Our moral system ie religion tells us what to believe and what we should and shouldn't do.
All religions are moral systems.
Secular political ideologies are also moral systems.
Religions last longer than secular political ideologies.
The one with the longest track record is Judaism.
Christianity and Islam are derived from Judaism.
We know Christianity is kaput because Westerners are now having an identity crisis.
The West is as Christian as a human skeleton once used to be human.
The Culture War raging across the West is between those who want to identify as liberals - mostly white middle class college-educated women who are a minority supporting uncontrolled immigration - and those who identify as nationalists - mostly plebeian men who deplore it.
No society can do without religion at least effective at maintaining minimum standards of sexual morality ie ensuring most parents in your society are married.
Hinduism and Buddhism are even more alien to Western traditions than Islam.
We could always revert back to a form of pagan Nordic or Greek/Roman religion, as these were patriarchal...
ReplyDeleteThere was a reason why Christianity replaced paganism.
ReplyDeleteAs a Christian I was taught that there is only one true God and that through His Son Jesus Christ we could all receive Salvation. However, as you relate, the West no longer takes this seriously and seeks more exciting alternatives. I find the growth of satanism very disturbing...
ReplyDeleteDo you believe Jesus is also God?
ReplyDeleteNo, we do not. Because He is Emmanuelle (Lit. God with us). He is not just the Son of God, and the Son of Man, "Before Abraham He [Was}." If anyone thinks that is not a proclamation of who Jesus is as Divine, then they do not understand the phrase, "I Am, That I Am" at the burning bush with Moses.
ReplyDeleteAs for those who convicted Him of blasphemy, it is only true if was not who He proved Himself, and others proclaimed Him to be. If He's God, then their justice proceedings were a sham. What court pulls in people and beats a man to testify against himself. That should tell you the nature of the men in the Sanhedrin, not all of them, but the ones in power.
The Torah and the Koran have greater authority than the New Testament written by fallible and mortal men.
ReplyDeleteAnd the Torah and the Koran were written by. . . . what kind of men? How do you assert that both the Torah and the Koran have "greater authority?" What is your criteria for such a claim, especially in light of your agnosticism. A true agnostic would place them on equal footing, or at least admit there is no way to tell with any authority which if any has "more" than the others.
ReplyDeleteI am saying that the scripture of Judaism and Islam are *conceptually superior* to Christianity because even if you don't believe in God, you would still know that God if He exists would be above mortal fallible men who are believed to be part of God's Creation.
ReplyDeleteReally? I have looked at several men in history who did not believe in God, and some who did (as they understood Him through their own eyes) and they and their followers have perpetrated great atrocities. They did not care if God is above mortal men, nor did they care if their fellow man was made in His image.
ReplyDeleteWho do you have in mind?
ReplyDeleteI'll just pick a well known one, Stalin; but really, how many do I need?
ReplyDeleteAnd Communism has failed.
ReplyDeleteStill disproves the "romantic notion" you have that, " even if you don't believe in God, you would still know that God if He exists would be above mortal fallible men who are believed to be part of God's Creation." No they don't nor do they care. Results oriented beliefs and/or governments care more for pragmatism . . . they care very little for the "moral" aspect, or they are conveniently set aside by the secular reasoning of "moral relativity" or "situational ethics."
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that you notice that Communism has failed, but fail to notice that Eastern Orthodox has grown back, and other forms of Christianity have been allowed in as well.
Also, I wrote up higher, " . . . . And the Torah and the Koran were written by. . . . what kind of men? How do you assert that both the Torah and the Koran have "greater authority?" What is your criteria for such a claim, especially in light of your agnosticism? A true agnostic would place them on equal footing, or at least admit there is no way to tell with any authority which if any has "more" than the others." I am hoping you are going to answer those questions.
Russia is fortunate enough to have a sensible President, that's all. But what about the West?
ReplyDeleteI have already answered your question, and said that Jews and Muslims are supposed to believe that their scripture comes from God Himself, while Christians do not claim that anyone but mortal and fallible men compiled the New Testament.
Actually, that would be incorrect. First, Christians do use the Old Testament (Tanakh), so at the very least they would say it is partially inspired. The Old Testament was also penned by fallible men, and no Jewish scholar would say otherwise. Much like the Christians they contend that Scripture was not written from the mind of men, but of God writing through men, the same way a man would write a book through a pen. There is a great deal of OT in the NT and is expounded upon by Jesus, Peter, Paul, John, and Luke. All of them were Jews, so there is a continuity there. If anyone says that the original Hebrew scriptures are anything but, then two things must be considered. 1. God is not able to maintain His own book because of mere mortals? And 2. Jesus was quoting only the works of fallen men, even though He begins by . . . "It is written . . . . and, you err because you do not know the Scriptures." This includes everything all the way to the book of Revelation relayed by John on Patmos. I think you assume that all Christians take a "liberal view" of the Bible, they do not.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, Putin is a sensible President. I would consider him shrewd; since, he outlived the life of Communism in Russia, but much like Xi of China who has repackaged Emperor into the title of President, Putin has repackaged Czar into the title of President as well. Fair and honest elections held . . . . . . we have a problem with our own socialist in the US since they are pragmatists and care little for fair and honest. Only the end result is what matters; so to them, the ends justify the means.
Jews believe that the Torah - which is part of the Old Testament/Tanakh - comes from God. This in itself makes it superior in authority to the hearsay of some mortal and fallible men called Matthew, Mark etc. It is blasphemy to worship as the co-equal of the supreme and eternal Abrahamic God who created the Universe a man convicted of the blasphemy for saying his papa was God Himself and not his mother's husband Joseph. We don't hear much about the poor man's family life and what people thought of him, do we?
ReplyDeleteAre you really suggesting that Western governments are better regarded by the people they govern and more principled than the Russian and Chinese government? They at least appear more to be governing in the national interest and more stable.
Last I checked, Jews believe the Law and the Prophets, and that these were both written down by men, but are the words of God. It is not blasphemy to worship as the co-equal, someone as the co-equal as the God of Abraham, if that is Who they say they are, and they actually are.
ReplyDelete"The hearsay" of mortals is all you have in the Quran, and yet you esteem it. It was pieced together by none other than Uthman ibn Affan, who collected the Quran and who burned divergent copies of which there were seven. How did that work out for him?
"We don't hear much about the poor man's family life and what people thought of him, do we?" We read and hear plenty of what they thought of Him in the New Testament, both by those who love Him, and those who do not.
Blasphemy was the charge; and by those who "nullified the law by their traditions, dishonoring their fathers and mothers," and anyone doing that was to be put to death.
You hold up Jesus poor position, and yet Moses tended his father in laws sheep for 40 years in Midian having turned his back on the riches of Egypt.
Stable, huh? That's the goal? If you want stability through oppression, you can have it. I'll take freedom any day. I notice you don't live in China or Russia; convince me you admire their "stability" and move there.
Sometimes are instability is for our greater good. We went to war with one another; because a minority group was not being treated as Americans but as pawns in political chess.
Is it perfect? No, but it's better than constant tyranny. I wonder what would happen if anyone criticized the Chinese government . . . . oh, we don't really have to ask. We've seen their response on camera. How's Hong Kong going? Surprised they don't want to be a part of that "great stability?"
I know that your fall-back argument is that it is not idolatry and blasphemy to worship a man executed as the co-equal of the supreme and eternal Abrahamic God who created the Universe if Jesus is indeed God. However, I think you already know that Christians have a hard time explaining this even to themselves. It is impossible to explain nonsense and the Athanasian Creed is actually nonsense, is it not? Historically, state violence and intimidation was used to enforce belief and force conversions. The First Amendment is based on quran.com/2/256 and Muslims everywhere must be thankful for the American Republic whose First Amendment is based on this verse in the Koran. Muslims everywhere must also thank America for putting Muhammad in the US Supreme Court frieze. Muslims everywhere must also thank Americans for being the first Western country to separate the church from their state because the Americans in the New World wished to protect their republic from the Christian on Christian religious persecution of the Old World. They may even wish to posthumously declare Thomas Jefferson an honorary Muslim together with Michael Servetus who was burned at the stake for denying the Trinity at the behest of John Calvin.
ReplyDeleteI think we both know that the 2020 elections will be the last US Presidential election. Whoever wins will be establishing a one-party state. Trump would be a fool not to establish a one-party state. Why would he give up a peaceful retirement to push a boulder up a hill and then let it roll back down again when he leaves office? You shouldn't be too dismayed, however. Once upon a time in America, the Federalist Party was the only party in America. Once upon a time in America, America was a one-party state.
You may be reassured to learn that God if He exists and revealed the Koran approves of a one-party state. http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=6&verse=159
No, we do not both know that the 2020 elections will be the last US Presidential election; well, if Democrats win it will start a Socialist attempt to change the US government, I don't think it will be a "stable" time in America by any means. If Trump wins in a landslide; even then, socialists do not know how to loose gracefully, they just regroup and attack the "little guy" unless they have backing. Then they just get more violent.
ReplyDeleteYes, I know the Quran approves of a one-party state. Muhammad was very political and sought to establish a Theocracy. Iran and Saudi Arabia would be examples of this.
Judaism sought to establish the same thing, and did for some time. Christianity is different. Jesus, questioned by Pilate said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.” Therefore Pilate said to Him, “So You are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” Christianity is, and has been, a kingdom within kingdoms.
Islam accepts the logic of your law conforming to your chosen moral system, whatever it is.
ReplyDeleteNo it doesn't. We have history going back all the way to the 7th Century that says otherwise. For an "agnostic" you carry a lot of water for a specific religion.
ReplyDeleteWhen you say "No, it doesn't", I don't know what you are referring to when you talk about history going back all the way to the 7th century either, I'm afraid. The logic of a sharia theocracy is simply this: if you believe in the Abrahamic God and believe that He revealed laws first for Jews and completed His revelation through the Koran for gentiles after dividing humanity into Jew and gentile, you would want to follow His laws. If you have already incorporated the Old Testament (which includes the Torah believed to have been from God) in your Christian scripture, you would be on notice that the Ten Commandments forbid idolatry. The definition of idolatry is the worship of anything that is not God, who is separate from His creation. Since Jesus was a man, he was part of God's creation. Since Christians unashamedly worship a dead man, they are guilty of idolatry and have been guilty of idolatry for 2000 years. Perhaps as their civilisation falls about their ears, they might consider ceasing and desisting.
ReplyDeleteFirst; No, Islam does not accept "my moral law whatever it is," if it conforms to its moral system of law, which is Sharia. The only time it makes allowances outside of this is in the form of "jizya," for example, which is not a head tax, but a tax to worship differently within the larger Islamic legal structure. You have to pay to be different. This does not mean those with different beliefs are to be considered equals with Muslims, but as inferiors. Sharia law is considered the supreme goal of any Muslim, if they are to be consistent with the Quran.
ReplyDeleteSecond; Christians do not worship a "dead guy," since Jesus was raised from the dead on the third day and sits at the right hand of the Father, as per scripture. They are not guilty of idolatry; since Jesus is considered part of the Trinity. Fully God, fully man. Even Mohammed considered Jesus at least as a "prophet" (which you must be good to be one) and born of a virgin, so not a normal birth. If you do not think that God can operate within His own creation in any true form He desires, then you need to explain the burning bush.
I interpret the jizya to be a conditional tribute which can be avoided if the conquered nation becomes an Islamic State.
ReplyDeleteOnly Christians believe in the Nicene creed cooked up by a bunch of bishops who could not even agree, at the Council of Nicaea called by an emperor who wasn't even Christian.
Ahhh, the conquered nation becomes an Islamic state. Yes, there it is, coupled with a "conditional tribute." Call it what you want, it is unequal treatment under the law, and very "un-American." So much for Islam contributing to the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteThe Nicene Creed, cooked up by a bunch of bishops. . . . way to seriously dumb that down and misrepresent that. More than 300 bishops somehow seems better than "a bunch." These were not ignorant men, but very well educated, and since there was no Bible, they would have been going over original letters and/or close secondary texts.
The purpose of the Council was to refute the Arian heresy that had entered Church doctrine. Would you have rather they took care of heresy using the Islamic method, like what was done at Battle of Karbala. That has had pretty long lasting effects, and not just within Islam.
As for whether the Emperor was Christian or not, I don't know, nor do I care. God can and has used pagan kings for His purposes; since, He is able to "channel them like water." Cyrus the Great started the Second Temple in Jerusalem, and construction continued all through to Darius the First; neither one of them were Jewish. "God is the God of all, and none can stay His will."
You do realise that tributes are paid by nations and not individuals, don't you? Tributes are paid by conquered nations.
ReplyDeleteWhat did you want me to explain about the burning bush?
What are you saying the Battle of Karbala signifies?
You do realise that there is nothing in the New Testament - written by mortal and fallible men who were not Jesus - to affirm the Trinity, don't you?
Battle of Karbala? Alright, we'll go with the Riddah Wars. Theological/Political differences or you just don't like paying zakat, go to war instead of a council. Sounds much more civilized.
ReplyDeleteNothing in the New Testament to affirm Trinity? That's incorrect. Does it say directly, "Hey, God is a Trinity; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?" No. But, one can clearly read the New Testament and draw it as a conclusion about the nature of God.
From the first time Jesus is to be named, Emanuelle. (Literally means, God With Us, as in, "In Our Presence") Jesus, says, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father," and "I and the Father are One." So, that is at least two people in the Godhead. Jesus says He will "never leave or forsake [us]." He sends His Spirit, and the Father sends the Spirit in John 15 and 16. (Jesus Words)
I know you like to harp on the position of who the Bible is written by. . . . who wrote the Quran? Pretty sure they were not perfect, and since Jesus is considered a prophet by Muhammed, he reiterates that all men sin, "If you being evil, know how to give good gifts. . ."
The Battle of Karbala was a battle of succession. What does that prove? Christians had their European Wars of Religion over something or other, didn't they?
ReplyDeleteBoth the Torah and the Koran are conceptually superior to the New Testament because it is believed by Jews that the Torah was handed to Moses on Mount Sinai and it is believed by Muslims that Muhammad was the Messenger of God and this message was the Koran.
So, the Riddah Wars, and the difference between that and the European Wars of Religion or 30 Years War. In some ways they are similar, and in some ways they are very different. War seems to regularly occur when you have a massive change in power structure, and that is what was happening in Europe. Not only had the Reformation started and caused theological doubts about the Roman Catholic Church being the sole "interpreter" of Scripture, but also in the rulers who endorsed them. Most of these wars had little to do with religion, and more to do with power structure and authority. How do we know this? There was not some huge Council determining theological differences at the Peace of Westphalia, and the resolutions were largely related to recognized power structures within the most of Europe.
ReplyDeleteBy contrast, the Riddah wars; while also being about power structure included also the nature of spiritual leadership within Islam, and the results were Sunnis and Shiites. This had a huge impact on Islam as a religion. Technically we could say that Islam split in two almost four hundred years ahead of Christianity, but with very different results. Christians received more freedom in their conscience when it came to religion.
Islam only changed the power structure of who was in charge at the top. The Quran never became open to interpretation by the ummah, other than by those in charge.
Why the difference? In Christianity, the Holy Spirit is given to Christians and it is promised and expected that God will correct and help His own to know what Scripture says. This is not a doctrine in Islam, and therefore external measures must be in play.
Tribute, as you mentioned; is a polite way of describing "protection money." You can candy coat it by saying it is from a country, but countries are made of individuals, so you just end up extorting money en masse. Tribute is also only associated with a "conquered" people. Modern Islam has not lost this concept either since they have viewed any money paid to them from the US as exactly that, jizya.
The First Amendment is based on quran.com/2/256
ReplyDeleteTell yourself that all you want, but I am very familiar with the influences on our Constitutional framers; and no, it really wasn't. As for your quote; that's nice, but it is not the only surah that deals with conversion. Here, let's look at another found in a haddith. . . .
ReplyDelete"When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to [accept] Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. ... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them." Sahih Muslim, Book 19, Number 4294.
So in a nation under Sharia, I would first be considered a "dhimmi" and would have to pay for my religious convictions and beliefs. Sooooo, not what the first amendment says.
As I interpret it, the jizya is a conditional tribute exacted on conquered nations. For the citizens of my proposed theocracy, there would be a constitutional right not to pay more than a flat rate income tax of 20%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khums
ReplyDeleteWell that's great Claire, and how long before Quranic Originalists call you out for you not following the Quran (which they equate with the word of God, and label you as an apostate)? Also, tribute is not "conditional," that's why it's called "tribute." The people are conquered, the power is in the hand of the conqueror. They don't ask, "Hey would you like to pay your tribute this month?" They demand, or there are consequences.
ReplyDeleteJizya historically, and this was practiced all the way up into the 20th century in Turkey had a ceremony in touch with the Quran. Conditional, let's look at that. Jizya was part of a larger deal in which non-Muslims submitted to several conditions. In addition to paying the jizya, non-Muslims were also required to wear distinctive clothing and mark their houses (which must not be built higher than Muslims’ houses), must not scandalize Muslims by openly performing their worship services, nor build new churches or synagogues. Those who owned land were also required to pay a land tax.
I am selling Secular Koranism to the Western political establishment. If they adopt it, they would be the ones in charge of the application and interpretation of what is in effect a new school of sharia. There is no need to ask the permission of these so-called Quranic Originalists as you call them.
ReplyDeleteGreat, I'm sure you can "sell it" to a bunch of agnostic/atheistic politicos who think that religious beliefs are just this thing you do to maintain social control of the masses, kind of like an opiate. Hmmmm, where have I heard that before?
ReplyDeleteWhen something is codified like law. . . . it is easy to change by arguing the negative and positive attributes it has on a society. This is a religion, and the people who adhere to it believe that it has come straight from God. You think, you're going to just "repackage" it for the West?
How's Turkey doing with this? What you're suggesting is not new, it has been tried before. Conservative Muslims have continually been at odds with the various rulers of Turkey, and they were arguing about a "Western" style of constitution that they didn't like because they felt it conflicted with the Quran. You're saying, I want to change the interpretation and application of the Quran, can't wait to see how that works out for you. Remember when someone just drew a satirical picture of Muhammed in a French newspaper? 12 people were gunned down, and another 11 injured.
I am surprised that a believing Christian like you should be quoting Marx approvingly when he said "Religion is the opium of the masses."
ReplyDeleteI am indeed selling my interpretation of the Koran as a New School of Sharia. You do know that Turkey is a secular state, don't you?
Are you equating acts of Muslim terrorism with Secular Koranism in the hope of discrediting it?
Ooooooooooh, I get it. You're not selling this to adherents of Islam, you're selling this to uninformed Western politicians who think that one religion is the same as the other. You're not selling Sharia, you're just opening the door so they will embrace a "lite" version of it. Then the real party starts. Clever, deceptive, but clever.
ReplyDeleteSo by doing this, you will help to foster what is already going on in Britain where they are having issues with British citizens running afoul of Sharia law instead of English Common Law. So, you're just trying to change England into a caliphate on a legal level, got it.
Can you tell me about the issues with "British citizens running afoul of sharia law instead of English common law"?
ReplyDeleteI am so glad you have finally understood that I am not selling Secular Koranism to Muslims, who would only regard Secular Koranism as in some way illegitimate because I am not even Muslim. It seems they prefer to wait until the majority of British people become Muslim before sharia is adopted. I think it is our duty to shorten the period of chaos if we possibly can. Conservatism was really "theocracy lite" anyway.
I think it would be quicker to sell Secular Koranism to the Americans because it is already well known that when America itches, the rest of the West scratches. If American becomes a one-party theocracy, then so will the rest of the West. Whoever wins the 2020 US elections, they will be turning it into a one-party state. When that happens, the solution of Secular Koranism will become more obvious. After all, as I have said, the First Amendment is in fact based on quran.com/2/256 and Muhammad is already on the frieze of the US Supreme Court. https://www.soundvision.com/article/prophet-muhammad-honored-by-the-us-supreme-court-as-one-of-the-greatest-lawgivers-of-the Indeed, the views of the Founding Fathers were closer to Islam than Trinitarian Christianity since we know that most of them were deists. The White House Koran is in fact Thomas Jefferson's.
You might want to reread what I posted. Marx was an anti-Semitic atheist, merely because I quoted him, doesn't mean I endorse him or his lengthy boring three volume diatribe of idiocy.
ReplyDeleteTurkey is a secular state. . . . I don't know if you're keeping up on current events but, Turkey is a secular state. . . . still. Hmmmm, what were the reasons for the attempted coup in 2016? Oh yeah, the Council cited an erosion of secularism, elimination of democratic rule, disregard for human rights, and Turkey's loss of credibility in the international arena as reasons for the coup. The government said the coup leaders were linked to the Gülen movement, which is designated as a terrorist organization by the Republic of Turkey and led by Fethullah Gülen, a Turkish businessman and cleric.
So, Turkey is still secular. . . . . for now. The problem with secularism, especially in the form of governance which I stated before, is that it offers nothing but day to day grind. You maintain, there is no meaning and purpose, no noble ideal to live for. It's just the grind, and people need more than that.
The fact that Education and Sharing Day - which incorporates the Noahide laws - has been incorporated since 1978 is part of the exceptionalism of America in that it has been progressing towards the most suitable, logical and moral legal system for itself and by implication the rest of the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_and_Sharing_Day
ReplyDeleteOf course you do. You think that if "America becomes a one party state" which you assume would be a theocracy. . . . erroneously, we would just run to the arms of "Secular Islam." You are seriously underestimating American culture in your pursuit of uniformity.
ReplyDeleteAs for the frieze of Muhammad, it was put there in 1935, so your correlation of first amendment is bordering on the ridiculous.
As for the founding fathers being closer to Islam than Trinitarian Christianity, you couldn't be more wrong. Islam seeks to control the state, to make moral decisions (and law) for the state, Christianity actually allows a lot of freedom in it and diversity.
Most of the founding fathers were deists? No. There were some, but many attended church with varying degrees of convictions. Deists don't pray, why would they? Yet, Congress opened every session with prayer to the Almighty.
For those of us who don't consider Wikipedia a reliable source for any notions that are . . . . scholarly, you might want to try something else. Also, merely because presidents recognize the positive accomplishments and mission of Rabbi Scheerson, it is completely different than adopting a whole new legal system based on presupposed laws that are found in the Talmud (circa 500 AD). I am pretty sure that the Rabbi would never endorse a country moving towards adopting some form of "Secular Koran" as its new foundation for law. Just not seeing it.
You wrote, "Are you equating acts of Muslim terrorism with Secular Koranism in the hope of discrediting it?" No, I would discredit it using much easier methods. What I was trying to point out is, if you come up with a "Secular Koran," you will be placing you and anyone else in the crosshairs of those who adhere to the "non-secular version." They can't tolerate even pictures being drawn of their esteemed prophet, imagine what they would do to someone who tries to rewrite and edit their book. Is Uthman ibn Affan somehow not an object lesson for you?
Anyone with any interest in making just laws would have to consider a range of lawmakers and legal systems. The Torah contains God's laws for Jews and the Koran God's laws for gentiles. Moses is also featured in the frieze of the US Supreme Court along with Hammurabi, but is Jesus? You have to admit that the New Testament was only written by mortal and fallible men and the Council of Nicaea was a bunch of bishops who could not agree if Jesus was the co-equal of the Abrahamic God called to attend by a Roman emperor who wasn't even Christian.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone in the West should wonder what caused Christianity to fail, they should look no further than the First Amendment of the American Republic. It was the Americans who delivered the fatal blow by separating the church from their state.
As long ago as 1892, America wondered if it was a Christian nation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Holy_Trinity_v._United_States#Christian_nation How many confirmed Christians are there now in America?
As I have already said and which you appear to have previously acknowledged, I am not trying to sell Secular Koranism to Muslim terrorists but to the Western political establishment, and in particular the American political establishment.
"In view of the strict monotheism of Islam, Muslims were considered as Noachides whereas the status of Christians was a matter of debate. " https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-seven-noachide-laws
In your opinion. " You have to admit that the New Testament," you know you keep saying that like somehow the Quran and the Old Testament were not also. Also, I don't care who's image is on the ceiling of the Supreme Court . . . . . once again 1935. So if Jesus's supposed image isn't up there. . . . not really a deal breaker. Hey, remember when he was asked what the greatest commandment was? He replied exactly the way anyone following Mosaic Law would, then he spoke of the second, "Love your neighbor as yourself." What did He follow it with? " On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.” Matthew 22
ReplyDeleteHey, I have a question. If you're trying to Secularize the Quran, what do you do with Allah, and why would anyone consider your book to have any real authority?
That's funny, because you'll be selling it to both. Let any adherent to Islam try to understand that you are trying to expand the ummah by "preaching a false Quran" to them. . . . wonder how that will work out for you? Especially when they're claim is that Judaism and Christianity are no longer really valid due to those who have perverted their texts. I wonder what kind of accusation they'll level in your direction.
The Torah version of love thy neighbour can be found at https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2019%3A9-18&version=ESV
ReplyDeleteThe Koranic version of love thy neighbour can be found at https://quran.com/4/36
I am not doing "doing away with Allah" as you claim, but I refuse to compel belief. The Koran is the only scripture that actually guarantees freedom of belief with quran.com/2/256
I am not proposing to use a different Koran. You keep forgetting the fact that it is the Koran that actually guarantees freedom of belief with quran.com/2/256 which is the basis of the First Amendment. Muslims in the West already submit to globohomo, so why would they complain about having a legal system more in harmony with the Koran?
Strict monotheism of Islam, and they trace that lineage by . . . . . . ? So here is a continuity problem between Jews and Muslims. Jews actually have a lineage they trace back all the way to Abraham. . . . you know, "so and so begat so and so." You don't have that in Islam from Muhammed to Abraham.
ReplyDeleteMohammad claimed Abrahamic lineage for Islam through Abraham’s illegitimate son, Ishmael. Ishmael was the Arab spawn of Abraham and his Egyptian concubine, Hagar. Hagar was eventually exiled along with Ishmael from Abraham’s tribe to the desert of Sinai, not to the desert of Arabia.
The fact which makes Mohammad’s ‘Abrahamic common-ancestor-origin myth’ extremely dubious is that the Ishmaelite-descendant tribes lived not in the Arabia deserts of Mohammad’s Quraish Tribe, but far to the north and west of Arabia by Bronze Age standards in the Sinai and Fertile Crescent deserts. Another historical fact discrediting Mohammad’s fictitious Abrahamic myth is that these Ishmaelite nomadic tribes disappeared from history after 700 B.C, while Mohammad’s Quraish Tribe didn’t occupy Mecca until after 500 B.C.
I suppose secular Islam won't have these kinds of issues, you can just disregard history?
Uh, so Jesus was quoting a book almost 700 years prior to its existence. That's either a miracle, or Muhammad is guilty of plagiarism. Which is it?
Only Jews define themselves by their ethnicity because they are a tribe and Judaism is a tribal religion. Islam is a universal religion and does not care about your parentage or your ethnicity. If you want to adopt it because it makes sense and you think it can solve your social and political problems, what would stop you other than the Deadly Sin of Pride?
ReplyDeleteyou wrote, "I am not doing "doing away with Allah" as you claim, but I refuse to compel belief. The Koran is the only scripture that actually guarantees freedom of belief ." So almost all Muslim scholars contend that the Quran has been around as long as Allah, so how is that not going to change their theology?
ReplyDeleteAlso, you may refuse to compel belief; yeah, but those who come after you may not feel that way. Besides, Islam is not about belief, it is about outward submission; you know, the actual name of the religion. Nowhere does it talk about being convinced in your mind, or a change of heart and mind, merely an outward act.
As long as your religion conforms to the Noahide laws, that is enough to satisfy God if He exists, I imagine. There is no need to be original, is there?
ReplyDeleteUnder Secular Koranism, freedom of belief is emphasised and guaranteed. That is why it is imperative that America adopts it as soon as possible so that its legal traditions are established nice and early and the right people control the interpretation. I am no spring chicken and won't be around forever to see to it that the correct interpretation is always given!
First, I didn't adopt my religious beliefs to save my country or fix social problems. Christianity should never be viewed as utilitarian, it's not.
ReplyDeletePsalm 22:28
For the kingdom is the Lord’s
And He rules over the nations
All through the Old Testament it is clear who is in charge of nations and kings. God raises them up, and destroys them. No one, and I mean no one; stays the hand of the Almighty.
Islam does care about lineage, or Muhammad or his followers would not have placed in there the whole story of him being related through it to Abraham. It attempts to give legitimacy. Do they care now about it? Nope, whoever will follow, but that is true Judaism and Christianity. Not all of those in the Old Testament were Hebrew, but followed the religious practices and beliefs.
This is exactly why the New Testament is important. The Jews were looking for Messiah when he arrived. He just wasn't what they expected.
The problem is that you are missing the purpose of Jesus, He's the atonement sacrifice. He doesn't just cover the sin that people do, have done, and will in the future. He covers humanities sin nature as well.
Yes there is a lot of reasons to be "original." Your making an empty basket in the shape of a support pillar for a building, and saying it will hold the weight. It won't.
Psalm 22:28 is obviously an argument for theocracy. God first revealed the Torah for Jews and then the Koran for gentiles to complete His revelation after dividing humanity into Jews and gentiles.
ReplyDeleteIf you wanted to create a theocracy for gentiles, you would not be using the New Testament when you have the Koran.
What do you mean by a "lateral conversion"?
If my diagnosis of the problem is correct, then I am more likely to be correct in my solution than someone who denies that his religion has failed, when it so clearly has.
Let me see if I have this correct. You think your assessment of Christianity is a failure, but you're willing to come up with a "secular version" of the Quran to entice Westerners to become Muslim. This might come as a shock, but when you have to change your packaging to entice, you're product is not doing well on the merits of its content. You might want to marinate on that a bit.
ReplyDeleteSecond, Christianity doesn't want to "create a Theocracy for Gentiles." It is already a theocracy for all people, including Jews, for a kingdom that is not of this earth. Pretty sure we already covered that. Your "issues" are not Christianity's issues.
As for denying that "[my] religion has failed," pretty sure you only know it fails when you reach a different end than it indicates in its prophecy. We're not there. So, keep diagnosing, in vain.
How is Christianity not kaput in the West when it is the West that is pumping out the moral sewage of globohomo? Anything that directly flouts God's laws is satanic, is not? Satan has been defined as rebellion from God. Gay marriage and transgenderism is clearly satanic.
ReplyDeletethere is the problem. You think that merely because a people all occupy the same real estate, they are all that religion. The command in Christianity is to, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel." There is no guarantee that all will be saved. There is no promise of some huge theocracy; well, not on this side of Jesus return. If someone is giving approval of actions that are clearly pointed out as sinful in Romans 1 and 2, they are not Christian. If people are preached to and refuse Christ; which they did even when Jesus Himself was speaking to them, it is because "Narrow is the gate that leads to salvation, and few are they who find it." Conversely, "Wide is the gate that leads to destruction and many are they who enter it."
ReplyDeleteThe problem Claire is that you want to clean the outside of the cup, but that's not how it's done in Christianity. Theocracy will be establish when the physical return of Christ comes and He rules this planet from Jerusalem for 1000 years, according to the Bible. You want to rail against Christianity, but how can you rail against something you do not understand? It's like complaining about the taste of food you have never eaten.
I understand enough about the Abrahamic faiths to know that Jews and Muslims regard Christians as idolaters and blasphemers.
ReplyDeleteGreat, doesn't make you an more knowledgeable about Christianity. So you might be reactionary or drawing wrong conclusions against something you really don't know much about. If I want to learn something about people, I don't go to their detractors, I go to them.
ReplyDeleteI often converse with people who disagree with what they think is Christianity, when in actuality they are against a heterodoxic teaching, rather than an orthodox one.
I am talking to you, aren't I? And we are still talking, which is great!
ReplyDeleteIt is good that we are talking. It is how people reach understanding and/or consider things they have not thought of. Through hearing the Word, faith comes. Who knows who might be inclined to turn their back on materialistic naturalism's "answers." It is how I was converted.
ReplyDeleteMay I know what your religion was before you converted into which denomination of Christianity?
ReplyDeleteAs a young man I was raised around Christianity, but when I became a young man I asked my parents how they knew Christianity was the only religion that was true, and got a less than satisfactory answer. From there I spent a great many years as an atheist; but I began to see the difficulties that both atheism and then agnosticism have with actual reality. The things they cannot explain, and saw the necessity for God at many points.
ReplyDeleteAt one point I embraced Eastern mysticism with a hint of Existentialism, but they are highly subjective and much like atheism they begin with an impersonal beginning. Eastern mysticism also tries to dissolve the subjective and objective into one another, and I'm pretty sure we're not God, unless God is severely schizophrenic.
Then began the theological inquiry. I was familiar with Judaism, but many of the questions that it left open were answered through Christianity, and Islam provided more of the same difficulties with several slight twists, and an inadequate answer to a God of justice.
I read several books from Francis Schaeffer, and turned to the Bible. While being a Christian, I am far from perfect, but Jesus is my hope and salvation, not myself.
All the Abrahamic faiths worship the same Abrahamic God, don't they?
ReplyDeleteThere are only two, Judaism and Christianity. Christianity is connected in the fact that they consider their savior to Jesus who traces his lineage back to Abraham. There is no "lineage" for Islam even though it tries to claim Ishmael.
ReplyDeleteJudaism and Christianity worship the same God if Christianity is correct; if not then no. Islam has a very different theology, and tends to place Muhammed as the One to listen to, and in some cases in the Quran and Haddiths, even in front of God. That's a problem.
Secular Koranism ignores the Hadith where it contradicts the Koran.
ReplyDelete