Monday, November 01, 2010

All religion is the same? Nope.


Saudi Arabia. Lovely desert from the birthplace of Islam.

October 30, 2010

My name and thekingpin68 blog cited on #1 blog-Huffington Post.com (according to Technorati).

Huffington Post


From (edited):


October 29, 2010

'(CNN) -- A Somali militant group publicly executed two teenage girls Wednesday after accusing them of being spies for the Somali government, according to the group, eyewitnesses and a relative of one of the girls.

"Those two girls were evil and they were spies for the enemy (the Somali government), but the mujahedeen caught them and after investigation, they admitted their crime, so they have been executed," said Sheikh Yusuf Ali Ugas, commander of Al-Shabaab in Beledweyne, a town in central Somalia.

The teens were blindfolded with their hands behind their backs against a tree, and shot, according to a local journalist.

A resident of Beledweyne told CNN that Al-Shabaab called on the town's residents to come out and watch the execution.

"Hundreds of people came out to watch the execution," he said. "It was very bad ... the girls looked shocked and were crying but [no one] could help."

A relative of one of the teens denied they were spies...'

'Al-Shabaab is waging a war against Somalia's government in an effort to impose a stricter form of Islamic law, or sharia.

Somalia has not had a stable government since 1991, and fighting between the rebels and government troops has escalated the humanitarian crisis in the famine-ravaged country.'

From (edited):

The Australian

'Two accused spies, teenage girls aged 15 and 18, have died amid a fusillade of bullets from a firing squad organised by a hardline Islamist militia in Somalia.

Horrified residents of the town of Belet Weyne, in western Somalia, were forced to watch the execution by al-Shabab on Wednesday. One woman fainted as the girls were gunned down by 10 masked executioners.

"Those who watched the event could not bear the painful experience. Two very young girls were shot as they watched and no one could help," said Dahir Casowe, a local elder...'

'Only shortly before the executions, Sheik Mohamed Ibrahim sentenced the girls to death for spying for government soldiers fighting al-Shabab. The only qualifications Ibrahim needed to be appointed a judge by al-Shabab were that he be male and know the Quran...'

'Human Rights Watch said in an April report that al-Shabab imposes "unrelenting repression and brutality".

Somali militants photo: AP / Farah Abdi Warsameh

I do not claim to be an Islamic scholar, my expertise with four earned degrees comes in the subjects of the nature of God, the problem of evil, theodicy, and to some extent, atheism in regard to the problem of evil.

Online sometimes I read certain critics, some of them atheistic, some not, that like to lump all religions together as if the choice is between being an atheist and intelligent and a theist and an idiot. I should point out in my MPhil and PhD theses research I came across both intelligent atheists and theists.

Some of these more radical atheists and radical anti-religionists often to varying extents try to connect those like the Somali rebels and their radical Islamic law with someone like myself that is a Christian theologian, philosopher of religion and Biblical scholar.

Well, for both the non-believing critic and Christian reader, I will point out some differences. I am not going to compare all of Islam to all of Christianity. I realize not all Muslims act like these Somali rebels and not all Christians have my beliefs and actions.

Admitting we are both monotheists...

Here are some very non-exhaustive comparisons:

1. These Somali rebels are seeking to overthrow a present government and establish one based on their religious and political worldview.

'Al-Shabaab is waging a war against Somalia's government in an effort to impose a stricter form of Islamic law, or sharia...'

Romans 13: 1-6

Be Subject to Government

1Every (A)person is to be in (B)subjection to the governing authorities For (C)there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.

2Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.

3For (D)rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;

4for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an (E)avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.

5Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also (F)for conscience' sake.

6For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.

F.F. Bruce explains that according to Paul in Romans the state is given the divine ordinance to govern. Christian obedience is actually a way of serving God. Bruce (1985)(1996: 221).

Cranfield notes that pagan imperial state was still divinely appointed by the Biblical God in Paul's theology. Cranfield (1992: 322).

Mounce states similar (1995: 243-244), but acknowledges a government will sometimes overstep what is its 'rightful domain'. Mounce (1995: 244). He lists the religious disobedience of Peter and John in Act 4:19 as being proper. So, proper Christian worship, and the right to do so takes divine priority over the rule of the state.

My following of Romans 13 would rule out my involvement with a group and/or organized Christian military rebels to trying better establish Christian rules and laws within the Lower Mainland, BC, and Canada by force. This in my mind would not rule out participating in the lawful practice of democracy and government.

So...

