Theology bites

2018-11-11 17:39:29


|| Popular Atheism is not a Philosophy but a Therapy ||


“Materialism is a conviction based not upon evidence or logic but upon what Carl Sagan (speaking of another kind of faith) called ‘a deep-seated need to believe.’ Considered purely as a rational philosophy, it has little to recommend it; but as an emotional sedative, what Czeslaw Milosz liked to call the opiate of unbelief, it offers a refuge from so many elaborate perplexities, so many arduous spiritual exertions, so many trying intellectual and moral problems, so many exhausting expressions of hope or fear, charity or remorse. In this sense, it should be classified as one of those religious consolations whose purpose is not to engage the mind or will with the mysteries of being but merely to provide a palliative for existential grievances and private disappointments. Popular atheism is not a philosophy but a therapy. Perhaps, then, it should not be condemned for its philosophical deficiencies, or even treated as an intellectual posture of any kind, but recognized as a form of simple devotion, all the more endearing for its mixture of tender awkwardness and charming pomposity. Even the stridency, bigotry, childishness, and ignorance with which the current atheist vogue typically expresses itself should perhaps be excused as no more than an effervescence of primitive fervor on the part of those who, finding themselves poised upon a precipice overlooking the abyss of ultimate absurdity, have made a madly valiant leap of faith. That said, any religion of consolation that evangelically strives to supplant other creeds, as popular atheism now does, has a certain burden of moral proof to bear: it must show that the opiates it offers are at least as powerful as those it would replace. To proclaim triumphantly that there is no God, no eternal gaze that beholds our cruelties and betrayals, no final beatitude for the soul after death, may seem bold and admirable to a comfortable bourgeois academic who rarely if ever has to descend into the misery of those whose lives are at best a state of constant anxiety or at worst the indelible memory of the death of a child. For a man sheltered from life’s harder edges, a gentle soporific may suffice to ease whatever fleeting moments of distress or resentment afflict him. For those genuinely acquainted with grief, however – despair, poverty, calamity, disease, oppression, or bereavement – but who have no ivory tower to which to retreat, no material advantages to distract them from their suffering, and no hope for anything better in this world, something far stronger may be needed. If there is no God, then the universe (astonishing accident that it is) is a brute event of boundless magnificence and abysmal anguish, which only illusion and myth may have the power to make tolerable. Only extraordinary callousness or fatuous sanctimony could make one insensible to this. Moreover, if there is no God, truth is not an ultimate good – there is no such things as an ultimate good – and the more merciful course might well be not to preach unbelief but to tell ‘noble lies’ and fabricate ‘pious frauds’ and conjure up ever more enchanting illusions for the solace of torment.”


~ David Bentley Hart in The Experience of God


------------------------------
Tags: #Atheism Open / Comment

2018-10-16 18:18:06 ​​


|| What was God's name?
YHWH? Yahweh? Jehovah? ||

By Ibn Anwar


Christians claim that the so-called tetragrammaton YHWH (yod hey vav hey) is the proper and one true name of God in the Bible. The problems with that claim are many. One of the greatest of the difficulties that come with claiming that YHWH is God's proper name is that it is unpronounceable. As Hebrew was written with only consonants before the much later invention of vowels, there is no way to know the precise and exact way by which the four consonants are to be pronounced together without the aid of tradition through memorisation, i.e., the manner by which to read words through oral learning that is handed down from one generation to the next. Unfortunately, the tradition did not survive to the Middle Ages and as a result, Jews and Christians completely lost the knowledge on how to say the letters as a single item correctly. How can a name be a name if it cannot be pronounced? The name is, therefore, for all intents and purposes, lost to history. Commonly, two pronunciations are favourites among Christians: Jehovah and Yahweh. The former is particularly popular among Jehovah's Witnesses while the latter is commonly used by Protestants and Catholics. They are, however, completely man made and have no foundation in history. Although the Jehovah's Witnesses use 'Jehovah' as preferred pronunciation for the tetragrammaton, they, nevertheless, recognise that the correct pronunciation has long disappeared:

“But especially after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., the correct pronunciation gradually came to be lost.”[1]

Christian author Donald Louis Giddens writes:

“JHWH - the Jewish scribes wrote Adonay or Lord every time they came to this sacred Name of God. No one knows how to pronounce it, nor do they know the vowels...”[2]

Affirming the above, Steven Ortlepp writes:

“The correct pronunciation of the name were lost from Jewish tradition some time during the Middle Ages; late in the period of the Second Temple the name had come to be regarded as unspeakably holy and therefore unsuitable for public reading, although it continued to be used privately.”[3]

The Cambridge Bible Commentary says:

“There came a time when it was felt that the name was too sacred to pronounce, so another word, 'Adonai' (my Lord), was spoken instead and the original pronunciation of YHWH was lost.”[4]

Since Christians and Jews can no longer utter the alleged name because they have completely lost its actual pronunciation, there is really little point in pushing for the four-letter word. If it is a name that God desires to be regarded by, then He would not have caused the entire population of Christians and Jews to experience mass amnesia that they totally forget how to say that name. The very fact that the name is no longer extant in human speech means that it is no longer relevant.


Notes:

[1] - n.d. (1964). The Watchtower, Volume 85. Pennsylvania: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. p. 422

[2] - Giddens, D. L. (2007). Jesus in Genesis: A Study Course. n.d.: G.E.M. Books. p. 203

[3] - Ortlepp, S. (2011). Pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton: A Historico-Linguistic Approach. n.d.: Lulu. p. 16

[4] - Lace, O. J. (1972). Understanding the Old Testament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 115


------------------------------------
Tags: #Christianity #God Open / Comment

2018-09-27 08:59:49


|| The Creation of Prophet Adam in Evolutionary Terms ||


Ahmet Hamdi Akseki (d. 1951) was a prominent Turkish scholar who once served as the President of Religious Affairs of Turkey during the early period of Republic of Turkey. He was of the opinion that the Theory of evolution and Islāmic position on Adamic creation do not contradict according to the classical Muslim theology. In this short YouTube clip, Ustādh Usman Ali focuses on Akseki’s position on Adamic creation via gradual evolutionary processes with some of his personal thoughts.


A discussion on Akseki’s position on Adamic creation can be found in the following paper:

Kaya, Veysel (April 2012). Can the Quran Support Darwin? An Evolutionist Approach by Two Turkish Scholars after the Foundation of the Turkish Republic. The Muslim World. 102 (2): 357–370.


Tap the Link preview below to watch the Video

------------------------------------
#Evolution #Science #Theology Open / Comment

2018-09-18 11:08:04 ​​

|| Is the Bible corrupted? When and where was it corrupted? ||

by Ibn Anwar


There is little doubt in the informed Christian's mind that the Bible has indeed undergone many phases of corruption throughout 2000 years of Christian history. To deny that the Bible has been corrupted is no longer a tenable position and those that assert such a preposterous claim as "the Bible has not been corrupted" are regarded as delusional at best. The very fact that Bibles today are marred by rather revealing and helpful footnotes that explicitly mention and identify the places in which corruption, changes, deletions, alterations, editing etc. have occurred should assure Bible readers that the book that they hold in their hand is not the unperturbed and pristine "Word of God" that was revealed from heaven. The New Testament scholar W. R. Telford cautions students of the Bible regarding the veracity of the information that they encounter in their readings of the Bible:

“Our main sources have to be treated with caution, however. There are discrepancies between Paul and the Acts of the Apostles. The Acts and the Gospels present not history but theologically interpreted history or tradition...some data may have been modified, altered, embellished or invented by the church in the oral period when its traditions were being circulated...” [1]

The next time a Christian missionary or apologist challenges you to identify the exact date of the Bible's corruption, simply retort by challenging him to open his Bible and turn to Mark 16. Ask him to read out the footnote for verses nine onwards. If that does not satisfy his challenge, then ask him to turn to 1 John 5:7 and make him read out the footnote in his Bible that he has in his hand for that particular verse (it should be somewhere along the lines of the attached image below). If that still does not satisfy him, then challenge him to read Mark 1:2 and its footnote. By this time, it should be clear to him that his question as to when the Bible was corrupted is completely moot and irrelevant. The Bible that he carries in his hand resoundingly informs him that the Bible has indeed been corrupted many times in many places.

See the attachment below as an example


Notes:

1 Telford, W. R. (2014). The New Testament: A Beginner's Guide. London: Oneworld Publications. p. 42


------------------------------------
#Christianity #Bible Open / Comment

2018-09-09 15:24:43 ​​

|| Jesus did not teach the Trinity ||

by Ibn Anwar


Essential to the doctrine of the Trinity is the divine sonship of Jesus as the Second Person of the Triune Godhead. What is indefatigably clear is that Jesus never once taught anyone that he was God or that he was deserving of divine worship and adulation. This in itself is a powerful confirmation that the Trinity was not part of the message and teachings of Jesus, for if he believed in the Trinity and desired that others believed in it, he would have had to clearly identify himself as the Second Person of the Trinity which he evidently never did. Highly celebrated Trinitarian scholar and theologian Professor Larry Hurtado says, in no uncertain terms, in a discussion with the Unitarian scholar Professor Anthony Buzzard that Jesus did not think he was the Second Person of the Trinity nor did he claim to be God:

“Jesus did not claim that he was God and did not imagine himself to be a second person of the Trinity and did not insist that he should be worshipped.” [1]

The late Archbishop of Canterbury, religious head of the worldwide Trinitarian Anglican communion, Dr. Michael Ramsey writes:

“Jesus did not claim deity for himself. He proclaimed the sovereignty of God, a sovereignty realized in and through his own mission;” [2]

The very fact that Jesus never thought of himself as God or as the Second Person of the Triune Godhead, as Hurtado emphatically says, must mean that he never preached the Trinity. The Trinity says that there is One God that is a Being in whom there are three equal and eternal Persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Such language, terminology and formulation is completely foreign to the recorded speech of Jesus. Jesus did not know or teach any such doctrine. He did not claim to be God and he did not imagine himself to be the Second Person of the Godhead, therefore, he did not teach the Trinity.



References:

[1] - [Restoration Fellowship](2016, October 29). Anthony Buzzard hosts Dr. Larry Hurtado: God, Jesus & the Trinity. [Video File]. Retrieved from YouTube

[2] - Ramsey, M. (1980). Jesus and the Living Past: The Hale Lectures 1978. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 39


------------------------------------
#Christianity #Trinity Open / Comment

2018-08-10 18:53:08 ​​


|| Unpacking the unpackable Trinity ||


The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that there is One God that is three Persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. The One God is not only the Father. Neither is He only the Son. Nor is He only the Holy Ghost. God, in proper Trinitarian formulation as formally recognised by both western and eastern churches, is the conglomeration of all three Persons, therefore, God is together the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. To exclude any of the Persons in the triadic formulation is to dismantle what is deemed as God in orthodox Christian dogma.

In a nutshell, because God is all three of the said Persons, the Father himself is not that One God, nor is the Son by himself that One God, nor is the Holy Ghost himself that One God. And yet, they are not small fractions of that One God even though each is not that One God but rather together they make that One God. As the One God is a conference of three eternal Persons that have been eternally three from before time existed, each Person cannot possibly be said to be equal to the conference of the three that make the One God, therefore, the One God must be stronger than any of the particular Persons within that One God. But if that is the case, then those three Persons must necessarily be fractions of that One all-powerful God, but Trinitarians insist that that is not so. Rather, they insist that each Person has equal share and is fully God, but what is meant by fully God remains unasnwered and confounded by our little exercise in simply stating the doctrine and the basic implications that follow. The Trinity is a mystery is yet the best answer orthodoxy has to offer these many centuries past. It was inexplicably confusing one thousand years ago and it remains just as inexplicably confusing this very moment. No theologian has ever been able to grapple with the mystery of the Trinity.

And so theologians Roger Olsen and Christopher Hall complain that, “For many Christians the doctrine of the Trinity has seemed an esoteric belief--beyond comprehension and possibly merely speculative.” [1]

Let us have a look at the attached Christian Catholic fresco below. That's the Father holding the globe, the Son holding the cross and in between them, the Holy Spirit as the Dove. How many do you see? One or three? Where is the ONE God? We see only three. And so, the Qur'an rightly remarks, “Do NOT say THREE...!” (4:171)

Ibn Anwar

Reference:

[1] - Olsen, R. E. & Hall, C. A. (2002). The Trinity. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. p. 1



---------------------------------------
Tags: #Christianity #Trinity Open / Comment

2018-08-05 14:02:20

|| "Religion": A Strawman ||

Religion is a strawman that secularism invented. The 'religious' (as thing(s) opposed to the secular) is a concept that wouldn't have been recognized by more ancient societies: there is no single word in ancient languages that accurately translates as “religion.”

In ancient times, people were simply referred to by their nations and the gods they worshipped, such as the Pheonecians worshippers of Hu-bal, or the Assyrians worshippers of Ashur, etc. The Arabs were worshippers of Lat, Uzza and Manat. The Arabs were sent a divine message that reminded them of an ancient monotheism from which they had lost their way, that of Abraham. The Lord God; El, Elohim, Eloi, Elah (also transliterated as Allāh), was whom they were commanded to serve, and shun all false deities. The construct of religion imputes on us a way of thinking about the world which demarcates our interaction with the God of Abraham on one side, and interaction with material world on other. This is a false dichotomy. Leave "religion", live life and do God.
Don't be religious, be godly.

If we were to focus on the Most High, we would engage in the most productive and inspiring conversations that'd explore who God is, what He wants, how, and what the mutual relationship means, rather than angst-inducing debate on dogma or pedantry on the details of ritualisms.

My intent is to highlight the way subservience to God ought to be perpetually informing, not something that turns on and off. God calls us to be Muslims to Him (constantly).
ونحن له مسلمون


Ustādh Mohammed Nizami


---------------------------------------
Tags: #Secularism Open / Comment

2018-07-30 08:33:56


|| An advice on engaging with Western criticism of Islāmic ideals ||


“Islāmic social institutions within the Islāmic world must be evaluated by young Muslims Islāmically and not on the basis of modern criticism against them because most of these modern criticisms are based on certain assumptions concerning human nature and the final end of human beings which are both false in reality and opposed explicitly to the teachings of Islām. The modernist attacks made against the traditional family structure, relation between the sexes, the rapport between various generations and the like in the Islāmic world must not be accepted passively and with a sense of inferiority by young Muslims as if they were established truths or scientifically established criteria of judgment. On the contrary, every few decades fashions and criteria of judgment that emanate from the West change, In fact, such criticisms must be viewed as issuing from a worldview which is totally alien to that of Islām, from a society which itself is in the process of rapid change and in danger of dissolution.”

~ Seyyed Hossein Nasr in "A Young Muslim's Guide to the Modern World"


------------------------------
Tags: #Modernism Open / Comment

2018-07-14 11:32:12

|| Islām is not a Religion of Peace ||


We often see from all groups of people, whether they be genuinely curious about Islām, people who hate Islām, and even Muslims themselves that they all have this question:
“If Islam is a religion of peace, then why are there extremists like ISIS?”
How is it possible that a religion of peace could produce terrorists?

The answer is quite simple, but first we need to understand that the proposition 'Islām is religion of peace' is actually false. Islām is not a religion of peace nor a religion of war. In his dialogue with the late New Atheist icon, Christopher Hitchens, Tariq Ramadan, Professor of Contemporary Islāmic Studies at St. Anthony's college, University of Oxford rightly puts it, “Islam is a religion for human beings, and if you deal with human beings, you deal with violence…You must ask, ‘Is my religion helping us towards peace?'” Islam is as complex [as any other religion]…the problem is not the book, the problem is the reader. Peace is what you achieve after self-education.”[1]

Islām is a religion of peacemakers and a religion of warriors. Islām is about the reality of existence -- one where both good and evil co-exists -- where peace and war both need to be taught and practiced in balance. Does Islām lead to peace? Yes. And sometimes, it leads to war for making peace. But neither of these things are good when they are taken to extremes.

An absolute pacifist is just as immoral as a war monger. The former refuses to defend themselves and even other people from the latter, and the latter takes advantage of the former so that they can murder in the pursuit of power. The perfect practitioner of one affirms the other.

But Islām is neither. Islām is a warrior's religion meant for peaceful goals. It has a strict code of ethics, not only during times of peace, but also times of war.[2] Jihād is an ever present reality in the life of a Muslim, whether they be battling against their own egos or a physical foe willing to destroy them. And those struggles lead to a better world, both within and external to the believer.

So why are there extremists who claim Islām as their ideology? Because the most beautiful things attract even the lowliest of people; those who would do anything to have it for themselves.

Thankfully, we do not judge the value of gold based on the thieves who steal it.


References:
[1] - Tariq Ramadan & Christopher Hitchens: Is Islam a Religion of Peace?, Oxford University Press Blog
[2] - Hasan Shibly, War, Islam, and the Sanctity of Life: Non-Aggression in the Islamic Code of Combat, Yaqeen Institute


---------------------------------------
Tags: #Terrorism #Islam Open / Comment

2018-07-10 13:17:38 Theology bites pinned «The syllabus for a traditional eight year Sunni basic Aalim course (bachelor's degree). They don't start studying the six famous books of Ahadith untill their 8th and final year. In this year they study the six books and memorise several sections with their…» Open / Comment