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 don't think it's a valid question.

I, as a Catholic Christian, have no problem using an Arabic name for God, that is, Allah.

But... I do NOT agree with Islam's description/explanation of what God has revealed to man.

The name of God a person uses depends on which holy book they accept as divinely inspired scripture. The idea that there is and necessarily must be one and ONLY ONE true scripture, and one and ONLY ONE correct interpretation of that scripture is the source of countless religious wars, feuds, fights and arguments. I hope this isn't the start of another one.

God, or Jesus or any other English name is just merely that, an English name, The translations go into 1000's of various langauges.

So in disussion of the use of the word... for God,there are many.

What makes the difference is if you are referring to the God of the bible, or the god of the Quran or the god in other beleifs.

Now as far as if the Christian God is the Muslim God that is a highly debated issue. Many believe it is, since it has a lot of reference to Christianity. One has to remember that although it was a schrismatic sect of Christianity in the area where the Quran was writte, there were groups of Christians there, and the faith they practiced is expressed directly in the Quran, the teachings of Mary and the virgin birth but also the belief that Jesus did not really die and that Jesus was not really god.

So for many Chrsitian scholars it is simple, that this is the same god, since many of the writings of the Quran were taken directly from Christianity.

Now then if you believe that the writings were actually inspired by a god, then one can not accept that they are the same as the Christian God since their teachings are against the teachings and beleifs of the Christian faith.
Many of that idea follow the god in the Quran to a moon god, but I am not up completely on that teachings since I am a follower of the first belief that the writer of the Quran used many parts of the local christian teachings as a base for the writings,

To rishy39, The people that say you are a child of God are just doing what there God told them to do, so when you tell them to worship on their own that is what they are doing which includes trying to show you the ways of God, hoping you will accept it and become a believer. If they did not do this they would not be fulfilling their promise to God.

Actually yes the entire idea that everyone is a "son of god" is not bibical for Christinaity, since those that don't accept Christ and follow him are not sons of God

Romans 8:14 because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God

Gallations 3:25 to 27 26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

Muhammed is a dead, self proclaimed prophet, Jesus is a living Savior. I guess the god of Islam couldn't pull that one off. You know, the risen from the dead thing. I think that makes the two different, very different! If you do not think Jesus arose from the dead, then you need to become a follower of Islam, since they don't think he did either.
"They slew him not nor crucified, but it appeared so unto them." (Surah 4:157) Quran

I don't think Allah is the same as God. Allah may mean god in Arabic but it's not the same God. I think a lot of Muslims probably don't know much about their religion to question a great deal about Mohammed. I think these Muslims were just born into their religion & believe if their parents tell them that Allah is the same as the Biblical God, they just believe that too.
Could Allah's name have come from.. www.biblebelievers.org.au/moongod.htm

I don't think Allah is the same as God. Allah may mean god in Arabic but it's not the same God. I think a lot of Muslims probably don't know much about their religion to question a great deal about Mohammed. I think these Muslims were just born into their religion & believe if their parents tell them that Allah is the same as the Biblical God, they just believe that too.
Could Allah's name have come from......?www.biblebelievers.org.au/moongod.htm (http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/moongod.htm)

Nope,

The name's of the Arab moon-gods were; Wadd, `Amm, Sin, Il Mukah & Aksum. Allah is a contraction of the Southern Semitic Al-ilah which simply means "The God." I refer you to the following site (http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Allah/moongod.html)

Ray McIntyre
Priest
Anglican Church International

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?

Until just recently I thought that Moslems did direct their worship to the God described in the Hebrew Scriptures. But then I came across the Islamic claim that the Hebrew scriptures were tampered with and that the Koran is the correct guide.

BTW
I bet that if these same people who smugly say all religions are OK and that God doesn't care what we believe and how we worship were having their still-beating-hearts ripped out of their chests by religiously fanatical Aztec priests they wouldn't be singing that "all-religions-are-OK" jingle.

I don't know anyone (certainly no one posting to this thread) who believes that "all religions are OK". Some are obviously worse than others, and the truly gruesome ones usually die out on their own. There probably aren't many Aztecs practicing human sacrifice any more.

However, there is one teaching that is shared by almost (but not quite) all religions, and that is the claim to be the only true and right religion, specially designated by God (or Allah, or Whomever) to convert all the heathens and unbelievers of the world to the one TRUE religion. This common shared belief is the source of untold suffering, cruelty and injustice. But those who hold it are blind to both the commonality of it, and its woeful consequences. Apparently the temptation to embrace beliefs that make us feel specially favored and superior to others is almost overwhelming.

Personally I belong to the free-thinkers group.

I have done lots of research on religions in the past. I have read quite a few books that all say the same thing about the difference between Christian God and Allah. Here is a passage that I hope will be helpful.
"Muslims have "99 beautiful names" for Allah (which they memorize), and each one describes one of Allah's characteristics. You might be surprised to learn that love is absent from this long list of character qualities. The Qur'an doesn't describe Allah as loving. His character is defined more in terms of judgment than by grace, and in terms of power rather than mercy.
This isn't to say, however, that Allah doesn't love. He loves those who do good (meaning that they do good deeds and adhere to the required daily practices of the Five Pillars). But Allah does not love the person whose bad deeds outweigh the good things he or she has done.
The attribute of love is a huge difference between Allah and the God of Judaism and Christianity. That's why it is incorrect to believe that Allah and God are the same deity but are simply known by two different names, depending upon whether you sitting in a mosque or a church. Allah of the Qur'an only loves those he deems to be good; the God of the Bible lobes all humanity, none of whom are basically good.
If anyone ever asks whether there is a difference between Allah and God, tell them love is the answer."
Another big difference is the relationship between the two Gods and their followers. Christians believe that God is immanent, that he exists within the world and human nature. Where as Muslims believe that a person can never "know" Allah, but that He will make his wishes known. They also do not try to know Allah because He can't be known, so he remains distant and mysterious.

Passage from World Religions & Cults 101 by Bruce Bickel and Stan Jantz

Nope,

The name's of the Arab moon-gods were; Wadd, `Amm, Sin, Il Mukah & Aksum. Allah is a contraction of the Southern Semitic Al-ilah which simply means "The God." I refer you to the following site (http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Allah/moongod.html)

Ray McIntyre
Priest
Anglican Church International


Well kiwimac, I didn't take the "moongod" that seriously either. However, I do not believe Mohammed was a true prophet. He claimed some visions & revelations from God then the Qur'an was written. NOT that my 1st husband was a Muslim do I hold an opinion (he certainly thought Allah was God) But after reading about Mohammed, I don't believe one man's imagination is credible to claim it as a true religion. In addition, Allah's attributes are different from the Abrahamic God.
So here's some more balance:
True History of Islam, Mohammed and the Koran (http://www.bibleprobe.com/muhammad.htm)

Well, they should commit to something that is less invasive. If their god tell the to prostletyze, well, what a bummer for those of us who disagree and must listen to, sometimes ad nauseum, and see their prostletyzations everywhere. Like I said, religion is a problem, for me, and many others. That the religious feel more bound to please their god than their fellow man is problematic to me.

Car salesmen try to sell cars, because they are committed, Realtors try to sell houses because they are committed, insurance agents try to sell insurance because they are committed. Christians try to sell Jesus to you because they are trying to make you understand the fact that there is an afterlife, and they are so driven by their faith in the word that they want you to have that choice also.

Well kiwimac, I didn't take the "moongod" that seriously either. However, I do not believe Mohammed was a true prophet. He claimed some visions & revelations from God then the Qur'an was written. NOT that my 1st husband was a Muslim do I hold an opinion (he certainly thought Allah was God) But after reading about Mohammed, I don't believe one man's imagination is credible to claim it as a true religion. In addition, Allah's attributes are different from the Abrahamic God.
So here's some more balance:
True History of Islam, Mohammed and the Koran (http://www.bibleprobe.com/muhammad.htm)

The most I can say about that site is "interesting." Any site whose first question about ANYONE is "Terrorist or Prophet" loses me fairly quickly. There are far more balanced sites out there, HOME PAGE: Web site of the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance (http://www.religioustolerance.org) is one

kiwimac

Side note: People should not rely on Anti-Islam Websites to learn about Islam.

The above link is NOT a fair and balanced "true history of Islam".

Car salesmen try to sell cars, because they are commited, Realators try to sell houses because they are commited, insurance agents try to sell insurance because they are commited. Christians try to sell Jesus to you because they are trying to make you understand the fact that there is an afterlife, and they are so driven by their faith in the word that they want you to have that choice also.


The key word there is "Choice".


I don't know anyone (certainly no one posting to this thread) who believes that "all religions are OK". Some are obviously worse than others, and the truly gruesome ones usually die out on their own. There probably aren't many Aztecs practicing human sacrifice any more.

However, there is one teaching that is shared by almost (but not quite) all religions, and that is the claim to be the only true and right religion, specially designated by God (or Allah, or Whomever) to convert all the heathens and unbelievers of the world to the one TRUE religion. This common shared belief is the source of untold suffering, cruelty and injustice. But those who hold it are blind to both the commonality of it, and its woeful consequences. Apparently the temptation to embrace beliefs that make us feel specially favored and superior to others is almost overwhelming.

I was referring to the statement posted by the person who asked the question where he states that today political correctness requires that we say that all other people's religions are OK. So assuming that scenario I gave the Aztec hypothetical situation.


Actually, as strange as it might seem, I have repeatedly come across the concept that all religious roads lead to God. I think that it's a platitude stated to convey religious tolerance and really isn't given much thought. If it were, then the statement wouldn't be used so frequently since it is obviously absurd.


About gruesome religions dying out on their own, when the Spaniards arrived in Mexico human sacrifice for religious purposes had been practiced for centuries and instead of diminishing had intensified under the Aztecs. It took a gruesome military campaign to put an end to it. Is that what you mean by dying out on its own?

About gruesome religions dying out on their own, when the Spaniards arrived in Mexico human sacrifice for religious purposes had been practiced for centuries and instead of diminishing had intensified under the Aztecs. It took a gruesome military campaign to put an end to it. Is that what you mean by dying out on its own?
Yeah, I guess I should have said "die out on their own or are defeated in a fight to the death with other similarly gruesome adversaries".


Christians try to sell Jesus to you because they are trying to make you understand the fact that there is an afterlife, and they are so driven by their faith in the word that they want you to have that choice also.
Rishy is right. If there is an afterlife, it can only be a fact to those who have already died. To the rest of us, it can be a hope, a hypothesis, and a belief, but not a fact. Trying to "sell Jesus" as a way to make somebody accept your belief as a fact is not salesmanship, it's arrogance.

letmetellu wrote: "Christians try to sell Jesus to you because they are trying to make you understand the fact that there is an afterlife..."

Here is the problem I, and other atheists have with proselytizing. In the quote above you say the afterlife is a fact. Sorry, it is NOT. It is your belief. Nothing more. Don't try to sell something as fact when it is not. False advertising. Please, stop acting like you have something on the rest of us. All you have is a belief that is unprovable, and from what I can see, also damaging to relationships between members of the same society.

As Americans, we need to leave our religion at home. The public spaces are not christian, and you cannot make them so (though I believe that is what you want. But, it is just my belief, I no way to prove it.).

I am very concerned about our country devolving. Your Christianizing of the country is not helping!

I didn't hear anyone here directly try to witness to you. And doesn't visiting the RELIGION category on a forum require someone to anticipate a certain amount of Religious tolerance?
Religion IS left at home and church.
The majority of Americans believe in God. If doomsday comes tomorrow- That's why He will save us(or his)
But that's OK, you have a free will not to believe.

OK. Back to topic would be good now. :)

My issue with some of the comments is that this thread is about Allah and God and the use of those words as being the same person or god.

While many threads wonder, I would ask why someone who is a atheist would get into the discussion since they don't believe in either as being real at all. They have no input as to this discussion, it was not a discussion if they are real, or if you should believe, or if you should be preaching about them.

And honestly after a couple private messages they are obviously done with some anti religious feelings almost to the point of being a set up for a agruement.

I would ask that if you wish to discuss if God is real, start your own thread on that, or find one already in the works. If you wish to add to the ongoing discussion of Allah and God, and even how the various religions have reached their translations of the words, fine,

I perhaps should have moved these to a new post, which is a fine discussion that I would love to see from time to time, but not on an existing post please, lets keep the post slightly more directed

letmetellu wrote: "Christians try to sell Jesus to you because they are trying to make you understand the fact that there is an afterlife..."

Here is the problem I, and other atheists have with proselytizing. In the quote above you say the afterlife is a fact. Sorry, it is NOT. It is your belief. Nothing more. Don't try to sell something as fact when it is not. False advertising. Please, stop acting like you have something on the rest of us. All you have is a belief that is unprovable, and from what I can see, also damaging to relationships between members of the same society.

As Americans, we need to leave our religion at home. The public spaces are not christian, and you cannot make them so (though I believe that is what you want. But, it is just my belief, I no way to prove it.).

I am very concerned about our country devolving. Your Christianizing of the country is not helping!

I know it is a choice and it is what I believe, I also know what you believe or at least what you don't believe. But someday in the future you will hope that I am wrong for if I am right where does that leave you.

God/Allah, same thing, but leave it to us stupid humans to argue about it.

In the discussion so far, something needs to be pointed out: Allah has no Son. In fact, I believe that most Muslims would say that the very idea is repugnant to them. However, there is little valid argument that the God of the Bible does indeed have a son, one Jesus of Nazareth, and that He Loved the world so much that He sent that Son to bring salvation to us and sealed the promise by raising Jesus from the dead.

In the discussion so far, something needs to be pointed out: Allah has no Son. In fact, I believe that most Muslims would say that the very idea is repugnant to them. However, there is little valid argument that the God of the Bible does indeed have a son, one Jesus of Nazareth, and that He Loved the world so much that He sent that Son to bring salvation to us and sealed the promise by raising Jesus from the dead.

Little vaid argument?

Considerable argument! Including the words of the Book Muslim hold sacred.

But if you look ( not defending Islam of course) but they have a comparison, in the end, there is a person or spirit of light that is looked for.

I have always when trying to discuss Christianity with people from Islam, say could this light not be Jesus, or the Son of God.

And actually in Christianity for several hundred years, there was some debate if Jesus was the true Son of God, or merely a son in a more general term used and picked by God for the mission of salvation, and even a few groups that viewed Jesus the man as being saved somehow at the last minute, ( the same basic teachings as found in the Quran)

The idea and acceptance that Christ was the Son of God is now fairly universally accepted for Christians. ( and I say fairly, since I don't know every denomination and their teachings, I know some don't accept the trinity)

But that was actually part of one of the Churches Synods and voted on, and declared the rule, But there were early sects normally rejected by main stream that did have other teachings.


Little vaid argument?

Considerable argument! Including the words of the Book Muslim hold sacred.


In his context, he said, ( God of the Bible) so according to the Bible, not according to the Quran or other writings, And according to the bible and according to church doctrine, there is little argument today.

According to the Quran or according to a Buddhist, or other faith that does not accept the teachings of the bible, then in general there is not an argument only a disagreement on which if any writtings are true and valid.
For that belief, in which is true, hinges the major issue.

But personally, I have always related Allah and God, even in the context of Islam and Christianity as being the same God, there are many who will agrue they are not. All of these people who believe either way are fine people, who are trained in bible study much more than I am, and both sides present great view points.

So I guess in the end, I have to ask, to the Christian does it matter if Islam believes it is the same God or not. And to Islam does it matter if a Christian believes it is the same God or not. To each there are so many other teaching ideas that separate us, I am not sure if this one is ever agreeable to the majority of either group.

And of course to those that don't believe in either religion, to them it does not matter at all, since both are false in their belief.

Now I will throw this addition out for an idea, if someone who does not believe in either, that means they rate both as false, does this make them the same, in their mind, since they are false, or are they two separate false gods in their mind? Or if they don't believe do they care

The Bible is not the Quran. Yaweh is not Allah. Christians are not Muslims. Atheists are not believers. This discussion is not interesting.

In the discussion so far, something needs to be pointed out: Allah has no Son. In fact, I believe that most Muslims would say that the very idea is repugnant to them. However, there is little valid argument that the God of the Bible does indeed have a son, one Jesus of Nazareth, and that He Loved the world so much that He sent that Son to bring salvation to us and sealed the promise by raising Jesus from the dead.

I'm not sure what you mean by "little valid argument".


Here are some of those whom the scriptures call sons of God:

1. Angels

Job 1:
6Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

2. Perfect humans such as Adam
Luke 3:38 (Genealogy of Jesus)... "the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God."

3. His only begotten Son Jesus or the Word as he was referred to in heaven before coming to Earth.

Luke 1:34-35
"How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?" The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God."

1 John 4:13-15
We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God.

4. Redeemed humans who are spiritually begotten via the operation of holy spirit.
Romans 8:14
... ", because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God."

The following website provides more examples
:Son of God (http://www.cultureshocksolution.org/public_html/sons%20of%20God.htm)

So I guess all these scriptures would be unacceptable from an Islamic viewpoint.

In order to answer the original question more directly, we have to ask ourselves just what it is that differentiates us from one another. Isn't it appearance and personality? Yet identical twins aren't considered the same person. In fact, that applies to everything else that might be visually identical. So even if the entity which Islam and Christianity referred to as God were identical in appearance, power, or anything other than personality, they still wouldn't be the same God due to differences in actual personalities or in the way which the personalities are described.

So you have very effectively, in my view, answered your own question by describing Allah as a God who doesn't offer sonship and Jehovah as a God who does.

I submit for your consideration this: the God of the Bible is not the same as Allah. Discussion anyone?

In the discussion so far, something needs to be pointed out: Allah has no Son. In fact, I believe that most Muslims would say that the very idea is repugnant to them. However, there is little valid argument that the God of the Bible does indeed have a son, one Jesus of Nazareth, and that He Loved the world so much that He sent that Son to bring salvation to us and sealed the promise by raising Jesus from the dead.

So I guess all these scriptures would be unacceptable from an Islamic viewpoint.
Well, Duh!


So you have very effectively, in my view, answered your own question by describing Allah as a God who doesn't offer sonship and Jehovah as a God who does.
It seems that the only point to the original post and all the pro-God anti-Allah commentary since, is to cheer for Christianity and the Bible and denigrate Islam and the Quran. This attitude has more in common with sports fans cheering their own team and bad-mouthing their opponents than with constructive dialogue between sincere people of faith. It doesn't contribute to understanding between Christians and Muslims, and it invites the scorn of unbelievers. If those results are satisfying to you, cheer on, I guess.

Reminds me of the arguments in my old neighborhood, between the Bear fans and the Packer fans, but there were 6 Bear fans, and 1 Packer fan. Bear fans always won the arguments, no matter the Packers would win the game. Not a lot of those who follow Allah weighed in, so this was so lopsided that the similarities could not be put forth, but a lot of negativity by the Christian crew sure buried the other side. Similar to life I suspect, but so sad that people would be so closed minded because of their doctrines. Doctrines notwhitstanding, I think its all about semantics.

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?

And what a surprise it is that the topic did turnout to go for political correctness!
A RELIGIOUS debate turned pure SECULAR.
Wow, maybe there will be more Muslims debating the question, since there wasn't much feedback so far from them.

Fr_Chuck agrees: Both sides Christianity and Islam both don't accept the teachings of the other, there is no place for mutual grounds since each believes the other is false.Correct me if I am wrong but isn't this the view of all different religions (not just Christianity and Islam)? That all others are false?

Yes most, not up on some of the middle eastern or some that are more accepting of everyone and everything

But since this post was directly referring to Allah and God as in the Christian God the reference was made as to the information in the thread, not wanting to include other religions not mentioned in the link or other religions I have no firm info on.

Not a lot of those who follow Allah weighed in, so this was so lopsided that the similarities could not be put forth, but a lot of negativity by the Christian crew sure buried the other side.

Wow, maybe there will be more Muslims debating the question, since there wasn't much feedback so far from them.
Can you blame them? You'd have to be "a suicider" to willingly throw yourself into a den of ferocious Christian lions. If I was a devout and moderate Muslim, I'd lay low too, like a Packers fan in Chicago.


Doctrines notwhitstanding, I think its all about semantics.
To those of us who aren't entrenched on either side, it's about semantics, but to the true believers on both sides, it's about TRUTH and LIES, GOOD and EVIL. To call it semantics is to show that you're really on the side of EVIL in the EPIC STUGGLE OF THE AGES, not to mention being "politically correct" <shudder>.

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?
To each his own. And why not? I will hazard a guess that your 'God of the Bible' is not the same 'God of the Bible' that other Bible believers find in the Bible and worship.

Although Muslims have borrowed a lot of text from the Hebrew and Greek Bibles they are generally more at odds with the character and attributes of the Christian God than they are with the Jewish God. There is a dichotomy between Jewish and Christian theology that is not reducible to a common understanding. Many Christians find it difficult to reconcile much of the behaviour and pronouncements of the OT God with the Christ-in-God - or God-in-Christ - of the NT.

Nevertheless, as you are probably aware, this is a subject that has generated a lot of heat and a little light, and is far from settled.

For example: The Muslim God has no Son. The Christian Allah has a Son. I'd say that therein lies a significant difference that cannot be resolved unless and until either the Muslims admit they are wrong, or else the Christians admit that they are wrong. I predict the continual theological version of a Mexican stand-off.

M:)RGANITE

To call it semantics is to show that you're really on the side of EVIL in the EPIC STUGGLE OF THE AGES
My wife already used this line on me Friday night when I wanted some nooky. Guess who won that struggle?:D

I don't think it's a valid question.

I, as a Catholic Christian, have no problem using an Arabic name for God, that is, Allah.

But...I do NOT agree with Islam's description/explanation of what God has revealed to man.


The question is certainly valid. Perhaps it calls for a greater depth of the attributes and characteristics of each - Jewish God Christiand God and Muslim God - but that is the challenge of a Q&A forum such as this. Thus, it encourages us to stretch ourselves and learn more, even when the invitation calls us to wander into terra incognito.

The question probes much deeper than merely accepting or rejecting the language used to name God eg: God or Allah or Yahveh or El, etc, it goes right to the heart of who and what God is according to each faith.

Muslims are strictly monotheistic, whereas most Christians are less so, which is a cause of contention between Muslims and Christians. Muslims insist that Allah has no Son. Christians insist that Allah has a Son.


The name of God a person uses depends on which holy book they accept as divinely inspired scripture. The idea that there is and necessarily must be one and ONLY ONE true scripture, and one and ONLY ONE correct interpretation of that scripture is the source of countless religious wars, feuds, fights and arguments. I hope this isn't the start of another one.

I note what you say, and agree with you. How fortunate that all we can get to blows with in this forum are words.

M:)RGANITE

Muslims are strictly monotheistic, whereas most Christians are less so

??
How someone could think that, I have no clue. Christianity is absolutely a monotheistic religion.

I know of no group that calls itself Christian, with the exception of Mormons, that professes anything but monotheism.

Do you?

Lashing out because I disagree.

Absolutely!

Claiming belief as fact. Seems dangerous

Way too hostile and arrogant

Arrogant

Well, Duh!!


It seems that the only point to the original post and all the pro-God anti-Allah commentary since, is to cheer for Christianity and the Bible and denigrate Islam and the Quran. This attitude has more in common with sports fans cheering their own team and bad-mouthing their opponents than with constructive dialogue between sincere people of faith. It doesn't contribute to understanding between Christians and Muslims, and it invites the scorn of unbelievers. If those results are satisfying to you, cheer on, I guess.


Telling the differences between two religions constitutes cheering for one and bad-mouthing denigration of one or the other? Please point out where in my post I denigrated Islam. Actually, the essence of what you are saying is don't discuss the subject forcing me to remind you respectfully that this is a discussion forum


BTW
As much as I try to see the point of the original post as having the malicious intent you accuse it of having, I just can't detect it. All I see is a person seeking a discussion. Maybe we aren't reading the same original post.

As for scorning, scoffing, or mocking from unbelievers, that's to be expected:

KJV
Jude 1:18
How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.


2TIMOTHY 3:3-4.
Knowing this first: that scoffers (mockers) will come in The Last Days, walking according to their own lust, and saying, "where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell aspleep (God's chosen prophets of old died) all things continued as they were from the beginning of creation."

As Morganite said, the question you asked is a valid one. It's the misundersandings of your question that make it seem invalid. For example, you merely asked whether Christians and Moslems worship the same God. Or whether Allah is Jehovah. But this was misunderstood as a call to Christian arms based on the following perception of your question.

"How is Jehovah better than Allah? Can you please provide examples?"

Little vaid argument?

Considerable argument! Including the words of the Book Muslim hold sacred.
kiwimac misses the point. The question is not what Muslims think of the Bible or vice versa, but are the two deities the same person by different names. By the way, why is it that some folks can't stand to be disagreed with? Calling someone arrogant or pompous is abusive. Can it be that they have no intelligent argument to offer?

Just a question to help further the discussion:
If Allah and the Christian God are the same, why would they tell two prophets (Muhammad and Jesus) to worship him in separate ways?

Does merely a name change who he is, What if in my personal relationship I feel lead to call God "NORM" is that wrong, God of the Old Testment had many names, depending on the relationship of God to man at that time, or expressing a relatonship.

We have to look past ( esp the English) words, since this language while believing it has some special control on Christianity is not, The God of the Spanish translated bible, or the Russian bible or the Greek bible or the Arabic bible are all the same God.

Does merely a name change who he is, What if in my personal relationship I feel lead to call God "NORM" is that wrong, God of the Old Testment had many names, depending on the relationship of God to man at that time, or expressing a relatonship.

We have to look past ( esp the English) words, since this language while beleiving it has some special control on Christianity is not, The God of the Spanish translated bible, or the Russian bible or the Greek bible or the Arabic bible are all the same God.

Differences of name pronunciation are irrelevant to identity. It's what the believers claim their deity requires of us that matters.

When the true aim of Islam is to convert all Christians to Islam or kill them, then you can bet some Christian folks are going to get riled. If you think this is a simple, peacfull discussion between two peacful religions then you are delusional. All I can tell you is that we need to kill them before they try to kill us and I will be the first in the trench to do just that. If Islam is such a wonderful, peaceful religion, then why don't all of the peacful ones do something to stop this mess? They do not want to simply because they all believe Christians should convert to Islam , what they call the one true religion, or die. Tell me, when did you ever hear of Christians giving them the same ultimatum? You haven't. The Christian GOD and the Islam god are not the same in the hearts of the two different believers. Now you can sit here and argue that point until hell freezes over and you will just continue to show how uninformed you truly are.

Sorry Mag, but I don't think any American Indians will go along with that considering they were heathens to be converted. The rhetoric you hear from parts of Islam are really no different than what some Christians have done in the name of God. From the Inquisition to the settling of America conversion was through killing and torture.

When the true aim of Islam is to convert all Christians to Islam or kill them, then you can bet some Christian folks are going to get riled. If you think this is a simple, peacfull discussion between two peacful religions then you are delusional. All I can tell you is that we need to kill them before they try to kill us and I will be the first in the trench to do just that.... The Christian GOD and the Islam god are not the same in the hearts of the two different believers.
If both believe that they should kill each other in the name of religion, where's the difference? Sounds exactly the same to me. Of course, the likes of magprob and the jihadis are (praise be to God/Allah) a tiny minority in both religions.

When the true aim of Islam is to convert all Christians to Islam or kill them, then you can bet some Christian folks are going to get riled. If you think this is a simple, peacfull discussion between two peacful religions then you are delusional. All I can tell you is that we need to kill them before they try to kill us and I will be the first in the trench to do just that. If Islam is such a wonderful, peaceful religion, then why don't all of the peacful ones do something to stop this mess? they do not want to simply because they all believe Christians should convert to Islam , what they call the one true religion, or die. Tell me, when did you ever hear of Christians giving them the same ultimatum? You haven't. The Christian GOD and the Islam god are not the same in the hearts of the two different believers. Now you can sit here and argue that point untill hell freezes over and you will just continue to show how uninformed you truely are.

Perhaps you might consider gently that you are wrong. I have studied Islam for over 25+ and disagree with you completely.

Perhaps you might consider gently that you are wrong. I have studied Islam for over 25+ and disagree with you completely.


So you will agree that the people who did the terrorist acts on 911 were wrong and it was terrorism or political attack, not a good thing, I just have had trouble myself finding a Muslim that would speak out against the 911 attacks and also the current killing from BOTH sides of the killings in Iraq.

I have talked to many and they see to fall short calling what their fellow Muslims did was wrong and against their faith

So I am assuming you are telling us all of the killing on 911 and all of the different sects killing each other now in Iraq is against their religious teachings ?

So you will agree that the people who did the terrorist acts on 911 were wrong and it was terrorism or political attack, not a good thing, I just have had trouble myself finding a Muslim that would speak out against the 911 attacks and also the current killing from BOTH sides of the killings in Iraq.

I have talked to many and they see to fall short calling what thier fellow Muslims did was wrong and agaisnt thier faith

So I am assuming you are telling us all of the killing on 911 and all of the different sects killing each other now in Iraq is against thier religious teachings ?

Please give me a break with the broad brush opinion, by your way of thinking all priests are pedophiles and perverts. I submit many are here in the US just to get away from what you speak of and because YOU don't know any why assume they don't exist.:mad:

No, honestly I have asked this question 100's of time, and I have never, not once had a Muslim tell them that these attacks and killing were wrong.

Sorry, you will find priests that tell you the truth about the small number and that the news shows the history going back 20 years. And that more school teachers molest than preists every year.

But I hear people say they have studed this or that, or that they are Muslim and they are peaceful but when I ask them to denouce what happened and tell me that these people were wrong, I have never had a Muslim tell me that.

When the true aim of Islam is to convert all Christians to Islam or kill them, then you can bet some Christian folks are going to get riled. If you think this is a simple, peacfull discussion between two peacful religions then you are delusional. All I can tell you is that we need to kill them before they try to kill us and I will be the first in the trench to do just that. If Islam is such a wonderful, peaceful religion, then why don't all of the peacful ones do something to stop this mess? they do not want to simply because they all believe Christians should convert to Islam , what they call the one true religion, or die. Tell me, when did you ever hear of Christians giving them the same ultimatum? You haven't. The Christian GOD and the Islam god are not the same in the hearts of the two different believers. Now you can sit here and argue that point untill hell freezes over and you will just continue to show how uninformed you truely are.



True, if I thought that Christendom and "Islamdom" ever have been or are now in good terms with one another then I would definitely be delusional and uninformed.

No, honestly I have asked this question 100's of time, and I have never, not once had a Muslim tell them that these attacks and killing were wrong.

Sorry, you will find priests that tell you the truth about the small number and that the news shows the history going back 20 years. And that more school teachers molest than preists every year.

But I hear people say they have studed this or that, or that they are Muslim and they are peaceful but when I ask them to denouce what happened and tell me that these people were wrong, I have never had a Muslim tell me that.

I have. And I know for a fact that just as there are many branches of Christendom so it is in the Muslim world. To judge another because he will not act or behave or speak as you would wish is... not good for a man of the cloth or anyone else, in my opinion.


True, if I thought that Christendom and "Islamdom" ever have been or are now in good terms with one another then I would definitely be delusional and uninformed.
To put it correctly Christians are not in tune with each other as are Muslims not in complete harmony either, so if they are differences among them, then there are bound to be differences between them. In my opinion they are both more alike than either cares to admit... As in DENIAL of the real truth... They are closely alike. None no righter than the other.

To put it correctly Christians are not in tune with each other as are Muslims not in complete harmony either, so if they are differences among them, then there are bound to be differences between them. In my opinion they are both more alike than either cares to admit............As in DENIAL of the real truth.........................They are closely alike. None no righter than the other.


First I would like to clarify:

We are not in any position to condemned anyone to eternal damnation based on his or her present beliefs. God values sincerity and understands when one is mislead and he doesn't destroy based on ignorance but gives each person a chance to make an INFORMED decision. From a Christian viewpoint that informed decision is based on the certain knowledge that Jesus died for our sins and that salvation comes only by accepting it and taking the necessary action to avail ourselves of the benefits.


About similarities and differences between and among:

True, there are certain doctrinal differences within the Christian ranks. But ultimately, all Christians acknowledge Jesus as savior and that is the unifying factor. In short, when the time comes for God to begin doctrinal clarification, Christians will not have to begin to accept Jesus-since they already have. In contrast, Buddhists, Shintoists, Moslems, and all other nonChrisatians will have to make a complete doctrinal about face.

So from a Christian standpoint, it is primarily that crucial fact--the acceptance or rejection of the Ransom Sacrifice which drastically separates Christian from Moslems.


Are we worshipping the same God? I would say that barring such practices as human sacrifices and other such obviously demonic things, it depends on how God views each person's heart. The intention might be honest and pure and it is appreciated. But the manner might need some adjustments. In his mercy God is just and it's best to let him decide that on an individual basis. But ultimately he will require that we listen to what he tells us is the WAY to worship and our reaction to that requirement will determine whether we gain eternal life.

Christians: One GOD is revealed in scripture as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Islam: There is no god but allah.

Christians:Jesus is the Son of GOD, one with the Father, sinless redeamer of sinful man through his vicarious death on the cross and resurection from the dead.

Islam: Jesus was only a man, a prophet equal to Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses, all of whom are below Muhammed in importance. Christ did not die for man's sins; in fact Judas, not Jesus, died on the cross.

Christians: Sin is proud, independent rebellion against GOD in active or passive form.

Islam: Sin is falure to do allah's will, falure to do one's religious duties as outlined in the "five pillars of faith."

Christians: Christ-GOD's Son-died for our sins (on the cross) according to the inspired
Word of GOD.

Islam: Man earns his own salvation, pays for his own sins.

I haven't studied Islam for 25 years since it took me only a few hours to see the truth.
All I am saying is that the facts represent the truth, they are very different indeed. If you are a muslem then good for you, as a matter of fact, isn't it time for you to squat facing Mecca and pray? Well, chop chop, better get to it or you know what, no twenty seven virgins for you! Oh, and by the way, if you attack my country again, I'll see you in the trenches.

I have talked to many and they see to fall short calling what thier fellow Muslims did was wrong and agaisnt thier faith

So how about you, Friar, are you willing to call what your fellow Christian magprob advocates wrong, and against the Christian faith? Or should we interpret your silence to mean that you agree?


All I can tell you is that we need to kill them before they try to kill us

First I would like to clarify:

We are not in any position to condemned anyone to eternal damnation based on his or her present beliefs. God values sincerity and understands when one is mislead and he doesn't destroy based on ignorance but gives each person a chance to make an INFORMED decision. From a Christian viewpoint that informed decision is based on the certain knowledge that Jesus died for our sins and that salvation comes only by accepting it and taking the necessary action to avail ourselves of the benefits.


About similarities and differences between and among:

True, there are certain doctrinal differences within the Christian ranks. But ultimately, all Christians acknowledge Jesus as savior and that is the unifying factor. In short, when the time comes for God to begin doctrinal clarification, Christians will not have to begin to accept Jesus-since they already have. In contrast, Buddhists, Shintoists, Moslems, and all other nonChrisatians will have to make a complete doctrinal about face.

So from a Christian standpoint, it is primarily that crucial fact--the acceptance or rejection of the Ransom Sacrifice which drastically separates Christian from Moslems.


Are we worshipping the same God? I would say that barring such practices as human sacrifices and other such obviously demonic things, it depends on how God views each person's heart. The intention might be honest and pure and it is appreciated. But the manner might need some adjustments. In his mercy God is just and it's best to let him decide that on an individual basis. But ultimately he will require that we listen to what he tells us is the WAY to worship and our reaction to that requirement will determine whether or not we gain eternal life.

And there it is there!

No, there is only one true faith, which is Christianity, and in the end as Rev and other bible prophecy tells us ( heck even the Quran tells us) there will be a final great War between beleivers and non believers, nothing can stop that day from coming.

So how about you, Friar, are you willing to call what your fellow Christian magprob advocates wrong, and against the Christian faith? Or should we interpret your silence to mean that you agree?

So you promote a passive stance yet defend Islam. That's it, I am through with this post as I see what we're up against... argument simply for the sake of argument with people ill equipped to argue. :(

Starman-First I would like to clarify:

We are not in any position to condemned anyone to eternal damnation based on his or her present beliefs. God values sincerity and understands when one is mislead and he doesn't destroy based on ignorance but gives each person a chance to make an INFORMED decision. From a Christian viewpoint that informed decision is based on the certain knowledge that Jesus died for our sins and that salvation comes only by accepting it and taking the necessary action to avail ourselves of the benefits.
That's your version and your welcome to it
About similarities and differences between and among:

True, there are certain doctrinal differences within the Christian ranks. But ultimately, all Christians acknowledge Jesus as savior and that is the unifying factor. In short, when the time comes for God to begin doctrinal clarification, Christians will not have to begin to accept Jesus-since they already have. In contrast, Buddhists, Shintoists, Moslems, and all other nonChrisatians will have to make a complete doctrinal about face.
Because one believes differently do we have to fight about it, lets do lunch, I can wear red you can wear blue. What difference does it make?

So from a Christian standpoint, it is primarily that crucial fact--the acceptance or rejection of the Ransom Sacrifice which drastically separates Christian from Moslems.
So thats an excuse to fight instead of break bread?
Are we worshipping the same God? I would say that barring such practices as human sacrifices and other such obviously demonic things, it depends on how God views each person's heart. The intention might be honest and pure and it is appreciated. But the manner might need some adjustments. In his mercy God is just and it's best to let him decide that on an individual basis. But ultimately he will require that we listen to what he tells us is the WAY to worship and our reaction to that requirement will determine whether we gain eternal life.
By your own words their is only one God so no matter the rest he will judge as he does and we can only succumb to that judgement


no, there is only one true faith, which is Christianity, and in the end as Rev and other bible prophecy tells us ( heck even the Quran tells us) there will be a final great War between beleivers and non believers, nothing can stop that day from comming.
The KORAN and the BIBLE are books, Man is FLESH, God is SPIRIT and all religions come from that. That is the only true faith. What you have going is a branch in the tree, and if you step back you would see that.


So how about you, Friar, are you willing to call what your fellow Christian magprob advocates wrong, and against the Christian faith? Or should we interpret your silence to mean that you agree?

He will not answer, Yet he expects answers from others.

No, honestly I have asked this question 100's of time, and I have never, not once had a Muslim tell them that these attacks and killing were wrong.

Sorry, you will find priests that tell you the truth about the small number and that the news shows the history going back 20 years. And that more school teachers molest than preists every year.

But I hear people say they have studed this or that, or that they are Muslim and they are peaceful but when I ask them to denouce what happened and tell me that these people were wrong, I have never had a Muslim tell me that.

Perhaps the following sites might help allay your fears?

Scholars of Islam & the Tragedy of Sept. 11th (http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/response.htm)

Statements Against Terror (http://www.unc.edu/~kurzman/terror.htm)

Muslims Condemn Terrorist Attacks (http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php)

The American Muslim (TAM) (http://tinyurl.com/ybsv89)

One quote:


Mustafa Mashhur, General Guide, Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt; Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Ameer, Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan, Pakistan; Muti Rahman Nizami, Ameer, Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh, Bangladesh; Shaykh Ahmad Yassin, Founder, Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), Palestine; Rashid Ghannoushi, President, Nahda Renaissance Movement, Tunisia; Fazil Nour, President, PAS - Parti Islam SeMalaysia, Malaysia; and 40 other Muslim scholars and politicians:

“The undersigned, leaders of Islamic movements, are horrified by the events of Tuesday 11 September 2001 in the United States which resulted in massive killing, destruction and attack on innocent lives. We express our deepest sympathies and sorrow. We condemn, in the strongest terms, the incidents, which are against all human and Islamic norms. This is grounded in the Noble Laws of Islam which forbid all forms of attacks on innocents. God Almighty says in the Holy Qur'an: 'No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another' (Surah al-Isra 17:15).”

MSANews, September 14, 2001, http://msanews.mynet.net/MSANEWS/200109/20010917.15.html (http://msanews.mynet.net/MSANEWS/200109/20010917.15.html);
Arabic original in al-Quds al-Arabi (London), September 14, 2001, p. 2, http://www.alquds.co.uk/Alquds/2001/09Sep/14%20Sep%20Fri/Quds02.pdf (http://www.alquds.co.uk/Alquds/2001/09Sep/14%20Sep%20Fri/Quds02.pdf)

Ray McIntyre
Priest
Anglican Church International

Random thoughts: The inquisition was not Christian. The crusades were military and prevented Islam from covering Europe, though presented as religious. The best way to defuse the strain between Christianity and Islam is to let Muslims freely hear the Gospel and freely choose which way they want to go. (Ain't likely to happen!) Christians have had the freedom to hear about Mohammed for a long time. I am convinced that the reason that Muslims do not have access to the teachings of Christ in those coutries that they rule is because Islam fears the Gospel.

Random thoughts: The inquisition was not Christian. The crusades were military and prevented Islam from covering Europe, though presented as religious. The best way to defuse the strain between Christianity and Islam is to let Muslims freely hear the Gospel and freely choose which way they want to go. (Ain't likely to happen!) Christians have had the freedom to hear about Mohammed for a long time. I am convinced that the reason that Muslims do not have access to the teachings of Christ in those coutries that they rule is because Islam fears the Gospel.

Hard to hear when your hollering at each other. As to the other events the church specifically the pope raised the money to pay for an army during the crusades and the last time I looked catholics were Christians. There is no evidence to support the notion that Islam fears the gospel and why should they since they both are but branches of the same tree. I think its so stupid that Christians and Muslims think there branch goes higher than the other.

The crusades were to stop the crazy fools from doing then, what they are doing now.
What do you want to do tonight Brain?
What do we do every night Pinky... take over the world!
Pinky and the Brain, Pinky and the Brain, One is a genius and the others insane!

That's your version and your welcome to it

Because one believes differently do we have to fight about it, lets do lunch, I can wear red you can wear blue. What difference does it make?

So that's an excuse to fight instead of break bread?

By your own words their is only one God so no matter the rest he will judge as he does and we can only succumb to that judgement

The KORAN and the BIBLE are books, Man is FLESH, God is SPIRIT and all religions come from that. That is the only true faith. What you have going is a branch in the tree, and if you step back you would see that.

He will not answer, Yet he expects answers from others.


You are entitled to your opinion that all religions are equally acceptable to God and that He hasn't communicated with mankind via his written word. But that's neither a Christian nor a Moslem view.

1. My version? Not at all. The biblical version supported by both OT and NT scriptures.

2. Yes, there is only one God. But the rest does matter.

2. I never said we should fight about it nor hold one another in utter contempt because of it. If I did show me where.

4. The analogy between wearing different colors and practicing different religions is a
False one. One is a moral matter and the other isn't.

BTW
Sorry about the delay in responding to your question. I am not always here nor using the computer so immediate responses are impossible in my case.

The crusades were to stop the crazy fools from doing then, what they are doing now.
What do you want to do tonight Brain?
What do we do every night Pinky...take over the world!
Pinky and the Brain, Pinky and the Brain, One is a genius and the others insane!
Actually it was about control over the trade routes, Mo money,Mo money. Its always been about the money and really nothing else. There is no God when money is involved.

Quote=Starman You are entitled to your opinion that all religions are equally acceptable to God and that He hasn't communicated with mankind via his written word. But that's neither a Christian nor a Moslem view.
I am neither a christian nor muslim either.

1. My version? Not at all. The biblical version supported by both OT and NT scriptures.
Which means nothing to me as I am not christian, Neither was Christ

2. Yes, there is only one God. But the rest does matter.

2. I never said we should fight about it nor hold one another in utter contempt because of it. If I did show me where.
Honestly Starman, I respect you and what you believe, you may quote a lot of book but I've yet to see you make people feel inferior because they may disagree, I concede the point.

4. The analogy between wearing different colors and practicing different religions is a
False one. One is a moral matter and the other isn't.
I disagree, the point was people of differences can enjoy lunch together. We should try sometime, my treat. How about the branches of an oak tree are oak.(Different religons same faith)

BTW
Sorry about the delay in responding to your question. I am not always here nor using the computer so immediate responses are impossible in my case
No sweat I been babysitting anyway.

I am neither a Christian nor Muslim either.


Which means nothing to me as I am not christian, Neither was Christ


Honestly Starman, I respect you and what you believe, you may quote a lot of book but I've yet to see you make people feel inferior because they may disagree, I concede the point.


I disagree, the point was people of differences can enjoy lunch together. We should try sometime, my treat. How about the branches of an oak tree are oak.(Different religons same faith)


No sweat I been babysitting anyway.



The reason I pointed out that my beliefs have scriptural support is because what I said was referred to as My Version. That's called heresy. Please consider that the only way for a Christian can defend himself against that accusation is to provide scriptural support . Therefore my reference to scripture. The alternative would be to agree via silence.

My reference to Christians and Moslems was meant as a reminder that these are the two religions being contrasted and compared and that both are similar in their belief in divine revelation via the written word.

Christ was under the Mosaic Law and expected all those who were under the Mosaic law to follow it while it was still in force. That included his Apostles and disciples who were all Jews. However, he came as a mediator of a New Covenant which would be made legal before God via his death. Once that New Covenant took effect then his followers would no longer have to feel bound by the ceremonial requirements of the Mosaic Law.

In short, Jesus came to establish an approach to God with himself as mediator which later came to be called Christianity. He prepared the foundation of Christianity by teaching his Apostles what the Christian requirements would be. There are many scriptures prior to his death in which he explicitly tells his followers the details of what Christanity would be based upon--his ransom sacrifice for forgiveness of sins being the most important.


BTW
I agree with you on the getting along with people of other faiths.

Discussion is good. Is not diplomacy based on it? In sifting through the posts, I see people on both sides of this, so it raises further interest on the subect, to wit:
Let's assume for the moment that both Jehovah and Allah are the God revealed in the Old Testament. (Personally, I don't think they are in any way related, but let's assume so for a moment.)
1. Judaism accepts Jehovah, but does not accept Jesus as His Son. They believe that the Messiah (anointed one) will come some day. Do they believe that Messiah will be the Son of God? (Maybe someone of the Jewish faith will answer this)
2. Islam denies the idea that Allah would have a son.
3. Christianity believes that Jesus is the Son of God.

Now:
1. Judaism tolerates Christianity pretty well.
2. Christianity, for the most part tolerates Judaism and most other religions because Jesus taught us to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. A non-violent approach based on persuasion is the tool of Christian growth.
1. Islam tolerates no other religion, and aims for world domination enforced by might, this is proven by history and current events. Perhaps some Muslim will explain the differences within Islam, and identify whether these intolerant, violent, members are mainstream, or what?
Doesn't all of this suggest a different tree, rather than different branches of the same one?

The question is certainly valid.

Just for clarification. I said what I said because "Allah" is a name that a faith group calls God (aka the Creator of All, who is Omnipotent, Omniscient, etc.).

Another faith group describes/defines God the same way.

... so instead of saying "I don't think it is a valid question", I should have said "By definition (that is agreed upon by both groups) God and Allah are one and the same"

Does that make sense?

Here's something interesting I found about this topic and the discussion going on here.

"1. QUR’AN PLAGIARIZED FROM THE BIBLE :


Question

Is it not true that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) has copied the Qur’an from the Bible?

Answer

Many critics allege that Prophet Muhummad (pbuh) himself was not the author of the Qur’an but he learnt it and/or plagiarised (copied or adapted) it from other human sources or from previous scriptures or revelations.

1. MUHUMMAD LEARNT THE QUR’AN FROM A ROMAN BLACKSMITH WHO WAS A CHRISTIAN


Some Pagans accused the Prophet of learning the Qur’an from a Roman Blacksmith, who was a Christian staying at the outskirts of Makkah. The Prophet very often used to go and watch him do his work. A revelation of the Qur’an was sufficient to dismiss this charge - the Qur’an says in Surah An-Nahl chapter 16 verse 103:

"We know indeed that they say, ‘It is a man that teaches him,’ The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notably foreign, while this is Arabic, pure and clear."
[Al-Qur’an 16:103]

How could a person whose mother tongue was foreign and could hardly speak little but of poor broken Arabic be the source of the Qur’an which is pure, eloquent, fine Arabic? To believe that the blacksmith taught the Prophet the Qur’an is some what similar to believing that a Chinese immigrant to England, who did not know proper English, taught Shakespeare.

2. MUHUMMAD (PBUH) LEARNT FROM WARAQA - THE RELATIVE OF KHADIJAH (RA)


Muhummad’s (pbuh) contacts with the Jewish and Christian Scholars were very limited. The most prominent Christian known to him was an old blind man called Waraqa ibn-Naufal who was a relative of the Prophet’s first wife Khadijah (r.a.). Although of Arab descent, he was a convert to Christianity and was very well versed with the New Testament. The Prophet only met him twice, first when Waraqa was worshipping at the Kaaba (before the Prophetic Mission) and he kissed the Prophet’s forehead affectionately; the second occasion was when the Prophet went to meet Waraqa after receiving the first revelation. Waraqa died three years later and the revelation continued for about 23 years. It is ridiculous to assume that Waraqa was the source of the contents of the Qur’an.
3. PROPHET’S RELIGIOUS DISCUSSIONS WITH THE JEWS AND CHRISTIANS


It is true that the Prophet did have religious discussions with the Jews and Christians but they took place in Madinah more than 13 years after the revelation of the Qur’an had started. The allegation that these Jews and Christians were the source is perverse, since in these discussions Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was performing the roles of a teacher and of a preacher while inviting them to embrace Islam and pointing out that they had deviated from their true teachings of Monotheism. Several of these Jews and Christians later embraced Islam."

second part of the quesion above.

". THE PROPHET LEARNT THE QUR’AN FROM THOSE JEWS AND CHRISTIANS THAT HE MET OUTSIDE ARABIA


All historical records available show that Muhummad (pbuh) had made only three trips outside Makkah before his Prophethood:
At the age of 9 he accompanied his mother to Madinah.

Between the age of 9 and 12, he accompanied his uncle Abu-Talib on a business trip to Syria.

At the age of 25 he led Khadija’s Caravan to Syria.

It is highly imaginary to assume that the Qur’an resulted from the occasional chats and meetings with the Christians or Jews from any of the above three trips.

5. LOGICAL GROUNDS TO PROVE THAT THE PROPHET DID NOT LEARN THE QUR’AN FROM JEWS OR CHRISTIANS


The day-to-day life of the Prophet was an open book for all to see. In fact a revelation came asking people to give the Prophet (pbuh) privacy in his own home. If the Prophet had been meeting people who told him what to say as a revelation from God, this would not have been hidden for very long.

The extremely prominent Quraish nobles who followed the Prophet and accepted Islam were wise and intelligent men who would have easily noticed anything suspicious about the way in which the Prophet brought the revelations to them - more so since the Prophetic mission lasted 23 years.

The enemies of the Prophet kept a close watch on him in order to find proof for their claim that he was a liar - they could not point out even a single instance when the Prophet may have had a secret rendezvous with particular Jews and Christians.

It is inconceivable that any human author of the Qur’an would have accepted a situation in which he received no credit whatsoever for originating the Qur’an.
Thus, historically and logically it cannot be established that there was a human source for the Qur’an.

6. MUHUMMAD (PBUH) WAS AN ILLITERATE


The theory that Muhummad (pbuh) authored the Qur’an or copied from other sources can be disproved by the single historical fact that he was illiterate.

Allah testifies Himself in the Qur’an
In Surah Al-Ankabut chapter no.29 verse 48

"And thou was not (able) to recite a Book before this (Book came), nor art thou (able) to transcribe it with thy right hand: in that case, indeed, would the talkers of vanities have doubted."
[Al-Qur’an 29:48]

Allah (swt) knew that many would doubt the authenticity of the Qur’an and would ascribe it to Prophet Muhummad (pbuh). Therefore Allah in His Divine Wisdom chose the last and final Messenger to be an ‘Ummi’, i.e. unlettered, so that the talkers of vanity would not then have the slightest justification to doubt the Prophet. The accusation of his enemies that he had copied the Qur’an from other sources and rehashed it all in a beautiful language might have carried some weight, but even this flimsy pretence has been deprived to the unbeliever and the cynic.

Allah reconfirms in the Qur’an in Surah Al A’raf chapter 7 verse 157:

"Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (Scriptures) in the Law and the Gospel"

The prophecy of coming of the unlettered Prophet (pbuh) is also mentioned in the Bible in the book of Isaiah chapter 29 verse 12.

"And the book is delivered to him that is not learned."
[Isaiah 29:12]

The Qur’an testifies in no less than four different places that the Prophet (pbuh) was illiterate. It is also mentioned in Surah A’raf chapter 7 verse 158 and in Surah Al-Jumu’a chapter 62 verse 2.

7. ARABIC VERSION OF THE BIBLE WAS NOT PRESENT"

More on that

"7. ARABIC VERSION OF THE BIBLE WAS NOT PRESENT


The Arabic version of the Bible was not present at the time of Prophet Muhummad (pbuh). The earliest Arabic version of the Old Testament is that of R. Saadias Gaon of 900 C.E. - more than 250 years after the death of our beloved Prophet. The oldest Arabic version of the new Testament was published by Erpenius in 1616 C.E. - about a thousand years after the demise of our Prophet.

8. SIMILARITIES IN THE QUR’AN AND THE BIBLE DUE TO COMMON SOURCE


Similarities between the Qur’an and the Bible does not necessarily mean that the former has been copied from the latter. In fact it gives evidence that both of them are based on a common third source; all divine revelations came from the same source - the one universal God. No matter what human changes were introduced into some of these Judeo-Christian and other older religious scriptures that had distorted their originality, there are some areas that have remained free from distortion and thus are common to many religions.

It is true that there are some similar parallels between the Qur’an and the Bible but this is not sufficient to accuse Muhummad (pbuh) of compiling or copying from the Bible. The same logic would then also be applicable to teachings of Christianity and Judaism and thus one could wrongly claim that Jesus (pbuh) was not a genuine Prophet (God forbid) and that he simply copied from the Old Testament.

The similarities between the two signify a common source that is one true God and the continuation of the basic message of monotheism and not that the later prophets have plagiarised from the previous prophets.

If someone copies during an examination he will surely not write in the answer sheet that he has copied from his neighbour or Mr. XYZ. Prophet Muhummad (pbuh) gave due respect and credit to all the previous prophets (pbut). The Qur’an also mentions the various revelations given by Almighty God to different prophets.

9. MUSLIMS BELIEVE IN THE TAURAH, ZABOOR, INJEEL AND QUR’AN


Four revelations of Allah (swt) are mentioned by name in the Qur’an: the Taurah, the Zaboor, the Injeel and the Qur’an.

Taurah, the revelation i.e. the Wahi given to Moosa (a. s.) i.e. Moses (pbuh).
Zaboor, the revelation i.e. the Wahi given to Dawood (a.s.) i.e. David (pbuh).
Injeel, the revelation i.e. the Wahi given to Isa (A.S.) ie. Jesus (pbuh).
‘Al-Qur’an’, the last and final Wahi i.e. revelation given to the last and final Messenger Muhammad (pbuh).

It is an article of faith for every Muslim to believe in all the Prophets of God and all revelations of God. However, the present day Bible has the first five books of the Old Testament attributed to Moses and the Psalms attributed to David. Moreover the New Testament or the four Gospels of the New Testament are not the Taurah, the Zaboor or the Injeel, which the Qur’an refers to. These books of the present day Bible may partly contain the word of God but these books are certainly not the exact, accurate and complete revelations given to the prophets.

The Qur’an presents all the different prophets of Allah as belonging to one single brotherhood; all had a similar prophetic mission and the same basic message. Because of this, the fundamental teachings of the major faiths cannot be contradictory, even if there has been a considerable passage of time between the different prophetic missions, because the source of these missions was one: Almighty God, Allah. This is why the Qur’an says that the differences which exist between various religions are not the responsibility of the prophets, but of the followers of these prophets who forgot part of what they had been taught, and furthermore, misinterpreted and changed the scriptures. The Qur’an cannot therefore be seen as a scripture which competes with the teachings of Moses, Jesus and the other prophets. On the contrary, it confirms, completes and perfects the messages that they brought to their people.

Another name for the Qur’an is the ‘The Furqan’ which means the criteria to judge the right from the wrong, and it is on the basis of the Qur’an that we can decipher which part of the previous scriptures can be considered to be the word of God.

10. SCIENTIFIC COMPARISON BETWEEN QUR’AN AND BIBLE


If you glance through the Bible and the Qur’an you may find several points which appear to be exactly the same in both of them, but when you analyse them closely, you realise that there is a difference of ‘chalk and cheese’ between them. Only based on historical details it is difficult for someone who is neither conversant with Christianity or Islam to come to a firm decision as to which of the scriptures is true; however if you verify the relevant passages of both the scriptures against scientific knowledge, you will yourself realize the truth.
"

Creation of the Universe in Six Days
As per the Bible, in the first book of Genesis in Chapter One, the universe was created in six days and each day is defined as a twenty-four hours period. Even though the Qur’an mentions that the universe was created in six ‘Ayyaams’, ‘Ayyaam’ is the plural of years; this word has two meanings: firstly, it means a standard twenty-four hours period i.e. a day, and secondly, it also means stage, period or epoch which is a very long period.

When the Qur’an mentions that the universe was created in six ‘Ayyaams’, it refers to the creation of the heavens and the earth in six long periods or epochs; scientists have no objection to this statement. The creation of the universe has taken billions of years, which proves false or contradicts the concept of the Bible which states that the creation of the Universe took six days of twenty-four hour durations each.

Sun Created After the Day
The Bible says in chapter 1, verses 3-5, of Genesis that the phenomenon of day and night was created on the first day of creation of the Universe by God. The light circulating in the universe is the result of a complex reaction in the stars; these stars were created according to the Bible (Genesis chapter 1 verse 14 to 19) on the fourth day. It is illogical to mention the result that is the light (the phenomenon of day and night) was created on the first day of Creation when the cause or source of the light was created three days later. Moreover the existence of evening and morning as elements of a single day is only conceivable after the creation of the earth and its rotation around the sun. In contrast with the contents of the Bible on this issue, the Qur’an does not give any unscientific sequence of Creation. Hence it is absolutely absurd to say that Prophet Muhummad (pbuh) copied the passages pertaining to the creation of the universe from the Bible but missed out this illogical and fantastic sequence of the Bible.

Creation of the Sun, The Earth and the Moon
According to the Bible, Book of Genesis, chapter 1, verses 9 to 13, the earth was created on the third day, and as per verses 14 to 19, the sun and the moon were created on the fourth day. The earth and the moon emanated, as we know, from their original star, the Sun. Hence to place the creation of the sun and the moon after the creation of the earth is contrary to the established idea about the formation of the solar system.

Vegetation Created on the third day and Sun on the fourth day
According to the Bible, Book of Genesis, chapter 1, verses 11-13, vegetation was created on the third day along with seed-bearing grasses, plants and trees; and further on as per verses 14-19, the sun was created on the fourth day. How is it scientifically possible for the vegetation to have appeared without the presence of the sun, as has been stated in the Bible?

