What causes muslims to be violent

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12235
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What causes muslims to be violent

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

gaffo wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 5:16 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 5:02 am I believe in Christianity, all sins are forgivable?? until one renounced [terminate the contract] the religion.
did not your Saul claim that there was one unforgivable sin? denying the Holy Spirit. whatever that means.
If that is true, then that is the case - no issue for me.
But the question is can Saul speak for God?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What causes muslims to be violent

Post by Immanuel Can »

gaffo wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:35 am thanks for long reply, but instead of replying it each part, will just make a summary of what i agree with and dissagree with:
That's a good strategy for keeping things reasonably short. I'll do as you do too, okay?
My drunk self killing best friend...why he is a drunk has nothing to do with his Religion/former Religion - it goes back to something more core to his nature (maybe childhood? - no idea, but not linked to his Faith/former Faith) - seems now to vasilate between affirming your God/Hating him/denying him - depending upon the day (for the last decade or so).
I didn't suppose his Pentecostalism was the cause of his unhappiness. Many Pentecostals do seem quite happy, in fact. I was merely suggesting that the erratic up-and-down emotionalism involved in it seems to suit up-and-down emotional people. And maybe he has quite good reasons to be feeling down now. I would not expect they were caused by his belief, but by something else. However, a more level, stable kind of belief would certainly likely to help someone through depression, in a way up-and-down religiosity tends not to do.
5. ya I'm not happy ...you are right, i probably should strive for more positive thinking in general, to be happier than i am.
I think so. And I wish it for you.

The challenge, of course, is knowing how to do that. As I'm sure you realize, one can't become more positive simply by wanting to be positive; or at least, most people find that doesn't work for them. It takes a more profound change of life, usually.
7. i remember true depression - 20 yrs ago
I grew up with a friend whose mother was seriously manic-depressive (bipolar). So I have had a great deal of first-hand experience with mental illness of that kind. She had crushing depressions that would incapacitate her for days. Yet she was also a fine, kind, thoughtful person. People do not understand how that can be possible, but it is.
8. Judiasm differs from Saul's Chrstianity in that it is like Jude/James/Marks christianity - it does not view that man must be perfect in order to be saved - only be good enough, go to the temple went you sin, and repent.

I think that's how people "read" Judaism when they're looking at the surface. But I would argue it was never really that.

The system of temple sacrifices involved animals, you recall. And they all had to be without spot or blemish -- "perfect," if you will. No maimed or misshapen animals were ever acceptable. So perfection was still the standard. And not only that, but the Temple sacrifices were also only temporary. How do we know that's true? We know because they were also repeated. If the blood of bulls and goats had taken away sin, they would have been performed only once, and the matter would have been resolved. But in point of fact, in those repeated sacrifices was a reminder that sin was never finally dealt with. There would have to be another sacrifice, and another, and another...

This is why Christians speak of Jesus as "the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world." He appeared once, forever, to put away sin forever, as God's perfect "Lamb." And after Him, the sacrifices ceased. The Great Sacrifice had been made. Messiah Himself had dealt with sin, and done away with it forever, for all who would do what OT Jews always did with a Lamb -- and that was to put their hands on it to identify themselves with it. By identification with God's Lamb, acceptance of the Great Sacrifice on our behalf, we have final freedom from guilt.
9. per Saul 8 is not enough, one must beleive in Christ as your personal Savior in order to not go to hell forever.
That's correct. And per Jesus Christ as well. He said the same. (John 3, for example, in which he tells a Jewish rabbi, Nicodemus, the same thing.)
11. You say Saul valued good works, but that he did not think that was enough - i agree to the latter - but not the former (can you give a verse from Saul's letters claiming he value good works?)
Sure, tons. But just to start, the book of Romans, chapter 12 starts a long section on what good deeds are required of Christians. But what he points out is that the deeds do not produce salvation. Good deeds are what people are obligated to do after they are saved, and because they are saved, in gratitude for the salvation they have received.

Good deeds do not, all by themselves, save people. They must be produced by a person who has faith, and stands in a living relationship to God. For what are the so-called good deeds of a spiritually-dead kind of mankind, especially to a perfect God? Should He be impressed? What is it to Him, and what are they to Him, since they care nothing for Him?

This is why Jesus said, "You must be born again," or another translation puts it, "You must be born from above." Unless one is already in a living relationship with God, as His own child, then one's deeds are of no value to Him at all. They are simply the irrelevant deeds of those who hate Him. That's why Isaiah the prophet says, "All our deeds of righteousness are like filthy rags." The problem is not with the good deeds themselves; the problem is with the one who is doing them, who is Himself a sinner, and thus outside of any fit relationship with a holy God.
12. Jesus never said "believe in me to be saved", he said believe in YHWH.
I hate to contradict so bluntly, but that's most certainly not the case. He did. And often.

John 3:16, for example, or John 8:24 -- "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” And you can see that the Pharisees most certainly understood his claims that way (John 10:33 -- "The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.”)

13. IMO from reading what others said of Jesus (since Jesus left no record himself, and may not have been literate
Actually, he was quite literate. (Luke 4:17, for example) And so were all his followers, who recorded the gospels, obviously. Luke, for example, was not only literate but an formally-educated man, a physician. Paul, as you know, began as a Pharisee, and was trained by no less a rabbi than Gamaliel himself. So not only was he literate, but he had to have memorized and recited the entire Torah.

Literacy rates in Israel were much higher than in the rest of the ancient world, for the simple reason that every Jewish boy who is observant of the Law has to become what they call "a son of the Law" by reading Torah..so that's not at all surprising in Israel.
he hated all hypocrites
He hated hypocrisy. I wouldn't say he hated hypocrites as people. He just wanted them to stop being hypocrites.
thanks for reply Sir. i agreed with 2/3'rds of it.
You're most welcome. I enjoy our conversation. I hope I've touched on what you consider most important above. If I've not addressed something you consider specially important, please feel free to say.
gaffo
Posts: 4259
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: What causes muslims to be violent

Post by gaffo »

thanks for reply Sir. i agreed with 2/3'rds of it.
You're most welcome. I enjoy our conversation. I hope I've touched on what you consider most important above. If I've not addressed something you consider specially important, please feel free to say.
[/quote]


as do i, we both value discussion over 'scoring points"

i don't care about points, and as i said, and think you believe (rightly), do find value in the many religions on this earth, nor anti- any of them.

because i've valued them, i've informed myself about the major ones (I'm weak on Hinduism though - something i need to work on - its not well known in the Western World, and most of my self education of it lead to western new age mumbo jumbo (i do wish "The net" - and this forum, had some authetic Hindus, so i can learn more of it - but as yet no). of what little i've learned is about the encarnations of God - 7 of them i think - to date), via names, i know of only Rama and Krishna. Christians converted to Hinduism also include Jesus an one (so for them there have been 8 to dat encarnations).

sadly i am as weak per Buddism, but my mindset may be more aligned with that Faith than Hinduism. (just from my meager understanding of both - so i make no absolute claims about such, being moslty ignorant of both Faiths - and only knowing some stuff- not near as much as i should).

i do know quite a lot about Judiasm, and in the middle per your Faith Chrsitianity (I know more than most Atheists, and even half of the Christians out there) - if i do say so myself.

per your relies below i will address them to the best of my ability - in some parts you informed me of your mentality that i did not understand (and maybe vise versa - prior (i.e. we have fundementally different mentaliities per "sin, and good works" - i did not know this until now, now i do and will reply about them/it as best i can - so you can understand where i am coming from.

- and as you know, i am fine with agreeing to disagree - as i think you are too - but my reply may allow you to understand my mentality is not to be assumed by you to be yours - and instead you may understand my mentality, and in the future - knowing each other's mentality - will continue to agree to disagree in the spirit of mutual understanding.

;-).




Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm
gaffo wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:35 am thanks for long reply, but instead of replying it each part, will just make a summary of what i agree with and dissagree with:
That's a good strategy for keeping things reasonably short. I'll do as you do too, okay?
sure, glad to offer something here in this forum. even this.

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm
5. ya I'm not happy ...you are right, i probably should strive for more positive thinking in general, to be happier than i am.
I think so. And I wish it for you.

The challenge, of course, is knowing how to do that. As I'm sure you realize, one can't become more positive simply by wanting to be positive; or at least, most people find that doesn't work for them. It takes a more profound change of life, usually.

we must agree to disagree here, negative thinking is habitual - its a feedback via a depressive personality, and so a habit of thinking (I can't change my nature of being a depressant introvert, but can remove the habitual isolation (by going out and being social, and by catching myself when is "think negatively" - like when i'm down, and drive by a homeless one legged man - then i say , fuck my negative thinking! - compared to that guy, i got it good! "misery love company" is a concept i live by, it serves me well - it corrects me, when i fall into the self pity game/neg thinking feedback loop.

with training, one can reject negative thinking - i have for these last 20 yrs (my mom is the queen of neg thinking, and me moving away from her 30 yrs ago helped me beyond words) - and since then i've been more self aware (I'm not my mom anymore) - and refuse to play the self pity/neg thinking game. But i know my limits, and know i cannot change my nature of my general core introversion/depressant type (nor try - not being a fool) - I'm fine with my nature, and do have limited ability, namely breaking the negative thinking habit after being aware of it 30 yrs ago. and this the latter i have done with success! and it has made my life good enough - compared to before when i was in that trap of neg thinking.)

its a habit, break the habit, and you are more free, and i am free enough now to be content (not happy).

that is good enough for me - esp when i think back to the state i was in 20 yrs ago.



Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm
7. i remember true depression - 20 yrs ago
I grew up with a friend whose mother was seriously manic-depressive (bipolar). So I have had a great deal of first-hand experience with mental illness of that kind. She had crushing depressions that would incapacitate her for days. Yet she was also a fine, kind, thoughtful person. People do not understand how that can be possible, but it is.
I'm not bipolar - just tend to be unipolar - downer type, never "up" - but as i said above, my habitual thinking has been proper (objective) and so i can deal with it. my mom's fav saying is "never expect anything good, that way you will never be dissapointed" ya my mom's mentality, which i assumed was normal until i move out of state and had a chance to "Clear my mind" and think that maybe my mom's mentality was wrong.

I have a close Friend that is Bipolar - lives down the street from me (not my best buddy, but both live within 6 blocks of me - and we all have known each other since the mid 90's), he was on Lithuim, but his liver was rejecting it after 30 yrs of so, and so is now on other drugs.

John -our friend - is a pretty bad Manic (9/10th manic - only 1/10 depresant (lucky him! - lol - not he is not lucky, his mind races to the point that even though he is a smart guy, "the noise" of other thoughts invade his focus) - he can't hold down a job (even with the drugs that do help him). with the drugs he can think with the noise , without them, i can only imagine.......he can't.

He suffers from "push talk" - drives us crazy!!!!!, but some days/weeks he is almost normal and so 1/2 decent company.

outside of his mental illness, sadly he is immature (56 yr old 16 yr old) due to his parents spoiling him when he was a kid.

so 1/2 of is poor company is due to his immaturity, not his mental illness.

- but he is a friend, and a good one to me and Bob (though too immature to be a soulmate, and so not able to be a best friend to me nor my drink buddy Bob).

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm
8. Judiasm differs from Saul's Chrstianity in that it is like Jude/James/Marks christianity - it does not view that man must be perfect in order to be saved - only be good enough, go to the temple went you sin, and repent.

I think that's how people "read" Judaism when they're looking at the surface. But I would argue it was never really that.
and your argument is below.

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm The system of temple sacrifices involved animals, you recall. And they all had to be without spot or blemish -- "perfect," if you will. No maimed or misshapen animals were ever acceptable. So perfection was still the standard.
agreed, perfection of the sacrifice - NOT the man offering the sacrifice!

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm And not only that, but the Temple sacrifices were also only temporary. How do we know that's true? We know because they were also repeated. If the blood of bulls and goats had taken away sin, they would have been performed only once, and the matter would have been resolved. But in point of fact, in those repeated sacrifices was a reminder that sin was never finally dealt with. There would have to be another sacrifice, and another, and another...
YES OF COURSE, man repents and offers sacrifice (a perfect one if possible), then a day/week later commits a sin or two.

then goes back to the Temple with another offering, and repents

etc.............


that is Islam/Judaism!

---------------there is not concept of "future sinlessness" in either Religions!



surely you know this!?



Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm This is why Christians speak of Jesus as "the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world." He appeared once, forever, to put away sin forever, as God's perfect "Lamb." And after Him, the sacrifices ceased. The Great Sacrifice had been made. Messiah Himself had dealt with sin, and done away with it forever, for all who would do what OT Jews always did with a Lamb -- and that was to put their hands on it to identify themselves with it. By identification with God's Lamb, acceptance of the Great Sacrifice on our behalf, we have final freedom from guilt.
yes I KNOW THIS - and one of two things that make your Christianity different from Judaism/Islam.

the other of course is being that your Christ is God/son of.

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm
9. per Saul 8 is not enough, one must beleive in Christ as your personal Savior in order to not go to hell forever.
That's correct. And per Jesus Christ as well. He said the same. (John 3, for example, in which he tells a Jewish rabbi, Nicodemus, the same thing.)
no John said that Jesus said ............what Mark said what Jesus said is different.

Jesus never said anything personally (if he did it's lost as a written work).

all we have is what Jesus said:

via

Saul, Mark, Luke, Matt,John,gospel of Thomas (and the Didache (which is not in cannon, but core to Jesus mentality IMO))

Sual and John have the a near same Christology (only differences being Saul viewed Christ as not pre-existing God, only prexisting Jesus - and entering Jesus as sometime to fullfill Christs role as litterally God's son, author of John denies any concept of Christ as not existing prior to God - John's Preamable is clear) - also John (again refer to his preamble) - viewed that Christ was God, not his son.

so there is a dissagreement bet the nature of Christ per John and Saul.

- though overall they are both similar otherwise.

------unlike Luke/Matt, and esp Mark!!!!!!



Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm
11. You say Saul valued good works, but that he did not think that was enough - i agree to the latter - but not the former (can you give a verse from Saul's letters claiming he value good works?)
Sure, tons. But just to start, the book of Romans, chapter 12 starts a long section on what good deeds are required of Christians. But what he points out is that the deeds do not produce salvation. Good deeds are what people are obligated to do after they are saved, and because they are saved, in gratitude for the salvation they have received.
that sounds like Saul. his view of good works is an obligation/duty, not just a thing one does via their good nature.

got it, and why i never like the guy, the braggart.


Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm Good deeds do not, all by themselves, save people. .
per Saul's view - i got that decades ago.

but ok

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm They must be produced by a person who has faith, and stands in a living relationship to God.
???

so good deeds by Athiests/Hindus/Ghandi are not good deads/do not do good deeds/should not even bother to do good deeds????????

WTF you talking about Willis (BTW that actor has been a Fundie for at least 30 now - sorry i do not know his name, but seems like a nice guy (brother to Kirt Cameron in my mind - kirt seems like a nice guy too) - both fundies, both seem like good guys, and if their converstion to fundie served them personally (and not hurt others - and i do not think either have hurt others - outside of their zeal for their God) i think its fine.



Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm For what are the so-called good deeds of a spiritually-dead kind of mankind,

???????????
deeds Ghandi (burning is hell forever for being a Hindu - that he prevented Civil War in India in 46 - "ignore, no good deeds move on" - means nothing for he did deeds (none good being a none Christian), non good though.


BTW I am a Secular Humanist!!!!!!!!!!!!

that means i have a higher view of the mankind you view as a worm (you share Saul's view).

funny, you being a Christian, and me being a burn forever Athiest, me having a higher value per the nature of man than you!

irony much?


Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm especially to a perfect God?

your god is irrelivent, i do good works because my nature is in general more good than bad (3/4 good BTW - all of us generally speaking), and i do good to fell good.

and i do good for other man and women that may find solice in the good i do, not for your god.

i don't give a shit for your god, as a man i am infinately smaller!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (WTF do you equate me doing good with some sort of "equating myself with God" - you are too brainwashed in Saul's letters (saul was an asshole - that is the sad truth - other works by other authors (who were not assholes are there for you to read from).


I do good because i feel good inside when i do, and it also helps other people.

God is irrelivant for me.


Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm Should He be impressed? What is it to Him, and what are they to Him, since they care nothing for Him?
not care nor give a shit. i do good for me, and the byproduct is it helps others in need.

as for your God - if he is a dick and knowing he is a trillion times better than me, fine, he can play the dick, i do not do good for him, i do good for me - and the bi-product is helping other persons.

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm This is why Jesus said, "You must be born again," or another translation puts it, "You must be born from above." Unless one is already in a living relationship with God, as His own child, then one's deeds are of no value to Him at all. They are simply the irrelevant deeds of those who hate Him.
so good deeds from persons that deny your god, but do good for others, are irrelivant to your God?

lovely, so much for your "God of love"

that is from "john" yes?

perchance author of Mark/Matt/Luke had a different view? (me being non Christian, allows me to pars the theologies - and affirm they do not fit one theology) - you however being a Christian, must force a fit - even when there is not one.

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm That's why Isaiah the prophet says, "All our deeds of righteousness are like filthy rags." .

not a fan of Isaiah, neutral per it - but which part do you refer to? it was added on to 2-5 centuries later - so 3 isaiahs.

as there are sadly 2 Amos' - the last part added on, in effect rejecting the whole theme of the original work - that "God's chosen is a responsibility - and God will choose another people (Etheopions) if the jews do not get their shit together/fix their mentality) - so the last part of Amos - added centuries later negated the whole responsibility of being a chosen people, and instead fixed the promise of being God chosen as immutable.

and so negating Amos' entire book, and negating your God's will - "i promised my people, so a promise is a promise, if they rape and pillage and murder trillions of palistinians...they are still my chosen people"


Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm
12. Jesus never said "believe in me to be saved", he said believe in YHWH.
I hate to contradict so bluntly, but that's most certainly not the case. He did. And often.

John 3:16, for example, or John 8:24 -- "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” And you can see that the Pharisees most certainly understood his claims that way (John 10:33 -- "The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.”)
John said that Jesus said that.

Mark never nor matt/luke said that Jesus said that.

Jesus = per what he said, if he said, is nothing.


Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm
13. IMO from reading what others said of Jesus (since Jesus left no record himself, and may not have been literate
Actually, he was quite literate. (Luke 4:17, for example) And so were all his followers, who recorded the gospels, obviously. Luke, for example, was not only literate but an formally-educated man, a physician. Paul, as you know, began as a Pharisee, and was trained by no less a rabbi than Gamaliel himself. So not only was he literate, but he had to have memorized and recited the entire Torah.
that is what Saul said about Gamaliel, i think Saul was an asshole/dick and what he had to say suspect.


Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm Literacy rates in Israel were much higher than in the rest of the ancient world, for the simple reason that every Jewish boy who is observant of the Law has to become what they call "a son of the Law" by reading Torah..so that's not at all surprising in Israel.

I'm calling bullshit on this - but welcome references.

Greece and Rome i suspect being more of an Empire - former and latter - had a higher literacy rate than the Israelis generally.

none of them more than 10 percent. (and probably more like 5 - since women are ignored in history and make up 1/2 of the pop and nearly none had a reason to be literate).


he hated all hypocrites
He hated hypocrisy. I wouldn't say he hated hypocrites as people. He just wanted them to stop being hypocrites.[/quote]


agreed, poor wording on my part.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What causes muslims to be violent

Post by Immanuel Can »

I certainly agree that arguing to "score points" is...well, pointless. What usually happens is that two people get nasty with each other, and only succeed in convincing both each other and anyone who is watching that they're adolescent. So yes, it's refreshing and pleasant to talk with you, since that is not your style at all.

Some thoughts, then, on what you were saying:
gaffo wrote: Sun Sep 13, 2020 1:23 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm The system of temple sacrifices involved animals, you recall. And they all had to be without spot or blemish -- "perfect," if you will. No maimed or misshapen animals were ever acceptable. So perfection was still the standard.
agreed, perfection of the sacrifice - NOT the man offering the sacrifice!
That's the point. The sacrifice is an acknowledgement that God requires perfection, but man does not have it. His identification with the lamb was to admit this, and to ask forgiveness for specific sins. But the person making the sacrifice would sin again, and there would have to be another perfect sacrifice, and so on.

The fact that the perfect lamb was offered again and again showed that the procedure wasn't working permanently. If a lamb brought a man to God, then sacrifices would have ceased, after the first one. That they went on and on showed what the book of Hebrews says is really so: it is impossible for such sacrifices to solve the problem of what makes man unacceptable to God...sin.
YES OF COURSE, man repents and offers sacrifice (a perfect one if possible), then a day/week later commits a sin or two. then goes back to the Temple with another offering, and repents etc.............that is Islam/Judaism!
Or was it? Were the sacrifices, which we both can see were not really effective, anything more than a symbolic representation of what was to come, the more perfect Sacrifice that God would provide, as Abraham promised?
---------------there is not concept of "future sinlessness" in either Religions! surely you know this!?
I'm not sure what you mean by "future sinlessness." But if I catch your meaning, I would argue that in Judaism, there is such a "concept," but it's been forgotten. In this, it's just like how the concept of afterlife in ancient and traditional Judaism that has been lost from modernist Judaism.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm
That's correct. And per Jesus Christ as well. He said the same. (John 3, for example, in which he tells a Jewish rabbi, Nicodemus, the same thing.)
no John said that Jesus said ............what Mark said what Jesus said is different.
There is a difference between two writers giving their own accounts, and them contradicting each other. Mark doesn't contradict John on this: he just records some same, and some different events.

And that's exactly what one would expect, if two different people were reporting on the same events. In fact, perfect sameness would have two bad effects: 1) it would suggest sneaky collusion between the two writers, and 2) it would render one of the two redundant and thus of no particular value. What's really valuable is testimony that is highly similar but significantly unique. And that's exactly what we have with Mark and John.
Jesus never said anything personally (if he did it's lost as a written work).
I don't think that's an important objection. Personal testimony is considered an important resource in courts of law, and when considered as historical evidence, is among the very best one can get. Next to having a recording device, which would obviously not be possible in first-century Judea, we have four of the best historians we could want reporting on what was said and done. You really can't do better, given the period.
so there is a dissagreement bet the nature of Christ per John and Saul.
I disagree with your summary. Both Paul and John definitely see Christ as God.
- though overall they are both similar otherwise.

------unlike Luke/Matt, and esp Mark!!!!!!
The four gospels are written for very different audiences. You can tell, for example, from Matthew's account, that he is writing specifically to Jews. So he records events, and comments frequently on Torah, in a way that would make a lot of sense to a first-century Jew, but none in particular to contemporary Gentiles. John, on the other hand, is much concerned with speaking to Gentiles as well as Jews, as it apparent from his approach. Luke's style is different from both, but he agrees on the meaning of the events in question.
that sounds like Saul. his view of good works is an obligation/duty, not just a thing one does via their good nature.
Actually, both the Tanakh and Jesus Christ also agree with Saul on that. In Torah, human beings are both "made in the image of God," (Gen. 1) and yet the human heart has become, because of sin, "desperately wicked." (Jer. 17:9). Jesus said that what comes out of a man, out of his heart, "defiles a man," (Mark 7:20) and He was wiser than to trust human nature (John 2:24).

Nobody in the Bible has sunny confidence in human nature. And only a very rash person has such confidence now, since we just came out of the bloodiest century in all of human history. Clearly, something is very dark in human nature.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm so good deeds by Athiests/Hindus/Ghandi are not good deads/do not do good deeds/should not even bother to do good deeds????????
The "deeds" may be better or worse. Good people sometimes do bad things, and bad people sometimes do good things.

But the point was that the "deeds" are not the issue. The condition of the doer is the issue. And the question is whether or not the doer stands in any positive relation to God at all. If he does not, his deeds may or may not do something good for others, but they are not the deeds of a righteous person.

As I said...
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm For what are the so-called good deeds of a spiritually-dead kind of mankind,
???????????
deeds Ghandi ...
The question, again, is "What is Ghandi's relationship to God," not "Did Ghandi ever do anything that helped people." The latter is obvious; the former, less so. But that's what we mean when we say good deeds do not produce salvation.

BTW I am a Secular Humanist!!!!!!!!!!!!that means i have a higher view of the mankind you view as a worm (you share Saul's view).
As I said last message, "mankind is a worm" is not said anywhere in the Bible, or is that idea given. In point of fact, man is seen as a fallen creature, one capable of good but prone to evil; and as such, one out of fellowship and relationship to his Creator. So you've just got Paul wrong on that.

