Corporatism, Communism, and Christianity

I have to say it - we're in a bad place right now, as a country.

With a stagnant economy and hurting families on every side, the Democrats are heading towards nominating a socialist/fascist for the Presidency, and the Republicans have nominated a corporatist. With the Libertarians nominating a classless fellow, basically a liberal who wants to legalize pot, we haven't got a conservative running in the race.

So I think it's time to take a look and ask ourselves how this race and its result might impact those of us who are Christians.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that socialists are unhappy with Christianity. A socialist, at his or her root, believes that we can replace God with Government and do a much better job of taking care of everybody 'equally well'. Of course, we all know that it will fail, and we know why. A socialist government can't do God's job because they lack intricate knowledge of each and every person and the ability to tailor each person's life experience to his or her personality, ability, and greater benefit. A socialist government can't do God's job because they are as sin-stained as the rest of us... they have a sin-flawed notion of what is good, what is healthy, what is pure, and what is beneficial for us. Of course, in every socialist country, the government has been openly hostile towards Christians. This is true even in the "softer" countries dealing in "democratic socialism", in which Christians may be permitted to live in peace as long as they don't make any sort of decisions outside of their own homes regarding their faith when such a decision would conflict with the Absolute Power of the government. To a socialist, God is a competitor, and one that must be squashed (or, at least, the attempt made) by any means necessary.

In the history of corporatism, however, Christianity is tortured into a different role. Historically speaking, the greatest Christian-committed atrocities have occurred when a corporatist government cherry-picks and uses Christian principles in order to serve the government first, rather than the corporation. While the socialist tries to kill God, the corporatist merely tries to enslave Him and make Him do the government's bidding. The socialist insists that Christians abandon their religion, while the corporatist goes back to the age-old tribal method of trying to convince us that he bears the will of the gods (or, in this case, God) and we must obey him as we obey our Lord. The corporatist will pretend to be doing the will of God, usually by cherry-picking the parts of God's laws that he thinks will give him greater control over the people, and forcing them upon everybody by law.

Which is a greater threat to us? Robber barons are generally safer than moral busybodies, as C.S. Lewis pointed out in one of his most famous quotes. A robber baron (the corporatist) merely wants your wealth, while the moral busybody (the socialist) wants your heart, mind, and soul. We would think that it is better for us, certainly safer for us, to have someone who might use the government to persecute our enemies rather than a government keen on persecuting us. And yet... one of the strongest complaints that atheists have against us is derived from every instance in which a government tried to use the surface appearance of Christianity in order to implement its own goals, especially goals which are actually counter to the actual teachings of Christ. Caught in the quandary of socialism vs. corporatism, I have to ask... is it actually better for us to face open persecution, under which Christians have often been purified and Christianity has spread strongly (nothing exposes fakery and uncovers reality like difficulty), than a twisted form of 'Christianity', which might lead millions of people to Hell even as they are sure that they are headed for eternal paradise?

I do not have a good answer to this question at this time.

The End of a Worldview

The title of this post may be a little misleading. I am not talking about a particular worldview coming to an end. Instead, I would like to take a moment and talk about the results when a worldview is followed to its logical end. More specifically, I would like to talk about the Avengers: Age of Ultron movie, and why atheists probably ought to be bent out of shape about it.

Ultron was created when an AI was repurposed from Loki's staff and successfully interfaced by Jarvis. Multiple times during the movie, one Avenger or another pointed out that Ultron had picked up a lot of his view on the world from Tony Stark. Presumably, the AI was listening when Tony told Banner about his vision for 'world peace'. As a result, Ultron took in all the information it could, set it against Tony's stated objective, and came to the interesting conclusion that the best way he could benefit the human race was to initiate an extinction-level event and see what survives and evolves from it.

Ultron was strongly written and played as a madman, and yet his plan was not utterly nonsensical. It was the logical end of secular environmentalism, unchecked by the basic humanity that defies even the atheists who prefer to believe that it does not exist. According to atheistic evolution, humanity is continuously improving through evolving. According to the history proposed by the theory of evolution, this planet has gone through a number of extinction-level events - catastrophies that wiped out all or nearly all life - and risen from each one better than the one before. In defiance of entropy, this worldview (when not seasoned by any other) insists that order comes from chaos.

Tony was interrupted in his plan to attack one AI with another. Ultron had uploaded part of his broken self into the new body. Parts of Jarvis had been uploaded as well. The body was created around one of multiple key stones which appear to represent elements; in this case, the Mind Stone. However, this time, Vision's earliest-heard words were words of caution from Steve Rogers (Captain America), and he was turbocharged into existence by Thor, with whom he apparently had some sort of special bond. (Thor was the first one convinced of Vision's benevolence, the one who enacted his plan with him, and the one who spoke to him at the end.) Now, if you are going to draw a line from "Most religious" to "Least Religious" and plot the Avengers along it, Tony Stark would sit at one end, and Thor and Captain America would sit at the other. Vision was very clearly influenced by the thoughts produced by taking the religious (particularly Christian) worldview to its natural end.

Though I have been comparing Vision and Ultron, this theme moves through the rest of the Avengers as well. Ultron is willing to sacrifice a few (the residents of the city) in order to sacrifice the many, in hopes of improving the whole. At first, the more atheistic members of the team (like Tony!) insist that the few may rightly be sacrificed in order to save the many. The more religious ones overrule them, and help them understand... each individual person is important. You cannot save 'humanity' by sacrificing the unwilling in a numbers game. As Rico correctly pointed out in the book Starship Troopers, in a question of the logistics in risking multiple people to rescue a fallen comrade, "Men are not potatoes."

When Ultron and Vision face off at the end of the movie, Vision says, "There is grace in [humanity's] failings. I think you missed that."

A Christian Nation when it suits us...

Back in the dark days before science and progress and all the things we prize so much, humanity was ruled mostly by a series of tribes led by a leader who claimed either direct godhood or speakership with godhood. 'For some strange reason', it seemed that the god particularly favored the leader in that it invariably gave orders resulting in the leader having whichever property, goods, and women he wanted. These ancient 'gods' also had a tendency to value peace while the tribe was doing well and then suddenly demand war when the leader wanted to expand his territory or saw another tribe as a threat. There is no doubt that this convenience had been noticed by other tribal members, but that little seed of doubt would remain... Human leaders can be toppled, but gods are quite a different story.

One of the radical innovations brought into the world by Judaism and then Christianity was a knowable God whose precepts did not change, and to whom every man, especially leaders, were answerable. King David was punished by God for exercising his 'divine leadership' in order to take Uriah's wife for himself; King Ahab was punished by God for taking Naboth's vineyard. Under God, a leader cannot claim divine right to what he pleases. This goes on to modern times... when religion has gone wrong, even Christianity during some historical ages and in some parts of the globe, at the center you can often find a human being using it in order to gain personal power.

Socialism, whether its pretend-private form (fascism) or outright state-control form (Communism), by necessity sees Christianity as a threat. Socialism, especially liberal socialism, teaches that the world can be made a paradise as long as everybody agrees to follow the rules laid down by the human beings who created it. This devotion to the State (and hence, they argue, to the community - though the State, which speaks for the 'god' of the community, seems to deliver edicts that benefit the State more than the people... how about that?) must be paramount, and any secondary devotion to the family or another god must be suborned or destroyed. This was touted as a brand new thing, a non-religious (and therefore, somehow, pure) type of government meant to bring us into a new age, but scratch the surface and you will find the same old pagan tribalism as before.

That brings us to today.

Now the role of homosexuality in our society and our attitude towards refugees from the Middle East are really separate issues, and I do honestly believe that those on both sides of both issues should be wary of this argument being produced and spread by liberal Democrats. Have I been the only one to notice that, when 'gay marriage' is being discussed, we are a 'secular nation', yet when Syrian refugees unwittingly harbor terrorists, we suddenly have a 'Christian duty' to let them in with current vetting (or lack thereof) procedures?

Never mind your feelings about gay sex or Muslim terrorists for the moment. Ask yourself this. Are we a Christian nation, required to follow Christian edicts on aiding the needy equally with Christian edicts on forbidding sexual immorality? Are we a nation which, for cultural effect even among those who do not follow Christianity, has public schools offer prayers to the Christian God? Are we a nation that imposes a religious litmus test for leadership?

Or are we a secular nation? Do we follow the desires of our Christian forefathers to make this a country in which, as Christianity does demand, we permit only voluntary conversion? Is this a place where an atheist can have equal access to government programs and justice? Is this a nation which does not ban practices which, though they may offend God, do not cause imminent harm to innocent bystanders? Do we approach national security and response to violence, not directly as followers of a Lamb to the sacrifice, but with a no-nonsense desire to safeguard our borders first? Do we examine social welfare programs based on their cost, their merit, and their effect on our freedom, rather than enshrining a religious zeal in government procedure?

If the Democrats do not want this to be a Christian Nation, then they cannot appeal to Christian duty when trying to push for open borders or social welfare programs. If the Democrats do want this to be a Christian Nation, then they cannot use the government to force people to accept gay sex as identical to marriage, or to refer to decorated trees on public property at Christmastime as "mitten trees", or to ever, in any context (even the correct one), make reference to the "separation of Church and State".

When Democrats vie for a "secular state" in permitting the social issues they wish to promote, and then turn around and demand our "Christian duty" in government-controlled, government-mandated practices they wish to demand, they are the same as the leaders of the ancient tribalism, declaring themselves to be God (or God's direct servant) and using claims of divine power in order to force us all to follow flawed human beings as if they were perfect.

Obama's Christianity

When I re-started posting regularly in this blog about a week or so ago, I hinted at an answer I was writing in a forum, where I feared condemnation for my bold way of saying things. I'd like to address that answer and that issue today. It is the issue of Obama's religion.

