|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Apr 12, 2012 8:59:12 GMT
Obviously, I'm unlikely to wholly agree with Vocoprotatiano, even if I am not among those who wish to send him to the stake. (Incidentally, the only people likely to end up at the stake were those who claimed to be Catholic to the end - and even then the inquisitors made big mistakes as the case of Jeanne d'Arc demonstrates).
However, my experience is that there is as wide a gap between ordinary Moslem and the Qu'ran as there is between many self-proclaimed Christians and the scripture. But I would suggest if we are to parse and analyse common ground between Islam and Christianity (and there are many good reasons why we should do so), I would begin by looking at Oriental Orthodoxy - Copts, Armenians, Jacobites and Malankarese on one hand and Assyrians on the other - and sects of Islam such as the Alavi/Alouwite or the Druze first.
Long before reading Vocoprotatiano I have heard the argument that Islam is a Christian heresy.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 12, 2012 22:05:22 GMT
That remark about the inquisition sounds odd. I would have thought that declaring yourself an unrepentant heretic, or openly proclaiming one's conversion to Judaism, Islam or Catharism, would be a pretty certain ticket to the stake. I presume Alaisdir means to contrast those who maintained that their heterodoxy was within the acceptable limits of Catholic teaching and thus refused to recant, with those who acknowledged themselves in error and pleaded for forgiveness. The view that Islam was a Christian heresy goes back to the beginning - St John Damascene in the late seventh and early eighth centuries (i.e. within a century of Mohammed's death) treated it as a Christian heresy. Christopher Hill the MArxist scholar in one of his books discusses a seventeenth-century English radical Protestant who came to believe that in fact Islam was the true and original Christianity preserved from the errors and corruptions of the Greeks and Latins, and there has always been a strain of Protestant scholarship which finds Islam more congenial than Catholicism/Orthodoxy for this very reason. Chesterton argued that Calvinism has certain affinities to Islam in that it sees God as all-determining and entirely inscrutable, and I think he had a point.
William Dalrymple's travel book TO THE HOLY MOUNTAIN, about the embattled Eastern Christian communities of the Levant, which I may have mentioned elsewhere on this board, has a good deal of comment about the extent to which certain Islamic devotional practices were copied from Eastern Christianity and how the affinity between Islam and Christianity is more easily grasped when studying the Eastern Churches. I think Philip Jenkins has some comments on how the early history of the Eastern Churches shows elements which were elided from Western Christianity but which are shared with Islam (and which, in some instances, are being picked up by the new African Churches growing in a society with certain affinities to that in which the early Christians lived).
|
|
|
Post by vocoprotatiano on Apr 20, 2012 22:49:50 GMT
So my arguments from basic principles do not ring false, but echo earlier teachings. Let us then be more open in recognising Islam as kinship. Closer kinship by far than Judaism which rejects Christ by its self-definition. Let us recognise our true kin, and be wary of our foes. No! I am NOT calling for a holocaust. Hitler got it WRONG. He believed the ZIONIST lie that the JEWs are a a RACE. The JEWs are no more a race than were the NAZIs. The fault also is not with the JEWs, but rather with the ZIONists. This is a dangerous subject, but it must be faced. The 'Chosen People' is as much a myth as the 'Arian Master Race'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2012 0:38:57 GMT
I just want to put this in writing as a member of this board vocoprotationo, that I have nothing but affection for my Jewish brethren and I don't think I'm alone in that here. We (Catholics) are simply fulfilled Jews.
This thread is about Christian persecution in Islamic territories by the way.
I'm not certain where you're going with your line of thought but I sincerely hope it isn't what I think it is. The Jewish people are not our (Christian) enemies. Spiritually, we are all semites - Pope Pius XI. They are the Chosen People. As for the mention of Nazis, master race and whatnot, let's not even go there. Please.
|
|
|
Post by vocoprotatiano on Apr 21, 2012 19:55:08 GMT
I have no problem with your Jewish bretheren, as long as we both understand the words we are using. There is a problem here, for depending on which context, the word Jew can have many meanings, because the same word, translated from the Latin, had different meanings in the Old Testament, and the New Testament, and after the benighted council of 300AD. In the Old Testament, the word meant Judahite, or member of, or descendant from the clan of Judah. In the New Testament, it meant no more than a citizen of the Roman puppet state of Judea. In these two cases above, this was not explicitly a definition of religious belief. However, it was implicit that they followed the LAW as defined in the TORAH. In the benighted council of 300AD, Judahism was defined as a rejection of the Messiahship of Our Lord, thus Jews are defined as NON Christians by that benighted council.
Nevertheless, Our Lord granted to ALL that they might disbelieve or deny his Special Spiritual Person, so long as they did not attribute it to the Evil One. .....You can blaspheme against the Father, and be forgiven; you can blaspheme against the Son, and be forgiven; but if you blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, there will be no forgiveness, neither now, nor in the kingdom to come.
Now if by Jew, you mean a member of the religious assembly of believers is IHVH, who trust in the Law of Moses, then that is fine. I think they are following a mistaken path, but that is their choice, and ALL roads lead to ROME. If on the other hand, you are talking of a secular Jew, I have to ask; What is a secular Jew? What is a Catholic Atheist? The Jews are not a People any more than the Christians, Budhists, Taoists, Muslims, Hindus, or Shamanists. The idea of a Jewish race is a Zionist lie. It is every bit as toxic as the lie of the Arian Super Race.
Yes, this thread is about Christians suffering in Muslim states. But you must ask what these Christians are doing? More times than not, you will find that they are "Christian" Zionists, and are deliberately proselytizing Muslims. Where that is not the case, they are tarred with the same brush by Muslims who have been so abused.
If you want to see real abuse, look at the non Jewish Hebrews in Palestine. Yes: the Arabs are HEBREWS. It is the SAME WORD. Just using a different 'Alphabet', and a slightly different pronunciation.
Yes, the Arabs started it, but that was really the fault of Perfidious Albion. The Arabs were promised Palestine for their assistance in WW1, destroying the Ottoman Empire. They were betrayed by the Zionist Pig Lord Balfour.
Yes, the people of the Jewish faith, and many of their relatives suffered dreadfully in pogroms, and in the holocaust. The cry of 'Never Again' is understandable, but of all people, they should know better. The City of Peace has become a city of war. ZION is a dreadful poison.
Muslims will blame 'Christians' who support this dreadful lie, and rightly so.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 21, 2012 20:48:50 GMT
This is a warning shot, Vocoprotiano. You're treading in dangerous territory - I have seen arguments like yours made by anti-semites, and posters have been kicked off this board for anti-semitism. Just a reminder.only What do you mean when you say "Jew" in the New Testament meant only "a citizen of the Roman puppet state of Judea"? Leaving aside the minor detail that after the division of the kingdom of Herod the Great, Judea did not exist as a single entity, there were clearly Jews who lived outside Judea and non-Jews living in Judea. St Paul had full Roman citizenship and he was a Jew; the Samaritans were not regarded as Jews even if they lived in Judea. The statement that "the idea of a Jewish race is a Zionist lie" similarly leaves out the following points: (a) Religious Jews define Jewish identity by descent as well as by belief. (b) There have been and are non-Zionist Jews who are not believers in Judaism but define themselves as Jews; I have met a Catholic convert from Judaism who still spoke of himself as a Jew, and I know of anti-Zionist Jews (secular and religious) who call themselves Jews. Are you suggesting they are engaging in a "Zionist lie" when they say this? (c) The majority of Christians in Muslim countries are anti-Zionist. (There are exceptions such as the Maronites in Lebanon who have engaged in tactical alliances with Israel in the past, and the "Zionist Christians" you mention who are mostly recent converts to Protestantism.) Are you really saying that the Iraqi Christians, many of whom supported Saddam Hussein because they saw him as preferable to an Islamic regime, were Zionists and targeted as such? Are you saying the disadvantages suffered by the Egyptian Copts were due to alleged Zionism? Were the disadvantages experienced by Christians under Islamic rule in past centuries solely due to Zionism? I am well aware that some Israelis such as Shlomo Sand have argued that claims for Jewish/Israeli identity based on descent are harmful and unhelpful. I know the arguments they use. You are using some of them but you are also using others (such as the view that Islam is closer to Christianity than Judaism) which are quite irrelevant to this claim. I am not giving you a formal warning at this stage, but I am keeping my eye on you.
|
|
|
Post by vocoprotatiano on Apr 21, 2012 23:24:17 GMT
<<This is a warning shot, Vocoprotiano. You're treading in dangerous territory - I have seen arguments like yours made by anti-semites, and posters have been kicked off this board for anti-semitism. Just a reminder.only >> Thankyou for your considered response. I know this is dangerous territory, but I consider that just because dreadful things have happenned in the past, and that Heart Chillingly Incomprehensibly dreadful things have happenned in living memory, the subject should not be treated as taboo. We need to earn from the past, else the errors will be repeated. <<What do you mean when you say "Jew" in the New Testament meant only "a citizen of the Roman puppet state of Judea"? Leaving aside the minor detail that after the division of the kingdom of Herod the Great, Judea did not exist as a single entity, there were clearly Jews who lived outside Judea and non-Jews living in Judea. St Paul had full Roman citizenship and he was a Jew;>> In translating the Latin Diatessaron, I struggled with many words. In my struggles, I was forced to dig deep into the meanings of the Latin words, and not to accept at face value, the common interpretations, which are in any case 500 years out of date. 'Iudaeus' is commonly translated as 'Jew', indeed, the word 'Jew' is obviously derived from 'Iudaeus'. However, in the same context, and in the same sentence sometimes, we find 'Galileus', obviously, 'Gallilean', so, clearly, the word, in this context should be read as Judean, not 'Jew', for in the imaginary context, Gallileans are also 'Jews', and the contrast in the context make no sense. This usage is found without exception in the Gospel. Perhaps I overstepped in applying the usage to the whole N.T., but the authorities I consulted made this generalization. Maybe Paul's family came from Judea. Maybe he was trying to express kinship with the people of Jerusalem, so that he could attend the Temple. I can only guess. I could very well be wrong. <<the Samaritans were not regarded as Jews even if they lived in Judea.>> Though Samaria was a part of the Roman puppet state, it was still recognised as a specific district, much as Scotland and Wales are regarded as specific districts, even distinct countries in the United Kingdom. The returnees from the Babylonian exile had a deep disrespect for the Samaritans, whom they condemned as foreigners. Actually, the truth be told, The Samaritans were natives, while the returnees were for the most part foreigners. History needed to be edited. The Lie started well before the modern Zionists. The lie started as a tool to unite the redundant slaves which Babylon no longer wanted on her doorstep. The sagas of Gilgamesh were cleaned up and stitched together into an imaginary history, and folk tales remembered by the ex-slaves were woven into the account. Myths are not necessarily lies, they can contain a germ of truth. The lie is that this was handed down from Abraham and Moses. <<(a) Religious Jews define Jewish identity by descent as well as by belief.>> Unfortunately, Jews believe the lie. This is very much like the myth of Panceltia, the mythical super-nation, which spread from Eastern Turkey as far as Spain in the South, and as far North as Orkney. Indeed there is a Celtic cultural connection, but there are no blood-ties, and the super-nation never existed. <<(b) There have been and are non-Zionist Jews who are not believers in Judaism but define themselves as Jews; I have met a Catholic convert from Judaism who still spoke of himself as a Jew, and I know of anti-Zionist Jews (secular and religious) who call themselves Jews. Are you suggesting they are engaging in a "Zionist lie" when they say this?>> The Zionist lie is convincing, and the people want to believe, just like the myth of Panceltia. They are not willfully lying. They believe the lie. There is also a germ of truth in the lie: as outcasts in their foreign abode, they, in their isolation, were forced into interbreeding, verging on incest. In this sense, a sub-specie would develop if pushed to the extreme. This has nearly happenned with the Samaritans. Efforts are now being put in place to reverse the dreadful genetic damage which has been done. It is probably already too late. <<(c) The majority of Christians in Muslim countries are anti-Zionist. (There are exceptions such as the Maronites in Lebanon who have engaged in tactical alliances with Israel in the past, and the "Zionist Christians" you mention who are mostly recent converts to Protestantism.) Are you really saying that the Iraqi Christians, many of whom supported Saddam Hussein because they saw him as preferable to an Islamic regime, were Zionists and targeted as such? Are you saying the disadvantages suffered by the Egyptian Copts were due to alleged Zionism?>> No, I am saying they were tarred with the same brush. We are inclined to tar all Muslims with the same brush too. Not all Muslims are like Ossama Bin Laden. The American inspired Zionist 'Christians' have done much damage here. <<Were the disadvantages experienced by Christians under Islamic rule in past centuries solely due to Zionism?>> No, Christians have been 'tolerated under license' in Muslim countries, much like Jews in Christian countries. <<I am well aware that some Israelis such as Shlomo Sand have argued that claims for Jewish/Israeli identity based on descent are harmful and unhelpful. I know the arguments they use. You are using some of them but you are also using others (such as the view that Islam is closer to Christianity than Judaism) which are quite irrelevant to this claim.>> My claim here is based on the truth, that if we cling to the fruitless association with Israel and its Zionist government, the festering sores between Christianity and Islam will persist. It may be that the Children of Israel are our cultural forefathers, but the Muslims are our cousins, if not our brothers. Our forefathers belong to the past: we must now live with our cousins and brothers.
|
|
|
Post by vocoprotatiano on Apr 21, 2012 23:26:20 GMT
ps The Crusades were a kind of proto Zionist adventure.
|
|
|
Post by vocoprotatiano on Apr 23, 2012 10:26:16 GMT
I have said before, and plainly. I have no problem with the followers of the religion of Judaism. I believe their rejection of the New Testament, and their clinging to the Old Testament, is by their own action, a clinging to the past. That is their doing, not mine. Nevertheless, that is their free choice, and I do not deny it to them. What I do condemn is the ZIONIST scum who have fed political lies to the right-wing American protestants, and the gullible Jews, that they are a CHOSEN PEOPLE. If you read the Gospel, you will see plainly that Our Lord told the Judeans, that by rejecting his teachings, they were rejecting their birthright, which then passed like the birthright of Esau to Jacob, to those who accepted his teachings. They were told plainly that they did not have to accept him as Messiah, or anything special, just to accept his teachings of the Good News.
Those who rejected the teaching became like Esau. Those who accepted the Good News became like Jacob. I have been in error, quoting the benighted council of Jews to be of the date AD300, it was in fact about AD90 and was the Council of Javna. Consult <http://www.fisheaters.com/septuagint.html>, which is a Catholic site, and see this excerpt in context: <<Moving the story along: in other words, the Protestant "Reformers" decided against the canon held dear by the Apostles in favor of a canon determined by Pharisees some 40 years after Jesus rose from the dead -- the same Pharisees who denied the Truths of the entire New Testament, even accusing the "Nazarenes" of stealing Jesus' body from the tomb and lying to the world! (Interestingly, it was Zakkai's successor, Gamaliel, who forced the "Nazarenes" out of the synagogues. Gamaliel also made it obligatory for Jews to pray the "Prayer of Eighteen Petitions," the 12th petition, which is still prayed today, known as the birkat, being "For apostates may there be no hope, and may the Nazarenes and heretics suddenly perish.")>>
Please refrain also from using the ZIONIST accusation of antiSEMITISM. The Semites include the Hebrews, Arabs, and according to some, also the Celts, as Galilee is reputed to be from the same root as Galatia. It is a ZIONIST LIE that Hebrew and JEW are the same. Hebrew is a Semitic race, the descendants of Heber, or Eber. There are Christian Hebrews, and Muslim Hebrews, as well as a remnant of Jewish Hebrews. Actually, the Jewish Hebrews are the minority!
Actually, you should have more faith in our New Testament. The Mission of Our Lord was a brilliant success, and the majority of the Hebrews accepted the teaching. It was the scattered rump which gathered at Javna. Yes, the Christians are a minority now, but that is only because many, nay most of the Christians turned to the Muslim Heresy. Now they speak the dialect of Hebrew called Arabic, and call themselves Arabs. It is the same word and name, just a different dialect.
Still I do not condemn the followers of Judaism. I pity them. It is their free choice, and their loss.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 23, 2012 11:53:19 GMT
I think Vocoprotiano has crossed the line which divides reasoned debate from anti-semitism. I know quite well that "semite" covers other groups besides Jews/Hebrews, but it is quite clear in this context what the term means. (It was not BTW invented by "Zionists" but by a Jew-hater.) Ok Vocoprotiano, let's see how you explain away the Epistle to the Hebrews, which clearly states God retains a special concern for the unconverted Jews and the Covenant still applies to them. (The question of PAuline authorship is a red herring - it's still part of the NEw Testament canon even if St PAul didn't write it.) We have here not just a Monophysite but a MArcionite, or as near as makes no difference. Isn't it interesting that difficulty with the principle of incarnation and dislike to the JEws seem to go together?
|
|
|
Post by vocoprotatiano on Apr 23, 2012 21:53:59 GMT
This requires a careful response. That needs time. However there are accusations here which I must reject immediately. 1/ Antisemitism is a racial crime. I abhor racism in any shape or form. 2/ Jews and Hebrews form an overlapping set: that is, there are some Jews who are Hebrews, and some Hebrews who are Jews. There are also some of each who are not. The Identity of Hebrew and Jew is a ZIONIST LIE. 3/ The Jew hater who equated Semite with Jew obviously believed this LIE. 4/ I rank the scripture in three main orders: Primary: the Gospel(s). Secondary: The rest of the New Testament. Tertiary: The Old Testament. Where there is conflict, I take the authority in the order above. 5/ I do not dislike Jews per se. There is a problem with their culture and it is this: Their culture is founded upon the LAW of Moses. In order to live with this LAW, they have developed a science of circumventing this LAW. That is, they sail as close to the wind as is possible without being taken aback. This has two facets 1/ They have a natural skill in Law, and are found in numbers out of all proportion with population, in politics, and legal services. 2/ They gain the reputation for hypocracy.
As for the Epistle to the Hebrews: that will require some study, and I wil reply from the harmonized Gospel in due course.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2012 0:22:54 GMT
Ok to get back to the land of the living and revive this thread... Do you remember the Pakistani girl with Down's Syndrome Rimsha Masih who was dragged from her house recently for allegedly burning the Koran? Well members of the local mosque reported her accuser for framing the child by adding pages from the Koran to the fire in order to incite a mob and force more Christians to flee. He has now been arrested. www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2012/0903/1224323531758.htmlThank God for all the press attention, I think her family is still in hiding though.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 5, 2012 20:32:13 GMT
This is one of the many, many problems with Islamic blasphemy laws - especially the version found in Pakistan (partly inherited from the British Raj, except that the British version made it an offence to insult any religion, whereas the current Pakistani one is Islamospecific). It is very easily abused, especially since Islamic law attaches greater weight by definition to the word of a believer than an infidel. (This is what happened to Assia Bibi, who is still in jail and probably facing worse - she denies she said what she is accused of saying. I might add that it is even harsher than classical Islamic law, which stated that unbelievers who were formally tolerated as such - as second-class citizens of course - could not be punished for blasphemy for stating that which is the basis of their unbelief.) It is, it must be said, a relief that honest Muslims were prepared to denounce this frame-up, but I suspect that the atrocity is not over yet, and that others will be found to declare her guilty nonetheless.
|
|