If Prophet Muhummad (pbuh) was indeed the author of the Qur’an and had copied its contents from the Bible, how did he manage to avoid the factual errors that the Bible contains? The Qur’an does not contain any statements which are incompatible with scientific facts.

The Sun and the Moon both Emit light
According to the Bible both the sun and the moon emit their own light. In the Book of Genesis, chapter 1, verse 16 says, "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night".

Science tells us today that the moon does not have its own light. This confirms the Qur’anic concept that the light of the moon is a reflected light. To think that 1400 years ago, Prophet Muhummad (pbuh) corrected these scientific errors in the Bible and then copied such corrected passages in the Qur’an is to think of something impossible."


There's a lot more about this, I think I already posted more then enough I supposed to. Sorry for that.

Where does that come from?

Where does that come from? Here is one source that has it verbatim:
Da'wah Training Programme (http://www.irf.net/irf/dtp/dawah_tech/t18/t18a/pg1.htm)

Instead of copy and pasting the whole text perhaps linking to it would have been preferable.

Here is one source that has it verbatim:
Da'wah Training Programme (http://www.irf.net/irf/dtp/dawah_tech/t18/t18a/pg1.htm)

Instead of copy and pasting the whole text perhaps linking to it would have been preferable.

Yeah sorry, was too late, 'll be careful next time, sorry about that again.

The Satanic Verses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Verses_%28novel%29)

Satanic Verses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_Verses)

hadi88-
Isn't it true that Muslims do not believe the Holocaust took place? If they believe the Old Testament, there is a prophecy that has been fulfilled, the grimmest imaginable outworking of the ancient curse.
Deuteronomy 28:64-67- Then the Lord will scatter you among all nations, from one end of the earth to the other. There you will worship other gods-gods of wood and stone, which neither you nor your fathers have known. Among these nations you will find no repose, no resting place for the sole of your foot. There the Lord will give you an anxious mind, eyes weary with longing, and a despairing heart. You will live in constant suspence, filled with dread both night and day, never sure of your life. In the morning you will say,"if only it were evening!"and in the evening,"if only it were morning!"- because of the terror that will fill your hearts and the sights that your eyes will see.

And if so close to the Old Testament, why do the Palestinians ignore the fact that the early Israelites BOUGHT those tracts of land from the people living there at the time? Free & clear!

Just a couple of questions I have for today!

Pilgrims perform last hajj ritual in Mecca - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/saudireligionislam)

Muslim haj pilgrims perform devil-stoning ritual - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061231/wl_nm/haj_dc_3)

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war"... Ann Coulter, Top Leading Christian Worldwide speaker.

"I don’t believe this is a wonderful, peaceful religion. When you read the Koran and you read the verses from the Koran, it instructs the killing of the infidel, for those that are non-Muslim." "The Islamic faith is wicked, violent, and not of the same God. It is a very evil and wicked religion."... Rev. Franklin Graham (son of Billy Graham)

"To see Americans become followers of, quote, Islam, is nothing short of insanity. Terry, you know, I've been in Africa many, many, many, many times, and you see people over here learning Swahili, for example. Swahili was the language of the slave traders. The Islamic people, the Arabs, were the ones who captured Africans, put them in slavery, and sent them to America as slaves. Why would people in America want to embrace the religion of the slavers, and the language of the slavers?"... Pat Robertson Founder and President of The 700 Club

"Islam was founded by Muhammad, a demon-possessed pedophile who had 12
wives - and his last one was a 9-year-old girl. And I will tell you Allah
is not Jehovah either. Jehovah's not going to turn you into a terrorist
that'll try to bomb people and take the lives of thousands and thousands
of people."... Pastor Jerry Vines Pastor of First Baptist Church, Jacksonville, Florida and former President of Southern Baptist Convention.

"Mohammed was a terrorist. I read enough if the history of his life written by both Muslims and non-Muslims (to know) that he was a violent man, a man of war. In my opinion, Jesus set the example for love, as did Moses. And I think that Mohammed set an opposite example.".. Pastor Jerry Falwell, President of The Moral Majority, and Old-Time Gospel Hour

There has never been a bigger threat to Christianity, then the cult known as Islam. Yes, Islam is a cult, and a satanic cult at that. September 11, 2001 sounded the alarm and proved to Christian civilization what the true agenda of Islam is, and that is the total destruction of Christianity, as well as Judaism, by killing those who practice these beliefs, whom the Muslims refer to as infidels. We are in a war against terrorism, and this is a fight for survival. Christians and Jews represent Godliness, while Islam represents Satan. Muslims have become agents of Satan, and they will stop at nothing, including suicide to destroy Christians and Jews.

ISLAM (http://www.johnnyleeclary.com/islam.htm)

A free Holy Bible for the poor, oppressed and imprisoned (http://www.freebibles.net/)


yeah sorry, was too late, 'll be careful next time, sorry about that again.

Naik says that he does not know Osama and cannot judge his actions. However, Naik adds that if Osama is "terrorizing the terrorist, America", then he supports Osama bin Laden.

Zakir Naik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakir_Naik#Support_for_Osama_bin_Laden)

DON'T GET IT TWISTED... The name of God, Jehova God is not Allah. JESUS is His name. Philippians 2:9-11 (KJV) states:

9Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

10That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

11And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord

Jesus is Lord, Lord is God, Jesus is God... END OF DISCUSSION

Allah is dead, Buddha is dead, Mohamed is dead, BUT JESUS IS ALIVE AND WELL... DON'T GET IT TWISTED...

Jesus is Lord, Lord is God, Jesus is God.....END OF DISCUSSION
There can never be an end to a discussion where the subject is reliant on faith. No one person has the last word in this case, not even yourself.

Originally Posted by singing_cs
Jesus is Lord, Lord is God, Jesus is God.....END OF DISCUSSION

Thank you for your quote from your book.


Pilgrims perform last hajj ritual in Mecca - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/saudireligionislam)

Muslim haj pilgrims perform devil-stoning ritual - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061231/wl_nm/haj_dc_3)

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war"... Ann Coulter, Top Leading Christian Worldwide speaker.

"I don’t believe this is a wonderful, peaceful religion. When you read the Koran and you read the verses from the Koran, it instructs the killing of the infidel, for those that are non-Muslim." "The Islamic faith is wicked, violent, and not of the same God. It is a very evil and wicked religion."... Rev. Franklin Graham (son of Billy Graham)

"To see Americans become followers of, quote, Islam, is nothing short of insanity. Terry, you know, I've been in Africa many, many, many, many times, and you see people over here learning Swahili, for example. Swahili was the language of the slave traders. The Islamic people, the Arabs, were the ones who captured Africans, put them in slavery, and sent them to America as slaves. Why would people in America want to embrace the religion of the slavers, and the language of the slavers?"... Pat Robertson Founder and President of The 700 Club

"Islam was founded by Muhammad, a demon-possessed pedophile who had 12
wives - and his last one was a 9-year-old girl. And I will tell you Allah
is not Jehovah either. Jehovah's not going to turn you into a terrorist
that'll try to bomb people and take the lives of thousands and thousands
of people."... Pastor Jerry Vines Pastor of First Baptist Church, Jacksonville, Florida and former President of Southern Baptist Convention.

"Mohammed was a terrorist. I read enough if the history of his life written by both Muslims and non-Muslims (to know) that he was a violent man, a man of war. In my opinion, Jesus set the example for love, as did Moses. And I think that Mohammed set an opposite example.".. Pastor Jerry Falwell, President of The Moral Majority, and Old-Time Gospel Hour

There has never been a bigger threat to Christianity, then the cult known as Islam. Yes, Islam is a cult, and a satanic cult at that. September 11, 2001 sounded the alarm and proved to Christian civilization what the true agenda of Islam is, and that is the total destruction of Christianity, as well as Judaism, by killing those who practice these beliefs, whom the Muslims refer to as infidels. We are in a war against terrorism, and this is a fight for survival. Christians and Jews represent Godliness, while Islam represents Satan. Muslims have become agents of Satan, and they will stop at nothing, including suicide to destroy Christians and Jews.

ISLAM (http://www.johnnyleeclary.com/islam.htm)

A free Holy Bible for the poor, oppressed and imprisoned (http://www.freebibles.net/)



Naik says that he does not know Osama and cannot judge his actions. However, Naik adds that if Osama is "terrorizing the terrorist, America", then he supports Osama bin Laden.

Zakir Naik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakir_Naik#Support_for_Osama_bin_Laden)
Fundamental extremist are alive and well all over the world.

Yes Tal, there are extremeist in all sorts of things, that's why we need to be careful.

Oh my, the earth is shaking at its very foundation. I'm gnashing my teeth.

Jesus made a statement that any one with a minimal understanding of agriculture can understand:
Matt 7:16-18
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
(KJV)

The fruit are the followers of any teaching. When those followers are violent and evil, the tree they fell from cannot be good. Common sense tells us that Christianity (as taught by Christ) comes from a different tree than any religion that makes its ideology known by saying "convert or die".

I BEG TO DIFFER....GOD IS THE ALPHA AND OMEGA...BEGINNING AND THE ENDING...AND THIS IS THE ENDING OF THE CONVERSATION...

If you do not wish to continue this discussion, then you should not continue to contribute to the tread. However, not everyone agrees with your detemrination, and unless you are a terrorist you will readily recognise the right of others to hold to their own opinions, and acknowledge their God-given freedom to express them.

In a person's need to silence all opinions but there own there lurks the spirit of the evil one who will force men to hold to his own opinions, whereas God has said, " ... choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that [were] on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."

No one can take from mankind the free moral agency that God - 'el - has given. If man was not free to hoose, then all a human being did or did not do would be imposed from wihtout. If that were the case, then God wopuld have no need to give commandments, unless he was magnificently capricious. Since God is not capricious, and since he does give commandments, then, ergo, man has the freedom of choice to conform or rebel.

Into this framework it beghooves no one to insist that any debate is final because the person insisting, even in capital letters, may be wrong. Ambrose Bierce defines being 'positive' as being wrong at the top of one's voice!

The provision of one - or two or more - proof-texts does not constitute reliable theological basis for deciding any issue, especially since there are many names and titles of God used in the Bible alone. When the Bible is translated into Arabic, then the name of God - 'el - is rendered 'allah'.

To insist that an English rendering of a Greek rendering of an Hebrew word is the only proper answer to the question "what is the proper name of God" is to make a nonsense of every name by which God is known in the Hebrew and Greek scriptures.

There is no mention of 'Jehovah' in the Bible. That name is a term coined in ignorance of correct Henrew pronunciation, and if God's name is, for example, 'ya-ho-vah' then you could call on jee-ho-vah for an eternity and not be answered.

One name by which God ['el] is called in the Bible is 'el-shaddai' [god-almighty], and he is variously called by other names and titles that refer to his characteristics just as this one does. He is Lord of Armies, and so many other names and titles that it beggars belief that anyone would insist that he is referred to by only one of them.

Jesus' name is jehoshuah [yehoshooah], which means 'yah saves' and is rendered in the English of the AV as Joshua, and in the Greek scriptures as Jesus from the Greek 'iesus' as the Spanish pronounce Jesus.

When Mary was told she was to conceive and bear the Son of the Highest, she was instructed to call the child Joshua: hence the name of the Son of God is Jesus [in English], and whatever it turns out to be in other languages.

The name of Jesus was not later changed to 'Alpha and Omega,' but he referred to himself as 'The First and the Last', and what that means should open a profound Theological and Christilogical discussion, but he did not thereby signify that he was to be no more called Jesus, but by two letters of the Greek Alphabet. Jesus spoke in Armaic and would not have used those Greek letters, but John took the Aramaic words of Jesus and used Greek equivalents.

The scriptures warn against darkening counsel by words without knowledge, and we ought to be careful when we make pronopuncements as if we had it directly into our ears from the very mouth of God, lest we come across as out of step with the spirit of religion and the spirit of love that Jesus was at pains to inculcate into those who were to be his true disciples.

When we speak of God's name, we rarely speak or intend to speak of one exclusive proper noun, but keep in mind all the attributory names by which God is recognised, and in whatever language is appropriate to the speaker.

For a Christian to insist that God's true name is Jehovah, when the record says that the name of Jesus is the only name that will lead men to salvation, then that Christian has some explanation to make to reconcile what seem superficially at least to be contradictory. If they are contradictory, then we need also to recognise that the book says that God is not the author of confusion, ansd so we know that our difficulty has not been made by God, and must look elsewhere for its source.

My point is that there is no one who has the authority to stamp on this or any other discussion in imperious terms without offering a full and detailed explanation and justification for doing so. If you have means of vindicating your self without simply hurling mean-spirited proof-texts in our faces, then I am confidant that you will get a fair hearing. I can guarantee that on my own part, and I know of others who will do the same.


Jesus made a statement that any one with a minimal understanding of agriculture can understand:
Matt 7:16-18
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
(KJV)

The fruit are the followers of any teaching. When those followers are violent and evil, the tree they fell from cannot be good. Common sense tells us that Christianity (as taught by Christ) comes from a different tree than any religion that makes its idealogy known by saying "convert or die".

Have Christian ministers ever extended that invitation to a heathen population?

[I]Stephanie Gonzalez on December 13th, 2006 at 5:57 pm AST

'Convert or Die' is a computer video game set after the rapture, the players objective is to either convert non-Christians or kill them off if they refuse. Religion is a touchy subject and there are many radicals truly willing to commit such audacities. This game should be taken off the shelves; it gives teens the wrong impression of how to deal with non-Christians. If they are not taken off shelves they should at least be rated M for Mature to prevent teens from buying it. Even though some people may see this game as ‘right’ it’s completely hypocritical, Jesus did not at any point say in his teachings “Kill those who are different”. Instead of developing a video game that makes the player change who people are, create a game that will mend the rift between religions. We may have our differences but our job in this world right now is to look past those differences in belief systems and put in our effort to bring a little peace in troubles times. The game ‘Convert or Die’ isn’t helping with the tension; it’s only adding fuel to the fire.

Have heathens/pagans ever been faced with this choice by Christians, and, if so, how are Christians better than Muslims?


DON'T GET IT TWISTED...The name of God, Jehova God is not Allah. JESUS is His name. Philippians 2:9-11 (KJV) states:

9Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him(who?) , and given him (Who?) a name which is above every name:

10That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

11And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord

Jesus is Lord, Lord is God, Jesus is God.....END OF DISCUSSION

Allah is dead, Buddah is dead, Mohamed is dead, BUT JESUS IS ALIVE AND WELL...DON'T GET IT TWISTED....

Can you detect the obvious contradictions in your quote?

Morganite-
From what you have said, I can agree that blatantly objecting to the Muslim's "Allah" in a harsh way may be very counterproductive in these times.
I have no problem with(or ever have) with moderate Muslims who truly believe that Allah is God, God of the Bible, and therefore a good God.

However, 9/11 woke us up to a new reality. One doesn't have to be a Christian, but Christians are the ones standing up now to hopefully deter the growth of this religion. Why?
Because the Qur'an has too many violent verses in it.
This is the case of one town here in the U.S. where a pastor is standing up(along with protestors) and bringing it to the Mayor's attention that they do not want a Mosque being built in this particular area. They are aware of the "freedom of Religion" right, but they are still battling for the legal ownership of the land, hoping to stop the building of the Mosque. The Pastor would like all 17 verses(I think that was the # he said) that are violent in the Qur'an removed, before he will drop his case. He feels that in this inner-city town the youths will be too vulnerable, will convert to this religion which as it stands has a great propensity to produce violence. I hope he succeeds.

There is another place in London where they are going to construct a mega Mosque. Christian leaders again voicing their disagreement saying they have no problem with thee regular size mosques, but this is a Centre. The faiths deserve equality. Most importantly, the funding of the mega mosque is from a group that is confirmed aL-queda. But I cannot say what goes on in Europe or England, except that it is a shame that Tony Blair is leaving.

All's OK with living amongst Muslims if they remove the violent passages from their holy books. Until then, all are not safe and must be on guard. That's what the Lord tells us to do in the end times. How long "the end times" will take till the Lord's reappearance is unknown, but "we" must be on guard and hold firmly onto the Faith we have learned,and not doubt. For doubt tries to neutralize the love and power of God. And "we" know where THAT comes from.

May we all work towards peaceful coexistence!

It is easier to take over from the inside. That is a well practiced ploy in Utah and the surrounding states, in a lot of different, larger businesses. As they move up the ranks, only their "kind" get hired.

Morganite-
From what you have said, I can agree that blatantly objecting to the Muslim's "Allah" in a harsh way may be very counterproductive in these times.
I have no problem with(or ever have) with moderate Muslims who truly believe that Allah is God, God of the Bible, and therefore a good God.

However, 9/11 woke us up to a new reality. One doesn't have to be a Christian, but Christians are the ones standing up now to hopefully deter the growth of this religion. Why?
Because the Qur'an has too many violent verses in it.
This is the case of one town here in the U.S. where a pastor is standing up(along with protestors) and bringing it to the Mayor's attention that they do not want a Mosque being built in this particular area. They are aware of the "freedom of Religion" right, but they are still battling for the legal ownership of the land, hoping to stop the building of the Mosque. The Pastor would like all 17 verses(I think that was the # he said) that are violent in the Qur'an removed, before he will drop his case. He feels that in this inner-city town the youths will be too vulnerable, will convert to this religion which as it stands has a great propensity to produce violence. I hope he succeeds.

There is another place in London where they are going to construct a mega Mosque. Christian leaders again voicing their disagreement saying they have no problem with thee regular size mosques, but this is a Centre. The faiths deserve equality. Most importantly, the funding of the mega mosque is from a group that is confirmed aL-queda. But I cannot say what goes on in Europe or England, except that it is a shame that Tony Blair is leaving.

All's ok with living amongst Muslims if they remove the violent passages from their holy books. Until then, all are not safe and must be on guard. That's what the Lord tells us to do in the end times. How long "the end times" will take till the Lord's reappearance is unknown, but "we" must be on guard and hold firmly onto the Faith we have learned,and not doubt. For doubt tries to neutralize the love and power of God. And "we" know where THAT comes from.

May we all work towards peaceful coexistence!


Punkin,

I have a real problem with those who want other groups to do what they, themselves, are unwilling to do.
I note your objection to verses (I will take your word for the number of verses) in al Qu'ran that are 'violent,' and note that you require them to be removed.

If you really mean that, do you make the same demand of Jews and Christians to remove all the verses in the Bible that encourage violence in the name of God? I will not suggest that you are unaware of these passages, but if you are a Christian, than you, perhaps (I will put it no stronger than that), should be at least as aware of 'violent' passages in your own scriptures as you are of those in the book sof those with whom you find fault.

Will you give your solemn assurance that you will remove yourself from the midst of Christian, Jews, and Muslims until all three remove all the violent passages in their respective scriptures?

Peaceful co-existence can only become possible when the playing field is levelled and no demands are made of 'others' than those which we willingly impose upon ourselves, so that we treat all equally and not some as foul and others as flesh.


'By this shall all men know ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.'


M:)RGANITE

Morganite-

That defense does not ring true with me. Since when does any of the Bible promote hatred and violence ? Is it not God himself that avenges?

It has always been, in the Bible, to seek peace & pursue it. However, when it is called for, fighting is done for defensive purposes. "Blessed are the peacemakers". We cannot always peacekeepers(espec. Our leaders) Peace sometimes comes because of war.

Just look at Genesis 6- How God destroyed all people and the earth (except for Noah & the arkof course) because the earth had become corrupt and filled with violence.

Does the Bible say "go kill the infidels who do not convert?" No! It says pray for the unbeliever.

It is God who avenges against evil and violence. The Qur'an states that man should instigate violence. So yes, the removing of one man's version of justice from the Qur'an actually SHOULD be done. Especially now.

Morganite-

That defense does not ring true with me. Since when does any of the Bible promote hatred and violence ? Is it not God himself that avenges?

It has always been, in the Bible, to seek peace & pursue it. However, when it is called for, fighting is done for defensive purposes. "Blessed are the peacemakers". We cannot always peacekeepers(espec. our leaders) Peace sometimes comes because of war.

Just look at Genesis 6- How God destroyed all people and the earth (except for Noah & the arkof course) because the earth had become corrupt and filled with violence.

Does the Bible say "go kill the infidels who do not convert?" No! it says pray for the unbeliever.

It is God who avenges against evil and violence. The Qur'an states that man should instigate violence. So yes, the removing of one man's version of justice from the Qur'an actually SHOULD be done. Especially now.


I have made no defence of anything or anyyone. I have pointed out what could easily be mistaken for hypocrrisy through someone insisting that someone else do something to their holy book that the insister is unwilling to do to their own holy writings. That is all.

Even a cursory reading of the Bible reveals a God who is bloodthirsty and vengeful. I will provide some examples, and then you can find others for yourself.

"And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor [a false god]: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel. And the LORD said unto Moses, 'Take all the heads of the people and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel.'" (Numbers 25:3-4)

Now ask your question, "Does the Bible say "go kill the infidels who do not convert?" YES!

"And Moses said, Thus saith the LORD, About midnight will I go out into the midst of Egypt: And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts." (Exodus 11:4-5)

"And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter." (I Samuel 6:19)

"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;" (Deuteronomy 13: 6)

"Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people." (Deuteronomy 13:8-9)

"Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword." (Deuteronomy 13:15)

"Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ." (I Samuel 15:2-3)

"And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under the axes of iron, and made them pass through the brickkiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. So David and all the people returned unto Jerusalem." (II Samuel 12:31)

"Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." (Numbers 31:16-18)

"Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished." (Isaiah 13:15-16)

"And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain."

"And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Hesbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. But all the cattle, and the spoil of the cities we took for a prey to ourselves." (Deuteronomy 2.34; 3:6-7)

"And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and woman: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house." (Ezekiel 9:5-6)

"And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and , with the edge of the sword." (Joshua 6:21)

These are but a small percentage of similar passages in which God directes his people to murder, slaughter, and rape. How then can you even suggest that they are not in the Bible (unless you have a special, expurgated, edition for Christians and Jews with weak stomachs), and yet be so caustic against Muslims for what you describe as seventeen passages inciting to violence against unbelievers when your own scriptures have far more in the same vein? How do you advise Christians to deal with the following?

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and [that], when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son [is] stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; [he is] a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
Deuteronomy 21:19-22

Since when does any of the Bible promote hatred and violence ? Is it not God himself that avenges? It has always been, in the Bible, to seek peace & pursue it. However, when it is called for, fighting is done for defensive purposes. "Blessed are the peacemakers". We cannot always peacekeepers(espec. our leaders) Peace sometimes comes because of war.

You will see that your position cannot be defended.



M:)RGANITE



.


Correct me if I am wrong but isn't this the view of all different religions (not just Christianity and Islam)? That all others are false?

Not exactly. It is true that there are irreconcileable differences. However, if we look for differences rather than search for and stand together on common ground, we do all our gods a grave dishonour.

I heard a wise holy man say: "When you die God will not ask you which church you went to, but he will ask you how much good you have done."

I stand on that. Bad cess to those who invent theological tests for faith and entrance into God's kingdom. If to enter heaven we needed to be able to explain the ifinitesimal niceties and nuances of Byzantine Christology, then who would gain entrance into the blessed place?

Live and let live: believe and let believe, love and let love, and God will be the final arbiter of all these things. Until then, wait on him, and do good to all the people you can, in all the places you can, and in all the ways you can. This do and God will in no wise cast you out.

M:)RGANITE




.

Morganite-

No way! All your examples are applied to Ancient times, before laws were established.

Trouble is that from the Qur'an, violent acts are happening in modern times. Or can you not see the difference?

Morganite-

No way! All your examples are applied to Ancient times, before laws were established.

Trouble is that from the Qur'an, violent acts are happening in modern times. Or can you not see the difference?

A little off the original subject but how do you justify the few who do wrong with the many who are not violent in modern times and your reference to ancient man before the laws where established is not relevant to others who are non-christian, which is 75% of the world by the way.

Morganite-

No way! All your examples are applied to Ancient times, before laws were established.

Trouble is that from the Qur'an, violent acts are happening in modern times. Or can you not see the difference?
From the Bible, violent acts are happening in modern times. That is unless you do not consider hanging children from beams, naked, and whipping them with canes is violent.

~ The Rev. Arthur Allen Jr. 70, and four church members were found guilty of aggravated assault and cruelty to children for whipping two boys in front of the (Christian) congregation in February 2001.

~ After a 7- year-old boy complained to his teacher in February about welts on his back, Georgia child welfare authorities were surprised to discover that the beating had taken place not at his home but at services in his church

~ Welfare authorities said nearly 60 children had been seriously beaten by their parents and by church leaders, under the supervision of the Rev. Arthur Allen Jr. the pastor. Several children had open wounds, large bruises and welts, investigators said.

~ On Wednesday, in an Atlanta juvenile court, Chief Judge Sanford Jones reluctantly decided not to release 41 children of church families from foster care. Judge Jones said the children could go home if their parents agreed to spank them only with their hands, and by themselves at home, and not to allow girls younger than 16 to marry. The parents refused. "We're going to raise our children according to the Bible," said one parent.

~ Mr. Allen was jailed in 1999 for 30 days after ordering a 16-year-old girl whipped with belts, a beating that he acknowledged may have lasted half an hour.

~ Tanyaneeka Barnett, 25, a former church member, testified yesterday that teenage girls who had sex were frequently whipped during church services, after removal of their skirts or dresses.

~ Specialized pastors or prophets from “churches of revival” perform ceremonies to rid children of their sorcery. In many such churches, dozens of children can be held for days at a time, with food and water denied. In the worst cases, children are whipped, beaten or given purgatives until they confess to sorcery. Even after the process is concluded, however, children can be subjected to further abuse at home, and ultimately abandonment.

~ “We were not allowed to eat or drink for three days [either at church or at home]. On the fourth day, the pastor held our hands over a candle, to get us to confess.”
Brian, aged 12.

~ “Child sorcerers have the power to transmit any disease, including AIDS, to their family members. AIDS is a mysterious disease that is used as a weapon by those who practice witchcraft.”
A Christian Minister who specializes in child sorcery at a revival church.

~ Phil Williamson, headmaster of the Christian Fellowship School in Liverpool is leading a movement to restore the right of religious private schools to hit children. He regards spanking as part of the Judeo-Christian heritage. "If it's done in the right context, then children know that for somebody who loves them to smack them, something must have gone really wrong." His school hits girls with a strap and beats boys with a paddle.

~ Poll by Best of the Christian Web, a conservative Christian web site. It conducted a poll of its visitors. It introduced the question by stating that: "The American Academy of Pediatrics has condemned spanking saying it causes children to become violent. But Proverbs 29:15 says 'The rod and reproof give wisdom; but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.' " It asked the question: "Do you believe that spanking is an appropriate form of punishment for children?"
The first option: "Yes - Spare the rod, spoil the child" received 174 votes; the second option: "No - Spanking is abusive," received 11.

That is violence against the most vulnerable - some as young as three! Justified from the Bible in today's modern world in the belief that God orders them to do it. So no one can say that it does not happen today. It does!

~~~~

Abortion clinics, providers and workers often live in fear of Christian activists. Only recently captured, Eric Rudolph has been charged with a deadly bombing at the Olympics and with two other blasts in Atlanta at abortion clinics. Although the choice of the Olympics as a target may sound strange, it must be remembered that many far-right Christians regard anything which smacks of internationalism - the UN, the IMF, and the Olympics - as tools of Satan. The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms regards the other recent attempted bombings and attempted arson attacks at Alabama abortion clinics to represent a heightened threat to life and property.

Government officials in both Canada and the United States have issued warnings to abortion doctors to take extra precautions. Anti-abortion extremists in Britain have warned the public that there "will be casualties" in the coming war, and that they did not intend to "turn the other cheek." As the anti-abortion rhetoric has increased over the years, so has the anti-abortion violence - property is destroyed, people are killed, and women are denied access to medical care.

When Muslim extremists place a bomb at a bus station in Israel, it is justifiably regarded as an act committed by "Muslim Terrorists." When are we going to wake up and recognize that similar acts here are being committed by "Christian Terrorists?"

Unfortunately, that label won't be used by anyone prominent any time soon. Conservative Christian groups are very quick to jump all over anyone who even so much as hints that Christians, as Christians, are responsible for any act of violence. It's one massive attempt at clinical denial, and the media and government rarely disturbs the fantasy.

Two recent examples show how dangerous such a disturbance can be. In one case the FBI and the Justice Department suggested that Eric Rudolph might be receiving aid or even a hiding place from any one of a number of anti-abortion groups in America. The reaction to this suggestion was swift and brutal as it was labeled "irresponsible, biased, and scurrilous."

Anti-abortion activists are quick to take offense at the idea that their movement might have anything whatsoever to do with helping an accused murderer - of course, this is the same movement which has produced "hit lists" of abortion doctors. We have also seen the widespread use of violent, war-like language on the part of major figures in the anti-abortion movement, and anyone who thinks that such rhetoric cannot have a negative impact is themselves in serious denial.

In another example, Katie Couric of the Today Show questioned whether or not the murder of Matthew Shepard might be linked with the increasingly hostile displays of intolerance on the part of various right-wing Christian groups like Focus on the Family. The reaction from members of such organizations was quick and massive - so massive, in fact, that NBC had to ask Focus on the Family to cease and desist with the phone calls. James Dobson, president of the organization, has also asked for an official apology from NBC.

Apparently, he is free to accuse homosexuals of whatever he wants - linking them to crime and drug use, if that is his whim - but any suggestion that his rhetoric encourages a climate of hate and violence is to be considered libelous. Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center considers it "one of the most insidious and bigoted attacks against Christians ever seen" for someone to suggest that Christians bear any responsibility for the Matthew Shepard's death. Somehow, I doubt he takes the suggestion that Christians are exhibiting any bigotry towards homosexuality very seriously.

~~~

Your grasp of history is as tenuous as is your grasp of the Bible. Just to illustrate with one example: the Code of Hammurabi was, according to historians, codified in writing sometime between 1792 BCE to 1750 BCE. His Legal Code consisted of 282 statutes.

The Exodus from Israel that Moses led, has been dated to 1250 BCE, so was had been written down long before the laws I quoted from the Bible.

It is really too bad of you to attempt to shift the grounds by introducing a qualification - and a patently false one at that! - to try to wriggle out from under your sweeping statements that the God of the Bible never commanded any acts of violence. I have shown you from your own Bible that me host certainly did. Live with it.

You might be unaware that much of the legislation contained in Al Qu'ran is lifted wholesale from the Old Testament. You don't get figs from thistles.

If you are saying that God changed, then you will have an interesting theological discussion on your hands as to whether God can fundamentally change his character.

There are times in our lives when our errors are pointed out to us that it is gracious simply to accept that we were mistaken, and not try to bluff and bluster our way out of it by insisting that we were getting at or meaning something else.

Besides which you asked: "SINCE WHEN DOES ANY OF THE BIBLE PROMOTE HATRED AND VIOLENCE?" Therefore, my answer stands and your objection falls. Suck it up like an adult.


M:)RGANITE




..

You misunderstood my answer. By" laws" I was referring to something like murder, kidnapping, or battery to say the least. Laws against crimes,punishable as in modern times.
Not anything to do with the Bible. It's government.
How do I explain - how many of Exremist Islam followers to moderate Muslims? Perhaps their numbers are the same. Just like all those CHRISTIAN names you gave. What was it, 25?
Don't count the ABORTION CLINIC violence! I'm not talking about 1 or 2 murders either.

25?

Morganite- tell that to Mohanir!

You misunderstood my answer. By" laws" I was referring to something like murder, kidnapping, or battery to say the least. Laws against crimes,punishable as in modern times.
Not anything to do with the Bible. It's government.
How do I explain - how many of Exremist Islam followers to moderate Muslims? Perhaps their numbers are the same. Just like all those CHRISTIAN names you gave. What was it, 25?
Don't count the ABORTION CLINIC violence! I'm not talking about 1 or 2 murders either.

25?

Morganite- tell that to Mohanir!

Come on, can we stick to facts and not opinion? And why not count Abortion clinic violence? Fact- 75 mullahs rule Iran and set policy and control who has the money and everything else. The population has no voice in anything and no power to make policy let alone bombs and we all know it takes money to make bombs and raise armies and pay terrorists.

You misunderstood my answer. By" laws" I was referring to something like murder, kidnapping, or battery to say the least. Laws against crimes,punishable as in modern times.
Not anything to do with the Bible. It's government.
How do I explain - how many of Exremist Islam followers to moderate Muslims? Perhaps their numbers are the same. Just like all those CHRISTIAN names you gave. What was it, 25?
Don't count the ABORTION CLINIC violence! I'm not talking about 1 or 2 murders either.

25?

Morganite- tell that to Mohanir!

I abhor the use of dishonest tricks in debate. Murder is murder whether it is a pro-life activist militant Christian or an anti USA militant fundamentalist Muslim.

One murder is one murder too many, so any attempt to make numericality the foundation of a debate that started with a simple but patently false statement will not gain weight, ground, or acceptance by trimming a bit of sail here and there to try to make it fit. If only one Christian murders as a reuklt of their reading the, Bible and one Muslim does the same after reading thal Qu'ran, then your case falls just as heavily and completely as if thousands were moved to act by similar passages.

It doesn't fit and no matter how many contortions and slitherings are applied to this case your statement that THE BIBLE NEVER PROMOTES HATRED AND VIOLENCE is wrong and has been demonstrated to be wrong to the satisfaction of all reasonable people.

Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver, and the garment, and the wedge of gold, and his sons, and his daughters, and his oxen, and his asses, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had: and they brought them unto the valley of Achor. And Joshua said, Why hast thou troubled us? the LORD shall trouble thee this day. And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones.


Is this passage or is it not an example of the Bible promoting hatred and violence? It does not matter when it took place, because you did not make time an element in your statement that the BIBLE NEVER PROMOTES HATRED OR VIOLENCE. As you can see with your own eyes it clearly does.

Suck it up and move on, for there is little point in beating the same old drum once the skin of its argument is destroyed..


M:)RGANITE





.

Morganite-

After the walls of Jericho fell, the Lord commanded Joshua & the Israelites not to covet the plunder. Joshua 7:1-But the Israelites acted unfaithfully in regard to the devoted things. Achan son of Carmi, the son of Zimri, the son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, took some of them. So the Lord's anger burned against Israel.
And so the Lord told Joshua to destroy" whatever among you is devoted to destruction."
Agreed? OK. Now do you think in present times someone reading the O.T.(Jew or not) would
Stone someone's son to death for grand larceny?
No, because, and even in a RELIGIOUS sense,not to mention the laws of the land today, the Lord doesn't say go"go kill him", it's the devil that does that. You know it. I know it . And Jesus came as the great Intercessor for all. Again, God just doesn't say that anymore. He may say " go fight, I'm with you " but that is a completely different scenario.

Now, do you understand my point? You do not have to agree and that's fine.

It seems like it is easier to separate the differences than looking honestly at the similarities. When you throw the books away, and stand naked and alone before the Creator do you honestly think that there are different lines for different Gods?

It seems like it is easier to separate the differences than looking honestly at the similarities. When you throw the books away, and stand naked and alone before the Creator do you honestly think that their are different lines for different Gods?

That is the whole point of the question, Tal. We are NOT throwing the books away. We are reading them. The Bible & the Qur'an here. And if you insist on it - yes, there are different "lines" for different gods- exactly why Allah is not the God of the Bible. So, with your non-religious statement we're back to square one-the separating factor.
There is a difference between them(Qur'an & the Bible)
I proposed that some non-Muslim leaders said that there were 17 verses in the Qur'an that were violent(and should be removed) Of course they have similarities, but even one verse promoting violence is too much.

That is the whole point of the question, Tal. We are NOT throwing the books away. We are reading them. The Bible & the Qur'an here. And if you insist on it - yes, there are different "lines" for different gods- exactly why Allah is not the God of the Bible. So, with your non-religious statement we're back to square one-the separating factor.
There is a difference between them(Qur'an & the Bible)
I proposed that some non-Muslim leaders said that there were 17 verses in the Qur'an that were violent(and should be removed) Of course they have similarities, but even one verse promoting violence is too much.
You keep going back to that tired argument that has been squashed. And your statement about the different Gods goes against your own religion. My point that below the hard core adherence to the dogma that there are MORE similarities than differences. And no matter how you push the so called separating factor your argument falls way short or do you want to continue the dance around the obvious here, You no nothing about Islam or the Koran but can only spout misinformed ,prejudicial newspaper quotes so you can shroud yourself in self righteous ignorance of fact that not only is erroneous but has no basis in fact. That you doggedly hold on to your book which I question your understanding of, to point out irrelevant information and belief and dismiss other fact presented already destroys the whole discussion. You can't reason with a closed mind. But it will be interesting to see which line your in when you meet your maker.

You keep going back to that tired argument that has been squashed. And your statement about the different Gods goes against your own religion. My point that below the hard core adherence to the dogma that there are MORE similarities than differences. And no matter how you push the so called separating factor your argument falls way short or do you want to continue the dance around the obvious here, You no nothing about Islam or the Koran but can only spout misinformed ,prejudicial newspaper quotes so you can shroud your self in self righteous ignorance of fact that not only is erroneous but has no basis in fact. That you doggedly hold on to your book which I question your understanding of, to point out irrelevant information and belief and dismiss other fact presented already destroys the whole discussion. You can't reason with a closed mind. But it will be interesting to see which line your in when you meet your maker.
No, you keep going back to your tired, boring arguments because you disagree. We cannot have a debate when you are so inclined to poke fun at the one who you disagree with. You are closed minded because of your ego, for what that is worth. You come in on a conversation & spew absolute grade school knowledge that doesn't have any idea of the Bible or Qur'an. You like to get right in the middle & twist the words to suit your own ego. True, I don't know a lot about the Qur'an and I'm taking some Christian leaders word for it.
But the Bible- I know a great deal about. Much more than you know now preppy.

Don't twist the words & don't insult me. I feel sorry for you BTW, because it is you who has to worry about "standing before God" I'm covered with the blood of Jesus. Are you?
No, I think you are counting on your own will. Ego is part of the soul. You are out of alignment. Your spirit must be first. You need Jesus first- not yourself.

If you'd be quiet for a while, we might hear more about the Qur'an/Koran. I wonder if you can control it, at least with the superego--maybe we could actually learn something.

Islam would rather be covered in the blood of Christians than the Blood of Christ.
In the name of Jesus and the blood of Christ, I pray for the misguided souls of Islam to accept Jesus Christ, the one true Son of GOD, lord and Savior! That and only that will make us brothers and allow us peace.

Morganite-

After the walls of Jericho fell, the Lord commanded Joshua & the Israelites not to covet the plunder. Joshua 7:1-But the Israelites acted unfaithfully in regard to the devoted things. Achan son of Carmi, the son of Zimri, the son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, took some of them. So the Lord's anger burned against Israel.
And so the Lord told Joshua to destroy" whatever among you is devoted to destruction."
Agreed? OK. Now do you think in present times someone reading the O.T.(Jew or not) would
stone someone's son to death for grand larceny?
No, because, and even in a RELIGIOUS sense,not to mention the laws of the land today, the Lord doesn't say go"go kill him", it's the devil that does that. You know it. I know it . And Jesus came as the great Intercessor for all. Again, God just doesn't say that anymore. He may say " go fight, I'm with you " but that is a completely different scenario.

Now, do you understand my point? You do not have to agree and that's fine.


"You know it. I know it"


One has to be uttterly conceited and deluded to tell another person what they know or to what they might agree.

I do not agree unless I say I do, and I do not know what you think I know unless I say I do. OK?

You sound just like the hard headed fundamentalist who reek terror and ignorance on an unsuspecting population in the name of God but have no clues at all That you both (Islam/Christianity) spew the same stuff that has divided man all along. So I guess you have proved my point that all of you book heads scream and holler at each other, but are not smart enough to know your screaming and hollering about the same thing. So keep pointing fingers and wrap yourself with who's ever blood you need to, but it makes me no difference. Stick your nose back in the book, where you are happy.

You misunderstood my answer. By" laws" I was referring to something like murder, kidnapping, or battery to say the least. Laws against crimes,punishable as in modern times.
Not anything to do with the Bible. It's government.
How do I explain - how many of Exremist Islam followers to moderate Muslims? Perhaps their numbers are the same. Just like all those CHRISTIAN names you gave. What was it, 25?
Don't count the ABORTION CLINIC violence! I'm not talking about 1 or 2 murders either.

25?

Morganite- tell that to Mohanir!


How can anyone tell what you were thinking (in reserve) unless you tell everything and qualify your statements so that they cannot be misunderstood? It is your respionsibility to ensure that you speak plainly, to the point, on the subject, and if you must rebut, then do it with evidence and reasoned argument, and not with a flurry of unsupported opinion.


If you make a statement, you must either support it or else withdraw it, but to make increasingly extravagant claims to justify it by saying you meant something other than what you actually said gives the impression that you are merely quarrelsome.

Do you stand by your statement that the Bible contains no direction to anyone to do violence to anyone? Or do you withdraw it?

I expected the rehetoric to follow and I will tell you, your having a teaching degree does not impress me in the least. As a matter of a fact, it scares me. First of all, you won't be teaching my children evolution and secondly, I am very careful about the claims people make as to their education for the simple reason that I have know many eduated idiots in my time. And of course, an empirical wizard such as yourself will know nothing of the matters of the heart, other than heart disease of course.

No, you keep going back to your tired, boring arguments b/c you disagree. We cannot have a debate when you are so inclined to poke fun at the one who you disagree with. You are closed minded b/c of your ego, for what that is worth. You come in on a conversation & spew absolute grade school knowledge that doesn't have any idea of the Bible or Qur'an. You like to get right in the middle & twist the words to suit your own ego. True, I don't know a lot about the Qur'an and I'm taking some Christian leaders word for it.
But the Bible- I know a great deal about. Much more than you know now preppy.

Don't twist the words & don't insult me. I feel sorry for you BTW, b/c it is you who has to worry about "standing before God" I'm covered with the blood of Jesus. Are you?
No, I think you are counting on your own will. Ego is part of the soul. You are out of alignment. Your spirit must be first. You need Jesus first- not yourself.

If you'd be quiet for a while, we might hear more about the Qur'an/Koran. I wonder if you can control it, at least with the superego--maybe we could actually learn something.



According to the Bible, the atonement of Jesus Christ was a universal gift. God is more generous in applying it to humanity than are some of his reputed supporters. Who speaks for God in this debate?

"Believing not" is not the same as not believing. If death was the terminal point of opportunity for men to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and saviour, what happens to all those who lived before the birth of Jesus, and to all those who have lived and do live in parts of the world where the name of Jesus has not been heard? Are they not also the children of a loving God?

Jesus came to be an infinite atonement and, by the shedding of his blood insuring to every creature immortality, because Redemption had to be as universal as the Fall. Further, we must never forget that, whatever we are moved to believe, the ultimate judge of who will and who will not be saved is in the hands of God and Christ alone. No minister has the power to determine otherwise.

It is sobering to consider the fate of those who claim to be followers of Christ but whose example and behavior have turned away many good people from embracing Jesus Christ as their saviour and redeemer. Whether among these is heaven bound?

If you make a statement, you must either support it or else withdraw it, but to make increasingly extravagant claims to justify it by saying you meant something other than what you actually said gives the impression that you are merely quarrelsome.
I really do appreciate and admire your attempt to bring a voice of reason and balance to this orgy of Muslim/Allah/Koran bashing, but surely you realize by now that you can't reason with and debate these folks. If you make a point or ask a pointed question that exposes a fallacy in their stream of blather, they will ignore it and go off on yet another unrelated tangent of hyperbole, accusation and innuendo. But in spite of the hopelessnes of making a dent in their self-imprisoning armor, your attempts do serve the admirable purpose of showing that not all Christians are so arrogant and self-deluded that they can't see that others' beliefs, though different from their own, are worthy of respect. For that, I salute and thank you most kindly.

Pilgrims perform last hajj ritual in Mecca - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/saudireligionislam)

Muslim haj pilgrims perform devil-stoning ritual - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061231/wl_nm/haj_dc_3)

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war"...Ann Coulter, Top Leading Christian Worldwide speaker.

"I don’t believe this is a wonderful, peaceful religion. When you read the Koran and you read the verses from the Koran, it instructs the killing of the infidel, for those that are non-Muslim." "The Islamic faith is wicked, violent, and not of the same God. It is a very evil and wicked religion."...Rev. Franklin Graham (son of Billy Graham)

"To see Americans become followers of, quote, Islam, is nothing short of insanity. Terry, you know, I've been in Africa many, many, many, many times, and you see people over here learning Swahili, for example. Swahili was the language of the slave traders. The Islamic people, the Arabs, were the ones who captured Africans, put them in slavery, and sent them to America as slaves. Why would people in America want to embrace the religion of the slavers, and the language of the slavers?"...Pat Robertson Founder and President of The 700 Club

"Islam was founded by Muhammad, a demon-possessed pedophile who had 12
wives - and his last one was a 9-year-old girl. And I will tell you Allah
is not Jehovah either. Jehovah's not going to turn you into a terrorist
that'll try to bomb people and take the lives of thousands and thousands
of people."....Pastor Jerry Vines Pastor of First Baptist Church, Jacksonville, Florida and former President of Southern Baptist Convention.

"Mohammed was a terrorist. I read enough if the history of his life written by both Muslims and non-Muslims (to know) that he was a violent man, a man of war. In my opinion, Jesus set the example for love, as did Moses. And I think that Mohammed set an opposite example."..Pastor Jerry Falwell, President of The Moral Majority, and Old-Time Gospel Hour

There has never been a bigger threat to Christianity, then the cult known as Islam. Yes, Islam is a cult, and a satanic cult at that. September 11, 2001 sounded the alarm and proved to Christian civilization what the true agenda of Islam is, and that is the total destruction of Christianity, as well as Judaism, by killing those who practice these beliefs, whom the Muslims refer to as infidels. We are in a war against terrorism, and this is a fight for survival. Christians and Jews represent Godliness, while Islam represents Satan. Muslims have become agents of Satan, and they will stop at nothing, including suicide to destroy Christians and Jews.

ISLAM (http://www.johnnyleeclary.com/islam.htm)

A free Holy Bible for the poor, oppressed and imprisoned (http://www.freebibles.net/)



Naik says that he does not know Osama and cannot judge his actions. However, Naik adds that if Osama is "terrorizing the terrorist, America", then he supports Osama bin Laden.

Zakir Naik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakir_Naik#Support_for_Osama_bin_Laden)
Statements such as above are not a bit different than what Bin laden preaches.
If I was the type that prayed my pray would be --O god protect me from your followers
--Savage

It was either Tweedledum or Tweedledee who said, "When I use a word it means exactly what I want it to say: nothing more, nothing less!"

With that in mind, I offer the following:

Heart Pronunciation (h&#228;rt) noun

1. Anatomy
a. The chambered muscular organ in vertebrates that pumps blood received from the veins into the arteries, thereby maintaining the flow of blood through the entire circulatory system.
b. A similarly functioning structure in invertebrates.

2. The area that is the approximate location of the heart in the body; the breast.

3.
a. The vital center and source of one's being, emotions, and sensibilities.
b. The repository of one's deepest and sincerest feelings and beliefs: an appeal from the heart; a subject dear to her heart.
c. The seat of the intellect or imagination: the worst atrocities the human heart could devise.

4.
a. Emotional constitution, basic disposition, or character: a man after my own heart.
b. One's prevailing mood or current inclination: We were light of heart.

5.
a. Capacity for sympathy or generosity; compassion: a leader who seems to have no heart.
b. Love; affection: The child won my heart.

6.
a. Courage; resolution; fortitude: The soldiers lost heart and retreated.
b. The firmness of will or the callousness required to carry out an unpleasant task or responsibility: hadn't the heart to send them away without food.

7. A person esteemed or admired as lovable, loyal, or courageous: a dear heart.

8.
a. The central or innermost physical part of a place or region: the heart of the financial district. See Synonyms at center.
b. The core of a plant, fruit, or vegetable: hearts of palm.

9. The most important or essential part: get to the heart of the matter.

10. A conventional two-lobed representation of the heart, usually colored red or pink.

11. Games
a. A red, heart-shaped figure on certain playing cards.
b. A playing card with this figure.
c. hearts (used with a sing. Or pl. verb) The suit of cards represented by this figure.
d. A card game in which the object is either to avoid hearts when taking tricks or to take all the hearts.
tr.v. heart&#183;ed, heart&#183;ing, hearts

Archaic: To encourage; hearten.

Idioms:

at heart

In one's deepest feelings; fundamentally.

by heart

Learned by rote; memorized word for word.

do (one's) heart good

To lift one's spirits; make one happy.

from the bottom/depths of (one's) heart

With the deepest appreciation; most sincerely.

have (one's) heart in (one's) mouth

To be extremely frightened or anxious.

have (one's) heart in the right place

To be well-intentioned.

heart and soul

Completely; entirely.

in (one's) heart of hearts

In the seat of one's truest feelings.

lose (one's) heart to

To fall in love with.

near/close to (one's) heart

Loved by or important to one.

steal (someone's) heart

To win one's affection or love.

take to heart

To take seriously and be affected or troubled by: Don't take my criticism to heart.

to (one's) heart's content

To one's entire satisfaction, without limitation.

wear (one's) heart on (one's) sleeve

To show one's feelings clearly and openly by one's behavior.

with all (one's) heart

1. With great willingness or pleasure.
2. With the deepest feeling or devotion.

With half a heart = In a half-hearted manner.

[Middle English hert, from Old English heorte

Glad it is that I am, that none of us is heartless.
(The Barn of Avon)

:)



.

It seems like it is easier to separate the differences than looking honestly at the similarities. When you throw the books away, and stand naked and alone before the Creator do you honestly think that their are different lines for different Gods?

It is not really difficult to discover who speaks with which voice.

God and Jesus are the reconcilers, whereas Satan has been called 'the crow-bar' because he pries people apart.


QED

That is the whole point of the question, Tal. We are NOT throwing the books away. We are reading them. The Bible & the Qur'an here. And if you insist on it - yes, there are different "lines" for different gods- exactly why Allah is not the God of the Bible. So, with your non-religious statement we're back to square one-the separating factor.
There is a difference between them(Qur'an & the Bible)
I proposed that some non-Muslim leaders said that there were 17 verses in the Qur'an that were violent(and should be removed) Of course they have similarities, but even one verse promoting violence is too much.

What would you do if all the Books had been destroyed? To what source would you turn for guidance in matters spiritual?


M:)RGANITE

From 31pumpkin

I don't know a lot about the Qur'an and I'm taking some Christian leaders word for it.

What if he knows less than you do? So you would follow as a sheep and repeat the rhetoric of your leader. That is exactly what is occurring in Islam so another point as to the similarity of these two religions.


But even one verse promoting violence is too much.


So I guess all the verses Morganite has prooffered don't count?

Morganite-

After the walls of Jericho fell, the Lord commanded Joshua & the Israelites not to covet the plunder. Joshua 7:1-But the Israelites acted unfaithfully in regard to the devoted things. Achan son of Carmi, the son of Zimri, the son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, took some of them. So the Lord's anger burned against Israel.
And so the Lord told Joshua to destroy" whatever among you is devoted to destruction."
Agreed? OK. Now do you think in present times someone reading the O.T.(Jew or not) would
stone someone's son to death for grand larceny?
No, because, and even in a RELIGIOUS sense,not to mention the laws of the land today, the Lord doesn't say go"go kill him", it's the devil that does that. You know it. I know it . And Jesus came as the great Intercessor for all. Again, God just doesn't say that anymore. He may say " go fight, I'm with you " but that is a completely different scenario.

Now, do you understand my point? You do not have to agree and that's fine.

What I 'think' has no bearing on the case in point, because it is certain that some modern day murderers and child beaters take their instruction from the pages of the Bible. I have provided you with ample evidence of the fact, but you will not admit that evidence into consideration, and find what I consider to be lame and concocted excuses to bar them from the equation.

To clear the way for a reasoned discussion on an important matter, will you please point out which books or verses of books in the Bible you wish to 'count out' or ignore completely, so that I can either avoid them in offering examples to show where you have erred, or else join you in the denial of things that I know to be factual but am too partisan to admit to: namely, that there are passages in the Bible that direct men do violence and commit murder.

Once I have your list, I will see whether the rump of the Bible is clean enough from promoting us to commit depredations that then render it a morally superior work to al Qu'ran.

The 'accursed thing' was introduced into the camp of Israel by the Israelites themselves and not by the Aiites, and this was done in direct contravention of the command given to them by God. One of the soldiers disobeyed. He took a garment upon which the curse rested. He also took some of the silver and gold and hid them in his tent.

If the Book of Joshua is accurate, it makes it appear that God commanded Joshua's army to slaughter civilian non-combatants, including old men, women, and children as a punishment for somehting that the Israelites had done. Doesn't that cause you at least one moment of disquiet?

When I saw among the spoils a goodly Babylonish garment, and two hundred shekels of silver, and a wedge of gold of fifty shekels weight, then I coveted them, and took them; and, behold, they [are] hid in the earth in the midst of my tent, and the silver under it. So Joshua sent messengers, and they ran unto the tent; and, behold, [it was] hid in his tent, and the silver under it. And they took them out of the midst of the tent, and brought them unto Joshua, and unto all the children of Israel, and laid them out before the LORD. And Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver, and the garment, and the wedge of gold, and his sons, and his daughters, and his oxen, and his asses, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had: and they brought them unto the valley of Achor. And Joshua said, Why hast thou troubled us? the LORD shall trouble thee this day. And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones.

What wrong had Achan's sons, daughters, oxen, asses, sheep, and tent done that they should be stoned and burnt?



M:)RGANITE


Believe or accept
“Do you believe in evolution?” is a question often asked of biology teachers by their puzzled students. The answer is, “No, I accept the fact that the Earth is very old and life has changed over billions of years because that is what the evidence tells us.” Science is not about belief—it is about making inferences based on evidence.

As a point of clarification, isn't changing slowly over billions of years the same as evolving?

I don't wish to be too picky here, but science is about finding out. Inferences are not as strong as what can be proven, and scientists might use inferences only as points of departure to lead them to discover what is and what is not true. Perhaps you will agree to omit semantic digs (unless they are essential), rather than use them to score points from the opposition, and address the issue at hand as a priority.

Yes?

M:)

"31pumpkin (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/../members/31pumpkin.html) agrees: Right. They don't count. He took everything out of context to what I meant."

Is it me or is that the standard response everytime you offer up a bible quote that counters their argument? It's always "taken out of context".

First, it wasn't I that offered up all those Bible quotes if you look. Morganite is countering with verses from the Bible. Except there is no comparison when a Christian looks at entire scripture in relation to the Bible's verses. Instead I am countering the Koran.

The Koran takes the "7th century warrior"-Mohammed & canonizes him as the supreme example of human behavior. So instead of being a 7th century warfare pattern that we ought not follow,( Mohammed) becomes the model for how we should always behave. So this is the defect, and the difficulty.
Islam-Terrorism, Inc. (http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/terrorist1.html)

31pumpkinFirst, it wasn't I that offered up all those Bible quotes if you look. Morganite is countering with verses from the Bible. Except there is no comparison when a Christian looks at entire scripture in relation to the Bible's verses. Instead I am countering the Koran.
By your own admission you know nothing of the KORAN, except what some Christian leader has told you, and offer the violent scriptures of the Koran as proof that it must be wrong. Yet when you are presented with facts that the bible does the same thing as the Koran, have violent passages, you pass over that as if it was justified (the same dribble comes from Islam) That is bias, unfair, and illogical. I submit to you that the sheep of the bible and the sheep of Islam are doing the same thing.

The Koran takes the "7th century warrior"-Mohammed & canonizes him as the supreme example of human behavior. So instead of being a 7th century warfare pattern that we ought not follow,( Mohammed) becomes the model for how we should always behave. So this is the defect, and the difficulty.
Islam-Terrorism, Inc. (http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/terrorist1.html)
Without knowing more about the subject instead of telling us what is false, as Mohammad is portrayed as much more than a warrior, get to know the whole truth and not just pick out a part of the story to use to denigrate some one else. That is your defect. Your difficulty is either you don't see it or won't admit it. A closed mind can learn nothing.

By the way the site you refer to is propaganda and false if you need legitamate sites let me know when your mind is open to learn the truth as defined by history.

The propaganda phrase you accuse is exactly what the stuff that threatens America.

You don't know the Bible or the Koran, so your commenting has nothing but an emotional response, which is typical of non-believers.

I have to go to work now- Can't sit at the PC all day- it's not my job- So I am sure you will get what your ego desires Taliman, THE LAST WORD!

B/C I am done for today.

Have a good time!

31pumpkinThe propaganda phrase you accuse is exactly what the stuff that threatens America.
Propaganda only misdirects

You don't know the Bible or the Koran, so your commenting has nothing but an emotional response, which is typical of non-believers.
I have no need of a book to have a personal relationship with the God of my understanding, but I do respect those that do, to each his own choice. So take me off that non-believer list.

I have to go to work now- Can't sit at the PC all day- it's not my job- So I am sure you will get what your ego desires Taliman, THE LAST WORD!
My ego requires only peace and truth.
B/C I am done for today.
It was a blast! So you later
Have a good time!
May your day bring you happiness. I guess you were right, I did get the last word.....................for now.

31pumpkinThe propaganda phrase you accuse is exactly what the stuff that threatens America.
Propaganda only misdirects

You don't know the Bible or the Koran, so your commenting has nothing but an emotional response, which is typical of non-believers.
I have no need of a book to have a personal relationship with the God of my understanding, but I do respect those that do, to each his own choice. So take me off that non-believer list.

I have to go to work now- Can't sit at the pc all day- it's not my job- So I am sure you will get what your ego desires Taliman, THE LAST WORD!
My ego requires only peace and truth.
B/C I am done for today.
It was a blast! So you later
Have a good time!
May your day bring you happiness. I guess you were right, I did get the last word.....................for now.
That is not propaganda. Again you misunderstand. I said in my previous post- you or anyone for that matter who calls that propaganda is ignoring the threat that is real, at least now for America. You may" allegedly" call it propaganda-but there are many who see it as useful information.
And that is exactly what Bill O'Reilly(Fox news commentator) thinks is dangerous too-to label it as propaganda. I agree with him. We need to be well-informed.
Strange. You don't have to read any books that's true- but you are allowed to criticize mine -but I get told to "keep my head down!" when I answer. HMM, something discriminating here towards women. I thought we were talking about the Bible and the Koran? Not to mention a similarity of how women should behave. I'm not a Muslim-if that's the case!
Keep the peace and let the truth reveal itself by at least giving something towards the topic, and not just about the people answering the questions. I didn't see any independent answer to the question itself by you thus far!

FYI, agreeing with Bill O'Reilly may hurt your credibility. :)
He's just an actor playing a role for ratings.

NK-

Why don't you like him? They all compete for ratings. I've checked most of them out & he's probably my favorite. His ratings are very high too. I think he's very credible & pleasant.

So you get Fox news up there in Ontario? :D

For those that study the Koran it is very obvous where a lot of the writings come from. It combines verious faiths in that area at the time, the major parts of Christianity in the Koran, and there are, comes from the sect in that area that taught that Jesus did not die on the cross and includes all those beleifs about Christ taught by that sect. One of Mohammads wife's was part of that group so it is easy to understand where he learned it from them and other people from the area.

And it is based on used as a system of control of the common people, rule based on religion is much easer to use for control more than political rule esp that of horrid leader.

Now he is not near the first to use religion as a control and will not be the last, but he is one of the first to develop one that because a major religion.

And it matters not what it is suppose to be, if it is suppose to be that of peace obviously a large group of its followers don't follow it correctly.

It matters nothing as to what it says, but in what and how it is taught and how it is inacted. Since a majority of the fighting today is because of the teachings of the Koran, one has to just understand it does not matter what the writer wanted it to be, does not matter what it was suppose to be, it is what it is.

NK-

Why don't you like him? They all compete for ratings. I've checked most of them out & he's probably my favorite. His ratings are very high too. I think he's very credible & pleasant.

So you get Fox news up there in Ontario? :D
a. I don't live in Ontario
b. Fox News is not allowed a broadcast license in Canada for good reason
c. I have the internet: YouTube and many, many other sites enjoy skewering him up because he offers tons of material
He doesn't do news, he does opinion pieces. If you believe he is pleasant then we have a different definition of the word pleasant.

Media Matters - O'Reilly attacks ... and attacks ... and attacks (http://mediamatters.org/items/200603130003)
News Hounds: O'Reilly: St. Petersburg Times Is "Scum" (http://www.newshounds.us/2005/06/28/oreilly_st_petersburg_times_is_scum.php)
Truthdig - A/V Booth - O'Reilly Calls Peace Activist 'Lunatic' (http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20070108_oreilly_peace_activist_lunatic/)
Crooks and Liars » Bill O'Reilly (http://www.crooksandliars.com/category/fox-news/bill-oreilly/)
YouTube - Olbermann OWNS O'Reilly (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62bfe_5sQ4I)

This discussion already has gone too far. I believe that Allah and God are same, it's just up to us human beings how we want to think as.
Magprob.

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war"... Ann Coulter, Top Leading Christian Worldwide speaker.

"I don’t believe this is a wonderful, peaceful religion. When you read the Koran and you read the verses from the Koran, it instructs the killing of the infidel, for those that are non-Muslim." "The Islamic faith is wicked, violent, and not of the same God. It is a very evil and wicked religion."... Rev. Franklin Graham (son of Billy Graham)


Don't provide this kind of info, you are a christian you will go against Islam or .etc or a muslim will go against chritian, you think your religion is the best and he/she thinks his/her religion is best or true, Only the God Allah know which is true and the best. I can provide you tons of sayings and links against christiaity by other followers, but will their sayings make any difference to the christianity or what you wrote made any difference to islam, no. I think if we follow those kind of people then we will be standing at nowhere.
I don't think we need to judge anybody by his/her belife, beduase no religion teaches intolerance. But a person can be judged by his/her action. If a person kills an innocent he/she is a plain killer, you don't put a christian or a muslim killer in front of their names. Who ever commints a wrong doing he/she will have to face the consequesnces either in this world of here afetr. I am responsiblef for my actions and your are for your actions.
If you ask a true muslim about ladin, he/she will say he went totally againt Islamic teaching, Islam NEVER taught these kind of acts. Having a name like a muslim don't make you a muslim, he misused the name of Islam and spread terror. Islam teachers not to kill an innocent, doesn't matter what their believes are and not even in the case of war.

About Dr. Naik (keep in mind I am not defending him, I am just writing back what you said). You might re-read what he said. He said"I say every Muslim should be a ‘terrorist for the anti-social elements of society’. A terrorist is a person who causes terror. The moment a robber sees a policeman he is terrified. A policeman is a terrorist for the robber. Similarly every Muslim should be a terrorist for the anti-social elements of society, be they thieves, pick-pockets, black-marketers or rapists. Whenever an anti-social element sees a Muslim, he should be terrified. It is true that the word ‘terrorist’ is generally used for a person who causes terror among innocent people. But a true Muslim should only be a terrorist to anti-social elements and not to innocent people. In fact a Muslim should be a source of peace and solace for innocent and righteous people."

Here is the link provided with more info might read it again with open mind.
Faq on Islam (http://www.irf.net/irf/faqonislam/index.htm).

Pumpking said Islam is a violent religion, and it is in the Quran, could you please tell me, but before to anwer, search around and look in what circumstaces that perticular verse was revealed and in what cases it implies, what is the story behind, because every verse has a perticular meaning behind it either in the quran or bible.

If so, then all the verses provided by Marganite are same as the Quran, either way you think are from the bible or Quran.

To be a good muslim one has to respect any religion by any means, if a muslim is disrespecting any religion by anyway he/she is not following the precep of Islam.

We can have discussion, can share thought about other religions to gain knowledge, but with respect.

On thing if someone need info about a perticular religion, ask somebody who is practicing that religion, if you ask a questions about christianity to muslim, then you know what kind of answer you will get, or v. versa.

Islam would rather be covered in the blood of Christians than the Blood of Christ.
In the name of Jesus and the blood of Christ, I pray for the misguided souls of Islam to accept Jesus Christ, the one true Son of GOD, lord and Savior! That and only that will make us brothers and allow us peace.



That is a disgraceful and untrue thing to say about millions upon millions of Muslims who have no animosity towards Christians. What a pity that you do not show the same spirit towards them, but engagein beliigerent bellicosity. Have you forgotten the words of Peter, or do you choose to ignore them in your bigoted anger?

"Render not railing for railing but contrariwise blessing."

Remember that "an eye for an eye" makes everyone blind.

I pray for the misguided souls of Christians who see Jesus as a warrior-Avenger and strike at those whom they have determined are His enemies! Is your Jesus such a weakling that he needs people like you to defend him and avenge pretended slights?

If God is love, and you speak hatred, which god do you worship? You cannot serve God and vengeance, for no man can serve two masters.



Inexcusable Tolerance for Religious Extremism in America

by FEDWA
WAZWAZ

Since the terrorist attacks on Sept 11, many high-ranking leaders of the religious right in America have been quite vocal attacking Islam, the Qur'an and Prophet Muhammad in the public square. With a few exceptions, American columnists, intellectuals and political leaders have encouraged this hate campaign with their silence.

For example, Rev. Franklin Graham, Billy Graham's son and successor who participated in the president's inauguration, declared Islam a "very evil and wicked religion."

And in a recent appearance on Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes" program, Christian Coalition founder and television evangelist Pat Robertson, attacked Islam and the Prophet Muhammad. About Muhammad, Robertson said: "This man was an absolute wild-eyed fanatic. He was a robber and a brigand. And to say that these terrorists distort Islam, they're carrying out Islam. I mean, this man [Muhammad] was a killer. And to think that this is a peaceful religion is fraudulent." Robertson also called Islam "a monumental scam."

In addition, on the CBS program "60 Minutes," the Rev. Jerry Falwell attacked Prophet Muhammad as a "terrorist." Last summer, Falwell defended Southern Baptist pastor Jerry Vines who declared at the denomination's convention wherein President Bush spoke via satellite, that Muhammad was a "demon-possessed pedophile" and that Islam teaches the destruction of all non-Muslims.

These are not the words of the KKK or some outcast group. These are influential leaders within America that share a close relationship with the President, his administration and many Republican leaders. Neither the Bush Administration nor any Republican leader has condemned their attacks or disassociated themselves from these extremists.

While CBS and Fox News are free to invite people to raise arguments or challenges to Islam, they have not shown fairness or balance by not inviting Muslim Scholars to respond to these attacks.

If America is intolerant to religious extremism, one would hear within the public square criticism of extremists of all faiths. However, we only hear Muslim extremists being condemned.

To illustrate my point, for the past year we have seen a deluge of articles, opinion pieces, and reports on Muslim clerics teaching hatred toward Christianity and Judaism and silence within the mainstream press to malicious attacks against Islam.

For example, Thomas Friedman one of the most influential columnists in America, reminded us over and over again that the 19 Muslim men who attacked the WTC and Pentagon came from Egypt and Saudi Arabia. In a tireless manner, he wrote extensively on the "madrassas", or schools, that teach Muslims to hate non Muslims. He forgot the hundreds of thousands of American Jews who go settle in Israel and are taught that Arabs are "vermin," "snakes," or "evil." Alan Goodman was an American Jewish citizen who went to the Al Aqsa compound and started shooting at worshippers. Baruch Goldstein, another American Jewish citizen, opened fire on Muslim worshippers kneeling in prayer within the Ibrahimi mosque in Hebron in 1994, killing 29 instantly and wounding dozens.

There is no shrine honoring bin Laden in Saudi Arabia, but there is a shrine honoring Goldstein in an illegal Jewish settlement in the West Bank, where thousands come annually to honor his "martyrdom", even from America.

Actually, these Jewish settlers have a strong political and religious relationship with the Christian right leaders who are bashing Islam ad nauseaum.

One has to ask: where is Friedman's pen regarding the seminaries within America that produced Goldstein, Goodman and the nefarious armed Jewish settlers who believe they have a God-given right to steal Arab land by force? Where are Friedman's thought-provoking articles regarding Graham, Falwell, and Robertson's attacks against Islam and their alliances with the Bush administration?

As a Muslim convinced of my faith, I don't want people to be afraid to question Islam, raise arguments or questions about the Qur'an or Prophet Muhammad. However, I question the platform where we are viciously attacked and our voices are silenced or distorted.

America is a free county, however, there is a "Do Not Enter" sign for Muslims who want to enter the public square and respond to these vitriolic attacks.

When Muslims are given the chance, they can easily show that these attacks against Islam are absolutely false and that those who are attacking Islam are doing so in the spirit of hatred, not in the spirit of Jesus, Moses or any prophet of God.

Speak evil of no man.




M:)RGANITE

?????
How someone could think that, I have no clue. Christianity is absolutely a monotheistic religion.

I know of no group that calls itself Christian, with the exception of Mormons, that professes anything but monotheism.

Do you?


It is remarkable [!] that I have this morning been reading statements from early Church Father, Origen, and marking his interesting 'take' on the Godhead. Whether an individual Christian is strictly monotheirstic or not depends on how they, personally, regard the teaching of the Trinity.

I have met with some members of, for one example, the Church of England who do not accept the trinitarian teaching that the three Gods add up to one single entity. Can these be properly described as Christians? It is my belief that they not only can be so designated, but that they are so in every way.

Swinburne says that the early church creeds denied the view that there were “three independent divine beings, any of which could exist without the other; or which could act independently of each other.” In effect, a doctrine of three independent beings who could act independently of one another is a polytheism that limits the number of the gods to three.

Mormonism is sometimes said to be tritheism for holding that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three different beings, although in pratcise I think you will find that Mormonism is monotheistic by worshiping only the Father. Their belief in other deities, to which no allegiance or worship is owed, is properly called henotheism, which is as different from polytheirm as it is from monotheism.

My researches into what I will call primitive Christianity finds no mention of a Trinity and although the picture becomes extremely confused by a wide variety of opinions until the Chalcedonian Definition, and even later than that the matter was far from settled, referral to the Bible makes no mention of trinitarian thinking, bur rather separateness, of which Jesus himself emerges as the main authority through his sayings about his Father and himself.

If Christianity is strictly monotheistic, and Islam in also strictly monotheistic, then why the gulf between them, and why do not Judaism, Christianity, and Islam embrace each other in a common bond of faith? If they are all strictly monotheistic there could be no problem, no barrier. And yet there is an unbridgeable divide between Judaism and Christianity, and between Christianity and Islam.

M:)RGANITE


.


Just a question to help further the discussion:
If Allah and the Christian God are the same, why would they tell two prophets (Muhammad and Jesus) to worship him in separate ways?



Is Jesus only a prophet?


The Gospel According to John


Chapter Nine

1 ¶ AND as [Jesus] passed by, he saw a man which was blind from [his] birth.

John 9:2
2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

John 9:3
3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

John 9:4
4 I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.

John 9:5
5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.

John 9:6
6 When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay,

John 9:7
7 And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.

John 9:8
8 ¶ The neighbours therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and begged?

John 9:9
9 Some said, This is he: others [said], He is like him: he said, I am [he].

John 9:10
10 Therefore said they unto him, How were thine eyes opened?

John 9:11
11 He answered and said, A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to the pool of Siloam, and wash: and I went and washed, and I received sight.

John 9:12
12 Then said they unto him, Where is he? He said, I know not.

John 9:13
13 ¶ They brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind.

John 9:14
14 And it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes.

John 9:15
15 Then again the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. He said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see.

John 9:16
16 Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.

John 9:17
17 They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet.

John 9:18
18 But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight.

John 9:19
19 And they asked them, saying, Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? How then doth he now see?

John 9:20
20 His parents answered them and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind:

John 9:21
21 But by what means he now seeth, we know not; or who hath opened his eyes, we know not: he is of age; ask him: he shall speak for himself.

John 9:22
22 These [words] spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.

John 9:23
23 Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask him.

John 9:24
24 Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner.

John 9:25
25 He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner [or no], I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.

John 9:26
26 Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? How opened he thine eyes?

John 9:27
27 He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear again? Will ye also be his disciples?

John 9:28
28 Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses' disciples.

John 9:29
29 We know that God spake unto Moses: [as for] this [fellow], we know not whence he is.

John 9:30
30 The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not whence he is, and [yet] he hath opened mine eyes.

John 9:31
31 Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.

John 9:32
32 Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind.

John 9:33
33 If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.

John 9:34
34 They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.

John 9:35
35 ¶ Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?

John 9:36
36 He answered and said, [B][I]Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?

John 9:37
37 And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.

John 9:38
38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.

The understanding of the man born blind was opened bit by bit to move from believing that Jesus was merely a man, to believing that he was a prophet of God, and from believing he was a prophet to believing that Jesus was the very Son of God.

There is an eternal world of difference between a prophet of God and the Son of God. Muhammed may have been a prophet, but Jeus was most certainly not a prophet.


M:)

I don't think Allah is the same as God. Allah may mean god in Arabic but it's not the same God. I think a lot of Muslims probably don't know much about their religion to question a great deal about Mohammed. I think these Muslims were just born into their religion & believe if their parents tell them that Allah is the same as the Biblical God, they just believe that too.
Could Allah's name have come from......?www.biblebelievers.org.au/moongod.htm (http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/moongod.htm)



If we judge a God or a faith by its adherents, what are we to make of the faith and God of the Medicis?

The Grand Wazoo has spoken.

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?
There is only one God, yet people see Him in many ways. It just depends on how you see Him.

That is a disgraceful and untrue thing to say about millions upon millions of Muslims who have no animosity towards Christians. What a pity that you do not show the same spirit towards them, but engagein beliigerent bellicosity. Have you forgotten the words of Peter, or do you choose to ignore them in your bigoted anger?
[I]




M:)RGANITE

I'm sorry, you are right Morganite, 3,000 killed in the twin towers and now roughly 3,000 soldiers killed and more everyday just isn't enough. Let's wait until they kill six million of us before we step up and say that is enough. Will that make you happy? After all, we really want to make you happy! That is our number one goal.
Philosophy verses Reality. Tell us another bed time story Grandpa!

To 31pumpkin, I have nothing personally against you, but I was only trying to give you the benefit of the fruit of a personal relationship with the God that I understand. The bible is a good history book that lays guidance to the reader, as the Koran does exactly the same thing and these are facts that unless you look open mindedly, all you see is the rhetoric that has blinded us as humans and kept us apart for so long. Who do you think benefits the most when humans cannot settle their differences and work together? My so called attacks on you where not personal, but a counter to what you have said, which is not your belief, but repeating the BS of the uninformed. You are not alone in that nor is the religion you hold so dear. For those reasons and to my amusement, from being on the outside looking in, Christianity and Islam share so much, that its hard to tell which is which. To bad, neither of you can step back and look at the big picture more honestly, so instead of spewing scripture at each other, you would be breaking bread.

It is for this reason and a few others, that I respectfully submit that there is no difference at all between The Islamic Allah, or the Christian/Jewish Jehovah.

There is only one God, yet people see Him in many ways. It just depends on how you see Him.
Makes sense to me.

Reading the above, Some of these posts from seeming helpful,good hearted people in other threads, Just reinforces why fundamentalist of all faiths are to be feared.
My god is greater than your god and I will kill you to prove it.
Funny how many folks ignore the fact that christians,muslims and jews all lived together in peace for many years before the west stuck its nose in the M.E.

If Christianity is strictly monotheistic, and Islam in also strictly monotheistic, then why the gulf between them, and why do not Judaism, Christianity, and Islam embrace each other in a common bond of faith? If they are all strictly monotheistic there could be no problem, no barrier. And yet there is an unbridgeable divide between Judaism and Christianity, and between Christianity and Islam.

M:)RGANITE

You forget the divide between Judiaism and Islam. Completes the circle. That is what makes them different branches of the same tree.

Reading the above, Some of these posts from seeming helpful,good hearted people in other threads, Just reinforces why fundamentalist of all faiths are to be feared.
My god is greater than your god and I will kill you to prove it.
Funny how many folks ignore the fact that christians,muslims and jews all lived together in peace for many years before the west stuck its nose in the M.E.
You are right as no matter the religion its always that small group who to keep power must keep the population stirred up against one enemy or another. Usually wealth is the bottom line and main motivation and as far as living in peace in the middle east? Wealth and personal power has always motivated one war or another as it was only the academics and scholars who broke bread and exchanged ideas and promoted free thinking by coping the great literal works of ancient man. Baghdad had the biggest library in the world and to bad that it was closed, looted, and burned centuries ago.

For those that study the Koran it is very obvous where alot of the writings come from. It combines verious faiths in that area at the time, the major parts of Christianity in the Koran, and there are, comes from the sect in that area that taught that Jesus did not die on the cross and includes all those beleifs about Christ taught by that sect. One of Mohammads wifes was part of that group so it is easy to understand where he learned it from them and other people from the area.

And it is based on used as a system of control of the commom people, rule based on religion is much easer to use for control more than political rule esp that of horrid leader.

Now he is not near the first to use religion as a control and will not be the last, but he is one of the first to develop one that because a major religion.

And it matters not what it is suppose to be, if it is suppose to be that of peace obviously a large group of its followers don't follow it correctly.

It matters nothing as to what it says, but in what and how it is taught and how it is inacted. Since a majority of the fighting today is because of the teachings of the Koran, one has to just understand it does not matter what the writer wanted it to be, does not matter what it was suppose to be, it is what it is.

Muhammed's thesis was that both Judaism and Christianity had become apostate, and Islam was intended to restore the true faith. That is why elements of each are common to Islam and are found within the pages of al Qur'an..


The name of God a person uses depends on which holy book they accept as divinely inspired scripture. The idea that there is and necessarily must be one and ONLY ONE true scripture, and one and ONLY ONE correct interpretation of that scripture is the source of countless religious wars, feuds, fights and arguments. I hope this isn't the start of another one.

It mostly depends on the language in one reads the various holy books. What does a Holy Bible in Arabic call God? What does al Qur'an in English call Allah?









:)

Reading the above, Some of these posts from seeming helpful,good hearted people in other threads, Just reinforces why fundamentalist of all faiths are to be feared.
My god is greater than your god and I will kill you to prove it.


Fundamentalists are not the problem (unless you have a peculiar definition of the term). Fundamentalist Christians beliece in five fundamental tenets of their religion. The trouble is caused by militancy, not fundamentalism.

Maybe "Onlyism" would be a better description--Only one Scripture, Only one interpretation. The key to understanding the mindset is to realize that they BEGIN with the answer--what the Scripture "says"--and therefore no further thought or discussion is necessary, and all other evidence is a threat. The absolute certitude that their choice of a holy book and their interpretation of its meaning are not actually their choices, but are given directly by God make them totally impervious to reason or logic, and absolutely intolerant of any and all alternatives. You got to admit, it's a heckuva suit of armor.

By Morganite

And yet there is an unbridgeable divide between Judaism and Christianity, and between Christianity and Islam.

The divde is artificial, man made and can be crossed by man, if he so desires.

To 31pumpkin, I have nothing personally against you, but I was only trying to give you the benefit of the fruit of a personal relationship with the God that I understand. The bible is a good history book that lays guidance to the reader, as the Koran does exactly the same thing and these are facts that unless you look open mindedly, all you see is the rhetoric that has blinded us as humans and kept us apart for so long. Who do you think benefits the most when humans cannot settle their differences and work together? My so called attacks on you where not personal, but a counter to what you have said, which is not your belief, but repeating the BS of the uninformed. You are not alone in that nor is the religion you hold so dear. For those reasons and to my amusement, from being on the outside looking in, Christianity and Islam share so much, that its hard to tell which is which. To bad, neither of you can step back and look at the big picture more honestly, so instead of spewing scripture at each other, you would be breaking bread.

It is for this reason and a few others, that I respectfully submit that there is no difference at all between The Islamic Allah, or the Christian/Jewish Jehovah.

Makes sense to me.


I can't give you reputation, so have to comment this way. The Bible is not a 'good' histery book in all cases. Discrete accounts of the same events differs in some important particulars, and the actual day of the Last Supper as recorded in the Synoptic gospels is disputed by John's account. It was not written as a history book, so we must not look for reliable records of what happened. it is written mostly as salvation history in which the what it means is of greater importance than what actually happened.

Someone wrote that the Bible and al Qur'an recorded the same historical events. This is patently not so, as even a cursory reading will reveal.

M:)

By Morganite

The divde is artificial, man made and can be crossed by man, if he so desires.

Man made, very likely, but how do you believe it can be bridged without loss to all parties?

Man made, very likely, but how do you believe it can be bridged without loss to all parties?

That people stop the BS and accept each other does not have to come as a loss. We have proven as humans we can be different and still revel in our sameness.

To hadi88-

I spent about an hour reading the LINK you provided. From what I know so far and what I determined (considering your link) Muslim suicide bombers DO take the Qur'an's verses out of context. It must be poverty and lack of freedoms that make a young Muslim vulnerable to such brainwashing so as to say that they interpret the meaning and circumstances of the word "JIHAD"and become religious fundamentalists.
It isn't any other religion subscribing to the Qur'an, so I am just reading what I see.
So is it that these thousands of militants turn into just people who hate- and not because people who hate Islam - that some chapters or verses in the Qur'an get scutinized about?
Doesn't this hate stem from their confusion and desperation, aided by a leader, AND the Qur'an?

Jihad Watch: "The Koran says it is the duty of Muslims to bring terror to the enemy, so being a terrorist makes me a good Muslim" (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/006829.php)

IRAN: MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT TRY TO IMPEACH AHMADINEJAD (http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Politics&loid=8.0.374527125&par=0)

If I recall correctly what I read after 9/11 Most of the terrorist involved where middle class oddly enough.
Just in from work so to tired and lazy to Google it up and check though -- Savage

This has become really wild! There are just too many posts to quote from, as there are so many aspects touched upon, so I offer the following in support of my original thought:

Exod 32:1-4
1 And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the mount, the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto him, Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we what not what is become of him.
2 And Aaron said unto them, Break off the golden earrings, which are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring them unto me.
3 And all the people brake off the golden earrings which were in their ears, and brought them unto Aaron.
4 And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
(KJV)

The molten calf was certainly not Yaweh, but if you will read the complete account you will find that they CALLED it Yaweh. It is not a question of "god is god is god". The Scriptures teach that there are many that are called god, but only one Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent God. (Please, let's not get into the Trinity discussion here.)

No one has yet taken Satan into account here. (You do believe he exists, don't you?)
2 Cor 11:14
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
(KJV)

Deception is his method of operation.

In the Old Covenant, Yaweh did everything necessary to keep His promise to Eve.

Gen 3:15
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
(KJV)

Jesus brought a New Covenant. He had come, so there could be no further threat to His lineage, so destruction of certain populaces was no longer necessary. Under this New Covenant we are to love our enemies, pray for those that despitefully use us.

There has always been a difference in the commands to government and to individuals.
The nation that turns the other cheek will not last long.

Finally, (for now), please give me a list of those countries that are predominantly Moslem where other faiths are not oppressed in some manner. I would like to know if there are any. I am not interested in some slick web site designed for PR purposes.

Actually from what I've seen the Islamic faith has as many branches as Christianity, so another X in the similar file.

Actually from what I've seen the Islamic faith has as many branches as Christianity, so another X in the similar file.

Islam doesn't have branches. It is only to following the Quran and the teachings Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), all others such as shaitii, sofi, marzai .etc were created after the death of Prophet. (This is just to the best of my knowledge, which to me make sense, that when Prophet died, then who are we to make our own believes(branches), after what he had already taught).

Islam does'nt have branches. It is only to followin the Quran and the teachings Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), all others such as shaitii, sofi, marzai .etc were created after the death of Prophet. (This is just to the best of my knowledge, which to me make sense, that when Prophet died, then who are we to make our own believes(branches), after what he had already taught).

You mean like the lutheran, protestant, baptists, and methodists? Seems to me this is another similarity between Islam and Christianity and Judaism. When one church(mosque)(synagogue) disagrees on policy or whatever, they form another group and change the name, but still hold the same book dear.Hmmmmmmmmmmmm!! Honestly the more I learn the less that separates them.

Islam does'nt have branches. It is only to followin the Quran and the teachings Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), all others such as shaitii, sofi, marzai .etc were created after the death of Prophet. (This is just to the best of my knowledge, which to me make sense, that when Prophet died, then who are we to make our own believes(branches), after what he had already taught).

Salaam a' leikum,

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.


M:)RGANITE


To hadi88-

I spent about an hour reading the LINK you provided. From what I know so far and what I determined (considering your link) Muslim suicide bombers DO take the Qur'an's verses out of context. It must be poverty and lack of freedoms that make a young Muslim vulnerable to such brainwashing so as to say that they interpret the meaning and circumstances of the word "JIHAD"and become religious fundamentalists.
It isn't any other religion subscribing to the Qur'an, so I am just reading what I see.
So is it that these thousands of militants turn into just people who hate- and not because people who hate Islam - that some chapters or verses in the Qur'an get scutinized about?
Doesn't this hate stem from their confusion and desperation, aided by a leader, AND the Qur'an?

Jihad Watch: "The Koran says it is the duty of Muslims to bring terror to the enemy, so being a terrorist makes me a good Muslim" (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/006829.php)

IRAN: MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT TRY TO IMPEACH AHMADINEJAD (http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Politics&loid=8.0.374527125&par=0)

The idea that poverty produces fundamentalist militant terrorists has been exploded by the social and educational status of mnay of the terrorists already known and apprehended. They are, with few exceptions, middle class, educated, and a long way from poor.

Poverty tends to create people aware of social inequalities who strive to make the playing field of economic life more level for the poor, but unless such a person's crtitical thinking is severely damaged they will not resort to violence in pursuit of their aims.

For a person to deliberately take the lives of innocent strangers in pursuit of their political or religious goals requires a pathological ideological basis that is severely out of kilter with the thinking, aims, and purposes of the mass of humanity.

Revolutionaries are either impatient for change, or else believe that change can come about through no other means. Karl Marx believed that social revolution was the natural outcome of the suppression, oppression, and exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeousie that would 'inevitably' result in revolution with the proletarians seizing the means of production and casting aside their capitalist masters.

This not only did not happen, and when social revolution by workers was even mooted as in the case, for example, of the Tolpuddle Martyrs, it was crushed by heavy legal hands. This kind of hopelessness led Lenin and other like-minded to institute the revolution without waiting for 'historical inevitability' to cough up Marx's predicted results.

The second point you mention as the cause of making terrorists is lack of 'freedoms.' But if that were really the case, then their efforts would be directed against the regimes in which they live that are autocratic, plutocratic, or oligocratic and therefore deny their freedoms rather than directed against innocent people in democratic countries?

Many terrorist leaders have given their reasons for their murderous militancy: it is because they see all non-Muslims as the devil, and hence they are their enemies, and they seek total destruction and the establishment of shariah law in every country in the world and death to the infidel (you and me)! This despite the fact that the Qur'an nominates Jews and Christians as 'People of the Book' and able to worship and live free without attack from Muslim armies.

Fortunately, the vast majority of Muslims and Muslim scholars argue against their twisted perspective (which is redolent of the twisted logic of certain fundamentalist Christians who use the same or similar invective and justify their actions from scripture).


M:)RGANITE

I think good humans who want to live in peace far outnumber the nut jobs of the world. The nut jobs get more press cause more fear and kill more people. And you better believe they pay those nut jobs GOOD money to make all that chaos, and mayhem.

Yes, Many people who want to live in peace far outnumber the nut jobs.

Excellent way of wording it. Peace should be with each other no matter what. There are

People who are out to cause barriers and strife and differences, but in reality.

None of it is different at all.

Joe

Hello Galveston,

Here is what I really feel:

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.

Here is the pronounciiation of God’s name in just some other languages:

Forms of the divine name in different languages, indicating international acceptance of the form Jehovah
Awabakal – Yehóa
Bugotu - Jihova
Cantonese - Yehwowah
Danish - Jehova
Dutch - Jehovah
Efik - Jehovah
English - Jehovah
Fijian - Jiova
Finnish - Jehova
French - Jéhovah
Futuna - Ihova
German - Jehova
Hungarian - Jehova
Igbo - Jehova
Italian - Geova
Japanese - Ehoba
Maori - Ihowa
Motu - Iehova
Mwala-Malu - Jihova
Narrinyeri - Jehovah
Nembe - Jihova
Petats - Jihouva
Polish - Jehowa
Portuguese - Jeová
Romanian - Iehova
Samoan - Ieova
Sotho - Jehova
Spanish - Jehová
Swahili - Yehova
Swedish - Jehova
Tahitian - Iehova
Tagalog - Jehova
Tongan - Jihova
Venda - Yehova
Xhosa - uYehova
Yoruba - Jehofah
Zulu – uJehova
The Name Jehovah’s Witnesses throughout the world”
Arabic هﻮﻬﻳ دﻮﻬ
English Jehovah’s Witnesses
French Témoins de Jéhovah
Greek Μαρτυρες του Ιεχωβα
Greenlandic Jehovap Nalunaajaasui
Italian Testimoni di Geova
Papiamento Testigonan di Jehova
Polish Świadkowie Jehowy
Portuguese Testemunhas de Jeová
Samoan Molimau a Ieova
Spanish Testigos de Jehová
Sranantongo Jehovah Kotoigi
Tagalog Mga Saksi ni Jehova
Vietnamese Nhân-chứng Giê-hô-va
The Name Jehovah’s Witnesses in The Orient and Islands of the Pacific
Bicol, Cebuano, Hiligaynon,
Samar-Leyte, Tagalog Mga Saksi ni Jehova
Bislama Ol Wetnes blong Jeova
English Jehovah’s Witnesses
Fijian Vakadinadina I Jiova
Hiri Motu Iehova ena Witness Taudia
Iloko Dagiti Saksi ni Jehova
Indonesian Saksi-Saksi Yehuwa
Marshallese Dri Kennan ro an Jeova
New Guinea Pidgin Ol Witnes Bilong Jehova
Niuean Tau Fakamoli a Iehova
Palauan reSioning er a Jehovah
Pangasinan Saray Tasi nen Jehova
Ponapean Sounkadehde kan en Siohwa
Rarotongan Au Kite o Iehova
Russian Свидетели Иеговы
Samoan, Tuvaluan Molimau a Ieova
Solomon Islands Pidgin all’gether Jehovah’s Witness
Tahitian Ite no Iehova
Tongan Fakamo‘oni ‘a Sihova
Trukese Ekkewe Chon Pwarata Jiowa
Vietnamese Nhân-chứng Giê-hô-va
Yapese Pi Mich Rok Jehovah
The Name Jehovah’s Witnesses in Africa
Afrikaans Jehovah se Getuies
Arabic هﻮﻬﻳ دﻮﻬﺷ
Chicheŵa Mboni za Yehova
Cibemba Inte sha kwa Yehova
Efịk Mme Ntiense Jehovah
English Jehovah’s Witnesses
Ewe Yehowa Ðasefowo
French Témoins de Jéhovah
Ga Yehowa Odasefoi
Gun Kunnudetọ Jehovah tọn lẹ
Hausa Shaidun Jehovah
Igbo Ndịàmà Jehova
Kiluba Ba Tumoni twa Yehova
Kinyarwanda Abahamya ba Yehova
Kirundi Ivyabona vya Yehova
Kisi Seiyaa J?howaa
Kwanyama Eendombwedi daJehova
Lingala Batemwe you Jéhovah
Luganda Abajulirwa ba Yakuwa
Malagasy Vavolombelon’i Jehovah
Moore A Zeova Kaset rãmba
Ndonga Oonzapo dhaJehova
Portuguese Testemunhas de Jeová
Sango A-Témoin ti Jéhovah
Sepedi Dihlatse tša Jehofa
Sesotho Lipaki tsa Jehova
Shona Zvapupu zvaJehovha
Silozi Lipaki za Jehova
Swahili Mashahidi wa Yehova
Tshiluba Bantemu ba Yehowa
Tsonga Timbhoni ta Yehova
Tswana Basupi ba ga Jehofa
Twi Yehowa Adansefo
Venda Ṱhanzi dza Yehova
Xhosa amaNgqina kaYehova
Yoruba Ẹlẹ́rìí Jehofa
Zulu oFakazi BakaJehova
The Name Jehovah’s Witnesses in Europe and the Middle East
Albanian Dëshmitarët e Jehovait
Arabic هﻮﻬﻳ دﻮﻬﺷ
Bulgarian Свидетелите на Йехова
Croatian Jehovini svjedoci
Czech svĕdkové Jehovovi
Danish Jehovas Vidner
Dutch Jehovah’s Getuigen
English Jehovah’s Witnesses
Estonian Jehoova tunnistajad
Finnish Jehovan todistajat
French Témoins de Jéhovah
German Jehovas Zeugen
Greek Μαρτυρες του Ιεχωβα
Hebrew הוהי־ידע
Hungarian Jehova Tanúi
Icelandic Vottar Jehóva
Italian Testimoni di Geova
Macedonian, Serbian Јеховини сведоци
Maltese Xhieda ta’ Jehovah
Norwegian Jehovas vitner
Polish Świadkowie Jehowy
Portuguese Testemunhas de Jeová
Romanian Martorii lui Iehova
Russian Свидетели Иеговы
Slovak Jehovovi svedkovia
Slovenian Jehovove priče
Spanish Testigos de Jehová
Swedish Jehovas vittnen
Turkish Yehova’nın Şahitleri
Ukrainian Свідки Єгови

“Jehovah” has become widely known as the name of God even in non-Biblical contexts.

Franz Schubert composed the music for the lyric entitled “The Almightiness,” written by Johann Ladislav Pyrker, in which the name Jehovah appears twice. It is also used at the end of the last scene of Verdi’s opera “Nabucco.”

Additionally, French composer Arthur Honegger’s oratorio “King David” gives prominence to the name Jehovah, and renowned French author Victor Hugo used it in over 30 of his works. Both he and Lamartine wrote poems entitled “Jehovah.”

In the book Deutsche Taler (The German Taler), published in 1967 by Germany’s Federal Bank, there is a picture of what is one of the oldest coins bearing the name “Jehovah,” a 1634 Reichstaler from the Duchy of Silesia. Regarding the picture on the coin’s reverse side, it says: “Under the radiant name JEHOVAH, rising up out of the midst of clouds, is a crowned shield with the Silesian coat of arms.”

In a museum in Rudolstadt, East Germany, you can see on the collar of the suit of armor once worn by Gustavus II Adolph, a 17th-century king of Sweden, the name JEHOVAH in capital letters.

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 (Theology of the Old Testament).

Detail of an angel with God’s name, found on the tomb of Pope Clement XIII in St. Peter’s Basilica, the Vatican

Many coins were minted bearing God’s name. This one, dated 1661, is from Nuremberg, Germany. The Latin text reads: “Under the shadow of your wings”

In times past, God’s name in the form of the Tetragrammaton was made part of the decoration of many religious buildings
Fourvière Catholic Basilica, Lyons, France
Bourges Cathedral, France
Church in La Celle Dunoise, France
Church in Digne, southern France
Church in São Paulo, Brazil
Strasbourg Cathedral, France
Saint Mark’s Cathedral, Venice, Italy
Jehovah’s name as it appears in a monastery in Bordesholm, Germany;
on a German coin dated 1635;
over a church door in Fehmarn, Germany;
and on an 1845 gravestone in Harmannschlag, Lower Austria
Comments??

Take care,
Hope12

Hello Galveston,

Here is what I really feel:

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.

<truncated>

Hope12

An interesting collection of names and titles to do with yhvh, but they really do not settle the problem the questioner raises. Whikle it is true that the tetragrammaton has appeared in many places as decoration, or ascription to God, that does not change the fact that God has also been called by different names and titles that are just as relevant.

One dictionary defines 'Allah' as God, from the Arabic, 'Al·lah' a compound word form from "al" meaning "the" and "'ilh" meaning God. The Hebrew equivalent would be ha-el, meaning "the God." Attempts to make allah distinct from "God" are nothing but semantic acrobatics performed by those who cannot stand anything Islamic, not even when it translates into "God."

The tetragrammaton yhvh is used of God in the Bible, but as no one is certain how it is to be pronounced because it is held to be ineffable on account of its sacredness by Isralites and Jews, who use circomlocutions in its place, either in speech or when reading from the Hebrew scriptures. God is written G-d by kashrut Jews, and God is referred to as ha-shem, meaning "the name," or as "the Holy One of Israel" or by several other well known and time worn substitutes.

Yhvh has been rendered as "Jehovah" by biblical scholars who did not know any better, but there is no "J' sound in Hebrew, and the 'yod' that ought to have been rendred as 'y' in English was mistransliterated by inept scholars as a 'j' and through customs and usage has stuck, except where scholastic rigour has reverted to the proper value for 'yod.'

The tetragrammaton is capable of being translated into something much more meaningful than Jehovah, or even yhvh, yahowah,or yahveh, etc. The transliteration of the second consonant depends on whether Ashkenazi or Shephardic pronounciation is used, for one will say 'waw' and the other will say 'vav.'

The simple Hebrew verb to be, is yh(y). yhvh (properly hvhy) could mean "the existing One" or "He who is," when applied to deity, but would not necessarily be a proper name but rather a description or descriptive appellation, from which the term or title 'the living God' is a natural derivation, meaning the true God rather than any of the gods or Gods worshipped by Israel's neighbours thought and said to be false gods or Gods, and held to be dead gods or Gods - and sometimes worshipped by Israelites themselves during their periods of apostasy which were frequent and lenghty according to the scriptures.

Whether it is right to capitalise names from the Hebrew that are transliterated into English is questionable, because there are no capital forms in Hebrew. However, it is frequently done as a theological statement to inferiorize the gods of those who are neither Jewish or Christian. A strange form of behaviour for religious people!

What is important is not the name or any name or names by which god or God is called, but being able to define his characteristics from what sacred scripture says about him. As this characterisation changes with the passing of time (I hear the faggots crackling round the stake already!), it is difficult to pin God down to being precisely this or that in the narrow sense that sopme theological (and Christological) commentators try to do so that they rigidly define their own god or God in order to exclude the god or God who is worshipped by others not of their mindset.

Thus, it is my contention that the name of God (that the scriptures choose to change according to the whim of the writer) is not the important or central issue when answering this question. As the Bard said, "What's in a name?" What is important is "Who is God and what is he like, etc?" rather than "What is he called?"

The name of God is not a key to open the doors of heaven to the cogniscenti, nor the pass that grants access to him or his kingdom. Arabs who pray to Allah, or allah, will be heard just as surely as those who pray to elohim or Elohim, or to any other of the many names and titles that have been applied to him (or Him).

M:)RGANITE

Hello Galveston,

Here is what I really feel:

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?&nbsp; It is amistake to attemopt biblical exegesis with an English text.&nbsp; 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>

Salaam a' leikum,

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.

Hadi88

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:)


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.

M:)RGANITE

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.

How would you answer Dr Cadman's question?



M:)RGANITE

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.

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. (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/heretic-apostate-what-47790-2.html#post227152)

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?
May I ask what religion you are?

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: “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: [I]"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.



M:)RGANITE

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?

As others know, I have made no profession of faith on this forum because I will not be pigeon-holed. I prefer to contribute to discussion from the perspective of how each person in a faith cummunity views his or her own rleigion. So, one time I will defend Romanists against unjust charges made by Protestants, Jews against Muslims, Muslims against Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses against Atheists, and so forth. I do not imagine myself stood in a pulpit when I am sat at my keyboard.

You can make up your own mind about my personal faith and whether you are right or wrong in your selection makes no difference to me. My handle provides an extremely slim clue, but does not cross the 't's or dot the 'i's. Further to that, this deponent saith not.

I repeat, I believe that good people of every and no faith will be welcomed by God.

Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me. Amen.


M:)RGANITE

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. (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/heretic-apostate-what-47790-2.html#post227152)



Isn't the one thing the same as the other? His dying for us (that you apparently reject), and his effecting our reconciliation with God (that you apparently accept)?

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.



You are showing an disturbing penchant for misunderstanding the not only the words but also the intent of what I have written, and for finding arguments in what I have written that I have not only not addressed, but would not claim to believe.

I have not misplaced Christ's atonement as you charge. I have failed to write a book, but there are contraints on space here and I also have time constraints that prevent me from pursuing every argument down every highway and byway that someone might, possibly, if they were so inclined, decide to steer them.

Because I have not said something should not be taken as either my believing or not believing what it is I have omitted.

If you want to know my posiiton on the atonement of Jesus, why not ask a question about it. If I have time I might well contribute to the thread. Am I correct in concluding that you are not a Democrat?



M:)

You mean like the lutheran, protestant, baptists, and methodists? Seems to me this is another similarity between Islam and Christianity and Judaism. When one church(mosque)(synagogue) disagrees on policy or whatever, they form another group and change the name, but still hold the same book dear.Hmmmmmmmmmmmm!!! Honestly the more I learn the less that separates them.

Tal: Mosque ruling committes have many squabbles and fight over procedure, etc. It reminds me of the truism that when a Welshman is washed ahsore on a deserted island he builds two chapels. One he goes to, and the other he doesn't!

Yaki dah, boyo!


M:)

If you want to know my posiiton on the atonement of Jesus, why not ask a question about it. If I have time I might well contribute to the thread. Am I correct in concluding that you are not a Democrat?

Smart with a sharp sense of humor, LOL!!

Isn't the one thing the same as the other? His dying for us (that you apparently reject), and his effecting our reconciliation with God (that you apparently accept)?

M:)
No, I don't think they are the same thing. I think our reconciliation is effected by God's earnest desire to heal the estrangement between us. It was Jesus' life that taught us about that, not his death. The idea that the gruesome suffering and death of an innocent person was required to convince God to forgive the rest of us is abhorrent to me.

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.

How would you answer Dr Cadman's question?



M:)RGANITE

Rom 1:18-20
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
(KJV)

The Apostle Paul tells us that a study of creation will lead us toward the Creator. As man accepts the truth he receives, he receives further truth. Was it not so with Abraham? I am willing to leave judgment to God, but if good non-believers (in Christ) have it made, then why the command to carry the Gospel to the world? You make an eloquent case when you quote:
Rom 10:13-14
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 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?
(KJV)

It is obvious to me that one must call (with all the implications) on the Lord in order to be saved. There are some who believe that those who never heard the Gospel will have an opportunity to hear and accept, but I don't know that that is supported by scripture. As to those before Christ, the righteous were saved by faith in that they looked forward to the fulfillment of the promise of God as revealed by the prophets.

No, I don't think they are the same thing. I think our reconciliation is effected by God's earnest desire to heal the estrangement between us. It was Jesus' life that taught us about that, not his death. The idea that the gruesome suffering and death of an innocent person was required to convince God to forgive the rest of us is abhorrent to me.

The idea that the Father had or wanted to see His Son suffer and die seems to be a widespread mis-conception. His death is spoken of a redemption or ransom. Think about it. A ransom is paid to a kidnapper! I believe that Satan had kidnapped our race when he deceived Eve and got Adam to commit treason. I believe that when our God determined to buy his creation back, the price demanded by Satan was the Creator's death. Of course, since there was no valid accusation against Him, death could not hold Him. And to answer another point (not yours), Jesus' death was for everyone, but we must validate it on our individual behalf by faith in that substitutionary act.

Rom 1:18-20
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
(KJV)

The Apostle Paul tells us that a study of creation will lead us toward the Creator. As man accepts the truth he receives, he receives further truth. Was it not so with Abraham? I am willing to leave judgment to God, but if good non-believers (in Christ) have it made, then why the command to carry the Gospel to the world? You make an eloquent case when you quote:
Rom 10:13-14
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 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?
(KJV)

It is obvious to me that one must call (with all the implications) on the Lord in order to be saved. There are some who believe that those who never heard the Gospel will have an opportunity to hear and accept, but I don't know that that is supported by scripture. As to those before Christ, the righteous were saved by faith in that they looked forward to the fulfillment of the promise of God as revealed by the prophets.

The apostle is saying that those who hear should call, but he knows that not all hear. What is the disposition of those who do not hear? Will they be condemned for something that is not their fault?

The idea that the Father had or wanted to see His Son suffer and die seems to be a widespread mis-conception. His death is spoken of a redemption or ransom. Think about it. A ransom is paid to a kidnapper! I believe that Satan had kidnapped our race when he deceived Eve and got Adam to commit treason. I believe that when our God determined to buy his creation back, the price demanded by Satan was the Creator's death. Of course, since there was no valid accusation against Him, death could not hold Him. And to answer another point (not yours), Jesus' death was for everyone, but we must validate it on our individual behalf by faith in that substitutionary act.

That theory of atonement is known as the Ransom (or Deception) theory, in which God is said to have tricked satan by letting him believe that when Jesus paid the ransom, that satan would then be able to keep hold of Jesus, but because Jesus was sinless, he could not do so. It is a somewhat old fashoned and latrgely discredited theory because of the implication that God would be involved in deceit and trickery, thus posing an interesting moral problem.

The theory that satan had kdnapped all of humanity is likewise past its sell by date. The Ransom Theory was based, in part, on Mark 10:45 and 1 Timothy 2:6, where Origin interpreted the word "ransom" literally, but unwisely.


Mark 10:45: "For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."

1 Timothy 2:5-6: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who
gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time."

In Timothy Paul says that Jesus' ransom was a form of mediation between God and Mankind. Why owuld Jesus have to pay satan a red cent?

Morris Cerullo, Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, Benny Hinn, Robert Tilton, and others in the Word-faith Movement teach a modern-day variation of the Ransom Theory. Their concept is that when Jesus descended into Hell after his death, he was tormented by Satan and all his demons. The suffering that he experienced during this torture was the ransom that God paid to Satan. There is no scriptural support for this theory.

Mediaeval Christanity taught that when Jesus descended inot Hell he harrowed the place and was not harrowed by it, and led the captives free, but these wre the spirits of the dead, as Peter explains.

The Ransom theory, as well as other violence-based atonement explanations, suffer from an inconsistency in Christian teaching. The church has traditionally taught that a person is responsible for their own sin, and that a person cannot morally be punished for the sins of others. Of course, they deviated from this teaching, as when they taught as late as the mid-20th century that modern-day Jews were responsible for the execution of Yahweh. But in general, people were not held responsible for the sins of others.

The church also teaches that the default destination for Adam, Eve, their children, their grandchildren and their descendents to the present time, after death, will be Hell because of the first parents' transgression in the Garden of Eden when they ate the forbidden fruit. All will be tortured in Hell, unless they are saved through sacraments and/or good works and/or faith. The sin of Eve and Adam were imputed to the entire human race.

Most liberal and many mainline Christians believe that Adam and Eve were mythical humans. That is, they didn't exist as actual people. Without that belief, this atonement theory collapses.

Some Christians note that Eve and Adam were created as proto-humans without a sense of sin. After all, they ate the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in order to develop a knowledge of good and evil. Being without a moral sense, they cannot be responsible for eating the fruit any more than an animal might. Again, if the first parents are not responsible for eating the fruit, the atonement theory collapses.

Phil Johnson, Executive Director of Grace to You states that there is no support in the Bible for the concept that Satan has a legitimate claim on sinners. He suggests that the "Biblical word ransom simply means 'redemption-price;' it does not necessarily imply a price paid to Satan."

Several passages in the Bible imply that Christ's death was a ritual sacrifice to God, and thereby not to Satan:
Bullet Isaiah 53:10: "Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand." King James Version.

Ephesians 5:2: "And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour." KJV.

Origen's version requires that God acts in a deceitful manner. That is does not match the traditional Christian belief about the justice, honesty, and truthfulness of God. Many versions of the ransom theory assume that Satan is unaware of the powers of Jesusa. The later version assumes that Satan is deluded into thinking that he is more powerful than Jesus. Yet Satan is portrayed in the Bible as a dedicated, intelligent, and evil angel, not a quasi-deity who is so disconnected from reality that he is unaware of the capabilities of Jesus. Satan is not described in the Bible as suffering from delusions of grandeur.

The entire concept of Satan as a living entity is rejected by many Christians today; they view Satan as a symbol of evil, not as an actual person. If Satan is not an all-evil quasi-deity, Origen's theory collapses.

The Bible identifies Satan as a created being; a fallen angel who disobeyed God. Similarly, humans are commonly portrayed as created beings who have disobeyed God and fallen. There is no obvious rationale for assuming that Satan had control over all of humanity any more than the reverse might have been true.

Since God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibeneficient, just, and ethical, it is illogical to assume that he would be willing to allow his son to be tortured to death if there were another way to achieve atonement. God might have, for example, simply forgiven Adam and Eve for their sin. According to the gospels, Jesus repeatedly taught that extending forgiveness is to take the moral high road.

Professor of Philosophy Michael Martin writes: "Since, on the ransom theory, after Jesus' death and resurrection, human beings were out of the devil's clutches, it would seem that the way to salvation would simply be to follow a life free from sin so as not to fall under the devil's control. What has faith in Jesus got to do with this? The ransom theory supplies no answer."

Rom 1:18-20
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
(KJV)

The Apostle Paul tells us that a study of creation will lead us toward the Creator. As man accepts the truth he receives, he receives further truth. Was it not so with Abraham? I am willing to leave judgment to God, but if good non-believers (in Christ) have it made, then why the command to carry the Gospel to the world? You make an eloquent case when you quote:
Rom 10:13-14
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 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?
(KJV)

It is obvious to me that one must call (with all the implications) on the Lord in order to be saved. There are some who believe that those who never heard the Gospel will have an opportunity to hear and accept, but I don't know that that is supported by scripture. As to those before Christ, the righteous were saved by faith in that they looked forward to the fulfillment of the promise of God as revealed by the prophets.

A man can be a non-believer in Jesus and still not be ungodly or unrighteous.

Since God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibeneficient, just, and ethical, it is illogical to assume that he would be willing to allow his son to be tortured to death if there were another way to achieve atonement. God might have, for example, simply forgiven Adam and Eve for their sin. According to the gospels, Jesus repeatedly taught that extending forgiveness is to take the moral high road.
My point exactly. A simple act of forgiveness is perfectly consistent with the concept of God as a loving father. So do you think Jesus' suffering and death was necessary to effect our reconciliation with the Father? If so, why?

A man can be a non-believer in Jesus and still not be ungodly or unrighteous.

I Jn 5:10-12
10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
(KJV)

I Jn 5:10-12
and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
(KJV)Yet I have life. How do you explain that??

I Jn 5:10-12
10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
(KJV)
Interesting quote from an ancient man who didn't know the world is round. And his agenda is obvious.

Yet I have life. How do you explain that????

John uses (charcteristically) dualistic imagery. He - John - contracts life and death, light and darkness, and above and below. He is not a literalist but a symbolist.

Although he is increasingly shown to be historically reliable, what is important to him is not what happened, but what it means, and this is the structure of his Gospel.

Live long and prosper.

M:)

I Jn 5:10-12
10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
(KJV)



As Peter exclaimed when Cornelius had related to him how he was instructed to send men to Joppa:

"Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation, he that feareth him and worketh righteousness, is accepted of him."

It is a very odd-shaped Christian that looks for reasons to shut men out of heaven.

The idea that some men have formed about the nature of the justice, judgment, and mercy of God, is too foolish for an intelligent man to think of. For example, it is common for many Christians to believe that if a man is not what they call converted, that is, if he dies not knowing Christ then he must remain eternally in hell without any hope. Infinite years in torment must he spend, and never, never, never have an end; and yet this eternal misery is made frequently to rest upon the merest casualty. The breaking of a shoe-string, the tearing of a coat of those officiating, or the peculiar location in which a person lives, may be the means, directly or indirectly of his damnation, or the cause of his not being saved.

Let us suppose a case which is not extraordinary: Two men, who have been equally wicked, who have neglected religion, are both of them taken sick at the same time; one of them has the good fortune to be visited by a preacher man, and is converted a few minutes before he dies. The other sends for three different praying men, a tailor, a shoemaker, and a tinman; the tinman has a handle to solder to a can, the tailor has a buttonhole to work on some coat that he needed in a hurry, and the shoemaker has a patch to put on somebody's boot, none of them can go in time, and the man dies and goes to hel;.

One of thisd pair of men is exalted to Abraham's bosom, sits down in the presence of God, and enjoys eternal, uninterrupted happiness, while the other, equally as good as the first, sinks to eternal damnation, irretrievable misery and hopeless despair, because a man had a boot mend, the button-hole of a coat to work, or a handle to solder on to a saucepan.

The plans of Almighty God are not so unjust, the statements of holy writ so lacking , nor the plan of salvation for the human family so incompatible with common sense as some would have us believe. At such proceedings God would frown with indignance, angels would hide their heads in shame, and every virtuous, intelligent man would recoil.

If human laws award to each man his deserts, and punish delinquents according to their several crimes, surely the Lord will not be more cruel than man, for He is a wise legislator, and His laws are more equitable, His enactment more just, and His decisions more perfect than those of man; and as man judges his fellow man by law, and punishes him according to the penalty of the law, so does God of heaven judge "according to the deed done in the body." To say that the heathens would be damned because they did not believe the gospel would be preposterous, and to say that the Jews would all be damned that do not believe in Jesus would be equally absurd; for "how can they believe on him of whom they have not heard, and how can they hear without a preacher, and how can he preach except he be sent;"

Consequently, neither Jew nor heathen can be culpable for rejecting the conflicting opinions of Christian sectaries, or for rejecting any testimony but that which is sent of God, for as the preacher cannot preach except he be sent, so the hearer cannot believe without he hear a "sent" preacher, and cannot be condemned for what he has not heard, and being without law, will have to be judged without law.

It is shameful that some confessing to be Chritsian messengers are nothing more than ill-informed 'separators' who take delight in condeming people to Hell for no reason that is supported by God, Jesus, or the holy prophets and apostles whose writings we have when we take time and trouble to understand their messages.

Those who practice their Christianity by means of Condemnation and Hell by Prooftext are shameful and devilish, and should repent, and remain silent until they understand the message of the teachings of Jesus.

Henry Ward Beecher, an influential nineteenth century American clergyman, delivered a lecture in Nashville, Tennessee, titled "What Christianity Has Done to Civilize the World," in which he said:

"What has Africa done for the world? She has never produced a sage, a philosopher, a poet nor a prophet, and why not? Because the name of Christ and the influence of Christianity are scarcely known in her dark regions. Millions of her children have lived and passed away without hearing the truth. What will become of them? Will they be forever damned? No, not if my God reigns, for they will hear the gospel in the spirit world."

Did Rev. Beecher know what the Bible taught? He did!

Was he stuck in a little backwater with a collection of two or three prooftexts that distorted his view of the whole of the scriptures? He was not!

My point exactly. A simple act of forgiveness is perfectly consistent with the concept of God as a loving father. So do you think Jesus' suffering and death was necessary to effect our reconciliation with the Father? If so, why?
Personally, I think Jesus' death was a ransom paid to Satan.

Morganite, I do not want people to go to Hell. That is why I continually point toward Jesus. You seem to be hung up about those who have never heard about Jesus. You have an obligation to do whatever you can to see that they get a chance to hear. No one reading these posts can say they have never heard. As to proof texts, I could give you a much longer list, but you know them as well as I. Your argument is not with me.

John was one of the original Apostles appointed by Jesus Himself.
And what would that have to do with this discussion? I don't remember him or any other of his time talking about the earth being round and as a disciple his agenda was promoting the word according to Jesus and he was an ancient man. So exactly what is your disagreement about.

Morganite, I do not want people to go to Hell. That is why I continually point toward Jesus. You seem to be hung up about those who have never heard about Jesus. You have an obligation to do whatever you can to see that they get a chance to hear. No one reading these posts can say they have never heard. As to proof texts, I could give you a much longer list, but you know them as well as I. Your argument is not with me.

And should we take your word about your book that you believe in or can we be good humans without your book to guide us? It's a little far fetched to believe the only ones who know God are christians, as well as closed minded and prejudicial. One reason I suppose that you cannot conceive of God and Allah being one, which is the basic point of this discussion, not what and who says what in Mecca Judea, or Cleveland.

Personally, I think Jesus' death was a ransom paid to Satan.

The Ransom Theory requires God to be duplicitous. Although it was generally believed during the first Christian millennium, it fell from favour when its unsafe foundations were probed. Initially by Anselm, but since then it has been shown to be unsatisfactory. God cannot be deceitful and still be a moral God.

The Ransom Theory requires God to be duplicitous. Although it was generally believed during the first Christian millennium, it fell from favour when its unsafe foundations were probed. Initially by Anselm, but since then it has been shown to be unsatisfactory. God cannot be deceitful and still be a moral God.
I appreciate your debunking of the ransom theory, but I am genuinely interested in your answer to the question of whether the suffering and death of Jesus was required (by God) in order to effect reconciliation between God and his children. I know the doctrine is biblical, being perfectly consistent with the sacrificial model of forgiveness embodied in the Jewish temple ritual, but that by itself is not convincing to me.

In answer to Talaniman, the wordsredeemedredemption in the Bible refer to something or someone being bought back, As a slave could be redeemed from his slavery, or a piece of property could be redeemed back to the original owner. For this to be so, the person or property must be possessed by or controlled by someone other than the lawful owner. This to explain my thought. I'm not going to argue about it, but to me it makes more sense than to believe that the Father needed to see His Son suffer before He could forgive sinners.

And should we take your word about your book that you believe in or can we be good humans without your book to guide us? Its a little far fetched to believe the only ones who know God are christians, as well as closed minded and prejudicial. One reason I suppose that you cannot conceive of God and Allah being one, which is the basic point of this discussion, not what and who says what in Mecca Judea, or Cleveland.
OK. I challenge you to make a serious study of the Bible with reference to the many prophecies which were literally fulfilled years or generatons later. Please do it for your own information.

OK. I challenge you to make a serious study of the Bible with reference to the many prophecies which were literally fulfilled years or generatons later. Please do it for your own information.

I have nothing against the bible but don't believe your interpretation, so it would be futile. Please stop using the book as a means to tiptoe around direct questions as in my post#80

The Ransom Theory requires God to be duplicitous. Although it was generally believed during the first Christian millennium, it fell from favour when its unsafe foundations were probed. Initially by Anselm, but since then it has been shown to be unsatisfactory. God cannot be deceitful and still be a moral God.
The deceit is self-evident within the ransom theory itself. Perhaps you are thinking of a different theory?

Take a look at The Temptation of Christ and the Motif of Divine Duplicity in the Corpus Christi Cycle Drama by David L. Wee, in Modern Philology, Vol. 72, No. 1 (Aug. 1974), pp. 1-16.

A United Methodist minister writes concerning this theory:

Sunday, February 05, 2006 - THOUGHTS ON ATONEMENT... pt.2

THOUGHTS FROM POPE ST. GREGORY "THE GREAT".

In medieval times the common view of "the atonement", or what transpired through Jesus' death on the cross, was known as the "RANSOM THEORY". Pope Gregory "The Great" laid out its clearest form around 600 CE. Gregory used many images to explain the effect of Christ's death on the cross upon humanity, but his favorite one was the cross as the "fishook" upon which God placed the "bait" of Jesus Christ in order to snare the devil and free humanity held captive by him. According to Gregory,

".... matching deceit with deceit, Christ frees man by tricking the devil into overstepping his authority. Christ becomes a "fishhook": his humanity is the bait, his divinity the hook, and Leviathan [Satan] is snared. Because the devil is proud, he cannot understand Christ's humility and so believes he tempts and kills a mere man. But in inflicting a sinless man with death, the devil loses his rights over man from his "excess of presumption," Christ conquers the devil's kingdom of sin, liberating captives from the devil's tyranny. Order is reinstated when man returns when man returns to serve God, his true master."

My initial thought about this theory [continues the minister] is, does God really have to take on the persona of "The Trickster" to "outwit" Satan? Is it me or does this theory seem to bring God down to Satan's level- "I have to result to deceit to deceive the great deceiver."

+++

That duplicity is an essential element in the Ransom Theory. No deceit, no Ransom Theory. That is why I reject it out of hand, because it is ungodly to be deceitful. I am surprised to find anyone actually still hanging on the coat tails of this theory that was largely abandoned a thousand years ago for obvious reasons.

Perhaps you should discuss this with your pastor.


M:)RGANITE



.

I appreciate your debunking of the ransom theory, but I am genuinely interested in your answer to the question of whether the suffering and death of Jesus was required (by God) in order to effect reconciliation between God and his children. I know the doctrine is biblical, being perfectly consistent with the sacrificial model of forgiveness embodied in the Jewish temple ritual, but that by itself is not convincing to me.
If this question is asked from a Trinitarian perspective, then the question becomes meaningless, since it is really asking Whether the suffering and death of Jesus was required by Jesus. To ask that question one has to accept that Jesus and God are separate persons. From that perspecive mym answer is that it was not required by God, but that justice required sinful humanity to be redeemed (or saved) from the consequences of their wrongdoing. Our sins separate us from God. Unless we can be rid of the consequences of sin, we cannot enter God's heavenly kingdom. We are 'bought' [redeemed] by the suffering, blood, and death of Jesus.


M:)

In answer to Talaniman, the wordsredeemedredemption in the Bible refer to something or someone being bought back, As a slave could be redeemed from his slavery, or a piece of property could be redeemed back to the original owner. For this to be so, the person or property must be possessed by or controlled by someone other than the lawful owner. This to explain my thought. I'm not going to argue about it, but to me it makes more sense than to believe that the Father needed to see His Son suffer before He could forgive sinners.


I believe this explanation of yours identifies what I would consider a wrong idea about why the redemption was necessary. It is not true that Satan has power over the souls of mankind, for Satan can have no power over us unless we willingly become his slaves. It is by our sins that we offend God and put distance between him and us. Since salvation only becomes reality when we live with God eternally, some means has to be provided to overcome the effects of sin. That price was the death of Jesus Christ. We could not save ourselves so a Savior was provided. That Savior is the Son of God.

The sacrifice and its effects is better referred to as The Atonement, because it reconciles man to God and man to man. That reconciliation is effected by expunging the effects of sin on us, cleansing us, so that we can enjoy God's presence.

Satan did not have us, never had, except as we serve him by deliberately fighting against God and doing wicked things. God gave nothing to Satan except a black eye [or two] because Satan believed that he could thwart God's purposes. He cannot.

1 Corinthians 10.13:

There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.


No one is bound to Satan against his or her will. If he has slaves, they are willing workers for him, voluntarily entering his service. Therefore, no ransom is either necessary or due to the dark lord.


M:)

If this question is asked from a Trinitarian perspective, then the question becomes meaningless, since it is really asking Whether the suffering and death of Jesus was required by Jesus. To ask that question one has to accept that Jesus and God are separate persons. From that perspecive mym answer is that it was not required by God, but that justice required sinful humanity to be redeemed (or saved) from the consequences of their wrongdoing.
Hmmm. Not required by God, but by "justice"? No, I don't think so. Is this "justice" something superior to God, that imposes requirements on Him against His will? Isn't God the author of the Law, and of what constitutes justice in interpreting and applying it? If God is willing to forgive our sins and be reconciled to us when we repent and humble ourselves and ask for forgiveness, what power could possibly prevent Him from doing so? No, if the suffering and death of Jesus was required at all, it was required by God.


Our sins separate us from God. Unless we can be rid of the consequences of sin, we cannot enter God's heavenly kingdom.
No question about that, but to make the leap from there to...

We are 'bought' [redeemed] by the suffering, blood, and death of Jesus.
Is more than I can do. I have no problem with the Jesus as the Redeemer, the Mediator, the Reconciler. But all these purposes were accomplished by his life, his example, and his teachings. His suffering and death was not instrumental in any of it.

What his suffering and death did do was provide a shocking and graphic demonstration of the consequences of bigotry and spiritual pride. Two recurring themes in his ministry were that: 1) God's mercy and forgiveness is extended to individual persons, not to groups, and that membership in a favored group is not required in order to be reconciled to God, and 2) No human intermediary, no ritual, priest, pastor, or intercessor other than Christ himself is necessary to effect the reconciliation. These ideas were anathema to a culture built on the notion of being the "chosen people", who were specially favored by God. They were also profoundly threatening to a religious hierarchy built on the intercession of a priesthood and a temple ritual that placed itself firmly between the individual and God. Small wonder that they were willing to do whatever it took to discredit and rid themselves of this threat.

I find it supremely ironic that the Christian Church in most of its branches and denominations has not really accepted either of these precepts of Jesus' life and teachings.

Hmmm. Not required by God, but by "justice"? No, I don't think so. Is this "justice" something superior to God, that imposes requirements on Him against His will?

If justice were superior to God, then God would not be God. However, he is a just God and he does not juggle with justice. When the law of justice was established it became an unchangeable eternal principle. Thus justice has demands for infraction that mercy cannot attenuate. However through the grace of God and the mercy of Christ the price was paid. Justice was satisfied, and man was thereby able to be relieved from the consequences of his wrongdoing.

Jesus Christ appeased the demands of divine justice and effected reconciliation between God and man. John taught: "Jesus Christ the righteous is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” (1 John 2:1-2.)

Paul also expounds this doctrine saying, "All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” The 'natural' i.e. unredeemed, man is an enemy to God and has been cast out of his presence. But Christians, Paul continues, are "justified freely by [God's] grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." How is it that Christians are justified? It is because "God hath set forth [his Son] to be a propitiation through faith in his blood to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.” (Romans 3:23-26.)

Through the atoning sacrifice of Christ and by their faith, men may be ransomed from their state of sin and spiritual darkness and be restored to one of harmony and unity with their Maker. Paul said: "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature.” That is, he has been born again. "And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ."

Christ is the Redeemer and Reconciler. His atoning sacrifice opened the door so that men could return to God. And the Lord "hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation. That ministry and doctrine is "that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them."

Jesus Christ "hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.” We are to preach the gospel of reconciliation to the world, inviting all men to return to the Lord and be one with him. "Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.” (2 Corinthians 5:17-20.)

Paul also taught that "while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us"; that the saints are "justified by his blood"; and that, accordingly, "we shall be saved from wrath through him." Mercy shall overpower justice in that Christ pays the penalty for our sins. "When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son," and "being reconciled, we shall be saved.”"we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.” Therefore, (Romans 5:8-11.) Such is the law of reconciliation and redemption achieved not without the blood of Jesus Christ.

A few passages that point out the part played by the blood and suffering of Jesus in the Atonement are subpended wihtout further comment.

~ Ephesians 2.13 - But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

~ Hebrews 9.12-14 - Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us]. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

~ 1 Peter 1.2 - [To the] Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

~ 1Peter 1.18-23 - Ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, [as] silver and gold, from your vain conversation [received] by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, [see that ye] love one another with a pure heart fervently: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

~1 John 1.7 - The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

~ Revelation 1.5 - Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.




M:)

OK. I challenge you to make a serious study of the Bible with reference to the many prophecies which were literally fulfilled years or generatons later. Please do it for your own information.

Galveston,

Purely out of interest, how would you suggest someone begin their study of the Bible so they can obtain unbiased information? You will admit that the vast majority of biblical commentaries are written to convince readers to one particular viewpoint, most of which are dissimilar in some points, be they great or small, from each other.

In your opinion, would a serious study involve reading scholarly works such as Introduction literature, and do you recommend that readers learn the biblical languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Koine) to make their own translations so they are not sidetracked by bad interpretations of the Bible?

M:)

If justice were superior to God, then God would not be God. However, he is a just God and he does not juggle with justice. When the law of justice was established it became unchangeable.
If it truly were unchangeable, then reconciliation would be impossible. The question is whether God's mercy and forgiveness is superior to a concept of justice that demands death as the punishment for sin. Jesus' life and example taught us that the Father's mercy and willingness to forgive is fundamental to His nature and will not be held hostage to a legalistic interpretation of justice.


Jesus Christ came to appease the demands of divine justice...
I'm sorry, but a justice that is appeased by the gruesome suffering and death of an innocent person is not one that is worthy of a loving and merciful Father.


...and effect reconciliation between God and man.
The truth that he lived and taught and the loving Father he revealed was entirely sufficient to effect our reconciliation. Insisting that his suffering and death was the essential element of this reconciliation distorts and negates his message that "The Father Himself loves you".


Through the atoning sacrifice of Christ and by their faith, men may be ransomed from their state of sin and spiritual darkness and be restored to one of harmony and unity with their Maker. Paul said: "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature.” That is, he has been born again. "And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ."

Christ is the Redeemer and Reconciler. His atoning sacrifice opened the door so that men could return to God. And the Lord "hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation. That ministry and doctrine is "that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them."

Jesus Christ "hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.” We are to preach the gospel of reconciliation to the world, inviting all men to return to the Lord and be one with him. "Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.” (2 Corinthians 5:17-20.)
Again, I have no problem with Jesus as the Redeemer and Reconciler. What I find completely unacceptable is the notion that his suffering and death, rather than his life and the truth he embodied, is the essential element that brings about this reconciliation.


Paul also taught that "while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us"; that the saints are "justified by his blood"; and that, accordingly, "we shall be saved from wrath through him." Mercy shall overpower justice in that Christ pays the penalty for our sins. "When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son," and "being reconciled, we shall be saved.” Therefore, "we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.” (Romans 5:8-11.) Such is the law of reconciliation.
Yes, even more than some of the other apostles, Paul was intent on representing and interpreting Jesus' life and death in a manner consistent with the Old Testament temple rituals of atonement for sin by animal sacrifice. In doing so, he failed to grasp the truly radical nature of Jesus' ministry and revelation of the Father. The Christian churches of today still labor under the burden of his misunderstanding. It's tragic, really.

I have always figured that Jesus had enough faith to know that as the son of God his suffering was just a part of his truth as he knew he was blessed and his spirit would not die, the very fact his teaching has survived this long is proof to that in my opinion. Though man is hard pressed to teach faithfully, as is the case of Mohammed in Islam.

The Ransom Theory requires God to be duplicitous. Although it was generally believed during the first Christian millennium, it fell from favour when its unsafe foundations were probed. Initially by Anselm, but since then it has been shown to be unsatisfactory. God cannot be deceitful and still be a moral God.


galveston disagrees: Deceitful? What Scripture do you find that would show God to be deceitful if what I suggest should be so?

That is the whole point. The Ransom Theory is not found in scripture and hence you are safe in fully rejecting it. It is not the only theory of atonment that is unscriptural. That being so, why would anyone cling to them?

:)

.

Yes, even more than some of the other apostles, Paul was intent on representing and interpreting Jesus' life and death in a manner consistent with the Old Testament temple rituals of atonement for sin by animal sacrifice. In doing so, he failed to grasp the truly radical nature of Jesus' ministry and revelation of the Father. The Christian churches of today still labor under the burden of his misunderstanding. It's tragic, really.

I have to disagree with you on this. Paul wasn't like this at all. In the New Testament, God didn't want sacrifices, he desired mercy. Jesus was the Sacrificial Lamb. True, John & Peter explain this better than Paul;but, there is truly nothing tragic about it.

{snipped} Again, I have no problem with Jesus as the Redeemer and Reconciler. What I find completely unacceptable is the notion that his suffering and death, rather than his life and the truth he embodied, is the essential element that brings about this reconciliation.

Yes, even more than some of the other apostles, Paul was intent on representing and interpreting Jesus' life and death in a manner consistent with the Old Testament temple rituals of atonement for sin by animal sacrifice. In doing so, he failed to grasp the truly radical nature of Jesus' ministry and revelation of the Father. The Christian churches of today still labor under the burden of his misunderstanding. It's tragic, really.
Paul has had a bad press. He has even been accused of 'inventing' Christianity. However, wemust understand that Paul was the first Christian theologian, and because he labored among Greeks he had to explain what Jesus was about in terms they could understand. Although there is no continuing consistency in paul's writings - he writes to whatever matter is before him - yet it is not difficult to reconcile his positions on various essential matters with what are recorded as the teachings of Jesus.

I agree somewhat about Paul's (if indeed it is Paul writing ijn Hebrews) drawing on imagery and symbolism of the Temple and its services to illustrate who and what Jesus was in his letter to Jewish Christians. We find John using similar literary techniques in his Apocalypse.

The whole point of the works of gospellers and epistolarians is to make the Christian message relevant and available in terms with which they were familiar. This is one reason why reading an English translation of the Bible in today's world conveys to non-specialists so little of what was originally intended, because most people are unable to read it through a mindset equivalent to those of Palestinians and Greeks of two thousand years ago.

It is possible that Paul's greatest point of divergence is with John's view of eschatology, but John wrote much later when the non-appearance of Jesus was troubling the saints.

I have to disagree with you on this. Paul wasn't like this at all. In the New Testament, God didn't want sacrifices, he desired mercy. Jesus was the Sacrificial Lamb. True, John & Peter explain this better than Paul;but, there is truly nothing tragic about it.
Hello, and welcome to the discussion. I'm not sure I understand you. Your statement that "Jesus was the Sacrificial Lamb" seems to imply that you agree with Paul's interpretation, i.e. that Jesus' suffering and death was necessary and instrumental in effecting God's forgiveness, in the same way that the death of the animal sacrifice was essential in the temple ritual. If that's the case, I guess we do disagree.

My contention is that the analogy between Jesus' death and the death of the animal sacrifice is a misunderstanding of Jesus' mission to reveal God as a Father who freely offers His children unconditional love, abundant mercy and willing forgiveness, not a remote and severe judge who demands the death of an innocent person as the price of forgiveness. It's the consequences of this misunderstanding that seem tragic to me.

I have nothing against the bible but don't believe your interpretation, so it would be futile. Please stop using the book as a means to tiptoe around direct questions as in my post#80
You could not mean #80 as that was not yours. I looked at #180, but need a clearer statement of your direct question.

Sorry I wanted clarity as to your disagreement to post!#175, as your disageement made no sense to me.

Also your response to #181 about redemption where did that come from as you directed it at me in 184 when that's not what I asked at all, please explain.

Galveston,

Purely out of interest, how would you suggest someone begin their study of the Bible so they can obtain unbiased information? You will admit that the vast majority of biblical commentaries are written to convince readers to one particular viewpoint, most of which are dissimilar in some points, be they great or small, from each other.

In your opinion, would a serious study involve reading scholarly works such as Introduction literature, and do you recommend that readers learn the biblical languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Koine) to make their own translations so they are not sidetracked by bad interpretations of the Bible?

M:)
For my information, which translations to you consider reliable, and/or which ones are not?
You make much of discrepancies in the Bible, but do not above 90% of all scripture remnanents agree? People who copied scripture were very careful, I understand. If the preponderance of copies agree, don't you think we may safely assume thea we are getting a correct message? Do you think that a God who could give us His word is not able to protect the purity of that word? Yes, it would be helpful to read and understand the origingal languages, but most of us cannot do that, so we depend on an English translation.
As to study, what's the problem with just reading the Book? Jesus said the Law and Prophets testify of Him. It is no great difficulty to read the English translation of those prophecies about Christ, and then read the literal fulfillment in the New Testament.

For my information, which translations to you consider reliable, and/or which ones are not?
You make much of discrepancies in the Bible, but do not above 90% of all scripture remnanents agree? People who copied scripture were very careful, I understand. If the preponderance of copies agree, don't you think we may safely assume thea we are getting a correct message? Do you think that a God who could give us His word is not able to protect the purity of that word? Yes, it would be helpful to read and understand the origingal languages, but most of us cannot do that, so we depend on an English translation.
As to study, what's the problem with just reading the Book? Jesus said the Law and Prophets testify of Him. It is no great difficulty to read the English translation of those prophecies about Christ, and then read the literal fulfillment in the New Testament.Why do you not study the koran or the torah, as they are making the same claim as you do??

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?
Different people different names, the native indians call him the great sprite, no one ever complains about that one. I guess it is based on how you serve which ever name you choose. Like the sabbath some say Saturday some says Sunday, no walls are falling over that one. People just do not know how to respect each other not even for their own ideas,opinons

Hello, and welcome to the discussion. I'm not sure I understand you. Your statement that "Jesus was the Sacrificial Lamb" seems to imply that you agree with Paul's interpretation, i.e., that Jesus' suffering and death was necessary and instrumental in effecting God's forgiveness, in the same way that the death of the animal sacrifice was essential in the temple ritual. If that's the case, I guess we do disagree.

My contention is that the analogy between Jesus' death and the death of the animal sacrifice is a misunderstanding of Jesus' mission to reveal God as a Father who freely offers His children unconditional love, abundant mercy and willing forgiveness, not a remote and severe judge who demands the death of an innocent person as the price of forgiveness. It's the consequences of this misunderstanding that seem tragic to me.
I did so want to respond to you sooner but my computer crashed. Anyway, the term Sacrificial Lamb is a figurative term. In 1Corinthians 5:7,Paul says: For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. This has to do with Christ's death being an atonement for the sins of man. Why do you get hung up comparing Jesus' death to animal sacrifices?
It certainly is a misunderstanding for you to believe that the apostle Paul, who wrote the majority of the N.T. preached that way.
Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates His own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Anyone who rejects Christ as Savior, who denies the Savior who bought him(2Peter2:1)-that person will be subject to God's wrath for eternity(Romans1:18) not His love(Romans6:23)
God's love is both unconditional & conditional.
Since I ran out of time, didn't save my text, computer crashed, & it's late- I'll refer you to this site which explains about God's unconditional & conditional love.Acts 17:11 Dialog: Is God's Love Unconditional? (http://www.acts17-11.com/cows_unlove.html)

God's love is both unconditional & conditional.Logically that does not makes any sense - it's one or the other.

I did so want to respond to you sooner but my computer crashed. Anyway, the term Sacrificial Lamb is a figurative term. In 1Corinthians 5:7,Paul says: For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. This has to do with Christ's death being an atonement for the sins of man. Why do you get hung up comparing Jesus' death to animal sacrifices?
I understand the figurative analogy between Jesus and the sacrificial lamb. What I object to is the idea that his death was a necessary element in effecting a reconciliation between God and man. I don't believe that God insisted on the death of an innocent person in order to forgive and be reconciled to His children. I believe that it was Jesus' life, not his death, that was essential to our reconciliation, and that the required change was not in God's attitude toward us, but our understanding of Him.

For those that study the Koran it is very obvous where alot of the writings come from. It combines verious faiths in that area at the time, the major parts of Christianity in the Koran, .and the same can be said of the christian faith can't it?the birth of christ story was cooped from what you would call a pagan faith, and same with many of the other stories in the bible.Then the church pick the dates of all there holy days to coincide with pagan holidays and built their churches on the sites the earlier religions held holy,didn't they?

and the same can be said of the christian faith can't it?the birth of christ story was cooped from what you would call a pagan faith, and same with many of the other stories in the bible.Then the church pick the dates of all there holy days to coincide with pagan holidays and built their churchs on the sites the earlier religions held holy,didn't they?


Interestying. It is certain that there are many stories of a dying and rising God - Osiris in Egypt for example, and Tammuz, etc - but the story of Jesus is of a different order because Jesus was an historic figure, and there are witrnesses to the events of his life, death and resurrection.

It is imlortant to acknowledge that the religion of ancient Israel did not sprig out of a vacuum, and that surrounding societies not only impinged on Israelie society, but also impacted its religion. This provides some similarities and parallels in the OT and in the mythology of the surrounding civilisations.

As Christianity spread it supplanted earlier creeds and gods, so what better way to demonstrate in a concrete way the superiority of Christianity over the previous gods of the new Christians. Thus, what was once a grove became a church building, what was a temple to a pagan deity became a church, and so on.

As to Christian holy-days being syperimposed on the dates of pagan festivals, it is well to remember that there are only 365 days in most years, so if you want to establish a new feast to honour a particular saint, finding a day that was not once paganised is probably impossible.

While it is undeniably true that both Judaism and Christianity enfolded some pagan notions into their respective faiths and practices, the Christianization of the day, usually indicate a complete break with the pagan past. That being so, what used to happen on that day is of no importance and has no bearing or influence on what happens on the new feast and what it celebrates.

Take your own nativity as an example. If you search you will be able to find good and bad events that took place on the same date, but that doesn't make a link to you. Separate events on the same date have only the date in common, and that is usually not significant.

My own birthday coincides with an event in the life of Adolph Hitler's life, but I assure you that apart from sharing a common date there is absolutely no significant connection between Adolph and me. Synchronicity should never be taken as evidence of connection.

M:)RGANITE

Logically that does not makes any sense - it's one or the other.

NK,

It is an interesting point that you address. Yet it could be argued that while God is described as 'no respecter of persons' [meaning that he does not prefer one person over another when it comes to dispensing justice, etc.] he also says "Jacob I have loved but Esau I have hated.' There are other examples, and what probably needs to be done to fathom this question is to take cases where God shows unconditional love for the whole human family and yet offers cursings for those whom oppose him, and blessings for those who obey. That could mean that he always loves all his children unconditionally but that he has set conditions to the receipt of certain blessings.

The Decalogue provides some examples of this.

For my information, which translations to you consider reliable, and/or which ones are not?
You make much of discrepancies in the Bible, but do not above 90% of all scripture remnanents agree? People who copied scripture were very careful, I understand. If the preponderance of copies agree, don't you think we may safely assume thea we are getting a correct message? Do you think that a God who could give us His word is not able to protect the purity of that word? Yes, it would be helpful to read and understand the origingal languages, but most of us cannot do that, so we depend on an English translation.
As to study, what's the problem with just reading the Book? Jesus said the Law and Prophets testify of Him. It is no great difficulty to read the English translation of those prophecies about Christ, and then read the literal fulfillment in the New Testament.

The fact of variants [disagreements] in Bible texts is not in dispute. I cannot place a percentage of who agrees with what, but the book of Luke exists in ancient manuscript forms in more than 24,000 different version. I am doing no more than stating a well known truth. I am not making "much" of it. The differences are there, the textual difficulties have been demonstrated for hundreds of years, so they are facts of Bible life. Whether you choose to make much or little of them is up to you. I only mention them.

The copyists were m,eant to be extremely particular and careful, but it is undeniable that errors were made by copyists. The notion that each copy was authenticated as 100% a correct copy of its 'father' is mythical. Copyists made mistakes, and some of them are glaringly obvious to Bible readers who are careful in their reading and thinling.

The problem with just reading the book is that it contains muchj from ancient cultures and modes of thought that the modern man in the street does not understand, and that means that if the contex is not available to him, he will not be able to obtain the force of the message the original monographist intended to convey.

Whatever God is or is not capable of does not change the fact that establishing the authentic text of the Bible is a minefield in which there is no general agreement. That disagreement, however, should not be made a cause of war. It is far better to search for truth with your 'enemy' than it is to get to fisticuffs with him to try to reach agreement. Bible scholars are, in the main, honest and do not represent any sectarian point of view that must be served, and so skues their interpretations.

However, many commentaries written under certain imprests [Banner of Truth, for example] are unashamedly Protestant, sola scriptura, sola fide, etc, etc, etc, in their conclusions. Others are even more pointed in supporting the views of particular sects and cults against the views of other cults and isms, but these are not honest scholarly commentaries but homiletica with a polemic chaser. From such unreliable and biased writings, turn away.

When you choose an English translation that you are at the mercy of the translator. Even reading his credentials could make him seem to be more authoritarian than he is. Ask, is he/she known and honoured among the academic corps of biblical scholars?

Two of my favourite bibklical commentaries are the SPCK, and Peake's Commentary. They are much better than most. Peake's is especially helpful to the non-specialist, as it goes into greater detail, while the SPCKs Commentary on the Holy Sciptures is more intense in its coverage of background, etc.. Introductions are no accessible to the non specialist, and these should not be approached until the groundwork has been done, and an appreciation of the history, background, sit im leben, weltgeist, and zeitgeist of the people in the story and/or the target readership at each turn in the road.

Biblical Hebrew is not a difficult language to learn, and reading the Hebrew Scriptures for one'sself is like a man ploughing a field he has ploughed scores of times, but suddenly tuns up treasure trove! It is a votage of discovery and excitement. Some of our predelictions and prejudices will be challenged and fopund wanting, but what could be better than reading and understanding the sacred writings as they were meant to be read?


M:)RGANITE

Why do you not study the koran or the torah, as they are making the same claim as you do????
I believe that I do study from the torah. Isn't that the "law and prophets" that Jesus said testify of Him? (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers & Deuteronomy). Now, unless I have been grossly misinformed, the Koran claims that Mohammed is God's greatest prophet, and Jesus merely a "prophet". I have not heard if Mohammed walked out of a tomb after being dead three days and nights, so I don't think the claims are exactly the same. Do you?

No, but what is your point?

I believe that I do study from the torah. Isn't that the "law and prophets" that Jesus said testify of Him? (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers & Deuteronomy). Now, unless I have been grossly misinformed, the Koran claims that Mohammed is God's greatest prophet, and Jesus merely a "prophet". I have not heard if Mohammed walked out of a tomb after being dead three days and nights, so I don't think the claims are exactly the same. Do you?

Torah is 'instruction' generally referred to as the 'law. The prophets are nebi'im, and other writings are ketubim. The first letter of each of these three make TNK, pronounced tanach or tanak, referring to the whole of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Have you heard what did happen to Mohammed? He was/is not held to be divine.

Muhammad never claimed divinity at all.

All of us here have been going back and forth about the differences that can be pointed out about the various religions, that's easy, but can no one see the similarities that they all have, history notwithstanding? After all they all sprang from ancient tribal man. What makes one any better than the other? I mean they all profess a GOD so what more could you ask for? You mean to tell me this is not enough common ground among humans and accept that we all don't know, but have filled in the gaps with our own regional tribal logic. Has any one forgotten the wars and human migrations over the centuries that have spread one word or another? You can change the name and be still be talking about the same thing, and I'm sure there is a written record somewhere you can quote dogma from, but is this enough to put one above the other and accept this as a fact for all? Or should we just concede that whom ever has the biggest stick will tell the rest what the truth is.

Who was Frankfort, and why is he not as warmly received? Sorry for all the questions, and I could Google the dude but your personal view is what I would be interested in.

Who was Frankfort, and why is he not as warmly received? Sorry for all the questions, and I could google the dude but your personal view is what I would be interested in.

Henri Frankfort was an anthropoligist who premised a scheme of the development of religion for primitive folkways through successive discrete and geographically varied acculturations, eventually evolving into moral monotheism. He is no longer warmly received because his simplistic theories are no longer accepted by the majority of anthropologists or sociologists.

Henri Frankfort (http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/fghij/frankfort_henri.html)

However, his work is recognised as setting down the foundation for further inquiry into his subject, much as Freud, who is also less warmly received these days, nevertheless laid down a foundation for psychoanalysis and inquiry into the aberrant human psyche.

Theories come and go. It is the way of science.

Muhammad never claimed divinity at all.
This is important because Jesus lived, died, & was resurrected in front of many witnesses. If the apostle John's story in Revelation is comparable to Mohammed's Koran, then I look at how credible John was in writing other books in the Bible. I can't say the same for Mohammed.
The story says that he went into a cave & the angel Gabriel came to give him all these revelations; to write them down, & this led to the Koran.
Christianity is the faith that offers the best promises. (And it automatically takes 10 yrs off your looks!) That is what happens when the old man dies, & you become a new creature in Christ.

Yes,

But the Gospels were written between 20 (in the case of Mark) and 80-100 years after (in John's case) Jesus' death. The earliest records in the NT are in fact Paul's letter's and his picture of Jesus is quite different than that given in the Gospels.

Yes,

But the Gospels were written between 20 (in the case of Mark) and 80-100 years after (in John's case) Jesus' death. The earliest records in the NT are in fact Paul's letter's and his picture of Jesus is quite different than that given in the Gospels.

This is all fine. And Paul preached the Good News about Jesus and the resurrection. Acts 17:18. I do not see any discrepancies between the epistles of Paul and the gospels of Matt. Mk, Luke, or John. Just more interesting reading to add to the gospels.

No?

Jesus was a pharisee, his teachings are those of the Hillelite school made famous by Gamaliel. Paul, for all his posturing, was almost certainly a Sadducee, his teachings differed considerably from those of the Jerusalem church led by James and Peter.

No?

Jesus was a pharisee, his teachings are those of the Hillelite school made famous by Gamaliel. Paul, for all his posturing, was almost certainly a Sadducee, his teachings differed considerably from those of the Jerusalem church led by James and Peter.


Paul was a Pharisee, and was taught at the feet of Gamaliel. Jesus set himself apart from Sadducee, Pharisee, and Essene.

When Paul - as Saul - had completed the studies as given in the Jewish schools at Tarsus, and had learned his trade, he desired to attend college. He was then, probably, about fourteen years of age. There were Gentile universities near his home, but, as he wanted to become a Rabbi, he went to Jerusalem, and became a student in the famous School of Hillel.

The president of this noted institution of learning was, "a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law had in reputation among all the people." It is supposed that he was a son of Simeon who was in the Temple when the little baby Jesus was blessed.

As to the leanings of Jesus, whatever the words used, the thoughts he expressed, and the doctrine he taught, his preachments were not like those of the scribes. He spoke in his own right, with authority, and not by reciting long concatenations of Rabbinical lore and tradition.

Consequently, it is recorded that "The Jews marvelled" at his teachings. Their natural queries were: "How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?" "He is no authorized Rabbi; He belongs to no recognized school; neither the followers of Hillel nor those of Shammai claim Him; He is a Nazarene; He was trained in the shop of the Galilean carpenter; how knoweth this man letters, having never learned?

Writes Farrar: "In all ages there is a tendency to mistake erudition for learning, knowledge for wisdom; in all ages there has been a slowness to comprehend that true learning of the deepest and noblest character may coexist with complete and utter ignorance of everything which absorbs and constitutes the learning of the schools.And so, to their misplaced queries, Jesus responds:

'My doctrine is not mine but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God or whether I speak of myself.'" [Life of Christ]

I have not heard of Jesus being claimed for a Pharisee. In the Jewish culture of Jesus' day there were many discordant and divisive voices crying out in defense of divergent divorce standards and advocating differing marriage disciplines. Plural marriage, handed down from their fathers, was still practiced, though it does not seem to have been the dominant order of matrimony. Their main difficulties, however, seem to have grown out of the meaning of this Mosaic statement:

"When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife." (Deut. 24:1-2.)

The Pharisaic question assumes the propriety of divorce; the issue, as they express it, is, may it be granted "for every cause"; and, in theory at least, this depends upon the meaning of the Mosaic phrase "some uncleanness," which may also be translated "some unseemly thing," or "some matter of shame," or, literally, "some matter of nakedness."

On this point the School of Shammai interpreted the Mosaic standard so as to allow divorce only for unchastity, while the School of Hillel allowed almost any trivial act to sever a marriage. Among these the Mishnah recites such things as: seeing another woman who pleased him more; feeling any disgust toward the wife; spoiling her husband's dinner; breaking the law of tithing, or other Mosaic requirement; going in public with an uncovered head; spinning in the public streets; brawling or being troublesome, or quarrelsome, or of ill repute; being childless for ten years; and on and on and on.

These differences between the two major schools led, it is said, to the Jewish proverb: "Hillel loosed what Shammai bound."

In practice there were many divorces for minor reasons. But Jesus, in his reply, as his won't was, rose above the battleground of the Rabbinists and went back to first principles.

Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

In that he stood neither in the Pharisaic tradition, nor in the tradiitonms of (The Great) Hillel.

Would you care to share your reasons for saying he did?


M:)RGANITE


.

I have to disagree with you on this. Paul wasn't like this at all. In the New Testament, God didn't want sacrifices, he desired mercy. Jesus was the Sacrificial Lamb. True, John & Peter explain this better than Paul;but, there is truly nothing tragic about it.

It is true that the author of Hebrews is probably unknown, it is Pauline in approach and ideas, so an ascription of it to Paul has been accepted by non-specialists.

I responded to your argument against what ordinaryguy wrote when he spoke of Paul equating the sacrificial death of Jesus "in a manner consistent with the Old Testament temple rituals of atonement for sin by animal sacrifice."

If you will read Hebrews, you will discover that the writer - apart from the tangenital issue of who he might be - is very familiar with temple ritual and redemptive sacrifice, and plays off the position and finction of Jesus Christ as Saviour against the Old testament Paradigm. That is what OG pointed out and it ought not to be difficult for you to conceded that such is indisputable. Why then dispute it without evidentiaty argument? If you have a case, I am, confidant that I will not be the only one interested in putting it to the test.

Retrotia disagrees: The author of Hebrews is unknown. You speak a lot of words, but say very little. You don't seem to have an appreciation of the Bible as other Christians do. You argue with those of the same brotherhood of believers. I say this to your shame.


How remarkably arrogant you sound. Would you care to be more specific by providing some particular examples? If all you really mean is that you disagree qwith my understanding of scripture, then I fail to see how that is even remarkable?

At your pleasure.

How remarkably arrogant you sound. Would you care to be more specific by providing some particular examples? If all you really mean is that you disagree qwith my understanding of scripture, then I fail to see how that is even remarkable?

At your pleasure.
Arrogant about what? The comment I made is almost 2 months ago & sorry, but I cannot really get the feeling back.
I think it had to do with the flow of the posts- how you were quick to discredit your Christian fellow & were more than patient & generous to the heathen-even when they didn't accept your answer entirely & they went on to state their case with more believers!

Ordinaryguy had a qualm with Paul's teachings. I think they are great-all the epistles. I think if one reads the entire N.T. there shouldn't be any "hang-up" in understanding the Blood Atonement of the N.T. The Lamb, period.
Paul was a convert from Judaism- why wouldn't he mention the High Priest- & the Tabernacle things? But it's so small & ordinaryguy couldn't get passed Jesus' suffering & dying for our sins. The Intercessor between God & man. It was necessary because God said it was & Jesus freely gave up his life for us.
NOW---We are in Christ Jesus. My Church does not have a cross at the altar--bc 'it is done'.
My Church doesn't have a problem with any of Paul's teachings. Gifts of the Spirit--Armor of God- all Paul's Epistles are needed &" All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in rightousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoughly equipped for every good work" 2 Timothy 3:16,17.
NKJ
So, have a nice day. Maybe I'll forgive you for calling me a blasphemer on one of the Christian threads! :(

Who is Allah?
III&E Brochure Series; No. 2
(published by The Institute of Islamic Information and Education (III&E))

It is a known fact that every language has one or more terms that are used in reference to God and sometimes to lesser deities. This is not the case with Allah. Allah is the personal name of the One true God. Nothing else can be called Allah. The term has no plural or gender. This shows its uniqueness when compared with the word god which can be made plural, gods, or feminine, goddess. It is interesting to notice that Allah is the personal name of God in Aramaic, the language of Jesus and a sister language of Arabic.

The One true God is a reflection of the unique concept that Islam associates with God. To a Muslim, Allah is the Almighty, Creator and Sustainer of the universe, Who is similar to nothing and nothing is comparable to Him. The Prophet Muhammad was asked by his contemporaries about Allah; the answer came directly from God Himself in the form of a short chapter of the Quran, which is considered the essence of the unity or the motto of monotheism. This is chapter 112 which reads:

"In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate.
Say (O Muhammad) He is God the One God, the Everlasting Refuge, who has not begotten, nor has been begotten, and equal to Him is not anyone."
Some non-Muslims allege that God in Islam is a stern and cruel God who demands to be obeyed fully. He is not loving and kind. Nothing can be farther from truth than this allegation. It is enough to know that, with the exception of one, each of the 114 chapters of the Quran begins with the verse: "In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate." In one of the sayings of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) we are told that "God is more loving and kinder than a mother to her dear child."

But God is also Just. Hence evildoers and sinners must have their share of punishment and the virtuous, His bounties and favors. Actually God's attribute of Mercy has full manifestation in His attribute of Justice. People suffering throughout their lives for His sake and people oppressing and exploiting other people all their lives should not receive similar treatment from their Lord. Expecting similar treatment for them will amount to negating the very belief in the accountability of man in the Hereafter and thereby negating all the incentives for a moral and virtuous life in this world. The following Quranic verses are very clear and straightforward in this respect:

"Verily, for the Righteous are gardens of Delight, in the Presence of their Lord. Shall We then treat the people of Faith like the people of Sin? What is the matter with you? How judge you?" (68:34-36)

Continued in next post...

Islam rejects characterizing God in any human form or depicting Him as favoring certain individuals or nations on the basis of wealth, power or race. He created the human beings as equals. They may distinguish themselves and get His favor through virtue and piety only.

The concept that God rested in the seventh day of creation, that God wrestled with one of His soldiers, that God is an envious plotter against mankind, or that God is incarnate in any human being are considered blasphemy from the Islamic point of view.

The unique usage of Allah as a personal name of God is a reflection of Islam's emphasis on the purity of the belief in God which is the essence of the message of all God's messengers. Because of this, Islam considers associating any deity or personality with God as a deadly sin which God will never forgive, despite the fact He may forgive all other sins.

[Note that what is meant above applies ONLY to those people who die in a state wherein they are associating others with God. The repentance of those who yet live is acceptable to God if He wills. - MSA of USC]
The Creator must be of a different nature from the things created because if he is of the same nature as they are, he will be temporal and will therefore need a maker. It follows that nothing is like Him. If the maker is not temporal, then he must be eternal. But if he is eternal, he cannot be caused, and if nothing outside him causes him to continue to exist, which means that he must be self-sufficient. And if the does not depend on anything for the continuance of his own existence, then this existence can have no end. The Creator is therefore eternal and everlasting: "He is the First and the Last."

He is Self-Sufficient or Self-Subsistent or, to use a Quranic term, Al-Qayyum. The Creator does not create only in the sense of bringing things into being, He also preserves them and takes them out of existence and is the ultimate cause of whatever happens to them.

"God is the Creator of everything. He is the guardian over everything. Unto Him belong the keys of the heavens and the earth." (39:62, 63)

"No creature is there crawling on the earth, but its provision rests on God. He knows its lodging place and it repository." (11:6)

God's Attributes
If the Creator is Eternal and Everlasting, then His attributes must also be eternal and everlasting. He should not lose any of His attributes nor acquire new ones. If this is so, then His attributes are absolute. Can there be more than one Creator with such absolute attributes? Can there be for example, two absolutely powerful Creators? A moment's thought shows that this is not feasible.

The Quran summarizes this argument in the following verses:

"God has not taken to Himself any son, nor is there any god with Him: For then each god would have taken of that which he created and some of them would have risen up over others." (23:91)

And Why, were there gods in earth and heaven other than God, they (heaven and earth) would surely go to ruin." (21:22)

The Oneness of God
The Quran reminds us of the falsity of all alleged gods. To the worshippers of man-made objects, it asks:
"Do you worship what you have carved yourself?" (37:95)

"Or have you taken unto you others beside Him to be your protectors, even such as have no power either for good or for harm to themselves?" (13:16)

To the worshippers of heavenly bodies it cites the story of Abraham:
"When night outspread over him he saw a star and said, 'This is my Lord.' But when it set he said, 'I love not the setters.' When he saw the moon rising, he said, 'This is my Lord.' But when it set he said, 'If my Lord does not guide me I shall surely be of the people gone astray.' When he saw the sun rising, he said, 'This is my Lord; this is greater.' But when it set he said, 'O my people, surely I quit that which you associate, I have turned my face to Him Who originated the heavens and the earth; a man of pure faith, I am not of the idolaters.'" (6:76-79)

continued in next post...

The Believer's Attitude
In order to be a Muslim, i.e. to surrender oneself to God, it is necessary to believe in the oneness of God, in the sense of His being the only Creator, Preserver, Nourisher, etc. But this belief - later on called "Tawhid Ar-Rububiyyah" - is not enough. Many of the idolaters knew and believed that only the Supreme God could do all this, but that was not enough to make them Muslims. To tawhid ar-rububiyyah one must add tawhid al'uluhiyyah, i.e. one acknowledges the fact that is God alone Who deserves to be worshipped, and thus abstains from worshipping any other thing or being.

Having achieved this knowledge of the one true God, man should constantly have faith in Him, and should allow nothing to induce him to deny truth.

When faith enters a person's heart, it causes certain mental states which result in certain actions. Taken together these mental states and actions are the proof for the true faith. The Prophet said, "Faith is that which resides firmly in the heart and which is proved by deeds." Foremost among those mental states is the feeling of gratitude towards God which could be said to be the essence of 'ibada' (worship).

The feeling of gratitude is so important that a non-believer is called 'kafir' which means 'one who denies a truth' and also 'one who is ungrateful.'

A believer loves, and is grateful to God for the bounties He bestowed upon him, but being aware of the fact that his good deeds, whether mental or physical, are far from being commensurate with Divine favors, he is always anxious lest God should punish him, here or in the Hereafter. He, therefore, fears Him, surrenders himself to Him and serves Him with great humility. One cannot be in such a mental state without being almost all the time mindful of God. Remembering God is thus the life force of faith, without which it fades and withers away.

The Quran tries to promote this feeling of gratitude by repeating the attributes of God very frequently. We find most of these attributes mentioned together in the following verses of the Quran:

"He is God; there is no god but He, He is the Knower of the unseen and the visible; He is the All-Merciful, the All-Compassionate. He is God, there is no God but He. He is the King, the All-Holy, the All-Peace, the Guardian of Faith, the All-Preserver, the All-Mighty, the All-Compeller, the All-Sublime. Glory be to God, above that they associate! He is God the Creator, the Maker, the Shaper. To Him belong the Names Most Beautiful. All that is in the heavens and the earth magnifies Him; He is the All-Mighty, the All-Wise." (59:22-24)

"There is no god but He, the Living, the Everlasting. Slumber seizes Him not, neither sleep; to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and the earth. Who is there that shall intercede with Him save by His leave? He knows what lies before them and what is after them, and they comprehend not anything of His knowledge save such as He wills. His throne comprises the heavens and earth; the preserving of them oppresses Him not; He is the All-High, the All-Glorious." (2:255)

"People of the Book, go not beyond the bounds in your religion, and say not as to God but the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only the Messenger of God, and His Word that He committed to Mary, and a Spirit from Him. So believe in God and His Messengers, and say not, 'Three.' Refrain; better is it for you. God is only one God. Glory be to Him - (He is) above having a son." (4:171)

----------------------------------------

Disclaimer:-I provide information for those who may wish to know.
I am not here to argue or to prove a point and I do not have to prove my faith to any human...
I believe what I believe and practice it to the best of my abilities... :) :)

The Believer's Attitude
In order to be a Muslim, i.e., to surrender oneself to God, it is necessary to believe in the oneness of God, in the sense of His being the only Creator, Preserver, Nourisher, etc. But this belief - later on called "Tawhid Ar-Rububiyyah" - is not enough. Many of the idolaters knew and believed that only the Supreme God could do all this, but that was not enough to make them Muslims. To tawhid ar-rububiyyah one must add tawhid al'uluhiyyah, i.e., one acknowledges the fact that is God alone Who deserves to be worshipped, and thus abstains from worshipping any other thing or being.

..:) :)


I read on a Christian fundamentlaist website recently that Allah is an Arabic Moon God. Have you heard of the before, and how do you answer it?

Personally, I believe that the site is shoddy in its research and contentious in spirit.


M:)RGANITE

As muslims believe Allah is the Lord from the beginning before time itself and will remain the same.
We also believe Him to be the Lord who sent the Prophets, Noah,Moses,Jesus etc, hence my guess would be that the word "Allah" is not a new one, but this word must have been common among many, and maybe some people used the name for their own beliefs.

Does not mean that when muslims use it they are referring to the moon.

As I am no expert...
Here's what Wikipedia says
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah

Allah (Arabic: اﷲ, Allāh) is the standard Arabic word for "God", derived from al-ilah, the God.[1][2] The term is best known in the West for its use by Muslims as a reference to God.[3] Arabic-speakers of all faiths, including Christians and Jews, use the word "Allah" to mean "God".[4] The Muslim and Christian Arabs of today have no other word for 'God' than 'Allah'.[5] In pre-Islamic Arabia, Allah was used by pagan Meccans as a reference to the creator-god, possibly the supreme deity.[6]

In Islam, Allah is the only deity, transcendent creator of the universe, and the judge of humankind.[3][1] Some Islamic scholars believe that the term "Allāh" should not be translated, arguing that "Allāh" as used in Islam is a special and glorified term whose use should be preserved, while God can also be used in reference to deities worshiped by polytheists.

According to F. E. Peters, "The Qur'an insists, Muslims believe, and historians affirm that Muhammad and his followers worship the same God as the Jews.[Qur'an 29:46] The Quran's Allah is the same Creator God who covenanted with Abraham". Peters states that the Qur'an portrays Allah as both more powerful and more remote than Yahweh, and as a universal deity, unlike Yahweh who closely follows Israelites.[7]

According to the tradition of Islam there are more than 99 Names of God (al-asma al-husna lit. meaning: "The best names") each of which evoke a distinct characteristic of Allah. The most famous and most frequent of these names are "the Merciful" (al-rahman) and "the Compassionate" (al-rahim).[8][3]

---------------------------------------------

Also the following from the same article
----------------------------------------

Translation

Some Muslim scholars feel that "Allāh" should not be translated, because they perceive the Arabic word to express the uniqueness of "Allāh" more accurately than the word "god" for two reasons:
The word "god" can take a plural form "gods", whereas the word "Allāh" in their view has no plural form.
The word "god" can have gender as male god or female god (called goddess) whereas the word "Allāh" in their view does not have gender.[15]

This is a significant issue in translation of the Qur'an.
-------------------------------------------------------------

:)

I submit for your consideration this: the God of the Bible is not the same as Allah. Discussion anyone?
All the evidence points to one God, and the only ones disputing it are the ones who differentiate to promote their own brand of dicrimination, to assure their superiority.

All the evidence points to one God, and the only ones disputing it are the ones who differentiate to promote their own brand of dicrimination, to assure their superiority.

What on earth does that mean? Are you saying that anyone who disagrees with your claims to superrior knowledge about God is wong because you are right? As a non-trinitarian who reaches non-trinitarian conclusions from within the pages of the Bible with little difficulty, I find your remarks unhelpful since I have never met a non-trinitarian who claims to be superior to anyone.

Reaching a different conclusion than another on the basis of availabel evidence cannot be called being 'superior,' whatever it is that you infer by use of that unfortunate word.

Since all evidence clearly does not point to one God, there should be room for reasoned and polite discussion without anyone being called by a term of opprobrium since, hopefully, the days when the penalty for diagrement was mutilation or death is long past.

Why ios disagreement discrimination? I will say that you remark is discriminatopry. I cannot believ that it is well thoughht out, and since you do not make any argument for your view, perhaps it is not incorrect to suggest that your ground for the statement is at best shallow, and at worst discriminatory in and of itself.

Perhaps I have misunderstood you. Have I? If sio, then I am sorry. However, I do not believe that I have misunderstood Jesus who said:


The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
But the Master said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.



Shall any strike before the Lord of the Harvest gives His order to do so? Only He, and he alone, knows which are tares and which are wheat. We should leave this judgement to God. Are we not wise to wait for the Judge?



M:)RGANITE

As muslims believe Allah is the Lord from the beginning before time itself and will remain the same.
We also believe Him to be the Lord who sent the Prophets, Noah,Moses,Jesus etc, hence my guess would be that the word "Allah" is not a new one, but this word must have been common among many, and maybe some people used the name for their own beliefs.

Does not mean that when muslims use it they are referring to the moon.

As I am no expert....
Here;s what Wikipedia says
Allah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah)

Allah (Arabic: اﷲ, Allāh) is the standard Arabic word for "God", derived from al-ilah, the God.[1][2] The term is best known in the West for its use by Muslims as a reference to God.[3] Arabic-speakers of all faiths, including Christians and Jews, use the word "Allah" to mean "God".[4] The Muslim and Christian Arabs of today have no other word for 'God' than 'Allah'.[5] In pre-Islamic Arabia, Allah was used by pagan Meccans as a reference to the creator-god, possibly the supreme deity.[6]

In Islam, Allah is the only deity, transcendent creator of the universe, and the judge of humankind.[3][1] Some Islamic scholars believe that the term "Allāh" should not be translated, arguing that "Allāh" as used in Islam is a special and glorified term whose use should be preserved, while God can also be used in reference to deities worshiped by polytheists.

According to F. E. Peters, "The Qur'an insists, Muslims believe, and historians affirm that Muhammad and his followers worship the same God as the Jews.[Qur'an 29:46] The Quran's Allah is the same Creator God who covenanted with Abraham". Peters states that the Qur'an portrays Allah as both more powerful and more remote than Yahweh, and as a universal deity, unlike Yahweh who closely follows Israelites.[7]

According to the tradition of Islam there are more than 99 Names of God (al-asma al-husna lit. meaning: "The best names") each of which evoke a distinct characteristic of Allah. The most famous and most frequent of these names are "the Merciful" (al-rahman) and "the Compassionate" (al-rahim).[8][3]

---------------------------------------------

also the following from the same article
----------------------------------------

Translation

Some Muslim scholars feel that "Allāh" should not be translated, because they perceive the Arabic word to express the uniqueness of "Allāh" more accurately than the word "god" for two reasons:
The word "god" can take a plural form "gods", whereas the word "Allāh" in their view has no plural form.
The word "god" can have gender as male god or female god (called goddess) whereas the word "Allāh" in their view does not have gender.[15]

This is a significant issue in translation of the Qur'an.
-------------------------------------------------------------

:)


Thank you. As I suspected, the article was pejorative, and that usually means that it is untrue.


M:)

Morganite, What on earth does that mean?
Being there is no argument that that Jews, Christians, and Muslims trace there roots to Abraham, there can be no doubt that they have come from the same tree, and that they have established different branches is irrelevant. History has taught us that man has chosen instead of bonding to that fact that we are the same, man has done everything in his power to argue and war, on the fact that they are different in an effort to divide and reap the spoils of that division for power over the minds of the people, to enrich not the people who follow as sheep, but control the wealth that the division of man offers, for their own agendas. This has been played out for all to see, but since we put so much into man, we have forgotten Gods' way as the lust for superiority is the norm and has been for centuries of mans history. In other words man exploiting man has enriched those so much as to forget and subvert, the real meaning of God himself and is being used to this day as an excuse to kill and destroy all those that see the truth, but in the name of whatever, to enrich the few against the many. I really don't care the book you subscribe to, History provides all the fact you need to back up my argument of those that claim superiority in Gods name, have divided and conquered for their own sake and mankind suffers that division. Sorry Morganite, history tells the truth of man, and the facts are irrefutable.

Uh honey, you're spamming the site with your copy/paste. Please don't do that.

Being there is no argument that that Jews, Christians, and Muslims trace there roots to Abraham, there can be no doubt that they have come from the same tree, and that they have established different branches is irrelevant. History has taught us that man has chosen instead of bonding to that fact that we are the same, man has done everything in his power to argue and war, on the fact that they are different in an effort to divide and reap the spoils of that division for power over the minds of the people, to enrich not the people who follow as sheep, but control the wealth that the division of man offers, for their own agendas. This has been played out for all to see, but since we put so much into man, we have forgotten Gods' way as the lust for superiority is the norm and has been for centuries of mans history. In other words man exploiting man has enriched those so much as to forget and subvert, the real meaning of God himself and is being used to this day as an excuse to kill and destroy all those that see the truth, but in the name of whatever, to enrich the few against the many. I really don't care the book you subscribe to, History provides all the fact you need to back up my argument of those that claim superiority in Gods name, have divided and conquered for their own sake and mankind suffers that division. Sorry Morganite, history tells the truth of man, and the facts are irrefutable.

Talaniman,

As a relationship expert, especially if you are a professional cousellor, you will rely on histories to develop a case work plan for those you must advise. If that is the case, then you will be aware that histories are the most unreliable form of reconstructing past events. History is only reliable if it is accurate.

History does not always tell the truth. As Father David Laine was fond of saying, "History is lies made up by the conqueror; and sometimes by the conquered."

Truth and truth alone is reliable, regardless of the source of any particular truth..


M:)RGANITE

Talaniman,

As a relationship expert, especially if you are a professional cousellor, you will rely on histories to develop a case work plan for those you must advise. If that is the case, then you will be aware that histories are the most unreliable form of reconstructing past events. History is only reliable if it is accurate.

History does not always tell the truth. As Father David Laine was fond of saying, "History is lies made up by the conqueror; and sometimes by the conquered."

Truth and truth alone is reliable, regardless of the source of any particular truth..


M:)RGANITE

You can't expect a blanket statement to refute the fact there is only one God and exactly what part of history is it your bringing forth as evidence that I am wrong?? What is this truth, your bible? And where in your bible does it state there is more than one God. By what do you think he is only a christian god? No one has proven he is not the God of us all.

Quran chapter /surah 021 verse/ayat 030
" Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?"


:)

You can't expect a blanket statement to refute the fact there is only one God and exactly what part of history is it your bringing forth as evidence that I am wrong??? What is this truth, your bible?? And where in your bible does it state there is more than one God. By what do you think he is only a christian god?? No one has proven he is not the God of us all.

I did not mention the Bible, God, a universal God, a Christian God, so I do not understand the source of your apparent anger. My remark was a simple statement that any history is at best a partial account from a particular perspective, and at worst tissue of lies told either to elevate or denigrate particular groups, and in either case is extremely unlikely to be 100% accurate.

If you are a relationship counsellor, you will have heard variant accounts of the same event hundreds, if not thousands, of times. I do not agree with Henry Ford's declaration that 'History is junk,' but I recommend that any history is approached with a good deal of suspicion wherever it is found, for there is often more than a touch of "The Little Tailor" in most histories.

Histories are recorded and interpreted by men with frailties and causes to plead. Cultural pressures, desires, traditions, customs, and ambitions colour histories, so who would implicitly trust any history without deconstruction, except someone who was complicit with the historians whose work they fulsomely approve without any application of their critical faculties?

For example, whose account of the Peloponnesian Wars is the most accurate, and how does one decide how and why it is? History is always to be suspected whatever its source. As has been remarked, "Faith is a good dog, but it is doubt that gets you an education."

If you will show me where you think I made references to those thing to which you objected in my post I will try to explain myself further. I do not seek to quarrel with you.




M:)RGANITE

What I wanted was a quote from scripture that refuted the one God argument put forth in this thread, and not to worry I do so not out of anger, but challenge to those who set the truth, and cannot even see what they themselves have said, and yes we get to the truth through question and investigation. Just my opinion, but its to easy to point out difference and not acknowledge the similarities, when those differences leads to wars, slavery, and entire populations exploited, and exterminated. Can we not agree that religion has been used by the powerful to acquire wealth, and more power and to control the sheep thus cementing their power. I think the one thing we can take from this thread is that everyone thinks their right(even me) but none of us concedes that if we believe in one God how come its not OUR God we are talking about?? Forget the traditions and dogma.

Dear GOD.
It's starting again. Please destroy us now.
Thank you. Amen

What I wanted was a quote from scripture that refuted the one God argument put forth in this thread, and not to worry I do so not out of anger, but challenge to those who set the truth, and cannot even see what they themselves have said, and yes we get to the truth thru question and investigation. Just my opinion, but its to easy to point out difference and not acknowledge the similarities, when those differences leads to wars, slavery, and entire populations exploited, and exterminated. Can we not agree that religion has been used by the powerful to acquire wealth, and more power and to control the sheep thus cementing their power. I think the one thing we can take from this thread is that everyone thinks their right(even me) but none of us concedes that if we believe in one God how come its not OUR God we are talking about??? Forget the traditions and dogma.

The title of the question is Jehovah or Allah, so which one is 'our' God will depend on whether you are Jewish, Christian, or Muslim.

I will agree within you that religion in one form or another has often been at the center of social and political controversy, and has also, from time to time, supported trends and movements that are questionable, particularly in light of modern Western thinking. But that past has gone, and the majority of religious in the world today exert a positive force for good wherever they are and whatever God they follow.

Those you describe as 'the sheep' are not as easy to cement to ideals that are not their own, or to which they do not subscribe, as they were back in the days when masters had absoloute authority over their lackeys, serfs, vassals, hobbits, minions, and slaves.

As both religion and society have entered new phases in both spirituality and socal structures and relationships, so we must update our thinking to keep up with them or else we petrify into useless fossils.

M:)