The Zoroastrian Faith and Interreligious Dialogue

The corresponding video can be viewed at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVL8nSIeh9g

8/12/2011 10:44 am (et) Moderator: logs in on 8/12/2011 10:44 am (et).
8/12/2011 10:46 am (et) Mary: private message to Moderator: logs in on 8/12/2011 10:46 am (et).
8/12/2011 10:48 am (et) Susan: private message to Moderator: logs in on 8/12/2011 10:48 am (et).
8/12/2011 10:49 am (et) Christa: private message to Moderator: logs in on 8/12/2011 10:49 am (et).
8/12/2011 10:52 am (et) Adi Davar: logs in on 8/12/2011 10:52 am (et).
8/12/2011 10:53 am (et) Laura S: private message to Moderator: logs in on 8/12/2011 10:53 am (et).
8/12/2011 10:53 am (et) cyrus: private message to Moderator: logs in on 8/12/2011 10:53 am (et).
8/12/2011 10:54 am (et) cherryhappyness: private message to Moderator: logs in on 8/12/2011 10:54 am (et).
8/12/2011 10:54 am (et) Kersi Shroff: logs in on 8/12/2011 10:54 am (et).
8/12/2011 10:56 am (et) Jimmy Dholoo: private message to Moderator: logs in on 8/12/2011 10:56 am (et).
8/12/2011 10:59 am (et) E S Bamji: private message to Moderator: logs in on 8/12/2011 10:59 am (et). !
8/12/2011 10:59 am (et) Sampson: private message to Moderator: logs in on 8/12/2011 10:59 am (et).
8/12/2011 11:00 am (et) Moderator: Welcome! This is Rebecca from the InterFaith Conference (IFC) and I will be your moderator. As this is still new, let me explain how this will work. On the right, you will see a video playing of our current topic to get the conversation going. If you have a comment and/or question send it along to me, the moderator. As long as I deem it appropriate, the comment will be posted to everyone and the speaker will have the opportunity to answer your question.
8/12/2011 11:00 am (et) Moderator: Today, our topic is ‘The Zoroastrian Faith and Interreligious Dialogue.’ We will be featuring a reflection from Mr. Adi Davar, Founding President of the Zoroastrian Association of Metropolitan Washington. He is joined by Mr. Cyrus Desai and Mr. Kersi Shroff, both Board Members of the Zoroastrian Association of Metropolitan Washington.
8/12/2011 11:00 am (et) clarkifc: private message to Moderator: logs in on 8/12/2011 11:00 am (et).
8/12/2011 11:00 am (et) Moderator: As always, I would like to remind you of the rules of our engagement. This is a respectful place where we come together to learn more about the religions of the world. Whether you agree or disagree, we welcome your comments and questions that are posed in a respectful manner. Please no profane or offensive remarks, they will not be posted. Also, this is a place of learning, so please refrain from ‘soapboxing.’ If there are any issues or questions about this, they can be submitted along with the comments pertaining to our topic. I am here to make this a pleasant and educational experience for all, so enjoy and remember there are no stupid questions, just hostile ones!
8/12/2011 11:00 am (et) Moderator: You can now view the beginning comments on the right. As you listen, please feel free to start sending questions or comments (YES, we want your comments). Also, the video will remain within the sidebar, so feel free to return to it as you wish. Our chat window automatically refreshes to keep the flow going, but if you wish to view the whole of the conversation, just hit the archive button. And lastly, PLEASE do not use double quotes as it led to some issues.
8/12/2011 11:01 am (et) Moderator: Hold on one second, YouTube is a little behind me today!
8/12/2011 11:02 am (et) Moderator: Alright the video is now ready, sorry for the confusion!
8/12/2011 11:07 am (et) micasd: private message to Moderator: logs in on 8/12/2011 11:07 am (et).
8/12/2011 11:09 am (et) upatel: private message to Moderator: logs in on 8/12/2011 11:09 am (et).
8/12/2011 11:12 am (et) Cyrus Desai: logs in on 8/12/2011 11:12 am (et).
8/12/2011 11:13 am (et) John.Mason: private message to Moderator: logs in on 8/12/2011 11:13 am (et).
8/12/2011 11:14 am (et) Kersi Shroff: If there are any quwestions, pl. send them now.
8/12/2011 11:15 am (et) Moderator: Laura S said: If 'good thoughts, good words, good deeds' is just the KEY to the practice of the religion, then what IS the practice of the religion?
8/12/2011 11:15 am (et) Moderator: Susan said: Could you explain a little bit more about the beliefs? You say they overlap some, but where exactly? Moderator said:
8/12/2011 11:16 am (et) upatel: private message to Moderator: logs off on 8/12/2011 11:16 am (et).
8/12/2011 11:17 am (et) Moderator: Susan said: I agree with Laura, it seems that there is a wide berth in what actual practice would be as most people have differing views on 'good'
8/12/2011 11:18 am (et) Kersi Shroff: Apart from the rituals of the religion, and there are many, Zoroastrians are implored to use their Good Mind (Vohu Mano) to make the rigfht decions in life that leaqd towards righteousness
8/12/2011 11:18 am (et) Adi Davar: It is that by practising the keys, one progressively adsvances one's soul and by so doing, help progress the world around you and Ahura Mazda's universes
8/12/2011 11:18 am (et) Moderator: Susan said: Are there many dogmatic beliefs?
8/12/2011 11:19 am (et) Moderator: clarkifc said: I am also troubled by absolute truthfulness. Adi not only said it was a teaching of Zarathustra, but was also true in Judaism and Christianity. Judaism teaches that life is the highest priority. So if one needs to lie, for example, to save a life, saving a life is the highest priority. Doesn't this contradict
8/12/2011 11:19 am (et) Moderator: Laura S said: it seems the Mind is the key to everything else? If this is the case, then Zoroastrianism bares some deep similarity to Buddhism
8/12/2011 11:20 am (et) Moderator: Susan said: Does collaboration with Buddhists come more easily then with other traditions within IFC then?
8/12/2011 11:21 am (et) Moderator: Clark said: You said that Abraham taught that there was only one God, but that that god was an idol. It is my understanding that Abraham was NOT an idol worshipper. Is that correct?
8/12/2011 11:21 am (et) Kersi Shroff: To use the mind towards a good end requires actions that accomplish that purpose. For example, charity ahnd goodness towards others and helping the needy.
8/12/2011 11:21 am (et) Cyrus Desai: zarathushtra asks to USE the mind
8/12/2011 11:22 am (et) Cyrus Desai: he says "reflect with a clear mind"
8/12/2011 11:22 am (et) Moderator: Laura S said: Clark: when I think about creeds that use the term 'absolute' I think in terms of a highest goal to reach for by intent, if not in reality. Such a goal is like a carrot on a stick. Each religion may have its own Absolute (like your example of Life in Judaism)
8/12/2011 11:22 am (et) Moderator: Susan said: So in using the mind would we all be set on the same track then? As of now people seriously differ on what is good, so are those people not using their mind correctly?
8/12/2011 11:23 am (et) Adi Davar: The mind is the key to everything. It receives conscience thru one's Daena (voice of Conscience in modern terms. With one's free mind that each man has been given, he has to decide whether to follow the guidance or not. The choice is upto each individual.o
8/12/2011 11:23 am (et) Moderator: Susan said: So there is one absolute way of doing good then?
8/12/2011 11:24 am (et) Moderator: Susan said: How do you face the different opinions that are sure to arise in an organization such as IFC?
8/12/2011 11:24 am (et) Cyrus Desai: we believe that Z teaches about freedom of chice but goes on to say that all choices have consequences
8/12/2011 11:25 am (et) Moderator: Laura S said: In terms of common beliefs with other religions (especially the Abrahamic), so far I see the idea of ONE GOD and FREE CHOICE (free will of humans). What else is common?
8/12/2011 11:25 am (et) cherryhappyness: private message to Moderator: logs off on 8/12/2011 11:25 am (et).
