burning 4 revenge Posted March 11, 2007 Posted March 11, 2007 It's occured to me that an imperfect and yet possibly useful analogy in imagining the context of the historical Jesus may be to look at Iraq. Many of us know that Islam is based on Judaism and retains many of the cultural aspects of ancient Judaism as many of them are based on Mosaic Law. These include manner of dress, dietary laws, purification rituals and so forth. Furthermore the Jews were related to the Arabs as all were Semitic peoples. Our modern Jews have only a small percentage of their traceable lineage that goes back to the middle east. Jews in Jesus day looked like Arabs. So would it be surprising to find a group of Apocalyptic Muslims living in a place like war-torn Iraq right now? And would it be surprising that there would be cults formed around certain individuals? Think Muqtada Al-Sadr. I know he preaches violence and Jesus did not, but like I said the analogy is imperfect. I'm thinking more of context. There are non-violent Shi'ia as well. I think that that's the best idea of what it may have been like in First Century Judea that we can imagine. I think that when we look at place like Iraq and imagine the United States as a Rome of sorts and look at all the individual factions who both hate the West, but also hate each other we can kind of get a blury glimpse of what it may have been like. So what do you think?
Storyrider Posted March 11, 2007 Posted March 11, 2007 I think you're smarter than me. I also think you're about to get a reply with a long, long list of bible quotes in it.
alphamale Posted March 11, 2007 Posted March 11, 2007 Your theory doesn't hold water cause the entire human race is violent. Every group has done violent things irrespective of their religion or ethnicity. You can't really say that any one group is more violent than the other. Many could make a good case that says that in the last 2,000 years the Christians have caused the most violence out of any other group, after all, they've had 700 more years to do it in than the Islamisicts.
Author burning 4 revenge Posted March 11, 2007 Author Posted March 11, 2007 Your theory doesn't hold water cause the entire human race is violent. Every group has done violent things irrespective of their religion or ethnicity. You can't really say that any one group is more violent than the other. Many could make a good case that says that in the last 2,000 years the Christians have caused the most violence out of any other group, after all, they've had 700 more years to do it in than the Islamisicts.You missed my point. Thi isn't a value judgement of Christianity against Islam. I really could care less if one is better than the other. I'm talking about drawing an analogy to something contemporary to imagine an invisible and lost historical context.
Author burning 4 revenge Posted March 11, 2007 Author Posted March 11, 2007 I think you're smarter than me. No not at all, but thanks for the compliment. You could run circles around me in English Lit, trust me.
alphamale Posted March 11, 2007 Posted March 11, 2007 I'm talking about drawing an analogy to something contemporary to imagine an invisible and lost historical context. oh yea, you mean the whole "clash of cultures" bull****? I don't buy it. It has more to do with politics and money and resources and land.
Storyrider Posted March 11, 2007 Posted March 11, 2007 oh yea, you mean the whole "clash of cultures" bull****? I don't buy it. It has more to do with politics and money and resources and land. He's trying to use a modern situation to help imagine and visualize an ancient one. I don't think (??) he was even making a specific argument.
Storyrider Posted March 11, 2007 Posted March 11, 2007 As Spock said to Kirk: Fascinating. Don't try to bring the prime directive into this. You'll only confuse matters further.
alphamale Posted March 11, 2007 Posted March 11, 2007 He's trying to use a modern situation to help imagine and visualize an ancient one. I don't think (??) he was even making a specific argument. ok, maybe i'm misunderstanding. Don't try to bring the prime directive into this I am Locutus of Borg, resistance is futile
magichands Posted March 11, 2007 Posted March 11, 2007 We just can't allow Iran to develop the warp drive.
alphamale Posted March 11, 2007 Posted March 11, 2007 We just can't allow Iran to develop the warp drive. Star Trek must have left out the fact that Zefram Cochrane's birth name was Mohammed Al-Mujiber
Storyrider Posted March 11, 2007 Posted March 11, 2007 I don't know enough about history or modern world affairs to comment much. I would just say that in terms of desperation for some kind of leadership in the midst of turmoil, I can see the analogy. One difference though, is that the Jews in his time rejected Jesus because they wanted and expected a military and political leader but he insisted on being a spiritual one. They wanted another Judah Maccabee and were disappointed.
magichands Posted March 11, 2007 Posted March 11, 2007 I don't know enough about history or modern world affairs to comment much. You have four posts on this thread, already. I'm just saying. I would just say that in terms of desperation for some kind of leadership in the midst of turmoil, I can see the analogy.Is this a bit different from the type of desperation that is spawned from poverty? One difference though, is that the Jews in his time rejected Jesus because they wanted and expected a military and political leader but he insisted on being a spiritual one. They wanted another Judah Maccabee and were disappointed.Maybe he kicked spiritual arse?
Storyrider Posted March 11, 2007 Posted March 11, 2007 You have four posts on this thread, already. I'm just saying. That is because I'm stalking b4r No, I have plenty of inane comments but few helpful ones. Maybe he kicked spiritual arse? That was the outcome, but they didn't know it at the time. BTW, I don't think militant Islam separates spiritual from military ass kicking. They go together.
magichands Posted March 11, 2007 Posted March 11, 2007 That is because I'm stalking b4r I've heard reports that a night with him is truly a spiritual awakening. And quite messy. BTW, I don't think militant Islam separates spiritual from military ass kicking. They go together.But they have such weird ideas about "striking back." I guess they go together, in the sense that the spiritual is used as the motivation for the military. Which is pretty warped, when you think about it.
magichands Posted March 11, 2007 Posted March 11, 2007 , I have plenty of inane comments but few helpful ones. At least I can sleep at night, knowing that all my posts are of the highest quality.
alphamale Posted March 11, 2007 Posted March 11, 2007 BTW, I don't think militant Islam separates spiritual from military ass kicking. They go together. well i guess they are 700 yrs behind everyone else... But they have such weird ideas about "striking back." I guess they go together, in the sense that the spiritual is used as the motivation for the military. Which is pretty warped, when you think about it. I think if you looked at Christianity 700 yrs ago you'd probably see the same thing. Catholicism, before the protestant reform, basically was the same thing (no seperation of church and state)
Author burning 4 revenge Posted March 11, 2007 Author Posted March 11, 2007 One difference though, is that the Jews in his time rejected Jesus because they wanted and expected a military and political leader but he insisted on being a spiritual one. They wanted another Judah Maccabee and were disappointed.Yes and if a Muslim leader in Iraq were to talk of a spiritual kingdom instead of a military one do you think most of the Muslims there would be receptive to his theology? Of course not. And they weren't then either. And what if one broke from tradition and called himself the Son fo Allah? What if he modeld himself after Christianity and gave himself such a title completely breaking from Islamic tradition like Jesus may have if he had used the Greek idea of a Son of God? Would they not want to kill him? Just making comparisons.
alphamale Posted March 11, 2007 Posted March 11, 2007 And what if one broke from tradition and called himself the Son fo Allah? What if he modeld himself after Christianity and gave himself such a title completely breaking from Islamic tradition like Jesus may have if he had used the Greek idea of a Son of God? Would they not want to kill him? well from my understanding that is the main schism between Shiia and Sunnis. The Shiia feel that they are descendants of the prophet Mohammad whereas the Sunni feel there are no descendants. The Shiia are akin to Catholics and the Sunnis are akin to Protestants. Thats their main problem.
Author burning 4 revenge Posted March 11, 2007 Author Posted March 11, 2007 well from my understanding that is the main schism between Shiia and Sunnis. The Shiia feel that they are descendants of the prophet Mohammad whereas the Sunni feel there are no descendants. The Shiia are akin to Catholics and the Sunnis are akin to Protestants. Thats their main problem.Yes, that's a good comparison. And I guess my main point (if I even have one) is that the origins of Christianity probably looked an awful lot like parts of the Islamic world today. And nothing like the Christian world.
alphamale Posted March 11, 2007 Posted March 11, 2007 And I guess my main point (if I even have one) is that the origins of Christianity probably looked an awful lot like parts of the Islamic world today. And nothing like the Christian world. well, 700 yrs can make a lot of difference. Religions are just like people and corporations and building...they have a distinct life cycle.
Author burning 4 revenge Posted March 11, 2007 Author Posted March 11, 2007 well, 700 yrs can make a lot of difference Yeah, I should have clarified. Most of our Christian imagery is drawn from late Medieval and Rennaissance art and from Italy especially. And it's completely taken out of the original middle eastern context which I think hasn't really changed that much in a lot of ways since antiquity. At least parts of the middle east. Unfortunately we have no depictions from that time since rendering the human form was a religious offense, just as it remains among many Muslims today.
magichands Posted March 11, 2007 Posted March 11, 2007 Unfortunately we have no depictions from that time since rendering the human form was a religious offense, And now it sells a lot of magazines.
Recommended Posts