Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Eldorado

Islamophobia in the Conservative Party

170 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Setton
3 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

I think the problem there is the definition of "unnecessary". The attack on the twin towers probably killed children. Al Quada would have known this - or at least anticipated this - in advance. 

It's like that famous Surah.... 5:33. 

..The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter

What constitutes "mischief in the land" ? Murder ? Robbery ? Aubergine cultivation ? disagreement ? revolt ? Being Christian ? Being a nonbeliever ? Making rude comments about muslim demands ? It's a TERRIBLY convenient phrase for forming a theofascist totalitarian state, isn't it ? 

Yes 9.11 killed children and I don't know how they justified it exactly. However, they also abandoned an attack on a school because the risk of accidentally killing a child was too high. 

That is the trouble - Islam relies entirely on the interpretation of the Quran, which was written for a specific time and isn't terribly clear. And it is absolutely open to abuse by deliberately misordering the text. As far as I understand it, there isn't a clear order but there are some passages that help in establishing it. The passage saying you must not drink while praying must have been revealed before the passage saying you must not drink at all, for example. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
Just now, Setton said:

Yes 9.11 killed children and I don't know how they justified it exactly. However, they also abandoned an attack on a school because the risk of accidentally killing a child was too high. 

They DID ? I didn't know that. Do you have any details ? (which school etc). 

1 minute ago, Setton said:

That is the trouble - Islam relies entirely on the interpretation of the Quran, which was written for a specific time and isn't terribly clear. And it is absolutely open to abuse by deliberately misordering the text.

True. Very true. Although Muslims believe that the Koran was written for all time ? 

A few people have mentioned ISIS in this thread. It's worth noting that Al Azhar university in Cairo  - the premier authority (in as far as Islam has authorities) in the Sunni world - stated that ISIS where muslims. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
34 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

They DID ? I didn't know that. Do you have any details ? (which school etc). 

Wish I did. Just from a talk I went to unfortunately but I trust the speaker on this. 

Quote
35 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

True. Very true. Although Muslims believe that the Koran was written for all time ? 

 

True enough. Its always a problem when people think a written document is applicable to all time. It's like arguing the 2nd amendment with Americans. 

Quote

A few people have mentioned ISIS in this thread. It's worth noting that Al Azhar university in Cairo  - the premier authority (in as far as Islam has authorities) in the Sunni world - stated that ISIS where muslims. 

I think most scholars agree they are Muslims, in name at least, just not very good ones. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Setton said:

Wish I did. Just from a talk I went to unfortunately but I trust the speaker on this. 

True enough. Its always a problem when people think a written document is applicable to all time. It's like arguing the 2nd amendment with Americans. 

I think most scholars agree they are Muslims, in name at least, just not very good ones. 

Ah well.. that's the thing @Setton , Al Azhir critised their interpretation of the Koran. But it didn't call them "bad muslims" either. In fact, other than pointing out errors in interpretation, they made no moral judgement on the behavior of ISIS. 

Edited by RoofGardener

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
52 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Ah well.. that's the thing @Setton , Al Azhir critised their interpretation of the Koran. But it didn't call them "bad muslims" either. In fact, other than pointing out errors in interpretation, they made no moral judgement on the behavior of ISIS. 

If I recall correctly, there's a passage in the Quran that forbids Muslims from judging other Muslims faith. The equivalent of 'let he who is without sin etc.'.

But they are free the criticise interpretation so maybe that's the reason. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
On 14-3-2019 at 7:39 PM, RavenHawk said:

Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of GOD (Trinity), that he became flesh, and that he died on the cross for our sins and was resurrected so that we might have eternal life.  Islam outright denies these core attributes.  There are other comparisons but these are the most important.  The Biblical Jesus would not be second fiddle to the Mahdi.  Isa is a different entity.

 



So does Judaism, evenmore; it outright denies Christ, even as a Messiah.. One of the reasons the Jewish Sanhedrin maliciously coopted the Romans to crucify him. Your conditioning will have you trivialize / ignore these facts though (given you will never implicate Jews on thesame grounds), as well as the fact Muslims hold Isa / Yeshua (which are thesame, however certain people would claim differently without any citation whatsoever) in the highest regard, utmost respect.

As you all know by now, Christ is mentioned more times in the Qur'an than Muhammad is, and will come back and judge all on Judgement Day, weigh the souls on behalf of G*d. A concept Christians know very well. I dont know where you got the idea from the Mahdi somehow supercedes Yeshua, but it is incorrect (I do understand you would grasp to such a conclusion given it empowers your negative presupposition). The Mahdi isnt even mentioned in the Qur'an.

So to summarize; you dont merely base all of your main religious 'Christian' tenets on a former Roman employed Christian hunter / mass murderer, part of the Pharisee cult which conspired to murder Christ, you more or less venerate a Jewish / Israeli congregation which denies and even mocks Christ. You claim Mosaic Law is to be abandoned because faith alone is enough, and you also think G*d was offered the world if He would only bow down to Satan, which would be one of the most blasphemous notions imaginable. You claim the Trinity is an essential religious fundament, yet ignore the fact this concept was developed centuries after Yeshua's worldly life - and is again denied by Jews as well as Muslims.

Modern day Christianity / Paulinism is in no way comparable to Judaism or Islam, it is the odd one out. A spike in the pattern that is irreconcilable with what was taught by all the Prophets before, or after. If any two religions are compatible, its Judaism and Islam. Judeo Christian culture might have some overlap, not so with religion though, they are complete opposites. Christianity as all but the anti thesis to Judaism (as well as Islam).

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hetrodoxly
46 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:



So does Judaism, evenmore; it outright denies Christ, even as a Messiah.. One of the reasons the Jewish Sanhedrin maliciously coopted the Romans to crucify him. Your conditioning will have you trivialize / ignore these facts though (given you will never implicate Jews on thesame grounds), as well as the fact Muslims hold Isa / Yeshua (which are thesame, however certain people would claim differently without any citation whatsoever) in the highest regard, utmost respect.

As you all know by now, Christ is mentioned more times in the Qur'an than Muhammad is, and will come back and judge all on Judgement Day, weigh the souls on behalf of G*d. A concept Christians know very well. I dont know where you got the idea from the Mahdi somehow supercedes Yeshua, but it is incorrect (I do understand you would grasp to such a conclusion given it empowers your negative presupposition). The Mahdi isnt even mentioned in the Qur'an.

So to summarize; you dont merely base all of your main religious 'Christian' tenets on a former Roman employed Christian hunter / mass murderer, part of the Pharisee cult which conspired to murder Christ, you more or less venerate a Jewish / Israeli congregation which denies and even mocks Christ. You claim Mosaic Law is to be abandoned because faith alone is enough, and you also think G*d was offered the world if He would only bow down to Satan, which would be one of the most blasphemous notions imaginable. You claim the Trinity is an essential religious fundament, yet ignore the fact this concept was developed centuries after Yeshua's worldly life - and is again denied by Jews as well as Muslims.

Modern day Christianity / Paulinism is in no way comparable to Judaism or Islam, it is the odd one out. A spike in the pattern that is irreconcilable with what was taught by all the Prophets before, or after. If any two religions are compatible, its Judaism and Islam. Judeo Christian culture might have some overlap, not so with religion though, they are complete opposites. Christianity as all but the anti thesis to Judaism (as well as Islam).

Come near me and listen to this: "From the first announcement I have not spoken in secret; at the time it happens, I am there. "And now the Sovereign LORD has sent me, with his Spirit. This is what the LORD says - your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: "I am the LORD your God, who teaches you what is best for you, who directs you in the way you should go (Isaiah 48:16,17).

The church fathers were talking about the Father, Son and holy spirit in the first century 800 years before Arabs invented the Quran.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
1 minute ago, hetrodoxly said:

Come near me and listen to this: "From the first announcement I have not spoken in secret; at the time it happens, I am there. "And now the Sovereign LORD has sent me, with his Spirit. This is what the LORD says - your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: "I am the LORD your God, who teaches you what is best for you, who directs you in the way you should go (Isaiah 48:16,17).

The church fathers were talking about the Father, Son and holy spirit in the first century 800 years before Arabs invented the Quran.


Which is something completely different than the trinity concept, as you are well aware, Im sure. If what you say is true, Judaism would support the concept just like Paulinist / modern Christianity, it certainly does not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hetrodoxly
1 minute ago, Phaeton80 said:

Father, Son and holy spirit

Are the trinity, God in three persons.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
Posted (edited)
53 minutes ago, hetrodoxly said:

Are the trinity, God in three persons.


Thats right, thats what you / modern Christians claim. Judaism, the original Abrahamic seed - based on the scripture you just quoted from in an attempt to 'prove' the legitimacy of the trinity - disavows thesame.

Nevermind that though, details details. Judaism is swell, Islam is terrible!

First commmandment; Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD.. actually means - if you 'understand' the 'mystery' of the NT / Yeshua (which Jews and Muslims dont) - 'Your Lord thy God is Three in One, but One, yet Three".

Con fu sion

PS. the second commandment reads: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them" 

Modern day Christians ignore this enmasse, venerating graven images of Christ, Mary as well as 'Saints', on a structural basis.

As Judaism and Islam are compatible, so is Paulinist Christianity most compatible with Paganism / Mithraism. Man as a Dying God, removing all sin from its followers, Works unnecessary, everything is clean to eat, graven images are venerated as a rule, 'speaking in tongues', worship of the Winter Solstice on 25 December (in honor of the 'Unconqured Sun' / Sol Invictus; the greatest of all Roman festivals), even Easter, which many assume was instituted to celebrate the resurrection of Christ, is steeped in connections to pagan goddess Ishtar..

 

Edited by Phaeton80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hetrodoxly
27 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

Thats right, thats what you / modern Christians claim. Judaism, the original Abrahamic seed - based on the scripture you just quoted from in an attempt to 'prove' the legitimacy of the trinity

'Modern' 800 years before the invetion of the Quran, it's not worth the paper it's written on it's made up of coptic Christian and Jewish apocryphal writings, you don't even get the right Mary for the mother of Jesus and anyone who thinks Adam was 90 meters tall shouldn't give religious lessons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
16 minutes ago, hetrodoxly said:

'Modern' 800 years before the invetion of the Quran, it's not worth the paper it's written on it's made up of coptic Christian and Jewish apocryphal writings, you don't even get the right Mary for the mother of Jesus and anyone who thinks Adam was 90 meters tall shouldn't give religious lessons.


So you decided to completely circumvent the essential points of my response with meaningless drivel contending the modern classification of present day Christianity (as apposed to early Christianity - which everyone knows are not thesame), only to impressively exclaim 'Quran isnt worth the paper its written on because its a copy of Jewish apocryphal writings..'

Given Coptics are the only variant which is remotely in line with Judaism within the whole (modern) Christian denomination, this isnt a strong indication of the legitimacy of Islam given it neatly fits both patterns, but evidence it copied both! :lol: At least Christianity is original, a breath of fresh air, right (mental gymnastics much)? Claiming such without bringing anything to the table to underwrite these claims mind you. My goodness.

Well, I stand corrected sir, those are some good, well argued points; touche! Seriously.. if you'd like to respond honestly and in full to my content like adults - instead of acting like a child competing in some sort of shouting match -  I'll respond in similar fashion.. if not, not.

A fine day to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hetrodoxly
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Phaeton80 said:


So you decided to completely circumvent the essential points of my response with meaningless drivel contending the modern classification of present day Christianity (as apposed to early Christianity - which everyone knows are not thesame), only to impressively exclaim 'Quran isnt worth the paper its written on because its a copy of Jewish apocryphal writings..'

Given Coptics are the only variant which is remotely in line with Judaism within the whole (modern) Christian denomination, this isnt a strong indication of the legitimacy of Islam given it neatly fits both patterns, but evidence it copied both! :lol: At least Christianity is original, a breath of fresh air, right (mental gymnastics much)? Claiming such without bringing anything to the table to underwrite these claims mind you. My goodness.

Well, I stand corrected sir, those are some good, well argued points; touche! Seriously.. if you'd like to respond honestly and in full to my content like adults - instead of acting like a child competing in some sort of shouting match -  I'll respond in similar fashion.. if not, not.

A fine day to you.

I am replying honestly, how can you be taken seriously when you believe Adam was 90 meters tall or the book you follow can't even get the right Mary for the mother of Jesus stop dogging the question.

This answers yours.

Come near me and listen to this: "From the first announcement I have not spoken in secret; at the time it happens, I am there. "And now the Sovereign LORD has sent me, with his Spirit. This is what the LORD says - your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: "I am the LORD your God, who teaches you what is best for you, who directs you in the way you should go (Isaiah 48:16,17).

The church fathers were talking about the Father, Son and holy spirit in the first century.

Edited by hetrodoxly
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, hetrodoxly said:

I am replying honestly, how can you be taken seriously when you believe Adam was 90 meters tall or the book you follow can't even get the right Mary for the mother of Jesus stop dogging the question.

This answers yours.

Come near me and listen to this: "From the first announcement I have not spoken in secret; at the time it happens, I am there. "And now the Sovereign LORD has sent me, with his Spirit. This is what the LORD says - your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: "I am the LORD your God, who teaches you what is best for you, who directs you in the way you should go (Isaiah 48:16,17).

The church fathers were talking about the Father, Son and holy spirit in the first century.


Right, right, and giants / giant reptiles / behemoths are obviously no problem whatsoever, or humans living to be 930 yrs old for that matter. Proof the Qur'an is false, doubt it not! Wielding double measures will get you nowhere.

Concerning Mary; in this verse [19:28] Mary is being admonished by her contemporaries she is with child yet without husband, thereby disgracing her House / family / lineage. Aaron, the brother of Moses, was the first in the line of Israelite priesthood. Mary and her cousin Elisabeth (mother of Yahya / Jonh the Baptist) came of a priestly family, and were therefore 'sisters of Aaron' or 'daughters of Imran' (who was Aaron's father). Mary is reminded of her high lineage and the exceptional morals of her father and mother. How, they said, she had fallen, and disgraced the name of her progenitors..

So as the terms son of God wasnt to be taken literally (implying 'the closest of relationships, servant of'), so were terms like 'sister or daughter of .....' often used to denote a close relationship, even family ties, but not literally a sister or daughter of said person. This is still in effect to this day in the ME region. Further, as opposed to the New Testament, the Qur'an has copious mention of Mary, starting from her birth, to her seclusion, the annunciation and her giving birth to Jesus. While the Qur'an has lots of things to say regarding the childhood of Mary, the New Testament contains nothing of the sort. It practically sheds no light on the life of Mary before she became pregnant.

Quote

Maryam is called a sister of Hārūn (sūra XIX, 29), and the use of these three names ‘Imrān, Hārūn and Maryam, has lead to the supposition that the Kur'ān does not clearly distinguished between the two Maryams, of the Old and the New Testaments. The Kur'ān names two families as being especially chosen: those of Ibrāhim and of ‘Imrān (sūra III, 32). It is the family of ‘Imrān, important because of Moses and Aaron, to which Maryam belongs. It is not necessary to assume that these kinship links are to interpreted in modern terms. The words "sister" and "daughter", like their male counterparts, in Arabic usage can indicate extended kinship, descendance or spiritual affinity. This second ‘Imrān, together with Harun, can be taken as purely Kur'ānic... Muslim tradition is clear that there are eighteen centuries between the Biblical ‘Amram and the father of Maryam.

A. J. Wensinck (Penelope Johnstone), "Maryam" in C. E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W. P. Heinrichs & Ch. Pellat (Eds.), The Encyclopaedia Of Islam (New Edition), 1991, Volume VI, p. 630


Concerning your Isaiah quote; I already adressed this in my former post (which you obviously ignored given you just repeated thesame), the mention of the Holy Spirit besides Almighty God does in no shape, form or fashion prove the trinity concept, and you are undoubtedly well aware of that. Again; if what you claim is true Judaism would affirm this, and it does nothing of the sort. The Islamic position (as opposed to Judaic position, which denounces / denies Yeshua completely) nicely facilitates God, Yeshua as well as the Holy Spirit, mention of both / all three does in no way prove or substantiate the triune godhead (which is, again, an intrinsically pagan concept):

He is a Messiah send by Almighty God to teach the Good News and warn his flock. It is completely unfounded and blasphemous to call him God or the Son of God as part of the Trinity. He is called the son of Mary / son of Man to emphasise this. He had no human father, as his birth was miraculous. But it was not this which raised him to his high spiritual position as a prophet, but because Almighty God called him to his office. The praise is due to God, Who by His Word gave him spiritual strength, 'strengthened him with the Holy Spirit.' The miracles which surround his story relate not only to his birth and his life and death, but also to his mother Mary and his precursor Yahya. These were the "Clear Signs" which he brought. It was those who misunderstood him who obscured his clear Signs and surrounded him with mysteries of their own invention. The term son of God was used to denote those who served the Lord God best, as it was used denoting Adam as well as David; none of which claim to be God in the flesh, obviously (and neither did Yeshua, as confirmed countless times in the NT).

Now if you'd be so kind to finally respond to my content instead of completely ignoring it while blindly firing off implications without any basing what so ever, seeding childish statements like 'the Quran isnt worth the paper it was written on', that would be kinda nice. If not, our conversation ends here.

Edited by Phaeton80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
South Alabam

Deuteronomy 6:4

 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

John 10:30 

I and my Father are one.

1John 5:7 

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

John 1:1 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hetrodoxly
10 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:


Right, right, and giants / giant reptiles / behemoths are obviously no problem whatsoever, or humans living to be 930 yrs old for that matter. Proof the Qur'an is false, doubt it not! Wielding double measures will get you nowhere.

Your confusing the Bible with the Quran, they're not the same type of book at all, the Bibles ancient stories and lessons written by men, The Quran, every dot and line is the word of god made in heaven (so it claims) it stands and falls on one of those dots being wrong so please explain how come Adam was 90 meters tall how tall was Eve?

The long convoluted explanation for getting Mary wrong is nonsense.

This is faulty reasoning. Only Aaron became a Priest of the Lord and in fact the first High Priest. And only Aaron's descendents became priests. Neither Moses nor their sister Miriam are ever understood to be in "priestly lineage." Amram is definitely not a priest. If Mary's lineage of being part of a priestly family should be stressed then necessarily she would have to be called a daughter of Aaron, since all of Israel's priests are descendants of Aaron, while his brother and sister are notcounted among the priestly line.

I do agree that "father", "daughter" and "sister" might be used sometimes rather losely and only indicate a "general family relationship." Therefore we have to carefully read in each mentioning to see what is meant. And the Qur'an makes clear that the narrow, physical meaning of daughter and (hence) sister is meant in this case as I will demonstrate below. Even if there were no concern about the issue of "priestly" but only such a wider family relationship was in view, why does the Qur'an not say "daughter of Aaron" who is her most famous forefather? Even though "sister" might be used in a wider meaning than a sister within the same immediate family, isn't it the use even in Islam that "brothers and sisters" live on roughly the same generational level (like cousins) while "father and daughter" signifies a generational difference between the two persons compared? Why are the wives of Muhammad not called the "sisters of the believers" but "the mothers of the believers"? [Today's believers! - Aisha certainly was not called the mother of 'Uthman, Umar, Abu Bakr and the other believers of Muhammad's life time.] For what reason call her sister of the famous Aaron (being 1400 years older than Mary) but daughter of `Imran (Bible: Amram) of whom we know nothing at all apart from the fact that his name is mentioned in the genealogical tables in Exodus 6 and 1 Chronicles 23? This is perfectly clear if the two Miriams were indeed confused. But the attempts of harmonization don't really sound very logical.

The above points are just some "minor questions". The big problem is that the Qur'an is explicitely not talking about wider clan relationships as we see in the following verse.

 

Behold! wife of `Imran said: "O my Lord! I do dedicate unto Thee what is in my womb for Thy special service ... When she was delivered, she said: "O my Lord! Behold! I am delivered of a female child!" ... "... I have named her Mary ..." 
-- Sura 3:35-36

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
On 3/16/2019 at 1:31 AM, Setton said:

Right. I'm sure Henry is practising Taqiyya.... 

And i don't really have time to do deeper research myself so I think I'll leave it there but I think I might just take his assessment over that of two random people on the internet. 

 Too bad, I would love to hear his reasoning after you present to him the results of your research with my suggestion.  BTW, Surah 9 covers the end of Immunity.  This is when the Pagans were finally chased out of the Kaaba.  It can be dated to 630AD (I believe).  That is two years before Mohammed dies.  That puts Surah 9 definitely very late into the Medinan period.  That’s just something to mull over.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
On 3/13/2019 at 10:58 AM, RavenHawk said:

hat is so naïve.  The sentiment is understandable but shows a lack of appreciation of thousands of years of world history.  One cannot separate Christianity from Christ Jesus. 

You're making my point for me. The religion has killed any value in the man's teachings and since you cant separate the two the whole thing is suspect.

On 3/13/2019 at 10:58 AM, RavenHawk said:

Christianity is far from perfect but it is not as one-dimensional as you think it is.

Oh im fully versed , probably more than most, in Christianity. It certainly has done and currently does plenty of good. In the context of the conversation where I got involved however the religion itself became incompatible with the teachings of Christ centuries ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
On 3/17/2019 at 4:17 AM, Phaeton80 said:

So does Judaism, evenmore; it outright denies Christ, even as a Messiah.. One of the reasons the Jewish Sanhedrin maliciously coopted the Romans to crucify him. Your conditioning will have you trivialize / ignore these facts though (given you will never implicate Jews on thesame grounds),

Your facts are trivial.  Jews just don’t accept that Jesus is the Messiah (yet), they don’t see that as a reason to kill Christians.  It’s not in Jewish doctrine to deny Christ as it is in Islam.  Do you ever wonder why there’s going to be a 2nd Coming?  It would have made more sense if Christ had set up his kingdom then.  The Temple existed then.  The understanding is that the 2nd Coming will be when the Jews accept Christ as the Messiah.  That doesn’t violate either’s belief systems.  Islam is a different matter.

 

as well as the fact Muslims hold Isa / Yeshua (which are thesame, however certain people would claim differently without any citation whatsoever) in the highest regard, utmost respect.

Islamic eschatology is spread out between the Quran and the Hadiths.  If you compare the Islamic Isa with the Christian Jesus, they are not the same (in eschatology).  Isa fits the role of the False Prophet in Christian beliefs where the Biblical Jesus fits the role of the Dajjal.  Muslims, by doctrine do not believe that Jesus is the son of GOD, GOD in the flesh, never died on a cross for the sins of mankind, that he ever experienced death.  These are the core tenants of Christianity and Muslims reject that.  They also believe that Jesus is the Messiah (al-Maseeh) and will deliver the Jew.

 

As you all know by now, Christ is mentioned more times in the Qur'an than Muhammad is,

So what if Jesus is mentioned more times?  Mohammed was fixated in denying the divinity of Christ.

 

I dont know where you got the idea from the Mahdi somehow supercedes Yeshua, but it is incorrect (I do understand you would grasp to such a conclusion given it empowers your negative presupposition).

A group of my Ummah will fight for the truth until near the day of judgment when Jesus, the son of Marry, will descend, and the leader of them will ask him to lead the prayer, but Jesus declines, saying: “No, Verily, among you Allah has made leaders for others and He has bestowed his bounty upon them.”” - USC-MSA web (English) reference: Sahih Muslim Book 1, Hadith 293

 

From all the commentaries I’ve seen, the “leader” here is understood to be the Imam or Mahdi. 

 

By the One in Whose hands is my life! Even if a day remains for the earth, the Almighty Allah will prolong this day till my son, Mahdi reappears and Isa bin Maryam descends to the earth and recites prayer behind His Eminence.” - Fara'id al-Simtayn p43

 

 

The Mahdi isnt even mentioned in the Qur'an.

I found this on the internet:

The Quran does not mention Mahdi by name. There are some verses that might refer to him metaphorically but that is up for debate.  But there are lots of important aspects of Islam that come from the Hadith and not the Quran. For example, the Quran does not explain the sequence of actions in prayer (standing, then bowing, then prostrating). The Quran does not mention the names of the Sahabah. The Quran does not explain how to calculate zalat. The Quran does not show you the steps of Hajj. I realize that some Hadith are fabricated, but you don't deal with that by throwing away all the Hadith.

 

So to summarize; you dont merely base all of your main religious 'Christian' tenets on a former Roman employed Christian hunter / mass murderer, part of the Pharisee cult which conspired to murder Christ, you more or less venerate a Jewish / Israeli congregation which denies and even mocks Christ.

No wonder you are a sad character.  That is misleading and wrong on both accounts.  What you seem to ignore about Paul is that even such a brute as he can change his ways and catch fire for Christ.

 

You claim Mosaic Law is to be abandoned because faith alone is enough,

No.  Jesus fulfills the law.  The law is still in place and he is substituted for punishment of our sins.  Salvation and Redemption doesn’t work any other way.

 

and you also think G*d was offered the world if He would only bow down to Satan,

Sort of.  Satan offered GOD the world when he was in the flesh state of Jesus.  Through Jesus, GOD could experience what we feel, including our weaknesses.  GOD walked a mile in our shoes and he knows what he asks of us.

 

which would be one of the most blasphemous notions imaginable.

Satan would dare it.

 

You claim the Trinity is an essential religious fundament,

It is THE essential.

 

yet ignore the fact this concept was developed centuries after Yeshua's worldly life -

Incorrect.  You can see it in Egyptian and Babylonian cultures, etc.  See John 1:1

 

and is again denied by Jews as well as Muslims.

Jews just don’t accept Christ as the Messiah right now.  They understand the concept of plurality of the Godhead, i.e Elohim.  Genesis 1:26-27 is a good example:

 

26: Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may…

27: So God created mankind in his own image,

 

26 is plural and 27 seems to indicate singular.  Together, they reveal Homoousion.

 

anim_cube.gif.23f7d74375668b2c503e110d51ea70d7.gif

 

You have one object and yet three shadows.  Most have no aversion to it, Judaism goes on either way.  Muslims must deny the Trinity.

 

Modern day Christianity / Paulinism is in no way comparable to Judaism or Islam,

Christianity is the next step beyond Judaism.  Arianism was the attempt to make Christianity more like Judaism but that was not the case.

 

it is the odd one out.

Actually, Islam is the odd man out.  Given the history of strife between Judaism and Christianity, neither have tried to dominate and destroy the other as Islam tries.  The interaction between Jew and Christian is more like two brothers that fight with each other.  The firstborn and the stepson and both are loved equally.  Only Islam declares that it is the original faith.  The other two are corrupt.

 

A spike in the pattern that is irreconcilable with what was taught by all the Prophets before, or after.

Irreconcilable?  Really?  The agreement between the 66 books of the Bible is inerrant as far as the message of Christ goes.  That is not an easy thing to do with that many human authors.

 

If any two religions are compatible, its Judaism and Islam. Judeo Christian culture might have some overlap, not so with religion though, they are complete opposites. Christianity as all but the anti thesis to Judaism (as well as Islam).

How can Judaism and Islam be compatible when Islam thinks Judaism is corrupt and as such must be in a Dhimmis status?  Christianity is born from Judaism; it is a sect of Judaism.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
On 3/20/2019 at 5:38 AM, Farmer77 said:

You're making my point for me. The religion has killed any value in the man's teachings and since you cant separate the two the whole thing is suspect.

Actually, you have it backwards.  Have you seen the film “Lord of the Flies”?  The ‘63 version more than the ‘90.  Basically a plane with young boys crash on an Island and their society quickly collapses because they are living by their own morals without the benefit of knowing GOD’s morals they should have learned from their parents.  This is what happens anytime Man drifts away from GOD.  These boys become isolated from the world.  They become a test tube to analyze the best of Man.

 

Oh im fully versed , probably more than most, in Christianity. It certainly has done and currently does plenty of good. In the context of the conversation where I got involved however the religion itself became incompatible with the teachings of Christ centuries ago.

I agree with the sentiment but it has never been incompatible with Christ’s teachings.  It has had to adapt to its surroundings.  Which means being more puritan at times.  Roman and Muslim influences have created callouses.  I think that the Church has gone off into its own path (just one of many possible) and does stuff that it doesn’t need to do, but at the same time, if it wasn’t for the Church, the faith wouldn’t be as advanced as it is today.  It is a mixed bag or negative and positive.  Because of its history, you can’t condemn it, but you can learn from it, build on the positive, and move on improving, getting better.  That is the light of Christianity.  The history of Christianity (more so than the Church) has been a story of enlightenment and maturity.  Islam has not matured and neither has there been any indication that it ever will other than a handful of dissidents and hypocrites. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
8 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

The history of Christianity (more so than the Church) has been a story of enlightenment and maturity. 

Man overall good post, just terrible timing, as just yesterday there were "christian" protesters at my sons school with signs and a bullhorn screaming scriptures and about how god hates gays. I live in a small town with no damn local media so I dont know why they were there yet.

I tried like hell to ignore the inconsistencies and hypocrisies of the religion. I was raised in the church and then spent several years as a young family living the christian life but while i appreciated the core teachings of Jesus I just couldnt tolerate the rest anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
49 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Man overall good post, just terrible timing, as just yesterday there were "christian" protesters at my sons school with signs and a bullhorn screaming scriptures and about how god hates gays. I live in a small town with no damn local media so I dont know why they were there yet.

I am a Christian but several hundred years ago, I would have been burned as a heretic.  I don’t believe that GOD hates gays.  I think Paul as being a xenophobe overstated that particular mitzvah.  GOD needed the Israelites to be fruitful and multiply in order to grow the nation.  Anyone not involved in that goal was being disrespectful to the tribe.  Today, I think the US needs to at least maintain the mean birth rate which I think is 2.3?  But beyond that, bringing new life on this planet with over 7 billion may not be the respectful thing to do these days.  This is why Jesus came, to fulfill the law (to set us free).  Homosexuality was not as much an immorality as it was disrespect to the tribe.  GOD sees disrespect as the immorality.

 

I tried like hell to ignore the inconsistencies and hypocrisies of the religion. I was raised in the church and then spent several years as a young family living the christian life but while i appreciated the core teachings of Jesus I just couldnt tolerate the rest anymore.

Religion and faith are two different things.  The core teachings of Christ are not a religion.  Even though my background is Protestant, I am not a member of any church.  I’m not a fan of organized religion either but that doesn’t alter my faith.  I have hope that the Church (in general) will find its way, because as imperfect as it is, it still venerates GOD.  And the world is better for it.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
On 20-3-2019 at 9:50 PM, RavenHawk said:

Your facts are trivial.  Jews just don’t accept that Jesus is the Messiah (yet), they don’t see that as a reason to kill Christians.  It’s not in Jewish doctrine to deny Christ as it is in Islam.  Do you ever wonder why there’s going to be a 2nd Coming?  It would have made more sense if Christ had set up his kingdom then.  The Temple existed then.  The understanding is that the 2nd Coming will be when the Jews accept Christ as the Messiah.  That doesn’t violate either’s belief systems.  Islam is a different matter.

Sure, my facts are trivial. What a wondrously typical, as well as hilarious response in any given debate.

The Second Coming (sometimes called the Second Advent or the Parousia) is a Christian and Islamic belief regarding the future (or past) return of Jesus after his ascension to heaven about two thousand years ago. The idea is based on messianic prophecies and is part of most Christian eschatologies.

Views about the nature of Jesus's Second Coming vary among Christian denominations and among individual Christians.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Coming

The Second Coming is confirmed by Islam, and again denied by Judaism, as is Yeshua in general (just as I stated earlier, to which you responded the way you did here somehow thinking that would change anything). The only thing Islam denies is the Trinity / a Godsend Messiah being God Himself. And again, your pro Judaic - anti Islamic conditioning has made you react stronger to the latter, and all but ignore the former. More 'trivial facts' coming.. please bare with me.

Islamic eschatology is spread out between the Quran and the Hadiths.  If you compare the Islamic Isa with the Christian Jesus, they are not the same (in eschatology).  Isa fits the role of the False Prophet in Christian beliefs where the Biblical Jesus fits the role of the Dajjal.  Muslims, by doctrine do not believe that Jesus is the son of GOD, GOD in the flesh, never died on a cross for the sins of mankind, that he ever experienced death.  These are the core tenants of Christianity and Muslims reject that.  They also believe that Jesus is the Messiah (al-Maseeh) and will deliver the Jew.

A lot of definitive, tendentious statements without any facts to back them up. It is stated Yeshua will come down during the 2nd Coming and break the cross, the graven image venerated by Christians today, symbolizing the false Paulinist doctrine claiming Christ ever claimed to be God in the flesh, misleading its followers into a false doctrine without works or upholding Mosaic Law (like Judaism, like Islam).. One of the gravest sins imaginable (seeded by Paul and the contemporary establishment).

 

So what if Jesus is mentioned more times?  Mohammed was fixated in denying the divinity of Christ.

"Yes, so what.. it doesnt say anything!" So again; we have a religious congregation who flat out denies the whole existence of Christ, often mocking him / the Gospels.. And we have a religious congregation which holds him in the highest regard as a true God send Messiah teaching the Word of Almighty God to a diverted flock.. In all probability exactly and completely in line with the way the early Christians, those who were alive at the time of Yeshua, regarded Christ. And what do you do? You position Islam as the Great Evil, and completely ignore the Judaic disdain in this context, again.

 

A group of my Ummah will fight for the truth until near the day of judgment when Jesus, the son of Marry, will descend, and the leader of them will ask him to lead the prayer, but Jesus declines, saying: “No, Verily, among you Allah has made leaders for others and He has bestowed his bounty upon them.”” - USC-MSA web (English) reference: Sahih Muslim Book 1, Hadith 293

From all the commentaries I’ve seen, the “leader” here is understood to be the Imam or Mahdi. 

By the One in Whose hands is my life! Even if a day remains for the earth, the Almighty Allah will prolong this day till my son, Mahdi reappears and Isa bin Maryam descends to the earth and recites prayer behind His Eminence.” - Fara'id al-Simtayn p43


Oh please, dont you get tired of your own utterly obvious, ridiculous reaching for things that arent really there to confirm your ragingly biased presuppositions? Why would you state such definitive things based on such flimsy eschatolical content from the Hadith? Ill tell you why, its quite simply because such multi interpretable Ahadith verses confirms your paradigm in thesame way implicit Bible content confirms your Paulinist concepts, completely ignoring explicit verses to the contrary (like Yeshua having no power of himself lesst by leave of God). No surprise there, what is qaint you actually suppose such would convince anyone besides those who suffer thesame conditioning as yourself. You dont often leave your own ideological circle discussionwise, do you. Again, the Mahdi is mentioned exactly 0 times in the Qur'an, and Christ is mentioned more than the prophet who relayed the whole of the Qur'an. You guess who supercedes who.
 

I found this on the internet:

The Quran does not mention Mahdi by name. There are some verses that might refer to him metaphorically but that is up for debate.  But there are lots of important aspects of Islam that come from the Hadith and not the Quran. For example, the Quran does not explain the sequence of actions in prayer (standing, then bowing, then prostrating). The Quran does not mention the names of the Sahabah. The Quran does not explain how to calculate zalat. The Quran does not show you the steps of Hajj. I realize that some Hadith are fabricated, but you don't deal with that by throwing away all the Hadith.


Did you? Happy day! It confirms your extremely negative position in Islam, yay! Oh.. erm.. no it doesnt, it actually confirms what I have been saying. Nevermind.

 

No wonder you are a sad character.  That is misleading and wrong on both accounts.  What you seem to ignore about Paul is that even such a brute as he can change his ways and catch fire for Christ.

Ah, ad hominems start flying around. How very mature of you. And eventhough I only stated facts, which you did no counter, you think it would suffice to respond with: " What you seem to ignore about Paul is that even such a brute as he can change his ways and catch fire for Christ." Which should explain everythning, at least for those drining thesame koolaid; for everyone else its a ridiculous response to some very real, valid points of question.

 

No.  Jesus fulfills the law.  The law is still in place and he is substituted for punishment of our sins.  Salvation and Redemption doesn’t work any other way.

Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity = (lawlessness), Matthew 7:21 to 23.]

Jesus didn't add or abolish anything from God's Law. Jesus confirms God's Law, just as it was stated in the Thora. James the Just - true leader of the early Christian congregation - preached to uphold the Mosaic Law, Paul preached against it. 

Salvation & redemption are gained through righteousness, works (prayer, charity, helping others).. not merely by (passive) faith, as it has always been. Everyone is responsible for their own acts and deeds, and everyone will be judged based on that, and no sin can be taken away by any other entity lesst God Himself.

 

Sort of.  Satan offered GOD the world when he was in the flesh state of Jesus.  Through Jesus, GOD could experience what we feel, including our weaknesses.  GOD walked a mile in our shoes and he knows what he asks of us.

Right, Almighty God who created the heavens and the earth is enticed - by Satan himself no less, a creation of Almighty God as well - with the rule over the earth. The mental gymnastics needed to reconcile this is ab so lutely unrivalled, mindshattering. This is the most unGodly, blasphemous statements I have ever, ever had the displeasure of reading. God would need to be in coma (that is to say God becoming Man without any knowledge of his origin / true Self) while in the body of Christ for this ridiculous notion to gain any merit, but that would be utterly blasphemous (and equally ridiculous) as well. not for modern day Christians though, they accept it as absolute truth to reconcile their own skewed Dying God ideology.

 

Satan would dare it.

Satan would certainly NOT dare to ask God Almighty to bow down to him to gain the world. I mean, read these words and let that seep in, reflect on that for a while. Satan might be in disbalance, but he is certainly not stupid. And anyone claiming this would be the case is utterly confused what or who God is. Which, ironically, seems to be the case here.

 

It is THE essential.

Indeed, THE essential... which all prophets before and after never mentioned or alluded to (mentioning God and the Holy Spirit does in no way imply the Trinity concept), and Judaism as well as Islam agressively contest.. and is gleaned by reading into implicit statements while completely ignoring explicit verses to the contrary. Yessir, pretty strong case you got there.

 

Incorrect.  You can see it in Egyptian and Babylonian cultures, etc.  See John 1:1

What, you mean those cultures rife with Paganism.. Osirianism (Osiris, Isis, and Dying god Horus) and Babylonian Nimrod, Samirames and Dying god Tammuz? How qaint.

John 1:1, another one of those sparse implicit verses 'disproving countless explicit ones', we are supposed to believe: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

This in no way proves Christ was God Himself, Christ was ednowed with the Spirit of God, the Word, by leave of which he could do miracles, have power over creation, but to suppose that means Christ was God Himself is completely irrational, illogical, and in contradiction to everything that was taught before- (even during) and after the Gospels.

 

Jews just don’t accept Christ as the Messiah right now.  They understand the concept of plurality of the Godhead, i.e Elohim.  Genesis 1:26-27 is a good example:

26: Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may…

27: So God created mankind in his own image,

26 is plural and 27 seems to indicate singular.  Together, they reveal Homoousion.

anim_cube.gif.23f7d74375668b2c503e110d51ea70d7.gif

You have one object and yet three shadows.  Most have no aversion to it, Judaism goes on either way.  Muslims must deny the Trinity.

 

Not only do you agressively expect the Jews accepting Christ in the future like its a done deal (magic of reading into eschatology, no doubt.. 'no bad word about the Jews becuase they will accept Christ eventually, yay!), you somehow try to set Judaism apart in 'understanding the plurality of the godhead' (another inherently Paganistic term and concept, 'a godhead'). While ofcourse, Islam has thesame 'understanding' (use of WE instead of I). Again reconfirming your ragiung bias in all of this, just blindly repeating 'Judaism goes on either way (whatever that means), Muslims must deny the Trinity' (?!). I apologize, but its getting harder and harder not to break out in uncontrollable laughter. Three shadows of a cube as proof Yeshua is God. My god.
 

Christianity is the next step beyond Judaism.  Arianism was the attempt to make Christianity more like Judaism but that was not the case.

Got it!

 

Actually, Islam is the odd man out.  Given the history of strife between Judaism and Christianity, neither have tried to dominate and destroy the other as Islam tries.  The interaction between Jew and Christian is more like two brothers that fight with each other.  The firstborn and the stepson and both are loved equally.  Only Islam declares that it is the original faith.  The other two are corrupt.

So I was actually talking about.. actual scripture, precepts / rules / dogma of the resp. religions. Seems as though you found another logical loophole to confirm your pro Judaic / anti Islamic religious world view. Islam declares it is thesame faith as taught in the Septuagint as well as the Gospels (if read objectively, not reading things into the verses or adding to them, it is completely in line with both), which it explicitly confirms and supports.

 

Irreconcilable?  Really?  The agreement between the 66 books of the Bible is inerrant as far as the message of Christ goes.  That is not an easy thing to do with that many human authors.

Yes, really; none of the prophets before Christ ever described or heralded something as reality shattering like God Almighty entering His own creation through the birhtcanal of a mortal woman, only to be enticed by Satan to gain the world if He would only bow down to him, to subsequently be crucified by some Romans spurred on by the Sanhedrin. Guess again.
 

How can Judaism and Islam be compatible when Islam thinks Judaism is corrupt and as such must be in a Dhimmis status?  Christianity is born from Judaism; it is a sect of Judaism.

In thesame way the Pharisee were corrupt in the times of Christ.. It was Judaism, but it was diverted from the true message.. which was the very reason Christ the Messiah was send to preach the Word, send by Almighty God.
Again, because you cannot counter the veracity of the ideological / dogmatic overlap of both Judaic and Islamic scripture, you start reaching for things like what you state here. Which is a pattern you have exemplified repetitively throughout your replies here.

For the record, I think all three religions - that is to say Judaism, Christianity, as well as Islam - are seeded with falsehoods, diverted in some way. Another difference between you and I, where you claim Christianity today is absolute truth.. which is also an utterly irrational conclusion imho.

A fine day to you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hetrodoxly
11 hours ago, Phaeton80 said:

Yes, really; none of the prophets before Christ ever described or heralded something as reality shattering like God Almighty entering His own creation through the birhtcanal of a mortal woman, only to be enticed by Satan to gain the world if He would only bow down to him, to subsequently be crucified by some Romans spurred on by the Sanhedrin. Guess again.

Who made Mary pregnant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
Posted (edited)

Whats your point?

Christ, like Adam, was a creation of God, yes.

"Relate in the Book (the story of) Mary, when she withdrew from her family to a place in the East. She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them. Then We sent her our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects. She said, 'I seek refuge from you to God Most Gracious! Do not come near me, if you fear God!' He said, 'No, I am only a messenger from your Lord, (to announce) to you the gift of a holy son.' She said, 'How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?' He said, 'So (it will be). Your Lord says, 'That is easy for Me, and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men, and a Mercy from Us. It is a matter (so) decreed'" (19:16-21, the Chapter of Mary)

"Behold! The angels said, 'Oh Mary! God has chosen you and purified you, chosen you above the women of all nations. Oh Mary! Worship your Lord devoutly. Prostrate yourself, and bow down (in prayer) with those who bow down'" (3:42-43).

And (remember) she who guarded her chastity. We breathed into her of Our spirit, and We made her and her son a sign for all peoples (21:91). [While describing people who were good examples for others] "...And Mary, the daughter of 'Imran, who guarded her chastity. And We breathed into (her body) of Our spirit. She testified to the truth of the words of her Lord and of His Revelations, and was one of the devout (servants)" (66:12).

“O Mary, Verily God gives you glad tidings of a word from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary – held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and will be one of those who are nearest to God.” (3:45)

 

Edited by Phaeton80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.