ohnomelon

Since I am the original 'lost soul' in this thread, I'll answer. . .Thou shalt do unto others that which you would like done unto you. . .It's really that easy. I intrinsically knew number one at a very young age. There was absolutely no need to look it up in a book. Where does it come from? I've really no idea, I just know it's natural amongst all humans, unless they have been mistreated as a child. So you believe that the supreme, humanist ethic is rooted in human nature? This brings up several other questions: what makes Homo sapiens anything special? How would you defend yourself against the claim that this is nothing more than "speciesism?" After all, what makes us instrinsically more valuable as a race of animals than fruit flies or porpoises, which were produced by the same, impersonal process (for the record, I also believe in evolution by natural selection)? Why do other aspects of human nature stand out as immoral character traits (e.g., selfishness)? I highlighted the above section because that is where you answered my question. The nontheist, while he might lead a very moral life, has no (coherent) naturalistic answer for the origin of his code of ethics - as amoral evolution seems to imply the opposite of the golden rule. To me, this is an indicator that man's nature is not entirely taken from natural processes. The nontheist has no reason beyond self-preservation to adhere to any system of morality. But a transcendent source of moral law along with a sinful nature which resulted from the Fall, I believe, best explains man's knowledge of good and evil (you've heard of the tree, I'm sure), as well as, his tendency toward moral corruption. If I understand correctly, you believe in the objectivity and universality of moral law; I don't see why it would be such a leap for you to admit its transcendence, which is actually easier to prove. I don't believe in capital punishment either. Of course, I believe that the relationship between God and Man is more at ease than it was in the days of Mosaic covenant. The Jews had a better system of capital punishment than we do in America, though. Two eyewitnesses to the crime were absolutely necessary for a death sentence to be carried out (so not as many people were executed under the law of Moses as one might think). Please don't associate the philosophical and Judeo-Christian understandings of moral law with the Sharia law of Islam because, if you couldn't tell, we don't exactly believe the same things they do about right and wrong. lol As it has already been noted, while "thought crimes" may not be illegal in this country, they are nevertheless wrong according to God's perfect moral standards. The whole point of the Gospel (or good news) is to let us know that we are totally incapable of escaping our carnal nature and inevitable tendency to sin. But perfection is what God demands, so He made a way for us to be legally justified and perfect in His sight without being perfect in practice or held spiritually accountable for our wrongdoings. There are, of course, many natural consequences that serve as as moral "indicators." I do not believe that there is such a thing as a "crime of ignorance" in God's moral law. They are still sins (as Jesus explained in Matthew ch. 5), and sin separates us from the perfection of God, but He is merciful enough to not hold us accountable for transgressions we made without knowing. And the fifth commandment is "Honor your father and your mother." How is that so vile, davem? I'll have to get back to you on the "condoned murder," because I'm aware of what you're referring to, though I must admit that ordained rape is a new one on me. Any Jew or Christian educated in the Scriptures will insist that rape is a serious sin and God would never condone such a heinous act. I hope you didn't get that impression from a skeptical website or a piece of antireligious literature because a lot of charges made by detractors of the Bible leave scholars either scratching their heads or rolling their eyes. I do believe there are some legitimate ethical questions to be raised (that can most likely be cleared up with additional context), but most accusations are based on sketchy and shallow interpretations.

Indeed your view is logical - whether it's supported by evidence is another matter. "What is rational is actual and what is actual is rational. On this conviction the plain man like the philosopher takes his stand, and from it philosophy starts in its study of the universe of spirit as well as the universe of nature." - G.W.F. Hegel I wouldn't go around saying that your opponents' views are logical unless you are a relativist or plan to convert to their way of thinking. lol I got two honest questions for ya: 1. Do you believe that any moral obligation exists apart from our obligation to abide by society's laws? 2. What do you believe to be the basis of moral law/virtues, if not God's commands or character traits?

The doctrines of heaven and hell were taught by Jesus Himself before His followers had any real control or political power. It certainly can be used as a propaganda tool by overzealous evangelists who prefer to scare people into the kingdom, but I think most Christians just accept the reality of hell and acknowledge that it's not a pleasant place. Your statement about denial of pleasure has me confused, though... could you please elaborate on that?

Okay, if you insist, I'll say what I really mean. Don't try putting words in my mouth. It's malicious and juvenile. Name calling is prohibited on this board (memorize that for future reference). I'm not putting words in your mouth. You're putting bogus meanings into words. This whole discussion has gotten out of control over basically nothing. I don't appreciate your patronizing attitude either, glory. And what names are you claiming I called you? First of all, don't try to make it sound like I'm trying to suppress your freedom of speech. I would LIKE you to post your own thoughts, but it would be nice for the posters with whom you vocally disagree if there were some kind of reasoning behind your opinions. That is all I am saying. Secondly, I am opposed to the terrible, false religion of Islam! How many times do I have to say that before you will listen? You have not payed any attention or given me a coherent response to to ANY of my replies in this thread. I don't know why I've been wasting energy talking to you because, even when I agree with you on something, you act suspicious of me. By "everyone," I assume you mean "glory2000." And I am seriously considering it. Iryssa knew when to give up on trying to hold a civil discussion with you. She has more sense than I do. Exactly WHAT would she be reporting, Scarlet? I'm pretty sure that nothing I've said or done here has been against regulation. I've done a rather good job of maintaining my sanity considering how frustrated I am with this pointless discussion on the "cult status of Islam." I expected the apologetics forum to be filled with intellectual Christians debating serious issues with a sense of integrity, civility, and passion. But all I've encountered so far is passion.

Either you can look up what "literary desconstructionism" really is, or you can make up a bogus, glory2000-customized meaning for the term - whatever suits your fancy. You are picking apart words and redefining them to suit your own deformed arguments. That is why, while some might agree with your conclusions, no one can follow your reasoning. Well, I don't care what Webster says because I want patronize to mean "have fun jumping on a trampoline." Understand where I'm coming from? Let me use another example because that one didn't seem to faze you (since you're just too darn smart for the likes of me). Do I have the right to make up my own, unique definition for the word, "salvation?" Can I give the Scriptures new, legitimate meaning this way... and use my literary creations in argument against the claims of people who hold to the orthodox definition? Just wondering since you seem so adamant that Islam be considered a cult rather than a false religion. You remarked that it is your mission to convert others to your way of thinking on this point; am I right? I'm not even going to respond to your question because I am tired of repeating myself. I don't think so. Considering you admitted to me that no argument can sway you, I don't see how you could possibly consider yourself broad-minded. This is not a conviction; it is merely an opinion. And, evidently, the term "commonsense argument" is relative to the person to whom it's addressed. You listed several conditions for a religious group to be considered a cult. While Islam may meet all three of your personal "prerequisites," none of them have anything to do with how a "cult" is actually defined... because you like making up your own meanings (apparently, it is too difficult for you to get your point across using standard English definitions). I have read some of Islam's holy book as a matter of fact, enough to know it's dangerous. I'm surprised to learn that you have read the Qur'an, glory2000. By "read," I trust you don't mean look up arbitrary verses about killing infidels on polemical Christian websites. It certainly sounded like you were questioning the sincerity of her faith based on an opinion that is not even doctrinal, but I'll promise to "rethink" that comment if you promise to say what you really mean... or perhaps that's wishful thinking since you make up your own meanings as it pleases you.

You are "allowed" to do that, yes. But if everyone made up their own definitions for words, such as religion, you would find it very difficult to communicate your ideas, much less debate them. If instead I wanted the word cult to mean "pillow fight," I would certainly be within my rights as an American citizen, but trying to convince me of your opinion would prove to be quite frustrating because everybody knows Islam is not a pillow fight. You seem to disdain political correctness while embracing a separate aspect of the postmodernist mindset: literary deconstructionism. Don't I have the right to make up my own definition of "patronize?" Methodist actually. lol. And I couldn't care less whether Islam is considered a cult, a religion, or both, as you would know if you had payed any attention at all to my bazillion posts saying so. I have a question for you, glory: do you believe there is such a thing as a "false religion?" and, if so, why do you find it so unsettling that Islam is considered one? Of course, you are entitled to your own opinions. But if we are going to debate the issue, then you had better put forth an argument that makes sense to someone other than yourself. You are terribly closed-minded, glory. If our commonsense arguments won't change your mind about something as utterly pointless as the question, "Is Islam a cult or simply a false religion?", then I suspect your mind is incapable of change. *sigh* You're making up your own definitions again. And who says Muhammad was a madman? He was a brilliant military strategist. She has been speaking for herself. I was investigating what appeared to be a personal attack on her faith coming from you. By claiming that "it is a big deal... to a Christian" that Christianity not be thought of as a cult, it sounded like you were implying that Iryssa must not be a follower of Christ. Is that not what you were inferring?

T - I believe in total depravity to a point. I do not believe at all that every well-intentioned act made prior to our justification in Christ is essentially "putrid" to God, which is my understanding of this doctrine. I do, however, think that almost every act is tainted by original sin. What is the root of all sin? I believe it to be selfishness. The only exemptions that I can tell would be self-sacrifice and possibly instinctive altruistic behavior. All other actions are either consciously or subconsciously self-seeking. I do not believe that God can justly judge us based on our subconscious feelings - but they do separate us from God and make us more prone to committing conscious acts of rebellion, which God can and does justly judge. U - I have not decided on this one completely, but I believe that we are all unconditionally "elected" in a way, and I strongly believe that we must accept God's gift of salvation. Our reconciliation to God is made possible by God and God alone (Calvinists and Arminians agree on this point), however I concur with Arminius in saying we must accept this gift offered to us. I have never understood why this would, in any way, take away from God's sovereignty as Calvinists constantly argue. The verses Calvinists cite in favor of this doctrine usually come from the book of Romans, chapters 9-12, most of which is written about the Hebrew people (the natural seed of Abraham) and their covenant with God. Also, there are far too many conditional statements in the Bible concerning personal salvation to make me believe that salvation is unconditional. lol L - The doctrine of limited atonement is most people's biggest problem with Calvinism, I think. It creates a paradox of God's will and logically implies the doctrine of reprobation. If God is "willing that none should perish" yet predetermines them to a fate of perpetual death by not including them in the covenant with His Son, then we're faced with a problem: either God's love for mankind isn't as passionate as most Christians have been led to believe; or God does not have the power and/or authority to effect His perfect will and Calvinists are, in reality, the ones diminishing His divine sovereignty; or we create an unnecessary paradox of will vs. will. Not only is this doctrine problematic from a philosophical viewpoint, it is counterintuitive for so many who read the gospels. I - Irresistible grace pretty much goes hand-in-hand with unconditional election. To be straightforward, I don't think the Lord would force salvation onto any person. I believe each one of us must accept this free gift of our own volition, and, while we are led by the Spirit to repentance, the Spirit does not violate our [God-given] autonomy if our will is to remain captive to sin. God's grace enables us; it does not arrest us. So, in my opinion, there is nothing "graceful" about this particular doctrine. P - I think this is probably the least offensive doctrine of Calvinism. I agree with the premise but believe that it is taken too far. Yes, I absolutely believe in my heart that nothing can snatch you away from God once you are adopted into His family - nothing except you. As a child can disown himself from his earthly father, a child of God can disown himself from his heavenly Father. As a man can divorce His wife by reason of infidelity, I believe our Lord Jesus Christ does divorce Himself from a person who has lost all faith in Him. Works never enter into the equation. It is not by works that we are saved but by grace through faith. When our faith has been denied or abandoned, how can we expect a share in the kingdom? The Bible tells us that we are to persevere. OSAS folks seem to advocate a very "passive" interpretation of this imperative scripture. It certainly doesn't mean that we can never screw up (we are under God's grace and the protection of the Cross); it means that we must never give up. I suppose I would be classified as a moderate Calvinist, but my views definitely lean toward Arminianism. I decided to vote for 60% Arminian, 40% Calvinist, because of my complicated view on the doctrine of total depravity and my agreement with the central idea of perseverance of the saints.

And people could just as easily say that cosmetology is a religion; this could go on 'til the end of time. It IS a big deal. To a Christian. No, they could not. You can't just make up your own definitions. glory2000, meet Noah Webster. And were you questioning Iryssa's faith in that last comment? I happen to agree with her; it is irrelevant. Who cares if people do say that Christianity is a cult? Exactly what does that change about it?

I disagree. Like I said, it has many things in common with a religious cult, but I wouldn't classify it as such. Who cares whether it is or not? What does that change? Islam is Islam; its errors and evils should be addressed no matter how it happens to be classified sociologically. Propagating your idea that it's a "cult" for the purpose of convincing others not to treat it seriously boils down to poisoning the well. Religion X's status as a cult has got nothing to do with the veracity of Religion X's doctrines, the ethicality of its practices, or the legitimacy of its message. So why is it such a big deal to you, glory, that Islam be considered a cult? It's a big deal to me because islam is growing like a cancer, they are murderous uncivilized barbarians that want us all dead, and they seek to dominate the world. Islam's designation as a cult is not an idea that started with me, btw; I'm no wild eyed fanatic and I HAVE read large parts of the Qu'ran. I'd say the mere fact that islam dictates death for any who turn away is a pretty good indicator of it's doctrines. Veracity? None. Ethicality? Zero. Legitimacy? Only if you consider satanic ramblings a 'message'. I'll continue to 'poison the well' as you put it and pray that even one person turns away because of me; all Christians should worry about the increasing number of souls being harvested for satan. You never addressed why this has anything to do with Islam being considered a cult! I agree with most of what you said here, but why are you so adamant that Islam be thought of more of a cult than a false world religion? It makes absolutely no difference, except as a matter of sociological interest. I'm tired of arguing this point because you haven't answered my question. Telling me all that is wrong with Islam has absolutely nothing to do with its status as a religion. I appreciate your passion for the truth of Christianity and your concern over Islam as a barbarous religion (or "cult," if it makes you happier to think of it this way). Incidentally, "poisoning the well" is a term to describe the fallacy you were arguing; my last post linked to a website explaining it. I understand your view and acknowledged that Islam has some cult-like characteristics, but, once more and for the last time, I don't see why you feel that Islam must be regarded as a cult. Cult, religion, or both? It doesn't matter one iota. Islam is what it is, we should respond to it for what it is, and those labels don't change anything from a political or evangelistic perspective.

You're begging the question, though, Rusty. Using the Bible in your case for our (the Judeo-Christian) God's existence is no different than referencing the Qur'an as evidence of Allah's existence. EDIT: I was looking up fallacies and came across this web page. Check out the example. The fundamentalist "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" crowd needs to stop fighting intellectualism so much. When skeptics ask sincere, honest questions such as this one, we believers should be ready to respond thoughtfully and rationally. Logic is not "anti-faith" as it is often treated by Christians. Jesus Christ Himself is the Logos, the Word and the Reason. There is plenty of logical support for theism, so why can't we embrace it instead of shunning philosophy as if it were a consequence of the Fall? What is the source of reason and mathematical logic if they do not emanate from the divine nature of God? Just an observation...

I disagree. Like I said, it has many things in common with a religious cult, but I wouldn't classify it as such. Who cares whether it is or not? What does that change? Islam is Islam; its errors and evils should be addressed no matter how it happens to be classified sociologically. Propagating your idea that it's a "cult" for the purpose of convincing others not to treat it seriously boils down to poisoning the well. Religion X's status as a cult has got nothing to do with the veracity of Religion X's doctrines, the ethicality of its practices, or the legitimacy of its message. So why is it such a big deal to you, glory, that Islam be considered a cult?

This shows a heck of a lot of ignorance, disEnchanted. The Judeo-Christian and Islamic conceptions of God have philosophical support to back up religious conviction. Pagan polytheistic mythology is not intellectually comparable to Abrahamic monotheistic theology. I do believe many Islamic doctrines to be false, but there is no question in my mind that Islam is a more reasonable system of belief than ancient Norse or Greco-Roman religion; even Hinduism has a philosophical structure. What logical arguments could a Viking philosopher come up with to support the existence of Thor? Mythology cannot be reasoned; it is simply a collection of fanciful explanations to stir the imagination and help make sense of the world. However, rationality is vital to the development of good theology. Concerning your evaluation of the Bible and the Qur'an, I'm not sure what you mean by "no better and no worse." Are you talking about their truthfulness, morality, or practical value? Anyway, it is not right to say they're even roughly the same book. Have you read the Qur'an, disEnchanted?

The relevance of calling Islam a cult? That statement is in answer to FaithQuestions' assertion that islam is a religion. If you are one who still believes that islam is a religion you should probably read the Qu'ran. You missed my very first point: I believe that cults are religions. I'm not sure why you think "cult" and "religion" are mutually exclusive terms. I agree with this. Although I tend to believe that Muhammad actually had [demonic] spiritual experiences and believed himself to be a messenger of God, whereas Joseph Smith was simply a fraud. I could be wrong about the prophet of Islam, but that is my opinion. Cult belief systems are distortions of existing theologies, yes. I was making reference to the fact that "cult" is a sociological label in church-sect typology, not simply another name for a religious group with absurd and/or false doctrines. Perhaps "run away from" was a poor choice of words. I'll rephrase: we believers cannot ignore Christendom's history of bloodshed. It is one of the reasons that some non-Christians have difficulty believing that our doctrines are as powerful and efficacious as we claim. We should not be held accountable for atrocities committed in Jesus' name many centuries ago, but as amateur apologists we have an obligation to explain that self-identified Christians who act savagely for the sake of God's kingdom are not acting in accordance with the biblical teaching. A religion should never be judged by its abuses. Militant Muslims, however, may adhere to more medieval interpretations of certain Qur'anic passages, but their ideology does not conflict with the teachings of Muhammad, as he himself was a warlord and a man of violence. It is really sad...

Logically possible, yes. Although, I believe it is also logically very unlikely. And a comment on Pascal's Wager: It's a rhetorical argument, not a philosophical argument.

Why wouldn't a cult be considered a religion? I'm not sure if I would classify Islam as a "cult," but one can't deny that it has many cult-like qualities. For example, compare Mormonism and Islam: both religions have founders claiming to be the last great "prophet" of God; both Joseph Smith and Muhammad wrote religious texts to supplement the preexisting Scriptures; both have restorationist ideologies and claim the true message was distorted and the religion corrupted; both are highly exclusivistic (however, this would also apply to many non-cult religions, including orthodox Christianity); and, interestingly enough, both of their founders were polygamists. lol. But I think we must be careful. There is a thin line between a cult and a distinct religion, as well as, a heretical cult and a heterodox sect. Christianity itself might have been regarded as a Judaic cult by the rabbinic Jews of the first century or even by the Roman occupiers. However, the concept of a "cult" is sociological and not necessarily theological, so, regardless of the truthfulness of this accusation, I fail to see the relevance. Islam, I'm fully convinced, is at heart a violent, oppressive, and imposing religion. Christendom has a dark history that we Christians cannot run away from. Most (but certainly not all) past atrocities committed in the name of Christ were ordained by the Roman Church -- usually for political reasons, for the sake of extended control and increased power, not because of any divine mandate found in the Scriptures. Guys, there is no Christian equivalent to jihad. Islam is more than a religion; it is a geopolitical movement. I've heard it said frequently, "Well, Christianity and Islam are fundamentally the same. They are only superficially different, and both major religions have their nuts and crazies." I believe this understanding is backwards: both religions are superficially the same but fundamentally different. We have only to look at the character and lives of their founders. The allegedly Christian crusaders and inquisitors were not acting in the spirit of Jesus Christ, however the militant Muslim terrorists we face today are certainly acting in the spirit of Muhammad.