Islam is a political movement, with some religious aspects i.e. Muslims pray to a supernatural being.

Like all political organisations, Islam has laws: Sharia. Sharia law is as binding on Muslims as is statute and common law in democracies. Sharia law is the only law in Islamic countries, and applies to EVERYBODY living in the Islamic country – Christians, Jews, and non-Muslims of any ilk.

Non-Muslims (as well as Muslims) face death for certain offences e.g. Salman Rushdie, and the Charlie Hedbo journalists.

Christianity has laws ONLY for its followers. Any breaking of these laws might result in ex-communication at worse, but usually nothing at all happens to the offender.

Christians might take political action or stances, but Christianity itself is NOT political.

Islam is politically aggressive.

«Islam is a political movement, with some religious aspects i.e. Muslims pray to a supernatural being.»

Actually, Islam as a political movement has some anti-religious aspects.

When someone is forced to pray for fear of authorities rather than for love of God, then their prayer has no religious merit. Islam as a political movement thus sadly deny people the opportunity of spiritual advancement.

Christianity used to make the same mistake, but not any more (except it may be starting again in Russia).

Not quite, ttbn.

<<Islam is a political movement, with some religious aspects i.e. Muslims pray to a supernatural being.>>

Islam is more a religion with political aspects to it, because God is at the centre of the faith. Speaking of faith, Islam requires it, whereas a political movement does not necessitate faith. So there’s another reason as to why Islam is first and foremost a religion.

Being a religion is not a good attribute, though, by the way. So, by attempting to strip Islam of its religious status, you are certainly not making it look worse.

<<Sharia law is the only law in Islamic countries… >>

No, only in Afghanistan, last I checked. The rest have a combination of Sharia law (usually for family law only) and Civil law or Common law (for everything else).

<<Christianity has laws ONLY for its followers.>>

Now, and doctrinally, yes, but that’s only the half of it. Many read Matthew 4:19 as a call to spread the religion to every corner of the planet.

Another important point you’re overlooking is the fact that the harm done by these two religions cannot be measured entirely, or compared reasonably, by looking only at the extent to which each one is political.

That being said, your heading, 'Islam vs Christianity', isn’t very suited to your opening post if you’re only wanting to compare the extent to which each religion is political, because there's a lot more to Islam and Christianity than their politics.

Yuyutsu,

But force and punishment IS part of the Islamic so-called religion. I don't think that you are right about what Christianity “used to do”. Christianity has never forced anyone to be Christian or to pray. Christianity is 'voluntary'. You might be able to live in a Muslim country and not convert, but you will be enslaved and forced into humiliating dhimmitude. Even the pain-in-the-butt Christian missionaries never forced people to convert to Christianity.

Dear Ttbn,

Yes, force and punishment are indeed part of the violent political movement that calls itself "Islam" (peaceful surrender to God, so they boast to be doing) and pretend that to be a part of a religion - Muhammad (the real original and historical one, not the thug which they invented in their own image while committing the biggest identity-theft in history) must be rolling in his grave. Still there are others, especially Sufis and the Ahmadiyya movement, who are able to take Islam purely as a religion and interpret the Koran's violent verses differently, stripping away any political context.

Christianity today is peaceful, but it wasn't always like this: Jews were forced by the Spanish and Portuguese inquisition to convert to Christianity or die and there were times when failing to attend church on Sunday attracted a fine - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Uniformity_1558 . The situation in Russia is a cause for worry, where it seems that Putin is heading in the direction of forcing the Russian Orthodox church over the Russian people.

It is of the uppermost importance that there be a separation of church and state. It is counter productive to allow religious doctrine to form the entire basis of society, well not a Capitalist society such as Australia. Many of the laws of Western Democracies, have their origins in Judah-Christian teachings, if not somewhat distorted and convoluted to accommodate the counter religious aspects of Capitalism.
There was little argument offered when the religious demanded social laws be enacted by secular governments against those the Christian Churches deemed unworthy sinners, homosexuals, abortionists, prostitutes, bigamists anyone seen as outside the Christian ethos. Some on the most vocal and influential today against social law reform, laws governing such things as gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia, prostitution etc are the conservative thinking Christian Churches. Conservative Christians are influential of government, particularly throughout the Liberal Party and to a lesser extent through their own pressure groups and political parties, Family First, Christian Democrats, both of which have a small but significant representation in Australian parliaments.

Dear ttbn,

Christianity has a history of forced conversions, massacring those who refused to convert and even massacring those of another religion without giving them the opportunity to convert.

Fletcher’s “The Conversion of Europe from Paganism to Christianity: 371-1386” tells the story of that conversion from the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire until the conversion of Lithuania. Ireland was the only country converted to Christianity without violence.

Several crusades took place against Lithuania before they became Christian.

The adoption of Christianity by Rome was the beginning of official persecution of non-Christians.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_I:

The Christian persecution of Roman religion under Theodosius I began in 381, after the first couple of years of his reign in the Eastern Roman Empire. In the 380s, Theodosius I reiterated Constantine's ban on former customs of Roman religion, prohibited haruspicy on pain of death, pioneered the criminalization of magistrates who did not enforce laws against polytheism, broke up some pagan associations and tolerated attacks on Roman temples.

Between 389–392 he promulgated the "Theodosian decrees"[20] (instituting a major change in his religious policies),[21]:116 which removed non-Nicene Christians from church office and abolished the last remaining expressions of Roman religion by making its holidays into workdays, banned blood sacrifices, closed Roman temples, confiscated temple endowments and disbanded the Vestal Virgins.[22] The practices of taking auspices and witchcraft were punished. Theodosius refused to restore the Altar of Victory in the Senate House, as asked by non-Christian senators.[21]:115

continued

continued

Christianity has a horrible record of massacring Jews. One of the many examples:

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhineland_massacres

"The call for the First Crusade touched off the Rhineland massacres also known as the German Crusade of 1096,[1] the persecutions of 1096 or Gzerot Tatenu[2] for the edicts of 856, which occurred during the year of 4856 according to the Jewish calendar. Prominent leaders of crusaders involved in the massacres included Peter the Hermit and especially Count Emicho.[3] As part of this persecution, the destruction of Jewish communities in Speyer, Worms and Mainz were noted as the "Hurban Shum" (Destruction of Shum).[4] These were new persecutions of the Jews in which peasant crusaders from France and Germany attacked Jewish communities."

Hitler’s persecution and massacre of the Jews was supported by most of the German Christian churches.

With the Inquisition, burning dissenters and heretics at the stake, enslaving native peoples, and slaughtering ‘witches’ Christianity has a far greater record of violence than Islam.

Unfortunately most Christians are ignorant of the sheer evil in the lamentable record of Christian history and can point out how bad other religions are.

Interesting David F.
I think we can see here the echo in Islam of the Christian intolerance of the Jews.
It is is easy to see why Islam just adopted this intolerance but
with the doctrine of the unchangability of the Koran and no
enlightenment the Islamic hatred of Jews is there forever.
It seems to fit in with their difficulty in accepting modernisation.

and yet today the most hateful bigotted people in the West are Darwinians.

David f,

OK. But I'm talking about now (perhaps I should have made that clearer). Islam has not changed since the 7th Century. Christianity has.

Ttbn Christianity was indeed primitive . The Spanish butchered the South Americans as they were heathen .What were the crusades . The Muslim Saladin showed more mercy than the Christians doing gods work . Christianity has had it's reformation it's renaisance. We have separated church and state. Henry the 8th was only partly marrying Anne Boleyn searching for a son . But also appropriating the churches propety

Hi there DAVID F...

It's good to read your interesting commentary juxtaposing Islam and Christianity, back in days gone by. Both of these religions practiced quite violent ways due in part, to the way justice and punishment was duly dispensed.

I think you'd agree now though, most people who engage in either religion, are far more tolerant and reasonable in their way of interacting with each other? Except the few radicals essentially from Islamic religions.

I recall way back at school we did quite a bit on the Inquisition which was both grossly unfair and 'bloody' to the extreme. Spain did nothing to spread the word of Catholicism or Christianity as a consequence of their 'cleansing' of poor quality 'Roman Catholic' practitioners.

Dear o sung wu,

The secular western states have tamed Christianity. However, outside of that area Christianity can still be just as barbarous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army

"The Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), also known as the Lord's Resistance Movement, is a rebel group and heterodox Christian cult which operates in northern Uganda, South Sudan, the Central African Republic, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo....The LRA was listed as a terrorist group by the United States, though it has since been removed from the list of designated active terrorist groups. It has been accused of widespread human rights violations, including murder, abduction, mutilation, child-sex slavery, and forcing children to participate in hostilities."

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/09/god_loves_uganda_africas_terrifying_christian_revival/

"about the struggle of gay activists amid that nation’s toxic climate of right-wing Christianity and official homophobia. Both films touch on the life and death of David Kato, who by his own account was Uganda’s first out gay man, and on the infamous proposed Ugandan law – not yet put into practice — carrying life imprisonment for homosexual acts and the death penalty for repeat offenders. (No one seems to have noticed that the law is incoherent on its face: How are you supposed to sin again if you’ve been locked up for life? Do they plan to impose the death penalty for sex in prison?)"

Dear o sung wu,

I agree that outside of the violent, intolerant minority most Christians, Muslims and people of other religions are just trying to get along in life and be decent people. However, if your religion tells you have a truth denied to others and your religion also tells you that you should push it on to others that can be a recipe for horrors.

Paul,

Let us not forget the infamous "Sunday Observance Act" which plagued NSW for many years, it was. thankfully, repealed around 1972/3.

The best is atheism!

Yeah, what the spammer said. ^^

Dear ttbn,

All religions change with time, and Islam is no exception. At first Islam refused converts in the territory it covered outside of Arabia. It regarded itself as a religion for the Arabs. The Arabs ruled the countries they conquered, and Muslims did not pay tax. One reason that they discouraged conversion was that converts would not have to pay taxes. Muslim universities in early Islam were open to people of all religious beliefs while Christian universities at that time were open only to Christians. It was only later that Islam became a missionary religion outside of the Arabian peninsula.

Early Islam made great contribution in science, literature and mathematics. Algebra, alembic, algorithm, apogee, perigee, Aldebaran and azimuth are all words of Islamic origin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_of_Arabic_origin lists words of Arabic origin. From the list one can see the many fields that Islam contributed to.

Unfortunately later, the Islamic clergy managed to change the magnificent Islamic universities into theological seminaries, and they were no longer leaders in the arts and sciences.

Islam entered its Dark Ages at about the time that Christianity was leaving its Dark Ages. At the beginning of the twentieth century except for Turkey and Afghanistan the Islamic world was colonised by the Christian powers. Christianity did not rule over Islam by any peaceful means. The colonies were acquired by war. Christian violence was more effective than Islamic violence.

Islam has a history as complex as that of Christianity and has made as many changes. Current Islam is as different from early Islam as current Christianity is from early Christianity.

Different views of history are always interesting.

But we live in the moment or arguably we do not live at all.

So Australians are naturally concerned about the impact of Islam on their way of life and on the future for their children.

Having some sympathy for the history and the slow/absent reformation of Islam is for the historians and religious buffs, although many who seem interested may have unacknowledged political beliefs and (misplaced where OLO is concerned at least) political lobbying as their agenda.

I am concerned about the practical issues, the simple ones that are the only hope of a less disruptive reformation, for example, that girls are never required by medieval beliefs that put-down women, to limit their choices of clothing in ways that would never be contemplated let alone rationalised for boys.

Incrementalism is the way to reform Islam to make it possible for it to sort of assimilate with a secular society. Islam is not the way forward, not a positive and constructive way forward for western society.

I do not believe that any well-meaning and constructive person, someone who is prepared to put his/her politics and ideology to one side for the betterment of humanity, would not be supporting those reforming Muslims that Ayaan Hirsi Ali has identified in the West. Would those who now criticise Ayaan Hirsi Ali (they are gutless and concentrate on the person and avoid discussion of the ideas and facts) also have criticised the necessary reformation of Christianity way back when (and since!)?

G'Day there DAVID F...

Your breadth of historical knowledge amazes me. And yet you're a mathematician ? They say most of life's most complex problems, the solutions of which, can be found somewhere in a branch of Mathematics. Reading your material does make me cringe, by realising how little I know about anything of importance. What I do know is essentially basic and practical, with scant acknowledgement to many things of esoteric consequence. Still, I'm not in gaol, nor living an iniquitous lifestyle, so I suppose I must know a little. I guess it means there's room for both; Scientist & Pragmatists, each harmonizing with each other.

Thank you DAVID F.

How anyone can call what the Roman State has done to the World in the name of "Christian" amazes me. It does not reflect anything of the true nature of Christ teachings. It is a brutal and bloody misrepresentation of anything that Christ stood for.

It depends on which branch of truth one is comparing; The Roman Church and its political conflicts or those that adhered to the teachings of Christ.

Dear Josephus,

Indeed, for whatever historical reasons, the word 'Christian' came to have a double meaning, one pure, the other not.

I may argue that the same applies to the word 'Muslim', so that whoever follows the true teachings of Muhammad (as opposed to the false teachings of those who impersonated him in the Kuran), humbly surrendering himself/herself to God ('Allah' being just another name for the same God), is also following the teachings of Jesus Christ, and vice versa.

The only way one can compare Islam and Christianity is to look at the lifestyle and teachings of its founders. All other pseudo adherents that claim followers of Mahomed or Christ cannot claim to be living in the likeness of their founder and his beliefs if not obeying his teachings and examples. Read the words attributed to each and make the comparisons. NO! atheists prefer the bloody history as it suits their agenda. Atheists have their own bloody history that they fail to see.

Atheists don't fail to see that, Josephus.

<<Atheists have their own bloody history that they fail to see.>>

They simply understand that atheism cannot be blamed for that history, as there is nothing within atheism to support what those atheists did.

AJ Philips,
There is within atheism the belief that man is the ultimate one; be accountable to oneself. Atheist Dictators believe this implicitly. So to eradicate opponents in their eyes is responsible to their view of society, example North Korea the most repressive nation on Earth.

Not at all, Josephus.

<<There is within atheism the belief that man is the ultimate one; be accountable to oneself.>>

The only tenet of atheism is disbelief in a god. That’s it.

<<North Korea the most repressive nation on Earth.>>

There's nothing within atheism to support what the North Korean dictatorship is doing. In fact, the North Korean dictatorship more closely resembles religion with its dead, eternal leader, Kim Il Sung, and the constant eye it keeps on its people. The Abrahamic religions are celestial North Koreas.

But at least in North Korea you can die and leave.

AJ Philips,
Point being there is no one to whom you are responsible if you are absolute. That is atheism!

No, that’s still not atheism, Josephus.

<<Point being there is no one to whom you are responsible if you are absolute. That is atheism!>>

Most atheists hold themselves accountable to themselves and others.

There is no point in holding oneself accountable to one’s imaginary friend if that imaginary friend is always going to agree with oneself. But if that’s all that keeps you from harming others, then you just keep on believing there.

And what does it mean to be “absolute”? Sounds like New Age mumbo jumbo to me.

As I said exactly!
"Most atheists hold themselves accountable to themselves and others."
They themselves are the absolute authority!

Yeah, I said "and others", too, Josephus. You even quoted me saying that.

<<They themselves are the absolute authority!>>

Nothing "absolute" about that. Nor is it any different to theists. Theists simply attribute the same conscience and faculties to a god instead; a god that'll always agree with them anyway.

Are you going to actually mount a serious argument by responding to everything I say, rather than simply cherry-picking, or are you just going to sit there and waste both our posting allowance with demonstrable nonsense all night?

//And what does it mean to be “absolute”? Sounds like New Age mumbo jumbo to me.//

There are only two things that are absolute, pure logic and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.

