Islam v. Christian thought

page: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by logical7

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by DarknStormy
Yep got to love the secular world. Its the Godless world.

I love a secular rule of law. And a secular rule of law will protect the rights of everyone to worship (or not worship) as they see fit. Having secular rule of law for everyone is the only fair and free rule of law. Any religious law that seeps in .. or is pushed in at the point of a sword or gun .. is a bad law. It will be unfair, unfree, and most likely STUPID.

do you think Jesus Christ pbuh is going to come and establish secular law?!! I don't know what you would call yourself if you really believe it!!


Yeah that's what I don't understand... Secular law is so great but its exactly the opposite of what the Messiah would promote.. The Secular world is the exact opposite of religious




posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 



do you think Jesus Christ pbuh is going to come and establish secular law?!! I don't know what you would call yourself if you really believe it!!


I think FF meant that secular law in this world, till Jesus comes is fine. And after that whatever law he establishes has to be followed by everybody.

As for protecting the rights of everyone to worship or not worship.. I wonder if FF believes Jesus would give unbelievers freedom of speech to insult God and him, as it happens these days in countries with a secular laws.



posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
I think FF meant that secular law in this world, till Jesus comes is fine. And after that whatever law he establishes has to be followed by everybody.

Um .. no. I meant exactly what I said. I wasn't even thinking 'until Jesus comes again'.
His second coming wasn't even in my thought process.


As for protecting the rights of everyone to worship or not worship.. I wonder if FF believes Jesus would give unbelievers freedom of speech to insult God and him, as it happens these days in countries with a secular laws.

When Jesus comes again ... it's all done. Everything will change.
The sheep and the goats will be separated.
No one will want to insult God. No one will want to disbelieve.
All truth will be obvious and unquestionable. Your own brains will be forced to see truth.
At least .. that's what 'THEY" say. Time will tell.

Secular rule of law is the best law for this planet. That way, no one is forcing others to abide by their own silly religious beliefs. Everyone can believe as they wish and the secular law is the baseline in which everyone must follow. The secular law is the only fair law for humanity.



posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarknStormy
Yeah that's what I don't understand... Secular law is so great but its exactly the opposite of what the Messiah would promote.. The Secular world is the exact opposite of religious


Secular law is a baseline for everyone to have to follow. It's a common sense way of doing things. if people wish to add their own self-appointed religious laws to themselves on top of it .... good for them. But I certainly don't want backwards Sharia Laws forced on me simply because a bunch of Muslims believe it ... and I don't want a bunch of fundamentalist 'holiness' Christian laws (women can't wear pants, cut hair) forced on me simply because a bunch of them believe it ... and I don't want Jewish sabbath laws forced on me simply because they believe it ...

The baseline law for the entire world should be secular law. Then if certain people wish to self-police themselves and add their own silly religious laws on top of that FOR THEMSELVES ... then they can.

This way no one is forced to participate in a bunch of nonsense.

As for what the Messiah would want when He returns .... who knows?
When He came the first time He came in an unexpected manner.
He didnt' fulfill anyones expectations. He came as a spiritual messiah .. not a political liberator.
So at the second coming ... we'll just have to see ....
edit on 4/3/2013 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 





The baseline law for the entire world should be secular law. Then if certain people wish to self-police themselves and add their own silly religious laws on top of that FOR THEMSELVES ... then they can.

i agree to what you say. The basic principles of secular law and religious law are the same. The details of any religious law are meant for self-policing.
The world however has gone so away from God that some secular laws have become anti-religious like say interest banking. In my place at least till now its against the law to run an islamic interest free bank.

Secular laws support the greed of the powerful and rich. The poor and working class suffer. The laws can be changed to suit the interest of a few. Cigarette lighters/matches are allowed in planes as people want to smoke as soon as they get off and the cigarette companies have a powerful lobby.

The western countries are also called christian countries but that has just become a namesake title, Jesus pbuh is openly insulted, people smirk at anyone who is too regular at church unless he/she is over 50 years old.
The only time God's name is mentioned is during swearing/exclamations.
The earth belongs to God and you have to be hesitant to mention Him for the fear of offending the godless?!!



posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 08:32 AM
link   



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


The problem with Astyanax's initial differentiation is that there is a not insignificant portion of Christianity that is unitarian. And I'm not so sure about his/her assertion that Islam has no concept of Free Will. The Quran states the opposite, and I don't quite agree that God's foreknowledge of events is evidence of a lack of free will, but that is a different topic.

I don't regard Unitarianism as Christianity in any except a historical sense (meaning that it originally evolved among Christian congregations). There are plenty who call themselves Christians, but I limit that definition to communities that accept the Apostolic Succession and the articles of the Nicene Creed. This definition embraces the Roman, Orthodox and Anglican congregations as well as most European Protestant and Reformed orders. It excludes Unitarianism and most post-Protestant American communities, including the Mormon religion.

The Koran contains many things; it is, as I said earlier, a mass of contradictions. Muhammad was not an academic or a philosopher; he was an illiterate man, and he was not concerned with piddling reservations concerning doctrinal consistency. However, in the hadith and most orthodox interpretations (at least in Sunni Islam; I'm not so familiar with the Shia), man's only free will is to believe in God and submit to Him, or to disbelieve and resist. And even this is foreordained. See, for example, here.

I agree that the question of whether free will is compatible with the concept of an omniscient God is a matter for another thread. It is also, as far as I am concerned, a waste of time, since I do not believe in the possibility of such a God existing.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Originally posted by Astyanax
I don't regard Unitarianism as Christianity in any except a historical sense (meaning that it originally evolved among Christian congregations). There are plenty who call themselves Christians, but I limit that definition to communities that accept the Apostolic Succession and the articles of the Nicene Creed. This definition embraces the Roman, Orthodox and Anglican congregations as well as most European Protestant and Reformed orders. It excludes Unitarianism and most post-Protestant American communities, including the Mormon religion.

*Babloyi shrugs*
What can I say? Who am I to contradict your definition? I can't really respond to that, can I? I'm glad for you that you've categorised it for yourself to your satisfaction, I suppose.



Originally posted by Astyanax
However, in the hadith and most orthodox interpretations (at least in Sunni Islam; I'm not so familiar with the Shia), man's only free will is to believe in God and submit to Him, or to disbelieve and resist. And even this is foreordained. See, for example, here.

Unrelated to the actual topic, but you do realise that wikiislam is an anti-islam website, and not really an islamic, or even neutral reservoir of information on Islam?
There've been debates from the Free will vs Predestination sides in Islam for over a thousand years. It is hardly a set thing. But both the Quran and the Hadith have verses/narrations both for pre-destination AND free will.
edit on 4-4-2013 by babloyi because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Your post reminds me of another key difference: Priesthood

In some sects, there is no intermediary person between God and man. Some pray directly to God, while others pray through Jesus, Mary, numerous saints, etc.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


*Babloyi shrugs*
What can I say? Who am I to contradict your definition? I can't really respond to that, can I? I'm glad for you that you've categorised it for yourself to your satisfaction, I suppose.

Concepts require definition in order for them to have any meaning, as I am sure you will agree.


Unrelated to the actual topic, but you do realise that wikiislam is an anti-islam website, and not really an islamic, or even neutral reservoir of information on Islam?

I posted a quote from a conservative Islamic site earlier that says the same thing.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 

I went back and found the response you linked, but I have to tell you, that website doesn't have any claim of authority, even to the "truest" islam or even the most conservative versions. I checked the about page, and it doesn't tell what fiqh they are following, which could either mean it is simply not mentioned, or it could mean that they want to pretend they can do it for all, or that they are some non-fiqh group (because even among salafists, this subject isn't fixed).

Again, this isn't some bit of hidden knowledge. The debate on Predestination vs Free-will has raged among Islamic scholars for over a thousand years. Two early groups (neither extant, but for different reasons), the qadriyites and the jabriyites took polar opposite positions on the subject- the first that human beings have free will to the extent that even God doesn't know what they might do, and the second that every single action taken by anyone is dictated by God. No group today really conforms to either of these views, although the Hanbali might come the closest to the jabirite view (although still not). Most groups (and I'm not restricting myself to just the moderate or unorthodox groups) understand it as a combination of both predestination AND free will.
edit on 5-4-2013 by babloyi because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 

Schoolmen will always argue. Are you a Muslim? What's your opinion on the subject of free will in Islam?

I know dozens, possibly hundreds of Muslims personally. I have certainly met hundreds of them. And in my experience, most Muslims are fatalists. Everything that happens, they believe, is the will of God. Man has no power to propose or dispose. The few who disagreed were westernised, college-educated, rich Muslims, mostly Indians, Sri Lankans and Iranians of the sort who call themselves 'Persians'. And by no means all of these disagreed.

Unfortunately, I can't substantiate my experience. But tell me, what have you learnt from your personal experience of Islam, or of Muslims?

edit on 5/4/13 by Astyanax because: of the few who disagreed.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 01:19 AM
link   
I am a muslim, yes, and my opinion is like what I said earlier...God knows what we will do and choose, but that doesn't mean we don't have free will (as I said, while it may be a topic for a different thread, I don't believe free will negates the concept of an omniscient god-foreknowledge isn't the same as control).

And having lived in several different muslim countries (as well as knowing muslims in non-muslim majority countries), I can say that opinion is all over the place, but I rarely ever meet anyone who subscribes to either extremes (total free will with God not knowing, or total control by God with no free will). It is almost always a combination of the two. Some say that our births and deaths are penned from beforehand in our "book", but every choice inbetween is our own. Some say that everything is written, but the choices to do those things is our own, some say that the choice to do something is our own, but God guides us, etc.
It is true that muslims generally recognise the hand of God in everything (saying mashallah or "thanks be to God" whenever something good is seen, or saying "insh'a allah" or "God willing" whenever they want something to happen, etc.), but this is not really fatalism so much as a sort of short prayer.
edit on 5-4-2013 by babloyi because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 

A good response, and deserving of a star. In my experience most people (not just Muslims) act as if they believe in free will—indeed, it would be hard to imagine how else one could act at all—but give more intellectual credence to predestination than their actions imply. Newspaper horoscopes never lack for readers.

I regret my disinclination to indulge in debates about the omniscience of God, but there are others on this thread who may be interested. I know the subject has come up on ATS many times in the past, but I'm not sure if there are any threads dedicated to it. There was a time when I might have started one myself.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 

No need to regret it. It HAS come up numerous times on here, and I've even participated, but the results are obvious, and weren't aren't any amazing reveals, just different people giving responses based off their favoured religious book or path of logic in a way that can't really be conclusively proven to anyone else with a different book or taking a different path with logic.





top topics
 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join