It'd help if they'd read thier own holy book. It explicitly gives the polythiestic, idol worshiping Infades who just happen to be christians a pass, as well as practioners of Judiasm as "People of the Book".

Someone please hit these people with clue by fours.

By "guide" and "reform" does the fair-minded Muslim professor mean "to steer into a skyscraper and incinerate?"

Imagine if a Christian (like Pat Robertson) said this about a Muslim.

God is obviously punishing this guy by letting his parents give him a really stupid name:

Dr. Abd Al-Aziz Fawzan Al-Fawzan

I don't know how mainstream the guy really is though, 'cause i've heard lots of the same things from wack'd out psychos on our side of the pond with regards to muslums, blacks, etc.
I mean, the home grown krew are also pretty impressive in the 'thinly veiled contempt for your existance' department. They just know how to lay low better.

Guide and reform me motherfucker, while I compassionately try to bury my fist through your face and my foot straight up your arrogant ass.

Turn the other cheek, BAH! Turn my other ass cheek maybe.

"Moreover, this hatred must be positive hatred. It should make me feel compassion for him, and should make me guide and reform him. "

Makes perfect sense to me. Well, not 'perfect' sense, in the sense that it makes any sense at all; but I believe there is a deeper sensibility that one must be attuned to, and my experience in other cultures has given me this sensitivity.

Love that Religion of Peace™

I was skimming through allaahuakbar.net, and one of the questions (#15)was "Why do Muslims abuse non-Muslims by calling them Kafirs? "

The answer basically boiled down to: If you hate being insulted and called a kafir- convert. (What you have to do to avoid the gang rapes is unanswered)

The lack of basic, logical, apologetics in Islam is actually shocking, especially for a religion that is supposed to be prostelizing in nature. Maybe I just have too much respect for old school Jesuits (before they became neohippies), but Islam never seems to show a reason to convert or for their correctness or their theology. Christians (and Jews) have libraries filled with books debating the meaning of individual psalms or the need for redemption. Islam has collections of hadiths and fights over which successor to the prophet is correct.

It’s like arguing with moonbats, except these guys actually mean it when they say convert or die. NO logic, just the same points over and over without backup or thought. "America is the source of all evil" "Bush is evil" "Jooos are behind 9/11 and are evil"

At least now we can see why the Left is making common cause with them- they speak the same language and use the right code phrases.

Now I remember what I disliked about "Meet Muslihoon"- his answers were so depressing on the state of Islam.

Don’t you hate the faith of such a polytheist who says God is one third of a trinity, or who worships Christ, son of Mary?

Interesting that he chose to utilize a Seinfeldian delivery. "Don't you hate infidels, and those airline seats that only recline about two inches?"

Hey, you guys gett all het up about Big Mo, right? You can't even mention the guy's name without a "PBUH", right?

I mention Christ all the time, without so much as a "nice guy!" to show for it.

So, like, who's worshipping whom here, boy?

Another fun thing- If Jesus is the Christ (as Dr. Jihadi claims) then it actually makes sense to worship him- it's part of the job title

I love Muslihoon. I think that guy know of what he writes. If I'm not mistaken, he is a fellow Papist now.

Remember, kids, Cthulhu doesn't hate.

Yes, he will obscenely toy with the shards of your shattered, pitiful soul as he devours you amid gibbering shrieks of terror and hopelessness during the Universe's impossible and eldritch final collapse.

But he won't care about you one way or the other.

Maybe someone should remind him to read the history of his own religion. Mohammed's "god" allah was a stone idol. Maybe even the one they walk around and kiss or whatever at Mecca that infidels are not allowed to see. And Mohammed was no example of a prophet I'd want to follow. He was one of the most vile human beings who ever walked the earth and his legacy was violence, ignorance and suffering..

Hubris, that's funny.

It can't be hatred. He doesn't have power.

Oh, and like these people have the right to cast stones:

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/

Talk about hate filled screes. Check out the part where they talk about how anti-hate crime legislation is getting in the way of spreading the Truth. Pfft.

All "revealed" religions are crap. Look at history. Nothing but suffering comes from religion.

Hey, Bart. What about what PAt R said about Ariel Sharon and Chavez and the town of Dover, PA? Eh? Can u feel the love?

