BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion
 
GetBMWParts
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      08-29-2007, 01:18 PM   #155
hks786
Major General
United Kingdom
825

 
Drives: *
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK


Posts: 5,351
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by its ray den
as is common with people trying to use the bible against christian theology, it is always taken in bits and pieces and out of context.

as you can see, no where in those verses does Jesus explicitly claim that God the Father is greater than Himself. and you can't even infer that idea after you read verse 30.
You have my most sincere apologies. I knew it was John in my head but I wrote Luke for some reason. My bad. Okay. Now there are a few ways we can look at this.

Firstly, you do know that by the time we get to John, Jesus (AS)’s status has been elevated very high to a divine position. I have already addressed this issue and I feel very uncomfortable with the fact that we see a reduction of Jesus (AS)’s teachings and an increase Paul’s. Also, did you know that these statements are only found in John? This is hugely alarming for a few reasons.

If Jesus made such striking statements (most Christians remember them) then why aren’t they in the other Gospels? I mean, if anything they should be in the earliest. It makes no sense that John has them and noone else. Might I remind you that the “crucifixion” happened in the year 30 roughly and John was written between 90-100. Maybe this time gap (I think it did) had a huge effect on what happened to Jesus (AS)’s real teachings.

Secondly, many things can be implied by the phrase “I and the father are one”. I think that it means ONE in purpose. I think you are right about looking at the context. So I’ll explain. Jesus (AS) said to the surrounding Jews that he does works in the Father’s name. This raises the first question, how can Jesus (AS) do it only in the Father’s name? Why do it in the Father’s name if the Son, Father & Spirit make up God? Would it not make sense to say “I do it in my name” since Jesus is God according to Christians? Also, notice here that he does it in the Father’s name, meaning that he does things for the purpose of the Father. This is what I’m saying too. Jesus (AS) and God are same in their purpose.

Then Jesus goes on to say that the Father gave the sheep to him. How can God the Father give God the Son something? Clearly if they are equal (as you are arguing) Jesus can simply TAKE the sheep. Also, there is a reference to the Father’s hand. That does not necessarily mean that Jesus and God are part of the one being. Look at it this way, If God the Father takes things through God the Son’s hands, then really, it is still God the Father’s hands. Also, it doesn’t even mean that God has hands. God is not human and doesn’t have hands, so here is one way in which we say the language of the Bible can’t ALWAYS be taken literally.

Jesus then concludes by saying “I and the father are one”. Does this necessarily mean they are the same being? No. Of course not. I just showed that we cannot take the language as literal all the time. Moreover, they can be “one” in the same purpose. Jesus also says in the Bible:

Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?. John (14:9)

It clearly doesn’t mean that if you see Jesus with your own eyes that you will be seeing God with your eyes too. It shows that God and Jesus (AS) are in the same way. They are in the same purpose because Jesus (AS) was sent by GOD Himself! Also, even Christians couldn’t argue that if you see Jesus you see the Father because they are both part of God. The reason is that Christians believe that God has 3 separate persons as you earlier tried to prove with that website. This means that they are separate and can be in different places at the same time. So how can you see the Father when you see Jesus? Only metaphorically because Jesus (AS) was SENT by God Himself.

Also, if we look at the end of John 10, we say that Jesus never claimed divinity (if these are his true words). He says clearly that according to Jewish scripture calling people “God” doesn’t not necessarily mean you are claiming divinity. If he was claiming divinity, why didn’t he just admit it when they asked? They were clearly looking for an excuse to kill him because even after he didn’t claim divinity, they tried to seize him. Look:

"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'? Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.
John (10:33-39)


Also, Jesus (AS) was humble enough that we dont call him good, how can he accept us calling him God? Recall Matthew 19:16...

"Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?". "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."
Matthew (19:16-17)


This also shows that the commandments are there to follow. It's pretty much common sense. Also, look at the striking resemblance to the teachings of our Holy Prophet (SAW):

"Which ones?" the man inquired. Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother, and 'love your neighbor as yourself."
Matthew (19:18-19)


We muslims believe that you shall not murder, commit adultery, steal or lie. The Holy Prophet (SAW) also said Paradise is at your mother's feet. Not literally, but Islam teaches us to put such high respect on our parents and honour them. Also, the Holy Prophet (SAW) said that Angel Jibreel (AS) used to remind him to be good to his neighbours to such an extent that the Holy Prophet (SAW) thought he was going to make him include his neighbours in his will! Look at the resemblance to the words Jesus (AS) spoke.

Furthermore, here is more evidence that the phrase about being “one” cannot be taken literally. Recall that in John 17 Jesus says:

"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.
John (17:20-21)


Look at the way Jesus used the word “one” and the phrase “I am in you”. Jesus clearly did not mean that the people were one being or entity. Also, he did not mean that he was within people and that they are part of them. If I take the above verses as literally, I could argue that me and you are part of the same being and that we are both God. You see what I’m trying to point out?

Thirdly, I have shown that Jesus (AS) was lesser in his knowledge of the “Father”. I showed this in post #148. Check it out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by its ray den
the first verse you quote is actually verse 19, and since verse 30 is part of the same section, here it is in whole:
My bad again, I didn’t type “1” before the “9”. Sorry. Anyway, lets look at what you showed me:

“So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him. Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.”

Given what I said above about being able to call yourself “God” without breaking the scriptures, I feel this falls into the same category. There are actually a few things I would like to say on this topic:

Firstly, did you know that through Mark to John we see a huge increase in the number of times Jesus (AS) addresses God as his Father and the Father. I feel that this is wrong and since the Gospels are supposed to be retelling the SAME events to people, they should tell the story with the same facts. It should matter who the audience is, facts are facts. If Jesus addressed God as his/the Father, then ALL 4 Gospels should record this clear statement of Jesus (AS).

I guess it’s regardless of the point because a) the Bible is the word of man, not God. b) During the huge time gaps between Jesus (AS)’s life and the Gospels, many fabrications can easily be put in the Gospels c) there is even inconsistency between the numbers of times Jesus calls God his/the Father. e) The Bible uses much figurative language which can imply things metaphorically.

Also, according to the Bible, David is the Son of God. According to the Bible, Adam is the son of God. Therefore, we can see how widely this father/son relationship can spread. Some people try to say that Jesus is the “Son” of God and others are the “son” of God. However, in the Semitic languages there are NO upper/lower cases.

Also, as a Muslim, the above reference can still make sense. To me it can EASILY mean, that God controls the universe on the Sabbath and guides people as he pleases. This is still “work” as such. Even the Bible says that God chooses to guide people. Jesus (AS) on the other hand is doing works like miracles etc. However, I’m not even sure if this is really what was said and happened but all I’m saying is that it can still make sense Islamically. Also, I have shown that Jews wanted to kill him anyway. This is an important point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by its ray den
i don't see how you can infer that Jesus is less powerful than God the Father from this passage with the exception of this verse "By myself I can do nothing;". i can see how, by face value a person can infer that Jesus is less than the Father but don't forget that Jesus isn't by Himself. He is one with God and therefore has all the power and authority of God.
Firstly, I have established the fact that we can still introduce SIMPLE maths since God in the Quran and the Christian perception of God both claim “oneness”. One is a number. Okay. So now you are saying that Jesus and the Father are equal. By simply using the number 1, it implies that Jesus is a third of the trinity. That’s what it implies. I’m not being unjust. I will use maths by associating the number “1” with Allah too since he claims oneness.

Okay. So by reference to the website you gave me, I am quoting:

The person of the Son is not the same person as the Holy Spirit. The person of the Holy Spirit is not the same person as the Father. If you take away any one, there is no God.

So I am asking, what happened when Jesus (AS) died? According to the above statement, there would be no God. This is impossible. I have also shown extensively that God cannot choose to not know something or not be able to do something. i.e he cannot limit his own knowledge or power. For example, I could make a mass of something so heavy that after it is made, I cannot move it as a whole. Could God choose to face this same problem? No. It is not in his nature to limit himself. This is the same as not being able to lie. God is only righteous in nature.

Something else I just remembered is: How can you say Jesus had power and authority at all during his lifetime? I thought you said he chose to give it up by becoming man (out of love for us)? That would imply he had no power or authority during his lifetime...

Also, I think it should still be okay to say that Jesus (AS) was by himself. The website clearly shows that the Father, Son & Spirit are seperate things and can be considered as such.
__________________

Last edited by hks786; 08-29-2007 at 03:12 PM.
Appreciate 0
      08-29-2007, 03:11 PM   #156
its ray den
Second Lieutenant
2

 
Drives: 2004 Mazda6s
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: NY


Posts: 207
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Something else I just remembered is: How can you say Jesus had power and authority at all during his lifetime? I thought you said he chose to give it up by becoming man (out of love for us)? That would imply he had no power or authority during his lifetime...
no.. i said he chose not to exercise his power. i never said he gave them up.

what did you think of my clark kent/superman example?

also, i think you'd be interested in reading the doctrine part of carm.org. you may find that it can answer your questions better than any of us...

edit -

why are you using simple math to understand God?
Appreciate 0
      08-29-2007, 03:52 PM   #157
Noize
Under the radar
United_States
31

 
Noize's Avatar
 
Drives: FWD in reverse
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: In traffic at idle


Posts: 841
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by hks786 View Post


That’s not infact what I’m doing. I just watched a video on Youtube saying that God can do all things. So when Muslims say he cant become man, we are limiting him. How ironic, because Christians then go on to say that Jesus chose to limit himself. This is impossible. God can’t choose to NOT be all-powerful. Christians also say that Jesus chose to limit his knowledge. I ask out of respect my friend; can God choose to give up his own knowledge? Of course not.
I don't see Jesus as limited. He turned water into wine, fed thousands from small portions of food, healed many, and raised the dead.

Quote:
But look at the Bible and what it says about the Day of Judgement:

""But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone." Mark (13:32)

Can God or any part of God (again, presupposing he has parts) choose to forget anything? Of course not. How can God literally choose to not have information?

That's an interesting point that I would like to study.

Quote:
In the first chapter of the Quran Allah calls himself "Master of the Day of Judgement".
And now, here, comes my point. My biggest problem with Islam is that Muhammad dealt out ultimatums: Accept Islam or die. Muhammad's early days were peace, but in his later days, he was a conqueror. Killing, assasinating, and taking prisoners.

The message of the Gospel is peace. Jesus' ministry was very short, but was filled with miracles, teachings, and ultimately (as Christians believe) His resurrection. His teaching was NOT to attack and kill those who don't believe(as Muhammad did). Read Luke 10.

How Muhammad lived his life stands in stark, violent contrast to how Jesus lived His life.

To me, the cornerstone of the initial growth of Islam was conquering those who did not accept it, then killing those who would not profess it. Based on some radical interpretations (and executions) of it, the West's fear of Islam is understandable. There are people in the Middle East that have been put to death for denouncing Islam.

I am not saying Christians are not guilty of heinous sins ourselves. Some murdered and were involved in later versions of those terrible wars too. But the One we are trying to emulate is without sin and murder. What we believe from the New Testament does not mix with the message of the Quran.
Appreciate 0
      08-29-2007, 03:58 PM   #158
hks786
Major General
United Kingdom
825

 
Drives: *
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK


Posts: 5,351
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by its ray den View Post
no.. i said he chose not to exercise his power. i never said he gave them up.

what did you think of my clark kent/superman example?

also, i think you'd be interested in reading the doctrine part of carm.org. you may find that it can answer your questions better than any of us...

edit -

why are you using simple math to understand God?
But how can God choose not to exercise power? How can he choose to be mortal? I feel I have went over these questions in depth with proof etc. Hmm, maybe we can just agree to disagree ?

I liked your Clark Kent/Superman example but I still see huge gaps in it as I pointed out.

Regarding the maths, It's not even mathematics as such. It's so low that it's basic common sense regarding the number "1". I use it towards both Christianity and Islam since both people who we believe to be God speak about their oneness. That's why I analyse what it means to be one.

However, I dont use science or anything like that to explain God's being. Not for Islam or Christianity. I dont recall the Bible or Quran giving statements which explain God using science.
__________________
Appreciate 0
      08-29-2007, 05:02 PM   #159
hks786
Major General
United Kingdom
825

 
Drives: *
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK


Posts: 5,351
iTrader: (0)

No time to reply Noize, but I will reply tomorrow morning...
__________________
Appreciate 0
      08-29-2007, 06:17 PM   #160
its ray den
Second Lieutenant
2

 
Drives: 2004 Mazda6s
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: NY


Posts: 207
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
But how can God choose not to exercise power? How can he choose to be mortal? I feel I have went over these questions in depth with proof etc.
how can you have proof for explaining why and how God does what He does? at best we can make a guess with what we know but we can never know for sure unless it says in the Bible for me or Quran for you. if you do know then you must be a prophet or God himself. God can choose to not exercise power the same way He choses to forgive you when you confess your sins instead of punishing you.

all the proof that you say you've presented to me does not amount to anything. as you would say, it's illogical.

Quote:
Hmm, maybe we can just agree to disagree ?
i've accepted this before i even made my first post. remember? i said that i'm not here to convince you that i'm right and you're wrong. all i wanted to do is to explain to you what Christianity is because you had some good questions worth explaining as they are tough concepts to understand. you can disagree or agree all you want. it's your refusal to simply understand our side of the story is what makes this frustrating.

you're strong in your faith and so am i. in my mind, i know i'm right and anything you say against Christian theology just doesn't make sense because of my presuppositions about who God is. simple discussions won't change that for either of us. if either one of us is converted to the other side, it will take an act of God to unveil our blinded eyes.

so rock on :rocks:
Appreciate 0
      08-30-2007, 04:57 AM   #161
hks786
Major General
United Kingdom
825

 
Drives: *
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK


Posts: 5,351
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noize
I don't see Jesus as limited. He turned water into wine, fed thousands from small portions of food, healed many, and raised the dead.
Friend, I'm getting a little confused here. I'll try explain. Firstly, Christians tell me that we limit God by saying he cant become Man. Then they go on to say that God chose to limit himself out of love for us. Now you're telling me that he isnt limited.

He clearly was limited. He was limited in knowledge as I showed. I showed how he didnt claim divinity which I was suprised I could do given that by the time we get to John he has heightened Jesus (AS) SO much into something he isnt. Also, God doesnt eat, sleep, cry or do any humanly acts. However, yes Jesus (AS) did perform miracles. I have no problem with that because all Prophets in Islam performed them. It doesnt mean they are God though....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noize
And now, here, comes my point. My biggest problem with Islam is that Muhammad dealt out ultimatums: Accept Islam or die. Muhammad's early days were peace, but in his later days, he was a conqueror. Killing, assasinating, and taking prisoners.
Friend, this is off topic. This thread is "Did Jesus (AS) die for the sins of the world?". There is already a thread called "Are we at war with Islam?". I have been contributing for months proving that Islam is a peaceful way of life. Most attacks against it are based on loose translations and quotes out of context.

However, even though you are off-topic, I'll give you a small reply. Firstly, you clearly admitted that the Holy Prophet (SAW)'s days used to be of peace. I ask, does it fit his character to behave in senseless violence in his later years? No. Of course not. He has clearly illustrated that he is a man of iron self control and wishes for no wordly gain. I have shown how in the other thread in many ways in which the Holy Prophet (SAW) followed his own teachings and wasnt a hypocrite. I will explain all of this below later.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noize
Based on some radical interpretations (and executions) of it, the West's fear of Islam is understandable. There are people in the Middle East that have been put to death for denouncing Islam.
I'm sorry but for months I have shown that this is not true. We are not at war with Islam. Islam is a peaceful way of life and just because people dont follow it properly, it detracts nothing from the pure way of life Allah ordained for us. I wonder though, have you ever thought that maybe the west doesnt know enough about Islam? I know only TOO well how the media works in western countries and I'm not suprised that people take verses of the Quran out of context etc.

If it wasnt such a serious thing, I'd laugh. It's so ironic that people point the finger to Islam, that they forget the real problems in the world. The first problem is that people brainwash muslims into terrorism. This doesnt mean Islam is terrorism. Secondly, we fail to recognise that the west can build wars on lies etc. They lie openly to our faces. Look at it this way. I know of the 11 year old shot dead in Liverpool in England. I dont know the names of the innocent Iraqi kids shot dead everyday. They face bullets and carbombs every day but do we see their names printed in the media? NO.

Also, the West launches wars for their own gains etc. But where's the war on drugs and poverty? It's the 21st century. The age of being advanced in nearly every field you can think of, yet we still have drugs, poverty etc in the world. How shameful. It's ironic though. In Islam we are supposed to give 2.5% of our total wealth to charity. If the whole world done this, there wouldnt be poverty.

Sorry for that, had to let it out. Back to the point, let's look at what the Noble Quran says about war. It is true that the Holy Prophet (saw) fought wars. But the important question is why he fought those wars. The answer is to be found in the following verses of the Holy Quran:

“Permission to take up arms is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged and Allah, indeed, has power to help them…” (22:40)

Those who have been driven out from their homes unjustly, only because they said, 'Our Lord is Allah.' And if Allah had not repelled some people by means of others, cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is oft remembered, would surely have been destroyed. And Allah will, surely, help him who helps Him. Allah is, indeed, Powerful, Mighty – (22:42)


This verse clearly lays out that only defensive wars are allowed in Islam. However, in case, the need for a defensive war arises, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW) gave a list of things to his followers that they shouldn’t do during the times of war. For instance, he said:

- The old and decrepit and women and children are not to be killed. The
possibility of peace should always be kept in view (Abu Dawud).

- When Muslims enter enemy territory, they should not strike terror into the
general population. They should permit no ill-treatment of common folk
(Muslim).

- The least possible losses should be inflicted upon the enemy (Abu Dawud).

- When a Muslim takes charge of a prisoner of war, the latter is to be fed and
clothed in the same way as the Muslim himself (Bukhari).

It is clear from the Holy Quran and the teachings of the Holy Prophet (SAW) that even when Muslims are a target of an offensive war, they are to show respect to the life, liberty and property of the enemies, particularly civilians.

Some of the critics of the Holy Prophet (SAW) also choose selective portions of the Holy Quran and hadiths. For instance, they take verse of the Holy Quran totally out of context in order to prove that the Holy Prophet (SAW) preached killing of non-believers. One of the verses often quoted is:

“Therefore, when ye meet the unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks. At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter, (is time for) either generosity or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens...” (47:5)

Robert Spencer uses the first part of this verse in his book, proclaiming that the Holy Prophet (saw) has given permission to Muslims to smite the neck of the unbelievers even in contemporary times. In his book, he explains how Zarqawi, an Iraqi terrorist, who died last year, was inspired by this verse to kidnap and behead an American citizen5. What Zarqawi did deserves condemnation. But was Zarqawi inspired by this verse or misused this verse for his political objective is not the topic of my speech?

But what we do know is Robert Spencer ignores to analyze the verse on its own merits. He does not offer the complete context and background of this verse. He also conveniently forgets to discuss the second part of this verse in his analysis. This verse was revealed when Muslims were facing Meccans in the Battle of Badr. The numbers of Muslims were 313 while the Meccans were more than 1000. The Quraysh had more weapons than the Muslims.

Quraysh were ready to wipe out Muslims completely. The verse was revealed in this context.
If you rationally think about this verse it is saying that in war Muslims are allowed to kill just like American army or any other army of the world teaches its soldiers to kill during the time of war. The second part of the verse says that “when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly on them”. This part clearly points out that the killing is allowed during the time.

The reality of Islam is that it promotes justice and preserves human rights. The Holy Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.) was the greatest humanitarian that ever walked on earth. In fact “he must be called the saviour of humanity…” George Bernard Shaw insists that “if a man like Muhammad (SAW) were to assume dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness.” In support of this, a great historian, Lamartine argues that “as regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may well ask, is there any man greater than he?” For he does lead the list of the world’s most influential persons.
T
hus, we learn that Muslims and non-Muslims alike have found the Holy Prophet Muhammad’s (S.A.W.) life a continuous source of inspiration. No one’s life has been scrutinised as much as the Holy Prophet’s (S.A.W.) life. Nevertheless, there is not one detail which could prove a flaw in his character. Even the non Muslims of Mecca knew him as “the Truthful” (Al Sadiq) and “the Faithful” (Al Amin).

The Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) was extremely generous and sociable himself. He encouraged others to be likewise. A man asked the Prophet (S.A.W.), “Which act in Islam is the best?” He replied, “To feed (the poor and needy) and greet those who you know and those who you do not.” Similarly, he forbid jealousy and mutual estrangement. Anas bin Malik (R.A.) narrates that the Prophet (S.A.W.) said, “Do not hate one another, and do not be jealous of one another; and do not desert (cut your relation with) each other, and O Allah’s worshippers! Be brothers. Lo! It is not permissible for any Muslim to desert (not talk to) his brother (Muslim) for more than three days.”

Adding to his pearls of wisdom the Prophet (S.A.W.) warned us to be cautious from being angry. It is narrated by Abu Hurairah (R.A.) that Allah’s Messenger (S.A.W.) said, “The strong is not the one who overcomes the people by his strength, but the strong is the one who controls himself while in anger.”

Furthermore, the Prophet (S.A.W.) once said, “A true believer is one with whom others feel secure. One who returns love for hatred.” The Prophet made it clear that one who would only return love for love was on a lower ethical plane. We should never think that we should treat people well only if they treat us well. We should, rather, be accustomed to being good to those who are not good to us and to not wronging those who harm us.

A fallacious charge is frequently brought against Muslims and the Holy Prophet Mohammed (SAW) that Islam was forced at the point of sword, although the true fact is otherwise. As a matter of fact, Islam does not enjoin upon its followers to use compulsion in religion as the following Qur’anic verse justifies: "Let there be no compulsion in religion; Truth stands out clear from error: Whosoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things." (Qur’an: 2: 256.)

It is therefore inconceivable that the Holy Prophet (SAW) or any of his four succeeding caliphs or the chain of Muslim saints could have acted against this clear commandment of the Almighty God. There have however been cases when some Muslim rulers have resorted to firm action against their opponents in the name of propagating religion, but their individual action, which was definitely un-Islamic, cannot be a plea for the wholesale condemnation of the religion of Islam and its followers.

"If any Muslim ruler or exploiter acted contrary to the teachings of Islam, it was his personal fault which cannot be laid at the door of Islam and for which he will be answerable to Allah according to Islamic injunctions and restrictions. Against the militants, the Prophet (SAW) declared: "He who is not affectionate to Allah's creatures and to his own children would not receive the affection of God." (Abu Huraira).

"Charity of the tongue, the most important and least cultivated of all charities, was likewise earnestly inculcated by Mohammed (SAW)" writes Irving. How can a religion that keeps all the finer qualities of human character in the forefront be, therefore, aggressive by sword? The Prophet (SAW) was supremely patient and tolerant when the bitter animosity, sedition and betrayals of the Jews prevailed against Islam in Medina. It was in such a terrible state of affairs that Allah ordered the Prophet (SAW): "Defend yourself against your enemies, but attack them not first; Allah hateth the aggressors." Qur’an (2:190).

Muslim laws of war are also admittedly more humane than those of any other religion. The Holy Qur’an has ordained: "And fight for the religion of Allah against those who fight against you, but transgress not by attacking them first, for Allah loveth not the transgressors." Quran (11:257).

What I’m really trying to point out is that people can easily have wrong perceptions of religion. Maybe you think I have a wrong perception of Christianity. However, anything I say I always give references and I keep things logical. If people say I take things out of context, I put it back into context to show my point is valid. Don’t hate me. I’m not here to force you from your religion. I take great care in presenting things to you. I re-read it to make sure it doesn’t look hateful…
__________________
Appreciate 0
      08-30-2007, 05:09 AM   #162
hks786
Major General
United Kingdom
825

 
Drives: *
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK


Posts: 5,351
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by its ray den
how can you have proof for explaining why and how God does what He does? at best we can make a guess with what we know but we can never know for sure unless it says in the Bible for me or Quran for you. if you do know then you must be a prophet or God himself. God can choose to not exercise power the same way He choses to forgive you when you confess your sins instead of punishing you.

all the proof that you say you've presented to me does not amount to anything. as you would say, it's illogical.
Friend, everything I say I prove from the Bible. I really find it strange that you should say I’m illogical. Most of the stuff I say in response is not replied to. Take the example where you tried to argue that Jesus and the Father are one. I proved that this is false from MANY perspectives. I used the Bible as my source of evidence. You believe it to be the word of God. Also, I put it back into context so that I am not cheating anyone. We both know that my point was perfectly valid, and if it isn’t, then I’m depending on your kindness to show me where I may be wrong in my thinking.

Also, about forgiveness: I hope you know that forgiveness is a power, not a limitation. Who can you know that is more merciful and forgiving than God? Noone. We humans don’t have it in our nature to be completely forgiving and merciful all the time. Luckily we don’t need to hit 100% all the time. All we need to do is see where we went wrong and vow to change our ways. Then repent to God with humbleness and humility in hope so that he will accept and forgive us. That’s love for your creation, friend.

Quote:
Originally Posted by its ray den
i've accepted this before i even made my first post. remember? i said that i'm not here to convince you that i'm right and you're wrong. all i wanted to do is to explain to you what Christianity is because you had some good questions worth explaining as they are tough concepts to understand. you can disagree or agree all you want. it's your refusal to simply understand our side of the story is what makes this frustrating.
Thanks for accepting that my questions are good. I feel insulted when people put them down as rhetorical. However, I don’t feel that I’m refusing to understand. I always use your own text, the Bible, to make my points and raise questions. I keep things strictly logical. I don’t use science or finite things to explain God. I only explain God in the ways revealed himself in our books. Both the Quran and Bible refer to oneness of God. Thus, I analyse this oneness and his being. That’s all I’m doing. Nothing more, nothing less.

Quote:
Originally Posted by its ray den
you're strong in your faith and so am i. in my mind, i know i'm right and anything you say against Christian theology just doesn't make sense because of my presuppositions about who God is. simple discussions won't change that for either of us. if either one of us is converted to the other side, it will take an act of God to unveil our blinded eyes.
Maybe this is where we differ. I never keep the thought “I know I’m right”. I don’t keep presuppositions in my head. In dialogue, I start with the thought, “There are many paths in life, I have to be prepared to accept the truth whatever it may be”.
__________________
Appreciate 0
      08-30-2007, 08:59 AM   #163
its ray den
Second Lieutenant
2

 
Drives: 2004 Mazda6s
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: NY


Posts: 207
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Friend, everything I say I prove from the Bible. I really find it strange that you should say I’m illogical. Most of the stuff I say in response is not replied to. Take the example where you tried to argue that Jesus and the Father are one. I proved that this is false from MANY perspectives. I used the Bible as my source of evidence. You believe it to be the word of God. Also, I put it back into context so that I am not cheating anyone. We both know that my point was perfectly valid, and if it isn’t, then I’m depending on your kindness to show me where I may be wrong in my thinking.
here's an example of why your usage of the bible as "evidence" is invalid to me.

Quote:
Secondly, many things can be implied by the phrase “I and the father are one”. I think that it means ONE in purpose. I think you are right about looking at the context. So I’ll explain. Jesus (AS) said to the surrounding Jews that he does works in the Father’s name. This raises the first question, how can Jesus (AS) do it only in the Father’s name? Why do it in the Father’s name if the Son, Father & Spirit make up God? Would it not make sense to say “I do it in my name” since Jesus is God according to Christians? Also, notice here that he does it in the Father’s name, meaning that he does things for the purpose of the Father. This is what I’m saying too. Jesus (AS) and God are same in their purpose.
you chose to interpret the phrase "I and the Father are one", a phrase that doesn't support your position, as figurative. yet you choose to interpret the other sentences that can be used to support your position as literal. you have already made your decision, you are just looking for things in the bible to support your. did you even think about WHY Jesus said what He said? did you think about the situation, the context and try to interpret the bible that way?

think about it a little bit. you're Jesus. most of the Jewish leaders hate you for what you preach. they don't believe you're the true Son of God. they accuse you of being a blasphemer and a law breaker. would you still point to yourself saying, i do all this in my name. no!! they would see that as selfish. but instead you point to God! someone that they know of. you put it in perspective for them and then you drop the bomb, "I and the Father are one." this is logical.

if you think that the trinity is hard to understand now, how could you expect people back then to understand if Jesus said "i do all this in my name"? this is illogical.

if anything at all, we can both agree that Jesus has a special relationship with God that no other prophet/angel/whatever had. no one has ever made the claims Jesus did. Son of God? Authority to forgive sins?

to make these claims, Jesus had to either be telling the truth, or He was a crazy bastard who wanted to die in the worst way possible.

Quote:
Also, about forgiveness: I hope you know that forgiveness is a power, not a limitation. Who can you know that is more merciful and forgiving than God? Noone. We humans don’t have it in our nature to be completely forgiving and merciful all the time. Luckily we don’t need to hit 100% all the time. All we need to do is see where we went wrong and vow to change our ways. Then repent to God with humbleness and humility in hope so that he will accept and forgive us. That’s love for your creation, friend.
not sure what this is for. i agree with almost everything here.

Quote:
I feel insulted when people put them down as rhetorical.
i said some of your questions are good

Quote:
However, I don’t feel that I’m refusing to understand. I always use your own text, the Bible, to make my points and raise questions. I keep things strictly logical. I don’t use science or finite things to explain God. I only explain God in the ways revealed himself in our books. Both the Quran and Bible refer to oneness of God. Thus, I analyse this oneness and his being. That’s all I’m doing. Nothing more, nothing less.
if there is ANYTHING that can't be understood using simple logic, it is the trinity. seriously, there is no way to logically understand how it works. you just have to know what it is and what it isn't. it isn't logical to me so there's no way i can make it logical to you. so let's just end this right here.

Quote:
Maybe this is where we differ. I never keep the thought “I know I’m right”. I don’t keep presuppositions in my head. In dialogue, I start with the thought, “There are many paths in life, I have to be prepared to accept the truth whatever it may be”.
you say all this now, but your posts on the subject matter speak differently. you are full of assertions and presuppositions. if you weren't, then you would not say this or that is illogical, or this or that is impossible.
Appreciate 0
      08-30-2007, 10:13 AM   #164
hks786
Major General
United Kingdom
825

 
Drives: *
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK


Posts: 5,351
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by its ray den
you chose to interpret the phrase "I and the Father are one", a phrase that doesn't support your position, as figurative. yet you choose to interpret the other sentences that can be used to support your position as literal. you have already made your decision, you are just looking for things in the bible to support your. did you even think about WHY Jesus said what He said? did you think about the situation, the context and try to interpret the bible that way?
Firstly, before I gave my response I clearly highlighted that there are several ways we can address this verse. I showed the facts:

* By the time we get to John, Jesus (AS) refers to God as his/the father SO much more than Marks Gospel.
* These striking statements are only found in John's Gospel.
* To continue we must assume that we are using Jesus (AS)'s ACTUAL words.

Then, I went on to say that IF it was his real words, it's clear that he was meaning that God and Jesus (AS) are one in the same purpose. Here's why:

* We cannot always take the Gospels language as literal. When God speak of his hand, he doesnt really have a human hand.
* When Jesus speaks about seeing the Father, he doesnt mean literally seeing the Father with your eyes.
* When Jesus spoke about being within people, he didnt mean physically.
* When he spoke about the Apostles being within him, he didnt mean physically.
* When he spoke about many people being one, he didnt mean literally "one being".

You ask if I am considering the context, I think I am. I have actually shown not only the context of verse 30, but other verses which use similar, metaphoric language. Therefore, my point is still valid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by its ray den
think about it a little bit. you're Jesus. most of the Jewish leaders hate you for what you preach. they don't believe you're the true Son of God. they accuse you of being a blasphemer and a law breaker. would you still point to yourself saying, i do all this in my name. no!! they would see that as selfish. but instead you point to God! someone that they know of. you put it in perspective for them and then you drop the bomb, "I and the Father are one." this is logical.
Let's consider the facts. Jesus is part of God, the Father is part of God & the Spirit is part of God. Firstly, let's presuppose that these are Jesus (AS)'s true words. Now why would Jesus (AS) say he is doing it in the Father's name? why not his own or the Holy Spirit? You told me that Jesus, God & the Spirit are equal in power/authority. So why only do it in the Father's name? Why not even say "I am doing it in God's name, I am God".

Did you know there is no statement in the whole Bible that Jesus says "I am God" "Worship me". The word "trinity" is not within the Bible either. Even if these words were there, we'd have to presuppose that this is Jesus (AS)'s true words...

I find it weak that Jesus (AS) doesnt want to appear selfish. God is all-powerful, he should worry about appearing selfish. If Jesus (AS) is God, he should simply say "I am doing this in my name, since I am God".

All of this is regardless though, this isnt even what my case is about. My case is that we should consider that we cant take the Gospels to be literal all the time. I used similar examples that cant be taken literal, so why are you telling me to take verse 30 as literal?

Quote:
Originally Posted by its ray den
if you think that the trinity is hard to understand now, how could you expect people back then to understand if Jesus said "i do all this in my name"? this is illogical.
He can easily say "I do this in my own name, since I am God."

Quote:
Originally Posted by its ray den
if anything at all, we can both agree that Jesus has a special relationship with God that no other prophet/angel/whatever had. no one has ever made the claims Jesus did. Son of God? Authority to forgive sins?
I cant fully agree with you. Yes, there is a difference between a Prophet and Messenger in some way. Messengers bring a book and we believe Jesus (AS) revealed the Injil which is now lost/corrupted. However, other Prophets/Messengers (AS) have performed miracles and brought messages. So I dont think that Jesus (AS) had something different from others.

Son of God? My dear friend, I have already explained that in places this title has been deliberately inserted wrongfully. Also, John 3:16 had to be removed. I ask respectfully, if we had EVERY manuscript with us now, how many more changes would we have to make? the fact is that manuscripts are wasted because they are written on perishable material, many were burnt by the Church etc. So how can we say we have the complete word of God in the Bible? What Bible are you talking about? The RSV, NIV, NASB or the KJV? There are so many versions and a difference in the amount of books etc.

I have also shown how far the title "Son of God" can be bestowed. Many people in the Bible are Sons of God. Also, according to Jewish Law, anyone who brings something from God can be called God and it wont mean they are claiming divinity. I also explained this by giving the verses after John 10:30 where Jesus (AS) didnt claim divinity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by its ray den
not sure what this is for. i agree with almost everything here.
You spoke about God being able to forgive instead of punishing. You made it sound like he could lower himself to forgive. I rather explained that he had the power of forgiveness which cannot be looked as a limit of "lowering" himself as such.

Quote:
Originally Posted by its ray den
if there is ANYTHING that can't be understood using simple logic, it is the trinity. seriously, there is no way to logically understand how it works. you just have to know what it is and what it isn't. it isn't logical to me so there's no way i can make it logical to you. so let's just end this right here.
I've conveyed to you already the implications of not being able to explain God's being logically. God also introduced the fact that he is one, not me. Therefore for people to say he is 1 but still 3in1, we have to analyse if it is acceptable to make such a claim.

Quote:
Originally Posted by its ray den
you say all this now, but your posts on the subject matter speak differently. you are full of assertions and presuppositions. if you weren't, then you would not say this or that is illogical, or this or that is impossible.
I didnt presuppose anything. I always look at the many ways of dealing with verses from the Bible. I always use things in context and use other references to support my point. Also, in the case of Islam, people try to fit in many devious paths like claiming to be new Prophets etc. I always start with the idea that I have to seek the truth wherever it may be. I analyse the Quran and Hadith, not culture and tradition.

I thank Allah that I have been able to seperate truth from falsehood by looking at what he has told us to consider. Him, His Books, Prophets, Angels etc...However, I am still learning even about Islam. I dont pretend to know everything. Infact, all those months ago when I first posted in the Politics/Religion section, I stated that I am not an expert but I'll try my best...
__________________
Appreciate 0
      08-30-2007, 11:02 AM   #165
UncleWede
Long Time Admirer, First Time Owner
United_States
79

 
UncleWede's Avatar
 
Drives: E90 325i Arctic
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oxnard, CA


Posts: 2,364
iTrader: (0)

Allah chose to reveal to Muhamed over 20+ years so that humanity would not be shocked. Why is it so unusual that Jesus chose to claim working in his Father's name, so as not to shock people with his claim of being God?

Who was it that judged over time which Hadiths were not in compliance with the Quran and that they should be left out? Have those (how many?) manuscripts been destroyed just as some (possibly heretical?) writings been destroyed by the Christian church?
Appreciate 0
      09-02-2007, 04:01 PM   #166
hks786
Major General
United Kingdom
825

 
Drives: *
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK


Posts: 5,351
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleWede View Post
Allah chose to reveal to Muhamed over 20+ years so that humanity would not be shocked. Why is it so unusual that Jesus chose to claim working in his Father's name, so as not to shock people with his claim of being God?
This must be my latest reply ever. So sorry, been real busy...

Firstly, to respond to your question, I dont think it matters either way. If Jesus (AS) says he does it in the Father's name or God's name etc, people will still be shocked. Moreover, I think I pointed out in a detailed way that it's quite illogical to claim he was doing it in the Fathers name if he was later going to claim divinity. Like I said last time:

- Why do it in the Father's name? why not the Holy Spirit's name?
- its ray den said Jesus (AS) and the Father are equal in power/authority, so why only in the Father's name?
- Why not say "I am doing it in God's name because I am part of God"?

I also pointed out that this was just an observation. My case did NOT in any way rely on these questions, I was merely pointing out that we cannot take the word of the Gospels to always be literal. I think I showed it well given the context AND other verses in John's Gospel.

Secondly, the 23 years for the Quran wasnt to just not "shock" people. It was to build Islam up gradually etc. There are many reasons for it. Also, Allah revealed the verses in his divine wisdom. If he thought people needed a specific revelation, he revealed it accordingly. See more here and google it too:

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/S...ah%2FLSELayout
http://www.islambyquestions.net/Quran/stages.htm

Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleWede
Who was it that judged over time which Hadiths were not in compliance with the Quran and that they should be left out? Have those (how many?) manuscripts been destroyed just as some (possibly heretical?) writings been destroyed by the Christian church?
Firstly, I do not think linking this to Christianity works well. I'll explain...

The Hadiths are recorded by people whom we have full historical backgrounds about. The same cannot be said about all the writings in the Bible. Here's some examples:

"Serious doubts exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark. They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark. His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, or its original ending has been lost. (From the NIV Bible Foot Notes, page 1528)"

"Although the author does not name himself, evidence outside the Scriptures and inferences from the book itself lead to the conclusion that the author was Luke. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1643)"

"The writer of this letter does not identify himself, but he was obviously well known to the original recipients. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1856)"

"The letter is difficult to date with precision....(From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1905)"

"It seems safe to conclude that the book, at least in its early form, dates from the beginning of the monarchy. Some think that Samuel may have had a hand in shaping or compiling the materials of the book, but in fact we are unsure who the final author or editor was. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 286)"

"Although, according to tradition, Samuel wrote the book, authorship is actually uncertain. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 322)"

"The date of the composition is also unknown, but it was undoubtedly during the monarchy. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 322)"

"The author is unknown. Jewish tradition points to Samuel, but it is unlikely that he is the author because the mention of David (4:17,22) implies a later date. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 360)"

"Who the author was cannot be known with certainty since the book itself gives no indication of his identity. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 368)"

"There is little conclusive evidence as to the identity of the author of 1,2 Kings. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 459)"

"Whoever the author was, it is clear that he was familiar with the book of Deuteronomy. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 459)"

"According to ancient Jewish tradition, Ezra wrote Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah (see Introduction to Ezra: Literary Form and Authorship), but this cannot be established with certainty. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 569)"

"Although we do not know who wrote the book of Esther, from internal evidence it is possible to make some inferences about the author and the date of composition. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 707)"

"The unknown author probably had access to oral and/or written sources....(From the NIV Bible commentary, page 722)"

"Regarding authorship, opinions are even more divided....(From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 773)"
etc...


Also, Hadiths have the most strictest of guidelines to grade them. They are classes accordingly so we know how risky it is to trust them. I feel that this coupled with the Hadith collectors backgrounds is hugely beneficial to us. Moreover, we are told by Allah in the Quran to follow the sunnah (example) of the Holy Prophet (SAW). That's why Hadiths are important to us. Here's some references from the Quran:

(3:32), (3:132), (4:59), (5:92), (8:1), (8:20), (8:46), (24:54), (24:56), (47:33) etc...

Here's a useful article if you really want to know about how Hadiths are classed etc: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/Ulum/asb7.html

Now, in the case of the Bible, I have shown

- It cant possibly be the inspired word of God.
- The Books in the Bible were selected using divination etc.
- Christianity was Romanised to compete with other pagan religions to make it seem more attractive
- Gospels that didnt fit in with this new Romanised religion were burnt and destroyed so that we couldnt see Jesus (AS)'s true teachings.
- The Gospels that were chosen are written a very long time after the "Crucifixion"
- The Gospels progressively show less of Jesus (AS)'s teachings and more of Pauls. In some places, events have been reworked. All of this was done to heighten Jesus (AS)'s status from man to God.
- The Gospels over time, were corrupted and complaints go back as far as the 1st Century. Complaints were made by Dionysius, early Church Father Origen etc.
- To this day, we are still making changes to the Bible because manuscripts are found revealing fabrications, lies and such verses are removed (Imagine how many more changes will be made if we find earlier manuscripts revealing lies, this is hard though because texts were written on perishable material)
__________________
Appreciate 0
      09-03-2007, 12:30 AM   #167
UncleWede
Long Time Admirer, First Time Owner
United_States
79

 
UncleWede's Avatar
 
Drives: E90 325i Arctic
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oxnard, CA


Posts: 2,364
iTrader: (0)

I don't have a copy of the commentary, but it appears to be mixing old and new testament. Sure, with the date of the old testament writings, we are going to be unsure of the actual author. The Hadiths have "full historical backgrounds about" because they are relatively new, yes? Do you have similar uncertainty to ascribe to the authorship of the Torah?
Appreciate 0
      09-03-2007, 06:04 PM   #168
hks786
Major General
United Kingdom
825

 
Drives: *
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK


Posts: 5,351
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleWede View Post
I don't have a copy of the commentary, but it appears to be mixing old and new testament. Sure, with the date of the old testament writings, we are going to be unsure of the actual author.The Hadiths have "full historical backgrounds about" because they are relatively new, yes?
Yes it might mix old and new testament, but the point is still valid. Many New Testament texts we cannot be sure of the author. Also, the date shouldnt matter. The author could have easily revealed himself within the text.

It's regardless though, my case against the reliability and trust we can put in the Bible hardly brushed upon the lack of historical backgrounds of the authors...

Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleWede
Do you have similar uncertainty to ascribe to the authorship of the Torah?
The Qur’anic position about the previous scriptures is clarified in the following verse:

To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what God hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If God had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to God; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute;
Quran (5:48)


This verse means that the Qur’an confirms the truth that remains in the former scriptures. The Arabic word translated, “Watcher over” is Muhaymin, which clearly indicates that the Qur’an confirms only the truth in the previous books. That the keepers of the previous books had distorted them is made clear in another verse:

Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from God," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.
Quran (2:79)


And because of their breaking their covenant, We have cursed them and made hard their hearts. They change words from their places and have abandoned a good part of the message that was sent to them. And you will not cease to discover deceit in them, except a few of them. But forgive them and overlook(their misdeed). Verily! Allah loves the kindly.
Quran (5:13)
__________________
Appreciate 0
      09-09-2007, 08:55 PM   #169
FloridaBoy
First Lieutenant
13

 
FloridaBoy's Avatar
 
Drives: 2005 Z4 3.oi
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Central Florida


Posts: 376
iTrader: (0)

Devout Muslim Turns to Christ, speaks the truth in love:
This is powerful, don't miss these 3 videos they are funny and a real blessing!





http://www.erguncaner.com/home/schedule/default.php

__________________
2005 3.0i, Black Sapphire, SMG, Navigation, Heated leather, iPod w/Dice, Carver Subs, Sport, Foamless SG, 3M Clear Bra, Sirius, 18 inch 107's

Appreciate 0
      09-10-2007, 06:17 PM   #170
hks786
Major General
United Kingdom
825

 
Drives: *
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK


Posts: 5,351
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by FloridaBoy View Post
Devout Muslim Turns to Christ, speaks the truth in love:
This is powerful, don't miss these 3 videos they are funny and a real blessing!





http://www.erguncaner.com/home/schedule/default.php

Wow, I seriously worry about you. Unlike other Christian brothers, you ignore what I say and come out with the same stuff all the time. You are achieving NOTHING. If this wasnt a serious topic, I'd laugh at you...

But just for your benefit, I'll show the great error in your logic. Below is a list of famous converts to Islam FROM CHRISTIANITY. Does this prove anything? no. If we both do this, it neither brings us closer to understanding eachother OR finding the truth...

Thomas J. Abercrombie
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf
Tariq Abdul-Wahad
Abdul-Karim al-Jabbar
Ivan Aguéli
Dawud Wharnsby Ali
Muhammad Ali
Rowland Allanson-Winn
Ryan G. Anderson
Nicolas Anelka
Yasin Abu Bakr
Muhammad Abd-al-Rahman Barker
David Belfield
Józef Bem
Mohammed Knut Bernström
Yahya Birt
Art Blakey
Tawana Brawley
Willie Brigitte
Dolores "LaLa" Brooks
Torquato Cardilli
David Chappelle
Benjamin Chavis
Jimmy Cliff
Aukai Collins
Jerôme Courtailler
Ian Dallas
Muriel Degauque
Isabelle Eberhardt
Yahiya Emerick
C. Jack Ellis
Keith Ellison
Yusuf Estes
Chris Eubank
Sultaana Freeman
Adam Yahiye Gadahn
Roger Garaudy
George XI of Kartli
René Guénon
Ryan Harris
Murad Wilfred Hofmann
Knud Holmboe
Bernard Hopkins
Ahmed Huber
Jermaine Jackson
Sarah Joseph
Nuh Ha Mim Keller
Michael Muhammad Knight
John Walker Lindh
Germaine Lindsay
Alexander Litvinenko
Vincenzo Luvineri
Ingrid Mattson
Lee Boyd Malvo
Ruqaiyyah Waris Maqsood
Iyasu V
Jacques-Francois Menou
Bruno Metsu
Daniel Moore
Preacher Moss
Matthew Saad Muhammad
Peter Murphy
Sheila Musaji
Ibrahim Muteferrika
John Nelson
Queen Noor of Jordan
Omar Pasha
Pernilla Ouis
Emin Pasha
Judar Pasha
Dr. Bilal Philips
Poncke Princen
St. John Philby
Marmaduke Pickthall
William Abdullah Quilliam
Radu cel Frumos
Ilie II Rareş
Ahmad Rashād
Franck Ribéry
Yvonne Ridley
Ahmed Santos
Sana al-Sayegh
Scarface
Mario Scialoja
Betty Shabazz
Zaid Shakir
Skanderbeg
Rudolf Carl von Slatin
Suleiman Pasha
Idris Tawfiq
Joe Tex
Joseph Thomas
Danny Thompson
Richard Thompson
Malcolm X
Top Topham
Gabriele Torsello
Philippe Troussier
Mihnea Turcitul
Abu Usamah
Siraj Wahaj
Danny Williams
James Yee
Mohammad Yousuf
Hamza Yusuf
Alexander Russell Webb
Suhaib Webb
Abdulla Webster
John Whitehead
Timothy Winter
Zağanos Pasha
Mohammed Zakariya
Omar Sharif

I'd give you the list of converts from Judaism, but I think that'll be enough for now...

Here's a few people that I went to the liberty of giving links to:

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=Converted2Islam - This guy used to be a Christian but now preaches why Islam is the truth using the Quran and Bible.

- Here's Dr. Bilal Philips. He converted to Islam to and teaches us why it's the truth. This is one of hundreds of lectures.

- This is Sheik Yusuf Estes. He used to be a Christian Minister but converted to Islam. He uses the Quran and Bible to prove why Islam is the truth and has extensive knowledge of etymology and religious scripture and explains things very logically. Again, one of HUNDREDS of his amazing lectures!

I could go on forever but I'm sure you see my point, also, here's a pic which promotes Islam. Maybe you'll realise now that telling people about converts from Islam to Christianity and posting pics that promote your faith are USELESS acts.



That is arabic for "There is no God but Allah and Muhammed (SAW) is His Messenger."

Edit: Lets not forget Tyson from the list above
__________________

Last edited by hks786; 09-11-2007 at 01:12 PM.
Appreciate 0
      09-11-2007, 12:41 PM   #171
UncleWede
Long Time Admirer, First Time Owner
United_States
79

 
UncleWede's Avatar
 
Drives: E90 325i Arctic
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oxnard, CA


Posts: 2,364
iTrader: (0)

What, no love for Mike Tyson???
Appreciate 0
      09-11-2007, 01:02 PM   #172
hks786
Major General
United Kingdom
825

 
Drives: *
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK


Posts: 5,351
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleWede View Post
What, no love for Mike Tyson???
haha

He was on the list, but when I took away the descriptions next to each name I guess I must have deleted him
__________________
Appreciate 0
      09-11-2007, 04:11 PM   #173
its ray den
Second Lieutenant
2

 
Drives: 2004 Mazda6s
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: NY


Posts: 207
iTrader: (0)

i think it's better to leave mike tyson off the list...

just a quick response to one of the videos linked entitled "Is Jesus Divine Part1"... or something like that.

there's not much to say about most of his "proofs" aside from the fact that they are terrible interpretations of scripture. the only interesting thing that i had to look up was his reference to the greek version of John 1:1 and found something to refute his claim right off the bat. it's even on www.carm.org as an argument jehova's witnesses use to claim that Jesus was not God.

so here it is: greek isn't as easy as that man in the video makes it out to be. and before he starts using a language he probably doesn't know as proof that Jesus isn't God, he should actually do some more research on it before regurgitating something he found on a website against Christianity. oops!

you can do a simple google search to find out what i'm talking about... but the gist is, the phrase that the man says the greek manuscript should say to indicate that "the Word was THE God" isn't even proper greek.

sorry, i'm late for the gym.. adios!
Appreciate 0
      09-11-2007, 04:16 PM   #174
hks786
Major General
United Kingdom
825

 
Drives: *
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK


Posts: 5,351
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by its ray den View Post
i think it's better to leave mike tyson off the list...

just a quick response to one of the videos linked entitled "Is Jesus Divine Part1"... or something like that.

there's not much to say about most of his "proofs" aside from the fact that they are terrible interpretations of scripture. the only interesting thing that i had to look up was his reference to the greek version of John 1:1 and found something to refute his claim right off the bat. it's even on www.carm.org as an argument jehova's witnesses use to claim that Jesus was not God.

so here it is: greek isn't as easy as that man in the video makes it out to be. and before he starts using a language he probably doesn't know as proof that Jesus isn't God, he should actually do some more research on it before regurgitating something he found on a website against Christianity. oops!

you can do a simple google search to find out what i'm talking about... but the gist is, the phrase that the man says the greek manuscript should say to indicate that "the Word was THE God" isn't even proper greek.

sorry, i'm late for the gym.. adios!
They were just random videos I posted up though. I hadnt even looked at them. Anyway, regarding "Is Jesus (AS) divine?", I feel that I have explained at great length in this thread why he isnt. I didnt rely on the Quran to prove this, but I used the Bible which you believe to be the word of God...
__________________
Appreciate 0
      09-11-2007, 06:16 PM   #175
its ray den
Second Lieutenant
2

 
Drives: 2004 Mazda6s
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: NY


Posts: 207
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
I feel that I have explained at great length in this thread why he isnt.
you have, but you haven't proved anything to me because your proofs are matters of interpretation. no matter how i explain how i interpret scripture to support that Jesus is indeed God, you will always interpret it differently. compound that with the fact that you believe that a triune God is impossible (meaning, how can 1 person be 3 persons, at the same time.. it's a mind freak for sure) makes this discussion altogether pointless.
an aside: so the reason why i only chose the greek thing to talk about is because greek isn't open to interpretation between our faiths. it is what it is.
like you, i've exhausted myself trying to show you how to understand the trinity. i've put my cards on the table already and i've got nothing else to show you. this is why i stopped checking this thread as often as i did. well that, and the fact that i've spent too much time during work trying to respond here.. i started feeling bad for my lack of productivity. hehe..

so to this particular subject, i'm done with it. but i don't mind answering other questions.

Jesus is God, and to Him be the Glory forever and ever...
Appreciate 0
      09-11-2007, 06:54 PM   #176
hks786
Major General
United Kingdom
825

 
Drives: *
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK


Posts: 5,351
iTrader: (0)

Well, in response to what you just said...
Firstly, you are right about one thing. We are interpreting the Bible differently. But what puzzles me is why you are 100% certain the John 10 proves the trinity. I have shown:

* By the time we get to John, Jesus (AS) refers to God as his/the father SO much more than Marks Gospel.
* These striking statements are only found in John's Gospel.
* To continue we must assume that we are using Jesus (AS)'s ACTUAL words.

Then, I went on to say that IF it was his real words, it's clear that he was meaning that God and Jesus (AS) are one in the same purpose. Here's why:

* We cannot always take the Gospels language as literal. When God speak of his hand, he doesnt really have a human hand.
* When Jesus speaks about seeing the Father, he doesnt mean literally seeing the Father with your eyes.
* When Jesus spoke about being within people, he didnt mean physically.
* When he spoke about the Apostles being within him, he didnt mean physically.
* When he spoke about many people being one, he didnt mean literally "one being".

Also, that aside, I have shown that it's very hard to trust that the Bible is infact the word of God. Firstly, I would ask what Bible? There are just so many versions and they keep changing! People like Florida Boy quote verses from the Bible like John 3:16, but did you know that 32 Scholars of the highest eminence backed by 50 cooperating Christian Denominations threw it out of the Bible? They said that we owe a huge debt to the KJV "yet the KJV has grave defects...these defects are so many and so serious as to call for a revision to the English translation."

Here's a few other corrupt verses:

Mark (1:1): NIV Bible tells us in footnote that title “Son of God” was inserted later.
Acts: (8:37): NIV Bible removed the words again because “Son of God” was inserted later.
1 John (5:7,8): Only verse in whole of Bible that deals with the trinity. It has been removed because it is later insertion.
I Timothy (3:16): used to say “God” but we now know it is a forgery and has been corrected back to “he”
John (7:53-8:11): again, later additions.
Mark (16:9-20): The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have these verses.

Sadly, I doubt we'll find more manuscripts that predate what we already have. They were written on perishable material. However, if we did find more, imagine how many changes would need to be made to the Bible. But I guess we'll never know. Recognised Bible Scholar, Bruce Metzger, also points this out.

Also, I showed that complaints about corruption in the Gospels went back as far as the 1st century! I also showed that the means of selecting what should be in the Bible was based on divination and PROVES that it was authorised by men, not God.

I think I summed it up mostly, when I said in the case of the Bible...

- It cant possibly be the inspired word of God.
- The Books in the Bible were selected using divination etc.
- Christianity was Romanised to compete with other pagan religions to make it seem more attractive
- Gospels that didnt fit in with this new Romanised religion were burnt and destroyed so that we couldnt see Jesus (AS)'s true teachings.
- The Gospels that were chosen are written a very long time after the "Crucifixion"
- The Gospels progressively show less of Jesus (AS)'s teachings and more of Pauls. In some places, events have been reworked. All of this was done to heighten Jesus (AS)'s status from man to God.
- The Gospels over time, were corrupted and complaints go back as far as the 1st Century. Complaints were made by Dionysius, early Church Father Origen etc.
- To this day, we are still making changes to the Bible because manuscripts are found revealing fabrications, lies and such verses are removed (Imagine how many more changes will be made if we find earlier manuscripts revealing lies, this is hard though because texts were written on perishable material)


I must ask, respectively, how does this hold your faith together? Faith should be based on something, especially if you are so sure it's the truth.
__________________

Last edited by hks786; 09-12-2007 at 06:45 AM.
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:33 AM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST