Women in Mosques
Sep 17th, 2007, in News, by PatungWomen are not allowed in the Sultan mosque in Ternate.
Women & Their Unholy Voices
While almost all mosques in Indonesia allow women to come inside and pray, although they have to sit behind the men, the Sultan mosque in Ternate, North Maluku (Maluku Utara, Malut) (map) is unique in forbidding women from entering.
Djafar, a local figure, explains:
Only men can pray in this mosque, women are not allowed. This is an old tradition and has never been broken.
The mosque’s cleric, Ridwan Dero, says the reason for the banning of women is to protect the holiness of the place:
If women pray here then their menstruation might suddenly start. Apart from that the men who come to pray here might be bothered by seeing women or hearing their voices.
There are no exceptions to the rule at any time.
Men & Their Holy Trousers
The men who come are required to wear long trousers – wearing of sarongs only is not sufficient – and they must also have the top of their heads covered by a kopiah or sorban.
Ridwan Dero explains that by wearing trousers the men show that they have truly prepared themselves to face God. Dero says that when men are standing up while praying, and wearing trousers, the position of their legs forms the words “lam alif“. Lam alif represents the two statements of the Muslim confession of faith, “there is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet”. In this way men who wear trousers show in physical, visible form that they believe in the confession of faith.
Guards are on hand, perhaps similarly to those at the Baiturrahman mosque in Aceh, who advise men who arrive in only sarongs to go home and get changed, or just go to another mosque.
Similarly the wearing of headwear is required as a sign of respect to God. The guards have spare caps to lend to visitors should the latter have forgotten their head-wear. mediaindo
The Menara mosque in Semarang, Central Java, is another old mosque which does not allow women, although the reasons are not stated. It is used mainly by Indonesians of Arab descent. indosiar
219 Comments on “Women in Mosques”
-
Hassan says:
Constantine had other agendas in his mind than merely the purity of the Christian doctrines, when he sponsored the Council of Nicaea. He needed to keep the peace in his empire (and in the long term, to keep his empire intact) in light of the ongoing Christians and Pagans disputes at the time. He wanted to make Christianity as the official religion in his empire, but does not want to upset the Pagan citizens who were still the majority during those days. So he needed a compromise in both religious doctrines (Christianity and Pagan) that both followers can accept in order to declare a unifying official religion in his empire.
Constantine needed a doctrine that is acceptable by and can accommodate both the Christian and Pagan citizens for this purpose (establishing a new official religion in his empire). Clearly he was in favor and supported the trinitarian doctrine more than the unitarian despite there were a lot of priests in the Council who still hold unitarian believe. Why? Because the Pagan polytheists part of the Roman citizens are more familiar with and will more likely to accept doctrines such as god incarnate and son of god, than the believe of an abstract doctrine of a single One True God, given their polytheist background.
That is why the Christian religious holiday is Sunday. Well, Sunday was also the religious holiday of the Roman Pagans when they pay their respect to the Sun God, hence the name SUN day. And December 25th, was it the date of Jesus’ birthday? I don’t think so.
It was mentioned in:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/newsletter/2000/dec08.html
Here’s the excerpt:
The eventual choice of December 25, made perhaps as early as 273, reflects a convergence of Origen’s concern about pagan gods and the church’s identification of God’s son with the celestial sun. December 25 already hosted two other related festivals: natalis solis invicti (the Roman “birth of the unconquered sun”), and the birthday of Mithras, the Iranian “Sun of Righteousness” whose worship was popular with Roman soldiers. The winter solstice, another celebration of the sun, fell just a few days earlier. Seeing that pagans were already exalting deities with some parallels to the true deity, church leaders decided to commandeer the date and introduce a new festival.
Western Christians first celebrated Christmas on December 25 in 336, after Emperor Constantine had declared Christianity the empire’s favored religion.
The pagan origins of the Christmas date, as well as pagan origins for many Christmas customs (gift-giving and merrymaking from Roman Saturnalia; greenery, lights, and charity from the Roman New Year; Yule logs and various foods from Teutonic feasts), have always fueled arguments against the holiday. “It’s just paganism wrapped with a Christian bow”
-
Sputjam says:
Hassan,
you can forget about trying to convince julita conderning her faith. She is just as resolute about her religion as you are to your religion.maybe someday, both of you will see the light and see the futility of religion. You do not require a religion to believe in God.
Religion will only enslave mankind and corrupt the individual away from God. Read it. It is all there in the religious scripture. But only those who put on their thinking caps will understand it.
-
dewaratugedeanom:
If Jesus was in favor for prohibition of alcohol then why did he perform a miracle turning water into wine at the wedding in Kanaan?
If I’m not mistaken, this issue was mentioned on the links that I have provided previously. Obviously, you haven’t read them before posting your reply.
Here they are:
http://www.humblefishmall.com/wine.html
http://www.learnthebible.org/doctrine_jesus_and_wine.htm
Several scientific studies have proven that moderate quantities of wine or other alcoholic beverages have therapeutic and prophylactic effects.
Morphine also had positive traits in the field of medicine, especially as anesthetics. But does it mean we should legalize unprescriptioned morphine for the masses? Wine might have certain benefits, but not every one can control their alcohol intake. Have you ever heard of drunk driving and how much people it had killed yearly? Or people who committed crime, rape, murder, etc. while under the influence? Look up the numbers.
Islam’s stance is clear, whatever causes more negative things than positives is haram and prohibited (while backed up by Quran and Hadith refference).
I never visited Faithfreedom before you pointed it out to me. I noticed that the site contains predominantly testimonies of apostate Muslims.
I sincerely doubt that. My experience tells me that the site was largely patroned by:
A. Non-Muslims who likes to bash Islam and who will not hesitate to claim that they are Muslim apostates to make their arguments sounds credible. But upon closer inspection, it will be quite evident that they are not who they claim to be. Similar to Aluang tactics but more sophisticated and systematic.
B. Trolls who does not care about the truth or right and wrong, they’re just doing it for the fun of being able to insult and bash other people’s faith, and to make other people tick.
C. Zealots who believe that their faith is all good and others are nothing but pure evil.So, which category do you think you belong, dewaratugedeanom?
korril:
It was formed from the combination of Judaism and the beliefs of some of the existing forms of Christianity during that time (many of the christian sects who were persecuted by the Orthodox Church found a more safe and welcoming environment among the Arabian caliphs).
There were no Arabian Caliphs prior to Islam. The word “Caliph” means “successor”, that is, successor to the prophet Muhammad (pbuh). And off course I strongly disagree with the term “the development of the Islamic Qur’an” for obvious reasons. 🙂
Odinius:
That’s not a prohibition, it’s a warning.
Qur’an 5:90 “O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination,- of Satan’s handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper.”
The above verse is more clear in it’s prohibition of alcoholic drinks and other intoxicants as well as gambling. And all of Islamic school of jurispudence deemed alcohol as haram.
-
Daniel Khaleel says:
This has been a while in coming. I won’t argue the issues raised by Korril and Hassan. In regards to those issues I will simply say that their research is strongly bias. Honestly Hassan, you are using Wikipedia to support your claims? Wikipedia is about as accurate as BBC. Any person on an honest pursuit of truth would not turn to Wikipedia.
To Korril and Hassan, I want to reaffirm my belief that true Christianity (one that is about a personal relationship with God made possible through the person of Christ) is not a political religion. However, yes you are both right to say that it has been used for wrong means – both political and personal. I cannot argue with you about Constantines agenda in regards to Christianity because I agree. I also agree that what the “church” did to people they labelled heretics was horrendous and was never, nor will ever be sanctioned by God. It is contradictory to everything that Christ stood for. I believed that when the “heretics” were burning at the stakes, Jesus was with them. Jesus was not on the side of the inquisitors. Do you need proof of that? Then turn to the gospels. You are both throwing mud at the gospels because of how they have been used, but the truth is that they speak for themselves. Jesus was about peace. He came to reconcile us to God. Relationship with God is not about religion, it is not about “who is in” or “who is out”. It is about personal, committed relationship. Argue that if you wish. But your arguments against christianity that are based on the poor examples set by selfish and evil individuals who have attempted to use religion for personal gain are void, because the new testament does not support your claims.
I also disagree with both of you about the origins of the Nicene Creed. Many documentaries and investigations have been carried out, all which contain their own agenda. You know how a PHD thesis is written – you commence with an assertion that you wish to prove. I have seen doco’s that support your claims and I have seen doco’s that show a much more factual and spiritual origin of the Nicene Creed.
I’ll always point back to the fact that Atheism has more to answer for in regards to persecution then any religion. Multiple thousands of people were killed in the name of Islam in recent years. Multiple thousands of people were killed in the name of conquest (camoflaged as Christianity) in years gone by (referring to the Crusades). But none of this is close to the hundreds of millions of people murdered by Atheistic regimes in the past century.
Arguments about “was Jesus for or against wine” are pointless. Any argument in regards to the merits of these religions are pointless. People have agendas when entering into the arguments. Many people do not want there to be a God so that they can continue with their life free to make choices without fear of consequence. These people do not want there to be a God and will always argue against a God regardless of the evidence stacked before them.
Look at the extremes that Dawkins has gone to, suggesting that the question of God is caused by a virus that has infected our DNA. And he is an Oxford Scholar!? It’s amazing at the progress that science has made in recent years 🙂
The truth is, I have seen more good done in the name of religion than I have seen good done in the name of Atheism. I have seen the hungry fed across every country by Christian missions (the Catholic church has been exceptional at their quiet and graceful servitude to the worlds poor). I haven’t seen to many atheists seeking to make a difference for humanity. What is their contribution? to strip the world of hope by saying “this is all there is – therefore eat and drink and be happy because tomorrow we die”. That is not contribution. How empty is that life?!
-
Janma says:
quote:
Ridwan Dero explains that by wearing trousers the men show that they have truly prepared themselves to face God. Dero says that when men are standing up while praying, and wearing trousers, the position of their legs forms the words “lam alif”. Lam alif represents the two statements of the Muslim confession of faith, “there is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet”. In this way men who wear trousers show in physical, visible form that they believe in the confession of faith.
Hmmm, muhammad ever wear trousers do you think? Or any arabs? So all the guys on wall street are professing their faith and playing charades with their trousers. I can see it now, stand feet apart, um, three syllables!, um, supreme being, um. Lam alif?!? so obvious!
Daniel Khaleel:
“These people do not want there to be a God and will always argue against a God regardless of the evidence stacked before them. “
The evidence Daniel? I thought that was where faith came in? There is no evidence… people believe through faith.
There is no evidence to prove or disprove the existence of God. It’s just faith, or the lack thereof.
Plus, I don’t know if people who don’t have faith in God necessarily lead an ’empty’ life as you put it.
Jesus came to teach love. I also think that love is the most powerful thing in the world. I should believe in Jesus? Is it necessary to follow a religion set up by his followers? Or is it enough to believe in the power of love, which was his point in the first place and forget all the trappings humans created in the wake of that message.
What is more important? The message or the messenger and the messengers followers? -
Ihaknt says:
Bigot vs Bigot.
-
In the case for the Christian faith, the most important thing is the message and the messenger. Unlike other religions, Mohammed and the beauty of the Koran, Buddha and his Divine Path, Krishna and his Philosophizing, Jesus was the only one who said “I am the way”.
John 14:6 – “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me”.
So, in response to your question, the message and the messenger are equally as important in the Christian faith. Things go wrong when people choose one over the other. E.g., “I believe in Christ but I will not do what he says”, or “I believe that Christ was a good moral teacher but he was a liar to say that he is ‘the way’. In the case of Christianity, it is the messenger who equips us to live the message.
