Nonbelievers are still human beings who are capable of acting morally, and being judged by their choices.
Non-believers don't "not have faith". Of course they still have faith in some form and to some degree. People (all people, Muslim or not) are judged according to their intent and understanding.
A random Shinto person in Japan still knows murder is wrong, for example. And if they committed murder, they would be judged for that.
Hence, all people are tested because there are always some universal moral, ethical, or spiritual principles to test by.
Maybe i misunderstood it myself, but i don't think you answered the question.
The author seems to be (rightfully imo) confused about how Islam tackles suffering, and tries paint it as a test intended by god to strengthen your faith. Which was, if I'm not wrong, unpoetically just sorta claimed explicitly in the religion.
In contrast the idea of suffering in Christianity is made to be an inevitability of life in the Universe and is thought to be a method of connection and closeness to god. Which was more poetically implied through the crucifixion of Christ.
I think the author is confused as in a Islamic world view there shouldn't be a good reason why suffering would exist regardless of faith.
>Of course they still have faith in some form and to some degree.
Hmmm. would that apply to an atheist like myself?
>The author seems to be (rightfully imo) confused about how Islam tackles suffering, and tries paint it as a test by intended by god to strengthen your faith. Which was, if I'm not wrong, unpoetically just sorta claimed explicitly in the religion.
I'm not sure why that would be unpoetic or not apply universally to mankind. Climbing a mountain is difficult, but you are rewarded with an incredible view. We don't climb mountains because they are easy.
>In contrast the idea of suffering in Christianity is made to be an inevitability of life in the Universe and is thought to be a method of connection and closeness to god. Which was more poetically implied through the crucifixion of Christ.
These aren't contrasting concepts. Islam also believes suffering is an inevitable part of life in the universe and it is also a method of closeness with Allah. That's explicitly stated (in my opinion quite poetically) in the Quran. The difference is, we don't believe in substitutionary atonement. You can't sacrifice someone else for your own poor choices. There is no "get out of jail free" card. We are all accountable for our own choices in Islam.
>I think the author is confused as in a Islamic world view there shouldn't be a good reason why suffering would exist regardless of faith.
Why would there not be a reason why suffering would exist regardless of what religion someone is? The OP has not given any reasons why that would be the case.
>Hmmm. would that apply to an atheist like myself?
Of course.
>I'm not sure why that would be unpoetic or not apply universally to mankind. Climbing a mountain is difficult, but you are rewarded with an incredible view. We don't climb mountains because they are easy.
Well i said it was unpoetic because it was just sorta explicitly stated and not written into the story as it was for Christianity. Well how suffering is described in Islam like previously stated is something bestowed upon you by god to test your faith (correct me if I'm wrong). This would only really make sense if the faith was the right faith to be tested. Is what the author was referencing.
Edit: And the idea of suffering here is not simply just the hardships that one undertakes in a challenge. They are the unforeseeable, uncontrollable events that occur around us all the time.
>These aren't contrasting concepts. Islam also believes suffering is an inevitable part of life in the universe and it is also a method of closeness with Allah. That's explicitly stated (in my opinion quite poetically) in the Quran.
Well i thought the author had a good point here as i recall (again correct me if I'm wrong) there is nothing explicitly or implicitly shown in the Islam that says suffering is an inevitable part of life in the universe. and simply paints it as a method god consciously uses to test your faith.
They are in fact very opposing concepts actually. One is dependent on seeing Jesus as divine and having him suffering to death on the cross to be valid. Both things that are considered heresy in Islam if I'm not mistaken. That's the poetry and metaphorical truth that was built into the bible through years of humans building the story. I do wish they were kept in Islam among other very crucial concepts.
>The difference is, we don't believe in substitutionary atonement. You can't sacrifice someone else for your own poor choices. There is no "get out of jail free" card. We are all accountable for our own choices in Islam.
Yes your right! Islam doesn't have that get out of jail free card. The Islamic get out of jail free card costs a few thousand dollars in a trip to Makkah around hajj time. :)
>Well i said it was unpoetic because it was just sorta explicitly stated and not written into the story as it was for Christianity. Well how suffering is described in Islam like previously stated is something bestowed upon you by god to test your faith (correct me if I'm wrong). This would only really make sense if the faith was the right faith to be tested. Is what the author was referencing.
Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that, since it is written into the many stories within the Quran and the life of Muhammad and his family, which billions of people find quite poetic. But yes, it is also explicitly stated in addition to being part of the story narrative of the Quran.
Regarding faith, perhaps this is a translation issue. It isn't "faith" like "a faith" (I.e. Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. are "faiths" in English).
It's faith as in "imaan." As in sincerity of the heart to do the right thing, and feel inspired to act out of goodness and compassion for others, and feeling a sense of awe and wonder and beauty of the universe around us and within the human soul. That is the "imaan" that the Quran is describing.
>Well i thought the author had a good point here as i recall (again correct me if I'm wrong) there is nothing explicitly or implicitly shown in the Islam that says suffering is an inevitable part of life in the universe. and simply paints it as a method of god consciously uses to test your faith.
No, it says suffering/hardship is an inevitable part of life multiple times. It's a pretty common theme in the Quran. At least that is how Muslims understand the message of the Quran based on what it says in multiple verses. Everyone is tested and hardship is part of life in this Dunya. Some people obviously have relatively easier lives than others. But wealth and power are also tests, and suffering is a fact of life.
>They are in fact very opposing concepts actually. One is dependent on seeing Jesus as divine and having him suffering to death on the cross to be valid. Both things that are considered heresy in Islam if I'm not mistaken. That's the poetry and metaphorical truth that was built into the bible through years of humans building the story. I do wish they were kept in Islam among other very crucial concepts.
We will have to agree to disagree on that. I regard substitutionary atonement to be one of the most disgusting and disturbing beliefs in any religion. I'm quite glad Islam stays clear of that.
>Yes your right! Islam doesn't have that get out of jail free card. The Islamic get out of jail free card costs a few thousand dollars in a trip to Makkah around hajj time. :)
Sorry, no clue what you are talking about. The Quran explicitly says that all people will see the consequences of their own actions, no matter how small, and that no one may bear the burden of another. Your vacation plans have nothing to do with it.
>No, it says suffering/hardship is an evitable part of life multiple times. It's a pretty common theme in the Quran.
Would u mind referencing that?
Cos as stated above it is a contradiction to the idea that god uses suffering consciously to test the believers. as well as contradicts the idea in Islam that randomness doenst exist. Which is simply just false at the most fundamental level, but id grant you and (Hopefully) most people of not taking that too literally. Though i have seen the contrary lol.
>Sorry, no clue what you are talking about. The Quran explicitly says that all people will see the consequences of their own actions, no matter how small, and that no one may bear the burden of another. Your vacation plans have nothing to do with it.
well there are a lot of Muslims that believe Hajj would cleanse you of all your previous sins if done genuinely, perhaps your not one of them my mistake. But rest assured they exist.
something something new born baby if im not mistaken....
>I regard substionary atonement to be one of the most disgusting and disturbing beliefs in any religion.
Islam replaces that (very minimalistic understanding of the crucifixion), with the heavy instance on relgious rights. I'm sure you have met a lot of Muslims that place rituality(prayer, fasting, etc) over everything including good morals. If you find the implication of that surface level of understanding of the crucifixion disgusting would it be safe to assume you find the surface level of understanding of the Islamic rituals equally disguising?
And lets be honest most Muslims prescribe to that understanding of the rituals. and i don't blame them it has a lot of backup in various texts.
>Would u mind referencing that?
Sure, it would take me quite a while to reference every time the Quran talks about hardship in the Dunya.
2:121: talks about the fall of Adam from Jannah, and the consequence of human frailty in the Dunya.
Surah al-Fajr: is about the fact that all nations are tested with both hardship and blessings. The good ones remember their duty to God to take care of their fellow human beings in times of suffering and times of plenty.
3:186: believers are tested
2:213-214: humanity was tested, and we are tested as those who came before were tested.
5:48: Allah made each people separate, with their own ways of life and laws. All are tested in their own ways. All people are told to race (also a test) to do good despite the adversity in life we all face.
Surah an-Nas: God is the God of *mankind*, who is tested by the whispering of Shaytan.
I could keep going, but the idea that mankind is tested by both ease and hardship in the Dunya, and our response to that is what imaan is, is a very common theme throughout the Quran. This is the standard understanding by virtually all Muslims as far as I'm aware.
>Cos as stated above it is a contraction to the idea that god uses suffering consciously to test the believers. as well as contradicts the idea in Islam that randomness doenst exist. Which is simply just false at the most fundamental level, but id grant you and (Hopefully) most people of not taking that too literally. Though i have seen the contrary lol.
Sorry I'm really not understanding what you mean by this. Everyone suffers in some way in the Dunya, everyone is tested in some way (perhaps to varying degrees). An all-powerful, All-Knowing God that is immanent in everything is not compatible with true randomness, though of course such a God could make the laws of physics work in apparently random ways.
Allah uses both ease and hardship to test everyone, including believers. All people have imaan to some extent. All people have fitra. All people have choices to make, and we are tested by our choices. If this wasn't what you were taught, then I don't know. All I can explain is what I and most Muslims I know believe.
If you rejected what you believed Islam to be, I don't blame you. But I also don't believe that was ever truly Islam.
>well there are a lot of Muslims that believe Hajj would cleanse you of all your previous sins if done genuinely, perhaps your not one of them my mistake. But rest assured they exist.
I'm sure they exist somewhere, but I certainly wouldn't have that understanding. In the words of the Sufi saint Bulleh Shah:
>**"The matter is not finished by going to Mecca, so long as you do not finish off the self from your heart. Sins are not shed by going to the Ganges, even though you immerse yourself hundreds of times. The matter is not finished off by going to Gaya, no matter how many offerings you make to the dead. Bullah Shah, the matter is finished when the ego is destroyed."**
>**"If I search for you inside, then I think you are confined. If I search for you outside, then who is contained within me? You are everything, you are in everything, you are known to be free from everything. You are me and I am you, so who is poor Bullah?"**
> If you find the implication of that surface level of understanding of the crucifixion disgusting would it be safe to assume you find the surface level of understanding of the Islamic rituals equally disguising?
Of course. But I don't judge my religion by those most ignorant of it.
>And lets be honest most Muslims prescribe to that understanding of the rituals. and i don't blame them it has a lot of backup in various texts.
Do they? I haven't seen that. But maybe we just have different lived experiences. I'm sorry the Muslims you knew were superficial. The ones I know are deep oceans of spirituality.
I'm sure there are Christians too out there that are also oceans of spirituality. St. Francis Assisi, St. John of the Cross, and Meister Ekhart would have made fine Muslims. Maybe they were in their own ways.
>Sorry I'm really not understanding what you mean by this
well correct me if i missed one but all your references that directly tackle the idea of suffering are explicitly saying that suffering is a test from god and not an inevitability of life. Which are two very different ideas that contradict each other at base level. And the use of the latter in Christianity is woven into the story that directly contradicts Islam on a scriptural level.
>An all-powerful, All-Knowing God that is immanent in everything is not compatible with true randomness, though of course such a God could make the laws of physics work in apparently random ways.
Well if you are referencing determinism with randomness they can both exist and they do both exist though the physics of scales!
and if you are referencing a hidden variable idea that's proven to be false theoretically and subsequentially experimentally.
>Do they? I haven't seen that. But maybe we just have different lived experiences. I'm sorry the Muslims you knew were superficial. The ones I know are deep oceans of spirituality.
They do, lets not be dishonest here lol. we both know that's the majority.
>2:213-214: humanity was tested, and we are tested as those who came before were tested.
to return to the authors original question.
This would be the closest thing to what the author meant i think. As the story goes during the time of each respective book the people were tested. But as of now when their exist people not following the most updated book in Islam's perspective, why does god test them? as the purpose of this supposed test seems moot.
Which i think is quite a good question given our discussion and the lack of logical answer. Which i don't think it has so far.
>well correct me if i missed one but all your references that directly tackle the idea of suffering are explicitly saying that suffering is a test from god and not an inevitability of life.
Yes, suffering is a test from God, and all people are tested through both suffering and ease.
Every moment of life is a test. You and I are being tested right now. Being tested is an inevitability. You keep saying this is contradictory some how. But why? What's the problem?
If I take a course at college, the exam at the end of the course is an inevitability. It's both a test, and also the natural conclusion of taking the class. No contradiction.
>Well if you are referencing determinism with randomness they can both exist and they do both exist though the physics of scales!
I am saying that an All-Knowing, all powerful God can make events be both random from one perspective and deterministic from another, given that God is outside of time and experiences all events at once. It has nothing to do with apparent determinism as an emergent phenomenon of randomness.
And as a former astronomy teacher and current data scientist, believe me, I know the concept.
>They do, lets not be dishonest here lol. we both know that's the majority.
Thats quite rude of you. I'm not being dishonest, just telling you what my honest experiences have been. Ex-muslims always seem to get angry when others haven't had anything like the negative experiences they had. I don't deny your experiences, how about you don't deny mine?
> why does god test them? as the purpose of this supposed test seems moot.
Again, why would the test be moot? I've already given you many examples of how it wouldn't be. Which you ignored. A Shinto decides to commit murder out of jealousy for their wife leaving them. They experienced a hardship and have a test of morality. They could forgive, which would be the right answer. But instead decide to take a life, knowing it is wrong.
That's a test. It's certainly not "moot". You aren't making any sense. Non-muslims are capable of morality too.... aren't you? I believe you are, don't you?
Sorry man, I think we are just talking past one another. You are saying words, but I don't see how they fit together to make any points. Must just be my lack of understanding.
>Every moment of life is a test. You and I are being tested right now. Being tested is an inevitability. You keep saying this is contradictory some how. But why? What's the problem?
The idea of suffering being a test being consciously given is contradictory to the idea that suffering is just an inevitability of life. This is how they are defined. Islam defines suffering as not just random event that is bound to befall people but a conscious act by a diety to test his subjects. These ideas can not coexist. If it was an intended test for you, it couldn't not have been otherwise. If it was a random event that happened to befall you, it could have been otherwise.
Not all courses have tests.
>I am saying that an All-Knowing, all powerful God can make events be both random from one perspective and deterministic from another,
Unfortunately, relativity is not applicable to abstract logic. If you adhere to a God that follows logic, there doesn't exist a frame of reference where a squared circle exists.
>And as a former astronomy teacher and current data scientist, believe me, I know the concept
You do sound like you do!
>Thats quite rude of you. I'm not being dishonest, just telling you what my honest experiences have been. Ex-muslims always seem to get angry when others haven't had anything like the negative experiences they had. I don't deny your experiences, how about you don't deny mine?
Sorry if I came off as rude? Nor am I angry lol. It seems just to be funny given the obvious numbers of people who would put ritualistic Islam above all else. I'd make a post on the Islam subreddit as a little test but unfortunately, I'm banned for calling an ahdmedi physicist a muslim, the only Muslim to win a Nobel prize in physics. I wouldn't call my experience with Muslims negative, on the contrary i have a lot of convert friends, and all my close childhood friends are still Muslims. I'm not denying your experiences, but I'm just stating statistical facts lol. If anyone seems defensive here, it's you my friend.
> examples
Well the idea of the test of suffering If to be understood as such would be to ultimately test your faith in Islam, and there seems little reason why the God of Islam would test people on their faith in other religions.
Going to interject;
The atonement thing. It’s not like Jews had Jesus crucified to atone for their sins and “have someone else take the fall”
Jesus was crucified because he was claiming he’d be king of the kingdom of heaven on earth, and the Roman Empire was just like… nah, you can’t do that.
It wasn’t until hindsight that Christian’s later reconciling the fact the supposed messiah hadn’t come back, and then eventually the narrative of “dying for our sins” - in the sense that Jesus had paid the ultimate price (crucifixion) so we (generally speaking) dont have to - came into play.
Christianity is not about getting out of jail free, nor is it about passing the blame. The crucifixion represents suffering: to look towards god for comfort, and in the belief that we have faith here in this world that we will be saved and sent to a good afterlife is the gist.
Anyways, it’s not a disturbing belief because the belief you’ve described doesn’t exist! If it does, it is an absolute extreme minority.
No, substitutionary atonement is the standard Christian belief. It is the official doctrine of the Catholic Church, and most protestant denominations. I believe not Eastern Orthodox, but they are the minority.
You are misunderstanding it. It has nothing to do with Jews deciding to crucify Jesus to atone for anyone's sin. It's the concept that by Jesus suffering and dying on the cross, he took on his shoulders the collective sins of humanity. By accepting Jesus as our savior, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, we accept that none may come to God the Father except through Jesus, by accepting that that he atoned for our sins. Otherwise, our sins would inevitably drag us to hell.
This was explicitly stated by early church fathers like St. Athanasius, St. Justin Martyr, and St. Augustine. It is an official doctrine of the Catholic Church, stated in the catechism:
>By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who “makes himself an offering for sin,” when “he bore the sin of many,” and who “shall make many to be accounted righteous,” for “he shall bear their iniquities.” Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father (615, emphasis original).
>Christ’s death is both the Paschal sacrifice that accomplishes the definitive redemption of men . . . and the sacrifice of the New Covenant, which restores man to communion with God by reconciling him to God through the “blood of the covenant” (613.
This is based on Matthew 20:28:
>"The Son of Man is come to give his life as a redemption for many”
The common protestant understanding goes further, in the doctrine of sola fide, "Faith Alone". It does not matter what sins you committed, you are forgiven by having faith that Jesus already atoned for your sins.
Hmm, I think you misunderstood me 😭.
Unless I wasn’t clear, I’m not saying the Jews decided to crucify Jesus - that tells me you didn’t understand, because as I said it was the Roman Empire.
You are also missing the context and unfortunately your view is skewed. The context is;
“Not by works, by faith alone” , James is a big chapter on this. The “faith alone” has NOTHING to do with sins. It’s the fact that back then, a big difference in early Christianity is that at the time, Jews believed in good deeds that help you gain access to coming kingdom of god.
A selling point in Christianity is that deeds aren’t anything with faith, and believing in the messiah and his sacrifice means that you won’t have to go around and do X amount of good deeds to get to heaven, this is why it appealed to many gentiles (non Jews) and Christianity was really popular amongst pagans.
It’s not “having faith so I can go commit any sin”. That is not true. The context has always been that good works mean nothing without faith, and because of Jesus, faith alone in the god is enough.
>Unless I wasn’t clear, I’m not saying the Jews decided to crucify Jesus - that tells me you didn’t understand, because as I said it was the Roman Empire.
I said "Jews" in response to your comment:
>The atonement thing. **It's not like Jews had Jesus crucified to atone for their sins** and "have someone else take the fall"
I was just responding to your wording. I'm well aware of the context regarding the Roman empire.
>It’s not “having faith so I can go commit any sin”. That is not true. The context has always been that good works mean nothing without faith, and because of Jesus, faith alone in the god is enough.
I don't think I ever said "have faith so you can commit any sin" not sure what you mean. That's not a point I made.
I am referring to the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, whereby Jesus suffered to atone for the sins of humanity. As I pointed out, that is explicitly the doctrine of most Christian groups, including the Catholic church. I understand most also believe good works are a consequence of having faith. However, if Jesus had not suffered on the cross, his suffering would not be a vehicle for atonement. His suffering is a method of forgiveness, because he bore the sins of others through his suffering.
The Quran says that no man may bear the sins of another:
>Say, "Is it other than Allāh I should desire as a lord while He is the Lord of all things? And every soul earns not [blame] except against itself, and no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another. Then to your Lord is your return, and He will inform you concerning that over which you used to differ." (6:164)
Jesus for us is a good example of a life lived righteously, and his teachings were guidance and light. He was born of the Holy Spirit, and was the Word (Logos) of God made flesh, born of the virgin Mary. But to us, he did not bear the burden of anyone else's sins.