But is the secular Humanist view of mankind really "high"? Or is it just perversely inflated? I would say it is most certainly the latter; for the evil that men do has to come from somewhere, and secular Humanism has no credible account of how evil is even possible.
funny, you being a Christian, and me being a burn forever Athiest, me having a higher value per the nature of man than you!
Well, I wouldn't say it was "funny," per se. It seems to me it's perfectly understandable.

You perhaps view human nature with great trust. But be careful how far you take it: for such a view is not recommendable if mankind is actually capable of evil. It would only make such a person an easy victim.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm especially to a perfect God?
your god is irrelivent,
Heh. :D There are many things, my friend, that can be said about God; but "irrelevant" is not one of them. Even the Atheists make it a matter of their first concern to try to eliminate Him from their thinking; and inasmuch as they do, they pay him a perverse compliment. For they admit that there is actually nothing more "relevant" than the question of God's existence and identity.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm This is why Jesus said, "You must be born again," or another translation puts it, "You must be born from above." Unless one is already in a living relationship with God, as His own child, then one's deeds are of no value to Him at all. They are simply the irrelevant deeds of those who hate Him.
so good deeds from persons that deny your god, but do good for others, are irrelivant to your God?
For salvation? Utterly irrelevant. To the persons receiving the "good"? Of some benefit. But they, like the doer of the "good deeds" will be dead and gone very soon, so there is no ultimate or lasting value there, just a short-term benefit to other frail creatures, all doomed to disappear into universal oblivion one day.
so much for your "God of love"
You would have a reasonable complaint, if God had not already done everything possible to save you and produce a right relationship with Him. But He has. But love, to be love, must be received, not forced. So God can go a long way to show His love for you...but He cannot force you to choose that relationship. You still have to have the choice to reject it.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm That's why Isaiah the prophet says, "All our deeds of righteousness are like filthy rags." .
which part do you refer to?
Isaiah 64:6.
Greece and Rome i suspect being more of an Empire - former and latter - had a higher literacy rate than the Israelis generally. none of them more than 10 percent. (and probably more like 5 - since women are ignored in history and make up 1/2 of the pop and nearly none had a reason to be literate).
We can't get accurate general statistics that far back. All we can go on is what we know of the traditions of reading. But it's of little importance, since unless the rate was 0%, we have no reason to suspect Christ of being illiterate. And he certainly had the Torah down by memory, since He quoted it frequently and also interpreted it accurately...much more accurately, in fact, than contemporary religious experts, whom we know would have to be literate.

And, of course, we know that at least four of Christ's disciples were literate, and for their day, very literate indeed. It would be an odd thing if they followed somebody who was not.

Nice talking to you again.
gaffo
Posts: 4259
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: What causes muslims to be violent

Post by gaffo »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Sep 13, 2020 2:36 pm I certainly agree that arguing to "score points" is...well, pointless. What usually happens is that two people get nasty with each other, and only succeed in convincing both each other and anyone who is watching that they're adolescent. So yes, it's refreshing and pleasant to talk with you, since that is not your style at all.

Some thoughts, then, on what you were saying:
gaffo wrote: Sun Sep 13, 2020 1:23 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm The system of temple sacrifices involved animals, you recall. And they all had to be without spot or blemish -- "perfect," if you will. No maimed or misshapen animals were ever acceptable. So perfection was still the standard.
agreed, perfection of the sacrifice - NOT the man offering the sacrifice!
That's the point. The sacrifice is an acknowledgement that God requires perfection, but man does not have it. His identification with the lamb was to admit this, and to ask forgiveness for specific sins. But the person making the sacrifice would sin again, and there would have to be another perfect sacrifice, and so on.

The fact that the perfect lamb was offered again and again showed that the procedure wasn't working permanently. If a lamb brought a man to God, then sacrifices would have ceased, after the first one. That they went on and on showed what the book of Hebrews says is really so: it is impossible for such sacrifices to solve the problem of what makes man unacceptable to God...sin.
YES OF COURSE, man repents and offers sacrifice (a perfect one if possible), then a day/week later commits a sin or two. then goes back to the Temple with another offering, and repents etc.............that is Islam/Judaism!
Or was it? Were the sacrifices, which we both can see were not really effective, anything more than a symbolic representation of what was to come, the more perfect Sacrifice that God would provide, as Abraham promised?
---------------there is not concept of "future sinlessness" in either Religions! surely you know this!?
I'm not sure what you mean by "future sinlessness." But if I catch your meaning, I would argue that in Judaism, there is such a "concept," but it's been forgotten. In this, it's just like how the concept of afterlife in ancient and traditional Judaism that has been lost from modernist Judaism.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm
That's correct. And per Jesus Christ as well. He said the same. (John 3, for example, in which he tells a Jewish rabbi, Nicodemus, the same thing.)
no John said that Jesus said ............what Mark said what Jesus said is different.
There is a difference between two writers giving their own accounts, and them contradicting each other. Mark doesn't contradict John on this: he just records some same, and some different events.

And that's exactly what one would expect, if two different people were reporting on the same events. In fact, perfect sameness would have two bad effects: 1) it would suggest sneaky collusion between the two writers, and 2) it would render one of the two redundant and thus of no particular value. What's really valuable is testimony that is highly similar but significantly unique. And that's exactly what we have with Mark and John.
Jesus never said anything personally (if he did it's lost as a written work).
I don't think that's an important objection. Personal testimony is considered an important resource in courts of law, and when considered as historical evidence, is among the very best one can get. Next to having a recording device, which would obviously not be possible in first-century Judea, we have four of the best historians we could want reporting on what was said and done. You really can't do better, given the period.
so there is a dissagreement bet the nature of Christ per John and Saul.
I disagree with your summary. Both Paul and John definitely see Christ as God.
- though overall they are both similar otherwise.

