Christian is felling apart:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/09/25/bruce-feiler-christians-americans-gone/
Report: Nearly 1 in 4 People Worldwide Is Muslim:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,562101,00.html
Wow, that is alot but muslim is only 600 year old regilion
The part about christian felling apart, I read this here:
"they believe in a personal God but not in a formal faith tradition."
That's because they are not comfortable with hellfire, however this make no sense because muslim also believe in hellfire too, I just don't get it how this muslims regilion get so many people in the world? HOW?!?!
Christian need to start thinking bigger picture, if Jesus is the good news, why few christian in the world like right now? I bet they will said "Well Jesus said few walk in narrow road, many lead to destruction" Maybe Jesus talking the last day that few christian are saved. That's us!"
How sad......
is there any reason why this happen?
I am not bashing muslims, all I am saying is why muslim get many people, how do they do it, and what their's secret weapon to involved more people?
Because they appeal to mans carnal nature...For instance they get 72 virgins in the afterlife.
Quote from: jesushandsarekindhands on October 08, 2009, 05:38:25 PM
Because they appeal to mans carnal nature...For instance they get 72 virgins in the afterlife.
:cloud9: What? Someone didn't get the memo those virgins are all 100 years old? :grin: :laughing7: :winkgrin:
Quote from: Cardinal on October 08, 2009, 05:50:39 PM
Quote from: jesushandsarekindhands on October 08, 2009, 05:38:25 PM
Because they appeal to mans carnal nature...For instance they get 72 virgins in the afterlife.
:cloud9: What? Someone didn't get the memo those virgins are all 100 years old? :grin: :laughing7: :winkgrin:
:winkgrin: :laughing7: :laughing7: :boyheart:
Quote from: Cardinal on October 08, 2009, 05:50:39 PM
Quote from: jesushandsarekindhands on October 08, 2009, 05:38:25 PM
Because they appeal to mans carnal nature...For instance they get 72 virgins in the afterlife.
:cloud9: What? Someone didn't get the memo those virgins are all 100 years old? :grin: :laughing7: :winkgrin:
Lol!
72 virgin women sounds like a punishment to me.
In fact...I'm racking my brain to think of anything much worse.
yeah but after 72 virgin, what next, don't they ever think?
Quote from: jesushandsarekindhands on October 08, 2009, 06:04:25 PM
In fact...I'm racking my brain to think of anything much worse.
Quote from: IceDash on October 08, 2009, 07:05:44 PM
yeah but after 72 virgin, what next, don't they ever think?
LOL sooooo funny!
Quote from: IceDash on October 08, 2009, 07:05:44 PM
yeah but after 72 virgin, what next, don't they ever think?
:cloud9: Seventy two screaming babies? Bet they think their heaven just got turned into hell on that one, roflol........ :laughing7:
Quote from: IceDash on October 08, 2009, 05:29:53 PM
I am not bashing muslims, all I am saying is why muslim get many people, how do they do it, and what their's secret weapon to involved more people?
Well, we can joke about the 72 virgin thing (as many already have :laughing7:), but the truth of the matter is not that Muslims are gaining converts at an abnormally high rate, but rather just that the population of majority-Muslim countries is growing faster than majority-Christian countries. Two parents of the same religion are just statistically likely to have children of the same religion. For that reason, the statistics regarding the growth of Islam are kind of misleading. They're not "taking over" or anything.
QuoteWow, that is alot but muslim is only 600 year old regilion
Actually, Islam was founded in 600 AD, so it's almost as old as Christianity.
Quoteis there any reason why this happen?
They have an effective conversion process: Convert or die. :mblush:
QuoteMuslims are gaining converts at an abnormally high rate, but rather just that the population of majority-Muslim countries is growing faster than majority-Christian countries.
Aaaa they still have a long way to travel untill they reach China,s population :grin:
(1billion little yellow china man )
Btw:did enyone count China in their survey ?(not Christian ,but is still better than muslim)
QuoteThey have an effective conversion process: Convert or die. blush
yes :grin: :grin:
Quote from: V.I.D. on October 09, 2009, 02:06:43 PM
QuoteThey have an effective conversion process: Convert or die. blush
yes :grin: :grin:
Of course, to play devil's advocate, Islam's history actually has striking similarities to Christianity's. Both started off well, with believers accepting all with warm embraces and open hearts. Both were then plunged into darkness when powerful men with evil doctrines got their claws into it. The difference is that Christianity's plunge into darkness happened around six or seven hundred years before Islam's. And if we go back about that time into history... well, that conversion process you describe kinda sounds like that of another religion that we know quite well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_inquisition).
Another reason the Muslim faith continues to grow is because in many countries, it is a crime NOT to be a Muslim. And they keep their women subdued and the men rule over them like tyrants. There is a lot of pressure in Muslim countries not to be counted as 'an infidel'. Christianity, which it used to be that way somewhat in the dark ages when the Catholic church ruled, it is not like that in too many Christian societies any longer. The only truly free people in the world are those who are free in Christ -- free from the spirit of fear -- free from the fear of death, liberated by the law of liberty of life in Christ Jesus. There are many professing Christians who, while not free in that sense, still would not consider converting people with the literal sword -- they just use the psychological/threat of hell sword. Perhaps the Muslims are more prone to use both the literal and psychological sword to keep people in religious chains.
Quote from: GabBoth started off well, with believers accepting all with warm embraces and open hearts.
When was Muhammad NOT a violent man? I must have missed that history.
"I am the prophet that laughs when killing my enemies." (Hadith)
Quote from: Molly on October 11, 2009, 01:04:19 AM
Quote from: GabBoth started off well, with believers accepting all with warm embraces and open hearts.
When was Muhammad NOT a violent man? I must have missed that history.
"I am the prophet that laughs when killing my enemies." (Hadith)
Yeah, I read that Muhammad was in something like 52 different battles and basically said, "Convert or die." He'd convert people and then go and destroy and/or take over another group of people and if anybody converted to Islam they'd join in on his "crusade".
Not sure if it's true or not, but it's something I read.
Quote from: Molly on October 11, 2009, 01:04:19 AM
Quote from: GabBoth started off well, with believers accepting all with warm embraces and open hearts.
When was Muhammad NOT a violent man? I must have missed that history.
"I am the prophet that laughs when killing my enemies." (Hadith)
Yes, by this time I've already heard all of the verses from the Qur'an that are perennially taken out of context.
That doesn't change the fact that, for the first three hundred years or so of Islam's existence, the Muslim world was basically the center of the world for scientific advancement, and Baghdad especially was one of the greatest cultural centers in the entire world. Islam in its current form did not take hold until a guy by the name of
al-Ghazali came along and basically stopped what had occurred over this three-century period in its tracks. There are thus actually a lot of parallels between Al-Ghazali in Islam and St. Augustine in Christianity.
Check out the video Gary cited about lukewarm Christians going into the oven---then you'll know the answer to your question.
Quote from: IceDash on October 08, 2009, 07:05:44 PM
yeah but after 72 virgin, what next, don't they ever think?
That's a rather complex question this late on the evening iD :laughing7:
a] If they are still a virgin at death... why. Are their looks a blessing or a curse?
b] 72 virgins.... 71 virgins.... 0 virgins. :sigh:
c] They have nothing to enjoy the virgins because their dynamic belt was around the waist :laughing7:
Quote
Yeah, I read that Muhammad was in something like 52 different battles and basically said, "Convert or die." He'd convert people and then go and destroy and/or take over another group of people and if anybody converted to Islam they'd join in on his "crusade".
Not sure if it's true or not, but it's something I read.
Christians do the same thing sometimes. They did in times past during the reign of the 'Holy Roman Empire'. And btw, I don't know if you know this, but apparently our military has largely been infiltrated with people who believe they are in a literal 'Holy War' against Islam. I feel sorry for the guys in the American military - I really do because they have been scooped up into the beastly system and are young and confused - very vulnerable to having their minds impressed, then set out in enemy territory and many of them have gone mad and committed suicide. The V.A. system is not taking care of them as they should and has sent many of them back to the middle east over and over and over again. It is something to cry about if you think about it. Our mighty military is terribly evil -- putting all these people in a kill or be killed situation. Most of these young people don't want to be fighting any war, but because we spend most of our money as a nation on war, that is what they must do to put food on the table. It is really, really sad.
Quote from: Raggedy Anne on October 13, 2009, 09:43:52 AM
Quote
Yeah, I read that Muhammad was in something like 52 different battles and basically said, "Convert or die." He'd convert people and then go and destroy and/or take over another group of people and if anybody converted to Islam they'd join in on his "crusade".
Not sure if it's true or not, but it's something I read.
Christians do the same thing sometimes.
Sure just look at all the religious wars of a few centuries ago.
But I think we shouldn't mix up two different things here.
War because scripture commands it or war because scripture is abused.
A few centuries ago man made Christianity was a synonym for war/trouble/oppression.
Today the same can be said about (man made???) Islam.
I simply judge muslims for what they do. And until they change for me islam mean trouble. Lots of it. And then I don't care if the quran has 20 'love verses' on every page because i'n everyday life that love is translated in love hurting others.
Quote from: IceDash on October 08, 2009, 05:29:53 PM
all I am saying is why muslim get many people, how do they do it, and what their's secret weapon to involved more people?
Islam is the religion of the oppressed...and it is the "Christian countries" who are the oppressors...
QuoteA few centuries ago man made Christianity was a synonym for war/trouble/oppression.
a few centuries ago? nothing has changed WW..."the West" (US-NATO) who profess to be Christian is the biggest war machine and destructor of lives
QuoteToday the same can be said about (man made???) Islam.
really? please point me to these vicious Muslim countries mowing down people like the Christians and Jews do?
QuoteI simply judge muslims for what they do. And until they change for me islam mean trouble. Lots of it. And then I don't care if the quran has 20 'love verses' on every page because i'n everyday life that love is translated in love hurting others.
how do you judge the "Christian nations" who kill millions of others then? can we then say "Christianity" means trouble ie BIG trouble, on a nuclear scale?
Quote from: noname on October 14, 2009, 03:09:40 PM
QuoteA few centuries ago man made Christianity was a synonym for war/trouble/oppression.
a few centuries ago? nothing has changed WW..."the West" (US-NATO) who profess to be Christian is the biggest war machine and destructor of lives
The difference is that in the past the claimed reason for a war was religion based.
Nowadays that claim in never made (at least I'm not aware of it)
QuoteQuoteToday the same can be said about (man made???) Islam.
really? please point me to these vicious Muslim countries mowing down people like the Christians and Jews do
The real question is what would they do if they had decent armies and where not so devided?
QuoteQuoteI simply judge muslims for what they do. And until they change for me islam mean trouble. Lots of it. And then I don't care if the quran has 20 'love verses' on every page because in everyday life that love is translated in love hurting others.
how do you judge the "Christian nations" who kill millions of others then? can we then say "Christianity" means trouble ie BIG trouble, on a nuclear scale?
The answer lays in another reply I posted earlier today. I think there are barely 50 million Christians on this planet.
I think there are
no Christian nations on this planet. (yes that includes the USA)
QuoteToday the same can be said about (man made???) Islam.
really? please point me to these vicious Muslim countries mowing down people like the Christians and Jews do?
you didn't notice what happen to israel?
Quote from: wwThe real question is what would they do if they had decent armies and where not so devided?
They should have so much money from their oil--where are their standing armies? A good question, ww.