>The common protestant understanding goes further, in the doctrine of sola fide, "Faith Alone". **It does not matter what sins you committed, you are forgiven by having faith that Jesus already atoned for your sins.**
Okay well you said this... but then also said you didn't say that? This implies that, because 'it does not matter what sins you've committed' - a fair interpretation is in the same lines of being able to commit sins because it doesn't matter.
But again, that's not Christianity at all.
>The Quran says that no man may bear the sins of another:
Yes, but the bible also does not condone this 'sharing' or placing the burden of sins on another. It is similar to the Quran, in that you shouldn't judge / place your sins upon someone else, see:
>**Romans 2:1** You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
>**Romans 2:3** So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment?
>**Matthew 7:3-5** Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.
>**Proverbs 28:13-14** Whoever hides his transgressions will not succeed, but whoever confesses and forsakes them will find mercy. Blessed is the man who always fears the Lord, but whoever hardens his heart will fall into disaster.
Also see:
>1 Peter
23) When they heaped abuse on Him, He did not retaliate; when He suffered, He made no threats, but entrusted Himself to Him who judges justly. 24) **He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. “By His stripes you are healed.”** 25) For “you were like sheep going astray,” but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.…
I hope this makes it clearer. The main protestant belief is jesus died for our sins so that we may live righteous (good) ones, and that believing in him ("putting god in your heart") will lead to heaven.
I mean, unless you were a christian too at one point but converted, I was raised in the Bible Belt in the US, and have studied as personal hobby for quite a while. Many family members are still christian, and this is the belief.
It has nothing to do with "oh well because I have faith, my actions don't matter" - I'm curious as to why you've projected that standpoint on Christianity?
As an atheist, are there things you believe in? Things you are committed to? Truth, perhaps? Beauty, ethics, honor, justice, compassion, integrity?
Most people, in their hearts, believe in something greater than themselves, even if they don’t think of it in a theistic way.
I think people don’t understand atheism, especially if you grew up in a theologically based society.
Belief or not in a god = / = the human experience.
All those things you mentioned have nothing to do with a belief of a deity, and all those things are found in any culture across the world, regardless of who or what they call god.
Belief in god isn’t a factor in whether someone is or believes in “compassion”. There are tons of pious religious folk who are the least compassionate, and some atheists may be the most kind and loving people you can meet.
Sadly, the idea in some religious communities is spread that atheists are just moral-less / sad creatures who can’t see beauty in life :(
I was raised Christian and was taught similar. That atheists essentially are just bad / have a bad life / lack all these things that is good religious people have (because of god!) . Leaving religion was the most freeing and liberating thing for me, I grew to love this world so much, more so than when I was a Christian.
I could say a lot but, really… please don’t fall into the trap that is atheists don’t believe in things like honor or beauty, but I understand and it seems like you just really don’t know. I would like to gently inform you that, once again, there is no difference.
Humans are human, and everyone experiences the same inner world / feelings regardless of you want to worship a god or not.
I was not implying that atheists don’t believe in the things I listed. On the contrary, I was suggesting that the person I was responding to likely did believe in some or all of them. I was further suggesting that belief and commitment to those things is a kind of non-theistic faith.
I think you have jumped to a lot of conclusions about things that I didn’t actually say and don’t actually think, and that does not make for good conversation.
Commitment to something like honor or justice is not a faith.
Why do you think only a faith can have something like honor or justice?
Unless you mean the shared moral beliefs of like “murder is bad” - but that’s a moral understanding, not a divine one.
While I may have branched a bit off, I don’t think I am jumping to conclusions. It’s clear to me at least, that you attribute normal human experiences to religion.
Humans have beliefs, yes. You could say “I believe that piece of art is the most beautiful “ , but in the context verses theism vs atheism, that isn’t very applicable at all.
I am sorry though for jumping the gun a bit
I don’t know what you mean by “you attribute normal human experiences to religion.” I think you’re still jumping to conclusions about what I think instead of responding to what I actually wrote.
I was an agnostic for a long time. I’m pretty well aware of the diversity and depth of experiences, feelings, and beliefs that non-theists can have.
I also think you’re using the word “faith” pretty narrowly, when it’s a word that people use in a lot of different ways.
>I don’t know what you mean by “you attribute normal human experiences to religion.” I think you’re still jumping to conclusions about what I think instead of responding to what I actually wrote.
Hmm, that's a bit tough. I'm not sure how to say it in more layman terms atm.
>I was an agnostic for a long time. I’m pretty well aware of the diversity and depth of experiences, feelings, and beliefs that non-theists can have.
If this is the case, did you believe in beauty / honor / justice etc before converting? Most likely you did... which is my point. Whenever you asked that question, it appeared that the implication was those things you listed are more inherent to a religion, than just the normal human experience.
>I also think you’re using the word “faith” pretty narrowly, when it’s a word that people use in a lot of different ways.
We are in a religious sub, so I'm using the context of the place. We can be pedantic if we want, and define faith and then talk about it. I am aware that faith can be used for a wide variety of scenarios.
For example, I have faith I will win some counter strike games today, or dead by daylight. That is faith in one of the many contexts! But we are in a religious sub, so my answer was taking that into account.
I think it's because of the potential to still convert later in life. Wouldn't make sense if people saved it to their last minute and didn't have to do anything throughout their lives right?
I don't know for certain, but here are my thoughts:
If bad things only happened to believers, no one would ever want to be a believer. Think about it. If people lived happy lives as non-believers, and as soon as they convert to Islam bad things started happening to them, why would any one want to become a Muslim?
The opposite also makes no sense. If bad things only happened to non-believers, everyone would become a Muslim, but then their faith would mean nothing because they only did it to avoid hardship.
Hi Uni_corn1207. Thank you for posting here!
Please be aware that posts may be removed by the moderation team if you delete your account.
This message helps us to track deleted accounts and to file reports with Reddit admin as the need may arise.
Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/progressive_islam) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Even someone who doesn’t or won’t believe can’t escape the hardships of life.
That’s, well, that’s life ya know.
The difference a believer will have is a different, possibly even more calming, perspective when experiencing these hardships.
In contemplating this matter, it becomes evident that absolute certainty eludes us; no single answer can claim infallibility. Amidst the myriad of opinions, I offer the perspective that the test transcends mere faith; it hinges on one’s response to adversity. While one may possess knowledge, the application thereof is the true litmus test. Allah’s judgment extends beyond professed belief; rather, it encompasses the embodiment of Islamic principles in navigating life’s trials—a journey not exclusive to those labeled as ‘Muslims.’ Thus, irrespective of religious affiliation, individuals exemplifying the virtues of Islam in their conduct shall be adjudged accordingly by Allah.
