To anyone Islamic, or of any other religion...

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Hi Raphael_UO,


Originally posted by Raphael_UO
Would it be accurate if I were to rephrase this as: "While the origins of the Qur'an are derived from the Bible, had the Bible not existed the Qur'an would still exist in its current form" ?
.

To understand Islam you need to understand its view of the difference between the Bible and Qur'an.

  • The Bible is a book written by men (this is what Christian, Jews and Muslims accept) about Jesus (of course there's other stories too). Since it is written by men even the original version can have inaccuracies or even lies. Time and translation has corrupted it.

  • The Ahadith is a collection of books written by men about Muhammad and events surrounding his life. Lots of books involved. Again, as with the Bible is subject to men's errors and lies, but where many Hadith agree it is called a Strong Hadith.

  • The Injil (Gospel) is a personal Message from God to Jesus, it is not available to us. If it was written down or even given in an early Bible it is completely corrupted or lost now. The Gospels in the current Bible are from (other) men.

  • The Qur'an is a Message from God to Muhammad and to all of Mankind. Allah has promised that the Message will be kept safe for mankind, which is why it is still here, uncorrupted. It has been kept separate to the Ahadith for good reason.

    So given the above the Qur'an and Bible are seen as completely different things. If you want to compare anything, the Christian Bible and Ahadith are comparable works.

    The Injil and the Qur'an are both sourced from God, containing the same basic message. So really only this part of your statement "...had the Bible not existed the Qur'an would still exist in its current form" is agreeable.

    I hope this next note, for completeness, won't confuse you. The common source of the Bible and Qur'an are probably completely different. Saying "probably' is generous, because the Bible is translated thus adding man's corruption to all of it, but I put the "probably" in there because there is no telling if any (even small part) of the Injil is in there.


    [edit on 30-6-2004 by mithras]




  • posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 04:51 PM
    link   

    "While the origins of the Qur'an are derived from the Bible, had the Bible not existed the Qur'an would still exist in its current form" ?



    Of course not.
    The Koran is based on the bible, so without the bible the Koran would probably make (even) less sense.

    I personally have a pretty radical and "politically incorrect" view on this.

    As with everything coming from God, His holy book, the bible, was also copied by humans inspired by satan or demons to create yet another alternative to Christianity that contains a part of truth, but not all of it.
    Half truth is a lie as well, and I think this applies to the Islam fully.

    This starts making even more sense, if you think about the core-emotions that these religions consist of.
    Christianity is all about grace and love, from God for us, and from us for eachother. Even when someone is wrong or evil, do not try to get your revenge, do not lose your mind in angryness, and do not be tempted to get your rights no matter what.

    The Islam on the other hand, is infected by negative emotions entirely.
    Angryness, agressiveness, fear, revenge and hate are not only the fuel of some of the extremists, but also the examples that Mohammed gives through his actions in the Koran. Fear of God, not expecting anything gracefull from the allmighty creator, just punishment if you do something wrong. A religion in which the God is focussed on flaws and mistakes, on your negative sides.

    The way women are treated, the laws in countries with an Islamic regime, the close ties with criminal organisations that not only Al Qaueda has.(spelling?)

    The final "proof" for my theory is the bombings.
    I'm being told that the ones who do suicide bombings, are the extremists. The ones that have lost their mind and are brainwashed by darker, higher persons that have no real interest in following their religion.
    Yet somehow, these bombings keep on going on.

    A few losing their minds "for allah" would allready be quite a coincidence. I don't think this is about crazy people that lose their minds.
    I also don't think that the ones that inspire these people to commit suicide in the most horrible way possible are not followers of the Islamic religion.
    I think Satan/demons are the only forces in this world, capable of getting people to commit suicide in this horrible way on such a large scale.
    With this I mean, Satan/demons in the form of people that they have in their power, that convince other (weaker) human beings of fullfilling their "divine purpose".

    [edit on 30-6-2004 by Jakko]



    posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 06:30 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by River Euphrates

    Originally posted by Raphael_UO

    Originally posted by River Euphrates

    Please read my posts before prematurely judging what I say. The Qur'an is based on the Bible ...but it is not dependent on the Bible.


    Would it be accurate if I were to rephrase this as: "While the origins of the Qur'an are derived from the Bible, had the Bible not existed the Qur'an would still exist in its current form" ?

    .


    Yes, thats exactly what I meant.


    Thank you.
    But it seems mithras disagrees.



    Originally posted by Mitras
    To understand Islam you need to understand its view of the difference between the Bible and Qur'an.