Hypocrite.

Yes, Larry, that was my point. The Muslim guy says whacky shit and gets a pass from the media. But when Pat Robertson says whacky shit, it's makes the front page.

This explains an encounterI had with a Saudi national back in the '90s when I was in the 'awl biness'. I was at a Houston trade show demonstrating some software to this Saudi, who the evening before, I observed get shit-face falling-down drunk in the hotel bar. At some point in the demonstration he just got up and walked out. Now, I didn't think the demo was going that badly, so I attributed his exit to a hangover. But now I just think he hated my guts.

larry the Urbanite said:
All "revealed" religions are crap. Look at history. Nothing but suffering comes from religion.

Really larry, nothing? Got a cock up your ass or something? Not even great works of architecture, and poetry, and music, and Western civilization, and people not being nihilistic assholes, and people having a sense of purpose in their lives, and bobble-head Jesus dolls, and...

Go piss the fuck off larry, no one wants you here.

You know Larry, by posting in this thread, you cause people to read it.

By causing people to spend their limited time reading this thread, you cause less attention to be paid to the Abramoff threads.

Is that what you want, Larry? Less attention paid to Abramoff and Delays shenanigans? Did they pay you off already? Which tribe? Or is it Abramoffs personal dirty money?

Good God man. If they could pay off Larry to hush this up, they could get to any one of us.

Where's my check?

All "revealed" religions are crap. Look at history. Nothing but suffering comes from religion.

Hey, Bart. What about what PAt R said about Ariel Sharon and Chavez and the town of Dover, PA? Eh? Can u feel the love?

Hypocrite.

Um, kids, the concept of constructive hatred is not unique to Islam. The words of Jesus:

(Luke 14:26-27 NIV) "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple. {27} And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

Now, theologians will tell you that emotions are sometimes described in sacred literature in a comparative way. Thus, Jesus compares the natural affection towards close relatives to "hatred" as opposed to the devotion he demands from his disciples.

I'm just sayin', the remarks by that Saudi professor are not all that outrageous, even from a Christian perspective.

Nothing but suffering comes from religion

Hey, we give em morphine if they need it. So piss off!

The idea that one must give up everything one loves in this world for one's God, expressed in the Biblical passage, is not the same thing as the idea that one is ethically obliged to hate the unbeliever.

The first, from your quoted passage, is an expression of the idea that the obligation to God is, as Kierkegaard would say, higher than the ethical--this is the idea behind Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his own son simply because God told him to: it would have been wrong for Abraham to have sacrificed his son in the absence of a specific divine command.

The second, however, as expressed by the Muslim professor, is a perfectly non-contradictory and easily understood ethical principle--it is ALWAYS ethical to hate the unbeliever--hating the unbeliever requires no 'teleological suspension of the ethical', produces neither anguish nor anxiety, is as K. would say in the realm of the ethical and not the religious. You need no special dispensation from God in order to do it.

I am unaware of any analogous law in the New Testament which places essentially less value on the life of the unbeliever or sinner, or which requires the believer or sinner to hate him.

Now, theologians will tell you that emotions are sometimes described in sacred literature in a comparative way.

And there's agood reason why they would tell us that. Because it is accurate. Jesus was telling His discilpes (followers, Christians, the Churh) to put Him first in their lives before all else.

Jesus never preached "hate." It is silly to even suggest it. Jesus was consistent in his message: Love Me, not the world. And He was kind enough to explain what was "of the world," and "worldly."
There's no mystery to Christ's charges. Everything is crystal clear and quite obvious if one takes the time to read the Bible and do a little studying on etymology and the contemporary lexicon.

Oh, and like these people have the right to cast stones:

I think I missed the day ace came out as a Christian. But thanks for revealing a little more of your blinkered ignorance today, Larry. Thanks very much.

alex: U said

"The first, from your quoted passage, is an expression of the idea that the obligation to God is, as Kierkegaard would say, higher than the ethical--this is the idea behind Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his own son simply because God told him to: it would have been wrong for Abraham to have sacrificed his son in the absence of a specific divine command. "

My parents (devout Catholic's but not given to excess) used to say" In my generation, it was Y-O_U -- God (Yaweh) - Others - You. That was the priority of your allegances, in those days, that was how they were brought up.

But what kind of perverse, twisted being would require a man to sacrifice his son in order to prove loyalty. If God is all knowing and all seeing and all doing, he already knows the answer. And, if some God required this of us and we said no, caving in to no less than the most primal urge there is, to protect one's child (I know, I am a father), why should he judge us lacking? I reject this notion of a spiteful, angry being. If God is insane, we are all insane.

I must apologize for my rantings on other threads, as this ihas been a fascinating discussion.

Their planns are the smae whipe out all christians and replace it with their own

Stortelli: An example, only. Want I shoul find a Jewish hate site? They are there. White Supremicist, them too. How about clown haters. This one was handy and I had just found it a little while ago. .

The second, however, as expressed by the Muslim professor, is a perfectly non-contradictory and easily understood ethical principle--it is ALWAYS ethical to hate the unbeliever

I just didn't get that from the passages quoted by Ace. The Saudi professor said:

I must hate him, his heresy, and his defiance of Allah and His prophet

He also said that such persons are "partners in humanity."

And He was kind enough to explain what was "of the world," and "worldly."

Bart, what a surprise. Who would have thought that I'd get Pauline theology on this thread?

Um, kids, the concept of constructive hatred is not unique to Islam. The words of Jesus:

I don't want to pile on (alex has pointed out your faulty interpretation of that passage more eloquently then I could anyway) but, Michael, do you really feel called to stick up for the Wahabis?

But what kind of perverse, twisted being would require a man to sacrifice his son in order to prove loyalty.

In fact, Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac was not required. God stopped it.

And an example was set that resonates thoughout history.

Do the math. I think God knows what He's up to.

the idea that the obligation to God is, as Kierkegaard would say, higher than the ethical

As I understand the world, this is an oxymoron. God, as near as my limited brain can grasp it, is ethics itself, in a way.

As to the Abraham story, I don't think God would do that. But I don't worry about it much, since I just take it to be an old oral tradition, probably with some divine inspiration, passed on by humans. (I'm not trying to convince anybody; I'm just thinking out loud.)

An example, only. Want I shoul find a Jewish hate site?

Yeah, it was very illustrating that in a post about a Muslim preaching that Muslims must hate Christians, you popped your mouth off about how many good reasons there are to hate Christians. And now you're including Jews, too.

Good one. My only disappointment is that you're too stupid to be ashamed of yourself.

Wait one, all: Have we missed the message because of the inept translation? The last sentence of the scree, the punchline, the "homily" if u will, is

"It should make me feel compassion for him, and should make me guide and reform him. "

This seems not to far off from how an evangelical christian might phrase it. I'm jest saying.

(BTW, Sometimes, for effect, a minister will perform the act of "the big lie". Everyone will know, subliminally, that he will turn his outrageous statements around to show the caring, the correct path, athe end. )

This seems not to far off from how an evangelical christian might phrase it. I'm jest saying.

Wrong again Leisure Suit Larry! We don't 'guide and reform'. We give you the Good News, you make a decision. The rest is between you and God.

As I understand the world, this is an oxymoron. God, as near as my limited brain can grasp it, is ethics itself, in a way.

There are certainly other available interpretations of the Abraham/Isaac story, and of the relation between God and the ethical--your own is (I believe, although I do not have nearly the same familiarity with Kant's work that I do with Kierkegaard's) more like the Kantian interpretation of God's relation to ethics, which cites the passage from the Bible in which Jesus says 'Why call you me good?' to support the idea that human beings are independently capable of understanding and doing what is right, and that the right action is an end in itself (not the product of an obligation to a higher being).

But Kierkegaard would, in fact, also support this idea--he argues that God does not possess a 'higher reason' which is unavailable to fallen humanity (he's not a Calvinist), but instead that 'reason' is in a category below anything to do with the divine (it is, as he would say, 'qualitatively different' and cannot be reached or mediated by a 'more or less').

So you are quite right to call the conflict of the religious and the ethical a paradox, and irrational--but this was precisely Kierkegaard's idea of faith (the famous 'qualitative leap' of faith), as the surrational.

But what kind of perverse, twisted being would require a man to sacrifice his son in order to prove loyalty. If God is all knowing and all seeing and all doing, he already knows the answer. And, if some God required this of us and we said no, caving in to no less than the most primal urge there is, to protect one's child (I know, I am a father), why should he judge us lacking? I reject this notion of a spiteful, angry being. If God is insane, we are all insane.

If I've understood K. correctly, that is--I'm no theologian.

Wait one, all: Have we missed the message because of the inept translation? The last sentence of the scree, the punchline, the "homily" if u will, is

"It should make me feel compassion for him, and should make me guide and reform him. "

This seems not to far off from how an evangelical christian might phrase it. I'm jest saying.

(BTW, Sometimes, for effect, a minister will perform the act of "the big lie". Everyone will know, subliminally, that he will turn his outrageous statements around to show the caring, the correct path, athe end. )

. . .and, in conclusion, I think I need to apologize for the total lack of references in all the long-winded blather above to boobies, vaginas, or Val-U-Rite vodka.

No, that's not quite what I was trying to get at, either. I've been thinking a lot about this stuff lately, but I'm not doing a good job expressing my thoughts. For the most part, though, I think that humans are not able to fully understand the universe, and the best we can do is vague analogies. Our concept of God is just a limited projection into human concepts of the reality, which doesn't fit in our heads. When I say I think God kinduv is morality, I mean I think that in a sense God might exist when and where we do good things (but not exclusively there). As in, morality (whether or not we understand it) could make up God, in a way, to some extent. I'm not trying to comment on our understanding of morality using reason, which can be confused by all sorts of things. Blah. Never mind. I'm not making any sense.

Michael, do you really feel called to stick up for the Wahabis?

No.

But I will stick up for the righteous wrath of God anytime. Read Romans. And Isaiah.

Its really interesting to see different viewpoints & learn useful things in the discussion.

But what kind of perverse, twisted being would require a man to sacrifice his son in order to prove loyalty. If God is all knowing and all seeing and all doing, he already knows the answer.

We are not automatons. When Genesis spoke of humans being created in God's image, it didn't mean that God is a big furless primate. In short, it meant that we have free will to choose good or evil. God made us this way so that we may advance beyond furless primates. In other words, He chooses to limit Himself in his interactions with us so that we may "grow up." Therefore, your description of omniscience isn't accurate here.

The story of Abraham and Isaac makes more sense if you know that human sacrifice, particularly child sacrifice, was all too common back then. Abraham had doubted God before, and was possibly doubting God again before God told him to sacrifice Isaac. Abraham's attitude at that point was probably, "I knew it, He's just like every god out there." Then God stopped Abraham from sacrificing Isaac, thus showing him that He wasn't like the other gods, and that any god who asks that you slay your own child to appease him/her is not the true God.

Nothing but suffering comes from religion.

You said it Lawrence of Urbania. Here in Minnesota we've got all these guys called the Evangelica Lutheran Church of America. They go by the handle ELCA. Nasty fuckers, with there food shelves and clothing drives. Always going around finding homes for the homeless and other acts of pure evil. I even heard they built a school and clinic in Tanzania. I snuck into one of their "meetings", and every single one of them admitted to being evil. After that they performed some sort of cult ritual where they pretended to drink blood, followed by coffee and doughnuts.

Just remember, atheists killed more people in the 20th century than were killed in all the religious wars of the previous centuries combined. Those damn religious types couldn't even get mass murder right.

followed by coffee and doughnuts.

The bastards.

followed by coffee and doughnuts

Frickin' Lutherans. What will be the next outrage?

followed by coffee and doughnuts

You forgot the part where they talk about what a nice guy Jesus was, and how glad they were that he suffered a painful death.

Where are the charities set up by atheists, agnostics, and a-religious?

Do you know what Christian fanatics do? It's unbelievable. Absolutely nuts. They go into poor countries and actually set up hospitals and schools - whom anyone can use! In some areas of the world, the only healthcare people have is what is provided by the Catholic Church.

Mother Teresa is upheld as the paramount example of compassion and service. Maybe she was an atheist. People worldwide admire Rabbi Mendel Menachem Schneerson (z"l), the Lubavitcher Rebbe, for his charity and compassion. He was a little bit religious. John Paul II, Mohandas Karamchand "Mahatma" Gandhi, the Aga Khan, Shirdi Sai Baba - there have been many religious people who have inspired the best to emerge from others. Can the same be said about atheists, agnostics?

(I'm not slamming atheism or agnosticism - I'm just pointing out that religion and religious people are not as bad as is commonly portrayed by atheists and agnostics (some of whom are so "evangelistic" that they put Evangelic Christians to shame).)

Where I grew up, the best schools (with one or two exceptions) were all those run by the Catholic Church.

Let us set aside whatever the Bible (Hebrew or Christian) may actually say; what's important is how it is interpreted and what is preached from it. There are fringe groups that preach hatred, but that's exactly the point: they're on the fringe. Mainstream Christianity and Judaism reject them. On the other hand, Islamic preaching of hating the non-Muslim is quite mainstream.

"Guide and reform them" - what might this mean? According to Islam, it means to place them under Muslim rule and law. Preach Islam to them. Make them feel inferior. Muslims know this, which is why it's left unsaid.

No, hating the non-Muslim is quite entrenched in mainstream Islam. This is because Islam views non-Muslims as traitors to G-d, obstacles in Islam's work, and enemies of the True Religion. After all, it is an Islamic belief that everyone is born a Muslim: a person's parents put them on the wrong path. Islam is the natural state of being - anything else is unnatural. What is unnatural, of course, must be rejected.

As such, it is quite difficult for a Muslim, growing up in a Muslim environment, to form value systems such as what much of America has, where one's value really doesn't depend on one's religion. But is formulating such a view possible in islam? Yes. Is it easy? No.

Something interesting I have noticed is that of all the translations, interpretations, and commentaries of the Qur'an that I have read, only one stands out as being able to integrate modern values with Islamic teachings. It is the one done by Maulana Muhammad Ali. For a period of time, it was quite respected. Then it became known that Mr. Ali was an Ahmadi, which was true (although he belonged to a sect of the movement - the Lahori Ahmadis - that was more compatible with Islam). Ahmadis - without distinguishing the two sects - were declared as non-Muslims for two major reasons: they believed in a prophet after Muhammad (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, whom, however, Mr. Ali's sect says was not a prophet but simply a reformer; the Qadiani Ahmadis still believe Mr. Ahmad was a prophet albeit of a much lesser status; in the end the argument is semantic) and they rejected jihad by force. (I think it says a lot about mainstream Islam when mainstream Islamic groups reject Ahmadis because they do not promote jihad by force.) Of the two, the second was not entirely true: they rejected the need in the modern world to spread Islam by force but did still believe in the right of Muslims to take up arms in self-defense. I was quite disappointed that the one translation that was compatible with modern values turns out to be rejected by most of mainstream Muslims. Nevertheless, one can use the arguments and theories behind Mr. Ali's interpretations which really take out the barbarism, violence, and superiority complex of Islam as stated in the Qur'an, to formulate a gentler version of Islam. Nevertheless, such a version would be in obvious and glaring violation of fundamental beliefs and statements that define Islam.

Millions of people teaching one thing cannot be compared to thousands who might teach something similar. Does Islam preach hatred? It has been interpreted as such. Do Christianity, Judaism, and other religions preach hatred? In the mainstream forms, no. The difference here is glaring. Consider also that when a fringe leader says something non-charitable, as Pat Robertson or, I imagine, R. Kahane might say/have said, the reaction from the mainstream is unmistakeable. They condemn the speaker and his words. They reject such interpretations of their religion. These beliefs cannot enter the mainstream or be accepted by it. Such is not true in Islam, where, actually, the reverse may be true: those who preach acceptance and tolerance of non-Muslims are on the fringe and are condemned and rejected by the mainstream.

(From an academic and historical standpoint, this may have to do with the status of Christianity and Judaism when they were born compared to Islam's. Christianity started either as a Jewish sect or as a fringe, insignificant religion, vis-a-vis Judaism, Judea, and the Roman Empire. Judaism began, it seems, as a tribal religion, which could on its own not compete as a universal religion against the various forms of paganism. Indeed, as the Hebrew Bible tells us, groups of Jews were more susceptible to pagan influences than pagans might have been susceptible to Jewish influences. Compared to this, Islam became, before Muhammad died, a triumphalist state religion that successfully created an empire and was expanding. Christianity and Judaism were underdogs (and in today's world with its relativism and radical secularism have once again become underdogs) where Islam was always to top dog, the alpha male so to speak, and remains so today, for the most part.

As one who has studied religion, I must say it is utterly ridiculous to say that religion has caused nothing but suffering. For millions, if not billions, religion is all that provides meaning and purpose in this lone and dreary world. Yes, certain religions cause more suffering than others. Yet to say that a movement that can establish peace between people - when our natural tendency is to violence - and that inspires such creativity and is such a powerful force in moving humanity forward in history - it deserves its due praise and respect. As Iblis said (with my own modifications), anti-religious forces have killed more people than religious forces have.

Oh, let us not forget that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was not only a civil rights activist but a Christian leader. He led a Christian group. Yes, religion was mixed with politics to campaign for civil rights.

Yes, I know I'm wordy. :-)

"You forgot the part where they talk about what a nice guy Jesus was, and how glad they were that he suffered a painful death."

The women were indoctrinating the children with this stuff!!!!!

I, as all rational, logical, sane people do, blame the Jews.

It wasn't the Jews banging altar boys. Never forget the screams, the plaintive cries of the altar boys as they wriggled in vain in the sacristies.

Thought I'd beat the site-lefties to the punch here.

Catholics and Lutherans.... man they're like the Bloods and the Crips.

From an academic and historical standpoint, this may have to do with the status of Christianity and Judaism when they were born compared to Islam's.

Judaism, on the other hand, did always have a more explicitly political affiliation, though it never (unlike either Christianity or Islam) ruled a vast empire--the Messiah was to have been a king, a military leader. Today's rabbinic, 'countercultural' Judaism originated with, essentially, the brute destruction of Temple-centered Judaism's main symbolic center, the temple--the ripping out of its ideological heart not once but twice, even--and the scattering of its people. And even then, the state-making impulse of Judaism survived to form modern Israel (though in a much altered form from the original temple-state).

Religions really are powerful and sometimes powerfully scary things--and they cannot be changed easily or predictably. I don't think, though, that it's especially productive, realistic, or intelligent to wish them out of existence, any more than it's particularly productive to blame world hunger on the universal human need for food.

When I was much younger and terrified of atheists (don't ask :)) it was really encouraging to see a religion, any religion--but particularly Islam, which seemed in so many ways like the religion in which I was raised--expanding so vigorously throughout the world at a time when everyone claimed that religion was dying. I'm still hopeful for them, though I don't possess the knowledge to see when or how reform might be achieved.

But, to end on a positive note--an interesting current religious leader working for positive change is Mensa Otabil in Ghana, a prominent evangelical (or, more precisely, Pentecostal) Christian minister who, one might say, is a 'social gospel' Christian in the neo-liberal, as opposed to the Marxist or liberationist, mold. I might be overselling things, but then again perhaps not, to call him something of a Ghanaian Havel.

Good points, alex. Thanks.

Social gospel Christians have made their impact. If I remember correctly, the Salvation Army was formed during the heyday of social Christianity. Was not the Prohibition part of social Christianity - trying to rid society of evil and uplift the downtrodden? I could be wrong.

We need more social Christians. Those were good days - when people focused so much on the betterment of society and of the individual. But I doubt today's society could tolerate such a blatantly religious effort to uplift the downtrodden.

Besides, the dictatorship of relativism doesn't bode well for secular-religious relations. But non-religious are just not doing and focusing enough on such issues. They may talk about them, but action is what's needed. Religious get out and do stuff.

Wow! You two should write a book. Oh wait, you did.

Bart: LOL! :-)

I may be a little off-perspective, but at least in the theology schools, liberal Christians and other religious are all about the 'social gospel' and it's modern Marx-inflected descendant, 'liberation theology'. The old 60's activist Baptist minister, Harvey Cox, famously wrote 'The Secular City' back in the day, and likes to comment on the various Christian creeds that 'they tell you only how Jesus was born and how he died--nothing about what he did, helping and healing the poor'. I've also actually found that the postmodern/radical/left intellectual is far more sanguine about religion (witness Foucault's positive attitude towards the new theocracy in Iran in its early days) than the liberal/modernist intellectuals with whom I in all other respects am much more likely to agree. Furthermore, as the face of the average Christian becomes more and more--on average--poor and non-western (the largest Christian church in the world today is the Yoido Full Gospel Church in Seoul, South Korea), the postmodern intellectual is also more and more likely to view Christianity as a possible tool of resistance to oppression--as opposed to an instrument of, in the old Marxist-speak, 'anomie', 'alienation', and 'false consciousness' imposed by western missionaries. The liberation theologian actually speaks of a 'dios pobre'--a God mediated to the rest of the world through the poor.

Indeed, I would say that, to some extent, the emphasis (in liberal seminaries, at least) is so markedly on the works of the Christian in this world, that it neglects the soul of the individual Christian, and any concern for the next world. This has led, in the Latin American 'comunidades ecclesiales de base'--Basic Ecclesial Communities--small Catholic organizations, bastions of grass-roots liberation theology, which worked against various of the hard right Latin American governments in the 80's--to a marked loss of members over time to the more otherworldly and ever growing Pentecostal sects.

Fascinating. Permit me to bug you some more.

First, it's sad, in a way, that Catholics are leaving to join Protestant denominations in their search for spirituality. The Catholic Church has a very rich and deep tradition of spirituality.

Second, could you explain a little more how God mediates through the poor? This has always fascinated me. (I guess it's the opposite of prosperity Christian groups wherein one's richness is a sign of God's pleasure.)

At least in Catholicism isn't there two competing strains? One says being poor is good because suffering is good, and that there will always be poverty although salvation can be fleeting. (Matthew 26:11, Mark 14:7, John 12:8.) The other says that being poor is a challenge the world must solve, that God is with the poor. Sort of like Mother Teresa versus liberation theologians? (And why has the Church been not supportive of liberation theologians? Is it because of their emphasis on this world rather than the other?) Is this the same in Protestantism?

Third, how close are such Christians and theologians to socialism? Their image of a good world, where injustices have been ended and everyone is equal: how would it differ from a socialist's or communist's? I have heard some say that the New Testament creates a veritably socialist/communist community. (I believe Acts of the Apostles is used to support this.) I guess it would not be kosher to say this trend is compatible with Marxism, but not all socialism is Marxist, right?

It's quite interesting that you say postmodern intellectuals can see Christianity as a tool to oppose oppression rather than one that is used to prepetuate it (if I understood you correctly). Do liberation theologians have a problem with this, being used as a tool rather than the spiritual force it ought to be? Is there a difference between Christian emancipation and non-religious emancipation (under Marxist, Leninist, or Maoist auspices)?

Fourth, how much do these movements believe in or perpetuate a Gospel of/for the poor rather than a universal Gospel?

Fifth, how do larger, more mainstream movements in Christianity view these social gospel Christians? (They are, I must admit, a far cry than what I thought they were. I suppose what I was thinking of was the Second Great Awakening.)

The Catholic church has generally been losing members ever since the Vatican II liberal modernist reforms in the mid-twentieth century, which with the best of intentions stripped the church of some of its most powerful and beloved affective symbols. However, the losses I speak of, particularly in Latin America, are also due to the more recent (though the Pentecostal Azuza street revival happened in LA in 1906) 'depredations' of what has basically become a religious juggernaut throughout the world, Pentecostalism--which is currently second only to Catholicism in overall membership around the world. As to the 'why'--this is the million dollar question for sociologists. One answer (given by Harvey Cox in 'Fire from Heaven') is that Pentecostalism appeals to a very deep primal religious impulse (through 'irrational', 'emotional' worship practices like speaking in tongues and faith healing), a 'Dionysian', emotive, otherworldly religious impulse which Catholicism abandoned in its liberalizing Vatican II reforms for more 'Apollonian' ground.

I'm not extremely well read in the exact doctrines of liberation theology--I know they are opposed to the (equally 'thisworldly') 'prosperity gospel' neo-Pentecostals and they definitely deny the 'blame-the-victim' idea that only people with insufficient faith to 'claim their blessings' suffer. And certainly, some of the practitioners of the prosperity gospel (or 'name it and claim it'/'blab it and grab it') are no better than extortionists--preaching that only people who first give money to the church, or local holy man, suffer. Mensa Otabil comes from a 'prosperity gospel' tradition in Ghana, in fact--but he is an exception in many ways; his spin on the doctrine is far more the old 'Protestant work ethic' reborn than the highly dubious practice of promising that any of your followers who first gives you money is bound to become a millionaire. Many of the other 'prosperity gospel' preachers in Ghana(even the sincere ones) read rather like Ayn Rand on speed. Otabil has, however, turned the idea into a much-needed positive force for self-respect, self-empowerment, and individualism.

Which might still offend certain Liberation theologians, since Otabil's philosophy certainly does not oppose capitalism and might be called 'complicit' with it, encouraging Ghanaians to become 'productive' and 'successful'-- Liberation theology and its proponents are very much associated with leftist political movements and social theories. It has been a predominantly Latin American and Catholic movement in practice, and its members and their congregations have been involved in the political maneuverings of any number of 'Workers' Parties'. Their ideas can at a certain extreme read like nothing more than Marxism turned into a religious obligation. This is indeed the main reason for the hostility of the Catholic church hierarchy, which also doesn't care for the tendency of the movement towards overt political engagement--famously, the Latin American Franciscan Leonardo Boff (one of the founders of Liberation Theology) was silenced for a year by a ruling of Ratzinger's disciplinary council after the publishing of his book 'Church, Charism, and Power'.

The 'social gospel' was advocated by the theologian Richard Niebuhr at the beginning of the 20th century--it was never, I believe, nearly so politically engaged as liberation theology though its members were, I believe, involved in the fight for Prohibition. And the 'social gospel' folks came from a liberal milieu in intellectual circles, as opposed to the radical/leftist/Marxist milieu from which 'liberation theology' emerged and in which it continues to flourish. But the 'social gospel' is certainly one of the intellectual ancestors of liberation theology, with its focus on this world.

I think postmodernist thought has about the same relation to liberation theology as it has to leftist/Marxist ideologies in general--the postmodernists and the deconstructivists generally are leftists, and they have a sort of filial relationship to Marx though almost none of them are 'orthodox' Marxists anymore.

As for the mainstream Christians, the 'mainline' Protestant churches get their ministers from, generally, 'liberation theology' dominated seminaries--hence I imagine the ideology naturally filters down. I can't help but have a distorted view of what 'mainline' is, though: I live in the Unitarian capital of the world. Most churches mainline or not believe in the social gospel as far as charity is concerned; only a few go so far as to adopt a socialist social philosophy as a religious obligation, but there are certainly any number of 'social justice'-centered churches out there. One such near Boston is the Pentecostal Azuza Fellowship.

And, also, the 'liberation theologians' do not intend their gospel only for the poor--it is a vision for the whole world in which the poor are given a spiritually privileged place. So it is 'universal' in the sense that it applies to everyone, but not in the sense that everyone has the same place within it.

I'm about out of my depth by now, though--and I'm sure there are many fine distinctions and points of theology when it comes to the church's social responsibilities as they've been conceived of over the years of which I'm not yet aware.

Second, could you explain a little more how God mediates through the poor?

One of my favorite stories about Jesus is His healing of the man born blind. To understand it, you need to know that a man born blind, at the time of Jesus, likely had syphilitic parents, and therefore was considered the progeny of a family of ill repute. Thus, the original question asked of Jesus was an attempt to get him to assign blame for the man's condition on him or his parents. Jesus comes up with a startling response.

(John 9:1-7 NIV) As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. {2} His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" {3} "Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life. {4} As long as it is day, we must do the work of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. {5} While I am in the world, I am the light of the world." {6} Having said this, he spit on the ground, made some mud with the saliva, and put it on the man's eyes. {7} "Go," he told him, "wash in the Pool of Siloam" (this word means Sent). So the man went and washed, and came home seeing.

By the way, the Pool of Siloam has been found and excavated since my last business trip to Israel. I'm sorry I missed it.