Tweet
Originally posted by 37818
View Post
What is your opinion about the Christian interpretation of original sin (inherited by all humanity?) and how does the idea of owning responsibility for ones own actions/sin fit into it?
-
IMO, the message a story is trying to convey is more important than historicity.
What is your opinion about the Christian interpretation of original sin (inherited by all humanity?) and how does the idea of owning responsibility for ones own actions/sin fit into it? -
Modernity/secularism has explained away the principles of the law and holding that they are not bound by them. Dietary laws for starters - laws of kashrut /Kosher - halāl (حَلَال "lawful") and which are harām (حَرَامْ "unlawful"). The second is the authenticity and/or authority of the law Halacha and as being binding upon the people. Also, the article listed (previous) mentioned that the authority/authenticity of the Sharia - According to Al-Ghazali, laws derived from the moral philosophy of Sharia should protect the following basic human rights:Originally posted by siam View Post
1.Life
2.Religion
3.Property
4.Intellect
5.Family
Any Islamic law whose application fails to protect these basic rights cannot be considered the Sharia, even if it is based upon the literal application of some verses of the Quran or the Prophetic traditions. The distinction between the Sharia and Fiqh is of paramount importance in Islamic legal thought, just as Western jurists would distinguish between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.
Once you minimize or reduce those principles than I believe that you set yourself up for error. Slowly you take the "divinity" or the "holiness" out altogether. The "authentic" understanding of the Torah is encapsulated in the "halachah," the law (literally, "way"). Then to walk in Torah (Tehillim 119:1, Nechemyah 10:30) ... is called "Halacha" (literally, "The walking", or "the path", or "the way") - What about Sharia? If we followed our own set of directions? Based upon evaluations of our own conclusions - reduced it into a "culture"....one that is "private". There is a word that kind of describes all this, "To Know" - Some say that this word is watered down. Respectively - so, in the same contents as not giving it the full meaning or diluting it down.
Determiners of translation ambiguity: A within and cross-language comparison (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publica...age_comparison [accessed Jun 10, 2017].Last edited by Marta; 06-10-2017, 12:45 AM.Comment
-
I personally believe God made man to be good (Genesis 1:26-31, ". . . behold, [it was] very good. . . .").Originally posted by siam View Post
That the the knowledge of good and evil was God's knowledge (Genesis 3:22). God being infinite good cannot be affected by evil - evil being part of God's good creation. Evil being the fact that finite good can be negated. Man is finite, and so his goodness is finite. The knowledge of good and evil affected man's finite goodness, the knowledge of evil allowing man's goodness to fail, and the knowledge of good caused man to condemn himself. Mankind inherit that knowledge of good and evil on account of our first parents disobedience (Romans 5:12).
Evil cannot exist without finite goodness. Whereas finite goodness does not need any evil to be good. But evil like cyanide in sugar is still poison. So children when their age reaches age of reason become affected by sin, where they must choose God's grace to keep their name from being removed from the book of life (Mark 10:14-16; Revelation 20:11-15; Psalm 69:27-28).
I hope that helps.Last edited by 37818; 06-10-2017, 10:29 PM.. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJVComment
-
The article is probably written for a western audience that has little understanding of Sharia. Everything in the article is correct---but there is much more nuance to the "system" of law.Originally posted by Marta View Post
One of the differences between Judaism and Islam---is that the Quran is NOT a book of Law---it does give some examples of law but mostly it is about overarching ethical/moral principles with which one should construct a system of ethical justice, ethical civil society, ethical economics/commerce, ethical governance...etc. (as well as more mundane things such as etiquette/ethics of marital relationships, parent-child relationships, social relationships...etc)
...also, because of the geo-politics of the time---Sharia (as a system) is pluralistic in its construction. Because Sharia is only for Muslims (Muslim law) there are matters that are outside its jurisdiction---these laws were the domain of Siyasa/Qanun laws (State/Imperial laws). So Fiqh, while distinct, is still aligned/subset of "Sharia"---because these are laws that are independent of state/imperial power. So the distinction in this system is in relation to power---and the means to balance/restrict power (in order to prevent abuse).
