Answering Islam.........................

The first outstanding scholar to enter the field of polemic against the Moslem was John of Damascus. (He is) known to history as the most honored of the later theologians of the Greek Church. ... His great dogmatic work on the Sources of Knowledge includes an important section 'Concerning Heresies,' and it is one chapter under this heading that deals with Moslems.1 The topics the author selected and the arguments he used have been constantly repeated by similar champions from the eighth century to the twentieth. Through�out all his controversial work John of Damascus displays a thorough knowledge of Islam. Fully at home in the Arabic tongue, he often cites the Koran word for word and shows his familiarity with the Hadith, or traditions. ... It is characteristic, in fact, of all the earlier polemic, during the age when Islam and Christendom were in close touch, that the Christian advocate is in full control of his material and knows at first hand what he is talking about."2

cont''''''''''''

answering-islam.org...

Ok Another-one...........this one is for you!!!

I have copy and pasted below for you to answer ...............taken from the above website.......

The Tractate goes on to tell of discussions between Christians and the adherents of this "heresy." These latter have a prophet who has written a Book. He is said to boast in this Book that the Book was brought down to him from heaven, and his adherents declare his statement to be true. Also they charge Christians with being polytheists, because they say, "Christ is the Son of God, and God," and idolators, because Christians "worship the Cross."

To these assertions the Christians reply. Their answers to the Muslims about their prophet and his Book leave the Muslims confounded. "Who witnessed God's giving of the Book to your prophet?" What prophet foretold that such a prophet would come?" They are at a loss for a response. "Why did God not provide proofs, as in the case of Moses and Jesus, so that men could be sure about your prophet?" "God does as He wills," they say. "How was this Book given to your prophet?" "It came down on him in his sleep," they reply. "So the sneering jest has been fulfilled ... for receiving it in sleep he would not be aware of what happened." (The jest is not reported). Commentators have suggested. "Sleeping, he dreams!" or "Tell me your dreams!" "Your prophet told you not to do anything without witnesses" (2:282), say the Christians. "Why did you not demand of him witnesses about this giving of a Book, and prophecies in support of it?" Ashamed, they have nothing to say. "No transaction whatever is legal for you without witnesses, yet you have accepted without a witness a faith and a Book. A Book received in sleep! There is no verification of any sort."

As to the charge of polytheism, the reply is made by the Muslims that, if the Christians are in error, the responsibility rests on the Hebrew prophets, for the Christians simply repeat what the prophets said, and the Muslims insist stoutly that they accept the prophets (2:136/130). To meet this reply Muslims know enough about the Scriptural passages in question to propose answers. One in that the Christians allegorize, reading into the passages the meanings which they claim to find there about Christ. The other allows that the interpretations made by the Christians are legitimate, but says that the passages were interpolated by the Jews to deceive the Christians, and work their ruin.

A second line of reply to the charge of polytheism makes use of the terms which the Muslims themselves apply to Christ. He is "Word" and "Spirit" of God (4:171/169). In view of this usage, Christians make the apparently axiomatic statement that God's Word and God's Spirit are inseparable from God Himself. Either conclusion from this premise is against the Muslims. If they allow the premise to be true, they must accept that Christ is God: if they deny its truth, they declare God to be "without-Word" and "without�Spirit," and so "mutilate" Him which is worse than to "associate."

As to the charge of idolatry, "What about the stone in your Kabatha (i.e. Ka'ba that you kiss and embrace?" Some Muslims reply that it was used as a bed by Abraham and and Hagar; others that Abraham tied his camel to it when he went to sacrifice Isaac (sic.) To this second explanation Christians retort that, according to the Scriptures, the mountain of Abraham's sacrifice was wooded, and not like Mecca; that there was wood there to burn that Abraham split and in Mecca there is little fire-wood; that Abraham left behind asses, not camels, and that asses do not come as far south as Mecca (cf. Genesis 22:13,3,5). The Muslims are ashamed; yet they insist that the stone is the Stone of Abraham.

What do you want me to do? I'm confused..

originally posted by helen670

answering-islam.org...



www.answering-christianity.com...

There's nothing to do.

Rather than initiating conversations with our resident Muslims, she's just copying and pasting stuff.

And what makes it funnier is that this guy lived centuries BEFORE Mohammad founded the Islamic faith!

Helen the religious flamist, is just looking to start an argument.

Irenic Helen (and Another-one) catetgorize humans as amoung the chosen or the dammed, the saved or the lost, the faithful or the infidel, the orthodox or the heretic, the holy or the pagan. And yet the same two affirm the oneness of humanity, irrespective of the individuals sex, colour, country of origin, dress, diet, ritual,or creed.

How can anyone who holds such a distorted view hope to inspire any trust amoung those who look to exemplify behaviour consistent with the pursuit of peace, justice and equality?

Islam and Christianity hold certian views of reality or truth that are sharply different, if not contradictory, from each other. But that is not a valid reason for assuming the superiority of one religion over another.

Originally posted by Maddas
Irenic Helen (and Another-one) catetgorize humans as amoung the chosen or the dammed, the saved or the lost, the faithful or the infidel, the orthodox or the heretic, the holy or the pagan. And yet the same two affirm the oneness of humanity, irrespective of the individuals sex, colour, country of origin, dress, diet, ritual,or creed.

Yes.

[Edited on 10-5-2003 by another_one]

How about a moratorium on these types of pointless religious comparisons?