tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9209804225211914114.post3548251933162441869..comments2023-12-28T06:57:42.760-08:00Comments on Faith Actually: The Jesus of JihadUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9209804225211914114.post-22515079492433971382014-02-15T08:40:07.326-08:002014-02-15T08:40:07.326-08:00How do different people get into the same room to ...How do different people get into the same room to listen to each other respectfully? The purpose is for dialog, not syncretism. One lesson I learned as a social worker is that you start where the person (client) actually is, not with your own agenda. In the city I live in, there are two major Christian seminaries that communicate very little with each other. Why? In one of the seminaries, Calvinists seem elitist and exclusive to those who don't share similar views. Why? Science speaks of paradigms that can be, at certain stages, almost closed systems that undermine open communication. I mentioned Rumi, the Sufi poet, selling well in America. I would want to know why that was the case. What was his poetry speaking to? I should think an apologist would be interested in this phenomenon. It's not that I agree with Eckhart Tolle's repackaged efforts, for example, but why does this seem to speak to so many people? I am not for a facile syncretism; I am for open dialog: deep listening as well as deep sharing.Glennardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11776974854225405864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9209804225211914114.post-50748970431592745582014-02-15T05:38:52.117-08:002014-02-15T05:38:52.117-08:00Glennardo -- your comment about the compatibility ...Glennardo -- your comment about the compatibility of the "mystical" elements in the various faith traditions is (as you may know) the crux of the interfaith movement, which seeks to unify apparently opposing belief systems through these "shared" elements. I addressed this in an earlier post. http://faithactually.blogspot.com/2013/12/stop-sharing-jesus.html<br />It is an idea that neglects the existence of absolute truth in biblical terms. it is pluralism and relativism, which ends up distorting the essence of these religions for the purpose of syncretism, and quickly creates a form of spiritualism that bares hardly any resemblance to Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, etc., at all. it is a popular approach today, but one that I find to be innately flawed.Maeve McDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14703232794336442533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9209804225211914114.post-43329295932514639642014-02-05T08:31:21.363-08:002014-02-05T08:31:21.363-08:00Thanks for your good words. My knowledge is quite ...Thanks for your good words. My knowledge is quite limited in this domain. I agree with your comments about the working of the Holy Spirit. A starting place for dialog may be attention paid to the "mystical" dimensions of the different faith traditions. For several years Rumi, a Sufi poet, was a best-seller in America (in translation). It may be that mystical traditions of various faiths are closer together than are other dimensions of organized religion. That may be a good starting place for respectful I-Thou dialog (Buber). I'm not actually a student of history, but there was a time when Muslims, Jews, and Christians all lived peacefully together in Spain. Christians are certainly not free from the sin of violence toward others. Lastly, when Jesus asked his disciple who he really was, there were various perspectives in response.Glennardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11776974854225405864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9209804225211914114.post-40242642947178801302014-02-02T06:12:44.775-08:002014-02-02T06:12:44.775-08:00In response to claims on social media that Jihad i...In response to claims on social media that Jihad is non-violent, here is some more information:<br /><br />There are many interpretations of Jihad. Jihad is the struggle in the cause of God. But in keeping with Islamic tradition, it has to be viewed in the context of the Sunnah--Muhammad's life example. You also need to look at the progression of Jihad, as modeled by Muhammad, in light of abrogation (later verses nullifying previous verses). Muhammad's later warlord years, and the charges to violent jihad, supersede the peaceable ones from earlier in his life. My point in the article is that per Islamic tradition and theology, jihad is violent. True Islam is violent. Whether or not there are liberal Muslims out there who don't see Jihad as violent is a different thing altogether. Muhammad preached and modeled violent Jihad.<br /><br />Here are some corroborating verses from the Quran: <br /><br />Surah 4:65 A man came to the Prophet and asked, "A man fights for war booty; another fights for fame and a third fights for showing off. Which of them fights in Allah's cause?" The prophet said, "He who fights that Allah's Word (i.e. Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah's cause."<br /><br />Surah 4:73 Muhammad said, "Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords."<br /><br />Surah 4:220 Muhammad said, "... I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy) ..."<br /><br />This is a great resource on what Islam says about Jihad: http://www.answering-islam.org/Bailey/jihad.html<br /><br />Let's stop commenting on what we all think Jihad is and go to the original source; looking at what the Quran teaches (reading it as is customary per Islamic tradition using the law of abrogation).Maeve McDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14703232794336442533noreply@blogger.com