New Voice for Evangelicals

1 Jul, 2005 (Updated 16 Jan, 2008) ... Syed Kamran Mirza is the author of Roots of Terrorism in Islam. ...
http://www.islam-watch.org/SyedKamranMirza/honor_killing.htm - 101k - Cached

Posted by: abhab | June 25, 2009 11:22 AM

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=

Syed Kamran Mirza is not a legitimate name because Syed and Mirza can not be part of the same name. This means that this "manufactured name" and the book were written by Ismaophobes who have been trying to demonize Muslims just as Hitler and Nazis tried to demonize Jews.

Go to the website ISLAMONLINE to get your questions answered.

Zeb asks:
“Are religions part of the culture? If so, can we separate, religion from economy, kinship systems, political systems etc?”
Moi:
Yes religion is part of the culture but it can be separated from the state, as is done by all enlightened societies.

Zeb had earlier pontificated::
“Just a few weeks ago someone posted a passage from a book written by author he named: Syed Kamran Mirza. I and others challenged this person that a person's name can not start with Syed and end in Mirza at the same time”
Moi:
I am the one who quoted Syed Kamran Mirza. You were the only one to question my credibility.
Read about this author at Islam-watch.org or better read his book “Roots of Terrorism in Islam. Below is a link to him.
”Islam Watch - ""Honor Killing" is Absolutely Islamic" by Syed Kamran Mirza
01 Jul, 2005 (Updated 16 Jan, 2008) ... Syed Kamran Mirza is the author of Roots of Terrorism in Islam. ...
http://www.islam-watch.org/SyedKamranMirza/honor_killing.htm - 101k - Cached

zebra4,
that's a whole different, much bigger, i think, question. yes, it's part of society historically, no doubt. but now, to me it's, "would society be better off with or without religion?" i'm already without religion, but i'm not so sure society's ready for that...

gotta go - can't check back 'til saturday.

justillthen and Walter-in-FC:

Perhaps you should consider the question:

Are religions part of the culture? If so, can we separate, religion from economy, kinship systems, political systems etc?
This is not the question for you or me as individuals but it is a sociological question.

Hello Walter-in-Fc,

"i don't think there's any "evangelical doctrine" that prescribes that."

No? Damn, I was sure that was true. Seems I have heard it over and over. Yet, i cannot find it written down anywhere. Perhaps it is just held in trust.

On the one hand I cannot criticize the disregarding drawing lines between the spiritual life and the public life. When considered, if they are hand in hand and interchangable and one and the same, then why should lines be drawn?

The difficulty comes, of course, from the fact that no 'spiritual life' is verifiable. We cannot validate it's existence, and what rules it is governed by. So all these theistic viewpoints are supposition, and outside of exclusively grounded in spiritual truth, but by the 'faith' of the observer...

justilthen, you quoted
"evangelicals are people of Christian faith who want to practice that faith in their relationships to society and government"

while there certainly ARE plenty of evangelicals who do that and whose "wet dream is an American society, and government, fully indoctrinated into, and subservient to, Biblical Scripture", i don't think there's any "evangelical doctrine" that prescribes that.

here's the plain dictionary definition:
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or in accordance with the Christian gospel, especially one of the four gospel books of the New Testament.
2. Evangelical Of, relating to, or being a Protestant church that founds its teaching on the gospel.
3. Evangelical Of, relating to, or being a Christian church believing in the sole authority and inerrancy of the Bible, in salvation only through regeneration, and in a spiritually transformed personal life.
4. Evangelical
a. Of or relating to the Lutheran churches in Germany and Switzerland.
b. Of or relating to all Protestant churches in Germany.
5. Of or relating to the group in the Church of England that stresses personal conversion and salvation by faith.
6. Characterized by ardent or crusading enthusiasm; zealous: an evangelical liberal.

i think the ones you (and i) wish would go away are definitions 3 and 6 - because they can't draw lines between their spiritual life and public life.

What is this essay, a resume' on parade? Does it discuss any issue, or forward any idea, or is it just an introduction to the world of the next evangelical political policy leader of the NAE? He is a lobbyist.

Though it is clear that evangelicals are deeply involved in politics, I find nothing about that to be proud of, in particular. Your definition of evangelicals and politics only serves to obscure the truth, further sullying what Jesus stood for.

"Evangelicals are simply described as those who take the Bible seriously and believe in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. Politics are not part of the definition although some have mistakenly taken "evangelical" as a political term in recent election cycles."

Let me assist in bringing greater clarity of truth to your comment, if you do not mind terribly:

"A better understanding is that evangelicals are people of Christian faith who want to practice that faith in their relationships to society and government" that have been conditioned fully to their Christian faith and act as an extension of homogenized Evangelism.

Your wet dream is an American society, and government, fully indoctrinated into, and subservient to, Biblical Scripture. Laws written based on Scripture, no law written that is in any way contrary to Scripture, all citizenry subject to Evangelical oversight.

What difference is this, outside of the Holy Text drawn from, than that of a theocratical democracy as Iran is, exactly?

Get your delusional Christian mythology out of my country and government. I like my delusion that we live in a country whose attribute of freedom and liberty and religious allowance is a fundamental tenet. Actually be more like the Jesus you say you aspire to, less like Muhammad the politician and general. I want none of your intolerant and prejudiced theology. Your belief system has been tried on, and your chance in the Oval Office has had it's day. It was thouroughly discredited, from this viewing point. And the majority of perspectives worldwide.

Hey, since we are discussing it this week, apologies might be worth consideration.

On the other hand, who believes the apology of a politician, not to mention a political lobbyist....

One may believe it if it is the truth....