QuoteI think there are no Christian nations on this planet. (yes that includes the USA)
We are a Christian nation and were founded a Christian nation. Our belief in liberty and freedom comes right out of the New Testament. Our founders thought they were setting up the kingdom of God on earth. It is certainly a new form of government, unseen before in the known 6000 year history of man. Our founders recognized the individual as Sovereign. The fact that most of us are asleep on our feet nowadays, and/or led by false prophets, is another story, and one that could be quickly rectified.
11After he had said this, he went on to tell them, "Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up." --John 11
Quote from: IceDash on October 08, 2009, 05:29:53 PM
I am not bashing muslims, all I am saying is why muslim get many people, how do they do it, and what their's secret weapon to involved more people?
I think if you look at all the nations with majority of Muslims there is a common thread: A state established religion (Islam) and a poor population. This of course is a generality and there are exceptions to every rule. But when you have a government sanctioning and even enforcing a religion, of course it will maintain high numbers as the population increases.
Then look at the nations which do not enforce religion and the population is relatively richer and enjoying the luxuries of life (like the rich young man who approached Jesus). The numbers are dropping off, or the Christian adherents have gotten lukewarm.
Quote from: seth..and a poor population
It's not by accident. A poor population is easier to control, if you happen to be into control.
Quote from: Molly on October 14, 2009, 08:23:45 PM
Quote from: seth..and a poor population
It's not by accident. A poor population is easier to control, if you happen to be into control.
Exactly. And what happens generally if the population is given some money and a chance to go their own way? They do.
Give the Muslim general population in those countries the same money and luxuries we have, plus the freedom to adopt any belief system, and watch what happens to the Mulsim numbers. In fact, watch what happens to religion in general.
It just goes to show, it is not of man, but God who who does dragging....
Quote from: SethGive the Muslim general population in those countries the same money and luxuries we have, plus the freedom to adopt any belief system, and watch what happens to the Mulsim numbers. In fact, watch what happens to religion in general.
I know what you're saying, but this does not have to be the case. It is the spirit of antichrist which you are seeing at work here. But Christ came to give us abundance. Why would we not be able to live in abundance and praise God at the same time? We will some day.
There is only one kind of government that can work for this world: the opposite of a pure democracy, a totalitarian dictatorship, where there is no "separation of church and state" and military service is mandatory and the people don't get a vote on the rules, and where the dictator has plans to crush the authority of all other nations, and take over the whole world.
I'm talking about New Jerusalem.
Quote from: Seth on October 14, 2009, 08:35:50 PM
There is only one kind of government that can work for this world: the opposite of a pure democracy, a totalitarian dictatorship, where there is no "separation of church and state" and military service is mandatory and the people don't get a vote on the rules, and where the dictator has plans to take over the whole world.
I'm talking about New Jerusalem.
huh? :mshock:
You heard me. :laughing7:
Quote from: Seth on October 14, 2009, 08:40:59 PM
You heard me. :laughing7:
well, as george said, that would work if I am dictator.
nope, there is only one Dictator. :bigGrin:
Quote from: Molly on October 14, 2009, 08:11:20 PM
Quote from: wwI think there are no Christian nations on this planet. (yes that includes the USA)
We are a Christian nation and were founded a Christian nation. Our belief in liberty and freedom comes right out of the New Testament. Our founders thought they were setting up the kingdom of God on earth. It is certainly a new form of government, unseen before in the known 6000 year history of man. Our founders recognized the individual as Sovereign. The fact that most of us are asleep on our feet nowadays, and/or led by false prophets, is another story, and one that could be quickly rectified.
For me it's not what the founding fathers did, wrote, intended or said. It's what the USA is right now...
Quote11After he had said this, he went on to tell them, "Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up."
--John 11
Revelation 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. :laughing7:
Quote from: Seth on October 14, 2009, 08:43:03 PM
nope, there is only one Dictator. :bigGrin:
yeah, but the interesting thing--He's not.
2 Corinthians 3:17
Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
So I guess we are just gonna have to all grow up, instead.
Yup, he is a dictator: a King of kings.
But the difference between this totalitarian dictatorship and man-centered totalitarian dictatorships is that it is spiritual and not carnal.
Quote from: wwFor me it's not what the founding fathers did, wrote, intended or said. It's what the USA is right now...
I hear you, also understand that the American people are trying desperately to get some traction right now....Their elected representatives are not listening to them...
John 21:22
Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
If any elected president of the USA said "what is it to you if we invade this or that country, you follow me" can you imagine the uproar in our little democracy. LOL. No US president has the power or permission to run the USA like Jesus runs New Jerusalem with his "you follow me" policy.
lol...we are Americans with a King who sits on a throne and does not budge.
Quote from: Seth on October 14, 2009, 08:58:33 PM
John 21:22
Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
If any elected president of the USA said "what is it to you if we invade this or that country, you follow me" can you imagine the uproar in our little democracy. LOL. No US president has the power or permission to run the USA like Jesus runs New Jerusalem with his "you follow me" policy.
lol...we are Americans with a King who sits on a throne and does not budge.
Yes. But it's more like, follow me until you are able to stand beside me.
Romans 8:29
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
But God will always be our king. Nevertheless, "until we stand beside him" is why I said what I said about the only government that will work for this world (meaning to save it).
It's really ironic if you think about it. We need democracy pertaining to men to keep bad behavior in check. That is really what the Constitution is. It is the assurance of liberties....against men who would take those liberties away.
However, what we need to SAVE man from sin (so we wouldn't have to worry about losing what the Constitution protects) is not a democracy of men, but a Monarchy of God. It's just another irony of the Spirit in relation to the flesh.
I am free from men, but I am not free from God, nor do I want to be.
Yes, but it will not express itself as a dictatorship or a monarchy or a theocracy or any other form of top down, man made government that has always existed throughout the ages.
It will, rather, ideally express itself as a hologram, as each man being not only a part of the whole [God] but being a duplicate of it.
This is what our founders were hoping, not to replicate, but to encourage when they founded a Republic built on freedom, liberty, and the equality and sovereignty of all men.
44And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
--Dan 2
"We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His kingdom come."
--Samuel Adams, upon the signing of the Declaration of Independence
Quote from: Molly on October 14, 2009, 11:45:55 PM
Yes, but it will not express itself as a dictatorship or a monarchy or a theocracy or any other form of top down, man made government that has always existed throughout the ages.
To each is own. But God did express it through a comparison to a monarchy, so that is good enough for me.
QuoteThis is what our founders were hoping, not to replicate, but to encourage when they founded a Republic built on freedom, liberty, and the equality and sovereignty of all men.
Yes, those were their hopes. However, their framework cannot overcome the flesh. It can encourage, but what is needed is more than encouragement. That is why, though we have the best system of government that we can muster to control tyranny, we still have an oppressively sinful culture.
It isn't America to blame. In fact our system of government exposes man's sin, because it sets us free to show it off. Yes, not the intent, but certainly the result. The problem is with the flesh. So whether it is the Muslim nations which try to cleanse sin through oppression and violence, or the democracies which set man free to feed on his sin, the two groups are the same, in slavery to sin. Therefore, the governments we create express that sin in their own unique ways, regardless of intent.
That is why I look to a Monarchy to come and crush all rule and authority of man.
you know God hate to be called a dictator by deflaut, he really want to be father
One thing you are right, you are free from men but not from God, because he your father
I can never be break free from my mother, because we share the same blood, and that cannot be free until you can change into a werewolf... :laughing7:
Quote from: SethTo each is own. But God did express it through a comparison to a monarchy, so that is good enough for me.
How is King of kings a monarchy? You think Queen Elizabeth would go along with that?
King of kings is a hologram.
Appropriately enough, the word hologram comes from the Greek words holos, "whole," and gramma, "message." If a hologram is cut into pieces, each piece projects the entire image, but as if viewed from a smaller subset of angles. The large amount of information contained in holograms makes them harder to forge than two-dimensional images. Many credit cards, CDs, sports memorabilia, and other items include holographic stickers as indicators of authenticity. Holography is used in many fields, including medicine, data storage, architecture, engineering, and the arts.
Quote from: Molly on October 15, 2009, 02:12:53 AM
Quote from: SethTo each is own. But God did express it through a comparison to a monarchy, so that is good enough for me.
How is King of kings a monarchy? You think Queen Elizabeth would go along with that?
There are still kings in the earth. Jesus is the king of them all. There are kings in the earth, and those who share Christ's throne, who are still subject to the King above all. He will reveal that to them when he returns to put down all rule and authority.
Quote from: IceDash on October 15, 2009, 01:55:10 AM
you know God hate to be called a dictator by deflaut, he really want to be father
One thing you are right, you are free from men but not from God, because he your father
I can never be break free from my mother, because we share the same blood, and that cannot be free until you can change into a werewolf... :laughing7:
He is: Father and KING. A king IS a dictator.
Paul went so far as to call himself a SLAVE to Christ.
The point is not to embrace the idea of a man-centered dictatorship, but to SUBVERT it.
God has no problem comparing spiritual things against man-centered things, because it is more of a contrast.
Paul said that we are supposed to go to war....but our weapons of war are not carnal. He called himself a slave, but in the world he was free.
I have no problem making comparisons like that, to say that New Jerusalem is a dictatorship, because it is a perfect CONTRAST to the things of man.
Man's dictatorship is EVIL
God's dictatorship is GOOD
Another reason for continuing numbers of people remaining Moslem is they make the Bible illegal in most of the places they're in charge. The people are kept in ignorance as well as poverty.
I had understood Moslems have power over about 1/3 of the world's population. An interesting interpretation of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse is that the white one was Roman Catholocism. The black horse was Capitalism. The red horse is communism. Mohammadanism is the green horse (the color of Muslim flags) with death as a rider (theirs is a cult of death and murder.)
(There is no word for love in the Q'ran. Every one out of 58 verses in the Q'ran advacates violence.)
Quote from: SethI have no problem making comparisons like that, to say that New Jerusalem is a dictatorship, ...
Neither will the antiChrist. In fact, I would imagine he plans to rule his nwo from that very city.
Quote from: reFORMer on October 15, 2009, 03:28:11 AM
(There is no word for love in the Q'ran. Every one out of 58 verses in the Q'ran advacates violence.)
Huh?
The Arabic word for "love" is
hubb, and it appears in the Qur'an sixty-nine times.
The Qur'an itself even promises that Jews and Christians ought have nothing to fear:
"Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the converts, and the Christians; any of them who believe in GOD and believe in the Last Day, and lead a righteous life, have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve." (Qur'an 5:69)
Quote from: Molly on October 15, 2009, 05:52:59 AM
Quote from: SethI have no problem making comparisons like that, to say that New Jerusalem is a dictatorship, ...
Neither will the antiChrist. In fact, I would imagine he plans to rule his nwo from that very city.
Not the city described in Revelation 21, Hebrews 12, and Galatians 4, IMHO
Quote from: Seth on October 15, 2009, 06:19:00 AM
Quote from: Molly on October 15, 2009, 05:52:59 AM
Quote from: SethI have no problem making comparisons like that, to say that New Jerusalem is a dictatorship, ...
Neither will the antiChrist. In fact, I would imagine he plans to rule his nwo from that very city.
Not the city described in Revelation 21, Hebrews 12, and Galatians 4, IMHO
So it is not a place but a state of being? Dictatorship has very bad connotations for a state of being--never is it associated with love, joy, and peace. Not a good choice of words, IMHO.
