"Judge a faith" thread: Microcosm of the problem

arnoldyasin

peace,

oh i love when they start with Allah is a moongod, then don't tell us, go save all your arabian fellow christians first!!

But i believe, and also a lot of scholars, is that you can't blame it all on Paul, he maybe had some differences with the rest of the Nazarenes, but the greek-roman followers of 100-200 years after Jesus that were chosen later by Constatine are the ones to look at. if constantine had chosen the Nazarenes, then Oneway would now have stood in the front line to believe in the Quran. Or was part of the minority trintiy christians. Why the trinity Christians dominate Christianity, was mainly by a political decision, not a theological one.

I respect him, but he says he has answered all of these questions, which he didn't. That is all i want, real answers, and if he wants that this discussion only on the previous topic, i don't mind. But answer my questions Oneway......

unknownuser

peace,

oh i love when they start with Allah is a moongod, then don't tell us, go save all your arabian fellow christians first!!

But i believe, and also a lot of scholars, is that you can't blame it all on Paul, he maybe had some differences with the rest of the Nazarenes, but the greek-roman followers of 100-200 years after Jesus that were chosen later by Constatine are the ones to look at. if constantine had chosen the Nazarenes, then Oneway would now have stood in the front line to believe in the Quran. Or was part of the minority trintiy christians. Why the trinity Christians dominate Christianity, was mainly by a political decision, not a theological one.

I respect him, but he says he has answered all of these questions, which he didn't. That is all i want, real answers, and if he wants that this discussion only on the previous topic, i don't mind. But answer my questions Oneway......

lol again bro, i love it too mate, let's put some integrity to what you truthfully said

"In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful."

"Bismi-Allahi ar-Rahmani, ar-Raheem"

http//mail.forte.com.au/ahmed/bible/bismilla.gif

"In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth . . . "

"Fee al-badi' khalaqa Allahu as-Samaawaat wa al-Ard . . . "

http//mail.forte.com.au/ahmed/bible/bismilla1.gif

"For God so loved the world, that . . . "

"Li-annhu haakadha ahabba Allahu al-'Aalama hataa badhala . . . "

http//mail.forte.com.au/ahmed/bible/bismilla2.gif

" . . . Fear not, Mary for thou hast found favor with God."

" . . . Laa takhaafee, yaa Maryam, li-annaki qad wajadti ni'amat(an) i'nda Allahi."

http//mail.forte.com.au/ahmed/bible/bismilla3.gif

"the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God."

"bini Anoosha, bini Sheeti, bini Aaadama, abni Allahi."

http//mail.forte.com.au/ahmed/bible/bismilla4.gif

See, how the Arab Christians were worshipping the same moongod

Peace

stillearning

Hello oneway
Since you appear to avoid either through lack of understnading or deliberately the points you yourself originally raised it might be useful if we discuss one or two points at a time.

You wanted to discuss Jesus as mentioned in the Quran. The following posting

Jesus is handled in the Quran, in the exact same way as the Bible talks about him. As a prophet and a person with a high moral. I study Theology on the Amsterdam University, and i can say already that your conception as Jesus the son of God, is against Jesus his own teachings. Son of God is a Jewish term still used by the Jews today. It refers to being a creation of God, like Jesus says in Mat 59 "Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God."
So we are all children of God. This is just an expression.

and your reply was

For each of the Bible verses you quote as evidence that Jesus did not claim to be the Son of God, I can find others where he did claim to be the Son of God

Please correct me if I am wrong but where did arnoldyasin deny that Jesus did not claim to be the son f God. He explained what it meant. Perhaps if you read the above again, you might understand what the author is saying and then respond appropriately.

If you care to read all of the original "Judge a faith by its founder..." thread, you will better understand the point in the opening post in this current thread. In that previous thread I wished to discuss the view that the Quran endorses violence (among other topics) and was pressed to post some verses from the Quran in the midst of defending myself and Christianity against a particularly harsh attack.

I did so, and no one replied to that part of my post.

The above is often quoted by yourself and

You say the Quran promotes violence against non-muslims, then i give you verses that prove otherwise, then you say using the Quran is not validated

First of all that is not true, nowhere in the former discussion did people really adress you as i do now. And i focus on the violence in the Quran

and like the writer above I could not find the refernce you provided to back up your claim that the Quran advocates violence against non muslims. Perhaps you could post it again.

If we could deal with these issues then we can move on to numerous other points that you have raised.
regards

oneway

arnoldyasin,

I had some good discussions with icephren and CavemanDoctor, among others, that directly touch on some of your points. For example, in the context of the discussion in that thread, all of your verses from the Quran are irrelevant because the validity of the Quran was the very thing I was challenging. As I went to some lengths to explain in that thread, you can't logically use the Quran to prove the Quran's position on a topic is correct. That sort of reasoning boils down to "The Quran is right because it says so", which is purely a matter of faith, not reason.

You say the Quran promotes violence against non-muslims, then i give you verses that prove otherwise, then you say using the Quran is not validated. What is this twisting Oneway? First you attack the Quran, then when the Quran defends itself, you say we can't use the Quran. Your a funny man Oneway. This not a question of faith, but of reason
1.You say the Quran promotes violence.
2.The Quran proves you wrong.
3. Then you turn around and say this is not validated to use Quran.

Come on now, I was not claiming the verses you posted regarding violence are irrelevant - I addressed those later in my reply.

Taken in the context of my full reply it should be clear that I was arguing against using verses from the Quran itself to defend the Quran's treatment of Jesus, which is what you did in the first part of your original post here and I'm obviously addressing your points in the order in which you presented them.

As with your supposed scholarly analysis, you can't seem to break free from taking things out of context to suit your preconceived conclusions.

The Quran by no means proves me wrong in my contention that it endorses violence. To borrow your tactic You must be afraid of that article I posted in the previous thread since you are unable to refute it.

(See how childish that approach sounds when its coming back at you? And you want me to believe you're some sort of scholar?)

Regarding some of your specific points

For each of the Bible verses you quote as evidence that Jesus did not claim to be the Son of God, I can find others where he did claim to be the Son of God, so it really depends on your view of the overall context of the Bible. You want me to accept your interpretation of specific scriptures you quote to support your stance while simultaneously asking me to accept that the Bible overall is corrupt, all based on the assumption that the Quran is correct. In other words, you choose to accept the pieces of the Bible that do not conflict with the Quran and reject the rest of the Bible. That is convenient for your position, but hardly worthwhile in a reasoned debate where the truthfulness of the Quran is the subject of the debate itself.

No i reject anything that goes by logic. And you haven't answered my question. I never rejected the notion that the Bible calls Jesus son of God.
I asked you a question

Did you ever investigated the Jewish use of 'son of God' in their Theology, because the Gospel was originaly a Jewish scripture?

Don't try to twist out of this. Answer the question.

I haven't twisted anything. I'm sorry if logic scares you, but I established logic as the basis for the discussion in my first post in the original thread. If you reject logic, we're done now.

(See how I inserted the word "scare" again? Hey, I'm really warming up to your tactics! smile

I understand where you wish to go with the Jewish scripture reference. You'll endeavor to lead me down a path that shows the term "son of God" or "sons of God" in the Old Testament and elsewhere to conclude that Christ's use of the term was not special.

Been there, done that. Now you can collect your diploma from the AhmedBaghat school of copy and paste debate.

It doesn't change or refute my answer in the least It all hinges on the broader context in which you interpret the message of the Bible. You want to cherry pick things to support your assertions with an underlying assumption that those parts in conflict with the Quran have been corrupted. I want to view it in its entirety, outside the confines of strict literal interpretation, and without requiring it to agree with the Quran. My view doesn't prove the Bible is true and your view doesn't prove the Quran is true. See now why I didn't want to reopen this topic on this thread?

Your story about pagan gods, Mitra, etc., can be equally matched by well known associations of Allah with a Moon god (note the crescent moon symbol so prevalent in Islam) etc. That is well worn ground on both sides of the Christianity vs Islam and Bible vs Quran debates and I seriously doubt either of us is going to shed new light there. That's why I took a different approach in the original thread - to avoid devolving into a copy and paste battle that would only mirror the topics already covered at sites like answering-islam.org and answering-christianity.org and so on.

This is so funny, because then all your fellow christians in arabic countries are worshipping a moon-god. Because all of them use the term Allah for God too. Do you want me to quote arabic Bibles? Because you don't need to quote sites that contradict their own words. I don't need other sites, i pick up things from the real world. Go check how arabic speaking Chirstians call God, see how arabic speraking Jews call God. Then you will see that this is such a wrong example. Sorry, but the Mitra-cult is something yuo can't twist out of. Allah is arabic for The God, this is simple linguistic truth, and even your fellow Christians in Arabia know this.

Ah, arnold my friend, the subtleties of the English language seem to be lost on you (and AhmedBaghat as well based on his agreement with you here).

I was not arguing in favor of the Moon god theory. Think for a moment What would that achieve in helping me refute your argument? Nothing at all, right?

Do you really think I've resorted to arguing, "Oh yeah? Well your myth is just as bad as my myth!"

Of course not smile That would be pointless.

I was using it to demonstrate that both the Moon god theory and the direct ties between Mitra and Christianity are similar in that both are highly debatable assertions, equally repugnant to members of the faiths they respectively assault. I thought explaining, "That's why I took a different approach...," made that clear.

Is this your whole rejecting logic thing causing problems again? smile

Your certainty that several of the gospels in the New Testament of the Bible are copies of one another is anything but certain. You are far too sure of yourself there considering the lack of certainty among theologians on the matter. Further, the same sort of analysis can be applied to the bulk of the Quran, which many outside of Islam consider an abbreviated Bible with Mohammed's personally expedient changes, insertions, and deletions.

Yes, they do, but at least all admit the Quran we have now, is directly and unchanged from Muhammed's time, the same scholars who say Muhammed copied the Bible all admit that the Quran is unchanged. The same scholars say this is not to be compared with the Bible, which has gone through several revisions. So we can judge if the Quran is really not a copy from the Bible, by the truth's that are inside, so we don't have to investigate if the Quran we have now is the text that Muhammed really wrote down, we have to see if what was written really contains such incredible information, that it could be from God or not. This challenge we can't do with the Bible.

Pure rubbish without sources to back up your claims. Further, the Bible contains prophecies of real events in space-time that were fulfilled later on. The Quran has none of these.

But, again, what is the point of this OFF TOPIC discussion? We are not covering ground that is not covered elsewhere and you are certainly not offering any brilliant independent analysis even though you'd like our readers to believe otherwise.

The verses you use to show that the Quran does not promote violence and that show Mohammed to be good are called into question by the article I posted in the previous thread. This notion that Mohammed is good because he says so in the Quran is more of the useless arguing from faith rather than reason. Further, I made clear from the subject line of the previous thread on down that I have no interest in debating the misdeeds of men in their stated allegiance to a particular faith. I was clear on that in my very first post to this forum, so I'm not sure why you raise the issue of whether Muslims or Christians have been more violent throughout history. That is irrelevant to the validity of the Quran and Islam. If you care to read the article I posted in the prior thread on the topic of violence in the Quran I would be interested in your response, but please post your response in the original thread, not here. We have already taken this thread too far afield.

