Catholic Considering Islam

[Contarini]

I kid and I apologize

A sincere apology would have led you to delete your rude and vulgar remarks without posting them. I understand the impulse to apologize while letting one’s nasty remarks stand–I’m afraid I’ve done it myself. But I can’t recognize this as a real apology.

Suppose we discuss this issue without insulting each other? I don’t claim to be perfect in this regard either.

but for a white guy (I’m assuming your white) in America, you have to realize how Christians under Islamic rule feel and we could care less what you say, we’ve experienced Muslim treatment first hand, and your books aren’t going to change any of that.

But neither does Muslim mistreatment of Christians change the reality that Muslims worship the One God, just as Christian mistreatment of Jews doesn’t change the reality that Christians worship the God of Israel.

I argue the latter and how is it I or anyone else can no longer have a case for Allah being a different god? Lets put it this way, I am well trained and versed in Judaism and Christianity, I know that my culture believes in various pagan gods, chief among them is Tatu, we use Tatu as a generic term for the god, but he is the chief god among all gods. To convert my people to my beliefs and use them effectively to dominate a continent, I claim that Tatu’s angel came to me and gave me this book called the Klips and in the Klips I have taken verses and themes from the Bible and added my own parts about sleeping with 9 year old girls and killing or subjugating people who don’t believe and accept Tatu (your so called truths!). As I conquer many lands my language and terminology, especially Tatu being used as God, come to be the primary source of communication. And the hardest part to do all this was taking a chief pagan god and transforming him or it into a monotheistic god.

Thousands of years pass and with my made up religion millions are murdered and oppressed and a white man named Edwin fights tirelessly and with conviction defending my lies.

What lies have I defended? What I am defending is the fact that Allah is a name for the One True God, however mistaken many Muslim ideas about Him are. And in the hypothetical case you describe, the same would be true for Tatu! You think this is absurd. I don’t see why (except because made-up names sound silly, which is irrelevant to the argument).

And Edwin, if you are defending truths found in Islam, don’t forget that those truths come from Judaism and Christianity, the elements lifted from the Bible.

I do.

I would like you to defend the other “truths” that are exclusive to Islam, you know the ones, that you see on the front cover of the New York Times and the main story on Al Jazzera.

Actually, the idea of using violence to promote or defend one’s religion is hardly an idea exclusive to Muslims, although it does say something disturbing about Islam that the people practicing this idea most vehemently today are generally Muslims. Unfortunately, the idea is one among the many that Muhammad “stole” from Biblical religion, though the violent tribalism of Arab society certainly made it congenial.

I would not commit myself to saying that there is any truth found in Islam that is not found in Judaism and/or Christianity. But I do think that on the whole Muslims have done a better job in breaking down racial divisions than Christians have done. I’m sure you have plenty of counter-examples, but it’s a generalization that fits the balance of the evidence as I see it. I think that the main reason for this is the Christian understanding of organic unity, which easily leads to perversion by nationalists and racists. And Muslims get their interracial unity at too high a price, for my money, by abandoning the Christian concept of diversity in unity (rooted in our doctrine of the Trinity, and exemplified by such things as our willingness to recognize the Bible in many languages as still being the Word of God). But this is at such a level of abstraction that it’s hard to discuss meaningfully.

Edwin

 

[DeusVult09]

**Deus, you are saying the same thign as we Muslims believe. Faith without works is useless. And works without faith is also useless. Paul should have known that. But he taught you will be saved by faith alone.

You are forgetting why the christians have abondoned the sabath and circumcision and started eating the flesh of swine and so many other things. It is evident that they are no more under the law, So please tell me who has done that? Is that not Paul? He had discarded the law calling it a curse. If he did not teach that then please tell me why you do not follow the law of Moses any more? Jesus and his mother Mary and all disciple sof Jesus were living under the law.

You are wandering around the point and not coming to the point. Please admit that some one has released you from the law of Moses. It was not done by Jesus. Tell me who had done that? Thanks.**

Paul did know this but he said that your works will never save you no matter how much you follow the law you can never do it perfectly or up to the standards of god which is why grace is required.

Did Paul say Christians should abandon the Sabbath? No he never said that the reason that it was changed to Sunday for the Christians because Sunday was the day of the resurrection. It was a later tradition

As for circumcision and eating swine Paul said that they are the law or part of the covenant god made with Israel but he said that gentile converts to Christianity should not have to follow them as they are under the grace of Christ and are not subject to this covenant made with israel. This is what you don’t understand. Paul said circumcision makes no difference its fine if somebody wants to be circumcised but it is also fine if they don’t. What paul did was apply grace to the law not get rid of it. you do not understand. Again I explained what the curse of the law is already and showed you that Paul did not hate the law by quoting from his epistle to the Romans which proves as such.

Im wondering around the point? You do not understand what Paul did. Jesus said he was the fulfillment of the law and it will not be changed until what he has accomplished. What did he accomplish? he died on the cross for the sins of mankind. Christ fulfilled the law and this is the grace that paul was talking about he said it is fine for Jews to still follow the law but it makes no difference if there is no faith. Even Jesus’ own brother said that if you fail in one part of the law you fail in all of it. Paul said that grace is required since nobody can follow the law perfectly but its fine for jews to still follow the law if they want to but it doesn’t change anything salvation still relies on faith.

But because we are saved by faith not our actions if we have faith and do not act upon it in righteous way then our faith is dead. again you do not understand this

 

[DeusVult09]

paul says circumicision doesnt change anything

**1 Corinthians **
18Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. 19Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts. 20Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. 21Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord’s freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ’s slave. 23You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. 24Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to.

Romans 2:25
Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised.

Romans 2:29
No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man’s praise is not from men, but from God.

Galatians 5:6
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love

now do you understand?

 

[DeusVult09]

Eating pork in Christianity comes from an interpretation of St Peter’s dream in the book of Acts written by Luke not Paul.

Acts 11“
1.The apostles and the brothers throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. 2.So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him 3.and said, “You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.”

4.Peter began and explained everything to them precisely as it had happened: 5.“I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I** saw a vision. I saw something like a large sheet being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came down to where I was. 6.I looked into it and saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, reptiles, and birds of the air. 7.Then I heard a voice telling me, ‘Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.’ 8.“I replied, ‘Surely not, Lord! Nothing impure or unclean has ever entered my mouth.’
**
9.“The voice spoke from heaven a second time, ‘Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.’ 10This happened three times, and then it was all pulled up to heaven again. “

Also Christians believe that Jesus himself annulled the dietary laws. He says in **Mark 7:18-19 ** 18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. "Don’t you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him ‘unclean’? 19 For it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body. 20 for it is what comes out of a person that defiles 21for it is from within the human heart that evil intentions come: fornication theft and murder”

Paul affirms what Jesus said not changed it when he writes

**1 timothy 4:1-4 **
“1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.”

Christians believe Jesus fulfilled the law and after Jesus’ death and resurrection there was a new dispensation or way of dealing with mankind. people can still follow the law if they wish but that alone is not enough as nobody can follow it perfectly and this is the curse of the law which you talk about

Galatians 3
10All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”c 11Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, “The righteous will live by faith.”d 12The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, “The man who does these things will live by them

does Paul hate the law? no! but he thinks the law alone is not enough now.

**Galatians 3 **
15Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. **16The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. **

**19What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. 20A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one. **

**21Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. **
23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christh that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

as usual you ignored the context and missed the point of what apul was saying.

Galatians 2:15-16
15 "We who are Jews by birth and not ‘Gentile sinners’ 16 know that **a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified. **

Because the are saved by faith through the grace of god we don’t need to do good works? No! we can do good works but they will not save us and they have to come from our faith not just exist on their own. This is what Paul is saying.

Ephesians 2:9
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves,** it is the gift of God— 9not by works,** so that no one can boast. 10For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

 

[planten]

Paul did know this but he said that your works will never save you no matter how much you follow the law you can never do it perfectly or up to the standards of god which is why grace is required.

Deus you are supporting a wrong man un-necessarily. If a person cannot do the law 100%, does it mean that he should abondon it? Surely not. That is what paul is teaching that no one can follow the law 100% perfectly. So he may abondon the law. That is a fallacy. I cannot argue with you on this point any more.

Did Paul say Christians should abandon the Sabbath? No he never said that the reason that it was changed to Sunday for the Christians because Sunday was the day of the resurrection. It was a later tradition

** Whether he did or not is immaterial. When he said that law was a curse, that was good bye to the law of Moses.a.s.**

As for circumcision and eating swine Paul said that they are the law or part of the covenant god made with Israel but he said that gentile converts to Christianity should not have to follow them as they are under the grace of Christ and are not subject to this covenant made with israel.

Jesus never said that. Why Paul became a new law maker?

This is what you don’t understand. Paul said circumcision makes no difference its fine if somebody wants to be circumcised but it is also fine if they don’t. What paul did was apply grace to the law not get rid of it. you do not understand. Again I explained what the curse of the law is already and showed you that Paul did not hate the law by quoting from his epistle to the Romans which proves as such

.

**Again wrong way to support some one who abondoned the law. Paul said “You will be saved by faith alone.” He said “Law was a curse.” Paul was teaching soemthing quite different to what jesus had been doing. Paul brought about many changes in the way Jesus and his friends were living.

If Paul did not do that then tell me who did all the changes. Who taught such things that you are free from any law. It was paul and not Jesus**.

Im wondering around the point? You do not understand what Paul did. Jesus said he was the fulfillment of the law and it will not be changed until what he has accomplished

.

**Exactly. Jesus never meant to abondon the law. He said that he had come to fulfil the law. That doe snot mean abondon the law of Moses. Law can never be fulfilled by getting rid of it.
In other words, Jesus said that every one had to follow the law. if any one did not do it,he/she will have to answer for it.

Jesus words are all in favor of keeping the same law. But some one (Paul) has taught to get rid of that law. there are many non-Muslim highly educated persons who are blaming Paul for doing the damage.**

What did he accomplish? he died on the cross for the sins of mankind. Christ fulfilled the law and this is the grace that paul was talking about he said it is fine for Jews to still follow the law but it makes no difference if there is no faith. Even Jesus’ own brother said that if you fail in one part of the law you fail in all of it. Paul said that grace is required since nobody can follow the law perfectly but its fine for jews to still follow the law if they want to but it doesn’t change anything salvation still relies on faith

.

I am not going into that whether Jesus really died on the Cross or he fainted on the Cross. That is your business. We Muslims do not believe that Jesus died on the Cross. That was not the way to fulfil the law of Moses by dying on the Cross.

But because we are saved by faith not our actions if we have faith and do not act upon it in righteous way then our faith is dead. again you do not understand this

**You are misled. Did I say that faith is not needed?. I tell you that faith is the first step in any religion. Paul did not teach anything special in that matter. Every religion needs the faith first. Also nobody acts on the faith. Every one acts on some article of law.

But Paul misled every one when he stopped at the faith only. That was wrong. By doing away with the law paul practically did away with any good work. When there is no law and previous law was a curse, then there is nothing to do; nothing to follow. can’t you see, please**.

 

[seraphime2008]

Deus you are supporting a wrong man un-necessarily. If a person cannot do the law 100%, does it mean that he should abondon it? Surely not. That is what paul is teaching that no one can follow the law 100% perfectly. So he may abondon the law. That is a fallacy. I cannot argue with you on this point any more.

** Whether he did or not is immaterial. When he said that law was a curse, that was good bye to the law of Moses.a.s.**

Jesus never said that. Why Paul became a new law maker?

**Again wrong way to support some one who abondoned the law. Paul said “You will be saved by faith alone.” He said “Law was a curse.” Paul was teaching soemthing quite different to what jesus had been doing. Paul brought about many changes in the way Jesus and his friends were living.

If Paul did not do that then tell me who did all the changes. Who taught such things that you are free from any law. It was paul and not Jesus**.

.

**Exactly. Jesus never meant to abondon the law. He said that he had come to fulfil the law. That doe snot mean abondon the law of Moses. Law can never be fulfilled by getting rid of it.
In other words, Jesus said that every one had to follow the law. if any one did not do it,he/she will have to answer for it.

Jesus words are all in favor of keeping the same law. But some one (Paul) has taught to get rid of that law. there are many non-Muslim highly educated persons who are blaming Paul for doing the damage.**

.

I am not going into that whether Jesus really died on the Cross or he fainted on the Cross. That is your business. We Muslims do not believe that Jesus died on the Cross. That was not the way to fulfil the law of Moses by dying on the Cross.

**You are misled. Did I say that faith is not needed?. I tell you that faith is the first step in any religion. Paul did not teach anything special in that matter. Every religion needs the faith first. Also nobody acts on the faith. Every one acts on some article of law.

But Paul misled every one when he stopped at the faith only. That was wrong. By doing away with the law paul practically did away with any good work. When there is no law and previous law was a curse, then there is nothing to do; nothing to follow. can’t you see, please**.

Now we are discussing with bigot, I really feel sorry for u planten, for ur arrogance and obstinate. U didn’t even bother to check the other post:

Eating pork in Christianity comes from an interpretation of St Peter’s dream in the book of Acts written by Luke not Paul

and I suppose you know Peter, the disciple of Jesus!

Jesus said that all law must come from the highest law : that is to love God with all hearts, and consequently to love our neighbor. Does observing the dietary law make u follow this highest law?

Read the OT, it was specifically directed for Israelelites to separate them out from the other people at that time , that was the main purpose.

Again u don’t understand Jesus and Paul at the same time. Does circumscision and avoiding swine make u holy?

I tell u one thing: in Indonesia many muslims do not observe the dietary law, they said that anything that doens’t harm their digestion system is fine. I bet they know well in their heart that they see this matter as nothing important!

As for circumscision, many Christians do that, but not for the purpose of being holy or obeserving any spiritual guidance.

 

[DeusVult09]

Deus you are supporting a wrong man un-necessarily. If a person cannot do the law 100%, does it mean that he should abondon it? Surely not. That is what paul is teaching that no one can follow the law 100% perfectly. So he may abondon the law. That is a fallacy. I cannot argue with you on this point any more.

Im supporting the wrong man? Nope you have still failed to prove him wrong in any respect and I have proven that Paul was a greater apostle than Mohammad ever was and all you could so is call me a liar and claim all hadith are fake

It is not a fallacy. Paul does not abandon the law. What he says is that the law alone will not save and its fine to follow it but that alone is not enough as there is a new dispensation under Christ where faith is required. This is all Paul does and you cannot understand that…Furthermore rather than abandoning the law Christ is the fulfillment of the law.

** Whether he did or not is immaterial. When he said that law was a curse, that was good bye to the law of Moses.a.s.**

I have already explained to you 3 times what the curse of the law is and you refuse to understand but perhaps you are incapable of understanding.

Jesus never said that. Why Paul became a new law maker?

Jesus said Mark 7:18-19 18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. "Don’t you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him ‘unclean’? 19 For it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body. 20 for it is what comes out of a person that defiles 21for it is from within the human heart that evil intentions come: fornication theft and murder”

Its coming from Jesus not Paul. Jesus cancels the dietary laws and this is supported by both Peter and Paul. There is no disparity between them.

.

**Again wrong way to support some one who abondoned the law. Paul said “You will be saved by faith alone.” He said “Law was a curse.” Paul was teaching soemthing quite different to what jesus had been doing. Paul brought about many changes in the way Jesus and his friends were living.

If Paul did not do that then tell me who did all the changes. Who taught such things that you are free from any law. It was paul and not Jesus**.

Paul is teaching the same thing as Jesus that is what you cannot understand as you have ben poisoned against Paul. Jesus’ own brother writes the same thing as Paul about the law. James 2:10 - For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Paul said you will saved by faith alone yes . are you blind? I have already explained to you the curse of the law is following by your own power and failing because you cant keep it good enough

**Exactly. Jesus never meant to abondon the law. He said that he had come to fulfil the law. That doe snot mean abondon the law of Moses. Law can never be fulfilled by getting rid of it.
In other words, Jesus said that every one had to follow the law. if any one did not do it,he/she will have to answer for it.

Jesus words are all in favor of keeping the same law. But some one (Paul) has taught to get rid of that law. there are many non-Muslim highly educated persons who are blaming Paul for doing the damage.**

Matthew 5:17-18 “Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets but to fulfill. For verily I say to you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law,** till all be fulfilled.”**

What was to be fulfilled Jesus being crucified on the cross which is where grace originates. Jesus was the fulfillment of the law

Here is a quote from answering-islam.org/Responses/Al-Kadhi/r01.2.0.html i suggest you read it because it refutes everything you have said so far.

“According to the Christian scriptures there were two covenants: a) the law of Moses (made up of legal or moral laws as well as ceremonial or ritual laws), and b**) the new covenant, which came through Jesus Christ**. What Paul is referring to when he says the old law is abolished, are the ceremonial and ritualistic laws which were for the Jews alone (Colossians 2:13-15). No Syrian or Arab or any other gentile was commanded to keep these laws. Only the Jews were, as it made them distinct from all other people, as the chosen of God. What Paul was abolishing were these ceremonial laws which excluded the gentiles from being the people of God. The moral law still holds. Yet, one can be forgiven if they contravene this law, providing they repent.
Paul and Jesus are therefore not contradicting one another. In fact Jesus was establishing the Moral law in Matthew 5:17. One needs to continue reading from verse 21 (and following) to see that He then goes on to delineate what those moral laws are.
Jesus taught that the law would hold good until it had been fulfilled. Jesus himself fulfilled the law. He showed the teachers of the law what the law really wanted. He was everything that the law dreamed of. He was without sin. Notice how he says, “you have heard it said in the law, but I say…” He is aware that he is the end of the law. After him there is no more use for the Mosaic ceremonial law, but while he was alive he constantly referred to the stringent requirements of the law. The law was quite specifically a relationship between the Jews and God. It begins by saying, “I am the Lord who delivered you out of the land of Egypt.” No others but the Jews were delivered out of Egypt. The man in Luke 18:20 was a Jew who was under the law. For those who have a problem with this interpretation we need to ask whether there is any occasion which they can find where Jesus requires a gentile to keep the law? The answer is none. He sets his own commandments up as the standard for his disciples whether they are Jew or Gentile, but the law itself has no endurance beyond him. “

Now do you understand?

 

[DeusVult09]

I am not going into that whether Jesus really died on the Cross or he fainted on the Cross. That is your business. We Muslims do not believe that Jesus died on the Cross. That was not the way to fulfil the law of Moses by dying on the Cross.

Jesus claimed to be the fulfillment of the law. Christians believe he was god in the flesh and he was crucified for mankind’s sin because god did this sacrificing his son for the sins of mankind the law has been fulfilled and people are now under grace. Both Paul and Jesus were right no damage has been done whatsoever.

**You are misled. Did I say that faith is not needed?. I tell you that faith is the first step in any religion. Paul did not teach anything special in that matter. Every religion needs the faith first. Also nobody acts on the faith. Every one acts on some article of law.

But Paul misled every one when he stopped at the faith only. That was wrong. By doing away with the law paul practically did away with any good work. When there is no law and previous law was a curse, then there is nothing to do; nothing to follow. can’t you see, please**.

No you are the one who has been misled and misinformed about Paul. You can follow the law without faith. Faith is not required to follow the law but nobody can keep it perfectly or up to the standards of god. This is what Paul is talking about the law by itself is not enough. If Jewish Christians still want to follow the law he sees no problem with it but that alone will not save anyone. This is the major difference between Christianity and Islam the concept of grace. In Islam you have to follow Allah’s (Mohammad’s) laws about praying 5 times a day, fasting, performing hajj if you have the money etc. There are even angels on your shoulders recording every Muslim’s good and bad deeds. Be a good Muslim and do all this and you may
get into heaven. Though Mohamamd himself didn’t even know if he was getting into heaven

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 266:
Narrated 'Um al-'Ala:
… By Allah, though I am the Apostle of Allah, yet I do not know what Allah will do to me," By Allah, I will never assert the piety of anyone after him

In Islam there is no such grace unlike Christianity just blind obedience to the law. Grace is the main difference as the law saves nobody but is a system for moral living.In chrisitnaity works alone will not save you.

This grace is not coming just from Paul but from Jesus himself said in Matthew 26:28. In this passage he says, while offering the disciples the cup representing his blood that, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins,

" In luke 18:18-30 Jesus encounters a man who that he kept the law perfectly and Jesus tells him this is not enough. Jesus in his own words says that all that is required is faith or belief

John 3:14
“14Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life”

everyone who believes not everyone who follows the law. the law will not save you only faith will this the message of Paul and Jesus. There is no disparity between them what so ever. You are prejudiced against Paul but you have failed to prove that he has done 1 thing wrong . only thing you have proved is how badly informed you are whilst I have proved that Mohammad is a rapist, pedophile, mass murderer, polygamist etc who was really the anti-Christ? It’s Mohammad not Paul. Anti-Christ means in place of Christ not against Christ. Did Paul ever try to put himself in Christ’s place? No he called himself a slave of Christ and never did any such thing. And if you think he did provide a verse proving it.

Mohammad on the other hand replaced Jesus with his deity Allah who was to be worshiped in place of Christ as Mohammad said Jesus was just a man. So to me Mohammad is the antichrist not Paul. Paul preserved Jesus’ message not altered it. Your ideas about paul are very misinformed and have been refuted.

Christ himself amends parts of the law when he says in Mathew 5:21 “Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire”

In mathew 3:38

“You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”. But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also”

These verses prove the that as well as the dietary law Christ amends other parts of the law. Christ is the fulfillment of the law and Christ amends the law. Paul has nothing to do with this all paul does is say the Jewish laws no longer apply for gentile converts but says its ok for Jews still to follow it. It is impossible for Paul to have abolished the law because it had already been fulfilled and ended by Christ.

Another example of Christ amending the law is Jesus healing on the Sabbath. Mark 3:1-6

"1Another time he went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. 2Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath. 3Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, “Stand up in front of everyone.”
4Then Jesus asked them, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?" But they remained silent.
5He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored. 6Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus”

 

[franki_rulz]

franki, I know more about Guru Nanak than you. he was originally a Hindu. He was a saint and Unitarian. He did not worship idols. He converted to islam and performed Hajj (twice?). He prayed and told babur that his children will rule India for seven (7) generations. His followers are nowadays called SIKHS. When Guru Nanak died there was tussle between Hindus and Muslims whether he should be burnt or buried… I hope you will try to see some rela history of that honest good man.

**********!! Thats another one of your islamic ****.You guys are so good at distorting history…!!!

Guru Nanak was born a hindu. Guru Nanak Dev Jee was born Bedi Khatri family (a prominent Hindu community of Punjab). His father, Mehta Kalyan Das Bedi, was the patwari (accountant) of crop revenue for the village of Talwandi in the employment of a Muslim landlord of that area.Guru Nanak’s mother was Tripta Devi.
After he founded sikhism, he made journeys across india and the middle east, his final tour was towards Baghdad, Mecca and Medina.At Mecca, Guru Nanak was found sleeping with his feet towards the Kaaba. Kazi Rukan-ud-din, who observed this, angrily objected. Guru Nanak replied with a request to turn his feet in a direction in which God or the House of God is not." The Qadi took hold of the Guru’s feet. Then he lifted his eyes seeing the Kaaba standing in the direction of the Guru’s feet, wherever he turned them. The Qadi was struck with wonder. He then recognised the glory of Guru Nanak.

Guru nanak wrote poems about babur, true, however when he came to know babar has massacared thousands of hindus,he wrote poems about the bloodshed created by him…

btw, I am an Indian, my would be wife is a Sikh,Let me assure you my friend, my knowledge of Sikhism is slightly better than yours **

What I call pagan history is the prejudiced writings of the Hindu writers. They blamed some Muslim kings and praised the other Muslim kings. That has no value.

have told you that those Hindu historians were prejudiced against any work of the Muslims even though the Msulim let them live happily in the kingdom. But they kept on revolting and there were tussles at times. that is nobody’ business to discuss here

**… n that is why my friend,I posted the names of the works of the mughals emperors.The’ve themselves written it in their books about the hindus their killed. Go back to my posts and try to get your hands on some of those books…or do you dispute whats written in those books also?
I’ve also posted the names of some books written by Europeans historians
And the hindu historians that I’ve mentioned are present day historians, not the ones who lived during the reigns of the mughals.

N yes, Ive minored in Indian history so Ive learnt a little more of reliable Indian history that you have by googling

n lastly posting in bold and colors DOESNT change history…!**

God bless,
Franklin

 

[DeusVult09]

**********!! Thats another one of your islamic ****.You guys are so good at distorting history…!!!

Guru Nanak was born a hindu. Guru Nanak Dev Jee was born Bedi Khatri family (a prominent Hindu community of Punjab). His father, Mehta Kalyan Das Bedi, was the patwari (accountant) of crop revenue for the village of Talwandi in the employment of a Muslim landlord of that area.Guru Nanak’s mother was Tripta Devi.
After he founded sikhism, he made journeys across india and the middle east, his final tour was towards Baghdad, Mecca and Medina.At Mecca, Guru Nanak was found sleeping with his feet towards the Kaaba. Kazi Rukan-ud-din, who observed this, angrily objected. Guru Nanak replied with a request to turn his feet in a direction in which God or the House of God is not." The Qadi took hold of the Guru’s feet. Then he lifted his eyes seeing the Kaaba standing in the direction of the Guru’s feet, wherever he turned them. The Qadi was struck with wonder. He then recognised the glory of Guru Nanak.

Guru nanak wrote poems about babur, true, however when he came to know babar has massacared thousands of hindus,he wrote poems about the bloodshed created by him…

btw, I am an Indian, my would be wife is a Sikh,Let me assure you my friend, my knowledge of Sikhism is slightly better than yours **

**… n that is why my friend,I posted the names of the works of the mughals emperors.The’ve themselves written it in their books about the hindus their killed. Go back to my posts and try to get your hands on some of those books…or do you dispute whats written in those books also?
I’ve also posted the names of some books written by Europeans historians
And the hindu historians that I’ve mentioned are present day historians, not the ones who lived during the reigns of the mughals.

N yes, Ive minored in Indian history so Ive learnt a little more of reliable Indian history that you have by googling

n lastly posting in bold and colors DOESNT change history…!**

God bless,
Franklin

thanks for exposing the truth. I don’t know if planteen is a liar or just misinformed but he often comes up many biased versions of Islamic history which are just wrong and have no evidence to back them up like when he said that the Byzantine empire invaded Arabia and that the Muslim invasion of their lands was all in self defense. You can see the type of mind you are dealing with, somebody who will believe something that ahistorical. He cant even tell me then name of this battle undertaken by the Byzantines when they invade Arabia or where or when it happened. Its all taqiyah from my experience Muslims will rather believe any lie about history rather than admit the truth

 

[birdsong]

Dear “world-class scholar”, you really don’t get it, do you? Again, your arguments are so easy to debunk it’s really amusing that you fancy yourself as a serious researcher.

I’ll proceed to shred to pieces your latest nonsense. First of all, I am not defending any misdeed by the Catholic Church and/or individual Christians, whether they justified with scripture or not. If you can unmistakeably demonstrate that I have done so, show it to me, and I’ll withdraw that particular comment. So that does it for your silly “you make my point” remark.

Now, let us suppose for a moment that all what you said about the Catholic Church and/or mainstream Christian denominations justifying their misdeeds with scripture is true. Let us suppose that for once in your life you are correct. My question to you is:

SO WHAT?

Are you really proposing that just because the church and/or mainstream Christian denominations in the past encouraged horrible acts that they (allegedly) justified with the bible, we are supposed to sit by idle and not denounce/fight the jihadists?

Are you really serious?

The thing is, in case you haven’t noticed, it’s really been a while since mainstream Christian denominations stopped interpreting the bible/traditions in a way that encouraged and promoted crimes against innocents. In other words, even if the Catholic Church and/or other mainstream Christian denominations, as you allege, ever taught and encouraged criminal behaviour, they obviously went through a very profound transformation that resulted in reformed teachings and doctrines that repudiate violence against innocents. On the other hand, the criminal behaviour by Jihadists is still being encouraged by the canonised teachings of the mainstream muslim denominations.

But let us be more specific: you probably ignore it, but ALL schools of sunni jurisprudence, to this date, still teach that apostates of Islam should be put to death.

I challenge you to show me a similar teaching in the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Now, even if in the past the Catholic Church taught that heretics should be put to death, it is evident that those doctrines were dropped a long time ago.

Many Muslims who turn to Christianity are harassed and threatened daily by other Muslims who want to kill them. Are we supposed to say and do nothing just because (allegedly) the Catholic Church once encouraged similar behaviours?

Again, where did you learn that kind of asinine reasoning?

And you are supposed to be a world-class scholar? Forgive me if I am not impressed by the calibre of your “arguments”

When you use the word “might” you make my point for me. It’s not just about what Christians did in the past. It’s about the fact that you are willing to defend these horrific actions today while condemning Muslims for having done similar things.

Quite simple. Christians who acted intolerantly were basing their actions on Scripture and Tradition, just as the jihadists base their actions on Qur’an and Sunnah.

No, shame on those Christians who set up a double standard in their own behalf and foolishly claim that Christians who have acted violently did so without any basis in the teachings of Scripture and Tradition.

Edwin

 

[MarchOfThePigs]

I wonder why are you Catholics and Muslims fighting amongst yourselves? The OP has long since stopped posting if he wants to be a Muslim or not.

Are you battling for his soul, another member to add to your roster of billions? Or are you staying faithful to what your salesmen founders told you go out and sell my beliefs to everyone you can, first to a 100 converts gets a Cadillac, second place gets a set of steak knives, third place you go to hell.

What a waste of effort and energy bickering back and forth, I used to care about this God and that God, this religion is the true religion, no it isn’t because this book written by a total stanger said this, and so on and so on.

What do you accomplish at the end? Does your god send you a check in the mail every month for doing his “work” here on earth? Or do you get imaginary blessings.

Wasted labor, that is what religion and worthless debating such as yours lead to. Put your efforts into something productive, use your energy and talents in this capatilistic market and sell yourselves not Jesus or Allah, make people believe in you and invest in you not in a god they can’t see or empty words from your holy books.

 

[birdsong]

I would propose that in cases in which people are caught in clear and unmistakeable lies or outrageous disinformation, they should be banned from the forum, as no reasonable and productive discussion can be had with such liars and fools.

Case in point:

Planten says: Byzantines invaded the Arabic peninsula, and this prompted the muslims to wage war against them in self-defence.

People ask Planten: Give us the date and name of the battle in which the Byzantynes invaded Arabia.

Planten replies: . …

thanks for exposing the truth. I don’t know if planteen is a liar or just misinformed but he often comes up many biased versions of Islamic history which are just wrong and have no evidence to back them up like when he said that the Byzantine empire invaded Arabia and that the Muslim invasion of their lands was all in self defense. You can see the type of mind you are dealing with, somebody who will believe something that ahistorical. He cant even tell me then name of this battle undertaken by the Byzantines when they invade Arabia or where or when it happened. Its all taqiyah from my experience Muslims will rather believe any lie about history rather than admit the truth

 

[franki_rulz]

thanks for exposing the truth. I don’t know if planteen is a liar or just misinformed but he often comes up many biased versions of Islamic history which are just wrong and have no evidence to back them up like when he said that the Byzantine empire invaded Arabia and that the Muslim invasion of their lands was all in self defense. You can see the type of mind you are dealing with, somebody who will believe something that ahistorical. He cant even tell me then name of this battle undertaken by the Byzantines when they invade Arabia or where or when it happened. Its all taqiyah from my experience Muslims will rather believe any lie about history rather than admit the truth

That doesnt surprise me. Muslims the world over are fed stories how about peacefully their religion spread right from childhood. They are programmed to think that the religion spread by peace.
I have come across a lot of Indian muslims who want us to believe what they think is right but when confronted with the truth… they either justify it or do the dissapearing act

 

[DeusVult09]

I would propose that in cases in which people are caught in clear and unmistakeable lies or outrageous disinformation, they should be banned from the forum, as no reasonable and productive discussion can be had with such liars and fools.

Case in point:

Planten says: Byzantines invaded the Arabic peninsula, and this prompted the muslims to wage war against them in self-defence.

People ask Planten: Give us the date and name of the battle in which the Byzantynes invaded Arabia.

Planten replies: . …

Yes I agree people should not be allowed to spread such blatant lies sand misinformation here. Planteen spreads the same lies over and over again. As you and I have both observed he never brings any proof to back up his assertions. Like I was debating with him about the apostle Paul. He said that the apostle Paul was a false prophet and invented Christianity. I asked him for some proof to back this up, I asked him for one quote from the Pauline epistles where Paul indicates any such thing. What did I get ? nothing! then he started ranting on about “Paul getting rid of the law” and Paul saying it is a curse when Jesus approved of the law” .

I said to him that the curse of the law is not the law itself but trying to gain salvation through the law by your own power or without faith and failing. This is what the curse of the law is. Planteen fails to realize that Jesus fulfilled the law and himself amended it when he talks about divorce, uncosher food not making you unclean, not following “an eye for an eye” and when Christ discusses thou shalt not kill he says that to be angry with your brother is to kill him. It is clear that Christ is amending the law because we are under a new dispensation and because the law was only ever meant for Jews as it was part of God’s covenant with Israel. What did he reply to all this evidence tearing his argument to shreds? nothing!

I agree with you planteen should be banned for making all these lies against the catholic faith and never having the proof to back them up and when you expose his lies and misinformation he makes himself scarce. Planteen is a hypocrite he accuses me of spreading lies against Islam when everything I have said about Islam is backed up by facts and solid evidence which I cite for him and he cant answer it. but when he says anything against the catholic faith and never produce any.

And some of the stuff he says is so stupid its funny like when he told me that the song of Solomon is about Mohammad (don’t laugh) .It seems as if everything planteen knows about Christianity is stuff he read on anti-chrisitan websites or something.

CAF is meant for Catholics to discuss issues but non-Catholics are welcomed as long as they respect the catholic faith and do not proselytize. Planteen is guilty of breaking both of these rules. We don’t need such ignorant people spreading their mis-informed lies on here.

 

[franki_rulz]

I would propose that in cases in which people are caught in clear and unmistakeable lies or outrageous disinformation, they should be banned from the forum, as no reasonable and productive discussion can be had with such liars and fools.

Case in point:

Planten says: Byzantines invaded the Arabic peninsula, and this prompted the muslims to wage war against them in self-defence.

People ask Planten: Give us the date and name of the battle in which the Byzantynes invaded Arabia.

Planten replies: . …

I wouldnt agree more, what had me surprised was his statement about guru nanak being born a muslim…!

Sikhs are quite secular and tolerant people, however they are not very fond of the muslims coz the muslims destroyed their holiest site, the golden temple and have over the course of centuries tortured and murdered thousands of sikhs…the reasons sikhs took up arms and went on to become one of the most powerful armies in pre-british India was precisely this reason: to take on the barbaric muslims…

had planteen made that statement in front of a sikh. he would have had it… that amounts to blasphemy…

As the sikhs say: wahe guruji da khalsa, wahe guruji di fateh…

 

[sedonaman]

…
And some of the stuff he says is so stupid its funny like when he told me that the song of Solomon is about Mohammad (don’t laugh) .

That’s why I think he’s entertaining.

We don’t need such ignorant people spreading their mis-informed lies on here.

Yes, we do. Everyone knows they are lies, so that makes him an embarrassment to Islam.

 

[franki_rulz]

Yes I agree people should not be allowed to spread such blatant lies sand misinformation here. Planteen spreads the same lies over and over again. As you and I have both observed he never brings any proof to back up his assertions. Like I was debating with him about the apostle Paul. He said that the apostle Paul was a false prophet and invented Christianity. I asked him for some proof to back this up, I asked him for one quote from the Pauline epistles where Paul indicates any such thing. What did I get ? nothing! then he started ranting on about “Paul getting rid of the law” and Paul saying it is a curse when Jesus approved of the law” .

I said to him that the curse of the law is not the law itself but trying to gain salvation through the law by your own power or without faith and failing. This is what the curse of the law is. Planteen fails to realize that Jesus fulfilled the law and himself amended it when he talks about divorce, uncosher food not making you unclean, not following “an eye for an eye” and when Christ discusses thou shalt not kill he says that to be angry with your brother is to kill him. It is clear that Christ is amending the law because we are under a new dispensation and because the law was only ever meant for Jews as it was part of God’s covenant with Israel. What did he reply to all this evidence tearing his argument to shreds? nothing!

I agree with you planteen should be banned for making all these lies against the catholic faith and never having the proof to back them up and when you expose his lies and misinformation he makes himself scarce. Planteen is a hypocrite he accuses me of spreading lies against Islam when everything I have said about Islam is backed up by facts and solid evidence which I cite for him and he cant answer it. but when he says anything against the catholic faith and never produce any.

And some of the stuff he says is so stupid its funny like when he told me that the song of Solomon is about Mohammad (don’t laugh) .It seems as if everything planteen knows about Christianity is stuff he read on anti-chrisitan websites or something.

CAF is meant for Catholics to discuss issues but non-Catholics are welcomed as long as they respect the catholic faith and do not proselytize. Planteen is guilty of breaking both of these rules. We don’t need such ignorant people spreading their mis-informed lies on here.

An ex muslim-now-atheist muslim friend of mine told me what happens in the mosque:
As kids muslims are forced to go to the mosque are rattle the koran in arabic, altough they dont understand a word of it. The mullah or maulvis are generally uneducated people who cannot read or write anything other that arabic…their knowledge of the world is a zilch…

there are are fed with ****** stories that glorify islam and make a mockery about other religions.those kids grow up with a sense of "my islam is the best, mohammed was a so holy that he couldnt even fart…! (excuse my language her, but that is what, as a kid my friend was told by a maulvi).

they grow up learing that bible is corrupt, the jews must be eliminated and Isreal reclaimed, the hindus,sikhs and buddhists are pagans.the best way to spread islam is to blow urself you in Jihad or marry a non muslim girl and convert her to allahs religion and make sure u have 3 other wives so that the muslim population grows 4 times the national average…

 

[sedonaman]

…what had me surprised was his statement about guru nanak being born a muslim…!
…

They believe everyone was born a Muslim. One of their lines is “Welcome back to Islam … One never converts to Islam, but only returns to his or her original nature.” I think this is designed to lend support to their idea that Islam was the original religion revealed to the Old Testament prophets and that it “got corrupted” along the way, thus somehow verifying Islam.

 

[Contarini]

Dear “world-class scholar”,

Since I have never claimed to be a “world-class scholar,” your sarcastic use of this phrase does nothing but discredit yourself. If your arguments are so good and mine are so bad, why do you need to defame and misrepresent me (by implying that I’ve made claims I haven’t made) in order to get your point across? Why not just talk about the issues?

For the record, I have a Ph.D. in religion from Duke University, but my field is the history of Christianity and not Islam. I teach a course in world religions at a small Christian college and thus strive to inform myself as deeply as possible on the subject, but I am open to correction. However, misrepresentation and mockery are not the kind of correction I am looking for.

I’ll proceed to shred to pieces your latest nonsense. First of all, I am not defending any misdeed by the Catholic Church and/or individual Christians, whether they justified with scripture or not.

Good to hear. But you seem a little uncertain as to whether any misdeeds actually occurred. And that puts you closer to planten’s naive triumphalism than you ought to be comfortable with. The historical record is pretty clear that Christians *have *done nasty things in the name of their faith, and when you use the word “might” you are weaseling on that point in a way that does you no credit. Of course people often exaggerate and distort the record in order to make Christians (or Muslims, for that matter) seem worse than they are. I understand that you don’t want to imply that you accept just any accusation someone might make about Christian misdeeds. I con’t accept all such accusations either.

Now, let us suppose for a moment that all what you said about the Catholic Church and/or mainstream Christian denominations justifying their misdeeds with scripture is true. Let us suppose that for once in your life you are correct. My question to you is:

SO WHAT?

Then the claim that Muslim misdeeds automatically discredit Islam–even misdeeds that can legitimately claim support in Islamic scripture and tradition–automatically becomes an illegitimate claim for a Christian to make.

Are you really proposing that just because the church and/or mainstream Christian denominations in the past encouraged horrible acts that they (allegedly) justified with the bible, we are supposed to sit by idle and not denounce/fight the jihadists?

Of course not. Nothing that I have said remotely implies this, and the fact that you read this into my posts does not speak well of your interest in serious discussion of the issues.

Are you really serious?

Of course I am not serious in saying the silly things that you attribute to me. Nor am I joking. I haven’t said those things at all. You, apparently, do appear to be serious in attributing those things to me. I regret this, because I would really like to have a reasonable discussion with you, and you aren’t making it easy.

The thing is, in case you haven’t noticed, it’s really been a while since mainstream Christian denominations stopped interpreting the bible/traditions in a way that encouraged and promoted crimes against innocents.

Depends on what you mean by “a while,” and depends on what you mean by “mainstream.” Both are vague terms. And we can also argue over who is “innocent.” But a number of European Christians (both Protestant and Catholic) interpreted Christianity in the mid-20th century in a manner that allowed them to turn a blind eye to (or even to a certain extent to support) the crimes commited by the Nazis and other fascist regimes (in Spain, Italy, and Croatia in particular). Christians in Northern Ireland quite recently interpreted Christianity in such a manner as to justify sectarian violence and discrimination (and a minority continue to do so to some extent). Christians in Africa have in quite recent years interpreted Christianity as justifying religious or ethnic violence and even (in the case of Rwanda) genocide. Christians in Latin America have justified death squads on the grounds that they were needed to suppress godless communism, and many American Christians have justified support for regimes employing death squads (or right-wing rebels committing atrocities) on the same grounds. A prominent right-wing American pundit who defines herself as a Christian (although she belongs to no denomination) famously called for carpet bombing and forced conversion of Muslims as a response to 9/11, and many devout Christians on this forum have defended or excused her for doing so. And lest you think I’m just picking on the Christian right, a number of left-wing Christians (particularly a few decades ago) have justified revolutionary and anti-colonial violence as part of establishing God’s justice in the earth. The list could go on and on.

I know that you will dispute or ridicule some or all of the examples I’ve given. And I certainly don’t deny that Christianity has done a much better job than Islam in recent years in refuting, marginalizing, and condemning those who misuse Christianity to support violence, and has (as you say) moved very decisively in the direction of tolerance and nonviolence (absolute pacifism in some cases, and more often a highly limited understanding of when force may be necessary in self-defense). That’s a wonderful thing, and obviously I believe that the Holy Spirit is behind this change and that it speaks well of Christianity that our tradition has the resources to support such a change.

In other words, even if the Catholic Church and/or other mainstream Christian denominations, as you allege, ever taught and encouraged criminal behaviour,

If by “criminal” you mean “seriously wrong,” then yes, I do allege this. Why do you cast doubt on it? Do you think it is OK to execute people for heresy? Or do you deny that this happened?
Also let me point out that I am not *only *speaking of official teaching. I am also speaking of practices which may or may not have been officially taught, but which clearly flowed to some measure from Christian attitudes and beliefs and were not simply examples of humans behaving badly in clear opposition to Christian teaching.