Is Islam a threat to Christianity around the globe?

[GraceSofia]

There has been a group of us who have been studying this for a couple of years now and one of the guys is putting together an extensive study on it and is particularly bothered by the MSA/MSU in the schools.

What does MSA/MSU mean again?

 

[jakasaki]

What does MSA/MSU mean again?

Muslim Student Association at Michigan State University

 

[bridgeforsale]

What does MSA/MSU mean again?

It’s Arabic for stick the fuse in the cylinder before you push the button

 

[Contarini]

Diversity for diversity’s sake is not a particularly commendable thing, as some kinds of diversity (e.g., syncretism) harm, rather than enrich, the churches they are found in. It can hardly be argued, for instance, that the division of the Anglican Vhurch into separate wings based on acceptance or rejection of homosexual clergy has strengthened or enriched that church communion.

Not as a communion, because a communion involves unity. However, I would not be surprised if this division in the long run increases the number of Anglicans in the world. An excellent case has been made by Rodney Stark and other sociologists that the fragmentation of American Protestantism has resulted in a very large number of Americans being actively involved in some kind of Christian church.

Since I think unity is more important than numbers, I don’t regard this as a good thing. But as a sociological observation it seems generally sound to me.

Edwin

 

[bridgeforsale]

Not as a communion, because a communion involves unity. However, I would not be surprised if this division in the long run increases the number of Anglicans in the world. An excellent case has been made by Rodney Stark and other sociologists that the fragmentation of American Protestantism has resulted in a very large number of Americans being actively involved in some kind of Christian church.

Since I think unity is more important than numbers, I don’t regard this as a good thing. But as a sociological observation it seems generally sound to me.

Edwin

You guys really want a whole where everyone thinks the same way? Scary

 

[bridgeforsale]

I think if the church remained united we’d still be driving around on horse and buggies (and in fact we probably wouldn’t have even advanced that far).

I meant “horses” and buggies … my bad!

 

[GraceSofia]

It’s Arabic for stick the fuse in the cylinder before you push the button

I knew I was going to regret asking.

 

[Contarini]

You guys really want a whole where everyone thinks the same way? Scary

First of all, I’m not sure who the “you guys” are. I’m not a member of the Roman Communion (hence the prominent declaration of Anglican affiliation in every post of mine, which some people still manage to miss).

And in the second place, why do you think that “unity” means that everyone thinks the same way?

Here’s what I mean by unity: that all Christians in a particular place (town, neighborhood, whatever) worship together on a Sunday morning, hearing the Word and receiving the Sacraments; and that each such local community recognizes all other such communities throughout the world, so that anyone who received the sacraments in one community may receive it in others, and the ministry of someone functioning in one community will be accepted as valid in the others. That does imply a basic agreement throughout the worldwide Church on those things that need to be believed, but it leaves room for very wide variation in theology and worship. And even within the local community common worship is no guarantee of common opinion. Indeed, diversity of opinion strengthens a local community.

Never assume that unity means uniformity.

And finally, I do not expect the kind of unity I describe to be achieved in my lifetime, or indeed at any point before the return of Christ. It is not clear to me that there was any period of Christian history–except maybe the very first few years after Pentecost–when this unity existed. Certainly one can see it begin to fray already in the pages of the New Testament, and it has never been restored. It is an eschatological goal.

Edwin

 

[bridgeforsale]

First of all, I’m not sure who the “you guys” are. I’m not a member of the Roman Communion (hence the prominent declaration of Anglican affiliation in every post of mine, which some people still manage to miss).

You have Episcopalian in two places (so yes I was aware of your denominational affiliation). Nonetheless, you uphold the idea of religious “unity” as if its a good and desireable thing to have a global meeting of the minds on a subject as all encompassing as religion.

And in the second place, why do you think that “unity” means that everyone thinks the same way?

It means they think substantially the same way in so many areas the distinctions become subtle (and slowly this global thought police religion would like to impose on us all; once again becomes an intolerant monster).

Here’s what I mean by unity: that all Christians in a particular place (town, neighborhood, whatever) worship together on a Sunday morning, hearing the Word and receiving the Sacraments; and that each such local community recognizes all other such communities throughout the world, so that anyone who received the sacraments in one community may receive it in others, and the ministry of someone functioning in one community will be accepted as valid in the others. That does imply a basic agreement throughout the worldwide Church on those things that need to be believed, but it leaves room for very wide variation in theology and worship. And even within the local community common worship is no guarantee of common opinion. Indeed, diversity of opinion strengthens a local community.

IMHO that’s just tolerance (I’m not sure I’d call it unity); but OK you’re idea of unity isn’t terrible (redirect my above statements to all who would like a more robust form of unity).

Never assume that unity means uniformity.

I’m afraid even the unity you hope for (which, again I’d simply define as tolerance & an appreciation for the diversity of our neighbors) is probably not realistic. Relgion seems to attract many unstable minds, who join a religion to find validation for their bigotry (and sadly they usually find it).

And finally, I do not expect the kind of unity I describe to be achieved in my lifetime, or indeed at any point before the return of Christ.

I wouldn’t hold my breath or sell the farm

It is not clear to me that there was any period of Christian history–except maybe the very first few years after Pentecost–when this unity existed. Certainly one can see it begin to fray already in the pages of the New Testament, and it has never been restored. It is an eschatological goal.

Edwin

Because religion is merely a reflection of us humans (you know … the same humans who invented it)

 

[Contarini]

You have Episcopalian in two places (so yes I was aware of your denominational affiliation). Nonetheless, you uphold the idea of religious “unity” as if its a good and desireable thing to have a global meeting of the minds on a subject as all encompassing as religion.

Minds, minds, minds. Religion is about bodies.

Or more accurately, it’s about whole persons.

It means they think substantially the same way in so many areas the distinctions become subtle (and slowly this global thought police religion would like to impose on us all; once again becomes an intolerant monster).

I’m not sure what you mean by the “thought police religion.” No one is suggesting imposing anything on anyone. You are making a fairly wild leap here. I find the idea of uniformity detestable myself.

IMHO that’s just tolerance (I’m not sure I’d call it unity); but OK you’re idea of unity isn’t terrible (redirect my above statements to all who would like a more robust form of unity).

What’s not robust about people worshiping together? You should try it sometime. And yes, this does involve doctrinal agreement–from my perspective the baseline is the Nicene Creed.

I’m afraid even the unity you hope for (which, again I’d simply define as tolerance & an appreciation for the diversity of our neighbors)

Hardly. I appreciate the diversity of Mormonism, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism. . . . but I don’t want unity with them (as currently constituted anyway).

is probably not realistic.

As I explicitly recognized. The point I was making was that even if divisions among Christians (or among Anglicans specifically) increase our numbers, those divisions should still be regarded as an evil to be avoided. Of course division is going to happen. But I want to participate in the controversies of my time in such a way as to minimize division and increase the chances of relatively greater unity.

For many evangelical Protestants in particular, the goal is to have a large number of Christians (ideally everyone in the world), and if we get to that goal by having thousands of competing churches, that’s just great. That’s the position with which I’m disagreeing.

Because religion is merely a reflection of us humans (you know … the same humans who invented it)

I don’t think it’s that simple.

Edwin

 

[bridgeforsale]

Minds, minds, minds. Religion is about bodies.

Or more accurately, it’s about whole persons.

you know what I meant

I’m not sure what you mean by the “thought police religion.” No one is suggesting imposing anything on anyone.

Not today, because thanks to the work of the enlightenment thinkers, churches no longer have this power. When they did have this power they exerted it.

You are making a fairly wild leap here. I find the idea of uniformity detestable myself.

I take you at your word, but nonetheless I’m drawing inferences from the historical patterns of religion.

What’s not robust about people worshiping together? You should try it sometime.

I’ve tried it plenty of times (and in fact I quite enjoyed my experience attending Episcopalian services, nonetheless, without a belief in the core religious claims, I don’t see much of a point).

And yes, this does involve doctrinal agreement–from my perspective the baseline is the Nicene Creed.

Like there are universally accepted laws (like a respect for basic human rights, and a shared definition of what basic human rights means) I suppose it serves the Christian religion well to have some shared core values (such as the Nicene Creed, shared by many if not most denominations). But a call to unity is “typically” more profound than agreeing on a rough skeleton of basic principals

Hardly. I appreciate the diversity of Mormonism, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism. . . . but I don’t want unity with them (as currently constituted anyway).

Then how do you interpret the biblical mandate to evangelize to these non-Christian (or non-mainstream) groups?

For many evangelical Protestants in particular, the goal is to have a large number of Christians (ideally everyone in the world), and if we get to that goal by having thousands of competing churches, that’s just great. That’s the position with which I’m disagreeing.

I’m better at this sort of conversation when we’re discussing centralized control versus grass roots initiative in a governmental or economic context; but I suspect the same applies to religion. At its root religion is cultural & reflective of its host culture. I don’t think big organizations do a good job of adjusting to cultural preferences, or “local” circumstances (in the same way large government agencies, or overly broad government mandates, lack the requisite flexibility to effectively solve problems and mitigate inherent problems like waste and freeloading).

A “Roman” or very “Anglican” style church probably won’t be a hit in the back woods of Kentuky (where the locals are having services in a trailer and taking their pet snakes along).

I don’t think it’s that simple.

Edwin

I might agree with you here (depending on what you mean exactly).

 

[Abzalamin]

I am USA muslim. Islam itself is not the threat. Unfortunately the salafi islam is the biggest sect, and i do not agree with their views nor do I believe they are real muslims, they are the threat. And its a big problem but I hope we can have a meaningful dialogue instead of just insults. Feel free to ask me questions

 

[Jay53]

I am USA muslim. Islam itself is not the threat. Unfortunately the salafi islam is the biggest sect, and i do not agree with their views nor do I believe they are real muslims, they are the threat. And its a big problem but I hope we can have a meaningful dialogue instead of just insults. Feel free to ask me questions

Welcome to CAF!

 

[Abzalamin]

theres nothing threatening about people praying 5 times a day. the problem is terrorism, not religion. you need to focus on the problem instead of creating confusion and division. Shia Islam is peaceful, and sufis, and ahmadiyyas are peaceful muslims too. And we are attacked by terrorists MORE than anyone else because we teach contrary to terrorist islamic views. we work towards getting rid of extremist views in islam so they hate us and bomb us. THEN we get attacked from both sides. terrorist muslims hate us AND so does the west because we carry the title of MUSLIM, even though we believe muslims are supposed to be honest, good, righteous people, that doesnt matter to you people. u just want to insult us. Theres no excuse for insulting all muslims in a single group, unless youre totally ignorant of islam. because islam has hundreds of sects which have varying degrees of goodness and evil. some have lots of evil and no good. some have lots of good and no evil. so i hope u can ask me questions and get rid of this ignorance problem many of you catholics seem to have because its hurting innocent people

 

[dzheremi]

Ahlan, Abzalamin. I hope you enjoy your time on this forum.

So what do you think should be done about Salafi or other Muslims who you say are not acting as true Muslims should act? Because to the non-Muslim, it is not important what kind of Islam the terrorist practices. The violent verses of the Qur’an do not specify which sects are to take them literally and which are not.

 

[bridgeforsale]

A “Roman” or very “Anglican” style church probably won’t be a hit in the back woods of Kentuky (where the locals are having services in a trailer and taking their pet snakes along).

Oops … misspelled Kentucky

 

[staffsgt7]

What does MSA/MSU mean again?

Muslim Student Association. they can be found in Universities and community colleges around the USA.

As far as us misunderstanding Islam being violent - there is no misunderstanding it from us. Why don’t you guys work on islam to stop your violence? As for Shia being more peaceful, oh I can feel the peace coming from the Mullahs in Iran, or in Iraq. And let us not forget Hezbollah that does exactly what Hamas does to Israel and to the Christians in Lebanon.

They are usually the minority so they are treated as dhimmi in Sunni majority lands but I won’t say that they are any more peaceful than the Sunni if they are given the chance. A Shia majority Iraq and Iran are persecuting Christians there too.

 

[GraceSofia]

Muslim Student Association. they can be found in Universities and community colleges around the USA.

Thank you.

 

[sedonaman]

theres nothing threatening about people praying 5 times a day.

This is a gross over-simplification of Islam. One need not be an expert in Islam to know that there is more to it than praying. Although praying might be the most important, there are other required practices.

Salah was the most important practice for followers of Muhammed. Muhammed considered the following deeds, in order of goodness: 1. To offer the prayers at their early stated fixed times.
2. To be good and dutiful to their parents.
3. To participate in Jihad, in Allah’s cause
The hadith states that when asked “O Allah’s Apostle! What is the best deed?” he replied, “To offer the prayers at their stated times”. When asked, “What is next in goodness?” he replied, “To be good and dutiful to your parents” and when further asked “What is next in goodness?” he replied, “To participate in Jihad in Allah’s Cause.” Sahih al-Bukhari 4:52:41

the problem is terrorism, not religion. you need to focus on the problem instead of creating confusion and division.

I agree that religion is not the problem, but interpreting it can be. In the case of Islam, if it doesn’t cause terrorism, then is it just a coincidence that 99.44% of terrorists are Muslim? I think not.

… Theres no excuse for insulting all muslims in a single group, unless youre totally ignorant of islam. because islam has hundreds of sects which have varying degrees of goodness and evil. some have lots of evil and no good. some have lots of good and no evil. so i hope u can ask me questions and get rid of this ignorance problem many of you Catholics seem to have because its hurting innocent people

There is a big difference between Islam [the belief] and Muslims [the people], and there is a big difference between saying “all Muslims are terrorists” and “all terrorists are Muslim”. Any attempt to critique Islam is quickly interpreted to mean an insult to Islam, Mohammed, and Muslims. You said so yourself in so many words. That is one thing that causes confusion. If Islam is true and Mohammed is a real prophet, Muslims need not fear any criticism, even the dishonest kind. But that is not the case, which casts doubt on the truth of Muslim beliefs and raises the question of whether they themselves really believe that Islam is true.

Unfortunately, stereotyping is a human trait. [Some in the West think it’s the worst sin of all, but I think it is a form of self-defense mechanism.] The situation of child molestation by some Catholic priests is an example: all priests got painted by the same broad brush. What was the Church’s reaction? Did it issue a fatwa, commanding Catholics to go on a pillaging rampage of its critics? No. The Church formed a committee to study the problem and recommend a solution. As a result, positive changes were made in the Church. By contrast, someone draws a cartoon of Mohammed, and the whole ummah stereotypes all Christians and goes on a barbaric rampage in which it kills non-Muslims at random.

Conclusion: Islam has a PR problem that is not going to get solved by more Muslim violence.

 

[hosemonkey]

No, it’s not a threat at all, in fact martyrdom is the fastest way to get to heaven!

Then in all charity, we should endevour to send as many moslems as possible to heaven. I recommend small tactical nuclear weapons. In all seriousness, Islam is a much greater threat to the world than Nazism or Communism ever was and should be eradicated with much greater vigor.