The Somali rebels are religious and political militaristic revolutionaries.

My religious worldview in regard to propagation is non-militaristic.

Therefore:

The religious views are radically different on the subject of religion and government.

I reason that via Romans 13, I am to obey the state, in my case in Canada, which is secular, as long I am reasonably allowed to follow Biblical Christian standards.

A philosophical argument could be made that a state must maintain law and order in order for a Christian to justly obey it. And the Roman Empire was at times executing Christians and was still, in a sense, maintaining law and order and was therefore to be obeyed.

I would not completely eliminate the possibility that government in extreme cases could be so corrupt that it no longer maintained significant law and order and should not be obeyed.

So...

An establishment of stronger Islamic law and new government is a goal of the Somali rebels.

My religious view allows for civil disobedience only in extreme cases.

Therefore:

The religious views are radically different on the subject of religion and government.

2. I would not shoot or sanction the shooting of teenage girls or anyone simply they were supposedly spies.

They were the ages of 15 and 18, and so by international standards the 15 year old was a child and the other barely an adult. Even if a real crime was committed, which is VERY questionable, certainly it was not worthy of execution.

So...

The Somali rebels are interested in arbitrary and brutal political and religious punishment.

My religious worldview is interested in the protection and betterment of young teenage girls, adult or not.

Therefore:

The religious views are radically different in regard to human welfare.

3. I would not shoot or sanction the shooting of two young teenage girls because their religious views were different than mine.

Mark 12 and Matthew 22 both feature Jesus Christ commanding his followers to love God first and foremost, in modern terms all their spirit and mind, and other persons as much as self.

So...

The Somali rebels were not concerned with loving these teenage girls in a religious sense, and had a misguided sense of justice.

My religious view is attempting (and not succeeding perfectly) at the highest divinely inspired human forms of love and justice.

Therefore:

The views are radically different in regard to religious toleration.

Further:

It would seem that actually maintaining law and order, as in Romans 13, would be the only reason for me to perhaps to kill someone if an authorized officer of the state, either police or military, or like, was not immediately present to prevent loss of life.

BRUCE, F.F. (1985)(1996) Romans, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.

47 comments:

  1. Excellent, Russ! I would attribute some of the confusion in the non-Christian world regarding Christians to the fact that the Somali rebels act out a vision of "Kingdom of God" that does not appear to be dissimilar to the vision carried out in Europe during the Dark Ages and beyond -under the guise of "Christianity". Islam did not invent oppression, coercion and force as means to further a religious cause.

    If we could somehow more consistently convey that our kingdom "is not of this world", perhaps we would be viewed as less of a threat as we go about sharing our faith with others???

    Have a good day, my friend...

    ReplyDelete
  2. 'Excellent, Russ! I would attribute some of the confusion in the non-Christian world regarding Christians to the fact that the Somali rebels act out a vision of "Kingdom of God" that does not appear to be dissimilar to the vision carried out in Europe during the Dark Ages and beyond -under the guise of "Christianity". Islam did not invent oppression, coercion and force as means to further a religious cause.'

    There was an over politicization of Christianity as in blurring between church and state.

    As you noted, Jesus stated his Kingdom was not of this world (John 18: 36).

    Cheers, Greg and Happy Weekend.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As I read 'Foxe's Book of Martyrs,' I do see some limited similarities between the Catholic Church killing Christians (i.e., by burning them at the stake) just because the Christians did not accept Catholic doctrine, and Islam. However, I have never heard of the Medieval Catholic Church having any families where the father would murder his daughter or wife because they brought dishonor to Catholicism. Yet, in Islam, they do this. I also never heard of the Medieval Catholic Church forcing women to cover their faces, or being involved in the Slave Trade. Yet Islam has been involved in the Slave Trade for 1400 years. Neither have I ever heard of the Medieval Catholic Church having the goal of taking over the entire world and forcing everyone, by the sword if necessary, in every country to accept Catholicism.

    Also, when anyone points a finger at Islam and points out the horrible atrocities that have been practiced in that political cult for over 1400 years now, Muslims, Atheists and liberals point a finger back at the Old Testament, where God commanded the Israelites to take over Canaan, and to kill all the pagan Canaanites, so that the Israelites would not be influenced to fall into pagan worship of false gods, and thereby turn away from the true and living God. But that was a very limited area (Canaan), as opposed to Islam's goal of world conquest. And that was for a limited time, whereas the Islamic goal for world conquest has remained and continues through today.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 'As I read 'Foxe's Book of Martyrs,' I do see some limited similarities between the Catholic Church killing Christians (i.e., by burning them at the stake) just because the Christians did not accept Catholic doctrine, and Islam. However, I have never heard of the Medieval Catholic Church having any families where the father would murder his daughter or wife because they brought dishonor to Catholicism. Yet, in Islam, they do this. I also never heard of the Medieval Catholic Church forcing women to cover their faces, or being involved in the Slave Trade. Yet Islam has been involved in the Slave Trade for 1400 years. Neither have I ever heard of the Medieval Catholic Church having the goal of taking over the entire world and forcing everyone, by the sword if necessary, in every country to accept Catholicism.'

    At both Bible school and seminary when we studied medieval and Reformation history it was documented that some in Reformed movement also persecuted those that would not accept baptism from the state church, such as Anabaptists.

    I am Reformed Presbyterian in membership and basically Reformed Baptist theologically. My Mennonite mentor said to me years ago that the people from my movement, as in Presbyterian, used to burn people from his movement at the stake.

    In my view this type of church/state persecution is both unjust and unloving.

    'Also, when anyone points a finger at Islam and points out the horrible atrocities that have been practiced in that political cult for over 1400 years now, Muslims, Atheists and liberals point a finger back at the Old Testament, where God commanded the Israelites to take over Canaan, and to kill all the pagan Canaanites, so that the Israelites would not be influenced to fall into pagan worship of false gods, and thereby turn away from the true and living God. But that was a very limited area (Canaan), as opposed to Islam's goal of world conquest. And that was for a limited time, whereas the Islamic goal for world conquest has remained and continues through today.'

    God has the right to take the life of sinful human flesh any time in my mind. Perhaps and I mean perhaps, the infinite creator has the right to terminate the finite creation even if there was not sin, although hell would only be just if there was sin.

    In philosophy only the first cause exists by necessity everything else in contingent.

    So...

    God has the right to take the life of sinful human flesh.

    Biblically all are under the penalty of death (Romans 6).

    Persons have limited life spans.

    Therefore:

    Death can come at any time for a human being.

    Thanks, Jeff.

    ReplyDelete
  5. A tragic story...it makes me glad I live in a country with the type of government we have.

    For sure all religions have shown unnecessary violence throughout history but I would say that Islam is particularly a brutal religion that shows very little mercy.

    Anyways, thanks for bringing this subject up, I think it's an important one.

    Blessings,

    Jessica

    ReplyDelete
  6. 'A tragic story...it makes me glad I live in a country with the type of government we have.'

    Agreed.

    'For sure all religions have shown unnecessary violence throughout history but I would say that Islam is particularly a brutal religion that shows very little mercy.'

    Good point, Jessica.

    Islam places most of its emphasis on the much later Qur'an and its concept of God over and sometimes against the developed concepts of God in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament.

    As result Islam has a different God.

    Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Again... religion is being exploited for political purposes. Sane person will be able to distinguish it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks, Tikno.

    I reason the Islamic religion is flawed to start with (trust in wrong Scriptures and wrong view of God) and I agree it has been exploited in the case of the Somali rebels for political purposes.

    I appreciate someone from your perspective reading my blog.

    Cheers to you in Indonesia.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Wow..I am not a woman with much worldly knowledge..I don't delve into religion.. I just try to follow God..
    So in this post I pretty much focused on 2 young girls being murdered for absolutely no reason...had a hard time reading that..and it saddens me.. I have so little knowledge of life outside of where I am..and I can't believe people practice murder..yes I know it exists...but stories like this make it hard to deny or ignore..I know this is probably totally off subject...just felt the need to share..

    ReplyDelete
  10. @ Satire and theology,

    Trust in wrong Scriptures and wrong view of God???

    That is your own viewpoint from the matter between Christianity and Islam. I think other people who following Buddhist, Hindu, Confucian, Taoist, will be able to say it, like you said above (Trust in wrong Scriptures and wrong view of God).

    Both in the Quran and the Bible also containing violence verses. That's the matter of how we translate it wisely and avoid to translate it verbatim. I think most Christians have the ability to ignore it while some Muslims (hard line) have not.

    Take an example in the Bible says that Jesus came to this world not to bring peace but sword. Should we translate it verbatim? I think NO.

    I invite you to review my viewpoint about religions at:
    http://love-ely.blogspot.com/2009/08/aware-or-just-dream.html

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thanks, Bongo.

    I am glad I can assist and learn as well.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Cheers, Tikno.