------unlike Luke/Matt, and esp Mark!!!!!!
The four gospels are written for very different audiences. You can tell, for example, from Matthew's account, that he is writing specifically to Jews. So he records events, and comments frequently on Torah, in a way that would make a lot of sense to a first-century Jew, but none in particular to contemporary Gentiles. John, on the other hand, is much concerned with speaking to Gentiles as well as Jews, as it apparent from his approach. Luke's style is different from both, but he agrees on the meaning of the events in question.
that sounds like Saul. his view of good works is an obligation/duty, not just a thing one does via their good nature.
Actually, both the Tanakh and Jesus Christ also agree with Saul on that. In Torah, human beings are both "made in the image of God," (Gen. 1) and yet the human heart has become, because of sin, "desperately wicked." (Jer. 17:9). Jesus said that what comes out of a man, out of his heart, "defiles a man," (Mark 7:20) and He was wiser than to trust human nature (John 2:24).

Nobody in the Bible has sunny confidence in human nature. And only a very rash person has such confidence now, since we just came out of the bloodiest century in all of human history. Clearly, something is very dark in human nature.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm so good deeds by Athiests/Hindus/Ghandi are not good deads/do not do good deeds/should not even bother to do good deeds????????
The "deeds" may be better or worse. Good people sometimes do bad things, and bad people sometimes do good things.

But the point was that the "deeds" are not the issue. The condition of the doer is the issue. And the question is whether or not the doer stands in any positive relation to God at all. If he does not, his deeds may or may not do something good for others, but they are not the deeds of a righteous person.

As I said...
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm For what are the so-called good deeds of a spiritually-dead kind of mankind,
???????????
deeds Ghandi ...
The question, again, is "What is Ghandi's relationship to God," not "Did Ghandi ever do anything that helped people." The latter is obvious; the former, less so. But that's what we mean when we say good deeds do not produce salvation.

BTW I am a Secular Humanist!!!!!!!!!!!!that means i have a higher view of the mankind you view as a worm (you share Saul's view).
As I said last message, "mankind is a worm" is not said anywhere in the Bible, or is that idea given. In point of fact, man is seen as a fallen creature, one capable of good but prone to evil; and as such, one out of fellowship and relationship to his Creator. So you've just got Paul wrong on that.

But is the secular Humanist view of mankind really "high"? Or is it just perversely inflated? I would say it is most certainly the latter; for the evil that men do has to come from somewhere, and secular Humanism has no credible account of how evil is even possible.
funny, you being a Christian, and me being a burn forever Athiest, me having a higher value per the nature of man than you!
Well, I wouldn't say it was "funny," per se. It seems to me it's perfectly understandable.

You perhaps view human nature with great trust. But be careful how far you take it: for such a view is not recommendable if mankind is actually capable of evil. It would only make such a person an easy victim.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm especially to a perfect God?
your god is irrelivent,
Heh. :D There are many things, my friend, that can be said about God; but "irrelevant" is not one of them. Even the Atheists make it a matter of their first concern to try to eliminate Him from their thinking; and inasmuch as they do, they pay him a perverse compliment. For they admit that there is actually nothing more "relevant" than the question of God's existence and identity.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm This is why Jesus said, "You must be born again," or another translation puts it, "You must be born from above." Unless one is already in a living relationship with God, as His own child, then one's deeds are of no value to Him at all. They are simply the irrelevant deeds of those who hate Him.
so good deeds from persons that deny your god, but do good for others, are irrelivant to your God?
For salvation? Utterly irrelevant. To the persons receiving the "good"? Of some benefit. But they, like the doer of the "good deeds" will be dead and gone very soon, so there is no ultimate or lasting value there, just a short-term benefit to other frail creatures, all doomed to disappear into universal oblivion one day.
so much for your "God of love"
You would have a reasonable complaint, if God had not already done everything possible to save you and produce a right relationship with Him. But He has. But love, to be love, must be received, not forced. So God can go a long way to show His love for you...but He cannot force you to choose that relationship. You still have to have the choice to reject it.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm That's why Isaiah the prophet says, "All our deeds of righteousness are like filthy rags." .
which part do you refer to?
Isaiah 64:6.
Greece and Rome i suspect being more of an Empire - former and latter - had a higher literacy rate than the Israelis generally. none of them more than 10 percent. (and probably more like 5 - since women are ignored in history and make up 1/2 of the pop and nearly none had a reason to be literate).
We can't get accurate general statistics that far back. All we can go on is what we know of the traditions of reading. But it's of little importance, since unless the rate was 0%, we have no reason to suspect Christ of being illiterate. And he certainly had the Torah down by memory, since He quoted it frequently and also interpreted it accurately...much more accurately, in fact, than contemporary religious experts, whom we know would have to be literate.

And, of course, we know that at least four of Christ's disciples were literate, and for their day, very literate indeed. It would be an odd thing if they followed somebody who was not.

Nice talking to you again.
got a laugh out of the image of a lamb offering a man for his/her sins.

of course no need, since animals never sinned. Amimals nature - no souls? - is a weak point of your Human centric Religion all western ones are weak in the nature of animals, theologically they are ignored sadly.

you and i will just have to dissagree upon our view of mankind, i affirm that man does evil - more than he should - only that man is more good than evil imo, you view the opposite.

fine we agree to dissagree.

per Luke, he was theologically more aligned with Matthew than John, and the former work is more judaic than most Christians affirm.

and

per John and Saul, the former - via his preample is clear, Christ is God, never born nor a separate entity.

Saul makes no such claim, read his works, he thought Christ - not the man Jesus that preached prior to his death - Saul does not even mention jesus actions prior to his death) - Christ entered Jesus body via the Ressurection.

and this Christ was not YHWH - but literally the YHWH's Son (and not the Jesus that was lived and died on the cross - imo).

likewise thanks for reply Sir.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What causes muslims to be violent

Post by Immanuel Can »

gaffo wrote: Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:57 am got a laugh out of the image of a lamb offering a man for his/her sins.
I never said anything like that.
Amimals nature - no souls? - is a weak point of your Human centric Religion all western ones are weak in the nature of animals, theologically they are ignored sadly.
I don't think they are at all. I can't imagine where you got that idea.
i affirm that man does evil - more than he should - only that man is more good than evil imo, you view the opposite.
That's a little bit like saying, "I affirm that dinners sometimes contain poison." Yes, yes, some do. But if one does, it is of paramount importance that nobody eats that dinner.

Human beings might be good 50% of the time, or only 30%, or 90%. The problem is that other remaining percentage...because both you and I know that it can be very, very bad. The last century pretty much proved that.

So at the end of the day, it doesn't matter if my view is more glum than yours, or yours more sunny than mine. What matters is that we both recognize that there is, in human beings, a problem called "evil." And it's not the kind of problem that can be ignored.

On that, we can agree completely.
Christ entered Jesus body via the Ressurection.
I think you'll find this is not suggested anywhere in the Bible. There is no division between Messiah and Jesus; they are the same Person, and there is no other.
likewise thanks for reply Sir.
Good to talk to you.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: What causes muslims to be violent

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

[quote=gaffo post_id=468529 time=1598748028 user_id=15438]
[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=468238 time=1598494189 user_id=7896]

If any atheists had been violent and killed theists in numbers that is not because of their atheism but rather due to the other adopted ideology like communism, fascism, and others.

[/quote]

exactly!!!!!!!!

and BTW Atheism offers only despair/fear of death.

I've never wished to be and my best friend of 45 yrs is a christian (lapsed? - troubled), and never encouraged him to go my way.

Atheism offers nothing. and i'd advise you to not go there if you can keep from it.

by 12 yrs old, i just did go there, and since have not seen evidence of any Gods existing to lead me out of it.

-------fine with it, life is not meant to be easy.

---in the next realm (if there is one - deny it in this life) - your God will show himself to me and i'll be a belevier then.

god bless.

nothing against your God/s,

just do not beleive in them.
[/quote]

Then why is it that when people lose their early brainwashing and realise that there is no such thing as fairies, they always seem much happier, more rounded, and far more interested and interesting than they were before?
PeteJ
Posts: 427
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:15 pm

Re: What causes muslims to be violent

Post by PeteJ »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm Many Pentecostals do seem quite happy, in fact. I was merely suggesting that the erratic up-and-down emotionalism involved in it seems to suit up-and-down emotional people. And maybe he has quite good reasons to be feeling down now. I would not expect they were caused by his belief, but by something else. However, a more level, stable kind of belief would certainly likely to help someone through depression, in a way up-and-down religiosity tends not to do.
I just happened to spot this comment. I know a few Pentecostalists and it struck a chord. It seems insightful. Clearly some believers are attracted by this sort of emotionalism.
PeteJ
Posts: 427
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:15 pm

Re: What causes muslims to be violent

Post by PeteJ »

gaffo wrote: Sun Sep 13, 2020 1:23 ami've informed myself about the major ones (I'm weak on Hinduism though - something i need to work on - its not well known in the Western World, and most of my self education of it lead to western new age mumbo jumbo (i do wish "The net" - and this forum, had some authentic Hindus, so i can learn more of it - but as yet no). of what little i've learned is about the encarnations of God - 7 of them i think - to date), via names, i know of only Rama and Krishna. Christians converted to Hinduism also include Jesus an one (so for them there have been 8 to dat encarnations).

sadly i am as weak per Buddism, but my mindset may be more aligned with that Faith than Hinduism. (just from my meager understanding of both - so i make no absolute claims about such, being moslty ignorant of both Faiths - and only knowing some stuff- not near as much as i should).

i do know quite a lot about Judiasm, and in the middle per your Faith Chrsitianity (I know more than most Atheists, and even half of the Christians out there) - if i do say so myself.d to say suspect..
It is very refreshing to hear someone concede their unfamiliarity with these various religions. Humility opens up the possibility of understanding.

I would recommend Frithjof Schuon's The Transcendent Unity of Religions
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What causes muslims to be violent

Post by Immanuel Can »

PeteJ wrote: Tue Sep 15, 2020 10:43 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm Many Pentecostals do seem quite happy, in fact. I was merely suggesting that the erratic up-and-down emotionalism involved in it seems to suit up-and-down emotional people. And maybe he has quite good reasons to be feeling down now. I would not expect they were caused by his belief, but by something else. However, a more level, stable kind of belief would certainly likely to help someone through depression, in a way up-and-down religiosity tends not to do.
I just happened to spot this comment. I know a few Pentecostalists and it struck a chord. It seems insightful. Clearly some believers are attracted by this sort of emotionalism.
I think it's not true of all religious groups, because not all religious groups are elective, and not all exist in polities in which moving from one group to another is permitted by government or where choice is limited to one big religion (like in Islamic states) forcing it's particular version on everyone. But a common observation for all religious groups in a democratic situation, one in which choice of religion is allowed and encouraged, is that different groups are attractive to different temperaments. I don't think it's necessarily an unusual observation.

Pentecostalism, it seems, is especially attractive to emotional/experiential types.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What causes muslims to be violent

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:29 pm
PeteJ wrote: Tue Sep 15, 2020 10:43 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:39 pm Many Pentecostals do seem quite happy, in fact. I was merely suggesting that the erratic up-and-down emotionalism involved in it seems to suit up-and-down emotional people. And maybe he has quite good reasons to be feeling down now. I would not expect they were caused by his belief, but by something else. However, a more level, stable kind of belief would certainly likely to help someone through depression, in a way up-and-down religiosity tends not to do.
I just happened to spot this comment. I know a few Pentecostalists and it struck a chord. It seems insightful. Clearly some believers are attracted by this sort of emotionalism.
I think it's not true of all religious groups, because not all religious groups are elective, and not all exist in polities in which moving from one group to another is permitted by government or where choice is limited to one big religion (like in Islamic states) forcing it's particular version on everyone. But a common observation for all religious groups in a democratic situation, one in which choice of religion is allowed and encouraged, is that different groups are attractive to different temperaments. I don't think it's necessarily an unusual observation.

Pentecostalism, it seems, is especially attractive to emotional/experiential types.
I think this is all very true. I'd like to add that some families, neighbourhoods, and ethnic groups encourage emotionality while others encourage keeping emotions well hidden from view.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What causes muslims to be violent

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:54 pm I think this is all very true. I'd like to add that some families, neighbourhoods, and ethnic groups encourage emotionality while others encourage keeping emotions well hidden from view.
Yes, that's true.

Now, in Islam, there are various sects -- though Islam prefers us all to think there is only one Ummah, one Islam, and that the proliferation of sects raises questions about the validity of a religion, and particularly about Judaism and Christianity. But the proliferation of sects is tied to other concerns than truthfulness, such as the availability of choice and the seriousness with which people are treating theology within their groups (stronger belief tends to produce more sects). Judaism famously has four major divisions, plus lesser ones, for example. And they are separated by the degree of intensity with which they adhere to various traditions, teachers or texts. But all are accepted within Judaism, albeit with some internal grumbling.

Islam has two major divisions, the Shia and the Sunni, and then minor sub-sects, like the Sufis, the Ahmadi and the Bahai. The latter three, especially in the west, tend to be much more liberal than the first two: but the first two are also vastly dominant. But there is a remarkable degree of hatred between the Shia and the Sunni. You can see that in Iran/Iraq tensions and wars, for example. Even in western contexts, the two often will have nothing to do with each other -- to the point of even refusing to sit beside each other, denying that each other's mosques are really mosques, or saying that the other side drinks urine, and other such canards. (I have seen all this first hand.)

So even a religion as autocratic and tyrannical as Islam has sects. All religions end up with them. However, in Islam, the Sunnis are about 80% and the Shia about 20%...the remainder of sects being absorbed in one or the other, or else excluded by both from any consideration as genuine Islam.
PeteJ
Posts: 427
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:15 pm

Re: What causes muslims to be violent

Post by PeteJ »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:29 pm I think it's not true of all religious groups, because not all religious groups are elective, and not all exist in polities in which moving from one group to another is permitted by government or where choice is limited to one big religion (like in Islamic states) forcing it's particular version on everyone. But a common observation for all religious groups in a democratic situation, one in which choice of religion is allowed and encouraged, is that different groups are attractive to different temperaments. I don't think it's necessarily an unusual observation.

Pentecostalism, it seems, is especially attractive to emotional/experiential types.
You're right, and on reflection I suppose what you said is obvious. But it got me thinking about the popularity of all these Christian offshoots, what sustains them and why they vary so much, and reminded me it has more to do with culture, sociology and psychology than religious differences. Perhaps the same might be said of the relationship between the Abrahamic religions. Let's say it was an important observation rather than an unusual one.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What causes muslims to be violent

Post by Immanuel Can »

PeteJ wrote: Tue Sep 15, 2020 6:34 pm You're right, and on reflection I suppose what you said is obvious. But it got me thinking about the popularity of all these Christian offshoots, what sustains them and why they vary so much, and reminded me it has more to do with culture, sociology and psychology than religious differences.
I don't think it's an either/or. There can be more than one reason for a person preferring one sort of sect over another. For some, the trigger may be purely emotional, it's true; but for others, the key issue can be theological.

For example, suppose somebody decides to become a Pentecostal. Is that because he/she is particularly emotional? But if that's ALL that it is, we would have to say that he/she is "selling out" truth in order to find something comfortable...and he/she might not at all accept that characterization. Would we be surprised if such a person also had theological motives, not just emotional ones, that lent urgency to the decision? In fact, wouldn't we be surprised if he/she didn't?

Or is it, on the other hand, that he/she has for a long time been drawn to the idea of a more experiential faith, notes some latitude for that in the Biblical text, finds it modelled better in Pentecostalism than in, say, Presbyterianism or Puritanism, and changes denominations out of theological conviction? And if he/she does that, does that rule out that he/she might also be more emotionally pleased by the change than by remaining with the other sects? And if he/she is emotionally pleased, does that diminish the theological issue that was key in the first place?

I don't think it does.
Perhaps the same might be said of the relationship between the Abrahamic religions.

I'm always puzzled by the term "Abrahamic" religions. I know what people mean -- they simply mean "any religion that refers to Abraham at all." But that seems pretty weak. Judaic Pharisaism, for example, would be far more Mosaic than Abrahamic, though if any religion gets to be "Abrahamic" it might be Judaism. Christianity would not make either Moses or Abraham out to be anything close to their key figure, obviously; so why call their belief "Abrahamic"? And as for Islam, it doesn't even have the same "Abraham" as Judaism and Christianity have, and tells a completely different history about all of that. Mohammed didn't really know much about Abraham, it's apparent, and couldn't keep his very limited memory of the Torah straight.

So grouping the three under "Abrahamic" seems a little odd.

I think the observation is more useful when applied within a particular metaphysical persuasion or "religion", rather than among different ones. For example, if a person is born in an Islamic country, but is of highly emotional disposition, does that even remotely suggest he/she will opt for Pentecostalism over Islamic Conservatism? That seems implausible, but especially implausible if Pentecostalism isn't even an option on offer where he/she is. Or if a person is raised Pentecostal but is of legalistic disposition, does that imply he/she will be converting to Islam?

So inter-religious migration or conversion from one faith to the other probably needs a different explanation.
PeteJ
Posts: 427
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:15 pm

Re: What causes muslims to be violent

Post by PeteJ »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 15, 2020 1:33 pm Now, in Islam, there are various sects -- though Islam prefers us all to think there is only one Ummah, one Islam, and that the proliferation of sects raises questions about the validity of a religion, and particularly about Judaism and Christianity. But the proliferation of sects is tied to other concerns than truthfulness, such as the availability of choice and the seriousness with which people are treating theology within their groups (stronger belief tends to produce more sects). Judaism famously has four major divisions, plus lesser ones, for example. And they are separated by the degree of intensity with which they adhere to various traditions, teachers or texts. But all are accepted within Judaism, albeit with some internal grumbling.

Islam has two major divisions, the Shia and the Sunni, and then minor sub-sects, like the Sufis, the Ahmadi and the Bahai. The latter three, especially in the west, tend to be much more liberal than the first two: but the first two are also vastly dominant. But there is a remarkable degree of hatred between the Shia and the Sunni. You can see that in Iran/Iraq tensions and wars, for example. Even in western contexts, the two often will have nothing to do with each other -- to the point of even refusing to sit beside each other, denying that each other's mosques are really mosques, or saying that the other side drinks urine, and other such canards. (I have seen all this first hand.)

So even a religion as autocratic and tyrannical as Islam has sects. All religions end up with them. However, in Islam, the Sunnis are about 80% and the Shia about 20%...the remainder of sects being absorbed in one or the other, or else excluded by both from any consideration as genuine Islam.
What a great post. It's not an issue I've looked into.

Would I be correct in thinking that the Shia faith is more sympathetic to Sufism than that of the Sunnis?

I ask because some of the saying of Imam Ali, the first Shia Imam, might have been said by a Sufi.
Post Reply