 |
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
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.
a. I don't live in OntarioQuote:
Originally Posted by 31pumpkin
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
News Hounds: O'Reilly: St. Petersburg Times Is "Scum"
Truthdig - A/V Booth - O'Reilly Calls Peace Activist 'Lunatic'
Crooks and Liars » Bill O'Reilly
YouTube - Olbermann OWNS O'Reilly
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.
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.Quote:
"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)
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by magprob
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJ
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
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ashleysb
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: [but] 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 [it] 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, 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:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 31pumpkin
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.
There is only one God, yet people see Him in many ways. It just depends on how you see Him.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Morganite
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.
Makes sense to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by lnl232699
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 forget the divide between Judiaism and Islam. Completes the circle. That is what makes them different branches of the same tree.Quote:
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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSavage
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..Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSavage
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Morganite
By Morganite
The divde is artificial, man made and can be crossed by man, if he so desires.Quote:
And yet there is an unbridgeable divide between Judaism and Christianity, and between Christianity and Islam.
Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
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:)
Man made, very likely, but how do you believe it can be bridged without loss to all parties?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Morganite
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"
IRAN: MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT TRY TO IMPEACH AHMADINEJAD
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.
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by hadi88
Salaam a' leikum,Quote:
Originally Posted by hadi88
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 31pumpkin
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hope12
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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><br>Does it make sense to call God by a name nearer to what his name is or was rather than to call him by a name that came about through misinterpretation? It is amistake to attemopt biblical exegesis with an English text. It can only be done in a satisfactory way in the original biblical languages by someone who knows the language, and the background to the biblical books.<br><br><br>M:)<br>
<br>And God fulfills himself in many ways
<br>Lest one good custom should corrupt the world.
Wa'alaikum Asalaam (Peace be upon to you too).Quote:
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
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
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:)
Peace,Quote:
Originally Posted by hadi88
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Morganite
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:21 AM. |