Tuesday, February 27, 2007

[jesus] why the fixation, the negation and the vandalism

Just been over at Jon Swift's and noticed a comment on the Conservapedia post by Notsaussure:

In Christian discourse, the name Jesus almost always refers specifically to Jesus of Nazareth, believed by Christian followers to be God's dad, who came to earth as a human c 2 AD. However, God has recently revealed on His blog that Jesus is actually His nephew, not His son.

Why would a supposed non-Christian be concerned with expending energy on this matter? In a slightly different way, the Dome of the Rock, a shrine rather than a mosque, was built to proclaim the central tenets of Islam but around the walls is written, in large letters, amongst other things:

The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a Messenger of G-d, and His Word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in G-d and His messengers, and say not 'Three' - Cease! (it is) better for you! - G-d is only One G-d. Far be it removed from His transcendent majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And G-d is sufficient as Defender. The Messiah will never scorn to be a servant unto G-d, nor will the favoured angels.

Interesting that the Messiah will not own himself the servant of G-d as I thought the idea was that we were all servants of the One G-d. Similar situation to this exhortation, it seems to me, is Oh Flower of Scotland and its fixation with Edward and the English. Seems to me that if you have an anthem, it needs to be something like:

Scotland, Scotland, über alles, über alles in der Welt, wenn es stets zu Schutz und Trutze brüderlich zusammenhält.

Not a trace of the "we hate England" fixation there. Just good old gung-ho lyrics for football matches and stuff the Bruderheist can chant at their abominations. Finally, Notsaussure again:

I'm delighted to note, though, that the page is protected - including this information - to protect it against repeated vandalism (or it was last night, anyway).

Would that it were so here, as well. Oh well, if this site goes down again, at least you'll know why.


religion of pieces said...

It's that old 'chip on both shoulders' syndrome again.

There are a lot of differences between Muslims and other ethnic communities. One glaringly obvious one is that Islamic culture produces nothing of interest to the majority non-Muslim population either in Britain or the wider world.

While Chinese, Jewish, Hindu and Sikh Indian and other minority groups can take considerable pride in the admiration lavished upon their past and present cultural achievements - in the arts, cinema, the sciences, music etc - Muslim youths have scarcely anything to feel proud about.

The problem of disaffection begins with the simple fact that Muslims come from a culture that has been largely barren for the past 500 years and which, in recent times, has won the world's attention only for its belligerence and violence.

There's no answer to this; the problem is one of a fundamental cultural bankruptcy and humiliation that manifests in extremism wherever it encounters richer, more creative cultures - be they Western, Indian, Thai, or whatever.

Lord Nazh said...

Could someone let the un-initiated know that Jesus is the son of G-d and the manifestation of G-d himself on Earth and not his father :)

The main problem with Islam is the command to infidels (non-muslims) to convert or die. Hard to make it past that sticking point.

james higham said...

Gentlemen, both very good comments.