Little Difference Between Fundamentalist Christians And Muslims

[David Sklansky]

Here's why. Fundamentalist Christians believe (if I am not misken) that non believers will be sent to hell. Regardless of their actions. They also believe that God is "just". Meaning that those non believers "deserve" to be sent to hell. Now they also believe that they themselves deserve it and that they escape it only through God's mercy. But that is neither here nor there as far as my point is concerned.

Since everyone agrees that going to hell is far worse than merely being murdered, the fact that a Fundamentalist Muslim is willing to murder you and send you to the hell you deserve, unless you convert, is not that much different than the Christian who thinks you deserve hell but believes you should be given every chance to convert.

Of course as a practical matter there is a big difference. But that's only because there are now some Muslim murderers out there. Meanwhile many people decry less violent Muslims who don't try to stop them. But that shouldn't be surprising because they believe we deserve to go to hell and don't have a big problem sending us there early, especially when it is obvious we won't convert.

It's true that Fundamentalists don't want to send us there early but that's only because they think it's God's job, not theirs, and that we might convert. But for those who it is obvious to both us and them that we won't convert, it is a fine point.

Another way to put it: Both Christian Fundamentalists And Muslim Fundamentalists believe that non believers who will definitely not convert are people who God chooses justly to send to hell. The only difference is that some Muslims think that God wants their help. Fundamentalist Christians think God doesn't want their help. But their opinion of these non believers is essentially the same, given their unwillingness to convert. And if these same Christians were to ever believe that God did want their help, some would undoubtedly oblige.

[hmkpoker]

There is a big difference.

Christians DON'T want atheists going to hell, they want them to convert so they can be saved. Listen to any preacher. Muslims want infidels to go to hell, so they blow them up.

The Christian is not minimizing your chance to convert. The muslim terrorist is.

[FortunaMaximus]

And cause to force the issue and give the entity involved an early sorting-out? The timeline hardly matters. But using violence introduces an element of fear that truly is a negative feedback reaction.

There was a thread elsewhere today where a poster mentioned that to know the fear of living daily with suicide bombers, one need only ride the buses to and from work in Jerusalem.

It's an odd place to wage the ultimate battle. But, alas, it may be appropiate. More in the other thread that may wax a little too poetic for your tastes.

But I digress.

[David Sklansky]

"Muslims want infidels to go to hell, so they blow them up."

They want them to go to hell because they think that is what God wants. And I don't believe they want to blow up people who they think have a good chance of converting down the road.

The fact is that anybody who believes that people who don't think Jesus was resurrected not only will go to hell but also deserve to go to hell would not be that hard to nudge (through some sign from "God") into thinking it wasn't so bad to kill those who had no hope of changing their mind.

[Shadowrun]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's why. Fundamentalist Christians believe (if I am not misken) that non believers will be sent to hell. Regardless of their actions. They also believe that God is "just". Meaning that those non believers "deserve" to be sent to hell. Now they also believe that they themselves deserve it and that they escape it only through God's mercy. But that is neither here nor there as far as my point is concerned.

Since everyone agrees that going to hell is far worse than merely being murdered, the fact that a Fundamentalist Muslim is willing to murder you and send you to the hell you deserve, unless you convert, is not that much different than the Christian who thinks you deserve hell but believes you should be given every chance to convert.

Of course as a practical matter there is a big difference. But that's only because there are now some Muslim murderers out there. Meanwhile many people decry less violent Muslims who don't try to stop them. But that shouldn't be surprising because they believe we deserve to go to hell and don't have a big problem sending us there early, especially when it is obvious we won't convert.

It's true that Fundamentalists don't want to send us there early but that's only because they think it's God's job, not theirs, and that we might convert. But for those who it is obvious to both us and them that we won't convert, it is a fine point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really didnt think that eduacted people ever use that phrase but who knew

[hmkpoker]

It is entirely dependent on the individual. There are some crazy militant Christian fundamentalists for whom I think that is accurate, but there are also bleeding hearts who want to save everyone's soul. If this paradigm of savability/non-savability is influenced by the religion or religious culture, then I'd say that the disparity of those paradigms constitutes the difference.

Personally, I think Islam is more conducive to a paradigm of non-savability than Christianity, although there is probably more intra-religion disparity than inter-religion disparity.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
"Muslims want infidels to go to hell, so they blow them up."

They want them to go to hell because they think that is what God wants. And I don't believe they want to blow up people who they think have a good chance of converting down the road.

The fact is that anybody who believes that people who don't think Jesus was resurrected not only will go to hell but also deserve to go to hell would not be that hard to nudge (through some sign from "God") into thinking it wasn't so bad to kill those who had no hope of changing their mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is exactly why historically, even though the New Testament is very clear on conversion by peaceful persuasion, Christianity has repeatedly tipped into crusades, witch trials, inquisitions, etc.

[andyfox]

"I think this is exactly why historically, even though the New Testament is very clear on conversion by peaceful persuasion, Christianity has repeatedly tipped into crusades, witch trials, inquisitions, etc."

Maybe. But often religion was the justification, and perhaps not the real reason for the depredation. For example, some modern historians now see the First Crusade as essentially a religious experience, but one cannot overlook the military and politico-imperialist elements of the impetus to crusade. Similarly, the early European settlers of the New World spoke of the "heathen savages," but perhaps the fact that those savages had land and food the Europeans coveted was the more important factor.

[andyfox]

Good points, but I would add the influence of culture to the equation. Exchange the life situations of our Fundamentalist Christians with the Middle East's Fundamentalist Muslims and I think your point would be proven.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact is that anybody who believes that people who don't think Jesus was resurrected not only will go to hell but also deserve to go to hell would not be that hard to nudge (through some sign from "God") into thinking it wasn't so bad to kill those who had no hope of changing their mind.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this argument ignores some of the fundamental differences between Christianity and Islam. I am no expert on the Quran (so please correct me where I am misinformed) - but from everything I've read, Islam is simply a more violent religion. It preaches violence against non-believers as a routine tenet of the faith. For this reason I think it is much easier for the Islamic religion to spawn murderers. The idea that it's ok to kill non-believers is not only held by a handful of fanatical Muslims. It is much more mainstream than that. Now there are likely many Muslims who simply cannot bring themselves to commit murder - but that does not mean they disapprove of those who do, or that the murderers themselves are part of some fanatical fringe.

Violence against non-believers is not a central teaching of the Christian faith as it is in Islam. Christianity preaches for believers to try and convert non-believers. There is no approval of violence for those who seem to be hopeless cases for conversion. The story of Saul/Paul, and his conversion on the Damascus road, teaches Christians that no non-believer is beyond god's rescue.

So maybe the difference is in how much hope each religion holds out for the conversion of the other. Muslims see little hope and want to kill Christians, while Christians are more optimistic and want to convert Muslims.

[She]

I actually was researching the difference between Islam and Christianity somewhat recently, and I found a comparison chart on Jesus and Muhammad.
Not that this adresses the issue exactly, but I did think it was interesting and wanted to share it.

Random Topics of Interest: Jesus vs. Muhammad (http://randomtopicsofinterest.blogspot.com/2006/06/jesus-vs-muhammad_25.html)

Now, please allow me to say that I think since all people (no matter how devoutly religious) are human, make mistakes, tend to be judgemental and often times push their beliefs onto others. I am not making excuses, rather I would just like to point out that as pure as a religion may have started it will always have people in it that insist on giving it a bad reputation.

[Metric]

So basically, you're saying that the common concept of non-believers going to hell (regardless of the reasoning) dwarfs all differences, rendering there "little difference between fundamentalist Christians and Muslims."

Is this the essential point, or is there some other central issue that I have missed with the above paragraph?

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Since everyone agrees that going to hell is far worse than merely being murdered, the fact that a Fundamentalist Muslim is willing to murder you and send you to the hell you deserve, unless you convert, is not that much different than the Christian who thinks you deserve hell but believes you should be given every chance to convert.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are missing a key element of the equation here:

The Muslims who kill don't just do it because they hate non-believers. That's what the media and the gov't want you to think, though. They do it as part of "Jihad of the Sword" which requires a transgression against Muslims. Jihad is not pre-emptive, it's retaliatory.

The main thing that separates the extremists from the other Muslims is that the extremists make no distinction between civilians and government when assigning culpability.

So basically I'm agreeing with you on the point that there is little or no difference between fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims in the sense you mention. I'm even going a step further by saying that any difference there is is because of current political conditions and not because one group needs more of a nudge than the other.

[Jim T]

A fly in your ointment: Muslim terrorists are perfectly willing to murder other Muslims if they think that it will help them achieve their (political) goals. Islam is part of the problem, but if everything else were the same and the people of the region were, say, Shinto worshipers, it would still be a major trouble spot.

Edit: Let me add, that if they were instead all atheists, under the same conditions this would STILL be a major trouble spot.

Conditions are very poor there, and people are looking for an outlet for their feelings and for change. In other places and times that outlet was Communism or Nazism. In still others it was Christianity.

[SeanSkill]

I find this post to be very illogical and I am suprised to see it from someone whom I have a lot of respect for. I do not practice any religion and, I have no preference toward muslims, christians or jews.

Mr. Skalnky's statement that there is little difference between Fundementalist Christians and Muslims I agree with. I do not beleive that there are chasmic differences between any monotheic religion.

In the book Why People Believe Weird Things Michael Shermer discussus 25 fallicies in logical thinking, I wish I could find my copy now so that I could reference specific flaws in Davids' arguments here but, there is one I do remember, Reduction ad Absurdum and the Slippery Slope.

An analogy might go like this The Earth is warming, Global warming has increased exponentially in the past two years, because of this the Earth will be uninhabitable soon. While the 1st two statements may be true they do not prove the conclusion. If I am misunderstanding Davids' post forgive me but, I do not agree that because FC's believe that nonbelievers will go to hell and that they believe god is just that you can make the statement that FC's believe that nonbelievers deserve to got to hell.

It seems to me that david has made a leap in logic. To then presume that both groups agree on this priciple (which there is no evidence of) and, take it one step further to imply that FC's are not far away from strapping on explosive devices and becoming suicide bombers is inflamitory and insensitive.

Offering evidence to prove that a majority of both FC's & Muslims believe that nonbelievers deserve to go to hell would be one thing. You could then be reasonably inclined to ask the question what if FC's started to act like radical Muslums? I do not think you have shown any basis in fact to prove either one of these groups believes what you say, so linking the the two groups based on this fact is unfounded.

Any further conclusions based on this false logic are pure speculation and conjecture. I find the whole post to be in bad taste.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
"I think this is exactly why historically, even though the New Testament is very clear on conversion by peaceful persuasion, Christianity has repeatedly tipped into crusades, witch trials, inquisitions, etc."

Maybe. But often religion was the justification, and perhaps not the real reason for the depredation. For example, some modern historians now see the First Crusade as essentially a religious experience, but one cannot overlook the military and politico-imperialist elements of the impetus to crusade. Similarly, the early European settlers of the New World spoke of the "heathen savages," but perhaps the fact that those savages had land and food the Europeans coveted was the more important factor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, but they seem to have left the plain Christian teachings by the wayside awfully easily, didn't they? Even if they used religion as an excuse for worldly gains (which I fully agree they did), they couldn't have done so quite so easily without the "They're going to Hell anyway" rationalization.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
I would add the influence of culture to the equation. Exchange the life situations of our Fundamentalist Christians with the Middle East's Fundamentalist Muslims and I think your point would be proven.

[/ QUOTE ]I don't know which point you're referring to, Andy, but the fact that we have basically two different environments (cultural environments), one generally more liberal and offering a wider choice of education than the other, actually speaks badly of our Christian fundamentalist brethren. I'm saying that, generally, a Muslim fundamentalist has more "excuses" than a Christian fundamentalist, in blaming his cultural environment.

Mickey Brausch

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Another way to put it: Both Christian Fundamentalists And Muslim Fundamentalists believe that non believers who will definitely not convert are people who God chooses justly to send to hell. The only difference is that some Muslims think that God wants their help. Fundamentalist Christians think God doesn't want their help. But their opinion of these non believers is essentially the same, given their unwillingness to convert. And if these same Christians were to ever believe that God did want their help, some would undoubtedly oblige.

[/ QUOTE ]

David, I think you are right and you are differentiating between fundamentalist and those not so, on both sides. I notice that a lot of replies to the OP contrast muslims against christian fundamentalists and that is definitely not right, like some christians there are quite a few liberal and non-fundamentalists muslims who would be equally horrified by suicide bombing or murders wether they were occasioned by christians or muslims.

I think the real issue is only partially fundamentalism. First of all that for a true comparison between muslim and christians we need take the same length of time for the devlopment of the religion and dogma. In that sense, the muslims are where the chtistians were 565 years ago and are behaving in no way worse, or better, than christians at the time when their religion had the same level of immaturity. Now, I say that it not fundamentalsm that is the cause of the problem, but the need to proselitize as a religion tenet. Amishes, which are topically in the news, are, I think by all acoount fundamentalists, yet espouse no violence at all. The same applies to some Muslim sects (the sufis come to mind). There is, in my opinion, a problem when the goal is establishing the realm of god (a seemingly primarily spiritual objective) in the real world against the wishes of those not sharing the beliefs. This is the problem, and it applies both to fundamentalists and non-fundamentalists, varying only in matters of degrees. There is no doubt that the USA executive is christian and warring a religious war. This is made very clear by direct references in various speeches. The trigger may have been a terror act by Al-Quada (a religious organisation), but it has gone way beyond that, after the reason to go to war having being declared incorrect and no links ever identified between Al-Quaeda and the Iraki regime (which was incidentally extremely well supported by the US when such support resulted in atrocities against Iran). It is interesting that a christian executive supported by a mostly christian legislative, can use such notion as pre-emptive strikes that have resulted in about 650,000 more deaths that would have occured under the previous regime (the large majority of which are muslims!) without flinching or realising that it is not invoking christian religious principles.

Anyway, cultural and religious coloured spectacles are very hard to take off.

Again, I say, it is mixing spiritual and imperialistic objectives indiscriminately, usually due to a need to proselitize, that are at the root of the problem, in my opinion

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
And if these same Christians were to ever believe that God did want their help, some would undoubtedly oblige.


[/ QUOTE ]

This was the only interesting part of your post. The rest may as well have been written by Arnold Snyder.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
This was the only interesting part of your post. The rest may as well have been written by Arnold Snyder.

[/ QUOTE ]What are you insinuating exactly about Arnold Snyder? I'm curious.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
What are you insinuating exactly about Arnold Snyder? I'm curious.

[/ QUOTE ]

That he thinks fuzzily (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=7133799&page=)

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
In that sense, the muslims are where the chtistians were 565 years ago and are behaving in no way worse, or better, than christians at the time when their religion had the same level of immaturity.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I like some aspects of this comparsion, I've taken the trouble to study the socioeconomic realities of Islam and Christianity lately, and this is flawed.

Islam is a mature religion. It was on the same footing as Christianity during the Moorish invasions. To attribute an immaturity to them is to give them license to err.

Wrong. It is simply a difference in fundamental philosophies and application, and Islam is, at its very core, a male-dominated religion, both in practice and in theory. Christianity has mutated to the point where females have almost as strong a voice. And it would be inconsistent to the basic theses of Islam that in 2561, female imams would be held in such regard. Unless they outgrow Sharia. This basic core tenet of Islamic law must be first be discarded, because on a dogmatic evolutionary standpoint, it is a dead end.

[andyfox]

The point I'm referring to is the title of his post. I think one reason Christian fundamentalists don't engage in murder to the extent that Muslim fundamentalists do is because their upbringing in the United States gives them a different outlook on life. While David may be correct that the Muslims believe they need to assist God in his work, Christians would feel the same way were they in the same environment.