8/12/2011 11:25 am (et) Cyrus Desai: this concept is so true today. each one can make up their own mind, but should think of the universal consequences
8/12/2011 11:26 am (et) Adi Davar: On Abraham, He merely represented the invisible creator thru an idol, as some religions do. But his creator was that for his tribe or people, while Zoroaster offered it to all who chose to believe in Ahura Mazda and his teachings.
8/12/2011 11:26 am (et) Kersi Shroff: Zoroastrian concepts on eschateology can also be tracede in other religions.
8/12/2011 11:27 am (et) Moderator: Laura S said: What are some SPECIFIC examples of what Z considers to be GOOD choices vs bad? (I imagine the common things like truth, justice, not killing, etc)
8/12/2011 11:27 am (et) Cyrus Desai: as Adi says, the concepts of TRUTH & Good Mind appears in Judaisim, Christianity Islam etc
8/12/2011 11:27 am (et) Kersi Shroff: Righteousness requiires moderation and understanding of point of view of othgers.
8/12/2011 11:28 am (et) Moderator: Susan said: However, I think I can see some strong differences as well, some Christian traditions have a tradition of depravity when it comes to anthropology, but that seems in strong contention to the faith you have in a man's mind
8/12/2011 11:29 am (et) Kersi Shroff: On choices facing mankind, peace, support to others would be specific choices.
8/12/2011 11:29 am (et) Cyrus Desai: Truth: z eg of Truth: the sun rise in the east and sets in the west
8/12/2011 11:30 am (et) Moderator: Laura S said: Susan: by 'depravity' you mean the idea that man is born in sin? In contrast to Jewish and Muslim ideas on human nature. What is the Z stance on intrinsic human nature
8/12/2011 11:31 am (et) Moderator: Susan said: Yes, that's what I meant specifically in the Reformed traditions
8/12/2011 11:31 am (et) Moderator: Laura S said: didn't the idea of a messiah also originate with Zoroastrianism?
8/12/2011 11:31 am (et) Cyrus Desai: there are no admonitions (like 10 commandments) in Zism. each one is free to make choices, but the consequences of choices exist
8/12/2011 11:31 am (et) Kersi Shroff: Zoroastrianism gives its believers a simple philosophy to live life with but to prepared to face the consequences of wrong choices.
8/12/2011 11:32 am (et) Moderator: Laura S said: Do you agree with the theory that in the 6th century Babylonian Exile Jews came into contact with and picked up new ideas from Z?
8/12/2011 11:33 am (et) Moderator: clarkifc said: Thanks, Adi, for your reply regarding Abraham and the way he represented God as an idol. But I don't recall any passages in the Hebrew Bible in which Abraham is worshipping God as an idol. Am I missing your point?
8/12/2011 11:33 am (et) Kersi Shroff: Zoroaster prophesised that a messiah or savior (Saoshyant) would appear. It is beleived that the three Wise Men were therefore in such a search at the birth of Jesus Christ.
8/12/2011 11:33 am (et) Moderator: Laura S said: 'consequences of choice' - now that sounds like the Indian (Hindu, Buddhist, etc.) idea of karma
8/12/2011 11:34 am (et) Moderator: Susan said: Not to mention being judged at the end, Laura
8/12/2011 11:34 am (et) Moderator: Laura S said: I suppose the Bible might be a biased source for representing Abraham in a tradition that later rejected idolarty (revisionist?)
8/12/2011 11:34 am (et) Cyrus Desai: laura, Cyrus the Great brought the Jews to freedom from Babylon, and gave them lands and money to rebuild their temples.
8/12/2011 11:34 am (et) Adi Davar: Zoroastrians do not believe that.an innocentchild isborn in sin. He determines whether he is going to live a life of being and doing good, or wickedness and untruths, and to progress or not progress his soul and the world/universe. He pays for the way he has lived by the choices he has made in life, in his afterlife.
8/12/2011 11:35 am (et) Moderator: Laura S said: this three wise men (in the gospel birth narrative) - they were Z priests?
8/12/2011 11:35 am (et) Cyrus Desai: yes
8/12/2011 11:36 am (et) Moderator: Sampson said: How would you say that your religion affects you in the day to day living?
8/12/2011 11:36 am (et) Moderator: Susan said: So what is the afterlife like?
8/12/2011 11:36 am (et) Kersi Shroff: The three wise men belonged to the priestly Magi tribe of Zoroastrians
8/12/2011 11:37 am (et) Moderator: Laura S said: paying in the afterlife - so another belief in common is we have just ONE life (no reincarnation in Z?) and then are JUDGED (by God/AM?) to go to heaven or hell. This is a Z belief too?
8/12/2011 11:38 am (et) Cyrus Desai: one of our tenets is good thought (is good), good words (are better) and good deeds (are the best, We are taught to be ACTION oreiented
8/12/2011 11:38 am (et) Moderator: Susan said: And if there is an absolute good, what happens to the person who truly believes they are doing good, but are not?
8/12/2011 11:38 am (et) Moderator: Laura S said: And what about the idea of the devil? It seems that Z is often presented as a DUALISTIC religion that pits good (God) against evil (devil) with humans needing to make a choice as to which side they stand on and serve? Is this a reasonable image of Z cosmology?
8/12/2011 11:39 am (et) Adi Davar: What one does in daily life, affects on's family, the society around you, and eventually, your country and the world. There is no reincarnation in Zoroastrianism. If you have led a good life, one's soul become s part of the energy of Ahura Mazda and allegorically enters the Abode of Wisdom, Song and Light. Ift
8/12/2011 11:39 am (et) Cyrus Desai: eg,. Z are known for their honesty. In the days when cah was king, banks in India and Pakistan employed mainly Zproastrians.
8/12/2011 11:40 am (et) Moderator: Laura S said: we have to think before we speak and speak before we act. But 'walk the talk' would seem to apply to Z
8/12/2011 11:40 am (et) Adi Davar: If one lives a life of wickedness the soul enters the abode of Woe and misery, but neither of these are physical abodes.
8/12/2011 11:41 am (et) Moderator: Laura S said: this focus on acting in the world (deed oriented) is also core to Judaism (which is more about deed than creed)
8/12/2011 11:42 am (et) Adi Davar: Walking the talk is the essence of Zoroastrianism. Action is the key.
8/12/2011 11:42 am (et) Moderator: Sampson said: So there is no specific way to become part of the energy of Ahura Mazda? As opposed to the abode of woe and misery?
8/12/2011 11:43 am (et) Moderator: Laura S said: I don't think I saw the answer to my earlier question about Z influence on early (6th century) Judaism and, by extension on Christianity and Islam
8/12/2011 11:43 am (et) Adi Davar: By following the path of good thiking, pursuit of asolute righteousness, devotion to all wi the depth of your inner energy.
8/12/2011 11:43 am (et) Moderator: Laura S said: Sampson: yes there is a way - Do GOOD. But I do not think we have yet heard SPECIFICS about just what IS considered 'good' in Z
8/12/2011 11:45 am (et) Moderator: Susan said: But I guess no one truly knows all the specifics of doing good according to their tradition
8/12/2011 11:45 am (et) Cyrus Desai: judaism after the exile absorbed many features of Zism. the koran also talks about Light and Wisdom which is intrinsic in Zism
8/12/2011 11:45 am (et) Moderator: Susan said: I mean Christians are all over the board when it comes to issues
8/12/2011 11:46 am (et) Adi Davar: As was said before, the specifics of what is good, is happiness for others, charity to society, not just to Zoroastrians, and shunning of all wickdenss and untruths. God does not make wars, it is choice made by man in following the wrong aspects of his mind.
8/12/2011 11:47 am (et) Moderator: Laura S said: Susan: would be most difficult to get ovr 2 Billion people to all be on the same page
8/12/2011 11:47 am (et) Moderator: Susan said: Well yes, but as a Catholic not even the entire Magisterium is on the same page at all times
8/12/2011 11:48 am (et) Cyrus Desai: Rmember the problem is not the religion but th religious!
8/12/2011 11:48 am (et) Moderator: Susan said: This also seems to have seeped beyond religion, I mean the Greek concept of eudaimonia sounds very similar
8/12/2011 11:48 am (et) Adi Davar: Everyone in the magestrium has a free mind and it is upto them to choose.
8/12/2011 11:48 am (et) Moderator: Laura S said: 'happiness for others, charity to society, ...and shunning of all wickdenss and untruths.' - who could reject such concepts as anything but 'good'? Seems these are things that most religions would agree are good goals to reach for
8/12/2011 11:49 am (et) Adi Davar: Yes.
8/12/2011 11:49 am (et) Moderator: Susan said: Did Z. have influence in Greece as well/
8/12/2011 11:49 am (et) Adi Davar: The Greeks became wiser 1800 years after Zoroaster, if you beliveve what you say.
8/12/2011 11:49 am (et) norm.cohen: private message to Moderator: logs in on 8/12/2011 11:49 am (et).
8/12/2011 11:50 am (et) Cyrus Desai: what is eudomonia?
8/12/2011 11:50 am (et) Moderator: Susan said: 'human flourishing'
8/12/2011 11:50 am (et) Moderator: Susan said: at least that is the closer translation
8/12/2011 11:50 am (et) Moderator: Laura S said: And what about the Ayran theory with regards to earlier influence in India? Seems the centrality of the fire ritual in both Z and Hinduism as well as the Soma/Haoma use is a common connecting evidence
8/12/2011 11:51 am (et) Adi Davar: Zoroastrians have suffered for their beliefs through the ages, but have stuck by their choice in following the message of Zoroaster.
8/12/2011 11:52 am (et) Moderator: Laura S said: Today, is it true that most Zoroastrians are Indian? How and when and why did they get from Persia to India?
8/12/2011 11:53 am (et) Cyrus Desai: re the aryan, hinuism followed many rituals. Zarathushtra ranted all rituals and all deities and particularly abhored the ritual of Homa (soma) amongst the hindus.
8/12/2011 11:53 am (et) Moderator: Sampson said: Do you believe that Zoroaster is the only prophet?
8/12/2011 11:53 am (et) Cyrus Desai: all thes were reintroduced in Zism 200 to 300 years ayter Zarathushra
8/12/2011 11:54 am (et) Moderator: Laura S said: Where did we (supposedly educated on all religons) get such wrong associations with Z (dualistic, use of homa, etc)
8/12/2011 11:55 am (et) Cyrus Desai: NO! Zarathushtra in the Gathas talks about about the coming of future soshants (prohets)
8/12/2011 11:55 am (et) Moderator: Laura S said: so, a few centuries after Zoroaster, the religion he started deviated from his real teachings? How and when did it get BACK to the real teachings?
8/12/2011 11:55 am (et) Moderator: Sampson said: when will that be?
8/12/2011 11:55 am (et) Adi Davar: We are responsible for the distorted beliefs.
8/12/2011 11:56 am (et) Adi Davar: These changes were introduced after the time of Zoroaster.
8/12/2011 11:57 am (et) Cyrus Desai: after Zarathushra by preists
8/12/2011 11:57 am (et) Moderator: Laura S said: In Z's days, those 'future' prophets would have been the Hebrew Prophets, Jesus, Muhammad...
8/12/2011 11:57 am (et) Adi Davar: There is a movement for going back to the fundamental teaching of Zoroaster as found in the Gathas.
8/12/2011 11:58 am (et) Moderator: Laura S said: I suppose every prophet's teachings become 'distorted' after generations pass (Islam and Mormons also teaches this idea - thus the need for renewed revealtion)
8/12/2011 11:58 am (et) Moderator: Alright everyone, we are coming to the end of out ime today, I hope you enjoyed the conversation!
8/12/2011 11:58 am (et) Moderator: Please wrap up any concluding comments
8/12/2011 11:59 am (et) Cyrus Desai: yes, Moses was one of the Soshyants. Today Mahatma Gandhi, MLK would also be considered "prohets"
8/12/2011 11:59 am (et) Moderator: Susan said: That's interesting as they don't come from the same traditions
8/12/2011 11:59 am (et) Adi Davar: Per Kersi: Thanks for the opportunity to present some features and clarify some misunderstandings.
8/12/2011 11:59 am (et) Cyrus Desai: Thanks to Rebecca for this enlightning project
8/12/2011 12:00 pm (et) Moderator: Laura S said: I still feel quite a bit in the dark and confused about Z - the REAL principles vs the destorions
8/12/2011 12:00 pm (et) Adi Davar: Pl. contac us for further such clarifications.
8/12/2011 12:00 pm (et) Moderator: Thank you for your participation today. If you would like to reach our speaker please contact me at rebeccac@ifcmw.org. Next week we will be discussing ‘The Future of Interreligious Dialogue,’ with Rev. Clark Lobenstine, Executive Director of IFC.
8/12/2011 12:00 pm (et) Cyrus Desai: laura, please do write to us.
8/12/2011 12:00 pm (et) Adi Davar: Laura, pl. write to us. We were a bit disjointed because of technical problems.
8/12/2011 12:00 pm (et) Moderator: Also, this is a new effort on our part so we welcome your feedback! Any comments will be helpful. If you have any suggestion please feel free to email me at rebeccac@ifcmw.org.
8/12/2011 12:01 pm (et) Moderator: This moderated chat room is just one example of the many programs which the InterFaith Conference is doing. If you are able and willing to financially support the InterFaith Conference’s vital year-round work, please donate now using the donate button on our website - www.ifcmw.org. You can also find out more about us and sign up for our bi-monthly newsletter.
8/12/2011 12:01 pm (et) Moderator: Again my email is rebeccac@ifcmw.org for further communication.

Distortions of Faith: Misguided Religious Extremists

The original article can be found here: www.patheos.com/community/philosophicalfragments/2011/07/25/was-anders-breivik-really-a-christian/

Other articles mentioned during this chat:

Dr. Dalrymples followup article: www.patheos.com/community/philosophicalfragments/2011/07/27/anders-breivik-as-a-pragmatic-agnostic/

Maragaret  Mitchell's article:divinity.uchicago.edu/martycenter/publications/sightings/archive_2011/0804.shtml

Molly Hemingway's article:

www.getreligion.org/2011/08/breivik-bin-laden-and-moral-equivalency/

Review of Stark's book:http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Crusades-for-Christ?

8/5/2011 10:46 am (et) Moderator: logs in on 8/5/2011 10:46 am (et).
8/5/2011 10:46 am (et) Christa : private message to Moderator: logs in on 8/5/2011 10:46 am (et).
8/5/2011 10:47 am (et) Josie: private message to Moderator: logs in on 8/5/2011 10:47 am (et).
8/5/2011 10:49 am (et) Susan: private message to Moderator: logs in on 8/5/2011 10:49 am (et).
8/5/2011 10:49 am (et) Hengist: private message to Moderator: logs in on 8/5/2011 10:49 am (et).
8/5/2011 10:52 am (et) bobzane: private message to Moderator: logs in on 8/5/2011 10:52 am (et).
8/5/2011 10:56 am (et) Laura S: private message to Moderator: logs in on 8/5/2011 10:56 am (et).
8/5/2011 10:56 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: logs in on 8/5/2011 10:56 am (et).
8/5/2011 10:56 am (et) medina: private message to Moderator: logs in on 8/5/2011 10:56 am (et).
8/5/2011 11:00 am (et) Moderator: Welcome! This is Rebecca from the InterFaith Conference (IFC) and I will be your moderator. So, this week’s format will be slightly different. On the right, you will see a link to Dr. Dalrymple’s article from Patheos.com. If you have not had a chance to read it, please follow the link as this will be the jumping off point for our discussion today. If you have a comment and/or question send it along to me, the moderator. As long as I deem it appropriate, the comment will be posted to everyone and the speaker will have the opportunity to answer your question.
8/5/2011 11:00 am (et) Hussong: private message to Moderator: logs in on 8/5/2011 11:00 am (et).
8/5/2011 11:01 am (et) Moderator: Today, our topic is ‘Distortions of Faith: Misguided Religious Extremists.’ We would like to thank Dr. Timothy Dalrymple for joining us on such short notice and offering his article, ‘Was Anders Breivik Really a Christian?’ as the starting point of this conversation.
8/5/2011 11:01 am (et) Moderator: As always, I would like to remind you of the rules of our engagement. This is a respectful place where we come together to learn more about the religions of the world. Whether you agree or disagree, we welcome your comments and questions that are posed in a respectful manner. Please no profane or offensive remarks, they will not be posted. Also, this is a place of learning, so please refrain from ‘soapboxing.’ If there are any issues or questions about this, they can be submitted along with the comments pertaining to our topic. I am here to make this a pleasant and educational experience for all, so enjoy and remember there are no stupid questions, just hostile ones!
8/5/2011 11:01 am (et) Moderator: The link has already been posted on the right. Please feel free to begin the conversation if you have already read it or jump in whenever. The link will remain in the window for the duration of the chat. Our chat window automatically refreshes to keep the flow going, but if you wish to view the whole of the conversation, just hit the archive button. And lastly, PLEASE do not use double quotes as it led to some issues.
8/5/2011 11:02 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: I might add -- though I hesitate to give anyone anything more to read -- that I expanded on those comments in a subsequent post, which is here: http://www.patheos.com/community/philosophicalfragments/2011/07/27/anders-breivik-as-a-pragmatic-agnostic/
8/5/2011 11:02 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: But thanks for the invitation and I look forward to interacting with everyone.
8/5/2011 11:02 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Thanks
8/5/2011 11:03 am (et) Moderator: Laura S said: Cultural Christian or Religious Christian? The question would seem to present itself in many religions: Cultural Jew or Religious Jew? Cultural Muslim or Religious Muslim? I'm not so sure that one can clearly separate culture from religion or vice versa.
8/5/2011 11:03 am (et) norm.cohen: private message to Moderator: logs in on 8/5/2011 11:03 am (et).
8/5/2011 11:03 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: That's a fine point.
8/5/2011 11:03 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: In this case we're drawing on Breivik's own distinction.
8/5/2011 11:03 am (et) Moderator: Susan said: I mean religion is a strong part of culture but it does not seem fair to equate the two.
8/5/2011 11:04 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: The way in which he made the vision was that a "Religious Christian" is a person who has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
8/5/2011 11:04 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Whereas a "Cultural Christian" is a person influenced by the cultural heritage of Christendom.
8/5/2011 11:04 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: I think the distinction between Christianity and Christendom is actually rather helpful here. In my perspective, he's more devoted to the defense of Christendom than the defense of Christianity.
8/5/2011 11:05 am (et) Moderator: Hengist said: It could be argued that anyone who deviates from the teachings of his religion's founder cannot be identified (correctly) with that religion, be it Breivik or Osama bin Laden.
8/5/2011 11:05 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: But to your general point - that religion and culture are not equal terms, and so a parallel between 'cultural Christian' and 'Religious Christian' is not quite accurate -- I would agree.
8/5/2011 11:05 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Thanks, Hengist. I think it's probably helpful to begin with an exercise here, since definitional matters are so critical to this conversation.
8/5/2011 11:05 am (et) Moderator: Susan said: I wonder whether any extremist truly acts out of their religion...
8/5/2011 11:06 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: If we could abstract from Anders Breivik and whatever we may or may not want to believe about his action and his motivations, I wonder how people would, in the abstract, define a Christian
8/5/2011 11:06 am (et) Moderator: Susan said: and Hengist, that's a tall order to fill...
8/5/2011 11:06 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: For instance, Margaret M. Mitchell, the Dean of the Chicago Divinity School, posted something yesterday (I think it was) in which she made the case that Breivik really is a Christian.
8/5/2011 11:06 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: But I strongly suspect that most scholars, most people of faith, if they were asked in advance to define a Christian, they would not say that a person is a Christian simply because he identifies himself as such.
8/5/2011 11:07 am (et) Clarkifc: private message to Moderator: logs in on 8/5/2011 11:07 am (et).
8/5/2011 11:07 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Does anyone want to offer a definition of a Christian? What would be a 'sufficient condition' here: something that makes a person a Christian, and without which he or she is not a Christian.
8/5/2011 11:07 am (et) Moderator: Christa said: but there is a strong power to an identity you label yourself as isn't there?
8/5/2011 11:08 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: I don't think that self-identification is unimportant. But anyone can call himself a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, etc. Those religious groups, however, are not likely to say that self-identification is sufficient. I can claim to be a Muslim right now, but it does not make me one.
8/5/2011 11:09 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: As a philosopher, I tend to look for certain basic relationships, beliefs and existential commitments. Even sociologists don't make self-definition the sufficient condition for being a Christian. They will say that 80% (or whatever) 'identify as Christian,' but they will not say they *are* Christians.
8/5/2011 11:09 am (et) Moderator: Laura S said: this definition of 'Christian' as someone who 'has a personal relationship with Christ' is clearly a fundamentalist Christian definition. Many more moderate or liberal Christians might not put it that way or even think of themselves as having such a 'personal relationship'
8/5/2011 11:10 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Well, a couple points in response to that.
8/5/2011 11:10 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: First, if that is a fundamentalist Christian definition, then Breivik is clearly not a fundamentalist Christian, since that's precisely the definition that he says does not apply to him.
8/5/2011 11:10 am (et) Moderator: Susan said: I'm not sure what the criteria would be then
8/5/2011 11:11 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Second, I wouldn't say that it's fundamentalist so much as evangelical -- but it's evangelical primarily in its language (a 'personal relationship'). Christians of other stripes speak of faith, of union, of striving to remain in prayer with Christ throughout the day -- all of which are driving toward the same point.
8/5/2011 11:11 am (et) Moderator: Laura S said: he could still be influenced by fundamentalist concepts
8/5/2011 11:11 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: In other words, while the language of a personal relationship is more common in evangelical circles, I don't think the *concept* is merely evangelical. It's essentially a reformulation of the concept of union with Christ or imitation of Christ.
8/5/2011 11:11 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: He certainly could, Laura.
8/5/2011 11:12 am (et) Moderator: norm.cohen said: religion is based on beliefs, beliefs can be a motivated of actions, but I believe that actions themselves cannot be labeled as religion
8/5/2011 11:12 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: So, let's go with that. Religion is based on beliefs. If you define a religion in terms of its beliefs, was Breivik a Christian?
8/5/2011 11:12 am (et) Moderator: Laura S said: I've come to the conclusion that the MINIMUM of criteria that classified someone as Christian is that they follow Jesus (be it as savior, Christ, or simply his teachings) and reference the New Testament as their primary source of guidance or inspiration
8/5/2011 11:13 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Obviously the first question you run up against is 'Which beliefs are essential to Christianity? Which beliefs must you believe in order to be considered a Christian?' And people would differ over that. But I think you could find some agreement through the creeds (which was the point of the creeds, of course).
8/5/2011 11:13 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: One of those essential beliefs would be a belief in a Creator God. Did Breivik believe in God?
8/5/2011 11:13 am (et) Lillian: private message to Moderator: logs in on 8/5/2011 11:13 am (et).
8/5/2011 11:13 am (et) Moderator: Susan said: In terms of beliefs, being a Christian is about a trinitarian concept of God, salvation through Jesus in whatever sense you find that.
8/5/2011 11:14 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Yes and no. He said that he really wasn't sure, and that he believed in God as a "crutch," and a way of summoning his courage in the face of death.
8/5/2011 11:14 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Good, Susan. So, even if he believes in God, does he believe in a Trinitarian God?
8/5/2011 11:14 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: There is, at least, no evidence that he does. The key question here would be the Deity of Christ.
8/5/2011 11:14 am (et) Moderator: Susan said: I mean I'm not inside his head, but it doesn't seem that way
8/5/2011 11:14 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: The manifesto strongly suggests that he does not, or would not, believe in the Deity of Christ.
8/5/2011 11:15 am (et) VicarBelle: private message to Moderator: logs in on 8/5/2011 11:15 am (et).
8/5/2011 11:15 am (et) Moderator: norm.cohen said: You need to separate the religion and the interpretations from the actions of the individual is religion the motivation or the justification
8/5/2011 11:15 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: He says that science must have authority over the scriptures, for instance, and in several places indicates that modern scientific beliefs make old fashioned religious beliefs no longer credible. So, I doubt whether he would believe either in the resurrection or in the deity of Christ.
8/5/2011 11:16 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: So it appears to me that he does not believe in the Deity of Christ. He nowhere affirms it. He seems to view Jesus primarily as some kind of cultural totem that could unite Europeans.
8/5/2011 11:16 am (et) Moderator: Laura S said: I don't think trinitarian need be required
8/5/2011 11:16 am (et) Moderator: Laura S said: Mormons and Unitarians are not Trinitarian yet they (at least some of the UUs) consider themselves Christian
8/5/2011 11:16 am (et) Moderator: Susan said: That's getting into the self-definition question again...
8/5/2011 11:16 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: The Moderator just posted the link to the Margaret Mitchell piece. Thanks. It's a good example of why I chose to leave academia
8/5/2011 11:16 am (et) Moderator: Josie said: Hmm, I disagree with Laura's criteria. I believe that a Christian is someone who worships Christ and strives to act like him. (I wouldn't say that Breivik is a Christian because he doesn't act Christ-like)
8/5/2011 11:16 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Yes, I think it's accurate empirically to say that most Christians do not consider Unitarians or Mormons to be Christian, but that would get us somewhat afield.

8/5/2011 11:17 am (et) Moderator: Lillian said: HOW does the Trinity need not be required ?
8/5/2011 11:17 am (et) Moderator: Susan said: It is part of the basic creeds
8/5/2011 11:17 am (et) Moderator: norm.cohen said: On the surface, Brevivik therefore is rejecting a basic premise of Christianity, that is the concept of faith
8/5/2011 11:17 am (et) Moderator: Hengist said: I think Breivik may have, consciously or unconsciously, applied the label of 'Christian' to himself to justify his ideas and actions, which were actually focussed on hatred, fear and death. In other words, he was an idolater who called his image ‘Christianity'.
8/5/2011 11:17 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: I would agree. A Trinitarian view is very clear in the creeds, very basic, and it's one of the essential beliefs of Christianity.
8/5/2011 11:17 am (et) Moderator: bobzane said: the Atheist might say, told you so.
8/5/2011 11:17 am (et) Moderator: Laura S said: Susan, it's part of the basic creed but only since the Nicene statement of the 4th century
8/5/2011 11:18 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Mormons say that they believe in the Trinity -- but non-Mormon Christians say that they mean something different by it. In any case...
8/5/2011 11:18 am (et) Moderator: Hengist said: Early Christians, before St. Augustine, did not have the concept of 'Trinity' in the modern sense.
8/5/2011 11:18 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: There's some truth to that.
8/5/2011 11:18 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: They did not have it fully formulated in the way that it became formulated at Nicea and then later Chalcedon.
8/5/2011 11:19 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: But it's also more complex than that. The Deity of Christ was fairly clearly established very early on.
8/5/2011 11:19 am (et) Moderator: Susan said: That is true, Laura and Hengist, but many would say that is only because Christianity was definiing itself in the first 4 centuries attempting to find its orthodoxy
8/5/2011 11:19 am (et) Moderator: Laura S said: Trinty is three-in-one. Mormons believe in Father, Son and Holy Spirit but NOT as three distinct beings, NOT 'in-one'
8/5/2011 11:19 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: So it took Christian theologians some time to find the authoritative way of stating the sameness-in-difference between the persons of the Trinity.
8/5/2011 11:19 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: I'd recommend Early Christian Doctrines by J. N. D. Kelly on this, or...
8/5/2011 11:20 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Christ in Christian Tradition, by Grillmeier.
8/5/2011 11:20 am (et) Moderator: Raymond Brown is great too on this subject
8/5/2011 11:20 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: (Christology in the Early Church was one area of focus in my doctorate).
8/5/2011 11:20 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Agreed.
8/5/2011 11:20 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Let's bring it back to Breivik now.
8/5/2011 11:20 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Did he believe in God? Not really.
8/5/2011 11:20 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Did he believe in the Deity of Christ? Hard to believe in that when you don't believe in God.
8/5/2011 11:20 am (et) Moderator: Laura S said: I think we need to balance an academic definition with personal identity
8/5/2011 11:20 am (et) Moderator: Clarkifc said: Here's a story that may help to illustrate how we identify ourselves or someone else as coming from a particular faith. Imam Johari Abdul Malik, a very active member of our Board of Directors and the outreach imam of a major mosque here, tells the story of being in graduate school at Howard University. One night he was walking home from campus. 'back in those days, that was a very rough neighborhood. And as I approached the corner of 14th and Euclid Streets NW, there were two men standing on the corner, and one had a bottle in a brown paper bag. As I approached, one of them said, 'Excuse me, Brother -- can I ask you a question? I said, 'No problem, Brother.' He was talking to the man about God, and he asked if I believed in only on God, and I said yes. So you believe in Allah? he asked. I said yes. And that Muhammad was his only prophet -- yes. He went down a list of things -- I didn't eat pork, I didn't drink alcohold, and he said 'That's Muslim, Brother.' At the end of the exchange, he said 'Assalamu alaykum, and I replied, 'Alaykum assalam.' And I walked away and realized I must be a Muslim -- I was living as a Muslim, I just hadn't wanted to accept that I was a Muslim. Islam had been presented in my past as something different than what I believed in and I didn't want to become something else. But here I had found a faith that really was the way I was.'
8/5/2011 11:20 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Did he believe in the resurrection of Christ? Strongly doubtful.
8/5/2011 11:21 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Was he baptized? Yes.
8/5/2011 11:21 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Was he a part of a church or a believing community? Apparently not.
8/5/2011 11:21 am (et) Moderator: Laura S said: if someone wants to identify themselves as Christian (or whatever) who are WE to question their self-identity?
8/5/2011 11:21 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Did he act in a way that shows evidence of worship and devotion to Christ? I would say no.
8/5/2011 11:21 am (et) adjensen: private message to Moderator: logs in on 8/5/2011 11:21 am (et).
8/5/2011 11:21 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: So while I'd like to say that I approached this with an open mind, I'd say that by most accepted definitions, he cannot really be called a Christian.
8/5/2011 11:22 am (et) Moderator: Susan said: Well, I would like to separate him from my own community of believers as Dalrymple points to at the beginning of the article
8/5/2011 11:22 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Reading Clarkifc's comment...
8/5/2011 11:22 am (et) Moderator: VicarBelle said: I would argue that any label he attempted to give himself might seem just as farfetched give the deplorability of his actions...
8/5/2011 11:22 am (et) Moderator: Josie said: Laura, please clarify on the mormon trinity belief
8/5/2011 11:22 am (et) Moderator: Hengist said: Granted about Christian orthodoxy finding itself, but other opinions were abroad, and still are in modern variants, held by people who regarded Jesus as their conduit to God's mercy.
8/5/2011 11:22 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Certainly true, Hengist.
8/5/2011 11:23 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Now, even if he is not rightly called a Christian, it may be the case that he is influenced by pernicious strains of thought within Christianity.
8/5/2011 11:23 am (et) mario: private message to Moderator: logs in on 8/5/2011 11:23 am (et).
8/5/2011 11:23 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: And obviously, pernicious strains of thought in American anti-Islamic writers.
8/5/2011 11:23 am (et) Moderator: Hi All, as this is moving quickly, if you have to read a previous comment that has since disappeared from the screen, hit archive at the bottom of the screen
8/5/2011 11:23 am (et) Moderator: Christa said: wait, does one need to be part of a community to be a Christian?
8/5/2011 11:23 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: I don't think so, Christa
8/5/2011 11:24 am (et) Moderator: Hengist said: We have to look behind the label, self-applied or not, to determine if one is a real follower of Jesus or Muhammad.
8/5/2011 11:24 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: But some people *would* make that one of the criteria, or at least a piece of evidence, that a person is a Christian.
8/5/2011 11:24 am (et) Moderator: Susan said: I think that is a credible comment, Hengist, but what do we look for?
8/5/2011 11:24 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: It's tough to say that a person is or is not a Christian on the basis of his actions.
8/5/2011 11:25 am (et) Moderator: Hengist said: Say rather that these pernicious strains are in many belief systems, not just Christianity. People who hate enough, continue to use the label but extend their real worship to death and violence.
8/5/2011 11:25 am (et) Moderator: VicarBelle said: I think being a part of a community is a crucial part of being a Christian - in the community we are able to interpret scripture together, to support one another, learn from each other and grow together
8/5/2011 11:25 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Actions are relevant, of course, but part of the question here is whether a certain set of religious beliefs (in this case Christian) can permit or encourage or compel a person to take violent action. And if we say 'A person is not a Christian if he commits an act of terrorism,' then we're kind of assuming what we need to prove.
8/5/2011 11:25 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: To be clear, I think being a part of a community is an important, even essential part of being a Christian. Is it absolutely required of all Christians at all times? I wouldn't go that far.
8/5/2011 11:26 am (et) Moderator: Susan said: But that is what we say about Christians, Muslims say that about other Muslim terrorists and yet we doubt it...
8/5/2011 11:26 am (et) Moderator: Laura S said: there are RANGES in every religion - from VERY religious to only culturally religious - no matter if it is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu... whatever
8/5/2011 11:26 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: The important question to me is whether there are resources within the Christian and Muslim and Jewish (and etc) traditions that can be drawn on to support acts of terrorism or wanton violence and war.
8/5/2011 11:26 am (et) Moderator: Susan said: I would have to agree, except when does on the edge become over the edge Laura?
8/5/2011 11:27 am (et) Moderator: Laura S said: To seek a SINGLE definition is an artificial construct not true to the reality of 2 the Billion Christians in the world today 8/5/2011 11:27 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: And if there are, then I think it's important to make official or authoritative clarifications on what those strains mean.
8/5/2011 11:27 am (et) Moderator: Lillian said: I don't think you can label him a Christian or not based on his actions. Who are we to say exactly what he feels himself? If he believes in the Trinity which is ESSENTIAL to Christianity, then why is he not a Christian? Maybe you don't like what he does, but does that suddenly make him something else? It's the same thing with Muslims. Sure, the education some receive in the madrassuh is complete brainwash. But if THEY believe they are Muslims, then that's that. You can't change it for them and expect something to happen.
8/5/2011 11:27 am (et) Moderator: VicarBelle said: Unfortunately, I think people in general are very good at manipulating things to suit their own purposes
8/5/2011 11:27 am (et) Moderator: norm.cohen said: Religious beliefs are just one of many idealologies that an individual may follow and thus influene his/her actions. In our complex world it can be difficult to single out the motiviating factors for one's actions.
8/5/2011 11:28 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Absolutely agreed, Norm.
8/5/2011 11:28 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Christianity certainly has violent elements within its scriptures.
8/5/2011 11:28 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Look back to the Old Testament, the conquest of Canaan, etc.
8/5/2011 11:28 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: And then violent elements in its history.
8/5/2011 11:28 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Obviously the Inquisitions, Crusades, etc.
8/5/2011 11:29 am (et) Moderator: Lillian said: Muslims believe that the Prophet Muhammand (pbuh) is the insan-i-kamil, and the seal of the prophets. Okay, so you believe that, but you also have been told to blow yourself up. Sorry folks, HE is a Muslim, a brainwashed one, but he is. If you believe the essential creeds of the faith, then you are what that faith is. You just don't personally embody what the text might try to say.
8/5/2011 11:29 am (et) Moderator: mario said: How important can a knowledge of Chistian Ethics (where acts and morals can flow from) play? And what model of Christian Ethics could we follow?
8/5/2011 11:29 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: But those elements in Christianity's scriptures and history have been so thoroughly re-interpreted or repudiated that no credible Christian leader today really draws on them as a justification for violence or wanton warfare.
8/5/2011 11:29 am (et) Moderator: VicarBelle said: But how do those things fit with the overarching story of the Bible or Christianity?
8/5/2011 11:29 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: They may refer to those scriptures in defense of self-defensive warfare, but I haven't seen anyone defend terrorism, for example, or new wars of conquest, by referring to the book of Joshua.
8/5/2011 11:30 am (et) Moderator: Susan said: Well I think as a Catholic I expect Christian ethics to automatically flow from belief in Christianity, so if you have not gotten them, then your beliefs are skewed somehow
8/5/2011 11:30 am (et) Moderator: Hengist said: Do Christians believe we are all part of God's creation, with obligations towards each other regardless of affiliation?
8/5/2011 11:30 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: So one of my points is that christianity has gone through a modernization process in which it has largely left these violent strains behind, or sublimated them to larger concerns of justice. In some quarters of Islam, I don't think that process has taken place yet.
8/5/2011 11:30 am (et) Moderator: norm.cohen said: Breivik uses christian theology as the gaunlet tha others have crossed and the defining his actions for persecuting minorities
8/5/2011 11:30 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: I'm not trying to make a value judgment. Just an observation.
8/5/2011 11:30 am (et) Moderator: VicarBelle said: We can pick and choose what we want to adhere to, but what is the overall message of a text or set of beliefs?
8/5/2011 11:31 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Hengist, yes.
8/5/2011 11:31 am (et) bobzane: private message to Moderator: logs off on 8/5/2011 11:31 am (et).
8/5/2011 11:31 am (et) Moderator: Susan said: I would have to agree, the modernization seems to come from being comfortable with its place in the world and its mission
8/5/2011 11:31 am (et) Moderator: mario said: Christian Ethics (like Theology) is not something automatic. It is part of a process, and part of the community, from many centuries.
8/5/2011 11:31 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: VicarBelle, I'd agree that those violent strains have to be seen within the larger context and narrative. But my point is that there will be some extremists who pick out those strains and build their theology around them. The question is whether there is a community that will support them in that. In Christianity, the answer is largely no. Unfortunately, just as an empirical observation, there are still areas of contemporary Islam where the answer is yes.
8/5/2011 11:32 am (et) Moderator: Susan said: I was thinking along the lines of natural law in the Catholic tradition, mario
8/5/2011 11:32 am (et) Moderator: VicarBelle said: Timothy, I totally agree - that's why the community aspect is so important
8/5/2011 11:33 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: For example, a poll of Muslim youth in Malaysia found the following: The statement “Osama bin Laden is an Islamic liberation fighter” was endorsed by 51.1% to 28.1% among Indonesian youths and “Osama bin Laden is a freedom fighter” was endorsed by 62.4% to 33.3% among Malaysian youths.
8/5/2011 11:33 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: You won't find that kind of support, in any significant corner of Christianity, for Breivik.
8/5/2011 11:33 am (et) Moderator: Susan said: But we all need to pick something as the foundation of a theology. It doesn't start from nowhere? I mean not that I condone where his started, but who is to say what the fundamental point it
8/5/2011 11:33 am (et) Moderator: Lillian said: Those people who believe in the violent message of the Qur'an whose first language is NOT Arabic are forced to read it in the language. When you read a text that you can't even understand because it's not in your tongue, that's where the problem is. It's the education. There's nothing wrong with the fact that many of the surahs are historical in nature and deal with various battles, ie. Battle of Badr. People just have to LEARN that. It's all about education, that's the problem- there isn't a real one out there.
8/5/2011 11:34 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Again, I'm not trying to be unfair to Islam here. But simply as a historical matter, I don't think it's quite gone through the modernization process that Christianity has. Or at least, there are corners of the world where it has not yet done so.
8/5/2011 11:35 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Unfortunately, Lillian, in some corners of the world it's the educators who are encouraging the pro-violence interpretation. But, in the long term, I'd agree that it's an education problem.
8/5/2011 11:35 am (et) Moderator: Susan said: It has taken 2000 years for Christianity to do so...I believe Islam will find its time too
8/5/2011 11:35 am (et) Moderator: norm.cohen said: the diversity of community naturally leads to a disparity of social interpretations for acceptable behavior.
8/5/2011 11:35 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: It probably will, Susan.
8/5/2011 11:35 am (et) Moderator: mario said: Would it be accurate to call some people inside the movement of Donatism, as terrorists? Was not in Africa for a time a Christian movement even if it was later declared heretical?
8/5/2011 11:35 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Here's a link to a piece by Mollie Hemingway at GetReligion: http://www.getreligion.org/2011/08/breivik-bin-laden-and-moral-equivalency/
8/5/2011 11:35 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: She argues against the notion that there is a moral equivalency here.
8/5/2011 11:36 am (et) Moderator: Hengist said: Neither contemporary Christianity or contemporary Islam is monolithic. There are communities identifying with Christianity, that while not approving of Breivik's actions, are in some sympathy with his motivations. The same is true in Islam, where, perhaps there may be a greater focus on motivations due to even greater fears of western incursion that the fears of Islam that are current in the west.
8/5/2011 11:36 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Were Donatists terrorists? It's an interesting question, given the struggles in North Africa. The concept of terrorism did not really exist at the time, of course. There was no such thing as a terrorist 'identity.' But it would further prove the point that in order to find Christian parallels one has to look way back to pre-modern times.
8/5/2011 11:37 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: But Hengist, you will not find any Christian population in any Christian country where 50%-plus will agree with the statement, 'Anders Breivik is a freedom fighter.'
8/5/2011 11:37 am (et) Moderator: Susan said: But still are these terrorists, even in the Islamic tradition, truly acting out of religion? I see a lot more of the rage against political structures, not religion...
8/5/2011 11:37 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: So while I agree with your general point regarding differentiation within religious communities, it only goes so far.
8/5/2011 11:38 am (et) Moderator: Laura S said: There are all sorts of Christians who say other Christians are not really Christian. Protestants who say Catholics are not Christian and Vice Versa. Clearly, we can't go by that sort of definition.
8/5/2011 11:38 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Well, a participant said earlier that one needs to distinguish between a motivation and a justification. This is an argument I've been trying to make for a long time.
8/5/2011 11:39 am (et) Moderator: Hussong said: Sure there was at the time. In the Islamic world there were a sect of Shi'as that wanted to spread fear all over the ummah.. let me find the name of them. But yeah there was definitely terrorism at the time, I've researched it
8/5/2011 11:39 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: In many cases, Muslim or otherwise, I think the fundamental motives are areligious. Religion is used as a justification, and only sometimes as a motivation. But it's still important to ask whether there is a sizable contingent of their co-religionists who will accept and support and cheer what they're doing. And if there is, then I think that indicates there are strains within that tradition that need reworking.
8/5/2011 11:39 am (et) Moderator: Laura S said: ans Hengist said: religious groups are NOT monolithic but where to draw the line
8/5/2011 11:39 am (et) Moderator: Hengist said: Yes, because the fear and resentment of Islam are not as pronounced in the west as the fear and resentment of the west is in societies that are principally Islamic in culture.
8/5/2011 11:39 am (et) Moderator: Susan said: But see Hengist, you say the West, which I believe is a strong point in the argument, you didn't say Christianity
8/5/2011 11:39 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: The Donatists were around before the Muslims. I'm not asking whether there were people who did things we would now describe as terroristic. I'm just saying that the concept of terrorism as such was not around, in the same way that the concept of 'religion' as such was not around.
8/5/2011 11:40 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: The concept of 'religion' is a fairly recent innovation.
8/5/2011 11:40 am (et) Moderator: Laura S said: when one segment of a religious group does not agree with another segment of the same group, the tendency is to 'demonize' the other by labeling them 'heretic'.
8/5/2011 11:40 am (et) Moderator: mario said: Oh indeed I agree. I was just trying to point to an example in time where a community approves of the actions from some of their members.
8/5/2011 11:41 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Right, and again its premodern.
8/5/2011 11:41 am (et) Moderator: Susan said: Yes, one draws rigid lines as they begin to form orthodoxy, but in modern times, there is no need once the lines have been drawn.
8/5/2011 11:41 am (et) Moderator: norm.cohen said: Today we just call it extremism or radical
8/5/2011 11:41 am (et) Moderator: Hengist said: Crusades, for that matter, also pre-modern, but post- Islamic.
8/5/2011 11:42 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: The Crusades are often understood out of context, too.
8/5/2011 11:42 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: In the popular mind, it seems as though people think that the Christians in Europe just up and decided to go off to war. Of course, it was much more complex than that.
8/5/2011 11:42 am (et) Moderator: Hussong said: Yeah they were the Hashashiyyin, Nazari Ismailis (Shi'a group).. definitely one of your first terrorist groups in Islam
8/5/2011 11:43 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Thanks, Hussong.
8/5/2011 11:43 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Are you a Muslim yourself? Do you agree that there are significant pockets of Islam around the world today that haven't really gone through that same modernization process? Or is that an unfair criticism?
8/5/2011 11:44 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: -- or, not so much a criticism as an observation.
8/5/2011 11:44 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: I don't blame them for it. I think it's just a matter of historical accident, to be honest.
8/5/2011 11:45 am (et) Moderator: Hussong said: No I'm not Muslim I'm also not Middle Eastern (as the last name may appear), but I focus on Islamic studies in college, and also starting to have a greater interest in Catholic/Orthodox theology
8/5/2011 11:45 am (et) Moderator: Hengist said: I think the crusades count as terrorism, albeit state- sponsored. They certainly involved indiscriminate mass murder, though the leaders often had ulterior motivation.
8/5/2011 11:46 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: There are some good books that have appeared in recent years giving a much more nuanced history of the Crusades. Very interesting.
8/5/2011 11:46 am (et) Moderator: Laura S said: and how about the Inquisition?
8/5/2011 11:46 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: One of them was from Rodney Stark, I believe.
8/5/2011 11:46 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: I would not say that the Crusades were acts of terrorism. I would say that they were fairly typical pre-modern acts of war.
8/5/2011 11:46 am (et) Moderator: Susan said: I would say most of what happened during the Crusades wasn't state sponsored
8/5/2011 11:46 am (et) Moderator: mario said: could the problems to this day between catholics and protestants and that are leading to acts of violence be part of modern acts of christian terrorism?
8/5/2011 11:47 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: I interviewed Stark about this once: http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Crusades-for-Christ?
8/5/2011 11:47 am (et) Moderator: Hussong said: I have to use two different computers (I'm writing as Lillian and as Hussong), so somewhere up there I talked about modernization in the chat. But I don't think they can modernize in our Western definition of modernization. Take Saudi Arabia for instance, following the Salafiyya law school. They think they're moving forward-- and they are to a point. So modernization is definitely evident. But in the West that consensus doesn't hold true.
8/5/2011 11:47 am (et) Moderator: Hengist said: In any event, both Islam and Christianity, were, as they were founded, intended to help create a community by bringing people together, rather than by dividing humanity into believers and unbelievers.
8/5/2011 11:47 am (et) Moderator: Laura S said: how about Christians bombing abortion clincs - terrorism?
8/5/2011 11:47 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: A good point that modernization will look very different in different social and religious contexts...
8/5/2011 11:47 am (et) Moderator: Susan said: I would say that is not a Christian act...
8/5/2011 11:48 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Laura, I would say that bombing abortion clinics (which is actually quite rare) comes, at least, very close to the definition of terrorism.
8/5/2011 11:48 am (et) Moderator: Susan said: But again, I feel like I would be looked at the same way Muslims are when they say acts of terrorism are not Muslin
8/5/2011 11:48 am (et) Moderator: Hengist said: Definitely terrorism.
8/5/2011 11:49 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: I think there has been one abortion clinic bombing since 1993...
8/5/2011 11:49 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: But yes, I would say that it's either terrorism or something very close to it.
8/5/2011 11:49 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Hengist, there was a lot of conquest in the very early stages of Islam, so I'm not sure that I would agree with your statement.
8/5/2011 11:50 am (et) Moderator: Hengist said: There are certain virtues we associate with being 'christian' (small c) and 'muslim' (small m) that no terrorist fits.
8/5/2011 11:50 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: The question of IRA violence is very interesting.
8/5/2011 11:50 am (et) Moderator: Laura S said: I'm like to get back to this idea that a religious identity can be religious, cultural or both. Jews, for instance, are often cultural Jews but do not believe in god or even practice their religion. However, Judaism is an 'ethnic' religion. I have to wonder if the same sort of distinction of 'religious' or 'cultural' can be applied to religions like Christianity or Islam.
8/5/2011 11:50 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: When the Irish Catholics were setting off bombs in Protestant areas, or in England, was that 'Christian terrorism'?
8/5/2011 11:51 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Good point, Laura. Most Christians I know reject the notion of 'cultural Christianity'.
8/5/2011 11:51 am (et) Moderator: Susan said: Christianity was never meant to be an ethnic religion and from what I know of Islam, that was not either
8/5/2011 11:51 am (et) Jeffrey Imm: private message to Moderator: logs in on 8/5/2011 11:51 am (et).
8/5/2011 11:51 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: If Christianity is defined primarily by a relationship with God through Christ, and by certain fundamental beliefs regarding the nature of God and the way in which God relates to us, then one cannot be 'Christian' merely be participating in certain aspects of Christian culture.
8/5/2011 11:51 am (et) Moderator: Susan said: Or well, Christianity was, but that faded by 50 AD
8/5/2011 11:52 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Judaism is an excellent juxtaposition, where the definition of Jew is -- at least partly -- one of heritage.
8/5/2011 11:52 am (et) Moderator: Christa said: why do you think that is? I would certainly point out that we live in a culturally Christian nation...
8/5/2011 11:52 am (et) Moderator: mario said: Indeed. And is the protestant fighting back as a Christian or as a patriot, or both?
8/5/2011 11:52 am (et) Moderator: Hengist said: As long as Muhammad was alive, the warfare as practiced by Muslims was defensive in character. Within a generation of the Prophet's passing,
leadership had passed to a group that during the Prophet's lifetime had been enemies, seeking
Muhammad's death.
8/5/2011 11:52 am (et) Moderator: Jeffrey Imm said: There are political groups associated with Breivik's msg that have included Christian pastors
8/5/2011 11:53 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Jeffrey, do you have links? I'd like to know what you're referring to.
8/5/2011 11:53 am (et) Moderator: Jeffrey Imm said: I am looking to offer a counter message on this from Christians that respect human dignity
8/5/2011 11:53 am (et) Moderator: Hussong said: That's what jihad is... it's a defensive struggle. Not an act of aggression or whatever crap the media likes to spin it as
8/5/2011 11:53 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Well, Muslims differ over what Jihad is.
8/5/2011 11:54 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: I think those who claim that it's merely a defensive or spiritual struggle or choosing the one strain they like the best, and the same is true of those who claim that Jihad is merely a campaign of aggression to establish the Caliphate.
8/5/2011 11:54 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: I should have said 'ARE' choosing the one they like best.
8/5/2011 11:54 am (et) Moderator: Susan said: Jeffrey, I think the main word in that is included, it wasn't Christianity, but some people who claimed to be Christian joined
8/5/2011 11:54 am (et) Moderator: Jeffrey Imm said: Timothy - I do have specifics, and I have not yet posted them. I will be seeking to do that this weekend or early next week.
8/5/2011 11:55 am (et) Moderator: Hengist said: I still think that the real motivation towards violence does not come from Christianity or Islam, but from fear and hatred, leading to a worship of violent death.
8/5/2011 11:55 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: And your point is that Breivik referenced some *political* groups, and some of the members of those political groups were pastors?
8/5/2011 11:55 am (et) Moderator: Laura S said: agree with Christa re: America as Christian by culture - even while many Americans would NOT identify as Christian and even while many Americans who WOULD identify as 'Christian' in are NOT really that religious
8/5/2011 11:55 am (et) Moderator: norm.cohen said: The concept of believers and non-believers, us vs. them goes much further back than eary Christians attempting to create an identity of its own, it is often been the reason for war, religious, ethnic, or economic differences are various identities leaders have used to motivate their followers.
8/5/2011 11:55 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: There's some truth to that, Hengist, but I also think that when Christianity or Islam become seen largely as tribal identities, an 'us versus them,' then there can be 'religious' motivations insofar as those tribal identities are religiously defined.
8/5/2011 11:55 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Are they *truly* religious definitions? I would say not. But religion is closely involved.
8/5/2011 11:56 am (et) Moderator: Hi Everyone, So it is getting to the point where we must wrap up for the day. Please finish any comments.
8/5/2011 11:56 am (et) Moderator: If you would like to continue the conversation, the transcript will be posted and you can comment on that later today
8/5/2011 11:56 am (et) Moderator: mario said: Tragically violence against abortion clinics still goes on. there was a molotov coctail thrown at one a few days ago. of course, there is no indication of who did it.
8/5/2011 11:56 am (et) Moderator: Jeffrey Imm said: I agree - it not a Christian movement. But as there are groups with Christian pastors associated with the Anti-Islam movement, I believe Christians need to make a strong counter-statement that respect human dignity for all.
8/5/2011 11:56 am (et) Moderator: Hengist said: Is racial supremacy a
Caucasian attribute?
8/5/2011 11:56 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Well, while we've been talking about Christians and Muslims, many of the strains of violence that Christians can draw upon come from the Hebrew scriptures, of course. But that's another example of a religious community that has almost completely reinterpreted those scriptures so that they are not justifications of religious aggression.
8/5/2011 11:57 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: I would agree, Jeffrey. I look forward to seeing it, when you post it.
8/5/2011 11:57 am (et) Moderator: Jeffrey Imm said: I am looking to see if there any Christians who would like to make a public statement at the Norway Embassy on Sunday August 21, or at the National Press Club on August 22 - to clearly convey that Christians object to hate.
8/5/2011 11:57 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Please find me on Facebook and send me a link.
8/5/2011 11:58 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: In any case, many thanks to everyone for the illuminating conversation.
8/5/2011 11:58 am (et) Moderator: Jeffrey Imm said: I with R.E.A.L. at realcourage.org
8/5/2011 11:58 am (et) Moderator: norm.cohen said: No Hengist, look at the Chinese
8/5/2011 11:58 am (et) Moderator: Hengist said: There are archeologists who feel that the occupation of Canaan by the Israelites was not nearly as violent (all the time) as the Old Testament would seem to imply.
8/5/2011 11:58 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: I have been a part of Asian-American communities for most of my life, and there is a lot of racial supremacist attitudes amongst Chinese and Japanese, etc.
8/5/2011 11:58 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: When I was traveling through China with an African-American friend, it was pretty brutal.
8/5/2011 11:59 am (et) Timothy Dalrymple: I've heard that too, Hengist. But the strain of tradition is still there, and can be picked up to justify violence. Thank goodness that both Jews and Christians have almost universally rejected that interpretation!
8/5/2011 11:59 am (et) Moderator: Laura S said: and some Jews today in Israel seem to be justifying violent acts as rooted in their ancient religion
8/5/2011 11:59 am (et) Moderator: Alrighty everyone, we will be wrapping up now.Thank you for your participation today. If you would like to reach our speaker please contact me at rebeccac@ifcmw.org. Next week we will be discussing ‘The Zoroastrian Faith and Interreligious Dialogue,’ with Mr. Adi Davar, Founding President of the Zoroastrian Association of Metropolitan Washington.
8/5/2011 11:59 am (et) Moderator: Also, this is a new effort on our part so we welcome your feedback! Any comments will be helpful. If you have any suggestion please feel free to email me at rebeccac@ifcmw.org.
8/5/2011 12:00 pm (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Yes, that's why I said 'almost' completely, Laura. That's the one place where I think contemporary Jews still draw on those scriptures to justify violence/aggression.
8/5/2011 12:00 pm (et) Moderator: If you are interested in finding out more about our organization please feel free to browse our website: www.ifcmw.org and sign up for our bi-monthly e-newsletter by emailing me, again the address is rebeccac@ifcmw.org.
8/5/2011 12:00 pm (et) Timothy Dalrymple: Thank you, everyone, and thank you to a wonderful moderator.