Radical Islam
- Thread starter AtheistOne
- Start date
- Dec 20, 2003
- 13,624
- 2,675
- Country
- Germany
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Actually various atheist regimes have been much worse than the Caliphate. Stalin and Maos governments for instance.
Suffering is not the main issue sin is. Who offers the best plan of redemption is the more important choice.
The OT and the Quran are a world apart.
On a body count basis atheism is the worst indeed most wars are waged for godless reasons. Islam comes next. But Christianity is the best. That does not mean however that there is not a time to kill.
Upvote
0
I'm not aware of anyone killing in the name of atheism. The Stalinist and Maoist governments killed in the name of communism, not atheism. The fact that they were officially atheist is extraneous in my opinion. In centuries past there was quite a bit of killing in the name of Christianity; at the moment it's the Muslims doing it.
Upvote
0
Please explain why you find this to be nonsense. Do you think that religious people have a monopoly on morality, and atheists are just looking out for number one? That has not been my experience with atheists. It seems to me that if atheists can believe in reason and in emotion without believing in God, then they can believe in morality without believing in God.
Upvote
0
Blondepudding
Who Sprinkled You With Grumpy Dust?
I see the misnomer of the label, radical Islam, to correct itself to read as, fundamentalist Islam.
Any sect enforcing the fundamentals of their faith, taking the literal teachings in this contemporary era to heart and enforcing them, can be a risk to civilized society.
In the case of Islam there appears to be a desire to label a schism in the tradition itself. Those who hold to the literal teachings in the Koran. And those who aren't all that keen in doing so and are therefore defined as moderate(ly) Muslims.
Just as the Christian is aware of the prophecies that pertain to their end of days teachings per their holy book, so too is there that same type teaching in Islam.
And of course each faith believes itself superior to the other for various reasons.
The problem with both traditions as I see it is that the 21st century faithful attempt to conceptualize the modern world so that the believer confines one's intellect and behavior into a first century world view. And while being confounded in the effort by a 21st century reality.
And that is why the fundamentalist Muslim believes they are vested in a holy war against western values that exploit their natural resources, while enmeshed in a third world culture that see's first world as an enemy of their religious fundamentals. And why the first world Christian believes they are to defend against barbarians that worship a false god because the barbarians are afraid of evolving from their third world traditions into a first world consciousness.
In short, there are too many of 'them' on either side to let ones personal life fret as to the outcome of said contest.
Live your life. We acquire so much stress in our every day because many of us are concerned that the people of the world we give our attention to aren't comporting themselves in a way that makes us feel safe in our own.
It's out of your hands. Deal with what comes when it comes. In the meantime realize also that this contention between Islam and Christianity has been extant since each side found the other daring to claim exclusive relationship with a god that concerns itself with the behaviors of one kind of people.
Religion rips a society apart largely because what is held in faith first is exclusive license to be possessive of a construct born from the human psyche that first says a creator spirit is beyond comprehension.While at the same time codifying and identifying the incomprehensible as that which has an amicable predisposition to its creators who believe it loves them best.
Any sect enforcing the fundamentals of their faith, taking the literal teachings in this contemporary era to heart and enforcing them, can be a risk to civilized society.
In the case of Islam there appears to be a desire to label a schism in the tradition itself. Those who hold to the literal teachings in the Koran. And those who aren't all that keen in doing so and are therefore defined as moderate(ly) Muslims.
Just as the Christian is aware of the prophecies that pertain to their end of days teachings per their holy book, so too is there that same type teaching in Islam.
And of course each faith believes itself superior to the other for various reasons.
The problem with both traditions as I see it is that the 21st century faithful attempt to conceptualize the modern world so that the believer confines one's intellect and behavior into a first century world view. And while being confounded in the effort by a 21st century reality.
And that is why the fundamentalist Muslim believes they are vested in a holy war against western values that exploit their natural resources, while enmeshed in a third world culture that see's first world as an enemy of their religious fundamentals. And why the first world Christian believes they are to defend against barbarians that worship a false god because the barbarians are afraid of evolving from their third world traditions into a first world consciousness.
In short, there are too many of 'them' on either side to let ones personal life fret as to the outcome of said contest.
Live your life. We acquire so much stress in our every day because many of us are concerned that the people of the world we give our attention to aren't comporting themselves in a way that makes us feel safe in our own.
It's out of your hands. Deal with what comes when it comes. In the meantime realize also that this contention between Islam and Christianity has been extant since each side found the other daring to claim exclusive relationship with a god that concerns itself with the behaviors of one kind of people.
Religion rips a society apart largely because what is held in faith first is exclusive license to be possessive of a construct born from the human psyche that first says a creator spirit is beyond comprehension.While at the same time codifying and identifying the incomprehensible as that which has an amicable predisposition to its creators who believe it loves them best.
Upvote
0
As for the best plan of redemption, just be good for goods sake, simples. Most wars are waged for godless reasons? Don't think so. And anyway, that had nothing to do with the OP and is merely ad hominem.
Upvote
0
So, I think what you're saying is, there are complete nut jobs on the extremes of both sides of the religious divide. So it's incumbent on the more intelligent amongst us to challenge and refute those extreme and dangerous views, be they from Islamists or far right christians. (And not to throw our arms up as liberal apologists and say "it's out of our hands").
Upvote
0
I will pray for you, Inquirer, for you may not fight against God, but you are without God (atheistic). Without God and His "...so great salvation" in His beloved Son, one is doomed to eternal suffering under the wrath of God ---you better believe that as God has told us!
Upvote
0
Sorry I did not notice how old this orig. post was; however, my message above applies to ALL such non-believers in God and His truth for mankind.
Upvote
0
Hang on. Umm No they can't. They can only rely on their internal world view and the fact that there going to die in their own life span If they have no external moral giver.
If there is no God or moral laws who is to say Hitler's view of the world was wrong and the rest of the people tried at Nuremburg were just doing their job. As Herman Goering said. If They had won the war. They would of been trying a lot of their enemies for war crimes. (Stalin being one of them)
An American prosecutor got up and said it's Universally wrong to kill (murder) unarmed innocent people who have committed no crimes.
Yes you can have your own beliefs and world view but there only subjective to you. And history has proven. Sometimes the minority is right and sometimes its wrong.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Belief in morality and belief in God are two different things. Also, belief in the afterlife is not dependent upon belief in God. Buddhists believe in universal morality and the afterlife, and they have no conception of God. As an agnostic I believe solidly in the afterlife despite not knowing whether there is a God. In addition, even if one doesn't believe in the afterlife or any sort of spirit world, evolution provides for morality--people with this world view would say that we evolved to cooperate and respect each others' rights because it behooves us as social animals.
Upvote
0
1. I am not an atheist.
2. I cannot accept the premise that only those who happen to choose the right religion get to have a good afterlife. That would make God very petty indeed. It is beliefs like that that make Buddhism much more appealing to me than Christianity--Buddhists think it's perfectly fine to be a Christian, but Christians think Buddhists get punished forever just because they happen to have been born in a Buddhist society.
Upvote
0
aiki
Regular Member
No, a person is not born condemned to hell. They are born under the curse of sin, under the power of a disposition to put themselves before their Maker. And when they do put themselves before their Maker, when they sin, they place themselves under His wrath and judgment. Is a holy and just God wrong to judge our sin? I don't see how.
Selah.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Rational Inquirer Said
"""Please explain why you find this to be nonsense. Do you think that religious people have a monopoly on morality, and atheists are just looking out for number one? That has not been my experience with atheists. It seems to me that if atheists can believe in reason and in emotion without believing in God, then they can believe in morality without believing in God."""
Your context is atheists. I was reacting to that.
morality
məˈralɪti/
noun
- principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
"the matter boiled down to simple morality: innocent prisoners ought to be freed"
synonyms: ethics, rights and wrongs, correctness, ethicality- a particular system of values and principles of conduct.
plural noun: moralities
"a bourgeois morality" - the extent to which an action is right or wrong.
"the issue of the morality of the possession of nuclear weapons"
- a particular system of values and principles of conduct.
Morality is the distinction between what is good and bad.
The issue is.Who decides what is good and bad ?
For example: I don't think nations should have nuclear weapons.
We have nuclear weapons.
If there are no universal laws, external laws, then your morals are just your opinion on what is good and bad. So you morals are just your subjective opinion if there is no external law giver.
Upvote
0
Good points, but I still disagree because:
1. One can believe in morality without knowing where it comes from, just as one can believe in the existence of the universe without knowing where it came from. Whether our conscience comes from God or not, the fact remains that we are endowed with one--however we got it.
2. Evolution provides for universal morality. If we evolved a conscience (i.e., morality), then we could have collectively evolved a conscience with similar characteristics between individuals, which is to say "universals."
In any case, morality exists; that can be seen objectively. What is less clear to many is whether God exists.
As a final a final aside, I think the details of what are considered right and wrong are indeed subject to change and can vary from one individual, epoch or culture to another. The more fundamental aspects of morality, though, seem to be hardwired into our brains (universal).
Also, my understanding is that Buddhism (which I had referenced) is an atheistic religion.
Upvote
0
No, the way of the real God and His judgment is not about choosing "the right religion"; and it has nothing to do with Buddhist ways. It is about being "born again" as a "child of God". One who is going on with their own religion rejecting the Word of God for salvation, is choosing to rely on their own reasonings. That will be fatal! We are all born in sin, and without the grace, mercy, and salvation of the Creator-God in His "beloved" Son --the Lord Jesus, the Christ of God, one is still in their natural sinful state.
We are from birth here before a holy and righteous God, who cannot accept any sin in His presence, as He says. Read His Word and you will see the truth of that. Start with the Gospel message by John in the Bible and read it with humility before God and you might see the truth of salvation of your soul and eternal life in Heaven. There is an urgency about this for if you should die today without the Savior, you will be forever condemned to Hell. Believe it or not!
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Wel, l that's because you don't understand John 3:18. The bible very clearly tell us we are condemned to hell.....unless
Upvote
0
Similar threads
