Thread: Purgatory: Why Aren't You A Muslim? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001022

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 
A few months ago there was a very active thread ("Atheists: Why don't you believe in God?" -- it apparently does not exist anymore) here on the Ship that challenged atheists to defend their disbelief in God. The argument was that believers shouldn't always have to bear the burden of proof (a point to which I finally conceded). Disbelievers should be able to explain their reasonings for not believing in the existence of God.

So, how about it people? Why not a Muslim (or a Buddhist for that matter?)

The question breaks down into two parts:

1. Eastern religions coexist with some degree of ease. It would not be strange for someone from Japan to be Buddhist AND Shinto while maybe even borrowing from Hinduism. Why are Western religions dependent on exclusive truth?

2. If you try to pin down religious preference to its single greatest causal factor, you would have to say it would be "place of birth." Does that limit the importance of "choosing the right religion," since you will most likely stick within the religious traditions of your culture and you cannot possibly help where you were born?


Okay, now prove me wrong (and an idiot).


-Digory

[edited thread title for archiving]

[ 10. January 2006, 04:45: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
1. Eastern religions coexist with some degree of ease. It would not be strange for someone from Japan to be Buddhist AND Shinto while maybe even borrowing from Hinduism. Why are Western religions dependent on exclusive truth?

---

quote:

---

2. If you try to pin down religious preference to its single greatest causal factor, you would have to say it would be "place of birth." Does that limit the importance of "choosing the right religion," since you will most likely stick within the religious traditions of your culture and you cannot possibly help where you were born?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
I'm not a muslim for many reasons.

1) Mohammad's nine-year-old wife, I would rather model and look up to Jesus who loved outcasts
2) scriptures confusing (koran, surahs)
3) I like Jesus better than Allah
4) I don't like getting up early to pray
5) don't like rituals (praying 5 x times a day, getting up early to go the Mosque)
6) don't like the whole Male is Superior thingy and segregation @ the mosque
7) my sins aren't forgiven

But I do have buddhist leanings and the four nobel truths are awesome.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
According to this site, we are all born Muslim. So the question may be "Why aren't you a Muslim now?"

---

And according to the nutcase site "Jesus is Lord dot Com" Muslims are a Catholic Organisation!


Sorry for that tangent!

-103
 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
My gut level response is to say I'm not a muslim because my forbears risked (and some lost) their lives not to be one, endured persecution and yet held to their faith.

It would be a retrograde step, I think, to go back.

Not that others can't say the same about Christianity if I think a bit more about it ....
 

---

Posted by Dogsbody (# 9355) on :
 
I am more inclined to believe in a religion that sets me free (although some christians get confused about that too )
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
I think it might be very freeing to be a Muslim -- less complicated ideas about God, for one thing. I could be very happy if I could be set free from having to listen to yet another sermon on the Trinity, something I think I will never quite get.
 

---

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
In my case, if I didn't believe in the Christian revelation of one God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit and in the incarnation of our Lord, I wouldn't believe in God.
 

---

Posted by Zealot en vacance (# 9795) on :
 
Because faith in Jesus Christ renders any further revelation redundant.
 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
I'm not good enough to be a good Muslim. I'll never achieve salvation through my own efforts however I strive.

I'll leave the really difficult bit to Jesus thanks.
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
Why not a Muslim?

---

I don't have any theological reason that springs to mind, but the thought of alcohol being banned is more than enough to keep me away from Islam...
 

---

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
Because I read the Koran and was not impressed.
 

---

Posted by Papio. (# 4201) on :
 
..because I think that A) Muslims and Christians worship the same God anyway; so we might as well use "our own" traditions. B) I don't find Islam very convincing, from the little I know of it. I know considerably more about Christianity, but I don't find that very convincing either, at the moment.


 

---

Posted by strathclydezero (# 180) on :
 
The only connection I have with Christianity is that it is the tradition I have grown up and been educated in. Changing to another would be too much like effort. And what Marvin said.

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
1. Eastern religions coexist with some degree of ease. It would not be strange for someone from Japan to be Buddhist AND Shinto while maybe even borrowing from Hinduism. Why are Western religions dependent on exclusive truth?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by strathclydezero:
This is a fascinating question, mostly because of what I have read about the possibilities of Jesus having been educated (after he and his parents fled) as a Buddhist. All speculation of course, but it would explain quite a lot ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by strathclydezero:
This is a fascinating question, mostly because of what I have read about the possibilities of Jesus having been educated (after he and his parents fled) as a Buddhist. All speculation of course, but it would explain quite a lot ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Because obviously there were lots of Buddhists in Egypt who were capable of teaching two-year-olds.

---

The theory is that he went to Kashmir and didn't return until he was ready to start his ministry in his homeland, but I don't think it is useful to uphold any kind of belief about Jesus as absolute. It is interesting to explore all the avenues of thought though.
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
I did start reading the Koran. Around "the Cow" I already had enough of it. It's very "Old Testament" in style, but stripped of any humor and since it can't be re-interpreted in the light of the New Testament it really is sort of ... ugh.

Islam in general has about the emotional attraction of a mud brick to me. Sufism, yes, I love Rumi etc. But then it's always sort of difficult to see what the heck the Sufists have to do with other Islam apart from the monotheism...

Now, I used to be a Zen Buddhist, so that sort of thinking obviously has a lot of attraction to me. Still has. It's a much more powerful challenge to Christianity on an intellectual level, I think. (To me Islam is more of a social problem, there's very little challenge on theological grounds.) But in the end Christianity is true, so what can you do?
 

---

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by strathclydezero:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Because obviously there were lots of Buddhists in Egypt who were capable of teaching two-year-olds.

---

The theory is that he went to Kashmir and didn't return until he was ready to start his ministry in his homeland, but I don't think it is useful to uphold any kind of belief about Jesus as absolute. It is interesting to explore all the avenues of thought though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
The only thing that keeps my anger at God at bay about the state of the world in its sin, sickness, and natural disaster is my belief that God has joined us in his creation. He lived and died to give us redemption and hope.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'm not good enough to be a good Muslim. I'll never achieve salvation through my own efforts however I strive.

---

quote:

---

For that matter, there's a much more believable theory that suggests that Mahayana Buddhism stole its entire "Bodhisattva" ideal (roughly a potential Buddha who forgoes re-birth to help others on their path to enlightenment) and much of its communal ethical emphasis from spreading early Christianity in the East. The timeline is about right, the historical routes of trade are there, nothing special is required for that one to work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by strathclydezero:
Teufelchen: in short, that's a modernist interpretation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Moose:
If your interested, check out this website which is wuite well informed on the whole christian/muslim dialogue:

http://answering-islam.org.uk/

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Moose:
Hi there,

I've attended quite a few muslim-christian debates, which all seem to revolve around the historical reliability of each holy text.

If your interested, check out this website which is wuite well informed on the whole christian/muslim dialogue:

http://answering-islam.org.uk/

Cheers,

M.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
...Why not ... a Buddhist ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
Thank you Marcus Borg "Jesus and Buddha, the Parallel Sayings".

I guess whether or not it's overpriced depends on your viewpoint.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IconiumBound:
Islam posits the five pillars of faith as being required for entry into paradise. For this reason I could not be a Muslim or any other religion than Christianity which is the only religion that promises God's unearned, unmerited grace,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
I'm not a muslim for many reasons.

1) Mohammad's nine-year-old wife, I would rather model and look up to Jesus who loved outcasts
2) scriptures confusing (koran, surahs)
3) I like Jesus better than Allah
4) I don't like getting up early to pray
5) don't like rituals (praying 5 x times a day, getting up early to go the Mosque)
6) don't like the whole Male is Superior thingy and segregation @ the mosque
7) my sins aren't forgiven

But I do have buddhist leanings and the four nobel truths are awesome.

---

*1) See your point, but it was culturally normative at the time - do you go for life-long celibacy after Jesus' fashion also ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink: *2) If the bible is so clear how come the church is in so many pieces ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink: *3) Allah is the arabic for God, specified as the same God as the God of the OT, and Jesus is recognised as one of his prophets

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink: *4) How Islam is actually practised varies just as much as how Christianity is practised - I don't do matins myself

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink: *6) See various varieties of Christianity - liberal muslims don't really buy this either

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink: *7) I think (not sure about this) they are if you atone, for example extra fasting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink: *Also, as Jesus is accepted as a prophet his teaching may some relevance.

---

Yes, but didn't you know that his teachings were corrupted by the Christians?
 

---

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
Real Ale: Good point.
 

---

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
I'm not a muslim for many reasons.

1) Mohammad's nine-year-old wife, I would rather model and look up to Jesus who loved outcasts
2) scriptures confusing (koran, surahs)
3) I like Jesus better than Allah
4) I don't like getting up early to pray
5) don't like rituals (praying 5 x times a day, getting up early to go the Mosque)
6) don't like the whole Male is Superior thingy and segregation @ the mosque
7) my sins aren't forgiven

But I do have buddhist leanings and the four nobel truths are awesome.

---

*1) See your point, but it was culturally normative at the time - do you go for life-long celibacy after Jesus' fashion also ?

---

Yeah, but then Christians were thrown to the lions weren't they? And I can understand celibacy for that reason - after all your life-long celibacy wasn't too bad because your life ended pretty soon after you became a Christian anyways.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink: *2) If the bible is so clear how come the church is in so many pieces ?

---

The Koran and the surahs are confusing for me. And its pretty boring. I do like some arabic poetry. But not the Koran. I happen to really like the bible. I don't always understand everything under the sun. Why should I expect others to either?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink: *3) Allah is the arabic for God, specified as the same God as the God of the OT, and Jesus is recognised as one of his prophets

---

If you look at the character of Allah and you look at the character of Jesus - it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that they are different. What I was saying is that I like Jesus better. Allah gets two thumbs down.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink: *4) How Islam is actually practised varies just as much as how Christianity is practised - I don't do matins myself

---

True. Islam varies. I was picking on one facet that I didn't like.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink: *6) See various varieties of Christianity - liberal muslims don't really buy this either

---

Sure, but as I am a woman, I'd rather live in the post-Christian Europe than in any Islamic country.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink: *7) I think (not sure about this) they are if you atone, for example extra fasting.

---

Nope. I asked. There is no atonement for sins, you are at Allah's mercy and discretion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink: *Also, as Jesus is accepted as a prophet his teaching may some relevance.

---

Yes, but didn't you know that his teachings were corrupted by the Christians?

---

Fair enough, but I still dispute your comparison between Jesus and Allah. That is like saying I prefer Jesus to God [English names] or I prefer Eesa to Allah [Arabic translation of names]. In the same way that the arabic for 'water' is 'moi' (soundalike). A christian preferring the teachings of Jesus to those of Mohammed, on the other hand, does make logical sense - presumably you would believe Mohammed to be a false prophet.

I think it is often true we don't make informed choices about faiths because we don't know much about them. People agonise over moving between protestant and catholic, never mind reading up on the main varieties of Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Budhism etc. Even if people look to other faiths they will always look at ones they've heard more about - any particular reason why you haven't considered worshipping Loki, Horus or Jurojin ?

I'm with the person who said it's down to place - will go on lurk on that thread
 

---

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
I am not a Muslim:
1) because I wasn't born one.
2) because God called me to be a Christian and I responded without knowing what I was getting myself into.
3) because I think Christianity on the whole makes better intellectual sense. For example, I think it makes sense that God, come into the world, would die a criminal's death, while Muslims find that pretty hard to understand on their model of God. But that's because I have a Christian background, which takes us back to 1).

Dafyd
 

---

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

because I think Christianity on the whole makes better intellectual sense. For example, I think it makes sense that God, come into the world, would die a criminal's death

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by strathclydezero:
<snip>This is a fascinating question, mostly because of what I have read about the possibilities of Jesus having been educated (after he and his parents fled) as a Buddhist. All speculation of course, but it would explain quite a lot ...

---

So, have you read The Gospel According to Biff?

Nice job professorkirke.
 

---

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
In answer to #2, I would say, true, you can't help where you were born. But if you get to the point of questioning your religion, and exploring some others, then the question of "why did you pick the one you're in now" does sensibly arise.

I am an Episcopalian now because it was the religion I was raised in. But not by any simple path! My three turning points have been

A time of great pain in my life, ceased going to church or believing.

A second time of great pain in my life, became a Quaker.

A third time of great pain in my life, somewhat entwined with stopping going to Quaker meeting, and I wanted a place that used familiar stories to attempt to make sense of whatever-it-is that we call God (hence Christian, since that's how I grew up), and also where I was rock-solid sure that I knew how to behave in services and wouldn't offend anyone by misunderstanding how one should behave -- hence Episcopal, since that's how I grew up.

So, for me I'm not a Muslim partly because my exploration of other ways to worship or pray stopped before I knew enough about Islam to try it out. And now I've somewhat deliberately chosen Christianity in its Episcopalian practice, but not because I think it's the only revealed truth.
 

---

Posted by the Pookah (# 9186) on :
 
Okay, I'll give my 2cents for Christianity. First of all if you just barely compare Jesus to Muhammad as a prophet, Jesus comes off better:
in a polygamous time, celibate respected women
in a legal time, did extra-legal things to be compassionate (bleeding women)
Sermon on the Mount

Now as for history, I too thought little to choose between but a good friend of mine who is a keen Medievalist had me churning through "Jews of Germany" in German and guess what? apart from the odd slaughter, woman had it much better in Medieval Europe than Islam, we could get married and divorced at will, husbands could not beat their wives, woman had & made their own wealth, could sign legal agreements and bequeath their wealth. Ran publishing houses, fabric making, money-lending What a surprise to me!
I will be happy to give anyone here the reference.
Now as for Sufis, the reason everyone likes them is that they were heavily influenced by Greek Platonic Philosophy, so was veery early Islam. The 5 pillars thing is later PR. Do read Moojan Momen's "Shi'ite Islam" it will blow your mind. Early Islam had a very heavy dose of Christian thought.

Read any of the fine books on the Ismailis by the Ismaili Institute, eg: by Farhad Daftary,"The Ismailis" they are progressive intellectual Muslims.

Now as to Buddhism, I am one as I really do believe in reincarnation and worry about my next birth...most religious Buddhists do, Western Buddhists seem to me to be lapsed Christians.

I always am surprised that Christians are ready to fall apart over Jesus's historicity. Science changes in a minute, one day it's the Big Bang and next that's disproved. So I wouldn't have my entire spiritual life depend on archeology. I worship Kwan-Yin, and received many benefits and there isn't one historical scrap of evidence.....

So though I'm not a Christian, did not choose to become one, I would far prefer as a Jew and Buddhist to live in Christian societies. I prefer and like & admire Jesus as a prophet and incarnation of God far more than Muhammad. And yes I've read scholarly biographies of him....

I hope this post cheers Christians up, Jesus is wonderful, admirable, said fabulous things and & to be the center of your spiritual life.

the Pookah
PS. don't listen to Ingo, his Buddhist scholarship is not up to date, recent works have found no proof of the Bodhisattva tie with Eastern Christians (not that it makes a diff to me)
 

---

Posted by Ronist (# 5343) on :
 
I can hardly claim to have considered the claims of Mohammad and found them wanting. I simply haven't considered them.

Their faith doesn't seem to be helping them at all. They are very violent and the more religious they are the more violent.I can't imagine the appeal of such a faith.
 

---

Posted by Julian4 (# 9937) on :
 
I guess there must be some element of chance (or maybe predestination?) in that I grew up in a Christian country rather than a Muslim one, so it was a more obvious choice to be a Christian. It's not as if I've ever been in a neutral position of believing in neither and considering the claims of both on an equal footing.
However, the simple answer to why I am not a Muslim is that I don't believe that Muhammad received the Qur'an from God, and that it therefore supersedes the Gospel, etc. My impression is that he fabricated it in order to gain earthly power.
 

---

Posted by tfbundy (# 9914) on :
 
Dafyd echoes my view pretty well. Maybe if I were born in a Muslim country I would be one, however, a sense of history and timelessness is important to me, I feel I am connecting with the life and prayers of the Jews who are our forefathers in God by being Christian, and my personal expression of Christianity being Orthodoxy, I connect in a direct line as close as possible to the longest possible stretch back in time. New, comparatively modern religions such as Islam holds no appeal because it is a late arrival on the world stage of religion. Why see Hamlet by arriving at the interval halfway through, when it is possible to see Hamlet from the beginning?
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Believing something to be so unfortunately does not make it so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tfbundy:
New, comparatively modern religions such as Islam holds no appeal because it is a late arrival on the world stage of religion. Why see Hamlet by arriving at the interval halfway through, when it is possible to see Hamlet from the beginning?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Believing something to be so unfortunately does not make it so.

---

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, Father. I always thought that in terms of religion, that's exactly what it does.

Well, so far as we'll ever be aware of in this life, anyway...

---

Marvin, I believe that God told me that you are going to give me £100 by the end of next week.
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio.:
Marvin, I believe that God told me that you are going to give me £100 by the end of next week.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Are Judaism and Islam "western" religions?

---

quote:

---

Is any religion purely western? Christianity was originally an eastern religion, and the Orthodox churches in the east aren't western.

---

quote:

---

I think it's the monotheistic religions that are exclusive, and it's in their nature -- if you're insisting that there is one God, you can't very well also practice a religion that says there are many gods or no god at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Christianity was founded on the humility of a man whose love for his friends led him to lay down his life for them, in this context his friends were everyman. Islam was founded by a bloodthirsty warlord whose personal morality was questionable to say the least.

When the church has committed atrocities, it has done so against the teachings and the whole life of Jesus. When Islam has done the same, many of them have been in keeping with the fouder of the faith. I can't help but feel that Mohammed would have been proud of Osama bin Laden.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink: Fair enough, but I still dispute your comparison between Jesus and Allah. That is like saying I prefer Jesus to God [English names] or I prefer Eesa to Allah [Arabic translation of names]. In the same way that the arabic for 'water' is 'moi' (soundalike). A christian preferring the teachings of Jesus to those of Mohammed, on the other hand, does make logical sense - presumably you would believe Mohammed to be a false prophet.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the Pookah:
What I do not like about Islam is that you cannot find a biography or even go about the Muslim world and discuss Al-Uzza, Al-Lat, Al-Manah which are the triad of goddesses that occupied the Ka'aba in Mecca. An historical reality.
You cannot discuss this or buy books as we can about Jesus & Judaism, like Borg, or Smith's works. As a woman, if born into a Muslim country I assuredly would not want to be Muslim, subject to my husband and shariah law. As a male if you decided you wanted to become a Christian, well in many places it is illegal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IconiumBound:
Islam posits the five pillars of faith as being required for entry into paradise. For this reason I could not be a Muslim or any other religion than Christianity which is the only religion that promises God's unearned, unmerited grace,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:

So, how about it people? Why not a Muslim (or a Buddhist for that matter?)

The question breaks down into two parts:

1. Eastern religions coexist with some degree of ease. It would not be strange for someone from Japan to be Buddhist AND Shinto while maybe even borrowing from Hinduism. Why are Western religions dependent on exclusive truth?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:

2. If you try to pin down religious preference to its single greatest causal factor, you would have to say it would be "place of birth." Does that limit the importance of "choosing the right religion," since you will most likely stick within the religious traditions of your culture and you cannot possibly help where you were born?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:

Okay, now prove me wrong (and an idiot).
-Digory

---

Well you are an idiot only in that you ask very strange questions with answers I see as perfectly obvious.
 

---

Posted by Evo1 (# 10249) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward::Green:
Something like Western Christianity is already a combination of different religious ideas quite enough for me.

---

Sorry, this just reminded me of that fabulous Beckham quote when their baby was born, "we are going to have him christened, we're just not sure which religion yet"

Prefer to answer the question of Why I'm a Christian: Because Jesus died for my sins. No other religion offers me what He does.

Love,

Evo1
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evo1:
Prefer to answer the question of Why I'm a Christian: Because Jesus died for my sins. No other religion offers me what He does.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward::Green:

That for me is Chosing the right religion. Chosing the one that works in the context I am in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jazzuk777:
If He was not who He said He was, then He is a liar or a madman (I believe CS Lewis actually said "on a par with someone who thinks he is a fried egg), and therefore Islam still does not tell the truth about Him - He simply does not allow the option of Islam being right about Him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evo1:
Prefer to answer the question of Why I'm a Christian: Because Jesus died for my sins. No other religion offers me what He does.

---

Honest question:

Is it possible to decide what to believe based on the claims/promises made by each religion? A bit like selecting a washing powder based on how many stains it says it'll shift? Or do we just believe what we believe because, well, we believe it?

A lot of the posts on this thread (and not just Evo1's by a long shot, I just quoted it as an example) seem like justifications after the fact to me.

In a similar vein, if one truly believed that Islam was correct, one wouldn't have a problem with (say) the lack of women's rights - because you would believe that that is how God wants things to be! So using "women's rights" as a reason not to believe in Islam seems a bit disingenuous to me - you'd have to not believe in Islam before you would even think they mattered!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jazzuk777:
If He was not who He said He was, then He is a liar or a madman (I believe CS Lewis actually said "on a par with someone who thinks he is a fried egg), and therefore Islam still does not tell the truth about Him - He simply does not allow the option of Islam being right about Him.

---

Can you honestly imagine any Moslem finding any of that remotely compelling? It sure sounds like "I'm a Christian, and Mohammed isn't. Therefore, I'm not a Moslem." Doesn't that seem a little strained to you?

--Tom Clune

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jazzuk777:
i.e. how can someone who claims to be God, be an honoured prophet?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Is any religion purely western? Christianity was originally an eastern religion, and the Orthodox churches in the east aren't western.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
So, how about it people? Why not a Muslim (or a Buddhist for that matter?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio.:
..because I think that A) Muslims and Christians worship the same God anyway; so we might as well use "our own" traditions. B) I don't find Islam very convincing, from the little I know of it. I know considerably more about Christianity, but I don't find that very convincing either, at the moment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Streetwise:
Christians worship Yahweh, the God of the Bible who sent His son to die for the Jews (and gentiles). Muslims on the other hand, worship their God Allah, who seeks to destroy Jews and Christians (infadels) as outlined in the Koran (Koran 5:18 and 9:29). So no. They are not the same God contrary to what Robert Schuller is preaching.

Hope this helps clarify things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jazzuk777:
i.e. how can someone who claims to be God, be an honoured prophet?

---

If one believed that these words developed later in the tradition, and did not originate all the way back to Jesus, and that Jesus did not believe them about himself -- then, voila, honored prophet is not contradictory.

Not claiming that this is how Islam views the Bible, just pointing out that the honoured prophet view is not necessarily illogical.

---

Assuming Jesus said the words He is claimed to have said (and if I didn't then I agree my argument would fall down, but then the question would actually first be "...so why are you a a Christian?") then my point is that Jesus precluded Islam's description of Him.
 

---

Posted by Joan_of_Quark (# 9887) on :
 
I have met quite a few women who are intelligent, questioning, independent AND Muslim, all having been born in communities where that's the default religion. Some said they occasionally had trouble reconciling their religion with their own sense of worth as human beings, maybe, but usually claimed that Islam was ahead of its time when it first arrived in terms of giving women any worth at all, and also that the original message had been distorted by sexist clerics in the intervening centuries.

I think at the moment the way in which their scripture is seen as inspired is more 'hardline' than the average Christian. So a lot of my erstwhile* friends' dialogues were about 'going back to what it really meant' rather than 'reinterpreting it for a new era'. Maybe that will gradually morph over the next few decades/centuries - just as some people have pointed out that the viciously anti-science, anti-laypeople's knowledge, crusading Christianity is not the only version now.

*because we moved, not because I tried to feed them ham sandwiches!
 

---

Posted by m.t_tomb (# 3012) on :
 
What with all this talk about environmental and circumstantial reasons for one's faith, I'd like to add an unpopular suggestion: I'm not a muslim because in love God predestined me to be adopted as his son through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will. Basically, I am a Christain because God decided that I would be. I was chosen in Christ, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works our everything in conformity with the purpose of his will.

Where does that leave people born into Islamic countries through no fault of their own? It leaves them in need of an evangelist or a miracle...

See! Said you wouldn't like it...
 

---

Posted by markporter (# 4276) on :
 
OK, well very few people on this thread seem to have been willing to say this, so I'll say it for me. I'm not a Muslim because I believe Christianity is true and has better-substantiated truth-claims, it's as simple as that - sure Mohammed may have had some kind of revelations from somewhere, but I'll take Jesus' resurrection over those any day.
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jazzuk777:
Assuming Jesus said the words He is claimed to have said (and if I didn't then I agree my argument would fall down, but then the question would actually first be "...so why are you a a Christian?") then my point is that Jesus precluded Islam's description of Him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jazzuk777:
Assuming Jesus said the words He is claimed to have said (and if I didn't then I agree my argument would fall down, but then the question would actually first be "...so why are you a a Christian?") then my point is that Jesus precluded Islam's description of Him.

---

The point is, it's all about belief. The whole premise of this thread is flawed, because that premise is that one can choose what to believe...

---

Not according to my explanation. I'd say that there is a point in the 'order of salvation' where one doesn't not in fact have the freedom to choose what one believes.

For example, I think that atheists do not believe in God because they have not been granted to freedom to do so. A genuine atheist does not think about - and has never even subconsiously considered - the existence of God. Thus, a true atheist has never exercised even considerd the possibility of choice concerning God. As you can see, I think atheists (reprobates or the unelect) are very few and far between.

However, a person who has considered the existence of God and has rejected him, is an unbeliever. This person (the unbeliever) has in fact chosen to exercise a negative form of faith. They have intentionally chosen unbelief. This type of unbelief requires a constant, settled decision to not believe in God. This is not atheism; it is infidelity.

Of the two 'categories' that I've mentioned, only one has exercised 'choice': the unbeliever. The reprobate (or unelect), on the other hand, has never, and will never, even consider the possibilty that God might exist. They will live out their entire lives withot ever having exercised any form of choice regarding God.

[ 16. October 2005, 21:46: Message edited by: m.t_tomb ]
 

---

Posted by m.t_tomb (# 3012) on :
 
Sorry:

That should read:

'Not according to my explanation. I'd say that there is a point in the 'order of salvation' where one does not in fact have the freedom to choose what one believes.

Careless of me.
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
However, a person who has considered the existence of God and has rejected him, is an unbeliever. This person (the unbeliever) has in fact chosen to exercise a negative form of faith. They have intentionally chosen unbelief. This type of unbelief requires a constant, settled decision to not believe in God. This is not atheism; it is infidelity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
However, a person who has considered the existence of God and has rejected him, is an unbeliever. This person (the unbeliever) has in fact chosen to exercise a negative form of faith. They have intentionally chosen unbelief. This type of unbelief requires a constant, settled decision to not believe in God. This is not atheism; it is infidelity.

---

Eh? I can 'consider' the existence of little green men on the moon, but if I don't believe they exist then I'm not going to start believing in them just because I thought about them.

I haven't 'chosen' to disbelieve in them - I just don't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:

<snip>
2. Ruth's assertion that monotheistic religions worship the same God is not an obvious truth. Monotheistic religions worth their salt, it could be equally argued, are either all wrong except one or all wrong.
<snip>

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jlg:
Given that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are the three monotheistic religions, and theoretically worship the same God, the onus falls on Christianity alone to be "worth it's salt", since it is the only one of the three which makes no allowance for the possible legitimacy of the other two.

---

Sorry, but - what? First, who says that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are the three monotheistic religions? Historically, there's for example Atenism, and several versions (some say all!) of Hinduism are actually monotheistic (with "lesser gods" having roughly the place of angels and demons in Christianity). One could also consider Daoism as a monotheistic religion. I'm sure there are more, both in history and today. Second, the three Abrahamic religions can be said to worship "the same God" without qualifications only as far as they appreciate their common root. One can of course assert that since there's only one God, all monotheists by default believe in the same God. But that's a theoretical point, it has little to do with the situation on the ground. In fact the doctrines about God differ significantly and even the common history gets re-interpreted in terms of these differences. Muslims do not worship the Trinity and Jews do not buy at all the "types of Christ" ideas Christians read into the OT.

Third, what the heck are you saying about "making no allowances"? As it happens, Christianity makes plenty of allowances for the legitimacy of Muslim, and even more so, of Jewish belief. Certainly it does so today (I'm ignoring numerically irrelevant sects like some hardcore American "Evangelicals", of course. ). And yeah, there was a lot of religious intolerance and murder going on earlier, but let's not pretend that this was unilateral. Who was surpressing or murdering whom was largely a question of who had the power to do so at that historical moment. Certainly most Muslims and Jews will tell you that Christianity is right insofar as it agrees with their religions, and wrong otherwise. Indeed, most Muslims will consider the idea of the incarnation pure shirk, idolatry, and most Jews will consider the identification of Jesus with the Messiah as plain loopy, e.g.,

quote:

---

Rabbi Maimonides (via Wikki):
"As for Yeshua of Nazareth, who claimed to be the anointed one and was killed by the court, Daniel had already prophecied about him, thus: "And the children of your people's rebels shall raise themselves to set up prophecy and will stumble" (Ibid. 14). Can there be a bigger stumbling block than this? All the Prophets said that the Anointed One saves Israel and rescues them, gathers their strayed ones and strengthens their mitzvot whereas this one caused the loss of Israel by sword, and to scatter their remnant and humiliate them, and to change the Torah and to cause most of the world to erroneously worship a god besides the Lord. But the human mind has no power to reach the thoughts of the Creator, for His thoughts and ways are unlike ours. All these matters of Jeshua of Nazareth and of the Ishmaelite who stood up after him (Muhammad) are only intended to pave the way for the Anointed King, and to mend the entire world to worship God together, thus: "For then I shall turn a clear tongue to the nations to call all in the Name of the Lord and to worship him with one shoulder."

---

 

---

Posted by Jaeger (# 10355) on :
 
I come from a Muslim country and there are a lot of things I like about Islam. Such as the commitment required of its followers. There is something to be said about the discipline of praying 5 times a day. I always found it uplifting to hear the muezzin's call to prayer reverberating across the country at sunset and thinking of the thousands of people that at that point were ceasing work to give God praise.

That being said, I am not a Muslim because, as others have already pointed out, I dislike the "Men Are Superior" stance (also a reason why I have some bones to pick with Catholicism) and worse, the rigidity of the discipline such that it is not really a free choice but a mandatory practice.

In my country, to be born a Muslim - and then to convert as an apostate is punishable by imprisonment under the Syariah law.

Can you imagine Shipmates being Muslims in a country like that?
 

---

Posted by Marquis (# 9750) on :
 
I am not a Muslim because....er well because I looked at the religious possibilities and the thing that struck me most forcibly was the fact That Christianity is the only one I found where God suffers for you, instead of the other way around.

It was an Epiphany for me when I finally realised this. In every other faith, Islam included, there was such a sense of obligation to please God. To push yourself through hardship in order to appear good in his eyes. Yet in Christianity God debases himself, and suffers the trauma of mortality in order to breach the gap between you and Him.

Just seemed powerful and unique to me.
 

---

Posted by Marinaki (# 343) on :
 
Jesus said "My Kingdom is not of this world" and preaches non-violence and a revolution of hearts and minds.
Muhammad fought 62 different battles, and Islam believes that all should be converted to Islam - by force if necessary (Read the Qur'an).

Dhimmitude
 

---

Posted by spook (# 8769) on :
 
I am not a muslim because I believe that Christianity is TRUE!

I believe that Jesus Christ was actually the son of God, that he was crucified, died and did come back to life.
 

---

Posted by Real Ale Methodist (# 7390) on :
 
Although its kind of a tangent I would like to take issue with the definition of atheists offered earlier. I understand a true Atheist as one who has a positive belief, belief in the absence of God. This is unlike someone who has never considered it (to many of those) or unlike those of us who has never seriously considered the existance of green men on Mars (were there any I am sure certain shipmates would have told us by now).

On the issue of Islam I really think the only reason people believe in something is because they do. BUT, they may well be culturally inclined to believe in certain things. I am suggesing that maybe faith resonates with other deeply held convictions that we may not even be aware of. These will be built into people culturally or even genetically; if they find out enough about the faith they will accept it. The best example is of Budhism(its hard to look at myself in this way) I know someoe who claimed to have an inclination to believe in cyclical patterns BEFORE he was Buddhist; Buddhism fitted in with this preexisting conviction and so it appealed to him more than other faiths.
 

---

Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :
 
It strikes me that many of the descriptions of Islam on this thread are nearly identical to the way some non-Christians of my acquaintance describe Christianity (promoting the subjegation of women, historically violent, incredible beliefs, etc), and that a more thorough investigation of Islam might yield some very compelling attributes. Such as the obvious devotion of many adherents, as opposed to the "Sunday only" rule of many Christians. Or the resolution of the authority issue (relying on the Quran, in Arabic -- Christians can't even settle which version of the Bible is most authoritative, if any, or which books should be included). Islam isn't wishy-washy, either. Make no graven images isn't taken to have exceptions for Renaissance painters. And how about three cheers for monotheism? No confusing extra persons in Islam.

And I know Muslims who drink. Just like I know Christians who don't.

Me, I'm not Muslim because there's no Choral Evensong. But if they could set some of those prayers to Anglican Chant and translate the Koran into Cranmerian English, well then I might be tempted.
 

---

Posted by wombat (# 5180) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:

The question breaks down into two parts:

1. Eastern religions coexist with some degree of ease. It would not be strange for someone from Japan to be Buddhist AND Shinto while maybe even borrowing from Hinduism. Why are Western religions dependent on exclusive truth?

2. If you try to pin down religious preference to its single greatest causal factor, you would have to say it would be "place of birth." Does that limit the importance of "choosing the right religion," since you will most likely stick within the religious traditions of your culture and you cannot possibly help where you were born?

-Digory

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the Pookah:
Hi Doublethink;
Theocracies are bad no matter what religion you are, Buddhist, Christian, Jewish.....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:

2. Ruth's assertion that monotheistic religions worship the same God is not an obvious truth. Monotheistic religions worth their salt, it could be equally argued, are either all wrong except one or all wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:
But I love Christianity, especially for its moral and ethical core. Anyone can say that God will save you: I like a faith which encourages me to help others.

---

quote:

---

AFAIK, most religions have a moral and ethical core, and encourage you to help others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
Golden Key: A clever answer, but doesn't it beg the question? How can a God be the same God if understandings of his nature are incompatible?

---

quote:

---

Golden Key: A clever answer, but doesn't it beg the question? How can a God be the same God if understandings of his nature are incompatible?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
the decision to be Christian, Jew, Muslim, Animist or whatever is important because their adherents worship different Gods.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
In which case the decision to be Christian, Jew, Muslim, Animist or whatever is important because their adherents worship different Gods.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Those who want to say that they worship the real God and their neighbour worships an imaginary God are misusing the language. All they're really saying is that they think their mental image is a more accurate one than their neighbour's.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
4. I’m not really concerned as to whether Jews, Muslims and Christians worship the same God in some sort of ultimate sense, but rather to insist that all religious belief and worship does not inevitably lead to(the same) God. I want to assert that some of these insights, including some Christian ideas, are grossly defective. My pitch is to focus on the uniqueness of Christ in revealing to us a God of Love, who is the father of all and cares for all his children. It is against that Love that all our theological agreements and differences are measured.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
In a nutshell,
because Jesus died for me, Mohammed didn't

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
Jesus proclaimed the proximity of Kingdom of God and salvation, which would be the ultimate message from a Christian point of view. The difference is that He died for that message, whereas Mohammed didn't. I think the moral authority is therefore on the side of Jesus...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
I see your point, Teufelchen, but I disagree with the conclusion. Jesus proclaimed the proximity of Kingdom of God and salvation, which would be the ultimate message from a Christian point of view. The difference is that He died for that message, whereas Mohammed didn't. I think the moral authority is therefore on the side of Jesus, and the basis for my choice.
A comparison of the messages is another debate, but that is no longer goes in a nutshell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
I'd alter the original statement -- Jesus didn't die for his message, he died and rose for me -- to bring salvation to me and all others. (I suspec that is what was actually meant by the original.)

John

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
I'd alter the original statement -- Jesus didn't die for his message, he died and rose for me -- to bring salvation to me and all others. (I suspec that is what was actually meant by the original.)

John

---

But you believe this because you are a Christian. If you were a Muslim, you would instead believe that the Qu'ran was given to enlighten mankind and djinn about the mercy and judgement of God. You would believe in the hope of salvation as God will be more merciful and yet more just than we can know, rather than through atoning sacrifice.

T.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:
If you were a Muslim, you would instead believe that the Qu'ran was given to enlighten mankind and djinn about the mercy and judgement of God. You would believe in the hope of salvation as God will be more merciful and yet more just than we can know, rather than through atoning sacrifice.

T.

---

Or maybe not. Otherwise there would be no converts from Islam to Christianity. Ever read, "I dared to call him, Father" by Bilquis Sheikh?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
Maybe it is hard for some people to understand that you (general sense)actually arrived at your decision based on a lot of thought, time, effort, and research.

---

Thank you. It seems to me that if one's belief in Christianity can be completely explained by where and when one was born, then it's at very least a good argument for examining it. (In such a situation I can't say re-examining it, by definition.) One might decide that Christianity really is true then, or not, but at least one will have thought about it.

Obviously if one believes one has a relationship with Christ, and not just an assent to doctrines, the nature of that examination may be different -- but still, I think, making sure one is not just passively absorbing whatever culture one has been born into is really important.

David
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by whitelaughter:

If this world isn't everything - then nothing changes. A place full of Salvation Army officers will be Heavenly, no matter what it's called. A place full of Muslims will be Hellish. Would you be willing to spend eternity in Saudi Arabia?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:

quote:

---

Originally posted by whitelaughter:

If this world isn't everything - then nothing changes. A place full of Salvation Army officers will be Heavenly, no matter what it's called. A place full of Muslims will be Hellish. Would you be willing to spend eternity in Saudi Arabia?

---

Blink

**Automatically** heavenly, and **automatically** hellish?

Salvation Army folks are still human beings, as are Muslims. So each one is going to be a mixed bag, and some easier to be around than others.

I've never known any Salv. Army folks, other than meeting bell-ringers, and I've been acquainted with some nice Muslims.

I wouldn't like eternity in Saudi Arabia because of the weather.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
[/qb]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
**Automatically** heavenly, and **automatically** hellish?

Salvation Army folks are still human beings, as are Muslims. So each one is going to be a mixed bag, and some easier to be around than others.

I've never known any Salv. Army folks, other than meeting bell-ringers, and I've been acquainted with some nice Muslims. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by A.F. Steve:
Is the Salvation Army a church-type group as well? I always thought those bell-ringers were supporting their larger operation, thrift stores, in support of the homeless.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
Jesus proclaimed the proximity of Kingdom of God and salvation, which would be the ultimate message from a Christian point of view. The difference is that He died for that message, whereas Mohammed didn't. I think the moral authority is therefore on the side of Jesus...

---

Th idea that dying for something lends moral authority to it is often asserted by Christians (or by people trying to lend moral authority to an immoral war, or by...). Am I the only one who finds this notion absurd? When we consider all the thngs that people have died for -- including things that people died en mass for, most of these things are morally repugnant. Do we embrace the moral virtue of Naziism or Communism because so many people were willing to die for them? Do we embrace the Mongol hordes?

Folks have been dying for stupid things for as long as there have been folks. If you say, "but this person was God," you hardly add to the virtue of His position by saying that He died for His beliefs. Once you acknowledge the divinity of Christ, the game os over. Without acknowledging that divinity, the death is just a routine event.

--Tom Clune

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:
If you were a Muslim, you would instead believe that the Qu'ran was given to enlighten mankind and djinn about the mercy and judgement of God. You would believe in the hope of salvation as God will be more merciful and yet more just than we can know, rather than through atoning sacrifice.

T.

---

Or maybe not. Otherwise there would be no converts from Islam to Christianity. Ever read, "I dared to call him, Father" by Bilquis Sheikh?

---

I haven't read that book, no.

Obviously people's beliefs and opinions can change. What I'm trying to say is that I find it very unsatisfying to read so many responses here which essentially say:

'I'm a Christian because I believe in Christ.'

I think the OP was seeking explanations, not tautologies. My point is that someone who believes the tenets of Islam would not agree with the positions our fellow-posters find so self-evident. I want to understand how people came to believe Christianity's set of beliefs rather than Islam's.

T.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by whitelaughter:
Finally, there are some 50 odd Islamic nations on the planet - if there is no difference between the believers of different faiths, why are their nations all so horrible?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by whitelaughter:
Finally, there are some 50 odd Islamic nations on the planet - if there is no difference between the believers of different faiths, why are their nations all so horrible?

---

Horrible by what standards exactly? This strikes me as a sweeping generalisation, and a gross piece of racism. You were also the person who said that a country full of Muslims would be hellish. Perhaps your answer to the question in the OP would be:

"I'm not a Muslim because I dogmatically beleive they're all devils."

State religions are a bad idea. Or have you forgotten what Christian theocracies have achieved in France, Spain, Massachusetts, England, or during the Crusades? (If 'the Crusades' is too general for you, try the sack of Jerusalem in 1099, and of Constantinople in 1204.) A country which is Islamic by definition, rather than by default, has against it not Islam, but state religion.

T.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
A historical footnote. I would maintain that the Crusades, as horrible as they were, were in fact an answer to the Islamic Jihad which swept Northern Africa and Iberia. That does not let Christian Europe off the hook in anyway (at least no in context of their own religion), but in this context B is mentioned too often without A.

---

quote:

---

As for the theocracy issue, one can observe that although short of being run by mullahs, many Islam dominated states have strong laws protecting Islam and outlawing proselytism - and in that are more coercive than say Britain's protection of the Church of England or Europe's state-churches, certainly crossing the borderline from religious freedom. Do such laws constitute theocracies by shades or not? (I'll stop here, because I'm going a bit off-topic).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'm not good enough to be a good Muslim. I'll never achieve salvation through my own efforts however I strive.

I'll leave the really difficult bit to Jesus thanks.

---

this is my view too
 

---

Posted by whitelaughter (# 10611) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by whitelaughter:
Finally, there are some 50 odd Islamic nations on the planet - if there is no difference between the believers of different faiths, why are their nations all so horrible?

---

Horrible by what standards exactly? This strikes me as a sweeping generalisation, and a gross piece of racism. You were also the person who said that a country full of Muslims would be hellish. Perhaps your answer to the question in the OP would be:

"I'm not a Muslim because I dogmatically beleive they're all devils."

State religions are a bad idea. Or have you forgotten what Christian theocracies have achieved in France, Spain, Massachusetts, England, or during the Crusades? (If 'the Crusades' is too general for you, try the sack of Jerusalem in 1099, and of Constantinople in 1204.) A country which is Islamic by definition, rather than by default, has against it not Islam, but state religion.

T.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Whitelaughter, I'm not going to pick through all that in detail. I think it's going to be much too hard to sort causes from effects in determining what problems exist in Muslim countries around the world. However, you still haven't given any kind of logical explanation of why you think that a country full of Muslims would automatically be hellish, and that's the point I take issue with most strongly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by A Very Member Incorporate:
[Little political correctness ahead]

I'm not a Muslim because, from a bluntly cynical view, Jesus was a guy that just wanted everyone to be good to eachother and was trying to reform a faith, not make a new one..and got nailed to a tree for it (Heh, some borrowing from Hitchhikers). Mohammed, on the other hand, got pissed at the Jews and thus decided he was going to leave with a bunch of other angry people and pray in another direction.

That's why.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Molopata:

quote:

---

Originally posted by A Very Member Incorporate:
[Little political correctness ahead]

I'm not a Muslim because, from a bluntly cynical view, Jesus was a guy that just wanted everyone to be good to eachother and was trying to reform a faith, not make a new one..and got nailed to a tree for it (Heh, some borrowing from Hitchhikers). Mohammed, on the other hand, got pissed at the Jews and thus decided he was going to leave with a bunch of other angry people and pray in another direction.

That's why.

---

If I follow this correctly, you are saying reforming is better than staging a walkout. Why?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by A Very Member Incorporate:
My point was not exactly that one reformed while the other walked out, but that one was done in kindness and goodwill, and the other was an act of anger.

---

Thanks, that makes sense - and I agree totally.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
In answer to the OP.

I've spent too many years understanding and coming to terms with the various forms of fundamentalism in Christianity to even contemplate making a similar journey in Islam (where the condition seems much more prevalent).

Does the Koran have any equivalent to "love of enemies and praying for enemies"?
 

---

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
Much of this discussion has been based on the assumption that in Western societies conversion to Islam is unusual.

In the United States, however, a significant minority of African-Americans have converted to Islam- Casius Clay, perhaps, the most notable.

It might be instructive if we could hear from African-Americans who have made or not made the switch.

Failing that, perhaps there are experts who could help us.

An ideas?

 

---

Posted by adamant azzy (# 10636) on :
 
OK guys listen up.

I can tell you why I am not a Christian.

What I am going to say will make father Scanlon turn in his grave, ( And that would not be the first time.) And father Johnson will shake his head in Heaven and mumble something very un-christian.

I studied in a missionary school (Burn Hall),run by fransiscan fathers though I belonged to a Muslim family which was luckily not obscrantic or "fundamental" what ever that means. True to their name the fathers were ( or at the least some of them) really fathers to me. I was inquisitive and asked a lot of questions. This was before the arrival of obscurantist Islam in Pakistan. It was a very liberal country back then. ( and I assure you such an attitude goes against the grain of our people, this is an imported disease, seeded by US and Saudi money and waterd/nurtured by our corrupt politicians. we will regain our immunity to this virus one day and that day is not far off)
I attended mass out of sheer curiosity and even "received the sacrament". But no, I did not formally convert. However, what really put me off apart from the logical inconsistency within RCism, was the great deal of pomp and ceremony surrounding the simple act of praying to the 'Lord'. It looked like nothing but rigmarole to me. Please forgive me if I have offended any believer with these words. Then also the very complicated matter of Trinity. I could not understand the Trinity of God, nor could for the life of me understand the matter of God dying to save us all or to redeem our sins or coming down to earth etc etc. In all of the rather tautological arguments I see all over this blessed ship I can clearly sense that the typical Xtian simply does not understand how bizzare all this complex business appears to those who do not believe.

I was not too impressed by my parent's faith, finding much by way of omission and commission there to be able to call my self a Muslim either. Eventually I became an atheist. And I have now been one for fortyfive years.

Does not mean that I do not subscribe to any higher ideals. No. I believe that man has a higher distiny than that of an animal driven by raw wild urges and the evolutionary selection of the fittest. Man is the end product of a mysterious process whereby inanimate matter becomes aware of its own existance. We have a higher level to aspire to and achieve. Not out of fear of a God who will reward/ punish/ save/ condemn, but at our own volitionand for reasons far superior to those embraced by the followers of the Indoeuropean beliefsystems.
I think that in this process or journey we must discard God along the way. He is merely an anachronism. All the complicated webs we have woven around Him are simply man's own doing and not "divine". Belief in any conventional religion will only serve to destroy this process of self discovery and our forward march to a higher state of being.

A sincerely apologize again for what I have said as it may offend many of you. I do not mean to offend. I can say without any doubt that some of the finest people I have met in my life were very religious and many were devout Christians and I hold a very high regard for persons who have a conviction of what they believe. The "weak" agnost and other persons of a similar ilk are not to my liking.

A.A.
 

---

Posted by Birdseye (# 5280) on :
 
Azzy -that's why I'm not a Roman Catholic either
there is a lot of useful stuff in Catholic Christianity for a lot of people -but it smacks too much of pagan tradition for me... which is one of the reasons I'm a Protestant, the other main reason is I think accessibility is very important in Christianity -it is an inclusive religion but a lot of the method, pomp and secrecy present in Catholic tradition seem there to distance us from God, when in fact Jesus called God 'father' and came to bring us into communion with God.

Although I'm saddened that there is not just ONE all-encompassing Christian faith but lots of little branches all separating off at different points, some more radically than others, still such differences in the faith are not just stumbling blocks but are in fact a way of keeping Christians humble -we must agree to disagree with our fellow Christians, we must humbly practice our faith, following our hearts and spirits in doing what we sincerely hope is right and keep above all differing doctrine or tradition, the most important commandment
"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your mind and all your strength; And love your neighbour as yourself."

[ 07. November 2005, 14:44: Message edited by: Birdseye ]
 

---

Posted by adamant azzy (# 10636) on :
 
Hi Barnabas,

quote:

---

Does the Koran have any equivalent to "love of enemies and praying for enemies"?

---

quote:

---

OP'd by BirdEye
... such differences in the faith are not just stumbling blocks but are in fact a way of keeping Christians humble -we must agree to disagree with our fellow Christians,...

---

Strange conclusion to draw. it does not follow logically. But If it works for you it is good enough for you.

A.A.
 

---

Posted by Birdseye (# 5280) on :
 
Well although logic can be a handy tool to understand both the physical world and some instinctive behaviour, Christianity is not merely about the physical, and measurable, it is not about applying logic, it's about applying love. Logically, there is no point in giving away money to needy strangers in foreign countries none of whom will ever know; or forgiving drug-addicts who break into your house to steal; or sacrificing your life to save the life of a stranger.

The way of the world is not the same as God's way.


And it doesn't 'work for me' actually -I really mind that the church is fragmented, and I really mind that some people brought up since childhood into the doctrines of some churches suffer from a destructive sense of guilt or worthlessness which totally goes against the teaching of Jesus.
But imagining the result of total unity in the Christian church, knowing how human-nature is in this imperfect world, I can see a potential world-domination in which a unified TRADITION and not a genuine unified FAITH, would result in the whole church moving further away from God, rather than all individuals pushing closer to God in personal journeys of faith.

[ 07. November 2005, 15:34: Message edited by: Birdseye ]
 

---

Posted by Birdseye (# 5280) on :
 
I think what I'm trying to say is that I accept that God's wisdom far surpasses our understanding- and that although it seems odd that there are differences in his church -I do not think that it is wrong, or against his purpose -I think that the sense behind it is simply beyond my understanding... it could simply be that variations in doctrines and traditions, encompass and therefore save more people.
Perhaps our experiences of God are all somewhat diluted since biblical times, but in that dilution perhaps they are reaching many more people.

It's not for me to say what's right and working and what's wrong and not... but what I was originally trying to express is that your current knowledge/ experience of the Christian faith, is only a partial one.

It's like eating just one piece of fruit -finding a worm in it and saying 'I don't like fruit' because you conclude that, that is what all fruit is like.

In fact to extend the fruit/christianity metaphor -it's like very politely saying, 'I don't like fruit, but I respect the fact that some of you may like to eat worms'.

(I like my metaphors )
 

---

Posted by adamant azzy (# 10636) on :
 
BirdsEye

quote:

---

....Christianity is not merely about the physical, and measurable, it is not about applying logic, it's about applying love...

---

quote:

---

is that your current knowledge/ experience of the Christian faith, is only a partial one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by adamant azzy:

quote:

---

is that your current knowledge/ experience of the Christian faith, is only a partial one.

---

But that is argumentum ad hominim.

Agreed that I know lesser than you do about RCism/protestantism...

---

quote:

---

It's not argumentum ad hominem to use... in order to construct a logical position. It would be

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by adamant azzy:
Hi Barnabas,

quote:

---

Does the Koran have any equivalent to "love of enemies and praying for enemies"?

---

yes Barnabas, indeed it does. Only the Idiom is differant. Muslims believe that the Koran is the literal "word of god" and therefore cannot be / should not be translated. Translations extant have been done by scholars who were I fear were neither too scholarly nor to too well inclined towards Islam to do a good job and the present flock of Muslim so called "scholars" are dumb asses. Islam asks the Muslims to Forgive, which in this context is the same as love. A word that is not found in the Arabic idiom.

A.A.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by adamant azzy:
BirdsEye

quote:

---

....Christianity is not merely about the physical, and measurable, it is not about applying logic, it's about applying love...

---

Do you mean to say then that "Love" ( whatever that means) is / could be / should be illogical.

This is tautology.

If logic is not required to support any assertion, I could as well believe that the world, as we know it, was manufactured by little green popsicles from Alpha Taurus. The world is and in argument simply has to be logically consistent. I appreciate and respect your faith but not your arguments. I too have forgiven many who transgressed against me and I have nowhere to go to seek repentance for acts of transgression I have committed against other humans, despite the many years and the rivers of tears I have shed since. But I cannot concieve of this method to "explain " the "reason" behind everything I know. We need peace on this earth and yet more of "Faith" will not I fear, bring it.


A.A

---

quote:

---

OP'd by Molopata T R ....To go beyond this, i.e. to do anything at all, we need at least some faith in something....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by adamant azzy:
I am not an expert but believe there are over 30 words for love in Arabic. It is just not used that way.

I doubt that I will convince you either way. You prejudge. For All the love in Xtianity, I just look at history and know the ugly face of reality for it is.

That's all there is to it.

A.A.

---

quote:

---

Islam asks the Muslims to Forgive, which in this context is the same as love. A word that is not found in the Arabic idiom.

---

quote:

---

AND there are places where adulterous women are buried up to their necks and stoned to death (but not their partners in "crime") in communities where Sharia law is enforced.

---

quote:

---

*3) Allah is the arabic for God, specified as the same God as the God of the OT, and Jesus is recognised as one of his prophets

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The problem I have with Islam is that although Mohammed said, "there is no compulsion in religion" Islam is a religion of compulsion. Christians are exhroted to give to charity, Muslims are compelled, to the point that in Islamic societies, goods can be confiscated by the authorities to compel charity. Conversions have been forced on pain of death throughout the history of Islam and it is a religion which officially sanctions the murder of infidels. It is no use leading Muslims saying that Islam promotes peace, its entire ethos is directed towards compelling compliance by force, if necessary.

But historically, only Christianity can rival Islam in the brutality stakes. There's no need to go into the appalling history of Christianity's inquisitions and pogroms and its merciless persecutions of heretics and Jews to realise that the nastiness of Christianity and Islam are two sides of the same coin of excessive exclusivism. That represents, IMO, a serious fault in the underlying nature of those religions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jazzuk777:
i.e. how can someone who claims to be God, be an honoured prophet?

---

If one believed that these words developed later in the tradition, and did not originate all the way back to Jesus, and that Jesus did not believe them about himself -- then, voila, honored prophet is not contradictory.

Not claiming that this is how Islam views the Bible, just pointing out that the honoured prophet view is not necessarily illogical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The problem I have with Islam is that although Mohammed said, "there is no compulsion in religion" Islam is a religion of compulsion. Christians are exhroted to give to charity, Muslims are compelled, to the point that in Islamic societies, goods can be confiscated by the authorities to compel charity. Conversions have been forced on pain of death throughout the history of Islam and it is a religion which officially sanctions the murder of infidels. It is no use leading Muslims saying that Islam promotes peace, its entire ethos is directed towards compelling compliance by force, if necessary.

---

But the word "islam" itself means "Submit/Submission" - compulsion in inherent in Islam, whereas Yahweh/Jehovah says <snip>

---

quote:

---

The Arabic term 'islam means "submission" and itself comes from the term 'aslama, which means "to surrender, resign oneself." In Islam, the fundamental duty of each member is to submit to Allah (Arabic for "the God") and whatever Allah wants of them. A person who follows Islam is called a Muslim, and this means "one who surrenders to God."

The term Islam is related to the Syriac 'aslem which means "to make peace, surrender" and that in turn appears to be derived from the Semitic stem of *slem which means to be complete.

Islam is closely related to the Arabic word for peace, salem. Muslims believe that true peace can only be achieved through true obedience to the will of Allah. Commitment to Islam is supposed to result in a constant struggle to achieve peace, justice and equality.

Islam is about living in the world in harmony with the reason we were created. Islam's standpoint is that there is only one God who created us all and who did so in order for us to follow the path he leads us towards.

Now for us to be happy and satisfied, we need to surrender (Islam means surrender or release) ourselves to this concept. The concept that there is one God only and that we are here to try our best to reach him.
(exerpt from: this website

---

quote:

---

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
(Philippians 2:5-11)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
If the Old Testament God is the same God Christians and Muslims worship, why were the New Testament and the prophet at all necessary?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:


If we believe that our God is the only deity who exists, then how can we claim that anyone else praying to the only deity who exists is praying to a different god?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by adamant azzy:
...I attended mass out of sheer curiosity and even "received the sacrament". But no, I did not formally convert. However, what really put me off apart from the logical inconsistency within RCism, was the great deal of pomp and ceremony surrounding the simple act of praying to the 'Lord'. It looked like nothing but rigmarole to me. Please forgive me if I have offended any believer with these words. Then also the very complicated matter of Trinity. I could not understand the Trinity of God, nor could for the life of me understand the matter of God dying to save us all or to redeem our sins or coming down to earth etc etc. In all of the rather tautological arguments I see all over this blessed ship I can clearly sense that the typical Xtian simply does not understand how bizzare all this complex business appears to those who do not believe...

...Does not mean that I do not subscribe to any higher ideals. No. I believe that man has a higher distiny than that of an animal driven by raw wild urges and the evolutionary selection of the fittest. Man is the end product of a mysterious process whereby inanimate matter becomes aware of its own existance. We have a higher level to aspire to and achieve. Not out of fear of a God who will reward/ punish/ save/ condemn, but at our own volitionand for reasons far superior to those embraced by the followers of the Indoeuropean beliefsystems.
I think that in this process or journey we must discard God along the way. He is merely an anachronism. All the complicated webs we have woven around Him are simply man's own doing and not "divine". Belief in any conventional religion will only serve to destroy this process of self discovery and our forward march to a higher state of being.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by adamant azzy:
Lydarose Hi

quote:

---

AND there are places where adulterous women are buried up to their necks and stoned to death (but not their partners in "crime") in communities where Sharia law is enforced.

---

What place?

Im over 60 and in all my years, many of which were spent living in this country, the second most populous muslim state, where I now reside, there has never been a single case of a woman being " buried to her neck and stoned to death." This is what the mullahs claim they will do. Or cutting of hands which the mullahs say they will do. but the people are basically humane. Your media's opinion notwithstanding

It shall never to to pass. and we will have this mullah virus out of our system ere long too.

trust me.

A.A.

---

quote:

---

While in theory this high burden of proof protects both men and women from baseless accusations, the application of the law has prompted charges of gender bias. Since Sokoto introduced Sharia law last year, four women have been charged with adultery--all because they were pregnant.

Thus far, only Huseini has been declared guilty of adultery, but another pregnant woman was convicted of the lesser crime of fornication, or sex before marriage, and sentenced to one year in prison. Women in other states have also been found guilty and lashed.

Though men in Nigeria readily brag about their mistresses, not a single one has been charged with adultery. ~Women's E News

---

quote:

---

The legitimacy of stoning as a form of punishment is derived from the hadith, sayings and written records of the prophet Muhammad. Stoning is not mentioned in the Koran. Penal codes tend to prescribe the execution of the stoning in detail. Thus, men are buried up to their waste[sic], women up to their chest (Art. 102, Iranian Penal Code). Article 104 of the Iranian Penal Code prescribes the size of the stones, which must not be too large as to kill the person immediately, but not too small either.

---

Article on Sharia law, admittedly biased against stoning specifically. And the article points out that even most governments that operate under Sharia law avoid that harshest of punishments as much as possible.

So, to lay my cards on the table, I'm not a Muslim because besides liking my form of Christianity, being a woman Muslim in most cases seems to mean a big step down in rights and respect.
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Posted to add that, no, I don't think all Muslim culture is inhumane. Most people everywhere just do their best to live within the social contract, live productively, raise kids, and make friends and do some thinking about spirituality and/or the meaning of life.

I just hope that you are right, AA, and the strict mullahs don't get total ascendency, just as I hope we in the US kick war-mongers and officials like VP Cheney who want to leave the door open to torture as a tool of policy out of office soon. Talk about "inhumane".
 

---

Posted by Birdseye (# 5280) on :
 

quote:

---

Do you mean to say then that "Love" ( whatever that means) is / could be / should be illogical.

This is tautology.

If logic is not required to support any assertion, I could as well believe that the world, as we know it, was manufactured by little green popsicles from Alpha Taurus. The world is and in argument simply has to be logically consistent. I appreciate and respect your faith but not your arguments. I too have forgiven many who transgressed against me and I have nowhere to go to seek repentance for acts of transgression I have committed against other humans, despite the many years and the rivers of tears I have shed since. But I cannot concieve of this method to "explain " the "reason" behind everything I know. We need peace on this earth and yet more of "Faith" will not I fear, bring it.

---

quote:

---

Azzy, do you know what the word 'tautology' means?

---

Oh dearie me. Have I been caught using bombastic words to impress shipmates?

I thought I knew the meaning of tautology. Now maybe I don't?

It certainly means a sort of repetition of something already implied in the statement. Like my saying " all at once I suddenly remembered that... etc"

In logic there is probably a differant shade of meaning and possibly I was using the word in that way. I,m not too sure, after all my 'mother tongue' is not Q.E.'s English. ( I passed it by copying my neighbours answer sheets) And then us Pakis like to take revenge for being cruelly ruled by the farangi for 200Ys. And what better than to punish the Queens English.

The other sense I could explain by an example that maybe you can relate to. Lets say, for instance, it is charged that natural selection is a tautologous concept since the "fittest" are those who survive, who in turn are labelled the "fittest." So like wise to "prove" the veracity of a concept you rely upon logic that uses the truth of the concept as a basic fact/support.

Any way maybe I stand corrected/admonished for bombast. Sorry will use simpler language in the future. Like ga ga ma ma Duh Duh, Hmmm. many more shipmates can 'read me' that way.

quote:

---

Logic CAN be used to support an assertion, but sooner or later, it falls down, that is why mathematicians struggle to map the world using logical formulae -because the world does not act entirely according to logic, there are random and illogical aspects to the world that one must consider -most of which stem from the human brain , there are random and illogical aspects to the world that one must consider -most of which stem from the human brain

---

quote:

---

Apart from that I couldnt see the logic in the example you have provided. There are no illogical and random aspects to this world. Except in the imagination of some individuals. A.A.

---

Well the fact that you qualify that statement with an exception means that there's really no need for me to explain further... Quod Erat Demonstrandum as they say!

I will just add though, that the world is shaped by the human imagination-without it there would be no buildings, no bridges, no vehicles, no artwork... in short, nothing that required any creative thought.
So to dimiss the human imagination from your understanding of the world is -well it's not possible.


However -no need to limit your language to babytalk as you suggested (rather irritably) -but it's probably a good idea to use the most concise words possible...

Otherwise we could spend all day discussing the potential misinterpretations of certain words, rather than the subject at hand.
 

---

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:


If we believe that our God is the only deity who exists, then how can we claim that anyone else praying to the only deity who exists is praying to a different god?

---

Because there *are* different "gods" - the Bible talks about "little 'g' gods" quite a lot; it is very much Christian and Judaic tradition to recognize the reality of the spiritual, that the God we worship created all that exists (including the space-time continuum) and some of those non-human creatures are 1. very powerful and 2. fell (developed their own agenda).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by adamant azzy:
Then also the very complicated matter of Trinity. I could not understand the Trinity of God, nor could for the life of me understand the matter of God dying to save us all or to redeem our sins or coming down to earth etc etc. In all of the rather tautological arguments I see all over this blessed ship I can clearly sense that the typical Xtian simply does not understand how bizzare all this complex business appears to those who do not believe.
A.A.

---

Well spoken, and ouch. Christianity is brain bending, and our habit of taking our beliefs for granted is crazy. My personal apology for not putting more time and care into my own posts.

Part of the problem is that we don't fully understand ourselves. We've been given orders to heal the sick, feed the hungry, and preach the gospel - and given how badly we've ballsed up over the centuries it's not surprising God didn't give us any theory, we haven't mastered the pract test yet!

There are various arguments on the Trinity, which I gather the priests have already given you. However, something that helps me personally (canon alert - this has no theological grounding, is merely a pesonal observation) is that we are made in the image of God - and the psychs tell us that we have a triune nature: Inner Parent (or Superego), Inner Adult (or Ego), and Inner Child (or Id).
If we have a triple nature, and are made in the image of God, he must as well!

God Bless!
 

---

Posted by adamant azzy (# 10636) on :
 

quote:

---

OP'd by Birdseye....nothing that required any creative thought.

---

quote:

---

By Birdseye.... limit your language to babytalk as you suggested (rather irritably)

---

quote:

---

But I am also convinced it is objective truth, which is why I believe it. If you don't believe it, despite having been correctly taught, then I must assume you are not one of "the elect" and it *won't* make sense to you (--sorry--).

---

quote:

---

OP'd by....lynnmagdalencollege but I also suspect some religions are inherently demonic, from their inception on, that their "inspiration" was not Divine but demonic

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by adamant azzy:

quote:

---

OP'd by....lynnmagdalencollege but I also suspect some religions are inherently demonic, from their inception on, that their "inspiration" was not Divine but demonic

---

She has no notion how badly such a claim can hurt a follower of a differant faith. Calling some ones "God" a "demon".

---

quote:

---

OP'd by whitelaughter.... the psychs tell us that we have a triune nature: Inner Parent (or Superego), Inner Adult (or Ego), and Inner Child (or Id)....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by adamant azzy:

I was on several discussion groups ( other ships that is) designed for the enjoyment of atheists and such but jumped ship. I couldnt stand
1. Every body agreeing.
2. Blasphemy just for the heck of it.

Nr 2 is what I really really despise.

---

Thank You, just for your being alive!
 

---

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
My dear liberal friends,
Don't assume that all religions would be offended for being identified as demonic. Voodoo, for example, has a long tradition of calling on dark powers to achieve ignoble ends. Many Christians see themselves as engaged in spiritual warfare against such influences.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Though, as I understand it, Voodoo has both positive and negative paths.
 

---

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Voudun, IIRC, is slightly complicated because it is essentially African polytheism, originally cunningly disguised under Roman Catholic forms in order to persuade French slave owners (who according to MLR James made the English variety look positively philanthropic) that said African polytheists were really good Catholics.

Something similar happened in the old Soviet Union where Siberian shamans renamed their deities after the French Communards in order to keep the Stalinists off their back.

[ 10. November 2005, 17:23: Message edited by: Callan ]
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Here's background info on Vodun and similar faiths, from the Religious Tolerance site.

From the "Evil Sorcery" section, about 2/3 of the way down the page:

quote:

---

The houngan and mambos confine their activities to "white" magic which is used to bring good fortune and healing. However caplatas (also known as bokors) perform acts of evil sorcery or black magic, sometimes called "left-handed Vodun". Rarely, a houngan will engage in such sorcery; a few alternate between white and dark magic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that the God of the Qu'ran is some kind of demon or pagan figure (but real), while the God of the Bible is the Creator of the World.

The Qu'ran clearly describes its God as being the creator of the world, the God of Abraham, Ishamael, Joseph, Moses, John the Baptist and Jesus. Now it says different things about their relationship to that God from what the Bible says. But does that necessarily mean that it depicts some other creature than God, rather than simply being a depiction of God with which you, Lynn, disagree?

Is the God of the Book of Mormon a different being from the God of the Bible? How about the Jehovah's Witnesses' version of God, where Jehovah is the creator as described above, but Jesus is a lesser divine being of the sort you seem to think Allah must be?

Your views remind me of the Gnostics who believed that the vengeful God of the Old Testament was the erring creation (called Yaldabaoth or Sammael) of the creator spirit Sophia.

T.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by adamant azzy:

quote:

---

But I am also convinced it is objective truth, which is why I believe it. If you don't believe it, despite having been correctly taught, then I must assume you are not one of "the elect" and it *won't* make sense to you (--sorry--).

---

By the same token I can argue that you lack the intersynaptic connections that enable one person to realize the truth of the nature of the world around us. Whilst another without the same nerve structure cannot. (Alteast in the case of my reasoning I do not rely upon any unproven conjectures.) Therefore you are not chosen and can never achieve the understanding I have of this cosmos. (--sorry--)

On a more sensible note though. Jesus taught us to be humble not arrogant. How sad that much of the logic used by the devout ones is so less the former and so much the latter......
.....I was thinking of this post by

quote:

---

OP'd by....lynnmagdalencollege but I also suspect some religions are inherently demonic, from their inception on, that their "inspiration" was not Divine but demonic

---

She has no notion how badly such a claim can hurt a follower of a differant faith. Calling some ones "God" a "demon". If any religion is divine... which I dont believe...All religions are divine. If Jesus was on this earth today I would wash his feet with mine own tears then ask ask him to tell me why he left this world in such a sorry state!

A.A.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
My dear liberal friends,
Don't assume that all religions would be offended for being identified as demonic. Voodoo, for example, has a long tradition of calling on dark powers to achieve ignoble ends. Many Christians see themselves as engaged in spiritual warfare against such influences.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
My dear liberal friends,
Don't assume that all religions would be offended for being identified as demonic. Voodoo, for example, has a long tradition of calling on dark powers to achieve ignoble ends. Many Christians see themselves as engaged in spiritual warfare against such influences.

---

Not to mention Satanism, which is alive and kicking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
Yeah, actually, I *do* believe that both the Mormons & Muslims are working with scriptures which are inspired, at least in part, by the demonic. I am fully aware that this is VERY politically incorrect (which I don't really care about) and that it may shock or offend some people (for which I am sorry - but it's an Ezekiel 33 thing, so I can do no other).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Does it really follow that if a religious position is not authentically divine, it is the product of demonic agency? Aren't people allowed to be good-old-fashioned wrong sometimes? A Christian should not be expected to think the Qu'ran or the Book of Mormon are divinely inspired, but why does that make them demonic? Or do you, Lynn, have access to special knowledge that lets you know which religions are demonic and which simply mistaken?
T.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
MaudLynn

Arrogance is in the blind eye of the beholder.

---

So you think I'm operating out of arrogance? Perhaps we have different understandings of that word. I am not being arrogant (I know when I am and it's ugly) but you may perceive it that way - and it may be ugly to you - I can only speak to where I'm coming from, and it isn't a place of arrogance.

Does thinking my beliefs are correct make me arrogant? If so, then arrogance is one of the defining traits of all humanity! We ALL believe what we believe is right - that goes without saying. Not all of us are going to be right, but we all believe we are. I mean, what kind of a fool holds onto a position he doesn't believe?
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Lynn, Lynn ... you could take it the diametrically opposite way 't' won't I'm sure!
 

---

Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Lynn, Lynn ... you could take it the diametrically opposite way 't' won't I'm sure!

---

quote:

---

OP'd by lymmmagdalencollege....So you think I'm operating out of arrogance? Perhaps we have different understandings of that word. I am not being arrogant (I know when I am and it's ugly) but you may perceive it that way - and it may be ugly to you - I can only speak to where I'm coming from, and it isn't a place of arrogance.

---

quote:

---

OP'd bby LynnMagdalencollege..... Does thinking my beliefs are correct make me arrogant?......

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
Yeah, I think lots of things are simply wrong - but those two, in particular, imho, do have a component of demonic inspiration to them. My reasons for believing this are two-fold, and the first would take a looonng time to work through but involves the manner of twisting and corrupting the Bible and doctrines of Christianity and I'm not going there: it would take too much time and energy and I'm here for recreation and not labor.

---

quote:

---

The second has to do with the witness of the Holy Spirit within me - something which is available to all Christians (one cannot be a Christian without the Holy Spirit) although we do not all exercise the gift and not all have worked to develop that listening relationship. So I don't know if that falls into the "special knowledge" category for you - doesn't for me, but YMMV.

---

quote:

---

As to why the Baals didn't respond to their priest's invocation, consider the account in this light:

---

quote:

---

God is the Big Guy, the one in charge, and these little guys are in rebellion to Him and have been kicked out (which is scriptural)- they have the freedom to run amuck on earth because, basically, WE (humanity) gave them the authority to do so with the fall (consider the book of Job).

---

quote:

---

But today there's a showdown on Mt. Carmel and God's presence is just sitting there, waiting. This inhibits the demonic big-time; they're hovering in the wings, wanting to respond, but cannot because God is present.

---

quote:

---

This is why the armies of Israel went out with the musicians and singers at the front - the very presence of God is uncomfortable to the demonic and the best thing Christians can do is operate in the presence of God.

---

quote:

---

How is it that an omnipresent being is *more* present at one time & place than another? I don't know - that's part of the mystery of God which is beyond me - but it's certainly true.

---

quote:

---

God, Creator and King of the Universe is the one "true" power in the universe, in that He created and allows all the rest to exist, and He does limit how far they can go and when (consider the particular class of fallen angels, or perhaps even particular *individual* angels, who have been chained up in Tartarus waiting for the time of their release before the judgement).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:
My reference to Paradise Lost before was not an idle one - Milton, rather than scripture, seems to be your source. So do you think Paradise Lost is demonically inspired because it has God creating the Son at a time after the creation of Lucifer and the other angels?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:
My reference to Paradise Lost before was not an idle one - Milton, rather than scripture, seems to be your source. So do you think Paradise Lost is demonically inspired because it has God creating the Son at a time after the creation of Lucifer and the other angels?

---

I've read Paradise Lost a number of times, but I must have missed this part every time, as I have no recollection of God creating the Son, and I have a hard time reconciling the notion with what I know of Milton's theology. In which book does it take place? And while we're at it, at what point does Milton refer to Jesus and Lucifer as brothers?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
You'll have to call me too 't'. I'll be her advocate there. The religions of this world are ALL of the god of this world who even perverted and perverts the true Church from the Wilderness on.

---

quote:

---

And Tartarus is the abode of Titans = Shaitans = Satans. Where Christ visited them during the Flood.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Thanks for pulling me up on this one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Thanks for pulling me up on this one.

---

It's hardly a central point of your argument. I was momentarily a bit freaked out; I know Paradise Lost pretty well and could not for the life of me recall a description of the creation of the Son, but you seemed very sure about it.

---

I was very sure about it, and wrong.

A related point, though: Milton more generally makes great use of the device of conflating pagan figures with those in the Judaeo-Christian narrative. I do still wonder if he's not the conceptual source for some of the ideas in use in this thread.

Ruth, thanks again for the correction. Let's see how the rest of this debate pans out.

T.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
't' - you humble me with your humility. Thank you. I'll respond stridently shortly! Have to get me feist back tho'. Shouldn't be long! Humility is VERY transient in me ...
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
't' I'm impressed that you're impressed and that you can possibly make the statement that the coincidences of the myths and the terms have NOTHING to do with each other based on one observation of two Greek terms, neither of which originated in Greece.

As for Jesus' trip to hell, play with the translations of 1 Peter 3:19

[ 14. November 2005, 13:19: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
And if what Joseph Smith and Mohammed reported is accurate and the explanation isn't materialistic, what is it?
 

---

Posted by Molopata The Rebel (# 9933) on :
 
I thought this was a discussion about not being Muslim.
A few pages back someone was upset about tautologies. These were the good ol' days. On this page (5) we have mentioned "Islam" 3x, "Muslim" 2x, "Mohammed" 1x, "Qu'ran" (an variations) 3x, and normally in conjunction with other religions "and". "Morman" and "Voodoo" (vaudun) have each been mentioned in 3 posts.

Using this simple frequency-analysis method, I would surmise we have drifted off-topic.
 

---

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :
 
Molopata, the digression is about Lynn's contention that Islam (and other non-Christian religions) are the product of demonic influence. If this claim were true, it would provide an excellent answer to the question in the topic. I'm contesting that it's not. So I don't think we've wandered too far off topic.

I'm still trying to decide whether the digression is acrimonious enough that it merits a call to Hell - something I've never done before. If so, you'll soon be rid of it. But if not, I feel it's still on topic.

T.
 

---

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :
 
Apologies again for the double post.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
't' I'm impressed that you're impressed and that you can possibly make the statement that the coincidences of the myths and the terms have NOTHING to do with each other based on one observation of two Greek terms, neither of which originated in Greece.

---

quote:

---

As for Jesus' trip to hell, play with the translations of 1 Peter 3:19

---

quote:

---

And if what Joseph Smith and Mohammed reported is accurate and the explanation isn't materialistic, what is it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:
So you're prepared to assert the opinion that major world religions are demonically inspired, but not to explain or defend that view? Lynn, you are this close to receiving my first call to Hell. i don't care that you're a newbie. I think your views are, as far as you've thus stated them, offensive (to me and to others), unbiblical (as I'll discuss a little in this post), and highly damaging to any evangelistic aspirations you may have.

---

quote:

---

So since I disagree with you so vigorously, the Spirit can't be moving in me, or else I'm rejecting it?

---

quote:

---

You've stepped into the 'personal relationship' thread with something similar, I think. Living the Christian life through the power of the spirit isn't 'special knowledge', but claiming to know that certain books are the work of demons rather than of humans certainly does. If you want to tell me I'm not a good Christian for denying that Islam is demonic, fine, but that will definitely get you called to Hell.

---

quote:

---

Pedant point: Baal in this context is singular, and his prophets (450 of them) are plural.

---

quote:

---

First major objection. In Revelation, when Satan is cast down from Heaven, he has 'but a short time' - this seems to be a part of the End Times. In Job chapter 1, Satan is with 'the sons of God' coming before the Lord. So I'm not sure what your authority is that a devil or devils had been cast out of Heaven at this point.

---

quote:

---

When, exactly, was God absent? The whole heavens tell the glory of his work. The psalmist tells us that wherever we go, God is there before us. (Ps 139:8-10)

---

quote:

---

When did the armies of Israel fight demons? Chapter and verse, please.

---

quote:

---

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and assert that the only biblical reference to people worshipping demons or devils is the cult of the Beast in the End Times in Revelation. (Satan tempts Jesus to worship him, but is quite naturally refused. (Matthew 4:9, for example.)) If anyone can give me chapter and verse for any other instance, I'll be grateful. But I must insist that it specify demons, devils, or unclean spirits as objects of worship. References to Rimmon, Moloch, and other pagan gods alone won't do.

---

quote:

---

In fact, as in the story of Legion, the unclean spirits recognise Jesus as God, and worship him.

---

quote:

---

In short, your grotesque characterisation of other faiths as demonic is unbiblical. It's also uncharitable, and I am going to accuse you of arrogance, for presuming that the Holy Spirit entitles you to judge the faith of billions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
And if what Joseph Smith and Mohammed reported is accurate and the explanation isn't materialistic, what is it?

---

I never claimed it was accurate. I simply claimed it wasn't of demonic origin. People can, either devoutly and sincerely or otherwise, make stuff up. And although I'm using quite a few biblical arguments here, I'm not a literalist myself. I don't require that the Bible be of purely divine origin for me to find it useful and to make it a key part of my faith. So you're asking me to approach other books in a way I don't approach the Bible itself.

---

quote:

---

The burden of proof rests with you and Lynn to explain your position. I do not believe the views you have expressed can be justified from the Bible, and I think their expression is a positive obstacle to making our own faith understandable and approachable to others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:
I don't think a call to Hell will serve any purpose at this point. Lynn, I wasn't challenging your right to say any of that stuff. I felt that our disagreement over it should be taken to a more appropriate forum. See the FAQs for this site for more details on Hell.

I suggest you get to know some Muslims. That's all.

We now return you to your scheduled thread. Next caller - why aren't you a Muslim?

T.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0