About Islam

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
241

[quote]Chushin wrote:
And I sincerely have no doubt that most Americans would have no difficulty accepting your sort of Islam, just as we’ve accepted so many other religions. [/quote]

Was that ever challenged by anyone?

Look, the “few criminals” are gaining ground by the day. I can see it. But it’s definitely not significant to threaten Islam as a whole.

They are hunted down and brought to justice. I can also see that.

What “stuff”? And how should I know?

Ask him.

No, it doesn’t “sounds just like what” what I told Dyskee. Here’s what I told him: “Instead of telling others “about Islam”, I suggest you start applying its principles to your own life.”

The day you see me start a thread where I invite others to inquire about Islam, and pages later start sharing opinions that contradict teh the teachings of Mohammed, you could call me a hypocrite.

Yeah, I can be very obnoxious at times.

242

yes u were obnoxious to me. and just because i gave an example of what happens here in the ME doesn’t make me a hypocrite lixy.

i know that u r older than me and probably know more and i was wishing that u would educate me or atleast give me advice on what u see wrong instead of just saying that iam hypocrite.

243

[quote]dyskee wrote:
…islam has no dark side it’s crystal clear, it’s like any other religion u do good deeds u go to heaven u do bad deeds u end up in hell.[/quote]

Well imo, Islam - or the history of Islam - has certainly got a dark side to it! This, whether we are talking about the less serious - be it periods of spiritual indolence/neglect, material corruption, retardation of the ‘spirit’ of the religion - or the more damning…as in moments where collectively, muslims would agree that the worst has been carried out in the religion’s name.

But again, personally speaking, I think this is the same for almost all major world religions. This is supposedly a cop out argument but I can’t see why. In fact, your words ‘it’s like any other religion’ seem to be particularly applicable here…

Like any other religion, Islam - the entirety of it, ie history, events, individuals, even sometimes principles - has dark ‘pasts’… and sometimes, a dark ‘present’…

244

[quote]dyskee wrote:
gkhan
no jesus did not die on the cross the one that died on the cross was judas iscariot who ratted jesus out.

quranic verse that supports this:

bism ilah alrahman alrahim
" And because of their disbelief and of their speaking against Mary a tremendous calumny;

And because of their saying in boast, “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Apostle of God”; - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no certain knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- Nay, God raised him up unto Himself; and God is Exalted in Power, Wise; " (Qur’an 4:157-158)

jesus is indeed in heaven and in the end of days jesus will come back to earth and lead the muslims to kill the antichrist and the jews in accordance with prophecy.

chusin for ur last question . Why does any Muslim do anything without evidence from the Qur’an and Prophetic tradition?

= Misguidance, ignorance
[/quote]

The Koran is hardly a reference for Christian Theology.

You are a blithering idiot. Did Lixy create you as another sock puppet just to continue screwing up the political forum and driving more traffic away from Biotest?

245

[quote]red bull wrote:
pat wrote:
dyskee wrote:
pat wrote:

Which actually does not work. Jesus claimed to be the son of God, his entire ministry was based on that. You cannot claim that some of his teachings were ok, but that part is wrong. He either is the son of God or a charlatan, there is no in between. If he is not what he says he is, then everything he said and did is not worth the paper it is written on. The whole “prophet” compromise is a cop out, because if is not what he says he is, then nothing else about him or his life matters. His words and actions should be taken as intended or disregarded all together.

sorry to bust ur bubble but jesus never claimed to be the son of god.

and in the quran god says bism illah alrahman alrahim “Say: He is Allah, the One! (1) Allah, the eternally Besought of all! (2) He begetteth not nor was begotten. (3) And there is none comparable unto Him. (4)”

LOL!! You have got to be shitting me.

John 17:1-2 - When Jesus had said this, he raised his eyes to heaven and said, "Father, the hour has come. Give glory to your son, so that your son may glorify you,

Luke 22:70 - They all asked, “Are you then the Son of God?” He replied to them, “You say that I am.”

Mark 16:61-62 -But he was silent and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him and said to him, “Are you the Messiah, the son of the Blessed One?”
Then Jesus answered, “I am; and ‘you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.’”

Yup, looks like he claimed it to me.

Pat, you have got to be kidding…

The idea that we only have two choices - to regard Jesus as the Son of God or demote him to the level of charlatan - does not, with all respect, make sense. The idea that a third option doesn’t work is simply not true - obviously it works perfectly well for millions of people!

Look, I am no Bible scholar and since I am not a practicing Christian or a practicing Muslim I don’t have a ‘personal’ angle in this - but surely you are aware that there are many (scholarly) objections which would highlight the precise differences between the titles of Son of Man on the one hand, and Son of God on the other. Or perhaps the abundance of both titles being applied to persons other than Jesus.

Similarly, my understanding is that the same might be said for the use of the term Messiah - in as much as it possesses a very different connotation to the idea of ‘Son of God’.

Also, I have read that in at least one instance, the use of the word ‘begotten’ has been expunged from at least one version of the Bible - the RSV I believe. Deleted, in other words, because although it certainly supported the concept of Jesus’ divinity, it was found to be inaccurate by at least one Bible scholar…

And while we are talking in general about interpolations and extrapolations, insertions and deletions etc, from my own experience I recall reading one version of the New Testament (I think it was Luke) where the actual verse describing Jesus read ‘Son of Man’ - but the footnote said 'some say ‘Son of God’!

My point is simply that this whole issue - of whether Jesus himself claimed divinity, as well as what status that leaves him with if one believes he did not - is far from unequivocal, as you suggest…

p.s.

And as much as they might not represent mainstream Christianity (or even Christianity full stop!), what about Unitarians - both those of the past and modern day??

[/quote]

Of course it makes sense. Since when has it been that one can pick and choose what to believe and what not to believe. In the gospels Jesus “I am in Him and He is in me” and further “Who has seen me, has seen the Father”, etc. He not only claims to be the Son of God, but equal to God. I do not see where this is in dispute. He either claims to be who he said he is, or he is not. There really isn’t an in between and hence do not understand the confusion.
Further, I would tend to trust the interpretations of the scriptures of the church He established and who traditions stemmed from Him directly, then some dude 7 centuries later whose only interaction with Christian theology was some ousted, disgruntled monk.
Does that make scriptural interpretations correct all the time, no, But, this fact has been established well and is dogma.
So He is who He says He is, or he is a liar, an excellent liar at that.

246

[quote]dyskee wrote:
dk44 wrote:
Also, if you believe that our God is the same God, and that the Bible is corrupt so God called for the Koran, then you must think that the story of Jesus being God’s son is part of this corruption. Why would man make up Jesus being sent as the son of God? If you wanted to control a population wouldn’t a distant, cold God be more beneficial than a God that sends his son to die for our sins?

because i think that if the church gave jesus (pbuh) a devine image as the son of god , the church could promise people forgiveness and a place in heaven if they follow the son of god in exchange for being completely submissive to the church.

ps: before u attack me iam just making assumptions.[/quote]

You cannot make assumptions when making bold statements like this. This is some thing you better know to be true and you better verify. If you claims the Bible is false and corrupted and cannot substantiate, many of us here can say the same thing about the Koran and can substantiate our claims. I will not do that for the sake of others here. I warned you to tread carefully, head it please.

247

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
dk44 wrote:
Why is it so hard to believe that God could snap his fingers and make Mary pregnant? If you believe he created the world, then how much easier would it be to create a baby?

What I have a hard time getting my head around is that God could snap his fingers and make Mary born without sin. That whole concept bugs me. She could be born without sin and yet, Christ had to die to redeem the sins of the entire world. In other words, it probably could have been a lot simpler.

That’s a Roman Catholic doctrine - the idea that Mary was sinless.

What do you mean by ‘born without sin’?

Hopefully some Roman Catholics will jump in - I don’t want to misrepresent them.

Christian theology teaches that because of Adam’s sin, all mankind is born sinful. Roman Catholics hold that in order for Jesus to be born outside of the Adamic curse, Mary needed to be sinful also. Again, I hope some jump in here.

In the Lutheran/Reformed tradition, Jesus was born outside of Adam’s curse because he was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and not fathered by a man. The human fatherhood would have passed on the curse. [/quote]

It is called the “Immaculate Conception”. Yes that is a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church. Actually, I believe all Catholic churches hold this to be true.

248

So when I read in Al-Azhar’s publication “The Reliance of the TRaveler” that jihad is “warfare for the spread of religion,” I’m to believe that most Muslims don’t believe the same way and that they interpret the Qur’an for themselves?

When Mohammed attacked the harmless Jews of the Khaibar oasis or attacked a caravan, I’m expected to believe that most Muslims see this as an example of bad behavior, even though Mohammed is an “uswa hasana”?

Please.

249

[quote]dyskee wrote:

And because of their saying in boast, “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Apostle of God”; - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no certain knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- Nay, God raised him up unto Himself; and God is Exalted in Power, Wise; " (Qur’an 4:157-158)

jesus is indeed in heaven and in the end of days jesus will come back to earth and lead the muslims to kill the antichrist and the jews in accordance with prophecy.

chusin for ur last question . Why does any Muslim do anything without evidence from the Qur’an and Prophetic tradition?

= Misguidance, ignorance
[/quote]

Oh my God!!! I am speechless.

Would you say that your beliefs are representative of most muslims?

250

[quote]pat wrote:
In the gospels Jesus “I am in Him and He is in me” and further “Who has seen me, has seen the Father”, etc. He not only claims to be the Son of God, but equal to God. [/quote]

Equal?

“Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.” – John 14:28

251

[quote]lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
In the gospels Jesus “I am in Him and He is in me” and further “Who has seen me, has seen the Father”, etc. He not only claims to be the Son of God, but equal to God.

Equal?

“Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.” – John 14:28[/quote]

Are you just going to regurgitate Ahmed Deedat on this thread?

252

[quote]lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
In the gospels Jesus “I am in Him and He is in me” and further “Who has seen me, has seen the Father”, etc. He not only claims to be the Son of God, but equal to God.

Equal?

“Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.” – John 14:28[/quote]

Jesus is lessor in position, not nature.

[quote]John 14:28 reads, “You heard that I said to you, I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I." They will ask you, "How can Jesus be equal to God if here He states the Father is greater than I’?”

The term greater refers to position, not nature. The term better refers to nature. Here is a good example I use in illustrating this passage. The President is greater than you or I, correct? Yes, as Chief Executive Officer of the United States he is greater than you or I. The Jehovah’s Witness will agree. But, is the President better than you or I? What I mean is, is there anything about the President that makes him a superior being to you or me? No.

You see, greater refers to position, not nature. We see in Philippians 2:6-8, that Christ though He was in the form of God, did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped but emptied Himself and submitted Himself to the Father and took on the form of a servant. Though Jesus emptied Himself, He was always in nature God and equal to the Father in nature. If Jesus wanted to say He was inferior to God in nature, He would have said, “The Father is better than I.”

Here is an example of the use of the term better in Hebrews 1:4 (NAS); it says speaking of Jesus, “having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they.” The NIV reads, “So he became as much superior to the angels…” Here we see that Jesus is a being superior to the angels, so the term better is used. Remember, in explaining this verse, the term greater refers to position, not nature.

The explanation for the Muslim could end here since they usually are not really interested in the NT material outside the gospels. But this passage is good to see, since it further explains that the issue under discussion is position, not nature.

Another verse the Witnesses will use is 1 Corinthians 11:3, “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” Here they say since the head of Christ is God, Jesus must be inferior to God.

Once again you use the same concept of equal in nature, but Christ submitted Himself to the Father. Here the principle of headship and submission established by God is displayed both in marriage and in the Trinity. Now show the Jehovah’s Witnesses that in this passage, the head of the woman is man. “Does this mean that the husband is a superior being to his wife?” The answer is obviously, “No.” The husband is greater than his wife by way of position but not by nature. The same applies to the Father and the Son. The Father is greater by position, but not better by nature. [/quote]

253

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
In the gospels Jesus “I am in Him and He is in me” and further “Who has seen me, has seen the Father”, etc. He not only claims to be the Son of God, but equal to God.

Equal?

“Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.” – John 14:28

Jesus is lessor in position, not nature.

John 14:28 reads, “You heard that I said to you, I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I." They will ask you, "How can Jesus be equal to God if here He states the Father is greater than I’?”

The term greater refers to position, not nature. The term better refers to nature. Here is a good example I use in illustrating this passage. The President is greater than you or I, correct? Yes, as Chief Executive Officer of the United States he is greater than you or I. The Jehovah’s Witness will agree. But, is the President better than you or I? What I mean is, is there anything about the President that makes him a superior being to you or me? No.

You see, greater refers to position, not nature. We see in Philippians 2:6-8, that Christ though He was in the form of God, did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped but emptied Himself and submitted Himself to the Father and took on the form of a servant. Though Jesus emptied Himself, He was always in nature God and equal to the Father in nature. If Jesus wanted to say He was inferior to God in nature, He would have said, “The Father is better than I.”

Here is an example of the use of the term better in Hebrews 1:4 (NAS); it says speaking of Jesus, “having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they.” The NIV reads, “So he became as much superior to the angels…” Here we see that Jesus is a being superior to the angels, so the term better is used. Remember, in explaining this verse, the term greater refers to position, not nature.

The explanation for the Muslim could end here since they usually are not really interested in the NT material outside the gospels. But this passage is good to see, since it further explains that the issue under discussion is position, not nature.

Another verse the Witnesses will use is 1 Corinthians 11:3, “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” Here they say since the head of Christ is God, Jesus must be inferior to God.

Once again you use the same concept of equal in nature, but Christ submitted Himself to the Father. Here the principle of headship and submission established by God is displayed both in marriage and in the Trinity. Now show the Jehovah’s Witnesses that in this passage, the head of the woman is man. “Does this mean that the husband is a superior being to his wife?” The answer is obviously, “No.” The husband is greater than his wife by way of position but not by nature. The same applies to the Father and the Son. The Father is greater by position, but not better by nature. [/quote]

Good explination.
I can’t wait to see Jesus come down and slaughter all the Jews. That has got to be the dumbest shit I have ever heard.

Lixy, can you say with confidence that most muslims don’t think like this guy? I certainly hope not.

254

I wonder if it would be alright with the Muslims here if we Christians be allowed to define our own faith - the faith “delivered to the saint?”

Furthermore, I find it rather appalling that the Muslims demand that we accept their explanation of our own texts. We’ve got a history of understanding of the Bible, and we’ll keep ours thankyouverymuch, rather than the words of a 6th century Arab raider.

255

[quote]dyskee wrote:
“I say this because they are far to many people using an outdated and somewhat barbaric mentality based on a man who lived in a different day and age.” but this my friend i don’t agree with and i find it rather insulting :([/quote]

Don’t. I meant Muhammad was an example back when he was alive. If he were born recently, I’m sure his teachings would be the same, but explained differently.

Back then it wasn’t considered barbaric.

EDIT: I’ll just add that, while I say it wasn’t considered barbaric, we’re talking about a time when people didn’t have such close access to other countries. Now we do, therefore we should go with the way that promotes harmony as opposed to trying to provoke all-out holy war.

256

[quote]Makavali wrote:
dyskee wrote:
lixy and makavali i don’t want to kill my sister i love her i was setting an example!!!

It was a bad example then. Honor killings have no place in society. Tribal or otherwise.[/quote]

I completely disagree. I just don´t like his system of honor.

Duels are a good thing.

We are just not civilized enough any more.

257

[quote]orion wrote:
Makavali wrote:
dyskee wrote:
lixy and makavali i don’t want to kill my sister i love her i was setting an example!!!

It was a bad example then. Honor killings have no place in society. Tribal or otherwise.

I completely disagree. I just don´t like his system of honor.

Duels are a good thing.

We are just not civilized enough any more.

[/quote]

When I say honor killing, I’m referring mainly to people who kill their wife/sister under false religious pretenses.

“Ooh I don’t approve of your boyfriend. You gonna have to die!” (imagine that in the most sarcastic feminine voice you can think of)

That sort of thing I think has no place in the world.

Duels on the other hand…

(brings out glove)

258

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I wonder if it would be alright with the Muslims here if we Christians be allowed to define our own faith - the faith “delivered to the saint?”

Furthermore, I find it rather appalling that the Muslims demand that we accept their explanation of our own texts. We’ve got a history of understanding of the Bible, and we’ll keep ours thankyouverymuch, rather than the words of a 6th century Arab raider.[/quote]

Maybe we should demand they accept our explanation for their texts. :slight_smile:

259

[quote]pat wrote:
Maybe we should demand they accept our explanation for their texts. :)[/quote]

Riots, anyone?

It is appalling that they insist others are wrong without a shred of proof. Everyone has the right to choose their own religion, but not at the expense of human rights.

260

[quote]red bull wrote:
dyskee wrote:
…islam has no dark side it’s crystal clear, it’s like any other religion u do good deeds u go to heaven u do bad deeds u end up in hell.

Well imo, Islam - or the history of Islam - has certainly got a dark side to it! This, whether we are talking about the less serious - be it periods of spiritual indolence/neglect, material corruption, retardation of the ‘spirit’ of the religion - or the more damning…as in moments where collectively, muslims would agree that the worst has been carried out in the religion’s name.

But again, personally speaking, I think this is the same for almost all major world religions. This is supposedly a cop out argument but I can’t see why. In fact, your words ‘it’s like any other religion’ seem to be particularly applicable here…

Like any other religion, Islam - the entirety of it, ie history, events, individuals, even sometimes principles - has dark ‘pasts’… and sometimes, a dark ‘present’…

[/quote]

ok tell me what do you think is the dark side and maybe we can discuss it.