Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Seagoon on April 05, 2007, 11:42:00 AM
-
Hi Guys,
Thought some of you might be interested in the following, its an interview with Sam Solomon on the subject of Islam (and specifically its teachings and the differences between it and Christianity). Solomon was trained as Sharia Jurist (one of the religious judges who tries cases of religious infractions in Islamic countries, issues Fatwas) and Imam but who subsequently converted to Christianity and was forced to flee from his home country or lose his life.
Since that time Solomon has gone on to become an advisor on Islamic matters to Parliament in the UK and Congress in the US, as well as the author of the recent "Proposed Charter of Muslim Understanding" for the European Parliament. Solomon is one of the most brilliant commentators on Islam I've heard from, and his knowledge of the Quran and Hadiths puts my own knowledge of the Bible to shame. During the interview he quotes Suras from the Quran from memory in Arabic and then translates them on the fly into English.
The interview itself took place on a Radio Show called the White Horse Inn which is a sort of Christian themed "All Things Considered" (which isn't surprising considering that Ken Myers who created All Things Considered and Morning Edition as well as his own venture Mars Hill Audio (http://www.marshillaudio.org/) was the inspiration for their format.)
Anyway, here are the two interviews:
Interview with Sam Solomon #1 (http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/The_White_Horse_Inn/archives.asp?bcd=10/1/2006)
Interview with Sam Solomon #2 (http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/The_White_Horse_Inn/archives.asp?bcd=10/8/2006)
-
Thanks, Seagoon. I'll catch up to them later. Much rather read transcripts than listen to interviews.
Incidentally, have you read any of Lee Strobel's books interviewing various "experts" on Christianity, especially vis-a-vis scientific attitudes toward religion?
-
Halo,
Sorry, I don't know of any transcripts of the interview or I'd post them. It's a powerful interview though, and it particularly deals with a number of Western misconceptions about Islamic theology and its outworking in the world.
Here in the West we tend to view Islam through the grid of liberal Christian thinking about all religions. We blithely say "all religions are ultimately the same, they all ultimately lead to the same god, and have the same teachings about ethics, same afterlife, same view of culture, etc." When we do that all we are really doing is revealing we don't really know or understand the very real differences between those religions and being patronizing to boot. Admittedly the best Western scholars on Islam, guys like Bernard Lewis don't do that, but they are the exception rather than the rule. Solomon is very good in particular at explaining to Christians the differences between Christianity and Islam regarding sin, salvation, forgiveness, heaven, ethics, etc.
EDIT: Whoops forgot about your question about Strobel. To date I've only read his "Inside the Mind of Unchurched Harry and Mary" but I understand he's come out with some excellent apologetics works for Laymen entitled "The Case for..." series (I'm guessing that's what you're talking about) Along those lines, I'm reading through an excellent book by Richard Bauckham a prof. at St. Andrews called Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony/dp/0802831621/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-5865109-9373503?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175810336&sr=8-1) it's good stuff but way too dry for popular consumption and clearly written for the academy not laymen.
- SEAGOON
-
all religions are the same and they are all wrong. All religions have "rules" that they claim came from God/Allah/Zeus that you have to follow or something bad will happen to you. The rules came from men not some god.
the Muslims kill each other because one group says the holy men should be descendents of Muhammad, the other group says they should elected or something.
the Christians are even worse, (they have had more time to mess up) how many different sects of Christians are there, i lost count. The eastern orthodox hate the roman catholics, the protestants hate each other and the catholics and orthodox and the catholics say the rest are going to hell. Wars have been fought over minor differences.
the early Christians could not even decide which books to put in the new testament, or if Jesus was equal to god or only the son of god ( a lesser position).
-
An interesting listen. Thx SG.
Cheers,
asw
-
Thanks, Seagoon.
I'm off to listen!
Regards,
Sun
-
Magic is magic
-
Halo, ive read Stroebels"The Case For......" books. They are very good reads. I recommend themm if you have not already read them.