That is, if Sharia fails to protect rights---the people could appeal to the Siyasa (Imperial law) for redress and if the Imperial laws infringed on the rights of the people---then Sharia could be used as a correction---not because Sharia has enforcement capabilities (it does not) but because it has "divine" authority. (The state had enforcement authority because it controlled the army).
(Islam also does not have the doctrine of the "Divine right of Kings"---all humanity are created equal, So in this system---the rights rest with the people (people are given rights by God)---not the state.)
Islam is a very practical/pragmatic system. (but...the implementation of the system is still dependent on the limited capabilities and imperfections of human beings)
Fiqh (Jurispredence) is a very human endeavor based on a methodology (Usul al-fiqh) and a philosophy (Maqasid)....Comment
-
"
Introduction to the Relationship Between Religion and Government"A Wall of Separation"
Thomas Jefferson's reply of January 1, 1802, to an address of congratulations from the Danbury (Connecticut) Baptist Association contains a phrase familiar in today's political and judicial circles: "a wall of separation between church and state." Many in the United States, including the courts, have used this phrase to interpret the Founders' intentions regarding the relationship between government and religion, as set down by the First Amendment to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . ." However, the meaning of this clause has been the subject of passionate dispute for the past fifty years.Comment
-
previously I explained about the 3 levels of spirituality of the soul/nafs---the corresponding paradigm/belief that goes with it are Islam, Iman, and Ihsan---with Ihsan being the highest level---and your quote explains this degree of spirituality. In order to progress in spiritual excellence---one first needs to create a habit of excellence and this is done through discipline (submission), once the habits are formed---one must understand in order to give wholehearted assent (use intellect and reason to arrive at conviction), once heartfelt conviction is formed---it must become a transformative force that leads to peace. (convictions, intentions and actions become united)Originally posted by Marta View Post
Sharia was not supposed to be state administered law---but independent of the state/government. Today all modern nation-states make laws---so classical Sharia system is impossible. (however, such a situation makes Sharia prone to abuse---if only the (Muslim-majority) nation-state makes/administers and enforces the "law" there is ofcourse no other power to prevent abuse!)
Freedom of Religion.---Because the laws of the Jews and Christians were considered "God's laws" too---even though some of the ethico-moral premises were different (for example the Catholic Church does not allow divorce (?) but Judaism and Islam do) Therefore, they (people of the book) had the right to fully practice their religions as their "way of life"---to curtail this (God-given) right would have been unjust. (not to mention---rights given by God cannot be taken away by Man---at least in theory) There are 5 major schools of Sharia, and the Jews and Christians as well as other religious traditions that Muslims came in contact with---all could practice their "religion" (including religious law) fully. This was Freedom of Religion. There was no other way for the (pluralistic) Islamic system to develop because the geographical territory under its governance was large with many different religions/customs and peoples/groups under its care.
In the Modern nation-state---there is only one law that governs all citizens of that nation. This means that there will be a clash when any government imposes its own ethico-moral standards on groups that have not given assent to those standards. When the citizenry is homogeneous (such as in the West)---the problem may not be much. But Islam became global very early in its development and the territories under its care were multireligious/multiethnic with different, often clashing ethico-moral values. So Sharia had to develop a pluralistic system that would allow a good balance of freedom and regulation to the people.(Public good).
The principle of the protection of rights is important but these must be balanced with the principle of the Public Good.(al-Istislah/maslaha)
The Fiqh aspect of Sharia (Fiqh is a distinct subset of Sharia) has sections such as family law, Commercial/contractual law, and some criminal law (jurisdiction of Criminal law was shared with Siyasa/Qanun law). These laws are developed with a methodolgy which has differences in the various Sharia schools. The Quran and Sunnah are useful tools---but the Quran is not a law book and the Prophet only governed in Medina. Naturally these 2 tools are going to be inadequate to make an ethical system of law that must promote justice among a very diverse population across a very large area. Reason, consensus, customary practices and other tools had to complement the Quran and Sunnah.
(Sharia also has ritual/religious rules---but we will not go into it. Generally, in most modern societies---when a Muslim follows "Sharia" they would be following the religious/ritual rules---because all other laws are made by the nation-state.)Comment
-
Added note.Originally posted by siam View Post
There are teachings many professing Christians follow which are not according to the word of God. Which I reject, as not having any authority in not being the word of God on the matter.Last edited by 37818; 06-11-2017, 11:01 AM.. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJVComment
-
interesting thoughts...but they seem inconsistent....?....Originally posted by 37818 View Post
what u r saying is....
---Good/Evil come from God (God's knowledge)
---God is infinite Good (only)
---(infinite) Evil is greater than finite Good
---Man is finite and can be overcome with infinite evil
---therefore there is (original) sin.
It seems good/evil both come from God --- yet God is only good.
To make the force of good as "God" and the force of evil as another force separate from God appears to make evil equal to God.
and if the force of evil can overcome the force of good---It appears to make evil a greater force than God?
this then creates 2 "Gods"/forces....one is infinite good (God) and the other is infinite evil (Satan/other) and only the force of infinite evil (Satan/other) can effect Man--God/infinite good is powerless?
In Islam, there is no force greater or equal to God...so such an idea, while interesting, would not fit in with the paradigm.....Comment
-
required/forced by a secular nation-state to be hypocrites. If our religion/philosophy encourages us to have certain values that potentially promote good---why must they be hidden? If religion/philosophy inspires/encourages us to live ethical-moral lives---why must this be made into some anonymous, bland statement that hides truth?Originally posted by Marta View Post
but as a Muslim---I have a larger concern. If religious ethical-moral values are hidden---how are we to persuade people who do wrong that these are not the values of "our" religion/philosophy? Without robust discussion and debates in public about right/wrong and all the degrees in-between---how are the young going to be informed? how are they going to participate constructively in society? This subject becomes more important in a global era where the identity of a nation-state cannot persuade the minority, the marginalized, or the angry, about belonging and giving assent to a set of homogenized, anonymous "values".
ISIS is an example of how diluted Islam has become? It may be that (modern) Islam cannot give young people a vision of making a constructive difference in their lives and in their communities?---a sense of self-worth. So, some have been tempted into a vision of destruction? Maybe this premise is incorrect---but it still needs exploring because there are many people of all religious/philosophical persuasions who are falling prey to hate, despair, division, destruction......
here is one opinion on the subject of modernity and the anger is gives rise to---
Age of Anger: Pankaj Mishra
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goq4eY6ykc8Comment
-
If one choose to follow what is evil than that person contends with those who live within it. That being a different world with its own rules and what proceeds from it (evil). However, in the same thought, every person has a "light" or "the knowledge" of God or Higher authority to distinguish good and bad in themselves. Everyone has the ability to choose right from wrong and also, to change -distinguishes between human laws and divine law, it is like the flow of the river. Heraclitus - "We both step and do not step in the same rivers. We are and are not." Ποταμοῖς τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἐμβαίνομέν τε καὶ οὐκ ἐμβαίνομεν, εἶμέν τε καὶ οὐκ εἶμεν.Originally posted by siam View Post
There is an antithesis between 'same' and 'other.' The sentence says that different waters flow in rivers staying the same. In other words, though the waters are always changing, the rivers stay the same. Indeed, it must be precisely because the waters are always changing that there are rivers at all, rather than lakes or ponds. The message is that rivers can stay the same over time even though, or indeed because, the waters change. The point, then, is not that everything is changing, but that the fact that some things change makes possible the continued existence of other things. Perhaps more generally, the change in elements or constituents supports the constancy of higher-level structures. As for the alleged doctrine of the Identity of Opposites, Heraclitus does believe in some kind of unity of opposites. For instance, "God is day night, winter summer, war peace, satiety hunger . . ." (DK22B67). But if we look closer, we see that the unity in question is not identity:
As the same thing in us is living and dead, waking and sleeping, young and old. For these things having changed around are those, and conversely those having changed around are these. (DK22B88)Comment
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostFaithfulnesshave all received grace in place of grace already given. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."Biblically people are responcible for their own sin (Romans 5:12; Ezekiel 18:20).Last edited by Marta; 06-12-2017, 12:06 AM.Comment
-
OK to there.Originally posted by siam View Post
No. Evil is not possible without good.---(infinite) Evil is greater than finite Good
. . .
That must be understood.. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJVComment
-
Comment
-
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment