Islam 101 For Christians

[pro_universal]

1. I have studied logic at University and it was an integral part of my job in one of my earlier careers.

So have I. Great, now that we know we’re both competent to understand each other’s analysis, I’d like to see your “logical argument” for how “partial truth is not the truth.”

1. There is a difference between your imagination of the true God versus your imagination of someone else’s demented imagination of the true God.

Well, according to you, having the wrong idea about God means you don’t worship that God at all. The fact is, none of us knows “the true God” accurately if Christianity, Judaism, or Islam are correct…and so by your analysis, none of these three actually worship God.

If it’s possible to be wrong about the details but still worship the one God, then you’re going to have to revise your argument, because that paragraph you posted relies on this claim.

If you want to imagine something please use as your model something that is true, not something that is false.

How convenient, but terribly illogical given what you just posted. This is not a claim that you can derive from the argument that being wrong about God means you worship a different God (which is exactly what you said).

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

pro:

Rodrigo:

1. I have studied logic at University and it was an integral part of my job in one of my earlier careers.

So have I. Great, now that we know we’re both competent to understand each other’s analysis, I’d like to see your “logical argument” for how “partial truth is not the truth.”

I don’t think you paid any attention during your lectures since you engage in the most basic of all logical fallacies: the ad hominem, the tu quoque, and the ad verecundiam.

Perhaps if you desist from conducting your discussion using logical fallacies I might think you’re a worthy opponent.

As for the second sentence: I have already answered that – with reference to what Thomas Aquinas actually meant. Please don’t compound your mistakes with miscomprehension.

pro:

Rodrigo:

1. There is a difference between your imagination of the true God versus your imagination of someone else’s demented imagination of the true God.

Well, according to you, having the wrong idea about God means you don’t worship that God at all. The fact is, none of us knows “the true God” accurately if Christianity, Judaism, or Islam are correct…and so by your analysis, none of these three actually worship God.

If it’s possible to be wrong about the details but still worship the one God, then you’re going to have to revise your argument, because that paragraph you posted relies on this claim.

You certainly misunderstand me: let us say, there is a true God which is by definition the Truth (with a capital T).

Adherents of this T (with a capital T) interpret this – thereby introducing a first order error – this is a partial truth according to some theologians (I think maybe also Thomas Aquinas) since nobody can fully know God (with a capital T).

However, but Muslims by believing Muhammad is actually introducing a SECOND order error – since his first order error in his demented imagination of the Capital T is wild and off the mark.

One could say this second order error is very wide indeed.

Christians can always point to their committing only a first order error since they can go back to their true theological sources. On the other hand, Muslims are only capable of a gross second-order error since they had no chance whatsoever of receiving their Truth (with a capital T) from the primary source but from Muhammad’s demented imaginations.

pro:

Rodrigo:

If you want to imagine something please use as your model something that is true, not something that is false.

How convenient, but terribly illogical given what you just posted. This is not a claim that you can derive from the argument that being wrong about God means you worship a different God (which is exactly what you said).

Please make some sense. Writing in English rather than gobbledygood might help.

 

[pro_universal]

I don’t think you paid any attention during your lectures since you engage in the most basic of all logical fallacies: the ad hominem, the tu quoque, and the ad verecundiam.

The funniest part about this is that you learn those on the internet or in high school debate. It’s totally irrelevant to what you learn in a university level logic course.

Perhaps if you desist from conducting your discussion using logical fallacies I might think you’re a worthy opponent.

Can I please see your “logical argument” for this point.

As for the second sentence: I have already answered that – with reference to what Thomas Aquinas actually meant. Please don’t compound your mistakes with miscomprehension.

Okay, how did you figure out what “Aquinas really meant” without reading his work? If you read his work, kindly provide me with the source material.

You certainly misunderstand me: let us say, there is a true God which is by definition the Truth (with a capital T).

Adherents of this T (with a capital T) interpret this – thereby introducing a first order error – this is a partial truth according to some theologians (I think maybe also Thomas Aquinas) since nobody can fully know God (with a capital T).

However, but Muslims by believing Muhammad is actually introducing a SECOND order error – since his first order error in his demented imagination of the Capital T is wild and off the mark.

Okay, first off: The above is not a logical argument. It’s a series of discrete claims about religion, neither of which follows from the other, and both of which seem to appear out of thin air. I could just as easily say “Christians are in second order error, because they interpret according to Jewish scriptures.”

