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

Islam and evolution

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

  • Repetition---I agree that we have already covered most things in our previous conversations...at this point, it may be interesting to explore some of the other tangents being brought up...?...

    Reason---To rely on human reason and intelligence is beneficial. It is certainly better than relying on superstitions. But humans are creative and so can find justifications ("reasons") if they try hard enough. For example, Many Americans feel torture is justified....or that "collateral damage" is acceptable....etc Lawyers have come up with reasoned legal arguments FOR these things.....as well as many other troubling things....Nevertheless, even with the potential for abuse, reason (and intelligence, creativity) are the only way forward for humanity. If there is a noble purpose to which reason and knowledge can be used....there is more possibility of preventing their misuse. That is why the acquisition of knowledge and the use of reason must be for the purpose of God's will= Right belief that promotes right intentions that lead to right actions for the benefit of all of God's creations.

    Problems---There are many problems today. I believe we can find creative solutions to problems.(Ijtihad) Once we do, we (humanity) will likely be confronted with other problems. The Quran says life on earth is a test. One cannot be tested without working through problems!. We will need to struggle (Jihad) to do God's will and thereby fulfill the purpose (Trusteeship/Khalifa) for which we were created.

    "Islamic governance"---What is it?--will probably depend on the definition. If we say that to be "Islamic" one needs to follow the framework of Tawheed---then the governance today in Muslim-majority countries is "Western" not Islamic/Tawhidic. There are many countries that still use Western systems of governance, law, and education. There are built-in imbalances in the Western systems. For example, (a) Law is made and enforced by the government. Which means that "governance" is by the elites, for the elites. Thus, taxes collected from the people are not used for the benefit of the people, rather they are used for the benefit of the elites---such as bailouts for the corporations and the wars for the military-Industrial complex...etc. (b) Because of secularism, there are no ethico-moral considerations that restrict the abuse of power or the abuse of law...thus kidnapping people off the streets, torturing and murdering them becomes "legal" under "extraordinary renditions" (United States Government). (c) Under the Western system, everyone in a country must comply with the law of the land, there are no alternatives. ...these are a few examples we can use to compare with the Tawhidic framework.

    Under the Tawhidic framework, Law is based on the principles of inherent equality (before God) and Justice tempered with compassion and mercy. The pursuit of Justice is a right given by God, but it comes with ethico-moral restraints. (a) Law is made by Scholars familiar with the Tawhidic framework and by the ethico-moral principles which flow from Tawheed. Thus, the primary purpose of taxes is for the benefit of the people---such as free hospitals, and education, building of public works that benefit commerce and production., and the safety and security of the public. (b) Because Law is made by scholars independent of the government, there is more balance of power and this raises the potential to resist manipulation by the elites as well as a force of correction if such manipulation occurs. The government can be used by the citizens to curb abuses by the law and the law can be used to curb abuses by the government. (c). Because God has provided Guidance (Law) to all humanity, each group with its own system of law has a right to practice these laws in the land. Thus, Sharia is for Muslims (though non-Muslims can use it if they wish), Halaka is for Jews, Canon law for Christians (Catholic and Eastern Christians) Dharma for Hindus and Buddhists....etc. The right to practice the laws required of their religions is God-given right/freedom. The restriction of this freedom under the concept that there is only one law for all can be understood as an injustice/restriction of a freedom.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by siam View Post
      Repetition---I agree that we have already covered most things in our previous conversations...at this point, it may be interesting to explore some of the other tangents being brought up...?...
      I believe these are unresolved at present, because of your continued negative view toward science.

      Reason---To rely on human reason and intelligence is beneficial. It is certainly better than relying on superstitions. But humans are creative and so can find justifications ("reasons") if they try hard enough. For example, Many Americans feel torture is justified....or that "collateral damage" is acceptable....etc Lawyers have come up with reasoned legal arguments FOR these things.....as well as many other troubling things....Nevertheless, even with the potential for abuse, reason (and intelligence, creativity) are the only way forward for humanity. If there is a noble purpose to which reason and knowledge can be used....there is more possibility of preventing their misuse. That is why the acquisition of knowledge and the use of reason must be for the purpose of God's will= Right belief that promotes right intentions that lead to right actions for the benefit of all of God's creations.
      As with the your previous posts, you are neglecting the fact that most Islamic countries have justified "collateral damage" at times on a greater scale then western countries. Your selective use of accusations of problems in "Western" countries is unacceptable.

