The Iraqi Nightmare

[Noxvayl]

A Question - why are we not seeing an ultra right wing Christian `army` rising in response to this?

Interesting question... short answer is that I have absolutely no idea. Crusades used to be a thing, I would imagine this is a very good reason for one...

I would guess that our increased sharing of information has allowed us to vent our frustrations through media which has become somewhat of an anger management tool to help dissuade fundamental viewpoints from taking hold. I'm not sure but I doubt there are many Christians in the area the conflict is occurring so a direct, back against the wall response is unlikely to develop as easily. I imagine Israel will be brought into this in the not too distant future when IS set their sites on their holy land; then the world is in for some horrifying moments of witnessing history. Perhaps most Christian nations are content with how America handles things so they are happy to kick up a fuss with rhetoric and help encourage America to act. Other than that I am not sure, perhaps there aren't enough Christian extremists to unlock the outrage of what is happening.

[Galant]

Boris - Presumed guilt for those heading to Iraq etc. without notifying the government of their travel intentions and bring back control orders.

[Galant]

A Question - why are we not seeing an ultra right wing Christian `army` rising in response to this?

Rhetorical?

[kalniel]

A Question - why are we not seeing an ultra right wing Christian `army` rising in response to this?

To do so wouldn't be Christian, so it could only happen if a state/group/militia was using religion as a cover for their own ends. That happened in the medieval ages, and it's still happening in some parts of the world too (CAR etc. - although it's more based on ethnicity, which is sometimes hard to tease out from religion.)

[TeePee]

To do so wouldn't be Christian, so it could only happen if a state/group/militia was using religion as a cover for their own ends. That happened in the medieval ages, and it's still happening in some parts of the world too (CAR etc. - although it's more based on ethnicity, which is sometimes hard to tease out from religion.)

Ah, but would they be True Scotsmen? The Crusading dark-age Christians were acting in a manner far more in line with their holy book than do christians in modern secular countries. It is the Right Wing Christian element in the US that believes the solution is to turn the entire middle east into glass. The ultra right wing christians calling for their government to go to war is exactly what led to crusades in the past. The difference is that we now have a professional army, and a democratic government in which the right wing christian extremists have declining influence. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq only happened because of popular support from the right wing elements in the US, and that support came from hatred of Islam. Every Mosque in the USA has to be surrounded in 12' fences topped with razor wire.

[kalniel]

Ah, but would they be True Scotsmen? The Crusading dark-age Christians were acting in a manner far more in line with their holy book than do christians in modern secular countries.

We covered that earlier in the thread. No, they weren't. The Christian message is ultimately loving, peaceful and accepting of different races/genders and so on. Those sounds like incredibly trite words, but there is it. The commands on how Christians are to act were quoted earlier by peterb and myself. I find it hard to believe that people struggle to understand that and tell Christians that their holy book is saying something else, but as ever you are welcome to your own interpretation and I'd just like to know how you interpret those verses so differently.

[TeePee]

We covered that earlier in the thread. No, they weren't. The Christian message is ultimately loving, peaceful and accepting of different races/genders and so on. Those sounds like incredibly trite words, but there is it. The commands on how Christians are to act were quoted earlier by peterb and myself. I find it hard to believe that people struggle to understand that and tell Christians that their holy book is saying something else, but as ever you are welcome to your own interpretation and I'd just like to know how you interpret those verses so differently.

That is what you are saying that your holy book is saying, and you also claim that anyone who has interpreted that book and acted differently either now or in the past wasn't a true christian. That's the Scotsman reference. You can pick and choose whichever sections of the book to back up your interpretations, and anyone can find some contradictory statements to back up theirs. Matthew 5:17-20, of course, would be the start. No one who isn't single-mindedly devout would read about the genocides committed by god in the bible and call it 'loving and peaceful'.

[kalniel]

Matthew 5:17-20, of course, would be the start. No one who isn't single-mindedly devout would read about the genocides committed by god in the bible and call it 'loving and peaceful'.

