From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sat Aug 27 2005 - 18:05:32 BST
> 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?
"And kill them whenever you find them, and drive them out from whence they
drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight
with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if
they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the
unbelievers."
> It's my belief that violence erupts when comfort is threatened. Christian
> "fundamentalists" lead mostly cooshy, comfortable lives.
Maybe you should ask yourself how Christians managed to accomplish cooshy,
comfortable lives. Maybe something to do with the Puritan ethic and hard
work?
> 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).
When Bin Laden says "to kill the Americans and their allies - civilian and
military - is an individual duty of every Muslim," I believe him.
> [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".
What "truth" do you believe?
> 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.
I take it then you join with postmodernists who claim it's true there is
no truth?
Platt
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 - 18:06:16 BST