DescentBB

Disclaimer: I'm protestant to the core. SERIOUSLY protestant. That said:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:There are enough differences between what you would generally call "Christians" and "Catholics" to warrant using the qualifier "Catholic" instead of just saying "Christian."

Certainly there are a lot of differences between a Catholic and a protestant. There are also a lot of differences between a Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness and your average evangelical protestant. Most protestants are hesitant to call either group "Christian", since they don't actually hold the same views on the divinity of Christ that most of Christianity (Catholic AND protestant) does.

There are Christian Terrorists from MANY branches of Christianity. In Ireland they commit atrocities on both sides of the Protestant/Catholic line. I don't see any point in making a difference between Catholic Christian Terrorists and Protestant Christian Terrorists in this discussion.

Or, to put it into perspective (and back on topic), We are talking about Islam as a whole. Islam is a splintered and diverse religion. And unless we are going to start clarifying whether we mean sunnis or shiites when we mention Islam, I see no reason to bring in the various branches of Christianity.

Kilarin wrote:I don't see any point in making a difference between Catholic Christian Terrorists and Protestant Christian Terrorists in this discussion.

It's a totally different world-view, and so I think it is absolutely applicable.

The Catholic Church has created and built upon new, extra-Biblical teachings, even to the point where their traditions overshadow even the pretense of Biblical authority. They've even got their own separate scriptures (the Apocrypha). If anything like that were the case with Islam, it would definitely be relevant!

Islam does have similar sects. There are non-Koran writings that may or may not have been written by prophets, kinda similar to those extra Catholic scriptures. These writings arn't as influential as the Holy Koran, but they are still influential to various degrees, depending on if people believe they are inspired of God or not.


Why are some in this thread drawing a line between the word Islam and the word Muslims? They are not separate, they are the same thing. Islam does not mean \"radical Islam\" if that's what you are thinking perhaps.
A Muslim is someone who follows Islam.
A Christian is someone who follows Christianity.

Mohamroid wrote:Islam does have similar sects. There are non-Koran writings that may or may not have been written by prophets, kinda similar to those extra Catholic scriptures. These writings arn't as influential as the Holy Koran, but they are still influential to various degrees, depending on if people believe they are inspired of God or not.

That seems plausible. Although your equating generalization leads me to believe that you have at best a loose grasp of either the differences between Islam and these sects, or Catholicism and Biblical Christianity, or both. Things rarely match up so neatly under scrutiny.

Why does it seem that a common atheistic assumption is that all "religion" is basically the same on closer examination? The theory isn't entirely without merit, IMO--there are similarities between many religions (a fact that itself is not without interesting, diverse connotations)--but it usually seems content to stand in for any real examination, and so important differences are overlooked.

Roid with a question wrote:Why are some in this thread drawing a line between the word Islam and the word Muslims?

Roid with an answer wrote:A Muslim is someone who follows Islam.

Personally, I make a difference because there may be so many different levels of conformity or adherence to Islam by Muslims. I talk about Islam because, to whatever degree of conformity, that is the source.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:They've even got their own separate scriptures (the Apocrypha).

That's not entirely accurate. The Apocrypha was a set of writings that were not accepted into the cannon during the convention of Nicea. They aren't entirely worthless, but a discerning eye needs to be used while reading them.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Roid with a question wrote:Why are some in this thread drawing a line between the word Islam and the word Muslims?

Personally, I make a difference because there may be so many different levels of conformity or adherence to Islam by Muslims. I talk about Islam because, to whatever degree of conformity, that is the source.

I'd say roid has a point.

Thorne, when you say "Islam", you may be referring to the core belief system; to you that excludes Muslims who you don't perceive as 'true followers'.

However, that's not how the word is normally used. You may not mean it, but the commonly-understood meaning of the word "Islam" includes every single person who claims the title of "Muslim".

---

The same applies to the word "Christian".

You've said before that you believe I'm Christian in name only, that I'm not a true follower of Christ's teachings. And you're free to believe that.

However, when others hear you say "Christian", they take it to include me, because that's how I identify myself... even if you don't believe I belong in that group.

---

You have to make the distinction clear if you're going to use the term to exclude people who identify themselves with the group you're referring to.

Some Arabic women are HOT!

Yeah, but MUSLIM women are covered from head to toe so they are probably all ugly.

flip wrote:Yeah, but MUSLIM women are covered from head to toe so they are probably all ugly.

I work with a few adn tehy are not covered head to toe. Not all of them believe in being covered.

Heh…figures, A thread started to be positive turns to Islam bashing, and then to top it off…why not throw in some Catholic bashing just for good measure.

Foil wrote:Thorne, when you say "Islam", you may be referring to the core belief system; to you that excludes Muslims who you don't perceive as 'true followers'.

They are only excluded to the degree that they don't follow the teachings of Mohamed.

The same is true of Christians and the teachings of Jesus and those whom he commissioned (the apostles).

It's not about my "perception" or my opinion. Followers are only followers to the degree that they follow. That's simple enough.

A valid point, concerning the dual definition of Islam. I'm sorry if I misunderstood. Whenever I've used it it has been in reference to the religion itself.

Spidey:
I only bashed the Catholics a little ><

Me wrote:outright evils of the Catholic church

You can shelf that off as personal opinion, but the major differences of the Catholic "Christian" church are undeniable. That's not bashing, that's a plea for accuracy.

Appreciate the details, Duper. Nevertheless the Catholic church makes use of additional "scriptures" that were rejected by Christendom.

That doesn't make them evil. you really should be careful who you say \"has a demon\".

I never said that. I said \"evils of the Catholic church,\" and I wasn't referring to the Apocrypha.

Sunni
Shia
Suffi
Ahmadiyya

They are all part of Islam just as:

Catholic
Protestant
Mormon
Jehovah's Witness

Are all part of Christianity. So get over it and get back to the topic.
As Thumper recalled his mothers admonishment-

\"If you can't say nothin' nice don't say nothin' at all.\"

you forgot Bah'a i' (in regards to Islam)

you forgot Bah'a i' (in regards to Islam)

Not true.
Bah'ai is a blend of religions. Or rather an overview where all other religions form a foundation. Since Allah is not the one true God of Bah'ai it is not Islam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_Faith
It was however founded in Persia in the days when religious diversity was more acceptable to the followers of Islam.

its an off shoot of islam. I dated a girl that was way into it. I know more about it than i care to.

ah, the Mormon / Jehovah's Witness / Christian? thread makes more sense now that i can see it was spawned by this thread.


Yes - it's dangerous ground to define who is and isn't part of a religion.
Typically competing sects will claim other sects are NOT true. Radicals of any religion will be more prone to this kindof exclusionary language.

for example, JWs are very adament that only THEY are the true followers of God and Christ. They even go so far as to claim they themselves are NOT Christians - THAT's how much they want to distance themselves from the rest of Christianity. (They consider themselves Christians in the sense of the word - but they don't think that includes any other Christian sects, so they just use different language. Confusing i know, most cults are)

Likewise, i've heard Extremist Militant Muslims rationalise the collateral deaths of other Muslims, by saying that they arn't true Muslims. Obviously those Muslims would disagree, and don't want to be blown up. So you must be careful in your definitions.

You don't want to be stuck in a No-True-Scotsman stalemate.
You must remember that every group can accuse every other group of being not-a-true-Scotsman. Even groups who accuse others of not being true, are themselves accused by other groups of not being true.

Duper it sounds like you know more than I on that one so I'll give you the point.

We are still way off topic. Spidey was promising some kind of wrap up, bon mot or something. I'm waiting with bated breath.

My reason for this post is 3 fold:

1. What Kilarin said.
2. For Roid to put up or shut up.
3. An ulterior motive I will disclose when it runs its course.

lol Ford. You're actually correct. The modern thrust of that religion is just that. It's the ultimate in a theologic/idealogical melting pot. They identify 12 of the major religious figures of history and call them all prophets of God just for different cultures and times. Which is kinda silly as some of those religions don't believe in God (as the western world knows God at least). The founder grew up in Islam and as a result, there are a number of parallels. Kinda like Mormonism and Catholicism have a number of similarities in rituals and practices.
albeit, the end result to Baha'i' is not quite the same.


just a note. this is really watered down.