Is Islam compatible within Western Society?

[kmoney]

You may not see it, but I do. Ask a Christian friend of yours if he or she would use the Catholic catechism in support of Christian doctrine. Or, just hand them a 10 foot pole. :chuckle:

"Are Catholics Christians?" or "Are Catholics saved?" is a question that isn't so uncommon in some circles. :chuckle:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Well said. And to be clear, I don't think you believe having a superior position makes you superior as a person. In case that got lost in the shuffle. Most of that was an exercise to note why I'm reticent when it comes to this sort of subject, the problematic nature of the rhetoric involved and how easy it is to read in...as I found you doing with my approach.

It's bound to happen...

I'd assume necessity. It's a bit like the argument over why we have this universe, with insects and pain, don't you think?

Where I'd presume further inquiry. Bees are essential to the eco system on this planet but with having them people are going to be stung. A 'hell' whereby 'people' still exist and presumably 'sin' does also hardly accomplishes any objective other than pointless existence and suffering. The factor of pain in this existence is one that causes many a pause for thought for sure, it has done with me. I would hope it's eradicated altogether but I can completely understand why people wonder if there's a god when so much of it goes on, and why people are designed to feel such.

Yeah, I don't like the pat business as it applies to people who have dealt with the problem personally. It may not satisfy, but that could as easily reflect our position and have little to do with their response to it.

Then it's hardly clear cut...

But God didn't make our choices for us. He didn't start the fire, so to speak. . . lain:

Did He make our ability to love, to feel pain, to question, to be unsure, to doubt and then set up the parameters whereby any failure at any point would result in the house setting alight once born? Nobody else set those parameters up so again, would you feel thankful for the fireman who's set your house on fire and pulled you out of it?

And as I noted a long time ago, the mechanism by which we deny the impulse to sin is as present when we don't.

Supra. You're a human being vested with all sorts of chemicals/hormones/electrical impulses going off. Chances of you being a complete goody two shoes for every waking second of your life no matter how 'small' a slip? Zero.

I don't see how not asking to be born impacts the analogy at all because existence isn't the burning house, the house is existence. Our actions start the fire. At that point I pick up with God addressing it.

So suppose you've managed to live a sin free life up until some point where you stub your toe and cuss. Who set up your ability to feel that pain? It wasn't you, yet if you fail to live a sinless life that one misdemeanour will be enough to sentence you to an eternity of one? Your whole life is under an umbrella of fire and not a gift if that's the case. Would you lock your child up if he slipped or didn't get a perfect score in his next math exam? You may not like the association but it holds.

But we've already noted that human beings can't really separate their actions from self interest. Even if you give your life for another you're doing it because it serves an idea you find superior and that serves you. The most altruistic, anonymous act still brings us pleasure of a sort. So you could argue we're only speaking to degree and, again, if that fear moves a sinner into the eventual experience of a loving God I'm not going to say much against it. It might even be the only thing to shake some out of their situation. :idunno:

Disagree. Going back to that contemptible thread of SOD's regarding the Colorado shootings. Unless you think that everyone who risked and gave their lives in trying to protect people were feeling assured of another one then what were they being selfish about exactly? Do you think no atheist has done the like? That should give you pause for thought I hope.

If we use the word as a metric and pursue our walk with God as we're instructed I think the odds are on our side.

Then tell that to aCW, Nick M, Serpentdove and the like because they sure feel they're doing 'as instructed' and look at the sewerage they pour forth on regular occasion.

I've never said God is one thing. I think his nature is perfect. Love is found in that, as is justice. To my mind the cross is where we find those two realities meeting.

Then again, the same still applies. A completely sadistic entity who delighted in torturous suffering couldn't do anything worse than one who's justice is supposedly meted out and rooted in love if certain traditional and orthodox interpretations are to be given credence. Does not add up...

Like I've said, from enough distance self defense looks like murder, but it isn't.

Better to get a more focused shot all ways up then really.

I've never said anything against inquiry and examination, though the context for both is important.

Sure.

Of course it can, depending. I don't let Jack play with fire, by way of.

Well of course on that score. No loving parent would allow their child to do that or put themselves in potentially deadly harm or extreme suffering, and any punishment they mete out is done solely for the benefit of their child as well. Not something you can relay in regards to an eternal 'hell'...

I didn't have that much of a problem demonstrating the problem with some of his focus and the misleading lack of context in it, though we didn't disagree on a number of points. I guess I'll rest on my responses to him in regard to him.

Fair enough.

I'm sure that's true. Human nature.

Yes, one we're born with with and all of the resulting attributes and deficiencies that come with it.

