Hate for the Pagan

[Thucydides1987]

I tried making this thread yesterday, but for some reason it still hasn't shown up here. So here goes again.

I want to ask all the monotheists of this site, why it is that there is so much hate and prejudice toward pagans in their religions? What is so evil or immoral about pagan worship or pagan belief? Why the immediate revulsion at these people, and all the insecurity and paranoia? Nothing sets off a monotheist more than polytheistic practices -- it truly is amazing to me.

And, please don't give me the example from the holy books wherein the worship of idols is a sin against God. That is not a proper explanation, but a mere repetition of verses without any reasoning. Explain why it is so terrible to worship idols, why is it so forbidden?

Happy New Year to everyone!

[aamirsaab]

...And, please don't give me the example from the holy books wherein the worship of idols is a sin against God. That is not a proper explanation, but a mere repetition of verses without any reasoning. Explain why it is so terrible to worship idols, why is it so forbidden?

Happy New Year to everyone!

Idol worshipping is forbidden for a few reasons:
1) It goes against the concept of Tawheed (the oneness of God) in Islam
2) Associates partner's with God (major shirk)

Both accounts are blashphemy in Islam, which is a very big deal

Also it's not hate for pagans as much as it is hate for paganism the ideology.

[Seeker1066]

I tried making this thread yesterday, but for some reason it still hasn't shown up here. So here goes again.

I want to ask all the monotheists of this site, why it is that there is so much hate and prejudice toward pagans in their religions? What is so evil or immoral about pagan worship or pagan belief? Why the immediate revulsion at these people, and all the insecurity and paranoia? Nothing sets off a monotheist more than polytheistic practices -- it truly is amazing to me.

And, please don't give me the example from the holy books wherein the worship of idols is a sin against God. That is not a proper explanation, but a mere repetition of verses without any reasoning. Explain why it is so terrible to worship idols, why is it so forbidden?

Happy New Year to everyone!

Well as you are asking Monotheists the first reason is obvious. Note that it isn't just that Christians, Jews and Muslims claim that there is one God. They claim that one God is the Same God. The God of Abraham. Polytheists by nature reject the one God. Muslims, Jews and Christians have lived in common areas for generations. Though there are great differences they all share the one God. Islam calls them Ahl al Kitaab(people of the book) as all share revelations from the one God. Polytheists reject God thus are enemies of him in a way that Ahl al Kitaab could never be. Thus they face harsh persecution.

[جوري]

Whenever I think of pagans I think of this movie..

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

[IAmZamzam]

Catch a rainbow and tie the ends together, vale's lily.

Paganism doesn't follow its own logic. It always seems to all but acknowledge the truth of monotheism in some way or other yet still insists on not committing to it. There's always either a single, highest god so high above the other gods that He's like a god to them too, or some kind of creator deity behind the others, or some supreme or ultimate source greater than the gods themselves (like "All-Father" of Norse paganism), or else the different gods are all really one god manifested differently or with different "avatars" or "persons"...none of it seems to be able to get away from the basic fact of an ultimate singularity overseeing or creating all else, but it still insists on compromising and not acknowledging this singularity alone. It's also psychologically a morally dangerous thing. Devotion to multiple sources from the same category or group is not really a feasible thing to do as sincerely as devotion to only one. Worship must be more singular or it just isn't going to be as worshipful.

[GuestFellow]

Explain why it is so terrible to worship idols, why is it so forbidden?

Because you are not worshiping God. Idols cannot even help themselves let alone others, of course, some people see idols in a spiritual sense rather than physical.

None of us have seen God, so we find it insulting when God is made in the shape of a human or animal or mixture.

Personally I don't hate them. I simply disagree.

[Perseveranze]

Asalaamu Alaikum(peace be with you),

Can't say much about it, I just ignore it really. People have a choice to worship whatever they want, even if it is idols.

Anyways, I wonder if I'll ever get to see the reactions of people when they do get resurrected and do meet their one true Creator.

[Pygoscelis]

I tried making this thread yesterday, but for some reason it still hasn't shown up here. So here goes again.

I want to ask all the monotheists of this site, why it is that there is so much hate and prejudice toward pagans in their religions? What is so evil or immoral about pagan worship or pagan belief? Why the immediate revulsion at these people, and all the insecurity and paranoia? Nothing sets off a monotheist more than polytheistic practices -- it truly is amazing to me.

And, please don't give me the example from the holy books wherein the worship of idols is a sin against God. That is not a proper explanation, but a mere repetition of verses without any reasoning. Explain why it is so terrible to worship idols, why is it so forbidden?

Happy New Year to everyone!

"pagan" is a word even less agreed on than "atheist". What exactly is a "pagan"? Does it mean polythesitic religion? Does it mean any religion other than the abrahamic religions? Does it include ancestor worship? Does it include non-theistic religions like taoism and confucious?

The reason the abrahamic religions hate on paganism is because it isn't their own religion. Simple as that. They hate pagans for the same reason they hate atheists and each other.

[Jibrael]

"pagan" is a word even less agreed on than "atheist". What exactly is a "pagan"? Does it mean polythesitic religion? Does it mean any religion other than the abrahamic religions? Does it include ancestor worship? Does it include non-theistic religions like taoism and confucious?

The reason the abrahamic religions hate on paganism is because it isn't their own religion. Simple as that. They hate pagans for the same reason they hate atheists and each other.

The Arabic term Mushrik basically means polytheist, one who ascribes partners to Allaah, or one who worships others along with Allaah, or one who resembles Allaah to His creation. Those people who venerate the tombs, seek intercession through the dead, worship idols and images, worship spirits, venerate trees, seek protection through amulets, practice witchcraft, seek intercession through angels...they are all Mushrikeen (Polytheists).

Judaism, Christianity, and Islaam all claim to be the rightful representatives of the Legacy of Abraham. However, only Islaam is true to the Legacy of Abraham, whereas Judaism and Christianity have deviated from the pure and rigid monotheism of Abraham (Peace be upon him).

The Religion of Islaam is also given the name of Millat Ibraheem (Sect of Abraham) in the Quraan. Abraham was the great prophet who destroyed the idols which his father and his people were devoted to. The tyrant and oppressor Nimrod had him thrown into a blazing furnace, but Allaah protected Abraham, and he emerged unscathed.

Although Christians and Jews claim to follow Abraham, yet they have deviated from his teaching, as they are also guilty of Shirk (Polytheism). They call upon and worship Jesus, believe him to be the son of God, they worship Mary, build places of worship over the graves of the Prophets, seek intercession through the prophets and saints who are dead and cannot help them. They also pray and worship Angels and make images and idols of angels, saints, fairies, prophets, etc.

Even majority of so called "Muslims" are guilty of same thing, by venerating tombs, seeking intercession through dead prophets, saints, and peers. They seek protection through amulets, and make offerings and animal sacrifices in the name of dead saints and peers. They are also Mushrikeen.

However, Saudi Arabia, and possibly a few other Gulf states, are the only purely monotheistic societies left in the world where authentic Islaam is still predominant. But rest of the world is drowning in polytheism.

[GreyKode]

Even majority of so called "Muslims" are guilty of same thing, by venerating tombs, seeking intercession through dead prophets, saints, and peers. They seek protection through amulets, and make offerings and animal sacrifices in the name of dead saints and peers. They are also Mushrikeen.

However, Saudi Arabia, and possibly a few other Gulf states, are the only purely monotheistic societies left in the world where authentic Islaam is still predominant. But rest of the world is drowning in polytheism.

Calm down and stop talking out of ignorance. How can u say that the "majority" of muslims venerate tombs and make intercession through dead prophets. Try to have some respect to your fellow muslims, most members here are from neither saudi nor gulf countries, like pakistan, india, egypt, malaysia, indonesia and other arab countries. All those muslim countries are al 7amdulillah far far away from shirk practices.

Even though there are some misguided practices in those countries, they are refused by the greater majority of the muslims.

[Jibrael]

Calm down and stop talking out of ignorance. How can u say that the "majority" of muslims venerate tombs and make intercession through dead prophets. Try to have some respect to your fellow muslims, most members here are from neither saudi nor gulf countries, like pakistan, india, egypt, malaysia, indonesia and other arab countries. All those muslim countries are al 7amdulillah far far away from shirk practices.

Even though there are some misguided practices in those countries, they are refused by the greater majority of the muslims.

Unfortunately you are wrong my brother, because although, alhamdulillaah you personally have condemned the shirk of venerating tombs and seeking intercession through the dead, the majority of "Muslims" are involved in these affairs. You mentioned countries such as Pakistan, India, Egypt, Malaysia, and Indonesia. I regret to inform you that all these countries which you cited are full of tombs which people make regular pilgrimages to. The Indian subcontinent, where the bulk of Muslims live, has hundreds of thousands of these tombs, in virtually every village. In these countries, astrology, witchcraft, soothe-saying, wearing of amulets, and other shirk practices are also quite prevalent.

This is not a suprise, as Allaah سبحانه وتعالى Himself says in the Holy Quraan:

وَمَا يُؤْمِنُ أَكْثَرُهُمْ بِاللّهِ إِلاَّ وَهُم مُّشْرِكُونَ
And most of them do not believe in Allaah, except that they are polytheists. [Soorah 12:106]

Meaning that majority of those who believe in Allaah are actually polytheists, because they associate partners alongside with Him.

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said that the Last Hour would not be established until tribes from his own Ummah would begin to be involved in shirk, and join the other Mushrikeen in worshiping of idols:

لَا تَقُومُ السَّاعَةُ حَتَّى تَلْحَقَ قَبَائِلُ مِنْ أُمَّتِي بِالْمُشْرِكِينَ وَحَتَّى يَعْبُدُوا الْأَوْثَانَ

[Hiroshi]

The Arabic term Mushrik basically means polytheist, one who ascribes partners to Allaah, or one who worships others along with Allaah, or one who resembles Allaah to His creation. Those people who venerate the tombs, seek intercession through the dead, worship idols and images, worship spirits, venerate trees, seek protection through amulets, practice witchcraft, seek intercession through angels...they are all Mushrikeen (Polytheists).

Judaism, Christianity, and Islaam all claim to be the rightful representatives of the Legacy of Abraham. However, only Islaam is true to the Legacy of Abraham, whereas Judaism and Christianity have deviated from the pure and rigid monotheism of Abraham (Peace be upon him).

The Religion of Islaam is also given the name of Millat Ibraheem (Sect of Abraham) in the Quraan. Abraham was the great prophet who destroyed the idols which his father and his people were devoted to. The tyrant and oppressor Nimrod had him thrown into a blazing furnace, but Allaah protected Abraham, and he emerged unscathed.

Although Christians and Jews claim to follow Abraham, yet they have deviated from his teaching, as they are also guilty of Shirk (Polytheism). They call upon and worship Jesus, believe him to be the son of God, they worship Mary, build places of worship over the graves of the Prophets, seek intercession through the prophets and saints who are dead and cannot help them. They also pray and worship Angels and make images and idols of angels, saints, fairies, prophets, etc.

Even majority of so called "Muslims" are guilty of same thing, by venerating tombs, seeking intercession through dead prophets, saints, and peers. They seek protection through amulets, and make offerings and animal sacrifices in the name of dead saints and peers. They are also Mushrikeen.

However, Saudi Arabia, and possibly a few other Gulf states, are the only purely monotheistic societies left in the world where authentic Islaam is still predominant. But rest of the world is drowning in polytheism.

Hi Jibrael.

The story of Abraham being thrown into a blazing furnace by Nimrod has surely been an inspiration to many to show a heroic spirit in the face of persecution and to show a hatred of the things that God hates: in this case idols.

I don't want to go off topic but I wanted to ask an incidental question. The Bible does not mention this incident. And I cannot find any mention in the Qur'an of the tyrant being named as Nimrod. How do you know that it was Nimrod that threw Abraham into the furnace? Is he identified in the hadith anywhere? If you can find a reference for me or a link to a website then I would be grateful. Thanks.

[Ummu Sufyaan]

And, please don't give me the example from the holy books wherein the worship of idols is a sin against God. That is not a proper explanation, but a mere repetition of verses without any reasoning. Explain why it is so terrible to worship idols, why is it so forbidden?

its very reasonable to explain things from the "holy book perspective" if the reason for your disbelief is written in your holy book. it is not possible separate the 2 if your disbelief stems from the holy book.

[Jibrael]

Hi Jibrael.

I don't want to go off topic but I wanted to ask an incidental question. The Bible does not mention this incident.

It's mentioned in the Talmud.

And I cannot find any mention in the Qur'an of the tyrant being named as Nimrod. How do you know that it was Nimrod that threw Abraham into the furnace? Is he identified in the hadith anywhere? If you can find a reference for me or a link to a website then I would be grateful. Thanks.

I'm not sure if he's mentioned in the Ahadeeth (I have to research this), but it is mentioned in Ibn Katheer's "Qasas-ul-Anbiyaa" (Stories of the Prophets).

[Saad17]

The definition of pagan has confused me as well.

According to me, every non-abrahamic faith is pagan but I seen alot of Muslims saying that the Pre-Islamic Arabs were pagan. Thats apparently incorrect because Arabs claimed to be following the religion of Abraham and the name "Allah" was always attributed to the God of Abraham by Arabs Christians and Jews. So in order to gain the title of "Abrahamic Faith" , you must claim to follow the religion of Abraham so no one can say that Pre-Islamic Arabs were Pagan. Why else do you think the Quran says this:
3:67 Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but he was one inclining toward truth, a Muslim [submitting to Allah ]. And he was not of the polytheists.
So clearly Quran was telling the Pre-Islamic Arab that their concept of religion of Abraham is wrong, he was a monotheist. So you can't label polytheist religions as pagan, I believe you can only do to those who don't claim to be following the faith of Abraham.

So what I'm saying is that , Pagan is messed-up concept but nonetheless Islam doesn't allow any hate against another religion because there is a danger that they would show hate against Allah and we would be held accountable.

[Hiroshi]

It's mentioned in the Talmud.

I didn't know that.

I'm not sure if he's mentioned in the Ahadeeth (I have to research this), but it is mentioned in Ibn Katheer's "Qasas-ul-Anbiyaa" (Stories of the Prophets).

Thanks. I will do some research on this as well.

[Alpha Dude]

why it is that there is so much hate and prejudice toward pagans in their religions? What is so evil or immoral about pagan worship or pagan belief? Why the immediate revulsion at these people, and all the insecurity and paranoia? Nothing sets off a monotheist more than polytheistic practices -- it truly is amazing to me.

And, please don't give me the example from the holy books wherein the worship of idols is a sin against God. That is not a proper explanation, but a mere repetition of verses without any reasoning. Explain why it is so terrible to worship idols, why is it so forbidden?

The matter is very simple. Monotheists believe God exists and only he is worthy of worship. We Muslims desire that all people worship Allah as he alone deserves it and it is also beneficial for us humans to do so (otherwise there is punishment in the hereafter). Most people wouldn't have insecurity, paranoia, revulsion at them. I don't, rather I feel pity and wish guidance upon them instead (they are destined for eternal hell if they carry on how they are, so why should I feel anything but pity?).

[Seeker1066]

"pagan" is a word even less agreed on than "atheist". What exactly is a "pagan"? Does it mean polythesitic religion? Does it mean any religion other than the abrahamic religions? Does it include ancestor worship? Does it include non-theistic religions like taoism and confucious?

The reason the abrahamic religions hate on paganism is because it isn't their own religion. Simple as that. They hate pagans for the same reason they hate atheists and each other.

While I won't presume to speak for the Muslims here Christians don't hate Pagans, Polytheists nor Atheists. At times there have been persecutions of these groups they were done reflexively to protect a Christian nation untited under a set belief system.

[جوري]

While I won't presume to speak for the Muslims here Christians don't hate Pagans, Polytheists nor Atheists. At times there have been persecutions of these groups they were done reflexively to protect a Christian nation untited under a set belief system.

I really don't think anyone spends their time thinking about pagans.. well at least not as much as atheists preoccupy themselves with religion. My personal introduction to paganism was through that movie 'the wickerman' and perhaps a few rebellious goths wannabe witches wannabe rebels back in middle and high school.. sort of dies out when you're filling out your college applications though..

peace

[Seeker1066]

I really don't think anyone spends their time thinking about pagans.. well at least not as much as atheists preoccupy themselves with religion. My personal introduction to paganism was through that movie 'the wickerman' and perhaps a few rebellious goths wannabe witches wannabe rebels back in middle and high school.. sort of dies out when you're filling out your college applications though..

peace

Indeed. Real life has a way of eliminating fanciful rebellions. There are 0 Goth CEOs of any corporation.

[Predator]

Christianity itself is very pagan in its nature with its use of idols and people created from dust (such as Jesus, Mary, etc...) to reach GOD Almighty is a form of idol worshiping itself, because these idols are being partnered with the One True Living GOD Almighty. They are being glorified and used as "holy symbols" to represent and reach GOD.

The Bible itself is clear about forbidding all forms of idol worshiping:

Let us look at Deuteronomy 4:15-19 "And you must take good care of your souls, because you did not see any form on the day of Jehovah's speaking to you in Ho'reb out of the middle of the fire, that you may not act ruinously and may not really make for yourselves a carved image, the form of any symbol, the representation of male or female, the representation of any beast that is in the earth, the representation of any winged bird that flies in the heavens, the representation of any fish that is in the waters under the earth; and that you may not raise your eyes to the heavens and indeed see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the army of the heavens and actually get seduced and bow down to them and serve them, which Jehovah your God has apportioned to all the peoples under the whole heavens." . Here we see two things: First, GOD Almighty told the people of Israel that he never appeared to them in any way shape or form, and second, he prohibited them to create any images to represent Him. This is the reason why Moses (peace be upon him) told the Israelites that GOD Almighty never appeared to them in any visible form.

In fact, one of the Ten Commandments says "You shall not make yourself a carved image or any likeness of anything...you shall not bow down to them or serve them." (Exodus 20:4-5). Only Allah Almighty or GOD Almighty should be worshiped. The Bible made it clear in several verses that partnering idols with GOD Almighty in His Worship is forbidden: Psalm 115:4-8, Isaiah 44:14-20 and Isaiah 46:6-7.

It is important to know that Jesus who worshiped Allah Almighty in Luke 5:16 and Matthew 26:39 and never used images in worship. The Bible considers GOD Almighty as a "spirit" and He must be worshiped with spirit and truth: "God is a Spirit, and those worshiping him must worship with spirit and truth." (John 4:24). Use of idols (humans or objects) is the wrong way to worship the Almighty GOD: "Guard yourselves from idols." (1 John 5:21). Also in (Deuteronomy 7:25) the Jews were ordered by God to burn idols and never use them in worship.

Although the Protestants do not have pictures and statues as the Catholics do, they are as equally guilty as the latter of the crime of idol-worshipping.

Why do we say that?
Let us define the meaning of idol-worship:
Idol-worship means the worshipping of a statue or a human being or power or money or status or property etc. The list is endless.

Idol-worship is not confined to religions alone. It is evident in so many aspects of real life.
As long as a Christian regards Jesus (peace be upon him) as God, he is an idol-worshipper."

Christians today do not follow their religion in the right way. They do not worship Allah Almighty in the appropriate way that they are supposed to. Christian priests and ministers have added so many corruptions and disagreements to their religion that Christianity no longer became a valid absolute pure religion from GOD Almighty. Man's corruption and disagreements in the Bible had devastated the Bible's purity and accuracy.

[Hiroshi]

Christianity itself is very pagan in its nature with its use of idols and people created from dust (such as Jesus, Mary, etc...) to reach GOD Almighty is a form of idol worshiping itself, because these idols are being partnered with the One True Living GOD Almighty. They are being glorified and used as "holy symbols" to represent and reach GOD.

...


Christians today do not follow their religion in the right way. They do not worship Allah Almighty in the appropriate way that they are supposed to. Christian priests and ministers have added so many corruptions and disagreements to their religion that Christianity no longer became a valid absolute pure religion from GOD Almighty. Man's corruption and disagreements in the Bible had devastated the Bible's purity and accuracy.

Celebrations given the approval of the churches such as Christmas and Easter are entirely pagan in origin. What started out as pure Christianity became corrupted into evil. Nevertheless, the Bible's purity and accuracy have not been "devastated". You are deluding yourself there.

[IAmZamzam]

I don't know about the Arabic and I don't even know if there's a provable exact translation anyway but the English word "pagan" is absolutely clear: it's a (mostly derogatory) term meaning "polytheist".

[Perseveranze]

Celebrations given the approval of the churches such as Christmas and Easter are entirely pagan in origin. What started out as pure Christianity became corrupted into evil. Nevertheless, the Bible's purity and accuracy have not been "devastated". You are deluding yourself there.

Asalaamu Alaikum,

Do you believe the Bible is by word-2-word from God?

[ChargerCarl]

Asalaamu Alaikum,

Do you believe the Bible is by word-2-word from God?

I know Catholics don't believe that. Unsure about any other denominations.

[Seeker1066]

I know Catholics don't believe that. Unsure about any other denominations.

Catholics believe the Bible is the Inerrent word of God. Catholics believe that the Bible is only one of three authoritative sources 1. Bible 2. (T)radition 3. Magesterium. The Bible is interpreted through the Church.

[siam]

This is only my opinion.....

I think the most important difference between Tawheed and Polytheism is between "Unity" and division. Division is egoic---Unity requires humility, compassion and mercy. If we suppose there is only ONE God, and it is the Creator of all human beings and the universe as well as the giver of all knowledge, relgious and non-religious----then it follows that we are all praying to the SAME God who created us all and all religious knowledge are from God. However, over time---ego (division) has come between Tawheed of God and human understanding so that some religions have forgotton the Unity. Yet, vestiges of the original message can still be seen.

Polytheism can feed the divisive ego by thinking "my God is better than your God"....and it does not matter if a person refers to himself as Christian or Muslim---as soon as he thinks "my God is better than your God"....he has fallen into polytheism because he has acknowledged the existence of two Gods, "mine" and "yours". Unity reconfirms the idea that irrespective of our religious labels, we all pray to the ONE God---our Creator.

[Hiroshi]

Asalaamu Alaikum,

Do you believe the Bible is by word-2-word from God?

Is it claimed that the Qur'an is like that? I thought that there were 7 variant readings of it even today.


The writings in the Bible have been copied and recopied over thousands of years and some copyist errors have appeared in the sacred text. But what does this amount to? There might be the variance in a word or the spelling of a word but this rarely causes any problem. Firstly, these are only tiny changes amid a vast amount of other writing that has been faithfully and reliably recorded and preserved. And secondly, these variances almost never have any impact on anything important or doctrinal.

Of more serious concern are cases where a deliberate attempt has been made by a scribe or copyist to change the meaning of the scriptures by making alterations in them.

I mentioned some of these in another post:

This link:

http://livingtheway.org/sopherim.html

says:

There was, at one point in history, an organized attempt, by the very scribes who copied the Hebrew scriptures, to change certain words and phrases in the scriptures. One of the things that they did was to remove God’s name from scripture in 134 verses! 134 times, these scribes removed the name of God and substituted "Adonay," often out of reverence and respect for God’s name, and a wish not to blaspheme God’s name by using it too often.


And in my copy of Rotheram's translation "The Emphasized Bible" there is a footnote to Habakkuk 1:12 which reads:

""All the ancient records emphatically state that ... the original reading was ... "Thou diest not" ... Rashi (1040-1105) makes this the basis of his explanation" - G. Intro. p. 358 [The Sopherim changed it to: "We shall not die."]"

The tampering or changing of the sacred text of the scriptures by the Jewish Sopherim or scribes was apparently done with a good motive. It was an attempt to remove anything in the Bible that seemed to be disrespectful or unseemly respecting God. Nevertheless, what these scribes did was completely wrong.

And:

The 134 Passages Where The Sopherim Altered "Jehovah" to "Adonai".
This Is Appendix 32 From The Companion Bible. Out of extreme (but mistaken) reverence for the Ineffable Name "Jehovah", the ancient custodians of the Sacred Text substituted in many places "Adonai" (see Appendix 4. viii. 2). These, in the Authorized Version and Revised Version, are all printed "Lord". In all these places we have printed it "LORD", marking the word with an asterisk in addition to the note in the margin, to inform the reader of the fact.
The official list given in the Massorah (§§ 107-15, Ginsburg's edition) contains the 134.
Genesis 18:3,27,30,32; 19:18; 20:4. Exodus 4:10,13; 5:22; 15:17; 34:9,9. Numbers 14:17. Joshua 7:8. Judges 6:15; 13:8. 1Kings 3:10,15; 22:6. 2Kings 7:6; 19:23. Isaiah 3:17,18; 4:4; 6:1,8,11; 7:14,20; 8:7; 9:8,17; 10:12; 11:11; 21:6,8,16; 28:2; 29:13; 30:20; 37:24; 38:14,16; 49:14. Ezekiel 18:25,29; 21:13; 33:17,29. Amos 5:16; 7:7,8; 9:1. Zechariah 9:4. Micah 1:2. Malachi 1:12,14. Psalm 2:4; 16:2; 22:19,30; 30:8; 35:3,17,22; 37:12; 38:9,15,22; 39:7; 40:17; 44:23; 51:15; 54:4; 55:9; 57:9; 59:11; 62:12; 66:18; 68:11,17,19,22,26,32; 73:20; 77:2,7; 78:65; 79:12; 86:3,4,5,8,9,12,15; 89:49,50; 90:1,17; 110:5; 130:2,3,6. Daniel 1:2; 9:3,4,7,9,15,16,17,19,19,19. Lamentations 1:14,15,15; 2:1,2,5,7,18,19,20; 3:31,36,37,58. Ezra 10:3. Nehemiah 1:11; 4:14. Job 28:28.
To these may be added the following, where "Elohim" was treated in the same way :-
2Samuel 5:19-25; 6:9-17} Where the Authorized Version has "LORD."
1Chronicles 13:12; 14:10,11,14,16; 16:1. Psalm 14:1,2,5; 53:1,2,4,5.} Where in Authorized Version and Revised Version it still appears as "God". It is printed "GOD" in the Companion Bible.


Also there have been clumsy attempts to corrupt the writings in the NT by introducing whole passages into the text such as at 1 John 5:7. But ultimately, all efforts to corrupt the Bible have met with failure because it has been so widely copied and distributed over the entire world into many different languages and cultures and to succeed it would be necessary to change all of these which would be impossible. Any changes introduced can be identified and eliminated with comparison generally to older and more reliable manuscripts.

[Ummu Sufyaan]

Is it claimed that the Qur'an is like that? I thought that there were 7 variant readings of it even today.

nice try, but that doesn't contradict that it is from god. fool.

[Perseveranze]

Asalaamu Alaikum(peace be with you)

Is it claimed that the Qur'an is like that? I thought that there were 7 variant readings of it even today.

The text is the same upon revelation, Uthman (who knew the Prophets(pbuh) Quraishi Dialect) by the will of God ensured this. Even though there are 7 variants in readings, it doesn't significantly change the meaning or the context of the text.

As for the 7 aHruf, they were revealed by the angel in these 7 ways. The Prophet

taught the Companions whichever one He felt was easiest for that individual. But over time, they all got mixed together because people learned from multiple teachers. So we cannot know for sure what each Harf was like. But we are certain that the variations we have today were taught by Rasoolullah

.

Today, there is ONLY ONE ORIGINAL ARABIC NOBLE QURAN that Muslims follow. There are different English and other language translations to it of course, because translations are man-made and they all depend on the author’s writing style and abilities, but as far as the Arabic Noble Quran, which is the only thing that matters, there is only ONE ARABIC NOBLE QURAN TODAY.

As for the Bible -

How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. (From the RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)"

"Christians readily admit, however, that there have been 'scribal errors' in the copies of the Old and New Testament. It is beyond the capability of anyone to avoid any and every slip of the pen in copying page after page from any book, sacred or secular. Yet we may be sure that the original manuscript (better known as autograph) of each book of the Bible, being directly inspired by God, was free from all error. Those originals, however, because of the early date of their inception no longer exist."
"Because we are dealing with accounts which were written thousands of years ago, we would not expect to have the originals in our possession today, as they would have disintegrated long ago. We are therefore dependent on the copies taken from copies of those originals, which were in turn continually copied out over a period of centuries. Those who did the copying were prone to making two types of scribal errors. One concerned the spelling of proper names, and the other had to do with numbers."
"Most Christians will affirm that the Bible is our rule of faith and practice. It is a little self contradictory to stand in the pulpit and say the word of God is inspired, when in his heart the pastor knows he is not referring to any book here on this earth that people can hold in their hands and believe. He really should say what he believes - that the word of God WAS inspired at one time but we no longer have it, so the best we can do is hope we have a close approximation of what God probably meant to tell us."
"It also seems a bit inconsistent to say he believes the originals were inspired, when he has never seen them, they never were together in one single book and they no longer exist anyway. How does he know they were inspired? He accepts this by faith. Yet he seems to lack the faith to actually believe that God could do exactly what He said He would do with His words. God said He would preserve them and that heaven and earth would pass away but His words would not pass away."

Finally, not to be rude but I didn't quite understand if you answered the question directly, which was whether you believe the Bible is by meaning and word-to-word from God?

Also there have been clumsy attempts to corrupt the writings in the NT by introducing whole passages into the text such as at 1 John 5:7. But ultimately, all efforts to corrupt the Bible have met with failure because it has been so widely copied and distributed over the entire world into many different languages and cultures and to succeed it would be necessary to change all of these which would be impossible. Any changes introduced can be identified and eliminated with comparison generally to older and more reliable manuscripts.

Is this implying that you believe the Bible today is uncorrupted and the direct word of God?

[Hiroshi]

Is this implying that you believe the Bible today is uncorrupted and the direct word of God?

Let me put the question back to you.

Show me an example in the Bible where there has been a corruption in the text which causes a genuine problem in understanding the meaning of God's Word at that place.

[Arisempire]

Well as you are asking Monotheists the first reason is obvious. Note that it isn't just that Christians, Jews and Muslims claim that there is one God. They claim that one God is the Same God. The God of Abraham. Polytheists by nature reject the one God. Muslims, Jews and Christians have lived in common areas for generations. Though there are great differences they all share the one God. Islam calls them Ahl al Kitaab(people of the book) as all share revelations from the one God. Polytheists reject God thus are enemies of him in a way that Ahl al Kitaab could never be. Thus they face harsh persecution.

The Qur'an says to the Muslims to don't trust Jews & Christians. AND MOSTLY the Qur'an DON'T recognize Jesus as God as Christianity do, that's why is ABSOLUTELY WRONG to consider these TWO DIFFERENT faiths as they believe in the same God, because is not like that. God to Christianity is Jesus, to Islam and Judaism is NOT Jesus. I don't know if Islam and Judaism can be considered as religions who believe in the same God, but Christianity obviously believes in another God and CAN'T be related to Islam nor Judaism.

Catch a rainbow and tie the ends together, vale's lily.

Paganism doesn't follow its own logic. It always seems to all but acknowledge the truth of monotheism in some way or other yet still insists on not committing to it. There's always either a single, highest god so high above the other gods that He's like a god to them too, or some kind of creator deity behind the others, or some supreme or ultimate source greater than the gods themselves (like "All-Father" of Norse paganism), or else the different gods are all really one god manifested differently or with different "avatars" or "persons"...none of it seems to be able to get away from the basic fact of an ultimate singularity overseeing or creating all else, but it still insists on compromising and not acknowledging this singularity alone. It's also psychologically a morally dangerous thing. Devotion to multiple sources from the same category or group is not really a feasible thing to do as sincerely as devotion to only one. Worship must be more singular or it just isn't going to be as worshipful.

Have nothing to do with the one or the many, is insane to worship something not real, that's what matters. To their eyes you look in the same way that they look in your eyes.

The Arabic term Mushrik basically means polytheist, one who ascribes partners to Allaah, or one who worships others along with Allaah, or one who resembles Allaah to His creation. Those people who venerate the tombs, seek intercession through the dead, worship idols and images, worship spirits, venerate trees, seek protection through amulets, practice witchcraft, seek intercession through angels...they are all Mushrikeen (Polytheists).

Judaism, Christianity, and Islaam all claim to be the rightful representatives of the Legacy of Abraham. However, only Islaam is true to the Legacy of Abraham, whereas Judaism and Christianity have deviated from the pure and rigid monotheism of Abraham (Peace be upon him).

The Religion of Islaam is also given the name of Millat Ibraheem (Sect of Abraham) in the Quraan. Abraham was the great prophet who destroyed the idols which his father and his people were devoted to. The tyrant and oppressor Nimrod had him thrown into a blazing furnace, but Allaah protected Abraham, and he emerged unscathed.

Although Christians and Jews claim to follow Abraham, yet they have deviated from his teaching, as they are also guilty of Shirk (Polytheism). They call upon and worship Jesus, believe him to be the son of God, they worship Mary, build places of worship over the graves of the Prophets, seek intercession through the prophets and saints who are dead and cannot help them. They also pray and worship Angels and make images and idols of angels, saints, fairies, prophets, etc.

Even majority of so called "Muslims" are guilty of same thing, by venerating tombs, seeking intercession through dead prophets, saints, and peers. They seek protection through amulets, and make offerings and animal sacrifices in the name of dead saints and peers. They are also Mushrikeen.

However, Saudi Arabia, and possibly a few other Gulf states, are the only purely monotheistic societies left in the world where authentic Islaam is still predominant. But rest of the world is drowning in polytheism.

You're obviously Saudi, you're very pure and noble people. I understand your point, what you are trying to say is that countries like Turkey can't be considered in anyway as Muslim because they recognize homosexuality as legal, in Turkey since 1858(Wikipedia).

I need to know something, is not allowed by Islam to have a tomb or what? The body should be burned? Sorry my ignorance on this issue.:embarrass

[Zafran]

The Qur'an says to the Muslims to don't trust Jews & Christians. AND MOSTLY the Qur'an DON'T recognize Jesus as God as Christianity do, that's why is ABSOLUTELY WRONG to consider these TWO DIFFERENT faiths as they believe in the same God, because is not like that. God to Christianity is Jesus, to Islam and Judaism is NOT Jesus. I don't know if Islam and Judaism can be considered as religions who believe in the same God, but Christianity obviously believes in another God and CAN'T be related to Islam nor Judaism.

The Muslim, The Jew and The christian believe in the same God - in the sense we all believe in the God of Abhraham, Issac, Ishmeal, Moses, Joseph pbuta etc etc

we disagree on the role of christ. Christians believe the God of Abhraham pbuh became a man - Muslims and Jews disagree

[Hiroshi]

The Qur'an says to the Muslims to don't trust Jews & Christians. AND MOSTLY the Qur'an DON'T recognize Jesus as God as Christianity do, that's why is ABSOLUTELY WRONG to consider these TWO DIFFERENT faiths as they believe in the same God, because is not like that. God to Christianity is Jesus, to Islam and Judaism is NOT Jesus. I don't know if Islam and Judaism can be considered as religions who believe in the same God, but Christianity obviously believes in another God and CAN'T be related to Islam nor Judaism.

I am a Jehovah's Witness and consider myself a Christian but I do not believe in the trinity and I do not believe that Jesus is Almighty God. Such beliefs that are found in the different churches that we see today are not a reflection of true Christianity at all.

