Following a religion without believing in God

[glo]

Something Kafir wrote in another thread got me thinking ...

A while ago I read about a group of people who refer to themselves as 'atheist Christians' (or was it 'Christian atheists'?).
From what I understood, not only do they not believe that Jesus is God, they do not believe in God at all (hence they are atheists); but they respect the teachings, values and principles of Christianity (without the 'religious' part, if that makes sense) and therefore follow them.

I don't know for sure about this, but I wonder whether there are equally people who do not believe in God, but respect and follow the teachings, values and principles of Muhammed (without the 'religious' part). People who follow Islam as a life style, rather than a religion.

What do we make of those people?

Are they distorting our faith?
Are they on their journey to the truth?
Is it deemed better to at least follow the prinicples of a religion, even without believing in God? Or would that be pointless?

I hope I'm making sense. I would love to hear what others think.

Peace :)

[Ummu Sufyaan]

im confused? :-[
is this discussing Christianity or...:?

[north_malaysian]

well... I've known several Muslims who dont perform salah, dont fast on Ramadhan, drink, free sex.... let say... non-practising Muslims...

But they're very angry when the Muhammad caricatures were drawn, they're against any laws allowing Muslims to change religion, they dont want other peoples to ridicule or criticise Islam or Muhammad..

I think that they are not atheists but just lazy to practise Islam...

[maryam87]

i do know this girl from Iran her family actually believe Muhammed (pbuh) is a prophet and believe the Quran was sent to him but they r not muslims. Which intially got me really confused but apparently non-muslims in Iran r treated badly so her family just cant accept to follow islam and the laws of Allah (swt) because of the muslim government in Iran. Sad but true.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Tony]

They are humanitarians

[glo]

im confused? :-[
is this discussing Christianity or...:?

I am not discussing Christianity per se. If I use Christianity as an example, then only because I can relate to it better myself.

The question is (as the OP states) with regards to people who follow the principles, values and teachings of a particular religion (Islam, Christianity, or I guess any other religion) without actually believing in God.

What do we as believers make of that?

I hope this explains it a bit better. :)

[north_malaysian]

i do know this girl from Iran her family actually believe Muhammed (pbuh) is a prophet and believe the Quran was sent to him but they r not muslims. Which intially got me really confused but apparently non-muslims in Iran r treated badly so her family just cant accept to follow islam and the laws of Allah (swt) because of the muslim government in Iran. Sad but true.

Maybe because they're Baha'is? The Baha'is accepted Muhammad as s prophet and Qur'an revealed to him by Allah. But they dont want to be called as Muslims because they follow Baha'ullah.

[- Qatada -]

The whole point of religion is to get close to God and to follow the truth which He has sent. You can't really be following a religion if you don't accept its most fundamental belief i.e. of God and His Messenger.


this is a response from an earlier thread to a similar question;

Sister, when atheists say you don't need a religion to understand God - then you ask them what their definition of religion is. In Islam, we need to understand who Allah is through revelation, through His Messengers' and from them we are able to understand who Allah is, what He wants from us, and what will help us reach our destination of Allah's pleasure and reward.

By saying that you can understand God without religion, then you're saying that you can understand God without guidance from Allah himself.


They may argue that you can, but its likely that they don't have a perfect system which covers all the ways of life which Islam teaches through one example (in our case, Muhammad (sal Allah alaihi wasalam)) - for them, they'll wander around blindly, not really being sure they're upon the truth since they will have to find their own answers for wrong and right, and they'll continuously live a life of contradiction on these issues since they won't be certain of what they believe, wandering to the left and sometimes to the right. This then isn't really a religion, but a selection of varying choices which the person keeps differing in. Whereas for a religion to be true, it has firm principles which the believer follows, a light so he can be sure what is right and what is wrong without contradiction and error.


That's why you need 'organized' religion which will be organized (not 'disorganised) so you know what is true, what is right, from falsehood and error. Otherwise you're just walking around blindly without a firm set truth. So you don't truly understand God, nor can you get close to Him, accept with a true Messenger who you don't doubt in his claim of Prophethood.

[glo]

The whole point of religion is to get close to God and to follow the truth which He has sent. You can't really be following a religion if you don't accept its most fundamental belief i.e. of God and His Messenger.

Thanks for sharing, Qatada.

Allow me to be a little more specific.
Imagine an atheist recognises certain qualities in people who believe in God and appreciates those values (i.e. charity, modesty, hospitality etc etc)
Say this atheists decides to model those qualities for him/herself, because s/he recognises that there are benefits in it which may better him/her as a human being.
But, doing all that, this atheist still does not believe in God.

S/he sees the principles as wise and good, but entirely man-made rather than divine.

I repeat my original questions:
What do we make of those people?

Are they distorting our faith?
Are they on their journey to the truth?
Is it deemed better to at least follow the prinicples of a religion, even without believing in God? Or would that be pointless?

Peace

[AntiKarateKid]

Something Kafir wrote in another thread got me thinking ...

A while ago I read about a group of people who refer to themselves as 'atheist Christians' (or was it 'Christian atheists'?).
From what I understood, not only do they not believe that Jesus is God, they do not believe in God at all (hence they are atheists); but they respect the teachings, values and principles of Christianity (without the 'religious' part, if that makes sense) and therefore follow them.

I don't know for sure about this, but I wonder whether there are equally people who do not believe in God, but respect and follow the teachings, values and principles of Muhammed (without the 'religious' part). People who follow Islam as a life style, rather than a religion.

What do we make of those people?

Are they distorting our faith?
Are they on their journey to the truth?
Is it deemed better to at least follow the prinicples of a religion, even without believing in God? Or would that be pointless?

I hope I'm making sense. I would love to hear what others think.

Peace :)

What do we make of those people? They are arrogant in the extreme. They recognize the superiority of theistic morals but still continue to rebel against Allah in ANY way they can.

Are they distorting our faith? If they claim to be Muslim but dont believe in Allah, YES, they are distorting it and deluding themselves.
Are they on their journey to the truth? No, far from it. Allah gave us religion to guide us to him. Faith in Allah is the only thing that can lead us to the truth. Without it, they are imposters spinning lies and trying to pass it off as "truth".
Is it deemed better to at least follow the prinicples of a religion, even without believing in God? Or would that be pointless?

It is probably deemed to be arrogant in the extreme. First theyw ant religion gone. THen they adopt the rules of religion but refuse belief in Allah. Like the blindman who walks upright and proud but doesnt realize he is about to walk off a cliff.

And we all know the price of arrogance.


Verses that pertain to this.

QURAN[63:4] When you see them, you may be impressed by their looks. And when they speak, you may listen to their eloquence. They are like standing logs. They think that every call is intended against them. These are the real enemies; beware of them. GOD condemns them; they have deviated.

QURAN[63:5] When they are told, "Come let the messenger of GOD pray for your forgiveness," they mockingly turn their heads, and you see them repel others and act arrogantly.

[Danah]

This is reminding me of the thread I started while ago about whether we need religion to believe in God or not.

If some people who call themselves deists are not following a specific religion to believe in God due to their beliefs that believe in God don't need a religion and they only need their instincts to follow

but this is the first time I heard about people who do the opposite thing and following a teaching of a religion without following the God that this religion approach
it might be because they like the teaching of a specific of religion because of the good of its values, it does nothing to do with the religious part but with the ethics and the value of such religion

for example, we might find someone like fasting because he might think that it make himself more relax or its good for health. He might know that some religions followers do fast but he is not following that teaching as a follower. He is doing that because he like to do it and its good from his view

I hope you got what I meant, because its confusing a little bit :-[

[- Qatada -]

Are they on their journey to the truth?

It could be so, they may follow a path of goodness which may eventually make them realise that this is a perfect way of life, maybe making them realise that it couldn't have been sent by anyone other than God?

Is it deemed better to at least follow the prinicples of a religion, even without believing in God? Or would that be pointless?

That would be good, although following the religion because of God is better and more rewardable. We believe that anyone who does good for this life will get its good, but the one who does God while believing in His Messengers' and following them will be rewarded in this life for their good, and the next [because they accepted the truth which God sent for His sake - since He is the Merciful - He would reward them for that].


And Allah knows best.


Peace :)

[crayon]

The abrahamic religions, if not all major world religions, all essentially have similar messages when it comes to morals, teaching, principles, etc. Do not murder, do not lie, do not steal, be kind to one another, be generous, give to the poor, and so on. A person can uphold these principles whether or not they believe in God or not. Many atheists/agnostics give to charity, do beneficial things for society, and can even follow a quite strict moral code, depending on the person, of course. If these people choose to label themselves as following the christian way of life, while not believing in the principles of christianity, would it be too different had they been following the islamic way of life, without believing in Allah? Of course, there may be minor differences, but I'm talking about the general idea.

So essentially, one who does not believe in the theistic (is that the right word here?) parts of a religion is just a moral person, whether the religion is christianity, islam, buddhism, etc.

Are they distorting our faith? I would say the answer is that they maybe are... If someone sees a "practicing" muslim who does not believe in God, they may think it's acceptable to do that, and that if they did the same thing, they would also be considered muslims. We might end up getting dozens of "atheist muslims", and regular muslims may follow their path.

I think oing this could bring them closer to the belief part of the religion, for the same reason Qatada mentioned, but it could also not benefit them in the least.. it would depend on the specific person, I guess.

Living a moral life is better than living a moral less one, but ultimately, in the hereafter, righteous deeds AND correct belief are needed to make it to heaven. One without the other won't help at all.
"To those who believe AND do deeds of righteousness hath Allah promised forgiveness and a great reward." [al maidah-9]

[Trumble]

Living a moral life is better than living a moral less one, but ultimately, in the hereafter, righteous deeds AND correct belief are needed to make it to heaven. One without the other won't help at all.

I really do have trouble with this, at least one way round. If someone were to live the perfect moral, selfless life, dedicated to helping others I find the idea that they would fail pass muster to get into Heaven just because they didn't have 'correct belief' utterly ludicrous.

[Keltoi]

I really do have trouble with this, at least one way round. If someone were to live the perfect moral, selfless life, dedicated to helping others I find the idea that they would fail pass muster to get into Heaven just because they didn't have 'correct belief' utterly ludicrous.

I believe the problem with that is no human being is capable of living a perfect, moral, and selfless life. Speaking as a Christian, that is why we depend upon God for our salvation and not only good works.

[- Qatada -]

I really do have trouble with this, at least one way round. If someone were to live the perfect moral, selfless life, dedicated to helping others I find the idea that they would fail pass muster to get into Heaven just because they didn't have 'correct belief' utterly ludicrous.

We believe that blasphemy is the worst sin, since the person is rejecting God and His Message. If someone says God has lied, they still have this life to repent from that claim and to look into it to see its reality. If they die in a state of disbelief, claiming that God has lied - then why should God reward them for that? They strived for this life, so He gave them this life. The one who strived for God in this life will get his reward from Him in the one to come.

[Trumble]

We believe that blasphemy is the worst sin, since the person is rejecting God and His Message. If someone says God has lied, they still have this life to repent from that claim and to look into it to see its reality. If they die in a state of disbelief, claiming that God has lied - then why should God reward them for that? They strived for this life, so He gave them this life. The one who strived for God in this life will get his reward from Him in the one to come.

Surely there is a huge difference between rejecting God and simply not believing there is one? You cannot coherently claim God has lied if you don't believe there is a God.

[Ali_Cena]

Surely there is a huge difference between rejecting God and simply not believing there is one? You cannot coherently claim God has lied if you don't believe there is a God.

Big difference, same relativity, you could just change Qatadas post from "God has lied" to claiminig "there is a God"--near enough the same sin. i reckon "near enough".
Peace trumble-havent talked to you in a long time lol.

[Grace Seeker]

Thanks for sharing, Qatada.

Allow me to be a little more specific.
Imagine an atheist recognises certain qualities in people who believe in God and appreciates those values (i.e. charity, modesty, hospitality etc etc)
Say this atheists decides to model those qualities for him/herself, because s/he recognises that there are benefits in it which may better him/her as a human being.
But, doing all that, this atheist still does not believe in God.

S/he sees the principles as wise and good, but entirely man-made rather than divine.

I repeat my original questions:
What do we make of those people?

Are they distorting our faith?
Are they on their journey to the truth?
Is it deemed better to at least follow the prinicples of a religion, even without believing in God? Or would that be pointless?

Peace

John Mill proposed a "utilitarian principle". Immanuel Kant taught his "categorical imperative." Both were moral philosophers who called people to live according to principles that would be categorized, just as you have above, as "good and wise."

