Pipkin, nobody wants to deny the truth or validity of your experience - though I didn’t quite follow the bit about driving tests - but you posted it in the context of support for someone who is suggesting that Muslims worship a different and therefore (presumably) false God. No-one denies that some Muslims are ignorant, badly-behaved, cruel, narrow-minded etc. Some Christians are too. Injustice and oppression are not confined to the Islamic world. Niceness is not confined to the Christian world (if there is such a thing). Pity you didn’t mention your nice Muslim neighbour before.

If anyone wants to argue that the Koran is a less perfect revelation of God than the New Testament, they’re entitled to do so. Others may agree or disagree – mostly agree on this site, I guess - but I’m sure they’ll respond courteously. But to accuse Muslims of adhering to an evil, false religion is another matter.

Mea culpa, you are of course right, to the extent that there is rapid growth of Christianity in sub-Saharan Africa, and that it has been opposed in some places. I have fallen into precisely the trap of Eurocentricity that I have remarked on in others.

To be fair, though, authorities in most countries throw wobblies whenever any new movement becomes popular, and go in for persecution. Whether it is HUAC in the US seeing Reds everywhere, whether it is the Chinese persecuting the Falan Gong, Christians and, I think you will find, Muslims, the Russians persecuting Muslims, the Catholic Church persecuting the Cathars, the Sa'udis forcing Christianity underground, or (in the case of my own small affiliation) the Quakers being imprisoned in the 17th C, the story is the same. As other people have commented in better phraseology than I can muster, we must be careful not to assign universal bad human behaviour to a particular group.

quote:

---

---

I realise the Goths might be a bit of a sensitive subject for you, Alaric

But you're not seriously suggesting a moral equivalence between the Muslim conquest of the Spanish Visigoths (bog standard medieval conquest) and the Reconquista (thousands of books publicly burned, forcible conversions, those not converted driven out, those who did convert then hounded for any non-christian practices and faced with torture and execution etc. etc. etc. read Henry Kamen on the Inquisition)?

If you are, then I suggest that Gothic patriotism is going a tad too far!

Anyway, on a more light-hearted note

What did the Arabs ever do for us!

I have a relation in Eygpt who finds practicing their christian faith very difficult and indeed sending letters with religious statements is risky.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
I personally would have a greater respect for the muslim faith when a pentecostal church can be built in Mecca as easy as a Mosque could be built in Canturbury (Ok I know planning regs can be a tough!)

---

And just how easy is it to build a mosque in Banja Luka, Nightlamp, or even to rebuild an historic one?

quote:

---

The only perspective - as St Paul suggests with'I consider the sufferings of this present world are as nothing compared with the glories to berevealed' - is really the long term issue of where people will be after judgement day.

---

This way of thinking can be very dangerous.

In its extreme form, it was a key attitude which underpinned autos-da-fe against Jews, Muslims and Protestants under the Hapsburgs and Spanish predecessors the most catholic Kings.

If torturing someone might save their soul, then what did their earthly sufferings matter?

The suffering of the victims of religious intolerance - whether Christian or Muslim - is not incidental to the proclamation of the gospel, it is antithetical to the gospel itself.

How we treat other people is not at all irrelevant in the context of Judgement.

It is the treatment of others which Jesus himself cites as separating the sheep from the goats. In particular, the issue he fixes on is how we treat the 'stranger'.

In fact, Jesus speaks about this specifically in the context of gathering all the nations (and presumably all the faiths) before him.

This is bad news for religious authorities whose hard-line minority interpretation of Islamic law measures up poorly against this.

But it might be equally bad news for us Christians to spend our time thinking up new attacks on the 'strangers' in our own midst, instead of getting on with the feeding, clothing and caring business, as instructed.

Just a thought.

Pipkin, I don't think you should have felt attacked -- sharing your experiences is what we're about, but your posts simply said "they" without clarifying who "they" are. That's a contentious area, particularly when the OP sets out to prove that Islam is a bloodthirsty religion.

quote:

---

I would like to point out that the Islamic Moors that invaded Visigothic Spain in the early 8th century weren't being very 'tolerant and advanced' in bringing their armies across from North Africa. And what eventually happened was a 'reconquest', the descendents of the people the Moors had ousted taking back what had been theirs

---

Ah yes, the Visigoths, the Aboriginal people of Spain.

The conquest of other nations has been deemed morally neutral by the majority of political thinkers until the twentieth century.

It is possible, I think, to suggest that the teachings of Christ implicitly eschew imperialism, whilst the teachings of the Qu'ran condone it. However if one compares the practices of Christendom with the practices of the Ummah on the question of Imperialism, conquest and respect for other cultures I think Islam will probably win on points despite recent improvements in the political practices of Christian countries (frequently driven by secularists - take a bow M. Arouet) and the recent degeneration of political practices in the Ummah.

Historically speaking the likes of Bin Laden, Khomeni and the Wahabis are not representative. If the bad practices current in Islam are, as some posters seem to believe, the work of the Goat of Mendes, then I can only suggest that this late surge of activity by the forces of evil is related to the fact that, when the Christian Church was powerful in Europe, the Prince of Darkness was able to work very effectively through that august institution.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The only perspective - as St Paul suggests with 'I consider the sufferings of this present world are as nothing compared with the glories to be revealed' - is really the long term issue of where people will be after judgement day.

---

I know Louise has already made a very pertinent objection to this way of thinking.

I just wanted to say that I think that Paul's words are being slightly misused here. In Romans 8, Paul is trying to encourage Christians to not be too downheartened by their present troubles, and to keep their hopes fixed on the future glory. To paraphrase him "hey folks - keep your chins up - the best is yet to come. Things can only get better."

"the only perspective .... really is...."

the 'really' is there to tone it down - of course the record of institutional religion on both sides is horrible - especially when you go looking. My point is to focus on the longer term though - the reality of the division of the sheep and the goats is a painful one, and too often we don't take it seriously enough. This is one of the downsides of God's blessing of good health care these days; for many of us we seldom if ever come close to death - in my early 40s, I've only attended 2 or 3 funerals in my entire life. And the message of the gospel is most relevant to the horror that is death - there is hope, there is an afterlife of good things to come.

I focused on the 100 lashes issue because it is one that is easy to demonstrate. I think in general that Islam supports a tendency to dengirate and destroy the things of the creation, and so mock the creator. The tendency to cut off the hand of a thief is a part of this - as is the rejection of alcohol - which I would argue used responsibly is a good gift of our imaginative and creative God (yes of course it can be abused, like most other good things...)

To me this is all part of a pattern which gently but clearly indicates that the true author of the Koran is the one who 'fell like lightening' and has been raging at God ever since.

quote:

---

The tendency to cutoff the hand of a thief is a part of this - as is the rejection of alcohol - which I would argue used responsibly is a good gift of our imaginative and creative God (yes of course it can be abused, like most other good things...)

---

Whilst Christian Europe was so civilised that it only used to punish theft by death - even for quite trivial amounts of stuff, down to the 19th century. Children as young as 12 were hung for theft were hung in Christian Europe only a few hundred years ago. Not to mention the frequency of punishments like branding and flogging. Forgers used to have their hands struck off.

Meanwhile the Bible has cutting off a woman's hand if she grabs for the genitals of a man fighting with her husband - apart from the usual gamut of bloody punishment to be found in books like Deuteronomy and Leviticus.

As for alcohol - have you never heard of Methodists? Temperance Campaigners like the Band of Hope? Plymouth Brethren?

You may not respect their position, but it was taken from a Christian standpoint. Faced with the evils of alcoholism in their time (and even in the present day) they wanted to lessen harm - especially to the working poor.

It has been pointed out to you repeatedly (not only by me) that your accusations against the practices of Islamic theocracies can just as easily be made against Christian theocracies.

There is a similar amount of drivel to be found in the Bible - we just have the good luck to be living in non-theocratic societies which don't impose the crazy bits.

The only thing you seem to be proving is that you haven't taken this argument in and that you're determined to denigrate Islam, no matter how often it is proved to you that your arguments do not justify it.

You keep making the same bad argument over and over again with slightly different content and it's getting very tiresome.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
there is only one god. if some religions get more details wrong than others, that doesn't change the fact that they are all worshiping the same god.

---

I'm sorry, but I beg to differ. In my opinion, there is one God - the triune God who is God the Father, Jesus Christ, His Son and the Holy Spirit. There are many gods, of which one is the god of Islam, who is not the triune God of Christianity. If I recall correctly, Islam denies the deity of Jesus. Is this not correct?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
I think in general that Islam supports a tendency to dengirate and destroy the things of the creation, and so mock the creator. The tendency to cut off the hand of a thief is a part of this ..

---

Oh, remind me who it was that said “If thy right eye offend thee pluck it out” and "if thy right hand offend thee cut it off"?

Yes, the Muslims don’t believe in the Trinity, neither do the Jews. Jesus was a Jew - did he worship a false god in the temple? Of course, if he did, that would explain the cutting off hands bit.

I’m with Nicole : “if some religions get more details wrong than others, that doesn't change the fact that they are all worshiping the same god”

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:

I'm sorry, but I beg to differ. In my opinion, there is one God - the triune God who is God the Father, Jesus Christ, His Son and the Holy Spirit. There are many gods, of which one is the god of Islam, who is not the triune God of Christianity. If I recall correctly, Islam denies the deity of Jesus. Is this not correct?

I cannot see how these two can possibly be the same.

---

There is only one divine force in the universe, but it manifests in a variety of ways, and different people interpret it differently. Nobody has a monopoly on it. Nobody is big enough to grasp the whole picture, either.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:
Islam is monotheistic. Christianity is monotheistic. Both religions have their own prophets.

There is only one divine force in the universe, but it manifests in a variety of ways, and different people interpret it differently. Nobody has a monopoly on it. Nobody is big enough to grasp the whole picture, either.

And I refuse to write off the Sufi mystics (or anybody else) simply because they are not Christian.

---

quote:

---

Islam is monotheistic. Christianity is monotheistic. Both religions have their own prophets.

---

So, I could start my own religion, make up my own idea of what God is, determine who were the prophets (including me as the chief prophet), write my own book (to replace the Bible), and that is OK?!

No.

quote:

---

How can there be many gods? That’s a heresy!!!

---

so suppose you have two people who want to write a letter to the president of a college. so they both read up on him first so they know who they are writing to. so the first one reads a biographical thing that tells him that the president is very recently married, and likes to be called by his second name, george. and the second person reads a somewhat older book that says he'single, and furthermore, due to some inexactitude in the writing, he draws the wholy wrong conclusion that the president is gay. also it doesn't mentin that he uses the name george, simply saying that his first name is bertram.

so they both sit down to write their letters. one is writing to a married but childless married man, calling him george. the other thinks he is writing to a homosexual, calling him bertram. yet there is still only one college president, and the letters are going to the same place. obviously one is closer to accuracy about the president, but actually neither is totally correct, because in fact the president now has two children, and prefers to be called by the nickname his wife used for him.

'My way is right - everyone else is wrong!'
is so simple minded as to render analogy unnecessary.

quote:

---

'My way is right - everyone else is wrong!'

---

quote:

---

Yup, there's no shortage of analogies for the universalists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Louise said
a point that can be made by against universalists and non-universalists. Since both say my understanding of reality is right so you must be wrong.

---

You should have quoted my entire short post, Nightlamp.

My point wasn't about universalism, it was about making flat 'I am right - you are wrong' style assertions'.

Nicole certainly wasn't doing that.

quote:

---

Since both say my understanding of reality is right so you must be wrong.

---

actually doesn't follow, as it doesn't allow for the possibility that one or the other might say,

"Well, this is what I think, but I'm open to the possibility that I might be mistaken and I'm willing to listen to your arguments and debate with you"

That is not the same as saying "I am right - you are wrong, there is no room for discussion - end of story - and meantime if you try to debate with me, I'm just going to take the piss out of your arguments"

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
so since you can't come up with anything to refute it, i assume you agree then? good...

---

Well, it's pretty obvious that you're being sarcastic. But fair enough, I'll try and explain where I think that your analogy fails. And it would be a mistake to assume that since I went for a simple one-liner reply it automatically follows that I am at a loss when it comes to refuting your point .

Firstly, there are lots of sorts of prayer where the nature of God is included. So if, for example, if a Muslim's concept of some characteristic of God differs from mine and their specific prayer includes or is based on that characteristic AND the Muslim is wrong about that characteristic then I'm not sure where that leaves their prayer.
In your analogy, this would be represented by the letter-writer saying something like "as a homosexual, perhaps you can relate to such and such an experience I have had and I am asking for your advice". The letter ends up on his desk, but he can't give the writer any help because that request just doesn't apply to him. In fact, he's bemused by the request and might even write back saying "actually, I'm not gay and my name is in fact George".

In addition, if you are going to make the claim that certain religions are different interpretations of the nature of God then you have to deal with the situation where two different 'interpretations', supposedly of the same God, are mutually exclusive. I say that Jesus died on the cross and rose again (and I say also that this is of paramount importance). The Muslim says that he didn't. I say that Jesus died so that we might have a relationship with God through Him, the Muslim disagrees.
Take away these things from Christianity and, I would argue, you are left with a meaningless husk. And I would say that, since Islam denies this and other vital parts of Christianity then it is devoid of value as far as a view of God is concerned. There may be much about it that is worthy and good, but I cannot accept that Islam is acceptable. Yes, there are differences between various denominations within Christianity but I would argue that these differences are of secondary importance. For a list of things that I would regard as being of primary importance, try the Apostle's creed.

The sort of attitude that you seem to be promoting is all very PC and postmodern and the attitude that I am promoting is often met with indignation and resentment but I can live with that .

Secondly, you say

quote:

---

A story is an excellent way of avoiding confrontation.

---

So it can be, because it can leave room for the views of others and for others to tell their different stories which can be constructive.

By all means discuss the imperfections of the texts and practices, but there is no way to argue that different monotheistic faiths have identified separate omnipotent Deities. There is only one God (1st commandment). Everything else is detail.

Anti-universalists may argue that other faiths are seeing God in a "wrong" way, but it is a narrow ignorance to believe that other faiths do not know God at all. I would argue that it is a "wrong" view of God to believe He would not inspire millions of Muslims to worship Him.

And I should know because God is my Father.

quote:

---

And I would say that, since Islam denies this and other vital parts of Christianity then it is devoid of value as far as a view of God is concerned.

---

That might be your point of view, but there is at least a possibility God's point of view might be different. Who knows how God values and treasures all of us, regardless of our religious views or lack of them?

A child born without the capability of even forming a religious view would still be loved and treasured by God, despite the fact that the child couldn't understand, never mind assent to the Apostles creed.

I think someone gave the example earlier on in the thread of somebody who invents his own religion and declares he is the prophet of it.

Now the rest of us might judge that person as being mad, but if the person in his self-invented religion went about genuinely giving his all to trying to love God and his neighbour (the main things Jesus told us to do)then who is to say how God who told us through Jesus 'Do not judge' might judge that person?

I think it comes down to this - the main things we were told to do were to love God and to love others.

If Muslims are genuinely trying to do that, then by the standards of the gospel, their religion might not be devoid of value to God, however much someone with a traditional view of the atonement might be scandalised by it.

quote:

---

the letters, ie the prayers, go only one place. as long as they say "president of the college" on the envelope, the same person opens them.

---

quote:

---

I think it comes down to this - the main things we were told to do were to love God and to love others.

If Muslims are genuinely trying to do that, then by the standards of the gospel, their religion might not be devoid of value to God, however much someone with a traditional view of the atonement might be scandalised by it.

---

However, there are peculiar dangers with Islam, because the founder advocated and used violence and treachery, according to the Hadiths of Islam. One might object that Moses and Paul were sinners before they were redeemed, but Muhammed did some of his worst deeds AFTER meeting the "angel Gabriel." It's a matter of historical fact that he led raids on caravans to rob them, was involved in the massacre of hundreds of Jews who had been captured and disarmed, and threatened many other tribes and peoples with conquest if they didn't accept his religion.

There's a lot of dirt I can detail later if anyone wants from the Hadiths, oral tales written down later than the Koran. The Koran itself has only a couple of verses about chopping off the heads of Christians and Jews met in battle, and lots of graphic descriptions of hell.

The point of what I am saying here, is that the false revelations of Muhammed are dangerous, even though good Muslims can reach God. The Koran and Hadiths actually do support bloody jihads. Christians disobey their founder when they start wars, Muslims obey their founder when they do the same.

Whilst I agree with Louise and others that a comparison of the sins of the various religions does not make Christianity come up smelling of roses (the crusades, the Inquisition, the Balkans etc in fact produce the opposite stench), arguably the kind of atrocities depicted here are a perversion of Christianity and a million miles away from what Jesus taught and who He is. What it boils down to for me is this: either I take Scripture seriously, and in particular on this point Jn 14:6, Acts 4:12 and others, or I don't - and I have to be true to what I believe Scripture to say and state, like Luther at the Diet of Worms "here I stand, I can do no other".

This is not the first time I've come across evangelicals being attacked in this rather personal way at SoF, and I am concerned about it. SoF is a Christian site and, while I would not in arrogance say that evangelicalism is the best/ only form of Christianity (it isn't!), it is nevertheless a pretty significant part of it, and to find that when evangelicals state their deeply and sincerely held beliefs, there are calls for them to be suspended or their threads to be closed and polemic heaped against them, smacks to me of censorship. By all means disagree and argue against our point of view - that is of course your prerogative and to be welcomed otherwise we can't have much of a debate :-). But calling us intolerant, arrogant, bigoted, etc seems to display the very qualities which you purport to despise in us, and is deeply saddening

Yours

The problem with many of the widely used analogies (paths up a mountain, etc) is that they imply humans can find their own way to God, following whichever path they stumble upon. I see no reason to believe that this is the case, bearing in mind the bible's view of the moral and spiritual blindness of fallen human beings. Without revelation we are lost.

OK, I believe that Jesus Christ is the only son of God, the Way, the Truth and the Life. And under those circumstances it seems a bit presumptuos of me to tell Him who He can or can't save .

I would have to re-read this thread to be 100% sure but I have not felt that there have been any personal attacks on ES or Pipkin for putting forward the Evangelical viewpoint here. The Evang view has been attacked, sure. There have also been a few personal attacks but these have been for a refusal to engage in debate on the points raised (mainly by ES) and not for holding the views put forward.

Any attack on Pipkins viewpoint was, I think, a misunderstanding as to the way she put it over intiially and has been sorted.

Cheers

quote:

---

the mainstream evangelical viewpoint on this topic - that Allah is not the same as God,and that through Jesus alone are people saved.

---

Allah is the Arabic word for God. (As I understand it an Arab Christian would also pray to Allah. However they would understand Allah as triune and believe that Jesus was his son - if someone could confirm or deny I'd be grateful) Muslims, like Christians, worship the one God of Abraham. Surely it makes more sense to say that Muslims worship God but have erroneous ideas about him than that they worship another deity. I was not aware that it was the mainstream evangelical view that Muslims are unwitting diabolists.

Personally I would not be unhappy with the statement that only through Jesus are people saved. However I find it difficult to believe that non-Christians cannot be saved through Jesus. He never got worked up about religious orthodoxy whilst he was down here, indeed it was the religiously orthodox who nailed him to a cross, it seems strange to imagine that his attitude changed radically after the ascension. The parable of the sheep and the goats and the parable of the good samaritan suggest that grace works through compassion as well as faith and no religion can claim a monopoly on that.

I know Evangelicals of unimpeachable orthodoxy who would be happy to subscribe to the above propositions, as well as Evangelicals who would strongly disagree. Wouldn't it be fairer to suggest that the views you mention are "a mainstream evangelical view" rather than "the mainstream evangelical view".

Reading the posts of some of the nutters on this thread makes me wonder whether the Fundamentalist Evangelical god is the same as the Christian God.

quote:

---

But I believe in a God who has actively revealed himself - he's come stampeding out of the jungle and made himself known. It's no good looking for him other than were he has fully revealed himself, namely in the person of Jesus.

---

This thread could be re-titled "The God of Israel is not the God of the Bible" and still make as much sense. To many Orthodox Jews the idea of Trinitarianism is blasphemous. "Shema Yisroel: Adonai elohainu, Adonai echad" (Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one), a sentiment which would be echoed by Muslims and Unitarians. If you start from that premise, include the New Testament in the Bible, and treat it at the same explanatory level as the Old Testament, then where do you find strong evidence for Trinitarianism? And if you do not, then how do you argue that Islam, which regards Jesus as a late and great prophet, does not refer to the God of the Bible?