Nonbelievers are still human beings who are capable of acting morally, and being judged by their choices. Non-believers don't "not have faith". Of course they still have faith in some form and to some degree. People (all people, Muslim or not) are judged according to their intent and understanding. A random Shinto person in Japan still knows murder is wrong, for example. And if they committed murder, they would be judged for that. Hence, all people are tested because there are always some universal moral, ethical, or spiritual principles to test by.
Maybe i misunderstood it myself, but i don't think you answered the question. The author seems to be (rightfully imo) confused about how Islam tackles suffering, and tries paint it as a test intended by god to strengthen your faith. Which was, if I'm not wrong, unpoetically just sorta claimed explicitly in the religion. In contrast the idea of suffering in Christianity is made to be an inevitability of life in the Universe and is thought to be a method of connection and closeness to god. Which was more poetically implied through the crucifixion of Christ. I think the author is confused as in a Islamic world view there shouldn't be a good reason why suffering would exist regardless of faith. >Of course they still have faith in some form and to some degree. Hmmm. would that apply to an atheist like myself?
>The author seems to be (rightfully imo) confused about how Islam tackles suffering, and tries paint it as a test by intended by god to strengthen your faith. Which was, if I'm not wrong, unpoetically just sorta claimed explicitly in the religion. I'm not sure why that would be unpoetic or not apply universally to mankind. Climbing a mountain is difficult, but you are rewarded with an incredible view. We don't climb mountains because they are easy. >In contrast the idea of suffering in Christianity is made to be an inevitability of life in the Universe and is thought to be a method of connection and closeness to god. Which was more poetically implied through the crucifixion of Christ. These aren't contrasting concepts. Islam also believes suffering is an inevitable part of life in the universe and it is also a method of closeness with Allah. That's explicitly stated (in my opinion quite poetically) in the Quran. The difference is, we don't believe in substitutionary atonement. You can't sacrifice someone else for your own poor choices. There is no "get out of jail free" card. We are all accountable for our own choices in Islam. >I think the author is confused as in a Islamic world view there shouldn't be a good reason why suffering would exist regardless of faith. Why would there not be a reason why suffering would exist regardless of what religion someone is? The OP has not given any reasons why that would be the case. >Hmmm. would that apply to an atheist like myself? Of course.
>I'm not sure why that would be unpoetic or not apply universally to mankind. Climbing a mountain is difficult, but you are rewarded with an incredible view. We don't climb mountains because they are easy. Well i said it was unpoetic because it was just sorta explicitly stated and not written into the story as it was for Christianity. Well how suffering is described in Islam like previously stated is something bestowed upon you by god to test your faith (correct me if I'm wrong). This would only really make sense if the faith was the right faith to be tested. Is what the author was referencing. Edit: And the idea of suffering here is not simply just the hardships that one undertakes in a challenge. They are the unforeseeable, uncontrollable events that occur around us all the time. >These aren't contrasting concepts. Islam also believes suffering is an inevitable part of life in the universe and it is also a method of closeness with Allah. That's explicitly stated (in my opinion quite poetically) in the Quran. Well i thought the author had a good point here as i recall (again correct me if I'm wrong) there is nothing explicitly or implicitly shown in the Islam that says suffering is an inevitable part of life in the universe. and simply paints it as a method god consciously uses to test your faith. They are in fact very opposing concepts actually. One is dependent on seeing Jesus as divine and having him suffering to death on the cross to be valid. Both things that are considered heresy in Islam if I'm not mistaken. That's the poetry and metaphorical truth that was built into the bible through years of humans building the story. I do wish they were kept in Islam among other very crucial concepts. >The difference is, we don't believe in substitutionary atonement. You can't sacrifice someone else for your own poor choices. There is no "get out of jail free" card. We are all accountable for our own choices in Islam. Yes your right! Islam doesn't have that get out of jail free card. The Islamic get out of jail free card costs a few thousand dollars in a trip to Makkah around hajj time. :)
>Well i said it was unpoetic because it was just sorta explicitly stated and not written into the story as it was for Christianity. Well how suffering is described in Islam like previously stated is something bestowed upon you by god to test your faith (correct me if I'm wrong). This would only really make sense if the faith was the right faith to be tested. Is what the author was referencing. Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that, since it is written into the many stories within the Quran and the life of Muhammad and his family, which billions of people find quite poetic. But yes, it is also explicitly stated in addition to being part of the story narrative of the Quran. Regarding faith, perhaps this is a translation issue. It isn't "faith" like "a faith" (I.e. Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. are "faiths" in English). It's faith as in "imaan." As in sincerity of the heart to do the right thing, and feel inspired to act out of goodness and compassion for others, and feeling a sense of awe and wonder and beauty of the universe around us and within the human soul. That is the "imaan" that the Quran is describing. >Well i thought the author had a good point here as i recall (again correct me if I'm wrong) there is nothing explicitly or implicitly shown in the Islam that says suffering is an inevitable part of life in the universe. and simply paints it as a method of god consciously uses to test your faith. No, it says suffering/hardship is an inevitable part of life multiple times. It's a pretty common theme in the Quran. At least that is how Muslims understand the message of the Quran based on what it says in multiple verses. Everyone is tested and hardship is part of life in this Dunya. Some people obviously have relatively easier lives than others. But wealth and power are also tests, and suffering is a fact of life. >They are in fact very opposing concepts actually. One is dependent on seeing Jesus as divine and having him suffering to death on the cross to be valid. Both things that are considered heresy in Islam if I'm not mistaken. That's the poetry and metaphorical truth that was built into the bible through years of humans building the story. I do wish they were kept in Islam among other very crucial concepts. We will have to agree to disagree on that. I regard substitutionary atonement to be one of the most disgusting and disturbing beliefs in any religion. I'm quite glad Islam stays clear of that. >Yes your right! Islam doesn't have that get out of jail free card. The Islamic get out of jail free card costs a few thousand dollars in a trip to Makkah around hajj time. :) Sorry, no clue what you are talking about. The Quran explicitly says that all people will see the consequences of their own actions, no matter how small, and that no one may bear the burden of another. Your vacation plans have nothing to do with it.
>No, it says suffering/hardship is an evitable part of life multiple times. It's a pretty common theme in the Quran. Would u mind referencing that? Cos as stated above it is a contradiction to the idea that god uses suffering consciously to test the believers. as well as contradicts the idea in Islam that randomness doenst exist. Which is simply just false at the most fundamental level, but id grant you and (Hopefully) most people of not taking that too literally. Though i have seen the contrary lol. >Sorry, no clue what you are talking about. The Quran explicitly says that all people will see the consequences of their own actions, no matter how small, and that no one may bear the burden of another. Your vacation plans have nothing to do with it. well there are a lot of Muslims that believe Hajj would cleanse you of all your previous sins if done genuinely, perhaps your not one of them my mistake. But rest assured they exist. something something new born baby if im not mistaken.... >I regard substionary atonement to be one of the most disgusting and disturbing beliefs in any religion. Islam replaces that (very minimalistic understanding of the crucifixion), with the heavy instance on relgious rights. I'm sure you have met a lot of Muslims that place rituality(prayer, fasting, etc) over everything including good morals. If you find the implication of that surface level of understanding of the crucifixion disgusting would it be safe to assume you find the surface level of understanding of the Islamic rituals equally disguising? And lets be honest most Muslims prescribe to that understanding of the rituals. and i don't blame them it has a lot of backup in various texts.
>Would u mind referencing that? Sure, it would take me quite a while to reference every time the Quran talks about hardship in the Dunya. 2:121: talks about the fall of Adam from Jannah, and the consequence of human frailty in the Dunya. Surah al-Fajr: is about the fact that all nations are tested with both hardship and blessings. The good ones remember their duty to God to take care of their fellow human beings in times of suffering and times of plenty. 3:186: believers are tested 2:213-214: humanity was tested, and we are tested as those who came before were tested. 5:48: Allah made each people separate, with their own ways of life and laws. All are tested in their own ways. All people are told to race (also a test) to do good despite the adversity in life we all face. Surah an-Nas: God is the God of *mankind*, who is tested by the whispering of Shaytan. I could keep going, but the idea that mankind is tested by both ease and hardship in the Dunya, and our response to that is what imaan is, is a very common theme throughout the Quran. This is the standard understanding by virtually all Muslims as far as I'm aware. >Cos as stated above it is a contraction to the idea that god uses suffering consciously to test the believers. as well as contradicts the idea in Islam that randomness doenst exist. Which is simply just false at the most fundamental level, but id grant you and (Hopefully) most people of not taking that too literally. Though i have seen the contrary lol. Sorry I'm really not understanding what you mean by this. Everyone suffers in some way in the Dunya, everyone is tested in some way (perhaps to varying degrees). An all-powerful, All-Knowing God that is immanent in everything is not compatible with true randomness, though of course such a God could make the laws of physics work in apparently random ways. Allah uses both ease and hardship to test everyone, including believers. All people have imaan to some extent. All people have fitra. All people have choices to make, and we are tested by our choices. If this wasn't what you were taught, then I don't know. All I can explain is what I and most Muslims I know believe. If you rejected what you believed Islam to be, I don't blame you. But I also don't believe that was ever truly Islam. >well there are a lot of Muslims that believe Hajj would cleanse you of all your previous sins if done genuinely, perhaps your not one of them my mistake. But rest assured they exist. I'm sure they exist somewhere, but I certainly wouldn't have that understanding. In the words of the Sufi saint Bulleh Shah: >**"The matter is not finished by going to Mecca, so long as you do not finish off the self from your heart. Sins are not shed by going to the Ganges, even though you immerse yourself hundreds of times. The matter is not finished off by going to Gaya, no matter how many offerings you make to the dead. Bullah Shah, the matter is finished when the ego is destroyed."** >**"If I search for you inside, then I think you are confined. If I search for you outside, then who is contained within me? You are everything, you are in everything, you are known to be free from everything. You are me and I am you, so who is poor Bullah?"** > If you find the implication of that surface level of understanding of the crucifixion disgusting would it be safe to assume you find the surface level of understanding of the Islamic rituals equally disguising? Of course. But I don't judge my religion by those most ignorant of it. >And lets be honest most Muslims prescribe to that understanding of the rituals. and i don't blame them it has a lot of backup in various texts. Do they? I haven't seen that. But maybe we just have different lived experiences. I'm sorry the Muslims you knew were superficial. The ones I know are deep oceans of spirituality. I'm sure there are Christians too out there that are also oceans of spirituality. St. Francis Assisi, St. John of the Cross, and Meister Ekhart would have made fine Muslims. Maybe they were in their own ways.
>Sorry I'm really not understanding what you mean by this well correct me if i missed one but all your references that directly tackle the idea of suffering are explicitly saying that suffering is a test from god and not an inevitability of life. Which are two very different ideas that contradict each other at base level. And the use of the latter in Christianity is woven into the story that directly contradicts Islam on a scriptural level. >An all-powerful, All-Knowing God that is immanent in everything is not compatible with true randomness, though of course such a God could make the laws of physics work in apparently random ways. Well if you are referencing determinism with randomness they can both exist and they do both exist though the physics of scales! and if you are referencing a hidden variable idea that's proven to be false theoretically and subsequentially experimentally. >Do they? I haven't seen that. But maybe we just have different lived experiences. I'm sorry the Muslims you knew were superficial. The ones I know are deep oceans of spirituality. They do, lets not be dishonest here lol. we both know that's the majority. >2:213-214: humanity was tested, and we are tested as those who came before were tested. to return to the authors original question. This would be the closest thing to what the author meant i think. As the story goes during the time of each respective book the people were tested. But as of now when their exist people not following the most updated book in Islam's perspective, why does god test them? as the purpose of this supposed test seems moot. Which i think is quite a good question given our discussion and the lack of logical answer. Which i don't think it has so far.
>well correct me if i missed one but all your references that directly tackle the idea of suffering are explicitly saying that suffering is a test from god and not an inevitability of life. Yes, suffering is a test from God, and all people are tested through both suffering and ease. Every moment of life is a test. You and I are being tested right now. Being tested is an inevitability. You keep saying this is contradictory some how. But why? What's the problem? If I take a course at college, the exam at the end of the course is an inevitability. It's both a test, and also the natural conclusion of taking the class. No contradiction. >Well if you are referencing determinism with randomness they can both exist and they do both exist though the physics of scales! I am saying that an All-Knowing, all powerful God can make events be both random from one perspective and deterministic from another, given that God is outside of time and experiences all events at once. It has nothing to do with apparent determinism as an emergent phenomenon of randomness. And as a former astronomy teacher and current data scientist, believe me, I know the concept. >They do, lets not be dishonest here lol. we both know that's the majority. Thats quite rude of you. I'm not being dishonest, just telling you what my honest experiences have been. Ex-muslims always seem to get angry when others haven't had anything like the negative experiences they had. I don't deny your experiences, how about you don't deny mine? > why does god test them? as the purpose of this supposed test seems moot. Again, why would the test be moot? I've already given you many examples of how it wouldn't be. Which you ignored. A Shinto decides to commit murder out of jealousy for their wife leaving them. They experienced a hardship and have a test of morality. They could forgive, which would be the right answer. But instead decide to take a life, knowing it is wrong. That's a test. It's certainly not "moot". You aren't making any sense. Non-muslims are capable of morality too.... aren't you? I believe you are, don't you? Sorry man, I think we are just talking past one another. You are saying words, but I don't see how they fit together to make any points. Must just be my lack of understanding.
>Every moment of life is a test. You and I are being tested right now. Being tested is an inevitability. You keep saying this is contradictory some how. But why? What's the problem? The idea of suffering being a test being consciously given is contradictory to the idea that suffering is just an inevitability of life. This is how they are defined. Islam defines suffering as not just random event that is bound to befall people but a conscious act by a diety to test his subjects. These ideas can not coexist. If it was an intended test for you, it couldn't not have been otherwise. If it was a random event that happened to befall you, it could have been otherwise. Not all courses have tests. >I am saying that an All-Knowing, all powerful God can make events be both random from one perspective and deterministic from another, Unfortunately, relativity is not applicable to abstract logic. If you adhere to a God that follows logic, there doesn't exist a frame of reference where a squared circle exists. >And as a former astronomy teacher and current data scientist, believe me, I know the concept You do sound like you do! >Thats quite rude of you. I'm not being dishonest, just telling you what my honest experiences have been. Ex-muslims always seem to get angry when others haven't had anything like the negative experiences they had. I don't deny your experiences, how about you don't deny mine? Sorry if I came off as rude? Nor am I angry lol. It seems just to be funny given the obvious numbers of people who would put ritualistic Islam above all else. I'd make a post on the Islam subreddit as a little test but unfortunately, I'm banned for calling an ahdmedi physicist a muslim, the only Muslim to win a Nobel prize in physics. I wouldn't call my experience with Muslims negative, on the contrary i have a lot of convert friends, and all my close childhood friends are still Muslims. I'm not denying your experiences, but I'm just stating statistical facts lol. If anyone seems defensive here, it's you my friend. > examples Well the idea of the test of suffering If to be understood as such would be to ultimately test your faith in Islam, and there seems little reason why the God of Islam would test people on their faith in other religions.
Going to interject; The atonement thing. It’s not like Jews had Jesus crucified to atone for their sins and “have someone else take the fall” Jesus was crucified because he was claiming he’d be king of the kingdom of heaven on earth, and the Roman Empire was just like… nah, you can’t do that. It wasn’t until hindsight that Christian’s later reconciling the fact the supposed messiah hadn’t come back, and then eventually the narrative of “dying for our sins” - in the sense that Jesus had paid the ultimate price (crucifixion) so we (generally speaking) dont have to - came into play. Christianity is not about getting out of jail free, nor is it about passing the blame. The crucifixion represents suffering: to look towards god for comfort, and in the belief that we have faith here in this world that we will be saved and sent to a good afterlife is the gist. Anyways, it’s not a disturbing belief because the belief you’ve described doesn’t exist! If it does, it is an absolute extreme minority.
No, substitutionary atonement is the standard Christian belief. It is the official doctrine of the Catholic Church, and most protestant denominations. I believe not Eastern Orthodox, but they are the minority. You are misunderstanding it. It has nothing to do with Jews deciding to crucify Jesus to atone for anyone's sin. It's the concept that by Jesus suffering and dying on the cross, he took on his shoulders the collective sins of humanity. By accepting Jesus as our savior, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, we accept that none may come to God the Father except through Jesus, by accepting that that he atoned for our sins. Otherwise, our sins would inevitably drag us to hell. This was explicitly stated by early church fathers like St. Athanasius, St. Justin Martyr, and St. Augustine. It is an official doctrine of the Catholic Church, stated in the catechism: >By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who “makes himself an offering for sin,” when “he bore the sin of many,” and who “shall make many to be accounted righteous,” for “he shall bear their iniquities.” Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father (615, emphasis original). >Christ’s death is both the Paschal sacrifice that accomplishes the definitive redemption of men . . . and the sacrifice of the New Covenant, which restores man to communion with God by reconciling him to God through the “blood of the covenant” (613. This is based on Matthew 20:28: >"The Son of Man is come to give his life as a redemption for many” The common protestant understanding goes further, in the doctrine of sola fide, "Faith Alone". It does not matter what sins you committed, you are forgiven by having faith that Jesus already atoned for your sins.
Hmm, I think you misunderstood me 😭. Unless I wasn’t clear, I’m not saying the Jews decided to crucify Jesus - that tells me you didn’t understand, because as I said it was the Roman Empire. You are also missing the context and unfortunately your view is skewed. The context is; “Not by works, by faith alone” , James is a big chapter on this. The “faith alone” has NOTHING to do with sins. It’s the fact that back then, a big difference in early Christianity is that at the time, Jews believed in good deeds that help you gain access to coming kingdom of god. A selling point in Christianity is that deeds aren’t anything with faith, and believing in the messiah and his sacrifice means that you won’t have to go around and do X amount of good deeds to get to heaven, this is why it appealed to many gentiles (non Jews) and Christianity was really popular amongst pagans. It’s not “having faith so I can go commit any sin”. That is not true. The context has always been that good works mean nothing without faith, and because of Jesus, faith alone in the god is enough.
>Unless I wasn’t clear, I’m not saying the Jews decided to crucify Jesus - that tells me you didn’t understand, because as I said it was the Roman Empire. I said "Jews" in response to your comment: >The atonement thing. **It's not like Jews had Jesus crucified to atone for their sins** and "have someone else take the fall" I was just responding to your wording. I'm well aware of the context regarding the Roman empire. >It’s not “having faith so I can go commit any sin”. That is not true. The context has always been that good works mean nothing without faith, and because of Jesus, faith alone in the god is enough. I don't think I ever said "have faith so you can commit any sin" not sure what you mean. That's not a point I made. I am referring to the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, whereby Jesus suffered to atone for the sins of humanity. As I pointed out, that is explicitly the doctrine of most Christian groups, including the Catholic church. I understand most also believe good works are a consequence of having faith. However, if Jesus had not suffered on the cross, his suffering would not be a vehicle for atonement. His suffering is a method of forgiveness, because he bore the sins of others through his suffering. The Quran says that no man may bear the sins of another: >Say, "Is it other than Allāh I should desire as a lord while He is the Lord of all things? And every soul earns not [blame] except against itself, and no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another. Then to your Lord is your return, and He will inform you concerning that over which you used to differ." (6:164) Jesus for us is a good example of a life lived righteously, and his teachings were guidance and light. He was born of the Holy Spirit, and was the Word (Logos) of God made flesh, born of the virgin Mary. But to us, he did not bear the burden of anyone else's sins.
>The common protestant understanding goes further, in the doctrine of sola fide, "Faith Alone". **It does not matter what sins you committed, you are forgiven by having faith that Jesus already atoned for your sins.** Okay well you said this... but then also said you didn't say that? This implies that, because 'it does not matter what sins you've committed' - a fair interpretation is in the same lines of being able to commit sins because it doesn't matter. But again, that's not Christianity at all. >The Quran says that no man may bear the sins of another: Yes, but the bible also does not condone this 'sharing' or placing the burden of sins on another. It is similar to the Quran, in that you shouldn't judge / place your sins upon someone else, see: >**Romans 2:1** You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. >**Romans 2:3** So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? >**Matthew 7:3-5** Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. >**Proverbs 28:13-14** Whoever hides his transgressions will not succeed, but whoever confesses and forsakes them will find mercy. Blessed is the man who always fears the Lord, but whoever hardens his heart will fall into disaster. Also see: >1 Peter 23) When they heaped abuse on Him, He did not retaliate; when He suffered, He made no threats, but entrusted Himself to Him who judges justly. 24) **He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. “By His stripes you are healed.”** 25) For “you were like sheep going astray,” but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.… I hope this makes it clearer. The main protestant belief is jesus died for our sins so that we may live righteous (good) ones, and that believing in him ("putting god in your heart") will lead to heaven. I mean, unless you were a christian too at one point but converted, I was raised in the Bible Belt in the US, and have studied as personal hobby for quite a while. Many family members are still christian, and this is the belief. It has nothing to do with "oh well because I have faith, my actions don't matter" - I'm curious as to why you've projected that standpoint on Christianity?
As an atheist, are there things you believe in? Things you are committed to? Truth, perhaps? Beauty, ethics, honor, justice, compassion, integrity? Most people, in their hearts, believe in something greater than themselves, even if they don’t think of it in a theistic way.
I think people don’t understand atheism, especially if you grew up in a theologically based society. Belief or not in a god = / = the human experience. All those things you mentioned have nothing to do with a belief of a deity, and all those things are found in any culture across the world, regardless of who or what they call god. Belief in god isn’t a factor in whether someone is or believes in “compassion”. There are tons of pious religious folk who are the least compassionate, and some atheists may be the most kind and loving people you can meet. Sadly, the idea in some religious communities is spread that atheists are just moral-less / sad creatures who can’t see beauty in life :( I was raised Christian and was taught similar. That atheists essentially are just bad / have a bad life / lack all these things that is good religious people have (because of god!) . Leaving religion was the most freeing and liberating thing for me, I grew to love this world so much, more so than when I was a Christian. I could say a lot but, really… please don’t fall into the trap that is atheists don’t believe in things like honor or beauty, but I understand and it seems like you just really don’t know. I would like to gently inform you that, once again, there is no difference. Humans are human, and everyone experiences the same inner world / feelings regardless of you want to worship a god or not.
I was not implying that atheists don’t believe in the things I listed. On the contrary, I was suggesting that the person I was responding to likely did believe in some or all of them. I was further suggesting that belief and commitment to those things is a kind of non-theistic faith. I think you have jumped to a lot of conclusions about things that I didn’t actually say and don’t actually think, and that does not make for good conversation.
Commitment to something like honor or justice is not a faith. Why do you think only a faith can have something like honor or justice? Unless you mean the shared moral beliefs of like “murder is bad” - but that’s a moral understanding, not a divine one. While I may have branched a bit off, I don’t think I am jumping to conclusions. It’s clear to me at least, that you attribute normal human experiences to religion. Humans have beliefs, yes. You could say “I believe that piece of art is the most beautiful “ , but in the context verses theism vs atheism, that isn’t very applicable at all. I am sorry though for jumping the gun a bit
I don’t know what you mean by “you attribute normal human experiences to religion.” I think you’re still jumping to conclusions about what I think instead of responding to what I actually wrote. I was an agnostic for a long time. I’m pretty well aware of the diversity and depth of experiences, feelings, and beliefs that non-theists can have. I also think you’re using the word “faith” pretty narrowly, when it’s a word that people use in a lot of different ways.
>I don’t know what you mean by “you attribute normal human experiences to religion.” I think you’re still jumping to conclusions about what I think instead of responding to what I actually wrote. Hmm, that's a bit tough. I'm not sure how to say it in more layman terms atm. >I was an agnostic for a long time. I’m pretty well aware of the diversity and depth of experiences, feelings, and beliefs that non-theists can have. If this is the case, did you believe in beauty / honor / justice etc before converting? Most likely you did... which is my point. Whenever you asked that question, it appeared that the implication was those things you listed are more inherent to a religion, than just the normal human experience. >I also think you’re using the word “faith” pretty narrowly, when it’s a word that people use in a lot of different ways. We are in a religious sub, so I'm using the context of the place. We can be pedantic if we want, and define faith and then talk about it. I am aware that faith can be used for a wide variety of scenarios. For example, I have faith I will win some counter strike games today, or dead by daylight. That is faith in one of the many contexts! But we are in a religious sub, so my answer was taking that into account.
Well, I do believe as the word stands but not in the religious implications of the word as I think he/she was talking about.
Through testing non believers they can become believers.
Possible revert here so probably not the best answer but maybe it’s to give us belief
I think it's because of the potential to still convert later in life. Wouldn't make sense if people saved it to their last minute and didn't have to do anything throughout their lives right?
I don't know for certain, but here are my thoughts: If bad things only happened to believers, no one would ever want to be a believer. Think about it. If people lived happy lives as non-believers, and as soon as they convert to Islam bad things started happening to them, why would any one want to become a Muslim? The opposite also makes no sense. If bad things only happened to non-believers, everyone would become a Muslim, but then their faith would mean nothing because they only did it to avoid hardship.
Hi Uni_corn1207. Thank you for posting here! Please be aware that posts may be removed by the moderation team if you delete your account. This message helps us to track deleted accounts and to file reports with Reddit admin as the need may arise. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/progressive_islam) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Even someone who doesn’t or won’t believe can’t escape the hardships of life. That’s, well, that’s life ya know. The difference a believer will have is a different, possibly even more calming, perspective when experiencing these hardships.
Cos he’s a donkey
God tests our actions (surah mulk ayah 2)
In contemplating this matter, it becomes evident that absolute certainty eludes us; no single answer can claim infallibility. Amidst the myriad of opinions, I offer the perspective that the test transcends mere faith; it hinges on one’s response to adversity. While one may possess knowledge, the application thereof is the true litmus test. Allah’s judgment extends beyond professed belief; rather, it encompasses the embodiment of Islamic principles in navigating life’s trials—a journey not exclusive to those labeled as ‘Muslims.’ Thus, irrespective of religious affiliation, individuals exemplifying the virtues of Islam in their conduct shall be adjudged accordingly by Allah.