Al Qur'an 3.64 and 19.36

[meurig]

i thought most protestant churches believed in the trinity tho i know baptists do, but i thought most of the other ones did, altho i might be wrong ...

anglicans dont believe in transubstantiation, they just believe it represents christ's body, they don't actually think it IS

Hi frogwoman ::waves::.

Ah Ok. I went to a quite High Church Anglican school at 6th form - I guess the chaplain was trying to have one over on us.

I was brought up a baptist in South Wales, and we weren't taught to believe in the trinity per se, just as a metaphor.

Thinking about it though don't Wesleyists and Congregationalists believe in it to?

Or do they because now they've joined up with the Unitarians haven't they?
And they don't sound very trinitarian.

 

[frogwoman]

Hi frogwoman ::waves::.

Ah Ok. I went to a quite High Church Anglican school at 6th form - I guess the chaplain was trying to have one over on us.

hi there



well i did christian theology as part of my gcse course and still remember a lot of it, altho i cant say that what im bout to say is definitely all true !

I was brought up a baptist in South Wales, and we weren't taught to believe in the trinity per se, just as a metaphor.

ahh fair enough

i think baptist churches can vary in their beliefs and what they preach ... there is a baptist girl at my school who is really very fundamentalist, but someone i know knows a lot of them who are really nothing like that at all

the thing is with the baptists is that its a union of affilated churches, theres no official document stating what they believe and don't believe (i don't think)

Thinking about it though don't Wesleyists and Congregationalists believe in it to?

wesleyists are methodists no? yeah they would, they're very closely linked to the anglican church

congregationalists ... i dunno, i think some of them are unitarian but their beliefs definitely vary ... they're just independent protestant churches, which means some of them are very sound, some of them are like quakers and stuff and some of them ... well lets just say you wouldnt want to meet them on a dark night

Or do they because now they've joined up with the Unitarians haven't they?
And they don't sound very trinitarian.

hehe nah, its only some congregationalists that have joined up with the utinitarians

maybe you're thinking of the URC? thats very similar to the methodists and they definitely believe in the trinity, just like the rest of mainstream christianity...

 

[Jonti]

Ah, but we could read it that your patron is reason and that's a false deity.

But it's not. It's just not to have a deity. Yes, one believes in reason, in evidence and rational discourse, as the way to find out how things work in the natural world. Every practical person does that. It is just that one sees no practical need to believe in any deity at all.

 

[ICB]

But it's not. It's just not to have a deity. Yes, one believes in reason, in evidence and rational discourse, as the way to find out how things work in the natural world. Every practical person does that. It is just that one sees no practical need to believe in any deity at all.

Preaching to the converted mate, I was playing devil's advocate.

There are serious anthropological and sociological points to be made about the totemic role that certain ideas play in people's lives though, even if there are important philosophical distinctions between the modes of scientific method/discourse and theistic/deistic beliefs.

 

[meurig]

hi there



well i did christian theology as part of my gcse course and still remember a lot of it, altho i cant say that what im bout to say is definitely all true !



ahh fair enough

i think baptist churches can vary in their beliefs and what they preach ... there is a baptist girl at my school who is really very fundamentalist, but someone i know knows a lot of them who are really nothing like that at all

the thing is with the baptists is that its a union of affilated churches, theres no official document stating what they believe and don't believe (i don't think)



wesleyists are methodists no? yeah they would, they're very closely linked to the anglican church

congregationalists ... i dunno, i think some of them are unitarian but their beliefs definitely vary ... they're just independent protestant churches, which means some of them are very sound, some of them are like quakers and stuff and some of them ... well lets just say you wouldnt want to meet them on a dark night



hehe nah, its only some congregationalists that have joined up with the utinitarians

maybe you're thinking of the URC? thats very similar to the methodists and they definitely believe in the trinity, just like the rest of mainstream christianity...

Thinking back the errant Chaplain came to us from Ampleforth, which is a Catholic school. So it may well have been that he was a sneaky leftfooter who was trying to brainwash us. He was made to leave quietly half way through my last year after taking an overactive interest in the younger, prettier members of the abbey choir, much like the previous incumbent infact, so I wouldn't put a bit of lying past him.

My baptist church was affiliated to the Baptist Union, which really is very moderate.

There's not much fundamentalist about viewing sections of the bible as metaphor really, is there? Infact the whole accent of the church was "Treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself", rather than hellfire brimstone and salvation.

 

[Jonti]

Yeah ICB,

I figured you weren't claiming the Koran should be interpreted so as to stimulate religious and intellectual intolerance -- more that it could. And it's well worth emphasising the Christian holy texts can be used in a similar manner -- if anything, Christianity's threats against unbelievers are even more explicit.

But freedom of conscience (or more exactly, freedom of religion) is a large part of Western values. Even the Born-Agains have to accept the US Constitution takes precedence when it comes to national or state laws. They just cannot have their religious laws applied to everyone, that'd be plain unAmerican. I guess, against Christians, one can always fall back on the famous JC quote Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.

What interests me is whether (and how) the Koranic verses can be interpreted in a similar sort of way, in support of the separation of Church and State -- or at least in suppport of fair treatment for all believers and unbelievers.

Incidently, I daresay some forms of Islam are pretty kooky too, in their details, but a lot of Christian doctrine is, frankly, ludicrous. Islam seems less offensive to reason in some ways -- if one must believe in a Deity, at least make it an Indivisible, Unknowable, Unity.

 

[ICB]

I'd go along with all that.

It's always struck me that we don't really know what J meant by render unto Caesar though, he could have meant "give him a whole load of grief for being a colonial tyrant"

 

[Sid's Snake]

I daresay some forms of Islam are pretty kooky too, in their details, but a lot of Christian doctrine is, frankly, ludicrous. Islam seems less offensive to reason in some ways -- if one must believe in a Deity, at least make it an Indivisible, Unknowable, Unity.

I can't really see the point in debates like this immediately scrabbling to find which one of the Religions of the Book are more or less anodyne than the next; and so, reassuring yourself,temporarilly at least and for the sake of argument they're, "sotof OK," because they fit in with whatever notion of liberal humanist values we all agree to be holding...

Like Father Jack, I take a fairly ecumenical view of this and believe there is a core of shared belief from Sufism to the deep Mahayana to Liberation Theology that treats, if you like, a deeper human condition...

But then, I am a crank

 

[Sid's Snake]

And what's more

Islam Xtiainity and Judaism are all capable of producing textual back up for persecution, genocide and self-slaughter.

What on earth is the point of juggling one against the other, as if the TEXT provoked the action ( a ludicrous and wholly idealist notion anyway ) rather than - like a good historicist or post modernist - reading the TEXT as a play of signifiers.

That is also what I mean.

I believe you're hypnotised by the Koran; as if it contained a magic formula that would produce the same kind of social effects at differing times; which clearly, to most non Muslims, it doesn't...

 

[Jonti]

Well, sort of.

But perhaps it is not so much that one is mesmerised by the Koran (folks can think 'Bible' or 'Torah' or indeed 'Baghavad Gita'), as that one recognises others are. Religion's not going to change anytime soon, and we've all got to get along now, this century. It's not so much magic, as a shared language, if only for poets. It's OK being able to talk to religion's adherants about how we can all get along, in a language they understand.

 

[Sid's Snake]

Well, sort of.

But perhaps it is not so much that one is mesmerised by the Koran (folks can think 'Bible' or 'Torah' or indeed 'Baghavad Gita'), as that one recognises others are.

Cop out

Religion's not going to change anytime soon,

It changes all the time, its in its nature.

and we've all got to get along now, this century.

Indeed we all have, thats why handling Islam with kidgloves is probably the best idea. That doesn't mean taking the protestations of its lunatic fringe to be the executors of words of a sort of magical atemporal efficacy seriously.

 

[ICB]

Indeed we all have, thats why handling Islam with kidgloves is probably the best idea. That doesn't mean taking the protestations of its lunatic fringe to be the executors of words of a sort of magical atemporal efficacy seriously.

Jonti started this thread to have a nice chat with Aldebaraan, who seems rather the gentleman and scholar, about his book. Why do you see the need to come along waving the wrong end of a shitty stick?

Tis the sort of egotistical silliness that gives the infidels as bad name.

 

[Sid's Snake]

Jonti started this thread to have a nice chat with Aldebaraan, who seems rather the gentleman and scholar, about his book. Why do you see the need to come along waving the wrong end of a shitty stick?

Tis the sort of egotistical silliness that gives the infidels as bad name.

I don't know Jonti or Alderbarran, I am not opposed to "nice chats." I was just making an admittedly robust point about something which personally irritates me, which is the constant text referencing to the Koran as if Islam was both a closed system and a source of anything relevant to public policy.

If you want to think that's egoistic or "shitty" then thats up to you. It might surprise you we live in a culture which is not closed where "Koranic references" are used either to fuel or try to defuse mass civilian bombing. And so, from that perspective at least, its a legitmate point of entry.

 

[ICB]

I don't know Jonti or Alderbarran, I am not opposed to "nice chats." I was just making an admittedly robust point about something which personally irritates me, which is the constant text referencing to the Koran as if Islam was both a closed system and a source of anything relevant to public policy.

Eh? Islam isn't relevant to public policy? I rather think all praticed religions are pertinent when it comes to drafting policy; have you not noticed the faith schools issue? Seems to me you totally missed the point of the discussion because you were so eager to make a certain point.

If you want to think that's egoistic or "shitty" then thats up to you. It might surprise you we live in a culture which is not closed where "Koranic references" are used either to fuel or try to defuse mass civilian bombing. And so, from that perspective at least, its a legitmate point of entry.

I didn't say shitty. No, of course it's not "closed" (if by that you mean rejecting of free speech or overly censorious), therefore such discussions as this are perfectly acceptable and, I'd say, often useful. Seems obivous that references to religious texts are used by believers of that religion when attempting to justify or criticise something done in the name of it.

I'm not really sure what your beef is as your remarks seem a bit self-contradictory; like you were just spoiling for a fight.

there is a core of shared belief from Sufism to the deep Mahayana to Liberation Theology that treats, if you like, a deeper human condition...

I think that's a perfectly reasonable viewpoint, one I've heard expressed many times and that hardly marks you out as a crank. Given an anthropological view of why religions came about, a sociological/philosophical one of how and why morals get established, and the historical connections between the world's most prevalent religions it would be remarkable were it not the case.

 

[Sid's Snake]

Eh? Islam isn't relevant to public policy? I rather think all praticed religions are pertinent when it comes to drafting policy; have you not noticed the faith schools issue? Seems to me you totally missed the point of the discussion because you were so eager to make a certain point.
.

Pertinent for the State in deciding where it draws the line as regards its remit for 'tolerance,' but, to repeat my point, not to be swallowed hook line and sinker as if the Koran was an involate and inflexible source...

Otherwise, vis a vis the faith schools issue, you'd have State policy makers sitting in a room cross referencing everything from the Koran to a West African totem for fear of offending anyone.

In France, as soon as enough Muslims get behind the foulard boycott - the refusal to send kids to school if they cant cover their faces - more radical Mullahs urge public swimming pools to rearrange their timetables for "Muslim Days."

The goalposts are moved in response to each victory - the text is a pretext for continued cultural and political pressure.

It makes me angry when issues which are not relevant to the tolerance of a seperate culture become telescoped into conflating Islam with Koranic Islam with a seperate and distinct agenda which the West must either accomodate or reject.

The way the Koran is now studied, by liberals, with tweezers - as if it represents a special case in itself only plays into the hands of the maniacs.

 

[fortyplus]

Hey guys don't derail this really interesting - and constructive - thread.

It seems to me that anyone who elevates the words of any text to a sacred status is getting close to idolatry. The Holy Qu'ran may be the exact words that the angel Gabriel spoke to God's Messenger (PBUH), but they're not God. For one thing, many of them are quite obviously much more relevant to a seventh-century CE desert people engaged in a guerrilla war than they are to 21st-century urbanites. Textual literalism is, imho, as great an idolatry as any; the sacred texts can only be appreciated at a symbolic level, so that their true inner meaning for today is revealed by prayer, contemplation and recitation.

 

[frogwoman]

My baptist church was affiliated to the Baptist Union, which really is very moderate.

There's not much fundamentalist about viewing sections of the bible as metaphor really, is there?

nope

 

[frogwoman]

I don't know Jonti or Alderbarran, I am not opposed to "nice chats." I was just making an admittedly robust point about something which personally irritates me, which is the constant text referencing to the Koran as if Islam was both a closed system and a source of anything relevant to public policy.

why isn't islam relevant to public policy?

religion isn't just something that you go to church once a week for.

its a way of life.

and that means that if you are serious about your religion it will influence everything you do, and how you think about social and political issues.

i dont mean just blindly going along with everything some preacher says, btw, or prophesying the end of the world simply because something's happened which is vaguely reminiscent of the book of revelations.

how it influences them will depend on the religion and the person - but it does

therefore, it makes absolute sense that a muslim, or a jew, or a christian, or a buddhist, would think about their faith when they were thinking about social issues and politics.

thats a different thing from arguing for "shariah law" in England, with hands and feet being chopped off ... and if you cant tell the difference ...


and theres nothing wrong with using the text as a frame of reference to discuss things

when people have theological debates, they use the sacred texts to back up their ideas - and i can understand why someone that isnt familiar / a believer in that religion might not be comfortable with it, coz they dont know it and can't argue against it

which is one of the reasons i dont generally do it

but when you're studying a sacred text and you start thinking bout a particular issue, or about a particular aspect of the religion, you're going to look to those texts to see how they can be interpreted, arent you

If you want to think that's egoistic or "shitty" then thats up to you. It might surprise you we live in a culture which is not closed where "Koranic references" are used either to fuel or try to defuse mass civilian bombing.

yeah , coz that's the only thing muslim scholars and imam's do with themselves all day, isn't it.

think up new and exciting ways to excuse terrorist attacks using the koran.

and you're right - we dont live in that culture.

we're much more civilised.

when we want to justify the bombing of civilians, we don't go to all the trouble of looking through the bible.

oh no.

we simply say - these people threaten our way of life, our freedom and our very existence.......and if anyone asks, perish the thought - we can produce all these documents to back it up

and if it turns out to be fake - so what? at least the principle was right!

those backward muslims, eh - fancy saying that islam forbids terrorism when some pitiful, brainwashed jihadi blows himself in the hope of getting the seventy virgins.

pity our politicians cant do the same when a bomb is dropped onto a village because a terrorist "might" be there. pity they can't say it's inexcusable, its against our values, it's undemocratic.

And so, from that perspective at least, its a legitmate point of entry.

sure it is - but you need to take a good look and think about what you're saying.

 

[fortyplus]

What interests me is whether (and how) the Koranic verses can be interpreted in a similar sort of way, in support of the separation of Church and State --

Isn't this point part of the distinction between Sunni and Shia? Sunnis accept a secular-but-Moslem ruler (e.g. today the king in Sunni Saudi), while for Shias the state is subordinate to clerical authority.

or at least in suppport of fair treatment for all believers and unbelievers.

Certainly the one about no compulsion in religion, on the grounds that only God can see into men's hearts.

The trouble is that the Qur'an is also substantially about warfare, between moslems and unbelievers, so there's a lot in it about treating the two differently, as you would have to if you were in Mohammed's (PBUH) position waging a guerilla war.

When the Qur'an refers to unbelievers we shouldn't mistake them for atheists or rationalists. They were the people who worshipped instead their tribal idols,
and the permanent feuding between them was good business for Meccans.