That's one way to describe any knowledge or faith. That's the way an atheist might describe any article of faith. Or, you could from one perspective describe my faith in God, my inability or unwillingness to consider a reality where He doesn't exist as being blinkered. To me it's simply a settled question. Some things reduce to context. It makes the metric very, very important and our diligence even more so.

Plenty would say to you that they have an unshakable conviction that unbaptized children are destined to 'hell' through their belief that anyone is born in sin. Your belief may be a settled question to you and that's fair enough also but it's no surprise that it isn't to a lot in this one brief shot of a life.

Then I'd argue you will likely have to leave that church for another when you get around to reading scripture. There were leaders in early churches undermining Paul's efforts. Lacking the Bible Paul told them to measure by his instruction. But, in general it's one reason we need to be in prayer for our elders even as we read and grow to take our place among them.

And for all the danger of a Westboro, I see more apostasy and peril rooted in the lone ranger approach to faith, which is unsurprising given the root is contrary to God's instruction.

:cheers:

Who's to say what church is the right one in regards to teaching scripture? Aren't you also making an arbitrary judgement in that Westboro aren't actually doing just that as it is? Who's to say they aren't right and that cancer victims are the unrighteous vessels of God's wrath along with dead servicemen who died fighting in war?

:think:

 

[annabenedetti]

"Are Catholics Christians?" or "Are Catholics saved?" is a question that isn't so uncommon in some circles. :chuckle:

kmo - master of the thoughtful understatement.

Here's one quite extensive list:

https://carm.org/roman-catholicism

 

[annabenedetti]

Well of course on that score. No loving parent would allow their child to do that or put themselves in potentially deadly harm or extreme suffering, and any punishment they mete out is done solely for the benefit of their child as well. Not something you can relay in regards to an eternal 'hell'...

Agreed.

Plenty would say to you that they have an unshakable conviction that unbaptized children are destined to 'hell' through their belief that anyone is born in sin. Your belief may be a settled question to you and that's fair enough also but it's no surprise that it isn't to a lot in this one brief shot of a life.

The same Catholic catechism referenced by TH offers no assurance of salvation for unbaptized babies:

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"⁶⁴ allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

​

And that's a more beneficent view than would be held by the early fathers, earlier Catholic teaching, and current traditional Catholic teaching which hold very strongly to the necessity of baptism - even for infants.

 

[Arthur Brain]

No. In general, I don't look for your replies or posts any more. They have no significance on anything. Also, I am unjust. I am not God. He will do things I cannot do because, as I said, I am unjust. I would only execute murderers, slave traders, rapists, and negligent homicides (think DUI crashes that kill. He has told us to execute adulterers also.

Oh, so why not homosexuals anymore Nicky? A bit uncomfortable with the fact that those closer to your hyper religious extremism are quite happily doing such?

 

[Town Heretic]

It's bound to happen...

Math.

Where I'd presume further inquiry. Bees are essential to the eco system on this planet but with having them people are going to be stung. A 'hell' whereby 'people' still exist and presumably 'sin' does also hardly accomplishes any objective other than pointless existence and suffering. The factor of pain in this existence is one that causes many a pause for thought for sure, it has done with me. I would hope it's eradicated altogether but I can completely understand why people wonder if there's a god when so much of it goes on, and why people are designed to feel such.

Here's how I see it: we understand, to some extent, the necessity of a great deal of what pains us in the physical world. We haven't always.

Then it's hardly clear cut...

Then the question is about the direction in which we err.

Did He make our ability to love, to feel pain, to question, to be unsure, to doubt and then set up the parameters whereby any failure at any point would result in the house setting alight once born?

Do you have the ability to refuse sin or must you yield to it? Do you have the ability to accept grace or must you refuse it? Sometimes the questions we ask frame the context and sometimes they frame the problem.

Nobody else set those parameters up so again, would you feel thankful for the fireman who's set your house on fire and pulled you out of it?

Again, that's not my scenario. God doesn't make you sin. Sin is where the danger in consequence comes in.

Supra. You're a human being vested with all sorts of chemicals/hormones/electrical impulses going off. Chances of you being a complete goody two shoes for every waking second of your life no matter how 'small' a slip? Zero.

Jesus put that on its ear. And it isn't about being a goody two shoes, whatever that means. It's about making the right moral choice when it's presented. It's about whether we yield and recognizing that when we do it's our choice, not an inevitability. That's a cop out fashioned from the seemingly reasonable generalization, but that breaks down in the specific, in the moment when we make a choice to do what we know we should not. Math won't justify it and Christ's example puts the lie to it.

So suppose you've managed to live a sin free life up until some point where you stub your toe and cuss.

I don't think that's necessarily a sin. The sound you make to signify an overwhelming moment of pain isn't sin. Lying to profit from it is a sin, and so on.

Who set up your ability to feel that pain? It wasn't you, yet if you fail to live a sinless life that one misdemeanour will be enough to sentence you to an eternity of one? Your whole life is under an umbrella of fire and not a gift if that's the case. Would you lock your child up if he slipped or didn't get a perfect score in his next math exam? You may not like the association but it holds.

So the way you make your perspective on my part work is by transforming God to nickle and dime legalist? What did Christ say about the priest's wheat again? God doesn't lack perspective and sin isn't running in the hall.

Disagree. Going back to that contemptible thread of SOD's regarding the Colorado shootings. Unless you think that everyone who risked and gave their lives in trying to protect people were feeling assured of another one then what were they being selfish about exactly? Do you think no atheist has done the like? That should give you pause for thought I hope.

I think I answered on the point. If you sacrifice your life for something you're saying that something means more to you than your life. You are serving your highest understanding. You can't remove self interest from action. If we didn't see the profit we wouldn't do it. Even if that profit is only service to our highest ideas, by which we derive what satisfaction we can from this life.

Then tell that to aCW, Nick M, Serpentdove and the like because they sure feel they're doing 'as instructed' and look at the sewerage they pour forth on regular occasion.

I don't know where or if most here attend. I know that I typically find problematic conduct and expression of faith from people who divest themselves from a family of faith via some complaint or another. That said, to say the odds are on our side isn't to speak against exception. Most rules have them. Westboro, by way of your own example. Is it a representative of Christ's church or an aberration?

Then again, the same still applies. A completely sadistic entity who delighted in torturous suffering couldn't do anything worse than one who's justice is supposedly meted out and rooted in love if certain traditional and orthodox interpretations are to be given credence. Does not add up...

So I'll repeat what I noted, which is that appearances without understanding can mislead us. Or, it could be your judgment on what is just or your understanding of what hell is might be the problem. I know this, repeatedly framing the traditional understanding of hell as a work indistinguishable from a sadists isn't a healthy sign. It's beyond questioning. It seems more like a demand.

Better to get a more focused shot all ways up then really.

My point, in part.

Well of course on that score. No loving parent would allow their child to do that or put themselves in potentially deadly harm or extreme suffering, and any punishment they mete out is done solely for the benefit of their child as well. Not something you can relay in regards to an eternal 'hell'...

You tried to use one point on a separate issue there. But good. You agree then that love isn't always permissive. Love can control where it must. On the second point, hell isn't about love. Grace is.

Yes, one we're born with with and all of the resulting attributes and deficiencies that come with it.

Along with our strengths, like the ability to reason and to choose between good and evil.

Plenty would say to you that they have an unshakable conviction that unbaptized children are destined to 'hell' through their belief that anyone is born in sin.

That belief is outside of Christian orthodoxy. What denominations hold it?

Your belief may be a settled question to you and that's fair enough also but it's no surprise that it isn't to a lot in this one brief shot of a life.

If a man who saw miracles could choose to work an evil because he had another notion, then time isn't the problem.

Who's to say what church is the right one in regards to teaching scripture?

Any church whose teaching follows the word made flesh is doing more right than not, whatever they think about dancing or wine or the day of the week for a service. And every church founded upon Christ recognizes his word as truth.

Aren't you also making an arbitrary judgement in that Westboro aren't actually doing just that as it is?

No, but it would take some time to speak to it. And I'm not suggesting that the members of Westboro aren't saved and loved by God. I am and I say and do stupid things on occasion. I wouldn't be comfortable in their church, but I'm comfortable with their God.

Who's to say they aren't right and that cancer victims are the unrighteous vessels of God's wrath along with dead servicemen who died fighting in war?

They'll have to justify their judgment before God and be held to that standard. I don't envy them. Else, Christ and his word. That's our metric.

 

[ok doser]

So you never answered my question. Do you think homosexuals should be executed?

And you do realize that more than a few of your coreligionists are okay with stoning them.

Kinda puts their Christian extremism in context when you post these photos.

This is savage barbarism, no matter what religious ideology is responsible, Bible or Koran.

is a lethal injection done out of the public eye "barbarism"?

Going back to that contemptible thread of SOD's regarding the Colorado shootings.

the one in which I demonstrated the difference between confronting a threat and trying to hide from it while others are being slaughtered?

 

[Nick M]

I forgot one. When you add rapists, many homos will die any way. Since they molest children. And that is rape.

 

[intojoy]

You lie again, you deceiver. AB doesn't hate God.

I think she's in love with you bro. Sounds like a wife anyway..


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Town Heretic]

I think she's in love with you bro. Sounds like a wife anyway..

Either you must have been slapped a good deal or never at all. lain: In either event, a tragic misconception entered in.

 

[annabenedetti]

Either you must have been slapped a good deal or never at all. lain: In either event, a tragic misconception entered in.

How bizarre.... maybe he's read too many romance novels.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Here's how I see it: we understand, to some extent, the necessity of a great deal of what pains us in the physical world. We haven't always.

Perhaps, but only to some extent. A lot of the pain and suffering in the world baffles plenty and why the necessity for it? Parents who see their children in a cancer ward are not too likely to understand the necessity for that by way of or a starving woman seeing her family die of malnutrition in the third world etc. It perplexes more than it invites 'understanding'.

Then the question is about the direction in which we err.

How would that address the problem of clarity?

Do you have the ability to refuse sin or must you yield to it? Do you have the ability to accept grace or must you refuse it? Sometimes the questions we ask frame the context and sometimes they frame the problem.

Do you have the ability to question or entertain doubt? Do you have a choice in holding a sincere belief? Do you have a choice in being afflicted with pain and suffering that might lead to such doubts? Sure, I'm not saying there's no choice in when we entertain something we know to be wrong but you make humanity sound completely black and white and it isn't. Sometimes we might lash out in hurt and then regret it a moment later so is that still a sin?

Again, that's not my scenario. God doesn't make you sin. Sin is where the danger in consequence comes in.

Never said it was but it's the obvious one you invite when you use an analogy whereby the potential rescuer has set up the actual danger in the first place. God might not make anyone sin but he does thrust existence upon the world with a bar set so high that everyone misses it along with the consequences He Himself also sets up for those who miss the "lifeboat". Nobody gets a say in being born into this life with all of its tribulations and trials, pain and suffering etc so it hardly smacks of 'love' when an apparent eternity of "hell" awaits all those who 'didn't make the mark' one way or another.

Jesus put that on its ear. And it isn't about being a goody two shoes, whatever that means. It's about making the right moral choice when it's presented. It's about whether we yield and recognizing that when we do it's our choice, not an inevitability. That's a cop out fashioned from the seemingly reasonable generalization, but that breaks down in the specific, in the moment when we make a choice to do what we know we should not. Math won't justify it and Christ's example puts the lie to it.

Jesus may have come to earth in human form but He was hardly the average "man". Is there anything to suggest He was prone to the same doubts, desires and weaknesses as 'Joe Smith' down the street? Was there any point where He wasn't aware of exactly who He was or His vocation before or during ministry in your opinion? And I don't know about you but I don't know of anyone who can feed thousands of people with half a loaf and a few fish, turn water into wine or perform any particular miracle outside of those who do parlour tricks and illusionists. I don't think using Jesus as an example of a human being necessarily follows.

I don't think that's necessarily a sin. The sound you make to signify an overwhelming moment of pain isn't sin. Lying to profit from it is a sin, and so on.

Fine, then insert any particular sin in its place then. A moment of unrighteous anger, a deliberate hurt, whatever. That one aberration is enough to send you to an eternity of torment in itself?

So the way you make your perspective on my part work is by transforming God to nickle and dime legalist? What did Christ say about the priest's wheat again? God doesn't lack perspective and sin isn't running in the hall.

It's what doctrines such as this lend themselves towards. "Orthodoxy" seems to be your starting point and anything that differs with that understanding is to be viewed as 'in error' or so it would seem with you.

I think I answered on the point. If you sacrifice your life for something you're saying that something means more to you than your life. You are serving your highest understanding. You can't remove self interest from action. If we didn't see the profit we wouldn't do it. Even if that profit is only service to our highest ideas, by which we derive what satisfaction we can from this life.

Then you're effectively saying that there's no such thing as a completely selfless act, or at least not one that a human could commit anyway. If self interest informs anything that appears altruistic on the face of it then with that I completely disagree and a source that you hold dear disagrees with you also. I was going to go into a series of scenarios as to why but I think I'll just ask you what the bible says about love, and then what it says about a man who lays down his life for his friends instead...

I don't know where or if most here attend. I know that I typically find problematic conduct and expression of faith from people who divest themselves from a family of faith via some complaint or another. That said, to say the odds are on our side isn't to speak against exception. Most rules have them. Westboro, by way of your own example. Is it a representative of Christ's church or an aberration?

I think it's an example of human legalism and unwavering adherence to doctrine run amok, and as such it's a more extreme version but far from an aberration on that score IMO...

So I'll repeat what I noted, which is that appearances without understanding can mislead us. Or, it could be your judgment on what is just or your understanding of what hell is might be the problem. I know this, repeatedly framing the traditional understanding of hell as a work indistinguishable from a sadists isn't a healthy sign. It's beyond questioning. It seems more like a demand.

Well no, it's rather an observation in itself. A doctrine of eternal unbearable torment simply can't be topped for it's sheer (un)imaginable horror. It's the 'ultimate' that goes beyond comprehension. You recently said that if 'hell' were a literal place of fiery torment you'd trust that it was just (or words to that effect). I'm presuming you've burned yourself at some point, taking a baking tray out of the oven or something and experienced that excruciating pain for just a second where the blistering heat hits the skin? It's simply stating the obvious that no monster, no matter how cruel, how sadistic or evil could possibly inflict or envisage any worse fate upon people. The dichotomy is that this is or is potentially set up by a deity described as love, or so certain traditional doctrines would have us believe, so is it any wonder that it's open to question?

My point, in part.

And mine, obviously.

You tried to use one point on a separate issue there. But good. You agree then that love isn't always permissive. Love can control where it must. On the second point, hell isn't about love. Grace is.

Of course love isn't always permissive. It can't be when you think about it. Interesting though that you agree that love can control where it must but where it comes to a 'traditional hell' it has no place. You're right in that such a hell has nothing whatsoever to do with love...

Along with our strengths, like the ability to reason and to choose between good and evil.

And to question doctrines and "orthodoxy"...

That belief is outside of Christian orthodoxy. What denominations hold it?

Catholicism through to Calvinism. There's been plenty of debates on the matter on here alone through the years.

If a man who saw miracles could choose to work an evil because he had another notion, then time isn't the problem.

Or, given more time and a greater understanding that came along with such he'd recognize those miracles for what they happened to be along with his actions. Some people have a natural aptitude for algebra. For others it's just a load of letters and numbers until it starts to sink in. A guy who dies at 21 would likely have a different understanding of life had he reached 50 etc, else look at the character of 'Red' in the 'Shawshank Redemption' and his speech to the parole board prior to his release from prison to make the point further and in relation.

Any church whose teaching follows the word made flesh is doing more right than not, whatever they think about dancing or wine or the day of the week for a service. And every church founded upon Christ recognizes his word as truth.

Is Calvinism following the word made flesh? Is the doctrine of limited atonement doing just that?

No, but it would take some time to speak to it. And I'm not suggesting that the members of Westboro aren't saved and loved by God. I am and I say and do stupid things on occasion. I wouldn't be comfortable in their church, but I'm comfortable with their God.

I'm not suggesting that a loving God wouldn't love them either no matter how cranked out their "ethos"...

They'll have to justify their judgment before God and be held to that standard. I don't envy them. Else, Christ and his word. That's our metric.

Or understanding of it anyway, and who gets that 100% right?

 

[Arthur Brain]

I think she's in love with you bro. Sounds like a wife anyway..


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

You sound like a moron...

 

[Nick M]

And you are a moron. :mock: red77

 

[musterion]

Remember the poll many years ago where a majority of sodomites said they'd attempt sex with minors if they knew they would get away with it.

The term 'chicken hawk' exists for a reason and was not invented by straights.

 

[Arthur Brain]

And you are a moron. :mock: red77

Ah, captain minus third grade right on cue. Not bad for you to be fair. Not good in relation to quality but hey, good effort dude.

:up:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Remember the poll many years ago where a majority of sodomites said they'd attempt sex with minors if they knew they would get away with it.

The term 'chicken hawk' exists for a reason and was not invented by straights.

No, do cite a link so we can check for the veracity of such a claim so that it's not just some made up piece of propaganda like a Nick M thread or some such.

 

[musterion]

No, sodomy lover. I could post the text verbatim and you would find a half dozen reasons to reject it even if it's valid. Because you love sodomy.

 

[Nick M]

Because you love sodomy.

I wonder why. Throw a stone at a pack of dogs. The that yelps is the one that got hit.

 

[Arthur Brain]

No, sodomy lover. I could post the text verbatim and you would find a half dozen reasons to reject it even if it's valid. Because you love sodomy.

Strikes me that you're the one with the fixation on sodomy Musty. I don't even think about it let alone have any love for it so reel in that projection a bit okay?

Oh, and if you're not going to cite the link then stop going on about it as if it's fact or some such. If it's true then it would stand up to scrutiny.