Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This isn't anything new. Since Al Qaeda became globally minded (after the Soviets left Afghanistan) it has been their goal to restore a global caliphate that encompasses the furthest reaches of the Middle Ages empire. That is why you find affiliated groups of AQ from North Africa to the Asia Pacific. But only the intellectually challenged would take that to mean all Muslims everywhere want the total domination of the world by force.
Look, all religions effectively want to spread all over the world. Christian missionaries are in countries all over the world right now trying to spread Christianity.
The question here isn't whether or not religions want to expand around the world. They all do. The problem we are discussing is by what means religions spread around the world. Especially in regards to the holy books themselves.
If you understand Christianity, you'll realize that Christians can never use any force whatsoever to spread their religion. They go door to door on missionary work, and go to third-world countries helping people for the purpose of "good will", in hopes that people will think well of Christians and convert. There is no doctrine of conquering or subjugating anyone in Christianity. Did they do it? Of course. But that doesn't mean it is in any way part of Christianity.
Islam on the other hand is a doctrine of world conquest. The word Muslim literally means "one who submits". Muhammad spread Islam through conquest, and sent his disciples out to conquer even more. And even worse, these conquests only spared "people of the book", but require the people of the book to pay a "Jizya tax", usually called a "non-believers tax".
It drives me crazy when anyone compares Islam to practically any other religion. Islam actually makes war itself a requirement of your faith. Just because there are "moderate" Muslims who aren't advocating for world conquest, doesn't mean that Islam is the same as Christianity.
If you understand Christianity, you'll realize that Christians can never use any force whatsoever to spread their religion. They go door to door on missionary work, and go to third-world countries helping people for the purpose of "good will", in hopes that people will think well of Christians and convert. There is no doctrine of conquering or subjugating anyone in Christianity. Did they do it? Of course. But that doesn't mean it is in any way part of Christianity.
Seems to me they are always followed closely behind by an army.
If you understand Christianity, you'll realize that Christians can never use any force whatsoever to spread their religion. They go door to door on missionary work, and go to third-world countries helping people for the purpose of "good will", in hopes that people will think well of Christians and convert. There is no doctrine of conquering or subjugating anyone in Christianity. Did they do it? Of course. But that doesn't mean it is in any way part of Christianity.
True Christianity might be a peaceful religion.
But the way it has operated in the past and the violence that has been known to come from a 'Christian' basis is not peaceful.
I think, however, violence is more a human problem than a religious problem. If people really want to fight, they'll find an excuse. A couple square miles of territory, a woman, a god...doesn't matter.
Laurence Allen "Larry" Elder (born April 27, 1952) is an American radio and television personality who calls himself the "Sage of South Central" and the "Prince of Pico Yoon" (short for "Pico-Union"), both districts of Los Angeles, California
His radio program The Larry Elder Show airs weekdays 3 pm on talk radio790 KABC in Los Angeles. His show began September 27, 2010;
it was previously heard on the same station weekdays from 3 to 7 pm from 1994 to 2008 and was syndicated on ABC Radio Networks from 2002 to 2007 and since 2009.
Look, all religions effectively want to spread all over the world. Christian missionaries are in countries all over the world right now trying to spread Christianity.
The question here isn't whether or not religions want to expand around the world.
I disagree. That is a large question that needs to be addressed today. Whereas in the past religion was the backbone of western politics and therefore missionary work was wrapped up in state imperial interests, today, insofar as far as the civilized world is consistent with its professed ideals, missionary work should be rightly viewed as the misguided, morally fruitless attempt at cultural cleansing that it is. The "people of the book" represent an overwhelming population percentage in the world's religions, and have a couple of millenia of worldwide cultural and ethnic cleanisng under their respective belts in the name of conversion. Think of how many unique people and cultures were permanently homogenized or otherwise changed and lost forever. The non-abrahamic religious populations that are left should be protected from such cultural imperialism because, from a secular point of view (which is the perspective from which world politics necessarily needs to be judged) they represent a living anthropological treasure.
Islam lives in the 15th century as far as its will to convert others through force is concerned. It's wrought havoc in Asia for far too long, and their millenia old violent cultural imperialism has caused inconceivable suffering. Research Islam's history in India for a small taste of that history. It'll disabuse you of any notion that only a rebellious minority if Islam desires what the openly violent sects desire.
As far as the claim that most religions want to expand around the world: I disagree. Most religions don't have missionary and imperialist history nor current intent. Christianity and Islam represent most of the bulk of both the historical and modern expansionist practice. Christianity is more sophisticated about it these days; Islam is not. Missionary work and forced conversions are morally and culturally unacceptable, in my opinion, on both sides of that particular fence, but at least the Christians aren't so medieval about it. Although, in the end, that's not an excuse in my eyes. The damage to the cultural anthropology of the nations that they proselytize in is too great, especially when those nations have rich traditions of their own. Furthermore, these missionaries are centrally accountable for creating religious sects in formerly culturally homogeneous areas that are the cause of political instability that can lead to future violence, death, and national upheaval.
Seems to me they are always followed closely behind by an army.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fancy-Schmancy
True Christianity might be a peaceful religion.
But the way it has operated in the past and the violence that has been known to come from a 'Christian' basis is not peaceful.
I think, however, violence is more a human problem than a religious problem. If people really want to fight, they'll find an excuse. A couple square miles of territory, a woman, a god...doesn't matter.
I have said repeatedly that Christians are a bunch of hypocrites. But really, all people are hypocrites. Do you think atheists aren't hypocrites? Hypocrisy is a human condition.
For that matter, the more power you have, the more likely you are to be a hypocrite.
As for Christians and war, it derives itself from the "Just War theory". Which basically derives itself from the idea that it is OK to use force to protect yourself from someone who is trying to kill you or your family, or subjugate you or your family.
Which would be fine on its own, I don't necessarily have an issue with people defending themselves. My problem with the Just War theory, is that it turns the right to defend yourself over to governments, and actually strips it away from the individual.
Furthermore, the Just War theory isn't really in the bible, it is just an inference made through biblical interpretations(several hundred years later). Secondly, the right it gives to governments to wage war, creates many many opportunities for abuse. And third, it came from people who had an incentive to provide a justification for war.
If you take the just war theory to its sort of logical conclusion. Not only could it allow governments to defend you and the people in your "nation". It would actually allow the government to defend anyone, anywhere. Thus, all wars can potentially be justified by simply arguing that someone, somewhere needs to be defended.
With that said, I don't agree with the just war theory, but at least there is at least a limitation on the just war theory. That no war can be fought for selfish reasons.
If we look at what that means in the context of current American wars and military action. We would have to recognize that any military action for the purpose of simply protecting or expanding "American interests"(IE to protect energy supplies, protecting the world economy, or even spreading democracy), cannot be considered a "Just War".
Last edited by Redshadowz; 06-30-2014 at 11:54 PM..
I disagree. That is a large question that needs to be addressed today. Whereas in the past religion was the backbone of western politics and therefore missionary work was wrapped up in state imperial interests, today, insofar as far as the civilized world is consistent with its professed ideals, missionary work should be rightly viewed as the misguided, morally fruitless attempt at cultural cleansing that it is. The "people of the book" represent an overwhelming population percentage in the world's religions, and have a couple of millenia of worldwide cultural and ethnic cleanisng under their respective belts in the name of conversion. Think of how many unique people and cultures were permanently homogenized or otherwise changed and lost forever. The non-abrahamic religious populations that are left should be protected from such cultural imperialism because, from a secular point of view (which is the perspective from which world politics necessarily needs to be judged) they represent a living anthropological treasure.
Look, cultures change regardless. Language changes regardless. The English we use today bears almost no resemblance to the English from the Middle Ages. The English language today is strikingly different than it was even 50 years ago.
In regards to those religions which don't exist now because Christianity replaced them. They wouldn't have stayed the same anyway. All things change.
Change is good as long as change is natural and voluntary. If someone willingly converts to Christianity or Islam, and without coercion. Then why is that somehow worse than using government force to prevent Christians from ever interacting with non-Christians?
Furthermore, since obviously you hate religion. Why would you possibly care about guaranteeing all religions exist as they are, forever? Why turn them into some kind of novelty, living museum?
Quote:
Originally Posted by golgi1
As far as the claim that most religions want to expand around the world: I disagree. Most religions don't have missionary and imperialist history nor current intent. Christianity and Islam represent most of the bulk of both the historical and modern expansionist practice. Christianity is more sophisticated about it these days; Islam is not. Missionary work and forced conversions are morally and culturally unacceptable, in my opinion, on both sides of that particular fence; but at least the Christians aren't so medieval about it. Although, in the end, that's not an excuse in my eyes.
Look, religions are a belief system which regulate human interaction. While some religions tend to be "less expansionist", all religions are expansionist to the extent that they would basically like to "dominate" human interactions, both socially and politically. If you don't think Buddhists, Taoists, Hindu, Jews, or any other religion wants to dominate the world, you are a fool. They would if they could.
The real reason why most of those other religions don't seem to try so hard to expand around the world, is a combination of the difficulty of conversion(to be a Christian you merely have to say you're a Christian, and at some point, get baptized), and the relative influence of Christianity around the world.
Obviously, its much easier to get converts to Christianity if Christians represent a successful and desirable civilization. Who is going to convert to some tribal failure of a religion, that believes in human sacrifice and female circumcision?
I wouldn't consider myself a Christian, because I think 90% of the bible is made up junk. But I can't help but defend Christianity, because there is basically no comparing "True Christianity" to almost any other religion, especially Islam. Christianity is just better.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
