Forum for ex-members of Revival Churches
Revival_Centres_Discussion_Forums > Bible, Beliefs, Scriptures and 'The Word' > Didaktikon debunks Revivalist 'Theology' Go to subcategory:
Author Content
Ex_Member
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Date Posted:06/05/2009 11:41 AMCopy HTML


THE REALITY OF ISLAM spreading around the world

8 minute video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #1
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:THE REALITY OF ISLAM

Date Posted:07/05/2009 11:52 AMCopy HTML

Sabrina,

Hmph. Was this the same period of time that God deigned to confirm to you that speaking in 'tongues' was the evidence of being baptised in the Spirit as well?

A brief lesson in hermeneutics for you to reflect upon: a passage of Scripture can't mean now, what it didn't mean then. Or to put this a slightly different way, Islam wasn't to exist until roughly 450 years after John penned his Revelation. So do you reckon the Christians to whom he originally wrote the thing would've come up with the same conclusion as you, their relying on the Holy Spirit for 'inspiration'/confirmation and all?

Remember, John's Revelation is a fairly standard example of 2nd Temple Period apocalyptic. Consequently, it must be interpreted according to the norms of the genre. And the last time that I checked, arbitrary picking-and-choosing of events to fit a preferred outcome wasn't a particularly kosher practice. 

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #2
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:THE REALITY OF ISLAM

Date Posted:08/05/2009 1:19 AMCopy HTML

Sabrina,

Ian, since Rev 10:11 says John must prophesy again about many peoples, nations, tongues and kings who are the peoples, nations, tongues and kings he has already prophesied about?

You might recall that in my previous post I stated that Revelation conformed to the genre of apocalyptic? One of the key interpretative features of apocalyptic is that language invokes imagery more than it does literal(istic) meaning. Consequently, the statement that John must "prophesy again" refers that, although he had explained matters earlier in his Revelation, he as an apostle was now required to proceed with the delivering of his message. In other words, the unfolding of the message is temporally situated. John established a fourfold list of who it was that needed to hear his message: "peoples, nations, tongues and kings". This very clearly implies that all of mankind was intended by the referents, given that in Jewish apocalyptic writing, four was the number which represented the entire world. Furthermore, it's important to appreciate that apocalyptic frequently made use of replication and ring composition to reinforce important points.

I'd suggest that, you should at the very least, also consider the immediate literary context of our passage. Verses 1 through 7 sets the scene for verses 8 and 9, which are based on the message of Ezekiel 2:8-3:3. And these inform our current verse.

My advice to you would be to invest in a decent, scholarly commentary on the Revelation. Such would go a long way to keeping in check more of the fanciful and eisegetical interpretations to which people seem prone with respect to this book. I can recommend several if you're interested.

Blessings,

Ian 

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #3
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:THE REALITY OF ISLAM

Date Posted:09/05/2009 6:50 AMCopy HTML

Sabrina,

How did John's contempories interpret Revelation?

His contemporaries? Or the Christians to whom he ministered? If you meant the latter, then they understood pagan Rome to be largely the 'bad guys' that John wrote about. One thing is for certain 'though, they didn't have a Muslim threat in mind. How could they? There was no such thing as a Muslim at the time, and there wouldn't be for quite a few centuries! But Arab peoples and nations did exist during John's day, so if the seer had in mind an Arab threat, then why didn't he spell such a thing out to his readers by making use of unmistakable references to them, eh? Like he did with respect to Rome.

What proof do you have that you hold the same interpretation that they did?

What? Didn't you know that the early Christians actually wrote letters about, and even commentaries on, the various biblical books, including John's Apocalypse? Unlike you, whose only proof seems to be a claim to "divine communication" to bolster your theory, I have the support of Christian witness throughout history.

As I recommended earlier, buy a decent scholarly commentary on Revelation and read it.

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #4
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:THE REALITY OF ISLAM

Date Posted:09/05/2009 1:14 PMCopy HTML

Sabrina,

I am well aware what the so-called historicists believe, and what the so-called futurists believe, and what the so-called preterists believe concerning the issue. But unlike you, it seems, I also realise that each of these interpretative positions superimposes a somewhat illegitimate hermeneutic in order to reach their respective conclusions. And the worst offenders of all are the historicists! If you'd done any study into their method at all, you would have realised that theirs is the most untethered and subjective approach of any! And, of course, theirs is the preferred schema adopted by each and every Revivalist denomination as well. The fact remains that none of these interpretative views (less the preterist to some extent) takes into account what the book of Revelation meant to its original audience. And as I mentioned earlier, a text can't mean something now that it never meant originally. Furthermore, none of these views displays any appreciation of apocalytpic as a genre.

In short, your ignorance of exegetical method, combined with your misguided belief in a "personal-divine" channel directly to the mind of God, has led you astray. And this isn't now and never was a question of 'intellect', or of personal spirituality (irrespective of your earlier quip, I'd wager that it's likely that I spend more time in personal prayer than you probably do). At it's heart it remains a matter of having an adequate understanding that's informed as it should be by history. Yours isn't, so it might be best that you cease with your arrogant judgments, as you've absolutely no grounds for projecting arrogance in the first place.

Next, I do hope that you'll excuse me, but I hardly rate Barnes' commentary as highly as you clearly do. What's next? Are you going to quote for me Matthew Henry?! Try reading a decent and recent scholarly commentary or two on the Revelation, and you'll quickly appreciate the many shortfalls in the works of the sort that you admire.

In closing, at heart I fear that you're still very much a Revivalist. My interactions with you over the years has demonstrated as much, as it seems that the only Revivalist doctrinal novelty that you've cut loose from your GRC past is the British Israel fable.

Blessings,

Ian  

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #5
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:THE REALITY OF ISLAM

Date Posted:10/05/2009 3:22 AMCopy HTML

Sabrina,

Before I forget, your appeal to your list of so-called "historicists" missed the mark. To begin with, very, very few of the men that you named would have recognised the "historicist" approach to Revelation that took hold and developed in the latter 18th and 19th centuries. Second, just about every generation of Christians has identified the troubles of their times with the unfolding woes of Revelation! That's why commentaries and writings on the book from the 3rd century onwards are so revealling. Third, neither John Calvin nor any of the men (with the exception of Barnes) you listed ever wrote a commentary on Revelation! So how is it that you can presume them to be supportive of your views on the locusts, when we don't know what their views were?! You've simply assumed that they must have agreed with you because one or two later "historicists" first put forward the position! Quite the presumption, in my opinion.

Again, do yourself a favour, bin the personal omniscience bit and read a decent scholarly commentary.

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #6
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:THE REALITY OF ISLAM

Date Posted:10/05/2009 3:42 AMCopy HTML

Sabrina,

That's it?! That's your much-hoped-for "silver bullet"?!

All the revival centres took the 'historicist' position but they didn't invent it. That was the position held by ALL the Protestant churches from the Reformation until the late 1800s when Darby championed the counter-reformation view of a future Antichrist and pre-trib rapture. The footnotes in Schofield's reference Bible promoted futurism and today many people have no idea that there is any other school of interpretation apart from futurism.

Each time you post you simply reinforce that you're rather ignorant concerning the facts. The Roman Catholic Church has never officially accepted either the "historicist" nor the "futurist" positions (although both positions were 'invented' by Roman Catholic priests! A fact which must present as something of an embarrassment to your views on the RCC and the pope!). The Eastern Orthodox Church has never accepted either the "historicist" or "futurist" positions, and it was this communion more than any other that suffered under Islam, and then for several centuries! The Lutheran Church has never accepted either the "historicist" of "fururist" positions, and neither have the Reformed churches! In short, about four fifths of the Christian Church throughout history have never believed what you've put forward! And by the way, the form of "futurism" that was invented by Darby is known as "dispensationalism". It ain't quite the same thing. 'Nuff said.

While I have considered "a text can't mean something now that it never meant originally'' it's too bad for that theory that the apostle's use of scripture is a spanner in the works. Take, for example, Matthew 2:15 [i]out of Egypt I have called my son.[/i] Matthew is quoting Hosea 11:1 "When Israel was a child I loved him and out of Egypt I have called my son.". You could say that Matthew took that verse completely out of context when he applied it to Christ.

Bzzzz. Wrong! To begin with, you've failed to appreciate that the "son" Hosea was referring to was Israel, and that Jesus Christ himself served as the true Israel of God! This is an example of what is referred to by exegetes as the sensus plenior, of "fuller sense" of a passage.

Or Paul quoting Isaiah 28:11 in 1 Cor 14:21 [i] "With men of other tongues and a stammering lip I will speak to this people; And yet for all that they will not hear me."[/i] says the Lord. Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those that believe but to unbelievers. Isaiah was talking about the Assyrian army not about the gift of tongues.

Bzzzz. You've misunderstood matters yet again! I've dealt with this particular passage from Isaiah, and Paul's use of it to confute the Corinthian glossolalics, in detail elsewhere on this site. Look it up and learn.

How about Galatians 4? I'm quite certain that if I was to post something along those lines on this forum you tell me in no uncertain terms that the account of the strife between Sarah and Hagar had nothing to do with the conflict between the unbelieving Jews and the believing ones.

How about it? Give it a shot and let's see what happens, m'kay?

Ireneaus, who wrote within a century of John's Revelation said the prophecy was still future.

And so it was. But it's quite the hop-skip-and-jump to draw the wild and untethered inferences that you did. For starters, what Ireneaus understood, what I understand, but what you clearly don't, is that the 'locusts' of Revelation chapter 9 were demonic beings! Try reading the chapter a little more closely than you have to date, note the inference to Exodus 10, and note the particulars of the account.

For the fourth time (?): buy a decent commentary and read it.

Blessings,

Ian


email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #7
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:THE REALITY OF ISLAM

Date Posted:10/05/2009 4:20 AMCopy HTML

Sabrina,

Hosea and Isaiah were Old Testament prophets. So the "fuller sense" to their writings occurred in the New Testament. Revelation, however, is a New Testament book, so where would one find a "fuller sense"? In a Newer New Testament?

Accept correction. Learn from it; grow from it.

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #8
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:THE REALITY OF ISLAM

Date Posted:25/05/2009 11:58 AMCopy HTML

Well hello, Sabrina.

For once you're right. I have absolutely NO interest in 'engaging' with you.

Well, perhaps more than just the 'once' dearie  smiley9   But to tackle the point directly: of course you have no interest in engaging with me! As you've successfully demonstrated here over a very long period, you're (1) far happier believing in, and further propagating, the doctrinal fairy-stories and 'spin' of your GRC past than you are of confronting the theological realities of the present and the future. And, (2) that you clearly believe yourself above being corrected by anyone, but especially by me. Heaven forbid that I should dare to challenge your theological acumen in the hope that you'd eventually wake up to reality!

As others have said here of you, in times past: "...you're not a part of the solution to Revivalism, Sabs; you're just a part of the ongoing problem." I think you should honestly reflect on the implications of this statement. So ditch the Revivalist penchant for "conspiracy theories", girlie, and try to develop a biblical epistemology and world-view.

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #9
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:THE REALITY OF ISLAM

Date Posted:26/05/2009 12:12 AMCopy HTML

Good morning, Sabrina.

Why don't you go to a Muslim country and try to live there as a Christian?

Well now, have you ever lived in a Muslim country yourself? And furthermore, just how many Muslims do you know personally, and with whom you regularly associate?

Speaking for myself, I have lived as a Christian in Muslim countries for extended periods. I personally am well acquainted (and have and do work) with Indonesian Muslims, Malaysian Muslims, Kuwaiti Muslims, Saudi Muslims and Afghani Muslims. My practical experience of them seems to be markedly different to your theoretical "understanding". Consequently, it may surprise you to discover that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not Jihadists (about whom I do have a bit of a idea), and so they have absolutely
no personal desire to live under Shari'a Law themselves, never mind the imposing of the same upon others.

But please, don't feel compelled to let the facts stand in the way of a good (and typically Revival-esque) conspiracy theory! Let me restate: Islam dies not represent the "locusts" of John's Revelation.

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Brett_w Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #10
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:18/01/2009 6:40 AM

Re:THE REALITY OF ISLAM

Date Posted:26/05/2009 1:19 AMCopy HTML

yes, it's true many muslims have no desire to kill non muslims,and no doubt are peaceful people with no murderous intentions. But as with every religion or belief system, we shouldn't judge it by how various people practice it, but by what the religion actually teaches, because many people can be "christian", and be judged as "christian" by non christians,but not be actually following the teachings of Jesus.
Likewise in Islam,people can think of themselves as muslims, and be considered muslims by outsiders, but not really be practicing what their religion teaches.
The religon of Islam is the Koran, and if you want to know what Muslims believe or SHOULD believe, you need to read the Koran. Have you actually read the Koran? Do you know what it actually teaches yourself?
 I went to the local Islamic information centre here, and asked them what version of the Koran they recommend as the best for non Arabic readers and they recommended the English translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, so I bought it and have read it, along with commentaries by Muslim apologists explaining the texts.
 One of the last "revelations" given by Muhamed before he died is recorded in chapter 9 verse 29;
" Fight those who believe not in Allah (non muslims) nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle (Muhamed), nor acknowledge the religion of Truth (Islam), even if they are of the People of the Book, (Jews and Christians),until they pay the Jizyah (tax) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued".
  Do you understand what Allah is telling all his followers to do here?
Muslims are to FIGHT non muslims,all non muslims, whether jewish, Christian, atheist, agnostic or whatever, until the non muslims have surrendered to Muslim rule.
This fighting against non muslims can be violent and non violent. It is both. But the point is that for all Muslims, that verse is the unquestioned word from God, that they are ALL required to believe and practice.
So the teaching of Islam, of the Koran, is that Muslims should be ruling over us non Muslims, and that WE should surrender to them and "submit". Submit to their rule over us.
If a muslim is not "fighting" to make this happen in the society he is in, if he is not striving and doing all he can to bring non muslims into "submission", then he is not practicing what his religion teaches, what his Koran says.
    I.e, he is not a practicing muslim.
So before you say that allowing millions of Muslims into our society is no threat to us, carefully consider what the verse I've quoted is saying, and many more in the Koran.
Based on this verse and others, Muslims believe that they should be in charge of our society, that they should be ruling over us, and that we should submit to their rule.
That's what Allah said through Muhamed, which is written in the Koran, and that is what ALL MUSLIMS ARE REQUIRED TO TRY TO BRING TO PASS, and if a Muslim is not doing all he can to make it happen, he's not practicing his religion.
 If you have 2 million,5 million, or 6 million immigrants in your society who believe that God wants them to rule over you, and that God wants you to submit to them, there might just be a problem.
European nations are finding that out right now.
If you have lots and lots of people living in your society that believe that your culture and society is degenerate, immoral and rotten, and that THEY should take it over and bring in their superior, divine laws, you might just eventually have a problem with those people as their numbers increase and multiply.
 Islam means "submission". That means WE either submit to their God OR submit to their rule over us.
People who say Islam is no threat to our freedom and democracy ought to read the Koran.
Read it, study it, and find out what it really says.
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #11
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:THE REALITY OF ISLAM

Date Posted:26/05/2009 1:41 AMCopy HTML

Hello, Brett.

Nice to hear from you again.

To begin with, 'yes', I do have a copy of the Qur'an translated into English, and, 'yes', I have studied it. Furthermore I have Muslim friends (both secular and religious) who have been kind enough to explain for me their understanding of it.

I went to the local Islamic information centre here, and asked them what version of the Koran they recommend as the best for non Arabic readers and they recommended the English translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, so I bought it and have read it, along with commentaries by Muslim apologists explaining the texts.

That's very interesting. You see, to the Muslim the Qur'an is only the Qur'an in Arabic; in translation it ceases to be authoritative, and becomes, at best, little more than a commentary. It is for this reason that all Muslims, irrespective of nationality or ethnicity, are required to learn and study Arabic. However, the point remains that the vast majority of Muslims are moderate in their beliefs and behaviour, have no desire for world-wide Jihad, and have no desire to live under Shari'a Law or to impose it upon others.

Ultimately it remains the extremists who pose the real threat. Just as the Revivalists that one may encounter in the GRC or the CAI are not representative of authentic Christianity, neither are Al Quaeda or JI representative of authentic Islam. But all of this is actually tangential to the main point in this thread: your wife has been promoting nonsense as if it were biblical prophecy, and ignorance as if it were knowledge. So in this respect, she has been providing a reasonable demonstrating of the sort of extremism that we should all sit up and take notice of.

Blessings,

Ian


email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #12
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:THE REALITY OF ISLAM

Date Posted:26/05/2009 3:22 AMCopy HTML

Hi, Epi.

'Nope'. The distinction between the two is that the Qur'an to Islam is the equivalent of Jesus Christ to the Christian: the physical embodiment of God's Word. As Islam teaches that God's self-disclosure took place in Arabic, Arabic alone remains the language in which the Qur-an remains authoritative to them. The extremists have taken matters one stage further, however. Given that they believe God's self-disclosure also took place within a seventh century nomadic Arabic cultural context, they teach that the cultural context is also binding upon all.

This is not the case with respect to Scripture and Christianity. God's Word was mediated through, and became incarnate in, Jesus of Nazareth. It's his message, then, which is ultimately authoritative and binding upon us, and not the language or the cultural context in which it was delivered. The three languages in which God's direct self-disclosure took place (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek), serve to provide us with an objective absolute, with a "base-line" against which all subsequent vernacular translations are to be assessed, if you will. So if an English translation adequately expresses what the particular Hebrew or Greek text of a given passage states, then the translation is just as authoritative and binding as is the "original".

To Christianity the Word of God remains the Word of God irrespective of the language in which it's presented, or for that matter, irrespective of the culture which embraces it. If the meaning in translation conforms to the meaning of the "objective absolute", then nothing of significance is lost.

Blessings,

Ian


email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #13
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:THE REALITY OF ISLAM

Date Posted:27/05/2009 1:38 AMCopy HTML

Sabrina,

Are you going to become an apologist for Islam now simply because you are driven (by hate, resentment, bitterness???) to oppose or comment on everything I post on this forum?

Hardly. If anything, I seek to be an apologist for truth, and it is this which invariably leads me to respond to your constant and ignorant distortions of the same (in "...everything that [you] post on this forum").

A "revivalist" with an "unbiblical gospel" in your book is anyone who believes being born again means being baptised in water and the Spirit - with tongues as the initial evidence of the baptism of the Spirit.

Indeed. You see, not even the Pentes, with their many novelties, believe as you do. Which, I suppose, is to say something!

You have demonstrated abundantly on this forum that you are totally opposed to that position.

Well, of course I am. Your position on these things stands completely at odds to the teaching of the Word of God, and to the gospel of grace that it presents. Something, of course, which I've sought to demonstrate over the years.

Not only that but you have also demonstrated that you have zero tolerance for anyone who doesn't have the same rigid, powerless concept of Christianity as yourself (ie that you are against Pentecostalism in general and revival centres in particular).

I think you and I understand the nature of spiritual "power" quite differently. To you it seems to focus on and around the concept of being able to say, "scooby, dooby dooo" very quickly, over-and-over. To me such is the capacity that changes, transforms and renews people, and then from the inside, out.

You also seem to have a block on your shoulder about women.

Obviously. That's why I'm on the record championing the right and biblical authority of women to preach and to serve the Church in full equality with their male counterparts.

Thus you lower yourself to regularly using blatantly sexist and demeaning terms while constantly exalting yourself in your own eyes.

Hmmm. Really? I thought the worst that I ever did was to use the word 'girlie' in a somewhat familiar and cavalier sense every now and then?

Anyway, I suppose if these accusations are the gravest charges that you can level against me, then I still should feel particularly safe when comparing my teaching against your multiplied heresies.

Blessings,

Ian




email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Brett_w Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #14
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:18/01/2009 6:40 AM

Re:THE REALITY OF ISLAM

Date Posted:01/06/2009 11:55 AMCopy HTML

 Here is a lovely example of the religion of peace in action on the streets of London in reaction to a single picture in a newspaper.

Ian said, "I see no threat coming from the wider Islamic community."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43fEk9F4wIg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_kyNIevsIs&feature=related
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #15
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:THE REALITY OF ISLAM

Date Posted:01/06/2009 10:20 PMCopy HTML

Good morning, Brett.

You and Sabs must be a REAL hoot of a 'tag-team' at parties! I bet you even compete with each other to see who can come up with the wildest conspiracy theory! The fact is that 5 minutes spent trawling through Youtube would demonstrate that "Christians" of your particular legalistic and paranoid leaning also engage in some pretty questionable public demonstrations as a consequence of "polevaulting over mouse pooh".

Now why was it that Noel appointed you to be a pastor again? I'm betting it was your obvious, over-sharp ability to discern truth from error.

Geez.

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Glad-to be out Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #16
  • Rank:Posterior Maximus
  • Score:15160
  • Posts:701
  • From:Faroe_islands
  • Register:07/04/2006 8:57 AM

Re:THE REALITY OF ISLAM

Date Posted:01/06/2009 11:57 PMCopy HTML

 WHY????? once having left the GRC is the need STILL there to live in fear of other groups and belief systems and to SEEK OUT and BELIEVE unproven conspiracy theories.

There have always been groups that we and our parents were taught to fear -- 'red's under the beds', 'the yellow peril', now we have the Muslims and various threats of pandemics, not to forget the weight that is placed on the writings of Nostradamusand his ilk..

IF you BELIEVE you are SAVED and GOD'S CHOSEN, then what difference does/will it make to you if hordes of Muslims over run the earth.

When you leave the GRC apart from BI and the Great Pyramid theory, and the Russian's Great Bear, there is so much rubbish to sort through and set aside.

Conspiracy theories, theories that by their very nature, take the joy away from your existence and prevent you from searching for GOD'S TRUTH and ENLIGHTENMENT, should now be a thing of the past.

These are two things that we were never instructed in, or allowed to pursue, while in the GRC.

Now that we are out of the GRC, if we can seek Truth and Enlightenment, with a mind that isn't still fettered with the chains of the GRC firmly wrapped around our brains, (chains that imprisoned us as much as the 3 or 4 compulsory meetings a week, the 6 weekly p&f, the praying and reading of the Word morning and night, which was used a measure of how 'on fire for the Lord you were' and being on the lookout for someone to witness to 24/7) should bring so much, joy and peace into our lives.

Things that grow in the dark (the GRC) are usually pale, weak, twisted, a mere shadow of what they should be  Shed light on those things, provide nourishment through education, prayer, reading and worship and they will often blossom and flourish.

To leave the doom and gloom of the GRC behind is a wonderful aspiration.

LET GO---SEEK THE REAL TRUTH---LIVE---Life on earth is so very short and not to be wasted remaining in the dark prison of GRC mindset.

Cheers,

Glad
"Faith is not about everything turning out OK; Faith is about being OK no matter how things turn out."
motmot Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #17
  • Rank:Poster Grande I
  • Score:12090
  • Posts:570
  • From:Australia
  • Register:22/07/2005 8:58 PM

Re:THE REALITY OF ISLAM

Date Posted:02/06/2009 9:37 AMCopy HTML

May well one concider the potential of Islam. Who knows, maybe we will soon be the minority if these facts are true, have a look at this one ...............

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU

" Those are my principles and if you don"t like them, I do have others" Come-On ! always tell the truth motmot
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #18
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:THE REALITY OF ISLAM

Date Posted:02/06/2009 11:37 AMCopy HTML

All,

I thought the following book review, from the Australian theological journal, Colloquium (vol. 37 ed. 1, 2005), merited reproducing in full.

Blessings,

Ian



ISLAM IN AUSTRALIA

Abdullah Saeed

(Crows Nest : Allen & Unwin, 2003) 231 pp. ISBN 1865088641

There are now a number of books on the market that introduce Islam to the general reader. Two features of Abdullah Saeed’s Islam in Australia make it the ideal choice for Australian readers. Firstly it describes Islam as it is practised in Australia. Even those with a knowledge of Islam may know more about the forms it takes in Afghanistan or Iraq than in their own country. While any understanding of Islam is undoubtedly desirable, as part of understanding global affairs, it is arguably more important to be informed about the religious beliefs and practices of people in one’s own country. For it is clear that Muslims and others need to know and become more comfortable with each other. History, right up to the present day, is replete with examples of ignorance leading to fear that in turn leads to violence. And although there is little that most individuals can directly do about international situations, each of us can be involved locally. To do so effectively requires a good knowledge base. Additionally the Islam portrayed in the media (both quality and popular) and in most readily available books is far removed from that practised in Australia. This brings me to the second strong feature of this book: if we are to contribute to peace among the various peoples of the world, globally or locally, we must avoid generalisations and stereotypes.

One of Saeed’s most consistent points in this work is that Islam, in Australia and worldwide, is pluralistic. In so arguing he is challenging distorted accounts of Islam that are almost universal. Even prominent academics, with specialist knowledge of the history of religions, continue to publish popular works that present Islam as a monolithic faith, instead of the polymorphous cultural phenomenon that it is. And because the contemporary practice of Islam is still being negotiated in many parts of the world, such stereotypes are a major obstacle to resolving social and political problems. For example, it is neither accurate nor helpful to suggest that all Muslims believe in a concept of "holy war", such as that expressed by Osama bin Laden and his followers. More broadly, it is not much more helpful to suggest that there are two types of Islam, moderate and extremist, good and bad.

There are, of course, some beliefs and practices common to Islam. And Saeed gives a clear account of these. A chapter on "Islamic World View", for example, briefly outlines common Islamic beliefs about the creation of the universe and of human beings, about the purpose of life and about life after death. The chapter "Essential Beliefs and Practices" details the more commonly recorded Islamic beliefs – in God, the prophets, the scriptures, etc., and practices such as daily prayer, fasting and pilgrimage. Here, as throughout the book, Saeed gives us the benefit of his local knowledge. For example, because of council restrictions the call to prayer is not made outside Australian mosques. Though more congenial for non-Muslims living in the area, it means Australian Muslims must check regularly published prayer times. Similarly, observing the dawn-till-dusk daily fast during the month of Ramadan is more difficult for Muslims living in countries like Australia, where they are a minority.

Because one of Saeed’s central concerns is to record the diversity of Islamic belief and practice, the chapter entitled "Unity and Diversity" is crucial. Here he sketches three basic tiers or levels of belief – where there is unanimous agreement, broad agreement and difference. It never ceases to surprise me how rarely this basic point is ignored in most accounts of what Muslims do or do not believe. Saeed also briefly describes the differences between Sunnis and Shi‘is, and a range of theological and legal schools. Once again, local information is provided to illustrate the general point. This includes some interesting observations about conversion to Islam and varying levels of commitment to Islamic ideas, values and practices. On the last point Saeed "guesses" that 30 to 40 per cent of Australian Muslims are strongly committed, while a similar proportion are not. Most distinctively and usefully Saeed includes in this chapter his analysis of trends within Australian Islam. He distinguishes between traditionalists, neo-modernists, neo-revivalists and liberals. While acknowledging that even these categories could be further sub-divided, they do enable him to refer to, and sometimes detail, the range of positions adopted by Australian Muslims with respect to particular contemporary issues. So, for example, he considers the views typically held by the different groups on the role of women in family and society.

The remaining chapters further illustrate the diverse ways that Islam is practised in Australia. There are interesting chapters on such themes as the life cycle of the individual, sacred times and places, community leadership, food, schools and women. In two final chapters Saeed addresses the issue of the perception of Islam and Muslims in Australia and the question of commitment to fundamental Australian values. His tone remains frank and irenical. Without denying the possibility of tension in some quarters and on some issues, Saeed convincingly argues that Australian Muslims as a group are loyal and engaged participants in contemporary Australian society.

The publishers enhance the work by varying the layout to suit the material: sub-headings, dot points, diagrams, tables and a short glossary are usefully provided. The inclusion of firsthand statements from some Australian Muslims, in boxed sections, is another worthwhile feature of the book. One shortcoming is the lack of a list of suggestions for further reading. All we are given is a list of Saeed’s major demographic and sociological sources, not something most readers need. A future edition would benefit from a list of reliable works on Islam beyond Australia, and specifically on Islam and global politics.

I was at first disappointed that Saeed does not contribute much to the complex questions surrounding the relationship between Islam and the rest of the global community. He does refer to the terrorist actions that occurred on September 11, 2001. But his analysis of what led to it is very limited. On further reflection, however, I realised that this initial judgement was wrong. For a start, as suggested above, the book is virtually a case study of how Islam can peacefully exist within a pluralist society. Moreover, Saeed’s careful delineation of the multiple expressions of Islam, and his numerous illustrations of how this affects the way that Islam is practised, equips his readers with vital tools for tackling this challenging matter. Receptive readers of this book will never again ask why (all) Muslims act in certain ways. Rather they will begin by inquiring into the relative level of the belief or practice in question, and further inquire about the range of views held by Muslims. So although it is primarily a book that promotes a better understanding of Islam in Australia, a task that it clearly achieves, Islam in Australia also provides readers with a firm foundation for understanding Islam’s position in the world today.

Stephen Downs

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
RCI prophesies
Copyright © 2000-2019 Aimoo Free Forum All rights reserved.