John, Mary and Jesus in the Qur'an. Surah Maryam

page: 11
2
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 12:06 PM
link   
logical7


that actually contradicts the christian idea of God not standing/tolerating sin.


Take a breath. It is absurd to say that there is a "Christian" idea which contradicts God being a man.


)If God is born through a woman, she must then be sinless too, if not then God is fine to stay in the womb and then be born of a sinning woman.


Roman Catholics, who are about half of the living Nicenes, believe that Mary is sinless. Some Eastern Orthodox also believe that, and all human beings are born immaculate in Eastern Orthodoxy. And, of course, Protestants think she was a sinner, and bore Jesus anyway.

So, it's between, say, 60:40 to 70:30 among Nicene Christians that she was sinless, as you require, versus she wasn't sinless, but God did what the mission profile required him to do. This is unsurprising, since Christian also believe that Jesus hung on a cross for three to six hours after being partially flayed alive. That probably also was unpleasant for him.


If God is able to be among sinner on earth then whats the problem to do the same in Heaven


As we've already discussed, Christians typically believe in an omnipresent God. So, he is among sinners on Earth 24/7/365. "Heaven" is not a point on which Nicene Chrisitans are unanimous anyway, but it is easy to imagine that God might be more selective about whom he spends eternity with than whom he spends any time at all with.
-
edit on 12-3-2013 by eight bits because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 





Take a breath. It is absurd to say that there is a "Christian" idea which contradicts God being a man.

thanks but thats a thing i have been told by christians, God can't stand sin and God became a man. The theology just collapses on itself.


Roman Catholics, who are about half
of the living Nicenes, believe that Mary
is sinless. Some Eastern Orthodox also
believe that, and all human beings are
born immaculate in Eastern
Orthodoxy. And, of course, Protestants think she was a sinner,
and bore Jesus anyway. So, it's between, say, 60:40 to 70:30
among Nicene Christians that she was
sinless, as you require, versus she
wasn't sinless

the disagreements regarding somethings so major is a pointer that all of it is conjencture and everyone tries their best to try and explain it.


but God did what the
mission profile required him to do.

thats a christian escape route not fitting for an agnostic.


As we've already discussed, Christians
typically believe in an omnipresent
God. So, he is among sinners on Earth
24/7/365. "Heaven" is not a point on
which Nicene Chrisitans are
unanimous anyway, but it is easy to imagine that God might be more
selective about whom he spends
eternity with than whom he spends
any time at all with.

So God is suffering still because of His omnipresence, also His coming on earth and dying din't make it good, neither for Him nor for the earth/humans.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 06:44 AM
link   
logical7


thanks but thats a thing i have been told by christians, God can't stand sin and God became a man. The theology just collapses on itself. ...

the disagreements regarding somethings so major is a pointer that all of it is conjencture and everyone tries their best to try and explain it.


There is some irony in your focus on this. Jesus in the Christian Gospels is notorious for hanging out with sinners, low-lifes, even - horrible to relate - women, who apparently are the very embodiment of Sin itself, according to some. Jesus doesn't deny the company he keeps, either.

So, if some Christian told you "God can't stand sin," then you have obviously read something into the remark that the Christian did not intend. The name for that is "straw man." Convenient, too, isn't it, that you can't actually produce this Christian? Anonymous straw man, the very best kind.


thats a christian escape route not fitting for an agnostic.


So, do you have a rebuttal to discuss, or were you just praying that the ad hom's would stick?


So God is suffering still because of His omnipresence, also His coming on earth and dying din't make it good, neither for Him nor for the earth/humans.


Sounds like the sort of thing you'd have to ask him about. My understanding of the Christian conception is that God takes a very long-term view, and that he is in love with his creatures. If God's suffering in time and space opens up a possibility of some eternal preferable state for both him and his creatures, together forever, then he might well see that interval of suffering as worthwhile. Other beings in love have been known to suffer for their beloveds' sakes.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 





There is some irony in your focus on this. Jesus in the Christian Gospels is notorious for hanging out with sinners, low-lifes, even - horrible to relate - women, who apparently are the very embodiment of Sin itself, according to some. Jesus doesn't deny the company he keeps, either. So, if some Christian told you "God can't stand sin," then you have obviously read something into the remark that the Christian did not intend. The name for that is "straw man." Convenient, too, isn't it, that you can't actually produce this Christian? Anonymous straw man, the very best kind.

correct me if i am wrong about this christian rhetoric
1) the punishment of sin is death
2) God is pure and can't tolerate sin
3)God so loved the world..

So my point is Jesus pbuh was sure hanging out with sinners.

You say God did it as Jesus pbuh and also that God is near sinners due to His Omnipresence,
So you try and reason that God is bearing it for few thousand years but ultimately wants a break from it?!!

If God's suffering in time and space opens up a possibility
of some eternal preferable state for
both him and his creatures, together
forever, then he might well see that
interval of suffering as worthwhile.
Other beings in love have been known to suffer for their beloveds' sakes.

Love with an expiry date?!!
After that God wants to stop suffering for the sake of love?

I say the Christian thinking is flawed by testing it against simple reasoning. Each part of belief has to be kept seperate because if tried to be integrated then it explodes into unresolvable conflicts.

Another example is 'sacrifice' the 'God so loved the world..' idea.
Can an All Knowing God sacrifice?
The idea of sacrifice is to give up something for the love of someone, but if there is prior knowledge that no harm will come then it ceases to be a sacrifice.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 09:30 AM
link   
logical7


So my point is Jesus pbuh was sure hanging out with sinners.


Then we're in agreement, by whatever different paths we happen to arrive there.


You say God did it as Jesus pbuh and also that God is near sinners due to His Omnipresence,...


It's not me saying anything, I'm explaining to you the position of your typical opponent.


So you try and reason that God is bearing it for few thousand years but ultimately wants a break from it?!!


All three Abrahamic traditions contemplate an eventual "end of days." Regardless of what I "reason," if any of you is right, then at some point, God will be "taking a break from it."


Love with an expiry date?!!
After that God wants to stop suffering for the sake of love?


You seem to be torn between bafflement that God would willingly begin to suffer for a creature, and annoyance that he would ever stop. Personally, I don't see why God wouldn't be entitled to enjoy the fruits of what he sacrificed for.


I say the Christian thinking is flawed by testing it against simple reasoning.


This can hardly be a surprise. Rumor has it that many Christians and Jews, to name just two religious groups, have only limited admiration for the intellectual depth of Islam. So, trading this sort of remark gets us nowhere.


The idea of sacrifice is to give up something for the love of someone, but if there is prior knowledge that no harm will come then it ceases to be a sacrifice.


I take it that you are speaking as someone who has been flogged with a Roman flaying whip and then nailed to a board, and left hanging for three hours, maybe more. That you ultimately survived is no doubt a consolation, and your confident expectation about that may have sustained you through your ordeal, but the experience itself would seem to count as a sacrifice.

Oh, that's not in your experience? Then that explains your attitude about the quality of sacrifice. As the Bard wrote, he jests at scars who never felt a wound.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 





It's not me saying anything, I'm explaining to you the position of your typical opponent.

ofcourse you are an agnostic, i'l tell you, you don't like to get pinned down by your own opinion. It has nothing to do with the topic but i mind when you chicken out from answering a difficult/impossible question by using that excuse.

If you want immunity from that then you should reciprocate and not use my belief to counter a question of mine.
In short think of me as agnostic too
, either this or be ready to go down with the ship whose captain you are trying to be.(no life boat of agnostism when the ship wobbles)

Let me know which option you will choose. The options are in bold.


All three Abrahamic traditions
contemplate an eventual "end of
days." Regardless of what I "reason,"
if any of you is right, then at some
point, God will be "taking a break from
it."

its not about the end, its about a reasonable theology about it that makes sense.
God will take a break only if He was tolerating, judaism and islam don't have a theology where God is suffering!
A suffering God is a dependent God, a depenent god is no god.


You seem to be torn between
bafflement that God would willingly
begin to suffer for a creature, and
annoyance that he would ever stop.
Personally, I don't see why God
wouldn't be entitled to enjoy the fruits of what he sacrificed for.

again, this even contradicts the idea of God in christianity, He is Self-Sufficient and in no need of anything/anyone. Thats includes 'need of a change' to become more comfortable.


This can hardly be a surprise. Rumor
has it that many Christians and Jews,
to name just two religious groups,
have only limited admiration for the
intellectual depth of Islam. So, trading
this sort of remark gets us nowhere.

read the initial part of post, don't tell me that islam seems confusing to jews/christians when i point at an idea in christianity that doesnt make sense as you are not defending christianity, agree with me or enlighten me if i am wrong and you understand it better


I take it that you are speaking as
someone who has been flogged with
a Roman flaying whip and then nailed
to a board, and left hanging for three
hours, maybe more. That you
ultimately survived is no doubt a consolation, and your confident
expectation about that may have
sustained you through your ordeal,
but the experience itself would seem
to count as a sacrifice. Oh, that's not in your experience?
Then that explains your attitude about
the quality of sacrifice. As the Bard
wrote, he jests at scars who never felt
a wound.

i am talking about God dying as a sacrifice,
also there are people who have suffered worst physically.

Flaying and 3-6 hrs of suffering is enough to neturalise the sins of the world??

I'l tell the bard, its not just to take a pin prick and set all the murderers free.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 05:49 PM
link   
logical7


ofcourse you are an agnostic, i'l tell you, you don't like to get pinned down by your own opinion. It has nothing to do with the topic but i mind when you chicken out from answering a difficult/impossible question by using that excuse.


So, in answer to my question: No, you don't have any actual rebuttal to the points I made, all you have is more ad hominem spew about my religion.

If you ever want to discuss the topic, instead of discussing me, y'all know how to send me a message.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 





So, in answer to my question: No, you don't have any actual rebuttal to the points I made, all you have is more ad hominem spew about my religion. If you ever want to discuss the topic, instead of discussing me, y'all know how to send me a message.

you don't have a religion!!

Its not 'ad hominem spew'
Its seeing hypocrisy and pointing it out.
If you dont like your beliefs to be questioned then dont use my beliefs to prove a point just to win an arguement.
Always winning is so important for you that you also want to control the rules of the game, not fair and you'l definitely not be able to slip it through me.
It was a good discussion but unless you choose an option from the two i gave, it wouldnt continue. you are at least wise enough to know it and stop.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 04:38 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 



Does Islam teaches that a woman, or some part of her body, is unfit for God to be present there? Who created these places which are unfit for God's presence?

Islam teaches that God is One and that is not begotten and that He does not beget.
The Old Testament religion, which happens to be the foundation of Christianity, also teaches that God is One and maintains a strong distinction between God and man. But Christians want to dismiss the strict monotheism taught in the OT and also by Jesus.



"My argument" doesn't need any help. John is in the Bible, there's no doubt about that.
Well, the Old Testament is also in the Bible... the Old Testament religion does not support Christian ideas... ideas of a man being God / God becoming man / God being born of a woman etc. None of it is present in the Old Testament religion.



I appreciate that you'd like some license for your cherrypicking, but there is no such thing. "Oh, that's not in quotation marks, so I can edit it out."

Your approach seems to be "if its in the Bible, its got to be true". . Not very different from how a Christian would approach the Bible. And here I was thinking agnostics would be more analytical with regard to the Bible... by asking questions like who said those words and what did Jesus actually say is it in line with the Old Testament religion". That has always been my approach.

Speaking of cherry picking, its the Christians who cherry pick commentaries by the unknown authors of the gospel and leave out the parts that contradict ideas of Jesus' Godhood.... such as the Old Testament and Jesus' own words.



Nobody disputes that Jesus is Mary's firstborn, or that being Jesus' mother might reasonably be described as being favored by God.

Nobody disputes that Jesus is Mary's firstborn... and that Jesus' mother was favored.
The issue is that Christians see Jesus as God... but stop short of acknowledging Mary as the "mother of God"...

Being someones begotten son, automatically means that 'someone' is his parent. And if the son is God, then the parent becomes the mother or father of God. Forget theology, this is basic logic that Christians are dismissing.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 


I said : There was no concept of "fully man / fully God"... which is a later Christian invention.

That's your problem in a nutshell. Was this crucial insight invented or discovered? Yet another reason why you can't confine the investigation to a short list of books assembled for a different purpose, plus one other book composed centuries later by a hostile critic of Christianity.

The problem lies with those saying things such as "Jesus was fully God / fully man", completely separating Jesus from the Old Testament religion, which Jesus himself lived by. I am only evaluating Christian concepts of Godhood by comparing it with what the Old Testament teaches. So I am not trying to "confine" anything. It is you who is dismissing Old Testament teachings on the nature of God. and confining it to a select verses in the NT.

Also its funny you speak of this as an "investigation"... because you don't seem to be discerning between the actual words of Jesus, God, the prophets, Paul and the authors of John. An investigation where you don't take into account exactly who said what won't go too far.



Actually, Jesus' native religion ceased to exist in 70 CE when the Second Temple was destroyed as a casualty of war. Christians had nothing to do with that.

Jesus' native religion did not cease to exist.
Even if it did, it does not matter... Jesus still cannot be separated from his native religion. His native religion and even Jesus maintained a strong distinction between God and man. The second temple getting destroyed does not mean Christians can destroy the concepts of Jesus' native religion and make a man out of God and vice versa. Doing so means they are holding a fan-fiction about Jesus and what he really taught,

The New Testament is not a stand alone scripture... it is a continuation of concepts and stories from the Old Testament and therefore it has to be "investigated" in the light of the Old Testament. If you dismiss the Old Testament, then dismiss the New Testament as well.. because Jesus keeps refers to the Old Testament.

edit on 16-3-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 04:40 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 


I've also noticed that you lack an eye for scriptural detail.
Like in that Judas thread, where you didn't know that the verse in question, pertained to Judas crime of betraying Jesus. You kept arguing that the verse referred to some other crime, until I posted the verse in question with all the details underlined. You even thanked me for advising you to read verses with care.
Another example was when you ignorantly claimed prostration was a borrowed pagan practice, and that Jews worship on their feet... when there are several instances of the Israelites praying / showing reverence to God while in a state of prostration.

Being a "Cultural Christian" and an agnostic is all fine.... but when you are unaware of details of the very Biblical religion that you are trying to defend, there is a problem. Feel free to take this as "posturing" or whatever, but your incomplete knowledge of the Bible is on record here.
edit on 16-3-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 



that actually contradicts the christian idea of God not standing/tolerating sin.
1)If God is born through a woman, she must then be sinless too, if not then God is fine to stay in the womb and then be born of a sinning woman.
2)If God is able to be among sinner on earth then whats the problem to do the same in Heaven. Why the dying to wash the sins so that christians can stand in the Glory of God?


Exactly.

They want us to believe we are all born as sinners because of Adam and Eves "original sin".

So then, Jesus was born in the womb of a woman who was also tainted by the so called "original sin"....meaning he too would have inherited the original sin through Mary. So he was not the "unblemished" sacrifice as Christians claim.

Also Jesus is the son of Mary and is seen as God... but Mary is not considered to be "the mother of God".

Then they say Jesus' sacrifice took away the worlds sin, but people still continue to be born tainted by the "original sin" of Adam and Eve... and that they need to accept Jesus sacrifice to be redeemed. Perhaps the sin sacrifice didn't work because Jesus was also blemished.

Like you said... the theology just collapses on itself.
edit on 16-3-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 05:22 AM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 




i am talking about God dying as a sacrifice,
also there are people who have suffered worst physically.
Flaying and 3-6 hrs of suffering is enough to neturalise the sins of the world??


Jesus' crucifixion happens to be a Roman style execution and NOT a sin sacrifice. This is a subject that I have discussed in detail. You might be interested in my thread on this subject...
Jesus' death... standard Roman execution or sacrifice for sins?

Also, the Old Testament animal sacrifices are often quoted to make the case that God demands sacrifices to forgive sin. But here are the basic differences between The OT animal sacrifices and Jesus "sin sacrifice".


OT animal sacrifices : Conducted by ordained priests.
Jesus' sin sacrifice : Conducted by pagan Roman executioners.

OT animal sacrifices : Performed using rituals and consecrated altars and paraphernelia.
Jesus' sin sacrifice : Performed using torture instruments and carpenters tools.

OT animal sacrifices : Dedicated to God
Jesus' sin sacrifice : Dedicated to nobody, just another routine Roman execution.




edit on 16-3-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by logical7
 



that actually contradicts the christian idea of God not standing/tolerating sin.
1)If God is born through a woman, she must then be sinless too, if not then God is fine to stay in the womb and then be born of a sinning woman.
2)If God is able to be among sinner on earth then whats the problem to do the same in Heaven. Why the dying to wash the sins so that christians can stand in the Glory of God?


Exactly.

They want us to believe we are all born as sinners because of Adam and Eves "original sin".

So then, Jesus was born in the womb of a woman who was also tainted by the so called "original sin"....meaning he too would have inherited the original sin through Mary. So he was not the "unblemished" sacrifice as Christians claim.

Also Jesus is the son of Mary and is seen as God... but Mary is not considered to be "the mother of God".

Then they say Jesus' sacrifice took away the worlds sin, but people still continue to be born tainted by the "original sin" of Adam and Eve... and that they need to accept Jesus sacrifice to be redeemed. Perhaps the sin sacrifice didn't work because Jesus was also blemished.

Like you said... the theology just collapses on itself.
edit on 16-3-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)


Excuse me, you don't know the faith. Hang on, soon, God in His love is going to reveal the faith once more and this time to all the world and then you'll say...I see, I get it.

Mary is God's exception, He does make exceptions all Christians accept. Mary was born Immaculate, without the stain of original sin. Mary is sinless, she does not have our fallen nature.



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 





Mary is God's exception, He does make exceptions all Christians accept. Mary was born Immaculate, without the stain of original sin. Mary is sinless, she does not have our fallen nature.


Is it even logical that people are responsible for sins of their forefathers?
So God can make someone born sinless? Why not all?
Either that or the mother and father of Mary also must be sinless and it keeps going back till Adam and Eve. As Qur'an says that they were forgiven and so there's no original sin. Each baby is born pure and sinless.





new topics
top topics
 
2
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join