The limit of Muslim love

[ClamDigger]

So, it was allegorical that muslims aren’t to take people who aren’t muslims as friends (or allies in some translations). Oh, I get it now. Also, you must have read 3:118

“O you who have believed, do not take as intimates those other than yourselves, for they will not spare you [any] ruin. They wish you would have hardship. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, and what their breasts conceal is greater. We have certainly made clear to you the signs, if you will use reason.”

Do you think this was allegorical, in the sense that the specfic meanings of the words aren’t needed, and indeed this passage means something else. If so, what does it mean?

The Quran also says in Surah 29: “And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, ‘We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we bow (in Islam).’”
And in Surah 2, it says that Christians and Jews will be rewarded by God along with Muslims.
“Those who believe (in the Koran), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.”

So, apparently the Quran contradicts itself in a number of places. I don’t know how Muslims reconcile these verses with Surah 3. I’m not a Muslim theologian, therefore I do not judge them based on what their holy books say.

 

[ClamDigger]

Actually I think he might be referring to something I said because I made a similar point earlier in the thread. I pointed out that those who wage war in the name of Islam argued that peaceful Muslims are not following the true Islam.

No, apparently we’re both wrong and the Muslims we’re friends with aren’t devout Muslims because they are friends with Christians, even though they follow all the tenets of their religion and their Quran also says not to argue with Christians over religion.

 

[Aydan]

Well in cuts both ways and be honest because in Islam they have aggregation of versus in which earlier versus our canceled out by later ones so really our friends who choose to follow the ones you mentioned here are correct because they interpret it as don’t take Christians and Jews as allies but those who commit violence say that those verses are canceled out by the later ones that other people have been writing about here. As I said you have to understand the actions and words of Mohammed to understand the Quran.

No, apparently we’re both wrong and the Muslims we’re friends with aren’t devout Muslims because they are friends with Christians, even though they follow all the tenets of their religion and their Quran also says not to argue with Christians over religion.

 

[ddarko]

B]*Then, when the sacred months have passed, *

slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

As we clearly see in the above Noble Verses, the laws of killing the unbelievers or the pagans were for particular and specific times, and not for all times and all places. Notice the quote “…when the sacred months have passed…”.

Thats… even… more comforting.

So there is a TIME to kills us eh and we should just feel happy because its not yet our time?

Considering that some hardcore Islamic believers and leaders with authority have decided that it is very well TIME, what exactly stops them from doing such things?

In academic sense, I see Islam as having the same problem as Protestantism in this sense. Protestants rejected Authority and Tradition so they have a book which they interpret to their likings. Islam just has a book with no central authority. Each interprets his own way and quiet honestly, there is nothing to stop them from doing so.

No offense, but there is nothing “Noble” about the verse above either. Also, you did not address the other quote I provided. I am well aware of taking things out of context, BUT, in this case, context doesn’t seem to show anything contrary to what is being said either.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

Well in cuts both ways and be honest because in Islam they have aggregation of versus in which earlier versus our canceled out by later ones so really our friends who choose to follow the ones you mentioned here are correct because they interpret it as don’t take Christians and Jews as allies but those who commit violence say that those verses are canceled out by the later ones that other people have been writing about here. As I said you have to understand the actions and words of Mohammed to understand the Quran.

Actually this is the problem. There is no Tradition and Infallible authority to interpret the Quran. Such an institution was not appointed by their prophet.

So what they are facing here is exactly what Protestants face and what Catholics will face if they reject Tradition and Authority. Islam has no such thing as Tradition and Authority as Catholics do. So its a hodgepodge. Each Imaam has his own view etc. There is no way to say WHO is right because there is NO central established authority by the prophet. So if you are a person wanting to know EXACTLY what Muhammad meant when he said something, there is NO WAY logical to do so. As long as an interpretation can be reconciled with the book in some way, it is acceptable. So its like a bunch of dots. Connections can be made in anyway and there could be many many ways.

Islam is actually a good example as to what would have happened if Jesus just left behind a Bible. Christianity would have been lost the day he ascended in to heaven. All we would have is uncertainty about which is right. There would just be “Christians” who interpret a book anyway they want.

God Bless

 

[Contarini]

So what they are facing here is exactly what Protestants face and what Catholics will face if they reject Tradition and Authority. Islam has no such thing as Tradition and Authority as Catholics do.

They certainly have Tradition. They don’t have centralized authority.

They’re more like the Orthodox than like Protestants (speaking of Sunnis here).

Over time a broad consensus emerges, or at least has in the past–maybe things are different now. It’s hard to tell so far.

Of course, that’s small comfort to folks being killed by Muslims. But then, the fact that the Catholic Magisterium now can be discerned never to have infallibly said that heretics should be killed is small comfort to those who were killed as heretics by Catholic governments, after being handed over to those governments for execution by church courts.

In other words, the infallible Magisterium has not historically done what you say Muslims and Protestants cannot do for lack of such a Magisterium–authoritatively rule out brutal and lethal interpretations of the tradition. So how are you, in this particular respect, any better off than Muslims or Protestants? Sure, the Pope could have said “it’s wrong to interpret Scripture as mandating the death of heretics.” But no Pope actually said this until after governments had ceased to be interested in killing heretics, and Popes (like Leo X in Exsurge Domine) in fact sometimes said the exact opposite (though I’m happy to accept the claim that Exsurge Domine was not infallible).

So I don’t think your argument holds much water.

Now if you want to argue that future persecution is now ruled out by the Magisterium, I would tend to agree. But as I said, that’s small comfort to the people who were killed by Catholics in the past.

Edwin

 

[ddarko]

They certainly have Tradition. They don’t have centralized authority.

They’re more like the Orthodox than like Protestants (speaking of Sunnis here).

Over time a broad consensus emerges, or at least has in the past–maybe things are different now. It’s hard to tell so far.

Of course, that’s small comfort to folks being killed by Muslims. But then, the fact that the Catholic Magisterium now can be discerned never to have infallibly said that heretics should be killed is small comfort to those who were killed as heretics by Catholic governments, after being handed over to those governments for execution by church courts.

In other words, the infallible Magisterium has not historically done what you say Muslims and Protestants cannot do for lack of such a Magisterium–authoritatively rule out brutal and lethal interpretations of the tradition. So how are you, in this particular respect, any better off than Muslims or Protestants? Sure, the Pope could have said “it’s wrong to interpret Scripture as mandating the death of heretics.” But no Pope actually said this until after governments had ceased to be interested in killing heretics, and Popes (like Leo X in Exsurge Domine) in fact sometimes said the exact opposite (though I’m happy to accept the claim that Exsurge Domine was not infallible).

So I don’t think your argument holds much water.

Now if you want to argue that future persecution is now ruled out by the Magisterium, I would tend to agree. But as I said, that’s small comfort to the people who were killed by Catholics in the past.

Edwin

Sorry maybe I didn’t state it properly.

If just one of Scripture, Tradition or Authority is undermined, there is no Faith. Whether it be Christian or Islam.

I know you don’t exactly understand the logical necessity and we’ve had this debate in the past. But I just thought I would make what I said clearer.

About heretics, you might actually want to get facts correct. Only the heresy is determined by the Magestirium. The actions to take on heresy were purely political. There is no political infallibility.

So the contrast here is that Islam tells you this is WHAT YOU SHOULD DO. The burning of heretics etc by the Catholic Church were simply political decisions. In fact, the condemnation of such actions are from the Church itself because it can look at teaching and determine that.

Something you might have failed to realize all this time is that Islam is by no means a FALSE RELIGION based on the fact that it says ‘Kill infidels’ or certain persons. If it is indeed the truth, then that is certainly correct and no one can argue with that. The problem is that such a view is logically inconsistent with what we observe from Catholicism vs. Islam which claims to be its superior. Islam itself can’t be such a great religion because no one can truly be Muslim. All Muslims are like Protestant Christians. i.e. Not really Christian/Muslim because no one can say which is the right interpretation of Scripture and revelation. They are ‘best guess’ Christians/Muslims

God Bless

 

[Aydan]

They certainly have Tradition. They don’t have centralized authority.

Now if you want to argue that future persecution is now ruled out by the Magisterium, I would tend to agree. But as I said, that’s small comfort to the people who were killed by Catholics in the past.

Edwin

I cannot believe you are actually comparing Catholics to those who kill nonbelievers in the name of Islam that is a serious insult I have never heard of any Catholic governments who would advocate flying planes into buildings or planting bombs on trains or attacking a US base in Germany have you? Please tell me what piece of Catholic doctrine would justify such actions.

 

[Contarini]

About heretics, you might actually want to get facts correct. Only the heresy is determined by the Magestirium. The actions to take on heresy were purely political.

False dichotomy that makes no sense whatever in light of the evidence. Leo X condemned the view that heretics should not be burned. Nothing was “purely political” in that era–this is a post-Enlightenment chimera.

There is no political infallibility.

Again, I happily accept the fact that Catholics don’t think Exsurge Domine’s statement about burning heretics (and other similar statements) is infallible. All I’m saying is that the Catholic Magisterium did nothing to repudiate the interpretations of Scripture that led to the burning of heretics, and in fact condemned those who advanced alternative interpretations.

So in Sunni Islam you have a bunch of imams with differing interpretations, some moderate and peaceful, others not. In Catholicism you have a single authority which once clearly promoted a violent and repressive approach to heretics and heathen, and now does not (some would say that by 21st-century standards it still does, but I disagree). I’m willing to accept the argument than in the long term the second is better, but it’s hardly an open and shut case.

So the contrast here is that Islam tells you this is WHAT YOU SHOULD DO.

No, from what you say below it’s clear that Islam in fact does not “do” anything of the sort. You can’t simultaneously argue that “no one can be a true Muslim” because there’s no Magisterium and that there’s something called “Islam” that tells people what to do.

The burning of heretics etc by the Catholic Church were simply political decisions. In fact, the condemnation of such actions are from the Church itself because it can look at teaching and determine that.

But when Leo condemned the proposition that “the burning of heretics is against the will of the Spirit,” that wasn’t from the Church itself?

Essentially your position boils down to: anything that the Church does that is good is truly done by the Church, and anything else is “purely political” and so doesn’t count. Special pleading of the worst kind.

Something you might have failed to realize all this time is that Islam is by no means a FALSE RELIGION based on the fact that it says ‘Kill infidels’ or certain persons. If it is indeed the truth, then that is certainly correct and no one can argue with that.

But since it isn’t the truth, it isn’t correct. If it were true that no one can be saved unless they kiss a silver teapot three times a day, then a religion teaching this would be correct. But since it isn’t, it isn’t.

I think that you are talking about the basis on which we can discern whether a religion is true or false. You seem to be suggesting that moral criteria are irrelevant and that we can make this discernment based rather on whether the religion provides internal criteria allowing for absolute certainty. I think that this is an evil belief, and I hope that I have misunderstood you, since I am horrified at the prospect of any of my brothers and sisters in Christ (or any fellow human at all) embracing so noxious an error.

The problem is that such a view is logically inconsistent with what we observe from Catholicism vs. Islam which claims to be its superior. Islam itself can’t be such a great religion because no one can truly be Muslim. All Muslims are like Protestant Christians. i.e. Not really Christian/Muslim because no one can say which is the right interpretation of Scripture and revelation. They are ‘best guess’ Christians/Muslims

If you take that approach, you can argue that Catholics in the early sixteenth century were in an even worse position. The “best guess” available to a Catholic in 1520 was that the Church clearly endorsed the burning of heretics. Now, of course, we “know” that this “best guess” was wrong. In other words, not only does the Magisterium not give the certainty that you and other conservative Catholics claim–a reliance on the Magisterium, given the best evidence available at any given time, can be shown to be at times positively misleading.

It’s easy for you in 2011 to say that the sixteenth-century Catholics ought somehow to have known that Erasmus (and even Luther, who was the person actually being condemned in Exsurge Domine for his rejection of the burning of heretics among other things) was right and Leo was wrong. But it seems to me that this is anachronistic balderdash.

So this whole claim of certainty makes no sense. It runs flatly counter to the evidence. I’m not at all sure that this discredits Catholicism, by the way. But your line of argument is patently wrong.

Edwin

 

[schaick]

Actually this is the problem. There is no Tradition and Infallible authority to interpret the Quran. Such an institution was not appointed by their prophet.

So what they are facing here is exactly what Protestants face and what Catholics will face if they reject Tradition and Authority. Islam has no such thing as Tradition and Authority as Catholics do. So its a hodgepodge. Each Imaam has his own view etc. There is no way to say WHO is right because there is NO central established authority by the prophet. So if you are a person wanting to know EXACTLY what Muhammad meant when he said something, there is NO WAY logical to do so. As long as an interpretation can be reconciled with the book in some way, it is acceptable. So its like a bunch of dots. Connections can be made in anyway and there could be many many ways.

Islam is actually a good example as to what would have happened if Jesus just left behind a Bible. Christianity would have been lost the day he ascended in to heaven. All we would have is uncertainty about which is right. There would just be “Christians” who interpret a book anyway they want.

God Bless

lol! Can’t believe you are equating Non-catholic Christians with Muslims.

First of all the Holy Bible is a beautifully written and very clear account of how man has failed to follow GOD’s rules, what GOD has done for us in sending HIS Son to pay our debt of sin and what we must do to be holy and follow in Jesus’ footsteps.

The Quran is a hodgepodge of chapters in no special order except by length of the chapter. There are words that no one knows what they mean, initial letters that mean nothing??, historical facts has been distorted and twisted, etc. One huge issue is the fact that peaceful verses came first then allah send better verses and these happen to be the violent ones.

A Muslim interpreting for himself could easily find violence is condoned in the Quran, read hadith and Mohammad condoned it too.

A non-catholic christian even a non-trinitarian interpreting for himself=Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Oneness Penecostals, etc. Are these people killing in Jesus’ name.

Just can’t be found in the Gospel.

Of course there have been nut jobs out there killing but again you will find no support for such activity in the Gospel. In the Quran you will.

 

[Contarini]

I cannot believe you are actually comparing Catholics to those who kill nonbelievers in the name of Islam that is a serious insult

I’m sorry that you find the historical evidence insulting. But there’s simply no doubt whatsoever that Catholics (and other Christians) have at times killed heretics and nonbelievers in the name of Christianity.

I have never heard of any Catholic governments who would advocate flying planes into buildings or planting bombs on trains or attacking a US base in Germany have you?

Of course not. We’re talking about Catholic actions in the past–though not exclusively the remote past (we could talk about Franco in Spain and the Ustashe in Croatia, but I’d rather stick to the period I know more about and where the case is clearer). Some Catholics have the weird idea that this lets Catholics off the hook. But Catholicism is supposed to have been just as true in 1500 as it is today. And in 1500 it was clearly the position of the leaders of the Catholic Church that orthodox Christianity permitted and even sometimes mandated killing for religious reasons.

Please tell me what piece of Catholic doctrine would justify such actions.

The following:

1. Heresy is a grave sin that destroys souls and endangers society.
2. Civil governments have the task of fostering the spiritual as well as physical welfare of their subjects.
3. Therefore, those who endanger the spiritual welfare of Christians ought to be punished by the civil authorities, and church courts can and should hand impenitent or relapsed heretics over to those authorities with the full expectation that the death penalty will follow.

You can find the theological basis for the medieval/early modern Church’s position here. And yes, I know that Aquinas is not the Magisterium. I have already pointed to Exsurge Domine as one example of a Church document condemning the view that heretics should not be burned. I await the citation of a single magisterial document, or a single Doctor of the Church between 1100 and 1700, teaching contrary to Aquinas on this point.

Edwin

 

[ADouglass]

Hello my friend. Please clarify this remark. I think I understand what you are saying, but I want to be sure I have it right. Peace

Okay, to love our enemies is to do good things for them because we care about what happens to them, not because we are trying to conceal our real feelings toward them that might not be so pleasant to trick them into thinking we’re their friends and then execute them once we have the upper hand if they don’t convert to our religion. Praying for our enemies would be a prime example of loving our enemies because this is done in private and hence serves no real purpose besides helping them. I would disagree that helping a pedophile find more victims would qualify as doing good for those who are our enemies. Was this what you were looking for?

 

[ddarko]

False dichotomy that makes no sense whatever in light of the evidence. Leo X condemned the view that heretics should not be burned. Nothing was “purely political” in that era–this is a post-Enlightenment chimera.

Come on Edwin. Any fool knows that “Burn the heretics” is not a Church teaching. The Church teaching was ‘heresy is wrong’ and ‘this is heresy’. How they went about it was a prudent decision which would have been political, psychological … who knows.

Again, I happily accept the fact that Catholics don’t think Exsurge Domine’s statement about burning …and in fact condemned those who advanced alternative interpretations.

I am sorry, what does the magestirum have to do here? You are attacking a straw man. The magestirium declared what was heresy. The people of the church during that time decided what to do about it.

The ones who advanced alternate interpretations should indeed have been condemned. I am not sure what your point is?

So in Sunni Islam you have a bunch of imams with differing interpretations, some moderate and peaceful, others not.,1st-century standards it still does, but I disagree). I’m willing to accept the argument than in the long term the second is better, but it’s hardly an open and shut case.

Well I mean by your confused standards yes, everything is open. But may I remind you, the Church teachings have always been clear. It has never changed. That is what you don’t seem to realize. Instead you are equating a political/people’s decision with the Islamic command to approve violence. You see the in the 2nd case with Islam, there is NO ONE who can claim to know the correct interpretation. That is the problem. I know it hits close to home considering you are not exactly Catholic but thats the truth.

No, from what you say below it’s clear that Islam in fact does not “do” anything of the sort. You can’t simultaneously argue that “no one can be a true Muslim” because there’s no Magisterium and that there’s something called “Islam” that tells people what to do.

No Edwin, the point is that Islam is flawed. Just as Protestantism. There is no logical way of knowing what to believe and whether someone is Christian anymore under those religions.

But when Leo condemned the proposition that “the burning of heretics is against the will of the Spirit,” that wasn’t from the Church itself?

Was that Ex Cathedra? Was that taught by the magestirium of the Church? I don’t think so.

Essentially your position boils down to: anything that the Church does that is good is truly done by the Church, and anything else is “purely political” and so doesn’t count. Special pleading of the worst kind.

No actually you might have missed what I am saying. My point is that you believe in Scripture, Tradition and Authority. Either all three or you are left with nothing. The reason why we can say that ‘X’ is wrong is because of what the church teaches.

That is why I said if Islam were true, it might well be the right thing to kill infidels.

But since it isn’t the truth, it isn’t correct. If it were true that no one can be saved unless they kiss a silver teapot three times a day, then a religion teaching this would be correct. But since it isn’t, it isn’t.

Thats impressive logic right there How exactly did you come to the conclusion that 'kissing the silver pot three times is not what gets you saved"? Was it your ‘personal’ interpretation ?

(continued…)

 

[ddarko]

(Continued…)

I think that you are talking about the basis on which we can discern whether a religion is true or false. You seem to be suggesting that moral criteria are irrelevant and that we ca…ct of any of my brothers and sisters in Christ (or any fellow human at all) embracing so noxious an error.

Ha? Maybe you don’t realize it. You can’t really state that Islam is EVIL if it condoned violence against a certain group of people. To say such a thing is ridiculous logically speaking.

Take our own Bible. We have numerous cases where Israel ended up serving up the Canaanites some pretty huge doses of violence. Those are not symbolic but pretty real violence. What would have happened if Israelite said to Joshua or Moses ‘Hey thats not right. These people have been living here. God is contradicting himself here. An all good God can’t ask something like that’ etc.

Or take Abraham. What if he said ‘God you can’t be real if you are not all good. You can’t ask me to sacrifice my only son’.

So you see, our Moral Compass actually gets certainty from our faith. We might be able to reason to the natural law. BUT, there is really no necessity to uphold the natural law unless you start with basic premises like ‘dignity of human beings’, ‘freedom of choice’ etc. Depending on your religion, it might well be that those don’t hold true.

Also, you can’t simply pick your God and religion on preference. You have to be able to see logically with certainty what you should believe in IF YOU accept Christ.

So in Islam, we can accept Muhammad but we really have no clue what to believe in. Same goes for Protestants.

In Catholicism, if you accept Christ, you know what you have to believe in.

If you take that approach, you can argue that Catholics in the early sixteenth century were in an even worse position. The “best guess” available to a Catholic in 1520 was that the Church clearly endorsed the burning of heretics. Now, of course, we “know” that this “best guess” was wrong. In other words, not only does the Magisterium not give the certainty that you and other conservative Catholics claim–a reliance on the Magisterium, given the best evidence available at any given time, can be shown to be at times positively misleading.

I explained this before. So no, Catholics were never ‘best guess’ Christians.

It’s easy for you in 2011 to say that the sixteenth-century Catholics ought somehow to have known that Erasmus (and even Luther, who was the person actually being condemned in Exsurge Domine for his rejection of the burning of heretics among other things) was right and Leo was wrong. But it seems to me that this is anachronistic balderdash.

Hey, truths the truth. You are mixing up teachings with actions of Catholics.

So this whole claim of certainty makes no sense. It runs flatly counter to the evidence. I’m not at all sure that this discredits Catholicism, by the way. But your line of argument is patently wrong.

Edwin

Of course Edwin. This is not easy to understand. If this was, you would be Roman Catholic today.

There is certainty. Christ didn’t just leave you a book hoping that you will get it right by fluke. The sooner you understand that the better.

God Bless

P.S. Please address the essence of my arguments. No need to give a line by line counter. In a honest debate, people ask the other person questions if they did not get something. They don’t try to comb through looking for something to reply back with.

I only did the same to you as a courtesy to you but I won’t in future address your posts that way. You repeat yourself too often and it takes me too much time to EDIT your stuff in order to get it under 6000 words.

 

[Aydan]

I agree but the thing that separates Protestants from Muslims is that Muslims believe that the Quran has been perfectly preserved and it is the Word of God verbatim so cannot be changed or reinterpreted.

Actually this is the problem. There is no Tradition and Infallible authority to interpret the Quran. Such an institution was not appointed by their prophet.

So what they are facing here is exactly what Protestants face and what Catholics will face if they reject Tradition and Authority. Islam has no such thing as Tradition and Authority as Catholics do. So its a hodgepodge. Each Imaam has his own view etc. There is no way to say WHO is right because there is NO central established authority by the prophet. So if you are a person wanting to know EXACTLY what Muhammad meant when he said something, there is NO WAY logical to do so. As long as an interpretation can be reconciled with the book in some way, it is acceptable. So its like a bunch of dots. Connections can be made in anyway and there could be many many ways.

Islam is actually a good example as to what would have happened if Jesus just left behind a Bible. Christianity would have been lost the day he ascended in to heaven. All we would have is uncertainty about which is right. There would just be “Christians” who interpret a book anyway they want.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

I agree but the thing that separates Protestants from Muslims is that Muslims believe that the Quran has been perfectly preserved and it is the Word of God verbatim so cannot be changed or reinterpreted.

Oh yes, there is a dissimilarity. Protestants are much closer to the truth than Muslims for sure because the book they are starting off with does contain the word of God.

But in terms of their certainty, they do have a problem as to how to interpret.

God Bless

 

[Sam_777]

Muslims will not love me.

Muslims do not love each others, check these (Video, Link1, Link2, Link3.), it does not matter if they tell me that they love me, what is important to me is the love through their deeds towards me.

(Matthew 7:15-17):
"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit."

 

[schaick]

(Continued…)

Ha? Maybe you don’t realize it. You can’t really state that Islam is EVIL if it condoned violence against a certain group of people. To say such a thing is ridiculous logically speaking.

Take our own Bible. We have numerous cases where Israel ended up serving up the Canaanites some pretty huge doses of violence. Those are not symbolic but pretty real violence. What would have happened if Israelite said to Joshua or Moses ‘Hey thats not right. These people have been living here. God is contradicting himself here. An all good God can’t ask something like that’ etc.

Or take Abraham. What if he said ‘God you can’t be real if you are not all good. You can’t ask me to sacrifice my only son’.

So you see, our Moral Compass actually gets certainty from our faith. We might be able to reason to the natural law. BUT, there is really no necessity to uphold the natural law unless you start with basic premises like ‘dignity of human beings’, ‘freedom of choice’ etc. Depending on your religion, it might well be that those don’t hold true.

Also, you can’t simply pick your God and religion on preference. You have to be able to see logically with certainty what you should believe in IF YOU accept Christ.

So in Islam, we can accept Muhammad but we really have no clue what to believe in. Same goes for Protestants.

In Catholicism, if you accept Christ, you know what you have to believe in.

I explained this before. So no, Catholics were never ‘best guess’ Christians.

Hey, truths the truth. You are mixing up teachings with actions of Catholics.

Of course Edwin. This is not easy to understand. If this was, you would be Roman Catholic today.

There is certainty. Christ didn’t just leave you a book hoping that you will get it right by fluke. The sooner you understand that the better.

God Bless

P.S. Please address the essence of my arguments. No need to give a line by line counter. In a honest debate, people ask the other person questions if they did not get something. They don’t try to comb through looking for something to reply back with.

I only did the same to you as a courtesy to you but I won’t in future address your posts that way. You repeat yourself too often and it takes me too much time to EDIT your stuff in order to get it under 6000 words.

Now you are comparing the violence of Islam with the GOD of Israel!!

Old Testament violence is very specific- time, place and people. Do you not realize that the Old Testament violence was ordered against very despicable, depraved people- infant sacrifices, peoples proud of bing evil, torture, etc.

If the people left the land peaceably GOD did not order them to hunt down and kill the evil people. GOD gave the people chances to repent.

Read Genesis 18:

32 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?”

He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”

GOD was willing to save the city of Sodom if even 10 righteous people could be found.

The allah of the Quran on the other hand says to subdue or kill **all non-muslims **.

 

[schaick]

Muslims do not love each others, check these (Video, Link1, Link2, Link3.), it does not matter if they tell me that they love me, what is important to me is the love through their deeds towards me.

(Matthew 7:15-17):
"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit."

I couldn’t watch all of the video- sick, sick people.

We see many criminals in prisons turning to Islam- they are given free reign by allah to do evil.

Pray you are staying safe!!

 

[GaryTaylor]

You see the news on Yemen this morning? President Ali Abdullah advisor to the US who has been tracking the terrorist movements of al quada, is being forced to resign.

Speakers for the students at Sanaa University are saying its a Religious Responsibility “deposing of a tyrannt is a religious responsibility”! What about bin Laden? Thats not a religious responsibility?

Only movement I see happening is ousting anyone who has anything to do with the US and the Civil world. What else but that has happened in the middle east?

We don’t need to identify Islams God, we need to respond to GOOD, MORAL, RIGHT. Leave the rest in Gods hands.