//They themselves are the absolute authority!//

Shocking, right!? I mean, people just shouldn't be trusted with their own morality: hang your conscience and your critical faculties, and just do whatever the nice, charismatic young man with the good speaking at the front says you should do. His moral judgement must be way better than that of us regular people, because pastors never, ever do anything naughty like raping children. If you check your scriptures, you'll find that whoever wrote that particular bit loves sheep and hates goats. That's because sheep are easily (mis)led, whilst goats have this annoying tendency to think for themselves and resist being herded as easily.

Dear Josephus,

You wrote: “The only way one can compare Islam and Christianity is to look at the lifestyle and teachings of its founders.”

There is a better way, and it can found in the Bible. Matthew 7:16 By their fruits shall ye know them.

In a previous post I mentioned some of the bloody fruits of Christianity.

Unfortunately Christians tend to disavow the acts of other Christians by attacking them as not real Christians because they don’t like what they do or by attacking them because they belong to another denomination as you did in attacking Catholicism.

In regard to the first disavowal one can ask why didn’t their religion make them behave better.

In regard to the second disavowal one can find many instances where different Christian sects act the same.

In 1553 Michael Servetus who made discoveries about pulmonary circulation was burned at the stake in Protestant Geneva.

In 1600 Giordano Bruno who thought that the stars could be distant suns with planets revolving around them was burned at the stake in Catholic Rome.

david f,
Where does Christ say or encourage to burn people at the stake? Both were and are political systems of Government. Christ neve aligned himself with a political system. They are both systems of human control over others. Christ appealed to the individual not the State, "follow me".

Dear Josephus,

By their fruits shall ye know them. Where do Christians get their bloodiness? Jesus claimed that only through him could one enter the kingdom of heaven. It doesn't matter how good a life you lived or how decent a person you were. Only if you accepted the mumbojumbo of Jesus were you ok. Jesus was a bloody bigot, and the religion established in his name reflects his bigotry.

Jesus also said that you were either with him or against him. There were many mumbojumbo artists who could say the same thing. I would place Jesus along with Moses, Mohammed, Lao Tze, Buddha etc. and say I am neither with nor against any of them. All the foregoing promulgated various delusionary systems, and I think humanity can dispense with all of that nonsense.

david f,
You miss the point of his words. You are still fighting in your own mind. Look at the example of his life, is it the way, the true way the type of life a society should function. He refused to follow the religious zealots of Israel who wanted to fight Rome. He instead cared for the Romans and healed a daughter of a Roman guard. Living in God's kingdom meant being selfless and caring for others, including one who is an enemy. No one realizes the true nature of God's kingdom until one can truly care for one's enemies well being. "Forgive them they know what they do"

Dear Josephus,

I think reason is a better guide to behaviour than mumbojumbo. In none of the words of Jesus can be found a condemnation of slavery. Of course we can't. If he existed he was a man of his time and accepted what most people of his time accepted. Nobody can take someone else's sins upon them. So far no human woman gets impregnated without a male sperm being introduced into her. There is no evidence that can establish that any of the miracles cited in the scriptures of different religions ever happened. There is no evidence to support the idea that there either is a god, a god in three parts or many gods. No matter how firmly you believe in something that does not establish its truth. Christianity like other religions is a compendium of nonsense.

Unlike Jesus I am against slavery. I probably am neither wiser nor better. I live in a different time where many people have discarded the superstitions of the past and have a different view of what is moral. If you want to hold on to the superstitions of the past you have a perfect right to do so. At one time some people believed in the Greek, Roman, Norse or other myths as true. Now many people believe in the Jewish Bible, the Christian Bible, the Muslim Koran, the Hindu Bhagavad Gita or the Buddhist Tripitaka as true. There is no evidence to support the idea that any of the foregoing is entirely true. However, you remain free to believe whatever mythology you choose to believe. Like most people who believe in mythology you probably believe in the one your parents accepted.

I don't think you are a bad person, but I think you have not questioned what you have been told. I prefer doubt to faith. Since I was a child I have questioned. I think religion offers certainty in an uncertain world. That is a way to deny reality. Of course, if your reality is too horrible you might want to deny it.

Josephus,

Christianity did not begin to Romanize until around the second century AD, its completion culminating with the adoption of Christianity as the official Roman religion by Theodosius in 380AD. Christians had realized that it was necessary to make their religion acceptable to both the Roman population and the ruling class. it was likely that around this time text about the "agonizing" of Pontius Pilate over Christs crucifixion, minimizing Roman culpability, and the inclusion of acceptable pro Roman text “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s” took place. The early Christian church was not a separate religion, but a sect on the fringe of Judaism, which never received official sanction from that religion. Judaism was, and still is an exclusive religion, it did not allow for the inclusion of what it termed gentiles (and sinners). It was Paul (not me the other one) and his followers which won the day and allowed for inclusion of others into the Christian religion, that then allowed for the shift to Romanized Christianity by the remove of unacceptable Jewish practices including. circumcision, working on the Sabbath and eating of certain foods. The Romanizatin is what turned Christanity from a small localized sect into the religion it is today. politics played a very big part indeed.

Dear Paul,

You wrote: "Judaism was, and still is an exclusive religion, it did not allow for the inclusion of what it termed gentiles (and sinners). It was Paul (not me the other one) and his followers which won the day and allowed for inclusion of others into the Christian religion, that then allowed for the shift to Romanized Christianity by the remove of unacceptable Jewish practices including. circumcision, working on the Sabbath and eating of certain foods."

Judaism does allow for the inclusion of gentiles. The Book of Ruth tells about a gentile who became Jewish. Trump's daughter, Ivanka, has become a Jew. Jews admit to being sinners. No religion could exist without including sinners. Judaism does not approve of working on the Sabbath. The Jewish Sabbath is from sundown Friday until sundown Saturday." Most Christians observe Sunday as the Sabbath with exceptions such as the Seventh Day Adventists. Judaism also enjoins not eating certain foods rather than eating of certain foods.

It is a pity you do not read the text of the New Testament. The inclusion of Gentiles have always been the focus of Scripture. Example Luke 2: 32. My niece and her family are now practicing Orthodox Jews in Israel. The apostle Paul just took up the commission originally given to Abraham, that Jewish nationalism ignored.

If you read Luke 4: 18 19, Jesus stating his commission said," The Spirit of the Lord has anointed me to preach good news to the poor, He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners, and recovery of sight to the blind, to release the oppressed".

Does that sound like he supports slavery? NO! He came to release people from oppression, from slavery.

Keep on posting on slavery, you have not got a case; it is a fallacious claim. The Roman Church condoned slavery as it was practised by the State, and it was carried on in other religious breakaway groups till it was outlawed in the British Parliament.

Dear Josephus,

Please cite any place where Jesus spoke against slavery.

david f,

He is quoted as saying "Do unto others etc.,"
That seems to preclude slavery.

Hi David,

Yes, we should condemn the crimes committed in the name of religion of four hundred years ago. We should dig up the bones of those responsible and kick them around the graveyard. That'll feel good.

But a bit of perspective: the Ottomans ruled Greece for around five hundred years, and treated the Greeks as serfs. After the First World War, Britain ruled Iraq as a LoN mandate for thirty years or so, and France ruled Lebanon and Syria for around twenty years. And that was after the Ottomans had ruled them, Turks ruling Arabs, for nearly as long as they had ruled Greece.

Thirty years back from now is only 1987: maybe I'm getting old but that seems like yesterday.

And by the way, the Muslims pinched a lot of their ideas about maths from the Indians, who had developed logarithms a thousand years before, and so probably trigonometry and algebra. And, of course, they 'borrowed' other ideas from the Greeks. Can you explain to us a single mathematical theorem that the Muslims devised on their own ?

Cheers,

Joe

Joe wrote: “And by the way, the Muslims pinched a lot of their ideas about maths from the Indians, who had developed logarithms a thousand years before, and so probably trigonometry and algebra. And, of course, they 'borrowed' other ideas from the Greeks. Can you explain to us a single mathematical theorem that the Muslims devised on their own?”

Dear Joe,

Scientists and mathematicians build on the work of past scientists and mathematicians. Newton developed his law of gravitation incorporating the work of Kepler. Would you criticise Newton because he built on Kepler’s work? The Arabs used the work of those who had come before also. That is how science and mathematics are done. Newton said, “If I have seen further than others, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics_in_medieval_Islam

“Important progress was made, such as the full development of the decimal place-value system to include decimal fractions, the first systematised study of algebra (named for The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing by scholar Al-Khwarizmi), and advances in geometry and trigonometry.”

“In his book The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing, Al-Khwarizmi deals with ways to solve for the positive roots of first and second degree (linear and quadratic) polynomial equations. He also introduces the method of reduction, and unlike Diophantus, gives general solutions for the equations he deals with.”

Omar Khayyám (c. 1038/48 in Iran – 1123/24)[9] wrote the Treatise on Demonstration of Problems of Algebra containing the systematic solution of cubic or third-order equations, going beyond the Algebra of al-Khwarizmi;. Khayyám obtained the solutions of these equations by finding the intersection points of two conic sections. This method had been used by the Greeks, but they did not generalize the method to cover all equations with positive roots.

“Sharaf al-Din al-Tusi; (? in Tus, Iran – 1213/4) developed a novel approach to the investigation of cubic equations—an approach which entailed finding the point at which a cubic polynomial obtains its maximum value. (go to site)

Arab mathematicians also dealt with irrational numbers and developed spherical trigonometry.

david f wrote: "Arab mathematicians also dealt with irrational numbers and developed spherical trigonometry."

Yeah, and even if they didn't, it's important to note that there was a time when the Islamic world was more scholar-friendly than the Christian world.

A reason why the Arab world has been going backwards further and further since the nineteenth century is because Islamists are reigniting old debates, which had been held and settled long ago, about how to interpret the Qur'an, and are, unfortunately, taking a more literal approach than was taken previously.

Hi David,

No, certainly not: Newton was a giant who stood on the shoulders of earlier giants.

My point is the mis-attribution of early discoveries in maths to Muslims, if that infers Arabs: after all, it's notable (unless I'm totally wrong) that the three scholars who you cited were not Arab, core-Muslim, but from either Iranian or central Asian societies, i.e. with scientific heritage from ancient, pre-Muslim civilizations.

Nothing from Muslim Spain, in its supposed glory years, up until around 1100 AD ?

Just a nit-pick, David, sorry :)

Cheers,

Joe

Hi David,

When I say Judaism is an exclusive religion, it certainly was/is when compared to Christianity. There is no evidence that it actively sought converts among gentiles, there was no missionary movement associated with Judaism. In fact Jews considered themselves God's chosen people, at the exclusion of all others. Any converts are more the exception than the rule.
If Christianity, unlike Judaism, had not adopted the degree of flexibility that it did during the Roman era, thanks to Paul, it would never have reached the level of popularity that it enjoys today. In fact it would have been likely that it would have ceased to exist centuries ago. The true founder of Christianity was Paul not Jesus. If the brother of Jesus, James and the leader Peter had held sway Christianity would have clung to its Jewish beliefs, and that would have been disastrous for the new religion.
Jesus was not out to create a new religion called Christianity, with new beliefs and values, but rather attempted to argue reform of the existing Jewish religion by correct interpretation of scripture. It was that which brought Jesus into conflict with the religious leadership of the day. The Romans were concerned with sedition not religion, which when necessary had to be vigorously suppressed.

I agree with Joe (y)

If Jesus was to return today, what would he make of Christianity, and what is practiced in his name. From the Orthodox, who seem about a thousand years out of date, to the Roman C's, the Protestants, heaven forbid where did they spring from, right through to the KFC variety, that's the Kentucky Fried Christians, happy clappers and other assorted odd bods. Interesting indeed, Jesus would probably head for the nearest Synagogue, and a stiff drink of alter wine, thinking he's founds some fair dinkum Christians, sorry to disappoint JC, but they are not in the flock these days! blasphemers!
Just who would impress and who would reject, who are the true followers, and who are the phonies. There are many with their hands up, but who are the true believers? Interested to know.

Did Jesus consider slavery oppression? He certainly did! having grown up in Israel who for 400 years were slaves of Egypt, through their history some taken slaves of Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and in his day of Rome.

His own disciples looked for the day they would be free of Rome, but he saw another opportunity to reach all nations that is why he commissioned his followers to go into all the World and share the message, heal the sick and free the oppressed.

Some have learned freedom by serving others, as Joseph, Daniel, Esther and thousands who work for the benefit of a dictator because their love is for people is real.

Focus on the need you see to bring change for the betterment of the need of others. In Christ's teaching their is neither male nor female, Jew or Gentile. not slave or free all are seen as equal as Christians [Galatians 3: 28].

Paul wrote: When I say Judaism is an exclusive religion, it certainly was/is when compared to Christianity. There is no evidence that it actively sought converts among gentiles, there was no missionary movement associated with Judaism. In fact Jews considered themselves God's chosen people, at the exclusion of all others. Any converts are more the exception than the rule.

Dear Paul,

A religion that never converted anybody would only consist of its founder. Actually Jews did seek and even forcibly convert gentiles. Jews converted the Idumeans to Judaism resulting in King Herod who horrified both Jews and Christians. Thereupon Jews decided to welcome people who wanted to become Jews but would not seek converts. Current Judaism believes that it is more important to be a good person than to be a Jew. IMHO that makes Judaism superior to Christianity which regards people as better if they accept the Christian mumbojumbo. That is reflected in Christian language. “It is a Christian thing to do.” means that somehow one has behaved better. I think just respecting all people and allowing them to believe what they will is much better than trying to get them to accept the same nonsense you believe in. Missionary religions are a greater curse than other religions. As the late, great Jimmy Durante said, “Why doesn’t everybody leave everybody else the hell alone.”

Dear Josephus,

With all your squirming and reinterpreting you cannot find any direct condemnation of slavery by Jesus. It is not there. Jesus, if he existed, was a man of his time. In his time he probably accepted slavery as most others did. If one accepts slavery it is not considered oppression.

You also wrote: “Focus on the need you see to bring change for the betterment of the need of others. In Christ's teaching their is neither male nor female, Jew or Gentile. not slave or free all are seen as equal as Christians.”

Dear Josephus,

I think it is better to see all as equal whether or not they are Christians. One shouldn't have to follow a particular superstition to be considered equal.

It's like I've pointed out many times before, all those pages, and all those words, and yet this god couldn't manage three simple words: "Slavery is wrong."

Clearly it was needed. Is Yahweh not omniscient, or something? Obviously he's not omnipotent, because he couldn't write a book which would maintain its relevance throughout the ages.

We need a sequel to the Bible, but that given we are no longer as superstitious, ignorant, or fearful as we were when the first one was compiled, I don't think we'll be seeing that any time soon. At least not unless we have an apocalypse, or something like that.

'Do unto others...' is easily circumvented if slaves are not one's 'others'.

Hi AJ,

At the risk of raising Yuyutsu's ire, I venture the suggestion that religion fills a need for people in semi-civilized societies, or at least pre-industrial societies, which provokes a sort of hangover in many people which lingers over into industrial and even ?post-industrial societies.

As Nietzsche might have commented, 'The need for God is dead in full-blown industrial societies'. In such societies, people are also individualised, and have to work out their own value systems and reasons for living for themselves.

Some fall back exhausted from the effort and resort again to religion, some turn to crime and go on to much bigger things such as power, and some struggle all their lives to answer the old question 'How should we live ?'

I guess you and I are in that last, most unfortunate and most fortunate, group :(

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Joe,

You wrote of the need for religion in semi-civilized societies.

People in semi-civilized or tribal societies may be able to think logically and be sceptical of the tribal beliefs. All societies may have some form of religious belief and sceptics of that belief. There is evidence that societies had means of dealing with sceptics.

Believers in pre-literate societies leave artefacts such as burial mounds and figures of fertility goddesses. Doubters in those societies would not leave artefacts, but that does not mean they did not exist. Since they could be seen as a threat to the unity of the group they could have been dealt with harshly, and there is evidence that they were.

The Khazars, a pagan people, were converted to Judaism. Before their conversion the Khazars dealt with young men who had too many questions about the tribal beliefs by killing them.

A few years ago I was in New South Wales and went on a tour guided by an old Aborigine who told us about Aboriginal beliefs and customs. I asked him if there were those who questioned the beliefs. He said that boys who did not accept the beliefs did not survive the initiation ordeals.

Chagnon wrote “Yanomamo, The Fierce People.” The following passage is from his book.

“...a spirit named Wadawadariwa asks the soul if it has been generous or stingy during its mortal life. If the person has been stingy and niggardly, Wadawadariwa directs the soul along one path leading to a place of fire: Shobari Waka. If the person was generous with his possessions and food, he is directed along the other the other path – to hedu proper, where a tranquil semi-mortal existence continues.
The Yanomamo do not take this seriously, that is, do not fear the possibility of being sent to the place of fire. When I asked why, I got the following kind of answer: “Well, Wadawadariwa is kind of stupid. We’ll just all lie and tell him we are generous, and he’ll send us to hedu!”

Sounds as though the tribe may have many sceptics.

continued

continued

The ancient Greeks were an early literate people who apparently contained both sceptics and believers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras

“Protagoras also was a proponent of agnosticism. Reportedly, in his lost work, On the Gods, he wrote: "Concerning the gods, I have no means of knowing whether they exist or not, nor of what sort they may be, because of the obscurity of the subject, and the brevity of human life." According to Diogenes Laërtius, the outspoken, agnostic position taken by Protagoras aroused anger, causing the Athenians to expel him from the city, and all copies of his book were collected and burned in the marketplace. The deliberate destruction of his works also is mentioned by Cicero.

The classicist John Burnet doubts this account, however, as both Diogenes Laërtius and Cicero wrote hundreds of years later and as no such persecution of Protagoras is mentioned by contemporaries who make extensive references to this philosopher. Burnet notes that even if some copies of the Protagoras books were burned, enough of them survived to be known and discussed in the following century. A claim has been made that Protagoras is better classified as an atheist, since he held that if something is not able to be known it does not exist.”

Protagoras may or may not have been persecuted for his skepticism.

According to Plato Socrates was condemned to death for impiety.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates

“Socrates defended his role as a gadfly until the end: at his trial, when Socrates was asked to propose his own punishment, he suggested a wage paid by the government and free dinners for the rest of his life instead, to finance the time he spent as Athens' benefactor. He was, nevertheless, found guilty of both corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens and of impiety ("not believing in the gods of the state"), and subsequently sentenced to death by drinking a mixture containing poison hemlock.”

Socrates was probably guilty of impiety, but I don’t think it should be a crime.

Jesus continually talked about freedom and he lived free and encouraged others to live free; challenging Talmud laws and ritual. In fact the charges brought against him by the Temple hierarchy was that he violated their laws. He reaped grain and healed on their Sabbath, ate with unwashed hands and the unclean. He certainly would not have endorsed slavery as he stated he came to "set captives free". This was the case of Legion who was held captive by the Gadarines to watch over their pigs.

Again, Josephus, it was clearly not enough, and Jesus should have known that it wouldn’t be.

Worse still, the New Testament clearly condones slavery. Yes, that book that so many here on OLO would like to pass of as all sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows everywhere, is still immoral.

“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.” (Ephesians 6:5)

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+6:5-9&version=NLT

“Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.” (1 Timothy 6:1-2)

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+6%3A1-2&version=NLT

There you go. Straight from thy Lord and Saviour’s mouth: one can own slaves and still be a Christian.

Or a Scotsman, if you know what I mean.

Dear Josephus,

There simply is no evidence that Jesus spoke against slavery. You may twist, turn, distort, reinterpret or whatever, but there is no evidence that Jesus condemned slavery. Jesus, if he existed, was a flawed human being like the rest of us. Come up with evidence, and I will examine it. Meanwhile I will not respond any more to your twisting, turning, distorting and reinterpreting on that subject.

Hi David,

"People in semi-civilized or tribal societies may be able to think logically and be sceptical of the tribal beliefs."

I suppose so, although as you go on to detail, scepticism in such societies often had dire consequences. I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, but it's worth pointing out that, since the Enlightenment with all its faults, scepticism has - or it did until PC took over the universities and sanctioned nappy-changing - become something of a virtue. In most pre-industrial societies, it was more of a crime. In order to test this, try being sceptical in a mosque in Saudi Arabia, or even at n Indonesian political rally. Others may report on your test results posthumously, and perhaps anonymously.

Yes, of course, the best Greek philosophers were sceptics, scepticism is almost the definition of 'civilization'. It didn't do Socrates much good though.

Of course, people in pre-civilized societies may be able to think logically, to put one foot in front of the other, to look around if someone calls, to look for something to eat (if there is food) when one is hungry: these are all matters of basic logic. But being able to 'logically' analyse and pull apart one's fundamental cultural paradigms ? Maybe we need some evidence.

Of course, my favourite example would be Job: what the Books say about God and Satan making a deal to ruin Job and see if he still loved God is fascinating - I can't understand why the Book of Job is in the bible, it castigates God, if anybody reads the ending; God throw his weight around (does God have weight?)and Job seems to just shrug his shoulders and say, 'Well God, you're the boss, you can do whatever the hell you like, but just piss off and leave me alone.'

Job was probably your typical quiet, careful, sceptic, David, who wanted to keep his head on his shoulders, in the face of total power. Love it :)

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth,
The book of Job deals with polytheism and is corrupted Paleo Hebrew most likely written by a Hebrew slave while in captivity in Babylon. The God Elohim mentioned in the opening chapters is polytheistic and Celestial while his son administer the Earth. This concept is foreign to Hebrew thought. Job who lived about 1,900 BC makes the claim against his polytheistic counsellors of the Elohim, he believes God Aloah [a monotheistic God of Edom] will appear in the Earth to justify his abandonment of polytheism. Moses introduces YHWH 1,300 BC who gives and YHWH takes away. The book concludes with YHWH [Hebrew monotheist God] appearing verifying Job's claim and calling for repentant sacrifice by his polytheistic counsellors.

Hi Josephus,

Probably getting off-topic, but Job sounds pretty monotheistic in his reply to Bildad, that "Behold even to the moon, and it shineth not; yea, the stars are not pure in his sight; How much less is a man, that is a worm; and the son of man, which is a worm;" [Ch. 25, 5-6]

Job replies, "How has thou helped him that is without power How savest thou the arm that hath no strength ?" [Ch. 26, 2]. And later, "As God liveth, who hath taken away my judgment; and the Almighty, who hath vexed my soul;" [Ch. 27, 2]. And on and on. Until God, pissed off with him, bursts onto the scene, big-noting himself 'out of the whirlwind' with "Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge ? .... Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth ? declare, if thou hast understanding. ... Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issue out of the womb. When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddling-band for it.... etc. etc. .... [Ch. 38, 2, 4, 8-9], ...

Canst thou send lightnings ... etc. Who provideth the raven with his food ? when his young ones cru unto god, they wander for lack of meat. [Ch. 3, 35, 1.] On and on (we've all probably had psychotic bosses like this). As a commentary on 'scepticism', this: "Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox..... He is the chief of the ways of God; .... " [Ch. 40, 15, 19]

Scepticism laid low ?

[TBC]

[continued]

Then God loses it: "Canst thou draw out leviathan with a hook ? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down ? Canst thou put an hook in his nose ? or bore his jaw through with a thorn ?.... None is so fierce that dare stir him up; ho then is able to stand before me ? Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him ? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine." [Ch. 41, 1,2, 10, 11]. Sounds familiar ?

Eventually Job replies, "I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee. etc. etc. .... Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes." [Ch.42, , 6]

And he says nothing more: as many of us know from bitter experience, talk back to a psychotic boss and you're finished.

