Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, baqar said:

As for the weight of testimony being half, it only applies to financial transactions (Q. 2:282).

In all other cases, the words used by the Qur’an are non-gender-specific. There does not seem to be much of a reason to infer an inferior status for women. 

And as I told you earlier, non-Muslim scholars have applauded the Prophet's attitude to women.

 

And as I told you earlier, I am aware Muhammed was a progressive man that improved condition in his society. Arab civilisation was very succsessful many centuries to come after Muhammed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, andres said:

As I said: It may fit in a Taleban society, but in a modern society it would be, and is, a waste of talent. Girls have no less intellectual capacity than boys. The comparison with speed limits is more than stupid.

and yet we find that girls get paid 5% - 30% less than men in a modern society so I guess the modern society does believe that girls have less intellectual capacity than boys. Why else would they be paid less?

Islam and I dont believe this at all of course

I can cite a hundred examples of setting up 'arbitrary' rules and because you wont have responses to them, you will classify them as 'stupid'.

11 hours ago, andres said:

Probably those inheritance laws functioned well in the 7th century. However they do not function in a society where women are emancipated. If that is OK with the Quran, I have no reason to criticise the Quran.

Sure they do. They function just as well today as they did back then if the absence of a Will. You look at them in isolation, I look at it as all encompassing.

11 hours ago, andres said:

I do focus on the old laws in this discussion. In my opinion, the tradition of regarding Quranic laws as everlasting, is one of many reasons for the political mess in the Muslim world. As it also has been in the Christian not that long ago. If you feel that questioning these old laws is trying to get away from the discussion, you are misunderstanding my intention. I really only wish to make you come to common sense.

Lol. For some who lacks the basic understanding of Islam and Quran, are you qualified to have any opinions? I have a lot of opinions on the Theory of Relativity even though I am not a physicist. That makes my opinions irrelevant or stupid. Just saying...

2 hours ago, iCambrian said:

I think the Key is that you arent necessarily obligated to follow mosaic laws, as they are not a prerequisit for salvation. Its a two part discussion. You may follow the laws of old if you do so in the correct way and glorify God with them. But people, for example the gentiles, were not to be forced to have their privates circumcised, as this wasnt considered an obligation for salvation since belief in Christ and his final covenant is what provides salvation. And considering that it wasnt a practice of the gentiles, it would be conflicting in nature to obligate them to circumcise their genital parts to get to heaven. In this age, people would look at you like you have 6 heads if you told them a piece of skin on their genitals was the difference between salvation and eternal hell.

This is what I am trying to reconcile. Jesus clearly says in Matthew 5:17 that anyone against following the laws is "considered least in the Kingdom of God". Furthermore:

"

Another important writer who rejected any break between Jesus and Moses was St. Augustine who outlines his view in his Reply to Faustus, a Manichaeist. Augustine outlined six different ways in which Jesus fulfilled the law:

Jesus personally obeyed the law
He fulfilled the messianic predictions
He empowered his people to obey it
He brought out its true meaning
He explained the true meaning behind the rituals and ceremonies
He gave additional commands that furthered the intentions of the Law.

"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To reconcile the two, you look at what is applicable to you, and how you glorify God. Examine areas where such practices may cause strife and remove them. The rest, you carry out in your own free will. Examples of opposition to the law would include taking a position in which you would be enslaved by your practices, in forgetting that you have already been saved. That or perhaps your practices would be causing strife. You dont want to be in a position where you feel as though you are constantly failing in practice and in such, will be sent to hell. And all man is sinful, we fail in practice all the time. Its just a matter of mentality, do you feel as though God dislikes or looks down upon you when you fail? That would be enslavement to practice. But if you fail, but then recognize Gods love and grace, you may stand back up and continue trying, knowing that you will be saved, even in your sinful existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, iCambrian said:

To reconcile the two, you look at what is applicable to you, and how you glorify God. Examine areas where such practices may cause strife and remove them. The rest, you carry out in your own free will. Examples of opposition to the law would include taking a position in which you would be enslaved by your practices, in forgetting that you have already been saved. That or perhaps your practices would be causing strife. You dont want to be in a position where you feel as though you are constantly failing in practice and in such, will be sent to hell. And all man is sinful, we fail in practice all the time. Its just a matter of mentality, do you feel as though God dislikes or looks down upon you when you fail? That would be enslavement to practice. But if you fail, but then recognize Gods love and grace, you may stand back up and continue trying, knowing that you will be saved, even in your sinful existence.

so I can choose which divine laws to follow?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, shiaman14 said:

so I can choose which divine laws to follow?

Ideally you want to do what you can to worship God in a way you're accustomed to, but you are not obligated to say...circumcise your private parts, for salvation. If you feel in your heart that you are comfortable with a particular law, you are free to carry it out. If something is holding you back, it may be a sin depending on the circumstances, but it would not necessarily prevent your ultimate salvation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, iCambrian said:

Ideally you want to do what you can to worship God in a way you're accustomed to, but you are not obligated to say...circumcise your private parts, for salvation. If you feel in your heart that you are comfortable with a particular law, you are free to carry it out. If something is holding you back, it may be a sin depending on the circumstances, but it would not necessarily prevent your ultimate salvation.

Brother - you are clearly telling me I do not have to uphold the law if I am not comfortable with it and yet Jesus in New testament very clearly says, "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

There is not a shred of evidence in the 4 Gospels where Jesus says it is okay to only follow those laws one is comfortable with. He may have corrected the ways to obey laws but he certainly did not make any of it optional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, shiaman14 said:

Brother - you are clearly telling me I do not have to uphold the law if I am not comfortable with it and yet Jesus in New testament very clearly says, "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

There is not a shred of evidence in the 4 Gospels where Jesus says it is okay to only follow those laws one is comfortable with. He may have corrected the ways to obey laws but he certainly did not make any of it optional.

You should be careful not to slip into a world of scriptural literalism. Not that some Christians here would not be happy to respond to this in a literal way,  but personally i dont really view the world in a way in which...i seek evidence to justify religious beliefs. Ultimately, faith itself isnt an evidence based thing. You choose how you view material, and you try to operate with it the best you can in a way which you feel is right. But you shouldnt be trapped or hardlined, by scriptural material.  Hope that makes sense. And you shouldnt be in a position where, you are broken by ideas that do not appear to align (otherwise you might never find peace).

You take an aggressive tone about words written 2000+ years ago, in a book made of several miniature books written often by authors of unknown origin. I would loosen up. Just my opinion, you dont have to agree.
 

And I dont think any religion is really immune to...this form of critique. I think if you take an aggressive tone toward Islam, you might find yourself in the same position of questioning scripture. But only if you view scripture in a way in which you believe it ought to be flawless and that you ought to be able to understand every aspect, every idea and hidden meaning behind every word etc. I say this to other Christians who try to take aggressive views toward other scriptures like the Quran as well. Just need to take some perspective into account when considering what we are discussing.

 

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

Sure they do. They function just as well today as they did back then if the absence of a Will. You look at them in isolation, I look at it as all encompassing.

So where would you say that Islamic law, anno 7th century functions today? And is that a comparatively successful nation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, andres said:

So where would you say that Islamic law, anno 7th century functions today? And is that a comparatively successful nation?

The Islamic laws are applicable at the individual level...at least in the cases I mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

The Islamic laws are applicable at the individual level...at least in the cases I mentioned.

Of course Muslims can practise their religion in most nations.

But punishments like whipping, cutting off hands for sexual "crimes" and theft, are not possible in nations with developed human rights. These Quranic laws, are indeed outdated. As is the gender tradition from Muhammeds time. Man and wife in developed nations have no longer the roles as they had in 7th century Mekka. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, andres said:

Of course Muslims can practise their religion in most nations.

But punishments like whipping, cutting off hands for sexual "crimes" and theft, are not possible in nations with developed human rights. These Quranic laws, are indeed outdated. As is the gender tradition from Muhammeds time. Man and wife in developed nations have no longer the roles as they had in 7th century Mekka. 

Singapore canes people for chewing gum - by all accounts they are a developed nation.

Each country has the right to their own set of rules and they can base it on any set of principles they desire.

If you consider Biblical Laws to be divine, only a divine Messenger can override, abrogate or rescind those laws. Not you and I.

If you insisting that we can decide which laws to follow and which ones to ignore, what is the criteria to make this decision other than daily whims?

One of the 10 commandments is "Thou Shall Not Commit Adultery". Can I say that is such outdated thinking and start swinging?

Essentially what you are saying is that Christians are free to do as they please but remember to love Jesus. Am I wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, shiaman14 said:

Singapore canes people for chewing gum - by all accounts they are a developed nation.

Each country has the right to their own set of rules and they can base it on any set of principles they desire.

If you consider Biblical Laws to be divine, only a divine Messenger can override, abrogate or rescind those laws. Not you and I.

If you insisting that we can decide which laws to follow and which ones to ignore, what is the criteria to make this decision other than daily whims?

One of the 10 commandments is "Thou Shall Not Commit Adultery". Can I say that is such outdated thinking and start swinging?

Essentially what you are saying is that Christians are free to do as they please but remember to love Jesus. Am I wrong?

Regarding Galatians again, forms of adultery would be counter productive to serving one another.

Some laws like circumcising your private parts, you can choose to either do or not do, and you wont necessarily harm others or yourself in making that decision.

While other laws that relate to things like murdering your neighbor, of course would be counter productive.

And i dont think Jesus would send people to hell for not circumcising their privates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, iCambrian said:

Regarding Galatians again, forms of adultery would be counter productive to serving one another.

Some laws like circumcising your private parts, you can choose to either do or not do, and you wont necessarily harm others or yourself in making that decision.

While other laws that relate to things like murdering your neighbor, of course would be counter productive.

And i dont think Jesus would send people to hell for not circumcising their privates.

That is my confusion and contention brother. Who decides what laws can be followed and what laws should not be followed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, shiaman14 said:

That is my confusion and contention brother. Who decides what laws can be followed and what laws should not be followed?

 

Ultimately, you are responsible for your own life and for choosing the laws that you wish to follow or not. The decisions you make will be centered around your interpretations, ideas, beliefs etc.

I made a post in another topic just recently, i think in the interfaith area. And, basically i noted that, even the brightest of people out here, whether well versed in philosophy or sciences, even the brightest are highly limited in understanding of God. Of course people often will not admit to this though. But this is why these debates and why this conflict exists throughout the ages. And not just between Islam and Christianity, but internally in Christianity and internally in Islam as well. The disputes are not resolved because they arent grounded in objective material that would allow them to be resolved.

So, armed with akhlaq and scripture, really our best bet is to continue studies, and do the best we can to follow what we believe is that utmost truth. But also understand the underlying ignorance of mankind, something that nobody is really immune to or outside of. And as Paul described, you dont want to put yourself in a position where you are trying to denounce anothers practices based on something that we collectively do not understand. And really, even laws that are claimed to be Gods laws, are first and foremost, subject to our own flawed minds and interpretation. We are effectively deciding the laws that we follow, under the guise that they are indeed Gods laws (despite peoples subjective beliefs to the contrary).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, iCambrian said:

 

Ultimately, you are responsible for your own life and for choosing the laws that you wish to follow or not. The decisions you make will be centered around your interpretations, ideas, beliefs etc.

I made a post in another topic just recently, i think in the interfaith area. And, basically i noted that, even the brightest of people out here, whether well versed in philosophy or sciences, even the brightest are highly limited in understanding of God. Of course people often will not admit to this though. But this is why these debates and why this conflict exists throughout the ages. And not just between Islam and Christianity, but internally in Christianity and internally in Islam as well. The disputes are not resolved because they arent grounded in objective material that would allow them to be resolved.

So, armed with akhlaq and scripture, really our best bet is to continue studies, and do the best we can to follow what we believe is that utmost truth. But also understand the underlying ignorance of mankind, something that nobody is really immune to or outside of. And as Paul described, you dont want to put yourself in a position where you are trying to denounce anothers practices based on something that we collectively do not understand. And really, even laws that are claimed to be Gods laws, are first and foremost, subject to our own flawed minds and interpretation. We are effectively deciding the laws that we follow, under the guise that they are indeed Gods laws (despite peoples subjective beliefs to the contrary).

So then this would lead to another discussion - Does God send His Message according to His intellect or suitable for our Intellect?

If God's Message is per His intellect, then I choose not to accept such a God.
If God's Message caters to human intellect, then I would accept such a message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, shiaman14 said:

So then this would lead to another discussion - Does God send His Message according to His intellect or suitable for our Intellect?

If God's Message is per His intellect, then I choose not to accept such a God.
If God's Message caters to human intellect, then I would accept such a message.

Yup, it will take you into a rabbit  hole that some people aren't interested in experiencing.

There are a lot of questions that could be raised, even in distinguishing between His intellect and our own. I will use Isis as my example here. Many people, if not all people, are incapable of distinguishing between Gods intellect and our own will. Because to understand Gods will, we are dependent upon scripture, which alone is, in the most literal sense, words on paper. The rest is in our minds, in our interpretations, ideas, thoughts, context of literature, perspectives and biases. People of Isis might believe in their hearts 100% that what they are doing, is acceptable by God. This only occurs out of a lack of an objective form of understanding of Gods word.

Before even asking a question of how God would send a message, we would not be able to make it far enough to even distinguish that message from a human message at the start. Not in a way that we could all agree on. Let alone could we then establish how it would be sent.

The question itself is broken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, iCambrian said:

Yup, it will take you into a rabbit  hole that some people aren't interested in experiencing.

There are a lot of questions that could be raised, even in distinguishing between His intellect and our own. I will use Isis as my example here. Many people, if not all people, are incapable of distinguishing between Gods intellect and our own will. Because to understand Gods will, we are dependent upon scripture, which alone is, in the most literal sense, words on paper. The rest is in our minds, in our interpretations, ideas, thoughts, context of literature, perspectives and biases. People of Isis might believe in their hearts 100% that what they are doing, is acceptable by God. This only occurs out of a lack of an objective form of understanding of Gods word.

Before even asking a question of how God would send a message, we would not be able to make it far enough to even distinguish that message from a human message at the start. Not in a way that we could all agree on. Let alone could we then establish how it would be sent.

The question itself is broken.

Peace and greetings brother,

I would actually say the opposite. Many people, if not all people are incapable of distinguishing between God's Will and our own intellect.

Your ISIS example is quite apropos. At the same time, if the Quran or any divine scripture produces Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi and Sistani, then the problem is not the message but the person ie his intellect. God's Will stays the same.

I also agree with you that "scripture, which alone is, in the most literal sense, words on paper" but we have the advantage of using the Prophet and our Imams as divine guidance which converts words on paper into a practical way of life....which is why you don't see Shia terrorism.

I will ask you the same question I asked @andres, "Essentially what you are saying is that Christians are free to do as they please but remember to love Jesus. Am I wrong?"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, shiaman14 said:

Peace and greetings brother,

I would actually say the opposite. Many people, if not all people are incapable of distinguishing between God's Will and our own intellect.

Your ISIS example is quite apropos. At the same time, if the Quran or any divine scripture produces Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi and Sistani, then the problem is not the message but the person ie his intellect. God's Will stays the same.

I also agree with you that "scripture, which alone is, in the most literal sense, words on paper" but we have the advantage of using the Prophet and our Imams as divine guidance which converts words on paper into a practical way of life....which is why you don't see Shia terrorism.

I will ask you the same question I asked @andres, "Essentially what you are saying is that Christians are free to do as they please but remember to love Jesus. Am I wrong?"

 

Not sure what I typed, but thats what I am saying, people cannot distinguish between Gods will and our own.

And while you say that there is an advantage behind the words, we are ultimately still left, in the end, with just words. Words easily manipulated by the minds of mankind

In the end, it comes down to you and your personal interpretation and view. And all people are free to do as they please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, iCambrian said:

In the end, it comes down to you and your personal interpretation and view. And all people are free to do as they please.

Sure!

But I think Shiaman14 is trying to find out whether Christians believe that all restrictions and commandments should be taken seriously or only some.

Sure enough, some things may be more important than others but shouldn't all rules and regulations be taken seriously rather than just the ones that are more important or the ones that we find convenient,

I think that is what he is trying to find out in the Christian context.

In Islam, the commonly accepted view is that every command is important, regardless whether it is more important or less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/4/2017 at 10:56 PM, shiaman14 said:

But doesn't being under any law negate the whole "Grace" belief?

It doesn't negate it.  But it is interesting that you think it does negate it.  It says something about your understanding of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, iCambrian said:

In the end, it comes down to you and your personal interpretation and view. And all people are free to do as they please.

Absolutely right, what you say has a name:

Confirmation bias: the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, baqar said:

Sure!

But I think Shiaman14 is trying to find out whether Christians believe that all restrictions and commandments should be taken seriously or only some.

Sure enough, some things may be more important than others but shouldn't all rules and regulations be taken seriously rather than just the ones that are more important or the ones that we find convenient,

I think that is what he is trying to find out in the Christian context.

In Islam, the commonly accepted view is that every command is important, regardless whether it is more important or less.

This would probably change based on the community.  Over the past 2000 years, as we all know, there have been many different denominations of Christianity. Often there would be even geographical differences. Like those of the eastern and western roman empire, Christians like St. Patrick and his movement, old monks of Syria, gnostics and what not.

Just my personal opinion, there are old laws related to circumcision and animal sacrifice. I personally dont think these things among other oddities, are things that God would use to determine who gets into heaven or hell. I just cant see an almighty being, being concerned about my private parts and animal sacrifice.

So, different communities are going to interpret or perceive things differently. Ultimately though, as I said to shiaman, these a re words written by people from over 1500-2000 years ago. Their thoughts, experiences, ideas, beliefs and mindsets were probably much different than what we typically have today. And often the origins of scripture is unknown. If you really want to get specific, scripture isnt like a book you pick up in the library, where you can just google the author and watch a youtube interview "the making of" for you book. You have documents sometimes collected or written by unknown authors. Yes, there is claim that these documents were all written by the apostles or all written by prophets of old, but the truth is we dont really know. And it came down to people, deciding what literature went into our scriptures, whether it was the old church fathers or abu bakr. And often even the details that went into that compilation, are obscured by time. There is no recording of the Nicene Creed to see what people were talking about and how all the varying decisions were made. And few records exist to understand it. Just a typical, "well God wrote it and thats that".

 

So, the point im trying to make is, people ought to be more careful with how hard lined of an approach they take toward scripture. Its good to want to be lawful, and good to want to be good, in Gods eyes.  But we dont want to overstep our boundaries, building 100% of our personalities, around concepts that we really do not have knowledge about. And Islam is not immune to this, I think if people asked themselve some hard questions, they might find themselves in the same position.

Anyway, just my take. So is it important to uphold all the OT laws and commandments? Well, yes, but we do so through our own perspective on how God has produced this literature, and that perspective can change worldwide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Quisant said:

Absolutely right, what you say has a name:

Confirmation bias: the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

*

I like to describe it as this...

So, lets say you have a rock. The rock has a certain hardness, a certain color, taste (maybe salty), grittyness, a certain smell (maybe like rotten eggs). It is silent.

This kind of a rock, over 2000 years will remain as it is. It wont somehow become softer than a pillow, it wont change colors. It will just remain as it is. And this allows us to understand a rock.

With scripture, there is nothing to grasp and to hold and work with. It is 100% in the mind. Only words remain over time that in some vague ways, keep people aligned. And i think people forget the power of the human mind, people forget what we are capable of. And 2000 years of war and peace, society and cultural changes, changes in world views and science and philosophy. And no religion is immune to differentiating perspectives and ideas and beliefs. Hence why we have the number of sects and disputes that we do.

Yet people tend to throw it all on the back-burner and will claim that they have it all figured out and that it is simple and somehow they have known or understood all of it by the time they turned 20 years old. As if anyone could be so right, when they are at an age where they havent even learned how to live outside of their parents house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/24/2017 at 9:44 AM, shiaman14 said:

Essentially what you are saying is that Christians are free to do as they please but remember to love Jesus. Am I wrong?

Every time I see this I cringe because I know these people. They wear a gem studded cross, the size of their fist and say "Jesus saves, man!" Possibly all they care to know.

God gave the laws to Abraham in the form of a covenant between the two of them for Abraham's offspring to follow, which firstly included circumcision.

What God did not say...You are going to spend 40 years in a desert. You won't be washing much. The most sensitive and infectious part of your body would be best exposed to save your people from...want a list? 

Jesus shows up in Jerusalem centuries later where everybody has access to water and no reason not to wash. The tradition continues while the need is no longer there. Some try to spin it as a sacrifice where sex is diminished for a proper walk with God. It hasn't stopped babies from being born nor curbed sexual offences, so outside of a health requirement what purpose does it serve? 

If you are born into the belief that it's a requirement, you will question those who don't. If you are born in an environment where it is not a religious requirement, you would wonder why anyone would. For the most part, you are not circumcised because you reached an age of maturity and it became a conviction you chose to follow. 8 days old is a little early to be making the decision yourself, it's made for you. How can your entrance to heaven be based on that?

If it happened that an old law was unearthed that said, if you really want to be pious, you have to cut off another inch at age 20. How many would look forward?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×