[Thucydides1987]

It's also psychologically a morally dangerous thing. Devotion to multiple sources from the same category or group is not really a feasible thing to do as sincerely as devotion to only one. Worship must be more singular or it just isn't going to be as worshipful.

I don't understand, why is it psychologically and morally dangerous to believe in more than one god? How could you have the right to say that polytheism is not as sincere enough a devotion as monotheism when you yourself are a monotheist??? That's exceedingly biased and ignorant of you.

[Thucydides1987]

None of us have seen God, so we find it insulting when God is made in the shape of a human or animal or mixture.

But the idols are not "God"; they are deities of particular pagan cults and have no association to your abrahamic god. An idol of Zeus or Isis are not attempted images of Allah...

[Thucydides1987]

Polytheism can feed the divisive ego by thinking "my God is better than your God".

This sounds good theoretically, but is completely wrong historically.

There is no evidence where we see a pagan society split between a disagreement over gods. Never have pagans engaged among one another in a discourse which involves the attempt to point out the validity of one god over another. On the contrary, all gods within a pagan society were acknowledged to be real, equally venerable, and worthy of reverence and respect. Pagan societies, in fact, have been the most tolerant religious societies in history. It was in the monotheistic societies that you saw the rise of the idea of "My God is better than your God", and the consequent bloodshed based on that mindset.

[Ramadhan]

I don't understand, why is it psychologically and morally dangerous to believe in more than one god?

Would it be psychologically correct and morally right for you to claim that you were fathered by a dozen of men and a couple of women?

That's exceedingly biased and ignorant of you.

If you claim yes, that is exceedingly biased and ignorant of you.

[Thucydides1987]

Would it be psychologically correct and morally right for you to claim that you were fathered by a dozen of men and a couple of women?

.....No pagan theology (at least in the West) claims such a thing. Do you know what you're talking about, by the way?

And are you telling me that it's psychologically and morally more correct to believe that ONE being somewhere up in the sky (is he a man or a woman, anyway?) fathered you?

[Ramadhan]

.....No pagan theology (at least in the West) claims such a thing. Do you know what you're talking about, by the way?

And are you telling me that it's psychologically and morally more correct to believe that ONE being somewhere up in the sky (is he a man or a woman, anyway?) fathered you?

sigh...

I was making an analogy, but it appears you don't even get it.

[Perseveranze]

.....No pagan theology (at least in the West) claims such a thing. Do you know what you're talking about, by the way?

And are you telling me that it's psychologically and morally more correct to believe that ONE being somewhere up in the sky (is he a man or a woman, anyway?) fathered you?

Asalaamu Alaikum(peace be with you),

Allah(swt) is neither a He or a She, basically Allah(swt) is nothing like his Creation, He is far greater. The reason we refer to him as "He" is explained here -

When Allah uses the term "HE" in Quran it is similar to the above answer. The word "He" is used when referring to Allah out of respect, dignity and high status. It would be totally inappropriate to use the word "it" and would not convey the proper understanding of Allah being who Allah is; Alive, Compassionate, Forgiving, Patient, Loving, etc. It is not correct to associate the word "He" with gender, as this would be comparing Allah to the creation, something totally against the teaching of Quran.

"Say, 'He is Allah, the One;
Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
He begets not, and neither is He begotten;
And there is nothing that can be compared to Him."
[112:1-4]

I mean if you think a man or a woman could've created the Heavens and the Earths... Then I'd have to disagree with you, not just as a Muslim but logically speaking it doesn't make sense.

If there was more then One God, then there would be chaos in the Creation. The Quran actually refutes the claim of Multiple Gods;

"Allah has not taken any son, nor has there ever been with Him any deity. [If there had been], then each deity would have taken what it created, and some of them would have sought to overcome others. Exalted is Allah above what they describe [concerning Him]." [23.091]
"Had there been within the heavens and earth gods besides Allah, they both would have been ruined. So exalted is Allah, Lord of the Throne, above what they describe" [21.022]

If people want to worship more then One God then that's their choice, I just would say as an opinion it's not very well thought out.

[siam]

@ thucydides
"This sounds good theoretically, but is completely wrong historically."

I was actually speaking "theoretically". My understanding might be wrong, but during pre-Islamic times, the Kaaba was filled with idols of many gods of the various surrounding towns and tribes. Each town/tribe was loyal to their diety. Each was possesive of their diety. At the Kaaba, all these "dieties" were gathered together so that during the pilgrimage each could pray to "his own". Such a limited and erroneous concept of The Divine does not serve the best interests of humanity. God is Unlimited creator of ALL. Tawheed attempts to correct the error so that we can transcend our pettiness and differences and join TOGETHER in worship of the ONE God. Why is this necessary?.....because God's will is that right belief inspires right intentions that promote right actions that create a benefit for all of God's creations....in order for "Right Belief" to flower, we need to transcend our limiting egoic desires and find Unity.----Unity of purpose for the greater good of all of God's creation. All humanity is his creation and when we acknowledge worship of him alone, we also acknowledge our Unity.

[siam]

"But the idols are not "God"; they are deities of particular pagan cults and have no association to your abrahamic god. An idol of Zeus or Isis are not attempted images of Allah... "

Any time a monotheists says "My God" is different from "Your God"---he has fallen into polytheism----for there is only ONE God in existence.

----It is this aspect that disturbs me about Christianity........

[Thucydides1987]

I was making an analogy, but it appears you don't even get it.

Yea and it was a terrible analogy.

[Thucydides1987]

@ siam: "Any time a monotheists says "My God" is different from "Your God"---he has fallen into polytheism----for there is only ONE God in existence.

----It is this aspect that disturbs me about Christianity........"

I agree with you, but Islam isn't innocent in this matter either. In fact Christians don't necessarily say that the Muslim or Jewish God is different from their God, they claim that their God is the true one -- or at least that they worship him in the correct way. Islam makes the same claims about itself, and hence is prone to the same kind of intolerance as Christianity or Judaism.

[Thucydides1987]

Asalaamu Alaikum(peace be with you),

Allah(swt) is neither a He or a She, basically Allah(swt) is nothing like his Creation, He is far greater. The reason we refer to him as "He" is explained here -

Lol, thanks for your response. I was just trying to point out the absurdity of naidamar's statement by showing him that it is equally absurd to say that one supreme asexual being fathered him as when one says that many deities fathered him. Our parents 'fathered' us, no deity or deities were ever involved in the process, I'm quite sure of that :P

[جوري]

Lol, thanks for your response. I was just trying to point out the absurdity of naidamar's statement by showing him that it is equally absurd to say that one supreme asexual being fathered him as when one says that many deities fathered him. Our parents 'fathered' us, no deity or deities were ever involved in the process, I'm quite sure of that :P

Surely even an atheist can tell the difference between procreation and creation ex nihilo?

[IAmZamzam]

I don't understand, why is it psychologically and morally dangerous to believe in more than one god? How could you have the right to say that polytheism is not as sincere enough a devotion as monotheism when you yourself are a monotheist??? That's exceedingly biased and ignorant of you.

I don't know the official name of your fallacy (if there is one) but I think of it as the "those who can, do" fallacy. You hear it a lot when artists have no better response to a critic than the fact that they themselves aren't artists and therefore somehow are magically incapable of recognizing good art when they see it. You know, "This guy has never picked up a guitar in his life, what gives him the nerve to criticize my guitar-playing?!" If no one who couldn't play guitar was capable of doing that then hardly anyone would recognize the talent of Jimi Hendrix or Eric Clapton. Firsthand knowledge isn't the only kind of knowledge and it isn't always even the best: indeed, often people are more likely to be irrationally biased about a group if they themselves are a member. And besides, I could just as well say you have no right to ever criticize theism because you're an atheist. Doesn't work that way, does it?

[Lynx]

I don't know the official name of your fallacy (if there is one) but I think of it as the "those who can, do" fallacy. You hear it a lot when artists have no better response to a critic than the fact that they themselves aren't artists and therefore somehow are magically incapable of recognizing good art when they see it. You know, "This guy has never picked up a guitar in his life, what gives him the nerve to criticize my guitar-playing?!" If no one who couldn't play guitar was capable of doing that then hardly anyone would recognize the talent of Jimi Hendrix or Eric Clapton. Firsthand knowledge isn't the only kind of knowledge and it isn't always even the best: indeed, often people are more likely to be irrationally biased about a group if they themselves are a member. And besides, I could just as well say you have no right to ever criticize theism because you're an atheist. Doesn't work that way, does it?

FYI What you're describing is a clear cut Poisoning the Well fallacy since the attack is being made on the person's supposed lack of knowledge or expertise instead of the argument he has put forward. This might help Thucydides in seeing his mistake.

To the general discussion in the thread:
I've always understood the animosity towards paganism to be isolated towards the particular paganism that existed in Pre-Islamic arabia. As far as I understand the alleged history the Pagans knew about Allah because of Abraham's son and they corrupted the message by adding 'partner's to Allah. This is different from paganism in the form of the ancient Greek pantheon (for example) where there is no concept or understanding of Allah.

[Zafran]

FYI What you're describing is a clear cut Poisoning the Well fallacy since the attack is being made on the person's supposed lack of knowledge or expertise instead of the argument he has put forward. This might help Thucydides in seeing his mistake.

To the general discussion in the thread:
I've always understood the animosity towards paganism to be isolated towards the particular paganism that existed in Pre-Islamic arabia. As far as I understand the alleged history the Pagans knew about Allah because of Abraham's son and they corrupted the message by adding 'partner's to Allah. This is different from paganism in the form of the ancient Greek pantheon (for example) where there is no concept or understanding of Allah.

Muslims believe that God has sent a prophet to every nation - so "paganism" or poytheism of any kind is a corruption of the messege of one God. How do you know the Greeks never had an idea of one God?

[Thucydides1987]

FYI What you're describing is a clear cut Poisoning the Well fallacy since the attack is being made on the person's supposed lack of knowledge or expertise instead of the argument he has put forward. This might help Thucydides in seeing his mistake.

Well, whenever a claim is made as the one he did -- about polytheism being "psychologically and morally more dangerous" than monotheism --, I have no choice but to put into question his knowledge about polytheism. Perhaps you can excuse my suspicion, but without any explanation, that point just sounds ludicrous to me.

[Thucydides1987]

How do you know the Greeks never had an idea of one God?

The Greeks did indeed, but it was only among the educated class. And the God they believed in was very much like the god in Deism, not like the abrahamic one.

[Ramadhan]

Yea and it was a terrible analogy.

Or the alternative: atheists lack capacity for abstract thinking and are too dense to understand simple analogy.

[Zafran]

The Greeks did indeed, but it was only among the educated class. And the God they believed in was very much like the god in Deism, not like the abrahamic one.

thats intresting - your refering to aristotle right?

[Thucydides1987]

Or the alternative: atheists lack capacity for abstract thinking and are too dense to understand simple analogy.

Or the original case: that it truly was a terrible analogy. Not to mention that it showed how little you know of pagan cosmogony and creation myths.

[Thucydides1987]

thats intresting - your refering to aristotle right?

Yea, and I think Plato also believed in one Supreme Being too (not sure about Socrates). There were other philosophers and scientists during the Hellenistic and Roman period as well (323 BC onwards) who espoused this cosmological view because they were adherents to Plato's Academy or Aristotle's Lyceum, but unfortunately I don't have sufficient knowledge about them.

[Ramadhan]

Or the original case: that it truly was a terrible analogy. Not to mention that it showed how little you know of pagan cosmogony and creation myths.

I underestimated you. Apparently the word "dense" was too forgiving for you.
I apologize.

:)

[siam]

@ Thucydides

Intolerance in Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
All 3 claim to worship the ONE God (of Prophet Abraham(pbuh))---Yet, we are egoic and we need to feel different/superior---So the Jews claim they are the "chosen people", the Christians claim that they are special because they are the "saved" ones (on account of believing God sent his son....etc) and we Muslims believe such ideas are false because we are all creations of a compassionate and merciful God who is the final/ultimate Judge---which makes Islam the perfect religion....As the Quran explains---we are focusing on the differences ("schisms")---not on Unity. In order to focus on Unity, we all have to give up our pride, arrogance and ego and approach the Divine with humility.......not at all an easy task because ego is linked with self-identity......

So you might ask---has monotheism failed?----my answer would be no. It is true that our egoic desires are still very strong, yet if we have sight of right belief (Tawheed) we will eventually get to our destination---(Unity). But why can't we get to this destination through polytheism?----because though historically polytheism has been tolerant---it is a system of belief rooted in egoism (division/difference) not on Unity and because of that cannot ever reach that destination.

There is also another system of beliefs---the Shamanistic beliefs of Shintoism and the Native Americans.....it is rooted in a respect for nature and a belief/recognition in a Creative force in nature called Kami or Great Spirit. There is much to admire in this belief system---however, this also falls short of Tawheed, for here, the believers have mistaken the "signs" pointng to God/Divine as the Divine Creative force itself (nature) and worshipped the "signs" instead of worshipping the ONE God the Creator of these "signs".

[Pygoscelis]

Polytheists may learn to accept each other for who they are and tolerate each others different views, whereas the monotheists are far more likely to force their view, the only "acceptable" view, on everybody else.

As soon people go from "to each his own" towards "my way is the only way" I think a lot of new trouble comes. This applies to going from "to each his god" to "my god is the only god, and to worship others is blasphemy".

[siam]

"... I think a lot of new trouble comes."

It is possible that "trouble" will always be there because God has created human beings with different intellectual and spiritual capacities. If we were all the same---there would be no neccesity for tolerance, compassion and mercy---it is our differences and trancending these differences to find our common humanity that requires these noble virtues......

[Thucydides1987]

It is possible that "trouble" will always be there because God has created human beings with different intellectual and spiritual capacities. If we were all the same---there would be no neccesity for tolerance, compassion and mercy---it is our differences and trancending these differences to find our common humanity that requires these noble virtues......

Well, perhaps the way of transcending our differences is simply accepting and living with them, and not trying to universalize a single worldview? In fact, I would argue that something similar to this "Unity" that you speak of was achieved in polytheistic societies, because regardless of the fact that people were worshipping different gods, they all nonetheless recognized each other's "common humanity", since they knew that they were all participating in a shared world full of deities. What I'm trying to say is, that those people all fundamentally had the same religious worldview, and that the variety of deities that they worshipped was based on a common theological foundation -- which is why the worship of multiple deities is a mere triviality. For example, a Roman, whatever god he may have worshipped, would nonetheless respect a Persian's (his sworn enemy's) god, and would not transgress the line of insulting that particular god -- since that Persian god, in the his mind, exists like his own Roman one.

[Lynx]

Muslims believe that God has sent a prophet to every nation - so "paganism" or poytheism of any kind is a corruption of the messege of one God. How do you know the Greeks never had an idea of one God?

Well in the first place your question is problematic; how do you know they didn't all worship unicorns and dragons? In any case, they were just an example and there are plenty of other civilizations with their own pantheon of Gods that did not benefit from people like Plato and Aristotle. Trivialities aside, do you disagree that the pagans mentioned in the Quran refer distinctly to the pagans of Arabia that were outright associating Allah (as their supreme God) with partners? I think there is a significant difference between that sort of pagan and the ones you'd find elsewhere (in egypt as another example).

[Hiroshi]

Muslims believe that God has sent a prophet to every nation

Sorry to but in. I didn't know that Muslims believed this. Is this what the Qur'an says?

[siam]

@ thucydides

"...since they knew that they were all participating in a shared world full of deities."

What you pointed out is exactly my point about the limitations of polytheism. Tawheed takes us from egoism to altruism. For example, today we see ourselves as citizens of a "nation"---we are divided and our identities are based on these divisions. Tawheed makes us understand that an American is the brother of an Afghan and his pain is also the shared pain of the American. This type of thinking can only occur if we transcend mere tolerance and acknowledge our shared brotherhood.

[siam]

"...and not trying to universalize a single worldview?"
---I enjoy the diversity in our world---and Islam has a perspective called "Unity within diversity". The degree to which we have "Unity" within diversity is God's will---I think we should simply enjoy it.......

[siam]

@Hiroshi

Yes---Surah 10 verse 47, Surah 16, verse 36 are some examples

[Ramadhan]

Sorry to but in. I didn't know that Muslims believed this. Is this what the Qur'an says?

QS. 16:36
And verily We have raised in every nation a messenger, (proclaiming): Serve Allah and shun false gods. Then some of them (there were) whom Allah guided, and some of them (there were) upon whom error had just hold. Do but travel in the land and see the nature of the consequence for the deniers!

QS. 35:24-25
Lo! We have sent thee with the Truth, a bearer of glad tidings and a warner; and there is not a nation but a warner hath passed among them.
And if they reject thee, so did their predecessors, to whom came their messengers with Clear Signs, Books of dark prophecies, and the Book of Enlightenment.

QS. 43:6-7
But how many were the prophets We sent amongst the peoples of old?
And never came there a prophet to them but they mocked him

QS. 21:25
Not a messenger did We send before thee without this inspiration sent by Us to him: that there is no god but I; therefore worship and serve Me.

[Hiroshi]

QS. 16:36
And verily We have raised in every nation a messenger, (proclaiming): Serve Allah and shun false gods. Then some of them (there were) whom Allah guided, and some of them (there were) upon whom error had just hold. Do but travel in the land and see the nature of the consequence for the deniers!

QS. 35:24-25
Lo! We have sent thee with the Truth, a bearer of glad tidings and a warner; and there is not a nation but a warner hath passed among them.
And if they reject thee, so did their predecessors, to whom came their messengers with Clear Signs, Books of dark prophecies, and the Book of Enlightenment.

QS. 43:6-7
But how many were the prophets We sent amongst the peoples of old?
And never came there a prophet to them but they mocked him

QS. 21:25
Not a messenger did We send before thee without this inspiration sent by Us to him: that there is no god but I; therefore worship and serve Me.