    'Trust in wrong Scriptures and wrong view of God???'

    That is your own viewpoint from the matter between Christianity and Islam.'

    Yes, my own educated viewpoint.

    'I think other people who following Buddhist, Hindu, Confucian, Taoist, will be able to say it, like you said above (Trust in wrong Scriptures and wrong view of God).'

    They can state it, but I reason it will be more difficult to back up.

    Comparative religion is a complex subject and I have done some of this on satire and theology and thekingpin68.

    Feel free to mention examples if you wish.

    'Both in the Quran and the Bible also containing violence verses. That's the matter of how we translate it wisely and avoid to translate it verbatim. I think most Christians have the ability to ignore it while some Muslims (hard line) have not.'

    Wisely? Are you a linguist? Do you know how certain verses in the Bible should be translated or is it rather you think they should translated in a way to suit 21st century views on what is right?

    Do you know what in the Bible should be translated as plain literal and what should be translated figurative literal? Or other if you think it is myth?

    I am not a linguist, but have been around commentaries, lexicons, and the Greek New Testament long enough to have a good idea of the Bible and usually learn the unknown quickly. And I do have much to learn.

    Some Christians may ignore the violence in the Bible, yes.

    Neither Jeff or I, that are both Biblical Christians have ignored the violence in the Scripture. I dealt with the issue.

    'Take an example in the Bible says that Jesus came to this world not to bring peace but sword. Should we translate it verbatim? I think NO.'

    I did not see Christ, in his first advent trying to overthrow Rome by the use of force.

    'I invite you to review my viewpoint about religions at:
    http://love-ely.blogspot.com/2009/08/aware-or-just-dream.html'

    I have looked at your blog previously when you commented before. And I commented on this blog.

    You state:

    'Maybe this post can be used as a reflections of how you deal with logic and faith (unlogic).'

    Faith is not illogical necessarily. Some persons and groups have blind faith, yes.

    Faith can also be based on non-exhaustive evidence for something very likely true.

    So...

    The Scripture is religious documented history.

    Christ did documented miracles on the behalf of persons.

    Christ was documented as resurrected.

    Philosophically and Theologically only God has the power over life and death, as creator.

    The Apostles did documented miracles.

    The New Testament documentation promises future occurrences for the good.

    Therefore with these documented evidences one can have reasonable faith in what has not yet been fully demonstrated because it is promised from the same source. Examples being the second advent and the resurrection of the dead in Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Tikno, and others, I think we can find a better ground for discussion, if not ultimate agreement, if we shelf the word, "religion" for the moment. Otherwise we have nothing but confusion as we use the same word for three very different meanings. "Belief," or even "opinion" might serve better.

    Islam is a "religion" because, basically, it claims to be. It has nothing in common with any other world religion in terms of the quest to love or do good for others, to grow in a peaceful and holy manner, or to in any way experience God or the Holy (satori, the Om, etc.). Except for a vague concept of a disinterested deity, there is nothing "religious" about a "faith" which demands conquest and the death or enslavement of "infidels" and the establishment of a legal system which allows one to use a prostitute, and then have her stoned because he has a wife.

    Buddhism, Zen, etc. are also more philosophical than religious, as they do not acknowledge any deity but offer a teaching of self-improvement based on meditation and detachment, with a safety net belief in endless reincarnation when the individual fails at fully realising the quest for enlightenment in this lifetime.

    The various Hindu sects each have their myths and their own paths to enlightenment, ranging from the use of prostitutes (Tantra) or the murder of travelers (Thuggee) to lying down under a swarm of rats (one of the Kali sects). Again, the only hope offered here is an eventual release from the cycle of reincarnations, and no hope in this world of becoming more godly, or even a concept of a god beyond their millions of exaggerated humans and animal-human creatures. Other polytheistic systems fit pretty much the same template, only with cultural distinctions varied.

    In any of the above, their scriptures are either collections of aphorisms and arbitrary laws, or myths of events before the dawn of time (in a circular time progression). One faith stands apart from these in the following ways. It has a Scripture which is based in time and place and is thereby subject to real time verification through archeology, independent histories, etc. This Scripture, if taken as a whole, is entirely self affirming among a collection of writings spread over nearly 2,000 years, with each of these being treated from the first with such reverence that even the most embarrassing parts have been left intact, as well as the parts which would have served to invalidate the document except for its fulfillment some hundreds of years later.

    Aside from the texts themselves, this Way teaches of a God who is love, and who has gone to the most extreme measure to enable the most vile and selfish human beings to be transformed into creatures of love, partaking of every divine attribute except for his ontology / identity as God, and to enjoy eternal fellowship (not just servitude or subjection) with him, beginning in this life. A person who has even begun this life of transformation is motivated to do good for others even at his own expense or personal risk or sacrifice. This is Christianity, as the Apostle James wrote, "true religion, and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit the poor and the widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world."

    This, may I offer, is the definition of religion, and that there is but one faith which it fits.

    ReplyDelete
  14. 'Tikno, and others, I think we can find a better ground for discussion, if not ultimate agreement, if we shelf the word, "religion" for the moment. Otherwise we have nothing but confusion as we use the same word for three very different meanings. "Belief," or even "opinion" might serve better.'

    Thanks for the response, Robert.

    I will add the following information, in that by use of 'religion' on my blogs I am generally using an academic definition.

    Secular philosopher Blackburn has a good definition:

    Religion, the philosophy of, an in attempts to understand concepts involved in religious belief such as existence, necessity, fate, creation, sin, justice, God and others. Blackburn (1996: 327).

    BLACKBURN, S. (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.


    One faith stands apart from these in the following ways. It has a Scripture which is based in time and place and is thereby subject to real time verification through archeology, independent histories, etc. This Scripture, if taken as a whole, is entirely self affirming among a collection of writings spread over nearly 2,000 years, with each of these being treated from the first with such reverence that even the most embarrassing parts have been left intact, as well as the parts which would have served to invalidate the document except for its fulfillment some hundreds of years later.

    Reasonable.

    As I noted on thekingpin68 previously:

    W.R.F. Browning explains that canon comes from the Greek word for 'rule' or 'standard'. In both the Old and New Testaments canon formation was gradual and controversial. Browning (1996: 57). Browning notes some New Testament era books were quoted by Church Fathers, although the texts were not canonized. Browning (1996: 57). Jesus Christ's teachings and story was passed along in oral tradition and then eventually written down in the Four Gospels, and sidelined rival versions. Browning (1996: 57). The Epistles from Apostles and their scribes were preserved by the churches and soon formed a collection along with the Gospels. Browning (1996: 57).

    BROWING, W.R.F. (1997) Oxford Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.


    McRay writes that the formation of the New Testament canon did not come from a council. The council of Nicea in 325 did not discuss canon. McRay (1996: 141). At Carthage in 397 the council deemed the twenty-seven books canon, and that nothing else would be considered New Testament divine Scripture. These twenty-seven books were regarded by consensus as canon. McRay (1996: 141).

    MCRAY, J.R. (1996) ‘Bible, Canon of', in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Robert makes some extremely excellent points.

    And Dr. Russ Murray makes his point gently, but they are points that are backed by scholarship and higher education.

    The one thing that separates Islam from every other world religion is that it is mostly politically-based, and it has a political goal of world domination, forcing the entire world to eventually be under subservience to Shari'a law.

    Ultimately, however, it is a matter of what is the truth, and both Dr. Murray and Robert have made good summaries of what that is. The Bible (which is actually a group of books) has been scrutinized more than any other book in history. More attempts to wipe it's existence off the face of the earth have been made against the Bible than any other book. Yet it remains as the best-selling book in history, and textual criticism, archaeology and manuscript evidence prove it to be more trustworthy than any other classic work of literature in existence.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Jeff, if you put Robert's name and mine together, you can arrive at Dr. Robert of the Beatles, Revolver (1966) fame which could be quite scary for a blog such as this...

    Dr. Robert

    You have studied and blogged on Islam a fair amount and correctly point out the strong connection between its religious and political goals.

    I reason Islam has a false God. It is also against Western democracy, at least in its apparent purest textual form.

    Therefore it should be philosophically opposed by Christians.

    Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  17. To: Satire and theology, also
    to Robert and Jeff,

    Sorry, English is my second language, so, more precisely the word "translate" above should be replaced by "understand".

    Basically all scriptures are a collection of religious documented history / story. But this is NOT something that I want to debate with you.

    Allow me to quote a paragraph from my post (Condemns the Koran burning plan) here:

    "Any negative actions will produce another negative reactions as opposed to you. If we really want to give a small contribution for peace and harmony, at least at around you, I think the best way that we can do is to calm the opposite reaction using a very simple way called "restrain ourselves to react negatively". Indeed a little thing but it will create an extraordinary effect if more and more people realize it."

    How? Give your love even to your enemy.

    I'm a Christian lived in a country with the largest Muslim population in the world. Here, I have a Muslim friend (not a close friend) who rather fanatic. He often praises (the truth of) his own religion (namely Islam) and vilify other religions (including Christianity and Hinduism). I did not always reciprocate by debating and then tell him the truth of my religion. What I said is: "I am a Christian also dear to you even though you are Muslim".

    At one time he got a very difficult time, and in our workplace he told me of his affliction. At that time I said: "What can I help? As much as possible I will help you". In short he wants to borrow some money to buy milk for his baby, then I gave to him as much as I can. I even no longer remember that he was a Muslim who likely to vilify other religions. A month later he returned my money and say thank you so much. I replied: "As I ever told you that I am a Christian also dear to you even though you are Muslim".

    Before... I like debate (educated religious debate).
    But now... I just realized that whatsoever of religious debate (even of educated religious debate) will no ending.

    btw... if you like to read my satire for Christmas, you may read it at:
    http://love-ely.blogspot.com/2008/12/christmas-contemplation-when-bell.html

    Just spreading the love and return to the spirit of the Bible, and I pray we can find a light at the end of the dark tunnel.

    ReplyDelete
  18. 'To: Satire and theology, also
    to Robert and Jeff,

    Sorry, English is my second language, so, more precisely the word "translate" above should be replaced by "understand".'

    Tikno, I appreciate your somewhat compromising attitude, as in not being here to argue this on and on.

    I am simply trying to find and teach the truth. Limited as I am, as finite and sinful creature.

    'Basically all scriptures are a collection of religious documented history / story. But this is NOT something that I want to debate with you.'

    The New Testament is accepted by Christians as inspired by God via human writers.

    The New Testament is connected to the previous Hebrew Bible.

    There is a Triune nature of God explained.

    The divinity of Christ is explained.

    Accepting Christ as God and perfect man is essential to know God (John 14).

    The Qur'an and Islam denies the Trinity and divinity of Christ.

    There is a major contradiction.

    Therefore, they are not both inspired by the same God.

    You need to investigate this further. I state this not as an expert on Islam, but as a Philosopher of Religion.

    'How? Give your love even to your enemy.'

    'I'm a Christian lived in a country with the largest Muslim population in the world.'

    Then you too have faith.

    I prayerfully with God's help attempt to love my enemy. When I lived in the UK, I had a Muslim friend and a Sikh friend. Humanly speaking they were good people, better to me than some Christians.

    I am a Christian because God has chosen me and others (Ephesians 1). I believe as I am regenerated (John 3).

    I am not a Christian because Christians are always more loving than those of other worldviews.

    'Just spreading the love and return to the spirit of the Bible, and I pray we can find a light at the end of the dark tunnel.'

    God bless.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Tikno,

    I agree with you that love is the best response to Muslims. Showing Christian love through action is what will affect a Muslim, far more than arguing with them.

    I also agree that burning the Qur'an (Koran) is not the answer. Rather than burning it, more people should be aware of exactly what it says, including all the jihad (Medina) verses, which have abrogated the 'peaceful' (Mecca) verses.

    Before... I like debate (educated religious debate).
    But now... I just realized that whatsoever of religious debate (even of educated religious debate) will no ending.


    I too am learning that intellectual debate will not change a person's heart. "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still." A person's life is not transformed through the intellect (though that certainly may play a part), but rather through the heart.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Thanks, Jeff.

    My deduction is that the election/choosing of a person as in Ephesians 1, and the born again process of John 3, has God regenerate and convert all relative aspects of the mind/spirit.

    This in done in way in which it is freely accepted in order not be forced or coerced.

    The process is physically and spiritually completed at the resurrection.

    ReplyDelete
  21. My deduction is that the election/choosing of a person as in Ephesians 1, and the born again process of John, has God regenerate and convert all relative aspects of the mind/spirit.

    Agreed, but my point was that a person's soul is not generally won through argument and debate. Obviously, the intellect must be involved, since we are a whole person (body, mind, spirit). And yes, God changes the heart and the mind, as well. But witnessing/evangelism is not best done through argument/debate (which often can lead to angry feelings). You can win an argument yet lose a soul, so-to-speak. So, in other words, their heart must be reached, not just stop at their intellect. It must be much deeper than just the intellect.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Thanks, Jeff.

    In general, yes. And you have done more evangelism than I have.

    But since God does transform the entire person, the more intellectual person may be impacted by more intellectual type evangelism/information.

    So as a possibility...

    God chooses an intellectual.

    This person responds more to intellectual arguments than feelings.

    Therefore God uses more intellectual stimulation than emotional stimulation in the salvation process.

    BTW, I think I fall into this category. Even as child the historicity and logic of it was very important.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Thx for the Dr Robert link -cool- I understood that part of the discussion!! hahaha

    "Therefore God uses more intellectual stimulation than emotional stimulation in the salvation process."

    And thx for this statement! I was recently privileged to be a part another man's journey from skepticism to believer in Christ. His need for reasoned responses from me was a crucial part of the process. Still goes without saying: the actual attraction to and embracing of Christ is wrought by the Holy Spirit.

    ¡Un abrazote! (a big hug)

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hello Jeff,
    You wrote some excellent points.
    Thank you very much.

    Hello Satire and theology,
    I have one interesting question: "Can a child (maybe a cute baby) who does not understand theology with all of its complexity enter the kingdom of God?"

    And about intellectual....?
    1) Please focuses on the first paragraph of this link (a story about St. Augustine) at:
    http://suscopts.org/messages/lectures/theologylecture7.pdf

    2) I was touched by The Illustrated Guide to a Ph.D. by Matt Might, at:
    http://love-ely.blogspot.com/2010/08/what-phd-mean-for-you.html

    Since then I realized that myself is just like a dot in the vast ocean.

    Christianity is in your heart even though you still using other religious symbol as a label, and I beg to Jesus for willing to enter their heart.
    May God bless all of us.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I stated:

    Therefore God uses more intellectual stimulation than emotional stimulation in the salvation process.

    'And thx for this statement! I was recently privileged to be a part another man's journey from skepticism to believer in Christ. His need for reasoned responses from me was a crucial part of the process. Still goes without saying: the actual attraction to and embracing of Christ is wrought by the Holy Spirit.'

    Excellent point, Greg. Cheers.

    And I need to throw in some music on my blogs once and awhile.

    ReplyDelete
  26. 'Hello Satire and theology,
    I have one interesting question: "Can a child (maybe a cute baby) who does not understand theology with all of its complexity enter the kingdom of God?"'

    A baby/child does have a corrupt human nature (Romans 1-6). The nature is not perfectly good.

    This nature with a tendency toward evil would still be unacceptable for God's Kingdom (Romans 1-6) (1 Corinthians 15).

    A baby/child does not have an adult understanding of deeds, as in Revelation 20, persons are damned for deeds.

    A baby/child does not choose to sin in an adult sense with adult understanding.

    Jesus stated a person must enter the Kingdom of God like a child (Mark 10). So, a childlike faith to God is in some senses attractive to God.

    Therefore my non-dogmatic conclusion is that a baby/child that dies as such enters paradise/the Kingdom by the grace of God in regeneration.

    Some within my Reformed tradition may argue that every child not within a Christian family, and some may state, not baptized, would be damned, but I do not take those views.

    It is a subject for debate, however.

    Thanks again, Tikno.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Russ, I do not know how to post on your blog, and so you may transcribe these thoughts. Firstly, thanks for the Reformation Day wishes, I am sorry but this Irish Catholic forgot to buy you a gift again. Next year? In any case, without meaning to cast dispersion, may I perhaps, not so cleverly point out, the errant spelling and grammatical errors in your protagonist's manifest. However this critic feels about biblical standards pertaining to violence, or Bhuddist, Hindu, Confucist or Taoist standards regarding same, this jack ass should first learn how to compose an articulate and grammaticaly correct letter. Forget what I believe, (you know what a dope I am), bit I am pretty certain that Jesus never said, "...other people who following Islam...", to name just one glaring example. If perhaps I am jumping to quickly to conclusions, am I perhaps viewing first hand, an example of one of one hundred monkies randomly typing, and this was the end result that was cobbled together in the lab?

    God Bless your cold, dark PH'd heart. PMH

    ReplyDelete
  28. Okay, I am literally laughing here.

    PMH is a good friend from California.

    'However this critic feels about biblical standards pertaining to violence, or Bhuddist, Hindu, Confucist or Taoist standards regarding same, this jack ass should first learn how to compose an articulate and grammaticaly correct letter.'

    Lol.

    'Forget what I believe, (you know what a dope I am), bit I am pretty certain that Jesus never said, "...other people who following Islam...", to name just one glaring example.'

    Yes, for sure.

    'If perhaps I am jumping to quickly to conclusions, am I perhaps viewing first hand, an example of one of one hundred monkies randomly typing, and this was the end result that was cobbled together in the lab?'

    Lol, well this is a satire blog.

    Fair game.

    'God Bless your cold, dark PH'd heart. PMH'

    Oh yea, Phil, Happy Reformation Day once again.;)

    God bless you and family.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Russ,

    God chooses an intellectual.

    This person responds more to intellectual arguments than feelings.

    Therefore God uses more intellectual stimulation than emotional stimulation in the salvation process.


    I would tend to agree. Lee Strobel would be an example, I think. Josh McDowell would be another.

    Different types of people are initially affected in different types of ways, but ultimately, it ends up being a heart change, through the power of God, and I think you would agree.

    My initial point was that it must not stop at the intellect (i.e., merely an intellectual agreement, as in agreeing in the existence of Jesus---for even the devil believes), but that it must penetrate all the way to the core---all the way to the heart---including the desires, the passion and the will.

    "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh." (Ezekiel 36:26)

    ReplyDelete
  30. Tikno,

    Hello Jeff,
    You wrote some excellent points.
    Thank you very much.


    You're welcome, and thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  31. 'My initial point was that it must not stop at the intellect (i.e., merely an intellectual agreement, as in agreeing in the existence of Jesus---for even the devil believes), but that it must penetrate all the way to the core---all the way to the heart---including the desires, the passion and the will.'

    Agreed. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I expect that the radical athiests who claim "all religion is the same" may not necessarily mean the same in terms of beliefs or values, but the same in the sense that they are all regarded by the athiest as fairy tales or psychological crutches, societal constructs to help cope with life.
    That is where Biblical apologetics and historical literary criticism comes into play.

    ReplyDelete
  33. 'I expect that the radical athiests who claim "all religion is the same" may not necessarily mean the same in terms of beliefs or values, but the same in the sense that they are all regarded by the athiest as fairy tales or psychological crutches, societal constructs to help cope with life.'

    I agree that could be the case with some. Perhaps with many of the more intellectual type critics and intellectual radical atheists.

    Atheism, for example, like Christianity is multi-faceted

    However, some perhaps less intellectual, could state that all religion is harmful overall and attempt to blur the distinctions between one group and the next.

    'That is where Biblical apologetics and historical literary criticism comes into play.'

    Thanks, Chucky, owner of Chuckies Chicken International.

    ReplyDelete
  34. In fact, there was an attempt to blur the distinctions between Christianity and Islam within comments on this post!

    ReplyDelete
  35. All religion definitely is NOT the same. But human beings essentially are... without the saving grace of Jesus Christ. I agree with Greg, If we could more consistently show that our kingdom is not of this world or more consistently show the spirit of Jesus Christ instead of our human side..sharing our faith would be more convincing. I don't know...

    ReplyDelete
  36. Thanks for the comments, Robin.

    I hope on my blogs to demonstrate the gospel, Bible, Theology and Philosophy of Religion while being guided by the Holy Spirit.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Thanks PMH for adding some spice to this "satire and theology" blog.
    We Canadians are so deep-rooted in politeness.
    It does amaze me how many folks can swallow the "all religions are equally valid" line -- it must require some incredible cognitive dissonance. I guess it shows the power of social conformity over objective rational thought.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Thanks, PMH as well, for at least calling a spade a spade...and not David Spade.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Hi Mr. Cold and Dark PhD Heart,
    A very humerous and clever comment with a hint of intellect from PMH.
    LOL!
    -Crazy Critiques Inc.-

    ReplyDelete
  40. 'The Great Commission: Social Work, Political Action, or Evangelism? (YouTube video of John MacArthur)'

    From Missions classes I philosophically came to the conclusion that the gospel is always primary and includes proper theological love and justice. But, there needs to be a social component at times.

    'The Problem With Most Christians'

    There are many, because we are sinners...

    Thanks, Jeff.

    ReplyDelete
  41. MD, I suppose I should deal with Islam more on this blog.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  42. i may not be as an intellectual like all of you but i BELIEVE i am saved.i am saved through faith- through grace- through Jesus Christ. its not about religion but relationship to Christ, HE is my Lord and personal Savior.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Ephesians 2:8-10 (New American Standard Bible)

    8For (A)by grace you have been saved (B)through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is (C)the gift of God;

    9(D)not as a result of works, so that (E)no one may boast.

    10For we are His workmanship, (F)created in (G)Christ Jesus for (H)good works, which God (I)prepared beforehand so that we would (J)walk in them.

    ReplyDelete