Are there any peaceful muslim nations?

Set-- The 'my religion is better' crap is actually being forwarded by such comments as yours. You keep wanting to put down Christianity and defend Islam. How about an investigative, non-emotional, non- point to make analysis of Mohammad, his writings and actions; Jesus, his words and example?

Why avoid it so vigorously? We're not talking about Muslims or Christians--just Mohammad and Christ. They can take it. :wink:

What quotes of Jesus or examples did He set that gave Eric Rudolph or the Serbs the Christian stamp of approval to kill?

What did Christ say or do that would approve these murderers?

Tell me, and I will never speak a negative word about any other religion.

This isn't an empty bluff. It would change my mind. I've looked and never found anything that would condone violence. Can you? Or can you not?

Rick,

"What is your opinion concerning Zoroastrianism Asherman? "

I admire their adherence to, and emphasis on "good thought, good words, and good deeds". Anyone who has read much of my writing will recognize that as a persistent theme. The use of the term "good" seems a bit imprecise, but it is still a worthy concept. The Zoroastrians have had impact far larger than their numbers on other religions. Some believe that they were the inventors of monothesism. The term Ahura Mazda, Lord of Light, is the supreme deity and ultimate mover of the universe. Angra Mainyu, or sometimes Ariman, is the evil lord of darkness and chaos. The War between the Children of the Light and Darkness is a recurrent theme in our world, though in a future time Angra Mainyu will be defeated and goodness shall reign in the world. There is a heaven and a hell that mortals will be sent to after death depending upon how their lives are judged. The symbol of the religion is a perpetual flame that burns in a rock. This seemed a miracle around 2000 BCE when Zoroasterism was at its height, but the shallow oil and natural gas fields of the region could provide a seemingly perpetual flame. Zoroastrians tend to keep to themselves awaiting a "savior" like figure who is supposed to be born of a virgin out of the line of the historical Zoroaster. Most of the world's approx. 140,000 Zoroastrians live in India and speak Pharsi, their native Persian tongue. The parallels with the beliefs of the Abrahamic faiths is too strong to be ignored. It is highly probable that many Abrahamic notions were borrowed from the Zoroastrians.

Today, Zoroasterism is largely a footnote in the larger study of hermeneutics.

Asherman wrote:

The idea of a "jealous G-d" is one of the most misused ideas that people get from Judaism.
The only reason I mention it is that in your views of the "Abrahamic" faiths, you are using this concept of a "jealous G-d" as a starting point, along with other similiarly forbidding attributes that you might see in the descriptions of G-d in the "old testament."
Please try to understand that religious Jews who seriously pursue their religion and therefore study it precepts and concepts, do not view G-d in this way at all. They don't see or even read about a G-d that has anything akin to human jealousy or pride or rage or willfullness. This is simply not the G-d of Avraham, Yitzach and Yaakov. This is not the G-d of Moshe Rabbeinu.
This is a G-d that has been sifted through the eyes of Christianity and even Islam until it bears no resemblance to the Master of the Universe that is Good; will be Good; and does Good.

I would humbly suggest that there is more similiarity in Judaism to your understanding of Hinduism than you realize.
The Supreme G-d; The G-d of Love; The G-d of Judgement; The Merciful G-d; The Jealous G-d; The G-d of Compassion; The Master of the World; The Angel of Death; The Deliverer; The Redeemer; The Helper; The Shield of Avraham; Peace.
These are all considered aspects of G-d. All of these aspects of G-d, and many, many more, come into play depending upon what is.
This is not so different from Brahama, the Creator; Vishnu the Preserver; Shiva, the Destroyer; Yama, Death; Varuna, the Just; Lakshmi, the Provider; etcetera.
And, it is a tenet of Hinduism that all of these gods are simply aspects of the One True G-d, not separate creative entities that could exist on their own.

Moishe, you have a point. God has many names and titles, all related to different things, but all of these names are the same immaterial God. To me the difference is the lack of personification of different "forces" and the nullification of the power of these forces in the face of the Infinite.

edit: I edit too much. And my apologies for hijacking the thread. This is all way off topic.

That's why I asked you this question Asherman Not only is it believed that Zoroastrianism has been of influence on the Abrahamic faiths (especially Judaism and Christianity); it is also believed it has had its influence on mahayana-Buddhism and the Greek philosophers. What I find interesting about this religion, is the fact the followers don't believe in converting other people; someone who turns his back on one faith, can not be trusted on being loyal to the other.

The Hebrews were allowed to return to Palestine from the Babylonia captivity after the Median/Persian conquest of the Assyrians and Chaldeans. I not only consider it no accident that monotheism with a messianic bent appears among the semites then, i can see no other explanation than the influence of Zoroastrian belief. According to those beliefs, the other "gods" were in fact, evil spirits who were cozening the gullible. Given that the oral traditions of the Jews which got written down after the Babylonian captivity acknowledge the existence of other gods, i consider the textual evidence conclusive that this was the source of monotheism among the semites.

Among the "hamitic" peoples, the only example of an appeal to monotheism prior to the arrival of the Persians was the brief reign of Amenophis IV--who called himself Ank'n-aten, the servant of Aten, a sun god, whom this pharoah claimed was not only supreme, but unique. This marginalized the priestly caste, and after the death of Amenophis, his son was renamed Tut-ank'n-amon, usually rendered Tutankamon, a.k.a., "King Tut." I have read that the name means "the true servant of Amon." Amon-Ra was the supreme, but not unique, deity who was displaced by Amenophis with the worship of Aten. It was the priests of Amon-Ra who were thrown out of power by Amenophis, and who regained power at his death.

It is not entirely clear that Amenophis IV intended to establish monotheism. He was a strange duck, and dressed as a woman, and frequently had himself portrayed as a woman, and shown suckling an infant Egypt. He did not live long enough to have inculcated his religious views in his son and successor.

Given that the Moses/Aaron stories (if true) date from two centuries earlier, it would not be appopriate to consider that episode in Egyptian history to be the source of Hebrew monotheism. Futher, given the profound effect which the Persians' Zoroastrianism had on religions everywhere, and particularly, the seminal effect on religious beliefs in the subcontinent, the development of which eventually lead to the rise of Siddartha Gautama and of Buddhism, i consider it as proven as anything in ancient history can be that this set of doctrines worked a sea change on religious beliefs among the many peoples, including the semitic people, and is the root of monotheism among the Hebrew.

I should also note that the name of the Median/Persian prophet (both tribes claim him) is properly Zarathustra, but that name was rendered as Zoroaster, or Zoaraster, by the Greeks--hence, Zoroastrianism.

Setanta lays out one theory that is debated and dissected by one body of theological historians. Another prevailing theory is that all religions began as monotheistic and gradually evolved into polytheism and then, some, returned to monotheism. (Some references for those interested: The Origin of Religion by Samuel Zwemer (1945), and Origin and Growth of Religion by Wilhelm Schmidt (1931).

Those theories indulge in speculation. What i have referred to is the textual evidence. Those who wish to speculate have a far greater range for their theorizing than those who rely, or attempt to rely, upon the evidence which actually constitutes history--the written record.

Textual 'evidence' by those you have studied Setanta. Or do you presume to say that only what you have studied has merit?

The point is, everyone here is trying to paint their preferred version of the way things are in the most favorable possible light. I will say right now I wasn't there so I don't rule out any credible sources by people who have devoted a good deal of their lives to researching this stuff. I am bemused and sometimes dismayed at the level of prejudice against Christians, Christianity, Jews, Judaism that is generally far more negatively pointed than any directed at Islam. (I also defend Islam when it is unfairly criticized/condemned however.) Even when condemning faith for 'forcing itself on unwilling others', there is intense effort to dismiss that faith as foolishness.

As far as origins, or the way it was 1000, 2000, 3000 years ago, it is all speculation and we can only surmise based on the best available historical, archeological and geological evidence available. Many different credible theories formed by many different credible people evolve from analysis of the same data. That Setanta and I disagree on how religious faith evolved does not prove or disprove the validity of our theories for they are, after all, purely theories.

For me the proof of the value of any faith now is how it plays in modern times. Is it constructive, valuing life and wanting the very best for humankind and the world (my definition of love)? Or is it nar·cis·sis·tic and egotistical holding all other in contempt? Or is it destructive and/or coercive requiring blind allegience and/or retribution against all sinners? I maintain that you can find all these manifested in every known religion and faith system.

In every case where we find mass examples of man's inhumanity to man, however, the seeds are always more in politics and/or the desire for power/wealth/prestige than grounded in any religious belief.

Apart from doubting that you have spent any appreciable amount of time studying the Quran and the Haddith, i have pointed out, and am willing to do so again, that comparing allegations about the teaching of "Jesus" (the name corruption given to a rabbi who might have been named Joshuah--in the English form--and who might have been responsible for a doctrine which was twisted into what became christianity) and allegations about the teachings of Mohammed have nothing to do with what motivates either muslims or christians. In answer to your rhetorical questions (for so you seem to make them), no, neither muslims nor christians rely upon textual support for the doctrines they pedal, in any example in which they won't find textual support for what they intend to do anyway. And, no, you won't find there any explanation for "the violence we're experiencing on the world stage."



I'm not trying to get away with anything. I'm simply pointing out that there is an obsessive focus on "Jesus" in modern christianity which was not present in christianity before it appeared in the early 18th century. It was not until the mid-nineteenth century that the "Jesus" cult gained prominence among English-speaking christians. It is still not prominent among European christians. The early Protestants, espeically people such as John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli in their "godly republic" at Geneva had specific reference to the patriarchs of the old testament in the formulation of their notion of a church governed by elders--i.e., presbyters. It was this focus on the patriarchal authority of the presbyters, combined with the notion of an old testament style of covenant between god and the "chosen people" (no reference to "Jesus" there), and Calvin's doctrine of predestination, which influenced the followers of John Knox, and eventually lead to the foundation of the Scots Kirk. Presbyterianism arose from the Scots Kirk. In England, the followers of Calvinist teaching, those who relied upon the Geneva bible (rather than the King James Version, which has historically been most popular among American sects), and Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Church were initially derided as "puritans." They wore the name as a badge of pride, and themselves created their own myth of a "covenant with god," the god of the old testament, which covenant and description of god is the core theme of Institutes of the Christian Church. The Puritans are the ancestor of the modern Congretationsalists (called Independents in England) and the Church of God. Many splinter sects have developed from those Calvinist churches. The Dutch Reformed Church did not adopt that many of Calvin's doctrines, but they paid special attention to Institutes of the Christian Church, and had their own "covenant" story. In all of this, and in the development of the doctrines of the Anabaptists, "Jesus" is a minor character who fulfilled the sacrificial role of the messiah--"Jesus" was never central to the doctrines of Protestant religions until the rise of John Wesley and the evangelicals in England.

Your insistence on trying to ignore the crucial aspects of the formulation of doctrine in the Protestants sect by repeating your simple-minded mantra about christ and christianity won't wash. I've never said that christian doctrine "preceded christ." I've simply pointed out that the "Jesus" cult is a modern phenomenon among Protestant sects, which based their doctrines firmly in the old testaments, and particularly in the Calvin's dicta embodied in Institutes of the Christian Church. I know you are sufficiently intelligent to understand the distinction, and therefore consider your persistence in attempting to create a strawman from what i've written about the "Jesus" cult to be rhetorically pathetic.



Why would i want to do that? I've already pointed out that you are trying to create a red herring by comparing the alleged teachings of the alleged "Jesus" with the alleged teachings of Mohammed to underpin what is basically your christian bigotry. As i've already pointed out, such appeals to textual evidence is meaningless in assessing what motivates, historically or contemporarily, the actions of muslims and chrisitans. As it happens, though, i have studied Calvin's doctrines in detail, and, although it was more than thirty years ago, i've read Institutes of the Christian Church. After all, if one wants to understand the origins of the dogma of Protestant sects in the United States, that's where one starts.



Which, of course has absolutely nothing to do with motivates homicidal fanatics in today's world. But you keep attempting to drag your red herring in front of the hounds, although i doubt that you'll be able to throw them off the scent.



Which conversation, then, has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread, which is to inquire whether or not there are any peaceful muslim nations. As with your thread on the topic of what "christ" taught, you are trailing around a red herring, which you hope will aid you in your assertion of the moral and religious superiority of christians, a disgusting contention at the best, and a blood-stained, hypocritic lie at the worst. And of course i see not profit in an irrelevant discussion of what people allege was taught by the "focal" figures in those religions. As i've pointed out, "Jesus" has only become the focal figure in the religious practice of Protestant sects within the last century and a half. Doctrinally, "Jesus" was a marginal figure, and the final piece of the "covenant" puzzle, to the early theologians of Protestant sects.



I've pointed out more than once that there are two objections to be raised to the position you have taken. The first is that it is not germaine to the topic of this thread, except in so far as you attempt to make it so. The second is that your insistence on comparing the alleged teachins of the alleged "Jesus" to the alleged teaching of Mohammed is a red herring with which you attempt to avoid a realistic comparison of the behavior of christians and muslims, both historically and contemporarily.



Neither christianity nor islam are "my" religion. Therefore, i have no dog in the "my religion is better than yours" fight. You, however, have been going through some hilarious contortions in your feeble attempt to assert that one can demonstrate that islamic teaching is directly responsible for an unusual degree of homicidal fanaticism among muslims. By trying to make the simple-minded case that one can explain this all by comparing the alleged teachings of the alleged "Jesus" to the alleged teaching of Mohammed, you are indeed trying to pedal a "my religion is superior" bill of goods. I am not putting down christianity and defending islam, and your asserting as much does not make it true. What i am pointing out is two things: that both historically and contemporarily, christians have shown as much blood-lust in the name of religion as have muslims, and that assertions about a comparison of the two doctrines is a red herring which has the added property of being a assertion of doctrinal superiority. Therefore, i am, of course, not the least interested in chasing the trail of your red herring. I am in fact talking about muslims and christians, so you can abandon the use of the preposition "we" when addressing me. The entire point of this thread is the behavior of muslims, not the doctrines of Mohammed.

How very simple minded of you, Fox. As the people who might have been monotheistic before becoming polytheistic were illiterate, there is no textual evidence for such a contention. It is therefore, purely speculative. The first literate societies were the temple societies of Sumer and the Indus river valley. They were polytheistic. I don't deny the thesis, i simply point out that it is speculative.

Foxfyer,

"Or is it nar·cis·sis·tic and egotistical holding all other in contempt? Or is it destructive and/or coercive requiring blind allegience and/or retribution against all sinners? I maintain that you can find all these manifested in every known religion and faith system."

This statement does typify very much the observed behavior of the Christians and Muslims, but does not apply to many other religions. In fact, most other religious systems tend to be rather tolerant of different belief systems. Even within the Abrahamic religions/sects your statement is not correct. The Quakers, for instance, are certainly not "destructive", and most modern Jews (as has been repeatedly pointed out by several of our contributors) are non-judgemental regarding the religious convictions of others. You may best make your argument by confining yourself to specifics and by limiting remarks to comparisons of so-called Christians and so-called muslims.

Actually, the whole premise may be fallacious and that may be Setanta's point. The radical Islamic movement is not all of Islam, nor does the United States react to terrorism on the basis of religion. The radical Islamic terrorists like to define and excuse their acts by painting them as being a Holy War in defense of Islam. Their acts of terrorism, they claim, is divinely sanctioned against the ungodly materialistic and humanistic values of a Satanic Western world. For them this is a replay of the Crusades, and they picture themselves as heroic modern versions of Saladin and The Old Man of the Mountain.

What are the Muslim countries referred to in the thread? Many countries have large, sometimes even majorities of people who are Muslims. Not all of their governments are supporters of the radical Islamic crowd, nor do all Muslims support the radicals. Do the "main-line" Christian sects fully support the extravagant claims of the most radical "Charismatics"? How many Christians do you suppose support, finance, and aid those who bomb and assassinate medical personnel who work in abortion clinics?

I think there is little doubt that the ultimate goal of the radical Islamic movement is for their version of Islam to totally dominate the world. To achieve that goal they need to establish Islamic States that follow their radical creeds. Afghanistan under the Taliban was the closest they've come so far. Iran has tried to establish the sort of government the radicals desire, but has found governing a large country by strict and narrow interpretation of Koranic Law is not an easy thing to accomplish. People want more than the radicals think they should have in the way of human rights and access to the modern world. Being "good" Muslims as defined by the radicals doesn't do much to provide sound and stable economic foundations. Saudi Arabia is especially irritating to the radical Islamic leadership. Saudi Arabia is the Keeper of the Holy Sites, and should in the radicals viewpoint be the most strictly governed according to the radical interpretation of the Koran. Saudi Arabia has "betrayed" Islam by selling out to the Materialistic West for 30 pieces of silver. Mere slaves of the ungodly, the Saudi government hosts the infidel crusader armies on Holy Soil so that attacks can be made against the True Forces of Islam. It counts for nothing to the radicals that Saudi wealth supports the most conservative and radical Islamic schools imaginable.

They are threatened by the thought that Iraq might become a stable ___ democracy right on the doorstep of what they believe is their rightful territory. In their view Iraq must be rebuilt as an Islamic State similar to what the Taliban version of Afghanistan. Any effort to create a pluralist society where religious tolerance is a fundamental precept must, they believe, be defeated. To achieve that, they must get Westerners out of the region and topple any government there that does not follow their idea of proper Islamic doctrine. Making Iraq into their version of an Islamic State is a critical objective, and one they can hardly afford to lose.

Another important objective is the destruction of Israel. This is an issue dear to the hearts of the Palestinians and is an important recruiting tool for the radicals. The existence of Israel is ashes in their mouths. Israel has repeatedly defeated combined Arabic arms, and that humiliates the macho culture most common in the region. They try to explain their inability to defeat Israel by arguing that Israel is merely an American colony and strong only so long as the United States provides support. Their tactics are to keep the pot aboil with propaganda and repeated terrorist attacks on civilians. Israelis who would like to reclaim all of ancient Israel for themselves by settling into illegal colonies end up making the situation worse.

Attacks on United States interests are necessary to demonstrate that the radicals are still in control, still able to have victories over the infidel. By keeping the pressure up on, and inside, the United States they hope to sap our will to effectively carry the fight against the radicals into their sanctuaries. They know they can not defeat the United States head-on and openly, but they believe that they can turn the values of Western Civilization against it. They can foster dissent, distrust and dis-satisfaction in the populace. They will do that by instilling fear, anxiety, and doubt. They will use our traditions of freedom of speech and popular opposition to using our military except as a last resort. They want to nibble us to death.

There is a danger, as many opponents of the current administration are so quick to point out, that policies taken to fight the radical Islamic terrorists who have declared war on us and all Western Civilization might diminish our most precious freedoms. We must be vigilant that we don't lose our values in the struggle to defeat those who desire our destruction. On the other hand, during times of national crisis it is sometimes necessary to temporarily restrict the freedoms that in peacetime are inviolate. This was foreseen by the Founders and written into the Constitution. During the Civil War, Lincoln suspended the Great Writ, and government censorship over the media was exceedingly tight. The "liberal" Democratic President Wilson presided almost over a police state during WWI. The restrictions on domestic freedoms in WWII were again very strict, some would say in retrospect too strict. In any case, the restrictions were lifted in each instance after the crisis was past. Balancing our need to conduct effective military/security operations in the interests of national defense, with the lack of governmental restrictions that we hold so dear is difficult, but necessary. I trust the American People, the Constitution, and the essential honor and rectitude of those elected to national office. But watch them all and never abandon caution.

This is so specious as to be nothing short of fantasy. If you were to substitute the word "sometimes" for the word "always," i might conditionally agree. Otherwise, what you have here is a paltry fig leaf to attempt to cover the bloodstains which suffuse all of "holy writ."


Edit: by the by, there are written records of the temple societies which reach back 5,000 years. To base one's analysis or synthesis on those is to use textual evidence. To comment on what people believed before then is speculative.

kudos Asherman

It is interesting that Setanta insists that his version of the facts is the only possible credible one. And that Asherman left out the one positive factor that could be attributed to religious faith, especially Christianity, rather reinforces my own thesis on this subject. I re-read my post, however, and will correct my thesis to be 'one and/or all' of the three traits rather than all three traits can be attributed to any religion.

But at any rate, I will declare myself unworthy to contribute further to this discussion and will bow to the others more certain of their positions.

"bow to the others more certain of their positions"

Load-a-crap. C'mon Foxfyre, you're just growing bored :wink:

I'm sorry, what "positive factor of religion, especially of Christianity" have I overlooked? Actually, I tend to be a supporter of religion and have said so on numerous occasions. It is true that I have found little to like in the Abrahamic religions, and believe that they generally have been intolerant and more conducive to suffering than otherwise. The historical record of Christianity and Islam are exceptionally bloody. These two brands of Abrahamism are especially intolerant and prone to spread their doctrines by force.

I prefer religious systems that are very tolerant and low-key in the way they go about attracting followers. I tend to discount religious claims that fly in the face of reason and scientific knowledge. Religions that emphasize the importance of individual experience and the contemplative life get big pluses from me. I don't much like folks telling me what to think and believe, especially when it strains credibility.

See, Fox, this is why i consider you a complete jerk. I pointed out that anyone who makes a statement about what people who were illiterate believed more than 5,000 years ago is indulging in speculation. You make an iditotic remark about textual evidence, which made it evident that you don't understand the historiographical significance of that point. So i point out to you once again that anyone contending that people were monotheistic and then became polytheistic is indulging in speculation, because the first written records (the textual evidence) on religion come from the polytheistic temple societies of Sumer and the Indus valley. Your response? A typical piece of your snottiness, with the strawman that i'm insisting that i have the only "true version" of the facts. My original remark simply points out that references to the beliefs of illiterate people are speculative.

Your behavior when you post here is that of a complete jerk--for whatever you may be in real life; and i only wish that when you promise to leave, as you so often do, that you would actually do so.