summer patriot, winter soldier

a conversation between chris and john on free will ... does god demand obedience ...

who chooses what we do?  what we believe?  can there possibly be morality without choice?

on such issues are religions, civilizations built.  and, on such issues, or ignoring such issues, do civilizations fail.

the following is an exchange between chris and i about my previous post, http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patriot_winter_sol/2011/08/islam-on-very-thin-theological-ice-the-fallibility-of-prophethood-.html .  in no place in that post is the phrase "free will" written by me, or adverted to by me.  yet, it is central to the post, and central in the following exchange between chris and me, even though you will not find it there either, though it is suggested at my signature to the last letter.

consider these words, carefully, as they are the fulcrum between civilizations, civilizations which vie for dominance in this world.  of the next, i have no direct nor personal knowledge.--

104.  if people do not believe in god's revelation, god does not guide them, and a painful torment awaits them.

sura 16, "the bee,"  verse 104, the qur'an, a translation by muhammad a.s. abdel haleem, oxford university press, 2004, u.s.a., page 173.

follows the exchange between chris and me. 

but, this is the position that i think islam finds itself on this revelation business, from another email to friends over this situation:

 

here's the problem with that.  [the issue of substitute revelations: jjj.]

1.)if god doesn't let mohammed in on the secret, mohammed "publishes" in error.  subject to latter revision, just like abraham, moses, jesus, isaiah and joseph.

2.)if god lets mohammed in on the secret, & tells him that what he is to tell the people is subject to latter revision, and big mo doesn't let the people in on it, then mohammed is aware of the fact that he lies, and that [which] he tells people is the truth, and eternal truth, patently is not.

either way, though god may be infallible, e.g., god's challenge to job when they have their little sit down after the torment to which job has been subjected, and in which he tells job, "hey, you don't know shit, and i got my reasons," ... , and the fact that he changes his mind does not lessen his infallibility, ... , the fact that what he says is subject to revision is very damaging to mohammed as the relator and messenger of infallibility.

 

john jay @ 08.31.2011

comments:

If you read the Bahi' writings it explains why God's word changes through time. 
http://bahai-library.com/?file=jones_ocean

Posted by: Chris Leavaitt | August 31, 2011 at 04:18 PM

chris:

i will read the link because you said it.--

but, i really don't care much about what islam, and i include bahai' in that group, says about what [sic] god's word changing over time.

i care about what i think about it.

and, i care about what the logical implications of that are, and the logical implications i have discussed in my post.

now, god may do what god may do.

that's his business.

but, islam says that mohammed is infallible because god is infallible.

and that, friend chris, is not logically compelled. as a matter of fact, it rather compels the conclusion that the prophet may be induced to error if he pronounces something which god has not let him in on, or that he may be compelled to announce a revelation that he knows is not true, if god has let him in on it.

god may be in the position to say, i reveal it a little bit as a time to lead the people to truth.

the prophet is not.

and that is the precise horn of the dilemma for islam.

john jay

Posted by: john jay | August 31, 2011 at 06:48 PM

chris:

i followed the link.

nothing there of any use, just a face page that is of no help to me in finding the explanation you say is there.

i need a more specific link.

john jay

Posted by: john jay | August 31, 2011 at 07:15 PM

chris:

a scenario, no. 1.--

god reveals his revelation to mohammed, on a subject the importance of which is eternal salvation for the believer who follows his edict, and eternal damnation for the believer who does not (hence becoming an apostate, the worst thing that can happen to a muslim. fry, baby fry.)

god reveals to mohammed that he will substitute this revelation later on, but admonishes mohammed not to reveal this. it is a little test, to see who is devout, and who will be naughty, and who will be nice.

mohammend announces the revelation. he reveals it as the word of god. truth. knowing that it will be "revised."

the believers fall by the wayside, angering god, and he decides that he will not revise his prophesy.

he does not reveal this to mohammed.

a scenario, no. 2. the same facts, except that mohammed dies, without having "revealed" that he has led the believers into error.

god still does not change his mind.

a scenario, no. 3. mohammed soldiers on, believers earning eternal damnation right and left.

god, being a forgiving sort, decides to reveal the rest of his truth, and "revises" his previous revelation.

in the mean time, many have died, and some are consigned to eternal damnation.

what to do about them?

and, to be considered, are those who have followed god's previous edicts. they die thinking that they have achieved eternal salvation, but find out that they have been misled, and that instead, they are consigned to eternal damnation as well.

well, what does god do?

what he wants. and, since he is all wise, and all mighty, what he wants is right.

remember his conversation to job. nothing has changed since that chat.

if he wants, he can make the damned saved, and the saved damned, ... , or whatever permutation of that you want.

it makes no difference.

god's will is god's will.

and, that is fine, as far as it goes.

what about mohammed.

he is not eternal, he is just a man, a messenger, and he has much to answer for.

does he tell the flocks, hey, i just relay what god tells me, i don't know what he does?

well, that is not very satisfactory to me, if i am one of or considering being one of his flocks.

i am searching for the determinate. i am not longing for the indeterminate, the "maybe" of salvation and damnation.

in these circumstances, islam does not look so infallile [infallible: jjj] to me, and hardly immutable.

john jay
chief cook and bottle washer of my soul, and my will -- according to the gospels, and according to the torah. thankyouverymuch.

Posted by: john jay | August 31, 2011 at 07:33 PM

 

 

 

islam on very thin theological ice .... the fallibility of "prophethood" ....

islam is infallible, and therefore immutable.

or, looked at the other way, islam is immutable and therefore infallible.

and, just here i am reminded very strongly of justice robert jackson's remark in a case before the united states supreme court.  jackson sat as an associate justice on the court from 1941 to 1954, and presided over the nuremberg trials.  his remark concerning the finality of the institutional decision making process that is law is famous, and quite appropriate within this context.  said jackson, of decisions handed down by the court and their binding effect in the law, "we are not final because we are infallible, we are infallible because we are final."

jackson was not speaking of religion, or theologically.  he was simply saying that at some points legal issues came to a stop, and in the united states, that stop was the supreme court of the united states.

for islam, the finality lies in the word of allah.  for muslims, the word of allah is from mohammed.

or, does it?  and, is it?

sura 15 is entitled "the bee," and it has several interesting pronouncements with regard to god's revelations.

says the koran:

93.  if god so willed, he would have made you all one people, but he leaves to stray whoever he will and guides whoever he will.  you will be questioned about your deeds.   ...  96.  what you have runs out but what god has endures, and we shall certainly reward those who remain steadfast according to the best of their actions.

98.  [prophet], when you recite the qur'an, seek god's protection from the outcast, satan.  99.  he has no power over those who believe and trust in their lord; 100.  his power is only over those who ally themselves with him and those who, because of him, join partners with god.  101.  when we substitute one revelation for another--and god knows best what he reveals--they say, "you are just making it up," but most of them have no knowledge.  102.  say that the holy spirit has brought the revelation with the truth step by step from your lord, to strengthen the believers and as guidance and good news to the devout.  103.  we know very well that they say, "it is a man who teaches him," but the tongue of the person they maliciously allude to is incapable of expression, which this revelation is in clear arabic.  104.  if people do not believe in god's revelation, god does not guide them, and a painful torment awaits them.

sura 16, "the bee,"  verses 93-104, the qur'an, a translation by muhammad a.s. abdel haleem, oxford university press, 2004, u.s.a., pages 172-73.

this is revelation.

it can be no else, as the holy spirit is speaking directly to the prophet, and the holy spirit decries the notion that mohammed speaks for himself.  and, most certainly, mohammed would not have deigned to have ever spoken for god, now would he.

so, this is revelation.

and, according to the koran, what is revealed by god is that he has "... substituted one revelation for another."

this presents an interesting problem, theologically speaking.

there are two possibilities here.

1.)all revelation is consistent.  the truth as revealed by abraham, moses, jesus, john the baptist and isaiah, to name just a few, is therefore consistent with what mohammed says in the course of his revelation.

i am through 22 sura's of the koran, and i will read several more this evening.  to this point, mohammed adopts and reasserts the truth of the bible, the jewish torah and the christian gospel, as the word of god.  except for his disavowal of jesus being the son of god as believed by the followers of the gospel, he repudiates no specific text of the bible, and often says that those who abide by it await salvation, even is not followers of his revelations.

2.)the word of god is malleable, at least as it is presented to human kind via god's prophets.  and, it follows, that god reveals what he reveals depending upon the situation in which his revelations are made.

alternative no. 1.  what has islam changed.

alternative no. 2.  if indeed the revelations contained in the koran are to be contemplated as being substituted for earlier revelation and scripture, then what does this say about the immutability and finality of god's word.

mohammed has said repeatedly that previous revelation in the torah and the gospels is the word of god.  and, that god is all knowing, all mighty, and infallible.  does such a god change his mind?  does such a god perform error?  does such a god withhold truth, or does he change truth?

does he mislead the prophets?

these are troubling issues with regard to god's fallibility.

these are crippling issues with regard to the infallibility we are to attribute in prophets.  we have seen earlier in the koran how mohammed has described a gathering of god and his prophets, in which he secures their agreement that they will not later challenge the nature of the divine revelation to be reported by mohammed as received from god.

101.  when we substitute one revelation for another--and god knows best what he reveals--they say, "you are just making it up," but most of them have no knowledge."

well, what about those who presumably do have knowledge on the subject?  are they making it up?

the koran is, according to islam, infallible and immutable.

but, if only god "knows best" what he reveals, and if he has chosen to "substitute" one revelation for another through mohammed, then what can mohammed offer as reassurance that that which he speaks is in fact final, and not to be "substituted" or retracted by god at a latter date.

and, if god "knows best" what he reveals, and if this perforce is not a matter to be decided or arbitrated by his prophet, as the prophet just reports, then who among us is to decide whether it is in fact that which is revealed first which is the truth, or that which is lately coming.

"--and god knows best what he reveals--"

and, not the prophet.  in this, the prophet stays in the dark.

it seems to my mind, that islam has a real problem here, if they maintain that the revelation of god is not consistent as a whole.  the koran is full of instances in which the revelation and scripture of the torah and the gospels is reaffirmed as the word of god.  and, that it is true.

robert jackson's words were a cautionary admonition that human knowledge, enterprise and law function in the knowledge that wisdom is limited and hence fallible, and that any and all claims to finality, including his, are provisional and subject to revision.  but, in civil and political life disputation has to give way to living, and controversy has to be put aside & finished to get on with things.  in law, says jackson, we make the best decision we are capable of, and then, get on with it: if it needs further tweaking, we'll get back to it but for right now we'll move along, in other words.

islam's claims to infallibility are precisely the opposite, and rest upon the premise that the koran is immutable because based upon the infinite knowledge and power of god, who is limitless in his knowledge.  yet, in these brief passages, islam intimates that god is not giving it to us straight.  or, that he is revealing the truth to us piece by piece, presumably as we "... are ready for it."

102.  say that the holy spirit has brought the revelation with the truth step by step from your lord, to strengthen the believers and as guidance and good news to the devout.

and, that mohammed, is most assuredly in no position to say whether any given pronouncement of god is the final word on any subject.

and, that mohammed, is most assuredly in no position to say whether any given revelation by god is the final word, on any subject.

read it yourself, and see if you agree.

who, then, among the muslims can now say otherwise based on the word of mohammed.  he is, after all, just the messenger.

john jay

 

detroit iron ... parking lot conversation ...

a white oldsmobile cutlass supreme burbled into the safeway parking lot, in not too bad shape.

i walked over and asked the lady driving, what year is she?  fixer upper?

she laughed & said, 1983, 532,000 miles, had her for 27 years now.  she pulled into her parking slot, and i went the other way, both of us grinning. 

detroit iron.  

the germans, the japanese, the koreans  ...  none of 'em ever made anything remotely like the olds cutlass supreme.  the french, you gotta be kidding.  oh, we have an occasional mercedes running around town that vintage, maybe even more miles, especially the diesels.  none of them remotely with the panache of the olds cutlass supreme.

john jay @ 08.30.2011

p.s.  i don't jape the italians.  they know what a car is about, too.  i doubt you'll come across very many with as many miles as the old girl this morning, though.  still just burblin' that v-8 burble.

what's next for libya? why, a partnership agreement w/ the euro med is likely in the offing, that's what .... .

friends:

libya has some oil.

europe has no oil, no coal and not much by way of hydroelectric.  seems odd, that.

as soon as the libyan rebels get it all sort out who is gonna run the place, and as soon as the international "community" extends diplomatic recognition to whoever it is garners sufficient "progressive" bona fides, then something a little odd and unnoticed is going to happen.--

libya will enter into a "partnership agreement" with the euro med, and offshoot of the european union.

it will give the euro's access to libya's oil, and all the sunshine it wants.  in exchange for which, the euro union will give libyan citizens travel and work privileges in europe, and access to europe's social welfare system, and access to european educational systems.  and, the euro union will also give islam more demographic access to the european continent, and more political leverage by which to wage stealth jihad and the conquest of europe.

you can look it up, if you wish.  i have written extensively on this, as has pamela geller at atlas shrugs.  oh, hell, i will just make it easy, and give you the links to my shoppe.  http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patriot_winter_sol/2010/01/the-radical-left-so-despises-europe-that-it-intends-to-destroy-it-by-muslim-immigration-and-i-have-t.html    and, a list of links to other blogs that picked it up, including european blogs.  http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patriot_winter_sol/2010/01/previous-post-excerpted-linked-by-domestic-and-foreign-blogs-neat-that-.html .

kadhafi would not enter into the euro med partnership agreements with the euro union. what?  what?  i certainly do not know why.  integrity?  

john jay @ 08.28.2011

generally speaking ...

...  you find piss ant tin pot dictators (& dictatorships) just about the same place as you find piss ant tin pot countries.

the united states will not be saddled with the dip shit who currently holds office for very long.  nor, in my estimation, will venezuela be burdened for very long with the likes of chavez's successor, when that charlatan dies from the cancer that soviet cuban medicine could not solve.

uneasy lie the heads of  tyrants.  especially in the company of men, who know how to remove them.

(a wonderful ambiguity, eh?)

john jay @ 08.28.2011

p.s.  so, in one sense we have to credit quacks daffily for one thing.--  he (has apparently) finally crafted a society capable of kicking his sorry ass out.  though not one who will give us back the lockerbie bomber.

a praying mantis ...

... showed up on the top of my dresser this morning, and has been there since.

he's a dun.  almost the color of a wheat straw, but, a duller brown.

he looks rather thin to me, not well nourished at all.  i have no idea why he has come inside and suspect that he may not either.

well, i go to walk.  too damned hot to do anything else.  i hope that he hasn't gone when i return.  kind of interesting, to look at one right at nose level.  i am hesitant to say that he is personable, actually not demonstrative at all, and seems rather disinclined to form a relationship with me.

john jay @ 08.27.2011

"snipers" ....

have you noticed that some of the fellows being killed and captured by the libyan "rebels," and described as "snipers" by the press, do not seem to have the appearance about them of being "formidable."  i do not want to disparage the lot of men who are truly in extremis, but some of these fellows do not have the look about them of having been the sharpest chisels in the tool chest.

snipers are elite troops.  they are well trained, proficient and disciplined marksmen who are capable of killing at distance and then effecting their escape.  unscathed.  to kill again.

to be blunt about it, the fellows who are being rounded up by the "rebels" have a certain rag tag air about, more like men who have been labeled "expendable" by someone, and who have been assigned the rather unenviable lot of being left behind as their fellows make a skedaddle, and who have been assigned the unenviable task of fighting a not very effect rear guard action as the rest make their escape.

they also look to be predominately black africans who have been offered up to the gods of war by their arab masters, under the theory of better them than us.

snipers.

i have seen no evidence of sniper's weapons, in the form of mission specific rifles, optics and the like.  and, i have seen no evidence that they use sniper's tactics, such as the use of hides and vantage points that allow a few well trained shots and then a timely exit.

what i have seen is that these fellows get trapped in apartment buildings, and then rooted out much as rats by terriers, and their fate about as grisly, i should imagine.  i expect few of them are being preserved in order to gather intelligence, because they do not look to have much intelligence to give up.

they are cast offs, left to their own devices, which appear to be few.

which begs the question.

where have khadhafi, he who quacks daffily, and his regime gone?  where they ever there, or have they always been just arab theatre waiting to be routed by another arab theatre, this time the theatre of the street mime?

john jay @ 08.27.2011

p.s.  snipers!!

i watch the footage of "combat" purveyed by the western press.

what i see are mobs surging down crowded streets, totally without any evident command and shooting guns aimlessly, and i mean that quite literally.  i see fellows in the foreground of the cameras view crouching and "taking cover," while their fellows amble about standing upright without any apparent concern for that which is causing their fellows to pose for the cameras.

i see, in short, a "target rich" environment from which a disciplined military force in opposition would be exacting a horrific toll in terms of dead and wounded, and the remnant of such foolish behavior on a battle field would be dead and wounded: a mindless mob, piled in the street.

it is clear that the quacks daffy regime has left no such disciplined military force behind.  only a remnant force of black mercenaries to be taken off the board, swept off the board by this tide of street theatre, en passant.

piled in the streets, hands bound by plastic clips, and riddled with bullets.

we all ask, where is kadhafi?  we should be asking, was he ever really there?  i am reminded of plato's "allegory of the cave" ever so much, as these events pass before our eyes.  who contrives them?  to what end?

they slayed the dragon? where's the carcass?

a herd of elephants walks through your ripe strawberry patch.

it leaves "signs."

the rebels have slain the dragon, destroyed the regime.

where's the damn carcass?

john jay @ 08.25.2011

p.s.  no one else on the face of the fucking planet is bothered by this?

p.s. where are his sons and daughter? where are the defectors?

pfffft!!

john jay @ 08.25.2011

p.s.  and, while we are at it, where is "bahgdad bob?"

where have khadhafi and the apparatus of his regime gone?

the little chubby credulous female correspondents wander the streets filming "tacticals" w/ heavy soviet machine guns firing off god knows where into the distance, and film the grisly remains of black africans killed hands bound in the public squares, and intone about war.

somewhere ernie pyle is aghast.  he did not return every day to the hotels to bathe and replenish his stores, and to put on fresh scent, and he would have recognized "bogus" when he saw it.

where is kadhafi?  that is a matter of some interest to me?

and, where are the shattered remains of his regime?

 update, 08.26.2011.  hat tip, theo spark, www.theospark.net, in this film from the guardian.  it shows a warehouse of tanks recently discovered, apparently undefended.  the legend to the film clip says the facility is a "... bombed out ..." warehouse, but the contents, e.g., the tanks, are barely damaged & remarkably unscathed.  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2011/aug/25/libya-rebels-tripoli-tanks-video?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3486 .  why weren't they deployed?  did quacks daffy no longer have the loyalty and service of his troops who would have manned them?  or, did the n.a.t.o. air campaign simply convince the libyan military that n.a.t.o. would have destroyed them if deployed?  but, where oh where did the tank crews go?  end update, 08.26.2011.  comment.  and still, no evidence that the crews or the military apparatus in support of the tanks were killed or damaged in combat w/ the libyan rebels.  the whole thing remains curious to me.  end comment.

in the first instance, where are the dead of battle?  as i watch and read about these events, i see shattered children, an occasional wounded rebel, and read about fierce protracted battles with heavy weapons.

i see no visual evidence of it.  i see no dead kadhafi soldiers, i see no shattered equipment littering battlefields, no twisted and burnt out hulks of tanks, trucks, no artillery lying shattered and the dead strewn in grisly pieces amidst the shattered gun barrels and trunnions.

where are the captured and destroyed tanks?

where are the captured air planes, and helicopters?

and, where are the humiliated and fearful staff officers, and command and control bases overrun by the rebels, and where are the guns and regalia of elite units who have given up the fight?  where are the prisoners of war, marching in humbled, chastised fearful lines under the glinty eyes of their captors?

in short, i see very little evidence of protracted intense fighting.  or, its remnants.

and, i see very little evidence of the remnants of a shattered regime.  the diplomats abjectly seeking the haven of new masters, the bureaucrats trembling in fear, the lesser bureaucrats quailing before new brooms & wondering how clean will they be swept.

and, i do not see the dead, to indicate battle has been joined.

where has it all gone?  what has happened, if anything happened not intended for the visual portion of vacuous nightly news broadcasts, to satiate the lust of film crews for "footage?"

john jay @ 08.25.2011

p.s.  have you ever wondered where the bullets go from a heavy machine gun when its barrel is elevated 15 to 20 degrees above the horizon?  well, they are not landing anywhere that the gunner can see, i can almost guarantee you that.  ... .  it is not combat, it is an "event" staged for those little fat female correspondents who have never fired a damn gun in there whole lives, and have not the slightest notion of what an elevated barrel means.

just as those poor africans, bound by someone, and dumped dead or shot dead in a public square, for all to "see" as "evidence of war."  this, too, has been staged, and these men have been killed in the name of theatre, ... , something which comprises a major component of all "events" in the middle east.

http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-cold-harbor-the-folly-and-horror.htm .  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cold_Harbor .  june 3, 1864 elements of the army of the potomac under the command of george meade attacked lee's army of virginia at cold harbor, just 10 miles or so northeast of richmond, virginia.  the attack was launched at 4.30 a.m. and was poorly coordinated and not very well executed, while lee's defense was well thought out, and with the benefit of a delay in the attack lee's engineers were given the chance to shape the battlefield to their defense.  in those few morning hours, it is estimated that union forces lost about 2,000 men killed, and perhaps another 6,000 or so wounded.  

it is conceded by some/contended by others, that the bulk of these casualties in the first waves of the assault took place in mere minutes.  only the first waves of d-day in world war ii, and some of the pacific amphibious assaults, have ever rivaled the early moments of cold harbor for lethal intensity.

this battle was fought by men using black powder muzzle loading rifled cannon, and black powder muzzle loading rifles whose ignition was by external primed nipples.  that means that after each shot, the infantryman or cannoneer had to make sure his arm's barrel had no burning embers in it, sure to flash off a new charge.  then, the arm was charged with a measured amount of powder, a bullet or cannon ball started into the muzzle, and then rammed in "battery", the external port to the arm's chamber either primed or fitted with a new fuse, aimed and fired.

a modern infantry rifle may fire upwards of 400 rounds of "aimed fire" a minute, about 7 rounds a second.  a good civil war infantryman, firing a muzzle loading rifle as described above, who kept his head in battle and was stationary, could fire about 4 rounds a minute, and if he were lucky, might have had about 40 shots or so on his person.

it is generally accepted that in order for infantry fire to have been effective in the 1860's, an infantryman needed to be with 60 to 70 yards of his adversary, and much closer was preferred.  occasional resort to the bayonet occurred.

nothing even remotely approaching the intensity of the battle of cold harbor has occurred in the recent events in libya.  not even remotely.

i hear and see film of battle in libya, but i see no other evidence of it.

what is the hell is going on there?