Janma, the evidence? I do believe that for any religion to have merits it must be able to reason with the intellect and the heart. So your question is valid.
But may I ask, are you seeking physical evidence for a spiritual truth? Do you believe that the thing called ‘love’ exists? What about ‘hate’? Why or why not?
May I recommend that you listen to the teaching of Ravi Zacharias. He is one of the most renowned and famous philosophical thinkers and Christian apologists. He has addressed some of the most staunch seekers of truth at University campuses across the world (Harvard included) and is invited to talk to parliaments in many of the worlds blocked countries. He truly understands the Atheist world view and the Eastern world view. You can get his podcasts at rzim.org. Ravi appeals to the intellect and weighs up all the evidence. I think you’ll like him.
-
DK asks; “But may I ask, are you seeking physical evidence for a spiritual truth? Do you believe that the thing called ‘love’ exists? What about ‘hate’? Why or why not?”
No, I’m not seeking evidence, physical or otherwise for a spiritual truth. It’s not like I’m waiting for some kind of proof so that I can choose a religion or a spiritual path. It’s just that I can’t accept a way that stops looking. This is the way, the one true way, nothing that happens from here on in has any bearing on our truth. That just feels like such a dead end to me… (no pun intended). The reason I like science over religion is that they are always looking for new answers. they (the scientific community) may be anal and stupid as well but they are always looking for more answers, and more questions. and they can be proven wrong and still look, because the aim is find out more, not hold on to a dogma set in stone. I just like looking I guess.
I do believe love exists! even without proof! 🙂 hate is the flip side of love, so not different and also exists. we know that and no one has dogma or an obsession for proving or disproving it because we all know it. There is no burden of proof.Janma.
*seeking, not finding* -
Odinius:
That’s not a prohibition, it’s a warning.
Qur’an 5:90 “O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination,- of Satan’s handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper.”
The above verse is more clear in it’s prohibition of alcoholic drinks and other intoxicants as well as gambling. And all of Islamic school of jurispudence deemed alcohol as haram.
I think most muslims intepreted this incorrectly, alcohol and gambling is discouraged is more correct in meaning.
Pork, blood and carrion is forbidden to consume. -
Korrill says:
@ hassan: Just a few corrections, dude:
1. Constantine did not need the religion to be “acceptable” to both pagans and christians. If you remember a previous post of mine, the orthodox belief was forcefully and brutally enforced upon the people – both pagan and christian. The call at the time was “Convert or Die.” He did not need to formulate any compromise with the texts. The tenet of the trinity was not established to make christianity more palatable to the pagans – it was already an existing tenet that was favored by the orthodox sect of christianity and which later became the official creed of the Roman empire.
Constantine wanted a uniform canon for christianity in order to deflect the attacks against the christian tenets – mostly about its coherence in terms of details and dogmas. Many of the foremost philosphers of the day have attacked the many different interpretations of the christian faith – most notably Celsus.
There were no Arabian Caliphs prior to Islam. The word “Caliph” means “successor”, that is, successor to the prophet Muhammad (pbuh). And off course I strongly disagree with the term “the development of the Islamic Qur’an” for obvious reasons.
Sorry about the using the “caliph” term. I thought it a better alternative than referring to them as “warlords.” Guess I’ll have to do more research on that.
As for the term: “development” – how would you choose to address its creation? Okay, let’s rephrase: The Qur-an traces its origins from both judaism and christianity. Just like christianity, it was a combination of the oral traditions that were in existence at the time. In its infancy, islam was even regarded as nothing more than another sect of christianity.
@ Daniel Khaleel: What atheistic regimes are you talking about? Please cite examples because I know of no “atheistic regime” that ever committed genocide.
But your arguments against christianity that are based on the poor examples set by selfish and evil individuals who have attempted to use religion for personal gain are void, because the new testament does not support your claims.
Very nicely put! How poor our arguments must be – despite being backed by historical documents in the form of manuscripts and scrolls and artifacts- as compared to the “evidence” written in the new testament.
Would you therefore be so kind as to inquire in the bible as to what Julius Caesar’s position in the government was? And after doing that, maybe you could take a look at this to see a reflection of the infallibility of your precious bible:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate
In the case for the Christian faith, the most important thing is the message and the messenger. Unlike other religions, Mohammed and the beauty of the Koran, Buddha and his Divine Path, Krishna and his Philosophizing, Jesus was the only one who said “I am the way”.
Please look up the creed of Mithraism. I’m sure you will find “the way, the truth and the life.”
But may I ask, are you seeking physical evidence for a spiritual truth? Do you believe that the thing called ‘love’ exists? What about ‘hate’? Why or why not?
Physical, please. Spiritual evidence has a nasty tendency to get people burned at the stakes (Look up the witch trials if you don’t get it). Afterall, christianity proclaims that it originated from the physical manifestation of the son of God on this planet. Any manuscripts or artifacts would be greatly appreciated.
Note: Be careful in finding “evidence.” There are a lot of forgeries out there.
Final note: You ask what good atheism has done for the world – I say look around you and tell me what you see? You see the legacy of atheism. You see its greatest child – science. What you see around you is the product of the fall of religious fanaticism and the rise of scientific inquiry. Religion has tried to suppress many of the things that we take for granted today – medicine, biology, natural science. Science has produced many of the comforts you enjoy today – electronic communication, machinery, medical treatments. Religions greatest achievement was the Dark Ages. The greatest achievement of science was the Enlightenment.
Now weigh all that against the church feeding the poor that it helped to create.
-
iamisaid says:
Quote: “The mosque’s cleric, Ridwan Dero, says the reason for the banning of women is to protect the holiness of the place:
If women pray here then their menstruation might suddenly start.” Unquote.
Mr. Ridwan Dero,
I have a question.
What if a Muslim man lets go a stinking fart while he is praying inside the Sultan mosque in Ternate?
The way I see it, Muslim men are so preoccupied with holeyness that the mere sight of a hole within striking distance, they would go bananas.
-
Julita says:
Jlta: Friends in Faith. Our Faith is deep in our being, it does not depend only on books, it is from the heart, knowing Christ and the many blessings He has given us. Let’s be committed as He was committed to us. Others do not know what we have. Peace be with you all.
The word ‘Holy Trinity” is not printed in the Bible but the concept is from the Bible, for instance at Jesus baptism, we find the Holy Trinity, God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
The Creed is in line with the Bible, we can trace it back. I wont’ copy the entire web but just the reference from the Bible.
_____________________BIBLE CREED
The following scripture passages are considered by many to be creeds or declarations of faith. These are taken from both Lieth’s Schaff’s books to which I have referred in previous postings:
(Deut. 6:4) (1 Kings. 18:39) (Matt. 16:16:) (Matt. 28:19) (John 1:49) (John 6:68-69): (John 20:28) (Acts 8:36-37):(Acts 16:31): (1 Cor. 8:6).(1 Cor. 12:3) (1 Cor. 15:3-7): (Phil. 2:6-11) (1 Tim. 3:16) Hebr. 6:1-2) 1John 4:2:
_______________Jlta: There were many persecution/disputes among Christians before Nicea so they wanted to create unity, read in the following web site:
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/history/nicea.htm
The newly-converted Emperor Constantine had hoped Christianity would be the uniting force of his empire. He was thus distressed to hear of the dispute over Arianism, which held that Christ was greater than man but inferior to God. In 325, Constantine called the Council of Nicea with full confidence that the bishops could work out their differences.
The gathering must have been a moving sight to behold. After centuries of persecution, Christian bishops from across the Empire journeyed to Nicea under state protection to discuss theological problems with the help of the Emperor. Official persecution had been so recent that many of the bishops still bore its scars; Constantine himself is said to have kissed the eyeless cheek of one attendee.
The Council of Nicea condemned the teachings of Arius and adopted a creed outlining correct belief about the Son’s relationship to the Father. The council was the first to include bishops from several different regions, and is thus considered the first “ecumenical council” of the church. Although many other local synods were held, seven important councils were attended by representatives of churches throughout the empire, and were therefore “ecumenical.” All three main branches of Christianity – Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant – consider the decisions of these seven councils to be authoritative. Roman Catholics recognize several more.
_______________
Jlta: Nicea did not make changes in the Bible, read the following.http://petragrail.tripod.com/nicea.html
You’ve been hearing about it for some time now. It’s all over the media. The horrible secret is out: Every- one has just learned that the Holy Bible was “censored by the Roman Catholic Church in 325 AD at the Council of Nicea. You can hardly turn on a talk show without someone repeating this claim. But is it true?
No. How could it be? One of the rulings of Nicea, was that Rome only ruled over Europe, while Alexandria had charge of Africa and Antioch had charge of Asia and the Middle East. The Roman Catholic domination we are now so familiar with was not officially declared until 55 years after the Council of Nicea.Okay, but what about all the changes in the Bible we keep hearing were made by that Council? Didn’t Nicea edit books or verses out of the Bible?
No. The subject never came up at that council. And we have all the Council rulings, plus reports by several attendees, to absolutely prove that the Council never issued any such rulings, nor even discussed such ideas as censoring or changing the Bible in any way.
On the contrary, the Arian debate was over whether or not to add A SINGLE WORD to the Creed, not the Bible. And that one word was disputed precisely because it was NOT found in the New Testament’s vocabulary anywhere.[For the details on the Council of Nicea, by a Jewish historian with no pro-Vatican bias, see: “WHEN JESUS
BECAME GOD” by Richard E. Rubenstein, Harcourt, Brace
& Company(NY, 1999).]In other words, EVERYONE AGREED ON THE WORDING OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (and Greek version of the Old Testament), right down to the intimate details of every single word
used in its vocabulary. All the bishops of the church were using the same Bible in 325 AD. No one suggested “adding” a book or “changing” the wording as a way to help resolve the dispute over this one word.
________________________________
Jlta: The Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew read in the following.http://www.exortodoxforchirist.com/gospel_of_matthew.html
The Gospel of Matthew
The Book of Matthew has been under attack since the beginning of the alleged “New Thinking” of the late 19th century. It was about that time that it was decided that Matthew wasn’t an eyewitness account of the life of Christ, but rather that Matthew was a later forgery.
The whole basis for the credibility of the four Gospels – and their contents is this: All four Gospel writers claim to be eyewitnesses of the events they describe.
If Matthew, Mark, Luke or John were written after their deaths, then why were they named for them? If this were the case, they certainly couldn’t be their eyewitness accounts. At best they would be second-hand accounts based on hearsay. So the issue of when Matthew and the other Gospels were written is of more than passing importance to Christianity.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/Article on Matthew
The point is that we should stop and think about what this means in terms of the Cannon of the NT. These First Century Christians already knew, already knew which books were to be included
_______________________________
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14036a.htm
Slavery and Christianity
How numerous the slaves were in Roman society when Christianity made its appearance, how hard was their lot, and how the competition of slave labour crushed free labour is notorious. It is the scope of this article to show what Christianity has done for slaves and against slavery, first in the Roman world, next in that society which was the result of the barbarian invasions, and lastly in the modern world.
