A
Aydan
Guest
What? Muslims don’t even believe that Jesus is the son of God so why are you even using this story? Yes, Muslims believe Jesus will come again but not in the way we do for sure. The example you give is very misleading.
- Status
S
sedonaman
Guest
I strongly disagree.
S
sedonaman
Guest
This is a bunch of nonsense because it makes non sense.
Z
ZAKI
Guest
Z
ZAKI
Guest
don’t you mean NO SENSE rather then NON SENSE? bcz that post made no sense to me
wasalam
S
sedonaman
Guest
It was just a play on words.
S
sedonaman
Guest
Look at it this way. Suppose scientists agreed that there is a 10th planet out beyond Pluto, even though no one had seen it; and one group of scientists said it was 10 billion miles from the sun and has no moons, but the other group said no, it is 15 billion miles from the sun and has two moons. Do the two groups believe in the same planet?
P
planten
Guest
sedonaman to Selene:
sedonaman had called my explanation of the parable of the tenants as nonsense or no sense. But sedonaman had not given any sensible explanation too. Probably sedonaman is a new convert to Catholicism and does not know much about his own books.
The parable of the tenants is very clear about some one whose coming will be the coming of God himself. In the Quran, it is stated that coming of Muhammad is like the coming of God. The story of the tenants does not end with the coming of the son. That is important. Most important. Perhaps sedonaman will explain.
It is also stated by jesus that " The kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to some one who will bring the fruit of… it." What does that mean? At another place Jesus said, "You will never see me again until you say ’ Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord.’ " That also means:
**
** It is quite clear that the Catholics here cannot tolerate even a little bit of goodness amongst their own group.
sedonaman had called my explanation of the parable of the tenants as nonsense or no sense. But sedonaman had not given any sensible explanation too. Probably sedonaman is a new convert to Catholicism and does not know much about his own books.
The parable of the tenants is very clear about some one whose coming will be the coming of God himself. In the Quran, it is stated that coming of Muhammad is like the coming of God. The story of the tenants does not end with the coming of the son. That is important. Most important. Perhaps sedonaman will explain.
It is also stated by jesus that " The kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to some one who will bring the fruit of… it." What does that mean? At another place Jesus said, "You will never see me again until you say ’ Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord.’ " That also means:
- People will never Jesus again.
- Some one will come in the name of the Lord God, the One God.
- Those who will believe in him, they will see Jesus too (in some way.)
- Remember that Muhammad had come in the name of the God.
- In every chapter of the Quran, the first verse says “In the name of Allah, the Beneficient, the Merciful.”
**
C
Contarini
Guest
That may be your problem.
In what way does the Qur’an compare favorably with the Bible? Why?
Can you give some specifics that are relevant for the truth claims of Islam?
You can find very devout (and very messed-up) people in every religion. And frankly I’m very suspicious of “absolute devotion to God.” This inevitably means “absolute devotion to my idea of God,” which can actually be a kind of idolatry.
That may be true, but you haven’t provided this evidence here. So we can’t discuss or critique it. Could you share some of this overwhelming evidence with us?
I’m also suspicious of this distinction between “true” Islam or Christianity or whatever and some other, presumably false manifestation (unless you are talking about well-defined historical distinctions between orthodoxy and heresy). Apologists for both Christianity and Islam make this distinction as a way of avoiding responsibility for all the messed-up stuff that folks have done in the names of these religions. I don’t buy it. Both religions–all religions–are mixed bags.
I hear this stereotype of media coverage a lot, and I wonder if the people who promote it are following the same media I am. Of course the media tend to report catastrophic, violent occurrences and other sensational events, which means that their coverage of religion tends to be focused on violence, controversy, and scandal. And they don’t do a very good job of describing religious nuances. I’ve seen some examples of what seemed to me unfair, prejudiced portrayal of Islam. (For instance, some years ago–before 9/11–a plane with a Muslim pilot crashed. The pilot had been heard to murmur the shahada as the plane went down, and the media reported concerns that this might be evidence of terrorism. To me that was absurd–of course a devout Muslim would call out to God in danger of death, just as a devout Christian would.) But on the whole, especially since 9/11 with its inevitable temptation toward anti-Islamic prejudice, the media I follow most closely (CNN and NPR) have gone out of their way to portray Islam fairly and even positively. PBS ran a program on Islam that repeatedly made blatant and utterly unfair comparisons between the enlightened, civilized, humane medieval Muslims and the supposedly cruel, barbaric, superstitious medieval Christians. I hear that all the time on the media. So I have to wonder what media coverage you are following.
It seems to me that just as many anti-Catholics jump to the conclusion that Catholicism must be true as soon as they discover it isn’t the evil thing they had been told it was, so you are doing with regard to Islam. Why does it follow from the fact that Islam is not a “mockery of religion” that it must be the one true religion? Why can’t it be just one more religion, with its vices and its virtues like any other?
What criteria do you use for making this judgment?
No doubt you have. But your post doesn’t give us a good idea of this. You haven’t really discussed any rational arguments on one side or the other. Your post amounts to “I found out Islam wasn’t as evil as I thought, and in fact has much truth, beauty, and goodness, so I’ve concluded it must be true.” I hope you will pardon me for saying that this method seems to lack rigor.
As someone who has resisted the pull toward Catholicism for many years, I may be able to give you some rational criticism of your newfound enthusiasm for Islam–if you don’t mind my tendency toward sarcasm (which I will try to restrain). Since you are likely to get a lot of vitriol on this forum, please feel free to send me a private message or an email to discuss this further. I respect many aspects of Islam, and I find Sufism very appealing. But I don’t find the basic claims of Islam convincing in the slightest, and if you leave Sufism out of it I don’t really understand the appeal of Islam for Christians (taken as a whole–I can certainly see why a Christian would admire certain aspects of Islam). No doubt this is because I find Islam to resemble too closely the aspects of Protestantism I most heartily reject, and because my own personality draws me more toward sacramental, mystical, even pagan religion than toward the lonely grandeur of pure monotheism. I would be very interested to hear why you feel and think differently.
Yours truly,
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
C
Contarini
Guest
And it’s people like you who drive folks like the OP into Islam. I hope some day God opens your eyes to the hideous damage you are doing to the Christian faith.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
The article does not make the case that Islamic scholarship supports suicide bombings. The closest it gets, it seems to me, is the extremely strained and speculative argument in the third paragraph under “Jihad against unbelievers.” This paragraph argues that since the Qur’an says that martyrs are not “dead,” the prohibition against suicide wouldn’t apply to people who blow themselves up in acts of jihad. No Islamic writers are cited in support of this huge inference.
The article does make the case that suicide bombings are rooted in the Islamic theology of jihad and martyrdom. But that seems a trite point to me. It’s quite different from the claim that most Muslim scholars support suicide bombings. (For instance, the shootings of abortion doctors by Christians are rooted in Christian ethical thought, but that doesn’t mean that most Christians would agree with these actions. I’m not claiming that such Christians are anywhere near as common as Islamic terrorists, or that Christians who shoot someone about to commit what the shooter regards as murder are equivalent to Muslims who blow people up indiscriminately–obviously they aren’t. I’m just making a logical point about the difference between an action being rooted in a religious tradition and supported by most members of that tradition.)
Perhaps this discussion should have its own thread.
Edwin
S
sedonaman
Guest
You left out one minor detail: they did kill him.
Why did you leave that part out? Is it because if you had left it in, you would be admitting that Jesus was killed? Once Jesus’ death is acknowledge, Islam collapses.
That part is OK, except the parable says “owner”, not “master”.
This makes no sense because God the Father is not a man.
This makes no sense because first you said God himself is coming; now you say he is not. This sounds like more Islamic dualistic logic. God is either coming or he is not. So which is it?
This makes sense only if you believe Jesus is the Son of God, which Muslims do not. So how can you make that claim as a Muslim?
And that someone will be “the owner,” who is God in this parable, not Mohammed.
C
Contarini
Guest
No one believes that they get to heaven by “the name of religion written in their I.D.” There are evangelical Protestants who believe that anyone who believes Jesus to be the Son of God will go to heaven, but this is not even the traditional Protestant view (it’s a caricature of what the Protestant Reformers taught), let alone the majority Christian view.
Don’t caricature Christianity just because some silly Christians caricature Islam!
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
No, you mean the Aton–the disc of the sun. We don’t have enough evidence to understand what Akhenaton meant by this. If he literally worshiped the disc of the sun, then obviously he wasn’t a monotheist in our sense, since the sun is just one thing among others. But he may have regarded the sun as a symbol of God, in which case I would say that yes, he worshiped the same God I do.
Islam, of course, has far more direct connections with Judaism and Christianity, and so the case for Muslims worshiping the same God is much easier to make.
Edwin
S
sedonaman
Guest
That wouldn’t be “Islam: Empire of Faith” would it?
S
sedonaman
Guest
I recommend you read this analysis.
Here is an excerpt from the Introduction.
You will note that in the latter part of the analysis, the author observes that Islam rejects Judaism and Christianity. If it rejects them, how can Muslims be worshipping the same God?
P
planten
Guest
JC if you are talking bout me then you should tell me where did I call you evil?? You are making up things and it seems you are very touchy. I only quoted the parable of the tenants as I understand it. If you understand it differently then you could tell me that. But it appears that you are upset for no reason.
P
planten
Guest
**sedonaman, God revealed the books Torah and Bible. They were perfect teachings. But you know what people do with good things. They played their part with the revealed good books and over a long period of time, your books deterierated. That is all. The meaning and the actual words were changed by some men… That is what we believe. That is what happened.
You need not believe it if you do not like it or if you do not think such a thing happened.
The meanings of the verses of the Quran (not the text) has also suffered similar problem over the 1400 years. What the Muslims are believing now about Momin and Muslim and Kaafir is not the true Islam. Some Muslims are actually being taught that any one who has not recited the Kalimah (Shahadah) is a Kaafir. That is not true.
They also teach that it is compulsory to fight against the non-believers. That is also wrong and that is not Islam. Then there is the belief that adulterer is to be stoned to death. that is wrong. Then some Muslims do believe that it was not Jesus on the cross. It was some one else in his place. That is taking the wrong meaning of the verses of Quran.
Muslims believe that it is their sacred duty to fight all non-believers. That is wrong. They believe in Jihad i.e. religious war (with weapons) to spread Islam. That is wrong.
I can explain each of these things from the Quran if needed.
The list can be quite long. It happens with all religions.It is not the fault of the religions. It is the fault of the followers of those religions. But we do not want to balme you for anything because you do not like to admit such things.**
C
Contarini
Guest
Non sequitur. “Rejecting” the claims of a religious group does not equate to worshiping a different God. Does the fact that Protestants reject many of the claims of Catholicism mean that Protestants and Catholics worship a different God?
Edwin
- Status