      Problems---There are many problems today. I believe we can find creative solutions to problems.(Ijtihad) Once we do, we (humanity) will likely be confronted with other problems. The Quran says life on earth is a test. One cannot be tested without working through problems!. We will need to struggle (Jihad) to do God's will and thereby fulfill the purpose (Trusteeship/Khalifa) for which we were created.
      OK, but again does not address the reality "problems" in the Islamic world today in equal if not greater "collateral damage and injustice" to ward fellow humans.

      "Islamic governance"---What is it?--will probably depend on the definition. If we say that to be "Islamic" one needs to follow the framework of Tawheed---then the governance today in Muslim-majority countries is "Western" not Islamic/Tawhidic. There are many countries that still use Western systems of governance, law, and education. There are built-in imbalances in the Western systems. For example, (a) Law is made and enforced by the government. Which means that "governance" is by the elites, for the elites. Thus, taxes collected from the people are not used for the benefit of the people, rather they are used for the benefit of the elites---such as bailouts for the corporations and the wars for the military-Industrial complex...etc. (b) Because of secularism, there are no ethico-moral considerations that restrict the abuse of power or the abuse of law...thus kidnapping people off the streets, torturing and murdering them becomes "legal" under "extraordinary renditions" (United States Government). (c) Under the Western system, everyone in a country must comply with the law of the land, there are no alternatives. ...these are a few examples we can use to compare with the Tawhidic framework.

      Under the Tawhidic framework, Law is based on the principles of inherent equality (before God) and Justice tempered with compassion and mercy. The pursuit of Justice is a right given by God, but it comes with ethico-moral restraints. (a) Law is made by Scholars familiar with the Tawhidic framework and by the ethico-moral principles which flow from Tawheed. Thus, the primary purpose of taxes is for the benefit of the people---such as free hospitals, and education, building of public works that benefit commerce and production., and the safety and security of the public. (b) Because Law is made by scholars independent of the government, there is more balance of power and this raises the potential to resist manipulation by the elites as well as a force of correction if such manipulation occurs. The government can be used by the citizens to curb abuses by the law and the law can be used to curb abuses by the government. (c). Because God has provided Guidance (Law) to all humanity, each group with its own system of law has a right to practice these laws in the land. Thus, Sharia is for Muslims (though non-Muslims can use it if they wish), Halaka is for Jews, Canon law for Christians (Catholic and Eastern Christians) Dharma for Hindus and Buddhists....etc. The right to practice the laws required of their religions is God-given right/freedom. The restriction of this freedom under the concept that there is only one law for all can be understood as an injustice/restriction of a freedom.
      This is all well and maybe ok, but as above it is too one sided accusations, and does not address the problems of equal and if not greater magnitude in the Islamic world. I have brought these up before and you have ignored them and side stepped them with an idealistic naďve view of how you "believe" the Islamic world should be. There is no evidence nor witness that this is how the Islamic world actually is.

      "Islamic governance" remains a problem particularly for inconsistency, and forcing non-believers to comply with Islamic Law, and not allowing diversity in the Islamic world.

      The close mindedness of the Islamic world in the modern world is exemplified by the declaration for not allowing Muslims to travel to Mars in the current space program.

      Again . . .'With so many inconsistencies and failures in the modern world can the real Islam stand up and make a consistent claim? Probably no.
      Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-11-2015, 07:53 AM.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • Bias---Yes, you are correct to point out the bias in the argument. This type of biased argument where all the "good" is on one side and all the "bad" on the other side is often used in the West when it comes to talking about Islam.(clash of civilization) All the good is "Western" and everything that contradicts it is "Islam". Yet if all societies are made up of human beings, and human beings, by nature, are both good and bad, then human societies will also inevitably be good and bad---that is---there will be values, ideas, and actions that are noble and there will be those who appropriate these values for abuse and harm. On the other hand...it is this very tension between those who do good and those who may abuse that perhaps creates the dynamism in our societies....?....

