The Problem with Islam

[Fake Boris]

I didn't read Cort's article.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Blake
Capitalism what?

The Buddhists who embrace Buddhism most strongly* are VERY peaceful,

Like the Japanese, and the Vietnamese, and the Khmer, and the Cham, and the Thai, and the Burmese, and the Tibetans, and the Nepalese . . .

i.e., bull**** that Buddhists are any better than any other religion when it comes to war and peace.

[Cort Haus]

nm

[Straybow]

Originally posted by GePap
As was mentioned already, there is an important theological difference between Islam and Christianity, with Christianity allowing for a seperation of Godly authority vs. human authority, whereas Islam seeks godly authority on earth.

If Islam were something new, at the time of its genesis, then you might have a point. Sharia is a cultural holdover unchanged from pre-Islamic ways. Almost everything else in Islam is a holdover from idolatrous worship practices, except without the idols.

On the other hand, it is clear that Muhammed originally claimed to be the successor to Moses and Jesus, and that his revelations were of the same God. Yet he was ignorant of everything Judaism and Christianity had to offer in theology, culture, and political adaptation.

The fact that Christianity spread orignially as an underground faith, whose first heroes were individual put to the sword by the powers that be, and that in many ways grew as a religion that saw itself as other worldly, as opposed to a relgion that grew in power hand in hand with worldly power, does make a difference.

Jesus taught that the kingdom of heaven was not worldly. Jesus came from God, died, arose, and returned to God. That is lesson number one in Christianity. Nonetheless, sixth century Christianity was the state religion of the Byzantine Empire. Muhammed was not exposed to an underground religion but an ascendant one. He would not have seen much separation between it and secular authority. In that environment one only sees the separation by studying Christian teaching.

The difference, then, is what Muhammed taught and did. You only get around that the way many academic liberals get around the virgin birth, deity of Christ, etc in the west: they deny the fundamentals of the religion and take only the trappings. We aren't going to see that in Islam; not in this century.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Straybow
If Islam were something new, at the time of its genesis, then you might have a point. Sharia is a cultural holdover unchanged from pre-Islamic ways. Almost everything else in Islam is a holdover from idolatrous worship practices, except without the idols.

On the other hand, it is clear that Muhammed originally claimed to be the successor to Moses and Jesus, and that his revelations were of the same God. Yet he was ignorant of everything Judaism and Christianity had to offer in theology, culture, and political adaptation.

Most western law is based on pre-Christian models as well - Roman or Germanic, having nothing to do with biblical anything. So islam is in no way different with having social laws that existed prior to its coming.

Nonetheless, sixth century Christianity was the state religion of the Byzantine Empire. Muhammed was not exposed to an underground religion but an ascendant one. He would not have seen much separation between it and secular authority. In that environment one only sees the separation by studying Christian teaching.

And in that sense, Mohammed was no different from Byzantine religious scholars. You said it youself, Christianity was a STATE religion, and anyone in 600AD who would have suggested a parting of secular and ecclesiastical power would have ended up dead.

Jesus did not spread Christiniaty. Paul did orginally, then the power of Rome. This dichotomy that jesus brought up came to the fore a millenium after he was dead.

The difference, then, is what Muhammed taught and did. You only get around that the way many academic liberals get around the virgin birth, deity of Christ, etc in the west: they deny the fundamentals of the religion and take only the trappings. We aren't going to see that in Islam; not in this century.

Islam at the end if a more coherent vision than Christianity, if only because its founder had far more time to make his teachings clear, and he spread the message himself, not others with their own viewpoints. If islam has a harder time fitting in with modernity, it is because it is far less compatible with secularism than the hodegpot of crazyness Christinity is, compared to say another more coherent faith, Judaism.