Posted on 11/29/2001 10:30:57 AM PST by EclipseVI
That I believe. Which makes you a bit less smart than me because I've never been out of work. You seem useless as a clown too.
And you have to concede that if certain trends become 'normative.' then that ipso facto defines the religion as a whole.
For example: Some of the things you speak of did "define" the official pronouncements of the powers-that-were in, say, the Roman Catholic Church at the time of Galileo, or the Inquisition. Cardinal Ximenez, for example, was commissioned specifically BY THE POPE HIMSELF, to prosecute the Inquisition, and the "trial" of Galileo took place in the Vatican.
I think that we should differentiate between religion and church. To me, the former is a system of beliefs, whereas the latter is a social institution promalgating those beliefs. With this distinction in mind, observe how everything falls into place. I would cocede to the following statement: "if certain trends become 'normative,', then that ipso facto defines the church. The above-quoted example you give now works wonders. And it should: we know an entity by its actions, and this is true for a social insitution such as church. As you point out, the actions of the Catholic Church at the time you mention were (i) extensive and consistent, and (ii) authorized from the top. We are justified, therefore, to conclude that they represented the essense of the Church at the time.
Has the Church contraditicted the religion, wavered from it, or was, as it claimed, in line with the teachings? That's the problematic part: we don't really know what the religion actually says. All of the holy books, in all religions, are fairly allegoric. Which gave the Church the "right" to burn Jordano Bruno at the stake and, at the same time, gives us the "right" to disagree with that position. This very vagueness gave Papacy the right to sell indulgences and, at the same time, gave the right to Martin Luther to rebel against that practice as a Christian. In other words, the ambiguities of religion allow the church to contradict itself. That is, to say one thing in one century and something quite opposite in another. All the while promulgating the purpotedly same religion.
You may have seen my other posts, where I argue that we are at war with the "Islamic church" rather than Islam. In complete similarity with your example, the narrowminded support of evil by the Arab sheiks (I always remember that Turks are Muslim too but do not fall into this category) is (i) widespread and consistent, and (ii) goes all the way to the "top," i.e., leading sheiks. Thus, we are justified in saying that it is the essense of the Islamic church today.
We are not, and should not be, at war with Islam the religion. The "Islamic church" of tomorrow may be very different than the one today, just as the Catholic Church does not authorize autodafe any longer. Incidentally, Islamic church in al Andalus, the Moorish Spain, was a model of peaceful coexistence of Islam, Chritians, Jews, and pagans. So the "Islamic church" of yesterday was also different from the one we see today. Needless to say, the religions as represented by the Koran and the Bible, repsectively, remained the same.
Thus, the desinction between the church and the religion itself seems to give a unified and internally consistent view of both the past and the present.
What do you think of this?
God's Spirit is a prevailing theme throughout the OT as well, very clearly defined as a spiritual presence, and having nothing to do with any single fallable man.
And while the claim that the Koran "uses all the words that Jesus used" sounds nice, Jesus and Mohammed had nothing in common, taught different things, lived different lives, and as a result, the Koran contradicts scripture frequently. If Mohammed didn't believe that Jesus was who He claimed to be, then Jesus was a liar, His whole ministry was based on lies, and He is certainly not worthy of Mohammed's, or any Muslim's, reverence.
Can you imagine? "Oh yes, he was a great man...of course you can't trust anything he said about himself to be the truth, but what a wonderful teacher and spiritual leader." Hardly sounds reasonable.
I have not and will not go out and execute the sonovabitches who live high on the hog from their trade of butchering human babies, but hell will be frozen solid before I criticize better people than myself, who are willing to sacrifice themselves to save the most innocent little humans that ever lived. I guess I am a chicken sh*t coward, but I am brave enough to proclaim my respect for the brave people who lay it all on the line.
I used to tolorate clowns, until I read your posts tonight, unfunny clowns are in the wrong profession.
I work for a large engineering firm in Los Angeles and many of my co-workers are Muslim. They're good people with good conservative values. They've earned my trust and respect.
I'm very disappointed by the sickening and hateful ideas expressed by the majority of posters to this thread. Does anyone else agree with me? Let's hear from you lurkers out there.
When did He reject this? Please do expound.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.