|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 3:00 pm
HollywoodNobody Prince Ronan the Catholic Why are Muslim countries so aggressive? especially towars their neighbours like India and Israel? is it because they aren't muslims? aggresive... well i think so too... agresive to what...? india? hell no.. since when? to US / Israel? yes... i mean israel is occupying palestine (curently) ,,, can u blame palestine freedom fighters for defending their land? no... can u blame israel that wants to be able to live in their holly land again? no.. do you think palestine will say "ok we understand that its ur holly land that u left thousands years ago... so we will leave our home now"... no... (note : that that land is also sacred for the muslims) i just hope there will be leaders among them to be able to bring peace to both side.... just like Salahuddin Ayyubi Not to mention the fact the Israeli government is kind of a b***h towards the Muslims in their country these days . . . . . When my sister went to Jerusalem last summer, she was stopped at a checkpoint between a Muslim area and the Jewish area of Jerusalem, and her group was searched. They found the muslim head scarf my sister had purchased there, and they said to her, "Why do you have this? Do you know what this is? We don't like people who wear these." She ended up having to playing the dumb American, saying she just thought it was pretty, in order to get them to give it back to her. Not that I'm saying that Israel is necessarily worse than the Muslim countries around it (and I'm also not saying the Muslim countries are worse than Israel), just that neither side is really innocent there. I really can't blame Muslims in that area for being mad at Americans. I mean, we're trying to be the friendly neighbor to Israel and give them a hand, but meanwhile, they're beating up on people for reasons that most US citizens would never approve of. Personally, I feel our actions are irresponsible and that we should tell Israel to either stop the human rights violations, or we'll leave them in the dust. In the words of Misha Collins, "Friends don't let friends shoot students." . . . . ok, maybe not applicable here in a strictly literal sense, but metaphorically, yes. If you're going to be friends with someone, you don't just stand idly by and watch them oppress thousands of people.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 8:30 pm
xxEternallyBluexx Saddest Shade of Kitsune xxEternallyBluexx Saddest Shade of Kitsune Four Mile Sprint Salaam , allow me to explain it in a hopefully more coherent and less aggressive manner than either of you are. The Muslim belief is there is One God "Allah" (Arabic for God) who was the God that made creation, Adam, Eve, Ibliss(Satan) The angels, heaven and earth the lot. The one who sent down Prophets to all of mankind From Adam, through Noah, To Jesus and Mohammed(Peace be Upon them all). Islam means litteraly "Submission(To Allah)" and a Muslim is therefore one who Submits (Mu being an Arabic equivalent of the english Er Kill-Killer)To Allah. It is a fact that prophets were ones who Submitted themselves in body and faith to God, and God alone. Therefore every prophet was a Muslim, a Muslim being literally "One Who submits to God" The obvious difference is that unlike our sister religions, we believe Mohammed was the final Prophet, unlike Christianity(Jesus) and Judaism (Malachi) You may not agree with it, but you cannot say it is Illogical or non-sensicle Christians believe Adam ate the fruit. I don't know where you got that we don't believe that. And I think God forgave Adam and Eve because He spilled an innocent's animal's blood to make their clothes. I think He allowed them to be forgiven in this way. So basically, their aren't any fallacies there. And I've heard Muslims believe that both the Bible and Torah got it wrong, and the Quran is an attempt to set things right. How do you explain two Holy Books being incorrect? And why is Muhammed important? What marks him out as special, considering that there are no prophecies about a special last prophet, and no one else verified what he saw. The entire religion is based around a man who claimed to have a few dreams, and most likely profited from these claims. He easily could've lied. Plus, Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, and in Islam He gets downgraded to 'prophet'. How does that work? Was He a liar? I honestly am curious what the explanations are. Actually Eve was tempted while Adam was right by her, and she ate of it; then she offered it to him. At least, that's what I read somewhere by someone who studied the original Hebrew... I know you think they were changed. I don't understand why, or why a book written by a single man was sent to correct them. It actually would go against the grain if God did it that way, because with the OT and the NT He had multiple writers and accounts go into those books. Actually, Islam was probably the fulfillment to Abraham's other son Ishmael, and so even right there you can see evidence that Islam wasn't going to be the true religion. The Bible didn't say there would be a last prophet. People in Christianity can still prophesize. People at my church do. And actually Muhammed became very rich off the religion, and where are you getting that he was trustworthy? Are there any other accounts who have met the man who say he was, besides Muhammed? Please do. ^^ I'd like to see how it was incorrectly translated. He didn't 'have' a Son, the Son always was, like the Father. What I'm about to post next is just a theory, and not endorsed by the church, I think, so don't take it as something even I'm stating is truth. It's just a good theory. I got it from the Shack: God had to be three in one, the Trinity, to have love as we know it. Before we were even here, the Son had the Father, and the Father had the Son, and their relationship might've been so strong that we got the Holy Spirit, much the way two people who know each other have a slight spirit between them. They were unselfish love in themselves because of the whole nature of the Trinity. If we didn't have a God with love as the center of His Nature, the universe couldn't be as beautiful as it is, and love would be so much faker. ^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 8:45 pm
garra_eyes xxEternallyBluexx garra_eyes xxEternallyBluexx Actually, Islam was probably the fulfillment to Abraham's other son Ishmael, and so even right there you can see evidence that Islam wasn't going to be the true religion. Why is this evidence against Islam being true? Because God favored Issac, and so He'd probably reveal the truth to the line He favored most. The original statement was bad phrasing on my part though. sweatdrop Why not reveal the truth to both? I mean, why be stingy about it? Edit: note that I know very little about this period of biblical history, so please bear with me. If He revealed the truth to both, it'd be the same religion, wouldn't it? And I think it has to do with the sort of man Ishmael was. He was wild, and not the type God tended to bless in the OT. Muslims do come to the truth sometimes. I have at least three books of people raised or living in deeply Muslim countries who suddenly get revelations from the Lord. God's at work with them. ^^ Edit: It's okay. Most of what I've learned that the common church kid doesn't know, I've learned within the last year. XD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 8:48 pm
Saddest Shade of Kitsune xxEternallyBluexx Saddest Shade of Kitsune xxEternallyBluexx Saddest Shade of Kitsune Four Mile Sprint Salaam , allow me to explain it in a hopefully more coherent and less aggressive manner than either of you are. The Muslim belief is there is One God "Allah" (Arabic for God) who was the God that made creation, Adam, Eve, Ibliss(Satan) The angels, heaven and earth the lot. The one who sent down Prophets to all of mankind From Adam, through Noah, To Jesus and Mohammed(Peace be Upon them all). Islam means litteraly "Submission(To Allah)" and a Muslim is therefore one who Submits (Mu being an Arabic equivalent of the english Er Kill-Killer)To Allah. It is a fact that prophets were ones who Submitted themselves in body and faith to God, and God alone. Therefore every prophet was a Muslim, a Muslim being literally "One Who submits to God" The obvious difference is that unlike our sister religions, we believe Mohammed was the final Prophet, unlike Christianity(Jesus) and Judaism (Malachi) You may not agree with it, but you cannot say it is Illogical or non-sensicle Christians believe Adam ate the fruit. I don't know where you got that we don't believe that. And I think God forgave Adam and Eve because He spilled an innocent's animal's blood to make their clothes. I think He allowed them to be forgiven in this way. So basically, their aren't any fallacies there. And I've heard Muslims believe that both the Bible and Torah got it wrong, and the Quran is an attempt to set things right. How do you explain two Holy Books being incorrect? And why is Muhammed important? What marks him out as special, considering that there are no prophecies about a special last prophet, and no one else verified what he saw. The entire religion is based around a man who claimed to have a few dreams, and most likely profited from these claims. He easily could've lied. Plus, Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, and in Islam He gets downgraded to 'prophet'. How does that work? Was He a liar? I honestly am curious what the explanations are. Actually Eve was tempted while Adam was right by her, and she ate of it; then she offered it to him. At least, that's what I read somewhere by someone who studied the original Hebrew... I know you think they were changed. I don't understand why, or why a book written by a single man was sent to correct them. It actually would go against the grain if God did it that way, because with the OT and the NT He had multiple writers and accounts go into those books. Actually, Islam was probably the fulfillment to Abraham's other son Ishmael, and so even right there you can see evidence that Islam wasn't going to be the true religion. The Bible didn't say there would be a last prophet. People in Christianity can still prophesize. People at my church do. And actually Muhammed became very rich off the religion, and where are you getting that he was trustworthy? Are there any other accounts who have met the man who say he was, besides Muhammed? Please do. ^^ I'd like to see how it was incorrectly translated. He didn't 'have' a Son, the Son always was, like the Father. What I'm about to post next is just a theory, and not endorsed by the church, I think, so don't take it as something even I'm stating is truth. It's just a good theory. I got it from the Shack: God had to be three in one, the Trinity, to have love as we know it. Before we were even here, the Son had the Father, and the Father had the Son, and their relationship might've been so strong that we got the Holy Spirit, much the way two people who know each other have a slight spirit between them. They were unselfish love in themselves because of the whole nature of the Trinity. If we didn't have a God with love as the center of His Nature, the universe couldn't be as beautiful as it is, and love would be so much faker. ^^ It's okay, I've been off a lot too. ^^ Oh, and I hope God helps you do well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 04, 2010 11:57 am
xxEternallyBluexx garra_eyes xxEternallyBluexx garra_eyes xxEternallyBluexx Actually, Islam was probably the fulfillment to Abraham's other son Ishmael, and so even right there you can see evidence that Islam wasn't going to be the true religion. Why is this evidence against Islam being true? Because God favored Issac, and so He'd probably reveal the truth to the line He favored most. The original statement was bad phrasing on my part though. sweatdrop Why not reveal the truth to both? I mean, why be stingy about it? Edit: note that I know very little about this period of biblical history, so please bear with me. If He revealed the truth to both, it'd be the same religion, wouldn't it? Not necessarily. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Islamic stance basically that the Jews and Christians screwed up the message God gave them? If they started out the same, it's entirely possible that one or both were changed as the religion was passed down through their posterity. xxEternallyBluexx And I think it has to do with the sort of man Ishmael was. He was wild, and not the type God tended to bless in the OT. But isn't that based on a Jewish understanding of Ishmael? Isn't the Muslim view of the guy a lot more positive? I mean, basically, you've got a religion splitting into two with these brothers, each claiming legitimacy. In order to show that theirs is the correct of the two paths, they must show how they are in the right and the other side is not. It makes sense then that the Jews would present Ishmael as a less holy individual and Issac as more holy if they are trying to bring legitimacy to their own branch. Likewise, it makes sense for the Muslims to do the opposite, presenting Ishmael as a better person than he was and Issac as a worse person than he was. Now, did either of these happen? Maybe they both did. Maybe only one did. But how do we determine which one? Basically, the argument that God probably wouldn't have given the true religion to Ishmael is based entirely on the stories that were told to promote that view. Because of this bias, I don't think you can really hold that as evidence against the religion being true. (That's not to say that Islam necessarily is the true religion, just that there doesn't appear to be any direct evidence that it isn't. At least, no more or less than there is for Judaism or Christianity.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 06, 2010 7:19 pm
garra_eyes xxEternallyBluexx garra_eyes xxEternallyBluexx garra_eyes Why is this evidence against Islam being true? Because God favored Issac, and so He'd probably reveal the truth to the line He favored most. The original statement was bad phrasing on my part though. sweatdrop Why not reveal the truth to both? I mean, why be stingy about it? Edit: note that I know very little about this period of biblical history, so please bear with me. If He revealed the truth to both, it'd be the same religion, wouldn't it? Not necessarily. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Islamic stance basically that the Jews and Christians screwed up the message God gave them? If they started out the same, it's entirely possible that one or both were changed as the religion was passed down through their posterity. xxEternallyBluexx And I think it has to do with the sort of man Ishmael was. He was wild, and not the type God tended to bless in the OT. But isn't that based on a Jewish understanding of Ishmael? Isn't the Muslim view of the guy a lot more positive? I mean, basically, you've got a religion splitting into two with these brothers, each claiming legitimacy. In order to show that theirs is the correct of the two paths, they must show how they are in the right and the other side is not. It makes sense then that the Jews would present Ishmael as a less holy individual and Issac as more holy if they are trying to bring legitimacy to their own branch. Likewise, it makes sense for the Muslims to do the opposite, presenting Ishmael as a better person than he was and Issac as a worse person than he was. Now, did either of these happen? Maybe they both did. Maybe only one did. But how do we determine which one? Basically, the argument that God probably wouldn't have given the true religion to Ishmael is based entirely on the stories that were told to promote that view. Because of this bias, I don't think you can really hold that as evidence against the religion being true. (That's not to say that Islam necessarily is the true religion, just that there doesn't appear to be any direct evidence that it isn't. At least, no more or less than there is for Judaism or Christianity.) Except Islam didn't start until after Christianity and Judiasm, so they didn't start out the same. I have no idea what the Muslim view is. Except Judiasm began a long time before Islam did. Yes you have the two brothers, but the only one had a revelation from God. The other being the ancestor of Muhammed and his people is speculation, I think, but it's not like it was an ancient argument. We determine it by the one who kept the records, which was the Jews. I think based on the fact Islam is a newer religion claiming the two religions before it were wrong means it does have a strike against it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 07, 2010 7:25 pm
xxEternallyBluexx garra_eyes xxEternallyBluexx garra_eyes xxEternallyBluexx Because God favored Issac, and so He'd probably reveal the truth to the line He favored most. The original statement was bad phrasing on my part though. sweatdrop Why not reveal the truth to both? I mean, why be stingy about it? Edit: note that I know very little about this period of biblical history, so please bear with me. If He revealed the truth to both, it'd be the same religion, wouldn't it? Not necessarily. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Islamic stance basically that the Jews and Christians screwed up the message God gave them? If they started out the same, it's entirely possible that one or both were changed as the religion was passed down through their posterity. xxEternallyBluexx And I think it has to do with the sort of man Ishmael was. He was wild, and not the type God tended to bless in the OT. But isn't that based on a Jewish understanding of Ishmael? Isn't the Muslim view of the guy a lot more positive? I mean, basically, you've got a religion splitting into two with these brothers, each claiming legitimacy. In order to show that theirs is the correct of the two paths, they must show how they are in the right and the other side is not. It makes sense then that the Jews would present Ishmael as a less holy individual and Issac as more holy if they are trying to bring legitimacy to their own branch. Likewise, it makes sense for the Muslims to do the opposite, presenting Ishmael as a better person than he was and Issac as a worse person than he was. Now, did either of these happen? Maybe they both did. Maybe only one did. But how do we determine which one? Basically, the argument that God probably wouldn't have given the true religion to Ishmael is based entirely on the stories that were told to promote that view. Because of this bias, I don't think you can really hold that as evidence against the religion being true. (That's not to say that Islam necessarily is the true religion, just that there doesn't appear to be any direct evidence that it isn't. At least, no more or less than there is for Judaism or Christianity.) Except Islam didn't start until after Christianity and Judiasm, so they didn't start out the same. I have no idea what the Muslim view is. Except Judiasm began a long time before Islam did. Yes you have the two brothers, but the only one had a revelation from God. The other being the ancestor of Muhammed and his people is speculation, I think, but it's not like it was an ancient argument. We determine it by the one who kept the records, which was the Jews. I think based on the fact Islam is a newer religion claiming the two religions before it were wrong means it does have a strike against it.
Islam is not new because it has always existed. Those who believe in only God, the One & Only (which is Allah in Arabic) are Muslim. Thus any prophet who told the people to believe in only Him were Muslim (because they were submitting to Him). It was not "started" later because it has always existed. Adam & Eve were Muslim because they truly submitted to Him & repented after being cast from the Garden. It has no strike against it either because it fixes the mistakes that were made when the Torah & Bible were changed by humans. It clarifies all that was lost & all that needed to be told for us to worship Him alone. Sure, the Jews may have kept most records, but that doesn't mean they have listened to the message they were sent. We believe that the Jews, the Christians, & the Muslims were all given the word of God (in order for it to be fair so that all the major nations of that time would have the chance to follow His word). Over time, the message was changed by the Jews & the Christians so that was why there was to be one last prophet the message was revealed to & one that was not changed. Only Allah knows why they were chosen to not change the message & why the others were. Anyhow, I'll start a new post to address what we were speaking about previously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 07, 2010 7:38 pm
xxEternallyBluexx Saddest Shade of Kitsune xxEternallyBluexx Saddest Shade of Kitsune xxEternallyBluexx neutral Christians believe Adam ate the fruit. I don't know where you got that we don't believe that. And I think God forgave Adam and Eve because He spilled an innocent's animal's blood to make their clothes. I think He allowed them to be forgiven in this way. So basically, their aren't any fallacies there. And I've heard Muslims believe that both the Bible and Torah got it wrong, and the Quran is an attempt to set things right. How do you explain two Holy Books being incorrect? And why is Muhammed important? What marks him out as special, considering that there are no prophecies about a special last prophet, and no one else verified what he saw. The entire religion is based around a man who claimed to have a few dreams, and most likely profited from these claims. He easily could've lied. Plus, Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, and in Islam He gets downgraded to 'prophet'. How does that work? Was He a liar? I honestly am curious what the explanations are. Actually Eve was tempted while Adam was right by her, and she ate of it; then she offered it to him. At least, that's what I read somewhere by someone who studied the original Hebrew... I know you think they were changed. I don't understand why, or why a book written by a single man was sent to correct them. It actually would go against the grain if God did it that way, because with the OT and the NT He had multiple writers and accounts go into those books. Actually, Islam was probably the fulfillment to Abraham's other son Ishmael, and so even right there you can see evidence that Islam wasn't going to be the true religion. The Bible didn't say there would be a last prophet. People in Christianity can still prophesize. People at my church do. And actually Muhammed became very rich off the religion, and where are you getting that he was trustworthy? Are there any other accounts who have met the man who say he was, besides Muhammed? Please do. ^^ I'd like to see how it was incorrectly translated. He didn't 'have' a Son, the Son always was, like the Father. What I'm about to post next is just a theory, and not endorsed by the church, I think, so don't take it as something even I'm stating is truth. It's just a good theory. I got it from the Shack: God had to be three in one, the Trinity, to have love as we know it. Before we were even here, the Son had the Father, and the Father had the Son, and their relationship might've been so strong that we got the Holy Spirit, much the way two people who know each other have a slight spirit between them. They were unselfish love in themselves because of the whole nature of the Trinity. If we didn't have a God with love as the center of His Nature, the universe couldn't be as beautiful as it is, and love would be so much faker. ^^ It's okay, I've been off a lot too. ^^ Oh, and I hope God helps you do well. Quote: Investigating the manuscripts that make up the New Testament, one finds that the alleged “sonship” of Jesus is based upon the mistranslation of two Greek words pais and huios, both of which are translated as “son.” However, this translation appears disingenuous. The Greek word pais derives from the Hebrew ebed, which bears the primary meaning of servant, or slave. Hence, the primary translation of pais theou is “servant of God,” with “child” or “son of God” being an extravagant embellishment. According to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, “The Hebrew original of pais in the phrase pais theou, i.e., ebed, carries a stress on personal relationship and has first the sense of ‘slave.’” This is all the more interesting because it dovetails perfectly with the prophecy of Isaiah 42:1, upheld in Matthew 12:18: “Behold, My servant [i.e., from the Greek pais] whom I have chosen, My beloved in whom my soul is well pleased …” Whether a person reads the King James Version, New King James Version, New Revised Standard Version, or New International Version, the word is “servant” in all cases. Considering that the purpose of revelation is to make the truth of God clear, one might think this passage an unsightly mole on the face of the doctrine of divine sonship. After all, what better place for God to have declared Jesus His son? What better place to have said, “Behold, My son whom I have begotten …”? But He didn’t say that. For that matter, the doctrine lacks biblical support in the recorded words of both Jesus and God, and there is good reason to wonder why. Unless, that is, Jesus was nothing more than the servant of God this passage describes. Regarding the religious use of the word ebed, “The term serves as an expression of humility used by the righteous before God.” Furthermore, “After 100 B.C. pais theou more often means “servant of God,” as when applied to Moses, the prophets, or the three children (Bar. 1:20; 2:20; Dan. 9:35).” A person can easily get into doctrinal quicksand: “Of eight instances of this phrase, one refers to Israel (Lk. 1:54), two refer to David (Lk 1:69; Acts 4:25), and the other five to Jesus (Mt. 12:18; Acts 3:13, 26; 4:27, 30)…. In the few instances in which Jesus is called pais theou we obviously have early tradition.” So Jesus did not have exclusive rights to this term, and where it was employed the term “obviously” stemmed from “early tradition.” Furthermore, the translation, if impartial, should identify all individuals to whom the phrase was applied in similar manner. Such, however, has not been the case. Whereas pais has been translated “servant” in reference to David (Acts 4:25 and Luke 1:69) and Israel (Luke 1:54), it is translated “Son” or “holy child” in reference to Jesus (Acts 3:13; 3:26; 4:27; 4:30). Such preferential treatment is canonically consistent, but logically flawed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 07, 2010 10:53 pm
Saddest Shade of Kitsune xxEternallyBluexx garra_eyes xxEternallyBluexx garra_eyes Why not reveal the truth to both? I mean, why be stingy about it? Edit: note that I know very little about this period of biblical history, so please bear with me. If He revealed the truth to both, it'd be the same religion, wouldn't it? Not necessarily. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Islamic stance basically that the Jews and Christians screwed up the message God gave them? If they started out the same, it's entirely possible that one or both were changed as the religion was passed down through their posterity. xxEternallyBluexx And I think it has to do with the sort of man Ishmael was. He was wild, and not the type God tended to bless in the OT. But isn't that based on a Jewish understanding of Ishmael? Isn't the Muslim view of the guy a lot more positive? I mean, basically, you've got a religion splitting into two with these brothers, each claiming legitimacy. In order to show that theirs is the correct of the two paths, they must show how they are in the right and the other side is not. It makes sense then that the Jews would present Ishmael as a less holy individual and Issac as more holy if they are trying to bring legitimacy to their own branch. Likewise, it makes sense for the Muslims to do the opposite, presenting Ishmael as a better person than he was and Issac as a worse person than he was. Now, did either of these happen? Maybe they both did. Maybe only one did. But how do we determine which one? Basically, the argument that God probably wouldn't have given the true religion to Ishmael is based entirely on the stories that were told to promote that view. Because of this bias, I don't think you can really hold that as evidence against the religion being true. (That's not to say that Islam necessarily is the true religion, just that there doesn't appear to be any direct evidence that it isn't. At least, no more or less than there is for Judaism or Christianity.) Except Islam didn't start until after Christianity and Judiasm, so they didn't start out the same. I have no idea what the Muslim view is. Except Judiasm began a long time before Islam did. Yes you have the two brothers, but the only one had a revelation from God. The other being the ancestor of Muhammed and his people is speculation, I think, but it's not like it was an ancient argument. We determine it by the one who kept the records, which was the Jews. I think based on the fact Islam is a newer religion claiming the two religions before it were wrong means it does have a strike against it.
Islam is not new because it has always existed. Those who believe in only God, the One & Only (which is Allah in Arabic) are Muslim. Thus any prophet who told the people to believe in only Him were Muslim (because they were submitting to Him). It was not "started" later because it has always existed. Adam & Eve were Muslim because they truly submitted to Him & repented after being cast from the Garden. It has no strike against it either because it fixes the mistakes that were made when the Torah & Bible were changed by humans. It clarifies all that was lost & all that needed to be told for us to worship Him alone. Sure, the Jews may have kept most records, but that doesn't mean they have listened to the message they were sent. We believe that the Jews, the Christians, & the Muslims were all given the word of God (in order for it to be fair so that all the major nations of that time would have the chance to follow His word). Over time, the message was changed by the Jews & the Christians so that was why there was to be one last prophet the message was revealed to & one that was not changed. Only Allah knows why they were chosen to not change the message & why the others were. Anyhow, I'll start a new post to address what we were speaking about previously.I consider Islam to have begun with Muhammed. I know Muslim and Allah can be used in such a way so that they apply before then, but I think Muhammed started something false with his revelation. But there's no evidence the Bible or the Torah were changed. It's more likely Muhammed was just plain wrong, then that the two original Holy Books were screwed with. When the Jews didn't listen, God sent prophets and found other ways to get their attention. He never gave up on His people. He then sent Jesus, to Save the Jews first, and then the gentiles after the Jews essentially rejected Him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 07, 2010 11:26 pm
Saddest Shade of Kitsune xxEternallyBluexx Saddest Shade of Kitsune xxEternallyBluexx Saddest Shade of Kitsune I've never heard that they believed Adam ate it...I've always read that Eve went off & was tempted by Satan's whisperings (appearing as a snake), but then brought it to Adam. But initially she was tempted which we don't believe to be true. Go & look it up if you don't believe me. & also in the Christian belief, God used Jesus as the way to spill blood to have forgiveness to mankind, as they believe he was the only one good enough to be sacrificed to save them all-- AKA: the reason he is called the savior by the Christians. Once again, this is correct. Trust me, I've studied all this well, back when I wasn't a Muslim. Moving on...We believe that the words of God were indeed sent down to both the Christians & the Jews (The Bible & Torah) but were changed by both respectively to fit what they chose to believe. The Qu'ran had the purpose of being the Last Message that was not allowed to be changed, which is has never been, alhamdullilah (Thanks be to the One & Only God). The other two Holy Books are only incorrect because humans changed them. Muhammad was chosen by God to receive the Final Message from the angel Jibril (Gabriel) because he was trustworthy & Allah saw him as worthy. All the other Prophets (Moses, Jesus, Abraham) did certain things such as perform miracles & guide people, while Muhammad was able to bring people together very well & other things. He was illiterate & was not able to write, which proves that he couldn't have written the words. & he did not dream, he heard. & actually, in the Bible, it did say there would be one last man who would come with the last message. I don't remember the location of this, but you can look it up or I can find it for you, if you'd please. ^^ & Muhammad had death threats given to him. There wasn't all that much profit because of all the troubles he was put through. He wouldn't have lied because he was known to everyone, even before Jibril was sent by Allah, as the Trustworthy. & did you know that the original hebrew word that was translated to messiah, was incorrectly translated. I can also provide that info to you as well. To be a prophet is not to be downgraded. On the contrary, we believe that is the greatest honor. & the reason Christians believe it to be a downgrade is because they think he is the savior & the son of God...but we do not. God is supreme, he would not do such a human-like thing such as having a son. He is above that. He did not lie; & read the original words of Jesus (or Isa as we call him). He even says to not compare him to God (he does call Him his father, but Allah is the father of everyone...we are all his children, his creation). Actually Eve was tempted while Adam was right by her, and she ate of it; then she offered it to him. At least, that's what I read somewhere by someone who studied the original Hebrew... I know you think they were changed. I don't understand why, or why a book written by a single man was sent to correct them. It actually would go against the grain if God did it that way, because with the OT and the NT He had multiple writers and accounts go into those books. Actually, Islam was probably the fulfillment to Abraham's other son Ishmael, and so even right there you can see evidence that Islam wasn't going to be the true religion. The Bible didn't say there would be a last prophet. People in Christianity can still prophesize. People at my church do. And actually Muhammed became very rich off the religion, and where are you getting that he was trustworthy? Are there any other accounts who have met the man who say he was, besides Muhammed? Please do. ^^ I'd like to see how it was incorrectly translated. He didn't 'have' a Son, the Son always was, like the Father. What I'm about to post next is just a theory, and not endorsed by the church, I think, so don't take it as something even I'm stating is truth. It's just a good theory. I got it from the Shack: God had to be three in one, the Trinity, to have love as we know it. Before we were even here, the Son had the Father, and the Father had the Son, and their relationship might've been so strong that we got the Holy Spirit, much the way two people who know each other have a slight spirit between them. They were unselfish love in themselves because of the whole nature of the Trinity. If we didn't have a God with love as the center of His Nature, the universe couldn't be as beautiful as it is, and love would be so much faker. ^^ It's okay, I've been off a lot too. ^^ Oh, and I hope God helps you do well. Quote: Investigating the manuscripts that make up the New Testament, one finds that the alleged “sonship” of Jesus is based upon the mistranslation of two Greek words pais and huios, both of which are translated as “son.” However, this translation appears disingenuous. The Greek word pais derives from the Hebrew ebed, which bears the primary meaning of servant, or slave. Hence, the primary translation of pais theou is “servant of God,” with “child” or “son of God” being an extravagant embellishment. According to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, “The Hebrew original of pais in the phrase pais theou, i.e., ebed, carries a stress on personal relationship and has first the sense of ‘slave.’” This is all the more interesting because it dovetails perfectly with the prophecy of Isaiah 42:1, upheld in Matthew 12:18: “Behold, My servant [i.e., from the Greek pais] whom I have chosen, My beloved in whom my soul is well pleased …” Whether a person reads the King James Version, New King James Version, New Revised Standard Version, or New International Version, the word is “servant” in all cases. Considering that the purpose of revelation is to make the truth of God clear, one might think this passage an unsightly mole on the face of the doctrine of divine sonship. After all, what better place for God to have declared Jesus His son? What better place to have said, “Behold, My son whom I have begotten …”? But He didn’t say that. For that matter, the doctrine lacks biblical support in the recorded words of both Jesus and God, and there is good reason to wonder why. Unless, that is, Jesus was nothing more than the servant of God this passage describes. Regarding the religious use of the word ebed, “The term serves as an expression of humility used by the righteous before God.” Furthermore, “After 100 B.C. pais theou more often means “servant of God,” as when applied to Moses, the prophets, or the three children (Bar. 1:20; 2:20; Dan. 9:35).” A person can easily get into doctrinal quicksand: “Of eight instances of this phrase, one refers to Israel (Lk. 1:54), two refer to David (Lk 1:69; Acts 4:25), and the other five to Jesus (Mt. 12:18; Acts 3:13, 26; 4:27, 30)…. In the few instances in which Jesus is called pais theou we obviously have early tradition.” So Jesus did not have exclusive rights to this term, and where it was employed the term “obviously” stemmed from “early tradition.” Furthermore, the translation, if impartial, should identify all individuals to whom the phrase was applied in similar manner. Such, however, has not been the case. Whereas pais has been translated “servant” in reference to David (Acts 4:25 and Luke 1:69) and Israel (Luke 1:54), it is translated “Son” or “holy child” in reference to Jesus (Acts 3:13; 3:26; 4:27; 4:30). Such preferential treatment is canonically consistent, but logically flawed. No they don't, at least, none that I've read. Read Captivating by John and Stasi Eldredge, and you'll see what Adam and Eve's actions, and the order they occured in really mean. ^^ Even if that was a mistranslation (and I'm gonna ask my brother about that because I'm not sure it was. He's studying to be a pastor and is trying to learn the original Greek and Hebrew, so he might be able to give me an explanation for what's going on there), but even if that was a mistranslation, there's other times where Jesus is called Jehovah or God, or shown to be divine. This site is talking about Jehovah's Witnesses, but I think some of the points work nicely here: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-r005.html Take as much time as you need. ^^ And there wouldn't be too much confusion. XD I mean, if God's omnipotent, I'm pretty sure He's got His prophets under control. And these people seem to still prophesize: http://endtimespropheticwords.wordpress.com/ and we definitely do it at my church. Even my mom had a word from God that she was to be a mom-otherwise I wouldn't be here. She also had a dream she'd have me. There's definitely people who still prophesize in His name. I don't see how many people writing would cause conflict, considering that's exactly what He did with the Bible and the Torah. And having one person do it wouldn't make sense, because the man could who did could lie. When you have multiple accounts, they confirm each other. Or (not to insult you but...) maybe Muhammed made it up...? He still got rich off it, whereas Jesus died. And if Christians are right, He died for everyone's sins. Who do you think seems more trustworthy? I don't really care if everyone called Muhammed trustworthy. Most of them probably liked what he was saying, he was probably charismatic, and they might have also liked him because he was rich. And ever read Othello? Because, sorry to say it, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if Muhammed was like Iago. But no one did exist beside Him or before Him- it's the Trinity thing was. He's three, but He's also one. It's one of the mysteries of God. And He would do humanly things, because we are created in His image. To say He never does humanly things is to say we are nothing like Him. And He is self-sufficient, because He is three in one. It's not three nature's depending on each other, but...argh, it's 2:30 am, and I can't put it right. stressed I'll try and explain better later. And we do need Him to forgive us, but that's why He sent Jesus. To pay the cost so that He could. Otherwise He wouldn't be a just God. And that's alright. Sorry I'm replying at a late time, so most of this probably won't make any sense at all. sweatdrop More on the Trinity: http://bible.org/article/trinity-triunity-god
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 08, 2010 9:39 pm
xxEternallyBluexx Saddest Shade of Kitsune xxEternallyBluexx garra_eyes xxEternallyBluexx If He revealed the truth to both, it'd be the same religion, wouldn't it? Not necessarily. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Islamic stance basically that the Jews and Christians screwed up the message God gave them? If they started out the same, it's entirely possible that one or both were changed as the religion was passed down through their posterity. xxEternallyBluexx And I think it has to do with the sort of man Ishmael was. He was wild, and not the type God tended to bless in the OT. But isn't that based on a Jewish understanding of Ishmael? Isn't the Muslim view of the guy a lot more positive? I mean, basically, you've got a religion splitting into two with these brothers, each claiming legitimacy. In order to show that theirs is the correct of the two paths, they must show how they are in the right and the other side is not. It makes sense then that the Jews would present Ishmael as a less holy individual and Issac as more holy if they are trying to bring legitimacy to their own branch. Likewise, it makes sense for the Muslims to do the opposite, presenting Ishmael as a better person than he was and Issac as a worse person than he was. Now, did either of these happen? Maybe they both did. Maybe only one did. But how do we determine which one? Basically, the argument that God probably wouldn't have given the true religion to Ishmael is based entirely on the stories that were told to promote that view. Because of this bias, I don't think you can really hold that as evidence against the religion being true. (That's not to say that Islam necessarily is the true religion, just that there doesn't appear to be any direct evidence that it isn't. At least, no more or less than there is for Judaism or Christianity.) Except Islam didn't start until after Christianity and Judiasm, so they didn't start out the same. I have no idea what the Muslim view is. Except Judiasm began a long time before Islam did. Yes you have the two brothers, but the only one had a revelation from God. The other being the ancestor of Muhammed and his people is speculation, I think, but it's not like it was an ancient argument. We determine it by the one who kept the records, which was the Jews. I think based on the fact Islam is a newer religion claiming the two religions before it were wrong means it does have a strike against it.
Islam is not new because it has always existed. Those who believe in only God, the One & Only (which is Allah in Arabic) are Muslim. Thus any prophet who told the people to believe in only Him were Muslim (because they were submitting to Him). It was not "started" later because it has always existed. Adam & Eve were Muslim because they truly submitted to Him & repented after being cast from the Garden. It has no strike against it either because it fixes the mistakes that were made when the Torah & Bible were changed by humans. It clarifies all that was lost & all that needed to be told for us to worship Him alone. Sure, the Jews may have kept most records, but that doesn't mean they have listened to the message they were sent. We believe that the Jews, the Christians, & the Muslims were all given the word of God (in order for it to be fair so that all the major nations of that time would have the chance to follow His word). Over time, the message was changed by the Jews & the Christians so that was why there was to be one last prophet the message was revealed to & one that was not changed. Only Allah knows why they were chosen to not change the message & why the others were. Anyhow, I'll start a new post to address what we were speaking about previously.I consider Islam to have begun with Muhammed. I know Muslim and Allah can be used in such a way so that they apply before then, but I think Muhammed started something false with his revelation. But there's no evidence the Bible or the Torah were changed. It's more likely Muhammed was just plain wrong, then that the two original Holy Books were screwed with. When the Jews didn't listen, God sent prophets and found other ways to get their attention. He never gave up on His people. He then sent Jesus, to Save the Jews first, and then the gentiles after the Jews essentially rejected Him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 08, 2010 11:15 pm
Saddest Shade of Kitsune xxEternallyBluexx Saddest Shade of Kitsune xxEternallyBluexx garra_eyes Not necessarily. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Islamic stance basically that the Jews and Christians screwed up the message God gave them? If they started out the same, it's entirely possible that one or both were changed as the religion was passed down through their posterity. But isn't that based on a Jewish understanding of Ishmael? Isn't the Muslim view of the guy a lot more positive? I mean, basically, you've got a religion splitting into two with these brothers, each claiming legitimacy. In order to show that theirs is the correct of the two paths, they must show how they are in the right and the other side is not. It makes sense then that the Jews would present Ishmael as a less holy individual and Issac as more holy if they are trying to bring legitimacy to their own branch. Likewise, it makes sense for the Muslims to do the opposite, presenting Ishmael as a better person than he was and Issac as a worse person than he was. Now, did either of these happen? Maybe they both did. Maybe only one did. But how do we determine which one? Basically, the argument that God probably wouldn't have given the true religion to Ishmael is based entirely on the stories that were told to promote that view. Because of this bias, I don't think you can really hold that as evidence against the religion being true. (That's not to say that Islam necessarily is the true religion, just that there doesn't appear to be any direct evidence that it isn't. At least, no more or less than there is for Judaism or Christianity.) Except Islam didn't start until after Christianity and Judiasm, so they didn't start out the same. I have no idea what the Muslim view is. Except Judiasm began a long time before Islam did. Yes you have the two brothers, but the only one had a revelation from God. The other being the ancestor of Muhammed and his people is speculation, I think, but it's not like it was an ancient argument. We determine it by the one who kept the records, which was the Jews. I think based on the fact Islam is a newer religion claiming the two religions before it were wrong means it does have a strike against it.
Islam is not new because it has always existed. Those who believe in only God, the One & Only (which is Allah in Arabic) are Muslim. Thus any prophet who told the people to believe in only Him were Muslim (because they were submitting to Him). It was not "started" later because it has always existed. Adam & Eve were Muslim because they truly submitted to Him & repented after being cast from the Garden. It has no strike against it either because it fixes the mistakes that were made when the Torah & Bible were changed by humans. It clarifies all that was lost & all that needed to be told for us to worship Him alone. Sure, the Jews may have kept most records, but that doesn't mean they have listened to the message they were sent. We believe that the Jews, the Christians, & the Muslims were all given the word of God (in order for it to be fair so that all the major nations of that time would have the chance to follow His word). Over time, the message was changed by the Jews & the Christians so that was why there was to be one last prophet the message was revealed to & one that was not changed. Only Allah knows why they were chosen to not change the message & why the others were. Anyhow, I'll start a new post to address what we were speaking about previously.I consider Islam to have begun with Muhammed. I know Muslim and Allah can be used in such a way so that they apply before then, but I think Muhammed started something false with his revelation. But there's no evidence the Bible or the Torah were changed. It's more likely Muhammed was just plain wrong, then that the two original Holy Books were screwed with. When the Jews didn't listen, God sent prophets and found other ways to get their attention. He never gave up on His people. He then sent Jesus, to Save the Jews first, and then the gentiles after the Jews essentially rejected Him. He does choose, but He that doesn't mean there aren't false prophets, or people who pretend to have a revelation. When that's the case, it is man starting something and not God's Will. I think that's how it is with Muhammed, so it was just him starting something and not of God at all. (And yeah, I knew about the Allah translates as God thing, but I'm not sure I agree. ><) Yeah, there's a lot of versions, so...? Most of them say pretty much the same thing, including the children's Bible's. Some just have special notes, or they're just the NT, or they have a dictionary. The Message, which is supposed to be the modern day interpretation, even admits it may not be entirely right and says it's better used as a tool for understanding a better version of the Bible. And when a Bible is completely off, most Christians won't use it. As for parts being added, and taken off, I haven't seen that (except for maybe a group like the Mormons or the Jehovah's Witnesses). The Bible's I've seen all have Genesis through Revelations. Nothing left out, and nothing taken away. Plus, most of the versions were written after Muhammed put out his interpretion, so that's not a great argument. >< Besides, do you really believe that God would allow His Word to become screwed up, and then send a single guy to fix it? I think He'd make a bigger deal out of it. And the Bible and the Quran don't agree for the most part. If the Quran is supposed to be a correction of the Bible, then why is it so off? Then why doesn't Jesus call Himself a 'messenger'? What you're saying completely conflicts with what Jesus said. Quote: I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic -- on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg -- or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. – Mere Christianity, pages 40-41. CS Lewis had it right. He needed to be human so He could pay the price for our sins, which was death. His blood provides us the way back to God. It couldn't be anyone else, it had to be God's Son because He was the only one perfect enough (God used to demand flawless animal sacrifices. See the connection?) Jesus needed to become man to fix what the first Adam screwed up, and give us an example to live by. God loves us enough He didn't just give us instructions, He gave us an example-one who came to died for us because God loves us dearly and wanted to provide a way back. He couldn't just say it was fine, there was a price that had to be paid, and that's what Jesus did for us. http://www.indyopc.org/whyman.htmlAs well as all that stuff up there, there's other proofs that Jesus is the Son and far more important then just being a messenger, like the stories in which He randomly reveals Himself to someone who doesn't know Him (there was one about an Islamic fundamentalist who was going around killing Christians until he opened up the Bible and realized the truth, and there's plenty of other stories like that). There's also stories about people dying and there being a Presence, which they later realize is Jesus. In Return from Tomorrow, the man automatically knows it's the Son of God, and the moment he starts to consider Jesus is an angel or not that important, he realizes he's wrong. How do you explain all that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 10, 2010 8:33 pm
xxEternallyBluexx Saddest Shade of Kitsune xxEternallyBluexx Saddest Shade of Kitsune xxEternallyBluexx Except Islam didn't start until after Christianity and Judiasm, so they didn't start out the same. I have no idea what the Muslim view is. Except Judiasm began a long time before Islam did. Yes you have the two brothers, but the only one had a revelation from God. The other being the ancestor of Muhammed and his people is speculation, I think, but it's not like it was an ancient argument. We determine it by the one who kept the records, which was the Jews. I think based on the fact Islam is a newer religion claiming the two religions before it were wrong means it does have a strike against it.
Islam is not new because it has always existed. Those who believe in only God, the One & Only (which is Allah in Arabic) are Muslim. Thus any prophet who told the people to believe in only Him were Muslim (because they were submitting to Him). It was not "started" later because it has always existed. Adam & Eve were Muslim because they truly submitted to Him & repented after being cast from the Garden. It has no strike against it either because it fixes the mistakes that were made when the Torah & Bible were changed by humans. It clarifies all that was lost & all that needed to be told for us to worship Him alone. Sure, the Jews may have kept most records, but that doesn't mean they have listened to the message they were sent. We believe that the Jews, the Christians, & the Muslims were all given the word of God (in order for it to be fair so that all the major nations of that time would have the chance to follow His word). Over time, the message was changed by the Jews & the Christians so that was why there was to be one last prophet the message was revealed to & one that was not changed. Only Allah knows why they were chosen to not change the message & why the others were. Anyhow, I'll start a new post to address what we were speaking about previously.I consider Islam to have begun with Muhammed. I know Muslim and Allah can be used in such a way so that they apply before then, but I think Muhammed started something false with his revelation. But there's no evidence the Bible or the Torah were changed. It's more likely Muhammed was just plain wrong, then that the two original Holy Books were screwed with. When the Jews didn't listen, God sent prophets and found other ways to get their attention. He never gave up on His people. He then sent Jesus, to Save the Jews first, and then the gentiles after the Jews essentially rejected Him. He does choose, but He that doesn't mean there aren't false prophets, or people who pretend to have a revelation. When that's the case, it is man starting something and not God's Will. I think that's how it is with Muhammed, so it was just him starting something and not of God at all. (And yeah, I knew about the Allah translates as God thing, but I'm not sure I agree. ><) Yeah, there's a lot of versions, so...? Most of them say pretty much the same thing, including the children's Bible's. Some just have special notes, or they're just the NT, or they have a dictionary. The Message, which is supposed to be the modern day interpretation, even admits it may not be entirely right and says it's better used as a tool for understanding a better version of the Bible. And when a Bible is completely off, most Christians won't use it. As for parts being added, and taken off, I haven't seen that (except for maybe a group like the Mormons or the Jehovah's Witnesses). The Bible's I've seen all have Genesis through Revelations. Nothing left out, and nothing taken away. Plus, most of the versions were written after Muhammed put out his interpretion, so that's not a great argument. >< Besides, do you really believe that God would allow His Word to become screwed up, and then send a single guy to fix it? I think He'd make a bigger deal out of it. And the Bible and the Quran don't agree for the most part. If the Quran is supposed to be a correction of the Bible, then why is it so off? Then why doesn't Jesus call Himself a 'messenger'? What you're saying completely conflicts with what Jesus said. Quote: I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic -- on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg -- or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. – Mere Christianity, pages 40-41. CS Lewis had it right. He needed to be human so He could pay the price for our sins, which was death. His blood provides us the way back to God. It couldn't be anyone else, it had to be God's Son because He was the only one perfect enough (God used to demand flawless animal sacrifices. See the connection?) Jesus needed to become man to fix what the first Adam screwed up, and give us an example to live by. God loves us enough He didn't just give us instructions, He gave us an example-one who came to died for us because God loves us dearly and wanted to provide a way back. He couldn't just say it was fine, there was a price that had to be paid, and that's what Jesus did for us. http://www.indyopc.org/whyman.htmlAs well as all that stuff up there, there's other proofs that Jesus is the Son and far more important then just being a messenger, like the stories in which He randomly reveals Himself to someone who doesn't know Him (there was one about an Islamic fundamentalist who was going around killing Christians until he opened up the Bible and realized the truth, and there's plenty of other stories like that). There's also stories about people dying and there being a Presence, which they later realize is Jesus. In Return from Tomorrow, the man automatically knows it's the Son of God, and the moment he starts to consider Jesus is an angel or not that important, he realizes he's wrong. How do you explain all that?
“Why do you call me good: No one is good but One, that is, God.” (Matthew 9:17, Mark 10-18, and Luke 18:19)
“My Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28 )
“I do nothing of myself, but as the Father taught me, I speak these things.” (John 8:28 )
“Most assuredly, I say to you, the son can do nothing of himself …” (John 5:19)
“But I know Him, for I am from Him, and He sent me.” (John 7:29)
“He who rejects me rejects Him who sent me.” (Luke 10:16)
“But now I go away to Him who sent me …” (John 16:5)
“Jesus answered them and said, ‘My doctrine is not mine, but His who sent me.’” (John 7:16)
“For I have not spoken on my own authority; but the Father who sent me gave me a command, what I should say and what I should speak.” (John 12:49)
“The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear O Israel, The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” (Mark 12:29)
“But of that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Mark 13:32)
“‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.’” (Luke 4:8 )
“My food is to do the will of Him who sent me …” (John 4:34)
“I can of myself do nothing … I do not seek my own will but the will of the Father who sent me.” (John 5:30)
“For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of Him who sent me.” (John 6:38 )
“My doctrine is not mine, but His who sent me.” (John 7:16)
“I am ascending to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God.” (John 20:17)
These all show that Jesus is HUMAN & could do nothing unless Allah wills it. He was gifted because Allah allowed him to be as such. & Jesus didn't die. He was raised up before he was killed, by the mercy of Allah & one who looked like him was put in his place. Allah can do anything. The whole, seeing Jesus rise again is off because Allah sent him down to tell those he was close to that he was okay & that he had been raised up before death. Not raised from the dead, just allowed to say some last good byes. & Adam's sin was forgiven right away. There was always sin, no original sin. The whole situation with Iblis (he is a Satan, it is not a name, but is to describe those who oppose God) shows that, for He did not bow down to man when Allah told him to do so. He sinned. (I know you probably don't know what I'm talking about with the Satan part since Christianity & Islam differ greatly there.) Anyway, the reason Jesus could perform miracles is NOT because he was God. It was because he was given the ability by Allah. He could not do it unless it was Allah's will as the above verses denote. To explain all those things, you do know that there are beings that can lead us to believe wrongly, right? We call them Jinns (Iblis is the Jinn that is condemned to Hell though & who tries to fool us most of all). They do things to make people believe in the false divinity of Jesus when he was only a human. He leads us astray & takes advantage of people. It happens often. That explains everything. Hm...still don't have time to reply to the other post. Way too much going on here. All I can say is that you & I are of different faiths & that is how it is. Allah will judge us fairly on the Day of Judgment. I feel no anger against you though you don't share my beliefs. That doesn't change what I know to be true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 11, 2010 7:34 pm
Saddest Shade of Kitsune xxEternallyBluexx Saddest Shade of Kitsune xxEternallyBluexx Saddest Shade of Kitsune I'll start with this, then move back to what I was going to reply with in the first place...
Islam is not new because it has always existed. Those who believe in only God, the One & Only (which is Allah in Arabic) are Muslim. Thus any prophet who told the people to believe in only Him were Muslim (because they were submitting to Him). It was not "started" later because it has always existed. Adam & Eve were Muslim because they truly submitted to Him & repented after being cast from the Garden. It has no strike against it either because it fixes the mistakes that were made when the Torah & Bible were changed by humans. It clarifies all that was lost & all that needed to be told for us to worship Him alone. Sure, the Jews may have kept most records, but that doesn't mean they have listened to the message they were sent. We believe that the Jews, the Christians, & the Muslims were all given the word of God (in order for it to be fair so that all the major nations of that time would have the chance to follow His word). Over time, the message was changed by the Jews & the Christians so that was why there was to be one last prophet the message was revealed to & one that was not changed. Only Allah knows why they were chosen to not change the message & why the others were. Anyhow, I'll start a new post to address what we were speaking about previously. I consider Islam to have begun with Muhammed. I know Muslim and Allah can be used in such a way so that they apply before then, but I think Muhammed started something false with his revelation. But there's no evidence the Bible or the Torah were changed. It's more likely Muhammed was just plain wrong, then that the two original Holy Books were screwed with. When the Jews didn't listen, God sent prophets and found other ways to get their attention. He never gave up on His people. He then sent Jesus, to Save the Jews first, and then the gentiles after the Jews essentially rejected Him. He does choose, but He that doesn't mean there aren't false prophets, or people who pretend to have a revelation. When that's the case, it is man starting something and not God's Will. I think that's how it is with Muhammed, so it was just him starting something and not of God at all. (And yeah, I knew about the Allah translates as God thing, but I'm not sure I agree. ><) Yeah, there's a lot of versions, so...? Most of them say pretty much the same thing, including the children's Bible's. Some just have special notes, or they're just the NT, or they have a dictionary. The Message, which is supposed to be the modern day interpretation, even admits it may not be entirely right and says it's better used as a tool for understanding a better version of the Bible. And when a Bible is completely off, most Christians won't use it. As for parts being added, and taken off, I haven't seen that (except for maybe a group like the Mormons or the Jehovah's Witnesses). The Bible's I've seen all have Genesis through Revelations. Nothing left out, and nothing taken away. Plus, most of the versions were written after Muhammed put out his interpretion, so that's not a great argument. >< Besides, do you really believe that God would allow His Word to become screwed up, and then send a single guy to fix it? I think He'd make a bigger deal out of it. And the Bible and the Quran don't agree for the most part. If the Quran is supposed to be a correction of the Bible, then why is it so off? Then why doesn't Jesus call Himself a 'messenger'? What you're saying completely conflicts with what Jesus said. Quote: I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic -- on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg -- or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. – Mere Christianity, pages 40-41. CS Lewis had it right. He needed to be human so He could pay the price for our sins, which was death. His blood provides us the way back to God. It couldn't be anyone else, it had to be God's Son because He was the only one perfect enough (God used to demand flawless animal sacrifices. See the connection?) Jesus needed to become man to fix what the first Adam screwed up, and give us an example to live by. God loves us enough He didn't just give us instructions, He gave us an example-one who came to died for us because God loves us dearly and wanted to provide a way back. He couldn't just say it was fine, there was a price that had to be paid, and that's what Jesus did for us. http://www.indyopc.org/whyman.htmlAs well as all that stuff up there, there's other proofs that Jesus is the Son and far more important then just being a messenger, like the stories in which He randomly reveals Himself to someone who doesn't know Him (there was one about an Islamic fundamentalist who was going around killing Christians until he opened up the Bible and realized the truth, and there's plenty of other stories like that). There's also stories about people dying and there being a Presence, which they later realize is Jesus. In Return from Tomorrow, the man automatically knows it's the Son of God, and the moment he starts to consider Jesus is an angel or not that important, he realizes he's wrong. How do you explain all that?
“Why do you call me good: No one is good but One, that is, God.” (Matthew 9:17, Mark 10-18, and Luke 18:19)
“My Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28 )
“I do nothing of myself, but as the Father taught me, I speak these things.” (John 8:28 )
“Most assuredly, I say to you, the son can do nothing of himself …” (John 5:19)
“But I know Him, for I am from Him, and He sent me.” (John 7:29)
“He who rejects me rejects Him who sent me.” (Luke 10:16)
“But now I go away to Him who sent me …” (John 16:5)
“Jesus answered them and said, ‘My doctrine is not mine, but His who sent me.’” (John 7:16)
“For I have not spoken on my own authority; but the Father who sent me gave me a command, what I should say and what I should speak.” (John 12:49)
“The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear O Israel, The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” (Mark 12:29)
“But of that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Mark 13:32)
“‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.’” (Luke 4:8 )
“My food is to do the will of Him who sent me …” (John 4:34)
“I can of myself do nothing … I do not seek my own will but the will of the Father who sent me.” (John 5:30)
“For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of Him who sent me.” (John 6:38 )
“My doctrine is not mine, but His who sent me.” (John 7:16)
“I am ascending to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God.” (John 20:17)
These all show that Jesus is HUMAN & could do nothing unless Allah wills it. He was gifted because Allah allowed him to be as such. & Jesus didn't die. He was raised up before he was killed, by the mercy of Allah & one who looked like him was put in his place. Allah can do anything. The whole, seeing Jesus rise again is off because Allah sent him down to tell those he was close to that he was okay & that he had been raised up before death. Not raised from the dead, just allowed to say some last good byes. & Adam's sin was forgiven right away. There was always sin, no original sin. The whole situation with Iblis (he is a Satan, it is not a name, but is to describe those who oppose God) shows that, for He did not bow down to man when Allah told him to do so. He sinned. (I know you probably don't know what I'm talking about with the Satan part since Christianity & Islam differ greatly there.) Anyway, the reason Jesus could perform miracles is NOT because he was God. It was because he was given the ability by Allah. He could not do it unless it was Allah's will as the above verses denote. To explain all those things, you do know that there are beings that can lead us to believe wrongly, right? We call them Jinns (Iblis is the Jinn that is condemned to Hell though & who tries to fool us most of all). They do things to make people believe in the false divinity of Jesus when he was only a human. He leads us astray & takes advantage of people. It happens often. That explains everything. Hm...still don't have time to reply to the other post. Way too much going on here. All I can say is that you & I are of different faiths & that is how it is. Allah will judge us fairly on the Day of Judgment. I feel no anger against you though you don't share my beliefs. That doesn't change what I know to be true.True, but the same holds true for you. You can claim Muhammed was a prophet as much as you like, and if he wasn't, it doesn't make it true. It's a double-edged sword, but a good one, because God is truly in control. ^^ Blood does need to be spilled, because when we sin, we lose our ability to go into God's Presence. The blood covers us. That's the reason for the sacrifices originally, and why God made Adam Eve clothes by killing an innocent animal-it's an important sacrifice that pays for sin. Just because Islam ignores it, doesn't mean it wasn't necessary. And yes, God can take the burden of our sins from us because we've all earned Hell, and He doesn't want to see us go there. You may not want to believe it, and you don't have to, but the fact lies there anyway. We've all screwed us, and we all need salvation. And there's not more then one truth, but there are different ways of putting it. Like you could say 'the sky is blue', but you could also say 'the atmosphere looks cerulean'. You might not be able to do that in other languages, but English tends to have 3 or 4 four words for everything, and more for some others, so of course there are different ways of putting the truth. Yes, the translations aren't necessarily always perfect, so someone studying the Bible should compare different Bibles and try and learn some of the original greek and hebrew if possible, but that doesn't mean the Bible's screwed up. Plus, I'm pretty sure the Koran wasn't written in English, so isn't it just as screwy? He didn't create evil. He created the potential for evil. There's a huge difference. He allowed the Koran to be written because of a promise to Ishmael. He didn't send it though. And no, it's not obvious it's off. Otherwise, Christianity have the most followers worldwide, and there wouldn't be people who have studied the Bible more closely then either of us claiming it was true. You can say you think it's off, you can try to provide proof of it, but you can't say it's obvious. That's silly. And you can't just claim my Holy Book was changed and yours wasn't because God wanted it that way. If He's all-powerful, He'd stop the Bible from being changed in the first place. And what makes you think you know God's Will? Because I'm afraid that's kinda what you sound like. You don't know it. God actually talks to people in my church, and me on a regular basis, and I don't claim I know His Will. Does He do that with you? Those quotes show He was providing an example for us as the Last Adam. He lived as a human so He could show us how to live, and He was human, but He was God at the same time. (That's Trinity. There's another topic somewhere around here that has a link to CS Lewis's explanation. You should check it out, cause when I try to explain it, I fail. XD) He did die, and then He was raised up. God wouldn't send Him back for something as silly as 'last good-byes'. That would be no big deal. That's a complete bs interpretation of what happened. It's so outrageous, it made me laugh. Really? Just, really? xd I don't mean to be mean, and I know your sincere, but I really can't believe you believe that. sweatdrop (It's like someone trying to convince me the earth is flat or something... biggrin ) Sin has not existed eternally. Only God has. And yeah, you might want to be a little clearer on the whole Islamic version of sin. All I know is jinns were supposedly involved. But God's Will and Jesus's were the same because they're both God. They agree on everything, so it's not any ability given to Him be God. And those jinns, who we call demons, are what we believe drive the Islamic faith and other religions and their miracles. They do a lot of other bad stuff too, like cause depression, illness, etc. It's weird how similar, but different those beliefs are, neh? After all, satan's the father of lies, so no wonder we'd both think the other faith was being decieved. I know, and I'm not angry too. I'm learning a lot here, though a lot of it is pretty...outrageous to me. I honestly like you, even if it's hard to believe you think those things. Ah well, I guess we can always pray for each other. ^^ I could never find what I've found in Christianity in any other religion though...It's the only truth I'll walk by. Edit:I gotta put this quote down, because it kinda applies, and I love the way Madeline L'Engle says stuff: Quote: What I believe is so magnificent, so glorious, that it is beyond finite comprehension. To believe that the universe was created by a purposeful, benign Creator is one thing. To believe that this Creator took on human vesture, accepted death and mortality, was tempted, betrayed, broken, and all for love of us, defies reason. It is so wild that it terrifies some Christians who try to dogmatize their fear by lashing out at other Christians, because tidy Christianity with all answers given is easier than one which reaches out to the wild wonder of God's love, a love we don't even have to earn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 23, 2010 9:14 pm
xxEternallyBluexx Saddest Shade of Kitsune xxEternallyBluexx Saddest Shade of Kitsune xxEternallyBluexx I consider Islam to have begun with Muhammed. I know Muslim and Allah can be used in such a way so that they apply before then, but I think Muhammed started something false with his revelation. But there's no evidence the Bible or the Torah were changed. It's more likely Muhammed was just plain wrong, then that the two original Holy Books were screwed with. When the Jews didn't listen, God sent prophets and found other ways to get their attention. He never gave up on His people. He then sent Jesus, to Save the Jews first, and then the gentiles after the Jews essentially rejected Him. He does choose, but He that doesn't mean there aren't false prophets, or people who pretend to have a revelation. When that's the case, it is man starting something and not God's Will. I think that's how it is with Muhammed, so it was just him starting something and not of God at all. (And yeah, I knew about the Allah translates as God thing, but I'm not sure I agree. ><) Yeah, there's a lot of versions, so...? Most of them say pretty much the same thing, including the children's Bible's. Some just have special notes, or they're just the NT, or they have a dictionary. The Message, which is supposed to be the modern day interpretation, even admits it may not be entirely right and says it's better used as a tool for understanding a better version of the Bible. And when a Bible is completely off, most Christians won't use it. As for parts being added, and taken off, I haven't seen that (except for maybe a group like the Mormons or the Jehovah's Witnesses). The Bible's I've seen all have Genesis through Revelations. Nothing left out, and nothing taken away. Plus, most of the versions were written after Muhammed put out his interpretion, so that's not a great argument. >< Besides, do you really believe that God would allow His Word to become screwed up, and then send a single guy to fix it? I think He'd make a bigger deal out of it. And the Bible and the Quran don't agree for the most part. If the Quran is supposed to be a correction of the Bible, then why is it so off? Then why doesn't Jesus call Himself a 'messenger'? What you're saying completely conflicts with what Jesus said. Quote: I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic -- on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg -- or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. – Mere Christianity, pages 40-41. CS Lewis had it right. He needed to be human so He could pay the price for our sins, which was death. His blood provides us the way back to God. It couldn't be anyone else, it had to be God's Son because He was the only one perfect enough (God used to demand flawless animal sacrifices. See the connection?) Jesus needed to become man to fix what the first Adam screwed up, and give us an example to live by. God loves us enough He didn't just give us instructions, He gave us an example-one who came to died for us because God loves us dearly and wanted to provide a way back. He couldn't just say it was fine, there was a price that had to be paid, and that's what Jesus did for us. http://www.indyopc.org/whyman.htmlAs well as all that stuff up there, there's other proofs that Jesus is the Son and far more important then just being a messenger, like the stories in which He randomly reveals Himself to someone who doesn't know Him (there was one about an Islamic fundamentalist who was going around killing Christians until he opened up the Bible and realized the truth, and there's plenty of other stories like that). There's also stories about people dying and there being a Presence, which they later realize is Jesus. In Return from Tomorrow, the man automatically knows it's the Son of God, and the moment he starts to consider Jesus is an angel or not that important, he realizes he's wrong. How do you explain all that?
“Why do you call me good: No one is good but One, that is, God.” (Matthew 9:17, Mark 10-18, and Luke 18:19)
“My Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28 )
“I do nothing of myself, but as the Father taught me, I speak these things.” (John 8:28 )
“Most assuredly, I say to you, the son can do nothing of himself …” (John 5:19)
“But I know Him, for I am from Him, and He sent me.” (John 7:29)
“He who rejects me rejects Him who sent me.” (Luke 10:16)
“But now I go away to Him who sent me …” (John 16:5)
“Jesus answered them and said, ‘My doctrine is not mine, but His who sent me.’” (John 7:16)
“For I have not spoken on my own authority; but the Father who sent me gave me a command, what I should say and what I should speak.” (John 12:49)
“The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear O Israel, The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” (Mark 12:29)
“But of that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Mark 13:32)
“‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.’” (Luke 4:8 )
“My food is to do the will of Him who sent me …” (John 4:34)
“I can of myself do nothing … I do not seek my own will but the will of the Father who sent me.” (John 5:30)
“For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of Him who sent me.” (John 6:38 )
“My doctrine is not mine, but His who sent me.” (John 7:16)
“I am ascending to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God.” (John 20:17)
These all show that Jesus is HUMAN & could do nothing unless Allah wills it. He was gifted because Allah allowed him to be as such. & Jesus didn't die. He was raised up before he was killed, by the mercy of Allah & one who looked like him was put in his place. Allah can do anything. The whole, seeing Jesus rise again is off because Allah sent him down to tell those he was close to that he was okay & that he had been raised up before death. Not raised from the dead, just allowed to say some last good byes. & Adam's sin was forgiven right away. There was always sin, no original sin. The whole situation with Iblis (he is a Satan, it is not a name, but is to describe those who oppose God) shows that, for He did not bow down to man when Allah told him to do so. He sinned. (I know you probably don't know what I'm talking about with the Satan part since Christianity & Islam differ greatly there.) Anyway, the reason Jesus could perform miracles is NOT because he was God. It was because he was given the ability by Allah. He could not do it unless it was Allah's will as the above verses denote. To explain all those things, you do know that there are beings that can lead us to believe wrongly, right? We call them Jinns (Iblis is the Jinn that is condemned to Hell though & who tries to fool us most of all). They do things to make people believe in the false divinity of Jesus when he was only a human. He leads us astray & takes advantage of people. It happens often. That explains everything. Hm...still don't have time to reply to the other post. Way too much going on here. All I can say is that you & I are of different faiths & that is how it is. Allah will judge us fairly on the Day of Judgment. I feel no anger against you though you don't share my beliefs. That doesn't change what I know to be true.True, but the same holds true for you. You can claim Muhammed was a prophet as much as you like, and if he wasn't, it doesn't make it true. It's a double-edged sword, but a good one, because God is truly in control. ^^ Blood does need to be spilled, because when we sin, we lose our ability to go into God's Presence. The blood covers us. That's the reason for the sacrifices originally, and why God made Adam Eve clothes by killing an innocent animal-it's an important sacrifice that pays for sin. Just because Islam ignores it, doesn't mean it wasn't necessary. And yes, God can take the burden of our sins from us because we've all earned Hell, and He doesn't want to see us go there. You may not want to believe it, and you don't have to, but the fact lies there anyway. We've all screwed us, and we all need salvation. And there's not more then one truth, but there are different ways of putting it. Like you could say 'the sky is blue', but you could also say 'the atmosphere looks cerulean'. You might not be able to do that in other languages, but English tends to have 3 or 4 four words for everything, and more for some others, so of course there are different ways of putting the truth. Yes, the translations aren't necessarily always perfect, so someone studying the Bible should compare different Bibles and try and learn some of the original greek and hebrew if possible, but that doesn't mean the Bible's screwed up. Plus, I'm pretty sure the Koran wasn't written in English, so isn't it just as screwy? He didn't create evil. He created the potential for evil. There's a huge difference. He allowed the Koran to be written because of a promise to Ishmael. He didn't send it though. And no, it's not obvious it's off. Otherwise, Christianity have the most followers worldwide, and there wouldn't be people who have studied the Bible more closely then either of us claiming it was true. You can say you think it's off, you can try to provide proof of it, but you can't say it's obvious. That's silly. And you can't just claim my Holy Book was changed and yours wasn't because God wanted it that way. If He's all-powerful, He'd stop the Bible from being changed in the first place. And what makes you think you know God's Will? Because I'm afraid that's kinda what you sound like. You don't know it. God actually talks to people in my church, and me on a regular basis, and I don't claim I know His Will. Does He do that with you? Those quotes show He was providing an example for us as the Last Adam. He lived as a human so He could show us how to live, and He was human, but He was God at the same time. (That's Trinity. There's another topic somewhere around here that has a link to CS Lewis's explanation. You should check it out, cause when I try to explain it, I fail. XD) He did die, and then He was raised up. God wouldn't send Him back for something as silly as 'last good-byes'. That would be no big deal. That's a complete bs interpretation of what happened. It's so outrageous, it made me laugh. Really? Just, really? xd I don't mean to be mean, and I know your sincere, but I really can't believe you believe that. sweatdrop (It's like someone trying to convince me the earth is flat or something... biggrin ) Sin has not existed eternally. Only God has. And yeah, you might want to be a little clearer on the whole Islamic version of sin. All I know is jinns were supposedly involved. But God's Will and Jesus's were the same because they're both God. They agree on everything, so it's not any ability given to Him be God. And those jinns, who we call demons, are what we believe drive the Islamic faith and other religions and their miracles. They do a lot of other bad stuff too, like cause depression, illness, etc. It's weird how similar, but different those beliefs are, neh? After all, satan's the father of lies, so no wonder we'd both think the other faith was being decieved. I know, and I'm not angry too. I'm learning a lot here, though a lot of it is pretty...outrageous to me. I honestly like you, even if it's hard to believe you think those things. Ah well, I guess we can always pray for each other. ^^ I could never find what I've found in Christianity in any other religion though...It's the only truth I'll walk by. Edit:I gotta put this quote down, because it kinda applies, and I love the way Madeline L'Engle says stuff: Quote: What I believe is so magnificent, so glorious, that it is beyond finite comprehension. To believe that the universe was created by a purposeful, benign Creator is one thing. To believe that this Creator took on human vesture, accepted death and mortality, was tempted, betrayed, broken, and all for love of us, defies reason. It is so wild that it terrifies some Christians who try to dogmatize their fear by lashing out at other Christians, because tidy Christianity with all answers given is easier than one which reaches out to the wild wonder of God's love, a love we don't even have to earn.
Yes, He does have all the control. -smiles- Seriously, blood does not need to be spilled for humanity. We will find out where we go based on what we do & believe...-shakes head- It was not up to one person (& especially not their sacrifice) to determine if we can be saved from Hellfire. God has the full ability to send us where He wills. We are not inherently evil though we have the ability to act as such. Actually, we believe we have a good nature. We're easily tempted & swayed though. These are my beliefs & I stand beside them, unswayed. Anyway, moving on...Why would we lose our ability to be in God's presence? First of all, He knows everything & we are all in His presence right now & also, we always are able to repent & be forgiven if we believe in Him & His Oneness. Animals are not the same as a person...You cannot be rid of all your sins because of a sacrifice of any kind. You must ask for forgiveness, fully submit, & humble yourself before your God. & we don't ignore the sacrifice of animal bit...We consider it worship of Him...That's why we have halal meat (which is an animal slaughtered in His name) & we have Eid (a holiday in which we eat sheep [typically] as thanks to Allah that Abraham was able to sacrifice a ram instead of his own son [though he was willing to do anything for Allah]).
We have not all earned Hell. Even though we sin, that does not mean we are initially damned. The concept of Original sin doesn't make sense because He forgave Adam & Eve since they repented, but more importantly, we are responsible for our own deeds. He is the Ever-Merciful. He does not hold grudges, He keeps His promises that He will forgive all those who ask Him to forgive them if they truly believe. He does not need to make a person innocent of the sins of everyone else suffer. He is Almighty & is not cruel & does not put the burden of others onto anyone for He is true to His word.
There are different ways of putting the truth, but there are also ways of changing it to something that sounds similar but is not the same. -shakes head- Most people don't realize that changes that were made since there is no way to know what was the original writing. That's why we believe that the Torah & Bible are the word of God, but humans changed it so much that none of us can discern what is the word & what is human word. No, the Qu'ran wasn't written in English, but that's why it's the best if we learn Arabic (we have to for our prayers to mean the most).
He did create evil. To say He didn't create everything that is not Him is slandering Him. We were created with the potential to do evil, but evil wouldn't exist if He didn't create. That wouldn't make any sense. Nothing could exist without Him.
He allowed the Qu'ran to be written because He decreed that all the people's deserved the word so they could follow Him & He alone. The reason Christians have the most believers worldwide is because they have missionaries. They may do good things, but it's not right to do something for someone & then have the implication that they should follow what you believe. That's like handing someone candy & saying "If you follow this way, you'll be greatly rewarded." That's influencing someone & that leads to compulsion. There are people who have the Qu'ran memorized...which is the closest study there could be. I'm not "claiming" something. There is fact & truth of it. Go look at the progression of the changing! There is proof in that. All these "versions" are based on what people put in & took out. Even the whole concept of Jesus as God was eventually added into Christianity after the Bible was written. It wouldn't make sense if Allah stopped the Bible from being changed though because people were already being led astray. Humans will easily do that because we are created that way. It shows just how much we NEED Him. We are nothing without Him. We have to rely on Him so that we will not be led astray, there is no other way. Things are meant to happen certain ways, that's why He can let it be changed. Only He knows why. I do not know His will. Only He does. So why are you acting like you know it as well? He wouldn't change the Bible, as you said? How would you know? Think about it.
Though I know not what He does, he warns us that there are Jinn that will speak to us as if they are Allah. All I know is that He knows all.
-shakes head- This is where I cannot believe that Christians believe this...God would not be human, EVER. That defeats the whole divinity aspect so much. That makes no sense at all. He is above us all. There is need for Him to live as a human because there were many examples for us such as Moses, Abraham, Noah, & Muhammad (to name a few). Muhammad was the best example though. God does not do humanly things. We may be created in His image, but He is not like us.
Allah promised Jesus that he would die a natural death, so he was raised up to be saved from those who would hurt him. Trying to argue that Jesus died also implies God died which cannot work at all. He cannot be hurt by humans...None on this earth or in the heavens have power to slay Him. He wouldn't have come down to us in any form because He is One. Allah connects to us in other ways. Now I'm not sure where I got the whole Jesus coming back part...I need to look that up so I am knowledgeable about what completely happened. We believe he was raised & that he still is alive, in Heaven & is awaiting the second coming (which is very similar to the Christian view, but not the same in most ways at all.........). & how is any of it outrageous? Thanks for the laughing, that shows true consideration & seriousness in debate. -_- I'm unsure of where I got the returning part, 'cause I was trying to see if there was anything about that in our beliefs, but I'm not seeing any of it. I'll let you know as soon as I can. -smiles- Okay, yes. I meant that sin has been around ever since we were created (as in always for humanity). No, Jinns are not completely involved. They are created from fire, but can also be Muslims (though they have a more sinful nature a lot of the time). Humans & Jinns sin, which is defined as overall causing harm to themselves, others, or basically creation. If one disbelieves, one is harming oneself because one is turning away from Allah & one is also more than likely harming others because humans influence one another & usually act in sinful ways when they do not follow Him. The one who tries to help humans & jinns fall into sin is Iblis (who we call the main Shaytaan [Satan]) who is a jinn who disobeyed Allah & has committed himself to get as many humans into Hell as he can.
Humans can do nothing without Allah's will. Jesus was human. He could not be God at the same time because God is Almighty, Great, not human-like at all. We don't believe that jinns 'cause all these things...there are some that are good as well. They do great things since they were created from fire & given abilities that we were not (why do you think there are magicians & other amazing things?) They have "powers," but much of the time they abuse them.
Satan can do nothing if Allah protects one from him though. It goes either way.
What you believe is just as "outrageous" to me, but it's good to learn about something you don't believe in because you can have even more faith in your belief. I like you as well. You're very good at bringing up various points & I really look for that in people. It's very admirable. & the same goes for me in that I have no faith except that in Allah & what He has shown to be true.
As for your quote...it made me shake my head, but I won't reply because I know what I know & it seems that I cannot change your mind. I realize that some are meant to follow Islam & others are not. It is all Allah's will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
