MD Christianity v. Islam (v. Whatever)

From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Sat Aug 27 2005 - 14:23:33 BST

  • Next message: Arlo J. Bensinger: "MD Marriages: To Beget or Not to Beget"

    I'm opening some things up into new threads... higher Quality discussion
    manangement, you know.

    Platt made the claim that the Christian moral code is better than the Islamic
    moral code.

    [Arlo had asked]
    Since you've read the Koran, what do you think is "better" about the
    Christian moral code than the Muslim moral code?

    [Platt responded]
    The Christian code doesn't condone killing non-believers.

    [Arlo]
    Can you refer me to sections of each code that prove this? Up until very
    recent times, Christianity had no problems over killing "infidels" and
    "pagans" (e.g., the de-paganization of Europe, the Crusades, the conquest
    of the Americas, etc.). Did the Christian moral code change, or did we
    finally just understand it?

    [Platt]
    Jesus preached love thy enemies and turn the other cheek in case you didn't
    know.

    [Arlo]
    Slightly evasive. There is an interesting cross-religious page on the quote
    "Love Thy Enemy" at http://www.unification.net/ws/theme144.htm. Can you provide
    contextual passages in the Quran that challenges this?

    Coincidentally, they have one on "Turn the Other Cheek" as well. Any chance you
    could provide contextual passages in the Quran that challenges this too?
    (http://www.unification.net/ws/theme145.htm)

    It's my belief that violence erupts when comfort is threatened. Christian
    "fundamentalists" lead mostly cooshy, comfortable lives. After 9/11 a lot of
    the rhetoric took on the tone of a "Holy War", which was quickly downplayed by
    the media, but continues to undercurrent the attitude many have towards the
    war. In other words, religion has a nasty tendency to degenerate from
    "philosophy" to "crusade" when a people "feel" threatened, whether the religion
    in Christianity, Islam, Judaism, whatever. History bears this out (for all but
    Buddhism and Jainism, which I believe never mounted a historical quest to kill
    non-believers, or supported one).

    [Arlo previously]
    (For the record, I don't "deny" Christianity anymore than I "deny" Buddhism or
    Aboriginal religions.)

    [Platt [replied]
    That's good. Does that mean you believe them all?

    [Arlo then said]
    It means I view each as a cultural-historical response to the same
    questions.

    [Platt]
    The question is: Do you believe them all?

    [Arlo]
    I "believe" they all give mostly similar answers wrapped in their own
    cultural-historical symbolic language. I "do not believe" any one of these
    particular cultural-historical tellings is "truth". To paraphrase Pirsig, I
    would say believing such a thing would be like believing "polar coordinates" to
    be "Truth" and "Cartesian coordinates" to be "heresay".

    The fundamentalists problem (whether Islamic or Christian... or whatever) is
    always that they consider the cultural-historical story to be Truth, and the
    message/meaning the story was meant to convey as secondary. Millions kill each
    other in wars over who said "thou shall not kill". The saddest irony I can
    think of.

    Arlo

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Aug 27 2005 - 14:30:36 BST