Some aspects I love about the Christian religion

[Bulldog]

Just where did I try to justify it, pray tell?

It read like a justification to me.  If I'm wrong, I offer my apology.  What point were you making?

[DavidRoss]

Prior to the at least the anabaptists every Christian community persecuted heretics with deadly force - are Christ's teachings that clear or is it the Enlightenment-tinged glasses with which they are viewed?

Christ's teachings are very clear.  But remember that prior to the Reformation (which preceded and ushered in the Enlightenment), Christ's teachings were inaccessible to an illiterate populace controlled by a State Religion more concerned with secular power than with spiritual enlightenment.

[Florestan]

are Christ's teachings that clear or is it the Enlightenment-tinged glasses with which they are viewed?

For instance:

Matthew 5: 7, 21-22, 37-48
Matthew 7: 1-5, 12, 15-23
Matthew 12: 7
Matthew 18: 15-17, 21-22
Matthew 22: 34-40

Seems to me these are plain clear.

[Florestan]

It read like a justification to me.  If I'm wrong, I offer my apology.  What point were you making?

You are wrong. A crime is a crime, no matter who commits it. My point is this: stake-burning "heretics" is a crime which finds its condemnation in the very Christ's teachings and whoever commits it acts against Christian faith; on the contrary, stoning the adulterers (as Muslim did and some of them still do) is a crime that has full approval of Muhammad and the Quran and whoever comits it fulfills a duty of the faith.

I trust I make myself clear now.

[orbital]

on the contrary, stoning the adulterers (as Muslim did and some of them still do) is a crime that has full approval of Muhammad and the Quran and whoever comits it fulfills a duty of the faith.

As far as I know, there is no mention of stoning to death in the Quran. The punishment is ordained by what is called The Hadiths, which are basically eye witness accounts of Muhammad's contemporaries and are more often than not unreliable sources. The Shaira law allows it of course, but the punishment can not be sourced back either to Quran (for sure) or to Muhammad (to the best of our knowledge.)

[Bulldog]

You are wrong. A crime is a crime, no matter who commits it. My point is this: stake-burning "heretics" is a crime which finds its condemnation in the very Christ's teachings and whoever commits it acts against Christian faith; on the contrary, stoning the adulterers (as Muslim did and some of them still do) is a crime that has full approval of Muhammad and the Quran and whoever comits it fulfills a duty of the faith.

Do you consider this difference based on "condemnation" and "full approval" to have significance?

[Florestan]

Do you consider this difference based on "condemnation" and "full approval" to have significance?

In the context of the topic discussed (differences between Christianity and Islam) it is extremely significant and frankly I'm surprised you don't figure it out.

[Bulldog]

In the context of the topic discussed (differences between Christianity and Islam) it is extremely significant and frankly I'm surprised you don't figure it out.

I have it figured out, but I'm not into your context and still wait for an answer as to significance.

[Florestan]

I have it figured out, but I'm not into your context and still wait for an answer as to significance.

In my context, the significance is this: since not only killing, but also mistreating fellow human beings are strictly condemned and disapproved by Christ's teachings, I fail to see how actual crimes and mistreatments can be labelled as Christian. Actually, this distortion of His message was foreseen by Christ Himself and He admonished its perpetrators in no uncertain terms.

[Bulldog]

In my context, the significance is this: since not only killing, but also mistreating fellow human beings are strictly condemned and disapproved by Christ's teachings, I fail to see how actual crimes and mistreatments can be labelled as Christian. Actually, this distortion of His message was foreseen by Christ Himself and He admonished its perpetrators in no uncertain terms.

Thanks for your answer.  Not having a religious bone in my body, I don't feel that Christians or Muslims commit crimes - people do.  Some of them might use religion as justification for the crimes, but that's just a common excuse by folks prone to violence, hatred and revenge.

[mozartsneighbor]

In my context, the significance is this: since not only killing, but also mistreating fellow human beings are strictly condemned and disapproved by Christ's teachings, I fail to see how actual crimes and mistreatments can be labelled as Christian. Actually, this distortion of His message was foreseen by Christ Himself and He admonished its perpetrators in no uncertain terms.

That's what some communists I have met say about Communism -- it's a very difficult ideal to reach, the so-called Communist regimes that have existed until now in Soviet Union, and their nasty byproducts, were not real Communism. Communism is a beautiful ideology and state of mind that has never actually been attained, etc. It's obviously very convenient...

But the fact is that an ideology (and I consider Christianity and other religions to be that) can't just be evaluated in its theoretical pristine state. You have to look at what happens when human beings put it in practice.

As I said before I, and as others have also put forth, the New Testament contains some ideas that are fairly good and humane, as do other documents before and after it. What, in my mind, is the downfall of Christianity and most other religions, and leads to religious people doing terrible things in the name of Christianity or whatever other religion, is simply the dogmatic and dictatorial nature of organized religion.
Most organized religions put forth dogmas, ideas that are to be accepted without question. Add to that the fact that religious leaders are often invested with great authority approaching infallibility as representatives of God on Earth, and you've got prime conditions for a group of people taught to accept pronouncements without question to follow terrible orders or impulses.
To this must be added the promise of the afterlife: why did the 9/11 hijackers slam their planes and themselves, dying a horrible and premature death, without batting an eyelash? Because they had been convinced by their religious leaders that awaiting them was eternal bliss in an afterlife of wine and young women.
The first part of this equation doesn't occur just in religions to be sure. Blind obedience can also occur in the context of a secular religion or totalitarian utopian regime such as fascism and communism.

But Christianity and religions do have this imbedded feature: you accept certain ideas that are simply not open to rational inquiry or examination, and you don't question the pope or your imam because they are the representatives of a higher power that cannot be challenged or questioned.
Just like in nazism you didn't raise your hand during a Hitler speech and shout "Oh yeah, and why is that?", similarly no Catholic would do the same during a speech by the Pope. Nor would a Communist ever question the central dogma that the proletariat is the worthiest social class and that it will prevail, despite tons of evidence to the contrary.

As for Bulldog's assertion that religions are just used by bad people to commit evil, I have to respectfully disagree. A small percentage of humans are psychopaths and sociopaths. But most of the remainder are capable of committing horrible deeds as well if they have been brainwashed to follow a psychopath's orders and pronouncements without question. And that is where religion and other ideologies that reinforce blind obedience and lack of critical thought play a role in helping to sometimes facilitate terrible acts.

[karlhenning]

That's what some communists I have met say about Communism -- it's a very difficult ideal to reach, the so-called Communist regimes that have existed until now in Soviet Union, and their nasty byproducts, were not real Communism. Communism is a beautiful ideology and state of mind that has never actually been attained, etc. It's obviously very convenient...

But the fact is that an ideology (and I consider Christianity and other religions to be that) can't just be evaluated in its theoretical pristine state. You have to look at what happens when human beings put it in practice.

And, unlike (say) the ideology of Communism, human beings putting Christianity into practice is often a resounding moral success.

BTW, thank you for being another person to demonstrate the hollow sarcasm of the subject header.  David had it right pages ago:

Oboy!  Another thread providing an opportunity for bigots to take cheap shots at Christians!

[Homo Aestheticus]

BTW, thank you for being another person to demonstrate the hollow sarcasm of the subject header.  David had it right pages ago:

Will you and DavidRoss please stop that.

It may have taken a few brief twists and turns in that direction but that was not  MY  intention. I began this thread in order to understand the meaning and interaction of a specific moral attribute.

I've encountered some interesting historical tidbits as well.

[Bulldog]

As for Bulldog's assertion that religions are just used by bad people to commit evil, I have to respectfully disagree.

A little correction is in order.  I did not state that folks prone to violence, hatred and revenge are "bad people".

[mozartsneighbor]

And, unlike (say) the ideology of Communism, human beings putting Christianity into practice is often a resounding moral success.

That is extremely vague... I know many many Christians well, some intimately, and was myself raised Catholic -- all these people putting Christianity or what they feel is Christianity into practice in their lives do not seem to achieve any more "resounding moral successes" than the rest of the population.

However, some religious people I have met, many of whom were Quakers or Buddhist, but also including some Catholics, really put into real practice consistently the best of the ideals of the New Testament or similar ideals (in the case Buddhism), and, yes -- that is something wonderful to behold. But a lot of secular people also put similar ideals of human empathy into action. Those ideals aren't exclusive to Christianity, very similar things were articulated long before by Plato or by Buddha to just cite 2 thinkers.

Communism, which I am not a fan of at all, also had its "moral successes": it pursued an ideal of gender equality and in societies like Russia and Cuba really brought women closer to equality in society; it managed to abolish grave social inequalities in some cases; it brought higher education to a large portion of the population.
In Cuba, for example, the system may have many flaws, but the general population does have access to a healthcare system that ranks at the top worldwide, and the same goes for the educational system. Until more recently you had nothing comparable in any Latin American country. This even my father, who is anti-communist, and was a top official in the North and South America branch of the World Health Organization for almost a decade, admits freely.

But, like religion, Communism also produced a whole of bad stuff as we know. This happened because it is a totalitarian ideology that does not easily admit questioning of its dogmas, not allowing for examination of actions and ideas.

Now, you haven't managed yet to refute the idea that Christianity does have some aspects of this tendency. Again, as I said, some of the ideas in the New Testament are humane and good when put into action. But you can't just take credit for the good stuff and ignore the bad stuff in religion and in Christianity, particularly like Florestan was doing -- saying that Christianity created humanism because it happened in the same societies, but that Christians that do terrible stuff shouldn't be counted as Christians.
It is this lack of willingness to examine the bad side of itself, of questioning itself, that I find produces the less pleasant side of religion.

[Herman]

And, unlike (say) the ideology of Communism, human beings putting Christianity into practice is often a resounding moral success.

BTW, thank you for being another person to demonstrate the hollow sarcasm of the subject header.  David had it right pages ago:

So, Mozartsneighbour writes a fairly long and clearly reasoned post, and you slam him with two one-liners? Is that another way of putting xtianity into practice  -  or is it perhaps your brand of sarcasm?

Haven't you noticed that there are quite a bunch of people on this thread who do try to reason dispassionately. And every time they do but their pov doesn't happen to be yours you come and spout some negative one-liners demonstrating your personal sense of superiority, without ever substantiating it. That's really too bad.

[edited to reinstate the original title, thank you]

[Bu]

But Christianity and religions do have this imbedded feature: you accept certain ideas that are simply not open to rational inquiry or examination, and you don't question the pope or your imam because they are the representatives of a higher power that cannot be challenged or questioned.
Just like in nazism you didn't raise your hand during a Hitler speech and shout "Oh yeah, and why is that?", similarly no Catholic would do the same during a speech by the Pope.

In matters of faith and morals, it's supposed to be that way, but certainly a great number of Catholics question the pope, even if they remain silent while he speaks (good manners, reverence and all that). Outside of dogma and practice, there's more room for disagreement, and usually the pope himself is the one seeking reconciliation when excommunication occurs (eg, the recent re-admittance of the SSPX and their affiliates). You have a point about certain aspects of the faith that aren't open to disagreement, but to argue that you cannot rationally inquire or examine them is a little unfair.

[mozartsneighbor]

A little correction is in order.  I did not state that folks prone to violence, hatred and revenge are "bad people".

Ok, my apologies. That was entirely my somewhat puerile and convenient expression. However, I do find "bad" a convenient handle for people prone to violence, hatred, etc.

[mozartsneighbor]

In matters of faith and morals, it's supposed to be that way, but certainly a great number of Catholics question the pope, even if they remain silent while he speaks (good manners, reverence and all that). Outside of dogma and practice, there's more room for disagreement, and usually the pope himself is the one seeking reconciliation when excommunication occurs (eg, the recent re-admittance of the SSPX and their affiliates). You have a point about certain aspects of the faith that aren't open to disagreement, but to argue that you cannot rationally inquire or examine them is a little unfair.

Yes, of course, it was an overstatement.
But if you do disagree, you can't express your opinion through a vote to elect a new Pope for example. You can leave the church of course, or shut up and put up with it. The fact is that it is not an open or democratic institution or ethos. Most religions have a fairly totalitarian way of functioning.

Of course, there is worse than the Catholic church. Apparently, in Islam once you become a Muslim you cannot choose to abandon your faith under the penalty of death.

[Bu]

Yes, of course, it was an overstatement.
But if you do disagree, you can't express your opinion through a vote to elect a new Pope for example. You can leave the church of course, or shut up and put up with it. The fact is that it is not an open or democratic institution or ethos. Most religions have a fairly totalitarian way of functioning.

Of course, there is worse than the Catholic church. Apparently, in Islam once you become a Muslim you cannot choose to abandon your faith under the penalty of death.

I remember reading that in the first several hundred years of the Church the election of the bishop of Rome was done by the local congregation (as it was among the other episcopates).  Over time, of course, as the number of parishioners grew it became tougher and tougher to pick a new bishop like this. This was, among other reasons, why the voting system was changed. Perhaps a more totalitarian way of functioning has developed in the Church in the subsequent centuries, but I don't know how any pure democratic process could truely function in a religious establishment which consists of a hierarchy and that distinguishes popes/bishops/priests/ from the rest of the laity.