The Reason Files
  • Home
  • About
  • The Gospel
    • The Gospel Blog
  • Blog
    • Christian Persecution in America
  • Encyclopedia
  • Extras!
    • Free Downloads
    • Meme Gallery >
      • Meme Gallery Page 2
      • Meme Gallery Page 3
    • Links

Do Muslims Reject Radical Islam?

2/7/2015

 
Picture

Picture
According to a CNN report, as blogged on Wintery Knight, President Obama claims “99.9% of Muslims worldwide reject radical Islam, is he right?”

I posted this article on Facebook as I found the article interesting. One commenter said, “No, he is wrong about this, just as he is wrong about everything” and this started the ball rolling. The remainder of the comments were between myself and “Mike.” I believe our conversation illustrates the differences in opinion between liberals and others, and also shows that people from both sides of the political aisle can debate in a respectful manner. A simple exchange of ideas without ad hominem arguments clouding the issue. Here is our conversation, enjoy, and I leave it to you to make up your own mind.

Bob: The article points out that well over half the muslims in the world, and in some cases more than 75%-80%, actually support the actions of so-called "radical" islam. But since he has apparently made it his mission to protect islam even more than protecting America or Israel, I think it is clear to see where his allegiances lay.

Mike: Wrong, I'll go read the article later but Obama is more correct here than those stats in your comment.

Bob: I don't know Mike, I think if there's any hedging on the stats, it will be Obama trying to make Islam look better than it is. Read the article and then we'll talk.

Mike: The article picks and chooses parts of the study to twist it to their chosen narrative. Obama isn't a "closet muslim", the only way people would believe that is by either believing falsehoods or twisting of the truth like the link shared. He doesn't have a mission to protect Islam, although I do believe that his plan to combat terrorism is to insure that rather than the entire Islam world be against the US, that they see the US as, if not a friend, at least not an enemy. That is one less recruitment strategy for the terrorists to use.

We must remember, Islamic does not equal terrorist. Too many American's conflate the two. Islam is going through a tough period right now, and is attacked from both outside (America, for instance) and inside (radicals). America's best policy (and what I believe Obama is trying to do) is to make sure Islamists know that America recognizes the difference between a person who believes Islam and one who is a radical terrorist.

Bob: Out of curiosity, what exactly is the difference between a person who believes Islam and one who is a radical terrorist?

Mike: As for the study, here is the link: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-exec/

Some quotes:

At the same time, the survey finds that even in many countries where there is strong backing for sharia, most Muslims favor religious freedom for people of other faiths. ... most supporters of sharia in Pakistan – as in many other countries – think Islamic law should apply only to Muslims.

In most countries surveyed, there is considerably less support for severe punishments, such as cutting off the hands of thieves or executing people who convert from Islam to another faith.

Around the world, most Muslims also reject suicide bombing and other attacks against civilians. (Although there is larger minority who believe it is ok outside the US, where is is less than 1% who believe it is justified)

In most countries where a question about so-called “honor” killings was asked, majorities of Muslims say such killings are never justified.

Bob: This doesn't answer my question.

Mike: The difference is one is a crazy person who happens to use Islam as their justification for performing acts of terror, where a person who believe Islam is just another ordinary person like you or me who believes in a different religion than we do.

That is a question that shouldn't need to be asked...Islam does NOT equal terrorist, period.

Bob: Okay, I see your point. However, when the Koran teaches violence, and Islamic history teaches violence, then what is the difference between the crazy person who picks up the Koran and does what it says and the person who simply "believes" what the Koran says, violence and all?

Mike: That is a question that twists the truth - the vast majority of Islamic believers do NOT just believe what the Koran says, "violence and all", because many of the verses used are actually twisted or taken out of context, similar to how some twist Bible verses to justify their actions.

Try this for some education on Islam:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/violence-islam-diane-sawyer-asks-scholars-passages-koran/story?id=11760637&singlePage=true

or: http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Islam/2002/08/What-The-Quran-Really-Says-About-Violence.aspx
Some quotes from the last link with some versus from the Koran:

...the reason the Qur'an gives for waging war, as a last resort, is for the protection of churches, synagogues, and mosques--so much for Islam's "intolerance."
Further, Muslims are commanded not to be aggressive: "Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors" (2:190) In addition, when the enemy inclines toward peace, Muslims are commanded to cease hostilities: "But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace" (8:61). The guiding principle of Islam with respect to non-Muslims is one of tolerance and mutual respect, plain and simple: "God does not forbid you from dealing kindly and justly with those who do not fight you for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes: for God loveth those who are just." (60:8)

Further belying the accusation of the Qur'an's anti-Judeo-Christian stance is this passage: "Those who believe and those who are Jews, Christians, and Sabeans; any who believe in God and the Last Day and work righteousness shall have their reward with their Lord and on them shall be no fear and they will not grieve" (2:62).
I neither deny nor dismiss the existence of Muslims who use the Qur'an to justify their acts of terrorism and murder. These Muslims, like Islam's conservative critics, also misquote or quote the Qur'an out of context.

Bob: Your response raises a couple of important issues, not the least of which is your statement regarding my question, where you say my question twists the truth. The fact is, it does not. Please allow me to explain. You say “the vast majority of Islamic believers do NOT just believe what the Koran says, "violence and all", because many of the verses used are actually twisted or taken out of context, similar to how some twist Bible verses to justify their actions.” First let me answer your charge that some twist Bible verses to justify their actions. The fact of the matter is, some do. In fact, there are large periods of history where huge numbers of people twisted Scripture to justify their actions. The Spanish Inquisition, the Catholic Church's persecution of the Reformers, and the Crusades immediately come to mind, not to mention modern groups such as the Westboro Baptist Church, and there are many other throughout history. The relevant question here, however, is are these people Christians? True, they claimed to be, and they quoted/quote the Bible, and they go to church, but were/are they really Christians?

2 Timothy 3:16 says that the Scripture – the Bible – is “God breathed.” It is, in it's entirety, the Word of God Almighty, and as a Christian I take it as such. Scripture also says, repeatedly throughout 1 John, that if anyone professes to be a Christian, and yet hates his (or her) brother (or sister), then they are a liar, and they are not a true Christian. The Bible also says, again in 1 John, that if someone professes to be a Christian and yet lives a life patterned by continual and consistent sin, then they are not a true Christian. Since God Himself is saying this, there is no doubt that those who take Scripture out of context in order to justify their sin, in order to justify their hate, in order to justify the murder of others are quite simply not Christians. That is per God, and not me. And this brings me to my second point with regard to your response, and that is, are those who profess to be Muslim, and yet use the Koran to justify their violence toward others, are they true Muslims and are they taking Koranic passages out of context?

To support your claim that these “radicals' are misquoting the Koran or taking Koranic passages out of context, you quote from the BeliefNet link you provided: “...the reason the Qur'an gives for waging war, as a last resort, is for the protection of churches, synagogues, and mosques--so much for Islam's "intolerance." Further, Muslims are commanded not to be aggressive: "Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors" (2:190) In addition, when the enemy inclines toward peace, Muslims are commanded to cease hostilities: "But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace" (8:61). The guiding principle of Islam with respect to non-Muslims is one of tolerance and mutual respect, plain and simple: "God does not forbid you from dealing kindly and justly with those who do not fight you for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes: for God loveth those who are just." (60:8)

What your linked articles fail to mention is the Koranic rule of abrogation. Simply put, the surahs in the Koran are not listed in chronological order. Instead, they are listed by longest to shortest, and so they (the surahs) are mixed up with relation as to which were given first and which last. This is important because the rule of abrogation states that when two surahs contradict one another, the more recent surah supersedes the older surah. The peaceful surahs quoted in your link, surahs 2, 8, and 60, were actually the 87th, 88th, and 91st surahs, respectively, revealed by Mohammed. The last three surahs to be revealed by Mohammed, in other words the last three written and the most recent, are surahs 5, 9, and 110. Therefore, any passages in these later surahs that contradict the “peaceful” passages written earlier, automatically supersede the earlier passages. As you might guess, surahs 5 and 9 contain the most violent passages in the Koran, and by the rule of abrogation they supersede the peaceful passages you quote. For example:

Surah 5:33
Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,

Surah 9:5
And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists [Christians because they believe in the Trinity] wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. (bold emphasis mine).

Surah 9:29
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

Surah 9:123
O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness. And know that Allah is with the righteous.

So in reality, those Muslims who adhere to these violent surahs are not twisting or misquoting anything in the Koran. They are simply following the Koran as the Koran teaches them to do. This is why it is not simply ISIS or Al Shabaab or Al Qaeda or Boko Haram or Hamas or ect that engage in these violent and vile actions, but also the political and religious leaders of Iran, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Qatar, The United Arab Emirates and more. Are you saying that the Saudi Royal Family are radical fundamentalists? Islamic terrorists? They abide by the same law that ISIS claims. They behead people, stone women for adultery and if they are rape victims, they hang homosexuals, etc.

I would posit that those whom you claim are “peaceful” Muslims, or “moderate” Muslims who do not adhere to the violent surahs in the Koran, are not actually true Muslims any more than those who claim to be Christian (yet take violent passages from Scripture, passages from the old law that no longer apply, and use them to justify their violent actions) are actually true Christians. And when you add up the number of true Koran believing Muslims in the world, and compare them to those who profess to Muslim but do not follow the Koran and the Hadith as they are required by Islam, you will find that the violent Muslims far outweigh the peaceful “Muslims.”


Mike: Interesting reading, and I enjoyed the following research But again, I believe that the verses quoted there are out of context or misinterpreted in your comment. Just as those who profess to be Christian but don't actually follow the Bible's commands shouldn't be used to judge Christianity, likewise those who profess to be Muslim but don't follow the Koran's teachings should not be used to judge Islam. I reject (due to my research) the claim that those practicing violence are following the Koran's teachings. I should note up front that I have my own issues with religion, including both Islam and Christianity, so I'm not in any way trying to promote Islam here, just defend it against unfounded allegations.

There is also some misunderstanding of abrogation either by you or your sources. There is way more involved with that topic than just "latest wins". Context, how specific the passage is and what the rest of the Koran says is ALL taken into account. In some cases the passage is specifically for those living in the time it was written and the historical context must be examined.

I also firmly reject the conclusion where you posit that violent Muslims far outweigh the peaceful ones - there are 2.2B Muslims, and it's a small percentage that are violent. More than we, or even the Muslim community, care for, but not anywhere near a majority.

Comments on the versus you listed (various sources, most of them from Muslim scholars, both from the West and from the Muslim world)

5:33 - One cannot quote verse 5:33 without quoting verse 5:32 (prohibition of murder) and verse 5:34 (command to forgive). ... This is punishment for WAGING WAR against the Prophet of God and spreading evil and destruction. ... It is ironic that Islam-haters will present this verse to justify their claim that Islam supports terrorism, whereas Muslim scholars have always presented this verse as proof that Islam is vehemently opposed to terrorism.

9:5 - this verse once again refers to those pagans who would continue to fight after the period of peace. It clearly commands the Muslims to protect those who seek peace and are non-combatants. It is a specific verse with a specific ruling and can in no way be applied to general situations. ... this verse refers to those pagans who would continue to fight after the period of peace. It clearly commands the Muslims to protect those who seek peace and are non-combatants. It is a specific verse with a specific ruling and can in no way be applied to general situations. ... It has been claimed by some that this verse 9:5 has abrogated all the peaceful verses in the Qur’an ... verse 9:5 can in no way be considered an example of naskh since it is only a ruling applied to a very specific situation and circumstances.

9:29 - context must be understood when reading verse 9:29 so that we clearly know who should be fought, specifically the aggressors among the Jews and Christians and not all of them. Rather, many other verses of the Quran make clear that it is unlawful to initiate hostilities against other nations. ... all of its [Koran's] statements and ordinances are mutually complementary and cannot, therefore, be correctly understood unless they are considered as parts of one integral whole, this verse 9:29 too must be read in the context of the clear-cut Quranic rule that war is permitted only in self-defense.

9:123 - if we read this verse along with the succeeding passage, it becomes clear that here disbelievers who are near you refers to those hypocrites who were doing great harm to the Islamic society by mixing up with the sincere Muslims

I have open eyes, I know that those recruiting for terrorism will use these verses and others to try to twist impressionable minds to unspeakable acts. We need to should the greater Muslim community that rejects violence that we do not lump them in with those that pervert the teachings of the Koran.

Bob: I don't think my research sources are incorrect in their explanation of abrogation, since they are Muslim sources. Nor do I think I am misunderstanding the explanation they are putting forth since their explanations are pretty straightforward and clear. This, of course, makes me wonder why your Islamic sources and my Islamic sources are saying two different things. Since I readily admit that my knowledge of Islam is limited, and I rely on the Koran and what Muslims say about their religion to form my opinions, this lead me to research, one: what does it take to become a Muslim, and two: what are the Islamic views of salvation and apostasy.

According to the Islamic sources I read, it is relatively simple to become a Muslim. All one must do is recite the “Shahada,” the “testimony of faith,” with conviction and faith, and one is then a Muslim. It also doesn't matter which sect of Islam you chose to belong to, whether Sunni, Shia, Sufi, Wahhabi, Ahmadiyya, Ibadi, Hanbali, Ismali, Deobandi, etc. It simply does not matter. Say the sentence with conviction and faith, that Allah is the only true diety and Mohammed is Allah's prophet, and you're a Muslim. Interestingly, from the Islamic sources I've read, being a Muslim does not necessarily mean one will enter Paradise, because the Islamic god, Allah, does not guarantee his followers entrance into Paradise. He (Allah) bases his decision on who enters and who does not on if he (Allah) feels the individual Muslim has performed enough Koran based works, performed them to his satisfaction, and then after all is said and done, if Allah feels like it. Entrance into Paradise is completely arbitrary.

More importantly, at least to this discussion, is whether or not the individual Muslim is sincerely adhering to his or her understanding of the Koran. Apparently, the actual meaning of any given surah is not as important as the sincerity of the individual's understanding. The only exception to this is if a Muslim purposely violates an expressly forbidden rule or law presented by the Koran, i.e. the consumption of pork. Given the multitudinous expressions and understandings of Islam and the Koran, and all of them are either right, wrong, or somewhere in between, it is no wonder there is no single concrete understanding of true Islam. There are Muslims who insist the radical fundamentalists are not true Muslims, and there are those who insist they are. Which is correct? Both of them according to Islam, as long as they are sincerely holding to their interpretation of the Koran.

So, at least in this aspect, neither of us can really say which group is practicing true Islam and which isn't. Depending upon which sect you are looking at they all are practicing true Islam. This, of course, explains why the ruling political groups and royal families in many of the various Islamic countries engage in many of the same acts of savagery that Islamic terrorist groups such as ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas and others engage in.

This leads me to adjust my conclusion regarding violent Muslim versus peaceful Muslims, in order to more accurately reflect the teaching of Islam. Therefore, I will say that, out of the 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide (not 2.2B), they all of the potential of becoming violent and even extremely violent if they sincerely believe the Koran is teaching them to be, and in doing so, they will still remain sincere and true Muslims.

I will also say that when one counts those countries where sharia law if fully and strictly enforced, coupled with those countries where it is applied to varying degrees dependent upon the regions in those countries, coupled with those areas throughout the world where sharia may not be the governing law of the land, it certainly is within Muslim enclaves within those countries (i.e. England and France “no-go” zones), outweigh, comparatively speaking, those areas of “peaceful” Muslims.

Again, I have to say that the ruling families and parties of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the UAE, and more, who routinely engage in public executions (including beheading, stoning, hanging, flogging, and gunshot) for crimes such as sexual preference, apostasy, adultery, being a victim of rape, etc., prove that Islamic terrorists are not the only Muslims who engage in these types of violent savagery, nor are they any less a Muslim.

With regard to the surahs I quoted:

Surah 5:33
You said, “One cannot quote verse 5:33 without quoting verse 5:32 (prohibition of murder) and verse 5:34 (command to forgive). ... This is punishment for WAGING WAR against the Prophet of God and spreading evil and destruction.” Verses 32 and 34 do not in any way change the meaning of verse 33, especially when you take into account that simply refusing to accept the teachings of Mohammed and proclaiming that his teachings are blasphemy, are considered a form of waging war against Allah and his prophet, thus giving Muslims permission to kill or crucify or maim those who do, unless, of course, as verse 34 states, they convert to Islam – which is the only approved method of repentance for proclaiming Allah and his prophet to be false and demonic.

Surah 9:5
You claim this verse applies to “pagans.” This verse actually applies to any religious group who teaches there there is more than one god, or that teaches God is not the only diety. This includes Christians, who believe as part of their faith, in the Trinity. Islam does not understand (and has never understood) the doctrine of the Trinity, and Islam teaches that it is a form of polytheism (which it is not). And again, the “war” or “fight” mentioned in your commentary is not necessarily a military-type action. Simply publicly proclaiming that Allah and Mohammed are false and demonic is enough to wind up in a fight with Islam, and both Christianity and Judaism both, by virtue of their beliefs, automatically proclaim this (as do most other religions) which automatically sets them at odds with Islam. And the reference you make to Muslims being required to protect those who seek peace, well, lets look at the last part of 9:5, which says, “But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way.” “Repent” means to proclaim the “Shadaha.” “Establish prayer” means to pray to Allah. And “give zakah” is one of the five pillars of Islam required of Muslims. In other words, if those at war with Islam become Muslims themselves, then they will be allowed to “go on their way.” So here we are back at the convert or die requirement shown in 5:3

Surah 9:29
You say, “context must be understood when reading verse 9:29 so that we clearly know who should be fought...” Verse 29 makes it pretty clear who is to be fought, and verses 30-31 make it pretty clear why. Verse 29 commands Muslims to “fight those who do not believe in Allah … and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and his messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth...” In other words, Muslims are to fight anyone who does not believe in Allah. Muslims are to fight anyone who worships any diety other than Allah (which Allah deems unlawful). Muslims are to fight any who do not become a Muslim. Verse 30 goes on to specifically condemn Judaism and Christianity and calls for their destruction. Verse 31 goes on to specifically condemn Christianity, proclaiming Christians to be polytheists, who, as you remember, are to be put to death unless they convert to Islam. The last part of verse 29 makes exemption for those Jews and Christians who willingly pay the jizyah, a tax levied against non-Muslims in order to be allowed to live, however, they are also to be “humbled” which means living in poverty and squalor. You also make mention that “war is permitted only in self-defense.” Again, if a group, such as Jews or Christians, proclaims that Allah and Mohammed are false and demonic, this is considered an attack on Islam and is to be defended.

Surah 9:123
You say, “if we read this verse along with the succeeding passage, it becomes clear that here disbelievers who are near you refers to those hypocrites who were doing great harm to the Islamic society by mixing up with the sincere Muslims.” If you read the preceding passages, in fact, the entire surah, it becomes fairly clear that those whom are adjacent to the Muslims and are disbelievers and hypocrites would not only be those who were given the choice to convert or die and were guilty of false conversion, as well as those Muslims who were abandoning Islam and encouraging others to do the same. These are the ones Muslims are to fight and be harsh with. Again, Islamic violence toward non-Muslims as commanded by the Koran.

This all being said, I would also like to point out that acts of hatred toward Muslims by those professing to be Christian, are not only wrong, but they are unBiblical. Christians should love Muslims just as they would any unbeliever. Looking at the world from a Christian perspective, there are only two kinds of people – the saved and the lost. Believers and unbelievers. Those heaven bound and those hell bound. That's it. I reject the idea that Christians should treat Muslims any differently than any other unbeliever, whether the practicing wiccan down the road or the sweet lovable atheist grandmother across the street who would never harm anyone or any thing. Both are equally lost in the eyes of the Lord, and both are equally deserving of Christian attention and prayer. This is not to say, however, that I trust all unbelievers equally. Being in law enforcement for almost 25 years has taught me that, and I do not trust any religious faith that advocates violence against others for any reason.

At this point I should also make clear, that although the Bible does, at times, advocate violence, it was for a specific period, a specific place, and in response to a specific action. It was never presented as a justification for violence any where, at any time, against any one, as determined by those professing to be Christians – as opposed to Islam, which does, in fact, advocate violence.

Mike: We'll have to agree to disagree, I feel the last paragraph you wrote is absolutely just as applicable to Islam and the teaching of the Koran as it was to the teachings in the Bible. Time and historical context is all important for all religions, and you can't use it to explain away things from one religion while not allowing the same for others. I thought we should be able to agree that people should not be able to justify evil acts by religion, but seems like you are willing to blame Islam as a whole for the acts of the extreme.

I'll stand by the research I did, which contradicts many of the statements you've made. But at least we can agree that all individuals should be treated with respect regardless of their beliefs, as long as they aren't advocating violence against others.

Bob: True, Mike, we will not likely see eye to eye on this subject. You have your sources which support your research and I have mine which support my research. Considering we both use Islamic sources, I think that supports what I have learned, namely that both sides of the fence can honestly be considered “true” Islam, as based on the Islamic doctrine of salvation and Allah's arbitrary nature. I will also continue to believe that Islam and the Koran compared to Christianity and the Bible, are the same as comparing black and white. Aside from the Biblical and Judaic teachings hijacked by Mohammed for the Koran, the two could not be more different. Therefore, limiting your interpretation of Scripture to the “time and historical context” rule does the Bible a disservice. It works fine for the Koran as it it written as a standard of rule for all Muslims from beginning to end. The Bible, on the other hand, contains sections that while they have historical significance, they are not necessarily applicable to Christians today.

In the end, however, as you say, we will have to agree to disagree on just about all of this, but still in mutual agreement that all individuals are to be treated respectfully as long as they are not advocating violence. Thank you for another great discussion. As always, it is nice to be able to discuss opposing views without having to deal with ad hominem arguments.

Mike: Yup I echo your closing sentiments, and I have learned some more in the process. Thanks!


Additional Soures:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/07/worlds-muslim-population-more-widespread-than-you-might-think/

http://www.pewforum.org/2012/08/09/the-worlds-muslims-unity-and-diversity-executive-summary/

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/

http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/204/

https://www.jashow.org/wiki/index.php/What_Does_Islam_Teach_About_Salvation%3F_-_Part_1

http://www.exploring-islam.com/are-christians-polytheists.html

http://quran.com/

http://www.cfr.org/religion/islam-governing-under-sharia/p8034

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_of_sharia_law_by_country

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/islamethics/war.shtml

http://www.exploring-islam.com/are-christians-polytheists.html

http://www.onislam.net/english/ask-about-islam/faith-and-worship/islamic-creed/165981.html

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2015/02/02/islamist-students-shout-allahu-akbar-at-uc-davis/

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Islam/2002/08/What-The-Quran-Really-Says-About-Violence.aspx

http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/swordverse.htm

http://www.meforum.org/1754/peace-or-jihad-abrogation-in-islam

http://library.flawlesslogic.com/verses.htm

http://tanzil.net/wiki/Revelation_Order

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Abrogation_(Naskh)

http://www.quran-islam.org/main_topics/quran/false_accusations/abrogation_claims_(P1216).html

Did God Create Sin?

12/6/2014

 
Picture
(I recently came across a Facebook post that made several interesting statements that will be answered here in the fbq's (Face Book Questions section) over the course of the next few days or weeks as I can get to them. The first of these is...)

If God created everything
Then he created sin (Genesis says so, don't bother arguing this.
)


“If God created everything, Then he created sin. (Genesis says so, don't bother arguing this.)” Taking something out of context in order to support an untrue statement is not the proper way to state a premise. Genesis does not state, anywhere, that God created sin. In fact, Scripture states again and again that God did not create sin. (Genesis 1:31; James 1:13; 1 John 1:5, and others). In fact, to take this a step further, God could not have created sin, because sin itself is not a created thing. It is not a substance, it is not a being, it is not a spirit, it is not matter. Sin is not a created thing. John MacArthur describes is as “a lack of moral perfection in a fallen creature.”

This “lack of moral perfection” that MacArthur speaks of, is lawlessness, or rebellion against God. It is a free will choice made by individuals to reject God and chose a Godless existence. Since God is the ultimate example of perfection and good, a lack of God automatically creates a lack of perfection and good. Otherwise known as sin, or evil.

When God created Adam and Eve, the very first humans, they were without sin, but He created them with the ability to choose between obedience and disobedience. Was that a flaw in God's plan? No, actually, it wasn't. He could have easily made them without that freedom to choose, and they would have loved and obeyed God and everything would have been peachy. Right? Again, no. Yes they would have loved God, but their love would have been flawed. It would not have been a true love. In order for love to be true, to be real, the subject must freely chose to love the object without any coercion whatsoever. The danger in this is obvious. The subject might not make that choice, even if it is the logical choice to make. In Adam and Eve's situation, the serpent, Satan, coerced them into making the choice to disobey God, and thus sin entered into the world.

It is no different than the relationship between a child and a parent. The child wants to go outside. The parent allows the child to go outside, but tells the child to stay in the yard. Thus, the parent has created a situation where the child has the ability to disobey the parent. If the child rebels and leaves the yard, is the parent guilty? No, of course not. Even if the parent knew the child would disobey, the child still had the freewill to make the decision to either obey and stay in the yard, or disobey and leave the yard.

Freedom of choice means just that – the freedom to make a conscious decision, and the opportunity to make the wrong choice is inherent in that freedom. We can choose to follow God, believe in Jesus, that He died for your sins, was buried, resurrected, and ascended into heaven. Making this choice leads to righteous living and eternal life in heaven (Jeremiah 29:13; 2 Timothy 2:19). Or, we can choose to reject God and follow our own life path which leads away from God and into sin, evil, and eternal life in hell (Proverbs 16:5; Matthew 25:46). The choice is ours, the decision is ours, and we have no one to blame but ourselves for the choice we make (Galatians 6:7).

Is Jesus Going To Kill Everyone?

12/6/2014

 
Picture
If the wages of sin are death,
Then it's only fair for [Jesus] to suffer the death penalty.


And that's why humans crucified the son of God.
Or a mentally-ill pacifist who thought he was the son of God.
And he's going to come back and kill all of us.
Because he loves us.


It is easy to make statements and claims, and simply allow them to hang out there in cyberspace. But when those statements are not substantiated by anything other than the statement makers opinion, then they really do nothing more than demand an answer, and the more ridiculous the statement, the louder the demand for an accurate answer. There are two issues here in the above statement that demand an answer

The first is the idea that Jesus will return to earth for the purpose of killing everyone because He loves us. This has no basis in Scripture, and therefore no basis in truth. Scripture does say that God judges those who make the decision to reject Him and rebel against Him (Ecclesiastes 12:14; Micah 5:15, and other passages); but Scripture is also very clear that God wants everyone to come to repentance and experience eternal life with Him (2 Peter 3:9; Ezekiel 33:11, and other passages). But nowhere in Scripture does Jesus return and kill everyone. Such an idea has no basis in truth.

Was Jesus a mentally-ill pacifist who thought he was the son of God? In a word, no. The Scripture is very clear that Jesus is the Son of God. The Messiah. The Savior of the world. The Second person of the Trinity. The King of kings, the Lord of lords. God. But definitely not a “mentally-ill pacificst who thought he was the son of God.”

Of course, this answer automatically begs the question, “Just because the Bible says it, how do we know the Bible is even true?” This question has already been dealt with. Here are the links to those articles:

http://reasonfiles.weebly.com/blog/archaeology-and-the-historical-reliability-of-the-new-testament

http://reasonfiles.weebly.com/blog/the-bible-is-a-work-of-fiction-with-too-many-interpretations-so-rather-than-make-claims-that-its-true-throw-some-evidence-in-there








[Christianity] Is Archaic Superstition

7/27/2014

 
Picture
Picture
Recently I was involved in a conversation on Facebook between myself, a self-proclaimed agnostic, and a "hatetheist." Several statements and questions were posed to me during that conversation that I am endeavoring to answer in detail. This was one of the first statements made during that conversation.

One of the many dismissive and unsubstantiated claims made by atheists is that religion, or in the context of this statement, and when it was made during a conversation I was in – Christianity, is nothing more than an “archaic superstition.” Is it? Those who make this claim have yet to provide any evidence to support it. But let's examine this claim and see just how accurate it is.

Let's begin with an accurate definition of the phrase in order to have a baseline by which to examine whether or not Christianity actually is an archaic superstition. First, the term “archaic” simply means extremely old or extremely old-fashioned. Superstitions are defined as beliefs that have no grounds in logic and reason in the physical world. So our first question is, is Christianity archaic? And the answer is yes, in the sense that Christianity is old

In fact, Christianity is extremely old. Over 2,000 years old to be more precise. And in the context of a non-Christian society it is very old fashioned. I say “in the context of a non-Christian society” because this is a common argument used against Christian morals by those who possess a strong desire to revel in their own immorality while not liking their immorality exposed for what it is. But that's what Christianity does. It exposes sin for what it truly is. Degrading, destructive, physically and psychologically and spiritually damaging, and condemning.

So, in these contexts, Christianity is “archaic,” but, is Christianity a superstition? And this is the more important question because if it is a superstition, a belief that has no grounds in logic or reason, then it is easy to ignore it. If, however, it is a belief well grounded in logic and reason, a belief grounded with substantial evidence to support it, then those who chose to ignore it are taking risks that are inherent with ignoring any fact of reality.

In dealing with whether or not Christianity is a superstition, or belief not grounded in logic or reason, I would like to first pose that question to some of the most brilliant, most logical and most well reasoned minds in the history of mankind. Obviously I cannot travel back and forth in time to personally ask these individuals, but their well known and recorded views on Christianity certainly give their answer. The simple fact that they accepted the reality, the logical and reasonable reality of Christianity tells us that in their highly intelligent minds Christianity is not a superstition.

Among the many scholars and intellects who are (or were until their death) Christians are:

Francis Bacon (1561-1626): Considered among the fathers of empiricism and is credited with establishing the inductive method of experimental science via what is called the scientific method today.

Johannes Kepler (1571–1630): Gave us Kepler's laws of planetary motion, which was based on empirical data that he obtained from Tycho Brahe's astronomical observations.

Galileo Galilei (1564–1642): Italian physicist, mathematician, engineer, astronomer, and philosopher who played a major role in the scientific revolution. Galileo has been called the "father of modern observational astronomy", the "father of modern physics", and "the Father of Modern Science".

Blaise Pascal (1623–1662): Well known for Pascal's law (physics), Pascal's theorem (math), and Pascal's Wager (theology).

Isaac Newton (1643–1727): He is regarded as one of the greatest scientists and mathematicians in history. Though some biographers label him as a deist who is strongly influenced by Christianity, he differed from strict adherents of deism in that he invoked God as a special physical cause to keep the planets in orbits.

Gregor Mendel (1822–1884): The "father of modern genetics" for his study of the inheritance of traits in pea plants.

Louis Pasteur (1822–1895): Inventor of the pasteurization method, a French chemist and microbiologist. He also solved the mysteries of rabies, anthrax, chicken cholera, and silkworm diseases, and contributed to the development of the first vaccines.

Guglielmo Marconi (1874-1937): Guglielmo Marconi was known for his pioneering work on long distance radio transmission and for his development of Marconi's law and a radio telegraph system. Marconi is often credited as the inventor of radio, and he shared the 1909 Nobel Prize in Physics.

George Washington Carver (1864-1943): American scientist, botanist, educator, and inventor. He testified on many occasions that his faith in Jesus was the only mechanism by which he could effectively pursue and perform the art of science.

Max Planck (1858–1947): He won the 1918 Nobel Prize in Physics and is considered the founder of Quantum mechanics.

Johannes Stark (1874-1957): German physicist who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1919 for his "discovery of the Doppler effect in canal rays and the splitting of spectral lines in electric fields."

Wernher von Braun (1912–1977): "one of the most important rocket developers and champions of space exploration during the period between the 1930s and the 1970s."

Werner Arber (born 1929): Werner Arber is a Swiss microbiologist and geneticist. Along with American researchers Hamilton Smith and Daniel Nathans, Werner Arber shared the 1978 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for the discovery of restriction endonucleases.

Robert T. Bakker (born 1945): Paleontologist who was a figure in the "dinosaur Renaissance" and known for the theory some dinosaurs were Warm-blooded.

Frank J. Tipler (born 1947): Frank Tipler is a mathematical physicist and cosmologist, holding a joint appointment in the Departments of Mathematics and Physics at Tulane University.

Jennifer Wiseman: She is Chief of the Laboratory for Exoplanets and Stellar Astrophysics at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. In addition she is a co-discoverer of 114P/Wiseman-Skiff.

Freeman Dyson (born 1923): He has won the Lorentz Medal, the Max Planck Medal, and the Lewis Thomas Prize. He also ranked 25th in The 2005 Global Intellectuals Poll. He has won the Templeton Prize and delivered one of the Gifford Lectures. He is famous for his work in quantum electrodynamics.

Mike Hulme (born 1960): Mike Hulme is a professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA).

If I am to be accused of believing in an “archaic superstition” I am certainly in good company!

I have to say that the situation which has brought about this subject, being told that Christianity and religion was “archaic superstition,” has an interesting twist to it. The term “archaic superstition” being used in reference to Christianity has been used before, and those familiar with history will likely recognize it. It was a term used often by Karl Marx and other Soviet leaders in their attempts to stamp out Christianity. They felt that “archaic superstitions” such as Christianity were detrimental to the communist ideology. I find this interesting because those who used it in this current situation include at least one individual who, by virtue of his chosen career as a member of the United States Armed Forces, claims to love liberty and freedom and the constitution, and yet here appears willing to follow in the footsteps of Marx and Stalin and Lenin and the Soviet's communist ideology by adhering to and agreeing with the socialist view of Christianity – to the point of using a phrase used often by them. What is the old saying, “Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.”

I Don't Want My Leaders To Follow Religious Traditions

7/27/2014

 
Picture
Recently I was involved in a conversation on Facebook between myself, a self-proclaimed agnostic, and a "hatetheist." Several statements and questions were posed to me during that conversation - here is another question, or statement posed to me regarding the religious beliefs, especially Christianity, among leaders was, “I don't need My leaders to be following Christian or Islam or Jewish traditions. I want them to be just, fair, responsible Men and Women. Sworn to defend the republic, not their wallets or ideals.”

An interesting statement that is not only very exclusionary and discriminative against people of faith, but also contrary to the teachings of our own Founding Fathers. Take our first president, George Washington, for instance. Washington wrote, “While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.” (The Writings of Washington, pp. 342-343). According to the statement above made by the atheist, he would prefer to have not had George Washington as president because Washington believed (as did many of our Founding Fathers) that Judeo-Christian values and morals were important, and our atheist friend here does not want them present in our country's leaders.

Perhaps more importantly, however, is the contrary nature of the statement in question. The atheist states that he want's his leaders to be “just, fair, responsible men and women”, but he does not need them to follow Christian or Islamic or Jewish traditions. Being just, fair and responsible, however, are Christian ideals.

I Believe In A Higher Power, But Not One That Causes Wars

7/27/2014

 
Picture
Recently I was involved in a conversation on Facebook between myself, a self-proclaimed agnostic, and a "hatetheist." Several statements and questions were posed to me during that conversation - here is statement #3:

The complete statement that was posed during our conversation was, “I believe in a higher power, but not one that has so many interpretations and causes wars.”

It's nice to believe in a “higher power,” especially one that is some amorphous amoral deity that has little to no interaction with humans, and therefore doesn't get in the way of said humans desires. The problem with this type of god is that it is man made, and is created and interpreted by each and every individual that chooses this type of god. In other words, this type of god is limited to the imagination of its believers and has no absolute morals, or even essence about it. This is far different from the One True God, the God of the Bible, because God is absolute. His teachings are absolute and not open to individual personal interpretation.

This is not to say that there aren't those who twist God's words to fit their personal agendas, including waging wars in His name (wars started by people, not God), because there have been many like that over the years, and there are still many like that. But to blame God for the actions of those who twist His words to rationalize or justify their actions is wrong. Those who sin in God's name are the ones responsible for their actions. To blame God and hold Him responsible is the same as saying people should not be held accountable for their actions because you want to hold God accountable. And what is most important to note about those who twist God's words to justify their sin, is that they are not true believers. They are not true Christians. God is very specific about who is and who is not a true believer, and those who sin in His name will have to face Him one day and they will be held accountable for their actions.

The Bible Is Just Words ... The Bible Isn't Real

7/27/2014

 
Picture
Recently I was involved in a conversation on Facebook between myself, a self-proclaimed agnostic, and a "hatetheist." Several statements and questions were posed to me during that conversation - here is statement #4: “[The Bible is] just words and even God says not to worship symbolism. God doesn't want killing done in his name. That's why in that book it gives permission to follow the laws of the land. Ergo, the Bible isn't real.”

Partially correct. God does not want us to worship idols or symbols. But no one is worshiping the Bible. At least no Christian does. But we do recognize that the Bible is God's Word to us, and God does tell us to read and know and live by His Word, the Bible. Being obedient to God by doing what He says is an act of worshiping God, not the Bible.

As far as your statement, “That's why in that book it gives permission to follow the laws of the land. Ergo, the Bible isn't real”, this is not only incorrect, but it makes no sense. The Bible does not say we have “permission” to follow the law of the land, it says we must follow the law of the land (Romans 13:1-7). At the same time, however, in Acts 5:27-29, we clearly see that the requirement to follow the law is only applicable to those laws which are not contrary to God's Word.

The recent battle against Hobby Lobby is a good example of this. The government made a law that said Hobby Lobby (and other businesses) had to pay for their employees access to birth control. Okay, no problem, Hobby Lobby complied. But when the government went on to say that Hobby Lobby also had to pay for their employees abortions, the Christian family that owns Hobby Lobby said no because that law is contrary to the Word of God.

Your comment, “Ergo, the Bible isn't real.” is based on an assumed contradiction that in actuality does not exist, so your argument is invalid.

Religion Is Hypocrisy At It's Best

7/27/2014

 
Picture
Recently I was involved in a conversation on Facebook between myself, a self-proclaimed agnostic, and a "hatetheist." Several statements and questions were posed to me during that conversation - here is statement #5:
“One of my biggest problems with religion, organized or any other is that it teaches intolerance in a tolerant age. It is hypocrisy at its best.”


The definition of “hypocrisy” is claiming one thing and then doing or being something else. This does not fit the Bible in any way. With regard to tolerance and intolerance, God, through His Word, teaches us to have an intolerance to sin, to any teaching or requirement that goes against God's Word. It does not teach us to use derogatory euphemisms toward people because of their race or chosen sexual preference. To do so is hateful, and that would be against what God teaches. Therefore, Christians do not engage in these things. This is not to say that there aren't people doing these things who claim to be Christians, but God's Word very clearly states that they are not.

To say that Christians are hypocrites because some false Christians are living lives marked by sin, is the same as saying that all cops are rapists because there have been some rapists who have passed themselves off as police; or to say Special Forces members are nothing more than overweight liars who are puffed up by their fantastical stories, just because there have been some phony Special Forces people who are like that. And if you aren't willing to make those negative statements about all members of Law Enforcement or Special Forces members then the double standards you are imposing in Christians is closer to hypocrisy than holding to God's teaching to love the sinner while remaining intolerant of the sin.

Only A Few Guys With American Names Wrote The Bible, How Can That Be?

7/27/2014

 
Picture
Recently I was involved in a conversation on Facebook between myself, a self-proclaimed agnostic, and a "hatetheist." Several statements and questions were posed to me during that conversation - here is statement #6: “Supposedly only a few guys wrote this book, their names are more American than any of the others that are in the Bible. How can that be? All the names are pretty much un-pronounceable throughout the book except for the main characters.”

Actually there are 33 known Biblical writers, and more that are as yet unknown (those who wrote to some of the Psalms). The reason some of the names sound “American” is because their names were recorded in the modern translations using anglicized versions of their original Hebrew, Greek and Latin names.

The original Hebrew (and Greek and Latin) names of the known Biblical writers are:

Old Testament:
Mosheh, Yehoshua, Shemu'el, Natan, Gad, Yirmiyahu, Azaryahu, Mordechai, Dwd, Shelomoh, Yesha'yahu, Yechezqel, Daniyyel, Hoshea, Yo'el, Amos, Obadyahu, Yonah, Micha, Nachum, Habacuc, Tzfanya, Chaggay, Zekharyah, and Mal'akhiy

New Testament:
Matityahu, Yochanan (known as Marcus, which was his latin name), Loukas (a Greek name), Yochanan, Sha'ul (also known as Paulus, his Latin name), Yaʻaqov, Cephas, and Yehudah. Possibly Joses, or Apollos (Greek) did some of the writing.

More important to this question is that although these people wrote down the words of the Bible, and they used their own intelligence, their own life experiences, etc to do this, everything they wrote down, every word, was given to them by inspiration of God, in fact, the term used in the Bible itself is theopneustos, which means “God breathed.” (2 Timothy 3:16) The Bible is the literal Word of God.

I'm Not Saying I'm An Atheist or Agnostic, Just Critical Of A God That People Have Died In His Name

7/27/2014

 
Picture
Recently I was involved in a conversation on Facebook between myself, a self-proclaimed agnostic, and a "hatetheist." Several statements and questions were posed to me during that conversation - here is statement #7: “I'm not saying I'm an atheist or agnostic just critical of a God that in his name millions of people have died over who was right and who was wrong.”

To say it is God's fault that millions of people have died in His name at the hands of people who were using His name to justify their sin, is the same as having someone steal your credit card, use it to run up charges in my store in your name and then not pay those charges and I become critical of you because it was in your name that they were charging. It's the same thing because you are holding God responsible for the actions of others rather than holding them accountable for their actions.
<<Previous
    Picture

    Archives

    July 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    November 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    October 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    October 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    September 2018
    August 2018
    June 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    January 2018
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    May 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    December 2014
    July 2014

    Categories

    All
    2 Corinthians 6:14-18
    5 Solas
    95 Theses
    Aaron Thompson
    Abuse
    Agnosticism
    Alistair Begg
    Amber Guyger
    A Mighty Fortress Is Our God
    Angelic Revelations
    Angels
    Anne Graham Lotz
    An Open Letter To My Family And Friends
    Antinomianism
    Antiochian Orthodox
    Apocrypha
    Apologetics
    Apostasy
    Archibald Brown
    Armianism
    Arminian
    Atheism
    Atheist Arguments
    A.W. Pink
    Benjamin Knight
    Benjamin Naim
    Ben The Baptist
    Bethel Music
    Bible
    Bible Believer's Baptist Church
    Bible Contradictions
    Biblical Archaeology
    Biblical Interpretation
    Blasphemy
    Book Of Life
    Botham Jean
    Brandt Jean
    Calvinism
    Cannibalism
    Causa Finitum
    Challenge For Christians
    Charles Haddon Spurgeon
    Christianity
    Christian Life
    Christian Living
    Christian Love
    Church
    Church Of Almighty God
    Contemporary Christian Music
    Covid
    Covid 19
    Creeds
    Cults
    Death By Atheism
    Death By War
    Decisional Regeneration
    Denialism
    Dennis Grutzmacher
    Doctrines Of Demons
    Doctrines Of Grace
    Donald Trump
    Double Imputation
    Doubting
    Easter
    Eastern Lightning
    Edmund Sears
    Election 2016
    Elevation Music
    Ephesians 2:8 9
    Ephesians 2:8-9
    Erin M Harding
    Evangelizing
    Fall Of America
    False Christianity
    False Christians
    False Teachers
    Fatima
    FBQ's
    Fellowship With God
    Five Solas
    Free Ebook
    Friday Night Lectures
    Gaslighting
    Gay
    Genocide
    Gospel
    Hell
    Heresy
    Hermeneutics
    Hillsong Music
    Holiness
    Homosexual
    Homosexuality
    Hymns
    Idolatry
    Imputation
    Insanity
    Irresistible Grace
    Islam
    I Support Abuse Survivors
    Jackie Hill Perry
    James E Adams
    JC Ryle
    Jesus Culture
    John Calvin
    John MacArthur
    Jonathan Edwards
    Josh Buice
    Joshua Chavez
    Joy Reid
    Judging
    Julie Roys
    Justification
    Kenosis
    Kenotic
    Know Your Heresies
    Latter-Day Saints
    LDS Church
    Lesbian
    LGBT
    Liberalism
    Ligioner Ministries
    Ligonier Articles
    Limited Atonement
    Mark Batterson
    Martin Luther
    Martyn Lloyd-Jones
    Mary Worship
    Me Too
    Michael Servetus
    Mike Ratliff
    Monergism
    Moral Relativism
    Mormonism
    Mormons
    Mysticism
    Nancy Demoss Wogemuth
    Nauman Masih
    New IFB
    Old Testament
    Original Sin
    Persecution
    Perseverance Of The Saints
    Philadelphia Church Of God
    Pinecreek Doug
    Politics
    Pope Francis
    Prayer Circles
    Presidential Election
    Protestant
    Protestantism
    Pseudo-Christian
    Pseudo Christianity
    Pseudo-Christianity
    Race
    Racialism
    Racism
    Ravi Zacharias
    Reformation
    Reformation Day
    Reformed Theology
    Refuting The Bible
    Regeneration
    Religious Expression
    Religious Freedom Restoration Act
    Religious Pluralism
    Religious Wars
    Responding To Atheist Arguments
    Resurrection
    Resurrection Of Jesus
    Revoice
    Revoice Conference
    RFRA
    Roman Catholic
    Roman Catholic Church
    Roman Catholicism
    Romans 1 28 To 32
    Salvation
    Same Sex Marriage
    Saturday Night Movies
    Scripture Twisting
    Servus Christi
    Sin
    Southern Gospel
    Sovereignty Of God
    Steven Anderson
    Steven Furtick
    Sunday Morning Sermons
    Sure Foundation Baptist Church
    Swedenborgianism
    Synergism
    The Bible
    The Cathedrals
    The Christian Creed
    The Heart
    Theology
    The Trinity
    Ticky Tok Toddy Harding
    Todd Ferguson
    Tolerance
    Tom Ascol
    Tom Buck
    Total Depravity
    Traits Of A Debased Mind
    Trinity
    True Christianity
    True Christians
    TULIP
    Unconditional Election
    Unitarianism
    United Methodist Church
    Vaccine
    Voting
    Waldens
    Website Updates
    What Is A Christian
    What's The Difference
    Wheat And Tares
    William Lane Craig
    Wolf Alert
    Women Pastors


    Click here to read about the Persecution of Christians in America.

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.