Are non-Christian religions (such as Islam) preferable to atheism?

Wutang

Hummingbird
Gold Member
Unitarianism in it's present form is basically a LARP religion. It's for people who want to play church and have all the aesthetics of religious experience such as ministers in robes, a nice building to hang out in, rituals, but don't want to have to commit to any sort of belief or discipline. It was a Christian denomination at one point: Harvard University was originally a seminary for training Unitarian ministers . But it more so than any other denomination has thrown out all their Christian beliefs in order chase after whatever values were popular in secular culture. They've been on the front of pretty much every SJW movement that's gotten trendy in the last few decades. The transformation of Harvard University to what it is today maps closely to the transformation Unitarianism has gone through. The one point of respect I can give them is they at least don't pretend to be Christian in any form anymore.
 

Athanasius

Pelican
Unitarianism in it's present form is basically a LARP religion. It's for people who want to play church and have all the aesthetics of religious experience such as ministers in robes, a nice building to hang out in, rituals, but don't want to have to commit to any sort of belief or discipline. It was a Christian denomination at one point: Harvard University was originally a seminary for training Unitarian ministers . But it more so than any other denomination has thrown out all their Christian beliefs in order chase after whatever values were popular in secular culture. They've been on the front of pretty much every SJW movement that's gotten trendy in the last few decades. The transformation of Harvard University to what it is today maps closely to the transformation Unitarianism has gone through. The one point of respect I can give them is they at least don't pretend to be Christian in any form anymore.

There's no such thing as unitarian Christianity. Christinity is necessarily trinitarian. Harvard was started in the 17th century by Puritans but by sometime in the 19th century it finally yielded to theological liberalism (including unitarianism) and not long after that it was thoroughly secularist.

Agreed on the LARPing aspect, though. It's a little like the Universal Life Church, which I first heard about in the 90s when I saw a pastorette on a news show. I'm thinking, what the heck is this? Turns out you could send in an application and get ordained by the ULC, then order a collar and start officiating weddings. It was a theological ordination mill. They hilariously had this woman on the show as clergy.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
@Rob Banks - I'm sure some or most of the things Barnhardt described in the video do not happen in all Muslim countries to all Muslim people. But they do happen, quite a lot and in more than one place. Be it the mutilation, the hatred or just general violence. Islam, like it or not, is a religion of violence. Not all Muslims are violent, not all Muslims this and that (see the craziness? now we sound like SJWs) and I don't hate Muslims, but I do hate Islam - as we should hate what is evil. And Islam is evil. Naturally the man you spoke with was not going to give up and admit his religion is horrible. I've had a Muslim woman trying to convince me that Mohamed consummating the marriage with Aysha at 9 was not pedophilia, because 'she was ready'. And this was a not-very serious Muslim from Turkey. But she still defended the undefendable.

I'm sorry I'm not inclined to play patty cake with Muslims just because I am not obsessed with Jews. If the Jew obsession wasn't so great here, most would see clearly that Islam and Judaism are really pretty much the same thing. Yes, there is a ban on usury from Muslims - but there's also carte blanche to lie to the 'infidels', including on price - which is why in their societies they haggle constantly, trying to cheat each other, instead of agreeing on a fair price in advance.
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
The old proverb goes that you cannot fill a cup that it already full.

Atheism is a semi-religious belief set but relatively speaking it is still an empty cup. Islam is not.

Moreover the islamic penalty for apostasy is death.

Moreoverx2 worship of a false God is worse than no worship at all.

So no, islam is not better than nothing.
 

Serie A1

Woodpecker
The old proverb goes that you cannot fill a cup that it already full.

Atheism is a semi-religious belief set but relatively speaking it is still an empty cup. Islam is not.

Moreover the islamic penalty for apostasy is death.

Moreoverx2 worship of a false God is worse than no worship at all.

So no, islam is not better than nothing.

Here's the relevant passage from the Koran:

6 “If your brother, the son of your mother, your son or your daughter, the wife [c]of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, secretly entices you, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which you have not known, neither you nor your fathers, 7 of the gods of the people which are all around you, near to you or far off from you, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth, 8 you shall not [d]consent to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him or conceal him; 9 but you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. 10 And you shall stone him with stones until he dies, because he sought to entice you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage."
 

y2k

Sparrow
The old proverb goes that you cannot fill a cup that it already full.

