Allah’s witnessing alone is sufficient; needs no further witnessing

  • Thread starter Thread starter paarsurrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

paarsurrey

Guest
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4750769&postcount=19
Jesus borne of a Virgin; Do YOU believe?
Originally Posted by cathopologist:
That’s the least of my concern. There are thousands of cases where pregnant women have delivered their babies without any aid of any kind. What i am concerned about is how you defined the immaculate conception as being ‘normal’ as if implying she had been impregnated by someone.
Click to expand...
Hi

I have looked up in the Wiktionary for the word “immaculate conception”; it defines it :
The doctrine, in the Roman Catholic Church, that the Virgin Mary was conceived free from original sin.

In Islam we believe that every child conceived under a legal marriage called nikah is free from any sin. There is no concept of any original sin in Islam. I think Judaism also hasno concept of any original sin.

This also seems to be an invention of Paul like many others, in my opinion.

I have already mentioned that** Virgin Mary conceived the child, it is mentioned in Quran by Allah, and for us it is a sufficient witnessing; needing no other witnessing. I don’t think there could be any third party witnessing for conception**.

Thanks
 
Paarsurrey, if you’ll remember the context from which you originally took Cathopologist’s words, you know that this one instance in which he used the wrong term. He himself admitted it. He was referring to the Virgin Birth, which is miraculous in both the Bible and the Qur’an (though both books treat the event very differently). So why did you start this thread to discuss one of the very few matters on which our two religions agree?

And we do not believe it because the Qur’an is a “witness”! Never. I know it is perhaps hard for you to understand since in your culture there is no true religious pluralism, but for us there is a very clear boundry between what you believe and the type of epistomology you have, and our beliefs. The Qur’an is a good book for you. It is your witness and you need no other. Muhammad is the prophet of YOUR religion, and the model of behavior for you as a Muslim. Please understand, and I mean no offense when I say this, that these things are not true for non-Muslims, and will not become true for us just because you post this strange thread in which you affirm your faith in a book we all already know is the only witness you need.

I know it is hard and probably very offensive for you to imagine someone saying this and believing it, but for us the Qur’an is not from Allah. We have all the Allah we need in the received traditions of our Churches (Catholic, Orthodox…the Churches that believe in tradition!) and in our Holy Bible. The Qur’an is in neither of these places. It is something else, and we do not need it or trust it.

بسم الاب والابن والروح القدس**
الإله الواحد
آمين**
:signofcross:
 
Hi

I remain focused on the issues and not the persons. I have nothing in my heart except love for my fellow human beings; so I don’t take offence for what others write. I am interested to understand things which others believe whether they are JWs, Mormons, Protestants, and Atheists or for that matter if they are Catholics. My interest is primarily in improvement of my own self; with others to the extent that we are all linked in a human bond and cannot live in isolation.

Even earlier I had stated that there are situations in human life where there are no and there cannot be any other witnesses except the All-Seeing GodAllahYHWH, so naturally then God Allah YHWH is a lone Witness, and no other witnessing is required. This is a logical thing and repeatedly mentioned in Quran.

One such situation is when God Allah YHWH selects somebody for His conversation or Word of Revelation.

Like when God Allah talked to Jonah and gave him the Message to convey to the people. So there was no other Witness; but Jonah obeyed even if others didn’t listen to him and ridiculed.

Such is the case of Mary, one of the Virgins in my opinion, whom God selected and I quote here from Quran:

[19:17] And relate the story of Mary as mentioned in the Book. When she withdrew from her people to a place to the east,
[19:18] And screened herself off from them, then We sent Our angel to her, and he appeared to her in the form of a perfect man.
[19:19] She said, ‘I seek refuge with the Gracious God from thee if indeed thou dost fear Him.’
[19:20] He replied, ‘I am only a Messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a righteous son.’
[19:21] She said, ‘How can I have a son when no man has touched me, neither have I been unchaste?’
[19:22] He replied, ‘Thus it is.’ But says thy Lord, ‘It is easy for Me; and We shall do so that We may make him a Sign unto men, and a mercy from Us, and it is a thing decreed.’
[19:23] So she conceived him, and withdrew with him to a remote place.

alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?submitCh=Read+from+verse%3A&ch=19&verse=15

So there are no necessarily other witnesses required when GodAllahYHWH makes a conversation. I am only concerned with this principle; if you agree with it .

