An op-ed in the NY Times prompted me to wonder, do I know the difference between a Shia or a Sunni? Not really.
(actually I don't know the difference between a Methodist and a Baptist either - and even after reading some of each of those links - I still don't)
As to Islam, I do know that after the death of Mohamed there was a power struggle to see who kept control of the nascent religion. Thus were born the two different sects. And as the NY Times story indicates, people in much more important positions than me don't seem to understand any better, including our dear leader.
Anyone know?
If not, Wikipedia is your friend.
Sunni
Shia
And if you think Christian denominations have always gotten along, remind your self about Oliver Cromwell, and why the Pilgrims and Puritans came here.
18 comments:
Nevertheless, as Sam Harris will tell you, Sunni or Shia, the Muslim religion needs to start being called on the carpet for lunacy in the belief and value systems of a very large number of its followers. While castigating fundamentalism and anti-intellctualism in our own country, we liberals tend to give far too much quarter to those scary traits outside of our own borders.
No question. I am not endorsing their shit, I'm mostly saying we shouldn't wander into the weeds without knowing what might be out there.
OK - I do not know which is which, but I do know that one believes that any current leader should be or is a direct descendant of Muhammed - their prophet, that was told the Koran. The other faction either elects a leader or appoints.
And yes, should we not beleive that the Muslim religion, a relatively newer religion when compared to Christianity, is simply going through growing pains - the same as all the blood shed for Christians, the only difference perhaps, is technology.
I actually have a little more on the topic, if interested. It is difficult to understand, but it does help to understand the violence a little better. What can you say...religion can be a killer, always has been, always will, unless aliens decide to tell us what's really up.
No one in this forum endorses what those Christians were doing a thousand years ago (and less), nor what they would still be doing, if they thought for a minute they could get away with it.
Much less than a thousand years.
Right, but inquisition & the Crusades were definitely Christianity at its worst.
As I said, if they thought they could get public sentiment on their side, I believe about 25% of Christians would still like to be waging Holy Wars on infidels. And another 50-60% would stand idly by and let it happen.
With all due respect to those relatively few (including one among us) who are credits to the Christian faith.
I chock up the Holocaust to Christianity at its worst. Persecuting Jews because they're Jews, in a predominantly Protestant (though some Catholic) is inevitably a religious act.
I never intended this as round 25 of Christian bashing. It was more a 'oh wow' moment for me how little I really understood about Islam, and how important an understanding of that is in our current situation.
Though I still really don't understand the difference between Bapists and Methodists, and even more, what all the new Christian denominations are about.
Islam is as fascinating as it is different.
Methodists began as near Puritan in nature, in England, some guy Wesley - I think - and a brother or two. I know nothing about the baptists and as far as other, newer denominations - I can't stand it. In a sense I've come full circle with regard to denomination - I used to aspire to belong to a shiny new non-denominational church. No more. After a few years of thinking and a slice of experience - I can't stand them and their lack of identity - the whole lot of them are surprisingly based on literal translations of the bible - full of contradictions, implied mind control, commands, and fake intentions with a promise of time at the ranch.
If I were one to embrace a Church, I really think I would prefer one based on something real - if I totally agreed or not.
Like Greek Orthodox (e.g. Zeus, Hera, and the lot)
Speaking of Lot, he had sex with his daughters after they got him mindblowing drunk. They thought that God wiped out all of mankind and they needed to repopulate the earth. Lot's wife turned back towards Sodom and thus was turned into a pillar of salt before the whole incest thing. His daughters wanted children above all things. Poor Lot.
Were his daughters HOT?
Lots of crazy stuff in the Old Testament - incest, polygamy, slavery, all apparently sanctioned by god.
He was a very forgiving god, except when he wasn't.
We should have a reading circle where we read a book of the bible and discuss it. Have any of us really read the bible before?
A single book? I could conceivably be up for it, as long as you don't go "Christian Crusaders for Christ" on me in our first discussion.
We are all civilized and educated men who could benefit from one anothers perspectives.
I operate with a lot of faith and not just logic. I am interested to have discussions over Genesis. Should we have a seperate blog for these discussions? Who wants in?
I suppose we should.
I'll set it up and see who bites.
God bless you for setting that up! :)
Post a Comment