Atheism is a semi-religious belief set but relatively speaking it is still an empty cup. Islam is not.

Moreover the islamic penalty for apostasy is death.

Moreoverx2 worship of a false God is worse than no worship at all.

So no, islam is not better than nothing.

So:
  • Judaism (and all of their historical sects)
  • Messianic Judaism
  • Samaritanism
  • Dyophysitism (Catholics, Orthodox etc)
  • Miaphysitism (Oriental Orthodox etc)
  • Monophysitism
  • Jehovah's Witnesses
  • Other Christians
  • Mormons (with their divergent theology)
All in their diverse theologies and christologies believe in the same God, but Islam despite being genealogically Abrahamic, with an Abrahamic continuity (God has the same history as in the Old Testament, same prophets etc) and theologically strictly monotheist somehow teaches to worship a different God?

The distinction seems a bit more politics and ethnic communities than doctrine ¿no?

Relevant post in another thread:
Abrahamic Monotheism (in the datasheet on Islam)
 
Last edited:

y2k

Sparrow
Yeah I'm afraid I will have to ask for a source on that one :)

The name "Abdallah" was common among the Pre-Islamic Arab Jews, you can search this in Google. It is used to this day among Arabic speaking Jews.

Abd (Servant) + Allah (God) = Abdallah (Servant of God)

This idea that Muslims worship a different God is advocated by Zio-Evangelicals to distance Muslims and to decrease any sympathy towards them.
 
Last edited:

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
Indeed those who worship the god of Mohammed are quite possibly not worshiping God as those who accept Christ as their Lord and Savior. Universalist garbage insists that everyone is worshiping the same god but it's not true. Some Jewish sects in fact can be inferred to be worshiping a greater demon which is a god to them but not actually God.

At best a Christian can only conclude that Mohammed was insane or a liar. At worst he was worshiping a higher demon and naming it his god, which is not God who gave us Christ. Alternately he was praying to God who Christians pray to but he was so delusional that he believed that God wanted him to slaughter people or enslave them.

Ipso facto he was insane, a liar, or actually mistakenly worshiping a demon, or some combination of the three. I don't really care which. None of those possibilities qualify islam as better than atheism because an atheist still has a straight path to God.

I don't mean to hurt your feelings, but that's the reality that true Christians must believe by definition. Universalists are simply more committed to inclusion than the truth insisted upon by the Bible and all Heavenly Revelations that have followed it.

The logic is simple.
Do you pray to the same god as Mohammed?
If yes, then you are not praying to God but something else, because Mohammed's "god" supposedly told him to do things and teach things that God would never order under His New Covenant brought by Christ.
So by definition if you are praying to the same "god" as Mohammed did, and you believe that particular deity indeed told him to do and teach the things he did and taught then you are by definition praying to something other than God who sent us Christ.

My best appraisal of islam is that it is basically New Testament fan fiction based around a non-canon character and written by people who are extremely infernally influenced, whether they know it or not. One of the demon's highest achievements is when they manage to trick someone into calling them god or convince people to knowingly worshiping them above God while granting them that title.
 
Last edited:

911

Peacock
Gold Member
@Rob Banks - I'm sure some or most of the things Barnhardt described in the video do not happen in all Muslim countries to all Muslim people. But they do happen, quite a lot and in more than one place. Be it the mutilation, the hatred or just general violence. Islam, like it or not, is a religion of violence. Not all Muslims are violent, not all Muslims this and that (see the craziness? now we sound like SJWs) and I don't hate Muslims, but I do hate Islam - as we should hate what is evil. And Islam is evil. Naturally the man you spoke with was not going to give up and admit his religion is horrible. I've had a Muslim woman trying to convince me that Mohamed consummating the marriage with Aysha at 9 was not pedophilia, because 'she was ready'. And this was a not-very serious Muslim from Turkey. But she still defended the undefendable.

I'm sorry I'm not inclined to play patty cake with Muslims just because I am not obsessed with Jews. If the Jew obsession wasn't so great here, most would see clearly that Islam and Judaism are really pretty much the same thing. Yes, there is a ban on usury from Muslims - but there's also carte blanche to lie to the 'infidels', including on price - which is why in their societies they haggle constantly, trying to cheat each other, instead of agreeing on a fair price in advance.


Based on the videos I saw, Barnhardt is not a reliable source on islam. Unlike Wood, the other source you have cited, she does mean well and is not a sociopathic shill. She has a good take on a range of issues, but she has a very insular "heartland American" view on islam which is primarily formed by decades of zionist indoctrination, characterized by a complete lack of understanding on geopolitics and a very sheltered world view with little in terms of world travel and the kind of general culture that would allow her to filter the (((propaganda))) you're spoon-fed growing up in America.




'm sorry I'm not inclined to play patty cake with Muslims just because I am not obsessed with Jews. If the Jew obsession wasn't so great here, most would see clearly that Islam and Judaism are really pretty much the same thing.


Islam is skillfully used as a deflection and triangulation, it is the ultimate golem, built in the 1990s to advance a domestic and foreign agenda. It gets people like Barnhardt, who currently live under Noahide Laws, to freak out about Sharia Law and obsess about a threat that is grossly misrepresented and that doesn't exist, muslims having no political power or significant influence over any western government, or in their countries for that matter. There are maybe about 2 or 3 independent countries out of the 50 muslim countries in the world, run by globalists. People like Barnhardt would greatly benefit from reading some of the works of E. Michael Jones...
 

ilostabet

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
Based on the videos I saw, Barnhardt is not a reliable source on islam. Unlike Wood, the other source you have cited, she does mean well and is not a sociopathic shill. She has a good take on a range of issues, but she has a very insular "heartland American" view on islam which is primarily formed by decades of zionist indoctrination, characterized by a complete lack of understanding on geopolitics and a very sheltered world view with little in terms of world travel and the kind of general culture that would allow her to filter the (((propaganda))) you're spoon-fed growing up in America.

Islam is skillfully used as a deflection and triangulation, it is the ultimate golem, built in the 1990s to advance a domestic and foreign agenda. It gets people like Barnhardt, who currently live under Noahide Laws, to freak out about Sharia Law and obsess about a threat that is grossly misrepresented and that doesn't exist, muslims having no political power or significant influence over any western government, or in their countries for that matter. There are maybe about 2 or 3 independent countries out of the 50 muslim countries in the world, run by globalists. People like Barnhardt would greatly benefit from reading some of the works of E. Michael Jones...

Once again we find ourselves in the same predicament of the last few times we exchanged some words.

I am speaking of one thing, and you reply with another. I am speaking of things, you are speaking of their manipulation. I am speaking of Islam in itself, and you're talking about Islam being used as a weapon.

Again, I know. We all know by now. And sure it is. It does not mean it's not destructive in itself, that it was founded by a madman potentially under demonic possession (at least oppression), that it is a violent conquering ideology that is the radical opposite of Christianity. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be used as a weapon against Europe. It was by Mohamed for Arabic expansion, and it is now for globalist expansion and Israeli diversion.

It's hard to discuss like this, since it seems that anything I say that disagrees is labeled as 'Zionist indoctrination' and it seems to be cured by reading E. Michael Jones - which, incidentally, takes the same position. This is what I meant by obsession with jews. At this point, I'm starting to think that unlike zionist indoctrination it cannot be cured.
 

y2k

Sparrow
So:
  • Judaism (and all of their historical sects)
  • Messianic Judaism
  • Samaritanism
  • Dyophysitism (Catholics, Orthodox etc)
  • Miaphysitism (Oriental Orthodox etc)
  • Monophysitism
  • Jehovah's Witnesses
  • Other Christians
  • Mormons (with their divergent theology)
All in their diverse theologies and christologies believe in the same God, but Islam despite being genealogically Abrahamic, with an Abrahamic continuity (God has the same history as in the Old Testament, same prophets etc) and theologically strictly monotheist somehow teaches to worship a different God?

The distinction seems a bit more politics and ethnic communities than doctrine ¿no?

Relevant post in another thread:
Abrahamic Monotheism (in the datasheet on Islam)

There are many Judaisms and Christianities that vary radically and overlap in their theologies and christologies, the Islamic doctrine of monotheism falls well within this variation and is not radical at all from the perspective of the Old Testament. Moreover, Muslims believe in the same prophets as Christians and Jews and say they worship the God of Abraham.

Ipso facto, It is categorically impossible that Muslims do not worship the same God as Christians and Jews, there is clearly no debate here.

