Gerry Adams on the life of Jesus

prinz

JimiTime wrote: »

I suppose this is a specific issue which is divisive as its close to home. I used it to point out how alot of Christians praise the war on the Nazi's, or even Mandela, yet seem to ignore the apartheid of the North and go on about the 'terrorists'. Are we saying we can reconcile the war against the Nazi's, and war against South African Apartheid with Christ, but not the apartheid suffered by the catholics of Northern Ireland?

Those in the North were terrorists. Their goal was to inspire such terror in people that those people would affect political change. The target of a vast majority of the attacks by republicans in Northern Ireland were not servants of the British State, or political opponents.. they were Joe Bloggs greengrocer, a farmer, a schoolchild, a band practising. Putting a bomb into a rubbish bin and blowing up two kids... was that an action against the British State, or was it's aim simply to instill terror in the general population? They had no mandate from anyone to murder and maim.

PDN

Stephentlig wrote: »

Jimi if jihad muslims were allowed to do what they wanted and we turned the other cheek their would be no Christianity wouldnt you agree?

I must admit I've wondered about this.

However, we have to realise that the development of Islam as a violent religion was simply a copying of Christendom. Augustine's theories helped develop a Constantinian Church/State monstrosity where Christians, rather than a persecuted minority who were prepared to die for Christ, became a persecuting majority who were prepared to kill others for Christ. Islam copied Christendom's policy of converting heathens at the point of the sword but did it more effectively.

In the first three Centuries of the Church Christians turned the other cheek to violent persecutors - and they weren't wiped out. Instead they won the hearts and minds of their neighbours.

JimiTime

prinz wrote: »

Defend those who cannot defend themselves. I don't think Jesus would want people to stand idly by while murder and genocide is carried out.

I agree, but is taking up arms the method he'd encourage?

prinz wrote: »

Those in the North were terrorists. Their goal was to inspire such terror in people that those people would affect political change. The target of a vast majority of the attacks by republicans in Northern Ireland were not servants of the British State, or political opponents.. they were Joe Bloggs greengrocer, a farmer, a schoolchild, a band practising. Putting a bomb into a rubbish bin and blowing up two kids... was that an action against the British State, or was it's aim simply to instill terror in the general population? They had no mandate from anyone to murder and maim.

So from a Christian perspective, would it have been ok to take up arms and shoot the oppressive RUC officers? or the soldiers that represented Her Majesty?

As I said, I'm not looking to get into the wheres and whys about the northern conflict, but rather get a Christian perspective on it. In other words, what would have made such a war 'Just' from a Christian perspective? When does killing our enemies become the Christian position?

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

I agree, but is taking up arms the method he'd encourage?



So from a Christian perspective, would it have been ok to take up arms and shoot the oppressive RUC officers? or the soldiers that represented Her Majesty?

As I said, I'm not looking to get into the wheres and whys about the northern conflict, but rather get a Christian perspective on it. In other words, what would have made such a war 'Just' from a Christian perspective? When does killing our enemies become the Christian position?

While I don't go along with a lot of the Just War Theory, here are some of its classic principles:

# A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
# A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
# A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
# A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
# The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
# The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
# The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target

I think that the IRA campaign in the North fails to qualify on several levels.
1. It had no chance of success. We can see this in that the campaign has ended without achieving its stated objectives of a United Ireland or getting the Brits out.
2. Non violent options still existed. The Civil Rights movement, which tried to copy Martin Luther King's appproach to discrimination and injustice, was hijacked and exploited by the men of violence.
3. The IRA were not a legitimate authority. During the years they were involved in violence their political wing was consistently less popular electorally than constitutional Nationalists.
4. The violence and suffering created by the IRA's campaign was greater than the perceived evils it was supposed to address.
5. The Campaign deliberately targetted civilians. Designating telecom workers who repaired phone lines in government buildings as 'legitimate targets' was a piece of sophistry designed to mask this cynical murdering of non military targets.

So, in my opinion, no Just War defence can work for the Provos.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

While I don't go along with a lot of the Just War Theory, here are some of its classic principles:

# A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
# A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
# A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
# A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
# The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
# The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
# The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target

I think that the IRA campaign in the North fails to qualify on several levels.
1. It had no chance of success. We can see this in that the campaign has ended without achieving its stated objectives of a United Ireland or getting the Brits out.
2. Non violent options still existed. The Civil Rights movement, which tried to copy Martin Luther King's appproach to discrimination and injustice, was hijacked and exploited by the men of violence.
3. The IRA were not a legitimate authority. During the years they were involved in violence their political wing was consistently less popular electorally than constitutional Nationalists.
4. The violence and suffering created by the IRA's campaign was greater than the perceived evils it was supposed to address.
5. The Campaign deliberately targetted civilians. Designating telecom workers who repaired phone lines in government buildings as 'legitimate targets' was a piece of sophistry designed to mask this cynical murdering of non military targets.

So, in my opinion, no Just War defence can work for the Provos.

The thing is, I'm not really looking for a man made structure of what defines when it is just to kill our enemies. Its reconciling it with Christ. If as Christians we have a point in which we take up arms against our enemies, I am asking, how we reconcile this to Christ.

There is a certain amount of sense in the whole Just War philosophy, but is it still faithless? Is it compromising Christs example and teaching? If its not, then how is it not? Is the bones of taking up arms against our enemies saying to God, 'Well you're not going to do anything, so I think we'll suspend Christs teachings here.' Is the premise that sometimes war is necessary, wrong from a Christian perspective?

Stephentlig

PDN wrote: »

I must admit I've wondered about this.

However, we have to realise that the development of Islam as a violent religion was simply a copying of Christendom. Augustine's theories helped develop a Constantinian Church/State monstrosity where Christians, rather than a persecuted minority who were prepared to die for Christ, became a persecuting majority who were prepared to kill others for Christ. Islam copied Christendom's policy of converting heathens at the point of the sword but did it more effectively.

In the first three Centuries of the Church Christians turned the other cheek to violent persecutors - and they weren't wiped out. Instead they won the hearts and minds of their neighbours.

PDN islamic violence is rooted in the Koran, that if someone doesnt convert to their religion they should be murdered, and that goes way far back than St.Augustine.

Stephentlig

JimiTime wrote: »

The thing is, I'm not really looking for a man made structure of what defines when it is just to kill our enemies. Its reconciling it with Christ. If as Christians we have a point in which we take up arms against our enemies, I am asking, how we reconcile this to Christ.

There is a certain amount of sense in the whole Just War philosophy, but is it still faithless? Is it compromising Christs example and teaching? If its not, then how is it not? Is the bones of taking up arms against our enemies saying to God, 'Well you're not going to do anything, so I think we'll suspend Christs teachings here.' Is the premise that sometimes war is necessary, wrong from a Christian perspective?

Rom. 13:3-4 – Paul commends us to those in authority, and exalts a man who “does not bear the sword in vain.” Paul calls such a man “the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.”

hivizman

Stephentlig wrote: »

PDN islamic violence is rooted in the Koran, that if someone doesnt convert to their religion they should be murdered, and that goes way far back than St.Augustine.

St Augustine of Hippo died in 430, while Muhammad was not born until 570 or 571. Muslims claim that Islam is the "natural religion", preached by all the prophets back to Adam (they include Jesus as a prophet). However, the Qur'an was not revealed until the period 610-632.

There are certainly some verses in the Qur'an that appear to approve of violence against those who do not accept Islam (for example, Surat Al-Tawbah 9:5 and 9:28), but even these verses do not require those who do not accept Islam to convert at pain of death - accepting the rule of Muslims is sufficient. Until the 20th century, predominantly Muslim countries, such as the Ottoman Empire, had significant Christian and Jewish minorities (in some cities, such as Salonica and Smyrna, non-Muslims were in the majority).

PDN

Stephentlig wrote: »

PDN islamic violence is rooted in the Koran, that if someone doesnt convert to their religion they should be murdered, and that goes way far back than St.Augustine.

The Koran was supposedly given to Mohammed during his lifetime (early 7th Century AD). So the Koran came along two centuries after Augustine (who died in 430 AD) advocated forcible conversion as the duty of the Church and the State.

Many Christian historians (Catholic, Orthodox and 'Protestant') believe that Islam began as a Christian heresy. It copied what the Christians were already doing - 'converting' pagans at the point of a sword.

JimiTime

Stephentlig wrote: »

Rom. 13:3-4 – Paul commends us to those in authority, and exalts a man who “does not bear the sword in vain.” Paul calls such a man “the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.”

If I may humbly advise. If you look at a website, or a read something which excavates quotes in the manner above, I would advise reading the excavated pieces in full context. Below is Romans from Chapter 12 verse 9 to the end of Chapter 13.

Romans wrote:

Chapter 12
9Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. 10Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves. 11Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. 12Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. 13Share with God's people who are in need. Practice hospitality.
14Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position.[c] Do not be conceited.

17Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. 18If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"[d]says the Lord. 20On the contrary:
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."[e] 21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Chapter 13
1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
Love, for the Day is Near
8Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet,"[a] and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." 10Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
11And do this, understanding the present time. The hour has come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed. 12The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. 13Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. 14Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature.[c]

Stephentlig

PDN wrote: »

The Koran was supposedly given to Mohammed during his lifetime (early 7th Century AD). So the Koran came along two centuries after Augustine (who died in 430 AD) advocated forcible conversion as the duty of the Church and the State.

Many Christian historians (Catholic, Orthodox and 'Protestant') believe that Islam began as a Christian heresy. It copied what the Christians were already doing - 'converting' pagans at the point of a sword.

PDN the burden is then on you to quote me St.Augustine on that.

my wife says that is total speculation as she studied islam and said that what your talking is absolute tripe.

My wife suggests you go do some research on islam and then come back.

Shes very genuinely interested to know where you got this from?

Stephentlig

JimiTime wrote: »

If I may humbly advise. If you look at a website, or a read something which excavates quotes in the manner above, I would advise reading the excavated pieces in full context. Below is Romans from Chapter 12 verse 9 to the end of Chapter 13.

St.Paul obviously shows and supports military defence in the below quote, truth cannot contradict truth jimi, read your Bible Jimi.

Rom. 13:3-4 – Paul commends us to those in authority, and exalts a man who “does not bear the sword in vain.” Paul calls such a man “the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.”

JimiTime

Stephentlig wrote: »

St.Paul obviously shows and supports military defence in the below quote, truth cannot contradict truth jimi, read your Bible Jimi.

Please explain the obvious support of military defence. Also, I'd like to know how we reconcile killing our enemies with Christs teachings and example. I'd be interested in YOUR thoughts on it.

Rom. 13:3-4 – Paul commends us to those in authority, and exalts a man who “does not bear the sword in vain.” Paul calls such a man “the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.”

I once again draw your attention to the context of the excavated piece.

Stephentlig

JimiTime wrote: »

Please explain the obvious support of military defence. Also, I'd like to know how we reconcile killing our enemies with Christs teachings and example. I'd be interested in YOUR thoughts on it.


I once again draw your attention to the context of the excavated piece.

I understand what you mean, I was in the same position as you, but as I'm not a Catholic apologist I will have to draw your attention to John Salza who is qualified in that area. my thoughts are those of the infallible doctrine, which I quote to you from John Salzas exegesis of the Just war doctrine.

www.scripturecatholic.com his e-mail address is on his website.

God bless Jimi, you've a good heart. If you feel confident that your right then e-mail John who is educated on the matter. my knowledge is limited.

Pax Christi
Stephen

prinz

JimiTime wrote: »

I agree, but is taking up arms the method he'd encourage?

In cases I believe He would yes.I cannot accept that it would be my Christian duty to stand by and watch innocent people being attacked/assaulted/murdered. IMO Jesus gave us a civic duty as well as a duty towards our fellow man.

JimiTime wrote: »

So from a Christian perspective, would it have been ok to take up arms and shoot the oppressive RUC officers? or the soldiers that represented Her Majesty?

In the context of an open and declared war where people are aware of what's going on etc then possibly yes.

In the context of phoning in false emergency calls to the RUC in order to lure a policeman out of his station doing his duty and then gunning him down/waiting outside his house to shoot her/him/planting bombs under cars/ambushes of people going about their daily lives/shooting and executing unarmed people as they collect their pizza then no.

monosharp

Stephentlig wrote: »

my wife says that is total speculation as she studied islam and said that what your talking is absolute tripe.

My wife suggests you go do some research on islam and then come back.

Well then maybe your wife can correct you on the tripe in your last post then ?

Stephentlig wrote:

islamic violence is rooted in the Koran, that if someone doesnt convert to their religion they should be murdered, and that goes way far back than St.Augustine.

Islamic violence being rooted in the koran is as accurate as saying Christian violence is rooted in the Bible. Both are complete nonsense.

And I'm surprised your wife didn't correct you, Muhammad was born in 570 or 571, Augustine died in 430, so unless Muhammad had a time machine then no, it doesn't go way back before Augustine.

JimiTime

Stephentlig wrote: »

I understand what you mean, I was in the same position as you, but as I'm not a Catholic apologist I will have to draw your attention to John Salza who is qualified in that area. my thoughts are those of the infallible doctrine, which I quote to you from John Salzas exegesis of the Just war doctrine.

With the upmost of respect, I think its unfortunate that you feel the need for some institutions qualification in order to form opinions on biblical topics. Not many are 'qualified', but we all have our faculties:)

If you feel confident that your right then e-mail John who is educated on the matter. my knowledge is limited.

There may be a misunderstanding here. I have not fully formed an opinion on the matter, but rather, I'm seeking answers as to the reconciling the killing of an enemy with Christ.

JimiTime

prinz wrote: »

In cases I believe He would yes.I cannot accept that it would be my Christian duty to stand by and watch innocent people being attacked/assaulted/murdered. IMO Jesus gave us a civic duty as well as a duty towards our fellow man.

Why not leave it to God? We as Christians do everything we can in a peaceful manner, and if it doesn't work, leave it in Gods hands?

In the context of an open and declared war where people are aware of what's going on etc then possibly yes.

I would then ask, if you wish to of course, detail how this reconciles itself with Christs teaching and example?

Nodin

JimiTime wrote: »

They were worshipping other gods and godesses. So finding a figurine of a goddess and saying it was 'evidence' that the Jews had not yet 'Invented' monotheism is quite simply a steaming pile of ignorant tosh.

There was rather more than a single figuirine found. Not only that, but a number of the now defunct practices, such as making offerings on high places etc, are actually mentioned in the OT.

prinz

JimiTime wrote: »

Why not leave it to God? We as Christians do everything we can in a peaceful manner, and if it doesn't work, leave it in Gods hands??

I'd rather intervene to stop slaughter than stand on the sidelines watching and waiting. Jesus himself lost the head when he found money changers in the temple.. did He say 'well I have to leave it to God's hands' and pass on by?

JimiTime wrote: »

I would then ask, if you wish to of course, detail how this reconciles itself with Christs teaching and example?

Jesus asked us to love our enemies not to roll over and let them do whatever they want. It's better to put a stop to their aggression first and love them second. For instance if the post World War I treaties had been a bit more 'loving' then World War II might have been avoided. Christ's teachings and examples were to always defend those who cannot defend themselves.. IMO if that stretches to legitimate military intervention then so be it.

Stephentlig

With the upmost of respect, I think its unfortunate that you feel the need for some institutions qualification in order to form opinions on biblical topics. Not many are 'qualified', but we all have our faculties:)

as a Catholic I follow the interpretation of the Church, and when reading scripture I make sure my looking at it does not depart or contradict the interpretation of the church, protestants do not do this, they form their own private opinion on scripture, which is why they are a sect split into over 30,000 denominations, all claiming to have the truth about Jesus.
the Catholics on the other hand follow the interpretation of the Church, given to us by the Holy Spirit, and we do not depart from it, this is why we are still one Holy Catholic and apostolic Church and you are a denomination of over 30,000 sects.

There may be a misunderstanding here. I have not fully formed an opinion on the matter, but rather, I'm seeking answers as to the reconciling the killing of an enemy with Christ.

perhaps when you do form an opinion you'll start another sect?

Stephentlig

monosharp wrote: »

Well then maybe your wife can correct you on the tripe in your last post then ?



Islamic violence being rooted in the koran is as accurate as saying Christian violence is rooted in the Bible. Both are complete nonsense.

And I'm surprised your wife didn't correct you, Muhammad was born in 570 or 571, Augustine died in 430, so unless Muhammad had a time machine then no, it doesn't go way back before Augustine.

Yes that was my own fault I must admit, my wife was not fully informed on the matter and I took it upon my self to assume that the koran was written before Augustine. however my wife says that PDN has no evidence to support his speculation and that the evidence is against him, because Muhammad took all from Allah through the angel gabriel, and thats what the muslims believe, the muslims dont believe they took it from Christianity.

I'd be interested to see where in St.Augustines writings he orders us or advocated the converting of pagans by the sword?:rolleyes:

thats because PDN's speculation is absolute tripe.

Pax Chrisiti
Stephen

monosharp

Stephentlig wrote: »

however my wife says that PDN has no evidence to support his speculation and that the evidence is against him, because Muhammad took all from Allah through the angel gabriel, and thats what the muslims believe, the muslims dont believe they took it from Christianity.

It doesn't matter what Muslims believe, the facts are what matter.

I'd be interested to see where in St.Augustines writings he orders us or advocated the converting of pagans by the sword?:rolleyes:

Although I don't know, It doesn't sound exactly out of character for the church of the time. But again, I don't know.

JimiTime

Stephentlig wrote: »

as a Catholic I follow the interpretation of the Church, and when reading scripture I make sure my looking at it does not depart or contradict the interpretation of the church,

Its your perogative.

protestants do not do this, they form their own private opinion on scripture,

How sweeping.

which is why they are a sect split into over 30,000 denominations, all claiming to have the truth about Jesus.

Really?

the Catholics on the other hand follow the interpretation of the Church,

Again, I see it is as very unwise, but its your perogative.

given to us by the Holy Spirit, and we do not depart from it, this is why we are still one Holy Catholic and apostolic Church and you are a denomination of over 30,000 sects.

Too much presumtion, with a hint of venom there. Unfortunate.

perhaps when you do form an opinion you'll start another sect?

Is there a point to this question? Or was it just you being confrontational? Your attitude is rather apalling, and really does not lend itself to honest inquiry.

PDN

Stephentlig wrote: »

Yes that was my own fault I must admit, my wife was not fully informed on the matter and I took it upon my self to assume that the koran was written before Augustine. however my wife says that PDN has no evidence to support his speculation and that the evidence is against him, because Muhammad took all from Allah through the angel gabriel, and thats what the muslims believe, the muslims dont believe they took it from Christianity.

I'd be interested to see where in St.Augustines writings he orders us or advocated the converting of pagans by the sword?:rolleyes:

thats because PDN's speculation is absolute tripe.

Well, Stephen, maybe we should explore the sources of my 'absolute tripe' and you can judge whether they, or your wife, are more qualified to speak on the matter.

I was recently reminded of the claim that Islam began as a Christian heresy while reading Alister McGrath. Remember him, the theologian you quoted yourself when talking about "The God Delusion". In his excellent new book, "Heresy", McGrath states that Islam probably began as a version of Arianism - itself a Christian heresy.

This view is not new. St. John of Damascus is considered a Doctor the Church by your own denomination. He wrote, "From that time and until now came up among them a false prophet called Mamed, who, having encountered the Old and New Testament, as it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, he put together his own heresy. And under the pretext of seeming pious, attracting people, he reported that a book was sent down to him from heaven by God. Therefore some of the compositions written by him in a book, worthy of laughter, which he handed down to them as an object of reverence."

In the Twelfth Century Peter the Venerable of Cluny in his works "Summa totius heresis Saracenorum" (The Summary of the Entire Heresy of the Saracens) and the "Liber contra sectam sive heresim Saracenorum" (The Refutation of the Sect or Heresy of the Saracens) clearly addressed Isllam as a Christian heresy.

This view was also held many years ago by Hilaire Belloc, someone whose writings are still considered to be exemplary examples of Roman Catholic apologetics. In "The Great Christian Heresies" he writes of Islam, "It began as a heresy, not as a new religion....It was a perversion of the Christian religion...an adaptation and a misuse of the Christian thing."

Another well known Catholic apologist, Peter Kreeft, writes on page 149 of his book "Back to Virtue: traditional moral wisdom for modern moral confusion" the following: "The jihad, holy war, is not a Christian idea but a heretical one,. It was taught by one of the great Christian heresies, Islam."

Mgr Michael Fitzgerald, Papal Nuncio to Egypt and a member of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, writes that before Vatican II: "Islam tended to be looked upon as a sort of Christian heresy, and Muslims therefore worthy of condemnation."

So, what do you think? Does your wife think that St John of Damascus, Peter the Venerable, Hilaire Belloc, Peter Kreeft, Mgr Fitzgerald and Alister McGrath's speculations are all absolute tripe as well?

Stephentlig

PDN wrote: »

Well, Stephen, maybe we should explore the sources of my 'absolute tripe' and you can judge whether they, or your wife, are more qualified to speak on the matter.

I was recently reminded of the claim that Islam began as a Christian heresy while reading Alister McGrath. Remember him, the theologian you quoted yourself when talking about "The God Delusion". In his excellent new book, "Heresy", McGrath states that Islam probably began as a version of Arianism - itself a Christian heresy.

This view is not new. St. John of Damascus is considered a Doctor the Church by your own denomination. He wrote, "From that time and until now came up among them a false prophet called Mamed, who, having encountered the Old and New Testament, as it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, he put together his own heresy. And under the pretext of seeming pious, attracting people, he reported that a book was sent down to him from heaven by God. Therefore some of the compositions written by him in a book, worthy of laughter, which he handed down to them as an object of reverence."

In the Twelfth Century Peter the Venerable of Cluny in his works "Summa totius heresis Saracenorum" (The Summary of the Entire Heresy of the Saracens) and the "Liber contra sectam sive heresim Saracenorum" (The Refutation of the Sect or Heresy of the Saracens) clearly addressed Isllam as a Christian heresy.

This view was also held many years ago by Hilaire Belloc, someone whose writings are still considered to be exemplary examples of Roman Catholic apologetics. In "The Great Christian Heresies" he writes of Islam, "It began as a heresy, not as a new religion....It was a perversion of the Christian religion...an adaptation and a misuse of the Christian thing."

Another well known Catholic apologist, Peter Kreeft, writes on page 149 of his book "Back to Virtue: traditional moral wisdom for modern moral confusion" the following: "The jihad, holy war, is not a Christian idea but a heretical one,. It was taught by one of the great Christian heresies, Islam."

Mgr Michael Fitzgerald, Papal Nuncio to Egypt and a member of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, writes that before Vatican II: "Islam tended to be looked upon as a sort of Christian heresy, and Muslims therefore worthy of condemnation."

So, what do you think? Does your wife think that St John of Damascus, Peter the Venerable, Hilaire Belloc, Peter Kreeft, Mgr Fitzgerald and Alister McGrath's speculations are all absolute tripe as well?

PDN, do you think that I think your idea that Islam is a Christian heresy is tripe? because I know it is a Christian heresy.

but the fact that they put people to the sword for not converting to their religion is not something they picked up from St.Augustine, thats the point I'm trying to make.

Pax Christi
Stephen<3

JimiTime

prinz wrote: »

I'd rather intervene to stop slaughter than stand on the sidelines watching and waiting.

Just to be clear, not taking up arms, does not equate to 'lets do nothing'. Also, when you say 'watching and waiting' what is it that you wouldn't wait for?

Jesus himself lost the head when he found money changers in the temple.. did He say 'well I have to leave it to God's hands' and pass on by?

I disagree that he 'lost the head'. I think he remained in control, but was legitimately angry. He took action, yes, but he didn't hurt or kill anyone

Jesus asked us to love our enemies not to roll over and let them do whatever they want.

He did say that if someone strikes you on one cheek, give them the other also.

It's better to put a stop to their aggression first and love them second.

Again, where is this lesson found Christ wise?

Christ's teachings and examples were to always defend those who cannot defend themselves

Really? Sure, part of his teachings was to look after widows and orphans and the vulnerable, but in light of his teachings about 'Love your enemy' and 'turn the other cheek', would taking up arms be implied?

prinz

JimiTime wrote: »

Just to be clear, not taking up arms, does not equate to 'lets do nothing'. Also, when you say 'watching and waiting' what is it that you wouldn't wait for?

Your example was the Nazis.. you draw the conclusion.

JimiTime wrote: »

I disagree that he 'lost the head'. I think he remained in control, but was legitimately angry. He took action, yes, but he didn't hurt or kill anyone
He did say that if someone strikes you on one cheek, give them the other also.

Did Jesus turn the other cheek when he saw money changers in the temple?

hivizman

Stephentlig wrote: »

PDN, do you think that I think your idea that Islam is a Christian heresy is tripe? because I know it is a Christian heresy.

but the fact that they put people to the sword for not converting to their religion is not something they picked up from St.Augustine, thats the point I'm trying to make.

Pax Christi
Stephen<3

Unfortunately, I'm away from home at the moment so can't address the issue of whether or not Islam originated out of (heretical) Christian beliefs by reference to my books. However, as I understand the Muslim position to be, it's not surprising that there are strong similarities between aspects of Christianity and Islam, given that Muslims believe Jesus to have preached essentially the same message as other prophets up to Muhammad. Muslims would, I think, claim that (a) the gospels as they have come down to us are not a fully accurate reflection of the "Injeel" revealed by God to Jesus, and (b) some of the views that were to be labelled as "heresies" by Christianity were actually closer to the "truth" than the more orthodox beliefs that fed into the Nicene and other creeds. Hence there would be similarities between Islam and Christian heresies. The views of Christian scholars and apologists set out by PDN are rejected by Muslims as aspects of what the Palestinian Christian scholar Edward Said labelled as "Orientalism" - the belief that Islam can only be understood from within the framework of "Western" systems of thought rather than on its own terms.

On the forced conversion issue, there is a rather unhelpful article on the topic on Wikipedia, which lists various episodes of both Christian and Muslim forced conversions. While there are several clear cases of Islamic forced conversions, my reading of the Qur'an and Sunnah and the early history of Islam leads me to conclude that forced conversion is not consistent with the Qur'an, and was not a significant feature in the early centuries of Islam.

Turning to Augustine, so far as I can tell he was not an advocate of forced conversion, indeed he actually spoke against conversion of the Jews in his early sermon Adversus Judaeos. Augustine's view was that the Jews were "witnesses of the Christian faith", who should remain protected until the end of time. One of the signs of the end days would be the voluntary conversion of the Jews, and forcible conversion would therefore be inconsistent with God's plan for humanity.

PDN

Augustine did indeed exempt Jews from forcible conversion. But no such courtesy was extended to pagans, or indeed to heretics (he forged his views in opposition to the Donatists).

It is pretty well standard in Church History to recognise that Augustine, by his misuse of the idea of compelling people to come in, laid the theological foundation for subsequent persecution.

For example:

St. Augustine of Hippo (354–430) was the most influential theorist of persecution. After belonging to the Manichaean heresy in his youth, he joined the Catholic Church in 387 and eventually became a bishop. Facing Manichaean, Pelagian, and Donatist heresies, at first he advocated peaceful methods but by about 400 he began to endorse coercion. He interpreted the parable of the tares (Matt. 13:24–30) and the parable of the feast (Luke 14:21–23) to justify coercion of heretics. The latter was a particularly long stretch, because the parable merely has a rich man prepare a banquet and send his servant out into the streets to find people and "compel them to come in." Later, both Catholics and Protestants justified forced conversions on the basis of this invitation to a feast

Read more: Toleration - The Rise Of Christian Persecution http://science.jrank.org/pages/11465/Toleration-Rise-Christian-Persecution.html#ixzz0htSLwQlJ