I think you agree. Don’t you?

I love Jesus and Mary as I do love Buddha and Krishna.

Thanks
 
It is more accurate to say that I would agree if it were not for the fact that there is then no way to close the canon, so to speak. It is my understanding that traditional Sunni and Shia Islam reject your particular sect due to trouble in this area: since the Ahmadiyya apparently believe in the claimed prophethood of Mizra Ghulam Ahmad, they cannot agree with the orthodox Islamic interpretation that Muhammad is the final seal of the prophets. That’s it. There can’t be any more.

By the same token, Christians of any kind of orthodoxy are required to not believe in any supposed “revelation” coming after the Apostles. This means for us no Muhammad or Qur’an, no Joseph Smith or Book of Mormon, nothing like these.

If we were to start believing as you apparently do, there would be no way to stick to Christianity, or to know anything with any certainity at all! When someone says God has told them something, but of course there were no witnesses, then it is our duty as Christians to view them with suspicion. Any such “revelation” cannot be accepted if it in any way contradicts what we have been given before. After all, many people have claimed to talk to God personally, even now in our time. Maybe you ought to be believing in Joseph Smith and the Mormons instead of Mizra Ghulam Ahmad and the Ahmadiyya? How do you know otherwise? Smith claimed to have received private revelations, which no one else witnessed.

This is not how things can proceed, so no, I do not agree.
 
dzheremi said:
It is more accurate to say that I would agree if it were not for the fact that there is then no way to close the canon, so to speak.
This is not how things can proceed, so no, I do not agree.
Click to expand...
Hi

I appreciate your polite denial and that is your right.

I think then logically you don’t agree with the Gospel of Jesus. Is that acceptable to you?

I love Jesus and Gospel of Jesus

Thanks
 
I don’t understand what you mean when you say “the Gospel of Jesus”. I do most certainly agree with Jesus’ status as Only Son of God, Savior of all mankind, and the ONLY way to the Father.
 
I didn’t realize bearing false witness was an acceptable practice in Islam.
 
paarsurrey said:
My interest is primarily in improvement of my own self; with others to the extent that we are all linked in a human bond and cannot live in isolation.
Click to expand...
Muslims don’t believe this. * If you believe that “we are all linked in a human bond,” then you believe that on some level we are all equal before God, and you have a concept of the Golden Rule. Muslims do not believe this either; there is only the duality of the believer and unbeliever, and the believers are “the best of peoples”. That is why they can treat unbelievers as üntermenchen.
Even earlier I had stated that there are situations in human life where there are no and there cannot be any other witnesses except the All-Seeing GodAllahYHWH, so naturally then God Allah YHWH is a lone Witness, and no other witnessing is required. This is a logical thing and repeatedly mentioned in Quran.
Click to expand...
Did you know that indifferentism is a heresy?*
 
Originally posted by Paarsurrey:
Even earlier I had stated that there are situations in human life where there are no and there cannot be any other witnesses except the All-Seeing GodAllahYHWH, so naturally then God Allah YHWH is a lone Witness, and no other witnessing is required. This is a logical thing and repeatedly mentioned in Quran.
Click to expand...
sedonaman said:
Did you know that indifferentism is a heresy?
Click to expand...
Hi

I don’t get your point; please elaborate it further.

I love Jesus and Mary as I do love Buddha and Krishna.

Thanks
 
paarsurrey said:
Hi

I don’t get your point; please elaborate it further.

I love Jesus and Mary as I do love Buddha and Krishna.

Thanks
Click to expand...
Surely what is witnessed by Allah, will yield good result to human being.

BTW, If you love Buddha and Krishna, why do you miss Kwan Im?? Last time, you also stated Ahura Mazda too?? Sorry, just asking.
 
swariffin said:
Surely what is witnessed by Allah, will yield good result to human being.

BTW, If you love Buddha and Krishna, why do you miss Kwan Im?? Last time, you also stated Ahura Mazda too?? Sorry, just asking.
Click to expand...
Hi

Ahura Mazda is the name of God in Zoroastrian religion. I love God whatever good name a people give him; He is to be recognized by His attributes. I think now you understand it.

Who is this Kwan Im ? I have never heard it.

Thanks friend
 
paarsurrey said:
Hi

Ahura Mazda is name of God in Zoroastrian religion. I love God whatever good name a people give him; he is to recognized by his attributes. I think now you understand it.

Who is this Kwan Im ? I have never heard it.

Thanks friend
Click to expand...
I see. I never heard of Ahura Mazda till you name him. Kwan Im is the godly figured described as a human female, well known as the spreader of love (does not mean lust at all). Do you have Tzu Chi foundation in your region? They venerated Kwan Im.
 
swariffin said:
I see. I never heard of Ahura Mazda till you name him. Kwan Im is the godly figured described as a human female, well known as the spreader of love (does not mean lust at all). Do you have Tzu Chi foundation in your region? They venerated Kwan Im.
Click to expand...
Hi

I looked up in the Wikipedia for Kwan Im. There is no article on Kwan Im there.

Kindly access:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Kwan+Im&go=Go

Please identity from several identical persons listed in the lower portion of the page.

Do you believe in her?

I love Jesus and would guard him against strange and superstitious beliefs of Paul

Thanks
 
paarsurrey said:
Even earlier I had stated that there are situations in human life where there are no and there cannot be any other witnesses except the All-Seeing GodAllahYHWH, so naturally then God Allah YHWH is a lone Witness, and no other witnessing is required. This is a logical thing and repeatedly mentioned in Quran.
…
I don’t get your point; please elaborate it further.
Click to expand...
The idea that All-Seeing = God = Allah = YHWH is the same as saying, essentially, that all religions are the same; this is indifferentism:

All religions, indeed, may be said to contain some measure of truth; and God may accept the imperfect worship of ignorant sincerity. But it is injurious to God, Who is truth itself, to assert that truth and falsehood are indifferent in His sight. Since various religions are in disagreement, it follows that, wherever they conflict, if one possesses the truth the others are in error. The constituent elements of a religion are beliefs to be held by the intellect, precepts to be observed, and a form of worship to be practiced. Now – to confine ourselves to the great religions of the world – Judaism, Mohammedanism, Christianity, and the religions of India and the Orient are in direct antagonism by their respective creeds, moral codes, and cults. To say that all these irreconcilable beliefs and cults are equally pleasing to God is to say that the Divine Being has no predilection for truth over error; that the true and the false are alike congenial to His nature. Again, to hold that truth and falsehood equally satisfy and perfect the human intellect is to deny that reason has a native bent towards, and affinity for, truth. If we deny this we deny that any trust is to be placed in our reason. Turn to the ethical side of the question. Here again there is conflict over almost all the great moral issues. Let an illustration or two suffice. Mohammedanism approves polygamy, Christianity uncompromisingly condemns it as immoral. If these two teachers are equally trustworthy guides of life, then there is no such thing as fixed moral values at all. If the obscene orgies of phallic worship are as pure in the sight of God as the austere worship that was conducted in the temple of Jerusalem, then we must hold the Deity to be destitute of all moral attributes, in which case there would be no grounds for religion at all. The fact is that this type of Indifferentism, though verbally acknowledging the excellence and utility of religion, nevertheless, when pressed by logic, recoils into absolute Indifferentism. “All religions are equally good” comes to mean, at bottom, that religion is good for nothing. newadvent.org/cathen/07759a.htm

Ergo, indifferentism is a heresy.
 
paarsurrey said:
Hi

Kindly quote from Jesus.

I love Jesus

Thanks
Click to expand...
You missed the whole point. Why is it necessary to quote only Jesus? “To say that all these irreconcilable beliefs and cults are equally pleasing to God / “All-Seeing” / “Allah” / “YHWH” / et al] is to say that the Divine Being has no predilection for truth over error; that the true and the false are alike congenial to His nature. Again, to hold that truth and falsehood equally satisfy and perfect the human intellect is to deny that reason has a native bent towards, and affinity for, truth. If we deny this, we deny that any trust is to be placed in our reason.”

“This is a logical thing,” to use your own words. It would apply not only to God but also to false gods as well because all religions claim to be the true way. Why? Because “the human intellect has a native bent towards, and affinity for, truth.” No one ever sold a religion by claiming it to be false.

You say you love Jesus. Well then, ask yourself why He would die a painful death if other beliefs were equally pleasing to God. There would have been no need for Jesus to have even been born.

And that is why indifferentism is a heresy. Capisce?

Now, it’s your turn. Quote all those other gods you referred to where they say that “paarsurrey” is “The Way”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top