Need help, responses to a religious intolerant. LDS & Muslim input, especially!

[grahamsmom98]

The following article was in the MDC TAO thread below (above?!) about the third candidate. I thought it was well written, and my dh did, as well. We cut-&-pasted it, and emailed it to a few friends that feel the same. Or, so we thought!!!

First, here's the article:

http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Mar/0321...enta/149533.asp



-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, here is the reply we got from one friend. This guy teaches Sunday school and is BIG on having god taught in public schools. I asked him once, "Whose god?" and he replied, "The only true god, the one that created us all and gave us the morals brought forth in the true book of knowledge, the Bible." Hmmm, guess he means the Christian god only, huh?

He was a Libertarian candidate in our state a couple of years ago for a state position. His reply really rubbed me the wrong way, especially the last line. I mean, how do you demonstrate beliefs as false??

Here is his reply:

Well, I had to edit out his reply because MDC says I can't put a private email message here . So, take my word for it, he was very derogatory about both Muhammad and Joseph Smith. ((Hope the mod doesn't find anything else I need to edit...))

Now, I only know the very most basics about Morman (LDS) history and next to nothing about the Muslim faith. Can anyone help me with knowledge that refutes the comment about Muhammad having "those that refused to submit slain"? I don't know about the Joseph Smith incident, but, personally, I wouldn't blame anyone for shooting into a crowd when they were being lynched (why didn't someone have the foresight to take away his guns? Not trying to be offensive with that remark, okay?). Also, correct me if I am wrong, but weren't Mormans slain for their beliefs by "Christians" (and one of the many reasons for their moving far to the west)? Any light on the Mountain Meadow Massacre?

Any Christians in history that have had visions and acted on them subsequently? (Want some "ammo" on why that would make THEM non-demon possessed versus the idea that believers in alternate faiths doing the same would, obviously, have owned the entire "Omen" series on DVD if it was available at the time..)

[veganmamma]

Eh, it's the same old, my religion is better than your's. Personally I'd ignore him and try to detach any strings attached to him. Some people are so extreme in their views that in trying to get them to see the light we sacrifice too much of ourselves. He probably won't hear what you have to say if he didn't already. IMO, anyone who responds with rhetoric about demon possession is not credible. And I've had my demons exercised. :nana:

[jdelilah]

pm'ing you

[Meiri]

This jumped out at me in his reply:

Nominal Christians have also committed atrocities, but that is not consistent with the teachings of Jesus,

In other words, it's okay if Christians fall short of Jesus's teachings, but not okay if LDS Christians or Muslims fall short.

I'm of the "goose, gander, sauce" ideal myself. If this guy's type of Christians are allowed to fall short of the ideals in the teachings, then so is everyone else within theirs. Better yet! If they can't fall short and be considered valid, then neither can he and his.

[DaryLLL]

A "nominal" Xtian, one of Jesus' disciples, cut off the ear of one of the police as J was being arrested. What makes me think he wasn't just aiming for the ear?

Jesus told his disciples to selll their cloaks and get swords. J started a riot on the Temple grounds. These guys were revolutionaries. A just war, I guess...

BTW, I am not a mod, but you are only allowed to post a url and 100 words of a copyrighted article. And posting your "friend's " private email to you, that may violate too...

Nonetheless, I enjoyed the post.

[stafl]

moderator's note:
DaryLLL is correct, it is against the rules to copy and paste others' words.
Please edit your post.
http://www.mothering.com/mdc/mdc_useragreement.html

[AutumnSunshine]

I'm in a hurry so I don't have any links to post at the moment, but I am so fed up with that garbage.

People who don't like Islam and Muslims for other reasons have taken a number of historical happenings or quotes of the Qur'an COMPLETELY out of context.

"People who did not submit" were not killed by the Prophet (peace be upon him), the people who were killed were people who had broken treaties, engaged in covert operations to attempt to kill the Prophet, had actually killed and tortured some of his followers, etc., etc. All those so-called "quotes from the Qur'an" that are being circulated in conservative and evangelical Christian circles are only HALF-QUOTES which cut out the part either before or after that mention the fact that the killing order applies to a particular group of people who "broke their oaths and tried to kill the messenger" or other similar things.

You know, Christians and Muslims will NEVER agree on the "Jesus son of God"/ Trinity business, so I don't know why these evangelicals feel so desperate to make all these false statements against our religion. They must feel threatened or something. Otherwise, they should just leave it at a theological disagreement and debate respectfully on the issues, period. God, you don't see Muslims going around and saying that Jesus (peace be upon him) was actually a bad person. Honestly.

I'm just so because these so-called "quotes" and arguments are getting so much press and attention from people and the mass media does NOTHING to counter it. NOTHING.

I can copy my response to that thread, since I was the one who originally posted the article and then I got sick with throwing up and diarrhea and I'm just now getting back online.

Umm Zaynab

[grahamsmom98]

Thank you for your responses! A couple of questions:

Nominal Christians. I so love that phrase! I guess he doesn't consider that there ARE nominal everythings!! There ARE those Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and those of other beliefs that make a bad name for their religions because of their fanatical adherences to something THEY read in the holy books/words of those religions.

DaryLLL

A "nominal" Xtian, one of Jesus' disciples, cut off the ear of one of the police as J was being arrested. What makes me think he wasn't just aiming for the ear?

Jesus told his disciples to selll their cloaks and get swords. J started a riot on the Temple grounds.

Can you give me specific biblical (or, wherever) quotes on these instances?

Like I said, this guy teaches Sunday school, and I'd like to be able to zap him back with some of his own to counter his ignorance!

UmmZaynab, I agree with you. It is so weird to think of all the bad that has come from a small group of people, so intent on their own agendas, they don't seem, obviously, to realize THEY are just as bad as those they preach against! The media has such power, and it is too often used in ways that cause more harm than good. ((By the way, sorry you were sick, glad you are back!!))

For what it is worth, I am an atheist. But, I won't put up with anyone bashing someone else's beliefs, especially when they do so without backing up their arguement with FACTS.

I have enjoyed some spirited (can "I" say that?!) conversations on the subjects of god and religion and faith with my Catholic husband!

I realize that faith, different from organized religion, is putting your complete trust in a higher being. I just can't see trusting anything/one that allows all the awful things that do happen -- and, have happened -- in human history. I know there is that argument about being given "free will", but I see no connection to free will and the atrocities that happen to children. What kind of "higher" being, supposedly kind and loving, allows such things?

Sorry, the soapbox somehow got under my feet!

Peace to all, and thank you, again!

[leavesarebrown]

I wish I'd seen the original post before the edits! I agree that spirituality should not be taught in public school, but think that religion must be taught to some extent in order to understand culture and history, but that can be a tricky balance. As well as scripture as literature. But what was your friend proposing?

What was the question about Joseph Smith?

[DaryLLL]

http://www.blueletterbible.org/index.html

Mat 21:12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves...

Mar 11:15 And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves...

Luk 19:45 And he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought; 46 Saying unto them, It is written, My house is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves. 47 And he taught daily in the temple. But the chief priests and the scribes and the chief of the people sought to destroy him...

Jhn 2:15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables..

(Keep in mind the this was not like disturbing a church jumble sale. The Temple grounds were the size of 10 football fields. The Temple was closely guarded by Roman troops. Jesus' act would have been seen as sedition during the crowded Passover conditions, when Jews were celebrating their release from former Egyptian slavery, while under present Roman rule!)


Luke 22:36 [Jesus, just prior to his arrest:] And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.

Mar 14:47 [As J was beiong arrested:] And one of them that stood by drew a sword, and smote a servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear.

Luk 22:50 And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear.

Jhn 18:10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.

Jhn 18:26 [Later, during J's trial:] One of the servants of the high priest, being [his] kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him?

[ChasingPeace]

I'm not a Muslim and do not pretend to know the Qur'an, but I do know that a fundamental tenet of Islam is "there is no compulsion in Islam," meaning it is wrong to force another to accept Islam, so I think the slaying quote must be out of context as UmmZaynab pointed out.

I also understand that when the early Muslims conquered a territory, Christians and Jews were permitted to continue to practice their faith (I think they probably had to pay some sort of tax, however).

Karen Armstrong has an excellent book called "History of God" that explains the development of the three monotheistic religions. It's an excellent resource (and it changed my life, but that's a different thread!).

[sohj]

Originally Posted by grahamsmom98

...Any Christians in history that have had visions and acted on them subsequently? (Want some "ammo" on why that would make THEM non-demon possessed versus the idea that believers in alternate faiths doing the same would, obviously, have owned the entire "Omen" series on DVD if it was available at the time..)

George Fox is the first that comes to my mind. (hmmm...wonder why? ) If you have never heard of him, check this out: http://www.higherpraise.org/preachers/fox.htm is a decent enough thumbnail sketch of him. William James has some interesting things to say about him in the book Varieties of Religious Experience.

And here is an excerpt from Fox's journal (it is out of copyright, everyone. REALLY long out of copyright.) that James referred to as an example in his book:

As I was walking with several friends, I lifted up my head, and saw three steeple-house spires, and they struck at my life. I asked them what place that was? They said, Lichfield. Immediately the word of the Lord came to me, that I must go thither. Being come to the house we were going to, I wished the friends to walk into the house, saying nothing to them of whither I was to go. As soon as they were gone I stept away, and went by my eye over hedge and ditch till I came within a mile of Lichfield; where, in a great field, shepherds were keeping their sheep. Then was I commanded by the Lord to pull off my shoes. I stood still, for it was winter: but the word of the Lord was like a fire in me. So I put off my shoes, and left them with the shepherds; and the poor shepherds trembled, and were astonished. Then I walked on about a mile, and as soon as I was got within the city, the word of the Lord came to me again, saying: Cry, 'Wo to the bloody city of Lichfield!' So I went up and down the streets, crying with a loud voice, Wo to the bloody city of Lichfield! It being market day, I went into the market-place, and to and fro in the several parts of it, and made stands, crying as before, Wo to the bloody city of Lichfield! And no one laid hands on me. As I went thus crying through the streets, there seemed to me to be a channel of blood running down the streets, and the market-place appeared like a pool of blood. When I had declared what was upon me, and felt myself clear, I went out of the town in peace: and returning to the shepherds gave them some money, and took my shoes of them again. But the fire of the Lord was so on my feet, and all over me, that I did not matter to put on my shoes again, and was at a stand whether I should or no, till I felt freedom from the Lord so to do: then, after I had washed my feet, I put on my shoes again. After this a deep consideration came upon me, for what reason I should be sent to cry against that city, and call it The bloody city! For though the parliament had the minister one while, and the king another, and much blood had been shed in the town during the wars between them, yet there was no more than had befallen many other places. But afterwards I came to understand, that in the Emperor Diocletian's time a thousand Christians were martyr'd in Lichfield. So I was to go, without my shoes, through the channel of their blood, and into the pool of their blood in the market-place, that I might raise up the memorial of the blood of those martyrs, which had been shed above a thousand years before, and lay cold in their streets. So the sense of this blood was upon me, and I obeyed the word of the Lord.

If that isn't a vision, I don't know what is. (No sarcasm there, just a sigh.)

Now, as to why they aren't induced by Satan, I have a great essay by one of my Meeting's members that discusses How We Know Our Messages Come From God. I want to ask him first if I may quote, then, if he lets me, I'll post more here in the coming days.

[sohj]

Hmmm. The essay doesn't actually address the "demon" issue.

What the essay addresses is best shown by looking at his opening paragraph:

This article was prompted by some questions put to me recently by a thoughtful attender [...] Why [...] do Quakers say that the "messages" we hear spoken in our meetings come from God? Isn't that a bit much to claim or even to hope for? Doesn't it raise the bar so high that any sane and modest person will be deterred from speaking in out Meetings at all? Doesn't it offer a platform primarily to unbablanced people who are led by narcissism or megalomania to exaggerate the parts they play in God's work?

BTW: All quotations here are from an essay by Rich Accetta-Evans of the 15th St. Meeting, part of the NY Yearly Meeting. They are quoted with permission. The essay was circulated privately, not published.

What might be useful for you is the following:

1) God is not a remote and impassive abstraction, but a living Presence who is able to move in the heart of any person at any time.
2) Those who try to serve God through vocal ministry are indeed fallible human beings, but this doesn't mean that God cannot speak through them.
3) As a guard against self-delusion and inflated self-importance, those who often give vocal ministry in their meetings should always look for nurture and guidance to the community of faith they belong to -- the Meeting as a whole and those within it who are spiritually experienced and mature.

and

Receiving such a message is not like "channeling" or "spirit-possession" [...] God does not commandeer a person's body, obliterate the personality, or override the will. Instead, God's Spirit works with whatever materials lie at hand, and the worshipper wrestles with that Spirit, attempting to let it speak authentically, yet also always trying to reconcile its new promptings and new insights with the worshipper's prior habits, plans, ideas and beliefs that may also in their time have come from the Spirit. The message heard aloud by other worshippers is nearly always the end product of this process, not the same pure motion that first came forth from God. In other words, as I have heard many Quakers say, "The water always tastes of the pipes."

NOW, all of the above does not address the issue of visions. I will ask Rich about that when I next see him. George Fox definately seemed to have felt "overridden" when he heard the Word.

There is definately a sense of shared responsibility among the Friends, in the fact that though someone rises to speak and gives vocal ministry, the rest of the assembled meeting needs to listen and sift and think on what they have been told. That is, the message is incomplete unless it is heard and thought about. However, passing on a revelation is difficult. Hard to put something like that into words.

Have you had any discussions with the man you were writing about since you started the thread? Hope my thoughts haven't been totally out of left field.

[Bekka]

Originally Posted by grahamsmom98

Any light on the Mountain Meadow Massacre?

I'm sure this is so late in the discussion, but I'm Mormon. I don't know which massacre this refers to, but in our history is Haun's Mill Massacre, where yes, there were some Mormon boys and men killed. Perhaps it is the same event, different name. I, like Leavesarebrown, am curious as to what he said about J.Smith. HTH; will help more if needed.

[Teensy]

I've been reading Under the Banner of Heaven about the Mormon church and offshoots. You might find it an interesting read, but you may not come away a fan of Joseph Smith. Just a recommendation.

I don't have a good answer to your question, but people do all sorts of terrible things in the name of religion. Christianity has led people to the crusades, the Spanish inquisition, and the Salem witch trials. Not exactly the "love your neighbor" attitude.

[Teensy]

Oh, and I've always hated the story where Abraham was going to sacrifice his son for God. I get upset imagining a child about to be killed by his schizophrenic father - shivers. A mother in my area heard similar voices and did kill one one her children while another one witnessed it. I can't imagine the terror felt by those children. I hate that the church teaches this as a postive story, that yes, you should listen to god and have faith in what he says.

But I digress.

[applejuice]

A bit T, but since you mentioned it -

The Abraham/Isaac story has its roots in other cultures in the Middle East and in Africa.

It is reminiscent of the many brother-vs-brother themes that is plentiful in the First Five Books of Moses and in lore all over the Mediterranean Cultures and in African tales.

In answer to the OP: I have lived in many places and each time I moved I would introduce myself to my neighbors and I always lived in peace with them. If they came to me with their religious beliefs, I always told them I have my own and I would then thank them for their concern and - leave it at that!

I am sure some of them believed I was going to he77, and that is their perogative; at least there was peace between us here on Earth.

[OhMel]

Originally Posted by Teensy

Oh, and I've always hated the story where Abraham was going to sacrifice his son for God. I get upset imagining a child about to be killed by his schizophrenic father - shivers. A mother in my area heard similar voices and did kill one one her children while another one witnessed it. I can't imagine the terror felt by those children. I hate that the church teaches this as a postive story, that yes, you should listen to god and have faith in what he says.

But I digress.

I took an OT class last fall and the prof said that in the original version no angel saves Issac -- that was added in later by some of the Priests. Remember, one of the commandments (of thousands) is to sacrifice the first born -- it says nothing about just animals. Human sacrifice was quite common in the OT time so this wasn't anything out of the ordinary as compared to the other religions in the area. A very interesting class!

[KatherineinCA]

The Mountain Meadows Massacre is quite different from Haun's Mill, because it was the Mormons who did the killing. It's a very shameful part of our history, and for that reason many of us aren't familiar with it. I didn't learn of it until my fourth year at BYU (the LDS-owned university), and that was after years of church history classes. I'm still not familiar enough to give a complete run-down, but the basics are that a group of Utahns attacked a wagon train passing through, killing most or all of the people. I believe that it's been shown the attack was ordered by Brigham Young, but that his involvement was covered up and the attack was blamed on another man, and that man's descendants are still angry because of that. As I said, it's a very shameful episode in our history. Definitely something that someone criticizing our church would mention, because it deserves criticism.

[leavesarebrown]

OhMel Did your professor claim Abraham killed his son? Who then became the father of Jacob/Israel? Or was Jacob already supposedly born? I think the appearance of an angel is THE MOST IMPORTANT PART of the story because it made clear that God does NOT delight in the type of sacrifice that was more common in ancient cultures. I believe in that message more than the message of sacrifice. I have wondered if perhaps Abraham was simply trying to please God, and didn't yet understand the nature of God, having it confused by the practices around him. (I wonder about circumcision in that vein as well.) I think we need to be VERY careful what we attribute to God.

RE: Mountain Meadows... I was also raised Mormon. The "excuse" I heard for Mountain Meadows is that it was a problem of mistaken identity. So many Mormons were persecuted and killed for their beliefs. And some were clearly (they thought) taking revenge. Wrong, yes. But I can understand it based on the circumstances. My understanding is that the wagon train was mistaken for a group of Missourians who were rumored to be coming out specifically to kill Mormons. IMO that could never condone the killing of the women and children, though.