Radical Islam

[AtheistOne]

Not sure this is the right place for this, but the issue posed by Radical Islam is an interesting topic for debate on this forum. Clearly, as an atheist I am appalled by what is going on in Iraq and Syria. As Christians, you are also rightly concerned by the plight of your fellow Christians in these territories. What is your view of the suffering of the non-Christians? And what is your view of a religious caliphate enforcing an Abrahamic God's laws in accordance with the writings in an ancient book? The Qur'an and the Old Testament aren't so different - both would struggle with "the religion of peace" label if taken literally. I would thank my lucky stars (if I believed in them, lol) that I live in a society tolerant enough for me to be openly atheist. I have a worry that we are moving towards less enlightened and less tolerant times. What do you guys think?

 

[1watchman]

Radical Islam is foretold in Holy Scripture, so it only suggests that Satan is stepping up his attacks now, and the Lord is drawing this age to a close, some of us believe. Your biblical analysis is quite far off the truth, friend.

I personally doubt the Church will be here more than 10-20 years, but no one knows for sure the time. One thing we can know from the Bible is that judgment WILL come on this world after the "Bride" of Christ (the Church) is taken up from this scene. Then the terrible Tribulation time will begin and much suffering under the reign of the "first Beast" ---the political ruler from Satan, takes power. Later as the Bible foretells, the Lord Jesus, the Christ of God, will return to vanquish satanic rule and establish His reign for "a thousand years".

Herein is a little Bible lesson for you to contemplate (and maybe get saved from wrath and eternal condemnation) before it is too late. Look up, my friend!

 

[Hieronymus]

You don't have to be an atheist to be appalled by Islam, obviously.

 

[toLiJC]

Not sure this is the right place for this, but the issue posed by Radical Islam is an interesting topic for debate on this forum. Clearly, as an atheist I am appalled by what is going on in Iraq and Syria. As Christians, you are also rightly concerned by the plight of your fellow Christians in these territories. What is your view of the suffering of the non-Christians? And what is your view of a religious caliphate enforcing an Abrahamic God's laws in accordance with the writings in an ancient book? The Qur'an and the Old Testament aren't so different - both would struggle with "the religion of peace" label if taken literally. I would thank my lucky stars (if I believed in them, lol) that I live in a society tolerant enough for me to be openly atheist. I have a worry that we are moving towards less enlightened and less tolerant times. What do you guys think?

there is at least a need of valid judgments, findings, conclusions and decisions, while the writings are hard to be right(ly) understood only by reading

Blessings

 

[Joyful Mama]

As Christians, you are also rightly concerned by the plight of your fellow Christians in these territories. What is your view of the suffering of the non-Christians?

For me, I am equally as concerned about Christians and non-Christians in these territories. I don't think anyone should be made to suffer.

 

[paul1149]

The Qur'an and the Old Testament aren't so different

The koran and the Old Testament are vastly different. While the Mosaic covenant has a base of law as does islam, and the nation of Israel engaged in limited warfare as a theocracy, while islam does on a global scale, it ends there. From the outset the OT tells of a personal God, a God who appears to man, makes covenant and wants to have relationship with him, a God who prefers mercy to judgment. God would have established a better covenant even with the Israelites were they ready for it, His sending forth His Son had to wait for "the fulness of time".

And even during the centuries when the law was predominant, the prophets and writings such as the psalms were calling Israel to a deeper relationship of spirit, presaging the coming of Holy Spirit, even to all men.

The law is the tutor that leads men to Christ, Galatians tells us. At times the law was harsh, but it had a purpose, and ultimately mercy would triumph over judgment. The other aspects of the OT are largely unknown or neglected, and the secular culture thrives on deriding it. Indeed, too much of the church acts as if we are still under the law.

 

[aiki]

Not sure this is the right place for this, but the issue posed by Radical Islam is an interesting topic for debate on this forum. Clearly, as an atheist I am appalled by what is going on in Iraq and Syria.

Why are you appalled? As an atheist, on what grounds do you object to what Muslim terrorists are doing? As far as I can see, atheism doesn't provide you with any sort of objective grounding for what you might consider moral. If there is no God, you have just one human or group of humans telling other humans what to do. Morality, on an atheistic worldview, is a matter of social conditioning and preference, not anything objective and binding. So, again, I wonder why you are appalled? Are you, perhaps, importing into your atheistic worldview some Judeo-Christian morality? It looks like it to me...

As Christians, you are also rightly concerned by the plight of your fellow Christians in these territories. What is your view of the suffering of the non-Christians?

Well, I think the slaughter of non-Christians is even more horrible than the slaughter of Christians. I know that there is an eternal reward awaiting the Christian dead, but there is no such reward awaiting any who die rejecting God's gift of salvation found in Jesus Christ. It is not just horrible that non-Christians are killed but that they enter eternity facing God's righteous wrath.

And what is your view of a religious caliphate enforcing an Abrahamic God's laws in accordance with the writings in an ancient book?

Islam has borrowed its "laws" from the OT without any greater justification than that it suited Muhammed to do so. And make no mistake, the god of the Q'uran is not the God of Abraham. Islam has taken the OT laws of separation meant only for the Israelites and applied it to Muslims and in so doing has twisted and made obscene the laws God meant to be holy.

The Qur'an and the Old Testament aren't so different - both would struggle with "the religion of peace" label if taken literally.

Hardly. This statement reveals your ignorance of the OT - and the Q'uran. And, by the way, the Israelites never described themselves as followers of "the religion of peace." They lived among antagonistic and war-mongering nations that attacked the Israelites fairly frequently.

I would thank my lucky stars (if I believed in them, lol) that I live in a society tolerant enough for me to be openly atheist.

And you have, in large part, Judeo-Christian values and ethics to thank for the "tolerant" society in which you live.

I have a worry that we are moving towards less enlightened and less tolerant times. What do you guys think?

Very definitely. Already much intolerance has been fomented by the likes of Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris, and Bill Maher who are constantly urging an environment of intolerance and hatred toward the religious. But they will not stem the tide of Islam that is overtaking the world. Europe is already lost. And North America is rapidly approaching a similar demise. Vast resources of Muslim oil money and a much higher fertility rate among Muslims will be the main avenues through which Islam will rise to terrible, deadly global dominance.

Selah.

 

[-57]

Not sure this is the right place for this, but the issue posed by Radical Islam is an interesting topic for debate on this forum. Clearly, as an atheist I am appalled by what is going on in Iraq and Syria. As Christians, you are also rightly concerned by the plight of your fellow Christians in these territories. What is your view of the suffering of the non-Christians? And what is your view of a religious caliphate enforcing an Abrahamic God's laws in accordance with the writings in an ancient book? The Qur'an and the Old Testament aren't so different - both would struggle with "the religion of peace" label if taken literally. I would thank my lucky stars (if I believed in them, lol) that I live in a society tolerant enough for me to be openly atheist. I have a worry that we are moving towards less enlightened and less tolerant times. What do you guys think?

You said "I would thank my lucky stars (if I believed in them, lol) that I live in a society tolerant enough for me to be openly atheist."
Then the Ten Commandments or a manger scene shouldn't bother you. You should be tolerant. Yes?

But, as to the topic....The bible mentions the Prince of Persia. Daniel had a 3 week problem with him. I think the P of P is responsible for the Islam. I could be wrong.

 

[Hieronymus]

Islam is from the 6th century AD or something, and it's a 'collage' of religions.
How can Daniël have had a problem with the person responsible for Islam?

 

[-57]

Islam is from the 6th century AD or something, and it's a 'collage' of religions.
How can Daniël have had a problem with the person responsible for Islam?

I think fallen angels have a form of dominion over certain principalities on earth. In the book of Daniel, Daniels prayers were held up for 3 weeks by the Pricne of Persia...who I believe is being expressed as islam.

 

[Hieronymus]

I think fallen angels have a form of dominion over certain principalities on earth.

or the air, like in Dutch: "macht der lucht" (powers of the sky), i'll look up the verse, hold on..

(googling)

Ephesians 2 and Ephesians 6:12 also.

In the book of Daniel, Daniels prayers were held up for 3 weeks by the Prince of Persia...who I believe is being expressed as islam.

Not too familiar with Daniel, but it 'has to' refer to satan, the lord of the powers of the sky, who is also lord of the "world" (the god of Babylon i suppose...).

I personally believe Islam is an antichrist false flag religion.
It's just not credible enough.
The actual antichrist will conquer them, and that's why the whole world will believe the antichrist is THE Messiah.
Even, if it were possible, the very elect.

O well, at least the Bible explains why it's such a wicked mess on this planet...

 

[Rational Inquirer]

Why are you appalled? As an atheist, on what grounds do you object to what Muslim terrorists are doing? As far as I can see, atheism doesn't provide you with any sort of objective grounding for what you might consider moral. If there is no God, you have just one human or group of humans telling other humans what to do. Morality, on an atheistic worldview, is a matter of social conditioning and preference, not anything objective and binding. So, again, I wonder why you are appalled? Are you, perhaps, importing into your atheistic worldview some Judeo-Christian morality? It looks like it to me...

It is a myth that atheists are less moral than Christians. Evolution provides for moral behavior at least as well as religion does, perhaps more so.

Also, even if there is no God, that doesn't mean there is no afterlife and no punishment for transgressions in this life.

Although I am agnostic, I believe firmly in the afterlife.

 

[Rational Inquirer]

Well, I think the slaughter of non-Christians is even more horrible than the slaughter of Christians. I know that there is an eternal reward awaiting the Christian dead, but there is no such reward awaiting any who die rejecting God's gift of salvation found in Jesus Christ. It is not just horrible that non-Christians are killed but that they enter eternity facing God's righteous wrath.

Please. Not one of those people ever "rejcted God's gift of salvation found in Jesus Christ." If that's a real thing, then none of them were even aware of that fact.

 

[aiki]

It is a myth that atheists are less moral than Christians. Evolution provides for moral behavior at least as well as religion does, perhaps more so.

Well, I disagree.

Also, even if there is no God, that doesn't mean there is no afterlife and no punishment for transgressions in this life.

I think it does mean exactly that.

Although I am agnostic, I believe firmly in the afterlife.

That's nice. Why?

Selah.

 

[Rational Inquirer]

Well, I disagree.

We are social animals, so according to evolution, we are programmed to be sociable. Ants, for example, are social animals. Ants never murder each other, within their own colonies. So ants are just as moral as people, cooperating for the good of the colony. Of course, ants do go to war against other "tribes," just like us.

I think it does mean exactly that.

What does God have to do with the afterlife? If an atheist can believe that we can have this life without a god, why can't he believe that we can have an afterflife without a god? And why can't there be a divine purpose behind human existence without the existence of God? I fail to see the relevance of God to divine purpose.

That's nice. Why?

I belive in the afterlife because we have solid empirical evidence of the existence of the afterlife: near-death experiences. I've investigated them extensively, and I find them extremely convincing. If you have to be a Christian to have a good afterlife, though, I find that ridiculously unfair.
Selah.

 

[Job8]

And what is your view of a religious caliphate enforcing an Abrahamic God's laws in accordance with the writings in an ancient book?

The religious Caliphate is exactly what Radical Islam wants, and they are making great headway. Why? Because western politicians refused to take their declaration of war (Jihad) on the West seriously. They have established thousands of mosques in North America and Europe, they are pushing for Sharia law constantly, they are invading the West with a migrant invasion, and they are waging terrorism at every opportunity (which includes gang raping western women). Now that Iran will receive billions of dollars from its ally Obama, that money will be dedicated to Jihad in every possible manner.

The Qur'an and the Old Testament aren't so different - both would struggle with "the religion of peace" label if taken literally.

Evidently you have studied neither book seriously, so your first order of business is study the Bible then the Qur'an, and then make any comment you wish.

 

[Hieronymus]

It is a myth that atheists are less moral than Christians. Evolution provides for moral behavior at least as well as religion does, perhaps more so.

That's just nonsense.

 

[aiki]

"We are social animals, so according to evolution, we are programmed to be sociable. Ants, for example, are social animals. Ants never murder each other, within their own colonies. So ants are just as moral as people, cooperating for the good of the colony. Of course, ants do go to war against other "tribes," just like us."

I don't, as a Christian, grant your first premise that we are animals. I also don't think that the mechanisms of natural selection, mutation, and adaptation can bring about the sort of macro-evolution the Theory of Evolution posits. In any case, if all that is responsible for our present sense of morality are the impersonal, amoral, blind, mechanical processes of nature, then we cannot speak of objective morality, only preferences of conduct born of social conditioning. There is no true "ought" or "should" when it comes to human behaviour, only what individuals and societies prefer. If the processes of nature had operated differently upon humanity, we could have ended up as the lions who kill the young of their reproductive competitors; or as the sharks that forcibly copulate; or as the termites that eat their dead fellows. We can't, therefore, say that what we call moral behavior is actually, really, objectively moral. On naturalism, rape is not really wrong; murder is not absolutely wrong; stealing is not truly wrong. These are just social conventions, preferences of behaviour advantageous to the preservation of the human species. It is quite conceivable that rape, and murder, and stealing could have evolved in our species as common, accepted practices, just as such behaviour occurs commonly in other animal species. So when an atheist decries the serial killer, or terrorist, or child abuser as immoral, he cannot mean that murder, and terrorism and child abuse are really, objectively wrong, only that he doesn't prefer such behaviour but if nature had worked differently he might not object to such things at all.

"What does God have to do with the afterlife? If an atheist can believe that we can have this life without a god, why can't he believe that we can have an afterflife without a god? And why can't there be a divine purpose behind human existence without the existence of God? I fail to see the relevance of God to divine purpose."

On what basis would an atheist argue for an afterlife? And what meaning is there to the term "divine" if there is no God? If there is no God, there is no divine. That seems very obvious to me...

"I belive in the afterlife because we have solid empirical evidence of the existence of the afterlife: near-death experiences. I've investigated them extensively, and I find them extremely convincing. If you have to be a Christian to have a good afterlife, though, I find that ridiculously unfair."

Well, what you may or may not find unfair has really nothing to do with what is. I'm sure many criminals find it unfair that they must pay for their crimes by time spent in prison. But this doesn't affect the reality of their going to, or being in, prison.

God tells us in the Bible that there are only two options in the afterlife: heaven or hell. Heaven is where God is. Hell is where those who want to exist separately from God will dwell. Why is it unfair for a person who spent a lifetime rejecting God to find after death that they are permanently separated from Him?

Selah.

 

[Rational Inquirer]

See corrected post below.

 

[Rational Inquirer]

I don't, as a Christian, grant your first premise that we are animals. I also don't think that the mechanisms of natural selection, mutation, and adaptation can bring about the sort of macro-evolution the Theory of Evolution posits. In any case, if all that is responsible for our present sense of morality are the impersonal, amoral, blind, mechanical processes of nature, then we cannot speak of objective morality, only preferences of conduct born of social conditioning. There is no true "ought" or "should" when it comes to human behaviour, only what individuals and societies prefer. If the processes of nature had operated differently upon humanity, we could have ended up as the lions who kill the young of their reproductive competitors; or as the sharks that forcibly copulate; or as the termites that eat their dead fellows. We can't, therefore, say that what we call moral behavior is actually, really, objectively moral. On naturalism, rape is not really wrong; murder is not absolutely wrong; stealing is not truly wrong. These are just social conventions, preferences of behaviour advantageous to the preservation of the human species. It is quite conceivable that rape, and murder, and stealing could have evolved in our species as common, accepted practices, just as such behaviour occurs commonly in other animal species. So when an atheist decries the serial killer, or terrorist, or child abuser as immoral, he cannot mean that murder, and terrorism and child abuse are really, objectively wrong, only that he doesn't prefer such behaviour but if nature had worked differently he might not object to such things at all.

We are animals biologically speaking. We have the same genetics, cell biology and physiology as other animals. What do you think we are, plants? In any case, I don't want to derail the discussion by going off on a tangent and debating evolution. I am agnostic as to whether there is an objective morality. It is clear, however, that we are endowed with a conscience (at least, almost all of us). People have consciences regardless of what religion they follow or if, like me, they follow no religion. I also remain agnostic as to the origin of our conscience: whether it is the result of evolution or was provided by God or some such. In the end, it makes no difference to me where my conscience comes from; I have one one way or another.

On what basis would an atheist argue for an afterlife? And what meaning is there to the term "divine" if there is no God? If there is no God, there is no divine. That seems very obvious to me...

I am not an atheist, but I see no reason that one has to believe in God in order to believe in the afterlife. Like I said, if an atheist can believe in this life without needing a god or gods, then why not an afterlife? As far as the existence of divinity, I remain agnostic. But know that there are traditions in this world that include divinity but that have no conception of God, such as Buddhism. You seem to assume that God is the only possible source of "divinity" or an afterlife, because you are most familiar with the Christian tradition.

God tells us in the Bible that there are only two options in the afterlife: heaven or hell. Heaven is where God is. Hell is where those who want to exist separately from God will dwell. Why is it unfair for a person who spent a lifetime rejecting God to find after death that they are permanently separated from Him?

I am an agnostic, but I definitely have never rejected God. I simply have no empirical way of knowing whether He exists. If I had proof that Christianity was true, then I would accept it. To me, though, Christianity is just one religion among many, and no more likely to be true than any of the others. Similarly, a Hindu born and raised in India and exposed only to the Hindu religion (knowing nothing of Christianity) cannot be said to have "rejected" Christianity. That seems absurd to me. It also seems absurd to me that God would reward those who happen to have been lucky enough to pick the "right" religion, through auspicious birth or just dumb luck, and punish those who happen to have picked "wrong" ones. We're only human--why should we be expected to choose correctly all the time, even if our intentions are good? How many people would actually "reject God" if they honestly knew of His existence and what He wanted us to do?