I wonder whether the question should be the other way round. Does fundamentalism underpin moderate religion?

Whether you are well-read in religious matters or not, there are some fundamentals that followers of all religions accept. Those extremely narrow fundamentals may differ between religions but usually not between coreligionists. Muslims believe there is one god and Mohammed is his messenger. Christians believe there is one god and Jesus is his son. Beyond that there may be a wide divergence of opinions.

For example, not all Christians follow the concept of the Trinity. Some will support same-sex marriage while others oppose it. The same can be said for almost any issue: abortion, capital punishment, for a long time slavery, compulsory charity in the form of social security through taxation. But as long as they accept the fundamentals, they can call themselves Christian. For those who have the inclination, contrary to popular belief, there is a wide range of ideas in print published by Muslim scholars.

Of course, there are differences over what is fundamental and what isn't. Sometimes that gives rise to heated argument and can spill over into violence. Yet fundamentalism need not be necessarily violent. In fact it can lead to the opposite. Think of pacifists who take literally the injunction "though shalt not kill". Meanwhile, some leaders of religions become recruiting sergeants in time of war.

There are others, both Muslims and Christian who accept another fundamental tenet, though the wording slightly differs. To the Christian "do not judge lest ye be so judged" and to the Muslim "judge not for judgement is Allah's alone. Allah is merciful." Neither means suspending the use of intelligence or discretion or even suggesting correction if you think someone is erring. What happens to the sinner is up to God or Allah, according to that fundamental belief. As a follower of the religion we do not seek to usurp the position or judgement that properly belongs to God alone. That is a fundamental that does not automatically lead to the use of violence.

As to whether one religion is better or worse than another, I'll leave others to decide. Adherents of both Christianity and Islam have spilled enough blood over the centuries and I think it pointless to count up the actual numbers of each. If today Christianity appears to be better in comparison with Islam, it is largely because (in the West at least) religion no longer enjoys the authority it once had. Not only is the direct connection with the State no longer there, so it can no longer impose its world view but the free availability of other ideas means that by and large it is no longer central to most people's lives.

While in some countries a majority may still declare their belief in God, they don't attend a church on a regular basis and they don't pray on a daily basis. If they attend a church it is for what the Church of England described as hatches, matches and dispatches. Even the two most important events in the Christian calendar no longer have the same meaning to many as they once had. To many they are simply an excuse for days off work. Easter is not about crucifixion and resurrection but Easter bunnies and chocolate eggs. Christmas is about buying Uncle Harry or Aunt Sue a present, have we got enough lobster and is the barbecue clean, and do we really have to invite your mum?

In saying that, I intend no disrespect to those who have a genuine religion-based faith in right and wrong and who wish others no harm.

Pyrex wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Treat Christians the exact same way you treat Muslims and see what happens. You will quickly find out that Christians are not peaceful at all.

It's different when God tells evangelical Dubya to kill a million+ Iraqis. That's killing for peace.

Again with this ridiculous "Dubya killed a million+ iraqis" horseshit... did Dubya send in suicide bombers into mosques / marketplaces / funerals / etc. to deliberately blow up innocent people?

What would you say is an appropriate number of civilians to kill for Jesus, based on a total lie? 1 person? 5? 15? 100,000? What about torture? Did God tell America to set up black sites?

MaverickM11 wrote:

Did God tell America to set up black sites?

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Did God tell America to set up black sites?

Best regards
Thomas

Devos family values®

RoySFlying wrote:

Muslims believe there is one god and Mohammed is his messenger. Christians believe there is one god and Jesus is his son.

There's a big picture that you seem to be missing. Christianity, Judaism and Islam are actually the same religion with cosmetic differences. They all three stem from the same source, the Jewish Tanakh which goes by the name "Old Testament" in the Christian world and the "Quran" in Islam. The Quran is for the larger part, the same book, lifted in some cases word for word. These three religions are known as the Abrahamic religions because they are supposedly descended from Abraham.

The thing that binds these three religions (and their spinoffs such as Mormanism) and makes them unique is that they all three claim that they have the only God, and there is no other God, therefore anybody who doesn't worship their God is unwashed and somewhat less than human. All other religions accept that other gods may exist - no other religion contains the concept of considering people of other religions as heathen; the words "infidel" and "heretic", as used in Abrahamic religion, have no place in any other religion.

The Abrahamic religions are the root of much historical and current evil; many wars have been fought over this imaginary bullshit; many persecutions and many injustices have been carried out in the name of "God". And whatever ill one wants to speak of Islam, was once widely practiced by Christianity and was also once practiced by Judaism.

salttee wrote:

The thing that binds these three religions (and their spinoffs such as Mormanism) and makes them unique is that they all three claim that they have the only God, and there is no other God, therefore anybody who doesn't worship their God is unwashed and somewhat less than human. All other religions accept that other gods may exist - no other religion contains the concept of considering people of other religions as heathen; the words "infidel" and "heretic", as used in Abrahamic religion, have no place in any other religion..

Which is quite hilarious considering that the bible knows many gods and even gives us some of their names.
And if you are Catholic, you are about as monotheistic as a Hindu.

Best regards
Thomas

Well the Catholics have that "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" bit of illogic, but outside of that, the Abrahamic religions are all absolutely monotheistic.

salttee wrote:

Well the Catholics have that "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" bit of illogic, but outside of that, the Abrahamic religions are all absolutely monotheistic.

Saints are for all practical purposes Demigods. And the Bible gives plenty of other gods by name, so it just means that they only worship one god, not that there only is one.

best regards
Thomas

salttee wrote:

The thing that binds these three religions (and their spinoffs such as Mormanism) and makes them unique is that they all three claim that they have the only God, and there is no other God, therefore anybody who doesn't worship their God is unwashed and somewhat less than human.

All three recognise one God in a sense. But take the Decalogue. "I am the Lord, thy God ...." It does not say I am the only God there is." Ok, this opening statement sets up a covenant. Because I brought you out of Egypt, you owe me. Let us continue, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." If there are no other gods, how would it be possible? Indeed, the various Abrahamic faiths do assert that whatever other gods there might be, they are false gods.

It does not follow from this that because a person does not accept the God of Jews, Christians or Muslims you are viewed as "unwashed" and "less than human". Undoubtedly there are some people who harbour such views (and there are some atheists who share that view of those who do profess a faith), but those views are not necessarily what the religions themselves insist upon. Back to the Decalogue: it states "thou shalt not kill" and not "thou shalt not kill unless someone has a different point of view." "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour", not "only tell lies if your neighbour is [insert religion here]." How does this correspond with your claim?

Even the notions of "heresy and infidelity" to not necessarily lead to demands for excommunication and death, though historically this has occurred. Of course, the scriptures contain various passages in which violence appears to be demanded but does you average Jew, Christian or Muslim spend their day in plotting their neighbours' downfall? No, if they did the population would be a lot smaller. They might pray for those they believe are in error, they may seek to persuade them to modify their views and behaviour. They might just accept that others do not think the same way and say that it is a matter between the individual and God. Naturally there are those who choose a more dogmatic and sectarian approach, full of censure and even hatred. Yet how does that correspond with the notion, "love God and on another as I have loved you?" Is that final new commandment not the most extreme form of fundamentalism there is - love one another?

tommy1808 wrote:

salttee wrote:

Well the Catholics have that "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" bit of illogic, but outside of that, the Abrahamic religions are all absolutely monotheistic.

Saints are for all practical purposes Demigods. And the Bible gives plenty of other gods by name, so it just means that they only worship one god, not that there only is one.

best regards
Thomas

A demigod is not God. And Saints are not considered "gods" in any Christian religion, they are just people or dieties favored by "God".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demigod
https://www.google.com/search?q=are+sai ... 8&oe=utf-8

Really, this is the distinctive feature of the Abrahamic religions, the Jews are even forbidden speak god's name, because "God" is held in such awe.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Jews+ar ... 8&oe=utf-8

In religious studies there is no controversy about this. If the Bible mentions other gods, it would have to be in a derogatory manner.

This is why the Abrahamic religions have caused so much strife over the last 3,000 years.

RoySFlying wrote:

salttee wrote:

The thing that binds these three religions (and their spinoffs such as Mormanism) and makes them unique is that they all three claim that they have the only God, and there is no other God, therefore anybody who doesn't worship their God is unwashed and somewhat less than human.

All three recognise one God in a sense. But take the Decalogue. "I am the Lord, thy God ...." It does not say I am the only God there is."

But the Tanakh does say that, as you mention it says: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." It says it that way because at the time of the creation of the Tanakh, the creation of the first Abrahamic religion, there were competing religions in the Levant and the Tanakh made it clear that "G-d" was above all other gods ie: there was no power sharing as is common among other religions. People who worshiped the Sun god were also free to worship the Zoroastrian deity and visa versa and so on. This was never so in the Abrahamic religions. The Jews had genocidal wars between tribes because one tribe or the other was seen to be worshiping a false God.

Later from the 4th century until the 8th century, the Christians repeated this bloodthirsty behavior, huge swaths of population were slaughtered because they worshiped a bible which had been distributed originally by a evangelistic monk named Ulfilas in the early fourth Century. The atrocities reached a high point under Emperor Justinian (Circa 525-565) who adapted the Chalcedonian version of Christianity and set the Byzantine Empire on the path of eradicating the Arian version of Christianity. The wars and persecutions lasted 400 years before Arianism was snuffed out. At the 636CE battle of Yarmuk, an Arian Christian Arabic tribal group, the Ghassanids, on the day of the battle, changed sides and fought with the Muslims who then defeated Christian army and gave us the Islam we know now. The Ghassanids changed sides because they were being persecuted over their understanding of "God".

Now we see the Shia - Sunni split in Islam, no other religion has ever had bloodthirsty civil wars over the definition of their god or gods as has the Abrahamic religions. This is very unique,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalcedonian_Christianity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism
https://www.google.com/search?q=battle+ ... 8&oe=utf-8

RoySFlying wrote:

It does not follow from this that because a person does not accept the God of Jews, Christians or Muslims you are viewed as "unwashed" and "less than human". Undoubtedly there are some people who harbour such views......................

These views have been held by the orthodox hierarchy of each religion since their genesis. They are still in play in the fringes of Christianity and Judaism, these views are built into Sharia Law currently.

The Abrahamic religions take their "God" very seriously.