But the fact remains that this is not a logical argument. There is no conclusion that follows from the premises, and the premises don’t seem to follow from one another.

Christians can always point to their committing only a first order error since they can go back to their true theological sources. On the other hand, Muslims are only capable of a gross second-order error since they had no chance whatsoever of receiving their Truth (with a capital T) from the primary source but from Muhammad’s demented imaginations.

This is a third discrete claim, and it seems to be simply a combination of the first two. No conclusion, no operators, no rules of inference…just restatement.

A series of evaluative statements by Rodrigo on the soundness of particular theologies is not a logical argument. I have no idea how you convinced yourself that “studied logic at a University”, because you clearly did not do the coursework.

If you’re having trouble understanding my writing, we can do this in spanish instead. I’m not sure if English is your first language.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

The funniest part about this is that you learn those on the internet or in high school debate. It’s totally irrelevant to what you learn in a university level logic course.

Well, those are the basics of logical reasoning, pro. I did do a semester in logical reasoning as part of my philosophy of science degree as an adjunct to my PhD.

pro:

Can I please see your “logical argument” for this point.

What is there I can say except your propensity to slime is an apt indicator of your knowledge of logical reasoning? If you had studied logic at university you would know that ad hominems, tu quoques and ad verecundiams are probably the worst forms of arguments there are.

Perhaps you might want to consult your textbooks again.

pro:

Okay, how did you figure out what “Aquinas really meant” without reading his work? If you read his work, kindly provide me with the source material.

That is what I think. I do not claim to be an expert of the works of Thomas Aquinas and would like to confine my discussion with Gnosis.

pro:

Okay, first off: The above is not a logical argument. It’s a series of discrete claims about religion, neither of which follows from the other, and both of which seem to appear out of thin air. I could just as easily say “Christians are in second order error, because they interpret according to Jewish scriptures.”

But the fact remains that this is not a logical argument. There is no conclusion that follows from the premises, and the premises don’t seem to follow from one another.

Did I claim to make a syllogism? No. I was merely making a reasoning.

If you cannot see what I mean, what can I say? I’m sure others can.

pro:

This is a third discrete claim, and it seems to be simply a combination of the first two. No conclusion, no operators, no rules of inference…just restatement.

What is wrong with what I said? Muslims don’t get their knowledge of the God of Abraham from the primary sources but from Muhammad - hence he could at best represent a secondary source - and one I have shown time and again to be flawed.

pro:

A series of evaluative statements by Rodrigo on the soundness of particular theologies is not a logical argument. I have no idea how you convinced yourself that “studied logic at a University”, because you clearly did not do the coursework.

As opposed to your continued sliming? Is ‘sliming’ a pre-requisite course at Tehran University?

pro:

If you’re having trouble understanding my writing, we can do this in spanish instead. I’m not sure if English is your first language.

Perhaps if you wrote in English people might understand you. Please rephrase so I can reply. More of your harping does not progress the discussion (using the term in the loosest possible manner).

 

[pro_universal]

Well, those are the basics of logical reasoning, pro. I did do a semester in logical reasoning as part of my philosophy of science degree as an adjunct to my PhD.

Demand a refund immediately. You were cheated if this is what you learned for “logical reasoning.” And if you got through a Philosophy of Science PhD without doing symbolic or modal logic (which is obvious-you didn’t), you’d better be prepared to explain that to potential employers…they’re going to think you got an online degree.

I learned Philosophy of Science (for a semester) from Rom Harre. Did you come across any of his work during your PhD? You should have.

What is there I can say except your propensity to slime is an apt indicator of your knowledge of logical reasoning? If you had studied logic at university you would know that ad hominems, tu quoques and ad verecundiams are probably the worst forms of arguments there are.

There’s no slime. I asked you for your logical argument. You didn’t provide one. In fact, what you did is contradict yourself. let me provide an example:

Rodrigo:

From a logical point of view a partial truth is not the truth and thus a falsity

Okay, from this we can conclude:

If it’s partial truth, then it’s falsity (ie, not Truth)

But then you said:

Rodrigo:

Adherents of this T (with a capital T) interpret this – thereby introducing a first order error –** this is a partial truth **according to some theologians (I think maybe also Thomas Aquinas)

So by your logic, Christian theology is “falsity”, but you claim it’s “Truth with a capital T.” I’m shocked…for all this education in logical reasoning, you provided us with a pretty obvious and easy to spot contradiction. I mean it’s not even hidden by identifications or conditionals.

That is what I think. I do not claim to be an expert of the works of Thomas Aquinas and would like to confine my discussion with Gnosis.

In other words, you comment on works you haven’t read as if you know what they say.

Did I claim to make a syllogism? No. I was merely making a reasoning.

Who’s asking for a syllogism? Huh? Where’d that come from?

What is wrong with what I said? Muslims don’t get their knowledge of the God of Abraham from the primary sources but from Muhammad - hence he could at best represent a secondary source - and one I have shown time and again to be flawed.

See contradiction above. You claimed that partial truth is falsity. Then you said that Christian theology is a “FIRST ORDER” partial truth. That means it’s falsity, just like Islam, right?

Perhaps if you wrote in English people might understand you. Please rephrase so I can reply. More of your harping does not progress the discussion (using the term in the loosest possible manner).

It was grammatical english. I’m sorry if you have trouble reading it, but it’s there for you to read nonetheless.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Demand a refund immediately. You were cheated if this is what you learned for “logical reasoning.” And if you got through a Philosophy of Science PhD without doing symbolic or modal logic (which is obvious-you didn’t), you’d better be prepared to explain that to potential employers…they’re going to think you got an online degree.

I learned Philosophy of Science (for a semester) from Rom Harre. Did you come across any of his work during your PhD?

Would Rom Harre approve of your using ad hominems, tu quoque and ad verecundia in arguments? I don’t know about you but I can see you’ve been short changed.

BTW: when did Rom Harre teach at Tehran University?

pro:

There’s no slime. I asked you for your logical argument. You didn’t provide one. In fact, what you did is contradict yourself. let me provide an example:

Okay, from this we can conclude:

If it’s partial truth, then it’s falsity (ie, not Truth)

But then you said:

So by your logic, Christian theology is “falsity”, but you claim it’s “Truth with a capital T.” I’m shocked…for all this education in logical reasoning, you provided us with a pretty obvious and easy to spot contradiction. I mean it’s not even hidden by identifications or conditionals.

In other words, you comment on works you haven’t read as if you know what they say.

Who’s asking for a syllogism? Huh? Where’d that come from?

If you don’t know what a syllogism is, then please google. I am not paid to educate you.

The rest of your post was a slime. You can’t help yourself, can you?

pro:

See contradiction above. You claimed that partial truth is falsity. Then you said that Christian theology is a “FIRST ORDER” partial truth. That means it’s falsity, just like Islam, right?

More of that Tehran University logic class coming to the fore, I see.

The Truth with a capital T is reserved for the primary source - I never said for once that Christians are entirely truthful in their interpretation of their scriptures since it is impossible for anyone to fully know their God.

Thus, the Truth with a capital T is reserved not for the first-order error but for the primary source - which is free of error (by definition).

I think you cannot even understand basic reasoning.

pro:

It was grammatical english. I’m sorry if you have trouble reading it, but it’s there for you to read nonetheless.

Grammar is not sense. I asked you to make some sense not construct a grammatically perfect, yet nonsensical, statement.

Please try again. And this time, be kind enough to do it right. We can only wait so long - sometime this century would be fine.

 

[pro_universal]

Would Rom Harre approve of your using ad hominems, tu quoque and ad verecundia in arguments? I don’t know about you but I can see you’ve been short changed.

If you say so. It’s obvious to me what you didn’t learn at this point, though.

If you don’t know what a syllogism is, then please google. I am not paid to educate you.

Uh, okay, you seem to have not read the question. I asked: “Who’s asking for a syllogism?” I’m not asking for one. A syllogism adds zero to “logical analysis” in this day and age. Why would I ask for something that people were using 2000 years ago when there are better tools available?

The Truth with a capital T is reserved for the primary source - I never said for once that Christians are entirely truthful in their interpretation of their scriptures since it is impossible for anyone to fully know their God.

Thus, the Truth with a capital T is reserved not for the first-order error but for the primary source - which is free of error (by definition).

I think you cannot even understand basic reasoning.

Okay, this doesn’t address the contradiction. You said: partial truth is falsity. Then you said that Christian theology is partial truth. Is “truth with a capital T” something that can be falsity?

Or was your claim that “partial truth is falsity” Wrong? Which is it?

Grammar is not sense. I asked you to make some sense not construct a grammatically perfect, yet nonsensical, statement.

Please try again. And this time, be kind enough to do it right. We can only wait so long - sometime this century would be fine.

If it doesn’t make sense, you didn’t read it.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

pro:

Rodrigo:

Would Rom Harre approve of your using ad hominems, tu quoque and ad verecundia in arguments? I don’t know about you but I can see you’ve been short changed.

If you say so. It’s obvious to me what you didn’t learn at this point, though.

At least I paid attention during lectures enough to know ad hominems and tu quoques and ad verecundia are to be avoided in scholarly discourse at all times. Pity about you, though.

Perhaps you might write to Rom Harre to ask for a refund.

pro:

Rodrigo:

If you don’t know what a syllogism is, then please google. I am not paid to educate you.

Uh, okay, you seem to have not read the question. I asked: “Who’s asking for a syllogism?” I’m not asking for one. A syllogism adds zero to “logical analysis” in this day and age. Why would I ask for something that people were using 2000 years ago when there are better tools available?

Why would a syllogism at zero to logical analysis today?

Oh… I see… they’re so much advanced in logical reasoning at Tehran University that they leap over the basics and just go towards ‘Sliming 101’ eh?

Makes sense, now.

pro:

Rodrigo:

The Truth with a capital T is reserved for the primary source - I never said for once that Christians are entirely truthful in their interpretation of their scriptures since it is impossible for anyone to fully know their God.

Thus, the Truth with a capital T is reserved not for the first-order error but for the primary source - which is free of error (by definition).

I think you cannot even understand basic reasoning.

Okay, this doesn’t address the contradiction. You said: partial truth is falsity. Then you said that Christian theology is partial truth. Is “truth with a capital T” something that can be falsity?

Or was your claim that “partial truth is falsity” Wrong? Which is it?

No. Because I never claimed the Christian’s interpretation/imagination of the God of Abraham to be 100% true. I only claim that for the God of Abraham himself.

You mistake a first-order interpretation for the primary source.

pro:

Rodrigo:

Grammar is not sense. I asked you to make some sense not construct a grammatically perfect, yet nonsensical, statement.

Please try again. And this time, be kind enough to do it right. We can only wait so long - sometime this century would be fine.

If it doesn’t make sense, you didn’t read it.

Oh… I read it all right… then I laughed.

 

[pro_universal]

At least I paid attention during lectures enough to know ad hominems and tu quoques and ad verecundia are to be avoided in scholarly discourse at all times. Pity about you, though.

Again, if this was the material of your lectures, you got ripped off. These things are irrelevant; you can tell if someone’s argument is logical or not without reference to an old list of latin termed fallacies.

Why would a syllogism at zero to logical analysis today?

Because it’s a contrived form that requires you to fit the statements into a three-part test rather than just allowing you to model the argument and apply rules of inference. It’s useless now, but it was alright 2000 years ago…kind of like how people used to burn their scalps to cure “excesses of bile;”, a good start to medicine, but there’s no point in using it now.

Oh… I see… they’re so much advanced in logical reasoning at Tehran University that they leap over the basics and just go towards ‘Sliming 101’ eh?

How Ironic. You blast me for “ad hominem” when your only retort seems to be claiming that I went to an Iranian school. I guarantee you, anyhow, that there are Iranians who understand logic better than you learned it in this “phd” program.

No. Because I never claimed the Christian’s interpretation/imagination of the God of Abraham to be 100% true. I only claim that for the God of Abraham himself.

In that case, it is falsity, right? Do you agree that the Christian interpretation of God is falsity, since, after all, if it’s not 100 percent true, “it’s falsity”? That is what you said, isn’t it?

Let me repeat what you said:
Rodrigo Bivar:

From a logical point of view a partial truth is not the truth and thus a falsity

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

pro:

Rodrigo:

At least I paid attention during lectures enough to know ad hominems and tu quoques and ad verecundia are to be avoided in scholarly discourse at all times. Pity about you, though.

Again, if this was the material of your lectures, you got ripped off. These things are irrelevant; you can tell if someone’s argument is logical or not without reference to an old list of latin termed fallacies.

How is it irrelevant? Because Rom Harre didn’t teach you the basics of logical reasoning at Tehran University?

Oh… I see… I didn’t learn “sliming 101” like you did. I admit my knowledge of the art of “sliming” is not comparable to yours.

pro:

Rodrigo:

Why would a syllogism at zero to logical analysis today?

Because it’s a contrived form that requires you to fit the statements into a three-part test rather than just allowing you to model the argument and apply rules of inference. It’s useless now, but it was alright 2000 years ago…kind of like how people used to burn their scalps to cure “excesses of bile;”, a good start to medicine, but there’s no point in using it now.

Hmmm… somehow they still use syllogism – or its derivatives, in advanced mathematics and science. Yeah, right. Tehran University is surely the most advanced university in the world in this regard.

pro:

Rodrigo:

Oh… I see… they’re so much advanced in logical reasoning at Tehran University that they leap over the basics and just go towards ‘Sliming 101’ eh?

How Ironic. You blast me for “ad hominem” when your only retort seems to be claiming that I went to an Iranian school. I guarantee you, anyhow, that there are Iranians who understand logic better than you learned it in this “phd” program.

So you don’t like it when the shoe’s on the other foot eh? One would have thought you would be man enough to take it since you can dish it out.

pro:

Rodrigo:

No. Because I never claimed the Christian’s interpretation/imagination of the God of Abraham to be 100% true. I only claim that for the God of Abraham himself.

In that case, it is falsity, right? Do you agree that the Christian interpretation of God is falsity, since, after all, if it’s not 100 percent true, “it’s falsity”? That is what you said, isn’t it?

Only for the primary source, bud. I have told you numerous times that was my point of reference.

 

[pro_universal]

Hmmm… somehow they still use syllogism – or its derivatives, in advanced mathematics and science. Yeah, right. Tehran University is surely the most advanced university in the world in this regard.

Hahah, “or its derivatives” being the key. Psychiatry is in some ways a derivative of phrenology; that doesn’t mean that phrenology is good. Anyway, we’re talking formal logic here…so let’s see it if you’ve got something to show.

Hey look what’s missing from the rest:

Not even an attempt to save your argument from the blatant contradiction I pointed out.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

pro:

Hahah, “or its derivatives” being the key. Psychiatry is in some ways a derivative of phrenology; that doesn’t mean that phrenology is good. Anyway, we’re talking formal logic here…so let’s see it if you’ve got something to show.

Well, it only proves your ignorance of logical reasoning, pro. Anyone who’s done mathematics or science would be able to tell you that syllogism is the theoretical underpinning of their works.

pro:

Hey look what’s missing from the rest:

Not even an attempt to save your argument from the blatant contradiction I pointed out.

What contradiction? You mistook a first-order interpretation from the primary source. How many times do I have to tell you that the 100% truth with a capital T is only applicable to God (with a capital G) which Christians believe to be the Truth (with a capital T)?

Or didn’t they teach you basic English at Tehran University too?

 

[pro_universal]

Well, it only proves your ignorance of logical reasoning, pro. Anyone who’s done mathematics or science would be able to tell you that syllogism is the theoretical underpinning of their works.

Would they? I guess…just like brain location of functions in phrenology is the theoretical underpinning of neuroscience.

What contradiction? You mistook a first-order interpretation from the primary source. How many times do I have to tell you that the 100% truth with a capital T is only applicable to God (with a capital G) which Christians believe to be the Truth (with a capital T)?

Or didn’t they teach you basic English at Tehran University too?

Okay, so is the second order interpretation “falsity” since it’s not 100 percent truth?

You’re imagining some “big T” that wasn’t on the table. The dispute before was whether or not Christians and Muslims worship the same God. Now you’re claiming that any idea of God that isn’t true to God is false…which is fine, but it would condemn Christianity and Islam equally as “falsity.”

So answer the question: Is Christianity “falsity” or not? And if it’s not, then why did you say it was “partial truth”?

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Would they? I guess…just like brain location of functions in phrenology is the theoretical underpinning of neuroscience.

Well, as it happens, I did do a couple of semesters of neuroanatomy at University but I’m sorry to say they didn’t teach phrenology there. One could be hard pressed to find a reputable Western University teaching any neuroscience with any underpinnings from phrenology (as Western scientists have discredited it long ago). But I’m sure you will tell us about how Tehran University teaches phrenology-based neuroscience.

pro:

Okay, so is the second order interpretation “falsity” since it’s not 100 percent truth?

I did ask Gnosis or mosher (I forget who) what the cut-off point is. Do you know? Is 99% truth the Truth or 1% truth the Truth?

Bear in mind we’re talking about the big stuff here - the big T, you know, not something you can just pass off as near enough is good enough.

pro:

You’re imagining some “big T” that wasn’t on the table. The dispute before was whether or not Christians and Muslims worship the same God. Now you’re claiming that any idea of God that isn’t true to God is false…which is fine, but it would condemn Christianity and Islam equally as “falsity.”

Oh… I think the Christians here know what I’m talking about. After all, if you had read up on the philosophy of Truth you would know about the ‘Big T’ issue.

pro:

So answer the question: Is Christianity “falsity” or not?

Well, you’re asking an avowed atheist.

pro:

And if it’s not, then why did you say it was “partial truth”?

Who said it was partial truth? I never said it was. Please attribute to the right person this construct. Why don’t you ask him?

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Would they? I guess…just like brain location of functions in phrenology is the theoretical underpinning of neuroscience.

You’ve said that already, and I’ve told you that phrenology is not the theoretical underpinning of Western neuroscience since Western (yes, Western) scientists have repudiated phrenology more than a hundred years ago.

But you seem to know better: I’m sure Tehran University still teaches phrenology to students as an adjunct to those taking “sliming 101” classes.

pro:

Okay, so is the second order interpretation “falsity” since it’s not 100 percent truth?

Uh… please read and comprehend. There are truths and there are truths. As someone who’s supposedly obtained a law degree (albeit from Tehran University) you should know there are various degrees of truth - absolute truth, relative truth, reasonable doubt, beyond all doubt etc.

However, when we’re talking about the Big T, the Kahuna of Truths, God with almighty powers so strike me dead, kind of Truth, there can only be one standard - and that is ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

This is what you continually fail to understand.

pro:

You’re imagining some “big T” that wasn’t on the table. The dispute before was whether or not Christians and Muslims worship the same God. Now you’re claiming that any idea of God that isn’t true to God is false…which is fine, but it would condemn Christianity and Islam equally as “falsity.”

Who said it wasn’t on the table? What are we talking about here? Seashells? No. We’re talking about the God of Abraham, whom some believe to be the Almighty Creator, the Big Kahuna himself.

pro:

So answer the question: Is Christianity “falsity” or not?

Yawn. You’re asking an atheist.

pro:

And if it’s not, then why did you say it was “partial truth”?

Yawn… why don’t you ask the person who came up with that phrase?

 

[mosher]

Not intimately but I do know of him.

Then such a statement concerning him would have never been stated in your post.

A degree of truth in a falsehood does not make that falsehood true. Where do you draw the line? Is 1% truth the truth? Or 100%?

You are missing the whole point. The point is that using your numbers that 1% of truth is itself 100% true. The Church herself has even judged that Islam and Christianity worship the same God. This is evidenced in many Curial Documents. Since I do not know your religious background I do not know if that holds any water for you. However, the philosophical fact is what it is. There is proportionately more things about the nature of God that we share in common than where we differ.

Nobody should be following a clearly evil ideology even if it contains a partial truth. It means that that ideology is false - since it is not the whole truth it cannot be divine but man-made.

No advocation is being made. Rather, what is being said is that what is true must be recognized and respected as such. What is error must also be identified and through work be corrected.

My analogy is apt. My imagination of Salma Hayek is not the true Salma Hayek no matter how I may wish it to be. Only the true Salma Hayek can be that truth. If you want the true Salma Hayek - go to the source, don’t come to me since my imagination of her cannot be true.

Correct but as you missed here, as well as above, is that those things that are true are true. The complete truth may not be present but certain things are true. This is more fitting with God in that He is not corporeal and thus not subject to material differentiation thus it is the proper conception that must be brought to mind. However, if we do not recognize the basic principle of St. Thomas (and others before him) then not a single one of us worship the one true God in that each of our conceptions of God hold flaws since God is a mystery and our finite minds cannot pierce the whole and complete truth of a mystery.

That is false since you do not consider which concept came first. A development of an idea does not invalidate its antecedents.

Correct. However that begs the question - do the Jews worship the One True God? Further your statement is contrary to your litmus test on proportional knowledge of truth when considering a mystery.

 

[nick817]

If you believe the Scriptures are true, then you must believe Islam is a lie. There is no middle ground, here’s why…

Galatians 5:8 says " even if an angel from heaven, preaches any other Gospel…let him be anathama."
Qu’ran claims that the angel Gabriel came from heaven and gave a
“final revelation”

The Christian Gospel, according to St. Paul is " the death burial and ressurection of Jesus Christ."
Qu’ran denies all 3!

The Scriptures say anyone who says Christ is not the Son of God has the spirit of anit-christ
Qu’ran says God has no son.

What I cant figure out is this, Why you John Paul II go infront of the world and kiss the Qu’ran?

 

[paarsurrey]

If you believe the Scriptures are true, then you must believe Islam is a lie.

Hi

This is a non-Catholic forum and not every one in the world is unanimous that only the Jews or Christians have the scriptures. Quran is a revealed scriptures so the Hindus , Buddhists and Zoroastrians etc have the scriptures.

This means that your above statement is not correct and need improvement.

Thanks

 

[Frank_J]

Our’an

islam.tc/quran/

1. The Table Spread (Al-Máída)
   005.051 O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.

 

[Frank_J]

islamqa.com/index.php?ref=69876&ln=eng
This web site abocve is a Q&A for Muslims ask their religionist.

(kaafir: meaning is a non-muslims like Christians and Jews)

Should she end her relationship with some kaafir women or use the opportunity for da’wah?

Question:
I am a woman who corresponds with some European and American women via the internet. We have been exchanging gifts and discussing sewing ideas for two years. I have tried to talk to them about Islam, but I stopped for fear that I do not know enough to call them to Islam and I might make some mistakes. What do you advise me to do – should I cut off my ties with them altogether or should I carry on with the aim of calling them to Islam despite the difficulties – and how should I begin? Is this relationship regarded as friendship, and what is the Islamic ruling on it?.

Answer:
Praise be to Allaah.

Firstly:

It is not permissible for a Muslim man or woman to take a male or female friend who is not a Muslim, because Allaah has forbidden us to love the kuffaar or take them as close friends and companions, as He says (interpretation of the meaning):

“You (O Muhammad) will not find any people who believe in Allaah and the Last Day, making friendship with those who oppose Allaah and His Messenger (Muhammad), even though they were their fathers or their sons or their brothers or their kindred (people). For such He has written Faith in their hearts, and strengthened them with Rooh (proofs, light and true guidance) from Himself. And He will admit them to Gardens (Paradise) under which rivers flow, to dwell therein (forever). Allaah is pleased with them, and they with Him. They are the party of Allaah. Verily, it is the party of Allaah that will be the successful”

[al-Mujaadilah 58:22]

“O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Awliyaa’ (friends, protectors, helpers), they are but Awliyaa’ of each other. And if any amongst you takes them (as Awliyaa’), then surely, he is one of them. Verily, Allaah guides not those people who are the Zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers and unjust)”

[al-Maa’idah 5:51]

“O you who believe! Take not as (your) Bitaanah (advisors, consultants, protectors, helpers, friends) those outside your religion (pagans, Jews, Christians, and hypocrites) since they will not fail to do their best to corrupt you. They desire to harm you severely. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, but what their breasts conceal is far worse. Indeed We have made plain to you the Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses) if you understand”

[Aal ‘Imraan 3:118]

Secondly:

It is permissible for a Muslim to correspond with them and to give them gifts, with the aim of calling them to Islam and showing them its beauty, subject to the condition that he has sufficient knowledge and faith which will enable him to call them and protect him against the specious arguments and devious methods of the people. But the one who is not equipped to do so should not involve himself in this field, because of the temptations to which he may be exposed, or the doubts with which he may be faced and be unable to refute, in which case it would lead to his going astray and being doomed – Allaah forbid.

Thirdly:

If this correspondence is limited to the exchange of sewing ideas and benefiting from them in this way, without it involving loving them, regarding them as friends, congratulating them on their festivals etc, then there is nothing wrong with it in sha Allaah. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to interact with the Jews, buying and selling.

There is nothing wrong with giving gifts to them, subject to the condition that they are not in a state of war against Islam and the Muslims. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Allaah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion nor drove you out of your homes. Verily, Allaah loves those who deal with equity”

[al-Mumtahanah 60:8]

al-Sa’di (may Allaah have mercy on him) said (p. 1016):

i.e., Allaah does not forbid kindness, upholding of ties and good and fair treatment of mushrikeen among your relatives and others, so long as they are not fighting against you on account of religion or driving you out of your homes. There is no sin in upholding ties with them, because there is nothing wrong with upholding ties with them in this case. End quote.