Don't you think if God wanted to be a dictator, he would have done it by now?
But if it describes the condition of the Christ being fully manifested everywhere, then that is a hologram, where each piece fully declares the whole, each piece contains the whole message.
Revelation 11:15
And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.
Quote from: Gab on October 15, 2009, 05:56:55 AM
Quote from: reFORMer on October 15, 2009, 03:28:11 AM
(There is no word for love in the Q'ran. Every one out of 58 verses in the Q'ran advacates violence.)
Huh?
The Arabic word for "love" is hubb, and it appears in the Qur'an sixty-nine times.
The Qur'an itself even promises that Jews and Christians ought have nothing to fear:
"Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the converts, and the Christians; any of them who believe in GOD and believe in the Last Day, and lead a righteous life, have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve." (Qur'an 5:69)
At this point I don't remember the source of my quotes. I can not vouch for my statement concerning love in the Q'ran or you assertion of "hubb" 69 times. I get tired of having to independently verify everything I say. Mostly I have done my own research and verification of the doctrine that God will save all mankind. There are several other areas I've done quite a lot of work in so have a more secure knowledge. I'll try to examine that "love" thing closer before I repeat it. I read much of the Q'ran when I was 11 years old. I've read some in the last several years.
One of the worst things that stand out to me at this point is based on the Moslem idea God has no helper or son. I take it as God's plan to make us in His image and likeness. If that isn't so for a Moslem, what identity do they think we are to aim to emulate and grow into? Related to this is the idea that God spoke to Mohammad and now we should just follow what he had to say of that communication. We are not to experience our own communication with God? Yet, as I understand Jesus, experiencing fellowship with God is central to what should be happening. What would they say I'm experiencing when I have things relevant to the future revealed to me in dreams and visions? (These experiences have proved true.)
Quote from: Molly on October 15, 2009, 06:42:09 AM
So it is not a place but a state of being? Dictatorship has very bad connotations for a state of being--never is it associated with love, joy, and peace. Not a good choice of words, IMHO.
Not usually associated with love joy and peace because usually it is an expression of sinful humanity...just like a slavemaster.
Paul said he was Christ's slave. A slave is not usually associated with love, joy peace, and certainly not freedom....unless the association is with God.
QuoteDon't you think if God wanted to be a dictator, he would have done it by now?
He already is. He gives commandments. We follow them....and his commandments are not grievous.
Some of the things in this thread are just flat out crazy! There is no righteousness to be gotten from keeping the law. But I digress. If y'all want to debate that, please carry on. I have not got time to go back over such milk issues.
Anne
Raggety, not sure who that was directed at, but when I spoke about commandments, do you think I was referencing "the law?"
2 Timothy 2
1 You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. 3 You therefore must endure hardship as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. 4 No one engaged in warfare entangles himself with the affairs of this life, that he may please him who enlisted him as a soldier. 5 And also if anyone competes in athletics, he is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules.
Those rules are not the Law, they are the teaching of Christ by the Spirit who gives us commandments to love eachother in our daily lives (because grace chastises us to live godly lives). And look how Christ told us to put down the sword, yet we are compared to soldiers engaging in warfare. The comparison is a good one.
Who enlists us? That's right, God is a general of warfare.
Revelation 19
11 Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. 12 His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. 13 He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses. 15 Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.
This is fit description of a war making God. Yet the war is against the flesh against sin itself. Yet another good comparison.
Quote from: Seth on October 15, 2009, 03:12:22 AM
Quote from: Molly on October 15, 2009, 02:12:53 AM
Quote from: SethTo each is own. But God did express it through a comparison to a monarchy, so that is good enough for me.
How is King of kings a monarchy? You think Queen Elizabeth would go along with that?
There are still kings in the earth. Jesus is the king of them all. There are kings in the earth, and those who share Christ's throne, who are still subject to the King above all. He will reveal that to them when he returns to put down all rule and authority.
Aren't the elect the Kings?
It's impossible for Jesus to be King of kings and rule the whole planet because many countries don't have a king/queen.
In a monarchy the next king/queen is always a (grand)child from a previous king/queen.
The elect are in a way childeren/brothers of Jesus.
So Elizabeth won't be one of the queens. (she more likely part of the beast empire)
Quote from: Molly on October 15, 2009, 06:42:09 AM
So it is not a place but a state of being? Dictatorship has very bad connotations for a state of being--never is it associated with love, joy, and peace. Not a good choice of words, IMHO.
President, king, dictator, what exactly is the
rea difference?
President: Elected but never listens to the people.
Dictator: Took power by force and never listens to the people.
King/monarchy: Took the country by force, kid are the next ruler. Don't listen to the people.
It's all about what intentions the ruler has. Lining his own pockets or trying to let the whole nation prosper equally.
And if that is the true goal then there isn't much difference.
But that is
not how it currently is. So I think Jesus kingdom is as similar to a present kingdom than a snail looks like a horse (they are both animals... :laughing7:)
Quote from: reFORMer on October 15, 2009, 07:53:49 AM
At this point I don't remember the source of my quotes. I can not vouch for my statement concerning love in the Q'ran or you assertion of "hubb" 69 times. I get tired of having to independently verify everything I say. Mostly I have done my own research and verification of the doctrine that God will save all mankind. There are several other areas I've done quite a lot of work in so have a more secure knowledge. I'll try to examine that "love" thing closer before I repeat it. I read much of the Q'ran when I was 11 years old. I've read some in the last several years.
One of the worst things that stand out to me at this point is based on the Moslem idea God has no helper or son. I take it as God's plan to make us in His image and likeness. If that isn't so for a Moslem, what identity do they think we are to aim to emulate and grow into? Related to this is the idea that God spoke to Mohammad and now we should just follow what he had to say of that communication. We are not to experience our own communication with God? Yet, as I understand Jesus, experiencing fellowship with God is central to what should be happening. What would they say I'm experiencing when I have things relevant to the future revealed to me in dreams and visions? (These experiences have proved true.)
Well, one thing that I think must be stressed is that Muslims do hold that Jesus was the son of God - just not in the same sense in which Christians do. They revere him as the Messiah, just as Christians do. They regard him as a prophet, and as the only person who has existed who truly fully understood God and thus could speak with authority. They see him, therefore, as the son of God in the same sense that one might call a group of people the sons of the desert - he lived in God, and knew God, and understood God. They just don't believe that he was
equivalent to God (which, if I recall correctly, is an assertion that someone here has even made).
In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I happen to be acquainted with two Muslims. Both are very pleasant people, on the whole - certainly no less pleasant than the average Christian I've encountered. Yet, both take their faith quite seriously - they don't discard the Qur'an or ignore entire chunks of it anything like that. It just happens to be the case that they find in the Qur'an very different things than most Muslim leaders today. In that respect, they seem to be quite like us, in a sense - both have independently studied their holy books, and having done so, both have come to reject the doctrines advocated by orthodox leaders of the faith.
Probably one of the most interesting encounters I've ever had with a Muslim was the time that I attended a talk given by one Irshad Manji (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irshad_Manji), who is a Muslim lesbian (yes, I know). She went to a Muslim school, but was kicked out because (as she recalls) she asked too many questions. So, instead of that, she studied the Qur'an on her own, without the "filter" (so to speak) of religious leaders. And now she has become probably the most prominent advocate in the world for the idea that conservative Islamic religious leaders have got it completely wrong and have twisted their holy book to make it say what they want it to say rather than preaching what it actually does say. (Kind of like what Christians have done, too.)
It's for all of the above reasons that I find a terribly difficult pill to swallow in the assertion that Islam itself is a religion of death and violence as so many have accused. If I gave the Bible as cursory a glance as most seem to give the Qur'an, and if I took so many seemingly damning Biblical quotes out of context as so many do with the Qur'an, I can pretty much guarantee that I would not be a Christian. It seems utterly unfair, therefore, to do such a thing to the Muslim faith. I'm not saying we need to accept it as the one true faith or anything, just that we ought to at least understand it (and I mean
really understand it, not just have read a few choice verses) before we criticize it. By all means, criticize those who advocate violence and death. But as we ought to be acutely aware, the most vocal and prominent members of a religion are not necessarily its perfect representatives.
I don't mean any offense by this, but when I hear criticism bundled together in the same breath with statements that are just completely wrong, I get worried, not only because not bearing false witness is one of the ten commandments, but also because we are told that love "rejoices with the truth." (1 Corinthians 13:6) As a result, I am sometimes concerned when I see people making statements as part of an argument that are completely untrue - seemingly without concern for whether or not it might be untrue - and I am forced to wonder in such a situation whether love is truly the motivator behind the words that are being said.
Quote from: GabIt's for all of the above reasons that I find a terribly difficult pill to swallow in the assertion that Islam itself is a religion of death and violence as so many have accused.
Not sure what you are referring to but I have two questions that I would like you to clear up for me--
1) What is their attitude based on the Quran about 'infidels.' Is it ok to kill them?
Under traditional Islamic law[22] an apostate may be given up to three days while in incarceration to repent and accept Islam again and if not the apostate is to be killed without any reservations. There are difference between the four schools in the various details on how to deal with the various aspects of imposing the penalties with respect to the material property and holdings of the apostate and in the status and rights of the family of the apostate. A distinction is also made between "Murtad Fitri", an apostate who was born of Muslim parents, and "Murtad Milli", an apostate who had converted into Islam initially. Some additional penalties and considerations that are mentioned are that a divorce is automatic if either spouse apostatize, an under age apostate is imprisoned till he reaches maturity and then he is killed, and the recommended execution is beheading with a sword. The examples of Apostasy given below show that these punishments are rarely carried out in toto at present, and also underline the problem in harmonizing the constitutional law and Islamic law in the various countries.
In the period of the early Islamic Caliphate, apostasy was considered treason, and was accordingly treated as a capital offense; death penalties were carried out under the authority of the Caliph, the most famous such incidents being the Martyrs of Cordoba. Today apostasy is punishable by death in the countries of Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Qatar, Yemen, Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan and Mauritania. In Pakistan blasphemy is also punishable by death. Other punishments prescribed by Islamic law include the annulment of marriage with a Muslim spouse, the removal of children and the loss of all property and inheritance rights.--Wikipedia
2) What is your opinion of Sharia law?
[iIn accordance with the Qur'an and several hadith, theft is punished by imprisonment or amputation of hands or feet,[135] depending on the number of times it was committed and depe]nding on the item of theft. However, before the punishment is executed two eyewitnesses under oath must say that they saw the person stealing. If these witnesses cannot be produced then the punishment cannot be carried out.[citation needed] Witnesses must be either two men, or, if only one man can be found, one man and two women. Several requirements are in place for the amputation of hands, so the actual instances of this are relatively few[citation needed]; they are:
There must have been criminal intent to take private (not common) property.
The theft must not have been the product of hunger, necessity, or duress.
The goods stolen must: be over a minimum value, not haraam, and not owned by the thief's family.
Goods must have been taken from custody (i.e. not in a public place).
There must be reliable witnesses.
The punishment is carried out even if the thief repents. [said by Muhammad]
All of these must be met under the scrutiny of judicial authority. [Qur'an 5:38][136]
In accordance with hadith, stoning to death is the penalty for married men and women who commit adultery. In addition, there are several conditions related to the person who commits it that must be met. One of the difficult ones is that the punishment cannot be enforced unless there is a confession of the person, or four male eyewitnesses who each saw the act being committed. All of these must be met under the scrutiny of judicial authority[137] For unmarried men and women, the punishment prescribed in the Qur'an and hadith is 100 lashes.[138]
The "four witness" standard comes from the Qur'an itself, a revelation Muhammad announced in response to accusations of adultery leveled at his wife, Aisha: "Why did they not produce four witnesses? Since they produce not witnesses, they verily are liars in the sight of Allah."[Qur'an 24:13]
Punishments are authorized by other passages in the Qur'an and hadiths for certain crimes (e.g., extramarital sex, adultery), and are employed by some as rationale for extra-legal punitive action while others disagree:
"The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication—flog each of them with hundred stripes: Let no compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by God, if ye believe in God and the last day."[Qur'an 24:2] "Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road (to other evils)."[Qur'an 17:32]
In most interpretations of Sharia, conversion by Muslims to other religions, is strictly forbidden and is termed apostasy. Muslim theology equates apostasy to treason, and in most interpretations of sharia, the penalty for apostasy is death. During the time of Muhammad, treason and apostasy were considered one and the same; nowadays, many scholars differentiate between treason and apostasy, believing that the punishment for apostasy is not death, while the punishment for treason is death.
In many Muslim countries, the accusation of apostasy is even used against non-conventional interpretations of the Qur'an. The severe persecution of the famous expert in Arabic literature, Nasr Abu Zayd, is an example of this.
Insulting Muhammad or blasphemy has also resulted in the death penalty.[139][/i]
--Wikipedia
Gab, like you I have very positive experiences with people whose faith just happens to be Islam
in my spec of the woods you'd find a Christian church, a Mosque, a Hindu temple and even a Synagog in close proximity of each other...and there is peace and respect between the different faiths
I have found Muslims to be of the most generous people to all other faiths as well...after the last massacre by Israel on the Palestinians, I have seen many Muslim organisations giving freely to fellow Muslims and Christian Palestinians and even to those who have no beliefs
we can never call ourselves followers of Jesus if there are still an "us" and "them" mentality within us...whether divisions are according to faith, race, country, economic model, culture...whatever...Jesus came for ALL of US...we should examine our own hearts and eliminate any prejudice against another
Quote from: Molly on October 15, 2009, 11:18:38 AM
Not sure what you are referring to but I have two questions that I would like you to clear up for me--
1) What is their attitude based on the Quran about 'infidels.' Is it ok to kill them?
Under traditional Islamic law[22] an apostate may be given up to three days while in incarceration to repent and accept Islam again and if not the apostate is to be killed without any reservations. There are difference between the four schools in the various details on how to deal with the various aspects of imposing the penalties with respect to the material property and holdings of the apostate and in the status and rights of the family of the apostate. A distinction is also made between "Murtad Fitri", an apostate who was born of Muslim parents, and "Murtad Milli", an apostate who had converted into Islam initially. Some additional penalties and considerations that are mentioned are that a divorce is automatic if either spouse apostatize, an under age apostate is imprisoned till he reaches maturity and then he is killed, and the recommended execution is beheading with a sword. The examples of Apostasy given below show that these punishments are rarely carried out in toto at present, and also underline the problem in harmonizing the constitutional law and Islamic law in the various countries.
In the period of the early Islamic Caliphate, apostasy was considered treason, and was accordingly treated as a capital offense; death penalties were carried out under the authority of the Caliph, the most famous such incidents being the Martyrs of Cordoba. Today apostasy is punishable by death in the countries of Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Qatar, Yemen, Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan and Mauritania. In Pakistan blasphemy is also punishable by death. Other punishments prescribed by Islamic law include the annulment of marriage with a Muslim spouse, the removal of children and the loss of all property and inheritance rights.
--Wikipedia
As I'm sure we're all aware, the word "traditional" ought to raise a red flag, as the religious observations of the Pharisees that Jesus so completely rebuked were traditions as well - traditions that went completely against and thereby nullified the word of God.
The "kill the infidels" line usually is accompanied with a quotation of this verse:
"Fight and slay the
kafir wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5)
There are a number of problems with this. First, this isn't even the whole verse, which should pop up another red flag. And I've purposefully left a word there untranslated, for reasons that we will see shortly. The following is the entire verse:
"And when the forbidden months have passed, kill the idolaters wherever you find them and take them prisoners, and beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent and observe Prayer and pay the Zakat, then leave their way free. Surely, Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful." (Qur'an 9:5)
Where's the word "infidel"? It's nowhere to be found because, frankly, indicators point instead towards the proper translation of the word in question as "idolator". Already the meaning seems to be changing, given a similar description of what happens to idolators in Romans 1 in the Bible. And it changes even more if we add further context to this verse:
"This is a declaration of complete absolution on the part of Allah and His Messenger from all obligation to the idolaters with whom you had made promises. So go about in the land for four months, and know that you cannot frustrate the plan of Allah and that Allah will humiliate the disbelievers. And this is a proclamation from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the Greater Pilgrimage, that Allah is clear of the idolaters, and so is His Messenger. So if you repent, it will be better for you; but if you turn away, then know that you cannot frustrate the plan of Allah.
"And give tidings of a painful punishment to those who disbelieve, excepting those of the idolaters with whom you have entered into a treaty and who have not subsequently failed you in anything nor aided anyone against you. So fulfill to these the treaty you have made with them till their term. Surely, Allah loves those who are righteous. And when the forbidden months have passed, kill the idolaters wherever you find them and take them prisoners, and beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent and observe Prayer and pay the Zakat, then leave their way free. Surely, Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful. And if anyone of the idolaters ask protection of thee, grant him protection so that he may hear the word of Allah; then convey him to his place of security. That is because they are a people who have no knowledge.
"How can there be a treaty of these idolaters with Allah and His Messenger, except those with whom you entered into a treaty at the Sacred Mosque? So, as long as they stand true to you, stand true to them. Surely, Allah loves those who are righteous. How can it be when, if they prevail against you, they would not observe any tie of relationship or covenant in respect of you? They would please you with their mouths, while their hearts refuse, and most of them are perfidious. They barter the Signs of Allah for a paltry price and turn men away from His way. Evil indeed is that which they do. They observe not any tie of relationship or covenant in respect of anyone who trusts them. And it is they who are transgressors. But if they repent and observe Prayer and pay the Zakat, then they are your brethren in faith. And We explain the Signs for a people who have knowledge." (Qur'an 9:1-11)
It thus becomes very clear what group of people this is
really talking about - it's speaking of those who "turn men away from Allah's way" (or God's way; Allah is just the Arabic word for God), who do evil, and who are unfaithful to those who trusted them. And it is very clear that all of this only applies if these people stay in such a state to the end.
If you want an exhaustive analysis of this, you can find a good one here (http://www.muslimaccess.com/articles/jihad/kill_the_infidels.asp). As the author of that article says, if Muslims are truly commanded to kill all who are non-Muslim, then we ought to expect evidence of mass exterminations and genocide in the Middle East after Islam took root there, but we see nothing of the sort in history - instead, the Islamic world for its first three centuries was open to all visitors, be they Muslim, Christian, Jew, and "doubters" (as they were called), and was the forefront of the world in scientific advancement.
As for the subject of the death penalty for apostates, that typically comes from this verse from the Qur'an:
"And if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them" (Qur'an 4:90)
Again, context is important:
"What has happened to you that you are divided into two parties regarding the hypocrites? And Allah has overthrown them because of what they earned. Desire ye to guide him whom Allah has caused to perish? And for him whom Allah causes to perish thou shalt not find a way. They wish that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you may become all alike. Take not, therefore, friends from among them, until they emigrate in the way of Allah.
"And if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and take no friend nor helper from among them; except those who are connected with a people between whom and you there is a pact, or those who come to you, while their hearts shrink from fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had so pleased, He would have given them power over you, then they would have surely fought you. So, if they keep aloof from you and fight you not, and make you an offer of peace, then remember that Allah has allowed you no way of aggression against them." (Qur'an 4:89-91)
Interpreting that singular verse to say that all those who were Muslim and now are not must be put to death is now, I think, a little strange, as immediately thereafter we are told that anyone who does not fight you and who wishes for there to be peace must have his wishes granted. It is imperative for people to keep in mind this command when reading any other commands that appear to be advocating open and unprovoked hostilities among those who simply wish to live in peace:
"And fight in the cause of Allah against those who fight against you, but do not transgress. Surely, Allah loves not the transgressors. And kill them wherever you meet them and drive them out from where they have driven you out; for persecution is worse than killing. And fight them not in, and near, the Sacred Mosque until they fight you therein. But if they fight you, then fight them: such is the requital for the disbelievers. But if they desist, then surely Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful. And fight them until there is no persecution, and religion is freely professed for Allah. But if they desist, then remember that no hostility is allowed except against the aggressors." (Qur'an 2:191-194)
In actuality, what is being said is far different than what it initially appears: Muslims are absolutely forbidden from beginning hostilities against any who are not hostile to them first. All of this talk of killing the infidel and apostates is really instructions to defend oneself and one's faith against those who threaten them,
not to go out and murder innocent people who are just minding their own business and attempting to live their lives in peace.
(It should be noted that there are also certain passages quoted from
hadiths - oral traditions relating to the words and actions of Muhammad. However, these are regarded by most Muslims as simply about the man, and do not contain divine inspiration, and thus are not to be taken as divine scripture equal to the Qur'an.)
Quote from: Molly on October 15, 2009, 11:18:38 AM
2) What is your opinion of Sharia law?
[iIn accordance with the Qur'an and several hadith, theft is punished by imprisonment or amputation of hands or feet,[135] depending on the number of times it was committed and depe]nding on the item of theft. However, before the punishment is executed two eyewitnesses under oath must say that they saw the person stealing. If these witnesses cannot be produced then the punishment cannot be carried out.[citation needed] Witnesses must be either two men, or, if only one man can be found, one man and two women. Several requirements are in place for the amputation of hands, so the actual instances of this are relatively few[citation needed]; they are:
There must have been criminal intent to take private (not common) property.
The theft must not have been the product of hunger, necessity, or duress.
The goods stolen must: be over a minimum value, not haraam, and not owned by the thief's family.
Goods must have been taken from custody (i.e. not in a public place).
There must be reliable witnesses.
The punishment is carried out even if the thief repents. [said by Muhammad]
All of these must be met under the scrutiny of judicial authority. [Qur'an 5:38][136]
In accordance with hadith, stoning to death is the penalty for married men and women who commit adultery. In addition, there are several conditions related to the person who commits it that must be met. One of the difficult ones is that the punishment cannot be enforced unless there is a confession of the person, or four male eyewitnesses who each saw the act being committed. All of these must be met under the scrutiny of judicial authority[137] For unmarried men and women, the punishment prescribed in the Qur'an and hadith is 100 lashes.[138]
The "four witness" standard comes from the Qur'an itself, a revelation Muhammad announced in response to accusations of adultery leveled at his wife, Aisha: "Why did they not produce four witnesses? Since they produce not witnesses, they verily are liars in the sight of Allah."[Qur'an 24:13]
Punishments are authorized by other passages in the Qur'an and hadiths for certain crimes (e.g., extramarital sex, adultery), and are employed by some as rationale for extra-legal punitive action while others disagree:
"The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication—flog each of them with hundred stripes: Let no compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by God, if ye believe in God and the last day."[Qur'an 24:2] "Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road (to other evils)."[Qur'an 17:32]
In most interpretations of Sharia, conversion by Muslims to other religions, is strictly forbidden and is termed apostasy. Muslim theology equates apostasy to treason, and in most interpretations of sharia, the penalty for apostasy is death. During the time of Muhammad, treason and apostasy were considered one and the same; nowadays, many scholars differentiate between treason and apostasy, believing that the punishment for apostasy is not death, while the punishment for treason is death.