You could make a good case for saying that today's equivalent of the unbelievers or the Meccans are those who perpetuate the idea of a permanent war between religions and profit from it by selling arms.

Incidently, I daresay some forms of Islam are pretty kooky too, in their details, but a lot of Christian doctrine is, frankly, ludicrous. Islam seems less offensive to reason in some ways -- if one must believe in a Deity, at least make it an Indivisible, Unknowable, Unity.

I can go along with Islam for four words: "there is no God.."

 

[Fictionist]

If Aldebaraan has written a book can someone (maybe Aldebaraan himself / herself) provide details so that I can read it?

Many thanks.

F

X

 

[scooter]

Isn't this point part of the distinction between Sunni and Shia? Sunnis accept a secular-but-Moslem ruler (e.g. today the king in Sunni Saudi), while for Shias the state is subordinate to clerical authority.

Actually, it's the other way round. Shia have a long tradition (and a philosophy) of secular leadership. They're not really big on religious leaders. The current regime in Iran is more of an exception to the general rule.

 

[butchersapron]

It's not an exception, it's a forging of a new rule.

(which makes it an exception, i concede)

 

[scooter]

I know you're not being entirely serious

But it is worth mentioning that it can't be the forging of a new rule because shia theology (in general) forbids clerical rule. Or at least that is the majority understanding among shia thinkers. Ayatollah Khomeini and his group had to really stretch some of the theology to justify himself.

But he's stretched it a bit too thin really. They're in power at the moment but shia religious theory tends to lean against clerical leadership. They think that politics is a dirty business and religious leaders shouldn't sully themselves by getting involved in it.

AFAIK this is the majority view in shia islam - that politics is dirty and religious leaders should be separate. So once this lot have gone, all the momentum is likely to be for a secular government.

 

[butchersapron]

Khomeni did make a new tradtion, a political tradtion, that's not going away. He explicitly theorised this break, a rupture wirth quietist tradtion and he made sure it got some good exposure.It's irrelavent if it doesn't equal proper shia trads. This is now it.

 

[scooter]

mmm... can't see it.

He may have started a tradition of some kind but he's still fighting against a thousand years of theology.

There's no real evidence to suggest that "this is now it" as you say. The evidence, such as there is, tends to suggest that the Iranians are more secular as a rule. We can point to their writings, their history, their philosophy, their religion and all these things point in the direction of the secular.

The only thing that points in the other direction is one short reign of totalitarian government. A government that only came about because we overthrew their own democratically elected government in 1956 and installed the shah. When the shah needed to be overthrown (and he did because he was pretty bad) the religious groups were the natural foci for the revolution - they were the only ones with the organisation.

So they got to lead the revolution. But I don't think they have much popular support any more.

 

[butchersapron]

Shia in Iraq, all collective manifestsations of shia replicating 1979 in so many ways.

 

[scooter]

mmm. you know what, you're right.

I withdraw everything I said above.

 

[butchersapron]

Thank you

 

[scooter]

No problem.

 

[Demosthenes]

Yeah ICB,

But freedom of conscience (or more exactly, freedom of religion) is a large part of Western values. Even the Born-Agains have to accept the US Constitution takes precedence when it comes to national or state laws. They just cannot have their religious laws applied to everyone, that'd be plain unAmerican. I guess, against Christians, one can always fall back on the famous JC quote Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.

I always think it's a shame fundamentalist christians don't take that statement more seriously, and think about it a bit more.

There's a long jewish tradition that the earth and everything in it belongs to god.

Take that view seriously, and you have to conclude that all claims to absolute ownership of land, are human legal fictions.

So in fact the statement -Give Caesar what is Caesar's and give God what is God's is a piece of radical politics. Properly understood it means, Caesar can have the money, which with his head stamped on it is his intellectual property, - but the earth and everything in it belongs to God.
Without a legal defence of land ownership, money would become a lot less valuable I reckon.