The Qur’an says we are saved by a combination of God’s grace and mercy as well as our desire and attempt to do good deeds and be good people.

There is no such thing as original sin in Islam. Everyone is created with a clean soul without stain.

Are you saying that Christians are going to go to heaven just because they believe in Jesus and that whether or not they do any good deeds is irrevelant? So why bother being a good person at all if you are automatically saved?
_________________________________________________________

Unfortunately, there are all too many people who call themselves Christians who completely miss most of what Jesus was about. They focus on John 3:16 (the “salvation” verse) and Leviticus 18:22 (”proof” that God hates gays). Some, like Daryll, also focus on Acts 2:38 (the one about baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit). They don’t focus on anything Jesus actually said or did during His time on earth, and the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus clearly outlined how we should act and treat each other, is completely foreign to them.

They are anxious for a Saviour, but bristle at having a Lord. Because of this extraordinary emphasis on salvation and getting into heaven, they cannot accept that others are God’s people, too. And branding people of other faiths as scary boogeymen gives them some sense of justification for bigotry, something Jesus would never have condoned.

There are many Christians of the world who quietly try their best to live the way Jesus told us to, but they tend to become invisible next to the spectacle of the self-righteous ignorant.

It appears that bitblt is too focused on “salvation” to absorb the concepts that you and toasterhead are pointing out. But I applaud you for trying.

However, does ht have a reference to any Islamic document which says this:” In Islam, as in Christianity, your personal savior is God.”

If fact does ht have any reference to any Islamic document that uses the word “salvation”?

The Qur’an says we are saved by a combination of God’s grace and mercy as well as our desire and attempt to do good deeds and be good people.

There is no such thing as original sin in Islam. Everyone is created with a clean soul without stain.

Are you saying that Christians are going to go to heaven just because they believe in Jesus and that whether or not they do any good deeds is irrevelant? So why bother being a good person at all if you are automatically saved?

By the way, Muslims believe in Jesus (peace be upon him) too. No one can be a Muslim without believing in him. Our prophets range from Adam to Muhammad, and include all the biblical figures such as Noah, Moses, John, Abraham, and Jesus (peace be upon all of them).

Why don’t you instead just agree to disagree and walk away? Is it necessary to constantly put down other people’s religion? No one is trying to convert you and you should at least extend the same courtesy to others.

And I’ll have to research it some more, but I believe the French Republic was established without the foundation of religion. I’ve heard a story that French revolutionaries executed clergy and actually took a random hooker off the streets, dressed her in priest garb and put her on the altar of Notre Dame for a mock service.

That doesn’t make it sound like the French thought as Rush did, on the importance of religion as the foundation of a republic.

However, does ht have a reference to any Islamic document which says this:” In Islam, as in Christianity, your personal savior is God.”

If fact does ht have any reference to any Islamic document that uses the word “salvation”?

Nope. Christian countries and Muslim countries are equally capable of democratic leadership. It’s just that most modern-day Muslim countries spent most of their histories under the thumbs of empires and colonialism and globalization. Their efforts at democracy have quite often been thwarted by a resource-hungry West.

But, that doesn’t seem to be what has happen, does it?

Is it safe to assume that ht doesn’t believe that the predominant religion of a nation influences the form of government?

ht classifies himself as a Catholic with strong Unitarian and Bokononist leanings.

This statement makes no sense to bit. It’s a glass of water without the glass. It has no “shape.”

What is Bokononist?

Emperors? Feudalism? Doesn’t fit.
September 9th, 2008 at 5:44 pm

As to the Greek pagans coming up with the idea, bit takes it that you mean the the idea of a representative democracy.

This very well may be the source idea of the government under which we live, but for implementation it apparently needed an ancillary idea.

Try this quote from Benjamin Rush-someone important in the early republic.
“Useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty.”

Apparently founder Rush believed only well-behaved people could maintain a republic.
All behaviour is based on belief.

You might search http://www.wallbuilders.com for the date of the quote.

Emperors? Feudalism? Doesn’t fit.
September 9th, 2008 at 5:44 pm

ht has pointed out somethings that are worth noting. For instance, early Islamic people were nomadic. bit believes he’s read someplace that part of the respect nomadic people had for books – nomads don’t tend to carry books – is expressed in the Quran phrase “people of the book” to mean Jews and Christians, who had religions books. You move around a lot and you don’t want to carry heavy books.

So to attempt an answer to your question: “And why did Christian Europe wait until the 18th century to truly embrace it?” When did books become readily available and wide spread?

That’s the simple answer to a very thoughtful question?

Another attempt at a simple answer might be this. For much of Europe’s history the church and the government were very intertwined. U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment says the government is not going to influence religion. bit believes that since the founders believed that the predominant religion in the U.S. would always be Christianity, the First Amendment is a one-way street. Government would not influence religion, but religion was expected to influence government. bit believes this because some of the early state oaths of office required the oath taker to affirm he was a Christian, and some oaths note that government leaders are accountable to God.

Emperors? Feudalism? Doesn’t fit.

I believe that the time that humanity is outgrowing monotheism is approaching. Just as we outgrew polytheism 1500-2000 years ago.
That being said, the religions have performed a function in organizing the world. And bitblt makes a point.
For whatever reason, Christianity enjoys close ties with the ideals of democracy.
I don’t know why that happen. Christian nations seem to be the most democratic.
But, of course, I’ll listen to those that disagree.
September 9th, 2008 at 3:00 pm

“I don’t know why that happen.”

bit has an idea as to why that happened.

It’s a simple idea because it’s the results of influence of perhaps one story, repeated over and over, but it’s .
a complex idea because the influence of this story has been so far reaching.

Use one image to focus this idea. It’s the image of Moses the Lawgiver on the façade of U.S. Supreme Court building.

According to the Old Testament Moses received the ten commandments from God on Mt. Sinai, but before that Moses had been in charge of leading the ancient Hebrews out of Egyptian bondage.

Remember this exodus from Egyptian bondage is one of the most recurring themes of the OT.

Likely every founder of the U.S. read this story from the OT when they were learning to read. The concept of freedom is so embedded in this account that it’s impossible to miss. What’s more in the OT account God made his people free.

Further, early primers from the late 16xx to the late 18xx taught by using stories from the Bible. Generations of American have been imbued with this Biblical account of a people being free because they relied on God.

I think Islam used the Hajj (pilgrimage to mecca). It was a brilliant way to spread the word. Pilgrims from thru out the Muslim world (I don’t know India to Spain?) would travel to Mecca bringing information (culture, technological advances, news, etc) and, of course, valuable trade. They would mix with the other pilgrims from across the world at Mecca. Compare notes and bring that information (and trade) back home. More of a hub and spoke approach – without the hierarchy. I believe that approach led to their relative advancement while Christians stalled out in the middle ages.

I think it’s possible the arrival of new sea craft and over water trade routes towards the end of the middle ages, may have lead to reversal of fortunes of the religions. But, that’s just thinking out loud.

A new reality show that will feature Supreme Court justices in a hot tub?
________________________________________________________

Ewww…

But I suppose it’s no worse than some of the fare our networks (yes, even the family values ones) put out to make money.

September 9th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
_______

Possibly, though I think it’s still more of a function of culture and geography. Christianity tended to spread northeast into the agricultural societies of Europe, with its kingdoms and fiefdoms and empires and strong nationalistic identities, and eventually the birth of capitalism and the Industrial Revolution. Islam tended to spread southeast and southwest, into more nomadic and pastoral tribal societies in Africa and Asia and the Middle East, where communalism was necessary for survival. This, to me, accounts for a large part of the difference we see today, not something inherent in the religions themselves. In both cases, the religion morphed to fit the local area, rather than the reverse – that’s why you have Santeria in Caribbean Catholic culture and Animist-tinged Islam in West Africa.

Maybe related to one or more of the movements within Christianity? I don’t know.

This remark reeks, at least to bit, of too much diversity and too much tolerance.

Well, have you considered moving to a less tolerant, less diverse nation? We’ll all be glad to chip for your ticket!

September 9th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
_______

I think the “individual focus” part of Christianity is more of an American value that’s been applied to the religion, rather than the reverse. The teachings of Jesus are quite communal as well, but it seems that this part of His message has gotten diluted by the Evangelical industry.

Someone should check Hannity’s little piece of paper he reads from, it probably has official white house logos on it .

Islam seems to be a more communal religion (the initial story is beautiful and less complicated than Christianity, IMO). Less focused on the individual.

bit takes it that hussein toasterhead classifies himself as neither Christian nor Muslim.

ht classifies himself as a Catholic with strong Unitarian and Bokononist leanings.

This remark reeks, at least to bit, of too much diversity and too much tolerance.

And this remark reeks of the usual hate-filled bigotry ht has come toe expect from bit.

John 3:16 says you have to believe in Jesus to be saved. This is personal salvation through a personal saviour. Neither personal salvation nor a personal saviour are features of Islam – as far as bit knows.

The shahadah, or first pillar of Islam, is a declaration that there is no god but God, and Muhammad is His messenger and servant. In Islam, it is only through absolute belief and acceptance of this statement that one can achieve salvation. In Islam, as in Christianity, your personal savior is God.

Would you consider that with the influence of Christianity you’re more likely to get a democratic, representative government than you would with the influence of Islam?
_________

Nope. Christian countries and Muslim countries are equally capable of democratic leadership. It’s just that most modern-day Muslim countries spent most of their histories under the thumbs of empires and colonialism and globalization. Their efforts at democracy have quite often been thwarted by a resource-hungry West.

That being said, the religions have performed a function in organizing the world. And bitblt makes a point.

For whatever reason, Christianity enjoys close ties with the ideals of democracy.

I don’t know why that happen. Christian nations seem to be the most democratic.

But, of course, I’ll listen to those that disagree.

bit takes it that hussein toasterhead classifies himself as neither Christian nor Muslim.

This remark reeks, at least to bit, of too much diversity and too much tolerance. Otherwise, how could ht be so wrong about his assertion that “…the fundamental messages at the heart of both religions is(sp) the same…?” What fundamental messages are alike?

John 3:16 says you have to believe in Jesus to be saved. This is personal salvation through a personal saviour. Neither personal salvation nor a personal saviour are features of Islam – as far as bit knows.

Nonetheless, you make a good point about the different nations and different beliefs.
Taking Germany for example, doesn’t it seems that the government in Germany is more like the government in the U.S. than it is like the government in Saudi Arabia?

Would you consider that with the influence of Christianity you’re more likely to get a democratic, representative government than you would with the influence of Islam?

Case in point – the Fox Network. What happens to the racy reality shows on Fox when Fox News succeeds in putting social conservatives into the White House and FCC and Supreme Court?

A new reality show that will feature Supreme Court justices in a hot tub?