Bishop urges Christians to call God 'Allah'

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…the rest]

What Muslims believe is not the problem - that Christians (including bishops & other such guides) honour a false god, & falsify the faith they ought to die for rather than betray, most definitely is a problem; as is the evaluation of this evil as a good. This thing is full of details that make it far worse than a casual look at a mention of it might suggest. It is a horror.

This is only one of many wrongs against the Christian faith by those who hold their position that they may prevent the acts they allow or engage in - separately, such acts may seem nothing; see them together, & they suggest that under the glitter the Church is diseased.

Those of you who insist that Islam has absolutely nothing in common with Christianity, is your faith in Christianity that weak?

I have no faith in Christianity - left to itself, it is incapable of good.​

My posts have been about little more than the deceitfulness of attending to what they do share while ignoring the vast & irreconcilable differences between them. If the claims for the prophethood of Mahommed are true, the Christian faith in Christ must be a lie, or a delusion, or a fraud or a mistake: they cannot be true. The rightness of Mohammed requires the wrongness of Christ because for us He is not a prophet only, but the great Prophet, the last of them, the supreme & all-sufficing & definitive Prophet - because He is the Word by Whom the Father spoke all creation into being. Islam can include Him only by denying that He is that Word & that Prophet - that is, by holding that our faith in Him is misplaced.

There is no conceptual or logical room in what is said of Christ, for what is said of Mohammed also to be true, unless it is to be mutilated or blurred; but then it would not be what Muslims believe. They want their Islam complete - not chopped about, or with holes where none were, or tainted by what is alien to it. To insist they have some other thing, is insulting to them - it does not treat their religion with the seriousness they do by making the assertions about it they do; instead, there is a pretence that they can mix their religion with one they cannot, must not, admit as valid.

All that does is produce an undrinkable & useless mess where there used to be milk & motor oil - milk is useless for a car, & oil would be a poisonous drink: so they must not be mixed, nor one used as the other. I believe it is an an obstacle to the Gospel, which Christ Alone can move - but I’m not trying to treat it as something it cannot be; I respect it, & those who believe it, too much to do that. others may wish to propagate a hybrid “Chrislam” - I want to be Christian, & not Muslim: if the clergy poison or distort or deny the faith they are meant to proclaim, how are they better than than thieves & robbers ? The sooner they are excommunicated, as they deserve, the better for us all.

Two trains moving on the same track at the same time in opposite directions, are going to crash - two crashed trains do not an uncrashed train make. Any more than two perverted religions can be one true one.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Rodrigo Bivar;2613868:

Whatever overlaps is not in common because the Christianity in Islam is stolen and perverted.

Hi

The present Christianity has nothing in original from Jesus, so the Christianity has little of virtue that Islam needs/needed.

If so, that destroys Islam & proves the Koran untrue - unless Christians who honour Maryam mother of Jesus honour a Maryam/Miriam/Mary who is not the one in the Koran. And Miriam sister of Aaron was not the mother of Jesus.​

If the two Maries are the same person, it follows that Islam has taken her over from Christians; for she was honoured by the Christianity known to Mohammed - if they are not the same, then the Mary mother of Jesus in the Koran is not who the Koran says she is: which blows the Muslim claims for it to smithereens.

If we do not in any respect have the same Jesus, then the Koran is wrong in calling Jesus a prophet - He is that, even though He is a great deal more. Which would be a second error in the Koran.

Yes, Krishna, Abraham, Moses, Zaratushtra, David, Jonah, Jesus, Muhammad and the PromisedMessiah 1835-1908 have many things in common, only because they all took it from the original source , that is GodAllahYHWH revealed TRUTH on them all.

Thanks

Allah is never referred to as YHWH in the Koran. If Allah is called YHWH, either the revelation of the Name YHWH in the OT is a corruption (because the Jewish Scriptures have been corrupted, by Jews & again by Christians, who also acknowledged these books) - or it is a true revelation of that Name: in which case the Scriptures cannot be entirely corrupt - &, uncorrupted texts can be distinguished from corruptions.​

Either way, the statements “Allah is rightly named YHWH, because the Name YHWH can be known to be the Name of YHWH” & “the Jewish Scriptures are so corrupted as to be no revelation” cannot both be true.

 

[nonsumd]

Hello Gottle,

are we going to see Christiane Amanpour’s interview of you tomorrow night? Or didn’t you make the cut?

…the rest]
What Muslims believe is not the problem - that Christians (including bishops & other such guides) honour a false god…

Those Christian leaders were not denying the important, indeed, crucial differences between Christian and Muslim understandings of God, but they were choosing to highlight what Christians and Muslims have in common.

Not that those Christian leaders had an ulterior motive to convert Muslims, but have you never heard that when a missionary initiates an attempt to convert someone, he begins by discussing what his religion has in common with that of the person he is trying to convert before moving on the discuss what is different and superior about his own religion?

And if he is not successful in converting the person, at least good will and mutual understanding of some kind has been created.

Can that be bad?

My posts have been about little more than the deceitfulness of attending to what they do share while ignoring the vast & irreconcilable differences between them…

Just because we recognize that there are truths that Islam shares with Christianity does not mean that we are accepting Islamic claims that we consider to be untrue, e.g that Jesus is merely a human prophet and nothing more. To recognize that, whatever else it teaches, Islam teaches moral values which Christianity also does and that there are Muslims who live moral lives following their faith as they understand it does not mean that we see Muhammad in the exact same way that Muslims do or that we see the Qur’an as being divinely inspired and equal to the Bible.

By sharing in the edification that comes from singing the 99 Names (which say nothing about Jesus), no one is trying to create a Muslim-Christian syncretism. Christian civilization absorbed the true and beautiful in Greco-Roman culture without diluting Christianity.

We agree on what we can agree on, we agree to disagree on what we can’t agree on.

We do not stop proclaiming that we believe our religion to possess the fullness of truth, but we recognize that there are truths that we share with other religions.

We let ourselves be guided by Teresa de Jesus’ counsel: “The important thing is not to think much but to love much…"

Our Holy Father of blessed memory, John Paul II never approached non-Catholics in any other way.

 

[birdsong]

=Contarini
Refusing to put the worst possible construction on anything (and in some cases to ignore and twist evidence–for instance, by focusing on ways in which moderate Muslims depart from Islamic tradition, while ignoring the ways in which radicals do so) is not giving Muslims a “free pass.”

Again, since your argument is void of all reason and logic, let me refute it by saying the same thing about people like you: the issue is that sugar-coating islam creates very serious problems and does not help muslims distinguish truth from falsehood. Just a brief example to illustrate my point:

If a book contains two statements that are mutually exclusive, something like “you should not kill people” and “you should kill people”, what are the followers of such a book supposed to do? your absurd suggestion that supporting the cause of those who prefer to believe in the “you should not kill people” while ignoring those who support the other verses overlooks the problems that they create, which is why muslims are in the news everyday mostly for all the wrong reasons. Even more absurd is your idea that such a contradictory religion/belief/book of rules can fall under the same categorisation. That’s like saying that a system in which 2 + 2 = 4 and another system in which 2 + 2 = 5 can co-exist within the same framework called “sound mathematics”.

Again, no one is saying that there are no bits of truths or benevolent teachings in islam. That does not negate the vast body of evidence that advocate violence and falsehoods. But to say that two totally contradictory statements can fall and operate under the same framework is, to put it mildly, illogical.

Since I have clocks that actually work, there is no need for you to do so. However, a broken clock still has considerable ontological goodness and might be useful in certain circumstances.

The question is, do you want muslims to continue using the broken clock (i.e.; islam), and more importantly, how are you going to convince them that they should put that clock in the bin WITHOUT exposing and criticising the broken nature of their clock?

“useful circumstances”? really? like what? are you saying that the bits of truth that islam has are not existent in other faiths/religions/creeds???

Cont …

 

[birdsong]

Contarini;2616920]

It wasn’t a previous statement. It was the same statement. If I say, “I don’t like vegetables, except for brussels sprouts,” how is that a contradiction? I’m sorry, but you are either just not thinking because your bigotry is blinding you, or you really don’t know English (or simply can’t think logically at all). You have insulted me repeatedly, and I have responded calmly. But when we get to the point that you can’t understand a simple English sentence, reasonable discourse becomes impossible. Either shape up, or this will be my last answer to you.

I want them to believe in those points that agree with Christianity and with natural law. For instance, the first clause of the Creed: I believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth; and the Ten Commandments. I would hope for a strengthening of Sufism and of those aspects of Islam that focus on justice and on the love of God, and a defeat of those elements that emphasize a literalistic reading of the harshest and most immoral parts of the tradition.

I expect a substantive and logical answer from you next time. If you continue with your empty insults and simple refusal to be rational, I will ignore your posts henceforth and let more patient people try to point out your errors.

In Christ,

Edwin

Having problems with logic, eh Contarini? allow me to lend you a helping hand so you can understand: when you make an absolutist statement, any exception implied to it is necessarily a contradiction. In the case of your liking of vegetables, this is the statement that would be applicable: “I don’t like all vegetables, with the exception of carrots”. This, of course, would be a totally contradictory statement, and I hope you can see it, and if you don’t, let me know to explain it in more detail.

Now, my problem with your approach to the analysis of islam is that at all times, I have been working and discussing under the “absolutist” assumption and intention that ALL serious and logical criticism, scrutiny and analysis not only of islam, but of Christianity, Hinduism, or any ideology/belief is welcome and should be encouraged.

Of course, the very convenient situation that you have created for yourself (i.e.; “non-muslims should not get involved in discussions about what muslims should/should not believe in, BUT, I will allow myself to tell them what they should believe/should not believe in) fits perfectly with what your example about your liking of vegetables. Since you did not make an absolutist statement, you can make all the very convenient exceptions that you want.

Unfortunately for you, it does not fit with the purpose that I have adopted every time I discuss islam and other religions and creeds. More importantly, however, is that your approach does not help uncover the truth, and does not help muslims to become “more “Christian”, if that is really what you want to do. furthermore, it is more than unreasonable.

Let me get back to my criticism of the absurdity of classifying two totally opposite statements under the same label: You, Contarini, want to help muslims adhere to the true things that exist in islam, and less to the falsehoods. That’s all fine and dandy. The problem is, how are you going to do that without explaining to them the fallacy that two contradictory statements/teachings can not function under the same framework? In a zero-sum situation (like in the case if two arguments that are in total opposition), you can not hope to advance what is true without confronting and analysing what is false! One actor’s gain (i.e.; truth) is another actor’s loss (i.e.; falsehood). To say that you want both truth and falsehood to live under the same roof is beyond absurd.

You I know that 2+2 = 4. unfortunately, muslims have a system that establishes that 2+2 = 4 and also 2+2 = 5. there’s a vast body of traditions and theology that indicates that islam’s prevailing and prescriptive teachings are similar to 2+2 = 5 (i.e.; the abrogation of peaceful verses by those that endorse violence and killing of unbelievers). Yet, you are perfectly comfortable to label as muslims both those who believe that 2+2 = 4 and also those who believe that 2+2 = 5. Again, this is beyond comprehension to any reasonable person.

And you are the one pontificating about logics Contarini?

You want to end the discussion because I hurt your sensitivities by ridiculing your alleged scholarship, right? I see this more like a face-saving tactic, so I am going to try hard to refrain from ridiculing you again so you can’t find a lame excuse to avoid debating me.

 

[Contarini]

If a book contains two statements that are mutually exclusive, something like “you should not kill people” and “you should kill people”, what are the followers of such a book supposed to do?

What do you do, as someone who believes in the Bible? The Bible has contradictions too. As Christians, we deal with this by adopting a theological framework that reconciles and explains these tensions. Muslims do the same thing. We can of course criticize that framework, and it’s legitimate to do so. But neither you nor Rodrigo take moderate Islamic theology seriously enough to even try to refute it. I have had a conversation along these lines with my dad’s cousin and her husband, who are converts to Sufi Islam. I pointed out the differences between Islam and Christianity in terms of the endemic nature of violence in the former. I know more about Islam now (in my last visit to my Muslim relatives the husband’s Catholic parents were there, and I didn’t want to cause trouble by bringing up religion in front of them), and would be able to have a more interesting conversation, I think.

If you seriously think that simply pointing out apparent contradictions in the Qur’an is going to have any effect on a serious, intelligent, well-informed Muslim, then you’re welcome to try it. You might have success with confused Muslims who hadn’t thought their faith through. But any longstanding, major religious tradition has put a lot of energy into dealing with its internal tensions and apparent contradictions. It’s far more helpful to understand how Muslims deal with this rather than simply going for the cheap shot.

your absurd suggestion that supporting the cause of those who prefer to believe in the “you should not kill people” while ignoring those who support the other verses

And, yet again, you misrepresent what I said. I did not say that we should ignore those who interpret the Qur’an to support violence. We would have a more fruitful conversation if you would argue with what I actually say.

overlooks the problems that they create, which is why muslims are in the news everyday mostly for all the wrong reasons. Even more absurd is your idea that such a contradictory religion/belief/book of rules can fall under the same categorisation. That’s like saying that a system in which 2 + 2 = 4 and another system in which 2 + 2 = 5 can co-exist within the same framework called “sound mathematics”.

I don’t think Islam is sound theology, period. I have said that explicitly, and you have no excuse for ignoring it.

Again, no one is saying that there are no bits of truths or benevolent teachings in islam. That does not negate the vast body of evidence that advocate violence and falsehoods.

Nor does it work the other way round. Much less so, in fact, since goodness and truth have ontological reality and falsehood and evil do not.

But to say that two totally contradictory statements can fall and operate under the same framework is, to put it mildly, illogical.

Well, they obviously do not appear contradictory to Muslims. I don’t really put a lot of stock in contradiction, since there are plenty of apparent contradictions in the Bible as well. I wouldn’t know how to evaluate whether the contradictions in the Qur’an are more problematic, and I don’t really care. I see no reason to believe in the Qur’an and would see no reason even if it were entirely coherent internally.

The question is, do you want muslims to continue using the broken clock (i.e.; islam),

No, I don’t.

and more importantly, how are you going to convince them that they should put that clock in the bin WITHOUT exposing and criticising the broken nature of their clock?

When have I said that we should not point out problems with Islam? Again, you argue with a position I have never expressed.
However, by and large trying to convert people by pointing out logical problems in their religion is a superficial and pointless approach. If that is what you feel called to do, then more power to you.

“useful circumstances”? really? like what? are you saying that the bits of truth that islam has are not existent in other faiths/religions/creeds???

Certainly there are truths in Islam that are not in atheism, or even Hinduism.

Islam has inspired many people to acts of goodness–and others to acts of evil. Neither set of facts can be justly or safely ignored.

Edwin

Cont …

 

[Contarini]

Of course, the very convenient situation that you have created for yourself (i.e.; “non-muslims should not get involved in discussions about what muslims should/should not believe in, BUT, I will allow myself to tell them what they should believe/should not believe in) fits perfectly with what your example about your liking of vegetables. Since you did not make an absolutist statement, you can make all the very convenient exceptions that you want.

So you are retracting your claim that I contradicted myself? I’m glad we have gotten this out of the way.

Now to your point: it is self-contradictory to make a theological critique of Islam from an Islamic perspective unless one is a Muslim. You cannot adopt an Islamic perspective simply for the sake of argument, because theology is not a set of logical propositions to be deduced from a premise. This is the basic fallacy into which you have fallen. Theology can only be done from within a tradition, not from outside it.

The point I have been making is that we can indeed make a theological critique of Islam from a Christian perspective (or whatever perspective the critic may be coming from). And we can make a historical analysis of whether certain contemporary Islamic beliefs are reasonable interpretations of what Muhammad is likely to have meant. But we cannot “pretend” to be Muslims and make statements about what is or is not a valid theological deduction from Islamic principles, because theology requires personal commitment.

Unfortunately for you, it does not fit with the purpose that I have adopted every time I discuss islam and other religions and creeds. More importantly, however, is that your approach does not help uncover the truth, and does not help muslims to become “more “Christian”, if that is really what you want to do. furthermore, it is more than unreasonable.

No, it’s not unreasonable. Think about Christian theology. Do you really think that non-Christians can be Christian theologians? Do you think that they can make judgments about what is or is not a valid development of the Christian tradition? If you do, then you have a terribly inadequate understanding of your own faith and of theology in general.

Let me get back to my criticism of the absurdity of classifying two totally opposite statements under the same label: You, Contarini, want to help muslims adhere to the true things that exist in islam, and less to the falsehoods. That’s all fine and dandy. The problem is, how are you going to do that without explaining to them the fallacy that two contradictory statements/teachings can not function under the same framework?

Any Muslim dumb enough not to know this already is not going to be amenable to intellectual arguments. Your approach is self-contradictory. You think Muslims are so stupid that they believe contradictory things, but rational enough that you can argue them out of believing these contradictions. Think about it for a minute!

How is that an example of 2 + 2 = 5? It’s morally repugnant, but in no way illogical.

Yet, you are perfectly comfortable to label as muslims both those who believe that 2+2 = 4 and also those who believe that 2+2 = 5.

Sure. Religions are not philosophical constructs, they are living traditions. Many religions contain incompatible elements. Look at Christianity. Two Christians may contradict each other on all sorts of points.

so I am going to try hard to refrain from ridiculing you again so you can’t find a lame excuse to avoid debating me.

You could try a little harder, but I have obviously taken the bait.

Edwin

 

[AgnosTheist]

Muslims who took shelter in other people’s lands should take to those people’s word for “God”. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!!!

 

[Sixtus]

Fundamentally, there appears little difference between ‘Allah’ and ‘God the Father’. Not sure what all the fuss iz about

 

[dessert]

Here is a site to see a list of the Names of Christ;
I have 2 of the posters in my house bought them at wal-mart much cheaper they still sell them although the print was first made in 1996

at google www.inspiration.com/posters
Names of Christ jumbo posters inspiration art and scripture
(enlarge) list

also go to other posters list Names of God; enlarge list and you can read without buying

this one is very interesting as it includes the Hebrew

freescripture software download scripture software -bible
www.scripture.alienpicks.com(this is on same page as site for inspiration at google)
also free names of Christ screen saver 2 3.0

Christ the light screen saver 1.1
I think this screen saver has the crucifix! Awesome!

Dessert

 

[Bible_Student]

What the beheadings, suicide bombers, massacre of school children, roadside bombs, and jumbo jets into our heartland weren’t enough to convince you that this is a murderous religion from the pit of hell? So let’s give in to the whole wayward bunch that has run amuck so that we can live in peace on their terms? Sounds like a recipe for disaster and it sounds like some have become milksops in the making. If you don’t stand for something I guess you’ll fall for anything. I disagree that the Judeo-Christian God and Allah are one and the same, in fact I totally repudiate and disdain even a hint of the thought.
Isaiah 59:7-8 Their feet run to evil, And they hasten to shed innocent blood; Their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity, Devastation and destruction are in their highways. They do not know the way of peace, And there is no justice in their tracks; They have made their paths crooked, Whoever treads on them does not know peace.
Shall we impune the name of the God of the Universe and insult Him by comparing the Lord God to what morphed from a moon god, or compare the Bible to a Quran that offers a very telling and lustful vision for it suicide bombers (they call martyrs but I call murderers) Those 72 virgins, or boys in a completely self-absorbed afterlife didn’t hatch from the West. Read and compare this in contrast to the purity of heaven that we see through the eyes of Jesus Christ? Should the Christian forget that the LORD of Hosts is God, and that the Lord is HOLY, righteous and good? Never… Never… and again NEVER!!!

And just in case you happen to think we’ve got it wrong let’s look at the beautific vision in the Q’uran.
Quran-(52:17-20): “They will recline (with ease) on thrones arranged in ranks. And We shall marry them to Huris (fair females) with wide lovely eyes.” “There they shall pass from hand to hand a (wine) cup, free from any Laghw….”
Quran: (37:40-48): …they will sit with bashful, dark-eyed virgins, as chaste as the sheltered eggs of ostriches.
Quran: (55:56-57): In them will be bashful virgins neither man nor Jinn will have touched before. Then which of the favours of your Lord will you deny?
Quran: (78:31): “As for the righteous, they surely triumph. Their gardens and vineyards and high-bosomed virgins for companions, truly overflowing cup”
Quran-(78: 33-34):“And young full-breasted (mature) maidens of equal age, and a full cup of wine.”
Quran-(56:7-40): “ …we created the houris and made them virgins, loving companions for those on the right hand….”
Quran-(40-45): “Surely for the God-fearing awaits a place of security gardens and vineyards and maidens with swelling bosoms.”

Does this sound even remotely like the God of the Bible to you? If it does it’s high time you actually read the Bible.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” is not to be found in the Bible but it does mention in Rev 21:8 that the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." And those who deal treacherously I believe our just God will surely reward according to their works. I would not want to be in their shoes on judgment day.

As for the Church that is called by the Name of Christ, we cannot play PEACE at any cost because the worls’s version of peace isn’t God’s version of Peace. What we need is to get back to TRUTH at any cost lest we sell our blessing for a few scraps & start looking like the pushovers and milksops our Lord admonished in Hab 1:13
You who have purer eyes than to see evil, and who cannot look on perversity, why do you tolerate those who deal treacherously, and keep silent when the wicked swallows up the man who is more righteous than he,
Perhaps a little study of the Hebrew may have more than coincidental meaning.
blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Zec&chapter=5&verse=3&version=KJV#3

 

[nonsumd]

What the beheadings, suicide bombers, massacre of school children, roadside bombs, and jumbo jets into our heartland weren’t enough to convince you that this is a murderous religion from the pit of hell?

Non-Christians, making lists of atrocities committed by self-proclaimed Christians, pass the same judgment on Christianity.

You should spend your time defending Christianity from anti-Christian bigots instead of attacking Islam with the same bigotry that anti-Christians apply to Christianity.

Do unto others…

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Non-Christians, making lists of atrocities committed by self-proclaimed Christians, pass the same judgment on Christianity.

You should spend your time defending Christianity from anti-Christian bigots instead of attacking Islam with the same bigotry that anti-Christians apply to Christianity.

Do unto others…

Some Christians commit evil IN SPITE of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Some Muslims commit evil BECAUSEof the teachings of Muhammad.

I suppose to some people I’m a bigot and a Bin Laden type to point this out.

Chau,
Rodrigo

 

[nonsumd]

Some Christians commit evil IN SPITE of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Some Muslims commit evil BECAUSEof the teachings of Muhammad.

Muslims who do good believe they are following Muhammad’s teachings just as Christians who do good believe they are following Jesus’ teachings when they do good.

Muslims who commit evil often believe they are following Muhammad’s teaching. Christians who commit evil often believe they follow Jesus’ teaching when they commit evil.

Of course, there is a difference between what Jesus himself taught and what Muhammad taught – Muhammad was at war during his career as a prophet unlike Jesus but like many of the Old Testament prophets (that is not to say that what we are told Muhammad or the Old Testement prophets did was justifiable).

However, Christians draw more than on the actual recorded sayings of Jesus, so you have to compare the messages derivable from all the sources of Christian teaching with all the messages derivable from all the sources of Islamic teaching before you even attempt to judge one religion to more “inherently violent” than the other (which is a wrong-headed game to begin with).

As I said, personal investment in an issue is hardly a guarantee of objectivity.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

So Muhammad was at war - which he started. Either way - it makes no difference. Does being at war excuse enslaving innocent little children? Or torturing and beheading unarmed prisoners? Or expelling old people, women and children from their ancestral lands?

Is there no evil you will not condemn just because it was done by Muhammad?

Christians who believe that they are following the teachings of Jesus Christ when they do evil are SINNING.

Muslims who believe that they are following the teachings of Muhammad when they do evil are NOT SINNING.

Let’s just face it: Jesus Christ was good. Muhammad was evil.

 

[nonsumd]

Of course, there is a difference between what Jesus himself taught and what Muhammad taught – Muhammad was at war during his career as a prophet unlike Jesus but like many of the Old Testament prophets (that is not to say that what we are told Muhammad or the Old Testement prophets did was justifiable).

If you don’t want to sound like a lunatic or an illiterate, you should not misrepresent what others have written. I never said I condoned Muhammad’s actions.

Rodrigo, what do you get out of all this ranting? Has the water been cut off, so you need to foam at the mouth to wash your face?

Pax/Shalom/Salaam…

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

If you don’t want to sound like a lunatic or an illiterate, you should not misrepresent what others have written. I never said I condoned Muhammad’s actions.

Rodrigo, what do you get out of all this ranting? Has the water been cut off, so you need to foam at the mouth to wash your face?

Pax/Shalom/Salaam…

Talk about illiteracy. I was making the point that what you wrote here is illogical:

Muslims who do good believe they are following Muhammad’s teachings just as Christians who do good believe they are following Jesus’ teachings when they do good.

Muslims who commit evil often believe they are following Muhammad’s teaching. Christians who commit evil often believe they follow Jesus’ teaching when they commit evil.

You made the point that Muhammad was at war during his so-called prophet - why did you bring it up to contrast against Jesus? You said it was not justifiable - that is a bit short of calling him evil, isn’t it?

 

[Ilocia]

Rodrigo, what do you get out of all this ranting? Has the water been cut off, so you need to foam at the mouth to wash your face?
…

Rodrigo… what is that mean?

 

[Bible_Student]

Rodrigo, what do you get out of all this ranting? Has the water been cut off, so you need to foam at the mouth to wash your face?

Pax/Shalom/Salaam…

That was a very weird thing to say to Rodrigio. I don’t know if anyone else picked up on it but surely from a reasonable perspective it made you sound like somewhat of an elitist.

The truth is I do like people from Islamic backgrounds and know more than just a few who have converted to Christianity. What I don’t like is Islamic ideology. That I consider poison to the soul. If we don’t see that the teachings of Mohammed runs counter to what the Lord taught us and we do not warn them that they are on the path to their own destruction, then I would question whether we are truly Christians at all. If one sees a person drowning in swamp or a blind man walking near a cliff and do not warn them back but watch them drown or fall can we live with that? If we know the truth of Christ and do not tell others and warn others, as Jesus did, then it is right for me to question that man’s Christianity. Peace in this life is not eternal peace. The early Christians, and many Christians today, have no worldly peace but are hounded, persecuted and killed. As Irenaeus said, “the blood of our martyrs is the seed of the church” (martyrs being witnesses to Jesus Christ and not some cold blooded suicide bombers). Jesus promised us trouble in this world but peace in the next - so the Christian puts this world aside to live for the next, knowing this world already stands condemned.

Mat 10:34
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
Eph 6:17-20
"And take THE HELMET OF SALVATION, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. With all prayer and petition pray at all times in the Spirit, and with this in view, be on the alert with all perseverance and petition for all the saints, and pray on my behalf, that utterance may be given to me in the opening of my mouth, to make known with boldness the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains; that in proclaiming it I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.

Hbr 4:12
“For the Word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.”

Eze 3:18-19
"When I say to the wicked, ‘You will surely die,’ and you do not warn him or speak out to warn the wicked from his wicked way that he may live, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. Yet if you have warned the wicked and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered yourself. "
The Word of the LORD.

 

[birdsong]

Contarini: What do you do, as someone who believes in the Bible? The Bible has contradictions too. As Christians, we deal with this by adopting a theological framework that reconciles and explains these tensions. Muslims do the same thing. We can of course criticize that framework, and it’s legitimate to do so. But neither you nor Rodrigo take moderate Islamic theology seriously enough to even try to refute it. I have had a conversation along these lines with my dad’s cousin and her husband, who are converts to Sufi Islam. I pointed out the differences between Islam and Christianity in terms of the endemic nature of violence in the former. I know more about Islam now (in my last visit to my Muslim relatives the husband’s Catholic parents were there, and I didn’t want to cause trouble by bringing up religion in front of them), and would be able to have a more interesting conversation, I think.

If you seriously think that simply pointing out apparent contradictions in the Qur’an is going to have any effect on a serious, intelligent, well-informed Muslim, then you’re welcome to try it. You might have success with confused Muslims who hadn’t thought their faith through. But any longstanding, major religious tradition has put a lot of energy into dealing with its internal tensions and apparent contradictions. It’s far more helpful to understand how Muslims deal with this rather than simply going for the cheap shot.

You are wrong to assume that my approach and intentions when analysing islam stop at the mere examination of inconsistencies in the quoran and bible and catholic teachings. While this is valid approach, it also has its problems, as you correctly said
For the sake of argument, let us assume that both islam and Christianity are contradictory, for example, regarding the issue of killing infidels. I don’t think I even have to mention that the prescriptive and everlasting teachings of Jesus go against killing people just because they are not Christians. you and muslims could spend all day long pointing out to the apparent atrocities described in the OT, but that would not matter, as Christ’s teachings are mandatory for us, even if the contradict the OT. Of course, this situation is totally contrary to the vast body of evidence in islam: in the earlier “revelations”, muhamad encourage love and tolerance towards unbelievers, whereas the later revelations (surah 9, for starters!) encourage the killing of unbelievers simply for not being muslims!.

Now, let’s us get practical here: Like you, I have also talked with many muslims, and I basically have asked them something along the lines of: “if islam’s prescriptive teachings command you to kill non-muslims, and you find it so distasteful, why are you still a muslim?” “if islam prescriptive teachings allow you to enslave and rape women prisoners of war, and if you find it so distasteful, why are you still a muslim?” etc, etc, etc.

As you can see, I challenge them to take a hard look at the prescriptive teachings of their religion that go against what is true and that most decent people would consider true also (i.e.; Christ’s teachings and natural laws that would never permit such hideous things!). if the bits of truth that exist in islam and/or the natural laws that somehow are instilled in their hearts makes them repel what islam teaches as everlasting and prescriptive laws, why are they still muslims?? Il’ leave the answer I have gotten from muslims for my next round with you.

It is more than evident that this is a better and more consistently honest and logical way to approach the problem at hand, because it challenges muslims both at their intellect and also at the truths instilled in their hearts that they have inherited and/or learned.

Quite a contrast to your liberal “yeah, it’s ok you are still a muslim even if you find the prescriptive an everlasting teachings, of islam so distasteful and hideous”, eh?

And, yet again, you misrepresent what I said. I did not say that we should ignore those who interpret the Qur’an to support violence. We would have a more fruitful conversation if you would argue with what I actually say

Sure, you might not tell them to ignore those verses, but you certainly do a poor job to discourage them from separating themselves from those teachings by arguing that both bin laden and good people disguised as muslims are both, well, muslims!