I enjoy reading the articles written by a Canadian conservative columnist, David Warren, and part of today's article, perhaps, says it all:

U.S. President Barack Obama is reported to be attending church again, and shows a "fresh start," by persistently misquoting from the Book of Genesis, chapter four. "I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper," he suggests it says. Check out the original. It is a scene in which no sisters appear, and the brothers in question are Cain and Abel. In particular, the intellectual leap from "you must not murder your brother," to "you must create and sustain a vast and ponderous welfare system, that is funded by taxing him and borrowing the rest from China," is not Biblical.

Obama claims to be a Christian. He attends church (sometimes). He reportedly reads his Bible every day. Isn't that enough to prove your Christianity? It may be enough to prove that you are an adherent of most religions, to attend service and read the holy book. Christianity, however, is so much more than what you do. Christianity is what you are. You don't become a Christian just by reading a book and attending a service. You become a Christian by repenting of your sin and following God, taking His worldview as your own, and disregarding all others. A maturing Christian changes over time. Humility replaces pride. Self-sacrifice replaces selfishness. Honesty and sincerity rule your speech and mannerisms. You strive for a higher goal, and the ends can no longer justify the means.

Now I do not have the authority to judge who is going to Heaven and who is not. I cannot tell you if Obama's name is written in the Book of Life. Ultimately, that is not my decision. Many Christians are aware of this, and many will not even say what I am going to say, because they are afraid of being labeled as 'judgmental' which, like 'tolerance', is a neutral quality that has been redefined to carry a decided connotation.

However, many parts of the New Testament make it clear that we Christians of the New Covenant have a bound duty to judge on Earth. Being mindful that we were once all of the terrible sinners who are now coming to repentance, we are only to judge those who are "inside" (claim to be Christian) and only upon a decided lack of fruit from their supposed adherence to the Church. Specifically, if one is engaging repeatedly and unrepentantly in sin, we are told to speak to him alone, then take a friend, then bring it to the deacons and elders, with excommunication as the final and most severe of punishments.

We were given this power in order to ensure that the insincere were excommunicated before they sullied the entire religion, before Christianity could mean nothing, before our detractors could claim that Christians were no more likely than anyone else to avoid cheating, stealing, divorce, sexual immorality, etc. In that, the Church in the United States has, in many denominations, failed.

Supposedly, Obama has attended a Christian church for many years. However, I say now and boldly that a preacher who says "God d**n America", who puts racial politics before the blood of Christ, is no Christian preacher and his sermon is not that of a Christian church. As for Obama himself, he has consistently made decisions and given speeches that strongly push the tenets of Secular Humanism while giving lip service to Christianity. If this is some front for his real, true, Christian self, then he will have to face God for what he's done... and his fate will be lighter than if he is indeed pretending to be a Christian while living in pride, selfishness, and greed. In the end we will know his fate, and I hope it will not be what it seems to be right now.

I have heard some people bitterly announce that conservatives believe that liberals themselves are unable to be Christians, and the reason why we doubt Obama's Christianity is merely because he is a Democrat president. Let me lay that to rest right now with a personal story. One woman from my church, a friend of my mother's, is very liberal. She honestly believes that Obama is the best thing to ever happen to this country. She thinks W Bush is a crook and a villain. But you know why? She honestly thinks that liberalism is the best way to feed the hungry and help  the poor. She isn't out for some class retribution, and she couldn't care less about racial politics.

She and her husband are out there, in the city, bringing poverty-family children to Sunday School, helping their families get the food and services they need. She and her husband are out there in the January night, freezing cold, in the dangerous parts of town, with  no paparazzi, no teleprompter, no reporters, no cameras, no recognition... giving donated coats to street prostitutes.

I don't care if she's a liberal. I don't care if she's a card-carrying Communist. I'm proud to count her as a Christian, and I'll see her in Heaven.


Obama, on the other hand... May I be wrong. I do not want to see him burn for eternity. I honestly and sincerely do not, regardless of what his misguided policies are doing to my family and my country. However, unless he shows some signs of change, personally, regardless of his politics, I cannot in good conscience claim him as a fellow Christian.

Demystifying the "Messiah"

Folks, the Republican Party made a crucial mistake when Obama appeared on the scene as Democratic candidate for President. I would have warned of this earlier, had I fully realized the import of the mistake. Now it's done, and he's in office, and there is not much we can do beyond letting the Democrats own their own errors in policy and gearing up for a conservative sweep in 2010.

(The irony is that a Democratic president with a Republican congress may be the best balance for our country. He keeps them in line by vetoing compromises because they don't go far enough, and the media finds themselves railing against a nebulous group of a couple hundred people instead of focusing a laser-eye on one man.)

This is the error: The Democrats have done their best to make him seem different somehow, special, unusual and new. The Republicans have only helped.

The first black president! Barack Obama! The unspoken 'Hussein' vibrates through the crowd. Is he Muslim? Is he Kenyan? Is he American? What about his birth certificate? What about his policies? Whatever he is, he's new. He's different. He isn't the same ol'. He just might get us out of this mess.

Even the Republican's attempts to cast doubt on him has only strengthened his position as a mystical figure. McCain's attempts to be 'gentlemanly' and avoid the infamous middle name left it as the proverbial (and ironic) elephant in the room, the silent reminder each time he avoided it that it was indeed waiting there. The grassroots concern about Obama's Muslim heritage draws our minds to the Middle East, to strange beliefs and unusual laws. None of this is what President Obama truly is, but it has only helped to cement his image as not quite the ordinary politician.

Before the election, people kept asking me if I thought Obama was Muslim. I took an honest look at his policies and as much of his home life as we were able to see and said no. I thought (and still think) he is merely a Unitarian Universalist, just like the church he attended for 20 years. The Unitarian Universalist church, though members may vary widely in their beliefs, is not like the Catholic church or the Baptist church. Their belief system is more like a buffet table than a simple dinner or a seven-course meal. They pick and choose as they please from various religious beliefs, including Christianity. In this way, though some members are likely fully Christian, the denomination is only Christian by the same "one drop" logic that makes Obama black instead of "mixed race".

See, a Muslim, even a secret one, in office would not be governing the way Obama is governing. "But he may be a moderate! Just because his wife doesn't wear the garment and he doesn't pray to Mecca... he's in hiding!" I'm sorry, but my evidence isn't anywhere near that obvious. Everyone, whether they hide their religion or not, is influenced by its worldview. Muslims are so careful about debt management that stock/bond packages featuring Muslim-approved companies are actually popular in the U.S. because these packages are among the few who are not rapidly losing value in this crisis caused by irresponsible financing. A Muslim Obama would not have sought to deal with debt by creating tons more. A Muslim Obama would not be supporting abortion under every circumstance at any time. A Muslim Obama may not require his wife to wear a hijab, but he sure as heck wouldn't want her to go walking about with bare arms. (She's drawn criticism for that, so let me be clear: I do not share that criticism. I think it's fine if she wants to go sleeveless. I have zero problem with it. But it's far, far outside of Muslim decency mores even for a moderate.)

Now, I knew that Obama was the senator from Illinois. Still, it never sunk into my mind, because the Democrats kept emphasizing that he was from Hawaii and the Republicans kept emphasizing that he was from Kenya. Hawaii is exotic and Kenya more so. Whether you are excited or alarmed by either setting, it still adds to the mystique. A Chicago Politician doesn't carry nearly the same level of interest, yet that is what he is.

This is important. When you take Barack (Hussein) Obama, born in Hawaii and possibly secretly Muslim, you have a mysterious character. Add his policy decisions, which don't seem to fall into any pattern, and you have a very confusing man. Even his detractors don't seem to know what to do with him. However, when you take Barry Obama, the Chicago politician, everything he's done makes perfect sense. And we know what to do with Chicago politicians.

So unlike some conservative bloggers, I do not encourage you to refer to this man as Barack Hussein Obama in order to reveal the truth and dispel the mystique. Instead, I encourage you, as Dumbledore referred to "The Dark Lord", not even as "Voldemort", but simply as "Tom Riddle", to call our new president "Barry Obama". President Barry Obama, the liberal Chicago politician and Universalist Unitarian. Say this before reading any of his policies or stances, and everything else will fall right into place.

Christianity and Tolerance

I'd like to notice something here. With the exception of fearful sheep who claim to follow Christ because they either hold a church membership (all too easy these days) or those who are trying to prove themselves obsessively through a cult mentality, Christians on the whole tend to be more tolerant of other religions than anyone, especially secular humanists. There are a couple of reasons for this, and I'd like to set them out while I'm thinking of them.

Christianity is based on love of all people, regardless of their looks, religions, jobs, and sin. When you truly love as God loves, or rather as much as you are able given your flawed human form, you will not despise members of another religion. You may feel sorry for them, and you will likely wish you could, as Jesus said, gather them under His wings like a mother hen protects and warms her young, but you won't despise them. You won't want to kill them. You won't consider this world a better place without them.

(This doesn't have to make everyone total pacifists. It is terrible but true that in this fallen world one man may have to be killed to protect others. The instructions given to soldiers was not to lay down their arms, but to be content with their salary and not oppress the people they protect.)

There are some people I term 'hyper-Christians' who have their hearts in the right place, but irk those who hate them by focusing so thoroughly on this love that they badger people continuously in hopes of saving any of them, for honestly no other reason than that they would not have anybody fall to destruction. They are different than the 'gotta-catch-them-all' Christians who do so as some kind of sick attempt at a spiritual 500-Saved-Club. God doesn't work with numbers that way, and that leads me to another reason why Christians tend to be tolerant.

Christianity is a matter of devoting your whole self, body, soul, and mind, to God. Nothing less will do, and nothing more is required. Unlike religions where all you have to do is say a phrase and complete the appropriate rituals, or learn your sayings and 'mean it', there is no way to be a lukewarm but genuine Christian. Those who don't care much will fall away, and those who do care will end up in the right direction. Therefore, despite what happens when Christianity (or any religion) meets Power-Hungry, you cannot force conversion and have it stick. Conversion must be not only self-initiated, but anyone pushed into it or led by the nose will invariably end up as rocky or weedy soil. (Those of you who don't know what that means, there's a parable, ask and I'll tell it.)

Christians have a strong base on which to stand when they stand on their faith. Most people who get confused about it are easily confused by shallow tricks (like the old 'how can a loving God disapprove of homosexual acts' etc.) that are easily defeated with an honest understanding of the Bible, rather than an attempt to crowbar it apart. The accuracy of the Bible and support for it's claims surpass the proofs of many historical events that children are taught in school. I could go on, but I don't mean to get into all the proofs here... search them out for yourself. My point is that Christians don't have to shut their ears to any information about any other religion for fear that, as the Nip and Tuck webcomic put it so nicely, their 'worldview will throw a piston rod'. The point of many other groups, particularly gay rights and abortion rights groups, is not only to deliver their message but to silence opposition due to this fear.

These are the three attributes of tolerance from Christians: A sturdy base of faith, a true love for those not of their religion, and an understanding that faith in God must be real and never forced.

From that comes an unprecedented tolerance for those of other beliefs that surpasses the majority of other religions, including Islam, which is beat out for last place in the tolerance game by Secular Humanism because even the most extremist Muslim-led country will allow other religion adherents as second-class citizens.

I continue to study the Quran out of curiosity, unafraid that I may risk eternal damnation by finding something that makes more sense than what I already believe, or that I may find my own religion to be faded and threadbare in comparison. I haven't thrown a piston rod yet, and from what I've read so far, I seriously doubt that I will!

I do plan to do more on that series.. it is not over. For the time being I have been doing spring cleaning, homeschooling, gardening, and basically managing the household, a job that has rather overtaken my free time for a while.

The Cow vs. 48 and 60 – Who then is righteous?

The Cow vs. 48 and 60 – Who then is righteous?

How to be fit for Heaven

Verse 48 introduces an interesting concept in the midst of another long declaration of how the sinful will perish forever and the sinless will earn paradise. It mentions the attempt to “deserve” Heaven by joining yourself to a “servant of God” as a model. Apparently, if you can identify with someone who certainly deserved Heaven and model yourself after him as much as possible, you may make your way in with the help of an ‘intercession’, the mechanics of which were not laid out. Maybe we will get more detail on that later. However, the very concept of following another human as an example seems strange to Christians, who believe that none of us are without sin and the only perfect example is Jesus Christ.

At this point, it is necessary to understand and remember the difference between the Christian and Muslim view of “sin”. In Islam, unintentional sin is not enough to keep you out of Heaven, but intentional sin is. In Christianity, the bar is raised much higher, but so is the level of hope. Even intentional sin, even the worst sort, can be forgiven through acceptance of Christ’s atonement. Christian faith is an all-or-nothing proposal, with no way to attain righteousness on your own. Islam is a little more vague, with the basic idea that you may be able to refrain from sin sufficient to bar you from Heaven, with Allah’s help and a great deal of prayer.

Sinless prophets through revisionist history

My first thought when reading about intercession was helpfully answered only a few verses later. Being a lifelong Christian, I instantly wondered how you would go about finding a sufficiently righteous man to emulate. “After all, even the prophets of the Bible, even the greatest people sinned. David committed adultery. Moses disobeyed God in Kadesh.”

What was Kadesh? It was the place where the Israelites, once again, complained about lack of water. Moses was told by God to ‘speak to the rock’ and that waters would gush out for the Israelites. Instead, Moses took them to task. “Do you expect me to bring water out of this rock for you?” And he struck the rock with his staff, twice. God answered, and brought the water, but informed Moses later that his punishment for disobedience was that he would never be able to cross over into the Chosen Land. Moses’ disobedience here, by the way, was a little more subtle than the plain story suggests. He did things his own way, and he neglected to give credit to God.

Verse 60 in the Koran, however, tells a different story. It claims that “We (Allah) told Moses to strike the rock, so that water would come out…” in the midst of it’s tirade, admittedly not unlike tirades among Old Testament prophets, about Israel’s unfaithfulness.

Now those who are not well versed in the Bible, not only what it says but why, would probably see the difference between ‘speaking’ and ‘striking’ in God’s orders to be so unimportant that it would not even need to be mentioned. God spoke to Moses, Moses struck the rock, the miracle happened. However, like the changes made from the Biblical account in earlier verses, a slight edit changes the entire story. A sinful human like the rest of us is transformed into a sinless paragon suitable for identification and capable of intercession.

Remember that Islam, unlike Christianity, is a ‘new revelation’ religion. The New Testament completes and explains the Old Testament, but it does not rewrite. The system of atonement for sin and the need for a Savior runs throughout the entirety of both Scriptures. However, Mohammed’s visions, to the Muslim, represent new revelation that overrides and corrects the old. So if the Bible says that God told Moses to speak to the rock and the Koran says that Allah told Moses to strike the rock, for the Muslims, the ‘newer revelation’ takes precedence. In that way, revisionist history is justified in order to protect a claim not defensible through the Old Testament that Jews, Christians, and Muslims all claim to hold in common.

The Cow vs 43 – Two Fundamental Principles of Religion

Here we come across a fairly simple verse, but my commentary claims it to be much more. “These are the two fundamental principles of religion,” the commentary claims, and so I immediately think of the equivalent section in the Bible, the two greatest commandments. Upon further study, I realized that these two greatest were similar on the outside and, as in previous sections, notably different in the details!

The Greatest Commandments

In the Bible, Jesus responds when asked for the greatest commandment, not with something from the pre-established Law, but something entirely new that nevertheless encompasses it. “You shall love the Lord your God with all of your heart, and with all of your soul, and with all of your mind.” In the Koran, the first listed fundamental principle is at the beginning of the verse, with “Keep up prayer,” and at the end, with “bow down with those who bow down.” Jesus continues His speech with the second greatest commandment which is “like the first: Love your neighbor as yourself.” The corresponding part in the Koran is similar: to pay the poor-rate.

At first glance, there are similarities that make these a good set for comparison. In both cases, the first principle involves God while the second involves others. However, as before, the difference is in the details!

Do what with your God?

The commentary/translation note for the first part of the Koran verse, “Keep up prayer,” explains prayer as worship. I remembered the very first section, the seven-verse prayer known to be so much more important to the Muslims than the roughly corresponding Lord’s Prayer is to Protestant Christians. Upon looking up the word ‘worship’ in the dictionary, I came up with a similar word picture. The first principle for Muslims is to acknowledge Allah’s greatness and power, to show proper respect, and to exalt Allah to a proper place, being at the top of everything. This is not a bad thing for Christians to do when dealing with whom I refer to as “Yahweh” as from the Old Testament. However, Christians are asked to do so much more. Love the Lord your God.

Placing worship of a deity as the top priority is nothing new in the myriads of religions before and after Islam. In this, I admit that Mohammed disappoints me a great deal. Jesus encourages us to call to God using names that translate to a very close father-child relationship. The idea of loving your God rather than simply exalting Him is extraordinary, as well it should be. In the Old and New Testaments, God consistently breaks ground, confounding mortal wisdom. What we find in the Koran, which is supposed to be further revelation from this same God, is a step backwards to the common practice of so many other religions throughout history, a simple exaltation of Allah, who so far has seemed disinclined to draw very close to us. Furthermore, while Christians are told to love God with their hearts, minds, and souls, it seems that simple religious observance of prayers and acknowledgments at proper times is sufficient for Allah.

Is this connected in any way to the difference between the two religions of how badly we need salvation and from what? Yahweh, saving us from our sins and restoring us to a right relationship, may rightly speak of a love encompassing every part of us. Allah, only apparently having need to save us merely from ignorance and the consequences of sin accidentally committed, may therefore require less from us.

Who needs our help?

The second principle contrasted with the second commandment is something of which I have much less to speak, mostly because I have not read enough of the Koran to know if all of your neighbors are addressed at another juncture. I will, however, point out that Christians are required to do much more than to pay a poor-rate and otherwise support those who do not have enough material possessions. Jesus requires of us that we reach out not only to the poor but to the rich. When He said that if a man makes you carry his burden for a mile that you should go two, He was not speaking of aiding the poor. He was speaking not only of the rich, but of the rich oppressors over the Jews at that time. I will need to read more of the Koran to know if Mohammed addresses this issue in more detail.

Next Time: Speaking to Israel

The First Sin (The Cow vs 34-39 and Book 20:112-125)

This corresponding section of the Bible lays out the primary need and provision for salvation, that which is of first importance to Christians. The Koran tells a very different story, for all that the summary seems similar. “The devil is in the details,” they say, and in this case that is pretty nearly literal.

Did Adam and Eve mean it?

The Koran makes it clear that Adam’s sin was entirely unintentional, placing the whole blame upon the devil. When they ate, “their evil inclinations became manifest to them,” and they had to leave this garden. According to the commentary, the Garden was an allegory of a state of inertia, containing no inclination towards good or evil. I really don’t think I can say that all Muslims see the Garden as an allegory based on this one commentary, especially since some Christians see it as an allegory and many do not. All that aside, however, there is an important difference here in viewing the state of the human being.

As Francis Schaeffer put it so well in his radio series, which I’ve been listening to lately, Christianity is not Romanticism in that it does not assume that man is inherently good and getting better. Even the Christians who do not believe that every baby is born already stained with Adam’s sin, there is no denying that every one ends up in dire need of God’s salvation. We are unable to fix ourselves, and so we need atonement before we can even hope to reconcile with God. The story of Adam and Eve in the Bible ends with what is widely considered the first prophetic mention of Jesus Christ.

The dampening down or eliminating of Adam’s sin is necessary to remove the need for a Savior. Islam, claiming to be one of ‘the three Abrahamic religions’, once again distinguishes itself from Christianity and Judaism and joins just about every other world religion in believing that good works and wisdom alone are sufficient to pave your way to Heaven. Now, some Christians might chime in and ask why I place Christianity and Judaism together in this light. Although the Jews are still waiting for their political savior, even though they no longer perform animal sacrifice on altars as in the Old Testament, nevertheless they believe that a genuine repentance and accompanying forgiveness from God is necessary to wipe out sin. This is a work done nearly entirely by God, separate from any good deeds that the Jew or Christian has committed. Amid the various web commentaries on this section of the Koran, I found the statement, “A good deed cancels a bad deed.” This is not found in Christianity or Judaism.

Eve and Women as Individuals

In another important point, the Bible claims that Eve was persuaded by the devil (in the form of a serpent) and then persuaded Adam. The Koran up to this point has only addressed Adam himself or Adam and “his wife”. Some claim that the Koran is therefore more “woman-friendly”, having not placed the blame of the First Sin on Eve. (Granted, as the First Sin is entirely the fault of the devil and his ability to place evil thoughts into man’s mind rather than the more subtle leading-astray in the Bible, man doesn’t really take the hit either.) I see it a different way.

Eve in the Bible was her own person, an individual, who thought for herself and had the power to convince her husband to follow. She discerned wrongly, but she did discern! Though Adam tried later to shift full blame to her, God gave him a separate punishment, underlying what Christians already know: Eve does not carry full blame for the Fall of Man. However, her existence as a separate and important human being has already been shown in the Bible, in the Naming of the Animals, an emphasis missing in the corresponding story in the Koran. In the Bible, Woman shares in sin and its consequences as an equal person to Adam, with intelligence and influence, and God addresses her separately. Interestingly, this difference was highlighted for me in how the first human couple in the Bible are sometimes addressed as “Adam and Eve”, sometimes as “Adam and his wife”, and sometimes as “Eve and her husband.” In the Koran, it is always “Adam” or “Adam/man and his wife”.

Consequences

Although Christianity and Judaism differ in the role of the Messiah, they both place the primary emphasis on forgiveness of sin being necessary for a right relationship with god. Islam places more importance on good deeds and revealed Divine knowledge, and we begin to see that here.

Man must now leave the garden. Why? Because “some of you are the enemies of others.” Man, though he supposedly had not deliberately sinned, has nevertheless given in to his “low desires” and is now more likely to war with each other. Though Adam is said to have “repented” by turning back to Allah, this appears to be a direct result of Allah revealing knowledge to him. My helpful commentary declares, “Man is found too weak to overcome the evil suggestions of the devil or the [pre-Fall] evil inclinations in him… He [Allah] sends down revelation which, strengthening his faith in God [Allah], gives him the strength to overcome the devil and reject his suggestions.” There we have it; man couldn’t have known he was giving in to evil, but now he does, so he won’t do it again! Though it is referred to by the commentary as ‘repentance’, nothing appears to need forgiving. “Allah is merciful.” Under such circumstances, I would hope so!

The section ends, not with the punishment of man and wife and the promise of Satan’s eventual defeat, but with the simple promise that prophets will come from time to time with new revealed knowledge of Allah. This total departure from the Bible is necessary for Mohammed to claim any new revelation after the coming of Jesus. When you believe that the Fall of Man is corrected by a work already done, what is there to add? As well, if you are still waiting for your prophesied Savior, what use have you for someone who claims that there will not be one?

The Naming of the Animals (The Cow vs30-33)

This looks on the surface like the same Naming of the Animals story in the Bible. However, though the end result is the same, the stories accord the honor in different ways, leading to completely different lessons to learn.

The Koran claims that Allah taught man the names of the animals to prove his superiority to the angels, who doubted Allah's wisdom in putting a 'ruler' (man) on the earth. He then brought man before the angels and had man recite the names back to them, showing them that he had chosen to give man knowledge that they did not have. There is a notable lack of fellowship between man and Allah here, when compared to the Biblical story. Man is given the information in order to prove the the angels that he is superior, not apparently through any ability or work of his own, but because Allah chose to give him information that they lacked.

The Bible paints a very different picture. The angels are not even a part of the story. Yahweh (so called in this 'article' to distinguish Him from Allah) brings the animals to man to see what names man would give them. Yahweh had a couple reasons for doing this. One reason was to confirm man's authority over the animals. The other was to show man that there was no fit companion for him among them. This set the stage for the introduction of Woman, "flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone," above the beasts, recognized as the same race of man. She has equal intelligence and basic human dignity, recognized as an indispensable part of the human race.

The Koran apparently does not cover the origin of women at all, according to the web search I did when this part of The Cow failed to turn up any extra information. I will see in time whether this is true, or whether it is listed in a different chapter.

I find it interesting that The Cow vs 1-30 continue to emphasize Allah's superiority, the same simple theme carried onto the Naming of the Animals. Meanwhile, the Bible is already branching out to the purpose of man and woman, allowing man a greater measure of creativity and setting woman's place within creation. In the Biblical account, we are already seeing Yahweh's willingness to fellowship with His created man, giving man the honor of naming His creation the way a parent might ask his child to label his painted picture or sculpted model.

Granted, this part of the Koran seems so far to be merely a summary of the Old Testament. I also have seen a lack of complexity such that I am accustomed to from the Bible, but I am still pretty early in the book. Maybe it will change further in.

I would accept the notion that the Koran is merely meant to be a continuation of the Old and New Testament, therefore needing much less complexity in it's history lessons, but what I have read already shows a very different interpretation of the old stories summarized within.

Next Time: The Garden of Eden and Man's Sin

Quran from a Christian's Perspective Part 1

Al-Fåtihah: The Opening

Introduction

This is apparently the Muslim version of the Lord’s Prayer, only with more importance. It is the prayer a Muslim should make at the beginning of each day, beginning each lesson, etc. The prayer I use before each Bible lesson is rather different than the Lord’s Prayer, so I used the Lord’s Prayer in comparison when teasing out the nuances.

The Muslim opening prayer is a fairly simple seven-verse thing, listing attributes of Allah and requesting Allah’s help in being led on the right path, neither that of those upon whom wrath is brought down nor those who go astray. On the surface, there is nothing really wrong with it, and further inspection finds some quirks, but still a fairly decent prayer for a good Muslim. If I did not have the Lord’s Prayer to compare it with, I might agree with the author of my English translation that the concepts expressed are nothing short of sublime.

Divine Attributes

The divine attributes are four in number, being providence, beneficence, mercy, and requital. For all that, the English translation doesn’t use the word ‘providence’, unless it is hidden somehow in it’s mention of Allah as ‘Lord’. I get a gentle chiding here for the frequent English translation of ‘King’. An emphasis on the word used strengthens the definition from ‘King’ to something further, a ‘Master’. The difference is important, because a master could forgive his servants without breaking the law, while a king could not. I find that interesting, as it suggests that in Islam the forgiveness of sins is possible only because Allah is above the law, while in Christianity it is the fulfillment of the law through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Beneficence and Mercy barely need mention, as I pretty much agree with them. To a Christian comparing the Quran to the Bible, they need no explanation.

The one that really caught my eye was requital. I had to look up the word to make sure I had the nuance correct. It’s most common synonym is ‘reciprocate’ or ‘return’, the idea of giving back what is given to you. For a judgmental god, that makes some sense. You do good, you get good. You do bad, you get bad. Unfortunately, it leaves no room for forgiveness of sins, or for the Biblical verses about even our righteousness being no better than dirty rags before God’s glory. Again, the translator/commentator set me straight. The judgment of Allah is not apparently the rigid judgment of natural law, but the beneficent judgment of a loving Master.

Is that different from Christianity? I see one way that it is, and that one way is strengthened by what the Lord’s Prayer has that the Fatihah does not.

Forgiveness and Remission of Sins

The Lord’s Prayer and the Fatihah has concepts in common regarding God’s magnificence, beneficence, love and power. They both request direction in the supplicant’s life. The mention of “Thy Kingdom Come” and the meaning of it’s omission in the Fatihah will have to wait until I have more information. The two extra parts in the Lord’s Prayer are the appeal for sustenance (“Give us this day our daily bread”) and for forgiveness of sins.

While one of the words used to describe Allah in these seven verses refers to him as ‘sustainer to perfection’, I do not come away from reading the prayer with a feeling that you can request that sustenance of him, or a sense that forgiveness is something you specifically seek. The Lord’s Prayer suggests, as other words of Jesus confirm, that remission of sins is something that you can not only hope for but expect once you have made your request. God is seen as a faithful and steady keeper of His word, and that expectation is strengthened by the knowledge that salvation and forgiveness is the fulfillment of the Law and not it’s bypassing. For that Jesus’s sacrifice was needed.

For Allah, on the other hand, whose forgiveness appears to be above the Law, I see no guarantee of remission of sins beyond the simple assurance that Allah is loving and merciful, and it is not beyond his nature to do so.

Next Time: Starting the Cow

Quran from a Christian's Perspective Introduction

I have finally decided to give the Muslim's holy book a good look over. Being who I am, of course, I will be taking notes as I read, and writing up my thoughts afterwards. Maybe it'll become a book. Maybe not. At any rate, I'll post them here as I write them.

I've got a translation of the Quran from http://www.muslim.org/ with commentary from Maulana Muhammed Ali. I think that should be a fairly good representation of their text, not biased towards their detractors and with a genuine wish to make it understandable. So far, I find the commentary useful and the text interesting.

Let's see how long this lasts, and what I come up with in the meantime.