Report: Nearly 1 in 4 People Worldwide Is Muslim

[Gab]

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.

: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?

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.

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.

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.

[Raggedy Anne]

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

[WhiteWings]

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.

[Livelystone]

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

[WhiteWings]

Not 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:

and salt filled 12 gauge shotguns

Mark 9:49 ...every one shall be salted with fire...

[sparrow]

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

[Seth]

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: