History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VII

[JohannaK]

I know, it's just so hard to resist saying that.

 

[Flying Pig]

No, I mean how the religion relates to their ethnicity. Islam was founded as a single unifying 'tribe' of the faithful, while Christianity, if not a personal affair, was characterized by a separation of the secular and spiritual. Hence, ISIS can be seen as fulfilling the eschatological role of Muslims while in Christianity this role was claimed by the Church. That's one example.

(Of course there are exceptions, where Islam was seen as a simple faith and Christianity was incorporated into ethnic mythology. I'm just saying that they make certain viewpoints much easier to take.)

I don't think that's true at all, and would give you the example of Judaism, which was created among a 'tribe of the faithful' and had no Zionist component until the 19th century.

 

[Mouthwash]

It took a really long time to manage to do something like that.

There is the whole 'Kingdom of Heaven' thing, which explicitly set Christianity apart from other sects (all of which were essentially ethnic).

I don't think that's true at all, and would give you the example of Judaism, which was created among a 'tribe of the faithful' and had no Zionist component until the 19th century.

Judaism was one of the most powerful ethnic forces of antiquity, and in exile was still considered almost universally as such. Jews may not have been 'unified,' but Jewish communities were obviously distinct from the surrounding goyim, having a shared mythology and remaining in contact with one another.

As for your Zionism claim: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbatai_Zevi#At_Abydos_.28Migdal_Oz.29

 

[Plotinus]

No, I mean how the religion relates to their ethnicity. Islam was founded as a single unifying 'tribe' of the faithful, while Christianity, if not a personal affair, was characterized by a separation of the secular and spiritual.

I'm not really sure what this means. I would guess you're talking about the antagonistic attitude found in some early Christians between the church and the world - e.g. the book of Revelation, and later, people like Tertullian and Origen. But these were always countered by others who had a much more conciliatory attitude, e.g. Paul, Clement of Alexandria, etc. And later of course people like Ambrose and Augustine based their whole theology, pretty much, on the notion that you can't separate "secular" and "spiritual". (Leaving aside the fact that these are wildly anachronistic terms - there was no such thing as the "secular" in antiquity, in any of our senses.)

 

[Mouthwash]

I'm not really sure what this means. I would guess you're talking about the antagonistic attitude found in some early Christians between the church and the world - e.g. the book of Revelation, and later, people like Tertullian and Origen.

No, that's not what I mean. I'm saying that the emphasis on the Kingdom of Heaven as opposed to an earthly one was to remove the ethnic characteristic from Judaism. This is why it could spread and become a faith accepted by Roman emperors, because it was not confined to a particular Chosen People. You were baptized, and that made you essentially 'Chosen.'

Islam may seem superficially similar, but it has behaved as an ethnic group from its inception. The idea of the Ummah, the community, and the religious compulsion to defend or fight for it (those who died in the process being regarded as martyrs) is very much the opposite of Christianity. In the latter, the act of warfare had to be first justified by theologians, and centuries later the Crusades required the sanction of the Pope as well as the revocation of sins for participants, which was on an entirely circumstantial basis.

If you've ever heard modern-day jihadists talk about how they want to fight oppression and reclaim Islamic lands, at the same time boasting that they don't fear dying because they will spend eternity in Paradise, this to me sums up the fundamental contradiction of Islam. They hold death to be desirable, but where another philosophy might conclude that worldly matters were therefore equally meaningless and transient, Islam says the opposite: the tribe of the faithful is what is important.

(Yes, yes, I'm aware that not all Muslims believe these things. Just saying that the religion facilitates it.)

 

[Arakhor]

You've never heard Christians talking about mansions in heaven or going to a better place when they die? Islam hardly has the monopoly on the afterlife being a pleasant place.

 

[Mouthwash]

You've never heard Christians talking about mansions in heaven or going to a better place when they die? Islam hardly has the monopoly on the afterlife being a pleasant place.

Yer missing the point. How do Christians view these things as attainable?

 

[Arakhor]

By doing good things in life and then dying, I suppose.

 

[Tee Kay]

By doing good things in life and then dying, I suppose.

Depends. Some people believe in unconditional election.

But generally speaking heavenly reward for dying in the service of your faith is a belief that can be found in pretty much all religions. It's also an aspect of religion that is either not found or not emphasised in any of the original scriptures. Islam doesn't inherently emphasise the "dying for paradise" aspect of religion any much more than others unless you like some people in this thread happen to believe jihadist propaganda and think that they practice the purist kind of Islam.

 

[Plotinus]

No, that's not what I mean. I'm saying that the emphasis on the Kingdom of Heaven as opposed to an earthly one was to remove the ethnic characteristic from Judaism. This is why it could spread and become a faith accepted by Roman emperors, because it was not confined to a particular Chosen People. You were baptized, and that made you essentially 'Chosen.'

Oh, I see. Well that's a bit more plausible - although it has nothing to do with the concept of the "kingdom of heaven", because there wasn't an emphasis on that in early Christianity. Jesus said a lot about it, at least according to the Synoptic Gospels, but it appears only rarely elsewhere in the New Testament and even more rarely, I think, in other early Christian texts. The feature you talk about is more of a common idea in most religions in the classical world, I think - Judaism was the exception rather than the rule, so this development was more like Christianity becoming more like other mystery religions than it was some radical new idea.

 

[Mouthwash]

By doing good things in life and then dying, I suppose.

By accepting Jesus Christ as your savior. Jesus dies on the cross so that the rest of humanity doesn't have to. This concept of divine grace is entirely absent in Islam.

Depends. Some people believe in unconditional election.

But generally speaking heavenly reward for dying in the service of your faith is a belief that can be found in pretty much all religions. It's also an aspect of religion that is either not found or not emphasised in any of the original scriptures. Islam doesn't inherently emphasise the "dying for paradise" aspect of religion any much more than others unless you like some people in this thread happen to believe jihadist propaganda and think that they practice the purist kind of Islam.

Christianity views martyrs as holy, but typically defines them as those that are killed for accepting the Christian religion. Judaism has a similar concept, but doesn't place the importance on it which the other two faiths do. Islam defines martyrs as those who die fulfilling a religious commandment. Even if we ignore the dying in battle against infidels bit (which was emphasized by Arab societies anyway) it still seems kind of horrifying- expecting every member of a society to give their life for it is certainly a nationalistic attitude.

Oh, I see. Well that's a bit more plausible - although it has nothing to do with the concept of the "kingdom of heaven", because there wasn't an emphasis on that in early Christianity. Jesus said a lot about it, at least according to the Synoptic Gospels, but it appears only rarely elsewhere in the New Testament and even more rarely, I think, in other early Christian texts.

I did not know this. I always assumed it was to disassociate the followers of Jesus from mainstream Judaism, to avoid being seen as a threat to the Romans.

The feature you talk about is more of a common idea in most religions in the classical world, I think - Judaism was the exception rather than the rule, so this development was more like Christianity becoming more like other mystery religions than it was some radical new idea.

Huh? I think you've spent too much time studying Hellenistic philosophy and the sects that it spawned. Ancient paganism was always associated with ethnicity; you can see this both in ancient Mesopotamia and pre-Christian Europe (there's a stele in which a British goddess warns "enemies of her people" that she will take vengeance upon them, but I can't find it.) Heck, even the Greeks and Romans originally had an ethnic mythology before conquering huge swathes of land. The only exceptions to it were usually imperial cults, where the focus was on explaining why the gods favored the ruler and his dynasty, and some Mediterranean cultures through their extensive contact with others; I suppose that these loom larger in history.

 

[JohannaK]

Weird how Islam spread so easily to a vast array of ethnicities other than Arabs, then.

 

[Mouthwash]

Weird how Islam spread so easily to a vast array of ethnicities other than Arabs, then.

I don't recall saying that the Arab ethnicity and Islam were the same thing. Certainly Islam was based on Arab values, but had plenty of attractions for others.

 

[Arakhor]

Depends. Some people believe in unconditional election.

I did consider that but given how little I think of Calvinism, I decided not to mention it.

 

[Tee Kay]

By accepting Jesus Christ as your savior. Jesus dies on the cross so that the rest of humanity doesn't have to. This concept of divine grace is entirely absent in Islam.

Well yeah, it would be, since the concept of the Original Sin is absent in Islam.

Christianity views martyrs as holy, but typically defines them as those that are killed for accepting the Christian religion... Islam defines martyrs as those who die fulfilling a religious commandment.

In both cases you're dead because of your faith in God made you do something that killed you.

Keeping in mind that the Quran commanded Muslims to be peaceful unless they were attacked first, presumably for being Muslim (which they were in the historical context anyway), the two cases are even more similar. The main difference is the Quran explicitly commands Muslims to fight back.

I did consider that but given how little I think of Calvinism, I decided not to mention it.

I know a few friends who've converted to Calvinism. Not sure if it's part of a bigger trend or just a weird case in my specific social circle.

In any case, another reason to say "sweeping generalisation about religion = Bad Thing"

 

[Arakhor]

Indeed. I'm sure you could probably find an exception or three to any sweeping statement.

 

[JohannaK]

sweeping generalisations in general are bad.

Also Calvinism is weird. You tell me that you re predestined to go to heaven or hell and that's like telling me I can do whatever I want because if I'm saved I am already saved and if I'm condemned I'm already condemned. It's just weeeeird.

 

[jackelgull]

I swear my mind is playing tricks on me. Wasn't there a poster named kartoffel posting on here that seemed alot like Domen? I didn't just hallucinate him right?

 

[JohannaK]

There is no kartoffel. There has never been a kartoffel. Big Brother is watching you.

 

[Tee Kay]

Also Calvinism is weird. You tell me that you re predestined to go to heaven or hell and that's like telling me I can do whatever I want because if I'm saved I am already saved and if I'm condemned I'm already condemned. It's just weeeeird.

According to my Calvinist friend, this is a gross mis/oversimplification... but I don't actually remember how he explained why.