NOT
-
Thanks, NOT. I've finished The Case for Faith, am halfway through The Case for a Creator, and then will try The Case for Christ.
Interesting approach, interviewing select "experts" on key religious questions. So far I'm seeing quite a bit of deference to the select sources, whose language inevitably reminds me of priestly insider speak which lay people can never quite penetrate.
They'll mock opposing views, then assert something that makes me :eek:
The leap into faith requires a kangaroo; so far I am only a rabbit. But I used to be a frog. Hop springs eternal.
-
I like Stroebels approach.
NOT
-
Hi John,
I'm up with a teething baby (fun, fun, fun) and I'd realllllllly like to be asleep... so my apologies if this reply is less coherent than it should be...
Originally posted by john9001
all religions are the same and they are all wrong. All religions have "rules" that they claim came from God/Allah/Zeus that you have to follow or something bad will happen to you. The rules came from men not some god.
the Muslims kill each other because one group says the holy men should be descendents of Muhammad, the other group says they should elected or something.
the Christians are even worse, (they have had more time to mess up) how many different sects of Christians are there, i lost count. The eastern orthodox hate the roman catholics, the protestants hate each other and the catholics and orthodox and the catholics say the rest are going to hell. Wars have been fought over minor differences.
the early Christians could not even decide which books to put in the new testament, or if Jesus was equal to god or only the son of god ( a lesser position).
Just a few points in response:
To make a blanket statement like your initial one with 100% certainty you would need to be god yourself, which I'm guessing you're not.
The worldview you appear to be espousing is called materialism. It states confidently that matter is all there is, was, and ever will be, that the Universe is a closed system. There is no God in this system so he cannot interfere with his creation, hence miracles or even providence are impossible, and since he does not exist to communicate with people, revelation from him is impossible. In this system life is an utterly meaningless, ethics are baseless, and to paraphrase Nagel, existence is a brief blip between two oblivions. I'm also guessing you've never really run this worldview to its logical conclusions and are happily living with a bunch of inconsistencies.
Personally, even at the most anti-theistic point, I never gave much serious thought to embracing Materialism (or its related philosophies). Today it seems even more absurd to me than ever. Aside from its logical problems, I've just seen and personally experienced too many examples of Divine intervention to give it much thought.
You also appear to be using a hermeneutic of absolute suspicion, based on your presupposition that "all religions are false because none can be true."
Now if I came on the board and responded to all the political threads by saying "all political perspectives are wrong" because they have caused conflict and division and further that because SOME politicians have done evil things and are corrupt, ALL politicians including Washington, Lincoln, Gandhi, Churchill have been evil and corrupt I sense you'd see the obvious flaws in my reasoning.
As far as your comments about actual religions. There are many more conflicts in Islam than just the one between the Shias and Sunnis, but that one stems from the Shi 'ite belief that Ali, the cousin of the prophet should have been the next Caliph instead of his Uncle Abu Bakr, etc.
And contrary to Da Vinci Code pseudo history, actually the Christians were fairly well decided on which books were part of the canon long before the council of Nicea met in 325 to attempt to decide the conflict between the Arians and the orthodox. For instance by the end of the 2nd century we have several lists and references by church fathers that include all 27 of the books of the NT and which do not include the so-called Gnostic gospels (actually the arguing in the church was not over whether the Gnostic works were canonical, it was over the apocryphal works like The Shepherd of Hermas).
Anyway John, judge a religion based upon its truth claims and the life and teachings of its founders and the best and most consistent practioners of it not the worst. So for instance, judge Christianity by Jesus and the Apostles and Islam by Muhammad and the first Caliphs.
- SEAGOON
-
(quote) I like Stroebels approach. (unquote)
So do I. I like his quest and method, which is much like Stud Terkel's book Working, i.e., get a theme and let the people do the talking. Stroebel is more dialogue, and I admire his guts in raising complicated issues with experts.
Not likely he is ever going to change any of the experts or come away with contrary viewpoints anything more than straw men.
So far Strobel's books remind me of a scholasticism course I took in college to broaden my horizons. Everything was built on an elaborate foundation of successive tenets.
I got to around step 3 of 40 or so before raising my hand Strobel-like and seeking clarification. My hand and questions went up a lot more times after that too. I think in the interests of ecumenical harmony, the professor gave me a C.
My favorite professor was devout and called himself a Christian agnostic, i.e., he believed in Christian principles but was always searching for more truths and could not believe all aspects of more traditional doctrines. That about describes me too.
-
seagoon , i never said there was no god, i said that "religion's" views of what god is and what the rules are was not right.
-
Originally posted by john9001
seagoon , i never said there was no god, i said that "religion's" views of what god is and what the rules are was not right.
This I agree with.
It's like watching the news. Some networks stretch the truth or slant it to match their views while others flat out lie.
How is religion different?
I have faith but I don't have faith in religion.
-
Hi John,
Originally posted by john9001
seagoon , i never said there was no god, i said that "religion's" views of what god is and what the rules are was not right.
My mistake then. Without clarification some forms of Deism can initially sound a lot like Materialism. I'll try not to jump to any more conclusions. So let's reason together if we can.
So are you saying:
a) that you believe there is a God, but that he is not personal, he is transcendent and unknowable and that he created the universe but does not interact with it and therefore revelation is not possible.
or
b) that there is a God, that he is personal and knowable but that you know that he has never actually revealed himself or his will to men but they pretend he did: i.e. " All religions have "rules" that they claim came from God/Allah/Zeus... The rules came from men not some god."
or
c) there is a personal and knowable god and that he has personally contacted john9001 alone to tell him that all religions have got him wrong and that none of the claimed revealtions from him to date are right.
or
d) Seagoon was wrong about John9001 not being omniscient.
or something else entirely?
- SEAGOON
-
B, with revisions.
that there is a God, that he is personal and knowable but that I think that he has never actually revealed himself or his will to men but they pretend he did, or if he did they got it wrong.
edit: my original comments were about organized religion, but it is has been turned into a questioning of my personal beliefs. So instead of being an observer i now become a participant. Very clever.
-
God has revealed himself in many ways to many people at many different times. If he has not revealed himself to you, you are not looking very hard.
If you listen to these interviews and hear what is being said, Jesus teaches tolerance and acceptance and peace.
Man can fk up even the best laid plans, but the teachings of Jesus are clear and obvious to those that seek the truth.
Those who's faith is weak have many opportunities to find fault and hold a blind eye to the truth. That is the true nature of faith and why it is called faith and not fact. If you don't have, know or trust that gut feeling telling you the truth then you are deaf and blind to your faith and all you know is something is missing.
In the end God will sort all of us out.
-
ive listened to the first so far and found it quite interesting.
-
Originally posted by john9001
B, with revisions.
that there is a God, that he is personal and knowable but that I think that he has never actually revealed himself or his will to men but they pretend he did, or if he did they got it wrong.
Ok, we both agree on the first part, that there is a God and that he is personal and knowable. Therefore it is possible for him to communicate with us and for us to communicate with him. Because we are not dealing with an impersonal object, we cannot learn about him by taking the first step, indeed since he is a spiritual, personal being in order for us to know anything about him he must "open up to us" or reveal himself to us. As Geerhardus Vos put it: "All spiritual life is by its very nature a hidden life, a life shut up in itself. Such a life we can know only through revelation. If this be true as between man and man, how much more must it be so as between God and man... God must come to us before we can go to Him."
In fact while we can make certain general observations about him through his creation and the way he has built us, to know him, to know his will, he has to be the one who bridges the gap and who reveals himself to us, we call this special revelation. Now you contend that one possibility is that he has never done this, I would counter that if he hadn't we could have no knowledge of him, and wouldn't even be able to know that he is personal and knowable. If he never revealed himself other than through what we can observe in his creation, then he is impersonal and unknowable, functionally transcendent if not absolutely so.
Now I would simply ask, how do you know that all claimed revelations from him we're "gotten wrong?" Surely it can't be merely that these revelations differ, or that some are observably false revelations. Just because SOME men lie that doesn't mean that ALL men lie. So how do you know for sure that every claimed special revelation from a personal and knowable God able to communicate with his creation is definitely FALSE and not in fact from God?
- SEAGOON
-
i find it odd that this has so quickly turned into more of a debate about god, and less about the things which the program seems most to highlight, which are the real differences in values in western v. islamic societies.
-
Hey JB,
I'm sorry about that, and I certainly don't mean to hijack the thread I started, I was just trying to reasonably respond to John's statements.
If you want to discuss the content of the interviews, and in particular the huge differences between Islamic and Western culture and society, I'd be more than willing to do that. It's not like there isn't enough there to talk about.
- SEAGOON
-
not at all seagoon.
i guess it really isnt that odd, all things considered, that it would swing that way, its just odd for me.
:)
-
Well JB, it maybe a case of hand in glove. One touches the other despite the West's secular stance since the 1920's. And despite the few secular states in the region we regard as Islamic.
I've lost the link to a piece on what Islamic law looks like in day to to day life. Sorry I can't find it. The tone of the piece wasn't shrill which naturally winds up distracting from the matter at hand. Nope, just can't find it.
Prior to war, diplomacy can avert conflict. The missle crisis comes to time. Also, diplomacy can fail when one party or both lack good will. Munich comes to mind.
The reason diplomacy/discussion can alter future events is both sides share values that each regard as dear, and they both see that war may well cause a loss of those values or valuable things (lives, natural resources, money, posessions, etc).
Back to values, they don't exist theoretically merely. An example would be, "all men are mortal, we inhabit this small earth, and cherish our children's future." That may not be the best example, but it demonstrates how and that values form the basis for any society. Values and truth, also, come hand in glove. And they change over time. Not truth with a capital T so much, but certainly with a small t.
Values and ideals that govern acts or that sanction acts aren't foolproof. Be they evil values or virtuous. We humans fall short, cave, break with the "way things are" and various times.
Now, as to Iran . . . and I don't know how much Iran and Saudi Arabia have in common regarding their "mission" so to speak (Saudi Arabia is another thread. I'm just musing aloud). Mission being how folks go about living out their values. The truth. Granted, during my lifetime alone, there's abundant examples of controlling the truth by controlling what people read, hear, are taught, and what they can or cannot discuss.
Any serious glace at Middle Eastern history or American history provides enough evil acts for any person with a conscience to feel shame. Ignoring religion for a moment. Humans behave badly covers it, but not with the equivalent force of many of any nation's sanctioned acts.
The roadblock with Iran, I suppose, is a matter of the big question: "Why Are We Here?" America and American's can point and probably would point in some way to the Consitution -- trying to keep this secular on our side -- Iran would not point to a secular point of origination.
Neither would many American's either. But America is not a Theocracy. Iran is. Is it not? Or, it postures that it is. At it's core is another matter. Cores are tough things to get at and easy about which to conjecture.
Republic vs. Theocracy is how I see it. Also, along the way things can change. And not always for the worst. "We will bury you" isn't being pronounced by Russia anymore in the UN. That may have been a bluff too, but you get my point.
That's my glance at it from a secular point on view. Go back to the "fundamentals" of society, then the picture changes a bit. I'm even thinking of before the Edict of Milan.
Good Thread,
hap
-
Listening to the discussion Sea. It's what I've heard from knowledgeble people.
This will not turn out peacefully.
I hope thoughful and deliberate people who look beyond the next 10 Presidental elections regard this seriously. That's hoping for too much I know.
Europe has it worse than we. None of it is good.