interviews he identified himself as a “lapsed” Catholic, deist, or agnostic. He also denies being racist and describes his political beliefs as libertarian. Google it.

Quote:

I’m quite positive that the Muslim I quoted was a British citizen. He obviously doesn’t live in a theocratic or authoritarian society, yet he is clearly an extremist. Read his words. He doesn’t tolerate freedom of speech or expression when it comes to criticizing his religion. I didn’t ask him specifically, but I’m fairly certain that he would support the imposition of Islamic law by the state as well.

There are very few fundamentalist Christians who outright support implementing “old testament” type laws (i.e. putting adulterers and homosexuals to death). Unfortunately this isn’t the case with Islam. There are many Muslims, including many living in democratic countries, that would like religious laws to be implemented by the state.

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

13 Jan 2008, 12:15 pm

marshall wrote:

I didn't say he was one. I said he was influenced by extreme fundamentalist Christian groups (Christian Identity, to be specific). I don't have the time right now for a more thorough search, but here is what I am talking about:

"The man convicted in the Oklahoma City bombing reportedly was in contact with an Oklahoma [Christian] Identity compound just days before the disaster. Telephone records reveal that Timothy McVeigh placed two calls to Elohim City, a 22-year-old armed Identity enclave headed by Robert Millar. Millar admitted these calls were made, but denied speaking to McVeigh personally."
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/identity_history.htm

Quote:

The British Muslim community has never been as well integrated into UK society as, for instance, the American Muslim community is integrated into U.S. society. In the U.S., American-born Islamic extremists tend to be socially marginalized individuals (bullied, imprisoned, etc.).

Quote:

There are very few fundamentalist Christians who outright support implementing “old testament” type laws (i.e. putting adulterers and homosexuals to death). Unfortunately this isn’t the case with Islam. There are many Muslims, including many living in democratic countries, that would like religious laws to be implemented by the state.

Yes, the theonomy movement is quite small - even among postmillennialists. That is because it is difficult to establish religious extremism in democratic republics.

Delirium
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,573
Location: not here

13 Jan 2008, 1:34 pm

I've always seen the similarities. They both hate homosexuality, feminism, and progressivism, they both want a theocracy, they both worship the same god (along with Jews and Baha'i) and they both believe in the second coming of Jesus (no, seriously, Muslims love Jesus and see him as a very important prophet).

snake321
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

13 Jan 2008, 3:19 pm

Delirium wrote:

Exactly my point. Although many christian extremists here in the states won't openly say they want a theocracy, they'll try to call it something else, but this is mere denial, which is an ego defense mechanism. Muslims though, since they usually don't come from democratic nations, are usually very abruptly and in-your-face honest about wanting a theocracy.

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

13 Jan 2008, 5:42 pm

nominalist wrote:

marshall wrote:

He had help from another extremist group that happens to be Christian. What McVeigh had in common with the Identity movement was a strong anti-government ideology, not Christianity. Christianity wasn’t the ideology that motivated his actions.

It bothers me when people falsely equate someone like McVeigh with someone like Mohammed Atta. Not saying you are. I just think people might read your statement as such. That’s all I’m trying to point out.

Quote:

Yes, the theonomy movement is quite small - even among postmillennialists. That is because it is difficult to establish religious extremism in democratic republics.

I also don’t think such a movement is easy to support biblically. Unlike the Quran, the Bible is quite vague as it is not a single book but a collection of books written over many ages. Most fundamentalist Christians believe Jesus and the New Testament teachings render theocracy unnecessary. However, there’s no easy way to interpret the Quran without accepting theocracy unless you cherry pick. That’s the problem I see. There’s no basis for separation of religion and state in the Quran.

snake321
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

13 Jan 2008, 5:48 pm

But fundamentalist christians are trying to push for a theocracy, what else do you call it when they'r force feeding their religion to secular society through legislation? Making laws around their religious beliefs? I call it an attempt at establishing a theocracy.
They forcibly converted most of Europe to Christianity too, this is how the old pagan religions had died off. They put their heads on chopping blocks and told them to convert or die.

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

13 Jan 2008, 5:51 pm

Delirium wrote:

I agree.

However, I think Christianity has been de-fanged by the Enlightenment movement in the 18th century. Islam hasn't had a progressive movement unless you go back to the 12th-13th century. Christianity is a dying religion in the West. Islam isn't dying fast enough. Maybe this is due to economic disparity, but I think the religious text itself is partly to blame.

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

13 Jan 2008, 5:59 pm

marshall wrote:

I would say that Christian Identity is an ideology which was involved in his actions.

Quote:

It bothers me when people falsely equate someone like McVeigh with someone like Mohammed Atta. Not saying you are. I just think people might read your statement as such. That’s all I’m trying to point out.

As a sociologist, I don't equate any two situations. All contexts need to be examined on their own. However, personally speaking, I also would not rank Atta as worse than McVeigh either.

Quote:

IMO, almost countless, mutually contradictory ideas can be supported from the Bible. (I interact everyday with biblical literalists on Paltalk.) That is because there is no such thing as the Bible. What people call the Bible is a compilation or, more precisely, about half a dozen different compilations (if one takes into account the various biblical canons). A person will emphasize a particular book or text, by a certain author, and then use that hermeneutic as the basis for interpreting texts written by other people ("word studies" and "proof texting").

That is not the best way to read texts. However, the doctrine of "verbal inerrancy," treating the Bible as a single inspired book, is a constant culprit in horrible exegeses.

Last edited by nominalist on 13 Jan 2008, 6:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

13 Jan 2008, 6:12 pm

snake321 wrote:

I agree somewhat. However the Christian version of theocracy isn't quite the same as the Muslim version. Both are bad, but one is worse than the other.

Quote:

They forcibly converted most of Europe to Christianity too, this is how the old pagan religions had died off. They put their heads on chopping blocks and told them to convert or die.

That was back when the Church had a lot of power and the vast majority of people were illiterate. Christianity was a means to control the pagans, to give them a common identity, to prevent them from fighting each other. To the Romans the pagans were probably considered warlike barbarians or subhumans. They probably would have been slaughtered regardless. Converting them to Christianity was seen as an excuse to let them live.

Groups of human beings are incredibly evil when it comes to other groups that are different. People who don’t have the same language, culture, physical appearance, etc. as the dominant culture have always been treated as subhuman and been victims of genocides.

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

13 Jan 2008, 6:28 pm

nominalist wrote:

marshall wrote:

I would say that Christian Identity is an ideology which was involved in his actions.

Sure it was involved. That doesn’t imply McVeigh was a Christian terrorist. If you talked to a Muslim terrorist he/she would probably quote the Quran to justify his/her actions. McVeigh never cited the bible to justify his actions. He cited extreme anti-government ideologies.

Quote:

As a sociologist, I don't equate any two situations. All contexts need to be examined on their own. However, personally speaking, I also would not rank Atta as worse than McVeigh either.

I never said one was worse than the other. They are equally evil acts and both were motivated by extremism. However, unlike McVeigh, Atta was motivated by his religion. Also, Atta’s ideology had more support among Muslims than McVeigh’s ideology had support among Christians or libertarians. Atta had a much wider ideological base that supported his actions.

Quote:

Yes. I agree totally. People who claim to treat the Bible as verbally inerrant are bound to a subjective interpretation. They cannot be honest when they claim objectivity in their interpretation. There are too many internal contradictions due to the compilation nature of the Bible. This gives even the most literalist of Christians the ability to subconsciously modify their interpretation to fit with the changing culture. This doesn’t happen with Islam as much because the Quran is less ambiguous and there is less flexibility in interpretation.

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

13 Jan 2008, 6:57 pm

marshall wrote:

Yes. However, there is a long history of Christians who cited their particular canon of the Bible for all manner of terrorist acts, including the KKK and the Roman Catholic inquisitors.

Quote:

This gives even the most literalist of Christians the ability to subconsciously modify their interpretation to fit with the changing culture. This doesn’t happen with Islam as much because the Quran is less ambiguous and there is less flexibility in interpretation.

Part of the reason for it is that, aside from any possible transcription errors, there was apparently a single author, Muhammad. Most disagreements between Muslims relate to extra-qur-ánic manuscripts, like those in the Sunna and Hadith.

sojournertruth
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 1 Dec 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 253

16 Jan 2008, 3:28 am

interesting, enjoyable discussion. I hope you keep going.

sojournertruth
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 1 Dec 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 253

19 Jan 2008, 4:19 am

well, shoot - tell them they're being watched, and everyone just shuts up. Did I violate some sort of subtle social rule that everyone knows about but me?

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

19 Jan 2008, 1:07 pm

sojournertruth wrote:

well, shoot - tell them they're being watched, and everyone just shuts up. Did I violate some sort of subtle social rule that everyone knows about but me?

No, I think that, as with most forum discussions, it eventually just fizzled out.

Page 3 of 3 [ 48 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3

Jump to:

smiliarities between Christian and muslim extremists Post Reply New Topic

smiliarities between Christian and muslim extremists