Are there any peaceful muslim nations?

Sofia wrote:

. --however, I must respond to extra medium, who found an interesting quote.
In Luke 22, around the thirties (verses), it is during the last supper-- Jesus is trying to tell his disciples that he is soon to be gone from them--and though they'd been following him around with no money, no possessions, no physical protection--that they need to get some.

As usual, they took it literally, and said, "Look, we have two swords...is that enough?" I don't like to speak for Christ, but I imagine he was disappointed again, because of his response when someone used one of the swords later that night. (Luke 22:49) Peter (I think) swiped off the ear of one of those arresting Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, and in verse 51, Jesus said "No more of this!" and healed the earless guy. So, to me, this answers Jesus' belief against violence.

Sofia,

Okay, that seems like a reasonable enough answer.

So, I guess Jesus wasn't speaking "literally" when he said to go buy swords. That was symbolic, or a metaphor, or an allegory.

My problem with many Bible-thumpers is that they choose when to read the bible literally, and then they choose when it is an allegory or symbolic. And everyone needs to go along with their opinion on the correct reading, or they are wrong. That renders the entire thing nearly meainingless.

Who is decide what passage is to be taken literally, and which is simply symbolic for something else?
I guess some say the Holy Spirit will guide you. Yet the Holy Spirit apparently visits each individual in a slightly different way, and gives them different opinions.

So, we end up with 100+ denominations, each claiming they know the one correct path to heaven.

Foxfyre wrote:

In my opinion the Bible is all true IF read in its proper context through the eyes and understanding of those who wrote it. It is important to understand that the Bible is a compliation of allegory, parables, poetry, philosophy, history, biography, and doctrine edited together in way less than perfect chronological order. It is as pointless assigning 21st century morality to 1000 b.c. people as it is to expect remote African primitive tribes to have the same culture and morality as 21st century Europe or America. Anything approximating accurate translation of the scriptures must be done through the perspective and understanding of the people who wrote them.

Fox,
Exactly my point. That is a major, central problem with the whole deal, in my view. Who decides where the allegory begins, and the literal reading ends? Who's reading of the Bible is CORRECT? Yours? The pope's? Mine? My pastor? That screaming guy in dirty robes on the streetcorner (who looks a bit like the pictures of Jesus I saw in Sunday School)?

Lets assume we are all Bible thumping believers. I submit that 100 bible thumpers can read the Bible and come up with 100+ various conclusions on various issues. Unfortunatley, same can be said for Quran, Bhagavad-Gita, etc.

So, if one person is going to tell me what a passage in the bible means, why should I believe him/her any more than the message I get when I read it and am visited by the "Holy Spirit" to supply my personal meaning, etc.?

Following that thought, then, who is anyone to tell another how the Bible should be interpreted? (Protestant tradtion, here).

Smacks of arrogance, egoism, superiority, self-righteousness, etc. for one person to tell another what the Bible means.
"I have discovered the true interpretation of the Bible. I know the exact context in which it should all be read. I know where it should be read literally, and where it is an allegory. I know the answer, and you all do not. Listen. Here is what it all means."
***

Here's what I have found often among my Christian friends: I find a passage that fits their personal philosophy, and they say yes, read that literally, etc. Find a passage they don't like, and they say "oh....hmmm...that must have been an allegory, symbolic, a metaphor."

I don't know, that just seems like a cop out. (And please note, this is coming from someone who is trying hard to believe).

You can't have it both ways, with you being the God of when to decide when its literal and when its an allegory.

If I did that, I could take almost any action I like, then find an allegory or tale in the Bible that would support my action. Many insane crimminals do just that.

0 Replies

By the way, in response to the original question on this thread, "Are there any peaceful Muslim nations?"

I ask:

Are there any peaceful Christian nations?

Are there any peaceful nations?

Really? Where?

I haven't seen anyone find an answer to that.

0 Replies

Costa Rica ain't doin' bad . . .

Mongolia's been quiet for quite a few centuries . . .

0 Replies

Nepal? Tibet? Monocco? Switzerland? Ceylon?

0 Replies

Please note that all of these "peaceful" nations have in common with the "warlike" nations that they are found right across the religious continuum . . .

0 Replies

I hear the Iroquois Nation has been pretty sedate of late.

0 Replies

I think the Rogue Nation is also fairly quiet. Maybe it's because of all the ale they drink...

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Costa Rica ain't doin' bad . . .

Mongolia's been quiet for quite a few centuries . . .

I submit that the entire earth is rife with violence.

I am not sure that singling out one particular religion as being more "violent" than another is productive.
***

Did you happen to see the poll that asked foreigners "Which country is most likely to go to war with another country?"

What do you think the answer was? Iran? Nope. North Korea? Nope.
Hint: First name starts with a U. Second name starts with a S. Third name starts with an A.

Hmmm...what religious background are they?

(I'm not saying USA didn't always have a great reason to be in all those wars. I'm just saying, perceptions are interesting. We perceive Muslim nations as scary and violent. But guess what, the rest of the world perceives us as more of a threat to war than them, sometimes at least. Not that this isn't a good thing, in light of current world situation.)

0 Replies

You might also note that these peaceful countries are often preyed upon by more aggressive neighbors. Neutrality can pay handsom dividends, if only you can convince aggressors that it is in their own best interest not to invade. The other thing that may protect a small peaceful nation is that if it is so poor and weak that no one would bother administring a coupe de grace. Of course, Italy did invade Ethiopia. Ah, a glorious but certain victory on the cheap.

0 Replies

So tell me, Extra Medium, what sort of exercise was that? Do you contend that the two incidents you have cited make Costa Rica and Mongolia into warlike nations?

The original question of the thread is whether there are peaceful muslim nations. This hasn't been a discussion of whether or not violence occurs in any particular nation. Violence is ubiquitous in human society.

0 Replies

Extra medium writes:

Quote:

Smacks of arrogance, egoism, superiority, self-righteousness, etc. for one person to tell another what the Bible means.
"I have discovered the true interpretation of the Bible. I know the exact context in which it should all be read. I know where it should be read literally, and where it is an allegory. I know the answer, and you all do not. Listen. Here is what it all means."
***

Then I take it you think no one has devoted sufficient attention and study to the Bible to qualify as an authority? Do you take as equally a dubious view of those who speak authoritatively on other subjects requiring both objective and subjective analysis, say the Federalist papers or the causes of the rise and fall of the Roman Empire? Or is it only the Bible that you have pronounced as unknowable an nonunderstandable? Is it not a bit arrogant, egotistical, self-righteous to make a pronouncement that you do not know a thing, therefore it is impossible that anyone does?

If I have ever presented my opinions on this subject as "I have discovered the true interpretation of the Bible. I know the exact context in which it should all be read. I know where it should be read literally, and where it is an allegory. I know the answer, and you all do not. Listen. Here is what it all means." , kindly point it out as I must have been sleep walking and need to post a retraction.

If it annoys you that I have opinions on the subject, please know that it is just as annoying to me to be told that nobody can accurately interpret or come to reasonable informed conclusions about any of the content and context o the Bible. If that is your view, you are saying that hundreds upon hundreds of people who have devoted countless decades researching and studying this stuff have totally wasted their efforts. Do you have the credentials to accurately make that judgment?

0 Replies

Extra Medium,

Random inter-personal violence is not the same thing as the degree to which nation-sized groupings are "peaceful", or "violent". Individuals get angry, jealous, etc. and fight, sometimes to the death, with other individuals irrespective of the general culture they live within. If you want to suggest that real, Universal and lasting peace is an impossible dream so long as human-beings remain human-beings, then you are correct. The great majority of men and nations are driven by violence between groups. So long as resources are finite, groups will fight to extend their territorial reach and defend their existing territory using extreme violence. As the technological lethality of war increases, the war strategies followed will continue to evolve away from the massed armies of the mid-20th century. The Cold War and low-intensity war appear to be the likely direction of wars during the 21st century.