Re: Nature of Islam vs. ChristianitysaintjudasAugust 9 2007, 04:30:43 UTC
I agree with all of the points above, but I think that the whole western religious tradition is part of the problem.
Not just Islam. each of the Levantine monotheistic systems contributes to the dynamic, of which Islam is only one of the dancers. It just happens to be the one that is furthest back on the Intellecutal evolutionary scale. Not to mention its own set of beliefs that further propagates what is deemed "sociopathic" or "Psycopathic" behavior in any other culture.
I am very much aware of the history of the three "Peoples of the Book", as well as how they each vew the other. All are basically predicated upon a principle of being "Better" than "un-believers" (or whatever those who are not "part-of" are called: dhimmini for instance).
The whole situation is one that needs to be confronted by the west before it erupts into something than cannot be safely contained. I fear that this may be the ultimate destination for this issue though. I fear that most Muslim countries will insist upon martyring their populations rather than adopt an Islamic Reformation that creates a modern Islam that rejects the racist and antiquated beliefs of a world that is no longer valid...
Re: Nature of Islam vs. Christianityjordan179August 9 2007, 15:00:34 UTC
I agree with all of the points above, but I think that the whole western religious tradition is part of the problem.
I actually agree with you there -- just because Christianity is less of a problem than Islam doesn't make it not an obstacle to rational consideration of the Universe.
Not just Islam. each of the Levantine monotheistic systems contributes to the dynamic, of which Islam is only one of the dancers. It just happens to be the one that is furthest back on the Intellectual evolutionary scale.
Indeed. All three monotheisms (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) came into being either to justify or to enable the creation of a stable totalitarian monarchy. The Ancient Near Eastern polytheistic civilizations tried to obtain divine sanction for their kings by associating them with the gods as a demigod; but that had the obvious defect that the king was but a minor god and if he behaved in ways to offend the other gods (in the eyes of the priests and people) he could be deposed. In the monotheistic religions, the king is instead the mouthpiece and chosen hero of the One True God, and rebellion is thus also blasphemy.
The whole situation is one that needs to be confronted by the west before it erupts into something than cannot be safely contained. I fear that this may be the ultimate destination for this issue though. I fear that most Muslim countries will insist upon martyring their populations rather than adopt an Islamic Reformation that creates a modern Islam that rejects the racist and antiquated beliefs of a world that is no longer valid...
That's why the thought of Iran or Al Qaeda with atomic weapons is so scary. It's been pointed out that they are no worse than the Crusaders: well, if a medieval Crusade came into being today, armed with atomic weapons, I'd find it pretty scary.
Deterrence ... even deterrence-plus-defense as you get with antimissile weapons deployed ... is ultimately based on the assumption that the other guy is a rational actor who realizes that the fruits of victory are not worth the damage you will do him, even if he wins. If the other guy believes that Allah will shield his Faithful or, at worst, take them all up to Paradise, deterrence breaks down and all you have is the choice between defense or pre-emption.
Not just Islam. each of the Levantine monotheistic systems contributes to the dynamic, of which Islam is only one of the dancers. It just happens to be the one that is furthest back on the Intellecutal evolutionary scale. Not to mention its own set of beliefs that further propagates what is deemed "sociopathic" or "Psycopathic" behavior in any other culture.
I am very much aware of the history of the three "Peoples of the Book", as well as how they each vew the other. All are basically predicated upon a principle of being "Better" than "un-believers" (or whatever those who are not "part-of" are called: dhimmini for instance).
The whole situation is one that needs to be confronted by the west before it erupts into something than cannot be safely contained. I fear that this may be the ultimate destination for this issue though. I fear that most Muslim countries will insist upon martyring their populations rather than adopt an Islamic Reformation that creates a modern Islam that rejects the racist and antiquated beliefs of a world that is no longer valid...
Reply
I actually agree with you there -- just because Christianity is less of a problem than Islam doesn't make it not an obstacle to rational consideration of the Universe.
Not just Islam. each of the Levantine monotheistic systems contributes to the dynamic, of which Islam is only one of the dancers. It just happens to be the one that is furthest back on the Intellectual evolutionary scale.
Indeed. All three monotheisms (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) came into being either to justify or to enable the creation of a stable totalitarian monarchy. The Ancient Near Eastern polytheistic civilizations tried to obtain divine sanction for their kings by associating them with the gods as a demigod; but that had the obvious defect that the king was but a minor god and if he behaved in ways to offend the other gods (in the eyes of the priests and people) he could be deposed. In the monotheistic religions, the king is instead the mouthpiece and chosen hero of the One True God, and rebellion is thus also blasphemy.
The whole situation is one that needs to be confronted by the west before it erupts into something than cannot be safely contained. I fear that this may be the ultimate destination for this issue though. I fear that most Muslim countries will insist upon martyring their populations rather than adopt an Islamic Reformation that creates a modern Islam that rejects the racist and antiquated beliefs of a world that is no longer valid...
That's why the thought of Iran or Al Qaeda with atomic weapons is so scary. It's been pointed out that they are no worse than the Crusaders: well, if a medieval Crusade came into being today, armed with atomic weapons, I'd find it pretty scary.
Deterrence ... even deterrence-plus-defense as you get with antimissile weapons deployed ... is ultimately based on the assumption that the other guy is a rational actor who realizes that the fruits of victory are not worth the damage you will do him, even if he wins. If the other guy believes that Allah will shield his Faithful or, at worst, take them all up to Paradise, deterrence breaks down and all you have is the choice between defense or pre-emption.
Reply
Leave a comment