There would need to be factors other than theology (such as far-right politics, Zionist politics etc) to continue arguing this point. If there are, then you were not arguing from a Christian theological perspective, you were arguing from a political perspective and all talk of theology is useless because it was all in bad faith on your part.

Indeed those who worship the god of Mohammed are quite possibly not worshiping God as those who accept Christ as their Lord and Savior. Universalist garbage insists that everyone is worshiping the same god but it's not true. Some Jewish sects in fact can be inferred to be worshiping a greater demon which is a god to them but not actually God.

At best a Christian can only conclude that Mohammed was insane or a liar. At worst he was worshiping a higher demon and naming it his god, which is not God who gave us Christ. Alternately he was praying to God who Christians pray to but he was so delusional that he believed that God wanted him to slaughter people or enslave them.

Ipso facto he was insane, a liar, or actually mistakenly worshiping a demon, or some combination of the three. I don't really care which. None of those possibilities qualify islam as better than atheism because an atheist still has a straight path to God.

I don't mean to hurt your feelings, but that's the reality that true Christians must believe by definition. Universalists are simply more committed to inclusion than the truth insisted upon by the Bible and all Heavenly Revelations that have followed it.

The logic is simple.
Do you pray to the same god as Mohammed?
If yes, then you are not praying to God but something else, because Mohammed's "god" supposedly told him to do things and teach things that God would never order under His New Covenant brought by Christ.
So by definition if you are praying to the same "god" as Mohammed did, and you believe that particular deity indeed told him to do and teach the things he did and taught then you are by definition praying to something other than God who sent us Christ.

My best appraisal of islam is that it is basically New Testament fan fiction based around a non-canon character and written by people who are extremely infernally influenced, whether they know it or not. One of the demon's highest achievements is when they manage to trick someone into calling them god or convince people to knowingly worshiping them above God while granting them that title.

Indeed Leonard, there is no logic to be found here.

You have made some claims, and then without substantiating them, assumed them facts for your conclusions. Your writing does hint that you may have read or even understood me, but your reply makes absolutely no sense at all.

Your talk of greater demons sounds like the teachings of Marcion of Sinope, that the one (NT God) who sent Jesus (pbuh) and the one (OT God) who created are two different gods.
 

Wutang

Hummingbird
Gold Member
Edward Feser a Catholic philosopher has weighed in on the issue or whether Allah is the same as the God of Christianity. He's pretty critical of Islam but he does believe Muslims and Christians are speaking of the same God.


Second, even a speaker’s erroneous beliefs don’t entail that he is not referring to the same thing that speakers with correct beliefs are referring to. Consider an example made famous by Keith Donnellan. Suppose you’re at a party and see a man across the room drinking from a martini glass. You say something like “The guy drinking a martini is well-dressed.” Suppose, however, that the man is not in fact drinking a martini, but only water. It doesn’t follow that you haven’t really referred to him. Furthermore, suppose there is a second man, somewhere in the room but unseen by you, who really is drinking a martini and that he is dressed shabbily. It doesn’t follow that you were, after all, really referring to this second man and saying something false. Rather, assuming that the first man really is well-dressed, you were referring to that first man and saying something true about him, even though you were wrong about what he is drinking. And thus you are referring to the very same man as people who know that he is drinking water would be referring to if they said “The guy drinking water from a martini glass is well-dressed.” Similarly, the fact that Muslims have what Christians regard as a number of erroneous beliefs about God does not by itself entail that Muslims and Christians are not referring to the same thing when they use the expression “God.”

As for whether the non-trinitarian Islam view of Gods means they are worshiping a different God:

Even errors concerning God’s Trinitarian nature are not per se sufficient to prevent successful reference. Abraham and Moses were not Trinitarians, but no Christian can deny that they referred to, and worshiped, the same God Christians do. It might be objected that though they were not Trinitarians, this is only because they did not even know about the doctrine of the Trinity, whereas Muslims do know about it and positively reject it. But this is irrelevant. From the beginning of the history of the Church, Christians did not accuse others of worshipping a false God merely because they rejected the doctrine of the Trinity. For example, those Jews who rejected the claim that Jesus was the incarnation of the second Person of the Trinity were not accused by the early Church of worshipping a false God. Nor were heretics generally accused of this. For example, at least some Arian baptisms were considered valid because of the Arians’ use of the Trinitarian baptismal formula, despite the fact that Arians held to a heretical understanding of the divine Persons. These baptisms could not have been considered valid had the Arian understanding been so radically deficient that “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit” failed to refer to the divine Persons at all, but instead referred to false deities.
 

Aboulia

Woodpecker
Orthodox
So:
  • Judaism (and all of their historical sects)
  • Messianic Judaism
  • Samaritanism
  • Dyophysitism (Catholics, Orthodox etc)
  • Miaphysitism (Oriental Orthodox etc)
  • Monophysitism
  • Jehovah's Witnesses
  • Other Christians
  • Mormons (with their divergent theology)
All in their diverse theologies and christologies believe in the same God, but Islam despite being genealogically Abrahamic, with an Abrahamic continuity (God has the same history as in the Old Testament, same prophets etc) and theologically strictly monotheist somehow teaches to worship a different God?

The distinction seems a bit more politics and ethnic communities than doctrine ¿no?

Relevant post in another thread:
Abrahamic Monotheism (in the datasheet on Islam)

Have you read the Old Testament? All the prophets rebuked Israel for worshiping false gods. To fall into error is easy.

No, they do not believe in the same God. I said it before, and I'll say it again. Christianity is about the nature of the world. There can only be one true religion, all others have assumptions they cannot prove.

The Holy Trinity is of utmost importance, and there's things I'm still trying to wrap my head around so forgive me If I get some (or a lot) of this wrong, My day job is construction, I'm not a theologian. The Father is the foundation of all being on which we can ascribe few positive attributes to, we can describe what he is not, and very little of what he is. He is Good. He is uncreated, uncircumscribable, etc. The Son is the Hypostases (physical manifestation) of God, all actions that God carried out in the Old Testament was the Son. The Son is the one creating the world in Genesis. The Holy Spirit is what animates life, and impels it towards the Father. It acts on your conscience, but it isn't your conscience. The Holy Trinity (One God in three persons), is the relationship between the different persons of God, for to have any sort of relationship, you need a minimum of 3 things (take a husband and wife, the third thing is the marriage connecting these two) In order for any sort of relationship to exist, there must be a minumum of three things. For if there was only 2, there is an unbridgeable chasm (hot/cold,good/evil, light/darkness). One implies no separation, no difference, it's a pillar. The existence of sin implies 3 things for it cannot be otherwise. You want to heal the world? Guess what you need a Triune God, one whom you can have a relationship with.

With that in mind, let's go to your list.

We can cross off "Other Christians" "Jehovah's Witnesses", and "Mormons" right out of the gate. They have no continuity in their teaching, and they adopt texts that they did not author, nor understand. The Scriptures (Bible plus others excluded by Protestants)

Old Testament Judaism is continued by Christianity today, ILOB pointed out that modern day Judaism is just Talmudism. OT Judaism does not exist anymore, to practice Judaism, they would need a Temple (Which was destroyed in 70 A.D.) and a priesthood (The blood line of Levi was wiped out so there is no legitimate priests)

Messianic Judaism tries to mix two things that don't belong together. You cannot mix truth and error. They don't believe in the divinity of Christ nor the Trinity so they can be tossed aside.

Monophysitism is false for Christ could have never redeemed man if he was only Divine, or only Human. If he was only Human, then he was just a good guy, so why follow him? if he was only Divine, then it could be said that what he did can only be accomplished by God, so why try to improve yourself? Which is the point of seeking truth. Why seek truth if not to understand the world better and act accordingly.

Miaphytism says that the Divine nature and Human nature of Christ are united. This cannot save man since what he accomplished could still be linked to solely having the divine nature in him. This leaves an unbridgable chasm between God and man which cannot be for the whole purpose of Christ's coming was so that Man could become God.

This leaves Dyophysitism which is the correct Christian understanding.

Islam is. has, and always will be, worshiping a different God than of the OT and of the Christians.
 

Athanasius

Pelican
Here's the relevant passage from the Koran:

6 “If your brother, the son of your mother, your son or your daughter, the wife [c]of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, secretly entices you, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which you have not known, neither you nor your fathers, 7 of the gods of the people which are all around you, near to you or far off from you, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth, 8 you shall not [d]consent to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him or conceal him; 9 but you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. 10 And you shall stone him with stones until he dies, because he sought to entice you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage."

That was a judicial law of the nation of Israel. Let's get to a more relevant question. Which Christian-influenced nations today put people to death for converting and put people in jail for proselytizing Christianity (or even Islam)? Now, which Islamic ones do the same for Christians?
 
Last edited:

Athanasius

Pelican
There are many Judaisms and Christianities that vary radically and overlap in their theologies and christologies, the Islamic doctrine of monotheism falls well within this variation and is not radical at all from the perspective of the Old Testament. Moreover, Muslims believe in the same prophets as Christians and Jews and say they worship the God of Abraham.

You continue to press this monotheism button, as if that allows you into some type of club. I've showed you multiple times from the Scripture that monotheism alone is insufficient, just as are good works, and it doesn't matter how many red herrings you throw in with different sects and historical movements. 1 Cor 15: "Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures..." "...if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved" (Rom 10)

Islam denies the Christ, the one in whom "all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form." (Col 2:9) "His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He [the Son] is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power." (Heb 1)

Ipso facto, It is categorically impossible that Muslims do not worship the same God as Christians and Jews, there is clearly no debate here.

Someone claiming something doesn't make it true. If two people say they know Roosh, and one says he's a 6' 8" Chinese woman, then at least one of them doesn't know Roosh even though there's only one Roosh.
 
Last edited:

Serie A1

Woodpecker
That was a judicial law of the nation of Israel. Let's get to a more relevant question. Which Christian-influenced nations today put people to death for converting and put people in jail for proselytizing Christianity (or even Islam)? Now, which Islamic ones do the same for Christians?

To be precise: it's from Deuteronomy 13: Punishment of Apostates (which sounds like a movie title). In other words, the Bible – not the Koran, which contains no such verse.

There's a consistent pattern in this, btw: on so many 'hot button' religious issues (the punishments for apostates, adulterers, thieves, etc.), the Bible is actually far stricter than the Koran. Yet the public perception is just the opposite.

Re: your question, we're at a point in history when once-Christian-influenced nations are queuing up to legalise same-sex marriage (Costa Rica became the latest one a few days ago). They evidently don't care about their religion that much, just as far too many so-called Islamic countries are shambolically-run, money-obsessed and autocratic – showing, again, that on a deep level they are indifferent to religion, but in a more subtle way.
 

Athanasius

Pelican
I could have stated this better before but Christians speak of three types of law: the ceremonial, the judicial, and the moral. Ceremonial laws, like the various rules on food handling, were meant to set the Israelites apart from the other nations. The judicial laws fulfilled a similar function. Both of these types of law were of their time, unique to the nation of Israel, and are no longer in place, as is noted in various places throughout the NT. The moral law, exhibited in the Ten Commandments, remains. Jesus summarized it here. This is why you don't see Christian (influenced) nations executing apostates or eating kosher.

What do you make of judicial laws in places like Pakistan and Saudi that punish proselytizing with death, things that are going on today? Or that execute apostates (e.g. Christian converts) with death? Are they wrong in doing so?
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
So I was thinking about this topic again and discussing it with a friend. The following question came to mind.

Someone born in a devoutly Muslim country is approached by Christian missionaries. This person now has 2 options: To rebel against their culture and their family and risk ostracism (or worse), or to remain Muslim.

It seems like someone in that position would only abandon Islam if they had a rebellious personality and spirit, and I'm not sure that's a good thing.
 
So I was thinking about this topic again and discussing it with a friend. The following question came to mind.

Someone born in a devoutly Muslim country is approached by Christian missionaries. This person now has 2 options: To rebel against their culture and their family and risk ostracism (or worse), or to remain Muslim.

It seems like someone in that position would only abandon Islam if they had a rebellious personality and spirit, and I'm not sure that's a good thing.

Someone rebelious, or someone who has found faith. As Christ told us, "every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life." Following Christ is more important than family, or culture, or homeland. If it weren't, then why would we bother? Even if you are surrounded by churchgoing Christians in your everyday life, following Christ will appear like some sort of rebel or lunatic.

Most of us don't live in an environment where not being a Christian would make someone a social outcast. And the sermon on the mount is hardly the sort of intuitive morality we'd all agree on without knowing it came from God. The only reason left to be a Christian is because it's true: God really did become man, show us how to live, die for us, and conquer death. And the path to salvation is in following him.
 
Top