My views on religion

Post Reply New Topic

You have caught some of the liberal propaganda. Humanism wants to be the mother of all religions and domesticate them so they all get along together. That may work with Christianity from which it sprang, but it doesn't work with witchcraft or Islam.

The Muslim's Koran has hard coded the behavior of its followers. For instance, Muslims are allowed to lie to infidels. Thus when they are in the minority, they will tell infidels they are a peaceful people, earnestly following "god." But when they become a majority, the Koran requires they support Jihad or be killed as infidels.

Here's a video of peaceful Dr. Jeckyl turning to Mr. Hyde in London:
London Muslim Video

All conversions are allowed to be to Islam; none are allowed away from Islam. Here's a case of a Muslim becoming a Christian in Indonesia: Koran overrides the government

A good book to counter the propaganda is: This Book.

How on earth do you know that I have caught some of the liberal propaganda? It is probable that I have (in point of fact I am a despicable waverer on issues that would appal both my liberal and my evangelical Christian friends, not to mention many of the non-Christian ones - think the Laodicean church in Revelation: neither cold nor hot, and since lukewarm condemned to be - well you probably know the rest). And the rules for Holy War in some of the books of the Torah like Numbers/Bamidbar ("In the wilderness") in Deuteronomy,in Joshua and in Judges call for a harsher form of total war than the (admittely frequently conveniently disregarded) rules for Lesser Jihad (moderate Muslims tend to emphasise Greater Jihad or the inner struggle to become a better person and outer struggle for a more just society, the details of which might admittedly hold the potential for controversy) or indeed with Augustine's "Just War" Theory. However, I would certainly concede to you that repaying the Islamic "compliment" and accounting Muhammad to be a true prophet would involve a necessary contradiction with one's own faith for Christians and Jews; for Islam to on the one hand to accept all the Old Testament/Tanak patriarchs and prophets as true prophets and Jesus AS prophet (though also as Messiah, "a word from God" and a "spirit from God," all Qur'anic designations for Isa/Jesus) and on the other to hold that the extant Scriptures of both Testaments have been corrupted in places by Jews and Christians (this must be a sore point for dialogue) not to mention related issues regarding accepting the Virgin Birth (which might be unexpected) while rejecting the Crucifixion, though not the Ascension (sort of repeat of Enoch and Elijah) would be an unacceptable compromise going beyond dialogue to conversion. Equally a compromise from the Muslim side would raise accusations of apostasy. Interfaith dialogue and evangelism should not be muddied; issues of breach of trust in terms of subverting ostensible objectives and betraying hospitality cannot be overlooked. Now fire from both sides may fall upon my (comparatively) inoffensive head. Here I make my stand; I can do no other (though in practice of course I can and have to my shame). Please weigh my words, and if you find them wanting, do not hesitate to zealously correct my undoubtedly numerous errors.

Myself when young
Did eagerly frequent
Doctor, and saint
And heard great argument
The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayam (or rather Fitzgerald's translation).

And yes, TimT, Omar was Muslim, albeit some of his poetry might strike you as rather unorthodox; I think there may be a strong Sufi - mystical Islamic, not to be confused with Sunni; it straddles the Sunni-Shia divide. And no, I am not advocating that either of us abandons Christianity for Sufism, or even watered-down form of Christianity. I am quoting a poem. A substantial number of English poets (have you read Blake - he sounds Gnostic in places - he did not just have strange ideas about Jesus visiting England taken up later by Marian Zimmer Bradley, but had some seriously bizarre mythological system with Jehovah and Elohim divided, and Satan being originally the latter subsequently masquerading as the former, though some poems are comparatively orthodox) are heretics from the Christian standpoint. Not just poets. There is an above-average ratio of literary figures who are either heretical, grossly immoral, quite insane, any two of the preceding, or all three.

Your total rejection of the Crusades indicates you are reasoning your way to that position from a liberal "information" source. Garbage in, garbage out. Just like used car salesmen, they only tell you what is necessary to sell the car. Cheap information leads to cheap conclusions. This is why divine guidance is so very important.

If you look in the Koran, you would find that there is no greater or lesser Jihad; there is only the murderous variety. There are dedicated Muslims and half-assed Muslims. But they are all Muslims if an infidel touches a dedicated Muslim.

In the Old Testament, God called for total war on the people in the area of Israel only -- not the whole world! And God said it was because of those people's sins and not because of the righteousness of the Jews.

The Crusades and St. Augustine's "just war" theory were a reaction to the Muslim military conquests in eastern Europe, Spain, the holy land, Africa and Asia. They were untouched by the Christians' willingness to submit to death for their faith. They could only be stopped by a military reaction. Unfortunately, the Roman government's church had already suppressed the gifts of the Holy Spirit and exorcism which could have stopped them. Research the chronology of events. Seek wisdom like it were silver or gold.

There were ex-Christians and ex-Jews who were following this Jim Jones type of fellow. From them he took ideas to add to his "prophetic utterances." However, some of Medina's Jews were making fun of his new religion. He got so pissed off, he "prophesied" a new sabbath day from Saturday to Friday and "prophesied" against the Jews. A great book on the Muslims is The Life and Religion of Mohammed by Rev. J.L. Menzes, originally written in 1912.
I have no doubt that your reasoning is impeccable. But we must not only be internally consistent but also externally consistent with the real world. Cults limit their follower's access to the real world for a good reason.

Augustine lived before Muhammad, TimT. His Just War Theory was a response to the Donatist Schism, so get your facts straight. And of course atrocities were not all upon one side. The Qur'an appears to be divided between "There is no compulsion in religion," type verses and ones calling for fighting the infidels. Unfortunately, I suspect that the Islamic doctrine of abrogation may mean that the latter, if Medinan, override the former if Meccan and therefore earlier. I have already made it clear that I do not agree with Muhammad. If you are in principle opposed to fighting infidels, why defend the Crusades? Besides, that series of wars did only attack Muslims - they killed Christians (who happened to be Armenian Orthodox and in the case of the Fourth Crusade Byzantine Orthodox or anything else not Roman Catholic) and Jews as well, or had you forgotten that? As for the Biblical situation, why could not the Canaanites have simply been converted? Admittedly surviving Canaanites tended to convert the Israelites instead, but still. I am concious that my position here is untenable, as if the truth of God's word is to be maintained and there is to be any basis for believing anything, a selective orthodoxy would be a great peril...

Terms like "liberal" "conservative" "evangelical" "Catholic" etc. like "Democracy/Democratic" and Republic/Republican have been used for so many different purposes that their use as weapons is suspect. I have already acknowledged my concerns for the current state of my faith, and think you should remember both sides of the phrase "speaking the truth in love" not just one. My apologies if this last is an unfair criticism of your stance. I am willing to consider your arguments, but suspect some of them.

Also, how on earth is it alright massacring of all males above a certain age and taking the surviving females as concubines as long as it was just within Canaan? In some cases the genocide commanded was more total than that, restrictions for the higher-grade holy war being only on looting for personal profit. Notwithstanding Canaanite practices like sacred prostitution and child sacrifice, given that later (or rather quite early on) Israelites were to be guilty of the same offences; while they were certainly punished, this punishment was tempered with mercy; given that the Canaanites had not received the Law as the Israelites had, one might have expected the standard set, as with Nineveh in the book of Jonah, to be somewhat more lenient. In practice of course some Canaanites also survived (to become the Phoenicians, some of whom established the colony of Carthage in what today is Tunisia in north Africa, which at one time dominated the Mediterranean until their defeat by the Romans; the Phoenician alphabet also inluenced both the Greek and Aramaic alphabets, starting separate chains leading to the formation via the former of Latin, Runic, Cyrillic, etc. and by the latter to various forms of Hebrew and Aramaic script and later to the Arabic alphabet. Is that really preferable to a system that, if the likes of al-Qaeda would pay attention, actually has strict guidelines prohibiting killing women and children, clergy of at least the People of the Book (Jews and Christians and Muslims) and possibly other faiths; likewise the poisoning of wells or felling of date-palms and other acts rendering an area potentially uninhabitable? Of course the whole defensive war only thing is somewhat flexibly interpreted, nevertheless the idea of Jihad being obligatory on all devout Muslims whenever a Muslim country is under attack by unbelievers anywhere in the world has actually been emphasised in quite late (relatively speaking) documents, though the roots are certainly there.

Perhaps I should not discuss this in this forum but continue the debate by means of private messages.

My apologies, TimT, if my previous post was somewhat vehement. By the way, the roots of Just War Theory preceded Augustine any way; there are parallel concepts in ancient Rome, though there were apparently ways around it, like avoiding the requirement for a declaration of war before the commencement of hostilities by simply declaring a field near Rome to be symbolically enemy territory and having a priest or something cast a spear into it.

You may have a general point that is possible to gloss over aspects of Islamic history and overly demonise one's fellow-Christians, resulting in a history no less biased than one which paints the Church as never having erred and the Muslims as invariably the aggressors. Either way one is creating a selective "history" that distorts the truth and can have no benefit for reconciliation in the long run. Then again, the historian's objectivity is to some extent a myth; nevertheless it is an objective, so to speak, worth striving for.

Concerning the anguish of understanding the Scriptures I wish to assure you that it was not my intention, Marcion-like, to overthrow the source of the faith; nevertheless I would appreciate any enlightened exposition of the Holy Scriptures that you may be able to give. There is an extent to which I have ongoing doubts. It is possible at times to come to a measure of acceptance of these at one level, appreciating the implications of God's holiness and human sin, the graciousness of any mercy at all. In the book of Isaiah, where mercy and justice are both prominent themes, and not necessarily opposed or contrasting as we might tend to think, I find it possible to glimpse some understanding of a compassionate and zealous God, from whom spring alike indignation at the injustice of the society and its infidelity to the Covenant, acompanying judgement, and a merciful pardon of the penitent. This does not, however deal with certain ongoing issues which to some extent I must admit I at times simply have allowed to rest. Surely long-term this cannot be good for one's faith? It is scarcely honest reasoning with oneself, and is likely to encourage hypocrisy in one's dealings with others.

I am not really much of a liberal, nor much of an evangelical. I have already acknowledged my Laodiceanism, and earnestly desire to repent in the true sense of turning away from sin, rather than the false of wallowing in remorse without actively striving to change. I respectfully ask that you moderate a certain glibness that must at times, however inadvertently, wound a certain number of people, both Christian and non-Christian.