Is Man "Good?"
(Top: portrait of Jean-Jacques Roussau's Noble Savage (a Huron Indian), Bottom: Cover-art for William Golding's Lord Of The Flies)
In the commentary section of the last, "Welcome To Teletubby Land!" post, Kelly said:
Sometimes I come across as nice because I have a belief that people are generally good.Republicus will not call Kelly a "liberal" (because he's tired of quickly ducking to avoid a thrown object), but he will point out that such a belief is a premise of liberalism, and :)liberals:) exploit that good natured and trusting gullibility about "the goodness of man" to gain control-- using such "nice" words as "Equality!" and "Justice!" and "The People!" and "The Children!" and "Make Love, Not War!" in the endeavor to engineer a socialist Animal Farm inhabited by cute, harmless, and profoundly dim-witted Teletubbies (or obese, giggling couch-potatoes staying out of trouble by watching television on their free time and obeying the elite "adults" from the Leftist MSM).
Americans take much for granted, and it is easy to believe--especially in a child-friendly environment in cookie-cutting Pleasantville, U.S.A.--that people are, by nature, good.
But are they born that way, or made that way?
That is the question.
The liberal premises that people are born good and pure in nature and are corrupted--made "evil"--by society, particularly Western Civilization and it's "sexist" and "racist" mores, judgmental laws, and religion (particularly the Judeo-Christian one).
That is Rousseauan, and believes in the paradigm of his "Noble Savage" (echoed in romantic mythologies like the legends of Greystoke, a.k.a. Tarzan), that is, left to his own devices in a state of nature, Man is naturally inclined to be "good," noble, and at peace with his fellows and in harmony with his natural environment, which itself is "good."
The conservative subscribes to the inverse of that (which is why Republicus has to stand upside-down on his head when trying to understand the inverting inverted liberal).
Why call me "good"? No one is good but the Father.The conservatives--as informed by the self-evidence of experience if not by a practiced religion-- believe, to use religious language, in a "Fallen Nature," that nature is ruthlessly cruel, and that man is conceived and born of sin, and can only be made "upright" and attain mastery over nature and compassion for his fellow humans--by choice, coercion, or inclination--through good religion, education, law, and the cultivation of a loving heart by family nurturing and good company.
Jesus Christ
i.e. Through civilization.
An excellent literary paradigm for that--in sharp contradistinction with Rousseau's Noble Savage-- is William Golding's Lord of the Flies:
Orphaned, marooned, and left to his own devices in a state of nature, Man is naturally inclined to be savage, ignoble, and at war with his fellows and his natural environment unless there is the intervention of civilizing forces.
(It should be added that "The Lord of the Flies" was the epithet for Beelzebub--Satan's second in command-- in John Milton's Paradise Lost, which goes pretty far in Golding's characterizing of the dark forces inherent in Fallen Nature, implicitly lorded over by the biblical "Prince of this world"--i.e. Satan.)
Republicus is inclined to think that, perhaps, none of that--i.e. the character of humans-- is exclusively determined by nurture, but is also determined by the genetic nature of individuals: Some are simply born benevolent spirits (like Golding's Ralph and Piggy), and others born to raise hell (like Jack and his tribe)-- but something has to keep that hell in check, whether it be a Command, a constitution, or even a conch, even if it's furiously called "fascistic" in the process by the subdued hellish.
And that "something" is a value system, laws, and the cultivation of our better natures, as is evident by the world-transforming success of Western Civilization--a product of Judeo-Christianity-- which is to be conserved, and fought for against those who blame it for the evil that men do...
...out of human nature.
posted by John | 12:24 PM
48 Comments:
Don't get Republicus wrong, he likes ":)" as much as the next person.
I think you take me wrong.
I have a LOT of proglems with the Liberal ideology.
I do not subscribe to the notion of "Make love, not war!" I believe that there are legitimate reasons for war.
I believe that man are created equal, but do not believe that equality comes about by taking from those who have to give to those who don't. I believe it is a personal obligation to help the poor and I do so by contributing a significant amount each month to the welfare program within my church. I have contributed to many a good cause because I choose to do so.
I believe that it is far better to choose rather than "give" by force.
I do not believe that welfare in this country does a person one iota of good. It just enables the individual to continue on the dole.
I am a firm believer in capitolism and the deregulation.
My list goes on and on.
I also understand your thinking behind ..
"Why call me "good"? No one is good but the Father.
Jesus Christ"
Even the Book of Mormon teaches that...
"Mosiah 3: 19
19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father."
Having said that...
I personally also believe it is not my position to judge. But I am human and sometimes err.
People do start out innocent as children. What changes??
Yes, to err is human...but...
It is far easier to give in to the temptations of this earth than to adhere to the teachings of whatever God you choose to follow. But that does not mean they are inherintly bad (sp).
This is regardless of what civilization you are influenced by.
I also believe, as my church teaches, that "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own cconscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."
I also believe that man is guided by the "Light of Christ"(some may call this a conscience)...yes, no man is good, but Christ..."That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world."
Take it how you may...
I am not a liberal!
I will say this...I am not ultra conservative.
I believe in public education and am very involved in the PTA.
I believe that by being part of society I have a chance to influence it in some small way.
I also feel that you put up a wall against me because I agreed a time or two with Jeff and Sanjay.
Would you rather have me agree with you because I truly believe it or because I want to be on your side?
Which do you think is more credible?
In the forum of Republicus I have always stated my honest opinion. Sometimes that opinion may not be completely correct in its foundation, but nonetheless it is my honest opinion.
As far as being considered a "Nice" person... you ought to ask the mother of the four extra kids I am rearing. She is my sister. In the last year she has been homeless more than she has not. Would I provide her a room? NO! It would only enable her to continue her distructive behaviors.
Ya, sometimes it is tough. But, it is more important that these children have a safe environment to live and we have managed to keep the Department of child and family services OUT!
Aw, Kelly, like Jeff said (Lee Harvey Jeff), no worries. I don't hold anything against anyone for disagreeing with me.
P.S. :)!
Yes, children are innocent--and so vulnerable.
You said:
"I think you take me wrong.
I have a LOT of problems with the Liberal ideology."
I'm sure you do.
I said (in the Teletubby post):
"But Kelly didn't...invite the implication that Lee Harvey "identifies" her as a secret liberal, to be reeled in..."
He created the implication.
Your open, friendly nature is good hearted, and a conservative quality, and we should deal with each other in good faith.
And that is actually a quality of the classic American--but so is a sort of trusting innocense that is vulnerable to deceit.
I do believe America is still the best place in the world for huckstering con-artists to make a buck.
It was actually Jeff B who accused me of being liberal in the first place.
----
I believe that Lee Harvey Jeff has been lured to the liberal ideology, as it has been suggested that I might have been.
Socialism (I will call it what it is, uses some compelling bait.
It says, "don't worry, be happy, we will take care of you."...But at what cost??
---
I would rather submit to this...than submit to that...
"For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father."
...in the words of the world...I "trust my gut", my instincts, whatever you want to call it.
It also takes some education on such matters to keep from being deceived.
As they say, "The Lord helps those who help themselves."
All to often the American people are deceived because they rely on themselves.
There is a passage in the "Church in the Modern World" from the Vatican II COuncil, ca. 1963, that I find expresses this question well:
"Man is therefore divided in himself. As a result, the whole life of men, both individual and social, shows itself to be a struggle, and a dramatic one, between good and evil, between light and darkness. Man finds that he is un-able to overcome the assaults of evil successfully, so that everyone feels as though bound by chains. But the Lord himself came to free and strengthen man, renewing him inwardly and casting out the "prince of this world." (Jn. 12:31), who held him in the bondage of sin. For sin brought man to a lower state, forcing him away from the completeness that is his to attain. Both the high calling and the deep misery which men experience find their final explanation in the light of this Revelation."
I never could put a lot of stock in Rousseau's "tabula rasa" either. Anyone that has had kids to raise can tell you that they come with a personality. It is undeveloped, for sure, but even at a very young age it seemed to me that I could tell a difference between their personalities.
At the same time, I could never wholly go over to the Hobbsean outlook that men were born in a state of total savagery and, unchecked, remain so. If that were the case, it seems to me, then civilization itself could have never developed.
The compromise in the Vatican II documents argues that while men are born into a state of sin, nevertheless christian charity in the model of Christ calls us to value each human being and to truly try to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. That does not mean, for example, that we should be tolerant of acts done by that same neighbor if they are, in fact, evil. It means that we should try to encourage acts of love and faith, and to be charitable whenever we can. In other words, man in and of himself is made in the image of God, and as a creation "is good." (Gen. 1:31)
The 'fallen state,' though, also calls us to be mindful of the evil that we are capable of doing. Among the first things that my kids had to read was "Lord of the Flies," along with "1984" and Ayn Rand's "Anthem."