Thanks Naidamar. That answers my question.

[Hiroshi]

@Hiroshi

Yes---Surah 10 verse 47, Surah 16, verse 36 are some examples

Thanks. Those two verses show that clearly.

[Zafran]

Well in the first place your question is problematic; how do you know they didn't all worship unicorns and dragons? In any case, they were just an example and there are plenty of other civilizations with their own pantheon of Gods that did not benefit from people like Plato and Aristotle. Trivialities aside, do you disagree that the pagans mentioned in the Quran refer distinctly to the pagans of Arabia that were outright associating Allah (as their supreme God) with partners? I think there is a significant difference between that sort of pagan and the ones you'd find elsewhere (in egypt as another example).

The Quran clearly does not Just talk about those polytheists in pagan arabia - but anyone who commits shirk - Thats clear in the Quran. Be it a person who worships a man God (Like Pharoah, Egypt) all the way to a person who believes in the pantheon of Gods like the people of Abhrham pbuh. The stories of the prophets are there for a reason. There messege is clear.

By the way the Question wasnt Trivial - Its clear that some people even in Greece had an idea of a single God (looking at Plato, Aristotle and possibly socrates as well) - If you look at the story of the prophets most of the time they were men that had very few followers or no followers - like Noah, Lot pbuh even Abhrahm pbuh when he was a young boy with his father etc etc.

[IAmZamzam]

FYI What you're describing is a clear cut Poisoning the Well fallacy since the attack is being made on the person's supposed lack of knowledge or expertise instead of the argument he has put forward. This might help Thucydides in seeing his mistake.

Ah, thank you! There are so many different forms of poisoning the well that it gets confusing.

Well, whenever a claim is made as the one he did -- about polytheism being "psychologically and morally more dangerous" than monotheism --, I have no choice but to put into question his knowledge about polytheism. Perhaps you can excuse my suspicion, but without any explanation, that point just sounds ludicrous to me.

Does any claim that anything is psychologically and morally dangerous provoke the same response from you or is it just when it's made over religious matters?

[IAmZamzam]

Polytheists may learn to accept each other for who they are and tolerate each others different views, whereas the monotheists are far more likely to force their view, the only "acceptable" view, on everybody else.

As soon people go from "to each his own" towards "my way is the only way" I think a lot of new trouble comes. This applies to going from "to each his god" to "my god is the only god, and to worship others is blasphemy".

If you, as you've said, don't want people speaking of atheists in a generalizing way, don't speak of monotheists or polytheists in the same way.

[Pygoscelis]

If you, as you've said, don't want people speaking of atheists in a generalizing way, don't speak of monotheists or polytheists in the same way.

"My God is the only god and to worship others is blasphemy" is central to all three of the Abrahamic religions. Perhaps I should not generalize this to any other monotheistic religions that may exist out there, but I actually am not sure if any exist, and they are not front and central in society if they do.

[IAmZamzam]

What about the "forcing their view onto everybody else" part?

Society, shmociety. Once again you are more concerned with what ill effects a belief may have (in your own ignorant and prejudiced mind) than whether it is sincere or even true.

Rule #1 for me as a da'i is not forcing my view onto anyone else. That doesn't mean I'm going to shy away from expressing it. I wonder how much, and with how many people, you project the latter onto the former.

[Insaanah]

I am a Jehovah's Witness and consider myself a Christian but I do not believe in the trinity and I do not believe that Jesus is Almighty God.

You may not believe that he is Almighty God, but you do believe that he is a god, a divine being in addition to Jehovah.

Such beliefs that are found in the different churches that we see today are not a reflection of true Christianity at all.

But, I guess to you as a Jehovah's Witness, the fact that you believe in two gods, one almighty and one not almighty, is.

To a Muslim, 3-in-1, or a hierarchy of two, are not much different.

Peace.

[Thucydides1987]

@ thucydides

"...since they knew that they were all participating in a shared world full of deities."

What you pointed out is exactly my point about the limitations of polytheism. Tawheed takes us from egoism to altruism. For example, today we see ourselves as citizens of a "nation"---we are divided and our identities are based on these divisions. Tawheed makes us understand that an American is the brother of an Afghan and his pain is also the shared pain of the American. This type of thinking can only occur if we transcend mere tolerance and acknowledge our shared brotherhood.

Why does what I said indicate paganism's limitations to you? Perhaps you misunderstood me, but if anything, I pointed out how a pagan society possesses the very "brotherhood" between people that you speak of (Tawheed) -- hence my example about the Roman and Persian.

[جوري]

possesses the very "brotherhood" between people that you speak of (Tawheed)

Tawheed doesn't mean brotherhood. Do you want to do minor research before you gauge a topic? It is getting tedious really!

[Thucydides1987]

Tawheed doesn't mean brotherhood. Do you want to do minor research before you gauge a topic? It is getting tedious really!

Umm, I'm quoting siam; what are you blaming me for? By the way, do you ever post anything else on this site other than insults?

[جوري]

Umm, I'm quoting siam; what are you blaming me for? By the way, do you ever post anything else on this site other than insults?

Siam didn't specify what 'Tawheed' is in his post, you assumed and conjectured as you so often do and then went on to build a faulty argument out of ignorance, I mean it is mildly amusing I'll admit and I am willing to go out on a limb and say you might even get away with it with like minded under-educated individuals but this is an Islamic board and you're engaging Muslims, the least you can do for your own credibility is minor research!..
other than that what is it exactly that you find insulting about the truth. Would you prefer people applaud you for your cognitive conservatism?

[Thucydides1987]

Siam didn't specify what 'Tawheed' is in his post

Yes, he did; read the series of replies we made to one another, where he mentions it with some detail. I'm not suspicious of him that I'd need to go research this concept for myself, I take his word for it, for he is a civil person unlike you.

[IAmZamzam]

My own point remains. (You didn't even try to come up with a real refutation of it, you just retorted with the usual "no outsider to anything can judge it" malarkey.) Devotion to multiple subsets of the same group is never as sincere for a human being as devotion to only one thing, and no kind of polytheism I've ever heard of can really deny through and through that there is a singular entity above all others and/or which created all the other "gods" or oversees them in some way, in which case why not just devote yourself to that one and forget about the rest? It doesn't make any sense. Of course my recognizance of that doesn't automatically amount to hate for pagans. I'm against voting too but most people are voters and don't seem to be as foolish or gullible about the majority of other things in life as they are about putting their trust in politicians: although the thought of men supporting demons still sickens me, the voters themselves usually seem to be merely misguided and not detestable, or at the very least not detestable for that particular reason. Really, there are any number of situations like that in life for most people. It's not like just because we don't approve of a practice it follows as a natural corollary that we're going to hate the practitioner.

[جوري]

Yes, he did; read the series of replies we made to one another, where he mentions it with some detail. I'm not suspicious of him that I'd need to go research this concept for myself, I take his word for it, for he is a civil person unlike you.

It doesn't matter what he says of the word tawheed, many people are misinformed.. you take misinformation and mold it to disseminate more silliness? That is an amazing testament to who you are and what you're capable or rather incapable of, independent thought and thorough research are elusive to you and I think you're indeed a prototype for a typical uneducated atheist who simply spews things to fit into a particular crowd where the notion of intellect and independent thought is rumored but not practiced-- how do you reconcile that with your quote there? for you are indeed a slave to opinions and kid gloves is all you seek.
Hope saving face is more important to you than your credibility!

all the best

[Thucydides1987]

Devotion to multiple subsets of the same group is never as sincere for a human being as devotion to only one thing

You've made no explanation of this statement. How could I take it seriously if you keep repeating it over and over again? How is it more "sincere" a devotion??

no kind of polytheism I've ever heard of can really deny through and through that there is a singular entity above all others and/or which created all the other "gods" or oversees them in some way, in which case why not just devote yourself to that one and forget about the rest? It doesn't make any sense.

Well, clearly you don't seem to understand what the pagan experience is; nor do you seem at all interested. Of course it won't make any sense to you if you approach this religion through monotheistic preconceptions about worship, a God, and doctrine.

[Thucydides1987]

doesn't matter what he says of the word tawheed, many people are misinformed..

Well then inform him of his error (if you truly believe it to be so), and correct him. I'm not writing a phd dissertation on this so I'm happy to take the word of Muslims on this forum about their own faith, rather than spending hours reading books on Islam. If you have such a problem with misinformation, deal with its source -- which is not me, I am the recipient of the information. You just like me cause i'm an atheist, isn't it so ;)

[جوري]

Well then inform him of his error (if you truly believe it to be so), and correct him. I'm not writing a phd dissertation on this so I'm happy to take the word of Muslims on this forum about their own faith, rather than spending hours reading books on Islam. If you have such a problem with misinformation, deal with its source -- which is not me, I am the recipient of the information. You just like me cause i'm an atheist, isn't it so ;)

If he made an error, which I havn't seen simply because I haven't read all the codswallop that is dispensed here, what is your excuse? rather what is your excuse on every thread, such as we've seen here do you want to make marginal effort before yapping your bazoo on ANY thread? Don't get me wrong, I think people here already take what you write with a little less than a grain of salt. But what is your purpose writing if you can't establish credibility.. Are you simply socializing? or do you want to waste your time and ours?

This isn't a social forum, other people frequent it as well, the least you can do to represent your clan is utter a word of truth, if you want to bring the quota down for the whole country, then do it on an atheist forum, ignorance is acceptable there so long as you wear the label!

all the best

[siam]

@ Thucydides

My apologies....I think I did not explain the term Tawheed properly.

Tawheed(Unity)= God is One, Unique, Genderless, Indivisible, Infinite, Independent, yet, all Creation (and all creation is finite) is dependent upon him, he is independent of his creation......

From Tawheed springs all the other concepts in Islam----for example, all men and women are inherently equal because we are all equally dependent upon God and are equally his creation. Therefore, an individual or group are not inherently created superior to another. This carries over to justice, governance etc---for example, everyone is equal under the law, no person or group has special privilege because of wealth or status. In Governance---a leader, Monarch, or Caliph is not inherently superior to his subjects, rather is in the position of leadership as a representative of the people.....and so on.....This creates a core difference in the mindset/worldview---as you yourself explained in the previous post---between polytheists and Tawheed. The polytheist "brotherhood" is based on tolerance of "another" who is substantially different from the "in-group". That is, "they" have a different creater god who takes care of their needs. Tolerance need not acknowledge equality of the "other". This type of worldview cannot transcend the ego and accept that all human beings are equally brothers and sisters of each other and have God-given rights, liberties, and responsibilities the same as all other brothers and sisters---that we are all equally dependent upon the compassion and mercy of the ONE God who created us all. The polytheists lack this core vision and this limits the benefits of their religion to humanity.

That does not mean we monotheists have succeeded in implementing this vision either...as I said, our egos are still strong-----the difference is that this core vision exits in monotheism and is therefore a goal one can strive towards. The purpose of such a vision is to create "Unity" (One God) so that all of us in our different capacities acknowledge that we serve the ONE God and strive to do his will---which is to have right belief that promotes right intentions that lead to right actions for the benefit of all of God's creations.

[Pygoscelis]

Society, shmociety. Once again you are more concerned with what ill effects a belief may have (in your own ignorant and prejudiced mind) than whether it is sincere or even true.

The Gods that people create or adopt and that they choose to worship says a lot about the mindsets of those people, so yes, absolutely, I am very concerned with the beliefs people create or adopt and the effects of these beliefs. Just as I am concerned with the effects that racist beliefs have on people, I am concerned with the effects that some religious beliefs have on people. It isn't enough that the beliefs are not true. That people hold them has effects that we should be concerned with.

[siam]

"Devotion to multiple subsets of the same group is never as sincere for a human being as devotion to only one thing"

I am probably taking what Yahya said out of context, because I havn't read his previous posts....but as a Muslim on some Catholic boards, I have experienced this type of insincere "tolerance" that was laced with contempt for the other. (---The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that Muslims worship the same God and are included in the plan of salvation (whatever that means))

[IAmZamzam]

You've made no explanation of this statement. How could I take it seriously if you keep repeating it over and over again? How is it more "sincere" a devotion??

It's a very common element of human experience that trying to devote yourself to two contradictory causes is less plausible, and harder to be sincere about, than devoting yourself to only one of them. Don't you see it all over the place? Would you be denying it, or acting nearly as confused, if we weren't talking about religious devotion specifically?

Well, clearly you don't seem to understand what the pagan experience is; nor do you seem at all interested. Of course it won't make any sense to you if you approach this religion through monotheistic preconceptions about worship, a God, and doctrine.

Again, how if I said, "Of course theism won't make any sense to you if you approach it through atheistic preconceptions?" Has it occurred to you that maybe I formed my bias toward monotheism because of the reasons why I find polytheism unacceptable, and not the other way around? Can't you come up with a single actual argument against what I'm saying, instead of the mindset you're jumping to the conclusion that I'm saying it out of?

[جوري]

It does when she has done it so long and so pointlessly that we have come to ignore whatever text appears beside her name.

Glad to see you've finally bonded with a 'Muslim' and after a half a decade.. a shame that your seething aversion is all that came out of it 'talk about a tribal isolationist'.. I have reported your diatribe and if you had something of substance to impart (ever) and weren't so desperate not to have your posts deleted for being little more than just that diatribe then perhaps you'd make use of the report a post feature? Wanting someone to know you are ignoring them by pointing it out and repeatedly sort of defeats the purpose!

all the best

[IAmZamzam]

"Devotion to multiple subsets of the same group is never as sincere for a human being as devotion to only one thing"

I am probably taking what Yahya said out of context, because I havn't read his previous posts....but as a Muslim on some Catholic boards, I have experienced this type of insincere "tolerance" that was laced with contempt for the other. (---The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that Muslims worship the same God and are included in the plan of salvation (whatever that means))

I don't know if you're taking me out of context or not but if I follow you (and maybe I don't) you haven't comprehended by point.

[IAmZamzam]

Pygoscelis, if you gave one whit of greater priority to fact than to psychological presumptions about the people who hold to particular views about what is or isn't factual, you will have learned more from that one experience than you're likely to otherwise in the course of an entire decade. You keep ignorantly slinging the term "ad hominem" around at others and yet you're the one who proudly proclaims practically every post that one must focus at least as much on the people who believe something as whether they're right to believe it. True ad hominem, as opposed to the inaccurate sense in which you and virtually everyone else who ever uses the term means it, is the very essence of apparently your entire worldview about everything.

By the way, speaking of terms you overuse and misuse, if you utter the word "tribalism" one more time then God willing I will come to ignore whatever text appears beside your name. lily isn't the only one who hates it when you do that.

[Thucydides1987]

It's a very common element of human experience that trying to devote yourself to two contradictory causes is less plausible, and harder to be sincere about

What do you mean by a devotion to "contradictory causes"? Is this supposed to be a reference to the worship of more than one deity in paganism? If so, why is the devotion to say, Zeus and Apollo "contradictory"?

Has it occurred to you that maybe I formed my bias toward monotheism because of the reasons why I find polytheism unacceptable,

It's one thing to have a bias that is established from being well-informed about something, but it is something else when you have a bias against a matter out of a total lack of understanding of it. I'm sorry to hurt you by saying what I have said, but you have not shown to me that you understand paganism; thus far, your understanding of paganism is the common view preached by monotheism, which by nature has maligned, and has thrived on the malignancy of, pagan worship throughout its history.

[M.I.A.]

What do you mean by a devotion to "contradictory causes"? Is this supposed to be a reference to the worship of more than one deity in paganism? If so, why is the devotion to say, Zeus and Apollo "contradictory"?



It's one thing to have a bias that is established from being well-informed about something, but it is something else when you have a bias against a matter out of a total lack of understanding of it. I'm sorry to hurt you by saying what I have said, but you have not shown to me that you understand paganism; thus far, your understanding of paganism is the common view preached by monotheism, which by nature has maligned, and has thrived on the malignancy of, pagan worship throughout its history.

everytime i see zeus and apollo they are in the form of men(on tv of course), im completely ignorant of if that is how they were represented a long long time ago.

also has anybody seen "the warriors"

well thats lightened the mood a bit, see you again.

[siam]

@Yahya
"you haven't comprehended by point. "

In that case, my apologies for incorrectly quoting you.......I shouldn't have since I hadn't read all of your posts........

[Thucydides1987]

@ Thucydides

My apologies....I think I did not explain the term Tawheed properly.

Tawheed(Unity)= God is One, Unique, Genderless, Indivisible, Infinite, Independent, yet, all Creation (and all creation is finite) is dependent upon him, he is independent of his creation......

The polytheist "brotherhood" is based on tolerance of "another" who is substantially different from the "in-group". That is, "they" have a different creater god who takes care of their needs. Tolerance need not acknowledge equality of the "other".

I feel like you're comparing the concept of tolerance in a pagan society to the idea of tolerance in modern multicultural theory -- this is not quite correct. All people in a pagan society believed in and revered/respected all the gods of that society.

With regard to what you said about "different creator god[s]" in paganism: it wasn't the case where it was clearly stated which god belonged to which people -- we rarely have historical evidence of this. Even when you do have a specific god who created a certain people, you never see that particular god being exclusively worshipped by those people who are said to have been created by him -- he is still worshipped by all members of the polytheistic community. For example, the Egyptian goddess Isis was worshipped in Rome and all over Roman Europe, regardless of her being Egyptian in origin.

[IAmZamzam]

Thucydides, believe me when I say that it would take a lot better than you seem to be able to dish out to hurt me.

"All people in in a pagan society believed in and revered/respected all the gods of that society." As I've been telling you, that is precisely the problem! Zeus and Apollo are different deities and the nature of worship demands that one place the object of worship higher than anything else lest you could barely call it worship at all. Devotion of any kind is like that (as everyone knows from constant everyday secular issues), but worship most especially. I'm very sorry if disagreeing with you automatically makes me a typical ignorant schlob, but even you don't seem to be able to deny the logic that if there is always a single highest god, original creator, etc., then not to worship that one god alone is foolish and pointless. Instead, you just prattle about cultures and societies and communities as if they had anything to do with it.

[Hossam Al-Deen]

Muslims believe that God has sent a prophet to every nation - so "paganism" or poytheism of any kind is a corruption of the messege of one God. How do you know the Greeks never had an idea of one God?

Just to add to your argument, Plato and Aristotle did believe in the one God through deep contemplation and long periods of reflecting about life, existence, and the "nature of things." They rejected the false mythologies that the majority of society believed in as far as I can remember.

[Ramadhan]

The Gods that people create or adopt and that they choose to worship says a lot about the mindsets of those people, so yes, absolutely, I am very concerned with the beliefs people create or adopt and the effects of these beliefs. Just as I am concerned with the effects that racist beliefs have on people, I am concerned with the effects that some religious beliefs have on people. It isn't enough that the beliefs are not true. That people hold them has effects that we should be concerned with.

If that is your position, then not only should yo be concerned but shouldn't you also be totally against atheism, seeing the effect of atheism on people like pol pot, stalin, mao, and their friends?

but of course you would say they were not real atheists, just like christians would also deny that hitler, rwandan priests and nuns, digusting popes, paedophile priests and pastors, european kings, evil evangelists, george bush etc were also not real christians.

LOL.

[siam]

@ Thucydides
"I feel like you're comparing the concept of tolerance in a pagan society to the idea of tolerance in modern multicultural theory"----interesting point---hadn't thought about it this way.....

Both of us are making speculations about Pagans from what we understand. I am looking/speculating at it from what (little) I understand of the Pre-Islamic world. For example, The Christians called God "Allah" which is Arabic for God, the Pagan Arabs called their God "Allah" also. Therefore, should one assume that both the Christians and Pagans felt they were worshipping the same God? The Pagan Allah(God) had daughters, for some Christians Allah(God) had a son.

It is interesting that when Islam came, the Arabic name for God---Allah is retained instead of using a completely different name/label. What changed isn't the name but the concept of God---embodied in the Tawheed. Why?---it would have been easier to simply put a "new" name to a "new" concept to distinguish it from other concepts. ----but that is the whole point. Tawheed isn't division---it is UNITY.
(This "UNITY" is also not "new" ---it isn't something man thought up in the 7th century----It has been God's will since the start of humanity. However, ego/division keeps getting in the way. Judaism also has some similar ideas in the "Shema" and the Talmud Sanhedrin though not as fully expressed as the Tawheed.)

Its OK if you don't understand it. Sometimes some things are just difficult to explain---and I am probably not communicating well....maybe someone else can explain it better than I can?

anyway, this is the way i see it.........

[Hiroshi]

You may not believe that he is Almighty God, but you do believe that he is a god, a divine being in addition to Jehovah.

Yes. It must be understood that I believe in the Bible and the Bible occasionally, and quite properly, applies the term "god" to others apart from the Supreme Being. The Israelite judges, the angels, Satan and Jesus are all referred to as "god" in various passages (Isaiah 9:6; Psalms 8:5; John 10:34-35; 2 Corinthians 4:4). The popular and widely held view that "God" should be applied to no one except for the Almighty carries with it a misunderstanding of the Bible's designation of Jesus.

But, I guess to you as a Jehovah's Witness, the fact that you believe in two gods, one almighty and one not almighty, is.

To a Muslim, 3-in-1, or a hierarchy of two, are not much different.

Okay. But my view of Jesus is just that he is a servant of God that has been given great authority by God.

[Mohamed Issa]

How dare people make lies about Allah (SWT) saying he has a son or not worshiping him, everone who believes in god hates the Pagan godless people & wishes 2 things of them 1 their destruction 2 them worshiping the one & only god Allah (SWT). 31. They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only One God. There is no god save Him. Be He glorified from all that they ascribe as partner (unto Him)! (Surah 9. At-Tauba Holy Quran), [5:17] Pagans indeed are those who say that GOD is the Messiah, the son of Mary. Say, "Who could oppose GOD if He willed to annihilate the Messiah, son of Mary, and his mother, and everyone on earth?" To GOD belongs the sovereignty of the heavens and the earth, and everything between them. He creates whatever He wills. GOD is Omnipotent. [5:18] The Jews and the Christians said, "We are GOD's children and His beloved." Say, "Why then does He punish you for your sins? You are just humans like the other humans He created." He forgives whomever He wills and punishes whomever He wills. To GOD belongs the sovereignty of the heavens and the earth, and everything between them, and to Him is the final destiny. (Surah 5 The Feast).

[Hiroshi]

How dare people make lies about Allah (SWT) saying he has a son or not worshiping him, everone who believes in god hates the Pagan godless people

I don't hate pagan godless people. I hate what they are doing. But I would want to help them rather than wish for their destruction.

[Thucydides1987]

For example, The Christians called God "Allah" which is Arabic for God, the Pagan Arabs called their God "Allah" also. Therefore, should one assume that both the Christians and Pagans felt they were worshipping the same God? The Pagan Allah(God) had daughters, for some Christians Allah(God) had a son.

Are you talking about the Christians in the Arabic Peninsula? Cause Christians would have called God by whatever word they would have had in their respective language: the Romans called him "Deus", the Greeks "Theos", the Armenians "Astvats", etc etc. Regardless of what they called god, I do agree with you that the concept of God changed with the advent of monotheism.

I think you generally explained Tawheed very well, so I more or less understand it :)

[Thucydides1987]

How dare people make lies about Allah (SWT) saying he has a son or not worshiping him, everone who believes in god hates the Pagan godless people & wishes 2 things of them 1 their destruction 2 them worshiping the one & only god Allah (SWT). 31. They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only One God. There is no god save Him. Be He glorified from all that they ascribe as partner (unto Him)! (Surah 9. At-Tauba Holy Quran), [5:17] Pagans indeed are those who say that GOD is the Messiah, the son of Mary. Say, "Who could oppose GOD if He willed to annihilate the Messiah, son of Mary, and his mother, and everyone on earth?" To GOD belongs the sovereignty of the heavens and the earth, and everything between them. He creates whatever He wills. GOD is Omnipotent. [5:18] The Jews and the Christians said, "We are GOD's children and His beloved." Say, "Why then does He punish you for your sins? You are just humans like the other humans He created." He forgives whomever He wills and punishes whomever He wills. To GOD belongs the sovereignty of the heavens and the earth, and everything between them, and to Him is the final destiny. (Surah 5 The Feast).

This is what I meant when I asked people NOT to provide a case against paganism by reiterating verses from their holy books like parrots.

[Thucydides1987]

If that is your position, then not only should yo be concerned but shouldn't you also be totally against atheism, seeing the effect of atheism on people like pol pot, stalin, mao, and their friends?

It wasnt for the sake of atheism that they killed so many people; they were dictators and it makes no difference whether you are a religious or a secular dictator -- you're equally ruthless. On the other hand, it WAS for the sake of God that Urban II started the Crusades, or that you have Shias being blown up by Sunnis every year.

[Thucydides1987]

Just to add to your argument, Plato and Aristotle did believe in the one God through deep contemplation and long periods of reflecting about life, existence, and the "nature of things."

Once again, you have to remember that the one God that they believed in was not the Abrahamic God.

[Thucydides1987]

Zeus and Apollo are different deities and the nature of worship demands that one place the object of worship higher than anything else lest you could barely call it worship at all

Why is it necessary to hierarchically place one deity over another like that? The point is that they are gods and that they are both above YOU, hence you should pay equal respect to them both.

Instead, you just prattle about cultures and societies and communities as if they had anything to do with it.

I'm trying to explain to you their beliefs, which obviously needs to be put into cultural context since they lived in a world very different from our own (a world, by the way, which Christianity and Islam destroyed). You, however, don't want to hear it and immediately refer back to your monotheist thinking and dismiss their religious beliefs by calling it "pointless" and "foolish". For example, as you state in the following quote:

but even you don't seem to be able to deny the logic that if there is always a single highest god, original creator, etc., then not to worship that one god alone is foolish and pointless.

That logic would stand only IF there is a consensus for a single highest god. The pagans did not think that there was, so it is not right to call them "foolish" according to your monotheist standards since pagans do not adhere to such ways of thought. This is exactly what I mean when I say that you are ignorant of the way they thought.

[GuestFellow]

But the idols are not "God"; they are deities of particular pagan cults and have no association to your abrahamic god. An idol of Zeus or Isis are not attempted images of Allah...

Oh okay. I'm fine with that.

[Zafran]

It wasnt for the sake of atheism that they killed so many people; they were dictators and it makes no difference whether you are a religious or a secular dictator -- you're equally ruthless. On the other hand, it WAS for the sake of God that Urban II started the Crusades, or that you have Shias being blown up by Sunnis every year.

Not true Stalin did persecute believers like christians they were heavily presecuted under his regime - simply because they believed in christainty. Furthermore its true Atheism is meaningless however the hatred of religion that some athiest have and in past has led to the persecution of religous people.

sunnis and shias were living fine until somebody decided to put a wall in between them atleast in Iraq.

[Zafran]

Once again, you have to remember that the one God that they believed in was not the Abrahamic God.

How do you know that?

[Perseveranze]

It wasnt for the sake of atheism that they killed so many people; they were dictators and it makes no difference whether you are a religious or a secular dictator -- you're equally ruthless. On the other hand, it WAS for the sake of God that Urban II started the Crusades, or that you have Shias being blown up by Sunnis every year.

Asalaamu Alaikum,

Former atheist Ignace Lepp states "some modern atheists are unquestionably neurotics" which he bases typically on an unhappy experience with religion.[78] Sam Harris has been criticized by some of his fellow contributors at The Huffington Post. In particular, RJ Eskow has accused him of fostering an intolerance towards faith, potentially as damaging as the religious fanaticism which he opposes.[14][15] Madeleine Bunting wrote in The Guardian that the purpose of recent books by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens "is to pour scorn on religious belief – they want it eradicated," and argues that the books are "deeply political," sharing a "loathing" of the role of religion in US politics. Quoting Harris as saying "some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them," Bunting says "[t]his sounds like exactly the kind of argument put forward by those who ran the Inquisition."[79] Quoting the same passage, theologian Catherine Keller asks, "[c]ould there be a more dangerous proposition than that?" and argues that the "anti-tolerance" it represents would "dismantle" the Jeffersonian wall between church and state.[80]

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

One criticism of atheism is that godless nations have been responsible for aggressive campaigns against religions or religious people. Pope Benedict XVI, for example, stated in 2010:

As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the twentieth century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a "reductive vision of the person and his destiny"[85]

While research suggests that atheists are more numerous in peaceful nations than they are in turbulent or warlike ones,[86] proponents of this view cite examples, such as the Bolsheviks (in Soviet Russia), who, inspired by "an ideological creed which professed that all religion would atrophy", "resolved to eradicate Christianity as such". In 1918 "[t]en Orthodox hierarchs were summarily shot" and "[c]hildren were deprived of any religious education outside the home."[87] Increasingly draconian measures were employed. In addition to direct state persecution, the League of the Militant Godless was founded in 1925, churches were closed and vandalized and "by 1938 eighty bishops had lost their lives, while thousands of clerics were sent to labour camps."[88]
In 1967, Enver Hoxha's regime conducted a campaign to extinguish religious life in Albania; by year's end over two thousand religious buildings were closed or converted to other uses, and religious leaders were imprisoned and executed. Albania was declared to be the world's first atheist country by its leaders, and Article 37 of the Albanian constitution of 1976 stated that "The State recognises no religion, and supports and carries out atheistic propaganda in order to implant a scientific materialistic world outlook in people."[89][90][91]
Christian writer Dinesh D'Souza writes that "The crimes of atheism have generally been perpetrated through a hubristic ideology that sees man, not God, as the creator of values. Using the latest techniques of science and technology, man seeks to displace God and create a secular utopia here on earth."[16] He also contends:

And who can deny that Stalin and Mao, not to mention Pol Pot and a host of others, all committed atrocities in the name of a Communist ideology that was explicitly atheistic? Who can dispute that they did their bloody deeds by claiming to be establishing a 'new man' and a religion-free utopia? These were mass murders performed with atheism as a central part of their ideological inspiration, they were not mass murders done by people who simply happened to be atheist.[17]

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

Some philosophers and world religions teach that morality is derived from or expressed by the dictates or commandments of a particular deity, and that acknowledgment of God or the gods is a major factor in motivating people towards moral behavior. The philosopher Immanuel Kant stated the practical necessity for a belief in God in his Critique of Practical Reason. As an idea of pure reason, "we do not have the slightest ground to assume in an absolute manner… the object of this idea…",[45] but adds that the idea of God cannot be separated from the relation of happiness with morality as the "ideal of the supreme good." The foundation of this connection is an intelligible moral world, and "is necessary from the practical point of view".[46] The French philosopher Voltaire stated "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."[47]
Niall Ferguson states that without religion there would be no basis for an ethical framework for a person's life, and refers to G. K. Chesterton's rumoured apothegm "When men stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing. They believe in anything". He states that based on historical observation and studies performed by his colleagues at Harvard University that there is "no question there’s a connection between religion and economic and social behaviour" and he is "strongly convinced that religion performs important social functions in the transmission say, of ethical values between generations" and without it exists "a society that’s likely to be less good at maintaining social order".[48][49] Historically, practical atheism or apatheism — which describes individuals who live as if there are no gods and explain natural phenomena without resorting to the divine — has been associated by various writers with depravity, willful ignorance, impiety, and hedonism. According to the French Catholic philosopher Étienne Borne, "Practical atheism is not the denial of the existence of God, but complete godlessness of action; it is a moral evil, implying not the denial of the absolute validity of the moral law but simply rebellion against that law."[6] For many years in the United States, atheists were not allowed to testify in court because it was believed that an atheist would have no reason to tell the truth (see also discrimination against atheists).[50]

[Zafran]

salaam

No wonder you have so many albanian athiest - they were muslims before that

Cant believe that albania was the first athiest country.

Intresting stuff by the way - some of those quotes and ideas are intresting

peace

[Ramadhan]

It wasnt for the sake of atheism that they killed so many people; they were dictators and it makes no difference whether you are a religious or a secular dictator -- you're equally ruthless

That's so not true. Those atheist dictators saw exactly the same thing as you do: They all thought religions are bad for the people, so they went on systemic plan to eradicate religions.
And in the process torturing and killing a hundred of millions of people.

[Thucydides1987]

How do you know that?

Because there is absolutely no evidence of any acquaintance with Judaism in their writing (I mention Judaism because that was the only Abrahamic religion at the time). As I stated earlier, their 'God' was like the Deistic God. Hellenistic scientists state so themselves, that the Supreme Being is merely a prime mover, and does not directly interfere with the affairs of men on earth, nor hears their prayers. Which is why the idea of worship was a foolish and futile thing.

[Thucydides1987]

Not true Stalin did persecute believers like christians they were heavily presecuted under his regime - simply because they believed in christainty.

Well, I would argue that he persecuted the Christians because he wanted to gain power over the institution of the Russian Orthodox Church, not because he hated people who believed in Christianity. I don't think it mattered to him what people believed, as long as he had attained absolute power. Religious institutions have a way of influencing people to turn away from the government.

[Thucydides1987]

sunnis and shias were living fine until somebody decided to put a wall in between them atleast in Iraq.

But how do you account for the historical persecution of the Shia during the Caliphate, then? Or the antagonism between the Safavids and Ottomans (surely, the Sunni and Shia problem added to the conflict between the two empires)? All of this was before Western colonization.

[Mohamed Issa]

How dare you Kafir call me a Parrot, I don't care what Pagans think Allah (SWT) says worship him & thats what people of the world Should do. So you are a Atheist saying with pride you don't worship the creator Allah (SWT) than don't live in his Earth, don't use his water, or don't breathe his air. Get your Kafir Atheist scientists to create a world oh thats right they cann't. Its time to worship the creator Allah (SWT). 67:15 It is He Who has made the earth manageable for you, so traverse ye through its tracts and enjoy of the Sustenance which He furnishes: but unto Him is the Resurrection. 67:16 Do ye feel secure that He Who is in heaven will not cause you to be swallowed up by the earth when it shakes (as in an earthquake)? 67:17 Or do ye feel secure that He Who is in Heaven will not send against you a violent tornado (with showers of stones), so that ye shall know how (terrible) was My warning? 67:18 But indeed men before them rejected (My warning): then how (terrible) was My rejection (of them)? 67:23 Say: "It is He Who has created you (and made you grow), and made for you the faculties of hearing, seeing, feeling and understanding: little thanks it is ye give. 67:30 Say: "See ye?- If your stream be some morning lost (in the underground earth), who then can supply you with clear-flowing water?" ( The Holy Quran Surah 67 Al Mulk)

This is what I meant when I asked people NOT to provide a case against paganism by reiterating verses from their holy books like parrots.

[Thucydides1987]

67:15 It is He Who has made the earth manageable for you, so traverse ye through its tracts and enjoy of the Sustenance which He furnishes: but unto Him is the Resurrection. 67:16 Do ye feel secure that He Who is in heaven will not cause you to be swallowed up by the earth when it shakes (as in an earthquake)? 67:17 Or do ye feel secure that He Who is in Heaven will not send against you a violent tornado (with showers of stones), so that ye shall know how (terrible) was My warning? 67:18 But indeed men before them rejected (My warning): then how (terrible) was My rejection (of them)? 67:23 Say: "It is He Who has created you (and made you grow), and made for you the faculties of hearing, seeing, feeling and understanding: little thanks it is ye give. 67:30 Say: "See ye?- If your stream be some morning lost (in the underground earth), who then can supply you with clear-flowing water?" ( The Holy Quran Surah 67 Al Mulk)

Well I appreciate your poetic response :)

[Zafran]

But how do you account for the historical persecution of the Shia during the Caliphate, then? Or the antagonism between the Safavids and Ottomans (surely, the Sunni and Shia problem added to the conflict between the two empires)? All of this was before Western colonization.

I'll be like you and blame it on power politics rather then religion atleast when it came to Ottoman safvid split - not religion realy to blame.

furthermore when did the caliphate persecute the shia? - you do know what the Caliphate period is right? - the shia were not around then - they came about after the reign of Ali (ra) the last rightly guided caliph (although some say Umar abdul aziz (ra) was the last rightly guided caliph).

[Zafran]

Because there is absolutely no evidence of any acquaintance with Judaism in their writing (I mention Judaism because that was the only Abrahamic religion at the time). As I stated earlier, their 'God' was like the Deistic God. Hellenistic scientists state so themselves, that the Supreme Being is merely a prime mover, and does not directly interfere with the affairs of men on earth, nor hears their prayers. Which is why the idea of worship was a foolish and futile thing.

It doesnt have to be the God Of Isreal specifically - I'm sure "hellenistic scientists" differed with each other about the supreme diety -

Its well known that Greeks believed the "Gods" interfered with daily life so I'm not sure where you get the idea of prayer being foolish and futile.

[Zafran]

Well, I would argue that he persecuted the Christians because he wanted to gain power over the institution of the Russian Orthodox Church, not because he hated people who believed in Christianity. I don't think it mattered to him what people believed, as long as he had attained absolute power. Religious institutions have a way of influencing people to turn away from the government.

It did matter - under stalin and before under Lenin the athiests systematically targeted christains because of there beliefs - You could argue it was for power but so could a christain about Pope Urban the second and the crusade.

[Mohamed Issa]

Oh please stop lying I hate what they are doing sure you do, its a known fact that Christians are the most bloodthirst vampires who forced all of Europe to be Christians or die. Their method was evil like their Pope but Pagans had to be destoryed so they can worship the creator. Now the Christians of Europe need saving from the evil lies of Christianity how dare the Pope or priests lie & say god has a son ALLAHU AKBAR Allah is great he doesn't need suck a thing. 19:34 Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute. 19:35 It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is. 19:36 Verily Allah is my Lord and your Lord: Him therefore serve ye: this is a Way that is straight. 19:37 But the sects differ among themselves: and woe to the unbelievers because of the (coming) Judgment of a Momentous Day! (The Holy Quran Surah 19 Mary) Lets all pray that the conquest of Rome will happen in our life time so that we may see truth (Islam) destroy falsehood (Christianity) like how it was done in Constantinople. Both are in hadiths says of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) its just a matter when Rome falls.

I don't hate pagan godless people. I hate what they are doing. But I would want to help them rather than wish for their destruction.

[Hiroshi]

Oh please stop lying I hate what they are doing sure you do, its a known fact that Christians are the most bloodthirst vampires who forced all of Europe to be Christians or die.

Actually, I could probably hate the bloodthirsty false Christians that you describe here.

[Thucydides1987]

furthermore when did the caliphate persecute the shia? - you do know what the Caliphate period is right? - the shia were not around then - they came about after the reign of Ali (ra) the last rightly guided caliph (although some say Umar abdul aziz (ra) was the last rightly guided caliph).

Well, unless the history I read was fraudulent, I think I'm more or less informed on this particular subject. Correct me if I'm wrong, but ever since the battle of Karbala (~680AD?)-- fought because Hussein didn't acknowledge the caliphate of the time --, hadn't the persecution of the Shia under the Umayyad dynasty essentially begun. Which makes the conflict between the Sunni and Shia go way back to early Islamic history, no?

Its well known that Greeks believed the "Gods" interfered with daily life so I'm not sure where you get the idea of prayer being foolish and futile.

I was talking about this from many of the philosophers' and scientists' point of view about the pagan masses, whose beliefs in the gods they rejected.

It did matter - under stalin and before under Lenin the athiests systematically targeted christains because of there beliefs - You could argue it was for power but so could a christain about Pope Urban the second and the crusade.

I concede to you on that point there. But that doesn't mean that an atheist is inherently a worse and more destructive a ruler than a theist. This part of out exchange is slightly getting off topic, although I would love to talk about it more.

[Zafran]

Well, unless the history I read was fraudulent, I think I'm more or less informed on this particular subject. Correct me if I'm wrong, but ever since the battle of Karbala (~680AD?)-- fought because Hussein didn't acknowledge the caliphate of the time --, hadn't the persecution of the Shia under the Umayyad dynasty essentially begun. Which makes the conflict between the Sunni and Shia go way back to early Islamic history, no?

Hussien (ra) is dear to the sunnis as he is to the Shia as he is ahul bait (the family of the prophet) - The ummayed were like any worldly dynasty - the calipahte period specifcally relates to the 4 rightly guided Caliphs from Abu Bakr (ra) all the way to Ali (ra) - the Ummayed period is seen as a different period in history. You do know that right?

[Ramadhan]

You do know that right?

You are too generous in assuming Thucydides1987 had the basic knowledge about Islam.

[جوري]

You are too generous in assuming Thucydides1987 had the basic knowledge about Islam.

actually that applies to everything not just Islam from Roman law to basics of terminology..no standards and no credibility but hey as the admin put it, telling them how it is is off putting so get your kid glove out and turn the other cheek to gross error!

:w:

[Thucydides1987]

Hussien (ra) is dear to the sunnis as he is to the Shia as he is ahul bait (the family of the prophet) - The ummayed were like any worldly dynasty - the calipahte period specifcally relates to the 4 rightly guided Caliphs from Abu Bakr (ra) all the way to Ali (ra) - the Ummayed period is seen as a different period in history. You do know that right?

Yes, and I was referring specifically to the Umayyad period/Caliphate, for it was from then onwards that the persecutions of the Shia began. I never heard of "The Caliphate Period" the way you refer to it. I know of the period of the first 4 caliphs to be called the "Rashidun Caliphate", but never as the time of "The Caliphate"...especially considering that there were different "caliphates" all over the middle east throughout history (the cordoba caliphate, the abassid caliphate, etc.)

[Thucydides1987]

actually that applies to everything not just Islam from Roman law to basics of terminology..no standards and no credibility but hey as the admin put it, telling them how it is is off putting so get your kid glove out and turn the other cheek to gross error!

ou are too generous in assuming Thucydides1987 had the basic knowledge about Islam.

Do you two have anything else to contribute to this discussion other than your immature and puerile babbling?

[جوري]

Do you two have anything else to contribute to this discussion other than your immature and puerile babbling?

Do you have anything to impart that isn't the collective sum of what other members have in fact opined of you?
most things that have been written have flown completely over your head, why are you so disturbed by folks pointing that out?

all the best

[siam]

I was reflecting on the comment about Paganism and Multiculturarism.......

Surah 109, very appropriately titled Al-Kafirun......
1. You who reject faith
2. I do not worship what you worship
3. Nor do you worship what I worship
4. I will jot worship that which you worship
5. Nor will you worship that which I worship
6. to you be your way and to me mine

I think it is interesting to look at "Multikulti" in light of the above surah. I have (until recently) thought multikulti was a good idea----but had started having doubts about it when the "west" began to demand that Muslims assimilate by watering down our religious practices and beliefs and be "just like them".

Thucydides mentioned that Pagans simply add other Gods to their already existing pantheon of Gods and respect and worship them. ----I would call that "tolerance/co-existance with compromise". What the Quran advocates is the next evolutionary step from this---which is tolerance/co-existence without compromise. Truth cannot be compromised---for to do so would corrupt it and it would no longer be Truth. Therefore co-existence, while at the same time staying True, is a better way for the integrity of man. ---Thomas Paine said "....But it is necessary to the happiness of man, that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing or disbelieving; it consists in proffesing to believe what he does not believe."

I think western multikulti is Paganistic when it calls for compromise of Truth. Could that be why they are unhappy with Muslims?---because Muslims strive to stay True?

In my Opinion---the next evolutionary step from tolerance/co-existence without compromise is Tawheed (Unity)---the recognition of the Universal truth of ONE God---regradless of what relgious labels or religious laws we choose to follow. For us Muslims---we can see a glimmer of this in our Hajj where people from all accross the Globe come together in worship of the ONE Universal Truth. ---Can you imagine a world where not just those of us who label ourselves Muslims, but everyone of all faiths acknowledged the One and came to do His will at Hajj?----what an incredible world it might be? self-identity would no longer be important because Gods Will would be our priority?......or is this a bit too sufi?.....anyway---just my thoughts......

....and another thought.....comparing western assimilative Multikulti with the way Islam dealth with the problem in Muslim history where people of other faiths were allowed to stay true to their religion and laws.......

[Thucydides1987]

most things that have been written have flown completely over your head, why are you so disturbed by folks pointing that out?

If there's anything disturbing to me, it's your insolence toward non-Muslims on these forums; how you hop from one thread to another with the sole purpose of hijacking discussions with your garbage.

And considering how you previously showed to me that you haven't even read all the replies of this thread, I don't think you should be telling me that I've missed something that people have written.

[جوري]

If there's anything disturbing to me, it's your insolence toward non-Muslims on these forums; how you hop from one thread to another with the sole purpose of hijacking discussions with your garbage. And considering how you previously showed to me that you haven't even read all the replies of this thread, I don't think you should be telling me that I've missed something that people have written.

what disturbs you is inconsequential to any thread where you partake and irrelevant to me personally. It doesn't matter whether or not I have read every single post. What matters is to highlight your errors, ignorance, lack of credibility and inability to acknowledge your repeated errors.
If you can't argue from knowledge then quit wasting everyone's time, there is a zillion social network out there for you to dispense with cognitive object and be applauded for it-- Speaking of garbage!

all the best

[Thucydides1987]

I think western multikulti is Paganistic when it calls for compromise of Truth. Could that be why they are unhappy with Muslims?---because Muslims strive to stay True?

Well I don't think that multiculturalism is "paganistic", but rather that a pagan society is multicultural/pluralistic -- much like Western society today. It's a little absurd to call multiculturalism as paganistic since the former doesn't necessarily involve religion.

What do you mean by "Muslims strive to stay True" -- this is why Westerners don't like them??? This makes no sense to me...the reason why they don't like Muslims is simply out of xenophobia, just like Europeans didn't like Jews, or Gypsies, etc etc.

I admire what you said about a world where everyone believes in one God, and where we all possess a collective unity. But I don't think that'd happen any time soon, considering how divisive and untrustworthy human beings are of one another. Perhaps such a moment would happen in the future, when we are on the brink of catastrophe and extinction -- THAT's when race, religion, ideology, nationalism will all go down the drain.

[siam]

pluralism/pluralistic----an interesting word.

Do you think mulitkulti can have a spectrum, with one end being assimilation and the other end being pluralism?

Maybe France is more assimilative while Britain is more pluralistic?

[siam]

"the reason why they don't like Muslims is simply out of xenophobia, just like Europeans didn't like Jews, or Gypsies, etc etc.---I agree with that

My comment was made in the context of multiculturalism and religion---the percieved "threat" of a strong identity that is also very public.

[Thucydides1987]

Do you think mulitkulti can have a spectrum, with one end being assimilation and the other end being pluralism? Maybe France is more assimilative while Britain is more pluralistic?

Well, social commentators actually differentiate between multiculturalism and pluralism as two different (although related) theories. I don't know it in detail, but I know that Neo-Conservatives tend to argue for pluralism rather than multiculturalism, since they believe that in a multicultural society one sees the erosion of a singular dominant identity, which consequently could be detrimental to the stability of the society in remaining a single unit. That's is generally what I've heard them say; not sure how correct they may be in actuality.

This is why Neocons tend to advocate pluralism, since they state that within pluralism there is a single dominant culture among all the others, which maintains order within the society.

I'd definitely agree with you about France; it does have a much stronger tendency to demand assimilation -- i'd argue that France is much more pluralistic than Britain. Britain could be pluralistic, but one can argue that, because it's very lax on assimilation, it's very multicultural.

[IAmZamzam]

Why is it necessary to hierarchically place one deity over another like that? The point is that they are gods and that they are both above YOU, hence you should pay equal respect to them both.

Necessary or not they always did it, or always had some creator deity, or something. If one of the gods is above the other gods just as it's above us too, why not just focus on it? You may as well say that one should pay equal respect to the king and to the lords and ladies of his court.

I'm trying to explain to you their beliefs, which obviously needs to be put into cultural context since they lived in a world very different from our own (a world, by the way, which Christianity and Islam destroyed).

Funny, I don't remember destroying anything, or even having been born until much later. Word things a little less unfairly next time, will you? As for cultural context, what am I, an anthropologist? I'm talking about the beliefs themselves and you're just diverting the issue.

You, however, don't want to hear it and immediately refer back to your monotheist thinking and dismiss their religious beliefs by calling it "pointless" and "foolish"...That logic would stand only IF there is a consensus for a single highest god. The pagans did not think that there was, so it is not right to call them "foolish" according to your monotheist standards since pagans do not adhere to such ways of thought. This is exactly what I mean when I say that you are ignorant of the way they thought.

There's a difference between me being ignorant and you being unwilling to focus and insisting on discussing culture instead of doctrine. Just because the pagans didn't have any universal agreement as to who this nearest equivalent to a monotheistic deity was does not mean that they didn't always have some such equivalent, and therefore that they all would have been worshiping whichever deity they thought that was if they were to be consistent with their own logic.

Let me guess, you're going to evade the issue again with more talk of cultures? I feel silly even debating you at all. But I really should have seen it coming. Anytime anyone expresses disagreement with anything foreign or secondhand to them in the modern world that magical all-purpose glue of a phrase, "cultural context", gets hurled at them automatically in a backhanded subtle accusation of prejudice whereas the true prejudice is in prejudging it to be impossible for anyone to have any ground for criticizing anything that they personally didn't grow up with. Never mind that 90% of the time, as with this time, CULTURE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DISCUSSION AT ALL. I'm getting tired of this.

[Thucydides1987]

Funny, I don't remember destroying anything, or even having been born until much later. Word things a little less unfairly next time, will you?

I never said you did; I said Islam and Christianity did.

Just because the pagans didn't have any universal agreement as to who this nearest equivalent to a monotheistic deity was does not mean that they didn't always have some such equivalent

Maybe you can give me an example of this?

There's a difference between me being ignorant and you being unwilling to focus and insisting on discussing culture instead of doctrine.

Yet again, you prove your lack of understanding. If you knew anything about paganism, you'd know that it had no "doctrine"; there was no holy pagan book, like a Quran or Bible, and they had nothing written in stone about how they should behave or think about the divine. There was no "Pagan Doctrine"; you cannot summarize paganism in the way you can summarize Islam's or Christianity's main tenets. This is why a cultural study of paganism is necessary, as that is the best way in which we can understand this religion! (I think I'd know I'm writing a **** thesis on this subject!)

[IAmZamzam]

I never said you did; I said Islam and Christianity did.

The religions themselves did? Religions can't do anything of the sort; only people can. And I was not one of those people.

Maybe you can give me an example of this?

I gave you one earlier, and if you were really the one between us who isn't ignorant of paganism then you would already be able to think of several examples for yourself off the top of your head.

Yet again, you prove your lack of understanding. If you knew anything about paganism, you'd know that it had no "doctrine"; there was no holy pagan book, like a Quran or Bible, and they had nothing written in stone about how they should behave or think about the divine. There was no "Pagan Doctrine"; you cannot summarize paganism in the way you can summarize Islam's or Christianity's main tenets. This is why a cultural study of paganism is necessary, as that is the best way in which we can understand this religion! (I think I'd know I'm writing a **** thesis on this subject!)

There was no single doctrine since there was no single kind of paganism but they all did have doctrines or else you couldn't call them religions at all. I didn't say anything about any one single thing called "The Pagan Doctrine", you're just putting words in my mouth. Wow do you have a lot of ignorance to project onto me!! Have you honestly forgotten that the rest of us here don't all have this detached, purely historical viewpoint of religion like you do as a disbeliever in it? This isn't an anthropology class, it's a discussion on what makes sense and what doesn't, and what makes sense is to regard worship as the ultimate devotion to a single thing that's highest in your estimation or else it's hardly worship at all (or at least not the most devout kind psychologically), it's just divided focus. Shut up about culture already.

[Thucydides1987]

and what makes sense is to regard worship as the ultimate devotion to a single thing that's highest in your estimation or else it's hardly worship at all (or at least not the most devout kind psychologically), it's just divided focus.

Sure, that makes sense very much -- to a monotheist.

The religions themselves did? Religions can't do anything of the sort; only people can. And I was not one of those people.

Well that's what I meant, the people who represent those religions; do I really need to spell it out like that for you? LOL, and yes of course I would not blame you for committing the countless horrific acts of all those medieval barbarians.

[IAmZamzam]

Sure, that makes sense very much -- to a monotheist.

Either explain how it doesn't make sense altogether or just let it go. No one beyond the age of ten should ever have to resort to repeated cop-outs of, "Well, of course you think that, you're a such-and-such!"

Well that's what I meant, the people who represent those religions....

Nobody ever truly represents anything but their own selves. How if I told you that the worst communist dictators "represented" atheism or nonreligion?

[Thucydides1987]

Nobody ever truly represents anything but their own selves

True, but I don't think that you need get so philosophical in order to decipher what I meant.

Either explain how it doesn't make sense altogether or just let it go. No one beyond the age of ten should ever have to resort to repeated cop-outs of, "Well, of course you think that, you're a such-and-such!"

I think it's more or less self-explanatory; as a monotheist, your worldview is centered around one single God, and being a part of your religion, you have an obligation throughout your life to reaffirm his divinity and majesty. That is what He demands from you, and what he demands obviously is the right and just thing to do. When you say that "divided focus" in worship is not as sincere or that it's not the most devout kind of a worship, you're applying the standards of monotheist thinking (the need to worship and concentrate on ONE being) unto a pagan religious mindset that operates without such emphasis on divine hierarchy. It is not inherently 'right' to worship one thing rather than many things, and neither does it makes 'more sense', for you cannot objectively prove that -- I'd be amazed if you do. It only become right or wrong when you apply a certain standard which has been created ideologically (in your case, your religion), and this is what you have been operating on during the course of our discussion.

[IAmZamzam]

It doesn't matter how many times or in how many different ways I explain the common sense of the matter to you that utmost devotion is at its purest and most sincere when it is not divided between different objects and this is just one manifestation of a universal principle of human psychology that you will see around you every day, even when it comes to human devotion to other humans; nor that if there is a hierarchy of gods then the foremost god in that hierarchy should not be respected equally with the others. Always you resort to again poisoning the well about my own monotheism instead of actually showing how I'm wrong about any of it--which you seem to dang well know you cannot do. It is therefore pointless to continue. I ask you again, just drop it. Otherwise I reserve the right to respond to every single criticism of theism you might ever make in the future by brushing it off as merely coming from an atheist who doesn't think with the same paradigms as the people he's rebutting and therefore doesn't know what he's talking about.

[Thucydides1987]

utmost devotion is at its purest and most sincere when it is not divided between different objects and this is just one manifestation of a universal principle of human psychology

This is absolutely not common sense; this is more akin to a theory.

Alas, I will drop it, as we're indeed not going to get anywhere like this.

[Trumble]

Pity, I was just getting interested. My first thought was that 'utmost devotion' must necessarily not be divided, otherwise it could not be 'utmost'. On reflection, though, in view of the claim that statement is true "even when it comes to human devotion to other humans", would that mean that it is impossible for a mother to have the 'utmost devotion' for any of her children unless she either has only one or ignores the others?

What is this 'universal principle of human psychology'?

[M.I.A.]

believing in only one god does not weaken any aspect of the person in devotion or action in the external world.. because of the things that one god has asked you to do, wrt islam.

i would try and love any child as i do my own, but she is young yet.. as she grows i will grow inshallah.

[IAmZamzam]

Pity, I was just getting interested. My first thought was that 'utmost devotion' must necessarily not be divided, otherwise it could not be 'utmost'. On reflection, though, in view of the claim that statement is true "even when it comes to human devotion to other humans", would that mean that it is impossible for a mother to have the 'utmost devotion' for any of her children unless she either has only one or ignores the others?

What is this 'universal principle of human psychology'?

When people have more than one lover, they tend to favor one and be more sincerely devout to them than to the other, don't they? I'm saying that the human mind is like that. The children in your analogy may equally receive equal "devotion" in the sense of care but it will be harder for the parent to have exactly the same DEVOTION, as in adoring esteem, to all of them. They'll all get some, and the mother will say to her dying day that they all got exactly the same amount, but this is frequently a lie. That's why favoritism happens so much in families. It's not unavoidable but that hardly matters since the type of devotion I was referring to was not that kind, but a devotion that is religious in nature, where this principle of psychology is taken to the extreme, and into a whole other ball park.

Thucydides was depicting polytheism as a realm in which it's somehow sensible for the medieval peasant to be every little bit as loyal to the lords and ladies of the realm as to the emperor himself. I say, as long as there is an emperor, just do things for the kingdom in his name alone. That is what they did, isn't it? I mean, you never hear chivalric lore of any knights serving any kingdom riding bravely into battle shouting "For Count Piddlesticks!" as their war cry, do you?

[Zafran]

Yes, and I was referring specifically to the Umayyad period/Caliphate, for it was from then onwards that the persecutions of the Shia began. I never heard of "The Caliphate Period" the way you refer to it. I know of the period of the first 4 caliphs to be called the "Rashidun Caliphate", but never as the time of "The Caliphate"...especially considering that there were different "caliphates" all over the middle east throughout history (the cordoba caliphate, the abassid caliphate, etc.)

They came later - the rightly Guided caliphate period or Rashidun Caliphate period - then straight after came the Ummayed - as we were talking about the emergence of the shia I dont know why you would go so for to the abbasids or the ummayeds of Cordoba?

[siam]

"I'd definitely agree with you about France; it does have a much stronger tendency to demand assimilation -- i'd argue that France is much more pluralistic than Britain. Britain could be pluralistic, but one can argue that, because it's very lax on assimilation, it's very multicultural."----I'll go with that---I may have misunderstood "pluralism".

These are interesting social experiments. Here in the East, we also have "multiculturalism"---though its called "multi-ethnic".

Its not possible to trun back the clock on globalization. So all of us will have to find a way to move forward and learn to co-exist.......it will be an interesting future......how will it turn out?

[MrOmar]

All Pagans will be in the Hell fire forever. How do people make lies about Allah (SWT) saying he has a son, worshiping statues or not worshiping him, everyone who believes in god hates the Pagan godless people & wishes 2 things of them 1 their destruction 2 them worshiping the one & only god Allah (SWT).

[IAmZamzam]

All Pagans will be in the Hell fire forever. How do people make lies about Allah (SWT) saying he has a son, worshiping statues or not worshiping him

You are acting not like an ideal true believer but more like the caricature of religious people that non-religious stereotypers hold in their mind. Whether nor not what you're saying is true talking the way you're talking does not have any positive effect on anything, it just reinforces people's prejudices. Believe it or not, some people who say they believe those things are not liars: they really do believe them--occasionally (though never anywhere near often enough for comfort, if their words and behavior is any indication) out of an honest mistake rather than genuine kafir-ism.

everyone who believes in god hates the Pagan godless people...

You can't speak for anyone but yourself. I don't hate pagans, just paganism. In fact, now that I think of it, I don't believe I even feel strongly enough about paganism to hate it either. I just disapprove.

...& wishes 2 things of them 1 their destruction 2 them worshiping the one & only god Allah (SWT).

Has it occurred to you that those two things contradict each other? What we are supposed to wish is the latter only. You seem driven by hate and spite. Islam is a religion of peace and compassion.

[UsayIsaIsayGod]

Perfectly said, Yahya. Everyone knows about hellfire preaching already, people need to know all the details and truths about what religions teach without getting 'heated' so-to-say. I registered to have interfaith dialogue for the purpose of increased understanding for not only myself but for all members here. I do hope MrOmar can contribute more thoughtful and constructive posts in the future.

[MrOmar]

Yahya you can down play that Pagans will not be in Hell all you like But me im following what Allah (SWT) says:
They have certainly disbelieved who say, " Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary" while the Messiah has said, "O Children of Israel, worship Allah , my Lord and your Lord." Indeed, he who associates others with Allah - Allah has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire. And there are not for the wrongdoers any helpers.5:72 (The Holy Quran) UsayIsaIsayGod you will be in the Hell fire for lying about god having a son which you have no right to say how dare you lie about god! The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded.5:75 (The Holy Quran) No need for interfaith dialogue your Christianity is a false man-made evil pagan practice. UsayIsaIsayGod save yourself from the Hell fire that your ancestors are going to be in, leave this devil made evil Christianity & embrace Islam the Truth.

[IAmZamzam]

Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious. (Surah 16, verse 125, Yusuf Ali)

[MrOmar]

True brother Yahya, But remember:
Narrated Anas bin Malik: Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."

Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious. (Surah 16, verse 125, Yusuf Ali)

[MrOmar]

O Prophet, strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination. (66:9 The Holy Quran)

[IAmZamzam]

True brother Yahya, But remember:
[B]Narrated Anas bin Malik: Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah."....

The people? Which people? Surely you don't think the verse was referring to people who hadn't been born yet! That was a very specific circumstance the hadith was referring to, wasn't it? Not like you'll find every day.

O Prophet, strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination. (66:9 The Holy Quran)

Did you miss the "O Prophet" part?

Given that you list your location as "at your door watch out" I wonder if you are a stealth troll, an Islamophobe pretending to be one of us in a pitiful attempt to make us look bad.

[Pygoscelis]

Mr.Omar, people such as you are why people such as me so frequently and unfairly wearily eye people such as Usay and Yahya.

[Ali Mujahidin]

:sl:

Disclaimer:
What follows is a totally biased personal viewpoint which does not pretend to be supported by any kind of research whatsoever. In other words, it is pure conjecture.

Why An Atheist Cannot Accept Allah.

To acknowledge that Allah exists is to accept the truth that there is a power greater than the atheist. This is totally unacceptable to the atheist. To believe in Allah is to totally destroy the myth of the supremacy of the atheist. This is an idea totally alien to the atheist. The atheist has to cling to the myth that the atheist can find the solution to every problem he faces without recourse to the truth that, in the final analysis, it is Allah and only Allah that has the power to make things happen. The atheist can only survive by living on the unfounded hope that someday somehow he will find the truth without ascribing the truth to Allah.

Why A Polytheist Cannot Accept Allah.

To acknowledge that Allah exists is to accept the truth that there is one and only one Allah. The concept of the One and Only Allah is very inconvenient to the polytheist who needs to be able to create, as the need arises, different gods to suit different purposes. The polytheist also needs the freedom to re-invent his gods to keep up with changing times. The polytheist also feels the need, from time to time, to re-write the holy books of his gods to make them palatable to the masses. This is the only way a polytheist can feel that he has control over the situation. To accept that the One and Only Allah is not subject to change is to relinquish this control. Without this control, the polytheist is left floundering in the ocean of chaos because he refuses to grasp the singular truth of the One and Only Allah which will lead him to freedom from his self-induced anxiety.

Please note that I say all this without no malice aforethought whatsoever.

[Verdetequiero]

Why An Atheist Cannot Accept Allah.

To acknowledge that Allah exists is to accept the truth that there is a power greater than the atheist. This is totally unacceptable to the atheist. To believe in Allah is to totally destroy the myth of the supremacy of the atheist. This is an idea totally alien to the atheist. The atheist has to cling to the myth that the atheist can find the solution to every problem he faces without recourse to the truth that, in the final analysis, it is Allah and only Allah that has the power to make things happen. The atheist can only survive by living on the unfounded hope that someday somehow he will find the truth without ascribing the truth to Allah.

You make it sound as if there is a dogma attached to atheism. There isn't. One doesn't choose to be an atheist simply because he believes that man is the ultimate power, but usually but not all ways a careful examination of religious claims. Usually the atheist finds them lacking in some way and though a process of elimination arrives at the conclusion that the various religious claims aren't all that they are cracked up to be. Atheists "survive" on far more than just hoping to find truth while desperately trying not to ascribe it to Allah. That is theocentrism. Atheists can survive and enjoy life in many other ways and discover a personal truth though art, music, philanthropic endeavorer, physical fitness, or other methods. Secular systems of unifying disparent realities exist such as humanism, utilitarianism, etc.

[IAmZamzam]

ThisOldMan, I have found from my own observations that atheism is typically not so much formed out of egocentrism as a mindset that spurns that idea of things not being concrete. This is a large part of the reason why they tend to be so obsessed with science as a replacement for religion, and why so few of them are not hard matieralists, indeed to the point where atheism is frequently mistaken for a synonym for hard materialism. It's not about the way they perceive themselves, it's about the way they perceive the world around them. They don't like to perceive it in a way that contains more levels or layers or aspects than they can grasp with their senses. I don't know whether subconsciously it repulses or frightens them--maybe both--but either way, they prefer things simple and everything provable, even though life repeatedly shows neither to be the case. That's another way that science is so useful to them: it allows them to think that they're accepting the weird nature of reality. Psychologically it's their substitute or replacement for religion. To understand this, listen and notice how often they use the word "Nature" in a way that seems shockingly interchangeable with "God", sometimes to the point of absurdity. It seems to be an unintentional euphemism with them. But of course there are more types of atheist than this apparent most common type.

As for polytheism I am not so sure, but you may be onto something in terms of it being convenient to be able to switch addressees with your appeals should the need arise. In the end one must be careful to spend substantial time analyzing others only when there seems to be a point to it. I hope there is enough of one here.

That was addressed to ThisOldMan, and to no one else.

[Verdetequiero]

As cute as the " this post is addressed to X and no one else is" that is what PMs are made for. If you post you probably need to expect that your post will be addressed.

ThisOldMan, I have found from my own observations that atheism is typically not so much formed out of egocentrism as a mindset that spurns that idea of things not being concrete.

Double negatives aside, there is no "atheistic mindset" any more than there is a "Muslim or Christian or Communist mindset". Reductive statements usually end up in stereotypes and while somewhat useful are usually problematic. philosophy of science, poetry, textual analysis all point to various aspects that appreciate nuance and multiple levels,textures, and interpretations of reality as well as the claim that true absolute concrete knowledge cannot be known.

This is a large part of the reason why they tend to be so obsessed with science as a replacement for religion, and why so few of them are not hard matieralists, indeed to the point where atheism is frequently mistaken for a synonym for hard materialism.

Atheists tend to be "obsessed with science", not as a replacement for religion because the religious experience occupies an area that science does not namely transcendental experiences and a unification of various realities into a cohesive narrative, but as a method of improving mankind's experience, easing the pain in the world and discovering how it works. Obviously this doesn't fulfill the role of religion hence other structures as well such as poetry, music, unifying ideologies such as humanism etc.

It's not about the way they perceive themselves, it's about the way they perceive the world around them. They don't like to perceive it in a way that contains more levels or layers or aspects than they can grasp with their senses.

It doesn't take a theist to grasp the various meanings of a novel, of a human experience, or of a relationship. None of these are truly grasped by the human senses in holistic way.

I don't know whether subconsciously it repulses or frightens them--maybe both--but either way, they prefer things simple and everything provable, even though life repeatedly shows neither to be the case.

Ignoring arm chair psychology, you'll have to be more specific. I doubt you'll find a atheist who thinks everything is provable. Atheists like all people tend to prefer proof of things, though. People's word or "because I said so" doesn't really hold much weight.

That's another way that science is so useful to them: it allows them to think that they're accepting the weird nature of reality. Psychologically it's their substitute or replacement for religion. To understand this, listen and notice how often they use the word "Nature" in a way that seems shockingly interchangeable with "God", sometimes to the point of absurdity. It seems to be an unintentional euphemism with them. But of course there are more types of atheist than this apparent most common type.

Einstein and Spinoza had an idea of "God" as nature or rather "God" was the sum of nature's laws and beauty. Personally I don't think so.

[IAmZamzam]

Verdetequiero, you seem to have missed the point of every single thing I said and your response really is a string of non-sequiturs. Not that it matters since, as I said, I was not talking to you. I would never deny you your right to defend your own viewpoint but I do ask that you at least make some sense. I do, however, agree with your averring that "reductive statements usually end up in stereotypes and while somewhat useful are usually problematic," but my aim is simply to correct ThisOldMan on his own reductive thinking, as long as he's going to think that way anyhow.

[Verdetequiero]

Verdetequiero, you seem to have missed the point of every single thing I said and your response really is a string of non-sequiturs. Not that it matters since, as I said, I was not talking to you. I would never deny you your right to defend your own viewpoint but I do ask that you at least make some sense. I do, however, agree with your averring that "reductive statements usually end up in stereotypes and while somewhat useful are usually problematic," but my aim is simply to correct ThisOldMan on his own reductive thinking, as long as he's going to think that way anyhow.

I did make sense. I corrected your

atheism is typically not so much formed out of egocentrism as a mindset that spurns that idea of things not being concrete.

that atheists even in their much beloved science ( apparently) build in ambiguity and a realization of different viewpoints, perspectives, and analysis. The philosophy of science itself is built on the idea that there is no 100% verifiable evidence. Then there are plays, literature, theater etc which tell of the complexities, contradictions, and problems of human existence all of which do not have concrete resolutions.

I corrected your

This is a large part of the reason why they tend to be so obsessed with science as a replacement for religion,

in saying that science does not replace religion nor do atheists want it to be because science and religion occupy different but sometimes overlaps places in the human experience. Religion can unify different realities under a narrative as does secular humanism, utilitarianism, and secular ideologies such as fascism and communism both of use have had synergistic abilities that would seem to be on par with religion.

I called this

don't know whether subconsciously it repulses or frightens them--maybe both--

arm chair psychology.

I corrected this

It's not about the way they perceive themselves, it's about the way they perceive the world around them. They don't like to perceive it in a way that contains more levels or layers or aspects than they can grasp with their senses.

by showing various examples of non theistic examples of things that atheists appreciate that have layers and aspects.

and so on.......

In actuality you didn't correct ThisOldMan as really just gave your own version of ham fisted diagnosis characterizing atheists as "spurning the idea that things aren't concrete", seeking religion in science, being frightened and/ or repulsed, and being absurd. I wouldn't call that a correction.

[IAmZamzam]

I really am not interested in pursuing this with you, Verdetequiero. If you want to do so then follow your own advice and talk to me about in a PM.

[Verdetequiero]

No need to at all.

[Amigo]

To the OP:

Idols or gods are about worship of creatures rather than the Creator, this produce a disorder in society that everyone basically hate except perhaps the one making it. You will notice that it is not monotheist who hate paganism, paganism hates itself as illustrated by pagans hating each other based on their gods and idols.

Consider people who worship violence, people who worship food, people who worship sex, people who worship money, people who worship power, people who worship praise, people who worship all these things.
These people can't get along with others because there is always explotation and abuse of fellow humans for the sake of one's idol(s).

So paganism is hated by monotheism because of its abuse and explotation of the human dignity. You will notice that there are many who think they are monotheists yet worship those things. Many monotheists don't seem to realise what idols really are, they think it is a statue here or there. A god is that which you set your heart to. Having many gods then is desordered by its nature because it means loss of integrity. One God basically means integrity of heart and mind and a proper ordering and view of things.

[Amigo]

I meant that it is not monotheists alone who hate paganism.

The fact is. We all hate being exploited and some people may not mind exploiting others, but I don't know anyone who enjoy being exploited.
Idolatry always exploites and abuse other creatures including man. This is because no creature can sustain the worship so it ends up being abused.
Consider those who worship women beauty, they will abuse their wives because they won't seem to match some standard. Even if they make it it won't be for long before the worshipper move on the a different variation.
Also consider those holywood stars, they can't contain the worship bestowed on them. They willl abuse themselves trying to keep up the people's expectations so they don't desapoint them. When humans worship each other, they stretch or crash each other in the proccess. Samething when other creatures are worshiped, from the earth, to special material, or animals. This is what idol worship is about. Only in ancient world, they will celebrate what they worship by raising monuments and statues about them.

In few words, idol worship causes imbalance in nature. Monotheism tries to see things as a whole and and knows that their dignity can be kept only by refering to the One who gave them that dignity: God. It is about integrity.

Of course there are monotheists who are so by tradition not by understanding, and so in real life they are just idolators, they just don't know it.

[UUSeeker]

I know there are some "New Agers" who exploit others, but the Pagans I know would not fall into this category.

They simply practice another faith, albeit one which has more than one deity.

For those who are monotheists, I can see where this might cause some consternation, but the Pagans I know don't convert or prostylitize (sp?).

Whether or not people of other faiths consider them idolaters would seem to be irrelevant if they are not forcing their beliefs on others.

Nobody has the right to force their beliefs on others and fermenting hatred toward others is rarely beneficial to either the party.

Peace,

Seeker

[DippedinJannah]

Here is a slightly different answer, based on the experience of an urban American...

I don't hate pagans. I try not to hate anyone.

I dislike many pagans, however, primarily because they are obnoxiously pretentious.

Here in the US, every city now has their Wiccans, Druids, etc. Wiccans will tell you they trace their beliefs back to the stone age (yeah, right!) They gather here to pretentiously read lists of names from "The Burning Times" (aka witch hunts), which is deeply offensive to people who were holding rituals 30 years ago to read names of those who died in genocides.

All of the modern wiccans, druids, and whatever else are a 20th century recreation at best, and an invention in the most common case. Gerald Gardner and the others made their silly practices up. They cast "spells" which are entirely their own fantasies.

It's one thing if someone is practicing voodoo they learned from their grandfather, or an animist religion in Africa, or aboriginal Australia, or traditional Chinese folk religion, Hinduism, etc. But these neo-pagans are just daft wannabes.

I knew several Wiccans in college. All their books were collections of dopey "spells" (yet they always seemed to be poor and struggling on their tests - some powers!) They had no books that discussed theology, prayer, ethics, etc. They were only interested in "powers," not any kind of true relationship with the divine.

[Starrynight]

Hmm... it seems to me that every religion (or all the religion I have studied so far) are about love. So hating someone for their beliefs, whether Pagan, Christian, or Muslim is very wrong. So for Pagans who have had to experience hate for your beliefs I'm sorry.
I read something in one of the books I've read about Islam. I will try to summarize (I don't have it in front of me so if I make a mistake forgive me). I think it was a saying or something. "I do not believe what you believe, you do not believe what I believe. I will never believe what you believe and you will never believe what I believe. You have your religion, and I have mine."

[Grace Seeker]

Amigo, if you're going to go back to the OP, I think you have to define paganism, for it was not defined in the OP. I tend to think that once again Wikipedia did a good job with its first two sentences of its article "Paganism":

Paganism (from Latin paganus, meaning "country dweller", "rustic"[1]) is a blanket term, typically used to refer to polytheistic religious traditions.
It is primarily used in a historical context, referring to Greco-Roman polytheism as well as the polytheistic traditions of Europe and North Africa before Christianization.

But then blew it with its third sentence:

In a wider sense, extended to contemporary religions, it includes most of the Eastern religions and the indigenous traditions of the Americas, Central Asia, Australia and Africa; as well as non-Abrahamic folk religion in general.

...as I don't think of Hinduism and other eastern religions as being pagan. Yet I would once again be in agreement with their next sentence:

More narrow definitions will not include any of the world religions and restrict the term to local or rural currents not organized as civil religions.

One of the key traits that I see in all those religions that I would term as pagan is the use of magic, divination, incantations, and other spells to manipulate the diety. God does our bidding, rather than we doing his. And with that said, I think that some of the world religions (including the Abrahamic faiths) where people tend to invoke God's name to bring about a desired outcome of some sort, have practioners who have adopted pagan attitudes even toward worship of the true God. (I believe one can especially see this in places like Colonial Mexico where ancient Aztec and Mayan and other pre-Columbian religions have been absorbed within the culture of the Catholic faith so that practices have become a synthesis of the two, and it is hard to tell what is pagan and what is Christian.)

But as to the question of hating paganism posed in the OP: One might disagree with the practice of worshipping something other than God, and even despise the way God gets treated like a monkey on a chain to jump at our command. But I see no reason for hating those who practice such forms of religion. What would be the purpose or value of that? Such an attitude has lost sight of what God called those who are his followers to faith for, that we might be a light to the world, drawing all men closer to him. Hate would just get in the way of that reason for our own faith and being.


Oh, and I applaude DippedinJannah for articulating my view toward much of what passes for modern forms of paganism. It sort of like the half dozen kids in the rural Iowa who think they are gangbangers because they all dress alike and flash some sort of made up "sign". They haven't a clue what the real thing is about, they're just playing games -- which can sadly still be serious and get you just as dead if you don't watch out and straighten up before it's too late.

[Trumble]

I think you are generalizing somewhat. Modern forms of 'Paganism' are taken quite seriously by many in the UK who are well aware of what their beliefs are about. Such beliefs are usually, IMHO, a fusion of 'local' historical beliefs, some imported ones and some modern ideas (particularly in relation to ecology), but nobody pretends otherwise. We have a 'religion and belief' forum on the works intranet and there are a good spinkle of Pagans of assorted flavours amongst the expected Christians, muslims, Buddhists etc.

The 'modern forms' is essential, though. Paganism as a practised religion (or religions) today has little to do with the realities of history other than absorbing selected parts of a tradition and the label. Which in the case of Druids, say, is probably just as well!

[ardianto]

What exactly is a "pagan"?

Village people. "Paganus" in Latin language is Village People.

The first people who embraced Christianity in Rome where people who lived in cities, while Paganus, or people who lived in village areas still in their polytheistic religion. Later Rome Christian people made a stereotype, all Paganus are polytheistic, and they used term Paganus (village people) when they talked or wrote about Rome polytheists.

[Grace Seeker]

Village people. "Paganus" in Latin language is Village People.

The first people who embraced Christianity in Rome where people who lived in cities, while Paganus, or people who lived in village areas still in their polytheistic religion. Later Rome Christian people made a stereotype, all Paganus are polytheistic, and they used term Paganus (village people) when they talked or wrote about Rome polytheists.

Yes, this is true. But one must be careful that while knowing the etymology of a word not to automatically equate a word's origins with its present meaning.

Consider the evolution of the term "redneck" in American society which originally was used in the south to refer to a person who worked outside in the sun and had a red neck was now become a reference to a particular type of attitude. So a person who work indoors all day and never sees the sun can still be termed a "redneck" based soley upon presenting that particular type of "redneck" attitude.

In a similar manner I would suggest that, despite its Latin origins, it is obvious the meaning of pagan in English today is not to be equated with a reference to village people or country folk, but rather to the polytheistic beliefs once held by those ancient Latins.

[ardianto]

Yes, this is true. But one must be careful that while knowing the etymology of a word not to automatically equate a word's origins with its present meaning.

Consider the evolution of the term "redneck" in American society which originally was used in the south to refer to a person who worked outside in the sun and had a red neck was now become a reference to a particular type of attitude. So a person who work indoors all day and never sees the sun can still be termed a "redneck" based soley upon presenting that particular type of "redneck" attitude.

In a similar manner I would suggest that, despite its Latin origins, it is obvious the meaning of pagan in English today is not to be equated with a reference to village people or country folk, but rather to the polytheistic beliefs once held by those ancient Latins.

What I mean with "Paganus are village people" is actually the original meaning. Same like "Barbaros" in Ancient Greek that means "people outside polis/city" or "non-Greek".

Of course, in this present we cannot use "pagans" or "barbarians" to call village people.

Thanks for remind me, I didn't realized that could makes a misunderstanding.

[Grace Seeker]

What I mean with "Paganus are village people" is actually the original meaning. Same like "Barbaros" in Ancient Greek that means "people outside polis/city" or "non-Greek".
Of course, in this present we cannot use "pagans" or "barbarians" to call village people.

Thanks for remind me, I didn't realized that could makes a misunderstanding.

All is good. Though if you were to visit the village in which I live you just might want to start using those terms again.

[Futuwwa]

Here is a slightly different answer, based on the experience of an urban American...

I don't hate pagans. I try not to hate anyone.

I dislike many pagans, however, primarily because they are obnoxiously pretentious.

Here in the US, every city now has their Wiccans, Druids, etc. Wiccans will tell you they trace their beliefs back to the stone age (yeah, right!) They gather here to pretentiously read lists of names from "The Burning Times" (aka witch hunts), which is deeply offensive to people who were holding rituals 30 years ago to read names of those who died in genocides.

All of the modern wiccans, druids, and whatever else are a 20th century recreation at best, and an invention in the most common case. Gerald Gardner and the others made their silly practices up. They cast "spells" which are entirely their own fantasies.

It's one thing if someone is practicing voodoo they learned from their grandfather, or an animist religion in Africa, or aboriginal Australia, or traditional Chinese folk religion, Hinduism, etc. But these neo-pagans are just daft wannabes.

I knew several Wiccans in college. All their books were collections of dopey "spells" (yet they always seemed to be poor and struggling on their tests - some powers!) They had no books that discussed theology, prayer, ethics, etc. They were only interested in "powers," not any kind of true relationship with the divine.

Those kinds of folks are referred to as fluffies by more serious Neo-Pagans, who tend to find them at least as obnoxious as you do.

[Ramadhan]

Those kinds of folks are referred to as fluffies by more serious Neo-Pagans, who tend to find them at least as obnoxious as you do.

Who/what are more serious neo pagans?

[Futuwwa]

Neo-Pagans who have no pretensions regarding where their religion comes from. Who actually try to reconstruct an ancient Pagan religion, rather than get their information from Sabrina the Teenage Witch. Who don't have any major illusions about what the Witch Hunts were.

[UUSeeker]

Neo-Pagans who have no pretensions regarding where their religion comes from. Who actually try to reconstruct an ancient Pagan religion, rather than get their information from Sabrina the Teenage Witch. Who don't have any major illusions about what the Witch Hunts were.

This pretty much describes those I know. They may say some of the things they believe have been copied or developed from ancient peoples, but are quick to point out it is their interpretation of what they believe and in no way claim to have some direct lineage.

I have met a few people who claim to to have had their beliefs passed to them from their parents, grandparents, etc., which is possible, but they don't try to equate that with a connection to those who were martyred for their beliefs in a much earlier time.

Some pooh pooh these beliefs because they believe them invented, but all religious traditions were invented somewhere by someone.

Also, pagan is a very broad term. As described above, it can be used by those who follow an Abrahamic tradition to describe those who do not, including Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.

In a more narrow sense, it can be used as an umbrella term for those who follow non-monotheistic beliefs such as Wicca, Druidism, etc., in modern culture.

I know some very devout Wiccans who spend as much time contemplating and worshipping their dieties as do Christians or Muslims. They even have special altars in their homes designed to honor their deities depending on the season of the year.

I believe I should respect the beliefs of others, regardless of whether I, personally, hold them.

Peace,

Seeker

[Amigo]

This article gives some very interesting points about monotheism and paganism. I will give quote the parts which I found interesting:

Abraham is at home. He is reflecting on the many idols of metal and stone and wood that his father makes and sells. He has a realization that these idols are dead and inert and he "discovers" the One-God. This is a paraphrase of the traditional story. How are we to understand it? If we, as our scholars, assume that this story is to be taken literally, then Abraham realizes that the idols his father makes and sells are not alive, and thus not able to have any effect in the world no matter what or how they are prayed to and no matter what sacrifice is offered to them. We are assuming that a man whom we are told is educated and sophisticated would make and sell inert effigies as deities. If we met an educated and sophisticated person today we would not find it plausible that they would be in the business of selling idols. Why should we make that presumption about Terach?
Consider instead the following scenario. Terach, as an educated and worldly man, would know and appreciate the arts, sciences and spiritual beliefs of as many different peoples and cultures as were known in his world. We assume this of educated persons today. If this is so, then the "idols of metal and stone and wood" referred to in the traditional story are really the particular cultural embodiments of the arts, the sciences, and the sacred as they are known in various different cultures.
The "idols" of a sophisticated person are not, literally, stone effigies and statuettes. These "idols" are the cultural, political, social, and scientific paradigms comprising the world-views of the societies in which they (and we) live.






topWhen we examine the spiritual beliefs and cosmologies of many ancient and modern cultures we find that they all include excellent models of certain essential qualities of life - albeit each in its own cultural context with its own particular perspective, emphasis and physical analogs.

• The ancient Chinese developed a cosmology and an original ideographic alphabet based on the 28-mansions of the lunar zodiac.
• The Greeks and the Persians modeled the cyclicity of life by a pantheon of gods, goddesses and their familial relationships based on the 12-houses of the solar zodiac.2
• The Druids of northern Europe modeled the self-propagation of life on the life cycles of trees and other growing things.

Each and every culture has made accurate and effective models of the cyclic, self-propagating and self-referential nature of all life in terms appropriate to its needs and experience. These different cultural embodiments of the same universal principles underlying all life are referred to as "idols of metal and stone and wood." These "godlet" cultural paradigms are honored (and, literally, stone statues of these "idols" are worshipped) by the society that makes use of them.

• All cultures model the same processes of the same overall unity of the natural world and each uses a different physical example to do it.

Abraham, seeing through each example to a Singular archetype, DEFINED the One-God as the Unity underlying all of them.Abraham, in this view, acts as a mathematician: he postulates a meaningful and functional definition of Unity. The mathematician's model makes use of none of the "garments" of the many different cultural embodiments. Even though it is a mathematical model that must make use of geometry and form (or formalism) to be expressed, it (the model, not the sacred) MUST be understood as a complete abstraction without physical embodiment. A good mathematician tolerates no unneeded embellishments.


This perspective suggests why the Abrahamic faiths absolutely prohibit "graven images" of God. Any "graven image" would be a physical representation of only one culture's iconography during one historical period - it could never be a timeless model of a universal underlying Unity.
Once we understand this mathematician's idea of God as a DEFINITION necessary for universality we can, perhaps for the first time, see how and why it is possible that the Abrahamic faiths' insistence that God is the ONLY-GOD could be literally true, and not just the chauvinistic religious puffery of these faiths - and in a way that does not impugn the validity of other religions. The definition of Unity is in no way prejudicial to any other view.

And other quote:

SINGULARITY AND THE ONE-GOD
As many musicians and electronics enthusiasts know, "...the harmonic nature of...music demonstrates the great harmony of creation." (See Macaulay quotation, above.) Every musical pulse is made up of the sum of many pure sine-wave tones; an ordinary "square wave" is made up of many odd harmonics, and, by extrapolation, a truly infinite pulse w ould consist of a sum of all possible pure tones.
The way musicians examine the spectrum of musical harmonics is exactly the same as the procedure mathematicians call a Fourier Transform: a sharp loud pulse consists of a broad spectrum of pure tones. Likewise an infinitely loud, short, sharp pulse - which we could compare to a musical Singularity - would produce the harmonic spectrum of ALL tones - which we could liken to ALL-THERE-IS.
The Fourier Transform of ALL-THERE-IS, is a single pulse of infinite intensity and infinitesimal duration at the start of time - at creation. This suggests that the Big Bang unfolds the modern physicist's model of creation from an exquisitely singular and intense pulse that may be mathematically equivalent to Abraham's DEFINITION of the One-God.
THE FOURIER TRANSFORM between UNITY and WHOLENESS

Fourier Transform of ALL-THERE-IS <=> Fourier Transform of PULSEThe Singular Pulse at "Creation" is the Fourier Transform of an eternity of ALL-THERE-IS;
The Spectrum of ALL Tones and Harmonics, representing ALL-THERE-IS
is the Fourier Transform of the "Creation" Pulse. If the universe is limited in extent and duration, then its ultimate source must be less than omnipotent. Thus the presumption of ONE exquisitely Infinite source demands that the universe be infinite, open and eternal. The Singular Pulse may be the Kabbalist's "line" (Qav) that extends from the "creation-contraction" (ZimZum) into All-There-Is. Abraham's definition of the One-God and our modern understanding of this universe may well be based on the same fundamental principles.

The confusion on paganism perhaps comes from the confusion of the real meaning of 'god' which is the same confusion on the real meaning of 'love' to me. I believe that God is love. But just as they are all kinds of ideas about what 'love' is, so it is with 'god'. I am not saying that people mean 'love' when they say 'god'.

[IAmZamzam]

I read something in one of the books I've read about Islam. I will try to summarize (I don't have it in front of me so if I make a mistake forgive me). I think it was a saying or something. "I do not believe what you believe, you do not believe what I believe. I will never believe what you believe and you will never believe what I believe. You have your religion, and I have mine."

That's not just a saying, it's scripture. You just recited surah 109.