The Unconvertibility of Islam

[Lev Muishkin]

That Jesus Christ is God, is one of the major tenets of Christianity.

Wrong.
Many Christians sects regard Jesus as human.
Until the council of Nicaea nearly all Christians regarded him as a man.
Any christian can abandon his creed on the simple understanding that Mohammed has surpassed Jesus in his claim to divinity, without dismissing Jesus.
Going the other way- you have to reject Mohammed.

Yes, and my Church regards Jesus as a human along with most other denominations that I am familiar with, so what's the problem? It's only Atheists with no understanding or imagination who see this as a problem, not Christians and other religious people. Atheists are only using it to attack Christianity, something they don't understand. Mohammed is not considered divine by Islam, Mohammed is a prophet, the last and to them as important as Jesus. Also Islam considers Jesus as the "Messiah to be" and therefore more important than Mohammed.

I do not see this as a problem. I simply reminded the thread that not all Christians believe that Jesus was God, as this was relevant to a point I made about the topic thread.

So you are just blowing hot air to no purpose.

Try and stick to the thread. Nothing you say here relates to it.

Your last sentence is false.

[tbieter]

But, does Islam contain an unconvertibility element that is absent from other religions?

Belloc liked to think so and, I'm guessing, so do you.

You guess wrong. I was surprised by the idea of unconvertibility. I have assumed that every system of religious thought can be discarded by a believer.

[tbieter]

Next Tuesday I will attend the monthly meeting of the American Chesterton Society at the University Club. The reading to be discussed is THE GREAT HERESIES by Hilaire Belloc.

What I found interesting was Belloc’s contention that a permanent power of Islam is its unconvertibility. The missionary efforts over 400 years of the Catholic orders wholly failed to convert the Mohammedans.

This comment is interesting in light of President Obama’s purported conversion from Islam to Christianity.
http://www.chesterton.org
http://www.universityclubofstpaul.com/
http://www.amazon.com/Great-Heresies-Hi ... B00ISCT35K

I attended the meeting last night. Criticisms of Belloc were abundant.

[mickthinks]

I'm guessing, so do you [like to think Islam contains an unconvertibility element that is absent from other religions, like Belloc]

You guess wrong.

You haven't been clear about what you are denying there, Tom. Are you saying

1. that you don't think Islam is more resistant to conversion than other religions?
2. or that, although you do think Islam is more resistant to conversion than other religions, you don't like thinking it?

I have assumed that every system of religious thought can be discarded by a believer.

You have used a past tense of "assume" as if you no longer assume that every system of religious thought can be discarded by a believer. Is that what you meant? I don't see why you would change your earlier assumption, unless you have a blind faith in Belloc's infallibility.

[thedoc]

Wrong.
Many Christians sects regard Jesus as human.
Until the council of Nicaea nearly all Christians regarded him as a man.
Any christian can abandon his creed on the simple understanding that Mohammed has surpassed Jesus in his claim to divinity, without dismissing Jesus.
Going the other way- you have to reject Mohammed.

Yes, and my Church regards Jesus as a human along with most other denominations that I am familiar with, so what's the problem? It's only Atheists with no understanding or imagination who see this as a problem, not Christians and other religious people. Atheists are only using it to attack Christianity, something they don't understand. Mohammed is not considered divine by Islam, Mohammed is a prophet, the last and to them as important as Jesus. Also Islam considers Jesus as the "Messiah to be" and therefore more important than Mohammed.

I do not see this as a problem. I simply reminded the thread that not all Christians believe that Jesus was God, as this war relevant to a point I made about the topic thread.

Your last sentence is false.

The point is that most Christians believe that Jesus is both human and God, there may be a few who do not acknowledge that Jesus is God but they are not many and don't amount for much, except to themselves and Atheists. That Jesus is both human and God is one of the most basic tenets of Christianity and is often denied by other religions. With Islam it's a matter of when Jesus will be the Messiah, not if he is the Messiah, which is what Judaism denies.

My last sentence is based on what a Muslim believes about Islam and I think a Muslim would know better what he believes than you, who seem to know very little about what religious people believe about their religion.