So, I guess, while I cannot totally go over to a Hobbsean view, I do think that there is a danger in all of us of falling into that state of animal behaviour. As a result, I teach that having a healthy sense of paranoia (and sense of irony) where government is concerned is in fact a Christian outlook. In that sense, I maintain that Locke had a better grasp when he said that any government must come from the governed and that we all had the Christian duty to keep constant vigilance. People like Hilary Clinton Al Gore should scare the hell out of this republic, as she couches all of her expanded government policies from a Hobbsean outlook and that means that individuals MUST have a strong government to keep our animal impulses in check. Locke maintains that we must all, interiorally, judge actions and see if the government fits our view of a Christian morality. If not, rebel against it.
Phelonius quoted, "Locke maintains that we must all, interiorally, judge actions and see if the government fits our view of a Christian morality. If not, rebel against it."
In the government view there is separation of church and state, but you cannot take God out of Political ideologies.
So James, you would agree that Hobbes' view of man is the proper contradistinction to Rousseau's, and that Locke is the moderator between the two, no?
Locke, it appears, is the spirit behind the Declaration of Independence, and Hobbes of the Constitution.
Rousseau of the bloody French Revolution.
Kelly: When I said that children are innocent, and hence vulnerable, I didn't mean that they were necessarily "good."
To make "innocense" synonymous with "goodness" is problematic.
Is the infant's innocent "goodness" because he/she is born good and has yet to learn and be corrupted by evil, or born a smiling Buddhist and has yet to understand the difference between Good & Evil?
There's a reason why underage "felons"--even murderers--are not held fully accountable for their actions: because they're "innocent" of the ramifications of their actions.
Speaking biblically, Eve was "innocent"--innocent enough to be conned.
St. Paul addresses the problem of "innocense" leaving oneself vulnerable to seduction and corruption when he wrote: "Be innocent as lambs--but as wise as serpents" when out in the world, because, as adapted from the play *Asinaria* by Plautus, *homo homini lupus*:
"Man is a wolf to man."
Which brings us back to the original question...
This post is quite pregnant with profundities, and I don't have the answers. I can only recycle the thoughts of our intellectual, philosophical, and religious predecessors who tried to tackle these questions about the human condition, and only scratch the surface when doing so.
(sp. "innocence" is the correct spelling for the quality of being innocent; "innocense" is a flower).
John said,
"Is the infant's innocent "goodness" because he/she is born good and has yet to learn and be corrupted by evil, or born a smiling Buddhist and has yet to understand the difference between Good & Evil?
There's a reason why underage "felons"--even murderers--are not held fully accountable for their actions: because they're "innocent" of the ramifications of their actions."
I agree on that.
My faith teaches that we are not able to fully grasps a knowledge of good vs. evil until the age of 8 and as such are not fully accountable for that. This is why we do not allow baptisms before that age.
But something DOES change...from innocence to either good or evil.
They must either submit to temptation of that which is bad or to the will of that which is good. It is much easier to submit to temptation. It is inviting. It speaks to selfishness and holds it up. It embraces it.
Hence the thinking that Man is bad.
On selfishness....
This is the natural man. This is the ego.
To get to the heart of this..I would say that man is not good....or bad, but swayed by either good or bad.
"2 Nephi 2: 11
For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so...righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility."
John said:
"Locke, it appears, is the spirit behind the Declaration of Independence, and Hobbes of the Constitution.
Rousseau of the bloody French Revolution."
Well put!
Oh...and for the record...I was never influenced by jeff, jeff, jeff or the Liberal Samurai. I just happened to agree with something they said.
They aren't about to lure ME to the winds of the liberal side. I am quite anchored, thankyou.
Sanjay is more conservative than he thinks.
He's more an apologist for liberalism than a representative.
Well, that's my impression.
I more or less agree with ya’ll (John, James and Kelly) about the concepts of good and evil, but I disagree about comparing today's postmodern milieu with that of the enlightenment.
John quoted: "Orphaned, marooned, and left to his own devices in a state of nature, Man is naturally inclined to be savage, ignoble, and at war with his fellows and his natural environment unless there is the intervention of civilizing forces."
-True.
Our civilization in all of its enlightenment and technological glory produces hospitals, schools, sustainable agriculture, sustainable water supplies, emergency services, and an abundance of material wealth.
But there are also rifles, prisons, Drugs manufactured by the techniques of modern science, (X, crystal meth, etc.) military industrial complexes, Propaganda fortified and made increasingly effective by application what is learned principals of depth and social psychology; as well as chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons.
I don't know If civilization makes things better on a moral plane, or if it merely magnifies the good and bad qualities of the savage.
John said "Rousseau of the bloody French Revolution."
John, are you blaming Rousseau for the excesses of Marat and the megalomania of Napoleon just as James has blamed Hobbes for the elitism of Hillary Clinton?
Douglass said:
"John quoted: "Orphaned, marooned, and left to his own devices..."
I wan't quoting anyone. Otherwise, I would have put it in quotation marks and cited the source.
bbl...
John said...
"Sanjay is more conservative than he thinks.
He's more an apologist for liberalism than a representative."
I think he might debate you on that note.
john,
what?
John said "An excellent literary paradigm for that--in sharp contradistinction with Rousseau's Noble Savage-- is William Golding's Lord of the Flies:
Orphaned, marooned, and left to his own devices in a state of nature, Man is naturally inclined to be savage, ignoble, and at war with his fellows and his natural environment unless there is the intervention of civilizing forces."
like my husband says, "man is not a sinner because he sins - he sins because he is a sinner."
heavy.
john and kelly - thanks for visiting longrange.
you're welcome. Nanc.
Douglass, when quoting me, you said "John qouted:..."
I didn't "quote" anyone.
nanc said...
"like my husband says, "man is not a sinner because he sins - he sins because he is a sinner."
Does that mean he has no choice?
no.
nanc, I was hoping you would elaborate. I sometimes ask prodding questions to get discussion.
douglass,
You are right by saying that I over-simplified when I boiled down Hilary's elitism to just Hobbes. I do see a strain there that is definately Hobbsian, but obviously there are other influences. I feel that the enlightenment has a lot of influence today.
To that, I feel that I am a "Liberal" in the OLD sense of the word. I do think that we are born with inalienable rights such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I do think that the governed have a right to rebel against an unjust regime. I do believe that people have a right to free observance of religion as long as it does not violate the rights of others. These are all ideals from the enlightenment......but there are others......
The ideas of progressivism as put out by the likes of Dewey and Engels and Marx were surely children of the enlightenment as well. At their pinnacle, these ideas brought out civilizations such as the USSR and Nazi Germany as well as the modern socialist states. The post-modernists are based in the ideal of Rousseau's 'blank slate' humanity.
Thoughts? Ideas?
Phelonius
Here is my thought/ Idea.
The 'public sphere' (as coined by Habermas)
In the enlightenment these pubs/taverns/salons were the center of political debate.
Today, we do not have this 'public sphere'
What are the implications of such a void on the topic of the appropriateness of the libertarian way?
I understand that you, phelonius are a classic (19th century) 'liberal' ;NOT a 20th century 'liberal (socialist)
Hayek had a good overview of the semantics of the terms liberal/socialist in his book 'the Road to serfdom'
douglass,
In a sense, we ARE participating in the free exchange of ideas in a public sphere. The people seem to be hungry for political debate rather than being preached at by elitists. I run a web-site for the Libertarian point of view, and visit others to engage in debate. The WWW is not the
only place either, as witnessed by the am political talk shows that are more and more popular. They have an enormous amount of input from callers and command an impressive part of the radio market. Granted, this is not as 'public' as the old tavern/salon type of organizing, but it is growing precisely because of the vacuum that you brought up.
As to the appropriateness of the libertarian way in a modern society, the WWW is a growing avenue of support and debate. We are making inroads into the radio sphere, but the LP still has as its cheif weapon the old-fashioned "word-of-mouth." We shall see, in the fullness of time, if the two major parties can get away with being virtually identical in terms of government control, growth and spending forever.
Phelonius,
Good point about the WWW.
"We shall see, in the fullness of time, if the two major parties can get away with being virtually identical in terms of government control, growth and spending forever."
we shall.
Would you agree that a wealthy democrat has more in common with a wealthy conservative or even a wealthy saudi than they do with the people bracketed in the American middle class and the American lower class?
Do the Clintons and Rockefellers have more in common with each other than either one would have in common with me? Most probably. They are used to living in a world of money and I am not.
However, I can't go with the Saudi connection. There is too much cultural difference between americans and the arabs for that I think, even with wealthy americans. We are too used to the ideas of social mobility and self-reliance. A wealthy Brit may have an easier time with a saudi connection because they have historically not had a lot of social mobility, but even for them it is a hard connection I understand.
Someone with a poor background can still rise up in this country. My Mom & Dad didn't have a lot of money, but I managed to get myself through college like my wife, and we have not done bad for ourselves. One of the reasons I support a Libertarian policy is that I could spend more of my money if I could keep it, and I could spend it better than the government can to about the 99th percentile of the taxes I pay. If we had a flat tax or a similar schema (sales tax and no income tax, no inheritance taxes, no capital gains taxes, etc.) the wealthier elements in the country would pay more and the middle class would tend to pay less, for example. The result would be an even greater degree of social mobility. I do not believe that this is something a theocracy like Saudi Arabia would even tolerate. Anyhow, you asked me what time it is and I started to tell you how to build a clock. I get on a soap box all too easily......
"We shall see, in the fullness of time, if the two major parties can get away with being virtually identical in terms of government control, growth and spending forever."
we shall.
This brings us back to an image I made some months back..
Chimaera
douglass,
Unconsciously I used two wealthy democrats for my analogy. To be fair what I should have used was something like the Clintons and the Bush families. Even our current governor here in Texas is a sight wealthier than I am.
Great discussion.
Kelly: YOU READ MY MIND. That's PRECISELY what I thought about when reading the same passage (i.e. the chimeara)!
I'm workin' on it, I'm workin' on it...
Jeff B.,
Hence the term "childish".
You do have a point. Adam and Eve were "innocent". By their actions in the garden they gained a KNOWLEDGE of good and evil. That doesn't mean they weren't capable of good or evil...
Children are quite capable of hitting, biting, screaming, stealing....but they do so without a "knowledge" of what is good and what is bad.
They learn, as they are taught, that hitting is bad. They learn that stealing is bad.
The comment I made that started this whole debate..."People are basically good"...still holds some truth, however.
They aren't (intrinsically) good, but without some "good" in them (whether taught or not) is what makes civilization possible.
I will tell you why I have the belief about Islam that I do.
Ishmael, Our Brother
This is from an official lds church publication, Ensign, June 1979. James B. Mayfield, a professor of political science and was at the time a research consultant with the United States Agency for International Development
I do hear what you and John are saying about the nature of their culture. It does have some problems, some major problems. I am not discounting completely what you say.
But I can't embrace it completely, either.
Jeff B.,
I really don't mind the debate with you. What I struggle with is that you seem to enter the conversation with weapons drawn.
It puts everyone on the defensive.
Forgive me if that was not your intent.
Ever hear of Taqiyya, Kelly?
Like I said, any "agreement" made with the LDS church is one of convenience.
You're still considered dhimmi.
An infidel.
I think the recent--and deadly--rashes of alligator attacks pretty much tells you what nature is all about.
I was just telling why I believe what I believe.
It had nothing to do with agreements.
"I do not believe that a good Islam and a bad Islam exist. Only Islam exists. And Islam is the Koran. And the Koran says what it says."
-Oriana Fallaci
They violently rioted because, apparently, they begged to differ over cartoons that caricatured Islamic violence.
Hello?
Jeff B,
To be fair... I will see what I can find that differs from that.
Jeff B.,
To answer some of your questions:
They are not "children of the book," they do not worship the same God and they are not direct descendants of Abraham.
And remember Abraham and Isma'il raised the foundations of the House (With this prayer): "Our Lord! Accept (this service) from us: For Thou art the All-Hearing, the All-knowing. Holy Qur'an (2:127)
Allah did choose Adam and Noah, the family of Abraham, and the family of Imran above all people, Offspring, one of the other: And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. Holy Qur'an (3:33-34)
Not all Muslims descend from Abraham. But certainly their Prophet did and many of those from Arabia.
Can you list any positive aspects of islamic culture? The short list of irredeemable traits I provided is pretty damning. I think "major problems" are all islamic culture is composed of.
I have already listed that in my previous article. Even our culture has Major Problems. We have abortion, homosexuality, promiscuity, pornography…
What possible reason could there be to preserve this foul culture?
“One of the many short comings which has arisen in the West, is judging Islam by the conduct of a minority of its people. By doing this, segments of Western society have deliberately played off the desperate actions of many Muslims, and have given it the name of Islam. Such behaviour is clearly not objective and seeks to distort the reality of Islam. For if such a thing was done - judge a religion by the conduct of its people - then we too could say that all Christianity is about is child molesting and homosexuality [1] whilst Hinduism was all about looting and breaking up mosques [2]. Generalising in such a manner is not seen as being objective, yet we find that the Western world is foremost in propagating this outlook on Islam. So what is the reality of Islam? How does one dispel the myths which have been created and spread so viciously?”
See more of this article:
"Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion, nor drove you out of your homes. Indeed, Allah loves those who deal with equity" (Surah Al-Mumtahinah 60:8)
However, unfortunately many Muslims have taken suicide bombing as being a virtuous act by which one receives reward. This could not be further from the truth. The Prophet (saws) said: "Those who go to extremes are destroyed" [6]. Suicide bombing is undoubtedly an extremity which has reached the ranks of the Muslims. In the rules of warfare, we find no sanction for such an act from the behaviour and words of the Prophet Muhammed (saws) and his companions. Unfortunately, today (some misguided) Muslims believe that such acts are paving the way for an Islamic revival and a return to the rule of Islam's glorious law.
"He who kills himself with anything, Allah will torment him with that in the fire of Hell" (Reported by Muslim - Eng. Trans, Vol. 1, p.62, No.203)
I may not believe everything they teach, but I will defend their right to worship as they want.
LDS Article of Faith #11 “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”
Lineage of Muhammad
Adam
Sheth
Enos
Cainan
Mahalaleed
Jared
Enoch / Idris
Methuselah
Lamech
Noah / Nuh
Shem
Arhhazed
Salih / Saleb
Eber
Pelag
Rem
Serag
Nahor
Tarukh
Abraham / Ibrahim
Ishmael / Ismail (Brothers Isaac / Ishaq, Sabat )
Yashab
Ba'rab
Nakor
Adnan
Madh
Nazar
Nasar
Elias / Iliyas
Kanana
Nafar
Maleeh
Fahar
Ghalib
Looi
Kaab
Murra
Kalab
Qosai
Abde
Munaf
Hashim
Abdul
Muttalib
Abdullah Brothers Abu-Taleb
Muhammad(S.A.W.) The Last Apostle of God
Ali son of Abu-Taleb Fathima(S.A.)
The Lady of Light Married Ali(A.S.)
The First Holy Imam Hussain(A.S.)
The Third Holy Imam Brothers Hasan(A.S.)
The Second Holy Imam Zainulabiden(A.S.)
The Fourth Holy Imam Al-Baquir(A.S.)
The Fifth Holy Imam Al-Jaffer(A.S.)
The Sixth Holy Imam Al-Kazim(A.S.)
The Seventh Holy Imam Al-Reza(A.S.)
I am still looking to find anything contrary written /spoken by a leader of the LDS Faith....If you find something...let me know.
"Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion, nor drove you out of your homes. Indeed, Allah loves those who deal with equity" (Surah Al-Mumtahinah 60:8)
The operative words are: "...with those who fought not against you on account of religion..."
Which means fellow Muslims or Dhimmi.
And what's this:
"He who kills himself with anything, Allah will torment him with that in the fire of Hell" (Reported by Muslim - Eng. Trans, Vol. 1, p.62, No.203)"
"Reported by Muslim?"
http://www.islamonline.net/English/introducingislam/Prophet/Said/article01.shtml
Bargholz said:
"The tolerant sounding koranic passage you quoted is one of the earlier ones. Once Muhammed consolidated his power, those passages disappeared. The later passages which command muslims to murder, rape and pillage "infidels" supersede ALL earlier pronouncements. The koran is very clear on this point. It specifically commands that any earlier passages that contradict the violent ones ARE TO BE DISREGARDED."
Note that Christianity--the New Testament-likewise promotes a shift in thinking, but the values are inverted.
To paraphrase Bargholz but to contrast accordingly:
The intolerant sounding Old Testament passages quoted by those trying make the two religions (Islam and Judeo-Christianity) morally equivalent are likewise "the earlier ones." Once Christ consolidated his power, those passages disappeared.
The later passages which command Christians to love and forgive your brother, neighbor, AND enemy supersede ALL earlier pronouncements.
The New Testament is very clear on this point. It specifically commands that any earlier passages that contradict the ones of love and peace ARE TO BE DISREGARDED.
It's the photographic negative.
And are the three daughters representative of the Triple Moon Goddess?
Post a Comment
<< Home