A Discomforting Post

[vovat]

Since it's Sunday, how about a double dose of topics related to religion? The first subject I want to address is that of people considering themselves the "real" or "true" Christians, Muslims, or whatever. Some extremists will even insist that, for instance, Catholics aren't really Christians. But isn't everyone who believes that Jesus is the savior of mankind a Christian? I mean, they might not all be RIGHT in their beliefs (in fact, I personally don't think any of them are), but that doesn't mean they aren't all Christians. I mean, even back in the first century, the early Christians had arguments over certain policies. And, if we're to accept the Biblical account, these included people who had known Jesus personally. Similarly, I'm not so keen on sweeping statements like, "Islam is a religion of peace." Actually, from what I've heard of Muhammad, he was a pretty violent guy. But that's not to say that people haven't adapted his teachings for peaceful purposes. Jesus is presented as a pacifist (except occasionally when it comes to money-changers), but some Christians have used their religion to defend violence. Does that mean that Al Qaeda terrorists aren't real Muslims, and the Crusaders weren't real Christians? Well, obviously, I don't know the personal beliefs of everyone involved in those groups, but as long as the former believe that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet, and the latter excepted Jesus as their savior, then I'd say they were authentic members of their own religions. That's not to say that they should be held as examples of typical followers of those religions, just that it doesn't really work to generalize about religions that already have a bunch of different denominations.

For my second item, travspence linked to this video of Kirk Cameron's Aussie buddy Ray Comfort discussing bananas. I'd heard of this plenty of times before, but hadn't actually seen this clip. Apparently a "well-made banana" (which I suppose means that God makes some crappy bananas for whatever reason) proves the existence of an intelligent creator, because it's so perfectly designed for human consumption. Never mind that bananas have been selectively bred for certain qualities, and that this doesn't hold true for a lot of other fruits. Were they made by some second-rate divine assistant, or perhaps by Satan? I've read that even Comfort himself eventually admitted that the banana argument is a bad one, but he still used it as a significant point in a pamphlet that's reproduced on this page. There are also a few other gems there, like how nobody can REALLY be an atheist, because they can't know FOR SURE that there's no god. Doesn't that also mean there aren't really any theists, because they can't know for sure that there IS a god? I'd say someone should teach this guy the difference between knowledge and belief, but I'm inclined to think he's too far gone. He's starting to make Kent Hovind look like a genius.

Oh, by the way, this is old news, but it's somewhat relevant to the topic. At a Growing Pains reunion on Larry King Live (that guy gets ALL the most significant guests, doesn't he?), Larry asked Kirk Cameron whether he was religious. His answer was something like, "No, I'm a Christian." Um...what?

Comments

[suegypt.livejournal.com]

Interesting subject in your first paragraph. The fight to be the "real" Christians goes back all the way to the rivalry between Peter and Paul. (Maybe before?) Part of the dispute (I think i've got this right) was that Peter held you had to convert to Judaism (Gentile men had to be circumcised, etc) to follow Jesus. Paul figured that anyone who followed Christ's teachings was being a Christian. Pauline theology mostly won out. He said that Jesus was not the Messiah, but the Christ, the Savior. Just recently the other fringe guys, like the Gnostics, etc., have become popular to explore. So, it's an extremely deep and broad subject. I could probably spend years trying to figure out who was truest to Jesus' teachings, who was most radical in their departure from same, and who had a totally different grasp on the subject, but was too marginalized for us to even hear about until recently.

And that doesn't even get us to the present day!

I know very little about Mohammed, except he revered/respected Jesus, and took his origin from the God of Abraham as did Judaism and Christianity.

As to your question as to whether people who commit terrorist acts in the name of Christ or Mohammed are true Christians or Muslims? Just in my opinion, no. They are just terrorists.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

I guess that Constantine's making Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire more or less set the standard for "normal" Christianity for some time, although it later splintered into Eastern and Western churches, and the Protestant Reformation made things even more complicated.

I know very little about Mohammed, except he revered/respected Jesus, and took his origin from the God of Abraham as did Judaism and Christianity.

I don't know that much about him either, but I've heard he was a war leader, which certainly makes him quite different from Jesus.

As to your question as to whether people who commit terrorist acts in the name of Christ or Mohammed are true Christians or Muslims? Just in my opinion, no. They are just terrorists.

Yeah, I guess it depends on how you define these religions. If you think Christianity requires people to be Christ-like, then the Crusaders weren't all that Christian. But if you think it just means believing that Jesus is the Messiah, then I don't doubt that most of the Crusaders did that.

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

I think "Islam is a religion of peace" IS a valid statement-- because the basic tenets are in support of peace and all. To say "MUSLIMS are peaceful" would be a too-broadly sweeping statement.

Likewise, I think I'd say that the people who do things contrary to their religion in the name of their religion can still be called "Christians" or "Muslims" or whatever if they truly believe they are... they're just not very GOOD ones.

[suegypt.livejournal.com]

This is part of the reason that, although i give props to "Christianity" as I perceive it, I can never quite call myself a Christian, because i fail at acting in a Christ-like manner several times a day, may only succeed once in a blue moon.

People who are deluded about what Christ was and act out of that delusion, are not representative of Christ - not Christian - even if they are not violent. I imagine that would extend to Islam. I think maybe the problem lies in the fact that the reverence is being applied to a being, not an ideal.