___________________
The Trinitarians, founded in 1198 by St. John of Matha and St. Felix of Valois, established hospitals for slaves at Algiers and Tunis in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; and from its foundation until the year 1787 it redeemed 900,000 slaves. The Order of Our Lady of Ransom (Mercedarians), founded in the thirteenth century by St. Peter Nolasco, and established more especially in France and Spain, redeemed 490,736 slaves between the years 1218 and 1632. To the three regular vows its founder had added a fourth, “To become a hostage in the hands of the infidels, if that is necessary for the deliverance of Christ’s faithful.” Many Mercedarians kept this vow even to martyrdom. Another order undertook not only to redeem captives, but also to give them spiritual and material assistance. St. Vincent of Paul had been a slave at Algiers in 1605, and had witnessed the sufferings and perils of Christian slaves. At the request of Louis XIV, he sent them, in 1642, priests of the congregation which he had founded. Many of these priests, indeed, were invested with consular functions at Tunis and at Algiers. From 1642 to 1660 they redeemed about 1200 slaves at an expense of about 1,200,000 livres. But their greatest achievements were in teaching the Catechism and converting thousands, and in preparing many of the captives to suffer the most cruel martyrdom rather than deny the Faith. As a Protestant historian has recently said, none of the expeditions sent against the Barbary States by the Powers of Europe, or even America, equalled “the moral effect produced by the ministry of consolation, and abnegation, going even to the sacrifice of liberty and life, which was exercised by the humble sons of St. John of Matha, St. Peter Nolasco, and St. Vincent of Paul” (Bonet-Maury, “France, christianisme et civilisation”, 1907, p. 142).
_______________________________
Jlta: Odinius, why are you referring to me about Arianus, how about him? Arianus was said to be a heresy.
Arius was summoned before Constantine and judged suitably compliant, whereupon the emperor directed Alexander of Constantinople to receive Arius back into communion despite his objections. However, the day before he was to be readmitted to communion, Arius is reported to have died suddenly.http://www.newmanreader.org.works/athanasius/historical/tract6.html
. When the Bishop Alexander heard this, he was greatly distressed, and entering into the Church, he stretched forth his hands unto God, and bewailed himself; and casting himself upon his face in the Chancel [Note 8], he prayed, lying upon the pavement. Macarius also was present, and prayed with him, and heard his words. And he besought these two things, saying, “If Arius is brought to communion tomorrow, let me Thy servant depart, and destroy not the pious with the impious; but if Thou wilt spare Thy Church, (and I know that Thou wilt spare,) look upon the words of the Eusebians, and give not Thine inheritance to destruction and reproach, and take off Arius [Note 9], lest if he enter into the Church, the heresy also may seem to enter with him, and henceforward impiety [Note 10] be accounted for piety.” When the Bishop had thus prayed, he retired in great anxiety; and a wonderful and extraordinary circumstance took place. While the Eusebians threatened, the Bishop prayed; but Arius, who had great confidence in the Eusebians, and talked very wildly, urged by the necessities of nature withdrew [Note 11], and suddenly, in the language of Scripture, falling headlong he burst asunder in the midst [Acts i. 18.], and immediately expired as he lay, and was deprived both of communion and of his life together.
§. 4.
4. Such was the end of Arius and the Eusebians, overwhelmed with shame, buried [Note 12] their accomplice, while the blessed Alexander, amidst the rejoicings of the Church, celebrated the Communion with piety and orthodoxy, praying with all the brethren, and greatly glorifying God, not as exulting in his death, (God forbid!) for it is appointed unto all men once to die, but because this thing had been shewn forth in a manner surpassing the expectations of all men. For the Lord Himself judging between the threats of the Eusebians and the prayer of Alexander, condemned {213} the Arian heresy, shewing it to be unworthy of communion with the Church, and making manifest to all, that although it receive the support of the Emperor and of all mankind, yet it has been condemned by the Church herself. -
Jlta: Daniel, I just read your reponse and you said it very well.
-
Sylvester says:
Well done Julita, bravo, bravo
-
@ Julita:
The word ‘Holy Trinity” is not printed in the Bible but the concept is from the Bible, for instance at Jesus baptism, we find the Holy Trinity, God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Just because they’re in a scene together that does not mean they are a Trinity – neither does it mean that Jesus or the Holy Spirit are equal to God. Far from it, that event more closely supports the concept of the other christian sects – that Jesus was merely a man who was chosen by God.
The gathering must have been a moving sight to behold. After centuries of persecution, Christian bishops from across the Empire journeyed to Nicea under state protection to discuss theological problems with the help of the Emperor.
Just a little info for you: The roman empire never persecuted christians. That claim was merely propaganda. Violence has been directed against christians in the past but never for what they believed in but for the fact that they sowed dissension within the empire. And they were not alone. All were subjected by the previous empire rulers to this. It was a last ditch attempt to unite the empire which was fragmenting at the time.
Christians had more to fear from their own fanatical brethren than from the pagan officials of rome. The romans actually enforced an order of tolerance with regards to religion.
No one suggested “adding” a book or “changing” the wording as a way to help resolve the dispute over this one word.
Amazing how you still never get the point. The council of Nicea never discussed adding anything to the wording of the texts (that came later). The council decided on WHAT BOOKS WOULD BE INCLUDED. At the time, there was still no formal bible. They decided on what books would be accepted and what would not. Haven’t you been reading the posts?
If Matthew, Mark, Luke or John were written after their deaths, then why were they named for them? If this were the case, they certainly couldn’t be their eyewitness accounts.
One word, Julita: “PSEUDEPIGRAPHIA” Look it up.
How numerous the slaves were in Roman society when Christianity made its appearance, how hard was their lot, and how the competition of slave labour crushed free labour is notorious. It is the scope of this article to show what Christianity has done for slaves and against slavery, first in the Roman world, next in that society which was the result of the barbarian invasions, and lastly in the modern world.
What has christianity done for the slaves? Simple: CHRISTIANITY REVOKED THE ROMAN LAW THAT STATED THAT ANY SLAVE THAT HAS SERVED FOR A PERIOD OF TIME WILL ATTAIN HIS OR HER FREEDOM. In christianity, slavery was for life.
Latter sects of the church did indeed attempt to help slaves. But the heirarchy of the church never did. The abolition of slavery was initiated by the people – not the church.
Odinius, why are you referring to me about Arianus, how about him? Arianus was said to be a heresy. Arius was summoned before Constantine and judged suitably compliant, whereupon the emperor directed Alexander of Constantinople to receive Arius back into communion despite his objections. However, the day before he was to be readmitted to communion, Arius is reported to have died suddenly.
It is not the life of Arius that is the point of the argumentt – it is the treatment to the sect he professed that mattered. Arianism was said to be a heresy. That is correct. But then, who labelled it as such?
As for the death of Arius:
Socrates Scholasticus, a detractor, describes Arius’ death as follows:
It was then Saturday, and . . . going out of the imperial palace, attended by a crowd of Eusebian [Eusebius of Nicomedia is meant] partisans like guards, he [Arius] paraded proudly through the midst of the city, attracting the notice of all the people. As he approached the place called Constantine’s Forum, where the column of porphyry is erected, a terror arising from the remorse of conscience seized Arius, and with the terror a violent relaxation of the bowels: he therefore enquired whether there was a convenient place near, and being directed to the back of Constantine’s Forum, he hastened thither. Soon after a faintness came over him, and together with the evacuations his bowels protruded, followed by a copious hemorrhage, and the descent of the smaller intestines: moreover portions of his spleen and liver were brought off in the effusion of blood, so that he almost immediately died. The scene of this catastrophe still is shown at Constantinople, as I have said, behind the shambles in the colonnade: and by persons going by pointing the finger at the place, there is a perpetual remembrance preserved of this extraordinary kind of death.
Whether Arius’ death was miraculous, as many Nicene Christians asserted, or he was the victim of poisoning by his enemies, cannot be determined. In any event, the death of Arius, followed a year later by that of Constantine, did not end the controversy.
So much for your sorrowful bishops.
-
Korril,
About science – I can understand why some scientists may wish that God did not exist. That way they could take credit for all of their wonderful discoveries and inventions. Unaware that all of science finds it’s beginning in God. The laws of time and motion were put in place by God.
Not all people of faith are obtuse to science. My wife for example. Let me start by saying that I don’t know many people who are more solid in their faith in God then my wife. She exmplifies what it means to be a committed Christian. My wife is educated in the area of molecular genetics. Her current field of work is child immunisation. Her research is making a difference to child morality in the developing world. She has a deep respect for science because she knows that it is sacred – God is it’s author.
My faith in God names Him as author of all things. Life for me is not split into the sacred and the secular. I treat all as sacred because without God none of them could be. My career as a business consultant is as much part of my faith as my bible study and prayer time. My skills and opportunities are gifts from God. My worship of God is expressed by offering it all back to Him.
Now, about Atheistic regimes responsible for genocide – it’s time for you to open your eyes. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, the list goes on. Don’t use the rubbish excuse that Hitler was a Christian because he quoted some Christian scripture. He was a prime example of people manipulating scripture for his own benefit. If you research, you will see that Hitler was a BIG fan of Fredrick Nietzche (perhaps the most influential atheistic philosopher of the last century). Hitler would often provide gifts to other tyrants (Musolini) of Nietzches writings. Hitler was an Atheist. Mao and Stalin both had the stated intent to eradicate religion and faith in God. Both failed miserably.
About faith – the matter of the “unseen”. Am I blind to claim that Christ is the reason that my friends have left prosperous jobs in law to form a team that tracks child trafficers across the globe? Am I blind to claim that Christ is the reason that my friends willingly live in horrendous conditions in Klong Toey slum in Bangkok to massage aids sufferers, provide microenterprise opportunities for ‘bar girls’ to get out of the sex trade, teach business and language skills. They have had their life threatened, have become sick almost to the point of death. Christ’s love for this people compels us. If you want stories of miracles, I can cite these also, but I think Christ set a good example by not giving in to the antagonists requests for miracles.
As a Christian I look and see the finger of God in all of history and Christ as it’s central figure. 2000 years on and Christ is still here, despite the attempts of emperors, dictators, and “scholars” to destroy One thing I will assure you – at the end of time, Christ will still be the central figure. Despite what people have done to smear the name of Christ with mud, His truth remains. Regardless of what has been attributed to the Christian faith, and what “christians” have done to bring shame to this faith, Christ still stands – His truth is not tarnished. And when you are dead and buried Korril, Christ will still be, and people will still be reconciled to God through Christ.
Grace and Peace
Daniel
-
DK said; “About science – I can understand why some scientists may wish that God did not exist. That way they could take credit for all of their wonderful discoveries and inventions. Unaware that all of science finds it’s beginning in God. The laws of time and motion were put in place by God.”
For goodness sake! What would make you think that scientists are all about taking the credit from God? Or wanting to disprove God??? don’t you think you’re being a bit dramatic? Science does not preclude the existence of a supreme being. on the contrary, it could be the study of the very nature of God. Why can’t they take credit for what they’ve done? For the computer you type on? For the immunizations that they developed, yes they used things from nature that are created not by them, as you suggest, but that doesn’t mean they did nothing. immunizations didn’t just fall into syringes.
-
Janma,
I am talking about scientists on a mission to disprove God (e.g., Dawkins). If you continued to read my post you would see that I’m not suggesting “all scientists”.
Daniel.
-
Sorry, My bad, I did read your entire post, but my mind read ‘scientists’ instead of ‘some scientists’.
Dawkins is not exactly a general example of scientific attitude, plus I don’t think his aim is to discredit God in order to take credit for himself. he simply values the freedom of being able to think and decide and explore our world and it’s mysteries for ourselves instead of being made to accept a pre-packaged dogma that precludes independent thought and independent spiritual values. -
@ Daniel Khaleel: Dude, the church only began to accept science after:
a. It fell from grace – when its authority was challenged and people began to refuse to believe all the crap the church put out.
b. When it became apparent to them that it (the church) was wrong and that many of the “truths” it espoused” were all a load of superstitious and baseless crap. (Take the example of Galileo)
Don’t use the rubbish excuse that Hitler was a Christian because he quoted some Christian scripture.
Tell me, Daniel, how can you be sure that he is not a christian? Just because the church distanced itself from Hitler after the war does not mean that Hitler was not a christian.
With regards to Mao and Stalin, please provide quotes or sources. I’m not big on “belief on the first mention.”
Regardless of what has been attributed to the Christian faith, and what “christians” have done to bring shame to this faith, Christ still stands – His truth is not tarnished.
Still waiting for that evidence I asked for.
-
Hi Korril,
I’m going to make this really simple…
A Christian is someone who is committed to following Christ. He says twice in John 14 that those who love Him will obey His commands. What are His commands? To love God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength, and to love our neighbour as ourself. The church does not define Christianity. Christians define the church.
Additionally in the Gospels Jesus says that not everyone who calls Him Lord will enter heaven. I can safely state that through Hitlers actions and speeches, he was not a christian. He was not a follower of Christ. He was a man bent on destruction and manipulated scripture to manipulate people.
As for your requests for references, Korril, you seemed to have dug deep to find your favourite anti-God resources, but you remain blind to the greatest attrocities and the philosophies behind them in the last century. Go and get yourself a copy of Mao’s little red book and read straight from the source Mao’s stance on religion. Even today the attrocities committed against religion in China is shameful (underground churches, falun gong, etc). Read one of Stalins biographies and see his stance on religion. You don’t seem to take references seriously anyway since I saw you use wikipedia in one of your last posts.
None of your arguments are compelling Korril because they are not rooted in anything. Your only thesis seems to be “religion is false” and you’re throwing handfuls of stones hoping that you’ll hit something. So far, you have missed everything.
After Sartre (one of the deepest atheistic thinkers) had satisfied himself that there was no God, he wrote “the only question left is ‘why not suicide?'” This is not an isolated way of thinking and I am deeply saddened for people who have this belief when there is so much to be joyful and hopeful for.
Korril, to what ends to you wish to disprove God or faith?
I respect people who search for turth, even if in their search they find themselves exploring the possibility of ‘no God’. But you don’t seem to be on that search. You seem to be on a quest to destroy truth. That is a path that I can only encourage you (for your benefit) to desist from pursuing, otherwise you may come to the end of your life and see that all was wasted.
Grace and peace,
Daniel
-
@ Daniel Khaleel:
A Christian is someone who is committed to following Christ. He says twice in John 14 that those who love Him will obey His commands. What are His commands? To love God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength, and to love our neighbour as ourself.
Is that the same Jesus who said: “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26)
And just a little trivia for all: Christ is not a name or a surname. It is a title.
The church does not define Christianity. Christians define the church.
I beg to differ, Daniel. The church has always dictated what christianity will be.
I can safely state that through Hitlers actions and speeches, he was not a christian.
Really. And how sure are you that Hitler himself was not a victim of the teachings of the church? Tell me, how different was the Holocaust from the witch trials?
But you don’t seem to be on that search. You seem to be on a quest to destroy truth.
This seems to be a paradox to me: how can I destroy “truth’ when the truth you speak of still has not been established? I’m still waiting for that evidence.
Korril, to what ends to you wish to disprove God or faith?
You want to know? Answer a little question for me:
Why did you choose to be a christian?
Search deep within for your answer. If you can convince me of the honesty of your answer, that the answer you give is truly that which strengthens your resolve, I’ll tell you my reasons. Unless you can do so, then any anwer I give you will be meaningless.
And Mr. Khaleel, I take evidence very seriously. And never accuse me of bias because I have sought to find evidence as neutral as possible. I have read through articles and books both for and against different forms of religion and sought data that can be verified. If there’s one thing I pride myself on, I am not biased.
-
Korril,
Why did you choose to be a christian?
I have been in the process of writing the details of my entry into faith and the journey as it’s unfolded. I want to have about a succinct 3 page version. I should finish it on the weekend and when I do I’ll post it on my blog and let you know when it’s up so you can check it out. For now I’ll just say that I began this journey at the age of 19.
I beg to differ, Daniel. The church has always dictated what christianity will be.
That’s not a tradition that I’m apart of. Tonight I will meet a group of friends for dinner and bible study. We will pray with and for eachother, and then we’ll be looking at the issue of the incarnation of Jesus and how we can live incarnationally in our cities. To me, that is church. I think I know the tradition that you’re referring to, and I understand your point of view.
Really. And how sure are you that Hitler himself was not a victim of the teachings of the church? Tell me, how different was the Holocaust from the witch trials?
An interesting read is the story of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. He was a german pastor and theologian who was executed by the Nazi regime. Or read about Corrie ten Boom, the Dutch Christian holocaust survivor who helped many Jews escape the Nazis. These people were Christians who were obedient to the teaching of Christ (although there was one indescretion with Bonhoeffer which is a topic for another discussion). Hitler was by no means a victim of any message as much as a power hungry insecure maniac.
how can I destroy “truth’ when the truth you speak of still has not been established?
The truth is established. I wish I could meet you face to face because I’m much better in verbal discussion then blogging. I prefer to see who I’m talking with. Blogs depersonalise people.
Since you are an avid reader, I’d like to recommend an interesting read to you… Jesus amongst other gods (Ravi Zacharias) [read this book for a intellectual discussion about the existence of God and reality of Jesus].
I take evidence very seriously. And never accuse me of bias because I have sought to find evidence as neutral as possible.
If you do, my apologies for my insinuation. But your questioning led me to believe that you do not take it seriously. I learnt in high school the ideologies behind Stalin and Mao’s ruthless regimes (and have read about it since). I assumed it was common knowledge.
Oh, one more thing… you said
Is that the same Jesus who said: “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26)
That is a form of speech known as hyperbole (a figure of speech in which statements are exaggerated. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, and is not meant to be taken literally. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole (I thought you’d appreciate my wiki reference 🙂 ).
I believe Jesus is saying that we must know for certain that he calls us to be more loyal to Him than to any human being. Discipleship means submitting our own interests in favour of God’s. That scripture needs to be read in context of the rest of his writings. Put that into context of the entire book of Luke. He calls for love and complete obedience to God. He was not insighting hatred. Complete obedience ot God calls for love.
-
@ Daniel: I am familiar with hyperboles. I wouldn’t exactly call the text of Luke 14:26 as a hyperbole. After all, trying to impress full dedication to his cause can be expressed to extremes without using the word “hate”.
These people were Christians who were obedient to the teaching of Christ (although there was one indescretion with Bonhoeffer which is a topic for another discussion). Hitler was by no means a victim of any message as much as a power hungry insecure maniac.
Trust me, Daniel, if there’s one thing that I have learned from my search for truth it’s this: There is no more potent method of creating a madman than through religion. Where other methods may instill only pride, prejudice, or hatred – religion binds all and infuses them with the idea of righteousness. Yes, religion has created healers, but it has also created killers.
Anyway, thanks for the other references. I’ll look them up. And I’ll be waiting for your answer.
-
Hi Korril,
I came across this insight from Napoleon while he was exiled at St. Helena, in my reading this morning. I want to quote it at length here as I believe it is useful to this discussion.
Napoleon in his exile had time to reflect on his accomplishments. Napoleon called Count Montholon to his side and asked him, “Can you tell me who Jesus Christ was?” The Count declined to respond. Napoleon countered:
Well then, I will tell you. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne and I myself have founded great empires; but upon what did these creations of our genius depend? Upon force. Jesus alone founded His empire upon love, and to this very day millions will die for Him… I think I understand something of human nature; and I tell you, all these were men, and I am a man: none else is like Him; Jesus Christ was more than man. …I have inspired multitudes with such an enthusiastic devotion that they would have died for me… but to do this it was necessary that I should be visibly present with the electric influence of my looks, my words, of my voice. When I saw men and spoke to them, I lighted up the flame of self-devotion in their hearts. …Christ alone has succeeded in so raising the mind of man toward the unseen, that it becomes insensible to the barriers of time and space. Across a chasm of eighteen hundred years, Jesus Christ makes a demand which is beyond all others difficult to satisfy; He asks for that which a philosopher may often seek in vain at the hands of his friends, or a father of his children, or a bride of her spouse, or a man of his brother. He asks for the human heart; He will have it entirely to Himself. He demands it unconditionally; and forthwith His demand is granted. Wonderful! In defiance of time and space, the soul of man, with all its powers and faculties, becomes an annexation to the empire of Christ. All who sincerely believe in Him, experience that remarkable, supernatural love toward Him. This phenomenon is unaccountable; it is altogether beyond the scope of man’s creative powers. Time, the great destroyer, is powerless to extinguish this sacred flame; time can neither exhaust its strength nor put a limit to its range. This is it, which most strikes me; I have often thought of it. This it is which proves to me quite convincingly the Divinity of Jesus Christ. (Quoted in Henry Parry Liddon, Liddon’s Bampton Lectures 1866 (London: Rivingtons, 1869), 148.
Ravi Zacharias comments “whatever one may say in response, it is difficult to explain this away as mere eloquence.”
Napolean seems to have understood Christ better than many who have tried to use the Christian message to build their empires.
-
@ Daniel: Really beautiful to read – but so far from the fact. The christian empire did not grow out of love. It grew out of intolerance, pain and bloodshed. It was forced down people’s throats with threats of violence.
Ravi Zacharias comments “whatever one may say in response, it is difficult to explain this away as mere eloquence.”
I don’t call it eloquence. I see it as being closer to an ignorant delusion expressed in nice words.
Peace!
P.S.:
Charlemagne was a christian king. He built his kingdom based on the christian dogmas. He was declared Imperator Augustus by no less than Pope Leo III.
-
All religion have been corrupted by mankind.
All religion indulge in some kind of idol worship.
You do not need a religion to believe in God.
Mankind is already guided by intuition on what is good and what is evil.
Submitting to a religion will enslave your soul and make you do silly things, which defy common sense.
Do good and righteous deeds every moment in your life.
assist those in your family, relative if they have difficulty.
For your next life, If you believe, have faith and trust in God, and abscond any form of idol worship, you will be judged by your deeds alone.
For those who do not believe in the next life, read the experience of people who died clinical deaths, in which they died for a moment and were revived. Many who experience such event have mistakenly become religious and slave to priest and clerics, instead of serving God alone. -
@ Sputjam: Amen to that, brother. Amen!
-
The thing about religion for me is that it doesn’t express any faith in the goodness of mankind. There is the feeling that if you don’t threaten us with hell and satan, we wouldn’t be good. It’s just so kindergarten! Like without Jesus no one would love their neighbour, or do good deeds. without islam women would be immoral, without buddhisim, people would think the world a place of joy, instead of suffering. without hindusim people would not be afraid of karma and would do bad things. without animisim the weather would turn.
it seems humans have an innate need for ritual and worship. why? (I’m sure philosophers have asked these questions thousands of years ago, but I haven’t read enough yet.) There is a human need for religion, but maybe I’m not human?
Comment on “Women in Mosques”.
Copyright Indonesia Matters 2006-2025
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact
Julita:
While we are talking about the subject of Christianity and the Nicene Council, I happen to stumble upon some articles on wiki regarding the matter, which I had also mentioned on another thread to Sylvester. I’ll just post it up here for convenience, I hope it can add some missing pieces of information on your studies. I’m sorry if they are somewhat biased in light of my own religious background, but all of us are truth seekers, aren’t we?
Read more on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism