It is always OK for any person to say, "I won't do that because of my religious beliefs": it is NEVER OK for any person to say, "You can't do that because of my religious beliefs".

Hi Galen,

“In general, the more seriously Christianity is taken, the less pleasant it becomes. (This is equally true of all three Mid-Eastern religions.)"

Yes, indeed, all three, although if you had to rank them through history, and adjust for the backward morality and human rights perceptions of the times, I would suggest that Christianity would be somewhere in the middle, with Judaism playing a comparatively minor role and more on the progressive side.

I'm just ploughing through a history of the 600-year Ottoman Empire, from its Central Asian tribal and pastoralist origins, to its much-belated overthrow by the Young Turks. I was surprised to discover that there were even more brutal invaders than the Ottomans, the Mongols (Genghiz Khan and Timur-the-Lame), but in defence of Islam, one could say that these were neophytes, late converts to Islam, still imbued with their pre-Islamic tribal/exterminationist ideology. For some reason, I always recall the total extermination of the population of Merv by Timur around 1400 (I can't help imagining them all with big moustaches), and then the near-extermination of the population of Baghdad and sundry other cities. Timur's early death must have been a sign from god, at least to the survivors.

As an atheist, I have no particular interest in any of the three, but I have to concede that all of us in the Western world, like it or not, more or less, built our particular moral compass largely on the basis of the more progressive aspects of Christianity and Judaism: perhaps Christianity was, after all, a natural progression on Judaism at the time. Certainly I've always been impressed with the parable of the Good Samaritan, it doesn't seem to have any parallels in Hinduism or Islam: to help someone NOT of one's own group. Not very Mediaeval either: maybe Mediaeval Catholicism was a back-sliding from earlier Christian teachings (that's what power does). Marx probably used to tear up at that story.

Joe

In an enlightened society, if you do not agree with a statement, the appropriate response is to:
1 ignore the comment
or
2 respond with a counter-argument.

In our post-enlightened society, if you do not agree with a statement, the appropriate response is to:
1 claim victim status
and
2 directed towards the person who made the statement > denigrate, abuse, insult, financially-attack, boycott, sue etc etc

*...It is always OK for any person to say, "I won't do that because of my religious beliefs": it is NEVER OK for any person to say, "You can't do that because of my religious beliefs".
Posted by Brian of Buderim, Friday, 10 May 2019 10:01:39 AM...*

Where that oversimplified logic falls apart, is in the counter-attack!

Dan

Max,

<<The Pacific has been the target of a conversion campaign that started in the nineteenth century and continues to this day.>>

Any person, no matter the nation, who is a faithful Christian will follow Jesus' command: "You must go and make disciples of all nations. Baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Teach them to obey everything I have commanded you. And you can be sure that I am always with you, to the very end" (Matt 28:19-20).

You may not like it, but evangelising The Pacific is just part of God's mandate to proclaim the Good News of salvation through Christ across the world.

<<Islanders were persuaded to abandon their own religions and convert. Lacking literacy, with no formal education, they were vulnerable.>>

The church of the first century lacked literacy skills and formal education. Oral tradition was its means of communication. Lack of literacy does not make one a non-thinker about eternal issues.

<<This is the context from which Israel Folau came to his views. Like so many of his colleagues, I suggest, he was indoctrinated when a child. His father is a pastor in his church. The family's history is one of devotion.>>

A Christian family that raises its family in the teachings of Christ is not engaged in indoctrination. To the contrary, it is being faithful to the Lord's instruction: "Fathers, don’t make your children angry. Instead, instruct them and teach them the ways of the Lord as you raise them".

A Christian father who is pastor of a church is being faithful to Scripture in raising his children with instruction in the ways of the Lord. That happens in Tongan and Australian Christian families. However, your post repudiates this Scripture.

<<He is one of the hundreds of thousands of targets of an indoctrination program that started two hundred years ago.>>

No, Max! It started 2,000 years ago and has led to approximately 2.2 billion followers of Christ. It's not indoctrination but being obedient to the teachings of the NT.

Max,

<<The Pacific has been the target of a conversion campaign that started in the nineteenth century and continues to this day.>>

Any person who is a faithful Christian follows Jesus' command: "You must go and make disciples of all nations. Baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt 28:19-20). This is proclaiming the Good News of salvation through Christ around the world and also in Tonga.

<<Islanders were persuaded to abandon their own religions and convert. Lacking literacy, with no formal education, they were vulnerable.>>

The church of the first century lacked literacy skills and formal education. Oral tradition was its means of communication. Lack of literacy does not make one a non-thinker about eternal issues.

<<Like so many of his colleagues, I suggest, [Folau] was indoctrinated when a child. His father is a pastor in his church. The family's history is one of devotion.>>

A Christian family that raises its family in the teachings of Christ is being faithful to the Lord's instruction: "Fathers, don’t make your children angry. Instead, instruct them and teach them the ways of the Lord as you raise them" (Eph 6:4). This happens in Tongan and Australian Christian families.

<<He is one of the hundreds of thousands of targets of an indoctrination program that started two hundred years ago.>>

No, Max! It started 2,000 years ago and has led to approximately 2.2 billion followers of Christ. It's not indoctrination but being obedient to the teachings of the NT.

<<may not save him from the possible financial debacle that his religion has brought him to.>>

Folau has stated that his relationship with Jesus is far more important than material reward. "First and foremost I live for God now", he said. See: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-union/my-head-is-held-high-folau-breaks-silence-after-code-of-conduct-hearing-20190508-p51l94.html