Progress?

[OttomanScribe]

In order to state my question there needs to be some background so bear with me God willing. I am not proselytising, we don't do that.

My understanding of history as a Muslim is not one of progress. The state of human society was improved at various points by the coming of Prophets (as) like Jesus (as) and Moses (as) ('as' means 'alayhis salaam', peace upon him). After the coming of these Prophets, entropy occurred, as it is bound to. Leading to a steady decay of the state of humanity until the coming of another Prophet (as). After the Final Messenger (Mohammed (sws), this process will continue until the return of Esa (Jesus, as) and the Day of Judgement.

God is just, so we are only held to the standards of our society, so while humanity decays and our ability to be God conscious fails with it, we still have great potential in that a little piety in a land of disbelief is a greater achievement than the same amount in a society that is God centred.

So my question is, why do many Christian thinkers enshrine progress? Surely at best the state of humanity would be the same throughout history in your theology, if not heightened through direct relationship with Jesus (as)?

Thanks in advance, peace.

 

[Chesterton]

So my question is, why do many Christian thinkers enshrine progress? Surely at best the state of humanity would be the same throughout history in your theology, if not heightened through direct relationship with Jesus (as)?

Thanks in advance, peace.

I may not understand exactly what you're saying here, but if I do, I don't really think very many Christian thinkers put progress on a pedestal. If they do I would disagree with them, because the only real progress which matters would be moral progress. If we as a species are not becoming better people, then progress in science or politics or anything else won't really matter.

 

[OttomanScribe]

I may not understand exactly what you're saying here, but if I do, I don't really think very many Christian thinkers put progress on a pedestal. If they do I would disagree with them, because the only real progress which matters would be moral progress. If we as a species are not becoming better people, then progress in science or politics or anything else won't really matter.

If this is the case, is Christianity conservative in the way that Islam is? Does it view the perfect state as being that of Jesus (as) and therefore his historical reality as well? Muslims believe that one of the biggest sins is bida'a (negative innovation), it is said that every innovation is misguidance. Therefore how are changes in theology/religious law justified in Christian thinking?

 

[drich0150]

So my question is, why do many Christian thinkers enshrine progress?

I'm not sure i understand you question To enshrine progress would mean to hold progress as sacred. As the Dark ages can atest "Progress" is not always at the forefront of Christian thinking.

I would assume that is the intent of your question. i would say one would have to make a separation between Christianity as God intended it, and christianity as practiced and observed by man. Primarily because There are no commands to oppose progress. The opposition lies in the luke warm heart of the man who has the pride and authority to believe that his current understanding of God is how it always has to be. the opposition comes in when he (the luke warm christian leader) can not reconcile his current understanding of God and any new evidence that may show God in a different light.

So the short answer is Pride. When church leaders are consumed with pride for all that they think they know of God, they denounce anything that does not fit their current understanding. most of the time this comes in the way of progress.

This is not something that is only observed in christian circles. Pride, and Pride in our religious thinkers/leaders is universal.

 

[drich0150]

Therefore how are changes in theology/religious law justified in Christian thinking?

These "changes in the law" are allowed through the blood and redemption found in Jesus's sacrifice.

We are told we will always be outside of God's law. that no man will every follow the law to the letter, and that if you break the smallest aspect of the Law you are guilty of breaking all of it. So with this in mind we must seek another means of righteousness apart from the Law. This is accomplished in the blood sacrifice of Jesus. Where our righteousness has been given out of love, rather than earned by up holding the law.

So if one's righteousness is a matter of love, and not a matter of entitlement, then we are made free from the law and only bound by our love in God.

True Christianity is freedom, not strict adherences and stern practices.

 

[OttomanScribe]

I'm not sure i understand you question To enshrine progress would mean to hold progress as sacred. As the Dark ages can atest "Progress" is not always at the forefront of Christian thinking.

I would assume that is the intent of your question. i would say one would have to make a separation between Christianity as God intended it, and christianity as practiced and observed by man. Primarily because There are no commands to oppose progress. The opposition lies in the luke warm heart of the man who has the pride and authority to believe that his current understanding of God is how it always has to be. the opposition comes in when he (the luke warm christian leader) can not reconcile his current understanding of God and any new evidence that may show God in a different light.

So the short answer is Pride. When church leaders are consumed with pride for all that they think they know of God, they denounce anything that does not fit their current understanding. most of the time this comes in the way of progress.

This is not something that is only observed in Christian circles. Pride, and Pride in our religious thinkers/leaders is universal.

I personally believe that one can never truly reach an accurate understanding of God, only a functional one. One cannot ever encapsulate God within one's mind, for to do so is to limit Him by the very nature of our mind. 'Whatever you think He is, He is not'.

That said, can one justify a 'new' understanding of God, were it to contradict scripture or established understanding? Can a 'new' understanding of God (given that the perfect understanding would be that given to you by Esa/Jesus, peace upon him) ever be a good thing?

Also surely whatever 'is' is God's will, therefore we cannot make a distinction between Christianity as it is and Christianity as God intended it. We cannot say that anything has occurred is not God's will right?

 

[OttomanScribe]

These "changes in the law" are allowed through the blood and redemption found in Jesus's sacrifice.

In the sense of the change between the OT and the NT and the apparent abrogation of aspects of Talmudic law, however this is not to which I refer.

True Christianity is freedom, not strict adherences and stern practices.

While Jesus (as) was the Prophet (as) who of all (save Mohammed sws) embodied God's attribute of Rahmen (mercy), he did not give blanket permissibility on all actions did he? The Law and the morals of the religion surely cannot be separated?

 

[drich0150]

The Law and the morals of the religion surely cannot be separated?

romans 7:

7What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."[b] 8But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.

11For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. 13Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

14We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. 21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

 

[OttomanScribe]

My understanding of that verse is limited, do you have an explanation.

From what I read of it, it essentially describes an internal struggle between God's law (an obligation) and the internal compulsion to sin. It doesn't seem like an abrogation of things like the 10 commandments.

How are Christians governed? Separate from the law? Surely the laws of Christians are defined by their morals? You may not have the history of legal jurisprudence and scholarship that the Jews or the Ummah do, but regardless surely Christianity has some influence upon the law by which you live.


Maybe this is a misunderstanding. My understanding of the law is not simply something instituted by the state, but something one holds themselves to. For example there is no state sanctioned punishment for a woman showing her hair in the traditional Sunni legal rulings. However the action is deemed 'haram' (impermissible), and so a woman holds herself to the law, while such an action is not punishable by the state.

Are Christians allowed to commit adultery? If not, then Christian law forbids it. Even if gaol is hell in the afterlife.

 

[drich0150]

How are Christians governed?

They are governed by the law, but their righteousness is not awarded for adherence to the law. righteousness given to them for the love that they express for wanting to uphold the law.

Separate from the law?

Christians are bound to the law out of love for God, and in turn we are not held to the Law because of the atoning sacrifice made by Jesus.

We do not uphold the law because we have to, we up hold the Law because we love God.

If you truly love a woman do you marry her because it is the law or do you marry out of love? What keeps you faithful? Is it the law or is it love?

Are Christians allowed to commit adultery? If not, then Christian law forbids it.

We are told that if we even look at a woman lustfully it is the same as committing adultery. Our only saving grace is that again, it is not adherence to the law that makes us righteous. It is the love we have for God, and the Love He had for us through the blood sacrifice found in Jesus the Christ. It is through this blood sacrifice that unbinds us for adhering to the law for righteousness (Or the right to be with god in our after life)

As Paul says it is not what we do, because we may want to do the right thing, but because we are slaves to our bodies, and because our bodies are slaves to sin that we can not do the right thing. So long as we want to do good, and delight in righteousness we will find our salvation.

14We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. 21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

 

[OttomanScribe]

They are governed by the law, but their righteousness is not awarded for adherence to the law. righteousness given to them for the love that they express for wanting to uphold the law.

So non-adherence to the law goes unpunished because it is expected? Or it goes punished in this life but not the next?

Christians are bound to the law out of love for God, and in turn we are not held to the Law because of the atoning sacrifice made by Jesus.

So there is still importance in the law? In that it should be followed, but if it is not, forgiveness is still attainable through belief?

We do not uphold the law because we have to, we up hold the Law because we love God.

If you truly love a woman do you marry her because it is the law or do you marry out of love? What keeps you faithful? Is it the law or is it love?

If, as commonly occurs, love may leave the relationship, the law remains, so even if one does not love one's wife, they should remain faithful regardless. Were I not to have found the wife I did (whom I love more than anyone in this dunya (realm of deception), I would still seek marriage, as there is benefit in marriage even without love. A couple can, with shared love for the deen (religion) have a successful marriage even without the kind of romantic love that is portrayed in modern romantic comedies.

In the same way, one can both follow the law out of love for God, or simply because it is the law. Both are superior to non-adherence, even if that non-adherence is undertaken with a love of God, because actions speak louder than beliefs. If one believes, righteous action should surely follow? If one is all belief, no action, then where is one's faith?

So long as we want to do good, and delight in righteousness we will find our salvation.

So a faithful serial killer can be righteous? Should one emulate him?

Did Jesus (as) follow the law?

 

[drich0150]

So non-adherence to the law goes unpunished because it is expected? Or it goes punished in this life but not the next?

All sin is punished. for the Christian Jesus took that punishment for us while he was on the cross, and in the time he spent in the tomb.

So there is still importance in the law? In that it should be followed, but if it is not, forgiveness is still attainable through belief?

Through belief/love in God, yes.

because actions speak louder than beliefs.

we are told the opposite is true in the loveless actions of the Pharisees. Jesus spent alot of his time point out the meaningless actions of the men who simply acted out an empty belief.

So a faithful serial killer can be righteous?

a man who was a serial killer could indeed be found righteous.

Should one emulate him?

to what end? we are all different, not all of us would find Jesus in the actions of a serial killer.

Did Jesus (as) follow the law?

Jesus followed God's law perfectly, and those who love Jesus emulate his behavior as best as they can, but when we fail we know that it is not our ability to emulate Jesus that saves us, it is His sacrifice that provides the righteousness that our actions can not.

 

[aiki]

God is just, so we are only held to the standards of our society, so while humanity decays and our ability to be God conscious fails with it, we still have great potential in that a little piety in a land of disbelief is a greater achievement than the same amount in a society that is God centred.

So my question is, why do many Christian thinkers enshrine progress? Surely at best the state of humanity would be the same throughout history in your theology, if not heightened through direct relationship with Jesus (as)?

Thanks in advance, peace.

Progress of what sort, exactly?

Peace.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Progress of what sort, exactly?

Humanity. The Western idea of a steady onward advancement of society, science and humanity towards ever greater heights.

Encapsulated by a man (whose name escapes me) said that he could appreciate and worship God better than David (as) because he knew more about God's miracles than he.

 

[OttomanScribe]

All sin is punished. for the Christian Jesus took that punishment for us while he was on the cross, and in the time he spent in the tomb.

But only for Christians rather than for humanity as a whole? So Jesus (as) in Christianity takes the burdens of Christians but not other people?

we are told the opposite is true in the loveless actions of the Pharisees. Jesus spent alot of his time point out the meaningless actions of the men who simply acted out an empty belief.

Do you believe that belief and action are distinguishable? If one believes not, his/her actions will be hollow, similarly if one believes, their actions (even if misguided) will be righteous?

to what end? we are all different, not all of us would find Jesus in the actions of a serial killer.

I ask because it seems to me as though there is little moral compulsion within your descriptions of Christianity. It is something I am having difficulty grappling with. Insha'Allah (God willing) I will be given understanding. Sagacity leads to Allah.

Jesus followed God's law perfectly, and those who love Jesus emulate his behavior as best as they can, but when we fail we know that it is not our ability to emulate Jesus that saves us, it is His sacrifice that provides the righteousness that our actions can not.

So it comes back to this, we should emulate Jesus to the best of our ability, the price for failure being negated by belief?

 

[drich0150]

But only for Christians rather than for humanity as a whole? So Jesus (as) in Christianity takes the burdens of Christians but not other people?

Jesus takes on the burdens of all who will give them to Him. We simply call those people Christians.

Do you believe that belief and action are distinguishable? If one believes not, his/her actions will be hollow, similarly if one believes, their actions (even if misguided) will be righteous?

Something like that.. It depends heavily on the condition of the specific person's Heart. a man can live a certain life style and be found righteous before the Lord, at the same time another man can live the same exact life style and be found unrighteous before God. The only difference being the conditions of the two mens hearts.

I ask because it seems to me as though there is little moral compulsion within your descriptions of Christianity. It is something I am having difficulty grappling with. Insha'Allah (God willing) I will be given understanding. Sagacity leads to Allah.

Morality is mandated. just not as a way to earn righteousness. Morality is mandated as an expression of Love one has for God. It is not what you do that makes you righteous, it is why you are doing it.

We believe that actions in of themselves are pretty well meaningless. It is the driving force behind those actions that is important.

So it comes back to this, we should emulate Jesus to the best of our ability, the price for failure being negated by belief?

Belief/love, yes.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Jesus takes on the burdens of all who will give them to Him. We simply call those people Christians.

So in a sense the crucifixion was almost a surrogate hell? In that he went through it so those who believe in him would not?

Something like that.. It depends heavily on the condition of the specific person's Heart. a man can live a certain life style and be found righteous before the Lord, at the same time another man can live the same exact life style and be found unrighteous before God. The only difference being the conditions of the two mens hearts.

My Sheikh once quoted to us the parable of the poor woman and the rich man who gave money at the temple, and asked his disciples whom gave more. Would this parable apply were the importance of works to be discounted?

Morality is mandated. just not as a way to earn righteousness. Morality is mandated as an expression of Love one has for God. It is not what you do that makes you righteous, it is why you are doing it.

We believe that actions in of themselves are pretty well meaningless. It is the driving force behind those actions that is important.

How does one attain morality without works? Righteousness without worship? I feel that the logical way of things is that one cannot exist without the other. A person who is in a deep state of God-centredness will essentially be in a feedback loop between the two. It morality or righteousness achievable in any real way, simply through thought?