Leave a Reply --Link to Moderation Policy--
Only Logged in users can comment.
New Commentators Register here to comment.
Saker Message:
Only Logged in users can comment.
New Commentators Register here to comment.
Thank Goodness the view of Jesus is more inclusive than the view of this Sheikh.
So what exactly are the “Western religions” doing to halt the moral decay of society?
Not just nothing – they have aided and abetted the destruction of Eastern peoples, entire native peoples, conducted paedophiliac acts without any consequences, backed Hitler, and so forth. Perhaps anyone in any of these religions may approach their local priest/pastor/vicar and bring this subject up for discussion. Good luck.
The inclusiveness of God is very small:
Matthew 25:41King James Version (KJV)
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels
Matthew 7 James Version (KJV)
13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Having said this, I have no idea if the Muslim deity has planned a larger worshipping throng in a hereafter.
“inclusive” is a western liberal and utterly non-sensical concept.
it has nothing, nothing at all, to do with Christ or Christianity
but it is a useful marker to measure how far we have drifted apart in 1000 years
The Saker
Upon praying for the first time in forty years, for reasons this video explains, I immediately thought of a Christian Orthodox priest who started a conversation with me several years ago. We shared a kindness. You can’t display that level of kindness in America anymore without repercussions. I’m going to attend a service.
The Saker: What Bible(s) do you use and do you read the Koran?
PS: Christ was with me that forty years. It’s as plain as day.
What Bible do you read?
I personally read the Bible in Church Slavonic, that is a translation which was begun in the 16th century and finished in the 18th century. I neither like nor trust the Russian translation of the Bible. But to really answer your question you need to completely separate the Old and New Testament. From what I hear with some unanimity, the King James Version of the New Testament is both accurate and beautiful. The REAL problem is with the Old Testament of which there still is no good translation in English (or in most other languages). The only “real” “Bible” (it was not called so then) is the one quoted by Christ and the Apostles and that would be the “Septuaginta” (sometimes called LXX). I explain it all here, please read this:
http://thesaker.is/non-political-interlude-reply-to-two-posts-religions-haters-please-skip-this-one/
Especially the part entitled “@Mohamed: was the Scripture corrupted?”
Right now there are several projects to translate the Old Testament in English and other languages, but the problem remains that a lot of these translations are made by academics and linguists and not monastics and saints and to the result is likely to be mediocre (as witnessed by, for example, the so-called “Orthodox Study Bible” (https://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Study-Bible-Hardcover-Christianity/dp/0718003594/).
As far as I know the last bad English language option remains to read the KJV corrected by the LXX. There is also a piece of good news: the worst book of the KJV is certainly the Psalter (because the Masoretes disfigured it even more than the rest of the Scripture), but there as been a very good translation made into English, the one of the Holy Transfiguration Monastery (https://www.amazon.com/Psalter-According-Holy-Transfiguration-Monastery/dp/0943405009/). So things are getting better.
But always remember that for an Orthodox Christian the Bible is not the foundation of faith, the Church is. Read this excellent text to understand this key difference with the Protestant sola scriptura:
http://antiochian.org/which-came-first-church-or-new-testament
Good luck and may God guide you towards Him!
Cheers,
The Saker
If you neither like nor trust the interpretation of the Russian version why trust any version other than the original?
Oh, maybe that doesn’t exist anymore?
Because the Slavonic version is the product of centuries of very careful translation directly from the Greek Septuagint and because superbly qualified Greek scholars and monastics have attested to the excellence of this translation. For all practical purposes, the original Greek Septuagint is the only truly authoritative text and the only one to be the “original”. The Slavonic translation is the only fully authoritative translation (and interpretation since any translation is, by necessity and definition, an interpretation too). The Russian translation is pretty good for the New Testament and it is “so-so” for the Old Testament, but I also don’t like ANY holy writ in a vernacular language. One should not use the same words to read a newspaper or order a pizza and worship. Not only that, but the theological language is very precise, which the common Russian language is not. For example, the Russian word “spirit” is the same for a demon, a winds and the Holy Spirit. In Church Slavonic they are spelled differently. In the Russian version this creates a lot of very bad misinterpretations of important words by Christ Himself.
Again, it is not that the Russian translation is that bad, it is more that there is another one (the Slavonic one) which is *infinitely* superior.
That’s all, really.
Cheers!
The Saker
PS: as for prayer, in Russian they sound really weird. In Church Slavonic, a language designed and developed *purely* for worship and theology prayers take on a totally different, mystical, dimension.
“Because the Slavonic version is the product of centuries of very careful translation directly from the Greek Septuagint”
Presumably God didn’t speak to Moses etc in Greek.
So, again, why trust any version other than the original?
Actually, God not speak *any* human language to Moses, but nevermind that. What you call “the original” does not exist anymore as it has been deliberately corrupted by the Masoretes. Early Christians all new that, now they are all ignorant of this fact. However, the Septuaginta was translated from the (true) original Hebrew *before* it was corrupted. Not only that, but since any translation is, by necessity and definition, an exercise in hermeneutics, it provides an interpretation of the sacred texts as understood by Jews roughly 300 years before Christ. What is known today as the Hebrew Bible was composed many centuries after that translation was made and is clearly an anti-Christian forgery made by rabbis from the sect of the Pharisees. Yup, and that is the text which the entire Protestant world used in the past and still uses today and which the Latins also used at times, although the Latins at least had the Vulgate translated from various texts by Saint Jerome. Definitely a better option than the Masoretic text, but still a far cry from the original Septuagint.
HTH,
The Saker
So basically: Luther was so worried that Vatican clergy corrupted the Old Testament “Vulgate” that he reached for an EVEN MORE corrupted version which was the Masoretic text written by the Pharisees?? Is this the version he translated into German?
What version of the New Testament did he have?? (Luther died in 1546 and the King James bible was completed in 1611. )
This information certainly has a non-negligible impact on the whole Protestant/ reformation movement…
I would be interested if you could cite some specific examples of where the Masoretic text deviates from
the better earlier versions,—the most important examples!
When I attended an international Bible college we were taught amongst many that the old testamont is the new testamont fortold….. and the new testemont is the old fullfilled ….
They are interconnected.
The blood line of Jesus Christ began in the multi authored book of genisus which spans perhaps 1400 years.
Each old testimont book traces amongst other things Christ s linegae till the new testamont birth death and resurrection ( the tomb is empty ! where other prophets held high have graves with their remans within.
Revelation is a confusing book to most and its compilation is deliberate but needs to be studied by reading first chapter and then last chapter then second chapter and second to last chapter and so on to grasp meaning ….. one also needs a back ground of knowledge to comprehend the bigger picture. and yet the Daniel propheses written some 600 years before Christ have unfolded and today events can be identified to those historic predictions …. I could go on ….
“Revelation is a confusing book to most and its compilation is deliberate but needs to be studied by reading first chapter and then last chapter then second chapter and second to last chapter and so on to grasp meaning”
Ah,that’s finally cleared things up. Any idea why God made his, er, revelation so unrevealing in the in the first instance?
imple to answer…. This complex book is about the future thus we are challenged in it to understand stuff which appears to be complex. Overall this then – if we allow – makes many peoples to critically think ….. to not take things literally…..
Compare MSM garbage ….. to this blog….
We here read and we are challenged in many ways around our belief s which is healthy … Thus some begin to critically analysis and then do not take all things at face value …..
The oldest book in the world a compilation of many scripts has been reinterpretated many many times creating many many different religions which rely on “hand books to explain their religion or belief ….
Always go back to the original scripts … and reread ….. to comprehend stuff.
Unfortunately most do not have that time thus many rely on the MSM version of interrpretations. hand books
Result; we end up, with flat earth society believers,
believers in santa claus.
Water and oil actually mix …… believers
when challenged as individuals we then begin to critically think ….
Revelation is such a challenge and I do not have a full comprehension of all within, yet thus far no contradictions but a plan a path …. unfolds
“Always go back to the original scripts”
Do you have any idea where the original scrolls of Paul, for example, could exist? i’m sure they’d be worth a clean fortune in Christie’s by now.
Some people measure a ‘clean fortune’ in terms of Christie’s high prices and how they can benefit economically.
Others measure ‘ clean fortune’ in terms of how their souls will benefit spiritually.
Yes, ancient scrolls are valuable in terms of money.
The words and commands of God and the spiritual understanding of those scrolls, when one seeks God, come freely. The Holy Spirit guides us to understand what God wants from us, when we seek Him with a humble beseeching heart.
No amount of money, position and power can buy the love towards God, love of Jesus Christ Our Beloved Savior, at Christie’s.
“Some people measure a ‘clean fortune’ ”
I admit to sarcasm as a tool.
I’ve found the Orthodox Study Bible to be helpful.
Also, Ancient Faith Radio (www.ancientfaith.com) has been very helpful to me, as well.
“The Illumined Heart” podcast covered many topics which might interest an inquirer. I recommend browsing through the archive.
http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/illuminedheart
I preciselly dropped out of Catholic church amongst other cause related to its evident hypocrisy, by this theatric style of talking to the people by most of its priests, as if the orator would be any enlightened person further than what is allowed to all us in this material world. The same could be said of the fairy tales they told about future determined by scriptures instead of by the will of the people´s work for justice and peace. This style of sectarian oratoria works only with people easily to impress and clearly infatilized.
Anyway, I still remain attending funerals of close people at my old neighborhood where, from time to time I can hear a priest who talks about the real problems of everyday people and the real world talking to the simple people in their same language and tune, without such grandilocuent words and intonation….When he starts talking against the wealthiest of the world, i can not avoid smilling and just right there I wonder why in the Earth I am not coming next Sunday…..
Whenever I have watched or heard this Sheik at this site, he has never sound convincing to me, I do not even like neither his sight or face expression, nor his clear ideological background. A simple person is able to recognize a good human being at every field in society whenever it sees it, no science or illumination behind that fact.
If you dont like watching or dont like his sight then pls dont watch and keep your thoughts on your mind . you dont need to come up and throw your dirty thoughts and ideas here to Disrespect Scholars.
what a gorgeous video – the echo of his words is so beautiful – he’s magic. The Hagia Sophia is magnificent…
I’ve just been reading this – the Frankish Catholics were barely Christian – very pagan still –
I have followed this blog for 2 years. Am so impressed by all the delightful debates and comments posted.
“christianity” in what ever form. Listen to these lectures as roman catholicism is exposed by prof Veith
http://walterveith.com/walter-veith-total-onslaught-videos.html
Begin with perhaps the man behind the mask ….. Form your own conclusions but do critically look closely at the empirical data he reinforces the argumnents …. It also helps enormously if one has holistic biblical knowledge too. Not the shallow contradictory crap served up each weekend at various club houses called churches .
“There are no more monasteries in the US, in the UK, in France” … Oh please!
well, of course there are, but they are utterly and totally irrelevant to society in both their numbers and what they represent.
but yes, sure, there monasteries in these countries, even Orthodox and Buddhist ones.
What Sheik Imran refers to a is a healthy monastic institution which is the spiritual “center of gravity” of religious people.
The Saker
http://russia-insider.com/en/catherine-ii-vladimir-putin-russias-christian-foreign-policy/ri21750
“Putin is finally realizing Catherine II’s plan of being the defender of Christian civilization against Islam. The back-stabbing British foiled Catherine, but Putin has beaten them.
“Putin … delivered Syria, not from the Ottoman Empire, but from the jihadists, who are supervised by France, the United Kingdom and the United States. “
The Koran was written in approx. AD 600. The east-west schism took place in AD 1054. How can the Koran refer to two distinct kinds of christians if, at the time of writing, the schism hadn’t yet taken place?
Is this actually, textually, written in the Koran or is this part of the Sheikh’s interpretation?
I hope my compatriots listen to this fascinating speech, as the Sheikh mentions Kosovo i Metohija and puts the whole NATO war into a wider religious context.
Hi sb,
It is obviously his interpretation of it.
The most Quran makes a difference between Christians (and Jews) per se with whom treaties can be made and those who wage war against muslims.
There’s a Hadith(a non-Quranic tradition attributed to the Prophet) that Sheik Imran relies upon heavely about the endtimes when a group of Christians will ally with (a group of) the Jews(so called JudeoChristianity?) to wage war upon the Believers
Utter rubbish, the sheikh has stated on numerous times that muslims are forbidden to be friends or allies of those christians who are in alliance with jews – the judeo christian western alliance , which is expressly mentioned in the quran. And Surat Rum in the Quran, which refers to Byzantium orthodox christianity, states that the closest to muslims, will be orthodox christians.
Hi sb,
It is obviously his interpretation of it.
The most Quran makes a difference between Christians (and Jews) per se with whom treaties can be made and those who wage war against muslims.
There’s a Hadith(a non-Quranic tradition attributed to the Prophet) that Sheik Imran relies upon heavely about the endtimes when a group of Christians will ally with (a group of) the Jews(so called JudeoChristianity?) to wage war upon the Believers.
Syrian girl, there are things mentioned in Quran which did not happened when it was revealed and then happened. Exemple of alliance of some jews and some christians (zionist jews and christians), this did not take place before the revelation of Quran, but it only happened 100 years ago, its same thing…this is just to tell you, God tells things that happened and things to come.
The Sheikh’s analysis of 2 kinds of christians is based on texts in the Quran, as there is universal truth there like there is in orthodox christianity.
Most western compatriots happen to be deaf and blind, I have argued with many preachers as such.
Regarding NATO, it is the military arm of the globalist antichrist system, and its end is coming soon.
The Sheikh also predicts that Russia will survive armageddon in the coming war, and the next major event is the conquest of constantinople, based on analysis of religious texts, which is exactly the same as the starets of the russian orthodox church predict, on their analyses of religious texts too. We will soon find out how correct he is…
Christianity is just another work of man. Like Islam, and Judaism, and Communism and all the other religions.
The only thing special about Christianity is Christ himself. His words and His spirit.
Many supposed Christians will be surprised when they end up in hell.
And I suppose the same will be true for all the other religions.
God knows every heart and His judgment will be just for everyone.
Texas Ray, if I tell you holy quran mentioned ”the development of fetus” 1400 years ago, tell me can that be the work of man? if I tell you holy quran mentions the body of pharao drowning and preserving his body until later time ( I should hope you know that it was discovered in 1898), now tell me can this be the work of man? the list is long I leave that to those who seek truth. I tell you this because you say this is the work of man.
Once you are convainced that these things can only be the work of God since there could not have been predicted by a man, then things should be clear.
Quran says God sent the final revelation to confirm the previous revelation as in torah and injil (gospels).
Youtube scientists who were atheists and came to islam after they found scientific evidence in holy Quran.
“Quran says God sent”
Problem is, the Christians will say their holy book foretells lots of stuff that then subsequently occurred.
The solution is to say that the probability of truth in any deity created by man is practically zero.
You will then spend more time doing something useful rather than bickering over various illusions.
To add to what Anonymous said @2001, from a Christian perspective it is inane to say “the only special thing about Christianity is Christ himself” (which is Truth!) and then say that the Christianity (actually the Orthodox Church) is a “work of man.” Think about it, the Apostles and the Bishops they consecrated were given the power to “loose and bind” sins “on Earth as in Heaven” by Christ Himself. We eat and drink the actual body of Christ to literally become more like Him. Christianity is not a moral-philosophical system based on words in a book. Not even as important a collection of holy books and letters we call the Bible. Western Christianity, descended from the heresiarchs of Rome for the last thousand years, most certainly is a “creation of man.” There is quite a difference.
I think the point that Sheik Hassan Farhan al-Maliki makes about “why should Moslems try to convert others when they can’t agree with each other what Islam really is” can be extended to other monotheist religions that promote and demand conversion.
Make no mistake: the ‘Christians’ of Sura 5:85 are not the Orthodox Christians like the ‘Byzantines, Greeks, Russians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Georgians, Romanians are, but the heretical sect of the Nazarens, similar to the Ebionites, in that they considered themselves Jews, maintained an adherence to the Law of Moses, and used only the Aramaic Gospel of the Hebrews, rejecting all the Canonical gospels. They nevertheless accepted the Virgin Birth. As St. Jerome put it in the 4th Century AD: “But while they pretend to be both Jews and Christians, they are neither”.
The translation ‘they have priests (and monks)’ is forced, the term being ‘Qissis’ which more authorized commentators translate as just ‘men devoted to learning’.
The ‘conquest of Constantinople’ in the ‘End-times’ is not referred to in the Quran, but in the Hadiths, which the Sheikh pretends to dismiss! The Hadiths in which the ‘profet Isa’ descended from heaven to submit to the Mahdi, smash the crosses and spread Islam!
You can see for yourself how the ‘Muslim-Christian alliance’ would look like:
“The truce and joint Christian-Muslim campaign against a common enemy — this is referred to as the “Battle Between the Two Great Armies” or Armageddon (at the conclusion of which all war technology shall become unusable) — followed by a non-Muslim vs. Muslim war — this is called the “Great Slaughter” (al-malhama al-kubra) — as stated in the following hadith:
“You will make a firm truce with the al-Rum until you and they wage a campaign against an enemy that is attacking them. You will be granted victory and great spoils. Then you will alight in a plain surrounded by hills. There, someone among the Christians shall say: ‘The Cross has overcome!’ whereupon someone among the Muslims shall say: ‘Nay, Allah has overcome!’ and shall go and break the cross. The Christians shall kill him, then the Muslims shall take up their arms and the two sides shall fall upon each other. Allah shall grant martyrdom to that group of Muslims. After that the Christians shall say to their leader: ‘We shall relieve you of the Arabs,’ and they shall gather up for the great battle (al-malhama). They shall come to you under eighty flags, each flag gathering 12,000 troops.” [= approx. 1 million]
Narrated with sound chains from Dhu Mikhbar al-Najashi by Abu Dawud, Ahmad, Ibn Majah, Ibn Hibban, and al-Hakim who declared it sahih and al-Dhahabi concurred. See Shaykh Shu`ayb Arna’ut’s documentation of this hadith in his edition of Sahih Ibn Hibban (15:101-103 #6708-6709)”….
Al-Mahdi will come out of Madina at the head of a huge army to face al-Dajjal and the Christians for the Great Slaughter. This shall take place in Sham [i.e. Syria].
The Mahdi will find himself surrounded by the armies of the Dajjal. `Isa shall descend, lead the Muslim armies out, and kill the Dajjal. The rest of the Muslim campaigns shall remove all trace of unbelief from the face of the earth.
At this time Constantinople shall be taken by peaceful means. The army that will conquer it shall consist in seventy thousand of the Banu Ishaq i.e. Western Muslims and their sole weapons will be Shahada and Takbir as stated in Sahih Muslim. This is the event referred to in the hadith we cited initially.
The Mahdi shall defeat the following in rapid succession: the last third of the non-Muslims from people of the Book (two thirds having perished at Armageddon); the “Turks” — also called “Khawz and Kirman” in the hadith — whose features in the hadith are applicable to both Central and Far-Eastern Asians; Gog and Magog [who are the…Russians and the Persians in all End-times scenarios].
@http://sunnah.org/msaec/articles/Constantinople.htm
So, the Sheikh doesn’t know what he’s talking about, or is up to deceive you.
Yip,
the solution is to say that the probability of truth in any deity created by man is
practicallyzero.You will then spend more time doing something useful rather than bickering over various illusions.
the solution is to say that the probability of truth in any deity created by man is practically zero.
You are absolutely correct.
What you fail to understand is that we are not talking about a deity created by man but about the deity which created man. Not that this kind of minor nuance would ever make a rabid atheist stop and think. After all, atheists don’t need facts or logic to “know” with absolute certainty that they are right. All they need is a few slogans :-)
Orwell put it best: ignorance is strength!
Cheers,
The Saker
“Not that this kind of minor nuance would ever make a rabid atheist stop and think”
Well, I know one or two of those guys and just can’t fathom why they are so dogmatic to imagine that we just popped out of nowhere.
Similarly, I have no idea why a rabid Orthodox would not stop and think why the Muslims could not be correct or the Buddists or the Hindus or the Jehovah’s witness or the Jews or the Romans, Egyptians or Ancient Greeks etc etc.
If, however, this person did contemplate such then I imagine this previously rabid Orthodox would quietly contemplate the probability that all of these beliefs had no hold on the “truth” and then declare, realistically and without egotism, that it is totally impossible to know what the truth is in this regard.
Similarly, I have no idea why a rabid Orthodox would not stop and think why the Muslims could not be correct or the Buddists or the Hindus or the Jehovah’s witness or the Jews or the Romans, Egyptians or Ancient Greeks etc etc.
For one thing, being rabid and Orthodox are mutually exclusive conditions, but I really don’t expect you to understand that. Furthermore, Orthodox education very much includes comparative theology. In fact, the issue is much more complex than being “correct” but, again, I don’t expect you to understand that either.
the probability that all of these beliefs had no hold on the “truth” and then declare, realistically and without egotism, that it is totally impossible to know what the truth is in this regard.
You would probably never apply that kind of pseudo-logic to, say, physics or mathematics. However, in case of religion, you do confidently proclaim a negative (“totally impossible to know”) which completely ignores the fact that religion is empirical and existential. The fact that it is not so *to you* is, however, sufficient for you to dismiss it on the basis of a negative premise. That tell me that your difficulty in understanding the topic you are trying to deal with is not only caused by a lack of knowledge but also by inability to think logically.
My only advice to you is this: start learning the basics about real Christianity, not the pseudo-Christianity of modern times or, even worse, the “Christianity” as depicted by agnostics or atheists. Go do the source: Saint John Chrysostome and his commentaries about the New Testament. Think of it as “Christianity 101”: the very minimal knowledge needed to be able to intelligently participate in a discussion on the topic of Christianity. Without that, you are just wasting everybody’s time and making a fool of yourself (and the fact that most people nowadays do exactly that should not be a consolation or an excuse).
So first study and learn – only then talk.
My 2cts
The Saker
Beautiful response.
First you need to set up the range within which the subject is evaluated. This has been done simply-“Orthodox education very much includes comparative theology” therefore any different views of how “deity which created man” is delivering messages to its creation are already evaluated and included (The same technology of work with facts, like in FEMA final report about 9/11. The facts which are not supporting for desired outcome are excluded). In this perspective the simple fact that the message itself is NOT coming from Orthodox resource is irrelevant, because it was already evaluated from your Orthodox perspective. This evaluation cannot be affected by heated emotions, or your personal preferences because: “being rabid and Orthodox are mutually exclusive conditions” (here it’s even more simple, this is plain false).
Than comes polite advice to your opponent to study little bit more on the subject to suggest your total dominance on the field. Is this what you’ve called “Declare victory and leave”?
I really appreciate your analyses, Saker and the way you discuss is hats off the excellent demonstration of your deep education and broad outlook. But when it comes to your intimate topics, like nationality and especially faith, your emotions are prevailing and you struggle to stay “outside” and starting to fight, instead of discussing. This weakens you. I wish you could see it from different perspective.
First, your interpretation of what I wrote is a straw man, so I will not even bother with it. More relevantly, you are fundamentally misunderstanding my goal: it is not to “win” anything (I know that this is quite futile), but to call it as I see it, simply and directly. I am sick and tired of a society where everybody is entitled to an opinion, especially when delivered with great gravitas, but nobody has even the basic education needed to form that opinion. I am especially tired of uneducated agnostics who think that a collection of dull slogans constitutes a thougth and who expect everybody to treat them with respect. Well, ‘everybody’ is welcome to accept that “air du temps”, but this is my blog and I won’t. Here I will tell them that their sophomoric parroting of slogans is just that, a sophomoric parroting of slogans, not a “thought” in any meaningful sense of the word. Can you imagine a person discussing physics who would not even bother to study the laws of motion or thermodynamics? Or biology but not know what a cell is? True, that kind of ignorant “discussion” of religion is what we see in the media today, but so what? Most of what we see in the media today is rubbish anyway. So no, I make no apologies for not treating those who don’t even bother getting their 101 level of information with any kind of respect. And why should I? To sound like the rest of the world today? Nah… But I assure you that a “victory” against somebody who does not even bother to get his/her facts is my goal, you are so mistaken. In fact, there is no way such a person can be defeated any more than somebody who knows mathematics can “defeat” an opponent which does not even know the four basic operations of arithmetic.
I want to leave you with this thought: since spirituality/religion/faith is first and foremost an empirical experience, you can make a very strong case that agnostics/atheists should be considered as not qualified to discuss it. I know, that is crimethink, but I submit to you that for an agnostic/atheist to discuss religion with religious people is tantamout to a blind person discussing colors with seeing people. Of course, the agnostics/atheist will declare that the putatively blind people are not really seeing anything, that they are only hallucinating. But whether the latter is true or not, it is still undeniable that these agnostics/atheists would come to that conclusion solely on the basis of their own blindness. So whether we, religious people, truly experience God and His uncreated energies or not, it still remains logical to say that non-religious people ought to recuse themselves from this topic since they have no idea whatsoever of what we experience.
Now I hope that having read the above you understand how misguided the notion is that I am trying to “win” a discussion here: I don’t even see my opponent as minimally qualified to even have an opinion, nevermind challenge anything I say.
After centuries of agnostic nonsense it is high time for us, religious people, to stop pretending like agnostics/atheists are in any way qualified to discuss our personal religious experience. Likewise, we ought to openly point out that somebody who does not even know the very basics of a topic ought to first take the time to do his/her homework. I know that the zeitgeist is to treat modern agnostics/atheists as if they represented some kind of new philosophical alternative. They don’t. At most, they represent a philosophical “missed curve”, a failure to produce anything useful. Hence the religious revival in so many parts of our globe: more and more people are coming to the realization that modern materialistic is sterile and dead and that spiritual self-mutilation is only a path to misery and delusion.
Cheers!
The Saker
Physicists describe many phenomena by their effect on all of humanity. The empirical phenomena called gravity, for example, can have logical calculation applied to it to forecast it’s effect but dig deeper and physicists still know practically nothing of why these effects exists.
The forecast, based on empirical observation / experience of the various world religions, is, generally, that the belief system adhered to, by an individual, in this existence has a direct impact on the state achieved in an existence hereafter.
Each of these religious belief systems forecast a different final state. Their verification system is, of course, not open to any similar logic to that of the mathematics and logic pertaining to physical systems. Instead the belief system is based on acceptance that the physical observations / psychological experiences of ancestors was accurate and has been transcribed without fault to the present time.
These religious belief systems are mutually exclusive – a comparison, by an individual, of the competing systems must, eventually, lead the believer of one system to hold the other systems as being false.
The sages of these various belief systems have written libraries to illustrate how and why their particular belief system has the one and only true consistent relationship between ancestor observation / experience to the present.
The earnest individual puzzled by the quandary of existence and the wonder of a hereafter compares all relevant documentation and concludes the integrity of one system infers the truth of this system.
This individual could have found the truth.
Similarly, another similarly perplexed individual could study the exact same documentation and come to the conclusion that another belief system has total integrity – this is their truth (the first individual will be perplexed by this seemingly incongruous outcome but it is the choice of this second individual).
Of course the possibility exists that neither system is actually the truth.
The possibility also exists that the truth has never been revealed to humanity in which case belief in any of the existing ancestor histories is futile.
Is their a danger associated with belief in one religious system (compared to another?) of course, if the system the individual decides to believe in is not the truth.
Is their a danger associated with belief in no system (compared to another?) of course, similarly to above.
As Dave Allen said at the end of each show: “may your god go with you”.
I would add – “and have hope it is the real one”.
posts like these make me feel like just giving up, just throw in the towel, and otherwise just give up on mankind…
The Saker
First, huge thanks to Saker for detailed response. Guys, I will quietly enter the ring, try not to step on Saker’s towel and make a modest attempt to summarize my position.
I think, that while the various belief systems are often quite different at let say “end user” level, they are becoming more familiar with deeper insight and most educated scholars of each religion are often finding common language quite easy, because their subject (can something which is ALL be a subject?) of study is common for them all and their level of understanding is high. So the religions aren’t in fact mutually exclusive, in detail of course, but they are rather different interpretation of the same facts to culturally and historically different “audience”.
I’ve seen many different priests delivering many different messages and each time I’ve heard the message that there is an evil somewhere, an enemy in this or that people, I haven’t heard the God speaking, I’ve heard the man only.
Yes, that is indeed *your* experience. The problem is that you are unable to imagine that somebody else might have had another experience or, if you do, you would see it as hallucination induced pseudo-experience. This is why I think that agnostics ought to simply stay out of any religious discussions are they are literally not qualified to participate in it.
The Saker
Same with prophets, I’m walking this Earth not that long, but saw too many prophecies for that short time, and it had never worked, sometimes yes, but completely other way than as was expected. In many times those, who delivered the message were brilliant people, with deep insight, open inquiring mind, gave it a vast amount of precise work but still… Yes, I believe in God with my whole soul, I believe there were prophets in history, I believe that those precious people were tasked to deliver some guidelines and messages to people.
So what you are saying is that God did send real prophets, but He did not provide mankind with any mechanism by which the contents of their prophecies could be correct interpreted. How logical is that? Think of it: what is the point of sending prophets if you know in advance that their message will be misunderstood, perverted or lost?!
The Saker
I believe that those big old books are genuine treasures of mankind. But I don’t believe anybody who is trying to explain me any of God’s “intentions” especially when it comes to that what should be expelled and what is worth of including.
And yet the authors of these books began by making precisely the decision you think should not be made: to include some things and exclude others. That is completely illogical. That is exactly what Protestants do when they say that they recognize the Bible as the revealed word of God, but that they don’t believe that any church should have the monopoly on interpreting what the Bible says. What they fail to realize is that the Bible was the product of the Church which did decided what books should and should not be included in the Bible. So while they implicitly but necessarily recognize the authority of the Church to decide which books go into the Bible (whose text they accept and call the revealed word of God) they do not recognize the authority of the Church to offer the only authoritative interpretation of the Bible. How logical is that?!
The Saker
I don’t believe Sheik Imran Hosein. And this suspicion is empirical.
(It is highly probably, that the west civilization will give up it’s “leading” role int the world. It is already happening. It is also perfectly possible that the Russians will prevail between Christians for the time to come, they will have excellent prepositions, if they manage to handle the problem of succession, and it could be no big surprise if Islam will prevail in western Europe over Christianity. But none of this haven’t been written yet, nevermind what some individuals may think. And none of this proves, that the eastern branch of Christianity is any better than the west one. )
Okay, imagine this: you enter a room with 10 people and you ask them who much 2+2 is. Each one offers a different reply. One says that the result is 1, another one says that the result is 2, a third one that the result is 3, etc. At the end you get 10 people saying 10 different things. Your conclusion based on this empirical experience of yours? You conclude that it is impossible to ascertain how much 2+2 is since everybody has a different answer. What you are missing is the possibility that only ONE has the correct answer and the other nine are wrong (also, some are closer to the correct answer than others). Once however you realize that a multiplicity of answers is not at all a sign that no answer can ever be found, you switch your focus from trying to deny that there is a correct answer or by saying that all answers are equally wrong to the quest for the correct answer. Only then do things become interesting. The rest is just an illogical waste of time
The Saker
“Think of it: what is the point of sending prophets if you know in advance that their message will be misunderstood, perverted or lost?!”
Think of it, what is the purpose of creation unless, of course, you are not what you say you are:
Logical problem of evil:
God exists.
God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.
An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented.
An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists.
Evil exists (logical contradiction).
“What you are missing is the possibility that only ONE has the correct answer and the other nine are wrong”
Identification of the truth does not infer identification of goodness.
The possibility exists that, with our understanding of these words, the deity is neither good nor evil but is more like ourselves than we care to imagine.
Thanks again, Saker, for spending your precious time with us.
Here in short my answers to your particular comments in italic.
-I can perfectly imagine the others have different experience. But i have no obligation to believe their experience more than my own.
Depends what you mean by “believe”. First, you don’t have any obligation towards anybody anyway, so it’s not about ‘obligation’, but prudence, common sense and logic ought to suggest to you that there is something happening out there to a large number of people which is dramatically different from your own experience. At this point the correct stance is to take a careful “I am not sure what to make of this” and refrain from dismissing something which you have no empirical, personal, knowledge of. BTW – that is exactly my stance on UFOs: I know enough extremely credible people who have seen them to be pretty darn sure that they are for real. As to *what* they are, I have no idea whatsoever.
For example in case of description the motives of any military strategy, I would bet my money to your conclusions, not mine, but I wouldn’t let you repair my mountain bike, not because I do not believe that you can make it any better, but simply because I’m pretty self-confident in this regard. BTW don’t try to drag me into “you will see it as hallucination induced pseudo experience” mode of treating the reality, I don’t buy this. For me absolutely ANY kind of experience have it’s meaning, otherwise it doesn’t happen. So when the homeless drunkyard scream about his nightmares after inhaling some solvent I believe that this is somehow part of his reality as well as mine, when happened to me to heard him screaming. Although interpretation is always up to us.
You are making my case by conflating totally different levels of experience. What you are saying is the chemically induced hallucinations are similar in meaning to Newton discovering the laws of motion. That is highly illogical. Furthermore, reality is objective and not dependent on us. If you tell me that reality is whatever our perceptions tell us it is, then, indeed, you recuse yourself from this topic entirely since God is, by definition, the ultimate reality. Please think about this carefully as I am sure that you can understand this otherwise “weird” notion of the Creator being “more real” than His creation. If you understand the categories, then it is axiomatic. Notice also the paradox: the religious fanatic proclaims reality as objective while the prudent sceptic says that reality is subjecive. Neat. And oh so typical.
-Everybody is connected directly to to God from very first moment and cannot be excluded,
Says who? Is that a dogma? What is your empirical/logical basis for that statement :-P
Like the cells cannot be excluded alive from the body they are forming (yes I’ve heard about sperms). True sense of prophecies and church in general is to provide guideline for anybody how to realize this connection for present moment and keep tuned as long as possible. And keep the experience of this extended understanding for everyday living, share it with others.
-This was done exactly with goal to make the guideline accessible for anybody who really tries, but at the same time create some obstacles to not let humans dwell in “universal” or “connected” mode for eternity. This seemingly paradoxical approach when humans are one with God and all universe and they are individuals at the same time is one of cornerstones of our existence. The message doesn’t come from the book, but comes directly to “one who listens” and message is not common for all the people but different for each one. So Protestants made very important step they made formally possible the guideline be the subject of evolution although they admit the original council for evaluating different messages have done good job. While traditionalists are insisting that individual “the one who listens” is the one who must adapt to language of the message. Both approaches work in a way, the true goal here is the training of the best abilities for guarding and delivering the message across the times, being that openes or discipline depends on cultural background and time being. And same way- different approaches suits better different times. Of course. How could “everything which is” have only one correct description? How logical is that?
-OK, imagine the situation, when you meet not ten but thousands of people and you are slowly realizing that those, who claim that 2+2=4 tend to have better application of their results, than the others. This is what I call “empirical”. I think that almost all of human knowledge is based on this, including the religious one.
Wrong. You are forgetting a very basic yet central teaching of Christ: “my kingdom is not of this world”. “Better application of results” can only be ascertained at the Last Judgment and thus is not empirically measurable at this time.
Okay, I hope that some of what I wrote might be of some interest to you. I cannot continue this one-on-one discussion (sorry!). I just hope that I have successfully made you doubt your certitudes. If not, then I am very sorry
Cheers!
The Saker
”At this time Constantinople shall be taken by peaceful means. The army that will conquer it shall consist in seventy thousand of the Banu Ishaq i.e. Western Muslims and their sole weapons will be Shahada and Takbir as stated in Sahih Muslim”
You are wrong you should listen to David Pidcock, I agree with him on this quote, this refers to young turks when they took constantinopole, thats exactly how they did it, they pretended to be muslims and they are from banu ishaq, meaning they were jews.
David Pidcock is not to be taken seriously. His ‘Islamic Party of Britain’ was a farce. He himself was a ‘farceur’.
His friends with Sh Imran Hosein, I have seen his work.
Birds of a feather flock together.
@ Anonymous on December 03, 2017, at 12:13 am UTC
“So, the Sheikh doesn’t know what he’s talking about, or is up to deceive you.”
I would suggest that you read Sheik Imran’s book on “Methodology for Study of the Qur’an” for more clarity:
http://www.imranhosein.org/books/555-an-introduction-to-methodology-for-study-of-the-quran.html
The important thing to note is that Allah, The Most High, has promised to preserve the (arabic) Qur’an as revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). The same promise for preservation has not been extended to the ahadith (the non-Qur’anic statements of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)). Hence, with the passage of time, there could well have been distortions, corruption that has crept into ahadith as a result of the inimical behaviour of various individuals, including tyrannical rulers. And these discrepancies could also have crept into ahadith which we claim today as “sahih” or authentic.
The acid test when grappling with the ahadith is to establish whether it is in conformity with the Qur’an or not. If it is not, then such ahadith should be left aside. This is the intellectually sound approach to apply when grappling with the text.
Sheikh Imran is an unrefuted scholar in accordance with the authoritative framework in the Quranic tradition of putting forward Quranic viewpoints. It is undeniable that the Prophet Muhammad (sws) had such a close loving relationship to Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Many people write anonymous comments and make videos but they have never written a book putting their position or a counterposition forward to any of Sheikh Imran’s written books. One glaring example is the fact that inside Sheikh Imran’s book entitled ‘The Caliphate and the Saudi Wahabi Nation State’ the Sheikh challenged many of the divisions of Muslims, which remains unchallenged in writing with an Islamic scholar with his name and authority of Islamic background (known as Ijaāzah or teaching licences) to put forward an alternative view.
In secular academia it is unheard of for a written scholarly viewpoint to go unchallenged by peers, therefore considering the Saudi Wahabi nation state spends billions in warping the view of Islam, it is profound that they or any of their sponsored factions have not been able to put a proper written and published refutation to Sheikh Imran
Sheikh Imran continuously repeats in his lectures ‘if you defer with me, publish your view and put your real name on it. If you are right than I will correct myself, is that too much to ask?’
dear Saker, readers and commentators,
I’d love to educate myself on the differences between western and orthodox christianity, including historically. It would be best to start with a high level basics read. Can anyone help me with suggestions?
Thanks.
All flesh shall see the salvation of God. — Luke 3:6
I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God… — Romans 8:38-39
For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. — 1 Corinthians 15:22
For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. — Romans 11:32
If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. — John 12:47
For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. — 1 Timothy 4:10
Etc.
Nasrallah speaking about The Messiah Jesus Christ.
A very passionate and beautiful speech.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=onIXzn2Aak0
Beautiful, but let’s heed the words of the Disciple whom Jesus loved (1 John). Jesus is the Son of God the Father, not merely the son of Mary:
“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world (1 John, 4:1-3).
14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. 15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God (1 John 4:14-15).
22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. 24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. 25 And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life (1 John 2: 22-25)
The Holy Quran hasn’t changed since its revelation and it won’t till the day of resurrection. Prophet Jesus ( may peace be upon him) was mentioned in holy Quran more than prophet Muhammad ( may peace be upon him. ) is it not interesting and worth to read it ? :)
No, not at all.