Christians Claim - Jesus is "Son of God"
Muslims Say - Jesus is a "Prophet of God"
But the Real Question is -
"Who Really Follows Jesus?" Test Your Knowledge of Jesus' Teachings & Consider these 14 Interesting Questions:The Jesus Test
Introduction to the Message of the Prophets of The "Lost" and "Last" Testaments
- Yusuf Estes
1). Did Jesus teach eternal life was conditioned on obeying the commandments?
Yes ___ No __ Answer in the Bible:
And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tempted him, saying, "Master what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the Law? How do you read?" And he answered saying, "Thou shall love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind, and thy neighbor as thyself. And he said unto him. You have answered right; do this, and you shall live."
Luke 10: 25-28God has only created us to worship Him (without partners).Read Last Testament (Quran) Chapter 51, verse 56; chapter 4, verse 48; chapter 112, all verses
2). Did Jesus teach his followers to serve no other god, except Almighty God, and worship Him without any partners?
Yes ___ No ___
Answer in the Bible:
And Jesus answered him, the first of all the commandments is,
"Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord, and you shall worship Him with all your strength and all your might and all your soul and all your heart."
Mark 12:29He also replied to the devil who was trying to tempt him:Answer in the Bible:
"Get thee behind me, Satan; for it is written, Thou shall worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shall you serve."
Matthew 4:10Read from the Last Testament (Quran) 4:48
God tells us that He never forgives anyone making partners in worship with Him, but anything less than this, He forgives whom He pleases, and whoever sets up partners with Him in worship, he has indeed invented a tremendous sin.3). Did Jesus order us to obey all the commandments?
Yes ___ No ___
According to the New Testament in Matthew, he did.Answer in the Bible:
"Think not that I came to destroy the Law and the Prophets. I came not to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily, I say unto you that until Heaven and earth pass away not a jot or one tittle shall no wise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled."
Matthew 5:17-18Answer in the Bible:
"And behold one came and said to him, Good teacher, what good things shall I do that I may have eternal life? So he said, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but One, this God. But if you want to enter into eternal life, keep the commandments."
Matthew 19:16-17Answer in the Bible:
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
Matthew 7:12
Answer in the Bible:
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shall love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Matthew 22:36-40While ordering us to obey the "Law" it becomes obvious that he ordered his followers to obey the commandments of Almighty God.4.) Did Jesus forbid bowing down to statues?
Yes ___ No ___
By insisting on following the "Law" (Old Testament), Jesus did in fact endorse the message that Moses had brought down to the children of Israel from Almighty God;
Answer in the Bible:
"Thou shall not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in the heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shall not bow down yourself to them, nor serve them."
5.) Did Jesus forbid anyone to worship him?
Yes ___ No ___
Answer in the Bible:
"But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."
Matthew 15:19And in prophesying the Last Days, he clearly taught the same message:
Answer in the Bible:
"But the hour comes, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: For the Father seeks such to worship Him. God is a Spirit and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and truth."
John 4:23-246.) Did Jesus openly deny divinity (said he was not God)?
Yes___ No ___
Answer in the Bible:
"The Father is greater than I." - John 14:287.) Did Jesus deny that he had the power of God to do his miracles?
Yes ___ No ___
Answer in the Bible:
"I do nothing of myself" - John 8:28
"Men of Israel listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you know."
Acts 2:228.) Did Jesus deny any partners (Trinity) with Almighty God?
Yes ___ No ___
Answer in the Bible:
Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
John 8:42
Answer in the Bible:
Jesus answered, If I honor myself, my honor is nothing: it is my Father that honors me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:
John 8:54Answer in the Bible:
…and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
John 20:179.) Did Jesus forbid the Christmas tree?
Yes ___ No ___
Answer in the Bible:
"Thus says the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain; for one cuts a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not."
Jeremiah 10:2-410.) Did Jesus teach that males should be circumcised?
Yes ___ No ___
Genesis 17:10-11 says he did. "This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your seed after you. Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant between me and you."
Answer in the Bible:
John the Baptist was circumcised (Luke 1:59) as was Jesus himself (Luke 2:21)11.) Did Jesus forbid eating pork?
Yes ___ No ___
Answer in the Bible:
"And swine, though he divide the hoof, and be cloven-footed, yet he chews not the cud; he is unclean to you. Of their flesh shall you not eat, and their carcass shall you not touch, they are unclean to you."
Leviticus 11:7-8 And Exodus 20:4-512.) Was Jesus a prophet?
Yes ___ No ___
Answer in the Bible:
And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people.
Luke 24:19
Answer in the Bible:
The woman said unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.
John 4:19
Answer in the Bible:
They say unto the blind man again, What do you say of him, that he has opened your eyes? He said, He is a prophet.
John 9:1713.) Did Jesus predict the coming of another prophet, like unto him?
Yes ___ No ___
Consider from the Bible, things that are most compatible with Islam, for instance the teaching of John 16:7-8
Answer in the Bible:
7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment.John 16:7-814.) What does the "Last Testament" (Quran) say on these same subjects. Does it agree?
Yes ___ No ___Answer in the QURAN:
... Jesus, the son of Mary, said, "O children of Israel, indeed I am the messenger of Almighty God to you - confirming what came before me of the Torah and bringing good tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name is Ahmad."
Surah As-Saff 61 verse 6
OK. You took the test - What is the result?
Who had the best score?
Christians or Muslims? Who Really Follows Jesus Today?
________
Bonus Question (#15) -- Did Jesus call for 'Peace' Or the 'Sword'?
Peace___ Sword ___The word "Sword" appears in the Bible over 200 times, many in the New Testament. (Not even once in Quran) Answer: Matthew 10:34
"Do not think I came to bring peace on earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
(quote from Jesus, peace be upon him, according to the New Testament Bible): And Luke 22:36:
"But now, whoever has a money belt is to talk it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one." More about "Sword in Islam": Sword in Islam and Crusades in Our World Any good is from Allah the mistakes were from myself. May Allah guide all of us to His Truth, ameen. Salam alaykum - Yusuf Estes
National Muslim Chaplain
__
Articles and Answers are from: Yusuf Estes, National Muslim chaplain. He is an American born, former Christian, and as a student of many excellent scholars, he only offers assistance to provide accurate authentic information in easy English to questions about Islam Muslims.Well, now you may have some questions of your own. Why not fill out the form at the bottom of this page and we'll view and post the best replies, God Willing... Come and share more information about Jesus, the "Lost Testament" and the "Last Testament" and learn more about the message of all prophets; 
"Submission, obedience and peace with Almighty God" (You can say all of this in one simple word - "Islam"), before it is too late. Visit our websites to learn more and to find a center near you. These two sites were designed to help our Christian brothers and sisters gain authentic knowledge of both Christian and Muslim teachings to be able to make more accurate comparisons between their respective texts. Are We Ready To Share The Truth About Islam?
Post this link www.IslamNewsroom.com/news-we-need/1349
on FACEBOOK, Twitter, chatrooms & websites |
Jesus came to pay the price for the New Covenant that God had with men, Jews and Gentiles alike. It was a covenant prophesied by the Prophets of God. The covenant was bought and paid for with the blood of God; and, the covenant is entered by all men through faith, by the grace of God.
Jeremiah 31:30-32
30 Instead, everyone will die for their own sin; whoever eats sour grapes—their own teeth will be set on edge.
31 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to[a] them,[b]”
declares the Lord.
38.Matthew 26:28
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
39.Mark 14:24
“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them.
2 Corinthians 3:5-8
5 Not ...
Jesus came to pay the price for the New Covenant that God had with men, Jews and Gentiles alike. It was a covenant prophesied by the Prophets of God. The covenant was bought and paid for with the blood of God; and, the covenant is entered by all men through faith, by the grace of God.
Jeremiah 31:30-32
30 Instead, everyone will die for their own sin; whoever eats sour grapes—their own teeth will be set on edge.
31 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to[a] them,[b]”
declares the Lord.
38.Matthew 26:28
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
39.Mark 14:24
“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them.
2 Corinthians 3:5-8
5 Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. 6 He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
7 Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, 8 will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious?
Hebrews 8:5-7
5 They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” 6 But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.
7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.
Do we know what is your degree in Christian are you?
Yusuf Estes (1944) is an American missionary who converted to Islam before his conversion to Islam was named the Joseph Edward Estes or Joseph Estes, born in the United States and grew up in a ((( Protestant Christian family and became a priest. He earned a Master of Arts in 1974 and a doctorate in theology )))). After dealing with a Muslim Egyptian named Mohammed Abdul Rahman converted to Islam in 1991 he and his wife and his father and his father's wife, and then after learning Arabic and Islamic studies from the year 1991 to the year 1998 in Egypt, Morocco and Turkey. And works in the area of advocacy in the United States and has tapes and lectures in English. [1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.islamtomorrow.com/...
http://yusufestes.com/
It might interest you to know that the only denominations in the Christian faith which use priests are Catholics, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, some Lutheran denominations and Mormons. Was he any of these? I know he wasn't Catholic because he had a wife. some Anglicans also have to be celibate. The Protestants use the terms "preacher" or "minister" or "pastor" I can't find out anything about his "music jamboree" bit. I don't know what that means.
It is something that Christians just know, but Muslims don't. So we read about Yusuf and know he is playing Muslims for fools. But Christians know that his story just doesn't add up. One thing I read, written by him, was that he visited around to a lot of different churches. But that doesn't make him a Christian, or even that knowledgeable, and most definitely, he wouldn't be visiting around if he was a "priest" of some church now, would he?
I don't mean to be hurtful. I know that you don't have any way of knowing this. Another fake ex-Christian, Muslim Convert is Gary Miller. He's as fake as they come.
As to what my degree is...
It might interest you to know that the only denominations in the Christian faith which use priests are Catholics, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, some Lutheran denominations and Mormons. Was he any of these? I know he wasn't Catholic because he had a wife. some Anglicans also have to be celibate. The Protestants use the terms "preacher" or "minister" or "pastor" I can't find out anything about his "music jamboree" bit. I don't know what that means.
It is something that Christians just know, but Muslims don't. So we read about Yusuf and know he is playing Muslims for fools. But Christians know that his story just doesn't add up. One thing I read, written by him, was that he visited around to a lot of different churches. But that doesn't make him a Christian, or even that knowledgeable, and most definitely, he wouldn't be visiting around if he was a "priest" of some church now, would he?
I don't mean to be hurtful. I know that you don't have any way of knowing this. Another fake ex-Christian, Muslim Convert is Gary Miller. He's as fake as they come.
As to what my degree is, it doesn't matter. I'm not trying to impress you with my degree. I wouldn't have a degree in preaching now anyway, would I? Since I'm a woman. I'm just telling you what the bible says.
If Josef was really an ex-priest, he would know exactly how Christians would handle his "Bible Scholar Quiz"--Christians would give you exactly the answers I gave. Both the Old Testament, of the Jews and the New Testament call Jesus God. Both the Old Testament of the Jews, and the New Testament talk about the new covenant that God would have with man. Do you see how I was raved by two people? That is two people who are Christians from two different denominations than me, who, while we don't agree on some things, know exactly what the bible says about the things I quoted.
We have one book .. One copy as revealed to the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him since more than 1400 years as it is without any change even one character .. (This is proof miracles of the Quran, which ensure that God saved from distortion)
The bible has never changed. The canon of both the NT and the OT has been established since the day that men of God revealed them. The texts that Christians hold in their hands are the exact message that the prophets and apostles of God wrote, no later than the 1st century CE. In case there is ever any doubt, translators of the NT appeal to the earlier extant texts to acertain the integrity of a scripture. Islam simply has no earlier extant texts, because they were all burnt.
Uthman sent out one copy of this newly established original to every country and issued orders that every differing compilation or script of the Quran should be burnt. (Mishkat vol.III p.708).
Hadith 510 510. Narrated Anas bin Malik: Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Quran. So he said to Uthman, "O chief of the believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before." So Uthman ...
The bible has never changed. The canon of both the NT and the OT has been established since the day that men of God revealed them. The texts that Christians hold in their hands are the exact message that the prophets and apostles of God wrote, no later than the 1st century CE. In case there is ever any doubt, translators of the NT appeal to the earlier extant texts to acertain the integrity of a scripture. Islam simply has no earlier extant texts, because they were all burnt.
Uthman sent out one copy of this newly established original to every country and issued orders that every differing compilation or script of the Quran should be burnt. (Mishkat vol.III p.708).
Hadith 510 510. Narrated Anas bin Malik: Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Quran. So he said to Uthman, "O chief of the believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before." So Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, "Send us the manuscripts of the Quran so that we may compile the Quranic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsa sent it to Uthman. Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, "Abdullah bin Az-Zubair, Said bin Al-As and Abdur Rahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Quran, then write it in the dialect of Quraish as the Quran was revealed in their tongue." They did so, and when they had written many copies, Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Quranic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. Zaid bin Thabit added, "A verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Quran and I used to hear Allah's Apostle (SAW) reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. (That Verse was): 'Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.' (33:23) Vol. 6 -Virtues of the Quran
Hadith 511. Narrated Zaid bin Thabit: Abu Bakr sent for me and said "you used to write the Divine Revelations for Allah's Apostle (SAW): So you should search for (the Quran and collect) it." I started searching for the Quran till I found the last two Verses of Surat At-Tauba with Abi Khazaima Al-Ansari and I could not find these Verses with anybody other than him. (They were): 'Verily there has come unto you an Apostle (Muhammad (SAW)) from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty. . . (9:128-129) Vol. 6 -Virtues of the Quran - Hadith 511
"Many (of the passages) of the Qur'an that were sent down were known by those who died on the day of Yamama ... but they were not known (by those who) survived them, nor were they written down, nor had Abu Bakr, Umar or Uthman (by that time) collected the Qur'an, nor were they found with even one (person) after them." (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p. 23).
Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.524 It is reported from Ismail ibn Ibrahim from Ayyub from Naafi from Ibn Umar who said: "Let none of you say 'I have acquired the whole of the Qur'an'
http://yusufestes.com/
Moses, Jesus and Muhammad. All the prophets (from the same God)
When be Muslim means is that you believe in all the heavenly books and all the prophets
Why Islam (because it is the last religion .. and not because it goes against Christianity or Judaism .. Muslim is not a Muslim if he did not believe in them and their writings.
As for the nature of the Islamic split being a Very Conservatifve/Conservative one, there is perhaps a bit of that, but it must be taken into account that we in the West have shown a rather nasty habit of getting rid of any of the progressive Islamic societies.
For example, Iran following WW2 was on a very progressive path, pursuing 'liberal' goals of democracy, social equality of the sexes and looking to emulate the widespread education and prosperity enjoyed by Western nations. That of course was up until the point where a MI6\CIA coup derailed that agenda that installed a brutal dictator.... a dictator whose reign of tyranny fueled support for the Islamic extremists who oppress the Iranian people today.
iraq is another example of our intervention in the progression of moderate Islamic societies. Now don't get me wrong, Saddam was as brutal a ruler as they come, but the Iraqi society under his rule was a secular one where religion played no part in the affairs of government. A society where there was education for all who wanted it, a great system for the healthcare of the entire populace and a society where women were not only allowed to participate, but actively encouraged to do so. But we all know what happened to that society, we stuck our noses ...
As for the nature of the Islamic split being a Very Conservatifve/Conservative one, there is perhaps a bit of that, but it must be taken into account that we in the West have shown a rather nasty habit of getting rid of any of the progressive Islamic societies.
For example, Iran following WW2 was on a very progressive path, pursuing 'liberal' goals of democracy, social equality of the sexes and looking to emulate the widespread education and prosperity enjoyed by Western nations. That of course was up until the point where a MI6\CIA coup derailed that agenda that installed a brutal dictator.... a dictator whose reign of tyranny fueled support for the Islamic extremists who oppress the Iranian people today.
iraq is another example of our intervention in the progression of moderate Islamic societies. Now don't get me wrong, Saddam was as brutal a ruler as they come, but the Iraqi society under his rule was a secular one where religion played no part in the affairs of government. A society where there was education for all who wanted it, a great system for the healthcare of the entire populace and a society where women were not only allowed to participate, but actively encouraged to do so. But we all know what happened to that society, we stuck our noses in and handed that country over to a Shia theocracy striking another blow to moderate Sunni Islam.
And the same thing in Libya. Again, we have a Sunni Muslim overseeing a secular society replaced with a sectarian Shia leadership.... with the assistance of course from the nations so concerned about radical Islam. And one of the fall outs of this particular little endeavor has been the loosing of the Libya arsenals into the hands of those Shia radicals who, again with support from the West, are in the process of removing yet another moderate Islamic government in Syria.
So yes, Islam can be construed as being very conservative across the board, but we must not ignore our own responsibility in standing in the way of moderate Sunni Muslims. And keep in mind that Islam trails Christianity by 700 yrs. I dare say that 700 yrs ago Christianity was anything but moderate and liberal, so I think that we just need to give them time to shed some of the negatives, and to stop helping the radicals at the expense of the moderates.
Interesting points. Thanks. I'd only add that I've tended to doubt the ability of outside forces to stifle indigenous forces against the will of the People of a country. I've not researched this, nor can I support it well, but I've been very dubious of those who just "toss off" statements like, "Of course, we all know that Iran had the Shah because we put his family in power", or, "As we all know, the CIA toppled Allende in Chile." My attitude has been, "Well, maybe, but if so we and our agencies did better than they usually do."
That said, I still cannot bring myself to support interventions. For one, they are never about the well being of the target nations people and usually result in little more than a change of leadership with little to no improvement for the people. Better to just leave nations to settle their own affairs, that way they can actually settle something instead of having a perpetual revolving door of brutal overlords.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Nowadays, his son is more famous (though not all that famous), as a commissioner overseeing our Social Security.
One added point (through EDIT), this denseness to "nationalism" as a political force is not necessarily so stupid as it may seem (and this was one of Reischauer's points), in that the modern "nation-state" is not that old, and the nationalism it engenders was not obvious to historians until, maybe, WWII or so. In fact, thinking about this now, I should look into this more now, post-Reischauer, as I can see a view now that would say that nationalism (as opposed to mere ethnicity-ism) has failed in a number of supposed "nation-states" invented by colonial/global powers (like most Middle Eastern countries and some Balkan states), where the expected nationalism failed to hold a number of countries together, devolving into smaller nation-states comprised of individual ethnicities.
Its true, and easily overlooked, that the modern nation-state is a relatively new social construct. With a few exceptions (China for one), such 'nations' simply did not exist until a few centuries ago. I think the growth of the 'nation-state' reflects the evolution of societies away from both tribalism and sectarianism. National governments today have in many ways simply displaced religious institutions in imposing rule over a people, and the growing mobility of people (which itself is a very modern development) has eroded the influence of tribalism.
You've touched upon something that I think is being displayed perfectly in Afghanistan right now. A fabrication by Europeans, imposed upon a people whose tribal ties are far stronger than any sense of nationalism. We hear much talk of the 'porous' border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, but from the local perspective the 'border' is nothing but a line drawn by foreign...
Its true, and easily overlooked, that the modern nation-state is a relatively new social construct. With a few exceptions (China for one), such 'nations' simply did not exist until a few centuries ago. I think the growth of the 'nation-state' reflects the evolution of societies away from both tribalism and sectarianism. National governments today have in many ways simply displaced religious institutions in imposing rule over a people, and the growing mobility of people (which itself is a very modern development) has eroded the influence of tribalism.
You've touched upon something that I think is being displayed perfectly in Afghanistan right now. A fabrication by Europeans, imposed upon a people whose tribal ties are far stronger than any sense of nationalism. We hear much talk of the 'porous' border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, but from the local perspective the 'border' is nothing but a line drawn by foreigners right through the territory of the Pashtun people. And when we look around at other 'invented' states there is a pattern of drawing borders that incorporate prevailing ethnic tensions, its far easier to play colonial overlord when you can pit internal factions against one another.
The dissolution of the Soviet Union, the break up of Yugoslavia, etc offer an excellent examples of the devolution you speak of
Two things:
Though most kernels of my ideas I readily admit are not original to me--one currently relevant one I think might be is the "moral/ethical" dimension of modern multi-modal "big brotherism" through technology as a replacement for older religious thought (like as preached on this question originally). That is, it seems to me that many fundamentalists (of all religions, like Christian, Muslim...which frankly compared to Christianity looks virtually 'all fundamentalist' to me) will claim that mankind is so totally evil on its own that only belief in an omniscient God constantly watching everything would hold mankind in check, morally--and therefore a reduction in belief in such a God releases the inherent evil in mankind. My additional thought regarding this fundamental flaw in thinking about people is that an attraction for the idea of Bush/Obama style total government surveillance is that such surveillance in a way replaces the former belief in "God surveillance"--and therefore tries to extend the idea that mankind is evil without a watcher its aware of holding it back through a sense of shame. Actually, I think there may be something to that core idea (though I think the "watcher" may/should be one's own mor...
Two things:
Though most kernels of my ideas I readily admit are not original to me--one currently relevant one I think might be is the "moral/ethical" dimension of modern multi-modal "big brotherism" through technology as a replacement for older religious thought (like as preached on this question originally). That is, it seems to me that many fundamentalists (of all religions, like Christian, Muslim...which frankly compared to Christianity looks virtually 'all fundamentalist' to me) will claim that mankind is so totally evil on its own that only belief in an omniscient God constantly watching everything would hold mankind in check, morally--and therefore a reduction in belief in such a God releases the inherent evil in mankind. My additional thought regarding this fundamental flaw in thinking about people is that an attraction for the idea of Bush/Obama style total government surveillance is that such surveillance in a way replaces the former belief in "God surveillance"--and therefore tries to extend the idea that mankind is evil without a watcher its aware of holding it back through a sense of shame. Actually, I think there may be something to that core idea (though I think the "watcher" may/should be one's own moral sense ), but replacing the concept of God with an actual State is very troublesome to me--and is, for me, a deep indictment of the aims of that form of statism. Yes, what I just said is a speculative load of mushy crap...but I'm a psychologist, so waddaya expect from me?
As to arbitrary geographic division by overseeing powers producing harmful borders--I "got" this concept (which you so nicely and concisely refer to for countries) way back when, I always thought, in part because I grew up in the St. Louis area (born on the Illinois side, grew up on the Missouri side--of the Mississippi)--which made it pretty obvious to me that the clear geographic division made no sense ethnically or politically. That is, in that region we were all "Midwestern river people", no matter which bank of the river we were on. Relatively speaking, the Missouri side was favored within its state as St. Louis was the largest city of the state (though KC was not far behind)--and favored in the state capital; while the eastern side of the river (particularly East St. Louis) was distant in size from Chicago and easily short-shifted by the state capital. It made me wonder how the world might be if peoples mattered over geography--like if political boundaries tried to cross geographical features at a 90 degree angle rather than paralleling them at 0 or 180 degrees. I haven't even thought through what this might mean for global things like AfPak/India, etc. ; but for small regions like STL, it would mean that the natural river terminus produced by the confluence of the Missouri and Mississippi rivers would have been under one political jurisdiction, and perhaps all of the Western US states that have a significant portion of their territory as parts of the Rockies (lets see...Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Montana...more) might have the clearly mountainous parts cut off and combined into one "mountain state" that could focus on "mountain issues".
I like it.
This can be a double edge sword, because people knowing this, will advocate it is OK to do evil, when it is not OK.
We need to look more at how Jesus lived his life, and what he did, which were acts of kindness, miracles, and good will to his fellow Brethren.