And what are the commands that your quote is referring to? Keep reading a bit further and it's given: Love God, Love one another/your neighbour. An exultation to love one another is hardly a call for crusades. How do you interpret it differently?

Was God vengeful in the past? Christian's believe so. They also believe that since then there was a certain change in the relationship due to Christ.

[j1979]

And what are the commands that your quote is referring to? Keep reading a bit further and it's given: Love God, Love one another/your neighbour. An exultation to love one another is hardly a call for crusades. How do you interpret it differently?

Was God vengeful in the past? Christian's believe so. They also believe that since then there was a certain change in the relationship due to Christ.

Maybe he means stories in the old testament, and some of that is a bit genocidal. Sodom and Gomorrah for example.

But if the torah / old testament is as old as they say it could be, 6000BC / 8k years, then it's understandable as to why it's not so politically correct as it should be.

[HalloweenJack]

We covered that earlier in the thread. No, they weren't. The Christian message is ultimately loving, peaceful and accepting of different races/genders and so on. Those sounds like incredibly trite words, but there is it. The commands on how Christians are to act were quoted earlier by peterb and myself. I find it hard to believe that people struggle to understand that and tell Christians that their holy book is saying something else, but as ever you are welcome to your own interpretation and I'd just like to know how you interpret those verses so differently.

Islam in 1 interpretation is peaceful and loving , and another is what IS are following ; the same can be said of Christianity - im sure some lines and paragraphs could be found to `allow` the raising of the middle east in the name of religion

[kalniel]

Maybe he means stories in the old testament, and some of that is a bit genocidal. Sodom and Gomorrah for example.

But if the torah / old testament is as old as they say it could be, 6000BC / 8k years, then it's understandable as to why it's not so politically correct as it should be.

Well in the Christian religion the Old testament is important for setting up the background, but it's Old testament for a reason - old agreement (and shared with the Jewish religion). Then Christ happened and that sets up the New agreement which fundamentally changes how God thinks of and interacts with man. So the OT is important, but as far as Christianity is concerned, has to be taken with understanding of the NT as well. It is quote fodder for anyone who doesn't understand about the religion though!

[j1979]

Well in the Christian religion the Old testament is important for setting up the background, but it's Old testament for a reason - old agreement (and shared with the Jewish religion). Then Christ happened and that sets up the New agreement which fundamentally changes how God thinks of and interacts with man. So the OT is important, but as far as Christianity is concerned, has to be taken with understanding of the NT as well. It is quote fodder for anyone who doesn't understand about the religion though!

Yes, i'm in agreement that Christianity is not based on the old testament. And this is a backdrop / history. Not that the old testament is bad, it's just obviously from an earlier time. Anyway I agree with what you say, I was just pointing out where some people could form an argument from.

Anyway, I guess we should move back on topic.

[TeePee]

Well in the Christian religion the Old testament is important for setting up the background, but it's Old testament for a reason - old agreement (and shared with the Jewish religion). Then Christ happened and that sets up the New agreement which fundamentally changes how God thinks of and interacts with man. So the OT is important, but as far as Christianity is concerned, has to be taken with understanding of the NT as well. It is quote fodder for anyone who doesn't understand about the religion though!

Matthew 5:17 is the easy quote, that Jesus came to fulfill the old testament laws, not abolish them. Of course the Old Testament is quote fodder for anyone who doesn't agree with your interpretation of the bible. Certainly that's most self-identified christians in the US, who love using it in opposition to civil rights both historically and present day.

You say the Old Testament is important for setting up background, but it seems to me that it does nothing but provide very negative guidance for christians that don't agree with your interpretation. Since we know that the most important stories simply didn't happen, like 'Creation' and the Exodus, what value does the OT actually have?

[Galant]

Come on TeePee. You're far too intelligent to believe that nonsense. Just because something is recorded in the Bible doesn't mean it's an endorsement by, or command from, God to do and/or keep doing that thing. Lots of sinful acts are recorded in the Bible and they are condemned. Additionally, there is nothing in Scripture, not one single word, which is a teaching to either Jews or Christians instructing them that should maintain a generally aggressive attitude to a certain group of people or individuals. Nothing. All the Old Testament events to which you refer were one time commands, issued at a specific moment, in a specific circumstance and for a specific purpose and reason. There never has been, is not, and never will be any sort of Biblical teaching to show any sort of aggression towards outsiders apart from those very specific, historical, moments.

Christian teaching is quite clear. As has been said, to love others, even, especially, ones enemies, and Christianity has a history of a willingness to sacrifice one's life even for one's enemy. That doesn't necessarily mean there haven't been Christians who in a moment ran or even fought back. It doesn't even mean that Christian individuals cannot or should not serve in a political war like WW2. It is up to their own conscience and understanding to determine those choices, in community with the believers around them,in accordance with Biblical teaching. It is to say that Christian teaching commands forgiveness, love and justice. For example, Matthew 5-7, the sermon on the mount, from which you have been quoting records Jesus' teaching that "You have heard it said love your neighbour and hate your enemy, but I say to you love your enemy..." Or an Old Testament verse, "You have asked me, O man, what is good, and what does the Lord require of you? To act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God."

As for the crusades, although there were many who may well have been Christians who went to war then, it is either ignorance or dishonesty to ignore the reality that at that time 'Christianity' was the religion-du-jour and most Europeans considered themselves Christian by birth/default. Additionally, many religious were bought and sold as positions of power, political and cultural, and were held and dominated by individuals who cared not one iota for Biblical teaching or God. On top of that, the position of the ruling Roman Catholic church at the time was to withhold the reading of the Scriptures from the general public so that anyone who did wish to know what the teachings were had to take the word of the priests and others at the time. Many abuses occurred in the name of religion and Christianity, that had nothing to do with anything Christian. These are matters of plain history and available to anyone who cares to read about them. We can judge them, quite simply, by seeing that they are actions which run in direct contradiction to Jesus' own teachings, and declare them to be unchristian by definition.

It is commonly understood that you cannot judge any belief or teaching by its abuses. People who use something for their own ends cannot deemed to be reliable or faithful exponents, or examples, of that teaching unless they can be shown to be acting in accordance with the teaching itself. All ideas must be weighed according to their own merit, and not according to someone who abuses something for their own ends. It would be no better than stating that education is to be abolished because there happened to be a teacher who was a megalomaniac and used to abuse his pupils. The same would even apply for a whole school or school system that did the same.

The question about religions is that they present and teach ideas. They aim to present truths. Those teachings, ideas and truths must be weighed on their own merits. They can thus be compared and evaluated. If one wishes to evaluated Christianity do so by evaluating the tenets of Christianity. If you wish to look at Christians at least look at whether some supposed Christians are even adhering to their own teachings. If you're going to evaluate the teachings, at least ensure you are getting the teachings right.

The problem with Islam, that many have, is that there are clear teachings in the Koran promoting aggression towards non-believers, even, specifically, Jews and Christians. It is faith which was borne at the tip of the sword of its chief prophet and author of their holy book. There are those Muslims, of course, who argue concerning the proper understanding of those verses, especially in the context of the understanding that some verses, written later, are supposed to replace earlier written ones, but that distinction isn't always clear. So you have groups like I.S. who seem themselves acting in accordance with their holy book. It is a real idea in the Koran, the only question is whether that idea has been superseded or not.

No such equivalent idea exists, or has existed, in the Bible. That's why we aren't wrestling with this issue with Christians. Rather, there is war of ideas here with/in the Muslim world, and that's what makes this problem so difficult to resolve.

[j1979]

Not sure if it's already been posted because it's 2 weeks old now... but if you have 45mins spare, watch this video it's more amazing and raw reporting from vice news.

[Galant]

This is from Syria, not Iraq, but apparently there is no retreating from I.S. If accounts are to be believed I.S. just executed up to 200 captive soldiers who were captured attempting to flee.