At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
In this time of "politically correct" it seems that there is a general good feel attitude about religion. "You're OK, I'm OK" pretty well expresses it. Folks say it doesn't matter how you serve God, because we are all His children. I submit for your consideration this: the God of the Bible is not the same as Allah. Discussion anyone?
Could God’s name be “Allah”? No. As a good dictionary will show you, “Allah” is a shortened form of the Arabic term meaning “the god.” Obviously, this is not a name.
The name “Jehovah” is found in numerous writings and in many places. But the principal source of the name is in ancient Hebrew writings contained in the Bible.
Thus, for centuries the form Jehovah has been the internationally recognized way to pronounce God’s name, and people who hear it instantly recognize who is being spoken about. As Professor Oehler said, “This name has now become more naturalized in our vocabulary, and cannot be supplanted.”—Theologie des Alten Testaments
Hope12
<br><br><br>Oehler said, <i>“This name has now become more naturalized in our vocabulary, and cannot be supplanted.”</i>—Theologie des Alten Testaments.
<br><br>Oehler was wrong. It has beens upplanted in modern times with forms of yhvh that are considered to more accurately represent the hebrew text. No one should be tied to old forms of anything merely because they were once almost universally accepted or believed.
God did not give humanity a mind to have him slip it into the track of a trolley car heading for the wrong destination.
<br><br>As Saint Paul said so forcibly, <i>"Test everything, and hold on to what is true." </i><br><br>The corollary to that is to abandon everything found not to be as it was once thought to be. it takes intellectual honesty and some courage to swim against the stream.
<br><br>For example, why should we applaud the 'heretic' Galileo for his holding onto his helocentirc theory against the deadly stream of the geocentirc absolute that had been taught as a dogma for centuries, yet fail to make our own journeys out of the darkness and into the light when it shines plainly before us?
<br><br>There comes time in all our lives when it is right to challenge received wisdom.
<br><br>The old order changes giving place to new,
<br>And God fulfills himself in many ways
<br>Lest one good custom should corrupt the world.
<br><br>Does it make sense to call God by a name nearer to what his name is or was rather than to call him by a name that came about through misinterpretation? It is amistake to attemopt biblical exegesis with an English text. It can only be done in a satisfactory way in the original biblical languages by someone who knows the language, and the background to the biblical books.<br><br><br>M<br>
Whatever name you choose to apply, it is obvious that there are different schools of thought and interpretation within Islam, and it is to these divisions that the term 'branches' was applied.
How a person interprets the Qur'an and chooses to enfold those teaching in their lives is a cause of divisions within Islam. The idea that Islam is one monolithic religion is a fiction, for the divisions are deep and ancient, and the same condition exists in Judaism and Christianity. Were it not so, there would be no Suni, Shiite, or Amadiyahs, etc, no Orthodox, Liberal or Reform, etc, no Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Methodist, etc. etc. etc.
Although Christianity gets the trophy for the largest number of discrete cults, Judaism and Islam also have fundamental divisions, and to deny it is disingenuous.
MRGANITE
Wa'alaikum Asalaam (Peace be upon to you too).
I guess it's my fault i did not expliand my post clear enough, sorry for that.
No, i am not denying the facts, yes there are different groups of people in Islam, but those braches are created by the people after the death of Prophet, the newest branch (as far as i know) is the nation of Islam (developed during the civil war), where probably you know better then me the exact story behind the Nation of Islam and the reason Malcolm X (was suspended first) left the organization when he found out what the real Islam is.
Where, can say the second main branch is Islam is Shiite, which was developed after the death of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), that group of people wanted Ali (the cousin and son in law of Prophet) to be the next leader, where when the Prophet was very sick he told Abu-Baker to lead the prayer, which was clearned enough message that He wanted Abu-Baker to be the leader (Caliph), so after Abut-baker there was Omer then Uthman and then Ali (there must be more info about that). Conflicts begin there and created another goupd. I think there is difference between the Shahda also for Shiite it is as "I testity that there is no god but God, Mohammad(PBUH) is the Messanger of God and Ali is the Friend of God" which make a huge difference. where sunnis group it is " I testity that there is no god but God, Mohammad(PBUH) is the Messanger of God" and it is the same as Prophed Muhammed used to say.
I think i slipped out of track. Anyway there was no branch when the Prophet was alive so there should be any but yet there are many.
My mind (which won't make different to anybody) says, when Prophet did not had anything like that then why we created them by ourselves and fighting with each for no reason.
I think it's same thing with other religions one or another way.
Morganite, I have a question for you. Do you believe that a good person, Moslem, Buddhist, Jewish, etc. has everlasting life in Heaven, Paradise, or elsewhere? You testify to being a Christian, right?
Morganite, I have a question for you. Do you believe that a good person, Moslem, Buddhist, Jewish, etc. has everlasting life in Heaven, Paradise, or elsewhere? You testify to being a Christian, right?
It is my belief that each person will be judged against whatever light is in him. So, yes, I do believe that God will reward good persons for the good they do in this world irrespective of whether they are one thing or another.
It is easy for some in their theological phantasising to forget that God is the father of us all and that all humanity are descended from a pair of common parents, each of whom is created by God is his image and who he desires to save.
M
Quote:
Originally Posted by hadi88
Wa'alaikum Asalaam (Peace be upon to you too).
I guess it's my fault i did not expliand my post clear enough, sorry for that.
No, i am not denying the facts, yes there are different groups of people in Islam, but those braches are created by the people after the death of Prophet, the newest branch (as far as i know) is the nation of Islam (developed during the civil war), where probably you know better then me the exact story behind the Nation of Islam and the reason Malcolm X (was suspended first) left the organization when he found out what the real Islam is.
Where, can say the second main branch is Islam is Shiite, which was developed after the death of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), that group of people wanted Ali (the cousin and son in law of Prophet) to be the next leader, where when the Prophet was very sick he told Abu-Baker to lead the prayer, which was clearned enough message that He wanted Abu-Baker to be the leader (Caliph), so after Abut-baker there was Omer then Uthman and then Ali (there must be more info about that). Conflicts begin there and created another goupd. I think there is difference between the Shahda also for Shiite it is as "I testity that there is no god but God, Mohammad(PBUH) is the Messanger of God and Ali is the Friend of God" which make a huge difference. where sunnis group it is " I testity that there is no god but God, Mohammad(PBUH) is the Messanger of God" and it is the same as Prophed Muhammed used to say.
I think i slipped out of track. Anyway there was no branch when the Prophet was alive so there should be any but yet there are many.
My mind (which won't make different to anybody) says, when Prophet did not had anything like that then why we created them by ourselves and fighting with each for no reason.
I think it's same thing with other religions one or another way.
Hadi88
Peace,
Whatever the history, the divisions are there and have to be taken into account. You mention Sheik Uthman, who had (almost all) all variants of al Qur'an collected and burned to establish what he considered to be the single authentic text.
As is well known, slight variations in sacred texts when followed to their logical conclusions can lead people far apart, which is one of the main difficulties facing Bible scholars, and I do not doubt that Qur'anic scholars are similarly exercised.
Who is able to say with any degree of scientific certaintly (as opposed to the certainty of religious faith) that the Qur'an in Arabic as widely accepted throughout Islam today is exactly the same as when it left the lips of the Prophet? Because the original text has either perished or been lost, it is not possible to refer to it as an authority in modern discussions by discrete groups of Muslims, which is precisely the problem that faces both Jew and Christian. There exists no original monograph of any part of the Bible, Hebrew or Greek, although there are variants. In the case of the Gospel of Mark there are over 2,400 variant readings. Even if the differences are not great, the fact that they exist at all makes reference to an authoritative version impossible.
Yet each Torah and Bible scholar has his or her preferences, prejudices, personal interpretations, translations, and understandings, and that is where they begin to separate in some way or other. How can anyone be sure that the words out of the mouth of Moshe are the words he actually uttered? How can anyone be sure that the words of Jesus recorded in the Greek scriptures are his ipissima verba? How can anyone be sure that the words written in al Qur'an are as they were when they were delivered to Mohammed?
Faith can supply the answers to these questions, but seldom with universal agreement, and that is where we came in - almost. We actually came in on the subject of the name of God, but you already have my feelings on that.
It is my belief that each person will be judged against whatever light is in him. So, yes, I do believe that God will reward good persons for the good they do in this world irrespective of whether they are one thing or another.
It is easy for some in their theological phantasising to forget that God is the father of us all and that all humanity are descended from a pair of common parents, each of whom is created by God is his image and who he desires to save.
M
Thank you for clarifying your position. However, if your theology is correct, then the crucifixion of Jesus Christ was pointless, and the original Apostles and Paul were fools to lay down their lives for the Gospel. I do apologize for pulling this thread away from its original intent.
Thank you for clarifying your position. However, if your theology is correct, then the crucifixion of Jesus Christ was pointless, and the original Apostles and Paul were fools to lay down their lives for the Gospel. I do apologize for pulling this thread away from its original intent.
I will not ask you to explain how you take such meanings from what I have written. You make statements that have nothing whatsoever to do with what I wrote.
Perhaps you will explain how God will judge those who act right according to the light that is in them, but who might not have even heard of Jesus. Are the Jivaro all going to Hell because they did not become Christians? Are all Jews Hell-bound because they are not Christians? Is every person who lived before Jesus was born going to Hell because they were not Christians?
My thology is based on a loving, just, and merciful God who will do as he promises to do in the Old and New Testaments. I refute any version of God that makes him a despotic bloodthirsty tyrant who delights in sending people to Hell for something over which they had no control.
Let me set a question to you that was once set by Dr. S. Parkes Cadman, once a famous radio preacher and former president of the Federated Council of Churches of America, over the radio for millions of listeners:
Question -- What, in your opinion, becomes of those souls who in this life had no opportunity of accepting or rejecting the truth as it is found in the Gospels?
Answer -- Those who never heard the name of Jesus since human beings first appeared on the earth constitute the vast majority who have lived and died here. Moreover, hundreds of millions now living are in the same condition. Imagination cannot conceive their endless array.
Even today multitudes exist in Christian lands who because of the circumstances of their birth and upbringing are almost as ignorant of the New Testament faith as were the ancient Greeks who never heard of Christ. Think also of the host of innocent children who pass on before arriving at conscious responsibility for their own lives.
Even when dimly understood, your question would be unbearably oppressive if none except those who have intelligently and voluntarily believed in Christ are hereafter admitted to the Divine Presence. If as we are taught to believe, the incalculable myriads of human beings who have occupied, or, now occupy this life, exist for eternity, and must spend it somewhere, how can we limit the redemptive efficacy of divine love to the brief span of man's mortal existence here?
Consider the issue as it affects the fate of those near and dear to you. Then apply its significance to all mankind. It is our consolation and hope that since God is the Father of us all, not one soul is lost to His sight, and none because of less importance to Him. "His mercy endureth forever." The creeds which confine the operations of that mercy to the life that now is do injustice to its saving virtue, and injure the cause in behalf of which they were set up.
I could be wrong but where is it that said Jesus died for the Christians? I thought he died for all of us and didn't put any conditions on it either.
Personally, I don't think he died for any of us, in the sense that his death was necessary to convince God to forgive our sins and be reconciled to us. But that's another thread.
In this time of "politically correct" it seems that there is a general good feel attitude about religion. "You're OK, I'm OK" pretty well expresses it. Folks say it doesn't matter how you serve God, because we are all His children. I submit for your consideration this: the God of the Bible is not the same as Allah. Discussion anyone?
I could be wrong but where is it that said Jesus died for the Christians? I thought he died for all of us and didn't put any conditions on it either.
You make two extremely interesting observations. 1.) For whose benefit Christ died, and 2.) what is required of a person to receive the proffered benefit.
The Bible says that the atonement of Jesus Christ brings about a universal salvation, a universal redemption, which is extended to everyone. Jesus says as much when he gives the motivation behind God’s act of sending his Son into the world to be the sacrificial Lamb.
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.”
The whosoever gives the lie to the false theology that says God has predetermined some to be Heaven bound and others to be Hell bound, and that no matter what any member of each group does they can in no way escape their fate. I cannot accept that, because the Bible does not accept it. Yet with equal passion I reject the unbiblical teaching of sola fides.
I recall the story told by Motley in his “Rise of the Dutch Republic.” When Christianity was taken to the tribes of Europe, Radbod, a Frisian chief, was apparently converted and ready for baptism, but just before the ceremony was to commence he asked, "Where are my dead forefathers at present?"
Bishop Wolfran unwisely and ignorantly replied, "In hell, with all other unbelievers,"
"Mighty well," said the heathen chieftain, "then will I rather feast with my ancestors in the halls of Woden, than with your little starveling band of Christians in heaven."
I believe that you are quite right that the salvation of Jesus Christ is a gift to all, but with the rider that they do have to be obedient to his teachings. That is not a great or onerous price to pay for what is offered, nor should it be denied to those who have lived and died, as Radbod’s ancestors, without knowledge of Jesus and his atonement.
John Milton in “On His Blindness” asks the question, “Doth God exact day labour, light denied?”
The poet’s question strikes at the heart of whether God is a perfect and just God, or whether he is heartless and cruel as some errant theologians have painted him. We might well ask if God loves the world, as Jesus declared, then why does he not love everyone enough to make their salvation possible? The Bible teaches that he both does love all his children (Hebrews 9.12) and that he has made their salvation possible, whether in the world or out of it.
As to the notion of sola fide, that is the belief that salvation comes to those who do nothing more than call on the name of the Lord, accepting him as their saviour and redeemer. Although there is little if anything that a man can do towards his own salvation, he can willingly enter into the embrace of the Lord and be saved, but he has to be obedient.
God has said that he will “[Shew] mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.”
Why did Jesus ask, “Why do you call me Lord, but do not do as I command you?” if Christians are not to obey him?
The Lord’s brother, James, said, “You believe in God, and that is good. However, devils also believe in God, yet they tremble.” Believing in God and remaining devilish did not save the devils, and neither will it save any man.
The author of Hebrews wrote: “Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered, and being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him” Plain words.
Jesus confirmed: [i]“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” [/ISo Jesus himnself says that calling him‘Lord’ is not the only requirement to our obtaining salvation.
In what is called The Great Commission, Jesus charged the apostles: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Note that salvation or damnation followed rejecting Jesus only when their hearers had heard. There is no mention of the damnation of those who had not heard of Jesus. If no one has heard of Jesus, how could they reject him?
Paul asked some important questions that touch directly on this subject: “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?” To Paul, 'no hearing of Jesus' meant 'no condemnation.' Paul clearly understood that a man would not be judged an unbeliever unless he had been exposed to the apostolic kerygma. Anything less would be unjustly harsh.
But of those who have had a proper opportunity to acknowledge Jesus, their situation changes. Yet their situation is not automatically to be hoisted to heaven by doing nothing more than uttering the name of Jesus and accepting him as their saviour.
Unless a person is truly touched by the Holy Spirit they might never recognise Jesus as the Son of God. This imposes a serious and unavoidable responsibility on the shoulders of those who undertake to represent Jesus to unbelievers. Hostile advances including threats of eternal damnation, hellfire, and unspeakable depredations do not soften hearts that are closed to receive the good news. Yet that is what we see almost daily, even in this forum, by some hard-right Christians whose pronouncements do more harm than good because their effect is to put peoples’ backs up, not to warm them to open their hearts and minds.
It is my belief that such are not inspired by the Holy Spirit, nor by God, or by Jesus, or by anything other than a desire to foist a twisted message on those whom they regularly offend.
The Great Commission did not include instruction to go out into the world and insult and browbeat unbelievers until they submitted to the message of Christianity. They were sent to represent the God of love in the way of love through the example of love.
Being a Christian, whether clergy or laity, involves conformity to the teachings of Jesus, not mere lip service to them. It is necessary it represent Jesus and his message in the same way that he did. The rich young man that would not follow him nevertheless caused Jesus to love him. “Jesus beholding him loved him…” Jesus did not cause offence to anyone, even when some took offence at him.
Of those who drove the cruel nails through his hands and feet he asked his Father to “ … forgive them, because they know not what they do.” Even in his extreme pain, he did not become brutal or hostile. He did not cures his tormentors with threats of everlasting fire, but meekly asked his Father to forgive them, having already forgiven them because they acted in ignorance of who he really was. Will God be less forgiving, will Jesus, of those who do not know him as their Lord and Saviour?
To his Christian disciples, Jesus said: "If ye love me, keep my commandments." And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever. even the Spirit of Truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you."
By these words Jesus promises the Holy Spirit – the Spirit of Truth – to those believers - Christians - who observe to keep his commandments.
There is a simplicity about God and Jesus and Christianity that is often obscured or lost to view by emphasising the wrong things about them, and these become barriers to belief, and stumbling blocks set in the way of faith, to the detriment of the whole human family.
<br>
Linear Mode