    Why would I need to understand the differences between the Bible and the Qur'an in order to understand Islam? Should not the books used to teach Islam be capable of relaying complete understanding without having to rely on material Muslims believe is corrupted?

    I asked for clarification because I did not completely understand the intended meaning. As you point out translation leads to corruption of words, and I did not want to misunderstand what was being said.

    But I will ask you a question. Early in this thread it was said that Muhammed wasn't sure of his own salvation. I commented that I found humility reflected in his uncertainty. What are the teachings of Islam concerning humility?



    Originally posted by Jakko
    Of course not.


    How would you know what River Euphrates meant by her/his words? Are they not her/his words? I was not asking if her/his words were correct, mearly if the intent of her/his words were clearly understood by me.

    Since you obviously have taken the "pro-Bible" side in this debate, I will assume you are Christian. For you I pass on wisdom that was passed on to me.

    Luke 6:37-49


    .








    [edit on 30-6-2004 by Raphael_UO]



    posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 09:30 PM
    link   
    Hello again Raphael_UO,

    Nice that you have been considering Islam without prejudice. One thing if I may suggest is that you should only get your information about Islam from known Islamic sources. You might consider that it is a tactic for some, who wish to harm Islam, to put up websites that only claim to be Islamic but really misinform you.


    Originally posted by Raphael_UO
    Why would I need to understand the differences between the Bible and the Qur'an in order to understand Islam?

    You don't really need to understand the differences between the Bible and Qur'an to understand Islam. But maybe you think the full understanding Islam is inclusive of how it views other religions, or not.

    The Bible is irrelevant to Islam, in that it won't make a difference to the concept of God (and practice of the religion) if the Bible didn't exist. However it has become relevant to this thread and indeed your questions, so I wanted to make it clear how Muslims (Islam) view the Holy Books.



    Should not the books used to teach Islam be capable of relaying complete understanding without having to rely on material Muslims believe is corrupted?

    Of course, the Qur'an is capable of relaying understanding, but to support our understanding of it the Sunnah (the oral teachings of the Prophet) may be used as a guide to avoid dispute of interpretation. The Sunnah is only described in the Ahadith (still in original language) which as I already said has varying degrees of reliability. Only the most reliable Hadith are used to clarify understanding, if needed.



    But I will ask you a question. Early in this thread it was said that Muhammed wasn't sure of his own salvation. I commented that I found humility reflected in his uncertainty. What are the teachings of Islam concerning humility?

    In terms of salvation. Absolutely no human can tell whether they themselves or anyone else is going to Heaven or Hell. No matter how evil or good they may appear to be. That Judgement is for Allah, and Him alone; He (alone) already knows who will go to Heaven or Hell since before the universe was created. The same applies for predicting that things will happen in life, no human can other than from what is known in the Qur'an or Muhammad's prophecies (which were given to him) - only Allah knows. However we are told that death is certain for everyone and all life, including Jesus when he returns.

    Humility in believing that man is ignorant of the Truth about the world and thus what is good for the world. And proving this by freely giving up much of your free-will (that Allah gave us) back to Allah, by following His teaching. This is a key to Islam, to show you love Him enough, to do that, before He shows His love of you.

    There is also humility to Allah in prayers, prostrating yourself on the ground is a very humble act; also consider that praying is not just because you want something from Allah.

    I can go on, but just to keep it short: humbleness towards others is a quality of a good Muslim, whereas arrogance is something Allah has stated he dislikes, many times in the Qur'an. Example in Surah 31:18-9 (Yusuf-Ali trans.):

    "And swell not thy cheek (for pride) at men, nor walk in insolence through the earth; for Allah loveth not any arrogant boaster. And be moderate in thy pace, and lower thy voice; for the harshest of sounds without doubt is the braying of the donkey."

    Edited: because it didn't like the other word for "donkey."










    [edit on 30-6-2004 by mithras]



    posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 01:43 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by mithras
    Hello again Raphael_UO,

    Nice that you have been considering Islam without prejudice. One thing if I may suggest is that you should only get your information about Islam from known Islamic sources. You might consider that it is a tactic for some, who wish to harm Islam, to put up websites that only claim to be Islamic but really misinform you.


    Prejudice requires judgment derived from ignorance. It is not my place to judge. It is not in my nature to remain ignorant.

    Since you are willing to answer my questions, I will consider you as a known Islamic source. If there comes a point that I ask something which you cannot answer, I would ask for you to direct me to a source that can.



    You don't really need to understand the differences between the Bible and Qur'an to understand Islam. But maybe you think the full understanding Islam is inclusive of how it views other religions, or not.

    The Bible is irrelevant to Islam, in that it won't make a difference to the concept of God (and practice of the religion) if the Bible didn't exist. However it has become relevant to this thread and indeed your questions, so I wanted to make it clear how Muslims (Islam) view the Holy Books.


    I do not believe knowledge of how Islam views other religions is required to understand Islam. I believe a knowledge of Islam is required to to understand how it views other religions.


    Of course, the Qur'an is capable of relaying understanding, but to support our understanding of it the Sunnah (the oral teachings of the Prophet) may be used as a guide to avoid dispute of interpretation. The Sunnah is only described in the Ahadith (still in original language) which as I already said has varying degrees of reliability. Only the most reliable Hadith are used to clarify understanding, if needed.


    I am sure I will more questions on this after I have more understanding of the teachings. But for now, I will say it makes sense.


    I can go on, but just to keep it short: humbleness towards others is a quality of a good Muslim, whereas arrogance is something Allah has stated he dislikes, many times in the Qur'an. Example in Surah 31:18-9 (Yusuf-Ali trans.):

    "And swell not thy cheek (for pride) at men, nor walk in insolence through the earth; for Allah loveth not any arrogant boaster. And be moderate in thy pace, and lower thy voice; for the harshest of sounds without doubt is the braying of the donkey."


    The Bible teaches the importance of humility as well. It is perhaps the most important lesson one can learn as a Christian. That humility is also something important to a Muslim gives me a basis for understanding.

    Before I ask questions about other things, I need to clarify what you have already told me.

    You said the Bible is corrupted. You said the Qur'an was not corrupted.
    For the sake of understanding, I will assume you are 100% correct.

    Now, my question: Would your statements be considered arrogance?



    [edit on 1-7-2004 by Raphael_UO]



    posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 02:54 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Raphael_UO
    How would you know what River Euphrates meant by her/his words? Are they not her/his words? I was not asking if her/his words were correct, mearly if the intent of her/his words were clearly understood by me.


    I know, and this means the "of course not" was not directed at you, but at the statement in general.


    Since you obviously have taken the "pro-Bible" side in this debate, I will assume you are Christian. For you I pass on wisdom that was passed on to me.

    Luke 6:37-49


    What does that have to do with me or what I say?
    This verse doesn't say that we can't have an opinion, neither does it say we should stop being aware of what satan and demons do in this world.
    I'm personally strongly against ripping parts of the bible out of their context for use to your own advantage in these word-battles.
    The bible was not given to us so we can smash eachothers heads in with it.


    .








    [edit on 30-6-2004 by Raphael_UO]



    posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 03:40 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Jakko
    I know, and this means the "of course not" was not directed at you, but at the statement in general.


    I see. I ask forgiveness for my lack of understanding.



    What does that have to do with me or what I say?
    This verse doesn't say that we can't have an opinion, neither does it say we should stop being aware of what satan and demons do in this world.
    I'm personally strongly against ripping parts of the bible out of their context for use to your own advantage in these word-battles.
    The bible was not given to us so we can smash eachothers heads in with it.


    You are correct, the wisdom I passed on does not say you can not have an opinion nor does it say you can not be aware of what satan and demons do in this world. It simply says what it says.

    I do not feel quoting a complete paragraph of 12 verses to be taking anything out of context. However you say I did, so I ask: How did the meaning of those 12 verses change without the other 36 verses of that chapter?

    Saying I was using scripture to bash you over the head implies an intent that was not there. The intent was to teach. You ask what the verses have to do with you. I ask you, what do those verses have to do with any Christian? Answer the one and you have found the answer for the other.

    [edit on 1-7-2004 by Raphael_UO]



    posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 08:50 AM
    link   
    Raphael_UO,


    Originally posted by Raphael_UO
    Since you are willing to answer my questions, I will consider you as a known Islamic source. If there comes a point that I ask something which you cannot answer, I would ask for you to direct me to a source that can.

    Just because I am willing to answer questions does not make me a proper Islamic source, I only answer as best as I know. Here's a few websites that I believe are valid:-

    www.islamonline.net... helpful scholars in "Ask About Islam"
    www.sureguidance.org... has a full Qur'an with commentary
    www.usc.edu... has three side by side translations and many hadith translations.



    The Bible teaches the importance of humility as well. It is perhaps the most important lesson one can learn as a Christian. That humility is also something important to a Muslim gives me a basis for understanding.

    I'm well aware the Bible teaches humility toward other each other. However, for me, the modern interpretation of the Bible where all Christians are spiritually cleansed (thus fundamentally better than others) or will enter Heaven for sure because only they are loved by God, loses that original humility; maybe you can explain if I'm mistaken.



    Before I ask questions about other things, I need to clarify what you have already told me.

    You said the Bible is corrupted. You said the Qur'an was not corrupted.
    For the sake of understanding, I will assume you are 100% correct.

    Now, my question: Would your statements be considered arrogance?

    If you say the Bible has the uncorrupt word of the Apostles. I would ask for the Bible Gospels in their original language since a translation is made by other men. There is plenty of evidence to suggest english wasn't even around at that time, most people would agree. So this is enough for me to disprove the claim. If that's not enough for some, there's plenty of other points we can mention that will convince most of us, and I've listed some in this thread.

    Likewise, if I say the Qur'an is the word of God, and that no man has ever changed the wording, you cannot say whether I'm wrong or right until you disprove that statement. There is comparatively so little evidence to suggest that even one word has changed from the original as Muhammad recited it. The graphical representation of the Arabic can look different in some text due to dialect, not meaning.

    So this is why Muslim scholars feel they can hold both claims. Now really to your question which stems from: Why would Muslims make that claim in the first place? It's in the Qur'an as the word of God. So it is not a Muslim's own arrogance but God's teaching. If we have great evidence that the Qur'an is corrupt then we can challenge it.

    Surah 2:79 (Pickthal trans) refers to those who rewrote previous Messages:
    Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands and then say, "This is from Allah," that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby.

    Surah 6:93 (Pickthal trans) refers to "inspired" Bible writers:
    Who is guilty of more wrong than he who forgeth a lie against Allah, or saith: I am inspired, when he is not inspired in aught; and who saith: I will reveal the like of that which Allah hath revealed? If thou couldst see, when the wrong-doers reach the pangs of death and the angels stretch their hands out (saying): Deliver up your souls. This day ye are awarded doom of degradation for that ye spake concerning Allah other than the truth, and used to scorn His portents.

    The Qur'an says that all Revelations to Prophets are "reminders" given to us because the Message is getting corrupt. So because Muhammad was told he is the last Prophet, it logically means that his Message will remain uncorrupted. Verses, back this up:-

    Surah 15:9, 5:48 and 41:42(Pickthal trans) are examples of suggesting that the Qur'an message will be preserved on Earth:
    Lo! We, even We, reveal the Reminder, and lo! We verily are its Guardian.

    And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever Scripture was before it, and a watcher over it.

    Falsehood cannot come at it from before it or from behind it. (It is) a revelation from the Wise, the Owner of Praise.

    I'm not sure whether this means each word is totally preserved (only that scholars might agree it does), but it does certainly suggest if there is an error it doesn't change the meaning at all. Maybe there's other verses or strong hadith which say it outright. Anyway, it makes sense to take it to mean a word for word preservation until there is enough evidence to say not.



    posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 11:05 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by mithras

    Likewise, if I say the Qur'an is the word of God, and that no man has ever changed the wording, you cannot say whether I'm wrong or right until you disprove that statement. There is comparatively so little evidence to suggest that even one word has changed from the original as Muhammad recited it. The graphical representation of the Arabic can look different in some text due to dialect, not meaning.



    It is the word of man. As for there being no evidence that it was changed? The very fact that it came from a society which was mostly illiterate means that the liklihood of the Koran not being misinterpreted somewhere along the lines is infintisimal. Ever played a game of Chinese Whispers?

    The politics behinds the Koran is blatant to see. It was a necessary mish-mash of muruwah and Jewish folklore to stop Arabian society from destroying itself.

    As for it's being misinterpreted? Why do Muslim women wear veils? It was only Mohammed's wives who were required to wear them.



    posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 12:52 PM
    link   
    Do you understand the process of abrogation? How convient is this process because I don't understand if the Quran has been abrogated or not and it seems that this "God" can't make his mind up either.

    **The Quran has not been abrogated.

    6:34
    There is none to alter the decisions of Allah.

    6:115
    Perfected is the Word of thy Lord in truth and justice. There is naught that can change His words.

    10:64
    There is no changing the Words of Allah.

    18:27
    And recite that which hath been revealed unto thee of the Scripture of thy Lord. There is none who can change His words.

    ** "Allah" has changed his mind.

    2:106
    Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof.

    16:101
    And when We put a revelation in place of (another) revelation, - and Allah knoweth best what He revealeth - they say: Lo! thou art but inventing. Most of them know not.



    What a crock. Here come the "experts" to tell me that this is a misunderstanding and the verses "really" were not changed or that because I cannot read this in Arabic it does me no good. What about the millions of English reading muslims, are they screwed??



    posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 01:18 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Leveller
    It is the word of man. As for there being no evidence that it was changed? The very fact that it came from a society which was mostly illiterate means that the liklihood of the Koran not being misinterpreted somewhere along the lines is infintisimal. Ever played a game of Chinese Whispers?

    You say it's the word of man, I say it's the word of God. Doesn't matter what you think if you're not Muslim. What matters is how Islam views it. It is like me telling you that you are an ape and you disagree. You can't prove it just because you type stuff.

    Where is your reliable source of information that most people were illiterate back then? Suppose it is true, it doesn't affect the thousands of literate peoples' ability to read and write.

    The Qur'an doesn't get interpreted, but it is recited and duplicated on paper, to pass it down the generations.

    The "evidence" of change you gave is not evidence, you gave a theory that has no evidence to back it up.

    You mentioned Chinese whispers, which is of course a reality. Surely if the effect of that was prominent there would be thousands of Qur'an versions; the evidence is that there is only one version of the Qur'an today (bar the odd error in a million copies or whatever, or that due to dialect not meaning). The Chinese Whisper effect is cancelled because of the method of gathering and comparing many texts before a copy can be called official.



    The politics behinds the Koran is blatant to see. It was a necessary mish-mash of muruwah and Jewish folklore to stop Arabian society from destroying itself.

    This is how an Unbeliever might see it. I understand and accept it as your opinion only.



    As for it's being misinterpreted? Why do Muslim women wear veils? It was only Mohammed's wives who were required to wear them.

    Muslim women wear clothing that covers their bodies in a "modest" way, men have to also. This is written in the Qur'an, and so is freely obeyed by a Believer. The phrase in the Qur'an "that they should draw veils over their bosoms," is generally taken by Arabs to mean drawing the hair covering down the front, which obviously means covering the face. Not everyone would agree; but I don't see why women shouldn't be allowed to choose, veil or not, so long as the dress does the specified job.





    [edit on 1-7-2004 by mithras]



    posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 01:19 PM
    link   
    kind of like the small print on the bottom of the treaties the USG made wit h
    the Native Americans,

    for as long as the wind will blow, the grass will grow, or 90 days which ever comes first.



    posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 01:34 PM
    link   
    Funny how you completely avoided my most about abrogation. It's smack in the middle of your "perfect" book.



    posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 01:41 PM
    link   
    73 They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is no God save the One God. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve.

    Please explain to me how I am misunderstanding this verse. It tells me that Christians who do not deny the Christ and the trinity, they will have a painful doom. Is that the jist of this verse?


    More exclusion.



    posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 01:42 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by mithras
    Just because I am willing to answer questions does not make me a proper Islamic source, I only answer as best as I know. Here's a few websites that I believe are valid:-

    www.islamonline.net... helpful scholars in "Ask About Islam"
    www.sureguidance.org... has a full Qur'an with commentary
    www.usc.edu... has three side by side translations and many hadith translations.


    I believe all men have the same restriction, all can only answer as best they know.




    I'm well aware the Bible teaches humility toward other each other. However, for me, the modern interpretation of the Bible where all Christians are spiritually cleansed (thus fundamentally better than others) or will enter Heaven for sure because only they are loved by God, loses that original humility; maybe you can explain if I'm mistaken.


    It is interesting that you would say "modern interpretation". Several years ago, I was talking to a Christian about matters of faith. Around his wrist he wore a band with the letters WWJD on it. After the conversation was ending, I inquired about the band. He explained to me the letters stood for "What would Jesus do?" and it served to remind him that when tempted by evil in the world, the true path would be revealed simply by answering that one question. I could find no fault in that, for each Christian should live his life as Jesus did-- according to the word of God.

    Concerning your observations of Christianity, I have also observed Christians that have forgotten the teachings of humility. I cannot say there are not many who express that view, however I can say that not all Christians share the same belief. When I discuss matters of faith with other Christians, as I sometimes do, humility is my first topic. Simply put the understanding of humility is the basis for all other beliefs. Similar to what you had stated, humility is the giving of yourself completely to God and his teachings. It is through humility one learns to detect "corrupt" translations, for the work of Satan does not reflect total commitment to God.

    To give you an understanding I shall quote for you a passage from Scripture:

    Mark 12:28-34
    28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? 29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: 30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. 31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. 32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he: 33 And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. 34 And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question.


    Completely giving of your love to God and your fellow man is the definition of humility. If I knew nothing else about this verse, that would be enough for me to know that the words written were the words of God and not of Satan.

    I apologize if that is too long, I can literally go on for hours.


    If you say the Bible has the uncorrupt word of the Apostles. I would ask for the Bible Gospels in their original language since a translation is made by other men. There is plenty of evidence to suggest english wasn't even around at that time, most people would agree. So this is enough for me to disprove the claim. If that's not enough for some, there's plenty of other points we can mention that will convince most of us, and I've listed some in this thread.


    In regards to humility, I say to you that it matters not who is right and who is wrong. However, saying one is right and the other is wrong could not be humble, for would it not be the same as saying one is superior to the other? Is not expressing superiority arrogance?

    If these words offend you in any way, I ask your forgiveness now. I seek only understanding of humility as taught by Islam.

    .



    posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 02:57 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Raphael_UO
    It is interesting that you would say "modern interpretation".

    Sorry, I meant post-Nicean.



    ...each Christian should live his life as Jesus did-- according to the word of God.

    The question is how did he lead his life. Is a non-violent life (in a violent world) something that is perfection in Christianity?



    To give you an understanding I shall quote for you a passage from Scripture:

    It's a nice verse, and agree with your comment about it.



    In regards to humility, I say to you that it matters not who is right and who is wrong. However, saying one is right and the other is wrong could not be humble, for would it not be the same as saying one is superior to the other? Is not expressing superiority arrogance?
    If these words offend you in any way

    No offence taken, I accept opinions and try answer when both sides might be able to reason. If we didn't communicate, argue and reason, as a human race, to try and find the correct path we probably wouldn't get very far above the animals.

    If your son told you one plus one equals three, you would perhaps want to correct him for you know it is not and you care for him. It's a matter of a truth which you are certain of. You want him to understand, but not out of arrogance and the true way to do that is by reasoning - not demanding he believe. It is not arrogant to start off by saying the other is wrong, provided you can back it up all the way with reasoning. If you can't then you should humbly accept the other belief. If you don't even do that, that could be offending.

    When I said a Christian loses his humility because he knows he is saved, this wouldn't apply to one who draws another to salvation but only by good reason. Honestly, if a Christian can reason with me all the way against Islam or atheism, I would accept Christianity on the spot; but I'm not going to risk my salvation on the acceptance of someone just saying this is true, no matter how easy it makes life.

    Hope that made sense.



    posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 03:12 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by mithras

    good reason. Honestly, if a Christian can reason with me all the way against Islam or atheism, I would accept Christianity on the spot; but I'm not going to risk my salvation on the acceptance of someone just saying this is true, no matter how easy it makes life.


    Mithras, why did you say Islam OR atheism. Aren't you under submission to allah? Are you saying you'd been an atheist if you weren't under islam?



    posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 03:55 PM
    link   
    To any muslim, I only have one question....When was the bible corrupted?



    posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 03:57 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by KSoze
    Mithras, why did you say Islam OR atheism. Aren't you under submission to allah? Are you saying you'd been an atheist if you weren't under islam?


    I'm under submission but that doesn't mean I can't leave. Only I risk much worse punishment by Allah in Hell if I turn apostate, why? Maybe because I had something wonderful and threw it away. Then again, if I left Islam I wouldn't believe in Hell would I


    Correct, unless a Christian or other religion could convince me over atheism. Atheism is the next likely truth for me, after Islam.



    posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 04:15 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by KSoze
    To any muslim, I only have one question....When was the bible corrupted?

    You agreed that it is corrupt:
    "Mithras, you don't need to prove to me the bible is corrupt. I already know that."

    So I assuming that is still the case for now and from a Muslim perspective:

    It is a collection of writings of men, so you can already say that most elements of it are corrupt (not from God) from day one. In addition, these early and original documents were brought to the council at Nicea (4th century AD) and there they chose what to add to their official Bible, and coming up with an interpretation that suited as many people at the time. Now add the label "inspired" by God. So this was probably where the most corruption was done.

    It is also being corrupted today, as new Bibles come out to adjust to people's "freedom."





    new topics
    top topics
     
    0
    << 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

    log in

    join