A lot of abuse of power there, David, but not much scepticism :)

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

You refer to Job as though he was a real person. He is no more real than Hamlet. Like many other characters in the Bible he is fictional.

Hi David,

Well, duh. If I ever go to a performance of a play by Shakespeare, I'll be sure to yell out during the entire performance that the characters aren't real. The audience should know ! They'll thank me later.

Of course, Job was not real. None of the stuff in the bible or the koran is real. And (at the risk of Yuyutsu calling down the wrath of Shiva onto me) neither are the Hindu books. They're all, at best, parables, lessons, cautionary tales.

So I'm assuming that the lesson from the 'cautionary tale of Job' is: don't question the fictional character we call 'God'. Obey what we tell you are his rules. He's pretty big and strong, and a bit of a crazy bastard, so if you cross him, he'll smite you, and bloody hard too.

Thanks anyway,

Joe

Dear Joe,

I respect your intelligence and sceptical attitude and have no doubt that you know that the Bible and other sacred works are full of stories about legendary characters. However, my comment may be seen by others and cause them to question.

david f,

How do you know that they are fictional?

Hi Is Mise,

Many people believe so strongly that they can't imagine that the stories that they have been raised on are perhaps not quite fully true.

I worked with an Aboriginal student who later went on to do a Ph. D. in what is called 'Indigenous Research', i.e. confirmatory 'research' ignoring anything non-confirmatory - what researchers would usually consider the first, initial, chapter of a research project asserting a thesis - the rest of the project is supposed to at least attempt to refute their thesis, or at least address some of any major objection to it. But that's all so non-Indigenous research :( Not so with 'Indigenous research'.

Anyway, the topic that this particular student chose was to confirm that all Dreaming stories were literally true. The last I heard was that the student had put about five years into it. By the way, the student was not remotely 'traditional', having been raised in a large rural city.

So yes, you might be right.

Joe

"But that's all so non-Indigenous research"

Merely following a (modern) tradition, 'But that's all so non-Feminist research'. :(

Sloppy research, grants and the gravy train. The Dean smiles just as generously and sweetly at them as the Award is presented and the photo proves it.

A bit removed, but being there for the first of one's alma maters (misty eyes) to award a Doctor of Laws honoris causa to Premier Anna Bligh 'in recognition of her distinguished career and service to Queensland' evoked some strange feelings too. Still, at least she hasn't to my knowledge waved it about later.

I’m not sure about the others, but archaeologists, historians, and most Biblical scholars agree that Moses never existed. Not only is there a lack of evidence for Moses and the stories surrounding him, but there is also evidence that contradicts those stories.

So many people trekking through the desert for 38 years, for example, should have left an abundance of evidence behind.

A trek, by the way, that should have only taken a week or two:

http://www.google.com.au/maps/dir/30.7227375,31.8103007/31.8014749,35.4522694/@30.6760554,32.2622791,7z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e2

Ain’t technology grand!

On our recent visit to New Zealand, we made a special trip to the Waipoua Forests, to be with Tane Mahuta the Lord of the Forest, in fact according to my partner, Tane Mahuta is a god, who takes the forum of a giant kauri tree, maybe 2500 years old. When in the presence of this living god, who's spirit dwells within the tree, a true believer will experience a feeling of serenity and receive wisdom from Tane Mahuta to deal with problems that might be troubling one.
I said to "T", Tane Mahuta is just as plausible as any other god, "T"agrees, she excepts all god's including the Christian God, who she also believes in. She cannot understand why so many Christians are hostile towards the notion that other gods exist just the same as their god.

Dear Paul1405,

You may be interested in Kirsch’s “God against the gods”. It tells about the struggle between polytheism and monotheism in early Christianity.

Monotheism didn’t have a complete victory since Christians split God up into three parts, and the saints are in effect, minor Gods, that one can pray to instead of praying to big daddy or his main sidekick, Jesus.

Paul1405,

I think the two main sources for Christian hostility towards other gods is the first commandment, and John 14:6:

“Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me.”

It’s interesting, though, that the Bible never seems to deny the existence of any other gods. In fact, it speaks of them as though they did indeed exist.

Fact: Job is the grandson of Abraham, as a person. The book is written over 1,000 years later from the character and his conflict in Ur [Babylon].
Moses crossed the Red Sea on dry ground, during an Earthquake in the area causing a tsunami that buried the following Egyptians pursuing them as chariots are found today under the Red Sea.

Thanks for that, Josephus.

On thousand years is a long time. Given how badly a game of Chinese whispers goes, I wouldn’t place much faith in the accuracy of a story documented 1000 years after the fact. Especially in those times.

The chariots supposedly found in the Red Sea is a hoax that Christians insist on passing around (http://www.snopes.com/religion/redsea.asp). There is no evidence for Moses, and a lot of evidence to the contrary.

Dear Paul1405,

You may be interested in Kirsch’s “God against the gods”. It tells about the struggle between polytheism and monotheism in early Christianity.

Monotheism didn’t have a complete victory since Christians split God up into three parts, and the saints are in effect, minor Gods, that one can pray to instead of praying to big daddy or his main sidekick, Jesus.

If there is only one God and he is all-knowing, all-powerful and all-benevolent why does he need Jesus? Maybe it's like Batman and Robin.

'Progressives' pursue, bait and burn(sl) Christians as the new witches.

Why do 'Progressives' fear Christianity? Yet the same 'Progressives' are so soft, permissive, inclusive and nurturing, where Islam is concerned?

'Islam vs Christianity' is the thread. But for the 'Progressives', the totalitarian creed and socio-political system that escaped from the Middle Ages to the present day without reformation - the one that is so nasty to women and gays and with considerable malice aforethought - is the one to which the blind eye is being turned.

As an observer with no skin in the game, except for a fervent wish for a return of freedom of speech, and a dislike of totalitarianism, it is fascinating (another over-used and abused 'Progressive' word) to watch.

Perhaps this book review can attempt to explain,
http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/15/why-are-progressives-on-an-anti-christian-witch-hunt/
her bio,
"Rachel Lu is a senior contributor at The Federalist. She has a PhD in philosophy from Cornell University and teaches at the University of St Thomas. As a Robert Novak Fellow, she is currently researching criminal justice reform. Her non-academic work can be found in Touchstone Magazine, the Public Discourse and Crisis Magazine. She is also a former Peace Corps Volunteer."

Hi Paul,

Yes! Isn't he magnificent ? One time, we stopped on the road to Hokianga to go and see him, and came up against a huge wall. I thought, "Where's this tree ?" Of course, that wall WAS the tree, his body. I gave him a hug, (as much as it's possible to hug a huge wall) as I'm sure you've done, I don't know if that was right.

Hi David,

Like many other people, I struggle to understand - theoretically,from an atheist's viewpoint - what is meant by a Triune god, three in one, etc.: somewhere it says that Jesus sits on the right hand of god, yet Jesus IS supposed to be god. How can one sit on one's own right hand ? Meanwhile, the Holy Spirit flits around in the background. I suppose early Jewish-Christians felt a need to have an earthly link to their god, so he was written up as if he had had a son, via a woman. But the awkward bit was: how ? I guess this is where the Holy Spirit came in: god had to fertilise a woman, a virgin, Mary, but rather than do the business in person, or 'person', he used a surrogate. Oh, happy Holy Spirit ! Thanks, boss!

Islam gets around all this by declaring that Allah is one, alone, with no kids, and certainly with no contact with anything as filthy as a woman.

Having by now offended both Christians and Muslims, can I just point out what most of you already know, that sex is beautiful, it can be a sign of the deepest love and dedication. Why deny it to your god ? Even the Greeks gave Zeus plenty of opportunities to 'consort' with whomever he liked. And in that way, in Christianity at least, god could be four-in-one, Quadrune, really four gods, including Mary, the mother of his child - with the holy spirit perhaps somewhat superfluous.

Jut trying to make sense of a theory.

Joe

Dear leoj,

There is much wisdom in Christianity. However, there is intolerance and arrogance there also. There is the sense of having a truth denied to others. Many Christians want all to follow their religion. When flaws in Christianity are pointed out some Christians react angrily and term it an anti-Christian crusade and a witch hunt forgetting that Crusades and witch hunts are Christian specialties. Our society to a large extent is a Christian society, and many of our flaws are Christian flaws. We forget our history.

Regarding the Muslim treatment of women we ignore the fact that it’s only in recent history that women in our society have the vote and control of their property. We forget that only the Church of England was recognised in the early settlement of Australia.

I regard some of the sayings of Christianity as very wise. These Christian sayings are most important to me.

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
—&#8201;Matthew 7:1-5 KJV

It is much easier to call criticisms of our Christian society antichristian witch hunts and crusades and to condemn Islam than to take a look at the beams in our eye. In order to make our society better we should be able to look at ourselves.

I am not a Christian so I cannot speak for Christians, but I would appreciate it if Christians were more aware of their own failings. The words of Jesus recommend it.

davif f, "Regarding the Muslim treatment of women we ignore the fact that it’s only in recent history that women in our society have the vote and control of their property"

You lost it early, channelling Yassmin Abdel-Magiedas as in, 'Islam is the most feminist religion'. Yeah, for sure :(

I have no interest in defending any religion. The history is irrelevant. Anyway, most of that verbiage is only intended as a clumsy segue to annoying the 'other side', Christians, and is wasted on me.

It is the practical here and now that needs discussion, see the thread title.

I just want to understand why the hell the 'Progressives' cosy up to Islam.

Is it the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' malarkey, seasoned with a shared affection for totalitarianism? As virtue signalling it is poorly directed and unconvincing. Islam is not really your friend if you are Left.

Have the chickens been coming home to roost and the game is up? What do you have to say about that article?

Hi David,

Oooooooo ! " ..... only the Church of England was recognised in the early settlement of Australia."

Not in South Australia: There were all manner of church groups here from the earliest: that's probably why Adelaide was called the city of churches, not meaning 'many church buildings', but 'many denominations and sects'.

The Lutherans played a very big part in SA's history, all through the Hills and the Barossa, and in their forming of Aboriginal missions in the hardest parts of the settled areas. The Catholic presence was relatively small (no convicts in SA, after all), probably they were outnumbered by Baptists and Methodists and Free-Thinkers of all sorts. Often churches would combine on developing projects and Aboriginal missions, and share church space.

I agree, as an atheist, that Christians should recognise their own failings, as we all should. But as well, the rest of us should recognise their (sometimes) good intentions and achievements.

Cheers,

Joe

Dear leoj,

I see no need to cosy up to Islam nor do many others. One can set up a straw man as I believe the article has done. Islam has promoted violence and is still in their Dark Ages.

However, the article is an attempt to draw lines. One of the comments of Jesus which I think is a very bad one is, "Whoever is not with me is against me." I am no more against Islam than I am against Christianity. Both are superstitions. However, implicit in the article is the idea that one must be for one superstition or the other.

Hi Leo,

"I just want to understand why the hell the 'Progressives' cosy up to Islam.

"Is it the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' malarkey, seasoned with a shared affection for totalitarianism? As virtue signalling it is poorly directed and unconvincing. Islam is not really your friend if you are Left."

Yes, I'm also trying to understand how a supposedly Left can suck up to the extreme, conservative Right ? Surely they're not proposing that, somehow, Islam is 'progressive' ? Don't they have the wits to grasp that Islam is a 'perfect' religion, i.e. the ideal religion for reactionaries, it has all the answers to keep people in their place, and that it is the ideal religion for those who seek absolute power ? And who have not the slightest concern for the 'people' ?

I was raised, I think, on a different 'Left': one which required the constant questioning of who and what and why, and which most certainly wouldn't have sucked up to reactionaries, even if they were sincere and devout. After all, we're talking about people who - for all I know - still believe the sun goes around the earth. The flat earth.

What's going on in the 'Left' ? Guy Rundle, a doyen of the rat-bag CPA/SPA/Trot/Maoist 'Left', has just published an article in praise (so it seemed) of Islam, certainly of Yassmin Abdel-Magied. Maybe I've got him wrong ?

https://www.crikey.com.au/2017/04/28/attack-on-abdel-magied-for-anzac-comments-is-cowardly/

How does anyone on the 'Left' parse that ? Amazing.

Let's admit it: there is no Left in Australia any more. Crack-pot anarchists, yes; Trotskyites, yes; hangers-on of the old CPA/SPA, yes; a myriad of splinter groups, yes. Perhaps even some old Maoists :) But how come they are so intellectually lazy that they all seem happy to fight the battles of yesterday ? And the day before yesterday ? Do they think there's a god, called Marx, who will whip them up to Heaven if they keep prattling on about realities which were already fading in the nineteenth century ? You've each only got one life, comrades, don't waste it.

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

South Australia was settled later. During the first 25 years of settlement the only churches allowed were Anglican and the only clergymen allowed were chaplains of the British armed forces. Read "Church and State" by Tom Frame for details.

EBENEZER CHURCH
Parish of Ebenezer Pitt Town
Sharing our Christian Heritage
Ebenezer Church:
Is Australia’s oldest church, est. 1809 at Ebenezer, NSW
Was the first non-conformist then Presbyterian Church in Australia
Was a pioneer in education in the colony, beginning a school in 1810. The church is the oldest extant school building in Australia.
The Coromandel covenantors arrived in Sydney in 1802 and began as pioneer farmers on the Hawkesbury at Portland Head in 1803.
After five years of worship in the open air and in the homes of Dr Arndell and Owen Cavanough they, with seven other families, covenanted on the 22 nd September 1808. They formed the ‘Society for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge and the Instruction of Youth’ and agreed to build a church and school and to call a minister to facilitate their faith.

Dear Josephus,

Ebenezer Church is not Australia's oldest church. It is Australia's oldest surviving church. Australia's oldest church is a mud brick structure that doubled as a schoolhouse and was built in 1793. St Philips Anglican church, was constructed five years after the arrival of the First Fleet.

Neither structure is still standing but both predate Ebenezer Church.

http://www.allthingswritten.com.au/site/index.php/blog/history/australia-s-oldest-church/ mentions all three churches.

Maybe that is all Guy Rundle had to offer.

But he, his colleagues and Crikey are dead men walking as the digital revolution gathers even more pace.

If the government is smart (it isn't), it would be flogging off most of the ABC and SBS because very, very, soon it will all be a forgotten departure station for all but grannies who shock themselves that they can sometimes snoop on their grandchildren on Faceache (sry, my word for it).

ATM there will be others here who like me who are reflecting on their digital information/learning/linking and are convinced that the boat has already sailed and we must play catch up, urgently. I know I am not making anywhere near optimal use of what is available that caters for my needs, let alone have any sight of what is emerging.

Crikey? Should be relegated to the digital museum now and that is years too late.

Just some idle thoughts. Shouldn't affect the old dears and ABC luvvies around here. They can still have their daily time-occupying rituals, such as Christian baiting.

The above post should have been addressed to Joe (Loudmouth). A brew called and I was delayed.

Hi Joe,
"Yes, I'm also trying to understand how a supposedly Left can suck up to the extreme, conservative Right ? Surely they're not proposing that, somehow, Islam is 'progressive'?"

When a doctor treats a patient, and cures that patient would it be fair to look at the persons religion and then accuse the doctor of sucking up to that religion. I think not. Many of us have sympathy for the plight of refugees today, and the inescapable fact is many of those refugees are Muslim, not all but many, some are Christian. One is not dependent on the other to be a refugee, no more that it was the case after WWII that there were those who had great concern for European refugees, were they accused of sucking up to Christianity? You have no proof of what you say is the case at all.

Leoj is simply a rapid Hansonite with an axe to grind, Like his bigoted racists leader Hanson he will try any erroneous argument to discredit Progressives. Joe, why would anyone want to be tared with that dirty brush, except maybe Leoj.

Paul1405,

Everyone who disagrees with you gets cat-called something. That is par for the course.

However, you are finally admitting what you were avoiding elsewhere [Immigration thread], which is the Greens 'Open Door' immigration 'policy'. The Greens are a fake environmental party. They are fake progressives too.

Hi Paul,

You're right, we shouldn't discriminate against migrants and genuine refugees (you see where this is going). But by the same guidelines, we should be just as strict with illegal immigrants, those who can pay, whether they are Sri Lankan, Sudanese or Iranian - whether they are Buddhist, Christian or Muslim: if they are breaking the law by trying to get into Australia illegally, they should be treated equally.

I'm sure you would agree :)

In case you wish to try the compassion angle, think of those 300,000 Africans in that desert camp in northern Kenya, mostly Sudanese, with barely a pot to piss in, let alone ten thousand dollars plus air-fare to Djakarta. I was talking to a lovely African lady on the bus, who had been in a camp in west Africa for eighteen years. We were squeezed up pretty close on the bus (not that I was complaining), and I broke the ice by commenting that if we got much closer, we would have to get married. She had a lovely full-throated, out-loud laugh.

More Africans please !

Cheers,

Joe

PS. And more Maori of course ! What a fantastic mixture Australia is becoming

Creepy.

Foxy,

Don't knock it 'til you've tried it :)

Joe

Dear Joe,

I'm very selective on what I try.

In this debate we haven't a clear conclusion except that for atheists Torah believing Jews follow a pseudo history and Christians have a bloody history of murder. Therefore the Koran must be right they both should be eradicated.

It would be nice if the facts of the debate was current.

It’s not just atheists, Josephus.

<<… we haven't a clear conclusion except that for atheists Torah believing Jews follow a pseudo history and Christians have a bloody history of murder.>>

Many theists grant that, as well. The evidence is simply too overwhelming to deny it.

Christians and Muslims “follow a pseudo-history”, too, mind you. The Old Testament is the Jewish holy book, after all.

One thing you’ve brought to my attention, however, is the fact that we haven’t adequately examined the New Testament, which is arguably worse than the Old Testament. I mean, the New Testament:

- renders people responsible for things they haven’t done, with the doctrine of original sin;
- has the immoral doctrine of substitutionary atonement;
- introduces the concept of infinite punishment for finite crimes;
- encourages division (Luke 12:51).

The Sermon on the Mount, while it contains some good bits, has some horrible advice; some of it so bad that it creates a victim mentality and encourages Christians to behave like asses by telling them that the more they’re persecuted, the more right with God they (not mentioning any names but you know who you are, runner). And to top it all off, Jesus wholly endorses the old law anyway.

<<Therefore the Koran must be right they both should be eradicated.>>

No, no one’s concluded that. It sounds more, to me, like you’re just getting stroppy now.

We all know that Islamic doctrine has some serious problems. We don’t need to keep repeating that every time some bigot decides to start an Islam-bashing thread. What we do need to keep repeating (apparently) is that the Bible is also terrible, because no one seems to have any knowledge of it beyond a small handful of platitudes from Jesus, and this lack of knowledge leads to more intolerance.

"Oh, look! Even their book is horrible!"

<<It would be nice if the facts of the debate was current.>>

If our facts are out-of-date, then, by all means, tell us why. Did they find out that the ‘chariots in the Red Sea’ bit wasn’t actually a hoax after all?

A church is not a building but a gathering of like minded believers who join in worship.
Under that definition the Church of England and the Catholic Church would share as the first Christian churches in Australia; the Anglicans legally and the Catholics illegally.

Dear Is Mise,

Church, like many other words, has more than one meaning. Of course one can ignore the other meanings and say it means such and such as you have done. In Webster's New International Dictionary the word, church, is listed as a noun, adjective and verb. As a noun it has six definitions including subdivisions of those definitions. e. g. 1: a building set apart for public esp. Christian worship as a: the principal house of a parish b: a house of worship in Great Britain for members of the established or formerly established church as distinguished from those of nonconformists and Roman Catholics - compare CHAPEL. The word has five more definitions as a noun.

The particular meaning of the word, church, that is applicable depends on the context in which it is used.

One thing I do not take much notice of atheists and their uneducated views of Christ and his teachings. The blind leading the blind. Following Christ is about character, attitude, motivation, justice action, and insight and wisdom.

The term "church" in the New Testament in Greek is ekklesia and merely means people meeting.

That’s an ad hominem fallacy, Josephus.

<<One thing I do not take much notice of atheists and their uneducated views of Christ and his teachings.>>

You forget that many atheists used to be Christians, and that some of us spent years studying the Bible. Does your Pastor not hold Bible study groups? Apparently not. Either that, or you’re not going to them.

<<Following Christ is about character, attitude, motivation, justice action, and insight and wisdom.>>

Following Christ is about many different things to many different people. The Christian Right have a pretty screwed up version of what it means to follow Christ, for starters.

Josephus.

The atheist sees themselves as only a human.

The religious are so egotistical, they think they have this divine God who is obsessively interested in them.
You believe the divine God has your interests at heart, well according to you God controls and made nature.

You go out into the wilderness without all your city protections for 6months, nature will
Put an end to you very quickly.

Without mankinds discoveries in medicine, it would be like the old days, where many never made it past childhood diseases and the,life expectancy was about 30years
Shows how special God thinks mankind is. When left at the mercy of his creation. It is only mankind longing to be special that thinks there is a God .

Atheists at least merely see themselves as human beings unloved and unprotected by some deity.

CHEERFUL,
You forget the highest intelligence made man in his image. That makes him the highest intelligence created. It is this man that has changed his world for better; and it is this man that has created havoc in this World.

You say,"Atheists at least merely see themselves as human beings unloved and unprotected by some deity." As I thought unloved and insecure!

God is expressed in the pure character, caring behaviour and wisdom we show in our lives. God is not distant He is eminent in the reality of life. It is just that most persons are essentially self centred and some rebellious. However Know this, you are loved by the one who created the Universe, and you are not alone.

This is the Equivocation fallacy, Josephus.

<<As I thought unloved and insecure!>>

I don’t think CHERFUL’s use of the word ‘unprotected’ was meant to imply ‘anxious’ and ‘lacking confidence’.

<<[God] is eminent in the reality of life. It is just that most persons are essentially self centred and some rebellious.>>

The “reality of life” is not evidence for a god, and one cannot rebel against something for which there is no reliable evidence.

There also is nothing self-centered about believing that the billions of galaxies in the universe were not created purely with us in mind. Indeed, the opposite is true: it is arrogant and self-centred to believe that we are the centre and the purpose of the universe.

Theism is self-centred arrogance. Atheism requires humility.

Hi AJ,

Josephus is partly right, we are not just unprotected by any gods or djinns or fairies, but indeed we are thereby 'insecure'. To cite a famous Australian philosopher, we are us, and that's all we've got: there is nothing else 'out there' to shepherd us. We are alone in the vast universe, we are an evolutionary accident adrift in its immensity, and we have to find ways through that vast wilderness on our own, without any outside help.

And it's wonderful !

Joe

Good informed conscience and insight and wisdom that has blessed our species is the best shepherd. Made in the image of the divine, or rejecting that image of purity, charity and wisdom to serve one's self ego-centeredness; "I'll find my own way".

Dear Cherful,

It makes no difference whether or not one believes that God exists or otherwise. What makes a difference is who we deeply believe that we are, because anyone who believes that they are human, can never stop being egotistical about it, centering their thoughts around that particular human which they believe themselves to be and continuously trying to fulfil the physical, emotional and mental needs of that human.

The love and protection of God only becomes apparent once we stop identifying ourselves with a body. After all, why should God love and protect some biological bodies, human or otherwise? That would only prolong our error and the suffering of pains which all bodies and minds naturally experience, mistaking these to be our own pain.

«It is only mankind longing to be special that thinks there is a God.»

- Because it is only mankind that thinks. Period.
Do you believe that any other species have such abstract thoughts?
If so, do you know what they are? that they do not include any ideas about being special?