Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Wisdom Lion

Christianity Is Created By Paul

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Hi Solitair,

You have prompted a very good discussion which has touched a number of topics, but I think before we get too far from the subject of the Catholic Church, the Pope and the Crusades, we should go a little farther back in history, --- so I will recap some things that have been written before on Shiachat.

When God called Muhammad to be a Prophet and Messenger to the Arab people it was to destroy idolatry from Arabia and return them to the worship of God.

When Muhammad was in danger for his life in Mecca, he was invited to Al-Madinah where he moved and built the Muslim community.

The Jewish Rabbis had predicted that God would send a Prophet to the Arabs, so the Jews welcomed Muhammad, and assumed that he would be a ‘servant’ to them, but when they discovered that his Mission was to bring the lowly Arabs into the fellowship of believers, they began to oppose him and dispute his teaching.

God led Muhammad in destroying idolatry and at his ‘Farewell Pilgrimage’ shortly before his death, Muhammad declared victory, when the people unanimously accepted Islam, and brought in a temporary peace. --- However, the word Islam simply means ‘Surrender to the will of God.’ --- It is the same religion as that of Abraham, ‘Surrender and submission to God.’ Surah 2:130-133.

Muhammad had appointed Imam Ali as his successor, but others, vying for leadership rejected Ali as leader. --- (If you have read the letter promoted by ILove, you would see how honorable and diplomatic his leadership would have been, but he didn’t have a chance). --- When there were others contending for leadership, rather than using diplomacy, they went back to warring among themselves. Abu Bakr and Umar seemed to have prevailed and Abu Bakr was the Caliph for the first 2 years. --- Though there were a lot of Muslims killed in their battles, he consolidated their homeland, mostly Saudi Arabia.

Umar became the next Caliph, --- and though there was no reason for him to go any direction except to continue promoting Islam (surrender unto God’s will) in all of Arabia, he ignored the verse in 2:

190 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.

--- But Umar opposed the Jews and expelled them from Arabia, --- then he moved aggressively against peaceful nations outside of Arabia. --- He swept across North Africa, supposedly in the name of Islam, --- then moved up to Israel and Jerusalem. --- I believe this was his hidden agenda, to conquer Israel and show his dominance and control over the Jews.

What was the provocation that caused his aggression? --- There was none. --- So were the Muslims ever within their right to be in Israel? --- No. --- And when they started to restrict Christians and Jews from visiting their holy sites in Jerusalem, that was when there was the movement to drive the Muslims out, because it wasn’t right for them to be there in the first place. However, when Jerusalem was taken back so they had religious freedom again, they didn’t pursue the Muslims, because cruel as it may have been on both sides, that was their purpose, the recovery of Jerusalem.

That is the first part of the story. --- Secondly: --- The Romans had virtually destroyed Judaism in 70 AD when they burned the Temple in Jerusalem. --- They opposed the Christians and persecuted them over the years. --- About 300 AD they seemed to adopt the idea, ‘if you can’t beat them, join them.’ --- They met with some compromising Church leaders who were perhaps less Spiritual and more politically minded, and they agreed to suspend the persecution of Christians if they formed a New Church together.

--- This was the Roman ‘takeover,’ of the Christian movement which was active in the many community Churches as it was planned to be.

--- The New Church was called “The Roman Catholic Church.” --- Catholic means ‘Universal.’ --- So with disregard for the other individual Churches, they organized after the structure of the Pharisees, with priests and a High Priest, the Pope. --- (They try to trace a series of Popes back from there, but their new religion started at that time.) --- And at the meeting in 325 AD, they came up with new doctrines and rules for all Churches. --- They imposed their man-made doctrines on the Churches, --- so they continued the persecution of faithful Christian, but now, from the New Roman Church. --- This movement was not a Church organized by God, nor did they have the leading of the Holy Spirit, so they became a Dynasty, under the name of the Church. --- When it grew to the point that the Popes were ordering invasions as you referred to: --- They were not in the NAME OF JESUS --- but in the name of the Church. --- Let me ask you, what the Church did with Jesus, --- they had Him hanging dead on a cross, or crucifix. --- So they have the constant reminder of Jesus' death, which was defeat, --- and they have to have a live priest, or Pope give their new message, which was no longer the teaching of Jesus.

--- Notice these verses in Surah 57:

26 And We sent Noah and Abraham, and established in their line Prophethood and Revelation: and some of them were on right guidance. But many of them became rebellious transgressors

27 Then, in their wake, We followed them up with (others of) Our apostles: We sent after them Jesus the son of Mary, and bestowed on him the Gospel; and We ordained in the hearts of those who followed him Compassion and Mercy. --- But the Monasticism which they invented for themselves, We (God) did not prescribe for them: --- (We commanded) only the seeking for the Good Pleasure of God; but that they did not foster as they should have done. --- Yet We bestowed, on those among them who believed, their (due) reward, but many of them are rebellious transgressors.

--- (They built Monasteries as their new training centers so new candidates for ministry would come and learn the new doctrines before they were qualified.)

--- A study of the new doctrines show that they are not based on the Scriptures.

--- However, there have been many reforms in the Catholic Church, so that today there are many true believers, and they may just hold some of the former teaching as traditional.

So, I say all of that, to say this, The Roman Church at that time became a Dynasty like the others, and operated in the name of the Church, --- but not in the name of God, or of Christ. --- Even when they liberated Jerusalem from those who had occupied it by aggression, --- the atrocities of war were men against men.

--- Whereas, when we get around to explaining the Gospel Message you will see that it is, as it said in the above verse 27:

“We sent after them Jesus the son of Mary, and bestowed on him the Gospel; and We ordained in the hearts of those who followed him Compassion and Mercy.”

Placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What say you?

 

What do you want me to say? It is a matter between God and him. 

 

My friend, please try to understand that every pain is different.

 

The pain caused to the raped girl you are talking about - a girl who was already sexually active, in other words, not a very chaste woman, is quite different from the pain caused to the father of a 9 year old innocent boy who is abducted from a bus stop, sexually assaulted, raped and killed.

 

And there are cases of even greater pain than that.

 

Every case is different and is to be judged on its own merit.

 

But we cannot say that the time served by someone for a given offence in this life necessarily cancels the pain he (or she) may have caused.

 

God is the best judge of that and just because the man has served time here in this world, does not mean he will be entirely free in the next life. God may punish him again later if He thinks that the man deserves some more punishment.

 

And as Leto said in post # 228.

 

In terms of virtues like charity and justice I don't believe that they should be played off against each other.  

 

I rest my case. 

Jesus says we have to love them, never said we have to like them.

 

Sure, please do.  No one will stop you.  

 

But the father of that nine year old and many like him can't.

 

And God forbid that you have any suffering in your life, but if you were in place of the father of that 9-year old, I bet you'd forget what Jesus said.

 

You would hate your son's rapist and killer  -  hate him with a vengeance.

 

It is easy to say 'Jesus wants you to love everyone' until something of that magnitude befalls yourself.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think with Islam too you need to understand historical context to appreciate the meaning of history. I think in reality many people misjudge Islam because they have little appreciation of just that. That has little to do with the pope or islam but just with common sense I would think.

 

What you say about the Pope giving orders to "Christian soldiers sent into villages to kill people in the name of Jesus". You have any sources for that? Or does it come for the same source as those 400 years? Or are facts just more "bla... bla... bla"?

 

You speak about contradicting nonsense. Where in what I wrote do you find contradiction? If there is any please tell me where but just saying there is without pointing in out does not help our conversation.

 

About your comments about my perceived emotional state I can just say what I said; for me this is just a discussion without any emotional dimension. You can accuse me of lying but that seems strange to me. I think there is little value in psychologizing people you don't know and ascribe every disagreement to emotions.

 

Anyway; please react to the content of what I said instead of just some vague accusations without concrete reference to content. If I am wrong tell me how I am wrong and show me where I made the mistake. That is the only way to learn.

 

Let me just bring a very important definition of guilt in to this conversation. Standing by the side of a crime looking, doing nothing.

In stead of asking what did the Pope do - to be accused of such crimes... ask yourself - what did he NOT do. The history is full of just that, NOTHING...

 

In many conflicts you will see a groups that contains individual that wage war, that try to get the rest to follow in to conflict and battle. In the same group you sometimes have other that try to calm things down.

 

So - during these 100, 400 or 750 years - (how every you define this period, because this is question of definition where you find very different opinions among historians - not about finding the correct data from our history books)  - is there anything that shows how the Pope was working hard to stop this from happening ?

 

Where is the evidence of how hard the Pope(s) worked to stop the massacres ?

 

What do we know ? We know that during several hundred years (never mind how many) the pope (S) because there were several, look at things happening that you can read about in various history books, and did what ??

 

That is the evidence - because the details in how precisely you can define whether or not the Pope ordered a soldier to put his knife to the neck of a pregnant Muslim woman or not - is not relevant. I am interested in finding something in the history where he used all his power to stop it - in the name of Christ. There is nothing, and therefor he is right up there next to other horrible people in history.

 

That is what makes him guilty !

 

What can we say about the Vietnam War ? It was a steep learning curve for the USA. Would we accept that it went on for hundreds of years, or did the country stand up and scream for an end to it ? We are not debating if someone can make a mistake, but if they continue and continue and continue after the see the horror of it. Now the Pope(s) did just that. No stopping, no ending anything what so ever. It just went on and on and on....

 

So if you are so eager to debate this - than show me some facts. I am not the one that is lacking evidence in this conversation - you are ! Because this is not a debate on whether or not millions of Muslims died from christian swords because nothing can deny this fact. This is about whether or Not the Pope tried to stop it, and what he did to stop it. He had his opportunity - let med see: every second of his elected period. That goes for every one of these popes, but did they ? NO !!

 

So let us define another word: innocence

 

How can a man that stands in the middle of a crime with blood on his hands, be found innocent. 1: he was forced under threats of his life, children's life and so forth to do something bad, or 2:) he did not know that it was happening.. (there are several others)

 

 

So back to the Pope: How on earth is it that you would defend him ? Where is the evidence - that these pope's was not completely guilty of this war crime and terrorism that this easily can be defined as.

 

As far as these accusations you say I raise against you. My point is clear:

 

a)you deny something

b ) at the same time as you sound like you are emotional effected by what i say,

c) at the same time as you can not show any proof of what the Pope's ever did to try to stop these horrible  things.

 

Maybe to you that is not prove that your arguments are more emotional than logical - but to me that is the very definition of when someone is reasoning out of what they feel, rather than facts they have. I mean  you are defending the Pope, but you say nothing at all  - not one single positive thing about the pope. You have not one single sentence where you show anything at all that the pope ever did to clean it up and stop it.

 

So yes - your reasoning and arguments appear to be all based on emotion and not on any facts at all.

 

Sure you tell me that I have to show you evidence where you are contradicting, but do I ? Is it not completely obvious ? You defend the pope with no evidence of his innocence what so ever ? Can that be anything but emotions, just like a mother in a murder trial keeps telling the judge that her little boy was so loving and nice.... in spite of the fact that he as an adult raped and killed many children. The judge - just lime me - are expecting evidence of his innocence, but do not hear anything relevant - therefor conclude that the objection is just based on emotions.

 

Do to prove me wrong - just show me the data - that proves the Pope Innocent, and i will gladly admit that you are right and i am wrong !

Edited by solitair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not know the full history of the Crusades.

 

But the Vatican cannot absolve itself from many international crimes.

 

The Italian and Spanish Inquisitions are well-known.

 

Apart from these, 

 

·         In 1452, Pope Nicholas V issued the 'dum diversas' giving Portugal the right to attack, conquer and subjugate Saracens, pagans and other enemies of Christ wherever they may be found, to put them into perpetual slavery and to take all their possessions and properties. 

 

·         In subsequent grants, Pope Calixtus III, Sixtus IV and Leo X, affirmed and encouraged slavery and subjugation. 

 

·         In 1493, Pope Alexander VI granted Spain the right to conquer the lands that Columbus had discovered as well as others she might discover in the future.  

  

Apparently, these Popes - these high clerics -  did not believe in the 'Jesus loves you' formula that some people are trying to drive here as Christianity's unbeatable flagship. 

 

Their harsh attitude to men of science is also well-known  -

  • Galileo was forced to recant that the earth is not at the center of the universe and placed under house arrest until his death.
  • The mathematician, philosopher and poet Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake.

The 'love your enemy' mantra is so easy to chant until you have the power to hate and destroy them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

--- When it grew to the point that the Popes were ordering invasions as you referred to: --- They were not in the NAME OF JESUS --- but in the name of the Church.

 

 

(your post about history as you see it - is simply to long for me to comment. I just want to say that it is not very relevant for my point so I am not going in to it. I have a little different understanding of all this history, as there are many historians that have different opinions also.)

 

I think the above is the point where Im pressing on a nerve... was this in the name of jesus or not ?

 

A logo - or a banner - lest say that you have the logo of BMW on your office building, are there anybody that is not going to think that it is the office of BMW ? So what if you have a long parade with JESUS hanging on a cross ... anybody going to object that the parade is in the name of Jesus ? The crusaders had a red crosses on their uniform - the cross of Jesus. Their shield - a red cross - where Jesus was hang.

 

But i get your point, and i agree. This was not according to Christianity - as it was meant to be. Christianity was corrupted, and this is part of the evidence. There are many Christians today that are in agreement with the original message from God, presented by Jesus. They majority of them are called Muslims.

 

 

I do not know the full history of the Crusades.

 

But the Vatican cannot absolve itself from many international crimes.

 

The Italian and Spanish Inquisitions are well-known.

 

Apart from these, 

 

·         In 1452, Pope Nicholas V issued the 'dum diversas' giving Portugal the right to attack, conquer and subjugate Saracens, pagans and other enemies of Christ wherever they may be found, to put them into perpetual slavery and to take all their possessions and properties. 

 

·         In subsequent grants, Pope Calixtus III, Sixtus IV and Leo X, affirmed and encouraged slavery and subjugation. 

 

·         In 1493, Pope Alexander VI granted Spain the right to conquer the lands that Columbus had discovered as well as others she might discover in the future.  

  

Apparently, these Popes - these high clerics -  did not believe in the 'Jesus loves you' formula that some people are trying to drive here as Christianity's unbeatable flagship. 

 

Their harsh attitude to men of science is also well-known  -

  • Galileo was forced to recant that the earth is not at the center of the universe and placed under house arrest until his death.
  • The mathematician, philosopher and poet Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake.

The 'love your enemy' mantra is so easy to chant until you have the power to hate and destroy them.  

 

he ha ha --- i love this post. : " formula that some people are trying to drive here as Christianity's unbeatable flagship. "

Edited by solitair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The view that any crimes committed in the Crusades was not in the name of Jesus can only be a subjective opinion.

 

Those Vatican guys were far more educated in religion than anyone here in this forum.

 

History has also recorded that when the Knights Templar invaded Jerusalem, they waded through knee-deep blood (probably figurative, but certainly indicative of what was happening).

 

But they also killed and impaled infants on spits

 

And they did all this 'in imitatio Christi'.

 

As far as I am aware, there was no serious reprimand from the Vatican. 


If anything, I believe the Vatican gave a silent nod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The view that any crimes committed in the Crusades was not in the name of Jesus can only be a subjective opinion.

 

 

Those Vatican guys were far more educated in religion than anyone here in this forum.

 

 

 

History has also recorded that when the Knights Templar invaded Jerusalem, they waded through knee-deep blood (probably figurative, but certainly indicative of what was happening).

 

 

But they also killed and impaled infants on spits

 

 

And they did all this 'in imitatio Christi'.

 

 

As far as I am aware, there was no serious reprimand from the Vatican. 

 

If anything, I believe the Vatican gave a silent nod.

 

 

 

.. and then they went on and did it all again before they started their next project.

 

Don't forget that they resulted to cannibalism as well during parts of this... not very chirstian ey... :-) compared to muslims that dont even eat pork, id say Islam is a bit more appetizing...

Edited by solitair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of virtues like charity and justice I don't believe that they should be played off against each other. There has to be a certain ordening to society which promotes justice and protects the people and objective morality. Punishment is part of such a social order and has it's place. This does not contradict the principle of love because love itselves strives for justice and protection of the people in society.

 

On an interpersonal level I think we are called to unite ourselves with God who is forgiving for those that repent and turn to Him with uprightness of hearts. There is nobody that has sinned so much that he cannot repent. I believe that we should try to imitate this when people ask for our forgiveness. But nobody can be obliged to forgive someone else; only with the grace of God is this possible. In God there is no contradiction between love and justice.

 

Anyway; it does not come in the place of the rule of law. Even if a person forgives someone who has harmed him or her there is also the debt a person has to the society and the law. These punishments serve justice; not revenge and, if they are based on sound and righteous principles, are a good in themselves.

 

You seem to be confused about revenge, like so many people are. Like revenge is a bad thing. It is not bad - is is good - of God. And it is a cleansing rectifying thing, but not something people should execute easily because people are not capable of handling its power. Therefor God said - leave this up to me. Christianity has a very wrong interpretation of "turn the other cheak".  It means, "dont worry, your revenge will rain like fire over this violater" one day - so do not let him trick you in to becoming out of control. This is along the lines of how it is better to tear out your eye than to let it steer you wrong. In the path to revenge you might step wrong, and in stead of getting revenge you might become an aggressor yourself. Be careful is not the same as revenge is bad or wrong all together.

 

People have misunderstood this commandment in Christianity - and have started to talk about revenge in negative terms all together. This is something that God is going to to do, and that he has already done plenty of. God is not the doer of evil, so revenge is not bad in any way, it is just dangerous.

 

In Islam - a stricter religion - more controlled - revenge is given more room for it power to heal and create justice for the victims. Like I said, a raped woman - will not get over hear fear, and will continue to be afraid to sleep alone in the house, she will not get her life back until she is given her revenge - as in seeing the man getting arrested, convicted and PUNISHED severely for his sins.

 

God promises every victim revenge, but said that they must trust in him, and leave most of this up to him. As going out to get revenge is dangerous. It easily creates more war, and more conflict - and more victims among other things. It can also have other psychological affects.

 

The understanding that Revenge is bad or wrong - is on the other hand completely false. The restrictions on seeking revenge, is given to protect us from our weaknesses as humans. Not to force us to accept the evil of others like Christianity has turned this in to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you for example involve Lionhart and so forth ? We are talking about the pope. Not trying to understand the complexity of the crusaded. The fact is that the Pope is a man of God, and he should know better - he should follow Jeusus - regardless of what ever  some crusader freak ended up doing on his crusade. This is about the Pope - so there is no excuse for the pope among the actions of the individual crusaders, the kings or what have you.

 

Greetings solitair,

 

Is the Pope's call for the kings and rulers of the day to go to secure safe passage to Jerusalem for the Christians different from the statements made by Khamenei against the world today?  If so... how?

Thanks and salaam,

CLynn

 

note:  If it was wrong and had these sorrowful results in the past, shouldn't current 'men of God' know better than to incite such actions today?

there is no way that the pope did not know what he was doing.

 

Do you think Khamenei does not know what he is doing?

asalaam.

It means that there are bad things there as well as all other places, but the difference is that it is "ripped off" and "thrown away" -

 

What do you think the Pope felt that he was doing when he called for the actions that he did?  He saw what he believed to be an injustice and called for the injustice to be eradicated?  In the end, were these good actions?  Was this a good way to solve the problem?

Just look at any law in Islam - there is a consequence that will not be compromised. That is the true God - if there is a God, that is what he would be like.

 

If this is what you believe then you would have to agree that what the Pope did was right.

Edited by CLynn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings baqar,

I was moved to share my thoughts... my responses as I read your post.

 

Sure, please do.  No one will stop you.  

But the father of that nine year old and many like him can't.

 

Only with God is this possible... With God all things are possible.

26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

 

And God forbid that you have any suffering in your life, but if you were in place of the father of that 9-year old, I bet you'd forget what Jesus said.

You would hate your son's rapist and killer  -  hate him with a vengeance.

 

and destroy the rest of my life, and my son's, burning with this anger and  hatred... or forgive, release the anger, give it to God,  and focus on the rebuilding?  Only satan himself would want this anger and hatred to burn in your heart and in your soul, blackening it and removing it from the presence of God.

 

It is easy to say 'Jesus wants you to love everyone' until something of that magnitude befalls yourself.  

 

There is nothing easy about what Yshwe asks... but it is for our good that He instructs.

 

Salaam and blessings,

CLynn

 

Don't forget that they resulted to cannibalism as well during parts of this... not very chirstian ey... :-) compared to muslims that dont even eat pork, id say Islam is a bit more appetizing...

 

Greetings solitair,

 

Like we are seeing now in Syria and I am sure we would not call these 'Muslims' but evil men.

asalaam,

CLynn

 a raped woman - will not get over hear fear, and will continue to be afraid to sleep alone in the house, she will not get her life back until she is given her revenge - as in seeing the man getting arrested, convicted and PUNISHED severely for his sins.

 

God promises every victim revenge, but said that they must trust in him, and leave most of this up to him. As going out to get revenge is dangerous. It easily creates more war, and more conflict - and more victims among other things. It can also have other psychological affects.

 

I can not argue with this.  I think not revenge but justice though... a feeling that the world will be made safe... even if it is an illusion.

I am glad to see that you see the dangers of revenge. :)

Salaam and blessings,

CLynn

Edited by CLynn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Hi Clynn

 

You are welcome to post but I would very much prefer if you replied in the usual manner instead of inserting your replies within the body of the text in blue. This format is not easy to respond to.

 

When I use the QUOTE button, I don't get your stuff in there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The view that any crimes committed in the Crusades was not in the name of Jesus can only be a subjective opinion.

 

 

Those Vatican guys were far more educated in religion than anyone here in this forum.

 

 

 

History has also recorded that when the Knights Templar invaded Jerusalem, they waded through knee-deep blood (probably figurative, but certainly indicative of what was happening).

 

 

But they also killed and impaled infants on spits

 

 

And they did all this 'in imitatio Christi'.

 

 

As far as I am aware, there was no serious reprimand from the Vatican. 

 

If anything, I believe the Vatican gave a silent nod.

 

The motives of the Popes that lived in that time to proclaim the first crusade were to protect the Byzantine Empire from being destroyed by the Turks and to protect the pilgrims in Jerusalem. Nowhere did the Pope summon people to "murder entire villages in Jesus' name" or to kill infants. A silent nod seems speculative to me; we are speaking about the Middle Ages were it tooks months to travel from Europe to the Middle East, not the internet era of today were you know exactly what is going on.

 

Nobody claims that war and conquest are without violence. When the Muslims originally conquered Jerusalem, when Muslims conquered Constantinople, when Muslims conquered other Christian cities I suppose these standards are not applied? I have painted the historical context in another post.

 

It is not difficult to find excesses in other religions, rip them out of their proper historical context and throw them in other people's faces to prove their inferiority to yourself. Truth is not always the highest value in these debates. We can go into an endless discussion of which religion is more evil but I don't believe something positive will come out of it.

 

I think it is a bit of a shame that after the Nostra Aetate quote that was asked by someone, which mentions moving on and not dwelling on past differences, the dialogue has now turned into quite a negative spiral.

Edited by Leto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The understanding that Revenge is bad or wrong - is on the other hand completely false. The restrictions on seeking revenge, is given to protect us from our weaknesses as humans. Not to force us to accept the evil of others like Christianity has turned this in to.

It is interesting to hear this and I wonder whether it is true. It is not so much Christianity that I am talking about but more the general philosophical principles that quite universally underly the codifications of law. Revenge has never been the underlying principle of most law systems; punishment and justice are something different than revenge. Revenge leads to endless cycles of violence; justice contains and breaks it.

 

Can anyone who is familair with Islamic law and punishment explain me how the concept of revenge functions in Islamic jurispudence? Please with reference to quotes so not to loose track of informed conversation.

 

It seems I have misunderstoond (and misjudged?) islamic concepts of justice if revenge is the underlying principle of the jurispudence as solitair seems to say it is.

Edited by Leto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Leto

 

We should all strive for peace in the world. You are absolutely right. 

 

But we are sick of this hypocritical 'LOVE LOVE LOVE' as was pointed out to you by another poster.

 

Unless someone puts an end to  this hypocritical  LOVE LOVE LOVE, there is bound to be a reaction. 

 

Because it is plainly an attempt to give an extra point to Christianity that we believe simply does not exist.

 

Otherwise no offence was intended.

 

My apologies.


It seems I have misunderstoond (and misjudged?) islamic concepts of justice if revenge is the underlying principle of the jurispudence as solitair seems to say it is.

 

No, it is not


The principle of justice is just that - justice.

 

That is all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings PeaceLoving,

 

The things I read in the Qur'an don't seem to promote brotherhood of all mankind, but rather it wants to always highlight, naming and separating, groups of people from one another, rather than promoting a view of treating all people equally as Yshwe(Jesus) did.  I think we all come to serve the Creator, and His creation, better when we do not seek to divide ourselves by labels, and when those labels are not provided in our scriptures.

asalaam,

CLynn

 

 

According to the Gospel's, Jesus [a] said he came to separate the families; to separate father from son, mother from daughter, and so on. 

 

What do you say about this? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the Gospel's, Jesus [a] said he came to separate the families; to separate father from son, mother from daughter, and so on. 

 

What do you say about this? 

 

you're referring to Matthew 10:35 here.

he is talking about what will happen AFTER.

that there will be family differences, divisions etc with his coming/going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is interesting to hear this and I wonder whether it is true. It is not so much Christianity that I am talking about but more the general philosophical principles that quite universally underly the codifications of law. Revenge has never been the underlying principle of most law systems; punishment and justice are something different than revenge. Revenge leads to endless cycles of violence; justice contains and breaks it.

 

Can anyone who is familair with Islamic law and punishment explain me how the concept of revenge functions in Islamic jurispudence? Please with reference to quotes so not to loose track of informed conversation.

 

It seems I have misunderstoond (and misjudged?) islamic concepts of justice if revenge is the underlying principle of the jurispudence as solitair seems to say it is.

 

You say that I am telling you that: " ... islamic concepts of justice if revenge is the underlying principle of the jurisprudence as solitair seems to say it is. "

 

Are you deliberately trying to twist my words ? I was talking about Christianity - not Islam !! It is within Christianity Jesus made endless points out of stooping the people from wanting revenge - or are you saying that the bible is about Jesus talking to Muslims ?? Are you deliberately just hearing what you want to hear ? Did you not hear my references to the NT ? Turn the other cheek ? Was I referring to anything in the Qur'an ? NO i was not, I was not talking at all about Islam - but Christianity and what Christianity originally was preaching. Why Jesus said what he said about revenge and turning the other cheek.

 

Why does Christianity preach that God will burn people in hell ? Justice is served by just making the people disappear. Why make them feel pain ? Why suffer ? And again, this is NOT about Islam, but Christianity ! I hope that is clear now ! So why don't you answer this simple question. Contradicting : hell and love - almost in the same sentence. God is burning you for eternity, and his son Jesus, said love dove love - even your enemy, turn the other cheek because we love everybody that hurt us... You, and also many Christians do not understand that Jesus was talking about revenge - not telling you to love everybody that hurt you. If you read the Qur'an you have a chance of understanding this, as it is the next chapter in the story.

 

You don't find these older teachings emphasized the same way in Islam - but that does not mean that this is about Islam. I can also say that this is not what you find in northern mythology, but that does not make this in to something that has much to do with northern mythology.

 

For the record - I never said that revenge is the underlying principle in Islamic jurisprudence. I said: God, in the BIBLE, said that he will give the victims revenge. This is not something I said about Islam.

 

When I said that revenge is given more room in Islam, that means - that GOD did not need to enforce such strict commands as he needed to enforce on the Christians hundreds of year earlier.

 

The fact is that Gods prophet 2000 years ago was Jesus, and Jesus explained to people what was needed at the time. Later there had been a progress, and if you read the Qur'an, it was not necessary to enforce such restrictions - because the Muslims are stricter with themselves, they are able to control themselves more.

 

Why don't you ask questions if you are not clear on what i talk about - like would be normal in a respectful conversation - in stead of saying things that very well can be takes as accusing me of telling people that Islam is about revenge ...

Edited by solitair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the Gospel's, Jesus [a] said he came to separate the families; to separate father from son, mother from daughter, and so on. 

 

What do you say about this? 

 

Greetings Ali Musaaa,

 

This is often misunderstood by Muslims.

What Yshwe(known as Jesus) was telling to the people, was not that He came to separate, but that His coming would cause separations.  There would be those who would follow Him and there would be those who would not... and this would cause divisions even within families... and we can see this Truth in all families today... between those who follow God and His ways, and those who do not.

 

asalaam,

CLynn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is a bit of a shame that after the Nostra Aetate quote that was asked by someone, which mentions moving on and not dwelling on past differences, the dialogue has now turned into quite a negative spiral.

 

I find it fascinating that people want to have conversations where large quantities of facts and history is just supposed to excluded from the conversation. The most characteristic thing about Christianity is that it seems to want to be accepted in spite of its history. Any times history comes up to slap them in the face - they want the rest of the world to just ignore it - and love each other...

 

You see this as a down spiral - because you will never accept history ! It will always bother you ... because what you believe in, is contradicting facts from history. Christians want to believe in their religion, and by all means - I am not trying to stop anybody from that, i think Christianity have loads of good stuff - but i find it amazing that they expect the rest of the world to ignore history along with them.

 

If you can not accept that Christianity is a blood dripping religions with so many skeletons that it is sickening, then you might want to try another religion or to become atheist...

 

It is simply never going to happen that a Christian can talk about their religion - and not have the rest of the world thinking about all the deaths and massacres in its history.

 

Stop denying history

 

If you want conversations like this to not be what you call a down spiral - then stop denying it. Because I will never allow a nazi to pretend like the 9 million jews never got murdered, and I am never going to allow any Christian to pretend like millions of Muslims did not get massacred by the catholic Church.... Anytime anybody comes along to try to justify or explain some of the horror away, i will, and i hope other with me - are going to object to it intensely. These are horrible crimes that should never be forgotten.

 

 

- Final -

 

Now the topic of this thread is if Christianity was created by Paul, and i think I am prepared to say that it looks like it was corrupted by people - where Paul seems to be one of them. After that came Islam, and it seems to all make sense, as Islam was not corrupted by anybody - and therefore is the final.

What Yshwe(known as Jesus) was telling to the people, was not that He came to separate, but that His coming would cause separations.  There would be those who would follow Him and there would be those who would not... and this would cause divisions even within families... and we can see this Truth in all families today... between those who follow God and His ways, and those who do not.

 

asalaam,

CLynn

 

May i ask what is your religion ? I assume a christian of some kind, but what church or part of it do you believe in - if you don't mind.

Edited by solitair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you're referring to Matthew 10:35 here.

he is talking about what will happen AFTER.

that there will be family differences, divisions etc with his coming/going.

 

I am aware of this. I was asking in order to illustrate my point. CLynn's bias prevents her for correctly and fairly analysing anything to do with Islam. She complains there is separation in the Qur'an, this and that, yet Jesus [a] reportedly said he came to separate people (which is a consequence of any prophetic arrival) and Muslims don't have an issue with that. But CLynn will complain Islam separates people into groups (which Christianity does as well). 

 

CLynn should learn what Christians believe Jesus will do upon his return: No more Mr. Nice guy.

Greetings Ali Musaaa,

 

This is often misunderstood by Muslims.

What Yshwe(known as Jesus) was telling to the people, was not that He came to separate, but that His coming would cause separations.  There would be those who would follow Him and there would be those who would not... and this would cause divisions even within families... and we can see this Truth in all families today... between those who follow God and His ways, and those who do not.

 

asalaam,

CLynn

 

With all due respect I think it is you who is misunderstanding the Qur'an. I already knew this this was the case, in regards to the passage in Matthew. As said above, I was aiming to illustrate (which I successfully have done) my suspicion that you are unwillingly to objectively look at Islamic Scripture the same way you look at the Bible. 

 

The Qur'an classifies people based on their deeds and beliefs and you call this: 'separation', 'prejudice' and so on but when Jesus explicitly says he came to separate family members you simply state his coming would cause divisions. Perhaps, just perhaps, the Qur'an and the Prophet's arrival did the very same thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

CLynn should learn what Christians believe Jesus will do upon his return: No more Mr. Nice guy.

 

I was honestly hoping that this topic was going to just fade out of the conversation as there is ready enough polarizations - but it seems like I just can not help saying something now.

 

Christianity is one long series of contradictions - and Jesus is often in the middle of it. They teach tolerance and criticize for example Islam for being judging - and how their religion is so understanding and loving - just see what jesus did and said - this and that... but they just never stop to listen or to realize what Jesus really did say - and what the bible really does say. I find this to be completely funny. It is like they have some sort of pick colored sunglasses on to cloud their vision with eternal love or something... ;-)

 

He is going to rule the world with an iron stick - kick the bad out of people when he comes back. The Christians say Islam is so strict and violent, but ignore the teachings where Jesus is going to come down on earth an rule with an iron fist or what ever it is. The hard and violent rulings under Christ is going to be no picnic - and Christians just have no idea what they are talking about, pretending that all this is just about love dovie .... happy stuff...

 

The character of Jesus described in some parts of the bible, is a hard - no compromising ruler, with a iron stick in his hand, that is going to inflict some serious consequences on bad people. Read - before you talk... that is my advice...

 

Islam is already clear on how you should not compromise with sinners, and the Jesus that is described in the Bible - that is going to rule with no compromise... he seriously sound like a Muslim to me... funny how Christians don't see that.

Edited by solitair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You say that I am telling you that: " ... islamic concepts of justice if revenge is the underlying principle of the jurisprudence as solitair seems to say it is. "

 

Are you deliberately trying to twist my words ? I was talking about Christianity - not Islam !! It is within Christianity Jesus made endless points out of stooping the people from wanting revenge - or are you saying that the bible is about Jesus talking to Muslims ?? Are you deliberately just hearing what you want to hear ? Did you not hear my references to the NT ? Turn the other cheek ? Was I referring to anything in the Qur'an ? NO i was not, I was not talking at all about Islam - but Christianity and what Christianity originally was preaching. Why Jesus said what he said about revenge and turning the other cheek.

 

Why does Christianity preach that God will burn people in hell ? Justice is served by just making the people disappear. Why make them feel pain ? Why suffer ? And again, this is NOT about Islam, but Christianity ! I hope that is clear now ! So why don't you answer this simple question. Contradicting : hell and love - almost in the same sentence. God is burning you for eternity, and his son Jesus, said love dove love - even your enemy, turn the other cheek because we love everybody that hurt us... You, and also many Christians do not understand that Jesus was talking about revenge - not telling you to love everybody that hurt you. If you read the Qur'an you have a chance of understanding this, as it is the next chapter in the story.

 

You don't find these older teachings emphasized the same way in Islam - but that does not mean that this is about Islam. I can also say that this is not what you find in northern mythology, but that does not make this in to something that has much to do with northern mythology.

 

For the record - I never said that revenge is the underlying principle in Islamic jurisprudence. I said: God, in the BIBLE, said that he will give the victims revenge. This is not something I said about Islam.

 

When I said that revenge is given more room in Islam, that means - that GOD did not need to enforce such strict commands as he needed to enforce on the Christians hundreds of year earlier.

 

The fact is that Gods prophet 2000 years ago was Jesus, and Jesus explained to people what was needed at the time. Later there had been a progress, and if you read the Qur'an, it was not necessary to enforce such restrictions - because the Muslims are stricter with themselves, they are able to control themselves more.

 

Why don't you ask questions if you are not clear on what i talk about - like would be normal in a respectful conversation - in stead of saying things that very well can be takes as accusing me of telling people that Islam is about revenge ...

 

solitair in your first post on this thread you came across as someone initially not knowledgeable in Christianity and asking pertinent questions but it's quite obvious you have preconceptions and misgivings about Christianity.

 

About Loving your enemy, when Jesus said this he was talking about showing your enemy the truth of what you believe. Showing your enemy that we do not hate, so that your enemy can see the beauty of your Religion.

 

Christianity is not a religion of strict Pacifism. Christians have the right to defend themselves and put an end to undue aggression.

I refer you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) 2309:

 
"The strict conditions for legitimate defence by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
 
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
 
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.
 
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgement of those who have responsibility for the common good."
 
About Hell:
What is the issue here? Evil, wicked people this is their due. Murderers, Head-cutters, like the ones we see in Syria etc. Doesn't Islam have a similar if not the same concept?
ALSO:
"The plan of Salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place among whom are Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the Last Day" (Lumen Gentium 16)
Does Islam believe non-Muslims are going to Hell?
 
If Islam is so better than Christianity (as it seems this is where you are going with your posts of late) why does Islam have the Punishment of DEATH for Apostates? 
If Islam is beautiful and the truth everlasting, when people leave it, why threaten them with death?
This only shows the weakness of Islam not the strength of it.
Edited by shreek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If Islam is so better than Christianity (as it seems this is where you are going with your posts of late) why does Islam have the Punishment of DEATH for Apostates? 
If Islam is beautiful and the truth everlasting, when people leave it, why threaten them with death?
This only shows the weakness of Islam not the strength of it.

 

 

 

Christian's never killed their apostates, did they :rolleyes:? 

 

Please, its a much more complex matter than you are making it out to be. People left Islam during the Prophet's own life time and they were left to roam about and there is an incident of a man who left Islam only to return and accept the Prophet again, during his life. Don't paint the false picture that Islam believes anyone who decides they aren't Muslim anymore has to be executed, this clearly isn't the case. When one commits an act of treason then this a is a different case altogether. Many countries implement the death penalty for treason but if Islam has a similar law, God forbid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

solitair in your first post on this thread you came across as someone initially not knowledgeable in Christianity and asking pertinent questions but it's quite obvious you have preconceptions and misgivings about Christianity.

 

....

 
If Islam is so better than Christianity (as it seems this is where you are going with your posts of late) why does Islam have the Punishment of DEATH for Apostates? 
If Islam is beautiful and the truth everlasting, when people leave it, why threaten them with death?
This only shows the weakness of Islam not the strength of it.

 

 

You are correct. I am not very knowledgeable in Christianity, and I do not understand the Bible - but i never said i was not knowledgeable in history ! I never said I did not understand, and in great detail what has been going on with the Catholic Church. The inquisitions, the witch burnings, the crusades and so on.

 

I read the Bible - and maybe i am completely wrong. If I am wrong, i expect to hear that from the Christians here, that is why i debate.

 

Is Islam better than Christianity? I have no Ida -  well what version of Christianity is it we are talking about ? If it is the original version - the answer is no - it is not better than Islam, because Jesus was a prophet in Islam, and what Jesus was teaching is completely in agreement with Islam. In general I am not one that can judge in such a question, because I do not understand the common version of Christianity that are here today.

 

I understand some parts of the Bible that i have been studying recently - and by talking to friends of mine lately that are theologists. The things I have understood are the things I have written about here lately, but I am in no way what so ever really capable of really understanding the Bible. I think most of my post have made it clear that I don't understand the Bible and that I do not find it easy to understand.

 

I can on the other hand understand when I am fed some strange story that is not logical.... and from what I have red so far in the Bible, it is very challenging to puzzle it together. In Islam that is not difficult for me. Does that mean that Islam is better than Christianity ? I don't know, but it seems like the Qur'an definitely is easier to understand - and of that I am absolutely sure. I have yet to discover something i would consider a lie, or dishonest, or a coverup, or not logical or similar from reading the Qur'an. It is a book that is all logical, easy to understand and it all seems to be complete - at least so far.

 

To your question about death for apostates. What does God say in Christianity that is going to happen to someone that turn their back on God and Christianity ? Someone that was with God, and then turned away ? Are they going to live forever or are they going to die ? I have not read the bible much, but the consequences are horrible according to the bible. You keep on listing these things that are supposed to be bad in Islam - but even me, that are like a child when it comes to knowledge about the Bible can in no time at all pick your arguments apart as false... why is that ?

 

In Christianity you burn in hell for eternity... Christianity burned witches on fires ... you keep bringing up these arguments that are supposed to show how Christianity is better than Islam, but do not realize that every time you say something, there is a darker history in your own religion. That does not mean that I am driving this topic - you and other here are actually driving this forward. You are trying to say that Islam is worse than Christianity, and for every argument I refer to history, and in that history there is darkness hanging over your religion... so why do you continue these arguments ? It is something you can never win, because of history.

 

No matter what you say - there is always going to be a horrible darkness in the history of your religion - to show that Islam comes out as less bad than Christianity. Does that mean that it is true ? No, it simply means that the people that followed and used Christianity over the course of history - are worse than the people that followed Islam. What that means for the religion i can not judge.

Edited by solitair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Leto

 

We should all strive for peace in the world. You are absolutely right. 

 

But we are sick of this hypocritical 'LOVE LOVE LOVE' as was pointed out to you by another poster.

 

Unless someone puts an end to  this hypocritical  LOVE LOVE LOVE, there is bound to be a reaction. 

 

Because it is plainly an attempt to give an extra point to Christianity that we believe simply does not exist.

 

Otherwise no offence was intended.

 

My apologies.

 

No, it is not

The principle of justice is just that - justice.

 

That is all.

No offence taken at all! I can understand your reaction against "LOVE LOVE LOVE" which indeed makes little sense; and I think nowhere in my posts have I used that phrase.

I find it fascinating that people want to have conversations where large quantities of facts and history is just supposed to excluded from the conversation. The most characteristic thing about Christianity is that it seems to want to be accepted in spite of its history. Any times history comes up to slap them in the face - they want the rest of the world to just ignore it - and love each other...

 

You see this as a down spiral - because you will never accept history ! It will always bother you ... because what you believe in, is contradicting facts from history. Christians want to believe in their religion, and by all means - I am not trying to stop anybody from that, i think Christianity have loads of good stuff - but i find it amazing that they expect the rest of the world to ignore history along with them.

 

If you can not accept that Christianity is a blood dripping religions with so many skeletons that it is sickening, then you might want to try another religion or to become atheist...

 

It is simply never going to happen that a Christian can talk about their religion - and not have the rest of the world thinking about all the deaths and massacres in its history.

 

Stop denying history

 

If you want conversations like this to not be what you call a down spiral - then stop denying it. Because I will never allow a nazi to pretend like the 9 million jews never got murdered, and I am never going to allow any Christian to pretend like millions of Muslims did not get massacred by the catholic Church.... Anytime anybody comes along to try to justify or explain some of the horror away, i will, and i hope other with me - are going to object to it intensely. These are horrible crimes that should never be forgotten.

 

 

 

Three points:

-I am not denying history. I fact I was referring to several historical facts with regards to the crusades to come to understanding of history. That is the opposite of denying; namely inquiring, researching and understanding.

 

-You do not know my faith or my opinion about these matters since nowhere have I given them except in the one comment that I don't think the crusades were a positive thing. You seem to projecting a perceived knowledge of my beliefs and motivations you have no way of knowing.

 

-Christianity has know bloody chapters. Just like any other religion or ideology, including Islam, has had those. The only way of avoiding history is avoiding engaging youself to a community or idea; as many people do in the West; which leads to individualism; which also is making victims.

Edited by Leto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Peace,

Quote from Post 251:

Those Vatican guys were far more educated in religion than anyone here in this forum.

Response: --- You are right. The Vatican guys are steeped in their religion, but their religion departed from Christianity as is shown in these verses in Surah 57:

26 And We sent Noah and Abraham, and established in their line Prophethood and Revelation: and some of them were on right guidance. But many of them became rebellious transgressors.

27 Then, in their wake, We followed them up with (others of) Our apostles: We sent after them Jesus the son of Mary, and bestowed on him the Gospel; and We ordained in the hearts of those who followed him Compassion and Mercy.

--- But the Monasticism which they invented for themselves, We did not prescribe for them:

(We commanded) only the seeking for the Good Pleasure of God; but that they did not foster as they should have done.

--- Yet We bestowed, on those among them who believed, their (due) reward, but many of them are rebellious transgressors.

If you read it in sections you might understand it.

27 We (God) sent after them Jesus the son of Mary, and bestowed on him the Gospel; and We ordained in the hearts of those who followed him Compassion and Mercy.

--- (True Christians live by what the Gospel teaches), it says the same in Surah 5:

46 And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear God.

47 Let the people of the Gospel judge by what God hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what God hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.

27 (We commanded) only the seeking for the Good Pleasure of God; but that they did not foster. --- (Do you get the picture? They departed from the Faith of God.)

The Gospel Churches of that day continued in spite of persecution, and these Gospel Churches continue today. --- There is no HEAD OFFICE for all the denominational Churches. --- But that is what the Roman Church did. --- They had a hierarchy like the Pharisees, and they made themselves the Catholic (Universal) Church, --- But that was no longer the Church of God.

There was no Prophethood that came out of the Catholic Church, was there?

--- “But the Monasticism which they invented for themselves, We (God) did not prescribe for them.”

--- Do you see what that says? --- They departed from God’s will and guidance, and the authority of the Scriptures, --- so they fashioned a new religion that wasn’t of God. --- So the organization was not Christian.

The whole Message of Christianity was in the Resurrection of Jesus, and the Giving of the Holy Spirit to the Apostles and followers. Without the Resurrection there was no Christianity.

--- How did the Catholic Church commemorate Jesus? --- By keeping Him dead on the cross hanging on their wall. --- That is mockery to Christians because Jesus rose from the dead, to show victory over death, and ascended to heaven.

It was because of the sins of the Catholic Church that Martin Luther led the Reformation, which brought out the other denominations that were already there in different countries, but had been suppressed by the Catholic Church. --- Christianity revived, --- They had not been involved in wars or conflict, but again had religious freedom, even from the Catholic Church.

It was about the year 2000 when the Catholic Church formally apologized to The Lutherans, for the past.

However, --- though the Catholic Church has been their own religion without God’s guidance, --- it is not a Church that is ‘saved,’ but individuals who believe in God, from any religion including the Muslims, Is that not right?.

This is something your “Vatican boys” have never done. --- They run their organization as a business, not like a Church where God is guiding individuals.

--- But don’t get me wrong, it is individuals that are ‘saved by their Faith’ and practice the ‘good works of God’ that will be saved from among unbelievers.

As for the Roman Catholic Church using the name of Jesus in their wars, it is the same as Muslim terrorists that chant, “Allah is great,” “Allah is great.” --- Or, “There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is His Prophet.” --- Does that mean that God and Muhammad are part of, or are condoning, their terrorism?

--- I have heard another chant that terrorists have used, “Kill a Jew and go to heaven.”

I believe one of the worst injustices is to teach potential suicide murderers that they will go to heaven. --- Do murders go to heaven in Islam? --- So the suicide murderers murder themselves as well as other innocents.

Living in 2014, we need to be educated away from the violence that Satan has engineered through the manipulation of men.

--- Someone said, “He who does not learn from history is destined to repeat the same mistakes.”

Placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Placid:

 

Just a question: if you accept the Qur'an as true revelation of God why do you remain Christian and do not convert to Islam? Your current position seems very ambiguous; being a Christian but using the Qur'an to prove your points. You take the Qur'an serious but not serious enough to accept its full truth? What is going on there?

Edited by Leto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Placid:

 

Just a question: if you accept the Qur'an as true revelation of God why do you remain Christian and do not convert to Islam? Your current position seems very ambiguous; being a Christian but using the Qur'an to prove your points. You take the Qur'an serious but not serious enough to accept its full truth? What is going on there?

Hi Leto,

I won't speak for my Father as I can only tell you my take on the Quran/Bible, and what I think of their doctrines, , vs the full truth.

My question would be...Why would someone be Positively fascinated by Shia Islam and doctrine if there was nothing there?

Maybe Placid has found what you're looking for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm positively interested because I think there is a lot of wisdom there every reasonable person can see. Also contemplating the lives of the Ahlul Bayt I feel the attraction. But what is the step from attraction to actual faith? That is the question I am trying to answer.

Edited by Leto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Islam is beautiful and the truth everlasting, when people leave it, why threaten them with death? 

 

My dear friend Shreek

 

I don't think we should ever discuss  who is better than who - not only in the Internet but just anywhere.

 

That question will always remain subjective and can never be answered.

 

More importantly, it can have serious consequences leading to unwanted violence that we might later regret.

 

Besides, taken in the original version, every religion was probably perfect.

 

We humans make changes to suit our own thinking and wants and cause them, i.e. the religions,  to degrade.

 

Anyway, it is surprising that you come from Lebanon - a country with all sorts of Muslims - Sunnis, Shias as well as Alawis.

 

But your information on Islam is despicably poor. I don't know about other branches of Islam.

 

Because threatening leavers with death is certainly not part of Shia Islam.

 

Imam Ali took action on the Kharijis not because they were leavers, but because they caused mischief in the land, killing,robbing and pillaging.

 

I thinking you are mistaking us with al- Qaida or the Taliban.

 

Please get your facts right.

 

If Islam is so better than Christianity (as it seems this is where you are going with your posts of late) why does Islam have the Punishment of DEATH for Apostates? 

 

Once again, as far as Shia Islam is concerned, that is absolutely untrue.

 

Shia scholars have categorically denied the death penalty for apostates, unless they are guilty of treason or treachery. 

 

This only shows the weakness of Islam not the strength of it.

 

Quite an aggressive remark!

 

Anyway, as far as we Shias are concerned, we take our strength from the character of the Ahlul Bayt, which, we believe, has few parallels in the history of the universe.

 

I rest my case. 

Edited by baqar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Placid has found what you're looking for.

 

Hi SoP

 

I think the best thing for everyone will be to stay where we are and to try and understand the other religion in the original version. We worry too much about the Spanish and Italian Inquisitions and the crimes of the Abbaside and Umayyad caliphs or the al-Qaida.

 

We never pause to think that none of them might represent the teachings of their faith.

Edited by baqar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also contemplating the lives of the Ahlul Bayt I feel the attraction. 

 

Hi Leto

 

If you ever have the opportunity to read the poems (or their translations) about Imam Ali and Imam Husain by Hindu and Sikh poets, you will appreciate the universality of the Ahlul Bayt, which goes well beyond the confines of religious dogma and belief.

 

Most Hindus know very little about religion, and even less, about other religions.

 

And in spite of that, some (a few really) have been so enraptured in their love for the Ahlul Bayt that is hard to see in people of other religions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Leto,

--- In response to Post 274: --- Yes, I guess you deserve an explanation.

I Have a Pickthall translation of the Quran and he wrote a long intro of the calling of Muhammad and the history of the Muslims.

--- Muhammad had a vision of the angel Gabriel, and he received his Revelations in a ‘trans like state,’ --- However I don’t believe that full Surahs were revealed as they are written in the Quran, --- because certain verses are out of order.

I believe Muhammad was called as a Prophet or Messenger to the Arab people, who were steeped in idolatry. --- For instance, in the Kabah, the house of prayer in Mecca there were some 360 idols, male and female, --- so the people were idolaters, after the way of their fathers.

I am careful to say I only believe the ‘revelations’ which confirm the former Scriptures, as it says in Surah 3:3-4. (The Criterion of right and wrong given to Moses, I believe is the “Code of Ethics” for us all, --- the Ten Commandments.)

Muhammad was called to the ‘Mission’ of destroying idolatry from Arabia and bringing them back to the worship of God. --- There is no indication that he was to start a new religion, although he had followers who were converted to Islam. --- But Islam simply means “Surrender” or ‘Submission” unto God’s will and purpose.

You have to read it to decide for yourself but before Muhammad’s death, he had fulfilled his ‘Mission’ of destroying idolatry, and bringing people back to the worship of One God, and that brought a temporary peace..

A lot of Muslims pay little attention to our Scriptures, so when it says the same in the Quran as in the Gospels, I feel they might read it and then think about it.

For instance, it says of Jesus in Surah 3:

45 Behold! the angel said: "O Mary! God giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to God;

46 "He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. And he shall be (of the company) of the righteous."

47 She said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?" He said: "Even so: God createth what He willeth: When He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, 'Be,' and it is!

48 "And God will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel,

49 "And (appoint him) an apostle to the Children of Israel, (with this message): "'I have come to you, with a Sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by God's leave: And I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I quicken the dead, by God's leave; and I declare to you what ye eat, and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe;

50 (I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear God, and obey me.

--- (Is that not what we are taught in the Gospel, ‘fear God with reverential respect, and follow Jesus?)

51 "It is God Who is my Lord and your Lord; then worship Him. This is a Way that is straight."

--- (So I ask Muslims, “Can there be a straighter Way?”)

55 Behold! God said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.

--- The term “I will take thee” in Arabic refers to physical death, and He had to be resurrected before Hi could ascend to God.

--- “I will make those who follow thee ‘superior’ to those who reject faith”

If the Quran repeats, that ‘following Jesus’ is the ‘Way that is straight,’ --- and that God will make those who follow Jesus ‘superior’ to those who reject faith, is that not assurance that we are ‘saved? --- John 5:24.

And the next verse is a warning to those who reject faith:

56 "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

I believe that in these verses everything is quite Scriptural, except in verse 49, which is showing the healing and deliverance ministry of Jesus, --- the making of a bird is not mentioned in the Gospels, (but it is in some other writings.)

I want to assure you that I am a Christian and I enjoy the privilege of discussing on this inter faith forum, --- It is not our place to say anything but what the Scriptures say. --- There are lots more Christian passages in the Quran that I like to use.

--- Also, there are others who read these posts and there may be some who read this and say, “I didn’t know that it says in the Quran that we should follow Jesus?”

Blessings.

Placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...