"Judge a faith" thread: Microcosm of the problem

oneway

Hello oneway.

I am still trying to undertand the purpose of your posting on this forum. You repeatedly claim that your purpose is to engage in a rational discussion and to understand Islam. Yet you constantly mock and criticize mslims and Islam. You have used accusation of violent religion, paedophile prophet, terrorist muslims, extremists etc. In some ways it would be easier to list the insults that you have not hurled. The only consistent theme in your discussion seems to be complete lack any evidence to back your endless negative comments about Islam. I have found your postings devoid of any substance and far more offensive than the ones you accuse of being offensive. Couching insults in a nice manner does not make them any less offensive- sh.. is still the same whether you call it stool or faeces.
As for extremism. Just answer one question, for a change. What exactly are you reffering to.
regards

I don't believe I have mocked Muslims or Islam even once since I began posting here, though I'm sure some have interpreted my positions that way. Such is the difficulty of debating matters of faith. See savage_carrot's advice regarding thicker skin above. smile

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. That you failed to find the evidence I posted because of all the noise in that thread is precisely the motivation behind this thread.

So I realize you think my posts are devoid of substance, but can only offer that it might help if you actually read them. Further, I wasn't aware I was required to have a particular purpose in being here beyond a desire to explore, discuss, interact, and learn.

Cheers,
oneway

oneway

Hello oneway.
...
As for extremism. Just answer one question, for a change. What exactly are you reffering to.
regards

Sorry, stillearning, I forgot to respond to your direct question.

I can't find the original post that included the caution against questioning those who fight, which was posted in a context where it could be interpreted as condoning extremist violence.

But here are a couple of other threads that include posts by user Layth justifying the insurgency in Iraq, partly under the principle that Muslims must drive out occupiers

http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3877

http//free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=716

Everyone understands that much of the insurgency in Iraq is comprised of non-Iraqi jihadists who are actually killing fellow Muslims including women and children. Yet, in his hate for the US, Layth lends Quranic justification to their heinous acts. If that isn't extremism, I don't know what is.

All the more disturbing because Layth authored the posting rules for this discussion forum.

Thanks,
oneway

CavemanDoctor

Peace all

I just want to echo what phoenix1 said; not only is this not your typical Muslim forum, one could say it's not even a Muslim forum at all. It is a forum for people to gather and talk about belief in God alone (whatever that means).

I highly doubt there is any one person on this board who has the same exact beliefs as anyone else on the board. We are very heterogenous in that way. I think this is the reason why you see moderators turn a blind eye to certain things. This board is unique in that we all share very, very diverse viewpoints, even if one viewpoint seems more "extreme" than others.

You must realize that many of us here have tried to escape the censure that much of organized religion is infused with. That, I think, is one thing many of us here have in common. We don't like voices being silenced just cause they seem more "extreme" for we see that as a big problem in organized belief systems. I think if you approach things here within that framework, you'll be more satisfied.

With all that said, I think you should know that moderators have in the past warned the very person (I think) you're talking about. Peace.

truth

Peace,

Jesus greeted his followers by saying ?Peace be upon you?. In chapter 2019, the anonymous author of the Gospel according to John wrote the following about Jesus after his supposed crucifixion ?Jesus said to them again, ?Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.? ? This greeting was according to the books of the Old Testament. For example, in 1st Samuel 256, Prophet David instructed emissaries whom he sent to Nabal ?And thus you shall salute him ?Peace be to you, and peace be to your house, and peace be to all that you have.? ? The reading instructs all who enter homes to give greetings of peace, and those entering paradise will be greeted similarly by the angels. In 654 of the reading, the God instructs the believers to greet each other with peace

654 When those who believe in my signs come to you, greet them Peace be upon you.

Peace oneway,

First of all, if you pay attention to the majority of posts on this forum, you will find that people greet others with "Peace". This is not a ritual nor is it to pay lip service, it is a way to expresse a will of having a peaceful interaction. Surely, there are some hypocrites that use this greeting mindelessly while seeking mischief, they are in fact only exposing themselves as such.

It is neither an obligation to greet people with "peace", but for those who follow genuinely the guidance in the reading 'al-quran', they know that when someone greats them with peace, they should return the same and consider him/her as a brother/sister whatever his/her beliefs are (hint idea ).

As for "terrorism", if one is really seeking the peace, he should condemn every "terrorist act" perpetrated by anyone from any -ism, be it his own parents or the far away green-skined weired guy.

--

Thanks, Someone - I understand. I respect and appreciate that traditional greeting, but feel it would be disingenuous of me to use it here since I do not normally use it in other correspondence or personal interactions.

Sometimes I'll end a post with "thanks" or "regards" and sometimes in the more casual form with neither greeting nor closing signature. In the latter case, no disrespect should be inferred. It is simply habit from years of working through email in the informal style that has been customary in the vast majority of my electronic interactions stretching back to my college years.

Regards,
oneway

phoenix1

peace Oneway,

(Curious Have users been banned in the past? Have any of them been extremists? Or did they just violate basic policies like posting spam, etc.?)

there was this guy called 'Princezed'. He is probably as extreme as anyone can get (believes in the geocentric theory of the universe). He got banned here (long before i joined) and he's moderator of the bismikaallahuma forum.

oneway

Peace all

I just want to echo what phoenix1 said; not only is this not your typical Muslim forum, one could say it's not even a Muslim forum at all. It is a forum for people to gather and talk about belief in God alone (whatever that means).

I highly doubt there is any one person on this board who has the same exact beliefs as anyone else on the board. We are very heterogenous in that way. I think this is the reason why you see moderators turn a blind eye to certain things. This board is unique in that we all share very, very diverse viewpoints, even if one viewpoint seems more "extreme" than others.

You must realize that many of us here have tried to escape the censure that much of organized religion is infused with. That, I think, is one thing many of us here have in common. We don't like voices being silenced just cause they seem more "extreme" for we see that as a big problem in organized belief systems. I think if you approach things here within that framework, you'll be more satisfied.

With all that said, I think you should know that moderators have in the past warned the very person (I think) you're talking about. Peace.

CavemanDoctor,

Excellent point. You're right.

I was not giving sufficient weight to the desire to escape censure in the spirit of free speech. I guess my hope was that this forum might be attempting free speech sans extremism, but I guess there really is no such beast. In that light banning extreme viewpoints is neither practical nor desirable, but I still hope users and moderators alike will pounce on extremism when it arises. smile

Also, fair enough on past warnings and such. And two points regarding the posts by Layth referenced in my reply to stillearning above (1) There were indeed users in those threads that expressed their concern about those comments, though not clear if there was any moderator interaction or if Layth is or used to be a moderator himself, and (2) I'm not picking a fight with Layth, who has also posted many many perfectly fine and reasonable posts in the forum. Those were just two threads including posts that struck me as extremist.

Thanks for your insights.

Regards,
oneway

phoenix1

also, i would argue for the insurgency as well if they weren't killing innocent people. There's a war going on in iraq. It's half of iraq verses the US and the rest of the half. What those insurgents are doing is no different than the freedom fighters of the US did. Although these people have gone way too far with these attacks against innocent people. But the fact is that we don't know who's doing what over there anymore (who knows, maybe a few of those "suicide bomber" attacks were "mistakes" made by the US soldiers).

I think you have to try to understand a certain point before calling it extreme. Whatever someone does, including those terrorists, is not without reason. What we must do is understand those reasons instead of labeling them "extremists" and "terrorists" and hating them for it.
We shouldn't try to stop violence, we should promote peace.

peace

oneway

Peace,

Jesus greeted his followers by saying ?Peace be upon you?. In chapter 2019, the anonymous author of the Gospel according to John wrote the following about Jesus after his supposed crucifixion ?Jesus said to them again, ?Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.? ? This greeting was according to the books of the Old Testament. For example, in 1st Samuel 256, Prophet David instructed emissaries whom he sent to Nabal ?And thus you shall salute him ?Peace be to you, and peace be to your house, and peace be to all that you have.? ? The reading instructs all who enter homes to give greetings of peace, and those entering paradise will be greeted similarly by the angels. In 654 of the reading, the God instructs the believers to greet each other with peace

654 When those who believe in my signs come to you, greet them Peace be upon you.

Peace Truth, smile

I don't think I'd agree that the Biblical greetings you referenced are offered as direct instructions to be used all the time, but I'll have to do more digging on that. Thanks for the pointers.

I honestly do respect the tradition, just don't want to come across as a poser here since that's not my usual communication style.

Thanks,
oneway

oneway

also, i would argue for the insurgency as well if they weren't killing innocent people. There's a war going on in iraq. It's half of iraq verses the US and the rest of the half. What those insurgents are doing is no different than the freedom fighters of the US did. Although these people have gone way too far with these attacks against innocent people. But the fact is that we don't know who's doing what over there anymore (who knows, maybe a few of those "suicide bomber" attacks were "mistakes" made by the US soldiers).

I think you have to try to understand a certain point before calling it extreme. Whatever someone does, including those terrorists, is not without reason. What we must do is understand those reasons instead of labeling them "extremists" and "terrorists" and hating them for it.
We shouldn't try to stop violence, we should promote peace.

peace

phoenix1,

I think where I differ with you on these points is that I believe most of the insurgency in Iraq is indeed acting on blind faith and/or blind hatred, not on reason. Foreign fighters recruited to terrorist ranks are hardly a reasonable lot. I don't hate them for it, I simply accept the sad reality that the only language they are willing to speak is violence and chaos. Some of them are there on religious grounds, others are fighting against the loss of favor they had under Sadaam's regime, and so on. The reasons are not hard to come by, but given my bias toward democracy and freedom, I believe their view to be extreme indeed.

American revolutionaries fought for freedom. Iraqi insurgents are fighting against it. There is a wide chasm between their respective motivations and tactics.

Regards,
oneway

phoenix1

American revolutionaries fought for freedom. Iraqi insurgents are fighting against it. There is a wide chasm between the their respective motivations and the tactics they employ(ed).

peace oneway,

are they really fighting against freedom? my point is that to them, they are indeed fighting for freedom. They are fighting against these americans who took over their country for no reason. During the american revolution, what do you think the british thought of the americans? to them, they were terrorists. It's all about how you look at it.
I don't agree with the tactics and motivations of the insurgents. I am just saying that it's more complicated than freedom vs oppression and good vs evil. We have to look at all possible reasons why people are doing what they're doing.

CavemanDoctor

In that light banning extreme viewpoints is neither practical nor desirable, but I still hope users and moderators alike will pounce on extremism when it arises. smile

Peace. Guess it depends on how you define "pounce." Many of us here (under Qur'anic injunction) don't like to "pounce" on any viewpoints since the Qur'an tells us to say Peace even to those who are conducting "vain talk" or to simply disregard them (see 4389, 2855). We are simply commanded to put forth our viewpoints in as polite a manner as possible and leave the rest to God. To be sure, we can disagree and discuss but no need to pounce. For example, I disagreed with many of your points in that original thread but I'd like to think I didn't pounce on you.

Of course I agree if someone is repeatedly being completely disruptive and counterproductive, some action should be taken for the sake of board efficiency. Peace.

4134 "Not equal is the good response and the bad response. You shall resort to the nicest possible response. Thus, the one who used to be your enemy, may become your best friend."

oneway

peace oneway,

are they really fighting against freedom? my point is that to them, they are indeed fighting for freedom.

They are fighting for freedom to oppress those with whom they disagree. Sunni vs Shiite vs Kurd...whatever. The point is that the insurgents in all their varieties certainly do not support freedom for all of the people of Iraq. So yes, they are very much fighting against freedom and democracy.

They are fighting against these americans who took over their country for no reason.

The Iraqi civilians including women and children that they have killed were not part of the American military, so clearly they are not simply fighting the occupying force. And it is no where near one half of Iraq that is engaging in the insurgency. It is a small number of Iraqi radicals combined with and spurred on by foreign fighters. They know they have no hope of forcibly retaking Iraq, they only hope we will tire of their tactics and leave on our own, leaving the fledgling democracy to be devoured. That was part of the mistake we made in Afghanistan years ago (leaving too soon). Hopefully we will not repeat that mistake in Iraq.

And, as you might expect, I disagree that the Americans took over Iraq for no reason. While the WMD rationale had plenty of holes, it was not completely without merit (there were some chemical weapons found for example) and Sadaam's own general says the WMD they had were moved to Syria before the war started in 2003. More importantly, Sadaam had been bucking for confrontation with the UN for years, while also misusing oil for food funds in cahoots with certain UN nations, and playing the tyrrant to his own people. (I spent a little time in Baghdad during Sadaam's tenure and saw first hand the pitiful conditions there for the average citizen in sharp contrast to Sadaam's palaces and the nice neighborhoods where his Sunni cronies lived.) Removing Sadaam was the right thing to do. Now it remains to be seen if we can get the Iraqis themselves to unite enough to build a lasting democracy.

During the american revolution, what do you think the british thought of the americans? to them, they were terrorists. It's all about how you look at it.

No, it isn't. The American revolutionaries were not blowing up their own people just to sew chaos with the British. They were fighting legitimate guerilla warfare against the British army and navy and they generally gave quarter to captured enemy soldiers. They were on the side of the civilians in the conflict, not killing them.

The insurgency in Iraq kills civilians, both Iraqis and foreign contractors and aid workers, men, women, and children, even beheading some of them on TV for show. They are terrorists by any reasonable standard.

I don't agree with the tactics and motivations of the insurgents. I am just saying that it's more complicated than freedom vs oppression and good vs evil. We have to look at all possible reasons why people are doing what they're doing.

I think you are overthinking things here. Look at their actions and ask yourself whether a legitimate military force would behave that way. The only thing complicated in Iraq is that it isn't the US vs the insurgency. Its the US vs the insurgency, the Iraqi government vs the insurgency, all overlayed on conflict between Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites, some of whom are also against the US, the Iraqi government, or both.

oneway

In that light banning extreme viewpoints is neither practical nor desirable, but I still hope users and moderators alike will pounce on extremism when it arises. smile

Peace. Guess it depends on how you define "pounce." Many of us here (under Qur'anic injunction) don't like to "pounce" on any viewpoints since the Qur'an tells us to say Peace even to those who are conducting "vain talk" or to simply disregard them (see 4389, 2855). We are simply commanded to put forth our viewpoints in as polite a manner as possible and leave the rest to God. To be sure, we can disagree and discuss but no need to pounce. For example, I disagreed with many of your points in that original thread but I'd like to think I didn't pounce on you.

Of course I agree if someone is repeatedly being completely disruptive and counterproductive, some action should be taken for the sake of board efficiency. Peace.

4134 "Not equal is the good response and the bad response. You shall resort to the nicest possible response. Thus, the one who used to be your enemy, may become your best friend."

Yes, but by definition (at least mine), extremists support violence against those with whom they disagree (not just against those who attack them directly, etc.) I'm only suggesting that views endorsing extremism, e.g. endorsing such violence, are worthy of being pounced upon.

As Burke said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

phoenix1

oneway,
i guess you're right about the insurgency. I think it wasn't that good of an example of what i wanted to get across.
As for the american revolution, i wasn't saying they weren't fighting a fair war (what is a fair war anyway?) but i was saying that the british view of americans at the time would have been quite 'negative.' To the americans, washington was a hero. To the british, he was a rebel. And who knows what kind of propaganda they used against them (like the US gov't is doing against the iraqis). I also disagree that the war had a legitimate reason. it didn't. the gov't lied to us. that's a fact. They're blaming it on 'faulty intelligence' now.

The point i wanted to make was that we aren't there in iraq. we only know what the media tells us and what our gov't (which lied to us) tells us. We aren't getting the iraqi side of the story. We're not. You might not be able to see this because you do support the war and bush's policies (and so im not going to keep going on and on about all this). But you should try to see it.
Just remember that there is more than one way to look at something, and things can be more complicated than they appear.

arnoldyasin

Peace oneway,

Why do you dismiss my response? My response had a valid questioning about how you believe Jesus is, and what the Bible says, because you say the Quran and Bible don't coincide, which is a baseless assumption. And i gave most important verses from the Quran.

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?

Q

A reasoned debate about the Quran's handling of Jesus. This discussion also touched on part of what I wanted to discuss from my original post, that being my contention that the Quran endorses violence against non-Muslims. Unfortunately, this part of the discussion never took off. It might have been lost in the noise of the heated debate described above.

This is one of the subjects you gave. So i gave you some answers and some questions in how you look at it. Are you scared of the theologist or something? My questions and response coincide directly on this. If you don't give a real response, it means you can't. Please answer my questions and answers.

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.
He never saw himself as God, or even close to it, see "mat44-7
"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Then the devil taketh him up, into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down for it is written, He shall give his angels charge, concerning thee and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."
If Jesus really is so close to God as you seem to think, why does he talk as human who knows you should not tempt God? Or as written in Luke47-8
"if you worship me(devil), it will be all yours." And Jesus answered him,"it is written You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve."
Did Jesus worship himself, or only God? You will probably say, they are one, but Jesus doesn't talk in those terms, neither will you find the trinity anywhere. Why would Jesus worship God, if he is on the same level as Him? Why worship or even praise Jesus, if he asks, no demands you must only worship God?
Luke18
"And a ruler asked him,"Good Teacher(Rabbi) what must i do to inherit eternal life?"And Jesus said to him,"Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone".
Here it is clearly shown that Jesus rejects even the notion he is being good, he clearly says without a doubt, that only God is good. So Jesus can never be God, and is not even close to it.

And i can go on with this, because the gospels say a lot more about his true nature. You have to understand that the Christianity that dominates the the followers of the Bible now, are following a doctrine that came from the Greek-Mitra cult. If you talk with a Jew about a son of God, he just thinks in the term of a creation of God, they would never ever think in the way as the term is used now. But when you said this to a roman-greek. He will take you seriously, because he is used to their gods having children. So people who believed in Mitra, the son of God cult from the Persians, picked up the legend of Jesus and formed their ideas into the legends. That is why there is such a big difference with the 3 earliest Gospels(Mat-Luke-Mark) in style of language and subjects, then in the Gospel of John, which is written around the year 90AD. The first 3 focus more on the sayings and deeds of Jesus, and John focuses mostly on his sudden divinity that lacks in the other 3. And was written by a non-jewish greek coming from a mitra-cult background. Also the names of the Gospels are falsely tributed to the followers of Jesus, just to give them more status. Except the one from Luke. In the earliest church writings, they never referred to the John or Matthew Gospel, because those titles were not given to these scriptures back then.

Also it is to say with certainty that the first 3 Gospels were copied from each other, Mark being the oldest, and Mat and Luke copies of those. Mat and Luke have for 85% the exact same words as Mark. But as seen by the style each were meant for a different audience. Matthew probably for the Egyptian followers and Mark and Luke for the Greek-Jewish followers. John is a mixture of the first 3, some unknown Gospel-literature, and Mitra legends. Also in all 4 Gospels are comments written, that are written as Jesus his words. But are known sayings from famous Rabbies that lived in Jesus times, and were thus placed in Jesus's mouth or Jesus really said them, and agreed with this Rabbi. Also the letters of Paul are older then the Gospels. But it is highly suspected that a lot of letters of Paul are edited versions, are attributed falsely to him 100 years after him.

So the 'divinity' of the Gospels is to be doubted. Jesus words were divine, but not the hands who wrote them down, and mixed them with his deeds, sayings of others and their own ideas about his divinity. Also the Gospels are known to be revised by the early church more then a 1000 times, as recorded in their records. Also in the old church, there were dozens of scriptures telling about Jesus, and all had some different vision, history or sayings. As can seen with the oldest Gospels known, the ones found by Nag Hammadi. Like parts of the Gospel by Thomas are examined to be the oldest writings about Jesus (around40-50AD), while the letters of Paul are from a later date. This is intruiging, because Paul talks about preaching the Gospel, the good news. So this means that the Gospels inside the Bible are not the ones Paul talks about, and can be only late revised copies, otherwise there wouldn't be 4 different Gospels. These are compiled around 70AD, while Paul's letters are from around 50AD. The writings found at Nag Hammadi contain several Gospels that were unkn own in our time, but can be found on the ban-list of the early church fathers. Around 180AD, the church rulers decided only the 4 Gospels, that are now in the bible, are the only ones to be used, together with letters from the early churches, some really from Paul and others, but also some falsely attributed to them. And they spread a list of 'forbidden' Gospels. Some writings found by Nag-Hammadi are on that list, and were probably hidden by a monk, to evade destruction of the documents.

Like the Thomas Gospel, most only contain sayings about Jesus. Also in the Jewish Gospels, mostly only Jesus sayings were written. This shows that the earliest followers were mostly only concerned with Jesus his sayings, and only calling those sayings the Gospel. So only his words were taken as Scripture, not his deeds. Also did the brother of Jesus, yes his real brother, James the righteous, leader of the early 'christain' synagoge of Jerusalem, preached a Gospel containing only the words of Jesus. They followed the Jewish laws, praying, eating, everything. They were also not called 'christians', but people of the way. 'Christain' is a term that only came after 100AD , that was taken up by the roman-greek followers, as their doctrine was mostly focused on Jesus then on his preaching. The followers of Jesus were called Nazareans, as also Jesus was called a Nazarene. Mat223
"He shall be called a Nazarene"
Acts 245 where the Jewish priests complained about Paul
"For we have found this man a plague, one who stirs up up ritos among the Jews throughout the world and is a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes."
And then Paul's beautifull replyActs 249-16
"Knowing that for many years you have been a judge over this nation. I cheerfully make my defence. You can verify that it is not more then twelve days since i went up to worship in Jerusalem, and they did not find me disputing with anyone or stirring up a crowd, either in the temple or in the synagogues or in the city. Neither can they prove to you what they now bring against me. BUT THIS I CONFESS TO YOU, THAT ACCORDING TO THE WAY, WHICH THEY CALL A SECT, I WORSHIP THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS, BELIEVING EVERYTHING LAID DOWN BY THE LAW AND WRITTEN BY THE PROPHETS, HAVING HOPE IN GOD, WHICH THESE MEN THEMSELVES ACCEPT, THAT THER WILL BE A RESURRECTION OF BOTH THE JUST AND THE UNJUST. So i always take pains to have a clear conscience towards both God and man."

Here you can see that Paul was a Nazarene, followed the jewish law, believed in the oneness of God, never mentioned a trinity, as is nowhere to be found in the Bible. And this also shows that indeed a lot of letters were attributed to Paul, during the compilations of the Bible 200 years after Paul. So also Paul wasn't to blame for the shift in the followers of Jesus, this shift came through the roman-greek followers. Who mostly followed the mitra cult ideas, that was given new form in Jesus. They made Jesus divine, and persecuted the Jewish followers of Jesus, who still called themselves Nazarenes. Later during the reign of Constantine, first the duality was accepted, and then the trinity after pressure from certain cities where riots even occured about this. Constantine never was a follower of Jesus. He worshipped the sun, and during his reign, he sought ways to give more peace and unity in his empire. He did this by demanding all the religions in his empire to follow his ideas, from now on all holidays are the on the special days of his sun-god. This is how sunday came about, sabbath is on saturday, this is how christmas came about, because he wanted the birth of Jesus, to coincide with the birth of his sun-god. The early christians always celebrated the birth of Jesus around 6th of january, depending on which church, but no church until Constantine celebrated it on the 25th december. Also to bring more unity in the churches he demanded conferences, first he liked the mitra cult christians more, because their ideas were the same as his religion of the sun-god, because mitra is the old sun-god of the persians, also called son of AhuraMazda(God), and Constantine's sun-god worship was a mixture that came from the greek-roman and the perians. So he preferred the mitra-christians, and declared it the only christianity accepted, all else was claimed herisy. So this was only decided because of politics, and a ruler who chose the one to his liking, that coincided with his idolatry, not the one that was theological correct. Not the one that was preached in the Gospel.

So my question to you is
1.Do you call yourself a Christian or Nazarene?
2.have you ever considered to investigate the concept of 'son of God' from a jewish point of view?
3.have you ever investigated the history of the compilation of the Gospels, and their revisions under the churches authority?
4.Have you ever compared Jesus sayings with Jewish theology, because his audience were Jews?

Because your saying the Quran doesn't have the right vision is not correct, firstly the Quran refers to the followers of Jesus as Nazarenes, exactly as the Bible does. The Quran refers to Jesus as a prophet, being the Messias, and being one in high esteem by God; exactly as the Bible does. The Quran refers to Jesus as send to the Jews as their last prophet, exactly as the Bible does. The Quran calls him human, exactly as the Bible does.
Acts 222
"Men of Israel, hear these words Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst."

So the Quran refers to the Jewish followers to be the correct ones, the only followers of Jesus even mentioned in the Bible. To which concepts do you refer? Do your ideas coincide with the Bible? With the original Jewish followers, the only and first followers?

Now that get to your idea about the Quran, the Quran doesn't allow violence, it only does in self-defense. Muhammed and his followers only got their permission to fight back against those fighting them, after 14 YEARS OF OPPRESSION. Also Mecca lies 270 miles from Medina, and all battles were fought in a radius from 70miles around Medina, so this means all battles were fought as self-defense, as it was the Meccans who traveled 200 miles to Medina to attack them. Also did Mohammed forgave all who fought him, when he conquered Mecca. He conquered it without a struggle. Even though most of his family and close friends were killed by these people, he forgave them all. Does this sound like a evil person to you?

Also some verses
Anyone who believes in God as truly One, with no equal, and believes in the last Day and lives righteous, all will be accepted by God
569. All those who believe, and the Jews and the Sabians and the Christians, in fact any one who believes in God and the Last Day, and performs good deeds, will have nothing to fear or regret.

Surely the believers and the Jews, Nazareans and the Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last Day, and whosoever does right, shall have his reward with his Lord and will neither have fear nor regret.

There is no force in believing, all faith is by own choice, and no can be judged according to it, only your behaviour is to be judged. Only God will judge your faith
2256. There is no compulsion in matter of faith. Distinct is the way of guidance now from error. He who turns away from the forces of evil and believes in God, will surely hold fast to a handle that is strong and unbreakable, for God hears all and knows everything.

Forbidden to force people to believe
1099. If your Lord had willed, all the people on the earth would have come to believe, one and all.
100. Are you going to compel the people to believe except by God's dispensation? He puts doubt in (the minds of) those who do not think
He gave the same way of looking at God, to all Prophets and messengers, the same wisdom of righteousness
4213. He has laid down for you the (same) way of life and belief which He had commended to Noah, and which We have enjoined on you, and which We had bequeathed to Abraham, Moses and Jesus, so that they should maintain the order and not be divided among themselves. Heavy is to idolaters what you invite them to. God chooses whom He please for Himself, and guides to Himself whoever turns to Him.

Selfdefense
2190. Fight those in the way of God who fight you, but do not be aggressive God does not like aggressors.

Fight those in selfdefense who fight you, but when they want peace give it to them
861. But if they are inclined to peace, make peace with them, and have trust in God, for He hears all and knows everything.
Is this a tirant way of behaving?
Or this
499. If two groups of believers come to fight one another, promote peace between them. Then if one of them turns aggressive against the other, fight against the aggressive party till it returns to God's authority. If it does so, make peace among them equitably and be impartial. Verily God loves those who are just.
10. The faithful are surely brothers; so restore friendship among your brothers, and fear God that you may be favoured.
Nowhere will you find aggression against other faiths, only against those who want to fight you. Is that a crime selfdefense?

Is this a tirant?
2563. Devotees of Ar-Rahman are those who walk with humility on the earth, and when they are addressed by the ignorant, say 'Peace;"

Even to the ignorant you have to say peace, and mean it too.
So are these the words of a tirant?
Q
A philosophical sub-thread stemming from the main thread's title regarding the hypothetical question, "Do you judge a message you receive in the mail by the mailman who delivers it?"

I recommend you first to read more about Mohammed, and always keep in mind that these were recorded 200 years after him, so even the Gospels are more accurete then Mohammed's history. Before you go on this debate again, first read the book about mohammed by Karen Armstrong, she is a non-muslim, christian writer, who wrote a honest book about him. Also i can recomment the book there is no god except God by Reza Aslan. Also beautifull and honest writing. Then we can start discussing. Then you can say i have read enough to give a honest judgement.

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......

Peace

unknownuser

Thank you brother arnoldyasin

I hope we can read a reasonable reply

peace

oneway

Peace oneway,

Why do you dismiss my response? My response had a valid questioning about how you believe Jesus is, and what the Bible says, because you say the Quran and Bible don't coincide, which is a baseless assumption. And i gave most important verses from the Quran.

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? ...

arnoldyasin,

No need to feel slighted I did not dismiss you, I simply pointed out that you are responding to issues that are off topic for this thread. The topics I listed in the first post on this thread were simply a recap of topics covered in the "Judge a faith by its founder..." thread. As I said, I had no intention of reopening any of those discussions here.

If you read the other thread you will see my take on all of those topics. There was some very good discussion there with several who gave non-trivial responses, so your assertions that I only want to respond to softball posts or that I am unable to respond are unwarranted.

This thread is a meta-thread about the problems in the other thread and how they reflect the difficulties in working toward common understanding in general along with some specific discussion regarding the forum here at free-minds.org.

Regards,
oneway

arnoldyasin

Peace Oneway,

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 also. And i missed the last discussion, so lets say, i turned in my homework, late, but not to late. If you have good answers, you shouldn't mind answerring. If you already answerred these questions in the last discussion you say, which you haven't, then answerring again is no problem. Also yes, you still discuss it a bit in this discussion.

As your response here on page 1

truth wrote
Peace,

Jesus greeted his followers by saying ?Peace be upon you?. In chapter 2019, the anonymous author of the Gospel according to John wrote the following about Jesus after his supposed crucifixion ?Jesus said to them again, ?Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.? ? This greeting was according to the books of the Old Testament. For example, in 1st Samuel 256, Prophet David instructed emissaries whom he sent to Nabal ?And thus you shall salute him ?Peace be to you, and peace be to your house, and peace be to all that you have.? ? The reading instructs all who enter homes to give greetings of peace, and those entering paradise will be greeted similarly by the angels. In 654 of the reading, the God instructs the believers to greet each other with peace

654 When those who believe in my signs come to you, greet them Peace be upon you.

Peace Truth,

I don't think I'd agree that the Biblical greetings you referenced are offered as direct instructions to be used all the time, but I'll have to do more digging on that. Thanks for the pointers.

I honestly do respect the tradition, just don't want to come across as a poser here since that's not my usual communication style.

Thanks,
oneway

If you can answer him, even though i know, because by different reasons. Please answer my questions, because you haven't answered them anywhere, not here, not in the previous topic, you only kept on reacting that the view of Jesus is not like the Christians, but that isn't really a answer he? We have to look at what the Bible says about Jesus, not how people look at him now. And i will also write a history on violence in Christian history. Which is the most violent of all histories known. But i will show that it isn't about the faith, that sparks violence, it is the people who does the sparking, that creates them. It is the political goals, why people promote violence. Violence doesn't need no excuse, only people to react the violence on. I understand you want also to discuss why and how people reacted the way they did, so i feel bad, i didn't participate in the previous topic.

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.....

I will always respect your way of thinking, but nowhere in the previous topic did you really answer peoples questions. Just dismissed them with a'i don't believe that is true.' Or with'Christians don't think like that.' That are not answers, but trying to evade the argument you started. Welcome to a REAL forum. that is honest, open and is a no-nonsens forum. I can see you didn't expect people to be so open or smart with their answers. People who were harsh sometimes, have no excuse. In that you have all the right to confront them on their behaviour. So i confront you now, for you NOT giving real answers to people. You deserve a calm and friendly discussion, we deserve answers.......

Peace

oneway

Peace Oneway,

First of all that is not true, nowhere in the former discusion did people adress you as i do now, i study theology and go deeper on this subject more then most people on this forum.

Are you sure you've read all of the other thread?

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.

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

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 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.

Thanks,
oneway

And i focus on the violence in the Quran also. And i missed the last discussion, so lets say, i turned in my homework, late, but not to late. If you have good answers, you shouldn't mind answerring. If you already answerred these questions in the last discussion you say, which you haven't, then answerring again is no problem. Also yes, you still discuss it in this discussion.

As your response here on page 1

truth wrote
Peace,

Jesus greeted his followers by saying ?Peace be upon you?. In chapter 2019, the anonymous author of the Gospel according to John wrote the following about Jesus after his supposed crucifixion ?Jesus said to them again, ?Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.? ? This greeting was according to the books of the Old Testament. For example, in 1st Samuel 256, Prophet David instructed emissaries whom he sent to Nabal ?And thus you shall salute him ?Peace be to you, and peace be to your house, and peace be to all that you have.? ? The reading instructs all who enter homes to give greetings of peace, and those entering paradise will be greeted similarly by the angels. In 654 of the reading, the God instructs the believers to greet each other with peace

654 When those who believe in my signs come to you, greet them Peace be upon you.

Peace Truth,

I don't think I'd agree that the Biblical greetings you referenced are offered as direct instructions to be used all the time, but I'll have to do more digging on that. Thanks for the pointers.

I honestly do respect the tradition, just don't want to come across as a poser here since that's not my usual communication style.

Thanks,
oneway

If you can answer him, by going in on the subject, you can also go in mine. 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. But i will show that it isn't about the faith, that sparks violence, it is the people who does the sparking, that creates them. Violence doesn't need no excuse, only people to react the violence on. I understand you want also to discuss why and how people reacted the way they did, so i feel bad, i didn't participate in the previous topic.

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.....

Peace

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.

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 doesn't go 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.

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.

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.

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.

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. This all based on 1+1=2............

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 should have used it. i only saw later that it was wrong to use it. So please ignore it.

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.

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

Peace