Announcement

Collapse

Islam Guidelines

Theists only.

This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to Islam. This forum is generally for theists only, and is not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theist may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.



Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Justice and mercy with God?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
    There is the Biblical Christian doctrine.
    Which would hold the Hebrew account as a historical event (Genesis 2:17; Genesis 3:1-24). There are professing Christians, of course, which do not hold that it was historical. Biblically people are responcible for their own sin (Romans 5:12; Ezekiel 18:20).
    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?

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by siam View Post
      Pre-modern religions were a "way of life"--- a philosophy that formulated ethico-moral principles in the framework of a larger narrative/paradigm so that people could give assent to a set of ethical rules/laws by which to govern their lives.
      Modernity/secularism has stripped "religion" of some of its philosophy, ethics/morality, rules/laws and reduced it into a "culture"....one that is "private".
      IMO, there is much potential for good in a comprehensive and consistent "way of life".
      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:
      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.

      There is a word that I keep thinking about - and for a reason. The English verb ‘to know’ is translated to Hebrew as ‘ladaat’ when relating to factual knowl-edge and as ‘lehakir’ when relating to knowing a person (the same differentiation also occurs in Spanish, with the translations ‘saber’ and ‘conocer’ respectively).
      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


      • #33
        Originally posted by siam View Post
        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?
        I personally believe God made man to be good (Genesis 1:26-31, ". . . behold, [it was] very good. . . .").
        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 KJV

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Marta View Post
          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:
          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].
          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.
          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


          • #35
            Originally posted by siam View Post
            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.
            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)....
            The Prophet explained spiritual excellence as being, "To worship God as though you see Him, and if you see Him not, [know that] He nevertheless sees you.

            I like that view. That saying gives rise to the passage out of Genesis 18:20 - Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”

            Anyway, we are introducing the rights of Sharia law within the courts systems today, however, my understanding of all this, is that it is not going very successfully. Sometimes I think that introducing another international legal code into a democracy leads to clash. (?) The understanding of the two are total opposite from one another. If, what you say that the Sharia is only for Muslims (Muslim law) - why introduce it into the legal system.

            Here's what I'm saying. There was an incident awhile back about a person that I knew who use to travel back and forth to his own country. This person was one way while at home and another way while they were in the states. Same concept - Sharia is about (as your say) overarching ethical/moral principles with which one should construct a system of ethical justice, ethical civil society, ethical economics/commerce, ethical governance...etc. To finish this statement, for those who know the meaning of Sharia, “the way” or “the path to water.” For centuries, Muslim scholars have given a broad definition of Sharia reflecting the diversity of interpretations on how Muslims have attempted to best understand and practice their faith. Soooo, by per chance, have you viewed some of what the government has just removed from our own country, lately, the ten commandments. Religion and Politics - haven't mixed lately on a positive note. We're still fighting on certain issues here - in the U.S. because Christian have been waging war in a religious sense, as well. How would it come across if your system was able to be accepted into the courts and other beliefs were not?

            So, all the laws of Sharia are based primarily on Qur'an and then on Sunnah, and after that, if there was no information in those two sources, judges were free to use their intelligence to make analogies. As in most legal systems, cases could then be referred to by later judges. How would this work in any other system - this is the "path" in which Muslims adhere?

            Don't get me wrong on this issue.
            Last edited by Marta; 06-11-2017, 12:32 AM.

            Comment


            • #36
              "
              "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.




              "There must be more distinctions with regard to doctrine. Regardless of whatever set of ideas that a theist believes in, those beliefs make claims. Islam states that Muhammad is God’s last prophet, and that there are five pillars which every believer must partake in. Christianity claims that Jesus died on the cross and that salvation lies with him. Of course there are always different sects which have different beliefs within all religions, but as a theist, there are ways to act “badly,” which is to say contrary to teaching. If one believes in the cycles which Jainism posits but then acts violently, one can be said to be a “bad” Jain. This does not apply to atheism. Atheism has no corollary beliefs. As an atheist, you can be a mass murder or a wonderful philanthropist. The only way to be a “bad” atheist is to believe in a God, which would not make you a bad atheist but rather a theist or deist.

              Now that there are clear explanations for terms that will be central to the posts, we can move onto the constitutional question over the intersection of religion with government in the United States. The founding document of our country, The Constitution is excessively clear with regard to religion. It states, “…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” One does not need to be a Christian to serve in our government.

              However, this is not the only statement the Constitution makes with regard to religion. The First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” This clearly and unambiguously states that the religious institutions must remain out of the government and vice versa. Legislators can use their faith as a compass to make judgments, but they may not say that “policy x” acts against my religion and therefore must not be done. Thomas Jefferson, a deist and possibly an atheist, makes this point even more clearly in a letter to the Danbury Baptists, in which he writes that the First Amendment, “…thus build[s] a wall of separation between Church and State.” The government will neither help nor hinder the workings of religious intuitions in America, unless of course those institutions violate other laws." Introduction to the Relationship Between Religion and Government

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Marta View Post
                The Prophet explained spiritual excellence as being, "To worship God as though you see Him, and if you see Him not, [know that] He nevertheless sees you.

                I like that view. That saying gives rise to the passage out of Genesis 18:20 - Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”

                Anyway, we are introducing the rights of Sharia law within the courts systems today, however, my understanding of all this, is that it is not going very successfully. Sometimes I think that introducing another international legal code into a democracy leads to clash. (?) The understanding of the two are total opposite from one another. If, what you say that the Sharia is only for Muslims (Muslim law) - why introduce it into the legal system.

                Here's what I'm saying. There was an incident awhile back about a person that I knew who use to travel back and forth to his own country. This person was one way while at home and another way while they were in the states. Same concept - Sharia is about (as your say) overarching ethical/moral principles with which one should construct a system of ethical justice, ethical civil society, ethical economics/commerce, ethical governance...etc. To finish this statement, for those who know the meaning of Sharia, “the way” or “the path to water.” For centuries, Muslim scholars have given a broad definition of Sharia reflecting the diversity of interpretations on how Muslims have attempted to best understand and practice their faith. Soooo, by per chance, have you viewed some of what the government has just removed from our own country, lately, the ten commandments. Religion and Politics - haven't mixed lately on a positive note. We're still fighting on certain issues here - in the U.S. because Christian have been waging war in a religious sense, as well. How would it come across if your system was able to be accepted into the courts and other beliefs were not?

                So, all the laws of Sharia are based primarily on Qur'an and then on Sunnah, and after that, if there was no information in those two sources, judges were free to use their intelligence to make analogies. As in most legal systems, cases could then be referred to by later judges. How would this work in any other system - this is the "path" in which Muslims adhere?

                Don't get me wrong on this issue.
                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)

                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


                • #38
                  Originally posted by siam View Post
                  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?
                  Added note.
                  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 KJV

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                    I personally believe God made man to be good (Genesis 1:26-31, ". . . behold, [it was] very good. . . .").
                    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.
                    interesting thoughts...but they seem inconsistent....?....

                    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


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Marta View Post
                      "
                      1) "There must be more distinctions with regard to doctrine. Regardless of whatever set of ideas that a theist believes in, those beliefs make claims. Islam states that Muhammad is God’s last prophet, and that there are five pillars which every believer must partake in. Christianity claims that Jesus died on the cross and that salvation lies with him. Of course there are always different sects which have different beliefs within all religions, but as a theist, there are ways to act “badly,” which is to say contrary to teaching. If one believes in the cycles which Jainism posits but then acts violently, one can be said to be a “bad” Jain. This does not apply to atheism. Atheism has no corollary beliefs. As an atheist, you can be a mass murder or a wonderful philanthropist. The only way to be a “bad” atheist is to believe in a God, which would not make you a bad atheist but rather a theist or deist.

                      2) Now that there are clear explanations for terms that will be central to the posts, we can move onto the constitutional question over the intersection of religion with government in the United States. The founding document of our country, The Constitution is excessively clear with regard to religion. It states, “…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” One does not need to be a Christian to serve in our government.

                      3) However, this is not the only statement the Constitution makes with regard to religion. The First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” This clearly and unambiguously states that the religious institutions must remain out of the government and vice versa. Legislators can use their faith as a compass to make judgments, but they may not say that “policy x” acts against my religion and therefore must not be done. Thomas Jefferson, a deist and possibly an atheist, makes this point even more clearly in a letter to the Danbury Baptists, in which he writes that the First Amendment, “…thus build[s] a wall of separation between Church and State.” The government will neither help nor hinder the workings of religious intuitions in America, unless of course those institutions violate other laws." Introduction to the Relationship Between Religion and Government
                      1)Distinctions---I am uncomfortable with this type of labeling. IMO, good people can do bad things, because we are forgetful, egoic, selfish...etc. Everyone has values...even Atheists. Human beings do good as well as bad---it is a human condition and no religion can prevent a person from doing bad. Religions are the premises/meta-narratives/paradigms that we use to make sense of the world/reality we live in. They do not take away an individuals (God-given) free-will and magically make a person unable to make mistakes/sins.

                      2)Secularism---as a modern Muslim living in a modern nation-state, I am fine with secularism. However, in a post-modern/global era---we may need a different paradigm?

                      3) "Legislators can use their faith as a compass to make judgments, but they may not say that “policy x” acts against my religion and therefore must not be done"
                      If I have a problem with secularism---this would be it.
                      We are 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?
                      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=goq4eY6ykc8

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by siam View Post
                        interesting thoughts...but they seem inconsistent....?....

                        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.....
                        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.

                        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)



                        However, if one is consistent and continues to follow what is good, even though there is evil in the world, and preserves while upholding his faith then that person is even more strengthen in his belief in God. Every trial only strengthen belief. The lesson is about learning about God. Remember, what the differences are between "to know" There is a word that I keep thinking about - and for a reason. The English verb ‘to know’ is translated to Hebrew as ‘ladaat’ when relating to factual knowl-edge and as ‘lehakir’ when relating to knowing a person (the same differentiation also occurs in Spanish, with the translations ‘saber’ and ‘conocer’ respectively). But as you say, "The purpose/test of our creation is "to choose" to do God's will (submission) of our own free-will. (Ibadah (worship) = "to do for God")"

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                          There is the Biblical Christian doctrine.
                          Which would hold the Hebrew account as a historical event (Genesis 2:17; Genesis 3:1-24). There are professing Christians, of course, which do not hold that it was historical. Biblically people are responcible for their own sin (Romans 5:12; Ezekiel 18:20).
                          Biblically people are responcible for their own sin (Romans 5:12; Ezekiel 18:20).
                          Perhaps. As I was saying in my last post. Out of our own choices, whether good or bad, this will not change God's faithfulness. ("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.")

                          God’s Faithfulness: 1 What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2 Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God. 3 What if some were unfaithful? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness? 4 Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar. As it is written: “So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge.”

                          5 But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6 Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? 7 Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” 8 Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just!

                          No One Is Righteous: 9 What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. 10As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; 11 there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. 12 All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

                          18“There is no fear of God before their eyes"

                          *********

                          The meaning of Logos also is subject to interpretation: "word", "account", "principle", "plan", "formula", "measure", "proportion", "reckoning

                          *********
                          Faithfulness


                          According to the scriptures, one of the main characteristics of God is His absolute faithfulness. This virtue in man is also considered to be one of the “fruits of the Holy Spirit” (Gal 5.22).

                          To be faithful means to be absolutely true to one’s word, to be totally loyal in one’s devotion, to be completely steadfast and unswerving in one’s own calling and vocation. It also means to remain in humble service, in truth and in love, no matter what the conditions or consequences. To be faithful means to be courageous and to be and to do that which one must be and do by God’s will, regardless of any rejection by others and in spite of any lack of recognition or appreciation. God Himself is perfectly faithful. He has made promises and declared covenants, keeping His word no matter what man does. When men are adulterous and faithless, God remains faithful (cf. Jer 3, Ezek 16); for “the Lord has sworn and will not change His mind” (Ps 110.4, Heb 7.21)....continue:

                          ....

