Then we are screwed and the Muslims are just as likely to be right as the Jews and Chrisians. Everybody becomes reduced to guessing.
Good point.. Without "a" Holy Spirit you would be exactly correct.. even WITH a Holy Spirit.. you've defined "faith".. The corollary would be "faith" in what?..
IMHO FWIW, Muslims are irrational in a way that Christians and Jews are not. Thus they are not on a par, intellectually or spiritually, with Jews and Christians, who honor reason. And this speaks to the nature of their God, Allah. Allah is not the least bit interested in human reason (which is practically worthless anyway in a master–slave relation), and certainly not in human freedom; he's in the slavery business. With Allah, it's either "my way, or the highway." On his view, men are born as slaves to his will, not as "free agents" with a will of their own. So if Allah tells men its okay to kill their women — wives, daughters, nieces, etc. — for putative offenses to Allah's sense of aesthetical predilections and priorities, then men have no choice but to kill their women....
Allah is a freaking nutcase because he's doing Satan's business here on earth. And he won't be satisfied until every man agrees with him, or is dead for refusing agreement. The death sentence, of course, to be executed by his mindless, barbarian slaves....
People say this is not what Islam is all about; this is a total misunderstanding; that there are actually "moderate" Muslims out there who believe Islam is a religion of peace and universal harmony among peoples.... Balderdash!
If the latter is a fact, then all I'd have to say is this: Such "moderate" people have not even begun to understand the "message," the "theology" of Allah.
Jihad is not broadly understood in the Islamic world today as the "self-conquering of lawless ego," which is the screed that CAIR gives us. Rather, it signifies conversion by the sword to Allah — either that, or death to the infidels who are such because they refuse to accept a slavemaster as their deity.
Like I said, JMHO FWIW.
You really need a better sense of discrimination on such "spiritual" matters, dear Soliton. Otherwise, sooner or later you'll be taken "for a fool," and have to pay the consequences. Or so it seems to me.
you: “Then we are screwed and the Muslims are just as likely to be right as the Jews and Chrisians. [sic] Everybody becomes reduced to guessing.”
We have near 1,400 year’s “experiments” that we can use to test your hypothesis (that Moslems are just as likely to be right as Jews and Christians). I’ll kick it off with some observations. Maybe others might like to add a few more.
At the beginning of that 1,400 year’s time there is no doubt that the Moslems had it all over the Christian Western Civilization in general knowledge, literature, science, etc. Where are they now in comparison to the Western World (even after a century and one half of determined attacks on Western Culture by its own denizens)? Of course, some might say that this comparison is not fair because Moslems actually started behind the Christians since they (the Moslems) owed their cultural ‘superiority’ to some of the civilizations they conquered (the Moors, the Persians, the Babylonians), but I’ll leave that argument to the experts in European and Near East history after the collapse of the Roman Empire (west). Rather, I’ll just note that since 1901, the first year Nobel prizes were awarded, there have been 9 Moslem recipients, while Moslems represent nearly 20% of the world population, and that there have been over 130 Jewish recipients, while they represent 0.2% of the world population. I’ve not tried to pick off the number of Christian Nobel recipients (that would be rather hard to do – since it’s not always an easy task to discern Christian from Atheist), but I’m willing to wager that the number comes to more than sixteen (not counting Blacks and Orientals from other parts of the world who happen also to be Christian).
For centuries Western Culture and Moslem Culture were partners in “that detestable trade” slavery. Who now eschews slavery and who lead in the drive to abolish the institution, and who still follows the practice and even defends it?
In the Seventh Century it was common practice to slaughter every member, man, woman, and child, of a besieged city, if they offered more than token resistance to their invaders (see the Crusades). Who now still offers enthusiastic endorsement of such a practice, and follows through on the threat when given the opportunity? Who does not?
Who cheered and rejoiced at the practice of flying very large jet planes at very high speeds into very tall buildings, and who were horrified at the spectacle?
All of these issues involve opinion, of course, and are a matter of value judgment. In the process, they render an obscenity the idea of a moral neutrality based on scientific ‘objectivity.’ But, I’ve gone on long enough. Maybe someone else would like to play.