To say that the random, limited number of aberrant acts (babies in microwaves?) that occur in the West for a myriad of reasons, and the minuscule number of attacks on clinics are somehow equal to the thousands of incidents of violence that are committed in the name of Islam [/quote]
Who said anything about being “somehow equal”? I mentioned those to knock down the argument that the Islamic faith was to blame for those acts.
If you don’t think it has anything to do with most majority-Muslim countries gaining independence decades ago, the socio-economics and political landscape, then make your case that Islam is behind it all. Just try to use use coherent arguments instead of silly tidbits that try to draw causation from correlation.
You always stay out of the core debates and just show up to attack people on a personal level. For some reason, I expect you to know better.
Where is it systematic? And what’s it got to do with Islam?
Actually, I do have that right. Look it up.
[quote]3. To complete my thought: You are a
rude, obnoxious, know-it-all, who needs to grow up and stop laboring under the delusion that you are somehow the “Guardian of Morality.” [/quote]
I never claimed to be the “Guardian of Morality”. I don’t believe that was ever a point of contention on this board. Morality is relative as far as I’m concerned.
Now, considering the barrage of rudeness I’ve encountered here, I believe that I manage to keep a pretty cool head and civilized tone overall. If you don’t think so, go complain to someone who cares.
And we should care because…?
Can’t even follow a simple train of thought, can you? That was addressed to the person to whom I replied when you quoted me a few posts ago. Keep up!
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Chewie wrote:
dyskee wrote:
sorry to bust ur bubble but jesus never claimed to be the son of god.
No, dead wrong:
John 3 16 �??For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 �??For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 �??He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
“Before Abraham was I AM!” - John 8:58 ref Exodus 3:14.
Like I said, would it be alright with the Muslims if we kept interpreting our texts as we have since the first century?[/quote]
That was the question I wanted answered. Do the Muslims think the Christian texts were altered after they were compiled into what is known as the New Testament, or were the text allegedly altered by the Gospel writers themselves which took the story of a man named Jesus and made him into a God?
I guess I’ll never know.
Yet the Muslim view of Christ not dying on the cross sure seems similar to what the Gnostics thought.
Too bad if you question the Muslim doctrine, you are classified as an Islamphobe.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Chewie wrote:
dyskee wrote:
sorry to bust ur bubble but jesus never claimed to be the son of god.
No, dead wrong:
John 3 16 �??For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 �??For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 �??He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
“Before Abraham was I AM!” - John 8:58 ref Exodus 3:14.
Like I said, would it be alright with the Muslims if we kept interpreting our texts as we have since the first century?
That was the question I wanted answered. Do the Muslims think the Christian texts were altered after they were compiled into what is known as the New Testament, or were the text allegedly altered by the Gospel writers themselves which took the story of a man named Jesus and made him into a God?
I guess I’ll never know.
Yet the Muslim view of Christ not dying on the cross sure seems similar to what the Gnostics thought.
Too bad if you question the Muslim doctrine, you are classified as an Islamphobe.[/quote]
They usually say both - that they Christian texts were altered in their earliest form and that we altered them after Mohammed to make them disagree with the Qur’an. There are plenty of rebuttals to these charges to be found online, if you want.
[quote]lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
Pat, one more question. On a scale of 1 to 10, how bad do you think God would consider the act of worshiping somebody other than Him?
Considering it’s the first commandment, I’d consider it a “1”.
If Jesus was to show up tomorrow, would you worship him? If so, don’t you think it could be abused by someone unscrupulous?
Father, Son and Holy Spirit. You bet I would.
But do you see the potential for abuse or not?[/quote]
[quote]dyskee wrote:
pat wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
I hear ya. If in the 3rd Century, let’s say, the Christians decided to “change” their religion and make Christ rise from the dead and become the Son of God, what were their beliefs prior to this “change”?
Why would there be a religion called Christianity if the key and core beliefs were added centuries after the religion was originally founded?
Nothing “chaged” in the Counsel of Nicea, Read the letter’s of Peter and Paul. All they did was come to an understand as to what was gong to be taught uniformly so that folks couldn’t go around with there own interpretations. The early church had a lot of issues with heresy and they wanted to put a stop to it.
can u explain all this since we are discussing religion??[/quote]
It is a reference to the Holy Trinity. 3 divine expressions of one God.
[quote]pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
Pat, one more question. On a scale of 1 to 10, how bad do you think God would consider the act of worshiping somebody other than Him?
Considering it’s the first commandment, I’d consider it a “1”.
If Jesus was to show up tomorrow, would you worship him? If so, don’t you think it could be abused by someone unscrupulous?
Father, Son and Holy Spirit. You bet I would.
But do you see the potential for abuse or not?
No.[/quote]
You don’t think the “anti-Christ” could masquerade as Jesus?
[quote]dyskee wrote:
i mentioned before how the koran was preserved read it a few pages back.
plus god mentioned that he will protect the koran till the day of judgement.
and yes we all read the same book but we don’t all have the same brain.
for your second question muslims must believe in the bible and the torah to complete their faith. iam assuming that you are christian would u accept anything else aside from the bible and try to be honest.[/quote]
So other than “assurances” from the Prophet, you have no evidence that the Qur’an has not been tampered with. Nor do you have any real evidence that the Holy Bible and been tampered with in any significant way. In both cases you (we) only have evidence of hearsay.
Would I accept anything else? Sure I believe that other books can be Holy texts. I believe that God can communicate in many ways, as many as he pleases. That doesn’t mean I need to follow it, but I can extract useful information. That being said, I do not intend on reading the Qur’an anytime soon.
I don’t typically have a lot of time to read, so i save it for things I really want to read. Next will be Chad Waterbury’s new book, of which I am anxiously await it’s release. Also, if I read religious things it will be of my own religion.
I am not seeking, but have a well established communication with God as is. To change would be foolish at this point. I sense God’s presence through my faith. That doesn’t mean experiencing God through other faiths is bad, I think it’s good. In fact, I have been to Friday prayers at a mosque with a muslim friend of mine at my old job. Unfortunately we have gone different directions.
I can regard information from the Qur’an, but it is very low on my to-do list. I can listen, but I will stick to my Christian faith.
[quote]lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
Pat, one more question. On a scale of 1 to 10, how bad do you think God would consider the act of worshiping somebody other than Him?
Considering it’s the first commandment, I’d consider it a “1”.
If Jesus was to show up tomorrow, would you worship him? If so, don’t you think it could be abused by someone unscrupulous?
Father, Son and Holy Spirit. You bet I would.
But do you see the potential for abuse or not?
No.
You don’t think the “anti-Christ” could masquerade as Jesus?[/quote]
Masquerade is the key word. He, she, or it could pull it off for a time, but not indefinitely.
[quote]pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
You don’t think the “anti-Christ” could masquerade as Jesus?
Masquerade is the key word. He, she, or it could pull it off for a time, but not indefinitely.[/quote]
Ok.
Now, supposing he/she/it shows up on your doorstep tomorrow, don’t you realize that God will not appreciate worshiping him/her/it? That’s what I was getting at when I spoke about “abuse”.
One more question: Which church or denomination is closer to your beliefs?
[quote]lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
You don’t think the “anti-Christ” could masquerade as Jesus?
Masquerade is the key word. He, she, or it could pull it off for a time, but not indefinitely.
Ok.
Now, supposing he/she/it shows up on your doorstep tomorrow, don’t you realize that God will not appreciate worshiping him/her/it? That’s what I was getting at when I spoke about “abuse”.
One more question: Which church or denomination is closer to your beliefs?[/quote]
[quote]pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
You don’t think the “anti-Christ” could masquerade as Jesus?
Masquerade is the key word. He, she, or it could pull it off for a time, but not indefinitely.
Ok.
Now, supposing he/she/it shows up on your doorstep tomorrow, don’t you realize that God will not appreciate worshiping him/her/it? That’s what I was getting at when I spoke about “abuse”.
One more question: Which church or denomination is closer to your beliefs?
I am a Catholic.[/quote]
Where do you stand on the whole “papal infallibility”?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Where do you stand on the whole “papal infallibility”?[/quote]
I don’t mean to answer a question with a question, but what do you think it means? The reason I ask is because most of the time what is misunderstood is the scope. In other words, people think it means that everything the pope says and does is infallible, but that is not what it is.
Where do you stand on the whole “papal infallibility”?
I don’t mean to answer a question with a question, but what do you think it means? The reason I ask is because most of the time what is misunderstood is the scope. In other words, people think it means that everything the pope says and does is infallible, but that is not what it is.[/quote]
Where do you stand on the whole “papal infallibility”?
I don’t mean to answer a question with a question, but what do you think it means? The reason I ask is because most of the time what is misunderstood is the scope. In other words, people think it means that everything the pope says and does is infallible, but that is not what it is.
Yes. Wiki does a good job of describing it. Just make sure you read down. That it deals with issues of faith and morals and that something does not easily receive the stamp of infallibility and they are mainly matters of faith. Very few things actually have been decreed as infallible. I believe the last one was the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
And no, I don’t have a problem with it. I agree with church dogma. Jesus is the Son of God, the virgin birth, the resurrection, etc. It is that sort of thing.
An example of what is not stamped as infallible would be the church’s stance on birth control.