A lot of christian and non-muslim scholars disagree with that article. But i will respect you, by posting my answer over there.

Great! smile

The rest of your discussion regarding Paul, the so called Gospel of Thomas, etc., wanders off topic even for the original thread, moreso for this one. I understand and appreciate your points, but it all hinges on your underlying assumptions and biases.

No it does not, this is theological knowledge, but i see yours don't go further then the church doors. These assumptions i got from Christian scholars, i almost never base it only on my assumptions, always on authentic research. When you loose objectivity, you loose the truth.
All of your answers are based on convictions, and by thus limiting your answers. I base it on research done by theology professors, priests and so on. I don't need only my own assumptions to know i'm right, the information out there shows enough what is true or not.

"These assumptions i got from Christian scholars, i almost never base it only on my assumptions..."

Oh, I see, so your assumptions are ok in a logical debate as long as you bolster them with similar assumptions you got from someone else? rotfl

Please, find out if the University of Amsterdam has a course in prepositional logic and by all means take the class. smile

As to your point regarding my discussion with the user Truth in this thread, that discussion stemmed directly from the subject of this thread. It was on topic.

I know, i told you also, but i had indeed not have used it. i only saw later that it was wrong to use it. So ignore it.

Ah yes, the favorite tactic of the unreasonable Fire off an accusation then brush it under the rug when proven incorrect.

I was not ignoring your post because I couldn't answer it. I just have and I did further in the original thread from which this thread stems if you care to read it. You were simply going off topic here.

No you haven't answered if you believe your Christian or Nazarene, do you follow tradition or the Bible? have you ever investigated Jewish theology and comparing it with Jesus words? Have you ever investigated the greek-roman christians, and how they differed from the Jewish 'church'. have you ever investigated what the rules were of the first Nazerene community that followed Jesus and was run by james his brother as told in Acts? These are not answered nowhere in the previous topic, but if you insist, i can post it all again on the previous topic, will you answer me then with real answers instead of dismissels? Will you answer with quotes from real scholars, not just some pastes from sites? Shall i begin then on the previous topic? No problem. But don't say you have already answered them , because you haven't.

I'm addressing the core themes in the debate and trying to keep those from getting lost in the noise as before. I am not compelled to answer every little nit picking question you pose. "Do you follow tradition or the Bible?" is a bit like asking "When did you stop beating your wife?"

I'm familiar with Jewish tradition as compared to Jesus' words and I covered that above. I'm familiar with some of the distinctions between the gentile-centric churches in Greece/Rome and the early Jewish Christians. I'm familiar with the first Jerusalem church described in Acts, with James, brother of Jesus, as its leader, and I imagine you'll pepper me with verses from Acts purporting to refute the deity of Christ according to Peter's words in Acts 222 and so on.

Again, taken out of the broader context of the entire Bible and requring a strict literal interpretation, those arguments seem to stand up. However, in the context accepted by Christians, that Jesus is the "divine Logos", the "Word" described in John, those arguments do not hold true.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made...The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us...
(John 11-4,14)

You deserve a calm and friendly discussion, we deserve real answers. Intelligent answers based on real investigation.

Peace

Ah, yes, the traditional "Peace" at the close as previously discussed in this thread.

Part of my difficulty with that tradition as used in this forum is that many insert insults and intentional misconstruals between the opening and the closing "Peace", rendering it mostly meaningless as anything more than mere lip service to what is perceived as a literal Quranic command.

In this discussion you have claimed I never answer questions (a clear lie to anyone who reads the threads I've started in their entirety), you have taunted that I am afraid to answer you, you have accused me of twisting your questions when all the while it is you doing the twisting. You have also claimed some scholarly superiority in an effort to humiliate or ridicule, though nothing in the substance of your posts supports your supposed credentials.

I'm sure my frustration with those tactics comes through in my responses above, but I find your discussion neither particularly calm nor particularly friendly; rather, you wish to bait me through insult and innuendo in spite of the fact that I indulged your OFF TOPIC questions here when you were too lazy to read the original thread.

Well, that brings us full circle to the very topic that this thread set out to cover, doesn't it? There is indeed a strong current of traditional Islamic rhetoric here and a paucity of willingness to engage in logical discourse that does not rely primarily on faith in the Quran.

Thanks for helping provide another good example of the problems Christians and Muslims face in seeking common ground.

/oneway

arnoldyasin

Peace,

Oneway, i understand you say you want this topic about some different subjects, and it still not totaly clear what exactly, do you want to discuss only why and how inter-faith discussions go or should go? Are we still talking about Muslims fighting? Or do you just pick out something everytime?

I agree that inter-faith discussions are really important, is also one of the main things i do in mine study. But i know several reasons why people react sometimes in a wrong fashion

1.Because they feel their faith is attacked, and they feel weakened and by thus threathened by it.

They need you to believe it also, otherwise their faith gets weakened by your rejection of it. The so-called crowd surfers.
Because the person feels really offended by certain words.
Because the other person doesn't really answer, and still keeps on with discussing, making it a oneway discussion.
The person discussing with didn't do enough back-ground research, or uses non-reliable research for its arguments. This can irritate after a while.
The persons difference of thinking is not respected.

I think in your discussion, you encountered almost all reasons i give here. So some are really the fault of the people you were talking too. But some are also your fault. By your not really answerring questions, and i don't refer here to mine, i read some of your answers, and they were not satisfying or objective. And also giving a statement, without having really researched it. Only kneedeep, just picking out what you like, and loosing objectivity. So both sides made faults here.

I agree it is really important to discuss what the grounds are of inter-religion discussions, and if you want to keep that as the only discussion in this topic, we will do that. But then also we have to move my questions to the other topic, and you answerring them, with real anwers. Thoroughly researched, with objectivity, because that is what you get from my side.

It is good, even though we may keep on having our differences, that we at least keep on discussing what goes on in the world, and how we can tribute to a solution. But don't forget you deal here with individuals, that all have their own ideas, but we all agree on 1 thing. We are all for freedom for all, working with non-violence, respecting anyone. But we mostly base it on knowledge, research and are not scared to be shaken by some new ground breaking discoveries. We reject non-sense and things that cannot be proven without research. So you to bring all you can find, because we don't follow dogma's or things momma thaught us.

Love and respect...

peace

oneway

Hi, stillearning,

Please see my reply to arnoldyasin as I believe it covers everything, but I'll also reply to your thoughts inline below.

Hello oneway
Since you appear to avoid either through lack of understnading or deliberately the points you yourself originally raised it might be useful if we discuss one or two points at a time.

You wanted to discuss Jesus as mentioned in the Quran. The following posting

CORRECTION arnoldyasin wanted to discuss it. I was content to leave the discussion in the original "Judge a faith by its founder..." thread alone. It was arnoldyasin who misunderstood my first post on this thread and pestered me to readdress the points from the prior thread.

Jesus is handled in the Quran, in the exact same way as the Bible talks about him. As a prophet and a person with a high moral. I study Theology on the Amsterdam University, and i can say already that your conception as Jesus the son of God, is against Jesus his own teachings. Son of God is a Jewish term still used by the Jews today. It refers to being a creation of God, like Jesus says in Mat 59 "Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God."
So we are all children of God. This is just an expression.

and your reply was

For each of the Bible verses you quote as evidence that Jesus did not claim to be the Son of God, I can find others where he did claim to be the Son of God

Please correct me if I am wrong but where did arnoldyasin deny that Jesus did not claim to be the son of God. He explained what it meant. Perhaps if you read the above again, you might understand what the author is saying and then respond appropriately.

He didn't "deny that Jesus did not claim to be the son of God" (which is confusing wording in your question because of the double negative)

arnoldyasin is claiming that Jesus did not claim to be the Son of God in the Bible. I am claiming there is evidence in the Bible that Jesus did claim to be the son of God.

If you care to read all of the original "Judge a faith by its founder..." thread, you will better understand the point in the opening post in this current thread. In that previous thread I wished to discuss the view that the Quran endorses violence (among other topics) and was pressed to post some verses from the Quran in the midst of defending myself and Christianity against a particularly harsh attack.

I did so, and no one replied to that part of my post.

The above is often quoted by yourself and

You say the Quran promotes violence against non-muslims, then i give you verses that prove otherwise, then you say using the Quran is not validated

First of all that is not true, nowhere in the former discussion did people really adress you as i do now. And i focus on the violence in the Quran

and like the writer above I could not find the refernce you provided to back up your claim that the Quran advocates violence against non muslims. Perhaps you could post it again.

If we could deal with these issues then we can move on to numerous other points that you have raised.
regards

Thanks for proving the point of this thread once again, which is that the reasonable discussions in the original thread are all too easy to lose in the noise of the largely off topic argument also contained therein.

The article to which I referred regarding violence in the Quran is in the original thread, quoted in one of my posts on the third page

http//free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5342

You can find it on page 3 by searching for "Dave Miller", or just review the article at the following link

http//www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2702

If anyone wishes to respond directly to this article, please do so by appending to the original thread, as this thread has already gone severely off topic.

Thanks,
oneway

oneway

Peace,

Oneway, i understand you say you want this topic about some different subjects, and it still not totaly clear what exactly, do you want to discuss only why and how inter-faith discussions go or should go? Are we still talking about Muslims fighting? Or do you just pick out something everytime?

I don't think we were ever talking about Muslims fighting. Please read the very first post at the top of this thread. I don't know how to explain any better what I was hoping to convey here. The followon exchanges, particularly the exchange here with CavemanDoctor regarding free speech, clarified the matter and I moved my position away from banning extremist posts.

I agree that inter-faith discussions are really important, is also one of the main things i do in mine study. But i know several reasons why people react sometimes in a wrong fashion

1.Because they feel their faith is attacked, and they feel weakened and by thus threathened by it.

They need you to believe it also, otherwise their faith gets weakened by your rejection of it. The so-called crowd surfers.
Because the person feels really offended by certain words.
Because the other person doesn't really answer, and still keeps on with discussing, making it a oneway discussion.
The person discussing with didn't do enough back-ground research, or uses non-reliable research for its arguments. This can irritate after a while.
The persons difference of thinking is not respected.

I think in your discussion, you encountered almost all reasons i give here. So some are really the fault of the people you were talking too. But some are also your fault. By your not really answerring questions, and i don't refer here to mine, i read some of your answers, and they were not satisfying or objective.

That's fair criticism and if you read the original thread in its entirety you will find my apologies for my hasty initial post in that thread which was made before I realized many here reject the hadiths, etc.

And also giving a statement, without having really researched it. Only kneedeep, just picking out what you like, and loosing objectivity. So both sides made faults here.

Both sides certainly made mistakes, but I don't believe I ever lost my objectivity, unless you count some of the rants I tossed back at AhmedBaghat in response to his attacks. Some of those attacks were so ludicrous I stopped taking that branch of the discussion seriously and simply replied in kind.

Beyond that, I don't think I made the mistake of stating a position without sufficient research or consideration. Keep in mind that I came to discuss, not to forward a previously thought out agenda in some complete form. For example, in the original thread's discussion with icephren and CavemanDoctor, I laid out my own independent argument regarding the handling of Jesus in the Quran and my view that this leads to a logical inconsistency. I'm not going to rehash that argument here. I only point it out to show that I was seeking reasoned debate in that thread based on the individual thoughts of those in the discussion, rather than all of us force feeding one another material from third parties.

I agree it is really important to discuss what the grounds are of inter-religion discussions, and if you want to keep that as the only discussion in this topic, we will do that. But then also we have to move my questions to the other topic, and you answerring them, with real anwers. Thoroughly researched, with objectivity, because that is what you get from my side.

It is good, even though we may keep on having our differences, that we at least keep on discussing what goes on in the world, and how we can tribute to a solution. But don't forget you deal here with individuals, that all have their own ideas, but we all agree on 1 thing. We are all for freedom for all, working with non-violence, respecting anyone. But we mostly base it on knowledge, research and are not scared to be shaken by some new ground breaking discoveries. We reject non-sense and things that cannot be proven without research. So you to bring all you can find, because we don't follow dogma's or things momma thaught us.

Love and respect...

peace

I think after the initial exchanges with CavemanDoctor, phoenix1, and savage_carrot that this thread was sufficiently covered. I really wasn't looking for a "Round 2" on the original thread, hence some of my frustration in our discussion here. Hopefully I didn't come across as too harsh, but I think if you reconsider my first message that began this thread along with the on-topic exchanges that followed you'll understand the relatively simply points I meant to convey here before we got into rehashing the other thread.

Beyond that, I think I've answered your other questions as honestly as I can.

Peace to you as well.

Regards,
oneway

arnoldyasin

arnoldyasin,

I had some good discussions with icephren and CavemanDoctor, among others, that directly touch on some of your points. For example, in the context of the discussion in that thread, all of your verses from the Quran are irrelevant because the validity of the Quran was the very thing I was challenging. As I went to some lengths to explain in that thread, you can't logically use the Quran to prove the Quran's position on a topic is correct. That sort of reasoning boils down to "The Quran is right because it says so", which is purely a matter of faith, not reason.

You say the Quran promotes violence against non-muslims, then i give you verses that prove otherwise, then you say using the Quran is not validated. What is this twisting Oneway? First you attack the Quran, then when the Quran defends itself, you say we can't use the Quran. Your a funny man Oneway. This not a question of faith, but of reason
1.You say the Quran promotes violence.
2.The Quran proves you wrong.
3. Then you turn around and say this is not validated to use Quran.

Come on now, I was not claiming the verses you posted regarding violence are irrelevant - I addressed those later in my reply.

Taken in the context of my full reply it should be clear that I was arguing against using verses from the Quran itself to defend the Quran's treatment of Jesus, which is what you did in the first part of your original post here and I'm obviously addressing your points in the order in which you presented them.

As with your supposed scholarly analysis, you can't seem to break free from taking things out of context to suit your preconceived conclusions.

The Quran by no means proves me wrong in my contention that it endorses violence. To borrow your tactic You must be afraid of that article I posted in the previous thread since you are unable to refute it.

(See how childish that approach sounds when its coming back at you? And you want me to believe you're some sort of scholar?)

Is this an answer? No, this is throwing mud, which i never did, i can see now who is the one who can't discuss properly. Which article you refer to? The one about mohammed? Maybe i missed something else? because i told you already i would answer that one, in the other tread.

You accuse me of preconcieved conclusions, brother, i am a born christian, and i got all my conclusions through studying,nowhere did i have preconcieved ideas. And till now i am the only giving real questions, so when are you giving real answers.

Regarding some of your specific points

For each of the Bible verses you quote as evidence that Jesus did not claim to be the Son of God, I can find others where he did claim to be the Son of God, so it really depends on your view of the overall context of the Bible. You want me to accept your interpretation of specific scriptures you quote to support your stance while simultaneously asking me to accept that the Bible overall is corrupt, all based on the assumption that the Quran is correct. In other words, you choose to accept the pieces of the Bible that do not conflict with the Quran and reject the rest of the Bible. That is convenient for your position, but hardly worthwhile in a reasoned debate where the truthfulness of the Quran is the subject of the debate itself.

No i reject anything that goes by logic. And you haven't answered my question. I never rejected the notion that the Bible calls Jesus son of God.
I asked you a question

Did you ever investigated the Jewish use of 'son of God' in their Theology, because the Gospel was originaly a Jewish scripture?

Don't try to twist out of this. Answer the question.

I haven't twisted anything. I'm sorry if logic scares you, but I established logic as the basis for the discussion in my first post in the original thread. If you reject logic, we're done now.

(See how I inserted the word "scare" again? Hey, I'm really warming up to your tactics! smile

I understand where you wish to go with the Jewish scripture reference. You'll endeavor to lead me down a path that shows the term "son of God" or "sons of God" in the Old Testament and elsewhere to conclude that Christ's use of the term was not special.

Been there, done that. Now you can collect your diploma from the AhmedBaghat school of copy and paste debate.

My tactics? I can see you say you follow Jesus, but i can't see it in your way of answerring properly and in a decent way. It is not only from the Bible, that shows the term son of God is symbolic, it is still used today in their sermons and literature. But i can see, discussing with you is pointless, people see what they want to see. Show me then your logic? Maybe i missed it. if you already posted it, it is not hard to paste them in your answer to me. Show me what you call logic and scientific.

It doesn't change or refute my answer in the least It all hinges on the broader context in which you interpret the message of the Bible. You want to cherry pick things to support your assertions with an underlying assumption that those parts in conflict with the Quran have been corrupted. I want to view it in its entirety, outside the confines of strict literal interpretation, and without requiring it to agree with the Quran. My view doesn't prove the Bible is true and your view doesn't prove the Quran is true. See now why I didn't want to reopen this topic on this thread?

Yes, and it doesn't matter we differ in this, so we can seek where we do have common grounds, and if that is not your purpose, and you only want to keep discussing, then let us know. We must respect each others views.
But still you change your purposes, so it is still unclear. Do you want to have inter-religious discussions? Or seek common ground? Or talk about what we believe is Quranic laws? Because Jesus and Christian and Muslim views discussions are purposeless then if you claim to are done with answerring questions.

Your story about pagan gods, Mitra, etc., can be equally matched by well known associations of Allah with a Moon god (note the crescent moon symbol so prevalent in Islam) etc. That is well worn ground on both sides of the Christianity vs Islam and Bible vs Quran debates and I seriously doubt either of us is going to shed new light there. That's why I took a different approach in the original thread - to avoid devolving into a copy and paste battle that would only mirror the topics already covered at sites like answering-islam.org and answering-christianity.org and so on.

This is so funny, because then all your fellow christians in arabic countries are worshipping a moon-god. Because all of them use the term Allah for God too. Do you want me to quote arabic Bibles? Because you don't need to quote sites that contradict their own words. I don't need other sites, i pick up things from the real world. Go check how arabic speaking Chirstians call God, see how arabic speraking Jews call God. Then you will see that this is such a wrong example. Sorry, but the Mitra-cult is something yuo can't twist out of. Allah is arabic for The God, this is simple linguistic truth, and even your fellow Christians in Arabia know this.

Ah, arnold my friend, the subtleties of the English language seem to be lost on you (and AhmedBaghat as well based on his agreement with you here).

I was not arguing in favor of the Moon god theory. Think for a moment What would that achieve in helping me refute your argument? Nothing at all, right?

Do you really think I've resorted to arguing, "Oh yeah? Well your myth is just as bad as my myth!"

Of course not smile That would be pointless.

I was using it to demonstrate that both the Moon god theory and the direct ties between Mitra and Christianity are similar in that both are highly debatable assertions, equally repugnant to members of the faiths they respectively assault. I thought explaining, "That's why I took a different approach...," made that clear.

Is this your whole rejecting logic thing causing problems again? smile

I see you really don't see it hah? We show you that what you call myth, is not true, because even Christian and Jewish arabs use Allah, and so you can't give this 'myth' as equal to something written down in history. We prove your myth is baseless, and all your fellow Christians in arabic countries will contradict your theory, but just like you, they will also reject the Mitra history. But there is no one to prove us wrong. Most history recordings and dogma's proof it to be a reality, not a myth. You still want to compare the two? Because then i recommend you to call a coptic church in your country, and hear what they have to say. And then call a historian, and see if he rejects the mitra legend. Your fellow Christians will prove your myth to be wrong, there is still no one who can prove 'our'muth to be wrong.

Your certainty that several of the gospels in the New Testament of the Bible are copies of one another is anything but certain. You are far too sure of yourself there considering the lack of certainty among theologians on the matter. Further, the same sort of analysis can be applied to the bulk of the Quran, which many outside of Islam consider an abbreviated Bible with Mohammed's personally expedient changes, insertions, and deletions.

Yes, they do, but at least all admit the Quran we have now, is directly and unchanged from Muhammed's time, the same scholars who say Muhammed copied the Bible all admit that the Quran is unchanged. The same scholars say this is not to be compared with the Bible, which has gone through several revisions. So we can judge if the Quran is really not a copy from the Bible, by the truth's that are inside, so we don't have to investigate if the Quran we have now is the text that Muhammed really wrote down, we have to see if what was written really contains such incredible information, that it could be from God or not. This challenge we can't do with the Bible.

Pure rubbish without sources to back up your claims. Further, the Bible contains prophecies of real events in space-time that were fulfilled later on. The Quran has none of these.

I am at work now, so i can't pick up my books, but ok, you want sources, no problemo. When i get back i will write some. The Quran is a book that doesn't need any prophecies, it contains descriptions about science, that are proven to be facts nowdays. Does the Bible has that? You throw mud, i will throw facts. But i can see you already are taking out your 'rubbish' type of language. Is this your idea of discussion? I never used those terms. You complained about other people, but you do it yourself now.

But, again, what is the point of this OFF TOPIC discussion? We are not covering ground that is not covered elsewhere and you are certainly not offering any brilliant independent analysis even though you'd like our readers to believe otherwise.

As long you don't answer them, you haven't proven me wrong. if you already answered them , then it is no problem pasting them. Is it? And ok then lets move this discussion to the other topic. But only when you keep your responses friendly, i never accused you in these tones, and you are starting to sound hypocrite.

The verses you use to show that the Quran does not promote violence and that show Mohammed to be good are called into question by the article I posted in the previous thread. This notion that Mohammed is good because he says so in the Quran is more of the useless arguing from faith rather than reason. Further, I made clear from the subject line of the previous thread on down that I have no interest in debating the misdeeds of men in their stated allegiance to a particular faith. I was clear on that in my very first post to this forum, so I'm not sure why you raise the issue of whether Muslims or Christians have been more violent throughout history. That is irrelevant to the validity of the Quran and Islam. If you care to read the article I posted in the prior thread on the topic of violence in the Quran I would be interested in your response, but please post your response in the original thread, not here. We have already taken this thread too far afield.

A lot of christian and non-muslim scholars disagree with that article. But i will respect you, by posting my answer over there.

Great! smile

The rest of your discussion regarding Paul, the so called Gospel of Thomas, etc., wanders off topic even for the original thread, moreso for this one. I understand and appreciate your points, but it all hinges on your underlying assumptions and biases.

No it does not, this is theological knowledge, but i see yours don't go further then the church doors. These assumptions i got from Christian scholars, i almost never base it only on my assumptions, always on authentic research. When you loose objectivity, you loose the truth.
All of your answers are based on convictions, and by thus limiting your answers. I base it on research done by theology professors, priests and so on. I don't need only my own assumptions to know i'm right, the information out there shows enough what is true or not.

"These assumptions i got from Christian scholars, i almost never base it only on my assumptions..."

Oh, I see, so your assumptions are ok in a logical debate as long as you bolster them with similar assumptions you got from someone else? rotfl

Please, find out if the University of Amsterdam has a course in prepositional logic and by all means take the class. smile

My assumptions i get from thorough research, and i only follow what can be proven. But here again, you have become hypocrite. You are the one now throwing mud. Still you give no answers. And also you have bcome hypocrite in the worst way, you use articles from other people, you got all of your info from other people, but when i use it, it is wrong he? This is no discussion with an objective scientific person, and again you really show you follow Jesus, uhm not..........

As to your point regarding my discussion with the user Truth in this thread, that discussion stemmed directly from the subject of this thread. It was on topic.

I know, i told you also, but i had indeed not have used it. i only saw later that it was wrong to use it. So ignore it.

Ah yes, the favorite tactic of the unreasonable Fire off an accusation then brush it under the rug when proven incorrect.

So making a mistake is not validated? You sound like a real follower of love. I apoligize for the 'accusation'. Which was more a question. I see your getting angry about something.....

I was not ignoring your post because I couldn't answer it. I just have and I did further in the original thread from which this thread stems if you care to read it. You were simply going off topic here.

No you haven't answered if you believe your Christian or Nazarene, do you follow tradition or the Bible? have you ever investigated Jewish theology and comparing it with Jesus words? Have you ever investigated the greek-roman christians, and how they differed from the Jewish 'church'. have you ever investigated what the rules were of the first Nazerene community that followed Jesus and was run by james his brother as told in Acts? These are not answered nowhere in the previous topic, but if you insist, i can post it all again on the previous topic, will you answer me then with real answers instead of dismissels? Will you answer with quotes from real scholars, not just some pastes from sites? Shall i begin then on the previous topic? No problem. But don't say you have already answered them , because you haven't.

I'm addressing the core themes in the debate and trying to keep those from getting lost in the noise as before. I am not compelled to answer every little nit picking question you pose. "Do you follow tradition or the Bible?" is a bit like asking "When did you stop beating your wife?"

Nit picking? ok i really starting to see you can't answer questions. if it is such a nit-picking question, why then are you not answerring it? If it such an ovious question, why then not answerring it? yes or no, and evidence to validate your answer. You can answer in the other topic then.

I'm familiar with Jewish tradition as compared to Jesus' words and I covered that above. I'm familiar with some of the distinctions between the gentile-centric churches in Greece/Rome and the early Jewish Christians. I'm familiar with the first Jerusalem church described in Acts, with James, brother of Jesus, as its leader, and I imagine you'll pepper me with verses from Acts purporting to refute the deity of Christ according to Peter's words in Acts 222 and so on.

Again, taken out of the broader context of the entire Bible and requring a strict literal interpretation, those arguments seem to stand up. However, in the context accepted by Christians, that Jesus is the "divine Logos", the "Word" described in John, those arguments do not hold true.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made...The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us...
(John 11-4,14)

Also you seem to take that verse from John pretty serious to me. But it has nothing to with taking literral interpretation, Acts describes history events, not theology. And we know now a lot on the first 'church' of james, and they were total different from the roman-greek church. So if you claim to have researched ok, let's talk about that in the other topic. See how much you bolt your comments from other people....

You deserve a calm and friendly discussion, we deserve real answers. Intelligent answers based on real investigation.

Peace

Ah, yes, the traditional "Peace" at the close as previously discussed in this thread.

Part of my difficulty with that tradition as used in this forum is that many insert insults and intentional misconstruals between the opening and the closing "Peace", rendering it mostly meaningless as anything more than mere lip service to what is perceived as a literal Quranic command.

In this discussion you have claimed I never answer questions (a clear lie to anyone who reads the threads I've started in their entirety), you have taunted that I am afraid to answer you, you have accused me of twisting your questions when all the while it is you doing the twisting. You have also claimed some scholarly superiority in an effort to humiliate or ridicule, though nothing in the substance of your posts supports your supposed credentials.

I'm sure my frustration with those tactics comes through in my responses above, but I find your discussion neither particularly calm nor particularly friendly; rather, you wish to bait me through insult and innuendo in spite of the fact that I indulged your OFF TOPIC questions here when you were too lazy to read the original thread.

Well, that brings us full circle to the very topic that this thread set out to cover, doesn't it? There is indeed a strong current of traditional Islamic rhetoric here and a paucity of willingness to engage in logical discourse that does not rely primarily on faith in the Quran.

Thanks for helping provide another good example of the problems Christians and Muslims face in seeking common ground.

/oneway

I never wrote them in an unfriendly term, so this has to do with how you read them, not with how i write them. I ask questions and you call them insults? And yes, you haven't answered the Nazarene question, that there are more comparisons to make with the Bible and the Quran, then with your dogma and the Bible. I don't accuse you, i am making a statement.
If my statement is wrong, then correct me, if you take it as an insult, it shows you true nature. Sorry if you're offended by going OFF TOPIC, but i read the original tread, with me still these questions remained, so if you are so right, then please forgive this stupid muslim and show me where exactly you have answered them. If any of my 'accusations' are wrong, then show this lazy human. And yes when i say peace i mean it, this is what i want, and because we are humans, it is hard to keep, but this is always my intention to live by. i never tried to insult you, but to get answers out of you, you are the one trying to insult now.

I hope we can talk peacefuly, because it is possible of course. It was never my intention to provoke you, but please show me where you have answered my questions. If you have, then i will shut up.

Peace

arnoldyasin

I see Oneway, that we have started off on the wrong foot. And we are both answering at the same time, so i see, now that you admit being a bit harsh. So lets forget it all, ok this tread is clear to me now, sorry for the confusion, but then, you don't want a round 2 at the previous topic? because then i know if we both put the same energy in it...

Peace

oneway

(arnoldyasin - Just noticed your most recent reply as I was about to send this one. I will send it anyway just to further expose my thought process to you here, but I think we're in agreement just to drop the discussion at this point. thx & peace - oneway)

arnoldyasin,

I think we are at an impasse here. You keep demanding that I answer your questions and I honestly believe I have already answered them.

You are correct that I threw a bit of mud in that lengthy reply - it was the mud that originally came from you. smile

I'm not trying to sling even more mud here, but seriously, after I politely explained that I didn't want to dive into all those topics from the original thread again and correctly pointed out that your post was off topic here, this was your response

I think your dismissal says a lot about how you want the discussion to go, do you only want to answer the people who give simple responses?
...
Are you scared of the theologist or something?
...
If you don't give a real response, it means you can't.
...
If you don't response, it means you can't. You want to talk about Islam and about Jesus his role in it, then come on. Let's get it on. If you want to talk about the violence in Muslim society, ok, let's talk about the violence also in Christianity. Discussion shouldn't be oneway, Oneway

Maybe there is some cultural gap that I do not understand, but I can assure you that any American would interpret most of the above statements as personal attacks and insults and I'm pretty sure most Muslims, American or otherwise, would not feel these were kind words either.

In response to your post that included the above statements, I politely reiterated that you were off topic and that I did not want to get into all those topics again. After accusing me of disrespecting your posts as compared to an on-topic exchange with user Truth, your reply to my second polite response included

Please answer my questions, because you haven't answered them anywhere, not here, not in the previous topic...

And i will also write a history on violence in Christian history. Which is the most violent of all histories known....

If you have the answers, it will only take 5 minutes answerring me, if you haven't got them, then well, that will gonna say enough.....

...but nowhere in the previous topic did you really answer peoples questions. Just dismissed them...

Welcome to a REAL forum...

It is simply untrue that I never answered questions. I answered the questions in the original thread and I have answered your questions here.

That you do not appreciate my answers, or like my answers, or have not yet found my other answers in the full seven pages of the original thread, or that my answers do not fit the precise form you wish them to take...these are all things I cannot address except to offer that I answered as directly and truthfully as I could with no intention to simply dodge questions.

I have explained my view over and over and you just don't see it and now you're upset with my obvious sarcasm which was offered in response to your statements above.

I don't know how to make it any clearer, but the answers I've provided are perfectly valid responses to your loaded questions. You pose a series of questions with a plethora of built-in assumptions and then accuse me of not answering when I challenge those underlying assumptions rather than taking your out-of-context bait. That's just plain unreasonable and your insistence on the correctness of your assumptions is the very essence of dogma.

I understand that you feel I'm being dogmatic as well, but I'm trying very hard to stick to logic. This is the problem with this particular discussion between Christians and Muslims. Perhaps it just isn't reasonable on my part to try to debate these core beliefs solely with logic because both sides have such strong faith intertwined with the facts and assumptions we're debating. (And that's why I really wanted to avoid rehashing all of this again.)

So how 'bout we just agree to disagree and move on?

Thanks,
oneway.

Fahad1

peace oneway .

it would be better if u just bring on the Koranic verses that u think promote violence against non-muslims .

if u are having trouble finding the verses , u can search the verses at http//www.submission.org/quran/webqt.php

or u can just visit the Ali Senile's www.FaithFreedom.org where u can easily find all the misinterpreted "violent" verses of the Koran .

peace.

oneway

Hi, saladin,

peace oneway .

it would be better if u just bring on the Koranic verses that u think promote violence against non-muslims .

if u are having trouble finding the verses , u can search the verses at http//www.submission.org/quran/webqt.php

or u can just visit the Ali Senile's www.FaithFreedom.org where u can easily find all the misinterpreted "violent" verses of the Koran .

peace.

To clarify, the original contention in the original thread was that the Quran promotes violence, not just specifically against non-muslims. The article that was referenced to support that is here (from earlier in this thread)

The article to which I referred regarding violence in the Quran is in the original thread, quoted in one of my posts on the third page

http//free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5342

You can find it on page 3 by searching for "Dave Miller", or just review the article at the following link

http//www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2702

If anyone wishes to respond directly to this article, please do so by appending to the original thread, as this thread has already gone severely off topic.

Regards,
oneway

phoenix1

peace all

i just want to say that i don't believe the 'unbelievers' are necessarily non-muslims. they can be muslims, hindus, christians, athiest, anyone.