Mosque at Ground Zero...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:9:29 here again. Yes, there are lots of interpretations, and I too am torn. I like the concept of an "aggressive anti-violence" stance. But I have a hard time getting past the "give the other person your coat" statements. Fortunately I'm OK with a little ambiguity.

And yes, I do see Jesus as a revolutionary. I don't like the image of the zoned-out dude either.

[Anonymous]

I'm 9:29 and 10:02, i.e. the same person, in case it wasn't clear.

[Anonymous]

I am deeply embarrassed and worried for my country when I read about the people opposed to this. How shameful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm 9:29 and 10:02, i.e. the same person, in case it wasn't clear.

9:29, 10:02, and 10:03 -- three responders in one. How very Christian; which one is the Holy Spirit?

[Anonymous]

I believe the "other cloak" is also grounded in some sort of historical context, I think along the lines of by exposing oneself in such a way, again, the script is flipped on the aggressor.

Jesus was very precise with his language. In the "turn the other cheek" quote, he's specific about the left-right dynamic, as opposed to just saying "get pummeled". Same thing with the "cloak" thing. I don't remember the details but can try to find them. Interesting stuff.

[Anonymous]

I too am interested in this type of approach to NT and OT language. If you have a chance to lay your hands on the details, it would be much appreciated!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I too am interested in this type of approach to NT and OT language. If you have a chance to lay your hands on the details, it would be much appreciated!

Here is a link laying out a detailed interpretation as active nonviolent resistance:
http://www.dharmagates.com/other_cheek.html

[Anonymous]

Thanks, very much. I'll read it with interest.

[Anonymous]

Did we just have a conversation about religious relations in this country without anyone shouting someone else down? Maybe there is hope after all...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, Islamics might call Jesus Mohammed, and the Jews might call him Jehovah, but it is the same Jesus, just like we all read the same Holy Bible, though we may call it different names. I don't believe in these dogmatic differences.

Tongue in cheek, right? Or have we found the most religion-illiterate person in America?

You have found the person of whom you speak.

[Anonymous]

Just got around to leading the link... yes, Walter Wink is precisely the guy I was thinking of, but I blanked on his name. I studied his stuff quite a bit. A really fascinating look at religion/philosophy.

[Anonymous]

Fascinating, thanks. I will have to read Wink myself. I have read a lot from Marcus Borg, who authored the article, and he's very interesting too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not? Jews, Muslims, Christians - don't we all worship the same Jesus?

Uh, no. Jews don't believe Jesus is the Son of God and Mohammed is the Muslim prophet. I think a Mosque at Ground Zero is taking political correctness way too extreme.

Actually Muslims also don't believe that Jesus is the Son of God and Jesus and Mohammed (and Abraham etc etc) are Muslim prophets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So interesting how most of the comments here are pro building the mosque. I was reading this story on CNN's website and almost all of the comments there were of the "hell no, so disrespectful" variety. DC really is so far to the left of the rest of the country. (FWIW, I don't have a problem with the mosque, but my DH thinks I've lost my mind)

To protest the mosque is to condemn all of Islam because of an insane and violent faction of it. It's like condemning all of Christianity because of the Westboro Baptist Church. Neither is representative of most of the religions' respective adherents.

Thank you...or not allowing any Christian churches anywhere near a bombed abortion clinic because the bombers claimed to be Christians. What the terrorists did on 9/11 is patently anti-Islamic; those extremists are a common enemy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thank you...or not allowing any Christian churches anywhere near a bombed abortion clinic because the bombers claimed to be Christians. What the terrorists did on 9/11 is patently anti-Islamic; those extremists are a common enemy.

Speaking of extremists, how about this 'Church' in Florida that plans to burn Korans on 9/11 as a commemoration :
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/gainsville_church_plans_to_burn_korans_on_911_mean.php?ref=fpb?