pinkozcat
Full Member
Remember - pillage first, THEN burn.
Posts: 233
|
Post by pinkozcat on Mar 20, 2005 20:46:46 GMT -5
Good grief!!! Back to the good old days of the crusades when the infidel were spared if they converted.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tenarke on Mar 22, 2005 23:38:47 GMT -5
Then, of course in Spain, there were the “conversos”. These were the Sephardic Jews, natives of Spain, who “converted” rather than be burned by the inquisition – for their own salvation of course.
Though converts, they continued to keep kosher dietary customs, kept their own Sabbath sundown Friday to sundown Saturday and to study Torah in private.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wyndham on Mar 23, 2005 9:30:54 GMT -5
I think the ones that got burned were judiazers -- lapsed conversos. A jew who stood fast was exiled, not burned as a heritic. In any case, forced conversion doesn't work. Some of you might be familiar with recent revelations about Mexican judaism, not taken entirely seriously by everyone. The skinny: it appears that alot of conversos moved to Mexico, because the inquisition was never very firmly established there. About 10% of the European population, including some of Cortez's men, are thought to have been converted Jews. St. Theresa of Avila, oddly enough, was from a Jewish background: all nine of her brothers ended up in Mexico (useless fact for the day). Since religious toleration was established in Mexico, a considerable number of people have come out of the closet, claiming to be jews. Many are Mestizo. Appears that they always knew one another by special names, tried to intermarry, read only those parts of the bible of which they approved, and kept passover by eating tortillas. Their claim to be Jewish, however, was shot down by the courts in Israel. These figured that they were really a bunch of indians who wanted to benefit from the law of return! In any case, here's a link with some info: www.jewishlibraries.org/ajlweb/publications/proceedings/proceedings2001/white.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by Wyndham on Mar 24, 2005 10:21:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by RobertGraves on Mar 24, 2005 16:25:45 GMT -5
What's particularly interesting W is that Saudi Arabia — the global fountain of religious bigotry — bans churches, public Christian worship, the Bible and the sale of Christmas cards, and stops non-Muslims from entering Mecca. Christians are regularly imprisoned and tortured on trumped-up charges of drinking, blaspheming or Bible-bashing, as some British citizens have found. Just last month, furthermore, Saudi Arabia announced that only Muslims can become citizens.
The support of the USA for non-democratic regimes, when it suits, is quite staggering.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wyndham on Mar 24, 2005 20:12:14 GMT -5
Three words: I agree entirely.
|
|
|
|
Post by RobertGraves on Mar 24, 2005 21:05:24 GMT -5
I have discovered that in the past decade, more than 1,000 Americans have claimed refugee status in Canada. Only four have succeeded.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wyndham on Mar 24, 2005 23:19:19 GMT -5
Ah Robert. Make me proud!  |
|
|
|
Post by RobertGraves on Mar 27, 2005 15:02:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Tenarke on Mar 28, 2005 18:46:36 GMT -5
There is something fundamentally flawed about that as an hypothesis; that unless one knows the absolute “capital T” truth one knows nothing.
Reality, it seems to me, is full of distributed middles; many “grey areas”. If we are to live with the world as it is, rather than as we would choose it to be, one must be able to accept and even enjoy a certain degree of uncertainty.
I was tempted to make an exception as regards to mathematics; but the discussion of what constitutes its reality tends itself to have no resolution.
Even physics eventually produced a Heisenberg.
Surely a dogmatic attitude of “my way, or the highway” is symptomatic of neurosis.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wyndham on Mar 28, 2005 22:58:09 GMT -5
I think your article is mainly true Robert. I can remember reading once that one famous Christian philosopher (Kant?) held it as essential that the religious harbour doubt. If you KNOW, then where is the faith? Faith is not the suppression, but superceding doubt. The doubt still remains; you believe as a matter of choice, regardless. Otherwise there's no merit in the thing. Like saying you're 'loyal' when no sacrifice is involved. My Dad, for example, is a lifelong Red Wings fan. Loyal through thick and thin, especially when they're losing (as they do most of the time). His favorite golfer was Fuzzy Zoller. Enoug said, but what's the merit in being 'loyal' to a perpetual winner? Loyalty only counts when it costs. Amazing to me how often the most honestly committed religious people quickly come to "I don't know . . . but I believe . . . I want to believe . . . I need to believe'. Cripes. Puts me in mind of the most honest conversion statements I ever saw. T.S. Eliot's Ash Wednesday ( www.love-poems.me.uk/eliot_sweeney_ash_wednesday.htmAmazing to me how often the truly religious, to my mind, entitle the first chapter of their life's story 'grace abounding to the chief of sinners'. Only thing I'd quibble about with the article is this: I don't think other faiths need lessons from the West (i.e. Christianity) about intolerance. Fundamentalism, properly understood, is the belief that the Bible is the literal truth, every word, no interpretation required. Islam needs no tutoring in that particular heresy (or for that matter, in intolerance). |
|
|
|
Post by RobertGraves on Mar 29, 2005 14:16:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Tenarke on Mar 30, 2005 18:36:33 GMT -5
As I was saying, Wyndham, “grey areas”.
Though I must confess; Eliot said it much better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wyndham on Apr 8, 2005 12:56:55 GMT -5
Had a very interesting morning. Went to see a public lecture by Stanley Hauerwas of Duke University, reputedly the greatest theologian currently working in the US. His topic was 'the Death of Protestantism'.
He said ALOT (the talk was four hours long). Of interest to Americans he said straight out: the Conservative, fundamentalist Christianity currently so powerful in the US is "pathetic", Christianity unworthy of the name; only solution is to take the Bible away from people for a generation and make them listen to authorised interpretation. Reading text is NOT understanding scripture. Homosexuality in the Church isn't an issue. Sexual immorality is. People are so vocal on the issue of homosexuality because they believe that, by being so, they will keep sexual pandemonium at bay. Bad news. Its here (and that's why they're vocal about homosexuals). Anybody who can't tell you why they should be celebate before marriage, faithful in marriage, and shy away from Divorce hasn't the authority to comment on anything. Oh so much more. Didn't spare too many feelings. Bishop Spong of Newark (Anglican) is an 'arrogant asshole' of the Kind that only the Anglican Church produces. The Methodist (he's United Methodist), and Baptist Churches, on the other hand, are so anti-intellectual and smug that its the duty of every believer regardless of denomination, when they hear the nonsense they often spout to say loudly, 'that's nonsense. You, Sir, betray the Gospel'. Principal problems with the mainline churches include (but are not restricted to): a position on most issues so wishy washy that its worthless; accomodation of enlightenment principles fundamentally inconsistent with revealed religion. Oh so much more. Seemed to suggest that a Christian who wasn't socially suspect for reason of his/her vocation was a waste of time. Religion that doesn't cost is just 'feel good'.
Very interesting. Any thougths? Anybody familiar?
|
|
|
|
Post by RobertGraves on Apr 8, 2005 17:04:01 GMT -5
|
|
