attacks on Christians' on Easter Sunday in Sri Lanka

[Farm Boy]

I think you should help me by giving me direct citation of the Biblical verse that you mentioned, similarly like how I quoted the Quranic verses directly for you, because I know you don't have enough study on Islam or Quran, and you don't own smart Quran in your laptop or smart phone for easy search.

And what is large and small salvation? You quoted it from the beginning, I think in order to follow you better, you need to elaborate me more about this concept, and I really interest to know about it.

It is very strange for you to said our very core of faith is about "the denial of trinity monotheism", this assumption is ancient, it was prevalent in the older time where the Christian thought Islam as a form of heresy of Christianity not as heathen like most of Christian today think. But what we see from our stand point is that, it is the Christian who in denial about the trinity and rejected the concept of monotheism that is being teach through revelation. My logic tell me that there is no such thing as trinity monotheism, this two concept conflict each other, some theologian even identified they core of principle as Unitarianism not as monotheism.

God is The First, from Him everything comes to exist (Al Awwal/Alpha), and to Him we all will come back (Al Akhir/Omega), He is the prime cause who have no cause. While the concept of Father and Son itself is unGodly in monotheistic sense, because "Son" is the result of the Father, both truth substantially or semioticsly speaking.

The concept of three God pretty much common during that time. In Egypt we got the Trinity of Amun, Re and Ptah; the Babylons also recognized the concept of trinity, that is consider to be three person(ality) in one God; also in Hinduism we got the famous Shiva, Brahman and Visnu trinity.

Worshiping the Unseen was the challenge for Abrahamic believers, it invited mockery among the Pagan, even one of Moses disciple ask him to made for children of Israel a similar idol like the Pagan for them to worship, something solid to worship. I think also the Old Christian faced the same challenged and adjust their core teaching, as it written in the Quran, the Muslim believes trinity as innovation from Jesus original teaching.

I only put it as core because you said it is the most important thing, in response to the nature of salvation. If that's sort of an offshoot onto something other than salvation or that isn't how you meant it, ok. The New Testament has a pretty easy to identify most important thing, because it was posed as that exact question to Jesus himself, per:

Spoiler Matthew 22:36-40 :

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Spoiler Mark 12:30-31 :

30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

Spoiler Luke 10:27 :

27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

Spoiler John 13:34-35 :

34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

At least sort of roughly, but this is sort of off my area of interest as is the idea of the Trinity vs Unitarianism vs vs vs vs etc., unless, of course, it is actually central to the concept of salvation as you would put it, or "who is an appropriate servant of the divine" as I sort of put it when posing my personal bugbear question: Is salvation big(broad) or small(narrow)?

More on point to my understanding of those were the the previous:

Spoiler John 3:16 :

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

and

Spoiler Acts 4:12 :

12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Expanding the passages increases the context, but from what I understand John 3:16 is not "the most important thing" but it is maybe probably the heart of the Christian gospel, the thing that makes Christianity distinct as a cult of Judaism in a way the greatest commandment does not. Acts 4:12 is sometimes contextualized as only through Christianity or even a specific Christianity can salvation be found, rather than it being universal and sufficient. Some of them seem more strained than others, or lean more heavily on less "core" verses for their takeaways. Ones with additional/differing holy texts such as Mormonism or Islam(or even Roman Catholicism to maybe a lesser extent) I know even less about. Broad vs. narrow. Big vs. small. Calvinism vs good works vs Methodist rejection vs Jehova's Witness's hard 144,000 etc etc. Is that a more cogent thought at all? Like I said, not much of a theologian here.

 

[inthesomeday]

Goes back a lot further than that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_the_Levant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saracen

True, true... if we used a more honest definition of “Muslim” to how western leaders use it— something along the lines of, “North African or middle eastern brown person”, then western empires have been violently hateful of Muslims since well before Islam...

 

[Lexicus]

then western empires have been violently hateful of Muslims since well before Islam...

Keeping in mind that the "north African or middle eastern brown people" had empires worthy of the name while the Latin west was a bunch of fur-clad barbarians running around smelling bad and being like "look how rich we are, we have SALT to put in our meat"

 

[Patine]

And? You can find Greek writers expressing attitudes that have clear continuities with modern "Orientalism" back when Rome was a no-account hill village. I'm not going to bother and look to confirm but I thought we were talking about Western attitudes toward Islam, which clearly requires the existence of Islam to make any sense.

My point is simply that "the West" has been taking a dim view of Islam since long before early modern times let alone the late 20th century. The term "Saracen" for example represents an impulse quite similar to that displayed in @Modder_Mode 's posts in which he attributes singular motives etc. to a transhistorical "Islam" that of course bears no resemblance to anything that exists now or has ever existed in reality.

A good quote I found in a sociology journal back in college (which meant that, practically-speaking, it was hardcopy, because that was the mid-'90's, and the Internet was a pale shadow of what it is today accessed by the pure evil that was dial-up) on the concept of religion and religious relations in a well-stated, eloquent but generic, broad-stroked way I've always loved to this day.

"Nothing brings a community together like religion, but nothing divides and separates that community from the next one like religion."

Basically, whatI'm saying is, I don't it's a matter of which religion is rubbing up against which religion, or who "started it," or how long it's been going on, differences in religious belief have ALWAYS been an incendiary triggerpoint though all of human history around the world.

 

[H4run]

I only put it as core because you said it is the most important thing, in response to the nature of salvation. If that's sort of an offshoot onto something other than salvation or that isn't how you meant it, ok.

Yes you are right, I just want to respond to your conclusion that "the denial of trinity monotheism" is the core teaching of Islam, I just find it very interesting conclusion. Even though you are right the discussion way expanded beyond the main topic, however the Muslim prerequisite to salvation is tawheed or lets say monotheism. The core principle that shouldn't be foreign in Bible itself

Spoiler Isaiah 45:5 :

"I am the LORD, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God I will gird you, though you have not known Me;

Spoiler Isaiah 44:6 :

"Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me.

Spoiler John 5:44 :

"How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God?

Expanding the passages increases the context, but from what I understand John 3:16 is not "the most important thing" but it is maybe probably the heart of the Christian gospel, the thing that makes Christianity distinct as a cult of Judaism in a way the greatest commandment does not. Acts 4:12 is sometimes contextualized as only through Christianity or even a specific Christianity can salvation be found, rather than it being universal and sufficient. Some of them seem more strained than others, or lean more heavily on less "core" verses for their takeaways. Ones with additional/differing holy texts such as Mormonism or Islam(or even Roman Catholicism to maybe a lesser extent) I know even less about. Broad vs. narrow. Big vs. small. Calvinism vs good works vs Methodist rejection vs Jehova's Witness's hard 144,000 etc etc. Is that a more cogent thought at all? Like I said, not much of a theologian here.

I see so small and big salvation is similar like the ontology and the epistemology; the core meaning, the general and the method or specific path in order to achieve it. Is it like that?

In Islam the core of salvation is the belief in one God and His' prophet; however the monotheistic principle comes first (Quran 112:1-4). But salvation in Islam is not a salvation that freed us from every sin that we have done, while in Christianity God ransom the crucified Jesus to redeem the sin of the Christian, I might be wrong here. However Muslim is responsible for their own deeds "And no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another" (Quran 35:18). A pious sinner will responsible for every harm they did in the society. The clear demonstration of it will be this hadith:

Spoiler Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 2581 :

Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Do you know who is bankrupt?” They said, “The one without money or goods is bankrupt.” The Prophet said, “Verily, the bankrupt of my nation are those who come on the Day of Resurrection with prayers, fasting, and charity, but also with insults, slander, consuming wealth, shedding blood, and beating others. The oppressed will each be given from his good deeds. If his good deeds run out before justice is fulfilled, then their sins will be cast upon him and he will be thrown into the Hellfire.”

That's why the correct faith is not suffice to save themselves from the hell fire, it must be accompanied with good deeds (amal shalih), there is necessity of having a balanced relationship with The Divine (habluminallah) and also to fellow human beings (habluminannas), like I said previously the sin to the creation can be more severe than to yourselves and your Creator, because dealing with The Most Merciful is different than dealing with His creation who don't possessed such divine traits, but however sinful you are, in the end after the purification you will enter Paradise if you have a correct monotheistic faith (this is the fundamental salvation).

That's why the degree of salvation for each Muslims might mean different from one and another depend on their rank (like human, heaven and hell also leveled), while the rank are based by the quality of their faith and deeds; fasiq or the sinner is at the bottom; Muslim, coming from the words taslim, mean those who submit themselves to The Divine is the second; mukmin or The Believer is the third rank, the definition of the believer is this; the fourth is mutaqeen; the top is mukhlis it means the faitful, as it define by Isa the Son of Maryam:

Ath-Thawri reported from `Abdul-Aziz bin Rafi`, from Abu Lubabah that he said, "The Disciples (of `Isa) said, `O Spirit of Allah, inform us about the one who is Mukhlis (purely devoted) to Allah.' He said, `That is one who does a deed solely for Allah and he does not like for the people to praise him.''

In conclusion the way to achieve the ultimate salvation is this:

By time, indeed, mankind is in loss, except for those who have believed and done righteous deeds and advised each other to truth and advised each other to patience. (Quran 103: 1-3)

So by this difference nature, I cannot define the small and big salvation for you, or maybe I already did, but I tried to explain what I think is necessary.

 

[Farm Boy]

Maybe. Believing the "right" faith being insufficient on its own is still congruent with small salvation. Believing that your "own" faith is the best/most useful is still congruent with big. The crux of the matter is if a person who believes "wrongly" according to one sect/faith/cult can still be an appropriate servant of the divine. That's necessary for believing God to be big, rather than small. I know there are atheists that are better servants of God than I am. I don't think their atheism is necessarily an asset in this, as neither is my doubt, but it can still be true. Small salvation shrinks God, and shrinking God to fit in our pocket says a lot of about us, I think?

 

[H4run]

Maybe. Believing the "right" faith being insufficient on its own is still congruent with small salvation. Believing that your "own" faith is the best/most useful is still congruent with big. The crux of the matter is if a person who believes "wrongly" according to one sect/faith/cult can still be an appropriate servant of the divine. That's necessary for believing God to be big, rather than small. I know there are atheists that are better servants of God than I am. I don't think their atheism is necessarily an asset in this, as neither is my doubt, but it can still be true. Small salvation shrinks God, and shrinking God to fit in our pocket says a lot of about us, I think?

Well thats enitrely your belief and your line of thought, my logic is that if it is me the one who own salvation then it is mine to decide and I should ponder about my decision, but if one believe that God the one who own salvation then it is God is the one to decide and defined who got the salvation.

If you ask how Islam understand salvation, that is my understanding, but yes salvation or God(s) might meant different from people to people, from group to group, some people might not believe it at all, that is entirely the sphere of relation between a person with their belief, which in Islam it stated:

There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion...(Quran 2:256)

The answer cannot be settle by a consensus of our thought, how can we understand God's line of thought and imprison God with our definition if we ponder it as human? the truth can only be settle by time not by argument, time when we all come back to Him.

 

[Farm Boy]

Can I still think that core beliefs around human sacrifice are probably suboptimal? Or that perhaps a cookbook is more neutral?

 

[H4run]

Mmm what do you mean?

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, per the several pages back conversation with El on the comparative worth religious texts vis a vie cookbooks? I mean, I've been having a good conversation, but I suppose that's where our particular tangent started.

 

[H4run]

I also enjoy the coversation with you truly if not I will be too lazy to gather all of those hujjah (religious reference) it is all in my mind but I need to search the direct quotation for you. I completely understand that you think the way I define salvation limited or shrinking God to my own pocket, Ibnu Arabi and many mystic talk about similar thing. However in my view by neglecting the words of God and define it as we preceive what God should have do or dont regarding the salvation, we shrink God to fit our own criteria of God. While God is beyond us.

However thank you for the painless and respectful religious conversation, I really value it.

 

[Farm Boy]

Oh I'm not sure that's my takeaway at all. That definitely takes more than one good conversation.

As a better man than I always concluded by saying, "Just remember, you are loved."

 

[El_Machinae]

There are many 'Western' interventions into the Middle East. I'd say a really significant one was during the 19th century, when a bunch of people coming through the Enlightenment decided that the Bible 'must' be true. This then conflicted with a bunch of people in the Middle East that decided that the Quran 'must' be true. And then everything constantly spiralled as if Jerusalem was spiritually important.

 

[Lexicus]

There are many 'Western' interventions into the Middle East. I'd say a really significant one was during the 19th century, when a bunch of people coming through the Enlightenment decided that the Bible 'must' be true. This then conflicted with a bunch of people in the Middle East that decided that the Quran 'must' be true. And then everything constantly spiralled as if Jerusalem was spiritually important.

This is a very odd place to put emphasis in an account of Western interventions in the Middle East. One of the biggest moments in the modern history of relations between Europe and the ME is surely Napoleon's invasion of Egypt, which was, to put it lightly, not carried out by people who thought the Bible "must" be true. Various Great Power interventions in the affairs of the Ottoman empire also had nothing to do with the Bible, Quran, or Jerusalem.

 

[El_Machinae]

This is a very odd place to put emphasis in an account of Western interventions in the Middle East. One of the biggest moments in the modern history of relations between Europe and the ME is surely Napoleon's invasion of Egypt, which was, to put it lightly, not carried out by people who thought the Bible "must" be true. Various Great Power interventions in the affairs of the Ottoman empire also had nothing to do with the Bible, Quran, or Jerusalem.

Absolutely. Are you considering France and Egypt far enough away that it's not just a function of regional powers fighting? Do we distinguish the conflict around the Mediterranean from 'Western intervention'? How do we distinguish 'colonialism' from just the regular rise and fall of local empires?

There's always history, obviously, that creates future history. But what's 'Western Intervention', such that it can be distinguished as a specific subtype?

 

[Lexicus]

Absolutely. Are you considering France and Egypt far enough away that it's not just a function of regional powers fighting? Do we distinguish the conflict around the Mediterranean from 'Western intervention'? How do we distinguish 'colonialism' from just the regular rise and fall of local empires?

There's always history, obviously, that creates future history. But what's 'Western Intervention', such that it can be distinguished as a specific subtype?

Okay, the last line there clarifies somewhat...what makes you think I'm trying to claim "Western intervention" as something separate from "regional powers fighting", "the conflict around the Mediterranean", or "the regular rise and fall of local empires"?? Why would we want to distinguish those things from each other?

 

[El_Machinae]

Okay, the last line there clarifies somewhat...what makes you think I'm trying to claim "Western intervention" as something separate from "regional powers fighting", "the conflict around the Mediterranean", or "the regular rise and fall of local empires"?? Why would we want to distinguish those things from each other?

Because people talk about Western Intervention as if it's a subtype of imperialism specifically worth pointing out. That 'the West' oppresses Muslims. "People disliking muslims violently" will have gone as far back in time as soon as Muslims started fighting. And once a faith becomes synonymous with an Empire, it's going to have enemies.

I'm trying to unpack when Muslims became a Western enemy in any way distinguishable from any other type of enemy any power might have had.

 

[H4run]

Because people talk about Western Intervention as if it's a subtype of imperialism specifically worth pointing out. That 'the West' oppresses Muslims. "People disliking muslims violently" will have gone as far back in time as soon as Muslims started fighting. And once a faith becomes synonymous with an Empire, it's going to have enemies.

I'm trying to unpack when Muslims became a Western enemy in any way distinguishable from any other type of enemy any power might have had.

I think this rant is the real reason why you think western intervention in middle east during 19th century, that results the great game, or even later on in 20th century najd revolution, were all started by simply Quran nation vs Bible Nation.

 

[Lexicus]

Because people talk about Western Intervention as if it's a subtype of imperialism specifically worth pointing out.

It is a subtype of imperialism specifically worth pointing out because it matters far more to the configuration of the world today than, say, the imperial policies of the Abassid Caliphate or the Sung dynasty.

'm trying to unpack when Muslims became a Western enemy in any way distinguishable from any other type of enemy any power might have had.

Hmm...how exactly do you mean this? You mean in a discursive sense (that is, the idea of Muslims as a special enemy) or are you implying that Muslims actually are a "Western enemy" in some historical sense?

 

[zazazuzu]

OMG, Christians are being on attacked on Easter!! It's always sad when innocents suffer because the non-innocent have to find a way to express themselves. Lavish your pity on the poor fools who where tricked into committing these acts. They were the very first victims of the evil forces that brought these things into existence.