As to what to make of these people:

1) Are they distorting our faith?
They are not distorting our faith unless they claim to have gotten the principles themselves from our faith. In which case it is sort of like a person who wants the benefits of a wedding without going through the process of actually getting married. Yes, they have distorted the faith because they deny the very basis from which we develop these principles. But it is also possible that these people have arrive at the same principles independently. If that is the case, then, since they haven't considered God or religion it is hard to say that they would have distorted it. So, ultimately I guess it depends not on what they believe, but how they arrived at it as to whether one would say they have distorted something. One can only distort what one has actually utilized and then modified.

2) Are they on their own journey to the truth?
Well they are certianly on their own journey. Is it to the truth? I don't know that we can answer that in the present. We might think that they have some elements of the truth and if they just keep exploring they may find the rest of it. But, if you have ever watched baby animals leaving their nest, they all may take the same first few steps. Then they begin to veer off pursing whatever it is that interests them at the moment. So too I think with those who adopted our principles but not our God. We only know the steps they have taken thus far, we don't have any guarantee one way or the other about them eventually finding God or the truth or religion or not. They might. They might not. And until we know where their journey takes them, I don't think we can say what journey they are on. At best we can say that they are on a journey of discovery. If they tell us that they are searching after trught, then we accept that at face value and say they are on a search for truth. But a search for truth and a journey to the truth are not necessarily the same. Ponce DeLeon went out in search of the Fountain of Youth. Do we say that we was on a journey to the Fountain of Youth, or just in search of the famous fountain? Columbus is credited with "discovering" America, but when he left Spain no one said that he was on a journey to America, they said that he was searching for a new route to the spice islands of the orient. Therefore, it seems to me we can't say that a person is on a journey to the truth until we see where the journey actually them.

3) Is it deemed better to at least follow the prinicples of a religion, even without believing in God? Or would that be pointless?

Of course it is better to follow principles that God has given us that are meant to make our lives better for us than to not follow them. This is true irregardless of whether one believes in them, accepts them, accepts the one who gave them, does so voluntarily, or does them under compulsion.

Think about the principles of eating a balanced diet. As a parent you want to promote a good and healthy diet for your kids. You believe you know what that is and try to teach it to them. You hope they believe you and adopt it for themselves. But even if they don't accpet your teaching, as long as they are in your house and your provide the food, they may not have any option accept to eat a balanced diet, even if they would prefer and eventually intend to do otherwise. Their beliefs do not make the balanced diet any more or less beneficial to them. It is still a balanced diet no matter the reason for it being consumed.

Likewise, when people keep good principles for living that God gives to bless our lives, they no doubt bless the lives of even unbelievers. And this is a good thing as far as it goes. But we have to remember that it is good only as far as it goes. It might help them in this life. I don't see how it helps them in the next. (With one cavet that I will speak to later.) So, when you ask, "or would that be pointless?", I need to know what you consider the point to be. If it is only for this life, then it most certainly is not pointless. If you think the whole point is not in this life at all, but the afterlife, then it most certianly is. And if you think that there is meaning in both, then it isn't completely pointless, but there is still lot of the point that is being missed.



Now for the cavet:
I think the above is true no matter what religion or belief system one is operating under. If you listen to the authority, and live as the authority prescribes, then you will receive the benefit intended by the authority. If you don't listen to the authority, but still happen to live as the authority prescribes, you will accure the same benefits. But if you reject the authority itself, then you are rejecting anything beyond the benefits of those specific acts and have divorced yourself from the authority so that you are on your own for any else that might accure to you from having had a relationship with that authority.

Now, certain religions may not hold that it is important to the authority that one actually has a relationship with the authority or the God/god of that religion. In such a case, in those religions there may be no difference between one who does and does not believe, as long as everyone jumps through the same hoops. (I.e., there are those who believe that God is loving and gracious, so that all "good" people -- I'll let you define good for yourself -- go to heaven.) But where a relationship is important, then to do what the authority says, but to reject the authority itself, would seem to mean that one has rejected all that the authority might do for you beyond the immediate benefits that result from eating a balanced diet, not running red lights, or telling the truth, assuming that these are prescribed acts in the religion. Jesus himself tells the story of those who come up to him in the end times seeking his protection for they have done all that he ordered, but he says to them "Away from me, I never knew you." Surely there is probably some point in that sort of life, but not as much of one as I would hope people would find in actually developing a personal relationship with him as well.

[AntiKarateKid]

I really do have trouble with this, at least one way round. If someone were to live the perfect moral, selfless life, dedicated to helping others I find the idea that they would fail pass muster to get into Heaven just because they didn't have 'correct belief' utterly ludicrous.

What IS ludicrous here is you dismissing the big picture. Let's say you live a "moral" life. First of all, assuming Islam is correct. You morals are not even fully consistent with Islamic morals. Second, OK good you "helped" other people when you could. Your definition of "help" is not even fully consistent with the way Allah wants you to help people. you "help" gays get legally married while Allah forbids it, what now? But you spent your life arguing against the truth and deterring people from its path. THe xample you set and the people you lead astray also come into play. God gave you many chances yo learn and convert to Islam. You have hundreds of posts in an ISLAMIC forum and repeatedly refused to convert. That will drag you downt tooo because you actively refused the truth.

Allah is not a utilitarian like you suggest. How you impacted society is just 1 piece of the pie. Your personal failure for refusing Islam and its morals and deterring people from its path is a big big part.

So spare me the "If I do what I percieve as good, i will get into heaven," stuff. It ill befits someone wiht your post count to be arguing such a ludicrous and myopic point.

[Argamemnon]

Is it deemed better to at least follow the prinicples of a religion, even without believing in God? Or would that be pointless?

It is better if they follow certain principles of a religion, even if they don't believe in it, because this will benefit society as a whole. However, they will be held accountable for their disbelief in the Hereafter and punished by God. They will be among the losers.

[alcurad]

don't most 'modern' laws insure that people follow the most basic tenants of the major religions-you shall not steal etc- in the first place though?

[malayloveislam]

Assalamualaikum warahmatullah,

I have heard from a Buddhist forum that Buddhists do not believe in God, particularly those from Theravada school. They are comparing Muslims with Buddhists, they said Buddhists only believing in "the law of nature". I think that they resemble Atheists in the term of Aqeedah but they have morality principles.

Quoting what they had said, which are translated:

1. God only exist in the mind of those who had been taught to believe it

2. The idea about God arise because human feel something to depend from tribulation (Thuk, Samsara).

[Trumble]

So spare me the "If I do what I percieve as good, i will get into heaven," stuff. It ill befits someone wiht your post count to be arguing such a ludicrous and myopic point.

You seem to be having severe comprehension difficulties. I was not referring to myself, I was suggesting a hypothetical situation as is common in philosophical argument. If you insist on concrete examples I would float people like Gandhi or Mother Teresa although neither, of course, would have made any such claims about themselves.

So, please, 'spare me' your attitude, read what I actually wrote, and try making some attempt to make a sensible response to the point I raised rather than spouting irrelevant rubbish.

Assalamualaikum warahmatullah,

I have heard from a Buddhist forum that Buddhists do not believe in God, particularly those from Theravada school. They are comparing Muslims with Buddhists, they said Buddhists only believing in "the law of nature". I think that they resemble Atheists in the term of Aqeedah but they have morality principles.

No Buddhists believe in God, as Christians and muslims understand God to be. Some believe in gods and spirits of various sorts, but the essential distinction is that such gods are subject to the same inevitable process of cause and effect as are humans. The timescales may be different but such gods become, exist, and eventually cease to exist only to reborn as maybe a god, maybe something else. In Buddhist myth, the gods too were present to witness and celebrate the Buddha's Enlightenment.

Most Buddhists actually have 'morality principles' very similar to most muslims. As do many atheists.. no belief in God is required. That position can be accepted by reasonable theists even if they believe 'moral principles' are actually a creation of God.

[AntiKarateKid]

I really do have trouble with this, at least one way round. If someone were to live the perfect moral, selfless life, dedicated to helping others I find the idea that they would fail pass muster to get into Heaven just because they didn't have 'correct belief' utterly ludicrous.

Short term memory eh Trumble? You clearly stated your views in your post, especially at the last part when you found it "ludicrous." Come now, who really has the comprehension problem?

[Tornado]

AntiKarateKid, you misunderstood. He's not talking about himself,

I really do have trouble with this, at least one way round. If someone were to live the perfect moral, selfless life, dedicated to helping others I find the idea that they would fail pass muster to get into Heaven just because they didn't have 'correct belief' utterly ludicrous.

Anyways, if you follow a religion and don't believe in god, you can pick and choose parts of religion you like. You can judge messages without having to just accept them.
I agree with Trumble as well. It's one of the reasons I don't have a religion.

[aamirsaab]

:sl:

One can act religiously without believing in God so I guess the answer is yes.

I really do have trouble with this, at least one way round. If someone were to live the perfect moral, selfless life, dedicated to helping others I find the idea that they would fail pass muster to get into Heaven just because they didn't have 'correct belief' utterly ludicrous

In Islam it is all down to God's will in relation to who enters Paradise and who does not. There is no guarantee or golden ticket into Heaven in Islam.

[Tornado]

:sl:

One can act religiously without believing in God so I guess the answer is yes.


In Islam it is all down to God's will in relation to who enters Paradise and who does not. There is no guarantee or golden ticket into Heaven in Islam.

What would be your virdict, aamirsaab, of Trumble's example?

[AntiKarateKid]

AntiKarateKid, you misunderstood. He's not talking about himself,



Anyways, if you follow a religion and don't believe in god, you can pick and choose parts of religion you like. You can judge messages without having to just accept them.
I agree with Trumble as well. It's one of the reasons I don't have a religion.

The problem again is what you actually consider "good". Many atheists consider same sex marriage "good." But if the Torah, Bible and Quran are anything to go by, Allah doesnt deem it good.

Picking and choosing morals based on your preferences will net you trouble. Actively shunning Islam's morals will net you hell because those morals are perfect and from Allah through his messengers.

The greatest moral humans in history, the Prophets of mankind, all abided by Gods morals and excelled past anything in human history. Why fix what isnt broken?

[aamirsaab]

What would be your virdict, aamirsaab, of Trumble's example?

If God wills, that person will enter paradise.

[themuffinman]

idk about you but im a selfish person i wanna see my benefit in it as well....why would i do good deeds and kills my nafs if i dont get rewarded for it???? :D

[aamirsaab]

idk about you but im a selfish person i wanna see my benefit in it as well....why would i do good deeds and kills my nafs if i dont get rewarded for it???? :D

There's a hadith on the matter:

Hadith: Volume 7, Book 70, Number 577:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "The good deeds of any person will not make him enter Paradise." (i.e., None can enter Paradise through his good deeds.) They (the Prophet's companions) said, 'Not even you, O Allah's Apostle?' He said, "Not even myself, unless Allah bestows His favor and mercy on me." So be moderate in your religious deeds and do the deeds that are within your ability: and none of you should wish for death, for if he is a good doer, he may increase his good deeds, and if he is an evil doer, he may repent to Allah."

Al-Bukhari

[Trumble]

Picking and choosing morals based on your preferences will net you trouble. Actively shunning Islam's morals will net you hell because those morals are perfect and from Allah through his messengers.

Nobody except you has mentioned either "picking and choosing morals based on preferences" or "actively shunning" anything. It's a total strawman.

Consider this, somebody leads as near a perfect moral life as possible, following all the moral teachings of the Qur'an (bar anything that is directly, and exclusively, devotional). They are actually, being a hypothetical example, rather more successful at it than any real muslim you know. They simply do not believe those teachings came from God, or that such a God exists.

Now, aamirsaab has said that

If God wills, that person will enter paradise

which is perfectly reasonable. Now, what I have trouble understanding is the circumstances in which God, supposedly a perfect omniscient and omni-benevolent being, would not admit such a person to Paradise. Can you (sensibly) suggest a possible reason that does not involve endowing God with anthropomorphic characteristics that He cannot have?

[aamirsaab]

....
which is perfectly reasonable. Now, what I have trouble understanding is the circumstances in which God, supposedly a perfect omniscient and omni-benevolent being, would not admit such a person to Paradise. Can you (sensibly) suggest a possible reason that does not involve endowing God with anthropomorphic characteristics that He cannot have?

Speaking in general terms it's good people go to heaven and bad people go to hell. However, human beings don't always fit that closely to either end of the spectrum. God's judgement, therefore, is believed to be extensive (In Islam, on the day of judgement, we are going to be questioned and held accountable for everything we did in our lives so it is going to be a lot and will vary depending on the person).

There's not really a instant win or golden ticket to heaven in Islam. Yes you can die a martyr, yes you can have millions of good deeds but ultimately the decision is with God.

Now, the next question one could raise is ''well, why perform those good deeds then?'' Plenty of reasons but the one that I relate most with is it makes you a better person in this life - honesty is better than deceit, love is better than hate, humility is better than arrogance, controlling your emotions is better than letting them control you and so on and so forth. In simpler terms, there are practical reasons for performing those good deeds so we should perform them - for our own sake at least.

[- Qatada -]

Consider this, somebody leads as near a perfect moral life as possible, following all the moral teachings of the Qur'an (bar anything that is directly, and exclusively, devotional). They are actually, being a hypothetical example, rather more successful at it than any real muslim you know. They simply do not believe those teachings came from God, or that such a God exists.

Isn't it fair that this person strives for this life and therefore gets the good he strived for within it?


But he rejected the life to come, and the meeting with the One who gave him the goodness he had. So why should he be rewarded for that goodness in the next life if he rejected it and claimed that God had lied, in a state of ungratefulness?

Compared to the one who believed in God, His promise and strived for the life to come by fulfilling its conditions - so he was rewarded for that by a grateful Lord, due to the gratefulness of His servant in this life.

[Tornado]

But he rejected the life to come, and the meeting with the One who gave him the goodness he had. So why should he be rewarded for that goodness in the next life if he rejected it and claimed that God had lied, in a state of ungratefulness?

I have a problem with that. This puts me off religion. I rather be judged on my actions than what I simply believe in.

Now, the next question one could raise is ''well, why perform those good deeds then?'' Plenty of reasons but the one that I relate most with is it makes you a better person in this life - honesty is better than deceit, love is better than hate, humility is better than arrogance, controlling your emotions is better than letting them control you and so on and so forth. In simpler terms, there are practical reasons for performing those good deeds so we should perform them - for our own sake at least.

I like this.

[crayon]

It is narrated on the authority of Amirul Mu'minin, Abu Hafs 'Umar bin al-Khattab, radiyallahu 'anhu, who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah, sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam, say:

"Actions are (judged) by motives (niyyah), so each man will have what he intended. Thus, he whose migration (hijrah) was to Allah and His Messenger, his migration is to Allah and His Messenger; but he whose migration was for some worldly thing he might gain, or for a wife he might marry, his migration is to that for which he migrated."

[Al-Bukhari & Muslim]

Actions are important, but so is the motive behind them.

[- Qatada -]

I have a problem with that. This puts me off religion. I rather be judged on my actions than what I simply believe in.

Justify it by quoting my whole post please. :) Why should God reward someone more from His mercy if this person isn't doing it for His sake nor for His reward which He would give? [with the precondition of the reward being that you believe and obey Him, His Messengers' and His guidance].

Allah is so Just that He actually gives the disbeliever all his reward in this life, merely because this person only strived for this life. And He will reward the believer in the life to come, because the believer did it for Allah's sake, and strived for that life.


Now you tell me where the injustice is in that?

[AntiKarateKid]

According to this hadith, Muslims who are strong in faith go to heaven

The Prophet said: If anyone testifies [sincerely from his heart] that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is His Bondsman and His Messenger, Allah immunizes him from Hell. He [the narrator] then added: I asked the Messenger of Allah: Should I then give the tiding to the people? He [the Prophet] said: Do not tell them this good news, for they would depend on this alone. (Reported by Muslim.)

[alcurad]

as it were, humans will differ on what's just and what's not, but we cannot comprehend the creator. thus when speaking about him, we can't truly describe him or the actions he takes/might take except through our own paradigms & experiences.
what is just and not just are for him to decide, there is no such thing as justice to begin with, unless you mean the symmetry principle, which doesn't get applied all the time either.

[glo]

as it were, humans will differ on what's just and what's not, but we cannot comprehend the creator. thus when speaking about him, we can't truly describe him or the actions he takes/might take except through our own paradigms & experiences.
what is just and not just are for him to decide, there is no such thing as justice to begin with, unless you mean the symmetry principle, which doesn't get applied all the time either.

Interesting post, alcurad. I much agree. :)

Do you ever come across things in the Qu'ran/Hadiths or other Islamic writing/teaching, which you (from your human perspective) perceive to be unfair or unjust?

Salaam

[Pygoscelis]

I really do have trouble with this, at least one way round. If someone were to live the perfect moral, selfless life, dedicated to helping others I find the idea that they would fail pass muster to get into Heaven just because they didn't have 'correct belief' utterly ludicrous.

I encounter this mindset frequently in Christians too. It is the one thing I dislike most about religion. The placement of obedience to power (or perceived power) over morality.

[Q8sobieski]

Really, I see no problem with Atheist Christians or whatever. I myself often self-identify as an Agnostic-Catholic. I see no problem. I refuse to believe in an angry and vengeful deity who gets more angry if I don't believe in Him. I do, however, like Christian morality, ethics, and rituals. That's good enough for me. If there is a higher power, I can't imagine Him being concerned with my private thoughts. That just strikes me as rather petty.

[glo]

Really, I see no problem with Atheist Christians or whatever. I myself often self-identify as an Agnostic-Catholic. I see no problem. I refuse to believe in an angry and vengeful deity who gets more angry if I don't believe in Him. I do, however, like Christian morality, ethics, and rituals. That's good enough for me. If there is a higher power, I can't imagine Him being concerned with my private thoughts. That just strikes me as rather petty.

Thanks for sharing. And here I thought you were a Jedi?! :D

[^[AnKaBooT]^]

actually there is this thing called iman mufassal.
u have to believe(and practice wat Allah subhanawata'ala taught u!) them from the core of your heart order to be called believer.

ESSENTIALS OF IMAN ( IMAN MUFASSAL)

There are seven (7) essentials to basic Islamic faith not believing in one of these essentials a person remained outside the fold of Islam

( IMAN MUFASSAL)

"I believe in Allah, in His Angels, His Scriptures, His Prophets, the Day of Judgement, and in the fact that every thing good or bad (in the world) is pre-destined by Allah the Exalted, and in the resurrection after death."

In summary the Muslims believe in Allah, in His Angels, Holy Scriptures (Quran, true bible and Torah etc.), the Prophets, believe in the life after death, including interrogation in the grave, punishment in the grave, Distraction of this Universe one day (doom day) resurrection, the Day of Judgement, rendering account of ones deeds, and passing over the Siraat Bridge, believe in the existence of Paradise, and the believers will live in it for ever, believe in the existence of Hell, with its severest punishments, and that it will last for ever. All the seven things stated in Iman Mufassal are quite evident from the sacred text of the Holy Qur'an, as well as, from the holy words of The Holy Prophet Muhammad (Peace be on him)

[Q8sobieski]

Thanks for sharing. And here I thought you were a Jedi?! :D

Agnostic-Catholic wasn't on the list. So, I went with Jedi since I do my best to also follow the teachings of Yoda and Obi-Wan Kenobi. Just like the Japanese, who often claim two religions: Shinto and Buddhism, I claim those.

[Grace Seeker]

Really, I see no problem with Atheist Christians or whatever. I myself often self-identify as an Agnostic-Catholic. I see no problem. I refuse to believe in an angry and vengeful deity who gets more angry if I don't believe in Him.

Though I don't believe God to be an angry and vengeful deity either, I wonder what the likelihood of your refusing to believe in God would actually cause God to cease to exist?

[Q8sobieski]

Though I don't believe God to be an angry and vengeful deity either, I wonder what the likelihood of your refusing to believe in God would actually cause God to cease to exist?

I believe the true nature of any deity, real or imagined, is essentially unknowable. We as humans on earth can attempt to postulate an understanding of a deity but ANY deity needs to be a deity for the entire universe, not just the 3rd planet from the sun. As such, I refuse to imbue a deity with human attributes like wrath, anger, jealousy, vengefulness, or a desire to torture people who don't believe in Him. These are human qualities. Furthermore, the qualities the people usually imbue their deities with are those that are found in their own environments. Farming people imagine fertility gods and people who live in harsh and violent climates often imagine warrior gods. Inevitably, I believe that any conception of god will be heavily influenced by the environment of the people attempting to explain god(s).

[Grace Seeker]

I believe the true nature of any deity, real or imagined, is essentially unknowable. We as humans on earth can attempt to postulate an understanding of a deity but ANY deity needs to be a deity for the entire universe, not just the 3rd planet from the sun. As such, I refuse to imbue a deity with human attributes like wrath, anger, jealousy, vengefulness, or a desire to torture people who don't believe in Him. These are human qualities. Furthermore, the qualities the people usually imbue their deities with are those that are found in their own environments. Farming people imagine fertility gods and people who live in harsh and violent climates often imagine warrior gods. Inevitably, I believe that any conception of god will be heavily influenced by the environment of the people attempting to explain god(s).

No doubt. We can see how this is true on our own planet without having to venture to other solar systems where expected differences would be even greater.

On the other hand, if one postulates the actual existence of a divine being outside of our own making, then that being is who he is, not who we make him out to be. And if that divine being should go so far as to bother to reveal himself to us, then to the degree that we are able to comprehend that revelation, would not those who receive it would have better knowledge of that divine being than those who reject it?

[Q8sobieski]

And if that divine being should go so far as to bother to reveal himself to us, then to the degree that we are able to comprehend that revelation, would not those who receive it would have better knowledge of that divine being than those who reject it?

And THAT is the big question. Lots of people all over the world at all times in history have claimed revelation. Who was right? I don't know. We have to some how decide which revelations were real or authentic, if indeed there ever actual revelations at all. Personally, I am drawn to the Christian belief that Jesus represents the physical manifestation of God, like John's statement that Jesus was "the Word made flesh." I cannot believe in a pro-active deity that makes pronouncements about the most mundane and vulgar of human behaviors, like hygiene, musical styles, and diet. Whether Jesus was God or simply the total embodiment of godliness is irrelevant to me and is little more than an issue of semantics.

[SixTen]

It is like eating without putting things into the mouth. Sure you can do it - but it just aint right!

[Q8sobieski]

It is like eating without putting things into the mouth. Sure you can do it - but it just aint right!

But WHY is it wrong?

[Keltoi]

Outside of faith, which is a very spiritual and personal frame of mind, judging religions is probably based on their sense of morality.

[Grace Seeker]

And THAT is the big question. Lots of people all over the world at all times in history have claimed revelation. Who was right? I don't know. We have to some how decide which revelations were real or authentic, if indeed there ever actual revelations at all. Personally, I am drawn to the Christian belief that Jesus represents the physical manifestation of God, like John's statement that Jesus was "the Word made flesh."

And hence your self description:
"Who was right? I don't know." = agnostic
"Personally, I am drawn to the Christian belief that Jesus represents the physical manifestion of God." = Christian

I think I get where you are coming from now.

Also, I suspect that if the belief that you say you are drawn to is true (and I have other reasons why I believe it is true), then Jesus is in a position to reveal even more of God's nature and character to me, if I will give him the chance.

[glo]

It is like eating without putting things into the mouth. Sure you can do it - but it just aint right!

But WHY is it wrong?

It's nice to see this thread resurrected. :)
A discussion about scripture in another thread got me thinking, and made me return to this one.

With regards to SixTen's comments, I wouldn't say that following scripture without believing in God (I think that's what SixTen is still referring to) is wrong, but it is incomplete and lacking.

I was raised in a Roman Catholic household and I was equipped with a reasonable knowledge of Christian teaching.
I guess most of it I found useful and much of it remained with me throughout my adolescence and into adult life.

But it wasn't really until I became a committed Christian in my mid-thirties, that all the teaching and Christian doctrine really fell into place and became alive.

I had always found expressions such as 'committing your life to God' and 'allowing God's Spirit to dwell inside you' embarrasing at best and downright crazy at worst.
After I had gone through that process of commitment myself I realised that far from just being empty words, they caused a really quite profound change in me.
God's guidance is with me always - I just need to be still and listen out for it.
God's love is with me always - I just need to not deny it.

Following scripture alone was beneficial alright, but it was only with what I perceive to be a direct relationship with God, that scripture truly became alive. And I had to actively invite that relationship by changing my attitude towards God and inviting him to be the one who is in charge in my life.

All that is - of course - only my personal opinion. No pastor, priest or clergy was consulted in it's writing! :D

[Q8sobieski]

All that is - of course - only my personal opinion. No pastor, priest or clergy was consulted in it's writing! :D

spoken like a true EX-catholic.

I really do like a lot of the bible, particularly the NT. I adore the Sermon on the Mount. I think Genesis is a great creation myth. But accepting these and the "godliness" of Jesus' teaching in the NT, to me, does not prove the existence of a God in the manner desribed by Jews, Muslims, or Christians. With or without one of those semitic deities, I think a person can lead a very good and honest life.

[Grace Seeker]

With or without one of those semitic deities, I think a person can lead a very good and honest life.

If we allow the use of the sort of subjective self-evaluation that people give for themselves, I'm convinced that there has never been a person that someone has not claimed for them to be a good and honest person. I know that of all the people I've ever buried, if I accept the testimony of their surviving family, 100% fit the category of, "If ever there was a person who deserved to be in heaven...." Personally, I think our human standards are probably lower to determine "good and honest" than that which any real diety would ever use. Fortunately that isn't the standard by which one is admitted to heaven -- at least it isn't the one we Christians understand God to use.

[aamirsaab]

...With or without one of those semitic deities, I think a person can lead a very good and honest life.

You are right about that - many of my friends do not subscribe to any religion yet are perfectly good and honest people (ergo, they are my friends :D). But, the mistake you and a lot of athiests make about religion and semitic deities is that it is just limited to being good and living honestly, when in reality it is so much more than this. Spirituality, hope and faith are all key points of religion that are frequently overlooked by outsiders.

[themuffinman]

I believe the true nature of any deity, real or imagined, is essentially unknowable. We as humans on earth can attempt to postulate an understanding of a deity but ANY deity needs to be a deity for the entire universe, not just the 3rd planet from the sun. As such, I refuse to imbue a deity with human attributes like wrath, anger, jealousy, vengefulness, or a desire to torture people who don't believe in Him. These are human qualities. Furthermore, the qualities the people usually imbue their deities with are those that are found in their own environments. Farming people imagine fertility gods and people who live in harsh and violent climates often imagine warrior gods. Inevitably, I believe that any conception of god will be heavily influenced by the environment of the people attempting to explain god(s).

well god created mankind in his own image, abit different image though. he uses the feelings of humans so WE can understand what he is like. he is all hearing all seeing are humans all hearing all seeing? his mercy over comes his wrath? can we humans forgive sum1 completely and not hold even the tiniest bit of grudge in our hearts? he hears all but its not the same type of "hearing" as humans. he sees all but its a different kind of sight than humans.

[seeker-of-light]

i guess its good for them to at least follow morality, thats a first step anyways. if they recognize the value of morals, then maybe they can recognize the value of the one who gave them those values=)

[Q8sobieski]

his mercy over comes his wrath?

HERE is where a encountered problems with faith. I cannot believe the a "wrathful" creator. I benevolent creator, SURE. An indifferent creator, MORE LIKELY. But "wrathful" giving way to "merciful" at times bothers me. These are very human traits.

can we humans forgive sum1 completely and not hold even the tiniest bit of grudge in our hearts?

Forgiveness is a Christian ideal. It is something that I really appreciate about Christianity. There is no "good enough" in Christian forgiveness or love. One can always be more complete ... MORE Christ-like. I like that. I try very hard to be forgiving of those who trespass against me and to banish the desire for revenge from my heart. Why should I prostrate myself to a deity that behaves worse then me!?!?! So, my Christian side usually just ignores the OT or just call it the literary flair of the ancient Hebrews. I think I would have been very happy as a Buddhist.

[Q8sobieski]

I know that of all the people I've ever buried, if I accept the testimony of their surviving family, 100% fit the category of, "If ever there was a person who deserved to be in heaven...."

:D You are right. I work in education and have long learned that NOBODY thinks their child (or themselves) is either ugly or stupid. Even when all the evidence points to one of those being the case! And morally/spiritually nobody (except most Catholics probably) thinks that they are bad. Even Hitler thought he was doing Good. So, if there is indeed a Judgment Day, what sort of criterion could be used for judgment?

[Keltoi]

:D You are right. I work in education and have long learned that NOBODY thinks their child (or themselves) is either ugly or stupid. Even when all the evidence points to one of those being the case! And morally/spiritually nobody (except most Catholics probably) thinks that they are bad. Even Hitler thought he was doing Good. So, if there is indeed a Judgment Day, what sort of criterion could be used for judgment?

A judgment that is not subjective or capricious.

[themuffinman]

HERE is where a encountered problems with faith. I cannot believe the a "wrathful" creator. I benevolent creator, SURE. An indifferent creator, MORE LIKELY. But "wrathful" giving way to "merciful" at times bothers me. These are very human traits.



Forgiveness is a Christian ideal. It is something that I really appreciate about Christianity. There is no "good enough" in Christian forgiveness or love. One can always be more complete ... MORE Christ-like. I like that. I try very hard to be forgiving of those who trespass against me and to banish the desire for revenge from my heart. Why should I prostrate myself to a deity that behaves worse then me!?!?! So, my Christian side usually just ignores the OT or just call it the literary flair of the ancient Hebrews. I think I would have been very happy as a Buddhist.

why not a wrathful creator? he is wrathful to the wicked. would u like that he was indifferent to all the crimes hitler commited on judgement day?

[Chuck]

Following a religion without believing in God

Some jew do that, anyone heard of atheist jew?

[Trumble]

Some jew do that, anyone heard of atheist jew?

Of course. Depends on whether you are using the term 'jew' to refer to member of a particular ethnic group, or as an adherent of the religion Judaism. In the first sense there are muslim and Christian jews as well as atheist and agnostic jews. It is difficult to see how an adherent of Judaism could be an atheist, though!

I'd point out that I follow a religion without believing in God! In general, though.. I don't see how that could work in the case of a theistic religion. You could live your life adhering to the teachings of the Qur'an and/or of Jesus, I suppose, but as already been said there is so much more to it than that. It's a bit like eating the sponge halves of a coffee cake without eating the yummy creamy bit in the middle!

[Q8sobieski]

why not a wrathful creator? he is wrathful to the wicked. would u like that he was indifferent to all the crimes hitler commited on judgement day?

Wrath, be it toward the wicked or others, is just a nasty emotion. It is not found in nature. It is entirely human. As for Hitler, I don't care what happens to him. He is dead and it is "between him and God now". Anger, wrath, bloodlust, etc are emotions that even an agnostic-Catholic feels are sinful.

[AntiKarateKid]

Wrath, be it toward the wicked or others, is just a nasty emotion. It is not found in nature. It is entirely human. As for Hitler, I don't care what happens to him. He is dead and it is "between him and God now". Anger, wrath, bloodlust, etc are emotions that even an agnostic-Catholic feels are sinful.

A nasty emotion? Imposing your wrath upon a serial killer and stuffing him in jail for the rest of his life is not "nasty". It is just.

There are right ways and wrong ways of expressing anger for humans.

But you are trying to apply human emotions to Allah. His wrath and mercy are different from ours. It is just that describing his disposition as merciful or wrathful is merely using whatever words we know to try and best describe Allah. Such words dont capture the full meaning but at least its something to use as a base for understanding.

[Trumble]

A nasty emotion? Imposing your wrath upon a serial killer and stuffing him in jail for the rest of his life is not "nasty". It is just.

But surely the justice is possible without the wrath? Indeed you could argue that the wrath would make make true justice very difficult, if not impossible. Judges sentence killers according the sentences laid down for their crime according to law, and an assessment of the seriousness of the crime that is as unbiased as possible, not their own degree of anger. Or, at least, that's how it's supposed to work.

[Chuck]

Of course. Depends on whether you are using the term 'jew' to refer to member of a particular ethnic group, or as an adherent of the religion Judaism. In the first sense there are muslim and Christian jews as well as atheist and agnostic jews. It is difficult to see how an adherent of Judaism could be an atheist, though!

I'd point out that I follow a religion without believing in God! In general, though.. I don't see how that could work in the case of a theistic religion. You could live your life adhering to the teachings of the Qur'an and/or of Jesus, I suppose, but as already been said there is so much more to it than that. It's a bit like eating the sponge halves of a coffee cake without eating the yummy creamy bit in the middle!

Not in that sense. I have come across some jews who don't believe in God per se but follow the commandments. Ask them they believe in God, they reply judaism is about practice and not belief.

[AntiKarateKid]

But surely the justice is possible without the wrath? Indeed you could argue that the wrath would make make true justice very difficult, if not impossible. Judges sentence killers according the sentences laid down for their crime according to law, and an assessment of the seriousness of the crime that is as unbiased as possible, not their own degree of anger. Or, at least, that's how it's supposed to work.

You misunderstand the meaning of wrath. Wrath is another word for punishment. You break the law, you incur the wrath of the law.

Your assumption that God cannot deliver a perfect punishment is flawed. Again you make the mistake of equating Allah's temperament with a humans. His displeasure does not hinder a just punishment but is part of the punishment itself.

[Trumble]

You misunderstand the meaning of wrath. Wrath is another word for punishment. You break the law, you incur the wrath of the law.

Not according to the dictionary, it isn't. 'Wrath' is 'intense anger' or 'belligerence aroused by a real or supposed wrong' (wordnetweb.princeton.edu). It is also one of the 'Seven Deadly Sins' of Christianity.

The use of 'wrath' in the phrase 'wrath of the law' is metaphorical. The law is not the sort of thing that can be intensely angry or belligerent.

[AntiKarateKid]

Not according to the dictionary, it isn't. 'Wrath' is 'intense anger' or 'belligerence aroused by a real or supposed wrong' (wordnetweb.princeton.edu). It is also one of the 'Seven Deadly Sins' of Christianity.

The use of 'wrath' in the phrase 'wrath of the law' is metaphorical. The law is not the sort of thing that can be intensely angry or belligerent.

Picking and choosing definitions huh?
From merriam webster online

wrath:
2. retributory punishment for an offense or a crime : divine chastisement


Either way that anger is a punishment itself, not an impediment to justice. The anger of Allah is a punishment too. But don't try and equate divine anger with human anger.

[Wyatt]

What do we make of those people? They are arrogant in the extreme. They recognize the superiority of theistic morals but still continue to rebel against Allah in ANY way they can.

Is it deemed better to at least follow the prinicples of a religion, even without believing in God? Or would that be pointless?

It is probably deemed to be arrogant in the extreme. First theyw ant religion gone. THen they adopt the rules of religion but refuse belief in Allah. Like the blindman who walks upright and proud but doesnt realize he is about to walk off a cliff.

----------

The problem again is what you actually consider "good". Many atheists consider same sex marriage "good." But if the Torah, Bible and Quran are anything to go by, Allah doesnt deem it good.

Okay, I have several points that I would like to make in response to some things said here.

First: Those morals don't necessarily have to be attributed with the fact that they are theistic. They are not rebelling when they agree with the morals. The only thing they are not doing is believing that Allah exists. Why would they consciously rebel against something they don't even belief is there?

Second: Not all atheists want religion gone. I love Islam, and I have been thinking about practicing it, but I still have difficulty with believing in a god. So, I would probably be considered an Atheistic Muslim. I just like its selected moral practices.

Third: I, personally, do not see anything wrong with same-sex marriage. This opinion of yours that everyone, including the people who are not religious, should follow the abrahamic religious beliefs is unfair as some would see it. Here, you are saying they should follow religious beliefs to rule them, but once they like the religious morals and try to follow them without believing in the actual god, you get offended.

Just because someone is without a god, that doesn't mean that they are completely blind to the fact that having certain "morals" will benefit them. So many religious people believe that all atheists are immoral and have no direction in their lives. I feel completely otherwise.

I wouldn't exactly call them arrogant to the extreme just yet when they say that they follow Islamic morals, but do not believe in the god. As seeker-of-light said, they may even find the value in what has given them their morals and possibly get to believe in that god. Going off on them will probably just turn them off and won't help anything for either person.

Their intention of believing in the theistic morals is not in rebellion, but in self-interest. I'm sure Allah would not want you to shun them for not believing in Him, but encourage them to seek out the divinity that created those morals.

I want to believe in Allah, but I can't because I haven't found great clarification and confidence in the entire concept of Him. So, should I just ignore the morals and not subscribe to them? Maybe if one practices the religious morals, it will naturally pull them to Allah if he is true. How could following something Allah created be shameful or arrogant when the belief of him doesn't exist? It is perfect, no?

[Edit: You saying that people who are pro-gay marriage think it's "good" is misleading. I don't think it's "good" nor "bad". I am indifferent to it or I believe that such choice should be available in defence of civil rights for different views. It's just like saying people who are "pro-choice" are "pro-abortion" when those two are totally different concepts. If anyone's god is against abortion or gay marriage, then I should say 'don't do it!' but insisting that a country's (that allows a freedom of religion) politics should be against it because of a religion is the same mindset of terrorist groups or oppressive theocracies for any religion.]

[AntiKarateKid]

Okay, I have several points that I would like to make in response to some things said here.

First: Those morals don't necessarily have to be attributed with the fact that they are theistic. They are not rebelling when they agree with the morals. The only thing they are not doing is believing that Allah exists. Why would they consciously rebel against something they don't even belief is there?

Second: Not all atheists want religion gone. I love Islam, and I have been thinking about practicing it, but I still have difficulty with believing in a god. So, I would probably be considered an Atheistic Muslim. I just like its selected moral practices.

Third: I, personally, do not see anything wrong with same-sex marriage. This opinion of yours that everyone, including the people who are not religious, should follow the abrahamic religious beliefs is unfair as some would see it. Here, you are saying they should follow religious beliefs to rule them, but once they like the religious morals and try to follow them without believing in the actual god, you get offended.

Just because someone is without a god, that doesn't mean that they are completely blind to the fact that having certain "morals" will benefit them. So many religious people believe that all atheists are immoral and have no direction in their lives. I feel completely otherwise.

I wouldn't exactly call them arrogant to the extreme just yet when they say that they follow Islamic morals, but do not believe in the god. As seeker-of-light said, they may even find the value in what has given them their morals and possibly get to believe in that god. Going off on them will probably just turn them off and won't help anything for either person.

Their intention of believing in the theistic morals is not in rebellion, but in self-interest. I'm sure Allah would not want you to shun them for not believing in Him, but encourage them to seek out the divinity that created those morals.

I want to believe in Allah, but I can't because I haven't found great clarification and confidence in the entire concept of Him. So, should I just ignore the morals and not subscribe to them? Maybe if one practices the religious morals, it will naturally pull them to Allah if he is true. How could following something Allah created be shameful or arrogant when the belief of him doesn't exist? It is perfect, no?

[Edit: You saying that people who are pro-gay marriage think it's "good" is misleading. I don't think it's "good" nor "bad". I am indifferent to it or I believe that such choice should be available in defence of civil rights for different views. It's just like saying people who are "pro-choice" are "pro-abortion" when those two are totally different concepts. If anyone's god is against abortion or gay marriage, then I should say 'don't do it!' but insisting that a country's (that allows a freedom of religion) politics should be against it because of a religion is the same mindset of terrorist groups or oppressive theocracies for any religion.]

Gah.... long post.. so sleepy.

I'll try and respond as coherently as I can and just through out a few thigns in no particular order.:exhausted

1. There is no such thing as an atheistic Muslim. Being a Muslim means that you submit yourself to Allah. Attempting to adhere to Islamic morals but refusing to submit to Allah ( barring the fact that this is not possible seeing as how Islamic thought is in essence connected to Allah in EVERY way) makes you a hypocrite, not a Muslim.

2. I'm sure that you heard of the Islamic concept of fitrah? The inclination of humans toward virtue. Whether or not you believe in God, you are still endowed with fitrah from him.

Yet without Allah's laws to guide you, you are led astray by a combination of various factors including following your own desires.

If you say same sex marriage is wrong, Islam considers that as a flaw in your fitrah.

The purpose of religion is to refine your fitrah and give it proper direction. Otherwise it will wander aimlessly, being thrown whichever way your personal desires take you.

3. I dont want to get in a "God and morality" debate but let me give you a quick rundown of what the whole debate brings to ming.

I) Assuming no God
a. There are no absolute morals in society then
- Who cares if YOU think stealing is wrong? I want Halo 3 so I will walk into the next Toys R us and stuff it in my jacket then make a sprint for the door. You dont like it? Boo hoo. I have a new game. You have words.

b. If you think about it, you are just a multi trillion conglomeration of the atoms and molecules I see in my chemistry text book. What the hell to I care if something I do makes you sad? I live for 80 years then I die and turn to dust. I will try and get as much as I want before I kick the bucket. Money, women, the easy life is all that matters. A old man comes to me for money? Hmm you're just a smelly sack of organs and chemicals back off!

c. Do "good"? What makes you think your "good" is my "good"? I cant even be guaranteed actions will make a difference because it is just a possible that "evil" will win n the end. Besides eventually none of this matters. Everyone and everything is just going to die, rot, and eventually turn back to stardust. whatever.

[AntiKarateKid]

Actually more on topic.

The people who "follow Islamic morals but dont belive in Allah." Is a myth. As I said in my above post you CANNOT follow Islamic morals without submitting to Allah.

I do good because Allah tells me to. It is my destiny. And it makes me truly human in the Islamic sense. But really I do it because Allah tells me to and he is the ultimate good and I am his servant. I have thought about this deeply and realize that this is for the best.

Every one of my actions is immortal and makes a difference.

As for the "athiestic Muslims." You do good because it makes you feel better about yourself. Whether that means not branding yourself as mean, stingy, whatever. You give money to a man so that you can call yourself charitable. etc etc.


A true Muslim gives money to an old man because it is his divine duty on this planet to act human. It is his purpose. One that is immutable and Unambiguous. God has created him and told him this and given him a choice to follow it.

With all my heart I choose the next world over this world. I have questioned my religion and have found it not wanting and the most logical. An "athiest Muslim" whatever that may be, has chosen this world.

[alcurad]

Podarok, I'm indifferent to homosexual practices too, but the thing is religion is much more than a personal opinion, the purpose of religion is to preserve humans and enable them to reach maturity, thus there are punishments and harsh laws. not punishing the transgressors is unjust to oneself and the rest of society, since others will surely imitate with no fear of punishment to stop them.
I believe in the concept of "greater good' in all its 'worst' details, this doesn't clash with my belief in Islam, rather it enables one to truly be able to follow humanitarianism.
a wrathful god is simply a metaphor, every utterance about god in the holy texts is a metaphor, in this life, he can't be understood, rather the image created when one reads the texts is useful, since a 'faceless' entity is very hard to believe in and follow.
as I see it though, christianity-excluding elements of Catholicism- fails the test, to more than a personal belief that is, it made god into human, thus human became god, focusing too much on love and not on 'justice' is not practical for the purpose of religion as something larger than a personal belief.
no one can follow a religion perfectly without believing in its image of god, its an impossible hypothesis, but the point is very good otherwise, since believing in god is a personal belief, religion-morals etc- is not. perhaps secularism driving the privatization of religion has much do to with the concept being lost.

P.S glo you asked this two weeks ago so this is kind of late I know:), anyway I never liked the idea of people burning in hell forever regardless of what they did, something to do with my first philosophy to follow being sophism perhaps, anyway, I don't think humans are fully responsible for their actions, but then I also ,,,oh whatever, can't seem to put to words, anyway some scholars discussed that hell doesn't last, but heaven/paradise does, so...

[AntiKarateKid]

One last thing to think about.

The prophets of Mankind, such as Muhammad pbuh, were all the firmest believers in Allah. These greatest of humans changed the world through sheer moral force and inspired billions to pursue truth.

There has never been an "atheist" or "agnostic" equivalent to them. Moreover, the companions of the Prophet pbuh displayed such ethics and morality as had never and will never be seen again.


Simply put, atheists and agnostics have nothing that can compare when a believer truly follows the laws of Allah. Sure Muslims today are imperfect. But judge the laws of Islam by those who lived it to the fullest and you can see that nothing can compete with them.

[Sarada]

1,Belief in God is not a pre-requisite for being a moral, ethical, compassionate human being.

2.There are many bad apples in the barrel of those who claim to be religious.

3.Religiousity is not automaticaly equal to morality.

[alcurad]

The prophets of Mankind, such as Muhammad pbuh, were all the firmest believers in Allah. These greatest of humans changed the world through sheer moral force and inspired billions to pursue truth.

I would add many things to moral force, such as knowing how society functions.

[Wyatt]

b. If you think about it, you are just a multi trillion conglomeration of the atoms and molecules I see in my chemistry text book. What the hell to I care if something I do makes you sad? I live for 80 years then I die and turn to dust. I will try and get as much as I want before I kick the bucket. Money, women, the easy life is all that matters. A old man comes to me for money? Hmm you're just a smelly sack of organs and chemicals back off!.

But this is true, so why would you need morals if since you're a bunch of atoms and molecules, you're obviously acting upon a cerebral chain reaction that's affected by the external world. If we don't have the free will to make our own choices, why would we need to even talk about the existence of morality?

You do good because it makes you feel better about yourself. Whether that means not branding yourself as mean, stingy, whatever. You give money to a man so that you can call yourself charitable. etc etc.


A true Muslim gives money to an old man because it is his divine duty on this planet to act human. It is his purpose. One that is immutable and Unambiguous. God has created him and told him this and given him a choice to follow it.

So a godless human doing good deeds is selfish by doing it to label themself as charitable? I agree.

That means a muslim doing good deeds is being selfish because they are doing it for what they believe will be the best benefit of them in their religion, right?

If you look at everything that we do, without religion for a second, it's in our own self-interest below all the "it's what Allah wants" or "well it hurts me to do that, but I still did it" because at the end of the day, you think what you did was best for you to be happy. Only, when one is a muslim, they do it so Allah can be happy with them, in turn letting them be happy about themself.

[Q8sobieski]

the companions of the Prophet pbuh displayed such ethics and morality as had never and will never be seen again.

Who is making this claim? That sounds like a bit of hyperbole. I happen the think than any of a few recent popes had impecable ethics and morality.

Simply put, atheists and agnostics have nothing that can compare when a believer truly follows the laws of Allah.

This is another claim that I do not think can be supported. You are suggesting that atheists and agnostics are somehow immoral or have lower moral standards. However, it is widely know that prisons are full of Believers. In fact, one could say that Christians and Muslims are over-represented in North American prisons. Non-religious people make up around 10% of the population but represent less than 1/2 of 1% of prison inmates. Why is that?!?!? This comes from an admittedly biased source: http://www.atheistempire.com/reference/stats/main.html however, I had seen similar statistics elsewhere.

Sure Muslims today are imperfect. But judge the laws of Islam by those who lived it to the fullest and you can see that nothing can compete with them.

I will judge the tree by the fruit it produces. Muslims often say that there have been not proper practice of Islam since the 4 original caliphs. This makes me rather suspicious. It has been 1350 years and NOBODY has done it right since then ...

[Q8sobieski]

[QUOTE=AntiKarateKid;1083628]A nasty emotion? Imposing your wrath upon a serial killer and stuffing him in jail for the rest of his life is not "nasty". It is just.


"Stuffing" somebody in jail, at least a jail in North America, is not an exercise in judicial wrath. To the contrary; English law is designed very purposefully to keep "wrath" out of the equation. While victims and families of victims are encouraged to attend court proceedings, they are prohibited from having any role in judgment or sentencing. There is no allowance for vengeance in English Common Law.

But you are trying to apply human emotions to Allah.

No -- I am trying to remove any human emotion from God, especially the ones that I find personally distasteful.

His wrath and mercy are different from ours. It is just that describing his disposition as merciful or wrathful is merely using whatever words we know to try and best describe Allah. Such words dont capture the full meaning but at least its something to use as a base for understanding.

Which returns us to an earlier post of mine in which I said that the true nature of any deity was ultimately unknowable. If "wrath" doesn't mean "wrath" and if "mercy" doesn't mean "mercy" then what do we have? And I certainly reject the idea that God's nature is only knowable in one language like Latin, Sanskrit, or Arabic. At this point of my spiritual quest, I am only comfortable saying "God is love, God is creative; and God is constant" Everything after than is probably just wishful thinking.

[themuffinman]

[QUOTE=Q8sobieski;1083775]

A nasty emotion? Imposing your wrath upon a serial killer and stuffing him in jail for the rest of his life is not "nasty". It is just.


"Stuffing" somebody in jail, at least a jail in North America, is not an exercise in judicial wrath. To the contrary; English law is designed very purposefully to keep "wrath" out of the equation. While victims and families of victims are encouraged to attend court proceedings, they are prohibited from having any role in judgment or sentencing. There is no allowance for vengeance in English Common Law.



No -- I am trying to remove any human emotion from God, especially the ones that I find personally distasteful.



Which returns us to an earlier post of mine in which I said that the true nature of any deity was ultimately unknowable. If "wrath" doesn't mean "wrath" and if "mercy" doesn't mean "mercy" then what do we have? And I certainly reject the idea that God's nature is only knowable in one language like Latin, Sanskrit, or Arabic. At this point of my spiritual quest, I am only comfortable saying "God is love, God is creative; and God is constant" Everything after than is probably just wishful thinking.

you are correct in saying the true nature of god is unknowable but he has described his mercy and wrath so humans can understand just a tiny part of him. its like describing the world to a person whos born blind, he will never grasps the full extent. the language thing, well islamic belief is god sent down around 124,000 prophets and messengers to mankind, each to guide his own people calling for the monotheistic worship of god, but when the messengers died slowly people fell into idol worship and completly distorted his teaching. you have to realize languages change over time even the quran which was revealed is in arabic at the time of muhammed has changed and many countires do not speak it any more but because the quran has been revealed in arabic and muhammed is the last messenger ever to come down for ALL of humanity efforts were made to preserve the exact language the quran was revealed in...and youll find its the only language unchanged and preserved through history. is the bible still in jesus's native aramaic language?

[Wyatt]

is the bible still in jesus's native aramaic language?

Hehe. Wasn't it translated from Aramaic to Hebrew, then to all the other languages? :rollseyes I just wouldn't feel secure calling a triple translation "God's word". Especially when there are many muslims who criticise direct translations of the Qur'an as not being equal to the actual written Arabic.

[Q8sobieski]

is the bible still in jesus's native aramaic language?

It is a side note but the New Testament was ORIGINALLY written in Greek -- it was the international language (like English or French today) of that part of the world 2000 years ago. Later, it was translated into Aramaic which survives in tiny pockets today in Al-Sham. After Constantine, the Catholics began to institute the primacy of Latin but that was the case at the time of Jesus. It was mostly a reflection of the Bishop of Rome pushing over the other patriarchs. But to answer your question, "YES" the New Testament is still found in Ancient Greek. If you can read it in Ancient Greek, have at it. Greek and Latin were never divine to Christians but simply represented "universal" languages.

and youll find its the only language unchanged and preserved through history

It is neither here nor there but Chinese has been preserved unchanged for 4000 years, much longer than Arabic. Also, Icelandic has been preserved near perfectly for slightly less time than MSA (fushah), about 1000 years.

Although this just seems like a tangent, it has a point. I do not believe there are any privileged frames of reference when it comes to theology and mythology.

[themuffinman]

It is a side note but the New Testament was ORIGINALLY written in Greek -- it was the international language (like English or French today) of that part of the world 2000 years ago. Later, it was translated into Aramaic which survives in tiny pockets today in Al-Sham. After Constantine, the Catholics began to institute the primacy of Latin but that was the case at the time of Jesus. It was mostly a reflection of the Bishop of Rome pushing over the other patriarchs. But to answer your question, "YES" the New Testament is still found in Ancient Greek. If you can read it in Ancient Greek, have at it. Greek and Latin were never divine to Christians but simply represented "universal" languages.



It is neither here nor there but Chinese has been preserved unchanged for 4000 years, much longer than Arabic. Also, Icelandic has been preserved near perfectly for slightly less time than MSA (fushah), about 1000 years.

Although this just seems like a tangent, it has a point. I do not believe there are any privileged frames of reference when it comes to theology and mythology.

who knows then perhaps one of the 124,000 prophets sent by god were to the chinese since the quran only mentions but a few prophets, but we dont have the the chinese scriptures today

[Wyatt]

If it were true that there were so many prophets sent, what about when humans were not civilised, but lived in hunter-gatherer tribes? Was there a prophet to every tribe? :exhausted

Or were humans always in societies? :rollseyes

[themuffinman]

If it were true that there were so many prophets sent, what about when humans were not civilised, but lived in hunter-gatherer tribes? Was there a prophet to every tribe? :exhausted

Or were humans always in societies? :rollseyes

The Unbelievers will be led to Hell in crowd: until, when they arrive, there, its gates will be opened. And its keepers will say, "Did not apostles come to you from among yourselves, rehearsing to you the Signs of your Lord, and warning you of the Meeting of This Day of yours?" The answer will be: "True: but the Decree of Punishment has been proved true against the Unbelievers!" (To them) will be said: "Enter ye the gates of Hell, to dwell therein: and evil is (this) Abode of the Arrogant!"( quran surah 79, verse 71-72)

For those who reject their Lord (and Cherisher) is the Penalty of Hell: and evil is (such), Destination. When they are cast therein, they will hear the (terrible) drawing in of its breath even as it blazes forth, Almost bursting with fury: Every time a Group is cast therein, its Keepers will ask, "Did no Warner come to you?" They will say: "Yes indeed; a Warner did come to us, but we rejected him and said, 'God never sent down any (Message): ye are nothing but an egregious delusion!'" They will further say: "Had we but listened or used our intelligence, we should not (now) be among the Companions of the Blazing Fire!" They will then confess their sins: but far will be (Forgiveness) from the Companions of the Blazing Fire! (quran surah 67, verse 6-11)



Clearly from the Quran we see that no one will ever be punished unless that person has received the true message of God and then rejects it. God will not punish someone who lives in some isolated place and has never received the Message. That would truly be unjust.

it is clear that a warner had come to every civilation wheather hunter gather or nomadic from amongst themselves,

[Q8sobieski]

The Chinese never showed any interest in god-based religions. They have always practiced ancestor worship. Even to this day the Chinese prefer there folk ways. This was even after my great uncle spent an entire lifetime as a missionary trying convince them to become Catholic.

[themuffinman]

The Chinese never showed any interest in god-based religions. They have always practiced ancestor worship. Even to this day the Chinese prefer there folk ways. This was even after my great uncle spent an entire lifetime as a missionary trying convince them to become Catholic.

your looking at it from a present day point of view, of what is recorded what if the original idea was a monotheistic call to one god and when their messenger died the people fell into idol worship and worship of saints or their ancestors and distorted his teachings.... its the same we beleive for christianity, jesus never proclaimed he was god yet christians still worship him. jesus never claimed that god is three in one yet the concept of the trinity exists. even some sects of muslims today beleive a distorted version of islam....but thankfully we have the quran preserved and the teachings of the prophet perfectly untouched and preserved to follow islam in the correct way

[themuffinman]

In the Qur’anic conception of the world everything in
the heavens and on earth is imbued with knowledge
of God and proclaims his glory; similarly instinctive
knowledge of the Supreme Being is embedded in each
human soul as an inborn part of human nature.16
Moreover, all peoples on earth have received divine
messengers at some time in the course of human
history or pre-history.17 Consequently, God and his
names are part of a universal human legacy. They are
hardly unique to anyone, nor are the Abrahamic religions
the sole residuaries of divine names expressing
the Creator’s perfection and glory.
The world’s many micro-religions (i.e., primitive
religions) contain hundreds of names for God, bearing
witness to his oneness, preexistence, eternity, omnipotence,
omniscience, omnipresence, goodness, and
justice. There is an observable pattern in the microreligions
to regard the Supreme Being as the source
5
One God, Many Names
of all vital knowledge, moral norms, and essential
social conventions. Like pre-Islamic Arab paganism,
micro-religions associate deified human beings, lesser
spirits, and intermediaries with God, although they
consistently lack the full-blown pantheons typical of
the polytheistic religions of many ancient civilizations.
Numerous micro-religions commemorate a primeval
time of the “old religion,” when harmony existed between
the Supreme Being and their forebears, an age
of pristine happiness which was brought to an end
through wrongdoing, estrangement, and alienation.18
The micro-religions reflect instinctive commonsensical
knowledge of God without the intricate
metaphysical theologies of civilized peoples. As with
the pre-Islamic Arab cult of All¥h, micro-religions
refrain uniformly from associating the Creator God
with idols, images, or pictures, for they insist that he
cannot be seen with physical eyes nor touched by human
hands. The Nilotic tribes of southern Sudan, for
instance, share an ancient belief in “the Great God,
who created humankind,” and, although they associate
intermediaries with him, they acknowledge that he
is eternal, without origin or likeness, all-knowing and
all-powerful, upholding the moral order.
Around 1906, a European anthropologist studied
the Shilluk, one of these Nilotic tribes, and once asked
a six-year old boy from the tribe who had created him.
Without hesitation, the little boy answered, “Dywok
(God) created me.” The anthropologist pressed further,
asking what Dywok was like and where he came
from. With childlike self-assurance, the boy quickly replied
that he did not know, but his father surely would.
To his astonishment, neither his father nor immediate
kin had an answer, but the child kept inquiring until
he finally brought the question before his tribal elders.
They replied:
Dywok, we only know that he exists. We know he
made the sky that you see above, the stars, all the
animals, and even people—both black and white—but
who Dywok actually is, no one in Shilluk can say. For
no one has seen him. What we know is this: Dywok is
there and made everything. Even if you cannot see him,
yet he is there…like the breeze that blows. Even if no
one can see the breeze, yet it blows. No one has doubts
about that.19
The micro-religions are filled with telling names of
God. “Creator” and “Maker” are virtually universal.
Native Americans had many names for God. The
Cheyenne called him “Creator of the universe” and
“Lord of the entire heaven and earth.” The Californian
Maidu called him “Ruler of the world.” The Fox called
him “the Guide” and “the Good Spirit.” The Lenape
called him “Our Creator,” “You to whom we pray,”
“Pure Spirit,” and “You to whom we belong.” Some
South African Bushmen and the pygmies of Gabon
called him “the Lord of all things.” The Siberian
Samoyeds knew him as “the Creator of life.” The Ainu
of Japan called him “the Divine Maker of the worlds,”
“the Divine Lord of heaven,” “the Inspirer,” and “the
Protector.” The Wirdyuri of Australia called him “the
Eternal,” and several Aboriginal tribes designated
him as “the Great Builder” and “the Great Maker,”
although certain Aborigines and African Bushmen
held the Creator’s name to be inviolable (taboo)
and imparted it only to adult male initiates, while
concealing it from women, children, and outsiders.
Ancient civilizations also bear witness to a
primordial knowledge of the One. Although the
pharaonic Egyptians were highly polytheistic, their
language contained abundant names and attributions
for the Supreme Being distinct from the personified
gods of their pantheon. Ancient Egyptian was replete
with seemingly endless synonyms for God (Neter,
Sha‘, Khabkhab, ¤ep^ep, Shesa, Sedga, Saj, Nethraj,
Nekhbaj, Khetraj, Itnuw, and so forth). There were
names for “the Creator” (Kewen, Kun, Ne^ef),
“Creation’s God” (Nebirut), and “the Giver of forms”
(Nebi). They invoked “the High God” (Neter ‘A), “the
6
One God, Many Names
Lord” (Nebu), “the Divinity from preexistence” (Nun,
¤a^u), “the Divinely Merciful” (¤etefi), “the Divine
Destroyer” (¤etem), “the God of truth and balance”
(Sema Ma‘at), “the God of humankind” (Itmu), and
“the Lord of all” (Neberdher).20
The ancient Chinese worshipped a personalized
“Creator” (Tsao wu chê), “the Ruler of heaven”
(Shang Ti), “Heaven’s Lord” (Ti’en Ti), and “the
Lord” (Ti), although “Heaven” (Ti’en) later became
the most common Chinese name for God and sometimes
reflected astral beliefs. But an ancient Chinese
dictionary says of “Heaven” (Ti’en): “The exalted in
the highest of his exaltation. His ideogram combines
two symbols, which mean ‘the One, who is the most
great.’” Some ancient Chinese scholars wrote that
“Heaven” (T’ien) had been substituted for “the Ruler
of heaven” (Shang Ti) in the ancient past, because “it
is not permissible that the name Shang Ti be taken
lightly. Therefore, we call him by the name of the place
where he abides, which is ‘heaven,’ that is, ti’en on the
analogy that ‘the court’ signifies ‘the emperor.’”
The Sanskrit Vedas of ancient India contain a notable
vocabulary for the Supreme Being: “the Creator”
(Dhâtr), “the Lord of the creatures” (Prjâpati), “the
Maker of all things” (Vishvakarman), “the Regulator
of things” (Vidhâtr), “the Manifest One” (Dhartr),
“the Protector” (Trâtr), “the Guide” (Netr), “the Giver
of forms” (Tvashtr), and “the Animator” or “Reviver”
(Savitr). One of his names was simply “Who” (Ka),
signifying the one who is ultimately unfathomable and
beyond finite description. In later times, Ka was frequently
used to designate the Supreme Being.

this proves even the polytheistic religions at one point or another recognized a supreme beings over even the other lesser gods they worshipped. traces of monotheism can be found in all the worlds religions but they have been corrupted over the years. the original message was a call to worship
the one god, the creator and sustainer of the univers (god, allah, whatever you want to call him) but we know human nature to fall into idol worship and associate partners with god. i think since we cannot see the one god he seems very distant to us it is much easier to have images of him or make idols of lesser gods to intercede on our behalfs and this is basic human nature the need to feel and see thus falling into idol worship.

[wth1257]

Hehe. Wasn't it translated from Aramaic to Hebrew, then to all the other languages?

nope, not at all

[Wyatt]

nope, not at all

Really? Then, do you know where I can get a hold of an Aramaic Bible? Or- read it online? :)

[wth1257]

Really? Then, do you know where I can get a hold of an Aramaic Bible? Or- read it online? :)

I'm sure that there have been Bibles translated into Aramaic however the origional texts were written in Greek.

[Trumble]

Really? Then, do you know where I can get a hold of an Aramaic Bible? Or- read it online? :)

HERE :)

There are those who think the NT was originally written in Aramaic (LINK), but the vast majority of scholars have no doubt it was written in Greek. Greek was the lingua franca of the age.

[Zamtsa]

well... I've known several Muslims who dont perform salah, dont fast on Ramadhan, drink, free sex.... let say... non-practising Muslims...

But they're very angry when the Muhammad caricatures were drawn, they're against any laws allowing Muslims to change religion, they dont want other peoples to ridicule or criticise Islam or Muhammad..

I think that they are not atheists but just lazy to practise Islam...

They are called "Fasiqun." Like we say when people are doing unlawful sexual intercourse(out of marriage), we call them "Zina doers," not "people who do free sex."

[Zamtsa]

Those kind of people are similar to Zindiqah(Bathiniyyah) or Philosophers who denied all of Allah's attributes and Mu'athilah who said that Allah has no attributes and characters at all.

So these kinds of people often times becoming Kafir.


Assalamu'alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh.

[Wyatt]

The Chinese never showed any interest in god-based religions. They have always practiced ancestor worship. Even to this day the Chinese prefer there folk ways. This was even after my great uncle spent an entire lifetime as a missionary trying convince them to become Catholic.

They're really proud of their culture, and I wouldn't be surprised if they found it as an insult when theists try to change it. I like the free access to religions and even some religious influence, but trying to convert the people, I find quite disrespectful to their entire culture, personally. No matter which religion it is. If it is in their interest, especially Asian interest, it will generally flow in. At least, that's the impression I've gotten over the years. I'm no expert on Chinese culture.

And I, as an agnostic/atheist, am proud of their culture as well and respect their religions. :D Not quite their modern society, but their classical one. That's a whole different subject though. I wouldn't try to change them if I were religious.

[AntiKarateKid]

They're really proud of their culture, and I wouldn't be surprised if they found it as an insult when theists try to change it. I like the free access to religions and even some religious influence, but trying to convert the people, I find quite disrespectful to their entire culture, personally. No matter which religion it is. If it is in their interest, especially Asian interest, it will generally flow in. At least, that's the impression I've gotten over the years. I'm no expert on Chinese culture.

And I, as an agnostic/atheist, am proud of their culture as well and respect their religions. :D Not quite their modern society, but their classical one. That's a whole different subject though. I wouldn't try to change them if I were religious.

You should be an anthropologist if you value cultures just because they are there. If Native Americans who make "dream catchers" as a part of a cultural tradition converted to Islam and stopped making them, I consider that as an advancement. They learned that making a prayer to Allah to protect them from nightmares is immeasurably better than making a gadget out of feathers and sinew.

Nothing is forcing them to convert. I wouldnt get insulted if a person tried to proselytize to me. Proper actions should not be avoided just because of improper attitudes.

EVERY Muslim has a duty to spread Islam and to be an example to others. There is no compulsion in religion though, so missionaries must be mindful of Islam's own warnings against shoving the religion into people's faces. That being said I will always, when appropriate, bring the matter of a person's religion/lack of it up and explain Islam to them if they are willing to listen.

[Wyatt]

You should be an anthropologist if you value cultures just because they are there. If Native Americans who make "dream catchers" as a part of a cultural tradition converted to Islam and stopped making them, I consider that as an advancement. They learned that making a prayer to Allah to protect them from nightmares is immeasurably better than making a gadget out of feathers and sinew.

EVERY Muslim has a duty to spread Islam and to be an example to others. There is no compulsion in religion though, so missionaries must be mindful of Islam's own warnings against shoving the religion into people's faces. That being said I will always, when appropriate, bring the matter of a person's religion/lack of it up and explain Islam to them if they are willing to listen.

First highlight: You may, but some in their culture and some outside their culture may not like the transitioning. It's like a value in preservation, really. A fear of replacement? Kind of like all these latinate words being introduced to English and rearing it away from its Germanic roots. :D Something over which I will constantly be agonized.

I agree with you in the last paragraph, and the spread of Islam and other religions is great, but it's how it's done that bothers me. For instance, when my teacher went on a missionary to Japan (she's Japanese), they would not let the Japanese people speak in Japanese in meetings, but only English. She said that there's a definite language superiority complex with Americans (who are the only ones I can make reference to), and that's not a difficult thing to believe. :X They were just being ignorant- and that stuff is what I'm scared of. (She's Christian, by the way.)

As long as the religion doesn't seek to 'prove them wrong' or 'rid of their false idolatries', I'm fine with it because it's just adding more diversity and tolerance in the world. :thumbs_up:thumbs_up

And thanks a lot, Trumble!

[Edit: This is quite off-topic. I should try to keep it on. :exhausted]

[Grace Seeker]

is the bible still in jesus's native aramaic language?

Several people have tried to respond to this, most of it has been pretty right on too. But there have been a few minor points that I might disagree with. Rather than responding to each individually, I'll try to tackle the whole of it in this one post.

Short answer: The Bible was not written in Jesus' native Aramaic in the first place.



Long answer:
You are correct that Jesus' native language would have been Aramaic, but there is little evidence to suggest that any of the Bible was written in Jesus' native tongue.


The first books of the Bible were written (according to tradition) by Moses in Hebrew. Collectively they go by various names: The Pentatuech, the Torah, the Books of the Law, or the Books of Moses. (Of course, someone else had to pen the closing scene of Moses death and added that to complete Moses' story.) Individually they are known as Genesis, Exoduc, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

Over time the remaining books of the Hebrew Bible (you may know it by the name Tanakh) or what Christians call the Old Testament were written. Nearly all of these books were also written in Hebrew. I say nearly, because there are traces of Babylonian Aramaic creeping into the text of parts of the book of Daniel, but this is only just a few chapters in which this is found; othewise the entire Tanakh is in Hebrew.

Sometime, during the Babylonian Captivity, the name for the period between 605 and 539 BCE, during which many of the elite citizenry of the nation of Judah was kept as POWs in Babylon (modern Bagdhad), the daily Hebrew language used by most Jews was sufficiently modified to emerge as a new language, Aramaic, that would become well enough established, that by the time of Jesus it was Aramaic, and not Hebrew, which was the common language spoken by most Jews in Palestine. However, the Tanakh was still read in Hebrew, and Hebrew was used and studied for religious purposes. Given that Jesus was literate, remember most people were not, it is certain that Jesus not only spoke Aramaic, but also Hebrew.

It is even likely that Jesus also spoke Greek in addition to both his native Aramaic and his educationin Hebrew. This is because, while Aramaic was the common language of most Jews, Greek was the lingua franca of the world that had been under the rule of Alxendar the Great, which Palestine had been. Strange as it might sound, Greek was the unifying language of the Roman Empire; even in Rome, the common people spoke Greek. Greek was used on a daily basis for commerce and industry. Because of the development of a global commerce, it was common for any written document that was to be used by the common people to be written in Greek -- they have even found routine items equivlent to a grocery list from excavations of 1st century sites in Israel that were written in Greek. For this reason, when the first letters that would eventually become the New Testament were written, since they were written to churches in the Greek speaking world (mostly in Asia minor and Greece), they were written in Greek. Later, when the Gospels were written, these too were written to be read by the whole world and thus were also written in Greek. (The one possible exception to this is that some think that before Matthew was written, that there might have been a proto-Matthew that was written in Hebrew. The reason for this is that the content of the book of Matthew shows strong indications that his intended audience was either Jewish Christians and there are anacronisms of a few Aramaic words that made it into the Greek text untranslated.)

However, it must be noted that we do not have the original autographs of any biblical book. The best we have are copies of copies. Some of these are quite ancient. Some are so old that all we have a fragments, for instance the old piece of the New Testament is a small postage-sized piece of the Gospel of John, dated to about 100 AD (probably less than 10-20 after it was written), and that is in Greek. In fact, all of the oldest pieces we have of the New Testament (be they small fragments or entire books) are universally in Greek. It isn't until the 300s that we find copies of the New Testament in any langauge other than Greek. Among hte first copies in other languages, copies that begin to appear in the 4th and 5th century), are copies in Latin, Coptic, and Syriac -- Syriac being what Aramaic had evolved into by the 4th century, in fact you will still hear many people refer to a Syriac edition of the Bible as being written in Aramaic they are so closely related. (Note: ancient Syriac and modern Syrian are NOT the same language, even though they too are related.)

Until 1945, and the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls the oldest copies of any Old Testament book were Hebrew copies dated to about 800 CE. But in the collection of books known as the Dead Sea Scrolls, were found some (not all) books of the Old Testament that date to about 200 BCE, more than 1000 years earlier than the previous earliest copies of Hebrew literature. They allowed for comparison in between the two sets of books. While not identical, the reported differences were so small (something akin to missing or adding a comma here and there) as to not change the reading of the texts. Some cite this as evidence of the integrity of the copying process, though I believe it must credited only to the copying done of the Old Testament by Jewish scribes. The copying of the New Testament shows many scribal glosses, most accidental errors, one or two with obvious intent. Fortunately the large number of copies of the New Testament (more than any other book of it's antiquity) allows for comparison between the various copies, giving scholars the ability to even recognize lines of copies and where mistakes were made, and thereby work their way backward to the most likely text from which the copies were originally made.

Just as in time the books of the New Testament were translated into other languages, so too were the books of the Hebrew Bible (or the Old Testament). Tradition says that this happened around 200 BCE when the Jews produced a Greek edition of their scriptures. This Greek translation was known by the name The Septuagint (or LXX), and was written in the same type of Greek (Koine Greek) that the Christian New Testament would later come to be written in. For this reason, many non-Hebrew speaking Christians preferred to use the LXX rather than the Tanakh when referring to the Jewish scriptures. If you take a look at quotes of the Old Testament found in the New Testament and then compare them with the original verse in the Old Testament passage from which it was taken, you will see some changes, sometimes signficant changes. This is because when translating the Bible today, translators primarily use the Hebrew copies of texts of the Old Testament to translate it into English, but the earliest Christians were used to using the Greek translation for their own writings and when these are translated into English it has gone through a double translation process that produces these different readings. If one were to find a Greek edition of the Septuagint, these New Testament quotations taken from the Old Testament match better what was written in the Greek translations of the Old Testament.

The production of the Septuagint, and its use by the first century Christians, is also behind why Catholics and Protestants appear to have two different Bibles. Careful readers of the two will note that there are 7 more books in the Catholic Bible than in the one used by in most protestant churches. This is because when the canon of the scripture (the list of "official" books) was finally settled in the 4th century, the Church had gone through a long process of consensus building regarding the books to be recognized to make up the New Testament, but they simply adapted the practice of the first century Christians in accepting the books that were part of the Greek edition of the scriptures used by the Jews for the Old Testament. This was unquestioned until the time of Martin Luther, who objected to so many things that the Catholic Church had done. And by the time of Luther, the Jewish world had tried to distance itself from anything associated with Christianity. They had quite using the Greek edition of the scriptures and only read from a Hebrew Bible. When some of the Catholic Churches favorite passages for arguing for some of its unique doctrines regarding Mary where to be found in the LXX, those books that included those passages became unpopular in Jewish circles. The Jews had not "officialy" listed a canon of scripture like the Christian Church had done, and so what was and was not to be viewed as Holy Scripture often varied. For instance, some strict Hasidic Jews only recognize the Books of Moses. Most Jews would read the commentaries on the books of Moses and other writings by the prophets as much as they read the Hebrew Bible itself, these works were known as the Mishnah, the Midrash, and the Talmud. So it wasn't until after the Christian Church with its view of the scriptures rooted in the Jewish scriptures and some Christian doctrines that the Jews objected to being gleaned from them, that the Jews acted to make an "official" list of the accepted books of the Hebrew Bible. And this list was missing 7 books that had been found in the Septuagint and accepted by the early Christian church as sacred scripture. So, when Luther decided to translate the Bible into German, he looked at the Bible actually used by the Jews and worked from that list of books to produce his Old Testament rather than the list used by the Church in Rome. Thus became the tradition of Protestant Bibles having 7 less books in their Old Testament than the Catholic Bible.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I know that was a long answer to a short question, but I saw some of these other issues coming up in the discussion that followed and others are things that come up repeatedly in thread after thread. So, I just thought I would try to address it all at one time. Sorry, if it was beyond most people's interest to read.

[themuffinman]

Several people have tried to respond to this, most of it has been pretty right on too. But there have been a few minor points that I might disagree with. Rather than responding to each individually, I'll try to tackle the whole of it in this one post.

Short answer: The Bible was not written in Jesus' native Aramaic in the first place.



Long answer:
You are correct that Jesus' native language would have been Aramaic, but there is little evidence to suggest that any of the Bible was written in Jesus' native tongue.


The first books of the Bible were written (according to tradition) by Moses in Hebrew. Collectively they go by various names: The Pentatuech, the Torah, the Books of the Law, or the Books of Moses. (Of course, someone else had to pen the closing scene of Moses death and added that to complete Moses' story.) Individually they are known as Genesis, Exoduc, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

Over time the remaining books of the Hebrew Bible (you may know it by the name Tanakh) or what Christians call the Old Testament were written. Nearly all of these books were also written in Hebrew. I say nearly, because there are traces of Babylonian Aramaic creeping into the text of parts of the book of Daniel, but this is only just a few chapters in which this is found; othewise the entire Tanakh is in Hebrew.

Sometime, during the Babylonian Captivity, the name for the period between 605 and 539 BCE, during which many of the elite citizenry of the nation of Judah was kept as POWs in Babylon (modern Bagdhad), the daily Hebrew language used by most Jews was sufficiently modified to emerge as a new language, Aramaic, that would become well enough established, that by the time of Jesus it was Aramaic, and not Hebrew, which was the common language spoken by most Jews in Palestine. However, the Tanakh was still read in Hebrew, and Hebrew was used and studied for religious purposes. Given that Jesus was literate, remember most people were not, it is certain that Jesus not only spoke Aramaic, but also Hebrew.

It is even likely that Jesus also spoke Greek in addition to both his native Aramaic and his educationin Hebrew. This is because, while Aramaic was the common language of most Jews, Greek was the lingua franca of the world that had been under the rule of Alxendar the Great, which Palestine had been. Strange as it might sound, Greek was the unifying language of the Roman Empire; even in Rome, the common people spoke Greek. Greek was used on a daily basis for commerce and industry. Because of the development of a global commerce, it was common for any written document that was to be used by the common people to be written in Greek -- they have even found routine items equivlent to a grocery list from excavations of 1st century sites in Israel that were written in Greek. For this reason, when the first letters that would eventually become the New Testament were written, since they were written to churches in the Greek speaking world (mostly in Asia minor and Greece), they were written in Greek. Later, when the Gospels were written, these too were written to be read by the whole world and thus were also written in Greek. (The one possible exception to this is that some think that before Matthew was written, that there might have been a proto-Matthew that was written in Hebrew. The reason for this is that the content of the book of Matthew shows strong indications that his intended audience was either Jewish Christians and there are anacronisms of a few Aramaic words that made it into the Greek text untranslated.)

However, it must be noted that we do not have the original autographs of any biblical book. The best we have are copies of copies. Some of these are quite ancient. Some are so old that all we have a fragments, for instance the old piece of the New Testament is a small postage-sized piece of the Gospel of John, dated to about 100 AD (probably less than 10-20 after it was written), and that is in Greek. In fact, all of the oldest pieces we have of the New Testament (be they small fragments or entire books) are universally in Greek. It isn't until the 300s that we find copies of the New Testament in any langauge other than Greek. Among hte first copies in other languages, copies that begin to appear in the 4th and 5th century), are copies in Latin, Coptic, and Syriac -- Syriac being what Aramaic had evolved into by the 4th century, in fact you will still hear many people refer to a Syriac edition of the Bible as being written in Aramaic they are so closely related. (Note: ancient Syriac and modern Syrian are NOT the same language, even though they too are related.)

Until 1945, and the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls the oldest copies of any Old Testament book were Hebrew copies dated to about 800 CE. But in the collection of books known as the Dead Sea Scrolls, were found some (not all) books of the Old Testament that date to about 200 BCE, more than 1000 years earlier than the previous earliest copies of Hebrew literature. They allowed for comparison in between the two sets of books. While not identical, the reported differences were so small (something akin to missing or adding a comma here and there) as to not change the reading of the texts. Some cite this as evidence of the integrity of the copying process, though I believe it must credited only to the copying done of the Old Testament by Jewish scribes. The copying of the New Testament shows many scribal glosses, most accidental errors, one or two with obvious intent. Fortunately the large number of copies of the New Testament (more than any other book of it's antiquity) allows for comparison between the various copies, giving scholars the ability to even recognize lines of copies and where mistakes were made, and thereby work their way backward to the most likely text from which the copies were originally made.

Just as in time the books of the New Testament were translated into other languages, so too were the books of the Hebrew Bible (or the Old Testament). Tradition says that this happened around 200 BCE when the Jews produced a Greek edition of their scriptures. This Greek translation was known by the name The Septuagint (or LXX), and was written in the same type of Greek (Koine Greek) that the Christian New Testament would later come to be written in. For this reason, many non-Hebrew speaking Christians preferred to use the LXX rather than the Tanakh when referring to the Jewish scriptures. If you take a look at quotes of the Old Testament found in the New Testament and then compare them with the original verse in the Old Testament passage from which it was taken, you will see some changes, sometimes signficant changes. This is because when translating the Bible today, translators primarily use the Hebrew copies of texts of the Old Testament to translate it into English, but the earliest Christians were used to using the Greek translation for their own writings and when these are translated into English it has gone through a double translation process that produces these different readings. If one were to find a Greek edition of the Septuagint, these New Testament quotations taken from the Old Testament match better what was written in the Greek translations of the Old Testament.

The production of the Septuagint, and its use by the first century Christians, is also behind why Catholics and Protestants appear to have two different Bibles. Careful readers of the two will note that there are 7 more books in the Catholic Bible than in the one used by in most protestant churches. This is because when the canon of the scripture (the list of "official" books) was finally settled in the 4th century, the Church had gone through a long process of consensus building regarding the books to be recognized to make up the New Testament, but they simply adapted the practice of the first century Christians in accepting the books that were part of the Greek edition of the scriptures used by the Jews for the Old Testament. This was unquestioned until the time of Martin Luther, who objected to so many things that the Catholic Church had done. And by the time of Luther, the Jewish world had tried to distance itself from anything associated with Christianity. They had quite using the Greek edition of the scriptures and only read from a Hebrew Bible. When some of the Catholic Churches favorite passages for arguing for some of its unique doctrines regarding Mary where to be found in the LXX, those books that included those passages became unpopular in Jewish circles. The Jews had not "officialy" listed a canon of scripture like the Christian Church had done, and so what was and was not to be viewed as Holy Scripture often varied. For instance, some strict Hasidic Jews only recognize the Books of Moses. Most Jews would read the commentaries on the books of Moses and other writings by the prophets as much as they read the Hebrew Bible itself, these works were known as the Mishnah, the Midrash, and the Talmud. So it wasn't until after the Christian Church with its view of the scriptures rooted in the Jewish scriptures and some Christian doctrines that the Jews objected to being gleaned from them, that the Jews acted to make an "official" list of the accepted books of the Hebrew Bible. And this list was missing 7 books that had been found in the Septuagint and accepted by the early Christian church as sacred scripture. So, when Luther decided to translate the Bible into German, he looked at the Bible actually used by the Jews and worked from that list of books to produce his Old Testament rather than the list used by the Church in Rome. Thus became the tradition of Protestant Bibles having 7 less books in their Old Testament than the Catholic Bible.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I know that was a long answer to a short question, but I saw some of these other issues coming up in the discussion that followed and others are things that come up repeatedly in thread after thread. So, I just thought I would try to address it all at one time. Sorry, if it was beyond most people's interest to read.

the thing that confuses me most is why wasnt the scriptures of the christians written under the supervision of jesus himself. how can you so be so sure alot of things were added that jesus never said and what if alot of things were taken away that jesus did say? . idk maybe because its so cleart cut and simple in islam that i fail to grasp the justifications used to explain christianity

[Grace Seeker]

the thing that confuses me most is why wasnt the scriptures of the christians written under the supervision of jesus himself. how can you so be so sure alot of things were added that jesus never said and what if alot of things were taken away that jesus did say? . idk maybe because its so cleart cut and simple in islam that i fail to grasp the justifications used to explain christianity

I think this is where our respective understandings of the purpose of Jesus' being here effect what we expect to have happened. Interpreting how I see Muslims understand and appreciate their faith, it is primarily tied up in the giving of the Qur'an to Muhammed (pbuh). But for Christians, it isn't about any specific set of commands or words from Allah that Jesus might have given. John testifies at the conclusion of his Gospel:

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. (John 21:25)

So we don't need a complete record of everything Jesus said and did, rather we focus on that which (in the opinion of his disciples) was most important:

Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (John 20:30-31)

I know this may sound strange to some, but I believe it to be true. If someday a journal of Jesus' life kept in Jesus' own hand were to be found, or if we had the capacity to go back in time and record everything Jesus said, those items, valuable as they might be, would not compare to what we already have regarding the testimony of his atoning sacrifice. You see it was that event on the cross and coming forth from the tomb, not Jesus words, that created a new faith called Christianity. If Jesus is nothing more than just another prophet, then add him to the list of the other Jewish propehts, and we are still left with nothing but the Law. But that is NOT the reason for which Jesus came. True he did not abolish the Law; but it does not remain with the same force it had before because he fulfilled it. The Law held people accountable before God. We are still accountable for how we live, because we who belong to Christ need to live as representatives of Christ in this world and to see Christ in others. But we don't do so to earn salvation by our own righteous acts, as the prophets said long before Jesus, "all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags" (Isaiah 64:6). Rather, we depend on God's grace: "In the place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' they will be called 'sons of the living God' " (Hosea 1:10). And this offering of God's grace is accomplished for us in the life, not the words, of Jesus. And the Christian Gospels proclaim the Good News of this offering of God's grace.

Please, understand, the Christian Gospels (the Good News about his offering of salvation on the cross) are not the same as what Muslims conceive of as the Injil (the record of Jesus' teachings). And even if we were to have that record, it would not mean anything without the story of God's gracious gift, for we would still be stuck in our sins, trying to earn our way to salvation. Something that the Jews could not do before, and I don't believe anyone has done since, for to earn salvation is not just to do more good than bad, it is to do only that which is good and no bad at all. And no one other than Jesus has ever lived that perfect of a life of righeousness. Thus, without his righteousness somehow being imputed to our lives, we are still dead in our sins. And there is no good news in that. But, praise God!, we do have the good news of Christ's offering passed on to us, and we really don't need any more of the story of Jesus' life than that to receive the gift of God's grace in our own lives.

[alcurad]

when god became man, man to became god, that is the major bone of contention methinks.
and the matter of god forgiving sins is up to him not to us, but then you were presenting you're POV.
what do you think of the Ebionites btw?

[alcurad]

...

[Grace Seeker]

what do you think of the Ebionites btw?

First, I think the fact that they did not appear on the scene until the 2nd century shows that they are not reflective of the original values and beliefs held by Christians in the first century.

Second, I think the fact that they were resisted by the majority of the Church and basically disappeared by the end of the 4th century shows that they did not then and do not now represent core Christian beliefs, but are one of many sects that have sprouted within the soil of the Church, but are not truly representative of the Church.

Third, I do not think that the modern development of a new group of people who cast themselves as Ebionites is anything but rehashing of a long ago discarded heresy.

Fourth, and most importantly, I find their Christology lacking and not in accord with the scriptures that were available to them at the time.

Fifth, and in keeping with the theme of this thread, their existence does prove that a group of people can not only follow, but even invent a religion, but don't necessarily have to believe in God. These Ebionites were indeed highly religious but rejected the Jewish understaning of God in claiming to follow Jesus and that his death was of vicarious sacrificial value in providing atonement for their sins, yet they then also rejected the Christian understanding of Jesus by not recognizing him as divine. Hence I would hold that in essence the Ebionites actually had no God, but were indeed religious.

[alcurad]

didn't they appear in the first century though.. and wouldn't using ad populum mean jesus was also a heretic since most of his people rejected him.
this will go off topic so never mind actually.

[Grace Seeker]

didn't they appear in the first century though.. and wouldn't using ad populum mean jesus was also a heretic since most of his people rejected him.
this will go off topic so never mind actually.

No, I'll answer.

Some of the ideas appeared in the first century. The group itself did not.

Yes, Jesus would be (still is) considered a heretic to historic Jewish theology.