In many Muslim countries, the accusation of apostasy is even used against non-conventional interpretations of the Qur'an. The severe persecution of the famous expert in Arabic literature, Nasr Abu Zayd, is an example of this.
Insulting Muhammad or blasphemy has also resulted in the death penalty.[139][/i]
--Wikipedia
I don't know of any Jews who stone people to death or who mete out similar punishments, yet those punishments are clearly enumerated in the Old Testament. Rather, they believe that the specific punishments for the crimes listed were simply a reflection of the oral tradition and customary law of the day, and that the real message was in the opposition to the crimes listed, not regarding the precise punishment that absolutely must be utilized. Liberal factions within Islam (which do exist, mind you) view it much in the same way.
To be frank, I view those attempting to establish Sharia law as the law of the land to be much like those fundamentalist Christians who want to make the Bible (their interpretation of it, of course!) the supreme law of the land in the United States. Its encouragement is certainly not an integral part of being a Muslim - some of the largest Muslim-majority countries in the world, such as Indonesia and Bangladesh, do not have much in the way of Sharia law on the books.
Quote from: GabAs the author of that article says, if Muslims are truly commanded to kill all who are non-Muslim, then we ought to expect evidence of mass exterminations and genocide in the Middle East after Islam took root there, but we see nothing of the sort in history - instead, the Islamic world for its first three centuries was open to all visitors, be they Muslim, Christian, Jew, and "doubters" (as they were called), and was the forefront of the world in scientific advancement.
For starters, have you studied the history of Muhammad? Since he is responsible for the Quran and is considered the prophet, don't you think it would be important to look at his life, as we look at the life of Jesus?
The Ottoman empire became a vast and successful empire, and yes they did have 'nonbelievers' living within their borders, other peoples, as all empires do, but they were considered second class citizens, and more importantly, they were taxed for the benefit of the muslims.
But, the religion's main man was not a man of peace. In those days, one did not easily establish an empire by peaceful means, which is why Jesus said at the time, my kingdom is not of this world.
After his migration to Medina, Muhammad's attitude towards Christians and Jews changed. Norman Stillman states:[8]
During this fateful time, fraught with tension after the Hijra [migration to Medina], when Muhammad encountered contradiction, ridicule and rejection from the Jewish scholars in Medina, he came to adopt a radically more negative view of the people of the Book who had received earlier scriptures. This attitude was already evolving in the third Meccan period as the Prophet became more aware of the antipathy between Jews and Christians and the disagreements and strife amongst members of the same religion. The Qur'an at this time states that it will "relate [correctly] to the Children of Israel most of that about which they differ" (XXVII, 76).
Economically uprooted and with no available profession besides that of arms, the Muslim migrants turned to raiding Meccan caravans for their livelihood, thus initiating armed conflict between the Muslims and Mecca.[9][10] Muhammad delivered Qur'anic verses permitting the Muslims to fight the Meccans (see Qur'an 22:39–40).[11] These attacks provoked and pressured Mecca by interfering with trade, and allowed the Muslims to acquire wealth, power and prestige while working toward their ultimate goal of inducing Mecca's submission to the new faith.[12]
[13] In March of 624, Muhammad led some three hundred warriors in a raid on a Meccan merchant caravan. The Muslims set an ambush for the Meccans at Badr.[14] Aware of the plan, the Meccan caravan eluded Muslims. Meanwhile a force from Mecca was sent to protect the caravan. The force did not return home upon hearing that the caravan was safe. The battle of Badr began in March of 624.[15] Though outnumbered more than three to one, the Muslims won the battle, killing at least forty-five Meccans and taking seventy prisoners for ransom; only fourteen Muslims died. They had also succeeded in killing many of the Meccan leaders, including Abu Jahl.[16] Muhammad himself did not fight, directing the battle from a nearby hut alongside Abu Bakr.[17]
In the weeks following the battle, Meccans visited Medina in order to ransom captives from Badr. Many of these had belonged to wealthy families, and were likely ransomed for a considerable sum. Those captives who were not sufficiently influential or wealthy were usually freed without ransom. Muhammad's decision was that those who were wealthy but did not ransom themselves should be killed.[18][19] Muhammad ordered the immediate execution of two men without entertaining offers for their release.[19] One of the men, Uqba ibn Abu Mu'ayt, had written verses about Muhammad, and the other had said that his own stories about Persians were as good as the tales of the Qur'an.[18] The raiders had won much booty, and the battle helped to stabilize the Medinan community.[20] Muhammad and his followers saw in the victory a confirmation of their faith. prime importance in the affairs of Medina. Those remaining pagans in Medina were very bitter about the advance of Islam. In particular Asma bint Marwan and Abu 'Afak had composed verses taunting and insulting some of the Muslims. These two were assassinated and Muhammad did not disapprove of it. No one dared to take vengeance on them, and some of the members of the clan of Asma bint Marwan who had previously converted to Islam in secret, now professed Islam openly. This marked an end to the overt opposition to Muhammad among the pagans in Medina.[21]
Muhammad expelled from Medina the Banu Qaynuqa, one of the three main Jewish tribes.[3] Jewish opposition "may well have been for political as well as religious reasons".[22] On religious grounds, the Jews were skeptical of the possibility of a non-Jewish prophet,[23] and also had concerns about possible incompatibilities between the Qur'an and their own scriptures.[23][24] The Qur'an's response regarding the possibility of a non-Jew being a prophet was that Abraham was not a Jew. The Qur'an also stated that it was "restoring the pure monotheism of Abraham which had been corrupted in various, clearly specified, ways by Jews and Christians".[23] According to Francis Edwards Peters, "The Jews also began secretly to connive with Muhammad's enemies in Mecca to overthrow him."[25]
Following the battle of Badr, Muhammad also made mutual-aid alliances with a number of Bedouin tribes to protect his community from attacks from the northern part of Hijaz.[3]--Wikipedia
And so on....
Quote from: WhiteWings on October 15, 2009, 09:07:04 AM
President, king, dictator, what exactly is the rea difference?
President: Elected but never listens to the people.
Dictator: Took power by force and never listens to the people.
King/monarchy: Took the country by force, kid are the next ruler. Don't listen to the people.
Exactly. In the Bible God tends to take what we associate as evil, and flip it on its head to show a contrast between himself and evil man. So concerning a president:
Was God elected by the people? No
Does God need to approval from a house of reps to go to war? No
Can God be impeached? No
Does God have term limits? No
Does God submit to checks and balances? No
etc etc etc
All the things that we would rightly require from a human leader, is reversed with God because God is good and is not a tyrant. The main reason our democracy was created like it was, was to control tyranny as best it can. The need does not exist with God which is why he is a Monarch in most classic sense.
QuoteAren't the elect the Kings?
It's impossible for Jesus to be King of kings and rule the whole planet because many countries don't have a king/queen.
It depends on what you mean by that. Hebrews says that everything has already been placed under Christ, we just don't see it yet. Christ already is a king that rules the whole planet, he just hasn't put the end result into action until the appointed time.
QuoteSo Elizabeth won't be one of the queens. (she more likely part of the beast empire)
Maybe. That is for God to decide. However if we are talking about a metephor or a comparison: Queen Elizabeth IS a queen of lords. Jesus is a Lord of Lords and King of Kings in the same way, but in a much higher way. That is what makes it a compare and contrast.
Quote from: Seth on October 15, 2009, 06:48:17 PM
Exactly. In the Bible God tends to take what we associate as evil, and flip it on its head to show a contrast between himself and evil man. So concerning a president:
Was God elected by the people? No
Does God need to approval from a house of reps to go to war? No
Can God be impeached? No
Does God have term limits? No
Does God submit to checks and balances? No
Several translations speak about master and slave.
That sounds closer to a dictatorship. How the dictatorship is to live in depends on the heart of the dictator.
QuoteAll the things that we would rightly require from a human leader, is reversed with God because God is good and is not a tyrant. The main reason our democracy was created like it was, was to control tyranny as best it can. The need does not exist with God which is why he is a Monarch in most classic sense.
But Father never will be king. Only Son is a King for a while. That would mean the Kingdom of Jesus isn't perfect.
Just a intermediate step to real perfection
1Co_15:22-28No more rule No more authority No more power No more reigning
Bit weird a supreme ruler without being a ruler....
QuoteAren't the elect the Kings?
It's impossible for Jesus to be King of kings and rule the whole planet because many countries don't have a king/queen.
QuoteIt depends on what you mean by that.
IMO the verses listed below state that the saints/overcomers/elect will be kings/rulers. Unless the current rulers are the elect they won't rule during the 1000 years of Jesus.
QuoteHebrews says that everything has already been placed under Christ, we just don't see it yet. Christ already is a king that rules the whole planet, he just hasn't put the end result into action until the appointed time.
Does that mean Jesus already started His 1000 year rule?
Quote from: IceDash on October 14, 2009, 07:52:05 PM
QuoteToday the same can be said about (man made???) Islam.
really? please point me to these vicious Muslim countries mowing down people like the Christians and Jews do?
you didn't notice what happen to israel?
iD,
When speaking about war in general I wonder if it's fair to say 'the country wants war'.
Take the Iran-Iraq war for example. Or one of the many wars in Europe. I really doubt the average man wanted those wars. I think the average man just wants to do his daily things, eat something, have a tasty drink and in general lead a quiet a peacful life. They don't want to invaded countries they didn't even knew before their leader declared war.
Quote from: WhiteWings on October 15, 2009, 08:07:39 PM
Quote from: Seth on October 15, 2009, 06:48:17 PM
Exactly. In the Bible God tends to take what we associate as evil, and flip it on its head to show a contrast between himself and evil man. So concerning a president:
Was God elected by the people? No
Does God need to approval from a house of reps to go to war? No
Can God be impeached? No
Does God have term limits? No
Does God submit to checks and balances? No
Several translations speak about master and slave.
That sounds closer to a dictatorship. How the dictatorship is to live in depends on the heart of the dictator.
:thumbsup: Amen.
QuoteBut Father never will be king. Only Son is a King for a while. That would mean the Kingdom of Jesus isn't perfect.
Just a intermediate step to real perfection
1Co_15:22-28No more rule No more authority No more power No more reigning
Bit weird a supreme ruler without being a ruler....
I believe we will always be subordinate to our Father.
QuoteIMO the verses listed below state that the saints/overcomers/elect will be kings/rulers. Unless the current rulers are the elect they won't rule during the 1000 years of Jesus.
I believe the same about the saints/elect being kings/rulers. Alot of people have different views on the "1000 year reign", however regardless of those differences, Jesus already is the king of those who do not realize that or see it. More on that below.
Quote
Does that mean Jesus already started His 1000 year rule?
Again, people have differing views on that. Some don't see it as an eschatology thing but a symbolic reference to the reign that Christ already has.
Psa 50:10
For every animal of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills.
Does God own all cattle, or just the cattle on a thousand hills? Well, some might take the reference to 1000 to not mean time-years but a symbolic manner of complete victory/reign in this life and to come.
But regardless of eschatolagy and differences of view of the 1000 year reign:
Hebrews 2
5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.
6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him
7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
8 Thou hast put
all things in subjection under his feet.
For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him.
But now we see not yet all things put under him.
So if you see the 1000 reign as an eschatology thing, it would be the MANIFESTATION of all things already placed under his feet.
As I had said earlier: God is a totalitarian dictator with plans to invade all nations, crush all rule and authority and occupy those nations forever: being all in all.
Quote from: Seth on October 15, 2009, 08:24:59 PM
QuoteBut Father never will be king. Only Son is a King for a while. That would mean the Kingdom of Jesus isn't perfect.
Just a intermediate step to real perfection
1Co_15:22-28No more rule No more authority No more power No more reigning
Bit weird a supreme ruler without being a ruler....
I believe we will always be subordinate to our Father.
I wonder if that's true. It's a feeling I can't really explain. I'll give it a try...
Jesus returns for His bride. That means marriage. A perfect marriage isn't about one enslaving the other. I see a perfect marriage as
both submitting to eachother. Both know eachothers thoughts and both have the same thoughts.
To simplify things if Father has only one rule and that is love; and all people have perfect love due the ruling/teaching of Jesus then the authority of Father is non existant. A ruler submits people to do things the ruler likes. But the submitted already lives in a way the ruler wants then there is nothing lefft to rule for the ruler. Does that make any sense?
In case not: Assume God is a sea God. His ruling is that every animal has to live in the sea. That would really mean subjecting land animals. But is all animals on earth are fish then that ruling is pointless because they already live in teh sea and have no desire to live elsewhere.
Quote from: WhiteWings on October 15, 2009, 08:55:37 PM
To simplify things if Father has only one rule and that is love; and all people have perfect love due the ruling/teaching of Jesus then the authority of Father is non existant.
The way I see that, is that if this is the case, then it shows the authority of the Father (who IS love) not to be nonexistent, but in full effect.
QuoteA ruler submits people to do things the ruler likes. But the submitted already lives in a way the ruler wants then there is nothing lefft to rule for the ruler. Does that make any sense?
Yes, but as I was saying above, if the submitted lives in the way that the ruler wants, then they are continually submitted by definition. In other words our continued obedience and adherence to love without desire to the contrary is not a sign of lack of reign of God but the removal of a desire to disobey that reign.
To be living in perfect love is to be continually moved by God's Hand.
QuoteIn case not: Assume God is a sea God. His ruling is that every animal has to live in the sea. That would really mean subjecting land animals. But is all animals on earth are fish then that ruling is pointless because they already live in teh sea and have no desire to live elsewhere.
But God created them TO live in the sea, so if they do then his authority is being realized regardless of either their desires or lack thereof. See what I mean?
See, a HUMAN dictatorship struggles to order people to obey. It's the blind leading the blind, which is why it is an evil system of government and worse than a democracy in that sense.
But the GODLY dictatorship removes the disobedience to love so that we always are following commandments by nature, not as in a struggle. That is how the comparison reveals how much better God is than man.
His dominance over his creation is not a grievous thing, because it causes us to walk within him.
Yes Seth I see what you mean. I agree with all your answers but our "disagreement" is that I take things 1 step further.
You are right there was a period of submitting, converting to love etc etc. Even ruling with an iron fist. But that was Jesus and His rod of iron.
QuoteBut God created them TO live in the sea, so if they do then his authority is being realized regardless of either their desires or lack thereof.
For me submitted has a feeling of forcing something on someone. You are submitted as long as you feel submitted. That's as long as you don't fully agree with the rules you are submitted to.
But if the rules of the king are 100% part of your inner self. If the only way you want to live is by those rules. You will even feel unhappy when you are not allowed by those rules. Are you then submitted?
IMO submission can end and isn't eternal by defention.
If the ruler of subject dies the subjection ends.
If the ruler changes the rules the subjection changes or in a certain case ends.
If the opion of the subjected changes and now 100% agrees with the rules subjection has ended.
Say you always hated it when you had to help your mother with the dishes. => Doing dishes is work.
Now you are married a you are deeply in love and want to reduce the workload of your wife. => Doing dishes is an act of love.
=> The same activity changed from something you
have to do to something you
want to do.
=> Your parents were subjecting you. Your wife is much more like the subjection of God.
Are you subjection your dog when you command it to fetch a ball? I think not because for most dogs the ulimate dream is fetching balls all day long.
As said earlier it's a feeling I can't really express. So you have to read the intention of my posts. Not analyse the words for the exact defenitions. :declare:
Quote from: WhiteWings on October 15, 2009, 09:29:43 PM
If you the only way you want to live is by those rules. You will even feel unhappy when you are not allowed by those rules. Are you then submitted?
I guess it just gets down to how we see submission. I just see it as walking in obedience always, even without a desire to do otherwise. Either way, we both agree as to the final result.
QuoteAs said earlier it's a feeling I can't really express. So you have to read the intention of my posts. Not analyse the words for the exact defenitions. :declare:
:thumbsup: :HeartThrob:
/EDIT
Just before I posted this reply you replied to my earlier reply. So I guess we already have agreement.
Anyway I just leave this post here as extra clarification. Not an argument.
Quote from: Seth on October 15, 2009, 09:16:35 PM
But the GODLY dictatorship removes the disobedience to love so that we always are following commandments by nature, not as in a struggle.
Exactly. But is that really being ruled?
QuoteHis dominance over his creation is not a grievous thing, because it causes us to walk within him
Does the Bible teach God has dominace over us?
Jesus had dominance. A fair and just King. But still using an iron rod to submit.
But when speaking about the kings and rules are gone.
Then the Bible speaks about "all in all".
I fully admit I can't fully graps what that exactly means. But I have a strong feeling its much different from obeying someones rules. Isn't the ulitmate rulership that the ruler doesn't (have to) rule because the subjects want exactly the same things.
Jesus is the perfect Judge. But in a not perfect world because in a perfect world the Judge is without a work and the prisons are empty. And I think that is the true meaning of Jesus having everything under His feet. The last dealings with sin are complely finished. There is no more sin so Father is kinda without a job. All that's left is enjoying eternity :thumbsup:
I think the word "dominance" has also a negative connotation because of associations with how MAN uses it. But I do believe the Bible teaches that God has dominance because dominance is defined as "having power or influence on another." So based on what we are talking about, I believe that "power and influence" be upon us eternally as we continue in his love.
Isn't it interesting how the way we view words has such an effect on our conversations? To me it's fascinating.
Quote from: Seth on October 15, 2009, 10:02:13 PMI think the word "dominance" has also a negative connotation because of associations with how MAN uses it.
For me it has a negative connotation.
QuoteBut I do believe the Bible teaches that God has dominance because dominance is defined as "having power or influence on another."
I assume that other doesn't include God otherwise He is 'forced' to change.
QuoteIsn't it interesting how the way we view words has such an effect on our conversations? To me it's fascinating.
Words is all we have. The Bible is words. Many lost their lives because of different interpretation of words.
That's why I find it a good thing that many people really try to find the true meaning of words.
Only with the true meaning of words the Bible can be understood. Ask the ETs with their word twisting theology as a workaround for misunderstood words.
Quote from: WhiteWings on October 15, 2009, 10:21:17 PM
has a negative connotation.
I know. To me it is positive, but to each is own.
QuoteI assume that other doesn't include God otherwise He is 'forced' to change.
I don't say forced, but caused.
Quote
Words is all we have. The Bible is words. Many lost their lives because of different interpretation of words.
That's why I find it a good thing that many people really try to find the true meaning of words.
Only with the true meaning of words the Bible can be understood. Ask the ETs with their word twisting theology as a workaround for misunderstood words.
I agree.
Quote from: wwAll that's left is enjoying eternity
Yep. I'm with you.
6 Place me like a seal over your heart,
like a seal on your arm;
for love is as strong as death,
its jealousy unyielding as the grave.
It burns like blazing fire,
like a mighty flame.
7 Many waters cannot quench love;
rivers cannot wash it away.
If one were to give
all the wealth of his house for love,
it would be utterly scorned.--Song of Solomon 8
Quote from: Seth on October 15, 2009, 10:29:29 PM
QuoteI assume that other doesn't include God otherwise He is 'forced' to change.
I don't say forced, but caused.
Ok. But the result is that God changed. And that is a contradiction with the Bible.
We change toward God. Not the otherway around.
"for love is as strong as death,
its jealousy unyielding as the grave."
Look at that....God is a jealous lover. Amazing how the Bible keeps flipping things usually associated with negativity. I love that about Him.
Quote from: WhiteWings on October 15, 2009, 10:43:52 PM
Quote from: Seth on October 15, 2009, 10:29:29 PM
QuoteI assume that other doesn't include God otherwise He is 'forced' to change.
I don't say forced, but caused.
Ok. But the result is that God changed. And that is a contradiction with the Bible.
We change toward God. Not the otherway around.
Oops I misunderstood your words, to say "otherwise WE are forced to change." Sorry about that. Yes, God does not change. We do. The cause of that change is God who is Spirit. Eternally, we will be in that Spirit and so forth be "walking" in him. That is how God has dominance, which is a wonderful thing, even though in the natural that word has a tendency to make us itchy. Still, I see that as continued submission, which I see as simply an eternal obedience. Obedience is simply compliance, which does not require a desire for disobedience to be so.
Oprah Winfrey said that she stopped being a Christian when she heard the preacher teach that our God is a "jealous God."
I WANT God to be possessive of me. But I DON'T want a human to be possessive. One is positive. Why WOULDN'T we want God to be dominant? Is there something wrong with his power and influence in such a way that we would not want our Jealous God to be so passionately possessive of us?
You would have to give up your normal association of human jealousy to appreciate that.
Jesus was interested in doing the Father's will, and only His will. "I can do nothing of myself." Not much there about "freedom" as we so often hear preached.
There must be some precious jewel in submission..
And Jesus also told us that if we want to be great we must become small. Being a king in the Kingdom has nothing to do with what a king is like as the world knows it.
How many Christians today will lay down their lives for "sinners?" Most, I fear, are more focused on being a "king" and judging others..
whyiloveitaly AMEN
:thumbsup:
Quote from: Seth on October 15, 2009, 10:44:14 PM
"for love is as strong as death,
its jealousy unyielding as the grave."
Look at that....God is a jealous lover. Amazing how the Bible keeps flipping things usually associated with negativity. I love that about Him.
Yep. :thumbsup:
James 4:5
5 Or do you suppose it is to no purpose that the Scripture says, "He yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us"?
:cloud9: Pertaining to the previous Mohammed conversation; it's been over 20 years and for all I know the "official version" may have been changed by now to protect the, er, innocent, but I read an account somewhere of his receiving his "holy" scriptures.
The angel that appeared to him in a cave, unfurled a banner and told him to read. When he didn;t, the angel hit him over the head with it. This happened 3 times before Mohammed pointed out the fact he was illiterate. Apparently, the angel of the Lord was not previously informed that his intended recipient of scriptures, couldn't read. Don't you just hate it when that happens? :mshock: :winkgrin: Blessings.....
Quote from: Cardinal on October 16, 2009, 02:04:30 AM
:cloud9: Pertaining to the previous Mohammed conversation; it's been over 20 years and for all I know the "official version" may have been changed by now to protect the, er, innocent, but I read an account somewhere of his receiving his "holy" scriptures.