                          "Faithfulness is characterized by stability of body and soul; the utter refusal to move or be moved for any unworthy reason; the complete dedication to what God gives one to do, with the faith, grace and strength that God gives to do it. As it is written in the sayings of the fathers of the desert: “As a tree cannot bear fruit if it is often transplanted, no more can a monk (or any person) that is often changing his mind and moving from place to place.” The only way to receive the “crown of life” is to be “faithful until death” in the place where God has put us (Rev 2.10). The only way to find joy, wisdom and peace is to be faithful to one’s own uniqueness, knowing that each person has his own specific life and vocation from God which no one else has; his own specific mission which no one else can perform. The spiritual person develops his own life in faithfulness, without envy or fear, and so accomplishes and becomes that which God has willed for him before the dawn of creation"

                          ***

                          Every incident, in the Exodus, teaches us about "who" God is and how faithful He is to His promise, reference to Song of Mary and Zechariah’s Song. God kept His promise to bring a savior who would redeem us and to bring us salvation. So, regardless of the sins - the savior came to us. As John 1 states: "16 Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."
                          Last edited by Marta; 06-12-2017, 12:06 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by siam View Post
                            interesting thoughts...but they seem inconsistent....?....

                            what u r saying is....
                            ---Good/Evil come from God (God's knowledge)
                            ---God is infinite Good (only)
                            OK to there.
                            ---(infinite) Evil is greater than finite Good
                            . . .
                            No. Evil is not possible without 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 KJV

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              "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). "

                              "our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly,"

                              "Evil is not possible without good."

                              It is possible I am misunderstanding---but it almost sounds Zoroastrian/Manichean? 2 metaphysical forces, one is the force of good the other is the force of evil? God is the force of good but human beings are the force of evil...?... or are possessed by the force of evil...or...?....a devil-man = humanity and God-man = Jesus Christ....

                              What is the Christian understanding of evil and/or Satan?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by siam View Post
                                "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). "

                                "our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly,"

                                "Evil is not possible without good."

                                It is possible I am misunderstanding---but it almost sounds Zoroastrian/Manichean? 2 metaphysical forces, one is the force of good the other is the force of evil? God is the force of good but human beings are the force of evil...?... or are possessed by the force of evil...or...?....a devil-man = humanity and God-man = Jesus Christ....

                                What is the Christian understanding of evil and/or Satan?
                                Romans 3:5, "But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.)"

                                If Christian and Jews are to be judged (alike) or all humanity were to be judged, than could there be any advantages over the others? The parable that Jesus expressed was this; What Jesus told them is that John the Baptist and He received their authority from the same source. This exchange causes the leaders to become angry and puts them in opposition to Jesus. Jesus then further frustrates the priests by telling two parables: the first one is the Parable of the Two Sons, and the second is the Parable of the Vineyard, sometimes called the Parable of the Wicked Tenants.

                                The first parable Jesus teaches tells the priests that they have claimed to accept the message from God but they have failed to live up to it by being obedient. Outwardly, they are pious and appear to be people of God, but God knows the heart, and there they have failed miserably. The next parable (the Parable of the Vineyard) is like pouring salt on a wound. Just in case they didn’t fully understand (which they did), Jesus gives a much clearer picture of what He means.What Jesus told them is that John the Baptist and He received their authority from the same source. This exchange causes the leaders to become angry and puts them in opposition to Jesus. Jesus then further frustrates the priests by telling two parables: the first one is the Parable of the Two Sons, and the second is the Parable of the Vineyard, sometimes called the Parable of the Wicked Tenants.

                                The first parable Jesus teaches tells the priests that they have claimed to accept the message from God but they have failed to live up to it by being obedient. Outwardly, they are pious and appear to be people of God, but God knows the heart, and there they have failed miserably. The next parable (the Parable of the Vineyard) is like pouring salt on a wound. Just in case they didn’t fully understand (which they did), Jesus gives a much clearer picture of what He means.

                                Hopefully this is explainable - and that you understand the verse.
                                Last edited by Marta; 06-13-2017, 02:43 AM.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X