Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

I want to respond to the following extract that John wrote on 15 March, because it suggests that there is something untoward in the intentions of Christianity:

John wrote “In Malaysia, where there's violence between Christian and Muslims, Christians have been using the "Camel Method" to convert Muslims to Christianity. This method starts with the story of Isa (Arabic for Jesus) in the Koran, and uses the Arabic word for "Allah" to refer to the Christian god”

First of all, Judiasm, Islam, and Christianity are rooted in the Old Testament scriptures. They have the same God, albeit a different understanding of the nature of God (Paragraphs 839 and 841 of the Catholic Catechism describes the Catholic Christian relationship with Jews and Muslims) During the roughly 1800 years from Abraham to the birth of Christ, God had different names, at different times, in different languages.

Name is not important. For instance my Swiss grandchildren call me “Oupa”; my South African grandchildren call me “Grandad”. What is important is the personal relationship that I have with my grandchildren, not the name they call me. Likewise God loves and seeks a personal relationship with all humans, whether you call Him “Abba” (closest modern meaning is Dad) as Jesus taught, or Allah that the Muslims use, or Father, or one of the other Old Testament names; name is not important.

Jesus’ real life name was Yeshua. If you take God out of Yeshua’s teachings, and reduce them to a philosophy, so as to speak, it is a philosophy of reason that values love as more important than anything else. The new faith mainly appealed to Jews and pagans within the Roman empire who were under at least some influence of the “philosophy of reason” taught by the Greek philosophers. Most of the peoples of the empire wouldn’t have been comfortable with a Jewish name for the Lord and hence Jesus is the Latin translation of Yeshua. Likewise the use of the Arabic name Isa in a Muslim culture. In a faith of love that seeks to help people feel very comfortable in their relationship with God, you would expect nothing less than a culture appropriate name.

My final point is John’s implication that in an area where, sadly, there is already violence between Muslims and Christians, the Christians are causing trouble using this so called “Camel Method” of evangelisation. I can’t comment on the intentions of the people involved, but in principle a faith of love does not seek to cause trouble or violence; it does seek to create peace, kindness, gentleness, love and fairness. Not only do Christians do believe that one of the kindest things that you can do for another human being is to help them into a personal relationship with the Lord, but also Jesus asked his followers to convert the whole world. But being a faith of reason means that one needs to judge the circumstances and always seek to maximise love and peace, and minimise hurt and damage.

Richard

Dear Richard,

richard5za wrote: > My final point is John’s implication that in an area where, sadly,
> there is already violence between Muslims and Christians, the
> Christians are causing trouble using this so called “Camel Method”
> of evangelisation. I can’t comment on the intentions of the people
> involved, but in principle a faith of love does not seek to cause
> trouble or violence; it does seek to create peace, kindness,
> gentleness, love and fairness. Not only do Christians do believe
> that one of the kindest things that you can do for another human
> being is to help them into a personal relationship with the Lord,
> but also Jesus asked his followers to convert the whole world. But
> being a faith of reason means that one needs to judge the
> circumstances and always seek to maximise love and peace, and
> minimise hurt and damage.

I just want to comment on "John's implication." Perhaps I could have
been clearer, but I would never imply any such thing. However, I was
quoting an article that made that implication, and the fact that the
implication is being made is important. However, it's not my
implication.

As I pointed out to Vince in another thread, I do not see religion as
the root cause of any violence. I like to phrase this as "Religion
does not cause war; war causes religion." What I mean by that is that
when groups get into competition for resources and attempt to
exterminate one another, then they use religion as a way of justifying
that attempted extermination, sometimes even inventing new forms of
religion in the process.

The situation in Malaysia is a small example of this. There are two
groups of people in Malaysia. I don't know their origin without more
research, but I would guess that one group is indigenous and the other
group is from Europe, the Asian continent, or even South America.
However, they don't identify themselves as "indigenous" and
"foreigner," since that would be very tacky. Instead, they identify
themselves as "Muslims" and "Christians," and enter into a dispute
over the use of the word "Allah."

I understand that the Christians have been using the word "Allah" in
their writings for decades, but it's only now that it's become an
issue. This is the nature of the differences between non-crisis
(Awakening and Unraveling) eras versus Crisis eras. During non-crisis
eras, it's all about love and harmony. During Crisis eras, it's all
about picking sides.

If the Christians wanted to reduce tension, they could presumably do
so by agreeing not to use the word "Allah" for the Christian God. If
the Muslims wanted to reduce tension, they could presumably do so by
not complaining about the Christians' use of the word "Allah," as long
as it's used respectfully.

But it's a generational Crisis era, so neither side wants to reduce
tensions at what they see as their own expense. Instead, they'll use
any slight difference or disagreement between them as proof that the
other side is intransigent or immoral. One day, they'll start trying
to exterminate each other, and each side will partially succeed. And
so the cycle of life continues.

John

Thank you for the comment, John.

I agree with what you have written. Excluding natural disasters and genuine accidents, all hurt, harm and damage to people is caused by human selfishness. And that can be both what I do and say, and don't do and don't say. And it can be generations ahead e.g. I exploit the environment now, my grandchildren are harmed.

When the selfishness takes hold, almost anything is used as justification, including God

Best wishes,
Richard