Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Violence in Islam and Christianity: A Comparison
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 12>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800 		  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Violence in Islam and Christianity: A Comparison
    Posted: 23-Jun-2008 at 11:44
Islam and Christianity are religions with the intent of benefiting humanity, violence is not encouraged, the virtues of peace, love and tolerance are encouraged as descent moral human behaviour.
 
The problem is not religion, its us humans. For example just look at this thread, indirectly its about, "my religion is more peaceful than yours", another superiority complex and a total neglect of the essence of religion.
 
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
arch.buff View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 18-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 606 		  Quote arch.buff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jun-2008 at 18:03
Originally posted by es_bih

Read up on Hodgson if you want a historical account of the expansion. Again that would rather be called Arab expansion than "Islamic" expansion. Considering that Jewish and Christian tribes participated in the conquest alongside the Muslim, I would rather agree with fascinated in calling it economic expansion.

3:31 Say, "If you love God then follow me so
God will love you and forgive your
sins." God is Forgiver, Compassionate.
77
3:32 Say, "Obey God and the messenger."
But if they turn away, then God does not
like the ingrates.


This deals with a clear rejection by people who have been explained the Word.

However.






If you had read on a little further you would have seen that the following verses back up the preceding. Again nitpicking doesn't bring much context in the Qu'ran.
3:113 They are not all the same, from the
people of the book are an upright nation;
they recite God's signs during parts of
the night and they prostrate.
3:114 They acknowledge God and the Last
day, promote recognized norms and
deter from evil, and they hasten in
goodness; these are of the reformed
ones.
3:115 What they do of good will not be turned
back, and God is aware of the
conscientious.

Clearly accepting Islam is not a perrogative, nor does God abandon everyone on account of it.

3:199 Among the people of the book are those
who acknowledge God, what was sent
down to you and what was sent down to
them. They revere God and they do not
purchase with God's signs a cheap price.
These will have their reward with their
Lord. God is quick in computation.







 
 
 
Thank you es_bih for all of your words, I do not wish to take quotes out of context, which is why I read quite a bit of the Third Chapter. I am somewhat familiar with how Muslims view other people of the Book, but maybe you missed the direction of my last post. I was refering to how Christians and Muslims view those that have no faith. The passsages you have quoted refer to only those 'people of the Book'. Also, the interpretation I have states "love", and the interpretation you have offered states "like". Any idea of what interpretation is more closer to the original Arabic?
 
Here, I will refer you back to a fragment of the post in question:
 
"It would seem that both viewpoints from christians and muslims to the "infidel" would be a helpful tool to more properly analyze both violence manifest, and the harboring of notions from each side that could set in motion the acts that in most cases is condemned by both faiths." -arch.buff 
 
You see, I understand that Islam isnt inherently violent, but does it leave voids as to interpret violent actions to those unbelievers that do not acknowledge God?
 
 
 
 
Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jun-2008 at 20:17
Its Yuksels recent translation in accordance with two other scholars. Its the closest to Arabic for the most part. Seko has a link to it, they also ofoff a pdf bversion.er
Back to Top
fascinated View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 20-Jun-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		  Quote fascinated Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jun-2008 at 04:20

Akolouthos;

 
The more I think about this the less I became sure of that I got the grammar right. So disregard the taking one’s own life issue with the verb MWT. Just keep that in mind that QTL NFS in the quoted verse means get rid of the earthly desires of one’s self.

 

My apologies for the mistake and just like the way I suggested you I all be more CAREFUL not to touch things I have enough knowledge about. I will not quote without being sure.
Back to Top
arch.buff View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 18-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 606 		  Quote arch.buff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jun-2008 at 15:57
Originally posted by fascinated

Originally posted by arch.buff

Originally posted by fascinated

arch.buff
 
You have to consider one fact; Jesus was sent to Israelites.
 
In other words He was preaching to a people who was aware of the previous messengers.
 
Islam on the other hand was sent among those whose fore fathers was not warned.
 
This should mean waht was sent to Israelites was sent as a whole and its completenes to a people who was vaugely familiar with the previous messages. They had go thorugh what Jews and Christians went thorugh at the same time in a very small period. The early Muslims tried to exist similar to Christians for about a ten years of period. They were bashed boyckoted and ambargoed and beaten sometimes to death. Hence came the difference between the Mekkan and Madinean verses. Until then Muslims were not defending themselves by force.
 
So actually Muslims experienced both Christian way and the Jewish way in one single generation.
 
More to that, if Jews had listened to Jesus there would not even be a Christianity today i.e. as if it is a different teaching that is.
 
True, Christ was sent as a Jew, but he was sent to Jew and Gentile alike. However, I understand what you're trying to convey. From what I know, the persecution of Muslims pretty much ended by the time of Muhammed's death. There was nothing to hinder Islam in her expansion, and it would appear Islam clearly acknowledged this. Islam was really a unifying tool for the Arabs. So, as history would tell us, Islam went on the warpath. Maybe this is a harsh word that should not be employed when one seeks to create a friendly dialogue; however, the raiding Arabs did not show up on the doorstep of the Middle-East and North Africa cupcakes in hand. Conversely, in many areas the Arabs were accepted with open arms for much of the Egyptian christians and christians in the broader area were not looked upon kindly by their Nicene brethren. Although this can not be equated to any sort of norm for all the other would be conquered areas. What  should be of significant note here is the way in which both christian and muslim view those who would deny their very beliefs. Here, I am thinking specifically of a quote from the Quran:
 
 'Say: "Obey Allah and His Messenger": But if they turn back, Allah loveth not those who reject Faith.' (Quran 3:32)
 
The NT, on the other hand, nowhere states that God does not love those of no faith. Christ even went on to teach that the rule that it be permitted to hate the enemies of God, was no longer valid. It would seem that both viewpoints from christians and muslims to the "infidel" would be a helpful tool to more properly analyze both violence manifest, and the harboring of notions from each side that could set in motion the acts that in most cases is condemned by both faiths. 
 
As to your last point, I was under the assumption that this thread was intended for the discussion of comparative analysis of the world's two main religions as goes violence, not their validity. If that had been the case, I would have refered you to a few scholarly examples that treat the heretical sect that grew just outside of the sphere of Christianity, but not without its influences, and would in turn grow into what we today call, Islam. 
 
OK, I would recomnmand you to read Karen Armstrong. She was a former Catholic nun and wrote a lot about interfaith issues. I do not have to go through all the details of how Islam spread. However, I will tell this; Economical expansion and ideological expansion are two different things. Beyond Jerusalem the expansion was made during the time of Fifth Khalif who was namde as Muawiyah. And those times when Islam went through a big change inside and out.
 
Jesus was sent to Israelites according to Bible and The Qur'An, not for the gentiles or to all humanity. I remeber that I quoted this before.
 
As for the validity issue I meant that Christianity becoming a different religion than Juadism was merely due to Jews reaction to Jesus' message. Gentile repsonded even though they were not responsible from the message.
 
No you can not define Islam a heretical sect of Christianity since Islam is unique on its message because of the Qur'an. The only religion that its name is mentioned in its source Is Islam, for example. If you bring a verse that God called the teaching of Jesus as Christianity or teaching of Moses as Judaism then you could have done that how ever the only religion on the face of the earth its name is mentioned in its source is Islam
 
"...Today I compeleted my favor upon you and I chose Islam for you as a religion"5:3 Qur'An
 
Just because Qur'an accepts the previous messangers is not enough to bring it close to become a sect of either Judaism or Christianity. Islam is Islam. No scholarly appraoch can change this. Again interpretation vs. clear expression.
 
You see, this is the confusing part, for me at least. How can the expansion be seperated from Islam? In almost all the treatments Ive read it clearly expresses that the Arabs were filled with the zeal of Islam; truly, this was their rally call. A motivational source for all, if you will. How can that be seperated from their expansion? It is historically intertwined.
Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jun-2008 at 16:54
Were the Christian and Jewish tribes also filled with zeal of Islam?


You must separate connotations from facts sometimes. Even when dealing with early sources; a lot of times you will get one message if it is written after some time has passed. Here is an example - the Ottoman official annals in the 1600s were very Islamically oriented, whereas the reality of the 1400s actually had the Ottoman state as a multi-ethnic and multi-religious state whose conquests and expansion was based upon marriages - politics - diplomacy - and and more imperial based conquest. I think Finkel explains that well in her book Osman's dream. The sultans married into the Christian royal houses and into the Islamic/Turkic. Once the Empire stabilized and especially once they gained the Caliphate do we see a more Islamic outlook taking form, mostly in order to legitimize the royal history and their perrogatives to rule. Such a case can be applied to the early Islamic conquests, too. It is far too easy to credit Islam as the source of zeal - even by relative conmeporaries who looked back two generations and saw victories of generals such as Khalid ibn Walid as something astounding and God-given. Even by contemporaries he was called the Sword of God/Allah. For us however we tend to look at history more objectively and without a preset mission. History had been written in much a different way in antiquity than now - objectivity was rare - oft as Islam was gaining hegemony by the 9th ct a writer could attribute much to it - etc. In a sense they are ideologoes. Hodgson has a good book on it - and I believe Esposito, too.
Back to Top
fascinated View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 20-Jun-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		  Quote fascinated Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jun-2008 at 11:57

Originally posted by arch.buff

Originally posted by fascinated

Originally posted by arch.buff

Originally posted by fascinated

arch.buff

 

You have to consider one fact; Jesus was sent to Israelites.

 

In other words He was preaching to a people who was aware of the previous messengers.

 

Islam on the other hand was sent among those whose fore fathers was not warned.

 

This should mean waht was sent to Israelites was sent as a whole and its completenes to a people who was vaugely familiar with the previous messages. They had go thorugh what Jews and Christians went thorugh at the same time in a very small period. The early Muslims tried to exist similar to Christians for about a ten years of period. They were bashed boyckoted and ambargoed and beaten sometimes to death. Hence came the difference between the Mekkan and Madinean verses. Until then Muslims were not defending themselves by force.

 

So actually Muslims experienced both Christian way and the Jewish way in one single generation.

 

More to that, if Jews had listened to Jesus there would not even be a Christianity today i.e. as if it is a different teaching that is.

 

True, Christ was sent as a Jew, but he was sent to Jew and Gentile alike. However, I understand what you're trying to convey. From what I know, the persecution of Muslims pretty much ended by the time of Muhammed's death. There was nothing to hinder Islam in her expansion, and it would appear Islam clearly acknowledged this. Islam was really a unifying tool for the Arabs. So, as history would tell us, Islam went on the warpath. Maybe this is a harsh word that should not be employed when one seeks to create a friendly dialogue; however, the raiding Arabs did not show up on the doorstep of the Middle-East and North Africa cupcakes in hand. Conversely, in many areas the Arabs were accepted with open arms for much of the Egyptian christians and christians in the broader area were not looked upon kindly by their Nicene brethren. Although this can not be equated to any sort of norm for all the other would be conquered areas. What  should be of significant note here is the way in which both christian and muslim view those who would deny their very beliefs. Here, I am thinking specifically of a quote from the Quran:

 

 'Say: "Obey Allah and His Messenger": But if they turn back, Allah loveth not those who reject Faith.' (Quran 3:32)

 

The NT, on the other hand, nowhere states that God does not love those of no faith. Christ even went on to teach that the rule that it be permitted to hate the enemies of God, was no longer valid. It would seem that both viewpoints from christians and muslims to the "infidel" would be a helpful tool to more properly analyze both violence manifest, and the harboring of notions from each side that could set in motion the acts that in most cases is condemned by both faiths. 

 

As to your last point, I was under the assumption that this thread was intended for the discussion of comparative analysis of the world's two main religions as goes violence, not their validity. If that had been the case, I would have refered you to a few scholarly examples that treat the heretical sect that grew just outside of the sphere of Christianity, but not without its influences, and would in turn grow into what we today call, Islam. 

 

OK, I would recomnmand you to read Karen Armstrong. She was a former Catholic nun and wrote a lot about interfaith issues. I do not have to go through all the details of how Islam spread. However, I will tell this; Economical expansion and ideological expansion are two different things. Beyond Jerusalem the expansion was made during the time of Fifth Khalif who was namde as Muawiyah. And those times when Islam went through a big change inside and out.

 

Jesus was sent to Israelites according to Bible and The Qur'An, not for the gentiles or to all humanity. I remeber that I quoted this before.

