It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by AshleyD
Although in dispute by a few decades, even critics of the Bible can agree that most of the NT (and some believe all of it) was completed during the first century. So how can you say the concept of the trinity was created during man made councils in the 4th century and never taught during the onset of Chrsitianity?
]
“The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.
“Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.
“Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.
“The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.
“The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.
Originally posted by blueorder
one passage with the English translation of "abroad", it has every significance, I mean, it is an odd passage if you take it with your meaning, "go outside and fight", where else where they going to fight, the bedroom!
Originally posted by blueorder
If you think the Koran is not open to interpretation for war AND peace, then good luck to you
Originally posted by blueorder
erm, sorry what, have a quick precis of recent jihadist bombings in britain- all well educated doctor's types, not the stereotypical "naive, unedcuated youth etc" you refer to.
I dare say Bin Laden had a ruddy good education too!
Originally posted by babloyi
Who said anything about fighting?
And like I said, (as is the meaning of abroad in these sort of contexts- look it up ) such as the example I keep quoting 'The witches are abroad'. It doesn't mean there are literally 'witches outside'.
You seem to have moved your line back from 'The Quran advocates killing infidels' to 'the Koran is open to interpretations for war AND peace'. I suppose this is something.
None of those doctors, nor Bin Laden had any proper education with regards to Islam. The Doctor seems to have had personal reasons for his attack (to avenge a friend killed by a Shia death squad in the Iraq War) Most Islamic scholars agree that Bin Laden has no standing to issue religious opinions.
[edit on 12-12-2007 by babloyi]
Originally posted by Dark_Ace
why is it that wemon must wear the cover cloths thingy
becuase i heard that if u r a women in islam and u do not wear the clothing and u show a little skin u will be beaten up
is that true becuase i think that if a women has the choose to be able to wear what she wonts then she can wear what she wants and not must wear the clothing the men say she must
Originally posted by blueorder
erm
""Believers, when you go abroad to fight wars in Allah's Cause"
Originally posted by blueorder
you have decided abroad means a little used and archacic definition of abroad, that is YOUR interpretation, I could pepper this page all day with quotes were "abroad" is other lands
Originally posted by blueorder
no, that remains, but you seem incapable of acknowledging that the Koran can be interpreted for peace or used to justify war, that is your prerogative, but it is not born out in reality
Originally posted by babloyi
""Believers, when you go abroad to fight wars in Allah's Cause"
It is hardly archaic. While I'm sure it exists, I've never noticed the use of 'abroad' to mean 'another country' except when someone is speaking (or there is a written description of someone speaking).
Besides, I showed you all the other translations, where it is translated to 'go to' or 'go', etc. Do you really think that that one translation is meaning to say 'go to other countries' while all other translations say 'go' or 'go to', especially when 'abroad' can mean more than you are willing to accept it means.
Alright, I acknowledge that if a person takes your approach to reading the Quran, it can be interpreted for whatever they want it to.
I've got to say, this is a pretty weird and strange point for you to be arguing so strenuously for. For the sake of peace, let us assume for a moment that your analysis is correct, and 'abroad' in this case means another country or land. What then? How does the meaning of 'another country' change anything? Just because you have a vague suspicion as to why someone should be in another country if not to war? Sorry, that doesn't make sense.
Let us make a little list from the Quran (I can provide quotes if you like, I just left them out because otherwise this post would have become as cumbersome as the last one):
Only conditions where fighting is possible is when there is tumult and oppression- Now you may ask, what does this mean? Quran explains that also:
-Being driven away from your home
-Prevented from worshipping God
-You are being fought against
Restrictions when fighting:
-Aggression is forbidden
-Blind retaliation is forbidden
-Can't fight those with which you have a treaty
-Not for personal gain
-Treachery not allowed
-You cannot attack non-combatants
-You cannot attack children
-You cannot burn down the religious buildings, or attack convents
-If someone asks for protection, you must not only not fight them, but must also escort them to a place of safety
-Prisoners of war must be housed and fed properly
*When to stop fighting:
-When the enemy stops fighting
-When the enemy offers peace
-When the enemy offers a treaty
You may say that many of those so called 'violent islamic jihadist' do not follow these clearly set down rules. And I'd reply to you what I've been saying since the beginning *groundhog day* : Then they are not following Islam. How is Islam to blame?
[edit on 13-12-2007 by babloyi]
Originally posted by babloyi
I can assure you that I am certainly not uneducated, and am perfectly aware of what 'abroad' means, in an English speaking country as well as anywhere else. My previous statement still stands.
I don't know about archaic poems, but as I said, the Yusuf Islam
translation of the Quran is hardly new.
You talk alot about interpretations. I'm not using interpretations. I am using the actual Quran, in the original arabic. Words are words, and the examples I gave are pretty obvious words, there is nothing about interpretations.
As far as comparing the list to the 'Jesus love thy enemy style of peace', when you yourself have admitted that you see nothing wrong with defending yourself, and nothing is wrong if other people defend themselves, and the fact that it would be a very rare (to the point of non-existent) person who had the power to defend themself against attack and didn't,
as well as the fact that according to christians (or their interpretations, maybe ), Jesus will come back and slaughter somewhere in the vicinity of 200 million people, I don't see what the point is of bringing it up.
Originally posted by blueorder
apparently the words, verse and entire book are not "obvious" because they inspire some to war and violence while others are inspired in peaceful ways
Originally posted by blueorder
As for the differing interpretations of what Jesus does, even those who believe that don't use his words as an interpretation for slaughter themsevles, which is kinda the point