[Lev Muishkin]

Yes, and my Church regards Jesus as a human along with most other denominations that I am familiar with, so what's the problem? It's only Atheists with no understanding or imagination who see this as a problem, not Christians and other religious people. Atheists are only using it to attack Christianity, something they don't understand. Mohammed is not considered divine by Islam, Mohammed is a prophet, the last and to them as important as Jesus. Also Islam considers Jesus as the "Messiah to be" and therefore more important than Mohammed.

I do not see this as a problem. I simply reminded the thread that not all Christians believe that Jesus was God, as this was relevant to a point I made about the topic thread.

Your last sentence is false.

The point is that most Christians believe that Jesus ....

... is the guy that the Romans tried to nail some sense into.
They don't understand the Trinity, or the difficult arguments about divinity.
Most think he is not exactly god. And plenty of Christians, only 'believe in something", and tend not to take the bible literally - not that the concept of the Trinity is even in the bloody bible!!!!!

Not that any of it matters, because Christians become Muslim more readily than Muslims become Christian, which is the only thing RELEVANT to the thread.
Most "Christians" are only vaguely connected with observing religion; being statistically christian by default; never going to church except weddings and funerals, and never praying.

Those with the potential for delusion find Islam attractive because it provides a sense of purpose, brotherhood, community - all limited in Christianity. Islam is the more perfect, traditional religion, preserving many practices that most christians have left behind.
The fact that Islam provides the romantic servile practice whereupon a person can completely abase themselves to the aim of giving their empty lives a purpose.

ISLAM does NOT consider Jesus to be the "messiah to be" how stupid of you to say so.

[ReliStuPhD]

But, does Islam contain an unconvertibility element that is absent from other religions?
And, if so, what is that element?

The short answer is "no."
The long answer is "no."

[ReliStuPhD]

So to convert to Christianity you would have to denounce Mohammed. Going from Christianity to Islam no denial of Jesus is necessary.

Incorrect. To convert to Islam, the Christian must deny the Trinitarian nature of God and the divinity of Jesus. As for the Muslim, denouncing Muhammad is of little concern, relatively speaking. It is the Qur'an that is the tripping point (Muhammad is simply the messenger. The Qur'an is the Message. i.e. The reverse of Christianity).

[ReliStuPhD]

Not that any of it matters, because Christians become Muslim more readily than Muslims become Christian, which is the only thing RELEVANT to the thread.
Most "Christians" are only vaguely connected with observing religion; being statistically christian by default; never going to church except weddings and funerals, and never praying.

Those with the potential for delusion find Islam attractive because it provides a sense of purpose, brotherhood, community - all limited in Christianity. Islam is the more perfect, traditional religion, preserving many practices that most christians have left behind.
The fact that Islam provides the romantic servile practice whereupon a person can completely abase themselves to the aim of giving their empty lives a purpose.

Again, incorrect. (Muslims are just as culturally Muslim as Christians are culturally Christian). Just out of curiosity, where are you getting these ideas from? Certainly (hopefully) not from any scholar of religion.

[Lev Muishkin]

Not that any of it matters, because Christians become Muslim more readily than Muslims become Christian, which is the only thing RELEVANT to the thread.
Most "Christians" are only vaguely connected with observing religion; being statistically christian by default; never going to church except weddings and funerals, and never praying.

Those with the potential for delusion find Islam attractive because it provides a sense of purpose, brotherhood, community - all limited in Christianity. Islam is the more perfect, traditional religion, preserving many practices that most christians have left behind.
The fact that Islam provides the romantic servile practice whereupon a person can completely abase themselves to the aim of giving their empty lives a purpose.

Again, incorrect. (Muslims are just as culturally Muslim as Christians are culturally Christian). Just out of curiosity, where are you getting these ideas from? Certainly (hopefully) not from any scholar of religion.

Once again, please offer relevant arguments.

[Blaggard]

So to convert to Christianity you would have to denounce Mohammed. Going from Christianity to Islam no denial of Jesus is necessary.

Incorrect. To convert to Islam, the Christian must deny the Trinitarian nature of God and the divinity of Jesus. As for the Muslim, denouncing Muhammad is of little concern, relatively speaking. It is the Qur'an that is the tripping point (Muhammad is simply the messenger. The Qur'an is the Message. i.e. The reverse of Christianity).

That's simply not true. Otherwise Orthodox Christianity in places like The ME and Russia and Greece would not exist.

In the Nicaean council they discussed issues of the trinity, was Jesus God, and many more things, they decided to unify under one church and RC was born, and heretics hence were pulled apart by horses. Learn the history. Rome wasn't built in a day. But if you are not remotely aware of the history of religion it seems wise not to wax lyrical on any religion.

The reverse of Christianity is a non sequitur, the reverse of humanity is not. Think about that..?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

First council of Nicaea.

And FYI:

The Eastern Orthodox Church,[1] officially the Orthodox Catholic Church,[2] and also referred to as the Orthodox Church and Orthodoxy,[3] is the second largest Christian church in the world,[4] with an estimated 225–300 million adherents,[5] most of whom live in Eastern Europe, Southern Europe, the Middle East, and Russia. It identifies itself as the continuation of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church established by Jesus Christ in his Great Commission to the apostles, encompassing the fullness of the Christian faith.[6]

The Church has grown into a global religion, with churches in most of the countries of the world and almost every major city. Its adherents are a majority in Belarus, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Georgia, Greece, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Romania, Russia, Serbia and Ukraine; significant minority populations exist in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania, Kazakhstan, Israel, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon and Syria.

Church administration is composed of self-governing ecclesial bodies, each geographically distinct but unified in theology and worship, including four ancient patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, eleven autocephalous churches, Cyprus, Sinai, Russia, Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania, Georgia, Poland, Albania and Czech Republic and Slovakia, and three autonomous churches, Finland, Japan and China.[7] Each self-governing body has a Holy Synod to administer its jurisdiction and to lead the church in the preservation and teaching of the apostolic and patristic traditions and church practices. Orthodox bishops trace their lineage back to the apostles through apostolic succession. Although composed of self-governed bodies, the Eastern Orthodox communion widely regards the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople as the spiritual leader (primus inter pares; first among equals) of the 300 million Orthodox Christians worldwide.[5][8][9]

The Orthodox Church traces its history to the church established by St. Paul and the Apostles, through the Roman and Byzantine Empires,[10] and regards itself as the original Church founded by Christ and His apostles.[11] It practices what it understands to be the original faith passed down from the Apostles (that faith "which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all", namely Holy Tradition).

Through baptism, Orthodox Christians enter a new life of salvation through repentance whose purpose is to share in the life of God through the work of the Holy Spirit. Christian life is a spiritual pilgrimage in which each person, through the imitation of Christ and hesychasm,[12] cultivates the practice of unceasing prayer (often with use of the Jesus Prayer). This life occurs within the life of the church as a member of the body of Christ.[13] It is through the fire of God's love in the action of the Holy Spirit that the Christian becomes more holy, more wholly unified with Christ, starting in this life and continuing in the next.[14][15] Born in God's image, each person is called to theosis, fulfillment of the image in likeness to God. God the creator, having divinity by nature, offers each person participation in divinity by cooperatively accepting His gift of grace.[16]

The Orthodox Church, in understanding itself to be the Body of Christ, and similarly in understanding the Christian life to lead to the unification in Christ of all members of his body, views the church as embracing all Christ's members, those now living on earth, and also all those through the ages who have passed on to the heavenly life. The church includes the Christian saints from all times, and also judges, prophets and righteous Jews of the first covenant, Adam and Eve, even the angels and heavenly hosts.[17] In Orthodox services, the earthly members together with the heavenly members worship God as one community in Christ, in a union that transcends time and space and joins heaven to earth. This unity of the Church is sometimes called the communion of the saints.[18]

And all this guff about Islam is at best misguided: I could quote the Old Testament on this, but who the fuck would read it.

Hell "Muslims", "Christains" and or x are so sure of the prophecy they wouldn't even read their own faiths tenets. Religion is fine but filtering it through the minds of the moronic people who have to follow it is not fine. We must assume despite God being omnipotent, omnisicient and omnibenevolent, he can't express any of his ideas to the mere mortal, hence we must only ask: why not? By the means of logic...

There's the rub though and answers on a postcard to The Guatma Siddhartha.

[ReliStuPhD]

That's simply not true. Otherwise Orthodox Christianity in places like The ME and Russia and Greece would not exist.

In the Nicaean council they discussed issues of the trinity, was Jesus God, and many more things, they decided to unify under one church and RC was born, and heretics hence were pulled apart by horses. Learn the history. Rome wasn't built in a day. But if you are not remotely aware of the history of religion it seems wise not to wax lyrical on any religion.

I am most certainly aware of the history of the tradition (that, or two Masters degrees in Christian history and theology are wasted). Eastern Orthodox Christianity still holds to the Trinity. How can you link the Wiki to the First Council and not understand this? Nicaea settled the question of the Trinity more or less for good. Arius (who denied the Trinity) was declared a heretic, and that was that. There was (and still sometimes is) debate on how the second person of the Trinity was present in Jesus (homoousios vs homoiousios, for example), but there is no argument to be made that Christianity, in any of its orthodox forms, is not Trinitarian in nature. Since you mentioned Eastern Orthodox, and because Wikipedia seems to be popular here (one would think reference to primary sources would be preferable), I'll refer you to the section on Trinity in the Eastern Orthodox Wiki. Now if you're suggesting that, because there was once a controversy, the heretics are constitutive of Christianity in the modern era, you're welcome to, but only the most naive will take you seriously. It's a fact of life that religionists can get together and determine what they consider to be orthodox and heretical. That you think the heretical view shouldn't have been excised (if that's what you're suggesting) is irrelevant.

You're also grossly mistaken to tie the RCC to the First Council ("... if you are not remotely aware of the history of religion..."). "Roman Catholics" (unless you mean "Catholics who lived in Rome") don't exist in any formal capacity until the so-called "East-West Schism" in the 11th century. Again, Wikipedia.

As for my "reverse" comment, I'm not sure how you could miss the intended meaning. For Muslims, it's the scripture that's the source of revelation and the person is the locus. For Christianity, it's the reverse (the person is the source and scripture is the locus).

And FYI: <snip>

I'm not sure what the point is here. You've provided a short history of the Orthodox Church to what end? Have I missed something relevant to the Trinity discussion?

[ReliStuPhD]

Not that any of it matters, because Christians become Muslim more readily than Muslims become Christian, which is the only thing RELEVANT to the thread.
Most "Christians" are only vaguely connected with observing religion; being statistically christian by default; never going to church except weddings and funerals, and never praying.

Those with the potential for delusion find Islam attractive because it provides a sense of purpose, brotherhood, community - all limited in Christianity. Islam is the more perfect, traditional religion, preserving many practices that most christians have left behind.
The fact that Islam provides the romantic servile practice whereupon a person can completely abase themselves to the aim of giving their empty lives a purpose.

Again, incorrect. (Muslims are just as culturally Muslim as Christians are culturally Christian). Just out of curiosity, where are you getting these ideas from? Certainly (hopefully) not from any scholar of religion.

Once again, please offer relevant arguments.

But you've yet to prove (or at least support) your claim, so the burden is not on me (yet) to prove it false (though you'll notice my rebuttals already pointed you in the direction of the relevant argument to disprove your claim). You can't claim there are pink elephants and then place the burden on me to prove there aren't. (And, at the very least, your contention that Christians convert to Islam more readily than Muslims convert to Christianity is very much a pink elephant). I'm happy to offer a more substantive rebuttal if you can offer some sort of ground for your claims that I can engage and (try to) refute. Put differently, why must I offer relevant arguments for my position when you've offered none for yours? So far, your posts are long on assertion and short on demonstration.

PS "Once again?" Have I missed a reply?

[Blaggard]

That's simply not true. Otherwise Orthodox Christianity in places like The ME and Russia and Greece would not exist.

In the Nicaean council they discussed issues of the trinity, was Jesus God, and many more things, they decided to unify under one church and RC was born, and heretics hence were pulled apart by horses. Learn the history. Rome wasn't built in a day. But if you are not remotely aware of the history of religion it seems wise not to wax lyrical on any religion.

I am most certainly aware of the history of the tradition (that, or two Masters degrees in Christian history and theology are wasted). Eastern Orthodox Christianity still holds to the Trinity. How can you link the Wiki to the First Council and not understand this? Nicaea settled the question of the Trinity more or less for good. Arius (who denied the Trinity) was declared a heretic, and that was that. There was (and still sometimes is) debate on how the second person of the Trinity was present in Jesus (homoousios vs homoiousios, for example), but there is no argument to be made that Christianity, in any of its orthodox forms, is not Trinitarian in nature. Since you mentioned Eastern Orthodox, and because Wikipedia seems to be popular here (one would think reference to primary sources would be preferable), I'll refer you to the section on Trinity in the Eastern Orthodox Wiki. Now if you're suggesting that, because there was once a controversy, the heretics are constitutive of Christianity in the modern era, you're welcome to, but only the most naive will take you seriously. It's a fact of life that religionists can get together and determine what they consider to be orthodox and heretical. That you think the heretical view shouldn't have been excised (if that's what you're suggesting) is irrelevant.

You're also grossly mistaken to tie the RCC to the First Council ("... if you are not remotely aware of the history of religion..."). "Roman Catholics" (unless you mean "Catholics who lived in Rome") don't exist until the so-called "East-West Schism" in the 11th century. Again, Wikipedia.

As for my "reverse" comment, I'm not sure how you could miss the intended meaning. For Muslims, it's the scripture that's the source of revelation and the person is the locus. For Christianity, it's the reverse (the person is the source and scripture is the locus).

And FYI: <snip>

I'm not sure what the point is here. You've provided a short history of the Orthodox Church to what end? Have I missed something relevant to the Trinity discussion?

Yes in essence that is it. I was only saying it is futile to wax lyrical on religious history though if you know nothing about it, not that you knew nothing about it. But never the less, your question is begging a question to which you probably already know the answer.

If I may make an analogy though Eastern Orthodox only held to the idea that the trinity was a mixture not a fact of nature. It believed if it believed at all that the unusual position of RC, did not include the idea of mixture they did, and hence I am pretty sure you know they schizmed. But tbh it's semantics, religion though is founded on the Devil in the details.

The central debate was on the divinity of Christ the son of God, and if indeed he was.

A matter that was never resolved in Christendom or the Orthodox Church, hence as you no doubt know the first Schizm of Christianity. The second is of course protestant over catholic but that is moot,

You could write a 100 page thesis on why Papal Rome schizmed.

I think though Islam is even deeper than that, probably founded in the words of the Old Testament (sort of_, and perhaps something you could really get your teeth into...

Suffice to say and to sum up: all Abrahamic faiths wholly failed to convert anyone but themselves. And that is I think the meet or meat of the grist mill.

[ReliStuPhD]

Yes in essence that is it. I was only saying it is futile to wax lyrical on religious history though if you know nothing about it, not that you knew nothing about it. But never the less, your question is begging a question to which you probably already know the answer.

I'm tired and feeling dense tonight. I'm not sure I know the answer you'r talking about. Humor me and spell it out and I promise to try and be less dense next time.

If I may make an analogy though Eastern Orthodox only held to the idea that the trinity was a mixture not a fact of nature. It believed if it believed at all that the unusual position of RC, did not include the idea of mixture they did, and hence I am pretty sure you know they schizmed. But tbh it's semantics, religion though is founded on the Devil in the details.

Assuming I understand your point, this is just a misunderstanding of the schism. There may be differences on more nuanced points, but there hasn't been disagreement among Xians on the Trinitarian nature of God since Arius. It's been heresy for, what, 18 centuries now?

The central debate was on the divinity of Christ the son of God, and if indeed he was. A matter that was never resolved in Christendom or the Orthodox Church, hence as you no doubt know the first Schizm of Christianity.

On this matter, I might be inclined to concede point, but only then if you could spell it out using primary sources. I don't toss that last piece in to be a jerk, but only to acknowledge that there's a difference between what the average "Joe" believes to be true and what is true in keeping with the various councils and documents that came from them. The question is almost never "was Jesus the Son of God," however. It far more often revolves around the question of how the second person of the trinity was present in the human being of Jesus.

But in a sense, this is neither here nor there. The point I am keen to argue is that a Christian converting to Islam does, in fact, have to deny the Trinity, just as a Muslim converting to Christianity must accept it. In both instances, this is a serious step and not to be taken lightly. All of this goes to the (mistaken) notion that it's somehow easier for a Xian to convert to Islam than the reverse.

Suffice to say and to sum up: all Abrahamic faiths wholly failed to convert anyone but themselves. And that is I think the meet or meat of the grist mill.

Aside from conversion at the point of a "sword" (both ways), you and I are probably in significant agreement here.