BTW, I understand Christoper Hitchens's next book is one about how all religions stink. Should be great fun.

[KUJustin]

David, man, I don't know where this hostility comes from but you're really pretty far off on a lot of this stuff.

[ QUOTE ]
The only difference is that some Muslims think that God wants their help. Fundamentalist Christians think God doesn't want their help. But their opinion of these non believers is essentially the same, given their unwillingness to convert.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe it's the act of mudering people that our culture finds despicable, not so much one's opinion of non-believers, so that being the "only" difference is kind of a big deal.

Also, don't forget that Christians believe that they themselves deserve hell.

[Darryl_P]

Hi Sean,

Thanks for your comments. I'm quite sure there is a misunderstanding here because I don't think I've said anything different here from what I've said many times before.

Maybe you think I view fundamentalist Muslims as bad people, and by equating them with FCs I'm saying the FCs are bad people!? If so, I'd like to point out that I don't consider FMs to be bad people, even if it may be correct for us to kill them in certain situations, especially when they attack us first. So by equating FCs to FMs in this sense, I'm not saying that FCs are bad people.

FMs kill because they believe they are acting in self-defense. FCs are capable of killing in self-defense (even if it's not using the same methods like strap-on bombs etc.). And that is not necessarily bad IMO.

It's quite possible for someone to kill in self-defense, and then get killed by someone employing self-defense, without either party being bad! I know this sounds a bit wishy-washy, but if you assume the first transgression (the one worthy of punishment) occurred a long time ago by a third party, then a whole series of retaliations could be permissible under a wide range of moral codes, including fundamentalist Islam and fundamentalist Christianity.

[ QUOTE ]
If I am misunderstanding Davids' post forgive me but, I do not agree that because FC's believe that nonbelievers will go to hell and that they believe god is just that you can make the statement that FC's believe that nonbelievers deserve to got to hell.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a bit confused here. If God is just, and God sends someone to hell, then it is just for that person to go to hell, right? If it is just, then they deserve it, right?

[She]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
If I am misunderstanding Davids' post forgive me but, I do not agree that because FC's believe that nonbelievers will go to hell and that they believe god is just that you can make the statement that FC's believe that nonbelievers deserve to got to hell.


[/ QUOTE ]
I'm a bit confused here. If God is just, and God sends someone to hell, then it is just for that person to go to hell, right? If it is just, then they deserve it, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that most christians don't particularly believe that God will send anyone to hell. There is a code or law that he has set in place, and since he is just he must have consequences for breaking that law. He, however, is also merciful without violating his justice and offers to pay the cost for us. If we don't accept that payment, then that is our choice and we must then pay the consequences ourselves.

That at least, is what I was taught. I think it makes a little more sense.

[KUJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that most christians don't particularly believe that God will send anyone to hell. There is a code or law that he has set in place, and since he is just he must have consequences for breaking that law. He, however, is also merciful without violating his justice and offers to pay the cost for us. If we don't accept that payment, then that is our choice and we must then pay the consequences ourselves.

That at least, is what I was taught. I think it makes a little more sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, a pretty good analogy I've heard is there's a village where food is suddenly very scarce. You're the leader of the village and you ration food and say that the penalty for stealing food is 10 lashes. You must do this or people will die if food is not properly rationed.

A few days later you find out food has been stolen and it was your own mother (assume she's old and weak for maximum effect). You can't just let it go, for a number of reasons, but you can very well have your own mother whipped. What do you do?

The equivalent here is that you declare your mother guilty, assign 10 lashes and then take her punishment yourself.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
He, however, is also merciful without violating his justice and offers to pay the cost for us. If we don't accept that payment, then that is our choice and we must then pay the consequences ourselves.


[/ QUOTE ]

So, in your opinion, if someone does not accept the payment and goes to hell as a result, is that just? Does he deserve it?

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
The equivalent here is that you declare your mother guilty, assign 10 lashes and then take her punishment yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

That means if you're old and weak, you might as well do whatever you can get away with because someone else will be there to take the rap for you, no?

[KUJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
That means if you're old and weak, you might as well do whatever you can get away with because someone else will be there to take the rap for you, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a question of your value's system I suppose. If causing others to potentially starve to death and having someone get severely beaten are no big deal then, sure, grab an extra couple of pieces of bread.

Jesus said that loving your neighbor was second only to loving your God.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
That's a question of your value's system I suppose. If causing others to potentially starve to death and having someone get severely beaten are no big deal then, sure, grab an extra couple of pieces of bread.


[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying that the mother's punishment is watching her son get whipped? Not bad. I suppose in a lot of mothers' cases that might be worse than getting whipped herself. nh

[KUJustin]

Darryl, your question makes me think that the analogy is better than I was giving it credit for.

Grace is very much like this in that your penalty is paid and you're given freedom. However, I think we all agree that the mom in this story would not only look rude, but also just downright dumb if she went around eating everyone's food while people starved to death and her son was beaten.

This board today is full of questions about this it seems. I think this offers some pretty good clarity on why the way things are DOES NOT encourage us to sin to our heart's content.

[She]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He, however, is also merciful without violating his justice and offers to pay the cost for us. If we don't accept that payment, then that is our choice and we must then pay the consequences ourselves.

[/ QUOTE ]
So, in your opinion, if someone does not accept the payment and goes to hell as a result, is that just? Does he deserve it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course it is just. I believe that if God exists, and he is truly God (the cause of all things), then he is also the origin of justice.... as I said:

[ QUOTE ]
There is a code or law that he has set in place, and since he is just he must have consequences for breaking that law.

[/ QUOTE ]
How would it be just if you had a law, but no consequences. I would personally think that would completely eliminate any value that the law had, and it would then be on the same rank with lawlessness. Does that have any hint of justice to it?

[Lestat]

This is an excellent post! I really hope people like BluffThis will weigh in with their thoughts on this.

[KUJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose in a lot of mothers' cases that might be worse than getting whipped herself.

[/ QUOTE ]

And herein you find the answer to why there is sin.

[AthenianStranger]

Nobel Prize in Religious Studies anyone?

DS, there's a position for you in the Episcopal Church.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Darryl, your question makes me think that the analogy is better than I was giving it credit for.

Grace is very much like this in that your penalty is paid and you're given freedom. However, I think we all agree that the mom in this story would not only look rude, but also just downright dumb if she went around eating everyone's food while people starved to death and her son was beaten.

This board today is full of questions about this it seems. I think this offers some pretty good clarity on why the way things are DOES NOT encourage us to sin to our heart's content.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't worry, your analogy isnt THAT great. In this case, I am the old woman, and guess what? I didn't steal any bread, you jerks. Quit trying to frame me. No, I won't be taking the lashes and no I won't let my son take them, because I didn't TAKE any BREAD!

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Darryl, your question makes me think that the analogy is better than I was giving it credit for.

Grace is very much like this in that your penalty is paid and you're given freedom. However, I think we all agree that the mom in this story would not only look rude, but also just downright dumb if she went around eating everyone's food while people starved to death and her son was beaten.

This board today is full of questions about this it seems. I think this offers some pretty good clarity on why the way things are DOES NOT encourage us to sin to our heart's content.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't worry, your analogy isnt THAT great. In this case, I am the old woman, and guess what? I didn't steal any bread, you jerks. Quit trying to frame me. No, I won't be taking the lashes and no I won't let my son take them, because I didn't TAKE any BREAD!

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't agree more. The whole "original sin" thing is one of the things that really turns me off to Christianity. Why am I being blamed for the actions of some greedy maybe-metaphorical-maybe-not woman from a time before ours? Do we put children in jail if their parents are criminals? As you put it, I didn't take any bread!

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
The whole "original sin" thing is one of the things that really turns me off to Christianity. Why am I being blamed for the actions of some greedy maybe-metaphorical-maybe-not woman from a time before ours? Do we put children in jail if their parents are criminals?

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you perfect? If you aren't sinless, it doesn't really matter because you can't get to God on your own anyway.

For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23

[andyfox]

From David's OP:

"Of course as a practical matter there is a big difference. But that's only because there are now some Muslim murderers out there."

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
The whole "original sin" thing is one of the things that really turns me off to Christianity. Why am I being blamed for the actions of some greedy maybe-metaphorical-maybe-not woman from a time before ours? Do we put children in jail if their parents are criminals? As you put it, I didn't take any bread!

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe original sin is just as metaphorical as Eve and the talking snake. It is not that you have committed an actual sin, but that your nature tends toward sinfulness, and that must be overcome. Ask a three year old if he stole from the cookie jar. He'll lie. Later, he'll be able to comprehend moral values and learn that he can overcome that urge to steal and lie. He has sinned (stolen and lied), but he can (and must, according to the Bible) choose to repent and chance course.

[KUJustin]

I assuming that I'm misunderstanding here.

vhawk and magic are you trying to say you're without sin?

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What are you insinuating exactly about Arnold Snyder? I'm curious.

[/ QUOTE ]

That he thinks fuzzily (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=7133799&page=)

[/ QUOTE ]Even if he would be wrong in the specific case, Snyder is someone who most definitely has NOT been thinking "fuzzily" for the last four decades or so.

As Mason Malmuth would be the first to admit too. Irrespective of the specific case.

You'd have been far more correct to use the name of a Doug Grant, for example. (But then your reference would have been neither witty nor topical. I understand.)

Mickey Brausch

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The whole "original sin" thing is one of the things that really turns me off to Christianity. Why am I being blamed for the actions of some greedy maybe-metaphorical-maybe-not woman from a time before ours? Do we put children in jail if their parents are criminals?

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you perfect? If you aren't sinless, it doesn't really matter because you can't get to God on your own anyway.

For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty awesome.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I assuming that I'm misunderstanding here.

vhawk and magic are you trying to say you're without sin?

[/ QUOTE ]

Net or gross?

[IronUnkind]

Wit was more important than accuracy in this case. I'm well aware that Snyder is no fool.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
I assuming that I'm misunderstanding here.

vhawk and magic are you trying to say you're without sin?

[/ QUOTE ]

It would depend on who decides what constitutes a sin. If you ask a FC, I committed a sin this morning when I noticed that my neighbour had bought a new car and I momentarilly 'coveted' it. Of course, this isn't nearly as sinful as the thoughts I was having last night about his hot wife. And I have to admit that I felt like a bit of a glutton when I reached for that 4th slice of pizza while watching the hockey game. That's 3 sins in less than 24 hours...and those are only the ones I can remember. I'm sure there are about a dozen more that I'm forgetting.

Of course, those of us who aren't "annointed by god" wouldn't consider any of my actions over the last 24 as being "sinful"...but don't try to tell someone like txag that. As far as he's concerned, they're greasing the slide to hell in preparation for a heathen like me.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I assuming that I'm misunderstanding here.

vhawk and magic are you trying to say you're without sin?

[/ QUOTE ]

It would depend on who decides what constitutes a sin. If you ask a FC, I committed a sin this morning when I noticed that my neighbour had bought a new car and I momentarilly 'coveted' it. Of course, this isn't nearly as sinful as the thoughts I was having last night about his hot wife. And I have to admit that I felt like a bit of a glutton when I reached for that 4th slice of pizza while watching the hockey game. That's 3 sins in less than 24 hours...and those are only the ones I can remember. I'm sure there are about a dozen more that I'm forgetting.

Of course, those of us who aren't "annointed by god" wouldn't consider any of my actions over the last 24 as being "sinful"...but don't try to tell someone like txag that. As far as he's concerned, they're greasing the slide to hell in preparation for a heathen like me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Have you ever done anything that you would consider wrong?

[Magic_Man]

Apparently a lot of hotly contested things are sins these days, so I'm not even sure! They tell me masturbation is a sin, so in that case, guilty as charged. Damn that new-fangled internet.

What I am saying is that before it was even possible for me to sin, I was assumed a sinner. Some dude had to pour some water over my head so that I wouldn't be blamed for the sins of others. Now, one could argue that God, being omniscient and all, would know that eventually I would sin (that whole masturbation thing again, damn Tivo), so that in some sense I can be assumed to be a sinner from the moment I am born. In that case I would ask, if God doesn't want us to sin, why did he make us so that we will always sin? He could have at least given us a chance! If I'm being blamed for my assumed sins, then it's only because he purposefully guaranteed that I would sin. It seems that I'm doing the work of God after all. Not to sin would be against his will.

~MagicMan

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Have you ever done anything that you would consider wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

hmmmm... If I thought it was wrong, I wouldn't have done it.

luckyme

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
hmmmm... If I thought it was wrong, I wouldn't have done it.

luckyme


[/ QUOTE ]

I made a mistake once. I thought I was wrong but it turned out I was right. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I assuming that I'm misunderstanding here.

vhawk and magic are you trying to say you're without sin?

[/ QUOTE ]

It would depend on who decides what constitutes a sin. If you ask a FC, I committed a sin this morning when I noticed that my neighbour had bought a new car and I momentarilly 'coveted' it. Of course, this isn't nearly as sinful as the thoughts I was having last night about his hot wife. And I have to admit that I felt like a bit of a glutton when I reached for that 4th slice of pizza while watching the hockey game. That's 3 sins in less than 24 hours...and those are only the ones I can remember. I'm sure there are about a dozen more that I'm forgetting.

Of course, those of us who aren't "annointed by god" wouldn't consider any of my actions over the last 24 as being "sinful"...but don't try to tell someone like txag that. As far as he's concerned, they're greasing the slide to hell in preparation for a heathen like me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Have you ever done anything that you would consider wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Put it this way: I've never raped, stolen, killed, or maimed. If your god wants to send me to hell for some other piddly nonsense that I've done at some point in my life that you consider a sin, then I guess I'm screwed.

So yes, I've done things that I've later regretted, but nothing serious enough that I believe I'm in danger of burning for all eternity.

[thesnowman22]

The people who fly planes into buildings didnt seem to care if they had a chance of converting anyone or not. They killed muslim and non muslim alike. The collateral damage that we worry about doesnt seem to faze them.

And to say there is "little difference" between two groups when one is blowing people up and the other isnt- that seems to be more than a little difference.

There are VERY TINY numbers of Christians who might be "nudged" but it is a MINUTE number and not at all representative of Christianity.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I assuming that I'm misunderstanding here.

vhawk and magic are you trying to say you're without sin?

[/ QUOTE ]

It would depend on who decides what constitutes a sin. If you ask a FC, I committed a sin this morning when I noticed that my neighbour had bought a new car and I momentarilly 'coveted' it. Of course, this isn't nearly as sinful as the thoughts I was having last night about his hot wife. And I have to admit that I felt like a bit of a glutton when I reached for that 4th slice of pizza while watching the hockey game. That's 3 sins in less than 24 hours...and those are only the ones I can remember. I'm sure there are about a dozen more that I'm forgetting.

Of course, those of us who aren't "annointed by god" wouldn't consider any of my actions over the last 24 as being "sinful"...but don't try to tell someone like txag that. As far as he's concerned, they're greasing the slide to hell in preparation for a heathen like me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Have you ever done anything that you would consider wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Would it matter to you if I said no?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
The people who fly planes into buildings didnt seem to care if they had a chance of converting anyone or not. They killed muslim and non muslim alike. The collateral damage that we worry about doesnt seem to faze them.

And to say there is "little difference" between two groups when one is blowing people up and the other isnt- that seems to be more than a little difference.

There are VERY TINY numbers of Christians who might be "nudged" but it is a MINUTE number and not at all representative of Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm...I think DS's point is that this post is exactly wrong. But I guess your simply stating the opposite works as an argument?

Let me try: I think there are a LOT of FC's who wouldn't need much of a nudging. And by a lot, I mean ~ the number of FM's who would be currently amenable to such.

[thesnowman22]

Just seeing his car and noting "nice car" isnt "coveting" in my beliefs, but obviously I cant speak for all Christians. Coveting would be a little more intense than that in my view. And eating too much pizza once to me isnt gluttony, but abusing your body by eating unhealthy for a long time would be. All Christians dont believe the same way obviously, thats where interpretation comes in.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Just seeing his car and noting "nice car" isnt "coveting" in my beliefs, but obviously I cant speak for all Christians. Coveting would be a little more intense than that in my view. And eating too much pizza once to me isnt gluttony, but abusing your body by eating unhealthy for a long time would be. All Christians dont believe the same way obviously, thats where interpretation comes in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was referring to how a fundamentalist Christian would interpret my behaviour -- and not how the average rational human being would interpret the same behavior.

[CORed]

Well, since I don't believe in heaven, hell, reincarnation, or any other sort of afterlife, there is a considerable difference in my mind between somebody who thinks I will go to a very bad place after I die, rather than just, well, dying, and someone who wants to end my life right now. OTOH, a lot of fundamentalist Christians want to put annoying restrictions on my behavior (see online gambling prohibition for just one example), even though in their opinion I'm going to go to hell anyway for being an unbeliever. There is a very low probability that I will be killed by a Muslim fundamentalist, but a pretty high probabililty that my life will be negatively affected by legislation passed for the purpose of getting the votes of fundamentalist Christians.

[thesnowman22]

I really dont know how you define "fundamentalist" Christian , but I am Christian and I dont believe the way you say, nor do I think most Christians believe that way. Some do, but as I said, there is a huge disparity even among different denominations or even the same congregation about interpretation. For you to assume that most Christians think the way you were noting is wrong.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I really dont know how you define "fundamentalist" Christian , but I am Christian and I dont believe the way you say, nor do I think most Christians believe that way. Some do, but as I said, there is a huge disparity even among different denominations or even the same congregation about interpretation. For you to assume that most Christians think the way you were noting is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

You aren't a fundamentalist, so how you feel about the cited issues isn't of much concern, is it? Are you honestly saying "FC's dont do that because I'm not an FC and I don't do it." ??

[Steel_Pots]

I have a feeling that if the OP and the others that agree with him spent a month in Rihyad (sp?) and a month in Lancaster County, PA., they would probably think differently about the nature of FCs and Muslims.

I believe that the kind of Christians that the OP is speaking about are probably the militia types, who are actually closer in their beliefs of the Old Testament (Torah) Israelites. The fact that they also believe in Jesus is more of an artifact of their childhood upbringing. You will no doubt find this type of FC quoting the Torah more than the New Testament.

[thesnowman22]

I need u to define FC.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a feeling that if the OP and the others that agree with him spent a month in Rihyad (sp?) and a month in Lancaster County, PA., they would probably think differently about the nature of FCs and Muslims.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, Amish != Muslims in this debate.

Think about Bible Belt evangelists and hypocritical silk-underwear leeches in Washington.

[thesnowman22]

I suggest you go hang with Osama for a while and then let us know.

Seriosly, as hypocritical as some Christians are, do you guys really think they are anywhere on the same level as the people trying to kill all Americans? If so, you have really lost your ability to make an objective and coherent decision.

I mean, even the IDIOTS and I mean IDIOTS who said that American soldiers deserved to die blah blah blah and made me cringe because of the image it portrays of Christians arent bombing embassies and flying planes into buildings.

[ronster71]

As accurate as the books are from a mathematical standpoint, you simply have missed the mark here...your attempt to draw a parallel between the two has met with negative results. This is a very disappointing post from someone who's thoughts I value quite a bit...do a little more research next time before throwing such a crazy opinion out there

ronster71

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
I suggest you go hang with Osama for a while and then let us know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Grew up knowin' moderate Muslims and becomin' pretty good friends with a couple of 'em. What's your point, Tar Heel?

[Chips_]

There's a huge difference between the two groups.

The Fundamentalist Christians from an atheist perspective have set of irrational beliefs A (also influenced by cultural conditions A'). The radical muslims have set of irrational beliefs B (influenced by cultural conditions B'). There may be some commonality in the set of beliefs A and B but the commonality is small subset of the total belief system. The behavior of group A (specifically the willingness to kill) is not just a nudge away from the behavior of group B.

In the US we have a strong cultural value of freedom of religion and seek to regard all religious beliefs as allowed in our society. From an atheist's point of view all religions share a certain amount of irrationality. One religion may be out to save everyone else in the world by preaching to them or praying for them or giving food to the poor along with a sermon. But here's the distinction : When a religion starts preaching that it's followers should go out and kill people there is a problem. And very clearly there is one religion that is doing that much moreso than all others. The world needs to acknowledge this and deal with this because the entire world is experiencing this problem (US, Middle East, Europe, Africa and also many places in Asia). I hope atheists in the US can clearly understand this point.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
But here's the distinction : When a religion starts preaching that it's followers should go out and kill people there is a problem. And very clearly there is one religion that is doing that much moreso than all others. The world needs to acknowledge this and deal with this because the entire world is experiencing this problem (US, Middle East, Europe, Africa and also many places in Asia). I hope atheists in the US can clearly understand this point.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean like using terms like "axis of evil" to justify a pre-emptive strikes that results in more than half a billion innocents being killed? I am sure most atheists in the US understand this point.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
I am sure most atheists in the US understand this point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and that history repeats itself. Thing is, what are y'all doing about it?

Chin music later, gentlemen. And it's gonna be an interesting question. 'night.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But here's the distinction : When a religion starts preaching that it's followers should go out and kill people there is a problem. And very clearly there is one religion that is doing that much moreso than all others. The world needs to acknowledge this and deal with this because the entire world is experiencing this problem (US, Middle East, Europe, Africa and also many places in Asia). I hope atheists in the US can clearly understand this point.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean like using terms like "axis of evil" to justify a pre-emptive strikes that results in more than half a billion innocents being killed? I am sure most atheists in the US understand this point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did we nuke China during my nap?

[thesnowman22]

The point is that to somehow equate the bad deeds of the religous right and the fringe muslims is crazy.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
The point is that to somehow equate the bad deeds of the religous right and the fringe muslims is crazy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed, so why the hell is Islam as a whole gettin' flak from America? So there are a few bad apples in both barrels, man.

Atheists: They both suck, yeah, we know better, but we aren't doing anything about it.

Chicken. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Did we nuke China during my nap?


[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry spelling mistake billion should be million. Breath easier now?

[David Sklansky]

A lot of people didn't get the fact that I was essentially comparing Fundamentalist Christians and Fundamentalist Muslims who are NOT killers. However they believe we deserve to be murdered. That's the vast majority of them and they are little different from Christians who believe that we deserve to go to hell.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of people didn't get the fact that I was essentially comparing Fundamentalist Christians and Fundamentalist Muslims who are NOT killers. However they believe we deserve to be murdered. That's the vast majority of them and they are little different from Christians who believe that we deserve to go to hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fundamental difference in the mentalities of the religion and culture. There's no difference, that you're right about.

So it's a schism between two large groups of people that's probably unresolvable. What I wonder about... Is it supposed to be solved? Probably not.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of people didn't get the fact that I was essentially comparing Fundamentalist Christians and Fundamentalist Muslims who are NOT killers. However they believe we deserve to be murdered. That's the vast majority of them and they are little different from Christians who believe that we deserve to go to hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I'm missing something, but there seems to be a vast difference between one person who believes a person will go to hell, and another who believes they should go to hell.

There's been extensive studies on how certain personality types are drawn to different belief systems and organizations. There's a big difference between an observer mentality and an activist mentality - it's not just one of degree.

The person who supports environmental causes is not the same person who joins GreenPeace.

[David Sklansky]

They both believe they SHOULD.

[KUJustin]

Fundamentalist Christians believe that they themselves SHOULD go to hell, but have been saved from said fate.

I don't see the parellel between thinking a person deserves hell and thinking I have a right to kill them. As such I don't understand why you brought up the murders. And.. as such I still don't get your point.

[Chips_]

Once again there is a huge and very clear difference between believing others deserve murder for their religious non belief vs a theological point that all people do not deserve to go to heaven outside of God's grace and the resulting urge to want to save unbelievers.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Once again there is a huge and very clear difference between believing others deserve murder for their religious non belief vs a theological point that all people do not deserve to go to heaven outside of God's grace and the resulting urge to want to save unbelievers.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only problem with your view, Chips, is that, specially to believers, the not going to heaven is a far heavier punishment than just loosing one's life. In that way christians believers are only a very small step away from suicide bombing whether they realise it or not. I mean, morally, they accept a fate worse than death as being reasonable. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[thesnowman22]

You havent heard me giving Islam as a whole grief, however, in THESE times, something about Islam seems to be bringing out an element that Christianity is not. If youre a peace loving Muslim, I dont believe thats a problem, and I am sure that some nutjobs have probably given the whol religion a bad name, just as some people give Christianity a bad name. The difference is that the fringe Christians are picketing and shouting stupid things while the fringe Muslims are killing people.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
You havent heard me giving Islam as a whole grief, however, in THESE times, something about Islam seems to be bringing out an element that Christianity is not. If youre a peace loving Muslim, I dont believe thats a problem, and I am sure that some nutjobs have probably given the whol religion a bad name, just as some people give Christianity a bad name. The difference is that the fringe Christians are picketing and shouting stupid things while the fringe Muslims are killing people.

[/ QUOTE ]

They didn't always, snowman, and that's the problem. Christianity may have gotten past that stage in their development, (a nod to the maturity of religions over time another poster suggests) but it didn't always. There's plenty of instances in the past millennia of history where they committed aggressive and destructive wars for the sake of conversion.

I wasn't saying you were guilty of blanket condemnations of Muslims, and it is a common misconception, even among educated Christians, to take this logical step.

<shrugs> I'm neither, dude. I just grew up in a culture that defined people by different standards than their colors or faiths. Be nice if the world worked like that too, but we all grow up.

[SleeperHE]

David-

Given the conclusion that you have arrived at concerning the difference between Fundamental Christians and Muslims, what in your opinion is the ramification of said conclusion?

Also I think there is a fundamental difference in that the consquence of certain actions propagated by the extremes of these religions; because have very different end results in the so called afterlife. A current day christian fundamentalist would in no way expect to earn a crown in "Heaven" or benefit of how many ever "Virgins" for performing attrocious acts of violence; especially if they adhere to the new testament as the word of God.

I don't expect a Christian Fundy to be blowing up a casino any time in the near future.