 

As for the validity issue I meant that Christianity becoming a different religion than Juadism was merely due to Jews reaction to Jesus' message. Gentile repsonded even though they were not responsible from the message.

 

No you can not define Islam a heretical sect of Christianity since Islam is unique on its message because of the Qur'an. The only religion that its name is mentioned in its source Is Islam, for example. If you bring a verse that God called the teaching of Jesus as Christianity or teaching of Moses as Judaism then you could have done that how ever the only religion on the face of the earth its name is mentioned in its source is Islam

 

"...Today I compeleted my favor upon you and I chose Islam for you as a religion"5:3 Qur'An

 

Just because Qur'an accepts the previous messangers is not enough to bring it close to become a sect of either Judaism or Christianity. Islam is Islam. No scholarly appraoch can change this. Again interpretation vs. clear expression.

 

You see, this is the confusing part, for me at least. How can the expansion be seperated from Islam? In almost all the treatments Ive read it clearly expresses that the Arabs were filled with the zeal of Islam; truly, this was their rally call. A motivational source for all, if you will. How can that be seperated from their expansion? It is historically intertwined.

 

As long as those who spread were/are Muslims you can not separate it from Islam. But than it is the same for Christianity. As long as those who spread you can not separate it from Christianity. Similarly, today’s western culture comes to its technological level even though Christianity. Christians claim this advancement or even though freedom of speech came to this popularity today even though Christian church Christians claim this. More to that, these happened in Europe via bloody revolutions. French revolution, for example, If it did not by Christians they enjoy the results of it, and as long as you Christians does not like what those revolutionists actions you owe them your liberty. It is true that even if those revolutionists had chosen Christianity as their faith.

 

So, regardless whether Christianity is peaceful or not the presence of it or survival of it depends on others who take action that would result spreading the Christianity, even if it is a bloody conflict. For that matter we can easily say that Christianity could spread only in an opportunistic manner more than being peaceful.

 

Here is a scenario for you the world’s economical system is based on usury right now. Christian faith is against usury as well as Muslim faith. If Muslims fight to get rid of this system and succeed to topple over it and bring a system that does no depend on usury Christian should embrace it. However, in case of Islam, if you try to evangelize Muslims by trying to claim that Christianity is more peaceful than Islam, Muslims have all the right in world and in the here after to tell you that “If it wasn’t for Muslims and Islam you would not be enjoying the results of the non-usury based economy, your faith might be peaceful but apparently was not enough to make necessary changes by taking necessary actions. So we do not accept your faith since if we fall into such a situation again we will not be able to get out of it especially when it comes to fight against the power holder of the time.”

 

You see being just and being violent are too different things. And that’s why if it wasn’t for Constantine Christianity could have never went in to Europe at all. Constantine was a king who fought many fights i.e. violent man according to Christianity the way you try to present now. After that many fights were fought, many wars made. Those were Christians as well. So due this aspect Christianity inadvertently should adapt the dominant governing class or ruling organization in a society. The best example is, lived in middle ages and Martin Luther and John Calven adapted Christianity into the new power holding class … the bourgeoisie. That’s why today we are witnessing the church performing gay marriages etc.

 

When I said Christianity never had the chance to spread at all the reason was so called being peaceful or rather being pacifist. Amish being the most pacifists of all were not even considered as true Christians at all. Their home land, today’s Switzerland has everything to do with money issues involved in wars etc. i.e. making money out of violence but they do not want to involve in any war is not enough not make them peaceful or non-violent at all.

 

So, Yes those who spread to the world conquering etc. were Muslims and that was the time when the strength of a nation, Muslim or not, was related to how big a land they occupy. Hence came the Crusades since the Pop Urban felt that his reigning area was getting smaller and that meant less income to the church. However, Christians regardless how non-violent they may be spread or try to spread into the Middle East.

 

So it is like this if Muslims did spread even though they did it for capturing land due to economical, strategic or simply become powerful they did not close people to the message of Islam at the same time. If this is violent, though, Christians who are inherently peaceful did the same thing which should bring a bigger question mark in means being violent.

 

However I am not sure what we are discussing here Islam spread out the world via violence? Or Muslims spread out the world via violence? In both case the argument is wrong, although we know that forcing someone into a faith is impossible.

 
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091 		  Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Aug-2008 at 08:00
Dear fascinated,

Please forgive me for my delay in responding to you. I assure you that my time was occupied. The response below is quite disorganized and tries to address the body of accusations and arguments you have raised in a comprehensive sense, which may or may not be of assistance to you. Anyway, here we go:

Originally posted by fascinated

I want you to show your true self first.


I chose this quote to begin this post because I feel it indicates a real problem. If you do not feel capable of carrying on a dialog with me, that is one thing. If you feel I am misrepresenting myself, it is quite another. You may feel free to continue doing so, but I will simply reaffirm that I strive to speak honestly and openly on this forum always.

Well, I am sure you know that modern Christian reasoning rely on two main characters effected the rest; St. Augustine and Thomas D'aquinas. And I am sure your research about this subject resulted as these two are effected by two main other characters; Thomas D'aquinas from Averrois, St. Augustine from .....    Now can you tell me who is this Averrois? And can you tell me who inspired St. Augustine?


Hm. I think you may be failing to pick up on the fact that I am an Orthodox Christian. That is to say that Aquinas, for all his philosophical mettle, is not a philosopher I feel personally obliged to contend based solely on his authority. As for Averroes, despite all of his faults he is one of my favorite philosophers.

So, your field of study or to what degree you studied it is irrelevant when it comes to find about the truth. However what counts is that the nature of your information (wheather it is correct or not) and your eithical inclination what to do with it. So save your degrees for your academic advancment, because if you bring them as your credibility be ready for not to rely on them with a very frustrated ego.


I couldn't agree more. I would say, however, that my field of study is quite relevant to a historical understanding of the context in which the Truth developed. That said, this is certainly, as you have implied, a secondary concern; we agree -- at least to some degree -- here.

funny I tell these and no one listens in the beginning and they become so agitated and angry with me later on. But, hey, you go for it. Remember though you have only few chances to lose the initial respect I have for you being an human. I do not mind your insults but I measure your level ability to reason and how much honesty in you. Just like your commenct about ignoring me under s specific condition I will ignore you if I can not see these in you. Fair enough?


Frankly, I'm not concerned with whether or not you respect me. Nor am I concerned with your posturing (attempting falsely to assert that I insulted you).  What I am concerned with is the dialog you claim to be concerned with; if you really wish to have it, please drop the pretenses.

Well, If you are aware my first two gems was not a respond to your first jewel of the century. You obviously can not see that INHERENCY refers to a very broad area. If you like we can simply count how many were killed by Christian and Muslims so far and coclude by deciding who ever killed more are the more violant? (this for your histrical pratices criteria) Or we can simply count how many times the texts mention the word"kill" and colcude that way. No need any exegesis at all.


In fact, the fact that inherency refers to a very broad area is precisely the point I was trying to make. And the question of inherency, in this situation, deals with whether or not a violent act is inherently justifiable within the broader exegetical context -- which is, indeed, necessary -- of the respective faiths.

Here is a suggestion then? Open up a thread in which we alone could write to each other and we can talk free from the "First posts." This way, I hope, you may see that my responses are quite relevant to the "First post" of this thread. However the decision is yours what so ever.


You may feel free to PM me. That is the way what you propose is carried out on this forum.

If you have said "You could not answer the examples that are given in by referring to single events." I could have thought you might have an idea and read my post seriously enough. How this exprsssion is the first clues for me that you are alread way above your head in this topic.


You will not that I informed the readers that I was "above my head" in the topic of Muslim exegesis. That is precisely why I wanted Muslims to participate in this thread: to fill the void and grant a broader context. The purpose of threads on this forum is to generate discussion on substantive issues. You would do better to drop the polemical style of discourse you adopted earlier in this thread and continue discussing issues based on the merits of particular arguments, as you have done recently.

We have narrow topics so that we should not stray from it? Even you tried to define what "violance is" before getting into comparioson Islam and Christianity that would be a topic broad enough to stray.
 
The logic behind this is wrong. I understand it, but it is wrong. you do not chose narrow topics for such purposes, you do it to connect every usable information to clarify a certain issue i.e. the topic.
 
I guess I am really not familiar the AE way of discussion.


You will become familiar with time; never fear. Wink

Well, you are wrong actually... Martians are green not because lack  of Bet-carotene but because they carry chlorophil in their blood streams and produce the necessary Oxygen within their systems since their outer skin is air tight they can produce and use the oxygen with "zero loss. Of course that hsould explain why they do nto have lungs and their osaphagus is not well developed Big%20smile


LOL

A much more clever and humorous solution than mine; that will I grant. Clap

Well, background noise or not, my tendancy is to answer every possible issue as much as I can the only thing I tune out would be the person since those who can not take the responsibility of what they say and begin to cry out that the topic is being personal do not worth to respect of mine and the information that i could possible learn about the truth from them would the simply "what truth is not about' kind of information. So do what do you think is necessary. As a truth seeker my time is valuable If you do not want to learn and share about the truth I do not have any obligation to persuade you and I certainly does not like such kind of threats. But again arrogance issue the bigger they are harder they fall. When you first start to think that you should perhaps kick me out this forum this means I already proved my point in your conscious. Because as a habit I do not insult and fight without being provoked. 


First, I never suggested that you should be kicked out of this forum. I think if you ask around you will find that I am always in favour of giving people as many chances as possible. That said, my advice was simply meant to help you acclimate to the manner of discussion on this forum. Your accusations of insults and attempted suppression are baseless; I was simply trying to help you.

As for your addrssing points, you had not done anything of the sort by the time this post was completed. That said, I seem to recall that you did begin addressing the argument below. Anyway, I'll read on, and respond as the Spirit leads me.

Interpretation is made over some concept that would be within the meanings of a symbol – a word, if we are to apply it over a “text.” Semantics and etymology serves to this purpose. If a word has meanings of X,Y,Z and the context requires it to understand it as “T”, it would be false to interpret the word as, say … “4.”

 

“Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.”

 

“But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.”

 

“As every man hath received the gift, [even so] minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.”

 

These verses for example; Just as Akolouthos tries to keep the postings limited to the topic After Jesus says;

 

“But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Matthew 15:24

 

The word every one could only refer to the ones who belong to the house of Israel.

 

If you try to do otherwise you will simply conclude that God does not sure what He is doing and decides on the way of events. Then this leads to the conclusion that the progression of events are not under the control of God, yet they sometimes dictate changes along the way.

 

This issue is resolved in a very delicate way in the Qur’an

 




I'm not sure exactly what point you are trying to make here. Could you outline it a bit more clearly? I certainly don't follow your conclusion that "God is not in control of events," at least not from a Christian theological perspective.

The abrogation here refers to the messages sent before. In Islam, since this world is a testing ground. abrogation refers to the messages that were sent to different people in different time frames and completely relevant to the people that received a particular message. And when it is done the goal does not change and the value of the information carried by these verses either has equal or more descriptive to the humans for they should understand.

 

If you look closely this is not an interpretation rather it is an explanation.

 

I will not continue on this since for some this clarification of the concept “interpretation” could only mean straying from the topic since He would feel that he needs to answer this. So I assume He CAN and he should wait for a different topic.

 



So is your argument that there is no such thing as exegesis? Please clarify.

As we see here, the Qur’An does not agree with your expression. The purpose of those verses that may be interpreted are there only for the purpose of bringing out the crooked affront. In continuation of this verse it is said:

 



This is no proof of the falseness of my statement (that Scripture requires interpretation, explanation, or whatever you wish to call it). Rather it is simply a statement that my assertion was wrong. You may feel free to venture such groundless assertions, but I am certainly under no obligation to respond to them.

As we can see, the practical message of the text (the preservation of the nation of Israel, through which God would become incarnate) is accompanied by an instructional message. The author may dispute the moral implications of the event itself, but he does so out of context. He may not attribute any inherent violence to Christianity on this point.

 

When we do the connection of the verse Zagros quoted to the events occurred right after the Jews worshipped the golden calf we can look for the same event in the Qur’An. Not every event mentioned in the Qur’An has a record in the Bible or vice versa, however this one has and we should look it up.

 

51- “AS WE APPOINTED FORTY DAYS FOR DATING MUSA (MOSES), THEN YOU TOOK UP THE WORSHIP OF THE CALF IN HIS ABSENCE, THEN YOU WERE EVIL DOERS.”

 52- “THEN WE PARDONED YOU AFTER THAT, SO THAT YOU MAY GIVE THANKS.”

 53- “AND AS WE GAVE MUSA THE BOOK AND THE CRITIRION, SO THAT YOU MAY BE GUIDED.”

 54- “AND AS MUSA SAID TO HIS PEOPLE: “O MY PEOPLE, YOU HAVE WRONGED YOUR OWN SOULS BY TAKING THE CALF (TO WORSHIP), REPENT TO YOUR LORD AND KILL YOURSELVES (THE GUILTY), THIS IS BETTER FOR YOUR BEFORE YOUR CREATOR”.  THEN HE (ALLAH) FORGAVE YOU, FOR HE IS THE MOST FORGIVING, THE MOST MERCIFUL.”

Well, Qur’An records this event simply clearly the way, actually even better, Gregory INTERPRETS. So at best Qur’An acknowledges a previous message. Yet somehow the previous message sounds more violent than the Qur’An. Because QTL NFS (Waqtulu wanfusikum) is an idiom to tame one’s animal or lowly side (nafs). It does not mean commit suicide because that would be (MWT Mawta and the command form Yumitoo So literal meaning would be Yumitoon anfisikum which would mean take your own lives).

 



I am familiar with the Christian differentiation betweent dying to the flesh and dying in the more commonly understood sense. Is this what you are speaking of? If so, please clarify and expand.

As for the authority of Gregory the Dialogist, I feel you may benefit from a brief crash course in Orthodox theology. We hold to the consensus patrum -- the consensus of the fathers. While all of the fathers are a part of this, any one father may be individually mistaken. IT is a very organic system, and it is often criticized as impractical. That said, it has survived for two-thousand years. Since you have not demonstrated anything regarding Gregory the Dialogist as of yet, I really don't have any more work to do on this topic. If you wish to begin a discussiong, please expand and clarify.

At this point we can easily say that when Qur’An is understood literally there is no problem, however if we are to understand the Bible literally A lot of blood is up a head it seems. So, which text is more prone to be misunderstood in means of supporting violence is evident; The Bible. By the way I am not saying that “inherently Bible is more violent than the Qur’An, however, I say, as it seems, the followers of the bible inherently more proned to comit violent acts than the followers of the Qur’An. The difference between them lies on the right exegesis of the Bible.


Care to offer an exegetical or historical analysis here, the which was the point of the thread? Wink

If you mean to prove that texts speak for themselves, I believe you have a good deal of work to do -- but no more than a modern evangelical Christian. It is an absurd position, but one that has a few simplistic arguments to its credit. Anyway, I certainly can't respond until you present your evidence.

2)On the other hand ,we have Islam, a religion that openly preaches war against unbelievers.
 
I will answer only to this;
 
Islam openly preaches to wage war against those who try to fight against Muslims for their religion.
 
For that matter, one should ask when a war ends?
 
Apperantly until one of the sides could not make war.
 
In case of pagans Qur'an does not say if and when pagans or anyone wanted a truce Muslims should not accept it. To the contrary as long as the war continues Muslims would fight but when other side gives up Muslims can not even look for a cause to continue the war.


Could you please give a citation? I don't doubt it, but analyzing the texts is precisely the purpose of this thread.

So, Israelites killed the Midinites by a command from God. This is a fact.

 

The second event related to Elisha is a “practice” of a leader rather than practicing a principal.

 

If, that is the case, in the Qur’an so many times Allah is mentioned as the Forgiver in many degrees.  Forgiving, as a practice, is not forbidden I quoted one verse before. Some other ones:

 

“O ye who believe! Truly, among your wives and your children are (some that are) enemies to yourselves: so beware of them! But if ye forgive and overlook, and cover up (their faults), verily Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (64;14) Qur’An.

 

“If you punish, then punish with the like of that wherewith you were afflicted. But if you endure patiently, indeed it is better for the patient. Endure you patiently. Your patience is not except through the help of Allah” (al-Nahl 16:126-127)

 

As a trait of true believers;

 

“Those who avoid major sins and acts of indecencies and when they are angry they forgive.” (al-Shura 42:37)

 

“The reward of the evil is the evil thereof, but whosoever forgives and makes amends, his reward is upon Allah.” (al-Shura 42:40)

 

“If you punish, then punish with the like of that wherewith you were afflicted. But if you endure patiently, indeed it is better for the patient. Endure you patiently. Your patience is not except through the help of Allah” (al-Nahl 16:126-127)

 

Again, what Ambrose of Milan tries to interpret from a text is written in Qur’An clearly. Simply put “If you retaliate you have the right to do so, If you forgive this is a better trait since Allah forgives as well.”

 

Again, which text is clearer (in case of a violent action is mentioned)?


Here is where you come into your own, and begin to fulfill the purpose of this thread. Keep them coming. This is something I will need time to look at to respond to, and I have no idea what form my response will take, or whether we will agree or disagree here.

Now hold here, as long as there is an original text which is in Hebrew why take a translation of it?

 

The Hebrew word for “Of war” is MILCHAMAH (Milkhamah) strangely the same expression passes in Exodus 32:17 to describe the noise "OF WAR.” So your explanation by using the Septuagint is a fatal error. Your effort to interpret the word Milkhamah as “Brings war to nothing” is a very good example for what we said earlier about the basic principal of interpretation; you can’t bring a “4” out of a “T.”

 

At this point you should be aware that you gave me a very serious clue about your ethical inclination. You implied that you are very knowledgeable about this issue and made a lot of research. So I should assume that you knew this and deliberately used Septuagint to make your point. However, I will give you another chance to be more careful to get involved in an honest discussion. Manipulation is a killer of sincerity. Now, I want you to rethink which is more important; accepting the truth or win a debate? Apparently you are trying to do a debate instead of discussion and I will try to pull you in a discussion since I hate debates since they go no where. Yet, it is your call. I will not try it forever.

 

This is a fatal error because even without the Hebrew there is no reason to interpret the verse as “God brings war to nothing”. If we look up to later verses you may have tried to interpret it as “God brings the enemies to nothing” since it describes how the pharaoh was defeated. Yet still you could not have made your point about the violence issue.

 

By the way, after checking the Hebrew meaning of the word I did not even look it up in the Septuagint, since I find it unnecessary.

 

For you to make some research about it the Hebrew of that verse is “Yahweh iysh milkhamah Yahweh shem.”


Once again, I think you need a crash course in Orthodoxy. We use the Septuagint, as did the early Church. If you wish to understand why, you have but to google the subject, or look on wikipedia. Anyway, the text of the Septuagint is our canonical text, and, as an Orthodox Christian, I could hardly use anything else. You should really research the matter, if you wish to understand my perspective on the Holy Scriptures.

Justice is a subjective matter perhaps but it is also something we need for "peace" on earth. That's why there is such a thing as criminal law. Wheather secular or religious state is there criminal law is there as well.
 
Also, If you say that justice is subjective to the extent that a particular faith can not decide about you also say that you are quite ambiguous about so called basic human rights.
 
In case of the Qur'an It is again quite clear stealing, tresspasing, transgressing, opressing, forcing etc. these are limits. If you do not have clear definition for these then there is a problem.
 
In the last analysis regardless to justice ebing subjective or not, striving for it and trying to uphold it fairly is another test for us. A Muslim before thinking about how justful others are thinks how unjustful himself is.
 
Funny though when Qur'An warns people about the consequences of this, people start to cry out loud that Islam is tryin scare them. Hell "punishment" could be the result of it and yet people are tend to wish for not to be afraid of making mistakes than asking forgiveness from Allah for what they have done.
 
Just like you said every action has a reaction and that reaction might be faced in the hereafter. Islam (actually Christianity and Judaism as well being Abrahamic paths) tries to prevent the believers to face their actions' reactions in the hereafter.


Everything here could also be said of the other Abrahamic faiths, as noted. That said, the purpose of this thread is neither to provide a critique of Islam, nor is it to provide an apologia; the purpose is to examine a specific issue in a comparative sense.

I understand I have my own time restrictions as well that is why I wanted to cut your post into pieces actually. So no problem there.
 
I also understand your explanation about why you picked Septuagint. As I said I am not in a rush to make up my mind about you. That's why I suggested more carefullness. If you are honest there is no problem there also however it is a little disturbing point. You know everyone makes mistakes and as long as we want to communicate no lingering on mistakes but rather focus on the essentials for the sake of healthy communication. I am not infallible either I already might have made mistakes however when I am told you will be surprised how quick I accept and move on after correcting it.
 
Anyway I will continue posting my reply in pieces keep following them please.


Doing my best. Glad you understand my time constraints -- you have my thanks. Smile

Actually as far as I can understand Exodus 22:20 refers to something different but no less significant. It mentions about killing the animals to be sacrificed which also I think leads to the concept of kosherizing a meat.

 

The Qur’An :

022.034
YUSUFALI: To every people did We appoint rites (of sacrifice), that they might celebrate the name of Allah over the sustenance He gave them from animals (fit for food). But your god is One God: submit then your wills to Him (in Islam): and give thou the good news to those who humble themselves,-
PICKTHAL: And for every nation have We appointed a ritual, that they may mention the name of Allah over the beast of cattle that He hath given them for food; and your god is One God, therefor surrender unto Him. And give good tidings (O Muhammad) to the humble,
SHAKIR: And to every nation We appointed acts of devotion that they may mention the name of Allah on what He has given them of the cattle quadrupeds; so your god is One God, therefore to Him should you submit, and give good news to the humble,

[6:121] Do not eat from that upon which the name of GOD has not been mentioned, for it is an abomination. The devils inspire their allies to argue with you; if you obey them, you will be idol worshipers.

This I do not understand why Christians give up to practice.



Because it is mentioned in our Scriptures:

    The next day, as they went on their journey and drew near the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour. Then he became very hungry and wanted to eat; but while they made ready he fell into a trance and saw heavens opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to all kinds of four-footed beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. And a voice came to him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat."
    But Peter said, "Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean."
    And a voice spoke to him again the second time, "What God has cleansed you must not call common." This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again.
[Acts 10: 9-15]

I am well aware of the arguments against the Christian --and oldest -- interpretation of the passage. I am also aware of the fact that they are based upon -- surprise -- exegesis! Wink If you wish to discuss this matter, you may start a thread; I think it would be a wonderful topic, and we certainly don't have one on the subject thus far.

Here I have to ask can you tell us what are those three personalities in Trinity?



Why, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I thought you knew that. Wink Seriously though, this would also make another good topic. Feel free to start a thread. Honestly, if you pursue all of your good ideas in the proper format -- by starting new threads for specific topics -- I doubt I'll get any sleep in the near future.

Actually, it is interesting that it is Qur’An’s claim that the misunderstanding is on the side of the Judeo-Christian side. I know this requires a different topic yet we should touch this subject as well here.

 

1_ The earlier messages were corrupted hence Allah kept sending them successive messenger prophets to straighten those people out.

 

2_ Due to the tenacious efforts of them to play with words of the message for the earthly gains they started to claim false attributes and actions to God, such Him having a son, or Him putting only them in heaven but not the others etc.

 

3_ Their love for this world and the things in it, is more than their love for God.

 

When we look at the reaction of the Jews to Jesus we can easily see why … They were the first one’s to reject his message since the “authentic revelatory context” was/is not clear after all. They were expecting a super hero rather than a messenger/prophet. Why?

 

If the original messages were not corrupted and the concepts not had been changed this would not have happened.

 

Now having said that I believe the original message is still there in the Bible somewhere, however, the metaphorical, allegorical, literal etc. are all jumbled up and no one knows how to clean them. This especially is so apparent in the term YHWH. Just because they wanted to show respect for the Creator they forgot how to pronounce this word correctly because when it comes to recite this word they simply passed it with a silence note (this kind of practice is called as going excess in practice (ifraad)). So between the practices excessive and less (ifraad and tafreed) and by putting these practices and amalgamating with the original texts they lost many things. Pronunciation of YHWH being the most significant since it is used grammatically as the name of God, for those who ask the term “Yachyd” gen 22:2. Jews say that this word means “Beloved” The translaters of Septuagint translated it as “the one and only.” Jews claim that the original word is not Yachyd but Yadid referring that Isaac was loved over Ishmael who was Abraham’s other son from Hagar.

 

This Yachyd issue is very significant because Jews and Christians wrote a history over Abraham’s sacrifice of his son and they explained the conflict today’s Arab-Israeli conflict over it defaming Arabs as the descendants of the un-beloved son.

 

Now while this issue is a thing related to the violent conflict between Arabs and the Isrealites Qur’an narrates whole different story which resolves this issue quite interstingly;

 

037.102
YUSUFALI: Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: "O my son! I see in vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: Now see what is thy view!" (The son) said: "O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if Allah so wills one practising Patience and Constancy!"
PICKTHAL: And when (his son) was old enough to walk with him, (Abraham) said: O my dear son, I have seen in a dream that I must sacrifice thee. So look, what thinkest thou? He said: O my father! Do that which thou art commanded. Allah willing, thou shalt find me of the steadfast.
SHAKIR: And when he attained to working with him, he said: O my son! surely I have seen in a dream that I should sacrifice you; consider then what you see. He said: O my father! do what you are commanded; if Allah please, you will find me of the patient ones.

037.103
YUSUFALI: So when they had both submitted their wills (to Allah), and he had laid him prostrate on his forehead (for sacrifice),
PICKTHAL: Then, when they had both surrendered (to Allah), and he had flung him down upon his face,
SHAKIR: So when they both submitted and he threw him down upon his forehead,

037.104
YUSUFALI: We called out to him "O Abraham!
PICKTHAL: We called unto him: O Abraham!
SHAKIR: And We called out to him saying: O Ibrahim!

037.105
YUSUFALI: "Thou hast already fulfilled the vision!" - thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
PICKTHAL: Thou hast already fulfilled the vision. Lo! thus do We reward the good.
SHAKIR: You have indeed shown the truth of the vision; surely thus do We reward the doers of good:

037.106
YUSUFALI: For this was obviously a trial-
PICKTHAL: Lo! that verily was a clear test.
SHAKIR: Most surely this is a manifest trial.

037.107
YUSUFALI: And We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice:
PICKTHAL: Then We ransomed him with a tremendous victim.
SHAKIR: And We ransomed him with a Feat sacrifice.

037.108
YUSUFALI: And We left (this blessing) for him among generations (to come) in later times:
PICKTHAL: And We left for him among the later folk (the salutation):
SHAKIR: And We perpetuated (praise) to him among the later generations.

037.109
YUSUFALI: "Peace and salutation to Abraham!"
PICKTHAL: Peace be unto Abraham!
SHAKIR: Peace be on Ibrahim.

037.110
YUSUFALI: Thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
PICKTHAL: Thus do We reward the good.
SHAKIR: Thus do We reward the doers of good.

037.111
YUSUFALI: For he was one of our believing Servants.
PICKTHAL: Lo! he is one of Our believing slaves.
SHAKIR: Surely he was of Our believing servants.

037.112
YUSUFALI: And We gave him the good news of Isaac - a prophet,- one of the Righteous.
PICKTHAL: And we gave him tidings of the birth of Isaac, a prophet of the righteous.
SHAKIR: And We gave him the good news of Ishaq, a prophet among the good ones.

037.113
YUSUFALI: We blessed him and Isaac: but of their progeny are (some) that do right, and (some) that obviously do wrong, to their own souls.
PICKTHAL: And We blessed him and Isaac. And of their seed are some who do good, and some who plainly wrong themselves.
SHAKIR: And We showered Our blessings on him and on Ishaq; and of their offspring are the doers of good, and (also) those who are clearly unjust to their own souls.

According to this Isaac was given to Abraham AFTER the sacrifice henceforth the son was Ishmael henceforth the word was yachyd.

 

Now either Jew should back up about their claim that the word was yadid or the Christians should accept the son was Ishmael and the scriptures were distorted in accordance to the desires of the Jewish writers of the manuscripts.



A wonderful, and I suspect erudite analysis. You should post it in a thread dealing with the concept, and I will respond as soon as I get the chance.

Actually I do not think anything about it. What ever you do if you are sincerely seeking for the truth Allah will lead you ... what ever you do if you have ultarior motives or some motives other than finding the truth, you will be chasing your own tail.
 
You see!!! sincerity is the key. If you do all the wrong things in the world in the end you will understand the truth by knowing the false. However, this way is a very rough road, not for everyone after all.


I think you may be laboring under the assumption that any who do not agree with you are not as sincere as you in their search for the truth. You may designate them as mistaken -- indeed, if you have an alternate belief system it is only natural. That said, not everyone is going to agree with you, and the fact that they do not does not mean that they are any less zealous and sincere than you.

I am not familiar with the word processor of this forum. Also I do not have a computer I am writing in rush so be easy about it, will you?


If you want, I can explain how to quote. PM me.

Why did danish paper do that? You are not asking and focusing on this but you are focusing on the reaction to it. For that matter just because, say Christians do not mind that does not mean making jokes about Jesus is O.K. And if it was for me Muslims should give same reaction when a stupid danish paper make jokes about Jesus as well or even about a “love guru.” No has the right to make fun others faith. Well there is verse in relation to this subject in the Qur’an but you do not want me to quote it so be it


I'm sure you're not defending or minimizing the disproportionate reaction in the Muslim world to the Danish cartoons. I willingly condemn violence committed by Christians -- indeed, it is my duty; I expect the same from you, at least if you are defending Islam as a religion of peace.

fascinated, you certainly have a great deal of potential, and I look forward to discussing many topics with you in the future. That said, you need to learn to stick to the topic. You also, I hope, will post new threads on some of the topics you have raised -- the forum could really benefit from your knowledge. Anyway, PM me if you want to learn how to quote, and I am looking forward to keeping in touch in the future. Smile

-Akolouthos
Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1423 		  Quote Menumorut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Aug-2008 at 09:58
The Islam is the creation of Muhammad, a man who ordered the killing oh hundreds people and torture of many prisoners, who attacked and robbed cities and caravans, who enslaved thousands, who raped his female slaves, who allowed sex with pre-puberal children and frottage with children as young as one year.

So how can the religion instituted by him be peaceful? Even if its precepts would be peaceful, knowing the life of the founder will lead to the wish of emulating him. Muslims are beheading people because Muhammad beheaded, they are lying because Muhammad lied, they consider the non-Muslims their slaves because Muhammad considered this.

But even the precepts of Islam are violent. The punishment for male apostasy is death and in the original Quran death was also the punishment for adulter. The punishment for blasphemy is death, the punishment for stealing is mutilation.

Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810 		  Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Aug-2008 at 17:09
Hello Menu
 
Well, could you prove what you said because you just offended alot of people here. What ever the prophet did one must remember, it was the 7th century AD not the 21st century. Also, Biblical prophets did much much worse than what anything is claimed by the prophet So who is better?
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Aug-2008 at 17:41
Originally posted by Menumorut

The Islam is the creation of Muhammad, a man who ordered the killing oh hundreds people and torture of many prisoners, who attacked and robbed cities and caravans, who enslaved thousands, who raped his female slaves, who allowed sex with pre-puberal children and frottage with children as young as one year.

So how can the religion instituted by him be peaceful? Even if its precepts would be peaceful, knowing the life of the founder will lead to the wish of emulating him. Muslims are beheading people because Muhammad beheaded, they are lying because Muhammad lied, they consider the non-Muslims their slaves because Muhammad considered this.

But even the precepts of Islam are violent. The punishment for male apostasy is death and in the original Quran death was also the punishment for adulter. The punishment for blasphemy is death, the punishment for stealing is mutilation.


Those are your opinions, but you rarely recollect facts or back up your opinions with credible evidence. There are other bashing topics that you could engage in, I believe Ako started this for a more serious comparison.
Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1423 		  Quote Menumorut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Aug-2008 at 18:08
Originally posted by Al Jassas

Hello Menu

Well, could you prove what you said because you just offended alot of people here. What ever the prophet did one must remember, it was the 7th century AD not the 21st century. Also, Biblical prophets did much much worse than what anything is claimed by the prophet So who is better?


Al-Jassas


I can prove, everything is from Qur'an and Ahadeeth. But it will take some time (few days).

I tried to explain the reason of the violent behaviour of the Muslims. Your arggument has not ground as spiritual leaders that preceded Muhammad, Buddha and Jesus, haven't preached anything violent.


Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595 		  Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Aug-2008 at 18:13

Al-Jassas and es_bih, you get my praise for keeping your cool from the likes of Menumorut. But you don't really have to take him seriously. Afterall this is the same guy who believes his mental capacity will help him reach immortality. LOL N'uff said.

 
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595 		  Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Aug-2008 at 18:16
Ako, good work with this thread. You get my praise for handling the needless incriminations from the member who calls himself 'fascinated'.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810 		  Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Aug-2008 at 18:16
Hello Menu
 
You tried to explain nothing in your post earlier. It was just a pack of insults that if not proven you must apologize. Jesus didn't preach violence but his words were used to justify it, the bible is full of horrefic tales of violence and its justification and the Bible, old testiment that is, is accepted by all Christian dominations as the true word of God and that Christians must follow it. So who is better?
 
Al-Jassas 
Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1423 		  Quote Menumorut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Aug-2008 at 19:37
As I said, those things are in Qur'an and Ahadeeth. Why should I apologize?

I will collect those verses and ahadeeth and put them here.

As for what Seko said, this is a real insult. Anyway, is a funny thing also because we are on a religious topic about two religions that both support the belief in immortality.

Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810 		  Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Aug-2008 at 20:08

Can't wait for your post Menu, just can't waitViking

 

Al-Jassas
Back to Top
fascinated View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 20-Jun-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		  Quote fascinated Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Aug-2008 at 20:44
Incrimination: to charge with or show evidence or proof of involvement in a crime or fault.
 
Dear Seko, if you are not aware I brought some arguments in a way that is called "factual."
 
You also say "needless" however ...
 
Islam. This name comes from the root SLM that happens to be same root for the word Salaam meaning, peace. Just because of the preconditioning of your minds you easily attached the concept of violance to Islam, similar the way you do it with the word terrorism.
 
Needless ... Incrimination ... I wonder sometimes the mechanism that you guys use for reasoning. I can not say that it is logic because if that would be the case you would not be blurting out such arguments this easily.
 
Just for you think about assuming that you are Christian you believe that Jesus died on cross for your sins, right? This you call as the ultimate sacrifice, right?
 
From a neutral point of view a heedless, senselss murder of God in flesh provides you your salvation. Sacrifice, by looking at this act is not even an option because from many angles sacrifice means to give up something without expecting a gain. So at best Jesus was a ransom not a sacrifice.
 
Beyond this your sole salvation relies on an act that is called violant murder by any standard. You need violance to legitimize your salvation. Not only that you redefine everything to legitimize a murder for that.
 
Then you redefine back violance and call Islam inherently violant.
 
No... Christianity is inherently violant since there blood, pain, suffering, torture sensless murder on its base. Without it you can not define yourself as Christian.
 
However, the Bible is not inherently violant.
 
If you wanted incrimination, you got it.
 
If you can not prove that Death of Jesus Christ (according to your belief) was not violant and your salvation does not depend on it mere wishful thinking is not going to cut the deal.
 
If you want to insult someone and try to hide behind esxpressions that appear to be factual, or informative etc. gives more clues about someone than simply insulting directly. Being unethical is worse than being sincere but not to be able control one's temper.
 
Now, I deliberately used such kind of style in this post. Can you go beyond my style and come up with a meaningful explanation about this violance issue. I expect you to prove;
 
1_ Jesus death on cross was not a violant act
2_ Jesus death was a sacrifice because those who wanted to kill Jesus was aware of this.
3_ If you understand a scaricice from the Jesus point of you and try to define a sensless murder as a sacrifice again by saying that;
 
"greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13).

How can you blame those Palestinians who sacrifice their own lives for their fellow men (I am not using the term suicide bomber if you notice).

Well I ask you, anyone can try to answer.
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595 		  Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Aug-2008 at 21:48
fascinated, continue with your comparative inquiry. The topic at hand should be the focus, not other members or your defensive attitude.
 
Menu, obviously you did not like my analogy. I made it with a purpose in mind. One of the reasons is to show that facts are portrayed in various ways. One way is to present them with references and without persoanal bias. Another way to observe them is through a filter as shown by the presenter. You chose to show us your bias and I chose to do the same about you. My words are even more factual than yours since what I did say about you is recorded in your own writing. No apology from me.


Edited by Seko - 25-Aug-2008 at 21:49
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Aug-2008 at 00:46
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.172 seconds.