Posted on 02/02/2005 7:47:16 AM PST by Lando Lincoln
Yeah, that is one of the cheif reasons I think Mohamed was mistaken or possibley even delusional about his inspiration for the Koran.
When I first read the Koran, it seemed that their concept fo God was the same as ours, but a presit highlighted some of the behavioral differences, like the lack of a loving/forgiving side to Allah. Allah is only harsh, holy, and loves those that love Him.
The Christian concept of God is more mature, complex and deeper. Because it is genuinely inspired by God, IMO. It is no accident that Plato and Socrates, etc came to an understanding of the Trinity in their emanationist theories well before the Greeks had contact with Christianity, and vis-versa.
I mistakenly thought that the emanationists were so dominate in the first century that maybe the earlyChristians adapted it from the Greeks. But no, the emanationists were marginal in ancient society in the first century and the mystery cults dominated everything. There was no reason for Christians to borrow any consepts from the emanationists as they had no influence to try to jump on to or use as a frinedly group of like minds.
IT is just , I think, another example of God choosing the fullest time for introducing His Son into the world.
Anyway, Islams rejection if the Trinity and the divinity of Christ is based on an erroneous concept of the Trinity that most Christians still subscribe to unwittingly.
God is not theco-equal dieties that just get along really super-neeto-keeno; they are three persons in one being. That oft repeated truth is harder to understand than what one might think at first blush. But it is why the Koran is right; God does not beget nor is He begotten, in a literal sense. God simply *is* and Jesus was with Him through all eternity as Jesus *is* God, just that aspect of God that has taken on personality through the conceptualization of His intent and design. Like one might speak of ones consience or mental state as seperate from ones *self*.
IT isnt really seperate, but in the case of God, it geneuinely is, as He manifests Himself in different ways.
Anyway, later.
Does the concept of free will exist anywhere within the Islamic world?
But they haven't always become radicalized. When the Eastern Orthodox and Jews of the Middle East were given a choice between being ruled by a Muslim or Christian Crusader, they often chose the Muslim because the Muslims treated them better. And there are plenty of cases where the Muslims were simply nicer and more honorable people than the Crusaders who fought them. In fact, during the Fifth Crusade, Saladin offered to trade Damietta in Egypt for Jerusalem and it was the Crusaders who refused.
Plenty of atheists make the exact same argument against Judaism and Christianity, looking at the blood on the hands of historical Jews and Christians as well as the blood shed within the Bible the same way you are looking at Muslims and the Quran.
Many of the problems with Islam seem to be related to the Sunna, Hadith, and Sharia, along with tradition, and not the Quran, itself. Out of that, moderate Islam is certainly a possibility.
As a Christian, do I think I'm right and Muslims are wrong? Of course. But I also think it's clear that there are Muslims who love God just as there are Jews that love God and I think that can transcend theology and make somebody a good person. And I don't think Muslims should be converted at the end of a sword any more than I think they should be converting people at the end of a sword.
If what you suggest is true--that there exist a sizable number of moderate Muslims but that they tend to just go along (as in submit?), why would you assume this will change upon the institution of democracy-- which for now we'll define as form of government which conducts popular elections?
You need to remember that Judaism and Christianity went through similar transformations. The Jewish Zealots tried to be violent and radical against Roman oppression and it ultimately didn't work. The Judaism that evolved out of that bad experience was both peaceful and productive. Similarly, Christianity went through phases of not only heresies but time as an imperial religion and managed to get over it.
The key is to get Muslims to seperate the religious sphere of their life from the political sphere. If they can do that, as my friends have, they'll be OK. Can I guarantee that will happen? Of course not. But I think it's certainly possible, if not probable. As I said, look to Iran. They've seen the theocracy and every knows it's bad. In fact, the reason why Sistani doesn't want a theocracy is that he sees how it has corrupted the religious leaders of Iran.
"O you People of the Book, overstep not bounds in your religion, and of God speak only the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, is only an apostle of God, and his Word which he conveyed unto Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from him. Believe therefore in God and his apostles, and say not Three. It will be better for you. God is only one God. Far be it from his glory that he should have a son."
Jan is right, you sound different today, this is not meant as a criticism, merely an observation, but I like the change;0)
The words of the OT are God's words, as interpreted by man. Since man is fallible, the interpretation may be faulty. Additionally, what we refer to as the OT has been translated by man, and again, the fallibility thing, with possible mistakes made.
One mistake was previously noted, concerning the Commandment
"Thou shalt not KILL."
which should have read
"Thou shalt not MURDER."
The difference being in motivation: MURDER is pre-meditated, plotted and usually part and parcel to another broken commandment: stealing, adultery, idolatry, etc., generally unjustified.
Killing is spontaneous, protective (self or family defense), military, etc., and generally justified.
A simple little mistake and the meaning changes.
It is still God's word, BUT the accuracy is faulty.
Is it possible that Samuel used God to justify what happened?
The wholesale slaughter of the enemy was in keeping with the abhorrent practice of "Blood Revenge" prevalent among the pastoral, seminomadic tribes of the region, such as the Hebrews and their enemies, saying it was "ordered by God" absolves the doers of guilt, AND shows the power of the God of the Hebrews over the idols of the pagan enemies.
ALL th words of God are reported by others, in the NT, God, in the persona of his son Jesus, speaks directly to all of us, and his words and methods are different.
Jesus came to absolve mankind of millennia of sin and eternal damnation, but his word had to be followed to attain salvation, correct?
Perhaps God was angry over his representation, at times, in the OT as a jealous, angry and vengeful God, and decided to try and save those who portrayed Him that way by sending the Messiah.
As for Samuel, Saul and the Amalakites being today, and having the UN arrest them for their crimes, I was going to laugh - look at how much the Un helped the Tutsis in Rwanda http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide, or helped stopped the Serbians Ethnic Cleansing in Bosnia, or stopped the Killing Fields in Cambodia, then I realized that we were talking about stopping the HEBREWS and realized the Un would definitely tried to stop them!
As I said, God cannot evolve, He is, and always will be God.
What evolves is OUR perception, OUR belief.
God is an all-perfect, all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful being:
**if he wanted the Amalekites completely destroyed why rely on man to do the job?
**Being omnipotent , God is incapable of anger, jealousy and vengence since they are "sins" and it would make God less than perfect. He can still feel disappointment, sorrow, and disgust, I believe.
An angry God would have killed Adam and Eve and started again; a disappointed God would banish them and hope they would learn the error of their ways, do you understand my point?
Islam is closer to the OT than the NT, more Judaic than Christian, because it relys on man's word to say what God wants, and the priests/imams retain control of the interpretation of the word.
The OT and the Koran were written for people that were Middle Eastern,largely illiterate and dependent on oral traditions; in Christianity, the NT tells the story of God made manifest on earth; a God that came to bring man back into the fold, to reconcile with the God they had disappointed, the God who made a great sacrifice so that Man would have access to Paradise once again.
Now you know how it feels...pretty smart little cookie, aren't you?
I had a great teacher. My mother taught me everything I know! LOL
Thanks Fred!
Nice going Jan! ;o)
Don't tell Jan but Iowahawk has the preempted the Tin-Foil-Turban brigade Al Jazeera by reporting on the possibility of another "humanitarian disaster caused by exposure to potentially harmful finger ink" here.
;oP
Now why didn't I think of that? What a brilliant solution to the problems in the Middle East.
You make good points here, and I appreciate the civil tone.
I saw "Anger" just as one of the "7 Deadly Sins" and had not considered "Righteous Anger".
I always liked the quote from Dryden "Beware the fury of a patient man."
I believe that the "wicked" actions God asks man to do are tests of some sort, and a chance for man to grow.
Good response.
Agreed on why we are here.
God wants worship, but also growth as souls.
We experience pleasure, pain, pride and humiliations, all these things that we may grow wise and be better equipped for that land on the far shore.
The only way to make sense of this life is to keep that eternal perspective and not despair.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.