The angel that appeared to him in a cave, unfurled a banner and told him to read. When he did, the angel hit him over the head with it. This happened 3 times before Mohammed pointed out the fact he was illiterate. Apparently, the angel of the Lord was not previously informed that his intended recipient of scriptures, couldn't read. Don't you just hate it when that happens? :mshock: :winkgrin: Blessings.....
:icon_flower: :cloud9:
do you do Comedy in the spare time you may have.....sorry im rocking... :laughing7: :icon_flower:
Me too Taffy.
Quote from: Beloved Servant on October 16, 2009, 03:19:22 AM
Me too Taffy.
Honestly BS - im crying with laughter...I kid you not..
:bigGrin:I havent laughed sooooooooo much in ages... :icon_flower:
:cloud9: It's been one of them days, and I was feeling feisty....... :laughing7: :mblush:
Quote from: Molly on October 15, 2009, 03:39:13 PM
For starters, have you studied the history of Muhammad? Since he is responsible for the Quran and is considered the prophet, don't you think it would be important to look at his life, as we look at the life of Jesus?
The Ottoman empire became a vast and successful empire, and yes they did have 'nonbelievers' living within their borders, other peoples, as all empires do, but they were considered second class citizens, and more importantly, they were taxed for the benefit of the muslims.
But, the religion's main man was not a man of peace. In those days, one did not easily establish an empire by peaceful means, which is why Jesus said at the time, my kingdom is not of this world.
After his migration to Medina, Muhammad's attitude towards Christians and Jews changed. Norman Stillman states:[8]
During this fateful time, fraught with tension after the Hijra [migration to Medina], when Muhammad encountered contradiction, ridicule and rejection from the Jewish scholars in Medina, he came to adopt a radically more negative view of the people of the Book who had received earlier scriptures. This attitude was already evolving in the third Meccan period as the Prophet became more aware of the antipathy between Jews and Christians and the disagreements and strife amongst members of the same religion. The Qur'an at this time states that it will "relate [correctly] to the Children of Israel most of that about which they differ" (XXVII, 76).
Economically uprooted and with no available profession besides that of arms, the Muslim migrants turned to raiding Meccan caravans for their livelihood, thus initiating armed conflict between the Muslims and Mecca.[9][10] Muhammad delivered Qur'anic verses permitting the Muslims to fight the Meccans (see Qur'an 22:39–40).[11] These attacks provoked and pressured Mecca by interfering with trade, and allowed the Muslims to acquire wealth, power and prestige while working toward their ultimate goal of inducing Mecca's submission to the new faith.[12]
[13] In March of 624, Muhammad led some three hundred warriors in a raid on a Meccan merchant caravan. The Muslims set an ambush for the Meccans at Badr.[14] Aware of the plan, the Meccan caravan eluded Muslims. Meanwhile a force from Mecca was sent to protect the caravan. The force did not return home upon hearing that the caravan was safe. The battle of Badr began in March of 624.[15] Though outnumbered more than three to one, the Muslims won the battle, killing at least forty-five Meccans and taking seventy prisoners for ransom; only fourteen Muslims died. They had also succeeded in killing many of the Meccan leaders, including Abu Jahl.[16] Muhammad himself did not fight, directing the battle from a nearby hut alongside Abu Bakr.[17]
In the weeks following the battle, Meccans visited Medina in order to ransom captives from Badr. Many of these had belonged to wealthy families, and were likely ransomed for a considerable sum. Those captives who were not sufficiently influential or wealthy were usually freed without ransom. Muhammad's decision was that those who were wealthy but did not ransom themselves should be killed.[18][19] Muhammad ordered the immediate execution of two men without entertaining offers for their release.[19] One of the men, Uqba ibn Abu Mu'ayt, had written verses about Muhammad, and the other had said that his own stories about Persians were as good as the tales of the Qur'an.[18] The raiders had won much booty, and the battle helped to stabilize the Medinan community.[20] Muhammad and his followers saw in the victory a confirmation of their faith. prime importance in the affairs of Medina. Those remaining pagans in Medina were very bitter about the advance of Islam. In particular Asma bint Marwan and Abu 'Afak had composed verses taunting and insulting some of the Muslims. These two were assassinated and Muhammad did not disapprove of it. No one dared to take vengeance on them, and some of the members of the clan of Asma bint Marwan who had previously converted to Islam in secret, now professed Islam openly. This marked an end to the overt opposition to Muhammad among the pagans in Medina.[21]
Muhammad expelled from Medina the Banu Qaynuqa, one of the three main Jewish tribes.[3] Jewish opposition "may well have been for political as well as religious reasons".[22] On religious grounds, the Jews were skeptical of the possibility of a non-Jewish prophet,[23] and also had concerns about possible incompatibilities between the Qur'an and their own scriptures.[23][24] The Qur'an's response regarding the possibility of a non-Jew being a prophet was that Abraham was not a Jew. The Qur'an also stated that it was "restoring the pure monotheism of Abraham which had been corrupted in various, clearly specified, ways by Jews and Christians".[23] According to Francis Edwards Peters, "The Jews also began secretly to connive with Muhammad's enemies in Mecca to overthrow him."[25]
Following the battle of Badr, Muhammad also made mutual-aid alliances with a number of Bedouin tribes to protect his community from attacks from the northern part of Hijaz.[3]
--Wikipedia
And so on....
There are a number of things which should be noted here.
First, I'm not a Muslim, so I am not arguing in favor of Islam's correctness or Muhammad's status as a prophet of God.
Second, Muhammad's status in Islam is not equivalent to Jesus' status in Christianity. Muhammad was not, and was never presented as, a perfect individual whose life was the life all should follow. His position in Islam is roughly equivalent to the position of Moses in Judaism. This is precisely the reason why the Hadiths are separated from the Qur'an, as the divinely inspired scriptures presented to Muhammad were the intended foundation for the people's lives. Some have even suggested that God intentionally chose an imperfect man through whom to deliver the Qur'an, as then no one would make the mistake that they believed was made towards Jesus of elevating Muhammad to a status equal to that of God. All praise and thanks, the Qur'an stresses, are to God, not to any man.
Third, you can't just lift a passage from Wikipedia that details only a portion of his life and then come to a final conclusion about the entire person. Muhammad's differences with Jews and Christians were political in nature, not religious - had they been religious, then it seems to me that they would have been in place from the very beginning, and he would not have declared an amnesty for past offenses when he conquered Mecca.
The sole purpose of everything I've been saying is to give evidence against the idea that the Qur'an does not say anything about love and that Islam is necessarily a religion of death and violence. I don't really see anything in your post that builds support for these two assertions. Muhammad clearly did not desire the extermination of non-Muslims; otherwise, he would have had such a thing carried out. Nor is there anything in the Qur'an that states such a thing, as I have explained.
Quote from: Cardinal on October 16, 2009, 02:04:30 AM
:cloud9: Pertaining to the previous Mohammed conversation; it's been over 20 years and for all I know the "official version" may have been changed by now to protect the, er, innocent, but I read an account somewhere of his receiving his "holy" scriptures.
The angel that appeared to him in a cave, unfurled a banner and told him to read. When he didn;t, the angel hit him over the head with it. This happened 3 times before Mohammed pointed out the fact he was illiterate. Apparently, the angel of the Lord was not previously informed that his intended recipient of scriptures, couldn't read. Don't you just hate it when that happens? :mshock: :winkgrin: Blessings.....
:laughing7: Funny, although, as I'm sure you're probably aware, not exactly what people believe. Some do hold that Muhammad was illiterate and offer this as evidence of the divinely inspired nature of the Qur'an, whereas others don't, but I don't know of any that express the idea that the angel (Gabriel, it was) who approached him was unaware of his literary status. Most scholars agree that he was not illiterate.
Clearly, none of us are worthy to judge people or nations. It is presumptuous, at best, for us to do so.
Anne
Quote from: Gab on October 16, 2009, 06:54:51 AM
Second, Muhammad's status in Islam is not equivalent to Jesus' status in Christianity. Muhammad was not, and was never presented as, a perfect individual whose life was the life all should follow. His position in Islam is roughly equivalent to the position of Moses in Judaism. This is precisely the reason why the Hadiths are separated from the Qur'an, as the divinely inspired scriptures presented to Muhammad were the intended foundation for the people's lives. Some have even suggested that God intentionally chose an imperfect man through whom to deliver the Qur'an, as then no one would make the mistake that they believed was made towards Jesus of elevating Muhammad to a status equal to that of God.
Are you sure of that Gab?
Isn't mo presented as a higher prophet than Jesus?
It doesn't really make sense if not. Muslims accept all the fathers from the Bible. Also that Jesus was the highest prophet from the Bible. If their prophet is equal to Moses that would mean lower than Jesus. That would mean he can never change the teachings of Jesus.
:cloud9: Well, it should be noted that whoever's work it was I read over 20 years ago, was actually PRO Muslim. I wasn't reading a detractor's words, and it was they who said the angel hit him, ect.
That alone tells me it was not an angel of the Lord, and definitely not Gabriel, whose purpose in this age, is to tell "Mary, the unawakened church", that there's life inside her, ala the gospel in shortened condensed version.
And it's not about judging anything but the spirit behind the idol, as we are to judge "angels" = messages or messengers. Blessings....
There has never been a "Christian" army. The closest was the Knights Templar, which were more like security guards for the "Holy Land Tours" of that time. Certainly, there were never any "Christian" death squads or terrorist organizations. Unlike any other religion in the history of mankind, for about 300 years there was on the earth a religion that had no temples, no priest, and no holy "things" (ie., objects of veneration.) We all were the priests to the rest of humanity. We ourselves were the temple of the living God and His presence was with us. He alone was to be bowed down to. Our leader, Jesus, was the originator of the idea of personal liberty. He was understood to be the Savior of all, whether they accepted it in this life or not. He taught God would chasten us beyond this life if need be, but would surely transform us into the image and likeness of God, all of us to be resurrected one day. The surrounding religions left mankind in the grave, many in various hells of torment for ever. Here instead was a path of mercy and tender pity, a hope beyond death, a way of elevating the value of every human person.
I know that the true God answers to the name of Jesus. He really answers! Call on the name of other gods and they will not answer. Jesus saves! Many who claim to represent those who believe in Jesus refuse to actually follow Him, mostly through indoctrination into any variety of the traditions of men; but, God is worthy of a people upon whom He will place His name. That name is not Gautama or Tenzin; it is not Brahm or Brahma, or, Shiva, Vishnu, or Krishna; it is not Allah or Mohammad. Jesus is the name above every name that can be named, in the heavens or in earth. Submission to Him by all mankind will not come by coercion of superior strength or force of weapons, but willing recognition arising from within.
Philippians 2:5-11 (Concordant Literal Translation)...
5 ...let this disposition be in you, which is in Christ Jesus also,
6 Who, being inherently in the form of God, deems it not pillaging to be equal with God,
7 nevertheless empties Himself, taking the form of a slave, coming to be in the likeness of humanity,
8 and, being found in fashion as a human, He humbles Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore, also, God highly exalts Him, and graces Him with the name that is above every name,
10 that in the name of Jesus every knee should be bowing, celestial and terrestrial and subterranean,
11 and every tongue should be acclaiming that Jesus Christ is Lord, for the glory of God, the Father.
Quote from: reFORMer on October 17, 2009, 01:14:45 AM
I know that the true God answers to the name of Jesus. He really answers! Call on the name of other gods and they will not answer. Jesus saves! Many who claim to represent those who believe in Jesus refuse to actually follow Him, mostly through indoctrination into any variety of the traditions of men; but, God is worthy of a people upon whom He will place His name. That name is not Gautama or Tenzin; it is not Brahm or Brahma, or, Shiva, Vishnu, or Krishna; it is not Allah or Mohammad. Jesus is the name above every name that can be named, in the heavens or in earth. Submission to Him by all mankind will not come by coercion of superior strength or force of weapons, but willing recognition arising from within.
Philippians 2:5-11 (Concordant Literal Translation)...
5 ...let this disposition be in you, which is in Christ Jesus also,
6 Who, being inherently in the form of God, deems it not pillaging to be equal with God,
7 nevertheless empties Himself, taking the form of a slave, coming to be in the likeness of humanity,
8 and, being found in fashion as a human, He humbles Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore, also, God highly exalts Him, and graces Him with the name that is above every name,
10 that in the name of Jesus every knee should be bowing, celestial and terrestrial and subterranean,
11 and every tongue should be acclaiming that Jesus Christ is Lord, for the glory of God, the Father.
:thumbsup: :goodpost: :ty: :iagree: :first:
Quote from: GabThird, you can't just lift a passage from Wikipedia that details only a portion of his life and then come to a final conclusion about the entire person.
I know that. I was trying to give a flavor of his life and his intent because you will know them by their fruits. Obviously, I can't put his entire life story up here. But, it is clear even from that small passage that he was a man of war, a man with an agenda, and, according to that article, he was even writing parts of the Quran to advance his cause of war.
Jesus preached peace but his life also illustrated it, even unto death. Jesus is unique among men in so many ways.
Can any Moslem dismiss from their mind that Mohammad, their god's foremost spokesman, had 58 wives, at least one of whom was 13 years old and several other weren't much older?
Are there any implications here?
________________________________
I should probably stop the above sort of thing. Early on in walking with the Lord there was impressed on me a strong, though not absolute, teaching I felt was surely of God that I should not spend time trying to understand and master other religions to show what was false or inferior about them; but, I was to rather know the truth and study the Bible to know all I could about the true God and let that speak to others. God will use our knowledge of truth more to deliver others from error than all our knowledge of error ever can. "...the fruit of righteousness is being sown in peace for those making peace." (James 3:18, CLT)
Quote from: WhiteWings on October 16, 2009, 07:37:34 AM
Are you sure of that Gab?
Isn't mo presented as a higher prophet than Jesus?
It doesn't really make sense if not. Muslims accept all the fathers from the Bible. Also that Jesus was the highest prophet from the Bible. If their prophet is equal to Moses that would mean lower than Jesus. That would mean he can never change the teachings of Jesus.
What you have to understand is that Muhammad's intent was not to overturn the teachings of Jesus. This is a crucial point: neither Muhammad nor Islam intended to go against Jesus. On the contrary: he believed that the Christians, instead, had twisted the words of Jesus and were in error when they developed the doctrine of the Trinity, which elevated Jesus to a level equal to that of God and declared him equivalent to and a part of God. Nothing in the Qur'an was intended to contradict Jesus (although Christians obviously believe that it did); rather, it was intended to rebuke a population whom Muhammad held as having begun preaching a false doctrine about Jesus. The Qur'an still calls Jesus the Messiah.
Quote from: Cardinal on October 16, 2009, 07:42:22 AM
:cloud9: Well, it should be noted that whoever's work it was I read over 20 years ago, was actually PRO Muslim. I wasn't reading a detractor's words, and it was they who said the angel hit him, ect.
That alone tells me it was not an angel of the Lord, and definitely not Gabriel, whose purpose in this age, is to tell "Mary, the unawakened church", that there's life inside her, ala the gospel in shortened condensed version.
And it's not about judging anything but the spirit behind the idol, as we are to judge "angels" = messages or messengers. Blessings....
But... the thing that the person said is still not to my knowledge contained anywhere in the Qur'an, nor professed as the belief of any Muslim I know of. It seems strange to base one's judgment of a religion off of something that one single adherent said, no?
Quote from: Molly on October 17, 2009, 02:33:34 AM
I know that. I was trying to give a flavor of his life and his intent because you will know them by their fruits. Obviously, I can't put his entire life story up here. But, it is clear even from that small passage that he was a man of war, a man with an agenda, and, according to that article, he was even writing parts of the Quran to advance his cause of war.
Jesus preached peace but his life also illustrated it, even unto death. Jesus is unique among men in so many ways.
A man who led his followers in a war, yes. But a man who desired the extermination or forced conversion of all non-Muslims, no - and that was the point I was trying to make. I don't hold Muhammad to be a prophet of God, but neither do I hold Muhammad out to be the entity of pure evil, death, and murder that so many accuse him of being, and consequently accuse his religion of exemplifying. I think he was just a plain old fallible man who by all accounts seemed to truly believe what he was saying, even if it wasn't God's revealed truth. He might have been warlike, but that was basically par for the course in the place and time where and when he lived, and in his final sermon he declared that "there is no superiority for an Arab over a non-Arab and for a non-Arab over an Arab, nor for the white over the black, nor for the black over the white, except in righteousness." And I think that those Muslims who are unprovokedly violent towards non-Muslims have it as wrong as the Christians did in endeavors such as the Spanish Inquisition. And I think we do ourselves a great disservice in our service to Christ when we make rash comments that in one way or another dehumanize and homogenize over a billion human beings on Earth, human beings whom we ought to love just as much as any others.
Quote from: reFORMer on October 17, 2009, 05:31:55 AM
Can any Moslem dismiss from their mind that Mohammad, their god's foremost spokesman, had 58 wives, at least one of whom was 13 years old and several other weren't much older?
Are there any implications here?
I understand that many Muslims dispute the idea that Muhammad had wives who were severely underage, but I am not an authority on that subject - one would have to ask a Muslim who is.
Quote from: reFORMer on October 17, 2009, 05:31:55 AM
I should probably stop the above sort of thing. Early on in walking with the Lord there was impressed on me a strong, though not absolute, teaching I felt was surely of God that I should not spend time trying to understand and master other religions to show what was false or inferior about them; but, I was to rather know the truth and study the Bible to know all I could about the true God and let that speak to others. God will use our knowledge of truth more to deliver others from error than all our knowledge of error ever can. "...the fruit of righteousness is being sown in peace for those making peace." (James 3:18, CLT)
Well, the main reason why I think that it's important to understand other religions is this: Suppose you intend to witness to a Muslim. Yet, that Muslim knows that you believe that his faith commands him to kill all non-Muslims, and that it is a cult of death and murder. He knows that these accusations are wrong, yet he sees you making them, unaware that they are wrong and seemingly unconcerned about whether or not they are wrong. To what extent, then, would he trust you to be delivering to him the capital-T Truth, if you cannot even deliver to him the truth about his own religion? Why would anyone trust a Christian to know the Truth if that Christian does not appear to know any other truth to be found?
In the same way as how we are told that love rejoices with the truth (1 Corinthians 13:6), I believe that we owe it to others to truly understand them, because I believe that it is only then that they will respect us and listen to us, as then they may have confidence that our beliefs truly do not stem simply from ignorance of the alternative, but rather from understanding. Otherwise, I fear we risk being only that resounding gong or clanging cymbal.
Quote
Well, the main reason why I think that it's important to understand other religions is this: Suppose you intend to witness to a Muslim. Yet, that Muslim knows that you believe that his faith commands him to kill all non-Muslims, and that it is a cult of death and murder. He knows that these accusations are wrong, yet he sees you making them, unaware that they are wrong and seemingly unconcerned about whether or not they are wrong. To what extent, then, would he trust you to be delivering to him the capital-T Truth, if you cannot even deliver to him the truth about his own religion? Why would anyone trust a Christian to know the Truth if that Christian does not appear to know any other truth to be found?
In the same way as how we are told that love rejoices with the truth (1 Corinthians 13:6), I believe that we owe it to others to truly understand them, because I believe that it is only then that they will respect us and listen to us, as then they may have confidence that our beliefs truly do not stem simply from ignorance of the alternative, but rather from understanding. Otherwise, I fear we risk being only that resounding gong or clanging cymbal.
Gab. I completely agree with you. Just wanted to let you know that even though I'm on my way to bed.
Goodnight -
Anne
Quote from: reFORMer on October 17, 2009, 01:14:45 AM
There has never been a "Christian" army. The closest was the Knights Templar, which were more like security guards for the "Holy Land Tours" of that time. Certainly, there were never any "Christian" death squads or terrorist organizations.
Hmmmz, I think I disagree with al of the above... :sigh:
What about the crusades? (army)
(Civil) wars between Protestants and Catholics? (army)
Scientics that were burned because their inventions were said to be diabolical (death squad)
What's a terrorist for one is a freedom fighter for others.
In a way UR is a terrorist from the view of mainstream Christianity.
Quote from: Cardinal on October 08, 2009, 05:50:39 PM
Quote from: jesushandsarekindhands on October 08, 2009, 05:38:25 PM
Because they appeal to mans carnal nature...For instance they get 72 virgins in the afterlife.
:cloud9: What? Someone didn't get the memo those virgins are all 100 years old? :grin: :laughing7: :winkgrin:
Not only that but they are all Catholic nuns armed with whips, rulers and salt filled 12 gauge shotguns
Quote from: Livelystone on October 17, 2009, 05:15:50 PMNot only that but they are all Catholic nuns armed with whips, rulers
Really? whoops I drove a nun insane at the age of 5. Always talking in class with my friend. Even after she put us 10 meter apart :laughing7:
Quoteand salt filled 12 gauge shotguns
Mark 9:49 ...every one shall be salted with fire...
Quote from: Seth on October 15, 2009, 09:16:35 PM
See, a HUMAN dictatorship struggles to order people to obey. It's the blind leading the blind, which is why it is an evil system of government and worse than a democracy in that sense.
But the GODLY dictatorship removes the disobedience to love so that we always are following commandments by nature, not as in a struggle. That is how the comparison reveals how much better God is than man.
His dominance over his creation is not a grievous thing, because it causes us to walk within him.
I thought of this post today while reading the following quote:
When we investigate God's way of exercising dominion over the world and its creatures, whether nonhuman or human, we see a Creator who is loving, gentle, thoughtful, and wise. God creates in a reverent and caring way, making sure that everything is "good" at every stage. God "blesses" the first man and woman and exhorts them to "be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28). Like a proud parent, God watches as the earth brings forth vegetation, seed-bearing plants, and living things of every kind. God provides a beautiful garden watered by lovely rivers. There is never a sense that God is acting in a domineering or exploitative way. God's dominion is one of respect, not a heavy-handed domination. This is the way that humans are meant to exercise dominion over their sister and brother creatures and the created world. -Jack Wintz
Great quote. And that quote reminds me of Romans 2 where it says that God makes people obedient to the things in the Law by nature, not by letter. So God's dominance is expressed not in fighting and squabbling with resistance but in simply changing the nature of the disobedient, so that what was unnatural to them before (righteousness) then becomes natural.
It's like what Molly says about a hologram. That is the sense that I was talking about, using the irony of a Monarchy government. The Kingdom of God is definitely not a democracy because God defines righteousness, and that's simply not up for a vote. But the way that he enacts his kingship is very much unlike a sinful human would. :thumbsup: