"logic" in Islam (sorry have to vent about this)

[GOP]

Hang on. We made it up; we make it up; and we will continue to make it up. But, there is the question of quality, consistency and logic. Hopefully, there is also love and, therefore, I ask: Which man was the most true to the latter? He died with arms wide open childless, and from what we know, wifeless, possessionless and shoeless. He died loving his murderers. This is the difference. Love your enemies was, is and will always be what separates us.

Who are you talking about?

 

[Paralabagne]

And what do you think He would have done if His Mother were about to be murdered?

Why bother to discuss and debate if you are merely going to withdraw when it doesn’t go the way you want? I, for one, would like to hear a fellow Christian make a rational defense for “turn the other cheek” when there’s a knife to the throat of their children, and someone with a proven history of sawing off heads wielding it.

I am not disagreeing with your citations, but I am pointing out real world circumstances that challenge our understanding of those citations when applied as universal commands.

It is not right for you to enter into a public forum to try to win support for your thinking, then run away when your thinking stops short of addressing practicle questions in the minds of those you sought support from.

Thank you. I will retort tomorrow after work when I have this computer to myself. I must surrender it for the moment to a girl who wants to win a badge in a game site. But I do have much to say in this regard.

Good night and God Bless.

 

[Paralabagne]

And what do you think He would have done if His Mother were about to be murdered?

Why bother to discuss and debate if you are merely going to withdraw when it doesn’t go the way you want? I, for one, would like to hear a fellow Christian make a rational defense for “turn the other cheek” when there’s a knife to the throat of their children, and someone with a proven history of sawing off heads wielding it.

I am not disagreeing with your citations, but I am pointing out real world circumstances that challenge our understanding of those citations when applied as universal commands.

It is not right for you to enter into a public forum to try to win support for your thinking, then run away when your thinking stops short of addressing practicle questions in the minds of those you sought support from.

Again, I have written that when the very Son of God had a “knife to his cheek,” he commanded Peter to “put away his sword.” But, then you write that you are not disagreeing with my citations. So, I ask, what or which is the argument, the debate, from which you have accused me of withdrawing? And where is this “real world” to which you refer? Did not Jesus say that His Kingdom was not of this world?

There are many gaps in your last entry - and you may just accuse me of the same crime - but, nevertheless, humor me while I recapitulate a very important question that is more often than not ignored? It consists of the following terminology:

**Other than having commanded that we are to love our enemy, turn the other cheek, do good to those who mean us harm as well as having gone freely to his death, while forgiving his killers, how does the teaching of Christ differ from the teaching of any previous Jewish religious character, or for that matter, Muslim, Hindu or Zoroastrian? **
I await your answer and truly hope that I will be enlightened.

 

[Onesimus]

Again, I have written that when the very Son of God had a “knife to his cheek,” he commanded Peter to “put away his sword.”

But you deliberately duck my actual question: what if it had been his Mother facing murder?

But, then you write that you are not disagreeing with my citations. So, I ask, what or which is the argument, the debate, from which you have accused me of withdrawing?

The one where you say “You can continue to advocate state warfare and can continue to condemn it.”

You should continue until you change my mind, or I change yours.

And where is this “real world” to which you refer? Did not Jesus say that His Kingdom was not of this world?

Yes, he did, so why do you act as if it were?

Jesus told us how to run our lives, not our kingdoms. And in the kingdom we currently reside we have to make decisions on whether or not to permit Mohammedens to do to our children what they do to their own.

There are many gaps in your last entry - and you may just accuse me of the same crime - but, nevertheless, humor me while I recapitulate a very important question that is more often than not ignored? It consists of the following terminology:

**Other than having commanded that we are to love our enemy, turn the other cheek, do good to those who mean us harm as well as having gone freely to his death, while forgiving his killers, how does the teaching of Christ differ from the teaching of any previous Jewish religious character, or for that matter, Muslim, Hindu or Zoroastrian? **
I await your answer and truly hope that I will be enlightened.

Easy. Jesus claimed to be the self-existent God made flesh.

 

[Paralabagne]

But you deliberately duck my actual question: what if it had been his Mother facing murder?

The one where you say “You can continue to advocate state warfare and can continue to condemn it.”

You should continue until you change my mind, or I change yours.

Yes, he did, so why do you act as if it were?

Jesus told us how to run our lives, not our kingdoms. And in the kingdom we currently reside we have to make decisions on whether or not to permit Mohammedens to do to our children what they do to their own.

Easy. Jesus claimed to be the self-existent God made flesh.

Jesus was far from the first man to claim that he was God. Octavian Caesar and all the Egyptian leaders had already done this.

 

[Paralabagne]

But you deliberately duck my actual question: what if it had been his Mother facing murder? .

I’ve answered your question, but I will recapitulate:

When the Son of God Himself was threatened, he commanded Peter to put away his sword.

But certainly, Jesus would understand one defending his/her mother, but this does not change his teaching in Matthew and Luke where he stated:
**
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.” (Matthew 5:38-42, NIV)

But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you." (Luke 6:27-31.)**

The one where you say “You can continue to advocate state warfare and can continue to condemn it.” .

And…

You should continue until you change my mind, or I change yours. .

O.K. I appreciate this debate.

Yes, he did, so why do you act as if it were? .

I do not act this way. You do.

Jesus told us how to run our lives, not our kingdoms. And in the kingdom we currently reside we have to make decisions on whether or not to permit Mohammedens to do to our children what they do to their own. .

Jesus nicely summarized his commands in:
"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the prophets."
(Mt 22:37-40; cf. Deut 6:5; Lev 19:18)

Easy. Jesus claimed to be the self-existent God made flesh.

I answered this already. He was NOT the first one to do this.

 

[Onesimus]

Jesus was far from the first man to claim that he was God. Octavian Caesar and all the Egyptian leaders had already done this.

Were any of them a “previous Jewish religious character, or for that matter, Muslim, Hindu or Zoroastrian?”

Aren’t you even a little embarrassed? It’s obvious you’re blurting out the first thing that comes into your mind, and your only intention is to try to save face.

 

[Paralabagne]

Were any of them a “previous Jewish religious character, or for that matter, Muslim, Hindu or Zoroastrian?”

Aren’t you even a little embarrassed? It’s obvious you’re blurting out the first thing that comes into your mind, and your only intention is to try to save face.

Every time you are embarrassed because you are losing a contention, you resort to an ad hominem response. Let us stick to the argument. You asked a question and I answered it. Then, your response was to re-qualify the original question.

I must go to work, but when I return, I will continue swat away your arguments as though they were flies.

God Bless

 

[Onesimus]

But certainly, Jesus would understand one defending his/her mother…

With what, sticking one’s cheek in the way?

I do not act this way. You do.

Ah, the “I know you are, but what am I” defense. I should have known better than to lock horns with such a rhetorical genius.

I answered this already. He was NOT the first one to do this.

Yes he was. None of them ever claimed to be the self-existent God.

 

[Onesimus]

You asked a question and I answered it. Then, your response was to re-qualify the original question.

Actually, you asked the question (…how does the teaching of Christ differ from…etc), and I answered it. Then you responded with an invalid objection to my answer.

 

[MelanieAnne]

It would appear that there are 2 main groups contributing to this thread ~

those that have a sincere belief that the terrorists seek worldwide domination, and

those that, just as sincerely, do not believe that the terrorists seek worldwide domination, or believe that such goals cannot be achieved

The two views are incompatible so it would seem doubtful that any agreement can be achieved

 

[Paralabagne]

Ah, the “I know you are, but what am I” defense. I should have known better than to lock horns with such a rhetorical genius. .

In the spirit of charity, I was aping your “I know you are, but what am I” defense. We can agree to disagree.

Yes he was. None of them ever claimed to be the self-existent God.

You show me the quote where Jesus called himself the “self-existent” God. He said, “I am” and called himself the “Son of Man.” Now if I were no so charitable, I would tell you to do your homework before you put words in the mouth of The Son, but since I am charitable I will forgive you for you know not what you do.

Actually, you asked the question (…how does the teaching of Christ differ from…etc), and I answered it. Then you responded with an invalid objection to my answer.

See the above. And again, many humans have been deified in the history of our planet. For example: the Egyptian Pharaohs, Japanese Emperors, Roman Emperors, Gilgamesh, Naram-Sin, Fu Hsi* (of China), Dido (founder and queen of Carthage), Romulus and Remus (maybe you know these two?) Alexander the Great, Caligula, Guan Yu, Commodus, L. L. Zamenhof, Haile Selassie, and on and on and on.

Now, I asked what was different about the teachings of Jesus and I, right now for all to see, challenge you to name a historical or religious figure who transcended the tribal concept before Christ, a person who invoked the “other” as oneself, a person who did say, (I know you find this laughable) “turn the other cheek,” and “do good to those who mean you harm.”

With what, sticking one’s cheek in the way? .

You make fun of the words of Christ. Is this charitable? Or even condoned by this forum??

 

[Onesimus]

In the spirit of charity, I was aping your “I know you are, but what am I” defense.

Really?
Where did I do that?

You show me the quote where Jesus called himself the “self-existent” God. He said, “I am” and called himself the “Son of Man.”

It is intrinsic as he was speaking to Jewish religious leaders.

When you drive up to a gas pump do you point out to the attendant the gas you want is NOT propane?

See the above. And again, many humans have been deified in the history of our planet. For example: the Egyptian Pharaohs, … etc.

You can keep repeating this, but it doesn’t get any less wrong.

What Jesus Christ meant by claiming deity was as different from the examples you cite as the phrase “Son of God” is between a Catholic and a Jehovah’s Witness.

The words are the same, but the definitions are wholly different.

You make fun of the words of Christ. Is this charitable? Or even condoned by this forum??

No, I make fun of you, and your doctrinaire caviling.

and I, right now for all to see, challenge you to name a historical or religious figure who transcended the tribal concept before Christ, a person who invoked the “other” as oneself, a person who did say, (I know you find this laughable) “turn the other cheek,” and “do good to those who mean you harm.”

Socrates: 399 BC, conversation with Crito.

“One should never do wrong in return, nor mistreat any man, no matter how one has been mistreated by him.”

Perhaps you should use a fly swatter with fewer holes in it.

 

[Paralabagne]

Really?
Where did I do that? .

I ask the same. You said this first, so you tell me.

It is intrinsic as he was speaking to Jewish religious leaders. .

Websters:

Etymology: French intrinsèque internal, from Late Latin intrinsecus, from Latin, adverb, inwardly; akin to Latin intra within – more at INTRA-
1 a : belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing b : being or relating to a semiconductor in which the concentration of charge carriers is characteristic of the material itself instead of the content of any impurities it contains
2 a : originating or due to causes within a body, organ, or part b : originating and included wholly within an organ or part – compare EXTRINSIC 1b

So, what do you mean by “intrinsic?” You have this habit of “begging the question.” Let me know if you need more explanation.

When you drive up to a gas pump do you point out to the attendant the gas you want is NOT propane? .

Again, you beg the question. (Have you asked for assistance yet?)

You can keep repeating this, but it doesn’t get any less wrong. .

Your answer is, yet again, contradiction. (Begging the question – because, of course you are correct and you know so. But, you present no argument.)

What Jesus Christ meant by claiming deity was as different from the examples you cite as the phrase “Son of God” is between a Catholic and a Jehovah’s Witness. .

How so? (Never mind. I know already: Because you are correct for the reason that you say you are. But, I only wish that you would present an argument - other than “I am right and you are wrong” ???)

The words are the same, but the definitions are wholly different. .

And these definitions would be??? (never mind, the question is begged. [Are you getting this yet?])

No, I make fun of you, and your doctrinaire caviling…

Ad hominem argumentation. I do not attack you – I attack your method of argument.

Socrates: 399 BC, conversation with Crito.

“One should never do wrong in return, nor mistreat any man, no matter how one has been mistreated by him.” .

Socrates followed the law. Jesus did not. Although there are are many who would say that he “fulfilled” Jewish law, I say, by darn, he contradicted it. He took an “eye for an eye” and said “turn the other cheek” (you laugh at this, I know. It is hard to grasp.). But, still, there is a major differenc between Jesus and the Greek, Socrates. The latter honored Greek law and died as a result. Jesus followed his conscience. But to give credit where credit is due, you did provide an argument accompanied with an example, no matter how old and worn out.

So, to present a 60 year old international standard, the Nuremburg trials demonstrated that simply following the law is not the “summon bonum”: following orders does always equate with morality and is often quite the opposite.

(If you like, I we can debate privately so as not to bore the forum with this elementary debate.

Perhaps you should use a fly swatter with fewer holes in it.

My swatter is Kevlar, brother, Kevlar.

*** Allow me to explain “begging the question:”

It is no argument to say that Jesus was God because he said so. This is assuming the answer based on an assessment that person who is arguing is correct, i.e. that which is being argued in the first place. (There are better definitions of this – “Google” it for the “authoritative” terminology.)

Therefore, in that you stated that Jesus was correct because he was operating under Jewish tradition means nothing to the non-Christian, Non-Jew – it is illogical and implies immanence.

My contention is that Jesus was the first (or second Adam) in that he transcended tribalism, cultism, jingoism and all “isms.” It is this that separates Him, and “this” is no small feat. It cost him his life and delivered us the Cross, Western Civilization, and most of what we now enjoy.

 

[Onesimus]

I ask the same. You said this first, so you tell me.

When you claimed your “i know you are, but what am i” was a charitable aping of my own comments.

Okay, i’ve answered your question. Now tell me specifically where I used that tactic on you.

So, what do you mean by “intrinsic?” You have this habit of “begging the question.” Let me know if you need more explanation.

“1 a : belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing”

Jesus was claiming to be the God of the Jews and all that the Jews understood their God to be. This is a very different proposition from what other men claiming divinity meant.

Again, you beg the question. (Have you asked for assistance yet?)

Studied ignorance on your part does not constitute “begging the question” on mine.

Your answer is, yet again, contradiction. (Begging the question – because, of course you are correct and you know so. But, you present no argument.)

What do you expect when you split a three paragraph statement into three individual statements and treat them as independent?

How so? (Never mind. I know already: Because you are correct for the reason that you say you are. But, I only wish that you would present an argument - other than “I am right and you are wrong” ???)

“The Son of God” to a Catholic means the creator incarnate; to a JW it means a created being.

And these definitions would be??? (never mind, the question is begged. [Are you getting this yet?])

As I said earlier, Jesus claimed to be the self-existent I AM. Those others made no claim to be able to create out of nothing.

Ad hominem argumentation. I do not attack you – I attack your method of argument.

It is not Ad hominem “argumentation” to refer to one who steals as a thief. Ad homenim is not a synonym for a description you don’t like.

You really should learn what terms mean before you use them.

But to give credit where credit is due, you did provide an argument accompanied with an example…

Well, it will be the first time you did so, even though you buried your admission in a mound of rhetorical chaff.

And by the way, that wasn’t an argument. It was a confutation.

(If you like, I we can debate privately so as not to bore the forum with this elementary debate.

Not a chance

*** Allow me to explain “begging the question:”

It is no argument to say that Jesus was God because he said so. This is assuming the answer based on an assessment that person who is arguing is correct – which, is that which is being argued in the first place (There are better definitions of this – “Google” it for the “authoritative” terminology.)

That’s very nice, but there was no argument involved here, so your pedantry is at best wasted, and at worst an attempt to conflate.

You asserted the “turn the other cheek” philosophy was unique to Christianity. I proved you wrong.

That I pointed out Jesus claim to divinity was “unique,” to which you objected is a separate issue.

And before you go on again about how Jesus claim was not unique, you should know that’s not my contrivance. It comes straight out of C.S. Lewis’ “Mere Christianity.” So if you think the Christian world has missed an error for sixty years that you’ve found, nothing I can say will change your mind.

Therefore, in that you stated that Jesus was correct because he was operating under Jewish tradition means nothing to the non-Christian, Non-Jew – it is illogical and implies immanence.

As i’ve shown your initial premises to be false, so then must be your conclusion.

My contention is that Jesus was the first (or second Adam) in that he transcended tribalism, cultism, jingoism and all “isms.” It is this that separates Him …

And you accuse me of begging the question?

Your discomfort with the “magical Jesus” causes you to make assertions I categorically disprove, but you’re still pushing your watery philosophical Christianity, stripped of it’s power over reality.

Well, where is the support for your “contention?”

 

[Paralabagne]

So, we must agree to disagree. You have failed to present any previous religious figure other than Jesus who preached “turning the other cheek and loving enemies.” For, even Socrates who died as a result of breaking the law, not for “loving his enemies,” was, in fact, operating under the idea that there was an “other” to which he was not responsible.

Therefore, I will, once again, reassert that Jesus is different in that he said to “love your enemies,” do good to those who mean you harm” and so on, not because he claimed divinity.

I also stated that many others, before and after Christ, have claimed divinity and gave you a list.

As I said earlier, Jesus claimed to be the self-existent I AM. Those others made no claim to be able to create out of nothing.

As you can see, your retort is that Jesus is the only one to have used the words “I am.” But, if I am signifies that “I am divine,” you are simply arguing semantics.

As for his ability to “create out of nothing,” I contend that you are arguing that he was “more magic” than the others - or, his “magic” was God sanctioned - or “My God is better than your God.”

I will not accept this argument because this type of logic is so often used by other faiths to which I do not subscribe.

Jesus claimed to be the self-existent God made flesh.

Again, that he used different words to signify the same idea does not change the fundamental meaning of these words. Could you mean that Jesus is different because he is the true God while the others are false?

But, of course, since we are debating on a Catholic site and are both (at least I am) Catholic, it is understood that we believe this. But, of course, again, this is a matter of faith, not logic.

What Jesus Christ meant by claiming deity was as different from the examples you cite as the phrase “Son of God” is between a Catholic and a Jehovah’s Witness.
The words are the same, but the definitions are wholly different.

It is easy to recognize that Jesus is different from the others on the list of those who claimed divinity. They are all different. They are different people. But ALL HAVE CLAIMED DIVINITY.

Obviously, those who have claimed divinity have had those who understood and recognized a various aspect to this claim. Many continue to have followers who believe this divinity to be real. Although I choose to follow Jesus over the others, this does not make me correct above and beyond my faith.

I’ll conclude with a research question: Have you heard of Moses of Crete
Simon ben Giora?

 

[Onesimus]

I’ll take my leave of this thread with one irrefutable example of your deceitfullness and intellectual dishonesty.

Now, I asked what was different about the teachings of Jesus and I, right now for all to see, **challenge you to name a historical or religious **figure who transcended the tribal concept before Christ, a person who invoked the “other” as oneself, **a person who did say, **(I know you find this laughable) “turn the other cheek,” and "do good to those who mean you harm."

Originally Posted by Onesimus
Socrates: 399 BC, conversation with Crito.

So, we must agree to disagree. You have failed to present any previous religious figure other than Jesus who preached “turning the other cheek and loving enemies.” …

**Therefore, I will, once again, reassert that Jesus is different in that he said to “love your enemies,” do good to those who mean you harm” **…

Frankly, I find your intellectual vanity, and duplicity in the service of it, appalling.

 

[Paralabagne]

O.K. Goodbye for now. I wish you well.

P.S.
From now please try to be nicer when debating.

(But to retort, Socrates was not a religious figure)