S
sedonaman
Guest
Appeal to authority. fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html
- Status
S
sedonaman
Guest
Planten has never answered why Mohammed has to rely on Christianity and Judaism so much. Why can’t he stand on his own?
S
sedonaman
Guest
Do you understand what “anointed” meant in ancient Israel?
Because it obviously does more than that.
R
ralphinal
Guest
So, if Allah IS the Father, as you claim, then that passage is WRONG. Christians have NEVER taught that The Father is Christ. If Allah is not the Father, which is not what you claim, the passage stands
S
sedonaman
Guest
Allah can’t be the Father because all his followers are his slaves; we have that from Muslim Woman and/or Sister Amy, who are Muslims. Isn’t there also a Muslim poster who goes by the name “slaveofallah” or something like it? What true father makes slaves of his children?
R
ralphinal
Guest
That is a good argument, but not the one I am using now.
Why would Jesus teach Father/child relationship just to have Muhammed come along and teach master/slave? And a Father LOVES his Children. A Master NEVER TRULY loves his slaves. A child exists because of a Father’s love. A slave exists because the master has a use for them. At the whim of a master, the slave is destroyed.
S
sedonaman
Guest
That gets back to my question to Muslims as to what exactly are the teachings of Jesus?
S
spn82756
Guest
Satan…the being with the most to can from human rejection of Jesus.
B
bridgeforsale
Guest
Muhammad himself was illiterate (this is factually true, I’m not just saying this to be insultive toward his followers). Therefore, others had to invent what is now referred to as the Koran. How this exactly happened, what was said between the parties, etc. who the heck knows. What we’re left with is a book that is essentially a rewriten Judeo-Christian bible (but with an Arab, and ironically anti-Christian slant). So the error of Islam (in terms of theological error) seems obvious, but of course this is the same sort of argument a Jewish theological scholar might use against his Christian counterpart; and there’s nothing to suggest this sort of argument technique will work any better than it has in the past.
What has worked? I think we only need look at our own history to find out. Turn the pages back a few centuries we start walking through a world where people were being falsely accused of ridiculous things, like being witches, and in some cases executed because of this, where Catholics and Protestants fought against each other with centuries of bloodletting on both sides, where inquisitions burned heretics at the stake (for merely thinking the wrong thing out loud, and that’s if the accusations had any merit at all, which in many cases they didn’t), Jews were forced into ghetto’s (and to wear identifying armbands), etc. In other words we don’t have to look very far to see the insane propencity of religion, just open a history book.
What eventually stopped this lunacy? A small group of men we now refer to as the enlightenment thinkers, by some miracle, seized power. Where still riding their wave today, but the sad part is most of us have no idea where our freedoms came from and the type of men our founding fathers (and their intellectual sources of inspiration) were. We see the worse propencity of religion in Islam. These people claim credit for burning the library at Alexandria for goodness sake; and imagine that’s a good thing (an alleged event recorded in the Koran).
Their bible celebrates burning books, which of course is where evil always starts isn’t it? What are the two things a tyrant always wants to gain control of first? The guns and the books
So you folks can go on thinking this is the fault of the devil or whatever, but it’s not. Religion can only exist in an intellectual void.
S
sedonaman
Guest
There’s a lot here that didn’t answer my question. Perhaps I should have said, “Planten has never answered why Islam has to rely on Christianity and Judaism so much. Why can’t it stand on his own?”Muhammad himself was illiterate (this is factually true, I’m not just saying this to be insultive toward his followers). Therefore, others had to invent what is now referred to as the Koran. How this exactly happened, what was said between the parties, etc. who the heck knows. What we’re left with is a book that is essentially a rewriten Judeo-Christian bible (but with an Arab, and ironically anti-Christian slant). So the error of Islam (in terms of theological error) seems obvious, but of course this is the same sort of argument a Jewish theological scholar might use against his Christian counterpart; and there’s nothing to suggest this sort of argument technique will work any better than it has in the past.
What has worked? I think we only need look at our own history to find out. Turn the pages back a few centuries we start walking through a world where people were being falsely accused of ridiculous things, like being witches, and in some cases executed because of this, where Catholics and Protestants fought against each other with centuries of bloodletting on both sides, where inquisitions burned heretics at the stake (for merely thinking the wrong thing out loud, and that’s if the accusations had any merit at all, which in many cases they didn’t), Jews were forced into ghetto’s (and to wear identifying armbands), etc. In other words we don’t have to look very far to see the insane propencity of religion, just open a history book.
What eventually stopped this lunacy? A small group of men we now refer to as the enlightenment thinkers, by some miracle, seized power. Where still riding their wave today, but the sad part is most of us have no idea where our freedoms came from and the type of men our founding fathers (and their intellectual sources of inspiration) were. We see the worse propencity of religion in Islam. These people claim credit for burning the library at Alexandria for goodness sake; and imagine that’s a good thing (an alleged event recorded in the Koran).
Their bible celebrates burning books, which of course is where evil always starts isn’t it? What are the two things a tyrant always wants to gain control of first? The guns and the books
So you folks can go on thinking this is the fault of the devil or whatever, but it’s not. Religion can only exist in an intellectual void.
B
bridgeforsale
Guest
He won’t, he’ll deny the validity of your question, and what to you will seem evasive will to him seem like a defense of his sacred faith against attack (however crafty it might be). In fact he could even say the similarities are intentional (in fact I think he would would have to say this; just like the Christian would say the parallels between the Old and New Testaments were intentional and one was designed to prefigure the other).
But of course, to the Muslim I would say, think about the absurdity of this whole thing for a moment. I don’t think Muhammad actually denied the validity of the Gospels and Old Testament (albeit his interpretations did strongly deviate from Judeo-Christian interpretations). But he agreed with them at least in enough respects to appreciate the message of Jesus (and view it as a message from god, whether he viewed Jesus as a mere prophet, or a prophet with special status, but not a god in the trinitarian sense).
So under these assumptions god instructed Jesus to teach things like love your enemy, and then told Muhammad to go out and kill the infidels? Basically we have the angry and vengeful god of the Old Testament, the peace and love god of the New Testament, and then I suppose god saw the error of his ways, and went back to plan A (angry and vengeful).
Therefore, according to the Muslim, god is schizophrenic
F
findinganswers
Guest
I wasn’t aware of the forum etiquette…My apologies…
I am a striving to be a Muslim. But I enjoy learning about all religions.
C
Catherine_S
Guest
***The Great *and Enduring Heresy of Mohammed
By Hilaire Belloc
Editor’s note: In calling Islam a heresy, Belloc is speaking loosely. A heresy is a movement of baptized Christians who deny part of the Christian faith; Muslims are not baptized. Though the early history of Islam was shaped by Jewish, Christian, and Arab pagan influences, it was a new religion, not simply a splinter from early Chritianity. The fact that Islam is not technically a heresy takes nothing away from the accuraby of Belloc’s historical exposition and his prescience regarding the dangers of Islam’s global re-emergence.
Mohammedanism was a heresy, not a new religion: That is the essential point to gasp before going any further. It was not a pagan contrast with the Church; it was a* perversion** of Christian doctrine. Its vitality and endurance soon gave it the appearance of a new religion, but those who were contemporary with its rise saw it for what it was—not a denial but** an adaptation** and a misuse of the Christian thing.*
The chief heresiarch, Mohammed, was not, like most heresiarchs, a man of Catholic birth and doctrine. He sprang from pagans. But that which he taught was* in the main** Catholic doctrine, albeit oversimplified. He took over very few of those** old pagan ideas** that might have been native to him from his descent. But the** very**** foundation of** his teaching was that prime Catholic doctrine, the unity and omnipotence of God. The world of good spirits and angels and of evil spirits in rebellion against God was a part of the teaching, with** a chief evil spirit, such as Christendom had recognized. Mohammed preached with insistence that prime Catholic doctrine, on the human side—the immortality of the soul and its responsibility for actions in this life, coupled with the consequent doctrine of punishment and reward after death.
Catholic doctrine was true (he seemed to say), but it had become encumbered with false accretions; it had become complicated by needless manmade additions, including the idea that its founder was divine, and the growth of a parasitical caste of priests who battened on a late, imagined, system of sacraments that they alone could administer. All those corrupt accretions** must be swept away.*
There is thus a very great deal in common between the enthusiasm with which Mohammed’s teaching attacked the priesthood, the Mass and the* S*acraments**, and the enthusiasm with which Calvinism, the central motive force of the** Reformation**,** did the same**. As we all know, the new teaching relaxed the marriage laws, but in practice this did not affect the mass of his followers, who remained monogamous. It made divorce as easy as possible, for the sacramental idea of marriage disappeared. It insisted upon the equality of men, and it necessarily had that further factor in which it resembled Calvinism**: the sense of** predestination** or** fate**, of what the followers of** John Knox** were** always** calling"the immutable decrees of God"
Complete article
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0305clas.asp
B
bridgeforsale
Guest
Wow, all that just to ultimately wage a backdoor attack on protestants (and worse, misstate the impetus for the reformation, it’s chief causes, and indeed it’s real founder, former Catholic priest Martin Luther). What a huge exercise in missing the point (and your enthusiasm to divert attention from the real threat we face, and fulfill your own self-interest by sneaking in an attack against your fellow Christians who revolted from your church centuries ago, for good reason I might add, is duly noted). This tells me that your mentality is really no different from other fundamentalists (whether they be Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindu’s, or whatever).
C
Catherine_S
Guest
God Bless You bridgeforsale!
Sometimes a look at the* larger*** picture brings clarity and insight!
Sometimes it* does not!***
*And history **continues *to repeat itself :yup:!
R
ralphinal
Guest
Because it was an amalgamation of Jewish and Christian heresies. IN other words, Islam cannot exist on its own.
M
MMprn
Guest
You will find, in the book, “Moslems- Their Beliefs,Practices, and Politics,” written by Gabriel Oussani and Hilaire Belloc, 1936, a statement that Islam is an external Heresy.
Belloc continues, It is heresy, that is the essential point to grasp. It began as a heresy not as a new religion. It was not a pagan contrast with the Church; it was not an alien enemy. It was a perversion of Christian doctrine. It’s vitality and endurance soon gave the appearance of a new religion, but those who were contemporary with its’ rise saw it for what it was----not a denial, but an adaptation and a misuse of the Christian thing. It differed from most (not from all ) heresies in this, that it did not arise from within the bounds of the Christian Church. Mohammed. himself, sprang from pagans. But that which he taught was in the main Catholic doctrine, oversimplified.
It is good to see a section of the text above.
The book is an excellent read.
Belloc continues, It is heresy, that is the essential point to grasp. It began as a heresy not as a new religion. It was not a pagan contrast with the Church; it was not an alien enemy. It was a perversion of Christian doctrine. It’s vitality and endurance soon gave the appearance of a new religion, but those who were contemporary with its’ rise saw it for what it was----not a denial, but an adaptation and a misuse of the Christian thing. It differed from most (not from all ) heresies in this, that it did not arise from within the bounds of the Christian Church. Mohammed. himself, sprang from pagans. But that which he taught was in the main Catholic doctrine, oversimplified.
It is good to see a section of the text above.
The book is an excellent read.
- Status