Study the Qur’an?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CEDRIK
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Techno2000 said:
And who is The Word ?
Click to expand...
It is not a person, otherwise it would not need to become flesh. It manifests as a person on earth only. Outside of physical creation it is essentially Spirit. Some philosophers in the past have called it the Soul of God.

It is the First and most Primal Emanation from the Essence of God.

It is the most fundamental aspect of God’s Essence.

.
 
Servant19 said:
I must be! Lol

Especially when I claim all religions come from the one God.
When I claim that both Islam/Judaism AND Chrustianity are true on their positions on God and who Jesus was.

So elitist of me…

🙂

.
Click to expand...
You maintain that your religion is the fullness, the best way, that as sufficient as others might very they lack wholeness. If you believe this, then yes you are elitist(by your own view of elitism). If you deny this then you are a coward who does not really believe in his religion since all religions would be equally valid and just as sanctifying (by my own view of what a coward is).
Servant19 said:
If Muhammad is the Word, and the Word made the universe, and the other worlds of God, heaven etc etc, then if you CHOOSE to call that God, then yes, the Word is God.

But there is also something else, for the Word was WITH God, so Muhammad was also not God too.

.
Click to expand...
I deny the premise that the word is Muhammad who is God. John does not speak of Muhammad he speaks of Christmas and to read Muhammad into John 1.1 is bad interpretation.

Now do you worship and honour Muhammad your creator?
 
Servant19 said:
It is not a person, otherwise it would not need to become flesh. It manifests as a person on earth only. Outside of physical creation it is essentially Spirit. Some philosophers in the past have called it the Soul of God.

It is the First and most Primal Emanation from the Essence of God.

It is the most fundamental aspect of God’s Essence.

.
Click to expand...
Given that the word acts, given that he created the heavens and the earth, given that he is the only begotten Son of God, it is reasonable to dismiss this distortion of John by pointing to Jerusalem who was the object of John’s writing, not Moses, not Abraham, not so called gnostic manifestations, but Christmas incarnate and crucified, Christian God.
 
Servant19 said:
Has that not always been the case Jimmy?

Hebrews 1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the world…

.
Click to expand...
These last days and the heir of all things. There is no need for another Moses, Christian alone is necessary and complete.
 
IgnatianPhilo said:
You maintain that your religion is the fullness, the best way, that as sufficient as others might very they lack wholeness. If you believe this, then yes you are elitist(by your own view of elitism). If you deny this then you are a coward who does not really believe in his religion since all religions would be equally valid and just as sanctifying (by my own view of what a coward is).
Click to expand...
I must be a coward then 😃
And so is the Church…

Salvation is for all. God’s mercy showers upon all, not just on those who go to confession once a week. God’s mercy is designed to embrace all who follow the guidance of a Manifestation of God. As with all things, there are degrees, for as the Bible states, we will be compensated for what we do (Romans 2:6).
I deny the premise that the word is Muhammad who is God. John does not speak of Muhammad he speaks of Christmas and to read Muhammad into John 1.1 is bad interpretation.
Click to expand...
Now do you worship and honour Muhammad your creator?
Click to expand...
Of course John doesn’t talk directly about Muhammad.

Where in the Torah does it directly state that the Messiah will come and not fulfill a whole bunch of prophecies. Oh, and by the way, He will be a carpenter called Jesus.

God sends His Prophets to bring a sword. It is a test to separate those of faith from those of little faith. Those that cling to the spirit against those that cling to the name.

.
 
Servant19 said:
It is not a person, otherwise it would not need to become flesh. It manifests as a person on earth only. Outside of physical creation it is essentially Spirit. Some philosophers in the past have called it the Soul of God.

It is the First and most Primal Emanation from the Essence of God.

It is the most fundamental aspect of God’s Essence.

.
Click to expand...
The word is a person.

Bahaism really is a bore.

They have made too many claims about other religions and that now causes them to continuously tie themselves up in knots.
 
Servant19 said:
OK, would you mind sharing what the Person looked like before He was Jesus, son of Mary?

.
Click to expand...
Oh how worldly is your way of thinking.

The word became flesh at the incarnation.

This is ancient Catholic teaching.
 
castle_hunter said:
Oh how worldly is your way of thinking.

The word became flesh at the incarnation.

This is ancient Catholic teaching.
Click to expand...
Seems you cannot answer the question.

Could you please give me in a short paragraph the definition of the word “Person” please?

.
 
Servant19 said:
Seems you cannot answer the question.

Could you please give me in a short paragraph the definition of the word “Person” please?

.
Click to expand...
Answer what question?

Whether Jesus had a crew cut and tattoos or a pony tail and shaved chest before the incarnation?

As I asked you on another thread, are we really supposed to take you seriously?

From what I’ve read of you over the last couple of days your posts here present Bahais as rather childish and tetchy.
 
castle_hunter said:
Answer what question?

Whether Jesus had a crew cut and tattoos or a pony tail and shaved chest before the incarnation?

As I asked you on another thread, are we really supposed to take you seriously?

From what I’ve read of you over the last couple of days your posts here present Bahais as rather childish and tetchy.
Click to expand...
I only mirror the capacity and maturity of those I am responding to…I’m flexible like that 😃

Maybe you can answer the next question instead then?

What is the definition of a Person in Catholicism?

.
 
Servant19 said:
I only mirror the capacity and maturity of those I am responding to…I’m flexible like that 😃

Maybe you can answer the next question instead then?

What is the definition of a Person in Catholicism?

.
Click to expand...
Next question.

Hold on there Tex.

Don’t be so slippery.

What do you think God looks like?

Height. Weight. Hair length. Clothes.

See. I can mirror the childishness of those I debate also?
 
IgnatianPhilo said:
I’m reminded of two stories, the first is that of the Jewish woman during the time of the maccabees who encouraged her children to die rather than give in, sacrifice to the gods and eat pork. The second is Saint Sophia and her three children, she encouraged each of them to die rather than sacrifice or praise Caesar. This is the Christian belief in things, it is better to die in pain, suffering and torture, than have material things and false religion and be lost to God forever. It however, the taking of children from their parents, is persecution, no matter how you justify it. Why couldn’t if the Ottomon empire was so great, they remain Christian and get all the benefits you mention? Perhaps ones status as a Christian impaired one’s chances to serve imperial powers hmm? Perhaps ones status as Dhimmi prohibited one from certain jobs?

I don’t know about destroying churches, but I know about converting churches, which seems to be the main of what Ottomons did. They took Christendom’s greatest church and defiled it. They destroyed the icons, altar area no doubt and the vessels which were used during the liturgy. It wasn’t only the Hagia Sophia but a good portion of the churches. Consider these two wiki articles

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Turkey (I see more purple than other colours)

As for destruction of churches by Muslims, consider one of the inciting factors of the Crusades, the destruction of Church of the Holy Sepulche by the Fatimid Caliph, Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah. Now before I investigate this more thoroughly, are so sure you want to suggest Muslims destroyed no Christian churches?

I would ask you some things about the Dhimmi status. What happens to the Christian who fails to pay the Jizya with willing submission? What then happens if he refuses to convert to Islam? What did happen? Nothing? As for Dhimmi only meaning you are protected I would ask, was any Dhimmi under islam allowed to explain why they rejected Muhammad? Would they have been allowed to call Muhammad a False prophet to another Muslim? Would a Muslim have been allowed to become a Dhimmi if they wanted to become a Christian? I suspect you have bought into a rose tinted version of Islamic history Hasantas.

Here is something enlightening from Sydney H Griffith

"There is no doubt then that in the view of the stipulations of the Covenant of Umar the Dhimmi populations of Christans in the Islamic world were what we would now call “second class citizens,” if the term “citizen” can even be meaningfully used of people whose presence in the body politic is merely tolerated. The legal disabilities that governed their lives required subservience, often accompanied by prescriptions to wear distinctive clothing and to cease from public display of their religion, and, of course, to refrain from inviting converts from among the Muslims. Christian wealth, buildings, institutions and properties were often subject to seizure. As a consequence, over the course of time, the number of bishoprics, churches, monasteries, and schools gradually decreased, having fallen victim to the very conditions of the official establishment of Islam. These circumstances of a necessity put dhimmi groups such as the Christian communities at risk; in spite of their numbers they became sociological minorities, subaltern populations subject to discrimination, disability and at times even persecution. "

The church in the shadow of the Mosque, chapter One.

I do not believe the picture of Islamic history you present Hasantas, as if Islam were some beacon of enlightenment and this is one the problems I have with islam. The last point you raise is that no one chose false belief so easily. I happen to think given the time that elapsed and the conditions under which Christians fared while under Islamic rule, people gave into the original sin rather than persevere through suffering. It’s human nature to give into what is easy and it was simply much easier being a Muslim in a Muslim country (that’s still the case) than it is to be a Christian or (especially) a Jew.
Click to expand...
I agree with some parts. The main issue Turks(Muslims) had invasion and conquered Christian countries. But that is a historical fact/case and Muslims did not commit evil cases. There are yet active Churchs in Turkey.

Every policy of Ottoman was not perfectly and taking Christians boys and convert them in Islam should be recognised one of them. But Ottoman did that in the best way. For instance Ottoman did not take from a family if it had only one boy. If you ask me I would not accept to take my son and convert him in other religion by will.

Islam arrange the whole levels of social and economical life so Islam should establish some rules for non-Muslims in social life. Dhimni has not disatvantages at least he can keep his religion and has not to go war instead he payed jizya. Jizya was just a kind of tax.
 
Reuben_J said:
What we can get out of this is that you are talking highly of Islam. You are telling us about Islam which you believe, of course you do, is God’s religion, and a good religion at that. That is OK because as a Muslim you have to take Islam that way, and you are taught to think of it that way.

As a non-Muslim listening to you glowingly telling us that it was to their parents advantage that their children were taken away from them and got converted to another religion, Islam, I suddenly realize that Islam is not a religion that teaches the Golden Rule - do to others what you want others to do to you.

Have you tried to put yourself on those parents shoes, and feel how they must have felt? But as far as I know, Islam does not do that - Muslims are the superior people and the kafirs,are, well, infidels - it is good enough that they were given chance to stay alive and not Islamized. So that, perhaps, just perhaps, is why you do not even apologize why the greatest church in Christendom should be desecrated, trampled and eventually turned into an Islamic mosque. If you had worn their shoes, maybe like the Al Aqsa mosque or the one in Mecca, conquered by Christians and turned into Christian cathedrals, that may change your tone a bit.
Click to expand...
Converting by compulsion is not order of Islam but it was a policy of Ottoman which even became a problem for state later.

We cannot change historical cases. Maybe Christians will invade and conquere all world, who can know!
 
hasantas said:
We cannot change historical cases. Maybe Christians will invade and conquere all world, who can know!
Click to expand...
Why need to resort to thinking that invading could happen by Christians? Please be respectful for future generations who are yet to be born.

MJ
 
Surah 47:4 says:

Therefore, WHEN YOU MEET THE UNBELIEVERS, SMITE AT THEIR NECKS; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah’s Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.

Jesus…“Live by the sword, die by the sword”

But, there is no difference between the Bible and the Koran …🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top