        Sidestep---Yes, I did do so..my apologies....but I wanted to make a point first---of what the Tawhidic framework is, and how it works in forming ethico-moral principles and their implementation in society. This framework can offer real benefits...but not without the active participation of people in striving for excellence.(Jihad)
        2 of your questions interest me---You asked--when in history has Islam brought peace? and problems in some Muslim-Majority countries....

        If by peace we mean some sort of utopia--then the answer would be no Islam did not bring such peace---but if we are to speak of peace as relative---as in, compared to what went before---then the answer is Yes, Islam did bring peace (relatively). The Tawhidic framework exists in the Quran and while its implementation has been inconsistent throughout Islamic history, it has nevertheless provided benefits.
        As explained before, Islamic values of Equality (equivalent worth) and right to dignity flow from Tawheed. At that time in 7th century Mecca, it was a society based on social injustice and income disparity. Even though there was a shrine filled with many Gods in Mecca---there were people seeking for more meaningful spirituality (Hanif). It was also a time of tribal rivalries, revenge and warfare. In Mecca, the Quranic message of equality and dignity attracted people from all classes, rich and poor and provided a foundation for Unity. But the monotheism of Islam also threatened the economic interests of the elites. In Medina, The values of justice tempered with compassion and mercy, equality and dignity brought a reduction to the tribal wars and gave the community a new foundation for Unity. These values were not exclusive to Muslims but were extended to non-Muslims also.
        https://www.facebook.com/notes/hazra...50235183889345
        http://www.amazon.com/Covenants-Prop.../dp/159731465X
        These two examples show that the Prophet accepted the various Christianities of the time and gave them rights and protections, in contrast to the way Christians themselves treated the "heretics"
        http://www.heretication.info/_heretics.html

        Thus, relatively speaking, Islam brought more peace to both Muslims and Non-Muslims.

        The Constitution of Medina also shows the rights to protection, freedom of religion , equality and dignity given to the Jewish tribes of Medina. It promotes pluralism, inclusivity and tolerance.
        Fred Donner, (a revisionist historian) talks about this in his theory of the "Believers movement".

        This relative peace did not stop but continued on as the Empire spread. This relative peace brought with it prosperity and industrialization. Because there was peace, Trade and commerce flourished and this created incentives for production (and industrialization using hydro-power). This prosperity in turn brought in revenue for the government, some of which was spent in the pursuit of knowledge. Schools, Universities, Public libraries and Research centers were created. It was this peace that created the Golden age of Islam as well as the Golden age of Judaism. (There may have also been development in Eastern Christianity---but so far there has been no research into it yet) Art and Architecture also benefited from this peace and we can still see their imprint today. (some Christian paintings of Mary the mother of Jesus Christ (pbut) has Arabic writing on the clothes!)

        While the implementation of the Tawhidic framework was indeed implemted inconsistently, (because it is human beings that implement ideas/principles) it did lead to benefits demonstrated by history.

        Problems in some Muslim-Majority countries.---If we take the Middle East/North Africa as examples, we can see that under incredible odds the people have continuously striven for justice, liberty, equality, dignity...etc.
        They have struggled under the injustice, oppression and exploitation of colonialism, then against puppet dictators/leaders imposed upon them and then against American imperialism...The people have been impoverished, humiliated, tortured, killed...and yet they have persevered. The Arab spring were protests for freedom and against oppression---but what happened? Foreign interference (including interference by Saudi Arabia) ensured that some Western-friendly leaders got back their powers/retained their power..... What are the oppressed people to do? When the people of free countries allow their elected officials to oppress and exploit others...what are the oppressed supposed to do?

        The failures in our modern World are a responsibility of all humanity---not just the oppressed. Those who have taken advantage of the oppressed must also bear the burden of their actions and have an obligation to strive twice as hard to correct the wrongs.

        Comment


        • Though there are some groups (such as ISIS. Al Qaeda...etc) that do promote the clash of civilizations and blame the "West"---the general Muslim narrative is that the Islamic (or Tawhidic) system failed because of corruption and a move away from the Islamic values by Muslims. History also supports such a narrative....

          Secularism broke away the restraints to abuse of power and corruption that Islamic system traditionally imposed...

          Professor Richard Bulliet explains some aspects of this.....

          Comment


          • Originally posted by siam View Post
            Bias---Yes, you are correct to point out the bias in the argument. This type of biased argument where all the "good" is on one side and all the "bad" on the other side is often used in the West when it comes to talking about Islam.(clash of civilization) All the good is "Western" and everything that contradicts it is "Islam". Yet if all societies are made up of human beings, and human beings, by nature, are both good and bad, then human societies will also inevitably be good and bad---that is---there will be values, ideas, and actions that are noble and there will be those who appropriate these values for abuse and harm. On the other hand...it is this very tension between those who do good and those who may abuse that perhaps creates the dynamism in our societies....?....
            Generalizations of 'it is up to all human beings remains a dodge and avoiding the problems of Islam in the modern world.

            Sidestep---Yes, I did do so..my apologies....but I wanted to make a point first---of what the Tawhidic framework is, and how it works in forming ethico-moral principles and their implementation in society. This framework can offer real benefits...but not without the active participation of people in striving for excellence.(Jihad)
            I have no problem with the Tawhidic framework. It is the same concept in the Baha'i Faith, but in a more modern form that addresses the problems of today's world.

            2 of your questions interest me---You asked--when in history has Islam brought peace? and problems in some Muslim-Majority countries....

            If by peace we mean some sort of utopia--then the answer would be no Islam did not bring such peace---but if we are to speak of peace as relative---as in, compared to what went before---then the answer is Yes, Islam did bring peace (relatively). The Tawhidic framework exists in the Quran and while its implementation has been inconsistent throughout Islamic history, it has nevertheless provided benefits.
            My questions are related to the problems of 'peace' in the modern world, and not the ancient Golden Age of Islam. The inconsistency in the modern world is the problem.

            As explained before, Islamic values of Equality (equivalent worth) and right to dignity flow from Tawheed. At that time in 7th century Mecca, it was a society based on social injustice and income disparity. Even though there was a shrine filled with many Gods in Mecca---there were people seeking for more meaningful spirituality (Hanif). It was also a time of tribal rivalries, revenge and warfare. In Mecca, the Quranic message of equality and dignity attracted people from all classes, rich and poor and provided a foundation for Unity. But the monotheism of Islam also threatened the economic interests of the elites. In Medina, The values of justice tempered with compassion and mercy, equality and dignity brought a reduction to the tribal wars and gave the community a new foundation for Unity. These values were not exclusive to Muslims but were extended to non-Muslims also.
            https://www.facebook.com/notes/hazra...50235183889345
            http://www.amazon.com/Covenants-Prop.../dp/159731465X
            These two examples show that the Prophet accepted the various Christianities of the time and gave them rights and protections, in contrast to the way Christians themselves treated the "heretics"
            http://www.heretication.info/_heretics.html

            Thus, relatively speaking, Islam brought more peace to both Muslims and Non-Muslims.

            The Constitution of Medina also shows the rights to protection, freedom of religion , equality and dignity given to the Jewish tribes of Medina. It promotes pluralism, inclusivity and tolerance.
            Fred Donner, (a revisionist historian) talks about this in his theory of the "Believers movement".

            This relative peace did not stop but continued on as the Empire spread. This relative peace brought with it prosperity and industrialization. Because there was peace, Trade and commerce flourished and this created incentives for production (and industrialization using hydro-power). This prosperity in turn brought in revenue for the government, some of which was spent in the pursuit of knowledge. Schools, Universities, Public libraries and Research centers were created. It was this peace that created the Golden age of Islam as well as the Golden age of Judaism. (There may have also been development in Eastern Christianity---but so far there has been no research into it yet) Art and Architecture also benefited from this peace and we can still see their imprint today. (some Christian paintings of Mary the mother of Jesus Christ (pbut) has Arabic writing on the clothes!).

            While the implementation of the Tawhidic framework was indeed implemted inconsistently, (because it is human beings that implement ideas/principles) it did lead to benefits demonstrated by history.
            Again the problems remain with Islam and the modern world, and not the Golden Age of Islam.


            Problems in some Muslim-Majority countries.---If we take the Middle East/North Africa as examples, we can see that under incredible odds the people have continuously striven for justice, liberty, equality, dignity...etc.
            They have struggled under the injustice, oppression and exploitation of colonialism, then against puppet dictators/leaders imposed upon them and then against American imperialism...The people have been impoverished, humiliated, tortured, killed...and yet they have persevered. The Arab spring were protests for freedom and against oppression---but what happened? Foreign interference (including interference by Saudi Arabia) ensured that some Western-friendly leaders got back their powers/retained their power..... What are the oppressed people to do? When the people of free countries allow their elected officials to oppress and exploit others...what are the oppressed supposed to do?
            Leaving the actual subject in the dust. It is not a matter foreign interference or the oppressed. Your going back to blaming the west for the problems of Islam in the modern world. In fact in predominantly Islamic countries, where Jews, Christians and Baha'is are oppressed, persecuted and in many ways forced out of the Islamic countries.

            The failures in our modern World are a responsibility of all humanity---not just the oppressed. Those who have taken advantage of the oppressed must also bear the burden of their actions and have an obligation to strive twice as hard to correct the wrongs.
            Again your dodging the fundamental problems of Islam in the modern world, with a vague generalization of 'all people's problems. Yes, other ancient world views like Christianity and Judaism also fail to address the needs of the modern world by clinging to ancient worldviews. The Golden Age of Islam is long gone. The leadership of Islam, tolerance of other religions, and relative peace of the this age has passed hundreds of years ago.

            The failure of the Autumn Spring cannot be blamed only one the west. The divisions and rifts within Islam, and vested interests of the Old Guard are very much at the fore front of the failure.

            The need for change in terms of new and progressive Revelation as offered in the Baha'i Faith is what is needed today. Each religion is succeeded by another as with the progressive Revelation from Zoroastrianism to Judaism to Christianity to Islam. We need to go on and not dwell in the ancient paradigms of the past.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              ... The need for change in terms of new and progressive Revelation as offered in the Baha'i Faith is what is needed today. Each religion is succeeded by another as with the progressive Revelation from Zoroastrianism to Judaism to Christianity to Islam. We need to go on and not dwell in the ancient paradigms of the past.
              Maybe it's time to abandon the outdated, polemical paradigm of starting a new religion to address problems of older religions.
              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

              Comment


              • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                Maybe it's time to abandon the outdated, polemical paradigm of starting a new religion to address problems of older religions.
                IT IS THE TIME to give up antiquated archaic paradigms of an ancient world, regardless of what you choose as your path through dust and debris. Clinging to past myths and superstitions has failed.

                Remember, at one time in history Christianity was a new religion. Given that there are at least several hundred outdated paradigms, based one what criteria would you pick one that would be in any way true over the others?
                Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-15-2015, 03:46 PM.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  IT IS THE TIME to give up antiquated archaic paradigms of an ancient world, regardless of what you choose as your path through dust and debris. Clinging to past myths and superstitions has failed.

                  Remember, at one time in history Christianity was a new religion. Given that there are at least several hundred outdated paradigms, based one what criteria would you pick one that would be in any way true over the others?
                  It seems like you completely missed my point. The whole idea of creating or picking a new religion to deal with outmoded aspects of an old religion is itself an antiquated paradigm. Why not just recognize that evolution and development and modernization is possible and preferable within multiple religions rather than creating or choosing a new religion that still feels a need to denigrate other religions as inferior?
                  βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                  ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                  אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    IT IS THE TIME to give up antiquated archaic paradigms of an ancient world, regardless of what you choose as your path through dust and debris. Clinging to past myths and superstitions has failed.

                    Remember, at one time in history Christianity was a new religion. Given that there are at least several hundred outdated paradigms, based one what criteria would you pick one that would be in any way true over the others?
                    It seems like you completely missed my point. The whole idea of creating or picking a new religion to deal with outmoded aspects of an old religion is itself an antiquated paradigm. Why not just recognize that evolution and development and modernization is possible and preferable within multiple religions rather than creating or choosing a new religion that still feels a need to denigrate other religions as inferior? So, while I accept 'Chrtianinity' as an evolution of some streams of various Judaisms of the time, I do not feel a need to denigrate Judaism as a competitor of thw various Judaisms that preceded it and continued to evolve alongside multiple Christianities. Drop the ancient paradigm of there only being one true religion that must polemicize against every other religion as unworthy of the good God that all people seek. Baha'i boosterism is contrary to all that is best in the Baha'i faith correctly understood and appreciated. The Bahá'u'lláh himself would not accept your tactics offered in support of the Bahá'u'lláh.
                    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                    Comment


                    • Human beings are very creative and our "traditions" are a testament to the different ways and answers we humans have come up with --- about life, creation, purpose and such. It would be sad indeed if we abandoned this diversity and creativity for what some scholars call a "monoculture".

                      ...on the other hand...the spreading of this "monoculture" (at gunpoint) is, in some ways, what the "Modern Project" has been all about. In many places, "Modernity"---both good and bad aspects---both political and economic---has been imposed on the rest of the world. When the colonialists wanted to spread (so called) "Free-trade"---they brought their guns and ships to do so....Secularization marginalized the ethical/moral discourse inherent in religions so that laws were no longer restricted by the constraints of ethics/morality---leading to the rampant greed, exploitation, corruption, and disparities of wealth we see today....

                      If there is to be a vision for the "Post-Modern" future---it may be as Professor Ramon Grosfuguel calls "Pluriversal"---in which a diversity of paradigms are given equal respect, equal voice, and together, we all build a global society based on a recognition of the Unity of humanity and the diversity of values and principles........

                      Comment


                      • Comment


                        • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                          It seems like you completely missed my point. The whole idea of creating or picking a new religion to deal with outmoded aspects of an old religion is itself an antiquated paradigm. Why not just recognize that evolution and development and modernization is possible and preferable within multiple religions rather than creating or choosing a new religion that still feels a need to denigrate other religions as inferior?
                          The concept that a new religion is superior to ancient paradigms through a new Revelation is nothing new to the Baha'i Faith. It is the claim of Christianity. You actually did not answer the question. Given that there are at least several hundred outdated paradigms, based one what criteria would you pick one that would be in any way true over the others? Maybe just staying in the ancient paradigm you were born with?

                          The Baha'i Faith essential does believe it is an evolved Revelation of older religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam, basically confirming ancient truths (The absolute oneness and unity of God), and Revealing new Spiritual Laws and beliefs, such as the mandate of universal education, end of all forms of slavery, and the Harmony of Science and Religion (ALL scripture including Baha'i scripture must be understood in the evolving knowledge of science.)


                          So, while I accept 'Chrtianinity' as an evolution of some streams of various Judaisms of the time, I do not feel a need to denigrate Judaism as a competitor of thw various Judaisms that preceded it and continued to evolve alongside multiple Christianities. Drop the ancient paradigm of there only being one true religion that must polemicize against every other religion as unworthy of the good God that all people seek. Baha'i boosterism is contrary to all that is best in the Baha'i faith correctly understood and appreciated.
                          The accusation of boosterism is uncalled for in a debate where there is a disagreement as to the differences between religions. Your dodging the major issues with a 'Blue Smoke and Mirrors' deviations from the topic at hand.

                          By the way the Roman Church has a history of far far worse then just denigrating Jews supported by some references in the NT. More throwing stones from inside a glass house.

                          I do not denigrate other religions near the level your chosen Roman Church does, since the Roman Church considers itself the 'Only way of Salvation,' and all others are condemned except for a few other churches and the possible salvation by unique circumstances.

                          Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_true_church



                          In responding to some questions regarding the doctrine of the Church concerning itself, the Vatican's Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated, "Clarius dicendum esset veram Ecclesiam esse solam Ecclesiam catholicam romanam..." ("It should be said more clearly that the Roman Catholic Church alone is the true Church..")[3] And it also clarified that the term "subsistit in" used in reference to the Church in the Second Vatican Council's decree Lumen gentium "indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church".

                          One of the earlier councils (the Fourth Lateran Council) declared that: "There is one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation",[4] a statement of what is known as the doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. The Church is further described in the papal encyclical Mystici corporis Christi as the "Mystical Body of Christ".[5]

                          According to the Catechism, the Catholic Church professes to be the "sole Church of Christ", which is described in the Nicene Creed as the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.[6] This teaching was originally formulated at the Council of Nicea (AD 325) at which time the Apostle's Creed (the basis for the Nicene Creed) had been ratified. The church teaches that only the Catholic Church was founded Jesus Christ, who appointed the Twelve Apostles to continue his work as the Church's earliest bishops.[7] Catholic belief holds that the Church "is the continuing presence of Jesus on earth",[8] and that all duly consecrated bishops have a lineal succession from the apostles.[9] In particular, the Bishop of Rome (the Pope), is considered the successor to the apostle Simon Peter, from whom the Pope derives his supremacy over the Church.[10] The Church is further described in the papal encyclical Mystici corporis Christi as the Mystical Body of Christ.[11] Thus, the Catholic Church holds that "the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic ... This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.

                          © Copyright Original Source




                          Believing that a religion offers a greater more universal view of Revelation, Creation, and Salvation is not denigrating other religions. Your in a glass house throwing stones in a church that claims the exclusive view of Salvation. Your denigrating by interpreting arguing for another belief as denigrating others when it is obvious that all who argue for their belief consider it the best choice over others, and of course give their reason for the choice. This type of argument dodges the real issues of comparing different religious choices.

                          You missed the point. The witness of reality is that religion does evolves through Revelation/Creation, and not clinging to ancient paradigms, or forming different churches because a group does not agree. The other problem you are ignoring is the reality that the Roman church will not change their basic doctrines and dogmas.

                          The Bahá'u'lláh himself would not accept your tactics offered in support of the Bahá'u'lláh.
                          Please document this assertion and site Baha'i scripture.
                          Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-16-2015, 08:20 AM.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by siam View Post
                            Human beings are very creative and our "traditions" are a testament to the different ways and answers we humans have come up with --- about life, creation, purpose and such. It would be sad indeed if we abandoned this diversity and creativity for what some scholars call a "monoculture".

                            ...on the other hand...the spreading of this "monoculture" (at gunpoint) is, in some ways, what the "Modern Project" has been all about. In many places, "Modernity"---both good and bad aspects---both political and economic---has been imposed on the rest of the world. When the colonialists wanted to spread (so called) "Free-trade"---they brought their guns and ships to do so....Secularization marginalized the ethical/moral discourse inherent in religions so that laws were no longer restricted by the constraints of ethics/morality---leading to the rampant greed, exploitation, corruption, and disparities of wealth we see today....
                            The Baha'i Faith endorses diversity, and not the monoculture, nor absolute exclusiveness claimed by the individual ancient religions.


                            If there is to be a vision for the "Post-Modern" future---it may be as Professor Ramon Grosfuguel calls "Pluriversal"---in which a diversity of paradigms are given equal respect, equal voice, and together, we all build a global society based on a recognition of the Unity of humanity and the diversity of values and principles........
                            This is essentially the foundation belief of the Baha'i Faith.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              The concept that a new religion is superior to ancient paradigm through a new Revelation is nothing new to the Baha'i Faith.
                              I did not claim that it was; in fact, I claimed the opposite!

                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              It is the claim of Christianity.
                              It is the claim of most Christians, but not all Christian theologians, some of whom approach the question of revelation much differently than you.

                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              You actually did not answer the question. Given that there are at least several hundred outdated paradigms, based one what criteria would you pick one that would be in any way true over the others?
                              Correct, I do not answer that question because I believe that question itself presumes an outdated paradigm and overly facile fundamental theology of revelation.

                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              Maybe just staying in the ancient paradigm you were born with?
                              If that were the case, I would not have studied theology for so many years.

                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_true_church



                              I do not denigrate other religions near the level your chosen Roman Church does, since the Roman Church considers itself the 'Only way of Salvation,' and all others are condemned except for a few other churches and the possible salvation by unique circumstances.

                              In responding to some questions regarding the doctrine of the Church concerning itself, the Vatican's Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated, "Clarius dicendum esset veram Ecclesiam esse solam Ecclesiam catholicam romanam..." ("It should be said more clearly that the Roman Catholic Church alone is the true Church..")[3] And it also clarified that the term "subsistit in" used in reference to the Church in the Second Vatican Council's decree Lumen gentium "indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church".

                              One of the earlier councils (the Fourth Lateran Council) declared that: "There is one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation",[4] a statement of what is known as the doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. The Church is further described in the papal encyclical Mystici corporis Christi as the "Mystical Body of Christ".[5]

                              According to the Catechism, the Catholic Church professes to be the "sole Church of Christ", which is described in the Nicene Creed as the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.[6] This teaching was originally formulated at the Council of Nicea (AD 325) at which time the Apostle's Creed (the basis for the Nicene Creed) had been ratified. The church teaches that only the Catholic Church was founded Jesus Christ, who appointed the Twelve Apostles to continue his work as the Church's earliest bishops.[7] Catholic belief holds that the Church "is the continuing presence of Jesus on earth",[8] and that all duly consecrated bishops have a lineal succession from the apostles.[9] In particular, the Bishop of Rome (the Pope), is considered the successor to the apostle Simon Peter, from whom the Pope derives his supremacy over the Church.[10] The Church is further described in the papal encyclical Mystici corporis Christi as the Mystical Body of Christ.[11] Thus, the Catholic Church holds that "the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic ... This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.

                              © Copyright Original Source



                              Believing that a religion offers a greater more universal view of Revelation, Creation, and Salvation is not denigrating other religions.
                              No, of course not. But you do constantly denigrate other religions and fail to apply critical reflection upon your own religious beliefs.

                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              Your in a glass house throwing stones in a church that claims the exclusive view of Salvation. Your denigrating by interpreting arguing for another belief as denigrating others when it is obvious that all who argue for their belief consider it the best choice over others, and of course give their reason for the choice. This type of argument dodges the real issues of comparing different religious choices.
                              You have completely misstated my 'argument'. I have never said that 'arguing for a belief considered the best choice over others' is denigrating other beliefs. That is merely a strawman of yours. Your denigration of others' beliefs is seen in other specific behavior of yours.

                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              You missed the point. The witness of reality is that religion does evolves through Revelation/Creation, and not clinging to ancient paradigms, or forming different churches because a group does not agree. The other problem you are ignoring is the reality that the Roman church will not change their basic doctrines and dogmas.
                              I do not miss this point. I agree that religions do evolve, as I stated above, and I have never ignored the reality of entrenched theological opinion within the Roman Catholic Church, quite the contrary, and I have in fact embraced many evolutions of Roman Catholic and other theologies.

                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              Please document this assertion and site Baha'i scripture.
                              No need to cite scripture here; I'm just giving the Bahá'u'lláh the benefit of the doubt.
                              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                                I did not claim that it was; in fact, I claimed the opposite!
                                What you claim has little meaning. It is the claim of the Christianity.

                                It is the claim of most Christians, but not all Christian theologians, some of whom approach the question of revelation much differently than you.
                                'Some' does not make your case convincing. 'Some' can believe anything across a broad vague set of beliefs. This response is too vague to be real.

                                Correct, I do not answer that question because I believe that question itself presumes an outdated paradigm and overly facile fundamental theology of revelation.
                                Question remains unanswered. Your standard Duck, Bob and Weave interrupting a thread with OFF TOPIC denigrating posts.

                                If that were the case, I would not have studied theology for so many years.
                                Studying other theologies does not make your case. That is a two dimensional scape goat.

                                No, of course not. But you do constantly denigrate other religions and fail to apply critical reflection upon your own religious beliefs.
                                Read the appropriate thread, and you will find this blatantly false instead of denigrating nonsense OFF TOPIC.

                                You have completely misstated my 'argument'. I have never said that 'arguing for a belief considered the best choice over others' is denigrating other beliefs. That is merely a strawman of yours. Your denigration of others' beliefs is seen in other specific behavior of yours.
                                Your strawman and unsupported accusations to avoid addressing the issues at hand, and changing the subject of threads with your denigrating unsupported accusations.

                                I do not miss this point. I agree that religions do evolve, as I stated above, and I have never ignored the reality of entrenched theological opinion within the Roman Catholic Church, quite the contrary, and I have in fact embraced many evolutions of Roman Catholic and other theologies.
                                The problem is 'not much' in the evolution of the Roman Church. Essentially no change.

                                No need to cite scripture here; I'm just giving the Bahá'u'lláh the benefit of the doubt.
                                PUT UP OR SHUT UP. You made the denigrating accusation back it up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                THIS IS MY THREAD> STOP DENIGRATING WITH OFF TOPIC ISSUES OR GET OUT!!!!!!

                                There is an appropriate thread in Comparative Religions for this not here!!
                                Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-16-2015, 08:36 AM.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

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