Religious education needed, please.

[Rajni]

Of course not.
You missed a KEY function.

You mean... a requirement.

 

[juvenissun]

Just a note: theism is not a requirement for something to be a religion. That's not synonymous.

At this moment, you better define the two terms: theism and religion.
Than we can reason.

 

[juvenissun]

You mean... a requirement.

No. No requirement.
You don't get it.

 

[Cearbhall]

At this moment, you better define the two terms: theism and religion.
Than we can reason.

I'm not here to debate it. I was informing you.

 

[Rajni]

No. No requirement.
You don't get it.

Of course I get it. Christianity has requirements.

 

[juvenissun]

Of course I get it. Christianity has requirements.

That is it. Suit yourself.

 

[Rajni]

That is it. Suit yourself.

Thank you.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm not here to debate it. I was informing you.

OK. The information is ineffective.

 

[Silmarien]

They may not have the requirements in theological form in Christianity but there's tremendous social cost for going against the prevailing social attitudes especially with regard to politics.

Mainline Protestant denominations usually avoid that problem. Heck, I visit an Eastern Orthodox church and people are relatively socially liberal, so it really does depend.

For me, if there's a social cost, it's in the other direction. Ixnay on the eligionray.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

• • Allah loves those who are spiritual pure and clean al-Baqarah 2:222
  • Allah loves those who do good al-Baqarah 2:195; Âl 'Imran 3:134
  • Allah loves those who keep faith and act rightly Âl 'Imran 3:76

In all the examples above, the love of God is conditional upon the believer being good or clean. If the believer should turn back from God, Allah does not love him any more (Âl 'Imran 3:32). see also LOVE of God, and the unbelievers

Love is just an intense form of liking and affection. Why should I like serial killers? I live for you Hitler. Oh, oh, my dearest Jack the Ripper, how my heart longs for your company. Oh please oh please, this is only platonic, but send me a card.

^ Put like that, Islam seems sensible.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

That is why I gave a link which refers to text from the Koran AND Hadith. Since you have challenged the authenticity of what I have shared I will give more and much better NON-Christian substantiation which also includes verses from other Islamic religious and political books. This comes from a NON-Christian source and here is their intorductory statement at the beginning of their "About" page: "TheReligionofPeace.com is a pluralistic, non-partisan site concerned with Islam's political and religious teachings according to its own texts. The purpose is to counter whitewashing and explain the threat that Islam truly poses to human dignity and freedom, as well as the violence and dysfunction that ensues as a direct consequence of this religion's supremacist ideology." On the home page one finds this article: "Deception, Lying, and Taqiyya" and excerpts are below (please go to site for a much, much more comprehensive collection of Condemning Islamic verses and such. I can only give the tip of the iceberg here.)
"There are several forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, the best known being taqiyya. These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause of Islam - in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.

Quran
Quran (3:28) - This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves" against danger, meaning that there are times when a Muslim may appear friendly to non-Muslims, even though they should not feel friendly.

Quran (3:54) - "And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers." The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means 'deceit'. If Allah is supremely deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)

Taken collectively these verses (and several others at the web page) are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be "compelled" to deceive others for a greater purpose.

Hadith and Sira (Other Islamic Holy Books)
Sahih Bukhari (52:269) - "The Prophet said, 'War is deceit.'" The context of this is thought to be the murder of Usayr ibn Zarim and his thirty unarmed companions by Muhammad's men after they were "guaranteed" safe passage (see Additional Notes below).
Sahih Bukhari (84:64-65) - Speaking from a position of power at the time, Ali confirms that lying is permitted in order to deceive an "enemy."
Sahih Bukhari (50:369) - Recounts the murder of a poet, Ka'b bin al-Ashraf, at Muhammad's insistence. The men who volunteered for the assassination used dishonesty to gain Ka'b's trust, pretending that they had turned against Muhammad. This drew the victim out of his fortress, whereupon he was brutally slaughtered.
From Islamic Law:
Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746 - 8.2) - "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory... it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression... (See the Permissible Lying section on the Sharia page for more)

"One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie."
Notes
The Hadith makes it clear that Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them or protect themselves. There are several forms:

Taqiyya - Saying something that isn't true as it relates to the Muslim identity.

Kitman - Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills "it shall be as if he had killed all mankind") while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of "corruption" and "mischief."

Tawriya - Intentionally creating a false impression.

Muruna - 'Blending in' by setting aside some practices of Islam or Sharia in order to advance others.

Though not called taqiyya by name, Muhammad clearly used deception when he signed a 10-year treaty with the Meccans (known as Hudaibiya) that allowed him access to their city while he secretly prepared his own forces for a takeover. The unsuspecting residents were conquered in easy fashion after he broke the treaty two years later. Some of the people in the city who had trusted him at his word were executed.

Another example of lying is when Muhammad used deception to trick his personal enemies into letting down their guard and exposing themselves to slaughter by pretending to seek peace. This happened in the case of Ka'b bin al-Ashraf (as previously noted) and later against Usayr ibn Zarim, a surviving leader of the Banu Nadir tribe, which had been evicted from their home in Medina by the Muslims.

At the time, Usayr ibn Zarim was attempting to gather an armed force against the Muslims from among a tribe allied with the Quraish (against which Muhammad had already declared war). Muhammad's "emissaries" went to ibn Zarim and persuaded him to leave his safe haven on the pretext of meeting with the prophet of Islam in Medina to discuss peace. Once vulnerable, the leader and his thirty companions were massacred by the Muslims with ease, probably because they were unarmed - having been given a guarantee of safe passage (Ibn Ishaq 981, Ibn Kathir v.4 p.300).

Today's apologists often rationalize Muhammad's murder of poets and others who criticized him at Medina by falsely claiming that they broke a treaty with their actions. Yet, these same apologists place little value on treaties broken by Muslims. From Muhammad to Saddam Hussein, promises made to non-Muslim are distinctly non-binding in the Muslim mindset.

The 9/11 hijackers practiced deception by going into bars and drinking alcohol, thus throwing off potential suspicion that they were fundamentalists plotting jihad. This effort worked so well that John Walsh, the host of a popular American television show, claimed well after the fact that their bar trips were evidence of 'hypocrisy.'

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) insists that it "has not now or ever been involved with the Muslim Brotherhood, or supported any covert, illegal, or terrorist activity or organization." In fact, it was created by the Muslim Brotherhood and has bankrolled Hamas. At least nine founders or board members of ISNA have been accused by prosecutors of supporting terrorism.

The notorious Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is so well known for shamelessly lying about its ties to terror and extremism that books have been written on the subject. They take seriously the part of Sharia that says "it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory". The goal being the ascendency of Islam (and Sharia itself) on the American landscape.

Prior to engineering several deadly terror plots, such as the Fort Hood massacre and the attempt to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner, American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was regularly sought out by NPR, PBS and even government leaders to expound on the peaceful nature of Islam.

In 2013, a scholar at the prestigious al-Azhar university decreed that Muslims may wear the cross in order to deceive Christians into thinking they are friendly. He cited 3:28 which says not to be friends with non-Muslims unless it is a way of "guarding" yourself against them.

The Quran says in several places that Allah is the best at deceiving people.

Finally, the circumstances by which Muhammad allowed a believer to lie to a non-spouse are limited to those that either advance the cause of Islam or enable a Muslim to avoid harm to his well-being (and presumably that of other Muslims as well). Although this should be kept very much in mind when dealing with matters of global security, such as Iran's nuclear intentions, it is not grounds for assuming that the Muslim one might personally encounter on the street or in the workplace is any less honest than anyone else." Like I said, there is much more in this presentation please go to the site below for it and more.



©2002 - 2017 Site developed by TheReligionofPeace.Com
All Rights Reserved

That is why I gave a link which refers to text from the Koran AND Hadith. Since you have challenged the authenticity of what I have shared I will give more and much better NON-Christian substantiation which also includes verses from other Islamic religious and political books. This comes from a NON-Christian source and here is their intorductory statement at the beginning of their "About" page: "TheReligionofPeace.com is a pluralistic, non-partisan site concerned with Islam's political and religious teachings according to its own texts. The purpose is to counter whitewashing and explain the threat that Islam truly poses to human dignity and freedom, as well as the violence and dysfunction that ensues as a direct consequence of this religion's supremacist ideology." On the home page one finds this article: "Deception, Lying, and Taqiyya" and excerpts are below (please go to site for a much, much more comprehensive collection of Condemning Islamic verses and such. I can only give the tip of the iceberg here.)
"There are several forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, the best known being taqiyya. These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause of Islam - in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.

Quran
Quran (3:28) - This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves" against danger, meaning that there are times when a Muslim may appear friendly to non-Muslims, even though they should not feel friendly.

Quran (3:54) - "And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers." The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means 'deceit'. If Allah is supremely deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)

Taken collectively these verses (and several others at the web page) are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be "compelled" to deceive others for a greater purpose.

Hadith and Sira (Other Islamic Holy Books)
Sahih Bukhari (52:269) - "The Prophet said, 'War is deceit.'" The context of this is thought to be the murder of Usayr ibn Zarim and his thirty unarmed companions by Muhammad's men after they were "guaranteed" safe passage (see Additional Notes below).
Sahih Bukhari (84:64-65) - Speaking from a position of power at the time, Ali confirms that lying is permitted in order to deceive an "enemy."
Sahih Bukhari (50:369) - Recounts the murder of a poet, Ka'b bin al-Ashraf, at Muhammad's insistence. The men who volunteered for the assassination used dishonesty to gain Ka'b's trust, pretending that they had turned against Muhammad. This drew the victim out of his fortress, whereupon he was brutally slaughtered.
From Islamic Law:
Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746 - 8.2) - "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory... it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression... (See the Permissible Lying section on the Sharia page for more)

"One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie."
Notes
The Hadith makes it clear that Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them or protect themselves. There are several forms:

Taqiyya - Saying something that isn't true as it relates to the Muslim identity.

Kitman - Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills "it shall be as if he had killed all mankind") while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of "corruption" and "mischief."

Tawriya - Intentionally creating a false impression.

Muruna - 'Blending in' by setting aside some practices of Islam or Sharia in order to advance others.

Though not called taqiyya by name, Muhammad clearly used deception when he signed a 10-year treaty with the Meccans (known as Hudaibiya) that allowed him access to their city while he secretly prepared his own forces for a takeover. The unsuspecting residents were conquered in easy fashion after he broke the treaty two years later. Some of the people in the city who had trusted him at his word were executed.

Another example of lying is when Muhammad used deception to trick his personal enemies into letting down their guard and exposing themselves to slaughter by pretending to seek peace. This happened in the case of Ka'b bin al-Ashraf (as previously noted) and later against Usayr ibn Zarim, a surviving leader of the Banu Nadir tribe, which had been evicted from their home in Medina by the Muslims.

At the time, Usayr ibn Zarim was attempting to gather an armed force against the Muslims from among a tribe allied with the Quraish (against which Muhammad had already declared war). Muhammad's "emissaries" went to ibn Zarim and persuaded him to leave his safe haven on the pretext of meeting with the prophet of Islam in Medina to discuss peace. Once vulnerable, the leader and his thirty companions were massacred by the Muslims with ease, probably because they were unarmed - having been given a guarantee of safe passage (Ibn Ishaq 981, Ibn Kathir v.4 p.300).

Today's apologists often rationalize Muhammad's murder of poets and others who criticized him at Medina by falsely claiming that they broke a treaty with their actions. Yet, these same apologists place little value on treaties broken by Muslims. From Muhammad to Saddam Hussein, promises made to non-Muslim are distinctly non-binding in the Muslim mindset.

The 9/11 hijackers practiced deception by going into bars and drinking alcohol, thus throwing off potential suspicion that they were fundamentalists plotting jihad. This effort worked so well that John Walsh, the host of a popular American television show, claimed well after the fact that their bar trips were evidence of 'hypocrisy.'

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) insists that it "has not now or ever been involved with the Muslim Brotherhood, or supported any covert, illegal, or terrorist activity or organization." In fact, it was created by the Muslim Brotherhood and has bankrolled Hamas. At least nine founders or board members of ISNA have been accused by prosecutors of supporting terrorism.

The notorious Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is so well known for shamelessly lying about its ties to terror and extremism that books have been written on the subject. They take seriously the part of Sharia that says "it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory". The goal being the ascendency of Islam (and Sharia itself) on the American landscape.

Prior to engineering several deadly terror plots, such as the Fort Hood massacre and the attempt to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner, American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was regularly sought out by NPR, PBS and even government leaders to expound on the peaceful nature of Islam.

In 2013, a scholar at the prestigious al-Azhar university decreed that Muslims may wear the cross in order to deceive Christians into thinking they are friendly. He cited 3:28 which says not to be friends with non-Muslims unless it is a way of "guarding" yourself against them.

The Quran says in several places that Allah is the best at deceiving people.

Finally, the circumstances by which Muhammad allowed a believer to lie to a non-spouse are limited to those that either advance the cause of Islam or enable a Muslim to avoid harm to his well-being (and presumably that of other Muslims as well). Although this should be kept very much in mind when dealing with matters of global security, such as Iran's nuclear intentions, it is not grounds for assuming that the Muslim one might personally encounter on the street or in the workplace is any less honest than anyone else." Like I said, there is much more in this presentation please go to the site below for it and more.



©2002 - 2017 Site developed by TheReligionofPeace.Com
All Rights Reserved

I'm not exactly qualified to discuss taqiya as Sunni, but as a Christian, knowing the intelligence service of your nation lie, do you support their dissolution?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Thank you very much. This one is special. And I do not quite understand the justification behind it.

Do anything to promote Islam. But do not do that to people within Islam. I think it may have logic contradiction in this concept. One action could be good or bad, depends on if it is used to promote Islam. If so, is there an absolute value of Islam, or the Allah? In particular, the concept of sin is totally confused in Islam.

In Islam sin is the opposite of piety (taqua) and piety involves staying clear of harm and disaster, and also fearing God who can reward and punish. I am confused as to why that is confused. The love and mercy of God is AFAIK upon the pious, in a functional manner - ie piety protects from harm, and this safety expresses Gods love, it brings peace and tranquility, and is a aspect of His rewarding a Muslim's virtue.

On the other hand God dislikes the impious. Impiety is the opposite of taqua, and involves neglecting that which is tayib (wholesome, good, pure). If youre bosom buddy is Jack the Ripper and you're drunk, with a reefer in your hand etc - that's impiety. And sin is punished, guess how?

(I am not qualified as a sheikh or scholar, so please treat with caution)

 

[juvenissun]

In Islam sin is the opposite of piety (taqua) and piety involves staying clear of harm and disaster, and also fearing God who can reward and punish. I am confused as to why that is confused. The love and mercy of God is AFAIK upon the pious, in a functional manner - ie piety protects from harm, and this safety expresses Gods love, it brings peace and tranquility, and is a aspect of His rewarding a Muslim's virtue.

On the other hand God dislikes the impious. Impiety is the opposite of taqua, and involves neglecting that which is tayib (wholesome, good, pure). If youre bosom buddy is Jack the Ripper and you're drunk, with a reefer in your hand etc - that's impiety. And sin is punished, guess how?

(I am not qualified as a sheikh or scholar, so please treat with caution)

I will show you why is it confusing. Take an example to explain:

In Islam, rape a muslim is a sin, but rape an infidel is not a sin. Because Allah said so.

How would a muslim see rape when there is no infidel in this world? Of course, in that case, it would always be a sin (said so by Allah). So, in a all-muslim world, sin still exist. Islam has no solution to it. When there were no enemy around for Jihad, all muslims will then be doomed by sin.

So, it is, after all, a very shallow idea for opportunist. It easily justify sinful actions in wars. Because it is based on an instinct of human action-reaction (if you do not obey, then I rape with a justification). It does not have an answer to the problem of sin, because human wisdom (include the Islam) can not find an answer to it.

 

[Tolworth John]

Who said anything about ressurection?
I maybe silly but I,m not stupid.

You are the one claiming you don,t have to do anything while at the same time
you are saying you have to stick to the rules.

So how do you keep your rules?

When you made the accusation that Christians invent someone to do it for you.
That is when you need to justify that claim or prove the Christian claims about Jesus are false.


Yes I have mentioned rules alot and the rules I have been referring to are the need for anyone who wants to get to God has to go by the way God has said we must.
Which is by faith in Jesus.

 

[Tolworth John]

To be honest, this is one of the prime reasons why I de-converted, Christians have a way of limiting God, and I didn't know how to do that.

So you've gone from a God that created all of time, space, energy, matter, suns, planets, life and organised all this and is interested in us to a devine spark that lives in us.
That is certainly is one way of reducing and limiting God.
May I suggest that you investigate what the bible says about God and form your own judgement based on that information rather then on how Christians portray him.
As you say we are all guilty of limiting God according to our biases.

 

[Tolworth John]

Actually, it's Panenthestic. And it's not worshiping the Divine Spark. That would be incorrect. Seeing God through the Divine Spark would be closer to the point.

Is '
panentheism claims the God is greater than the universe and that the universe is contained within God. Panentheism holds that God is the “supreme effect” of the universe. God is everything in the universe, but God also is greater than the universe. Events and changes in the universe affect and change God. As the universe grows and learns, God also increases in knowledge and being.'
An accurate understanding of what you believe?

 

[Tolworth John]

That analogy may be true in this physical world. But the spiritual world plays by a different set of rules, one where Love is gateway. We can see that truth by how alive and vibrant God is with in others of the various spiritual traditions around the world and who enjoy the same blessings as Christians experience. Because as we look around we can see the truth of that, there has to be something else going on thats bigger than the One True Way that your saying it is.

How do you know that the spiritual world plays by different rules?

What greater example of Love in actionis there than Jesus.

You want something bigger than Jesus?
The bible says he is the creator, what can be greater than the creator or his Love for you or for me?

 

[Tolworth John]

I'm saying that Christianity has requirements. Try telling a Christian that God will ultimately save everyone and watch those requirements start rolling in.

Now your putting words in my mouth.
I've said all along that to save one must have faith in Jesus. Not everyone has that so not everyone will be saved.

 

[Robban]

When you made the accusation that Christians invent someone to do it for you.
That is when you need to justify that claim or prove the Christian claims about Jesus are false.


Yes I have mentioned rules alot and the rules I have been referring to are the need for anyone who wants to get to God has to go by the way God has said we must.
Which is by faith in Jesus.

"Christians" make many claims,
First it can be fun then it becomes annoying, seeing that they think they have monopoly

it becomes boring.

God forgives any sin He can,
but does not forgive those He "cannot"

He gave the injured party a power He witheld from Himself.

The victim alone owns the copyright to forgive the criminals who commited crimes against him.

Anyone who speaks on his behalf, without permission,
is no different than a common thief.

check out,
Matt 6:14-15.


nothing new under the sun,

For sins against God the Day of Atonement brings forgiveness,
For sins against one,s neighbor, the Day of Atonement brings no forgiveness
until has become reconciled with one,s neighbor.


That is the unforgivable sin.

And our book was before yours.

 

[Tolworth John]

Love is just an intense form of liking and affection. Why should I like serial killers? I live for you Hitler. Oh, oh, my dearest Jack the Ripper, how my heart longs for your company. Oh please oh please, this is only platonic, but send me a card.

^ Put like that, Islam seems sensible.

Where did I say, in a post about the limitation of the love of allah, that murders should be loved?

 

[Tolworth John]

"Christians" make many claims,
First it can be fun then it becomes annoying, seeing that they think they have monopoly

it becomes boring.

God forgives any sin He can,
but does not forgive those He "cannot"

He gave the injured party a power He witheld from Himself.

The victim alone owns the copyright to forgive the criminals who commited crimes against him.

Anyone who speaks on his behalf, without permission,
is no different than a common thief.

check out,
Matt 6:14-15.


nothing new under the sun,

For sins against God the Day of Atonement brings forgiveness,
For sins against one,s neighbor, the Day of Atonement brings no forgiveness
until has become reconciled with one,s neighbor.


That is the unforgivable sin.

And our book was before yours.

And how do those quotes invalidate the claims of Chrisrtianity?