|
Any Answers from Christians? |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 23456 10> |
| Author | |
martha 
Senior Member 
Joined: 30 October 2007 Status: Offline Points: 1140 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: 27 July 2009 at 5:57am |
|
Nastassia -'do not go after the speck in your brother's eye when you've got a plank in your own.'
 he, he.....I hadn't heard it put quite like that before. LOVE IT, lol. Must remember it |
|
|
some of us are a lot like cement:- all mixed up and permanently set
|
|
 |
|
|
Natassia
Senior Member 
Joined: 16 July 2009 Status: Offline Points: 177 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 27 July 2009 at 12:21am |
|
Look, everything you are describing to me about Allah's justice sounds like the point-of-view of what a human would think is justice. A human who is poor wouldn't think it fair to have to free two slaves for his heinous sin when his rich neighbor could afford to free 10 slaves. That is HUMAN thinking. So, a human would think: since I don't believe that it is fair for me to have to pay such a huge price because it is too difficult for me, then a truly merciful God would let me off the hook with a tiny penalty. Sorry dude, but that's insane. Why is a message only complete if it gives humans a penal code? That's nuts. Penal codes need to evolve with societies and education and technology. A complete message is one that gives humans the way to MORALITY. If a person is moral, then they can come up with a moral penal code for their society. Does God send correspondences? That's the Holy Spirit. God has most definitely communicated with me and put words in my head. Man...Muslims and the Torah! There is criminal law and there is moral law in the Torah. Moral law states that adultery is a sin. Criminal law states how to determine guilt and then what punishment to apply. God's moral Law has always remained the same. Adultery has always been wrong, even before the Israelites had the Torah. God's moral Law applies to all humanity. The Torah applies only to the Jews. If you want to know about how they interpret and apply it, then speak to a Jew. The Israelites bound themselves in a covenant with God. They didn't have to, but they chose to. So, once they went into this "contract" with the Lord, they were bound by His Laws. The Laws were given to them to separate them from the surrounding pagan nations that participated in all sorts of immoralities. The reason why they were to be separated was because Israel was to be a light for all nations. They failed of course, as God always knew they would. However, the Messiah--brought forth out of Israel--did not fail and is a light unto the world. If worshiping the Messiah is worse than committing adultery or murder, than God is not just. You wrote: I never said they did. Obviously, modern Jews had nothing to do with Jesus' attempted execution, for example. But, they do still reject him as a false prophet, don't they? They do still regard the execution as proof that Jesus was a false prophet. Do you believe that they can still go to Heaven with such a mindset? Of course, there were many Jews in Jesus' time who followed him. There were many Jews before Jesus who did not kill the prophets and followed them. They were true believers and they will be in Heaven, inshaAllah. I wrote: So Allah sends people to ETERNAL PHYSICAL TORTURE for their mindset? Jews reject Jesus as a false prophet--therefore they will be judged according to their adherence to the Law. Can they still go to Heaven? If they have followed the Law perfectly. So, do you care to answer my question now? Okay, about monotheism vs. polytheism. First of all, I don't think God really cares what you call me. I certainly don't. In your eyes, my belief in the nature of God is polytheistic. In my eyes, I only believe in one God. Secondly, it's the FALSE gods and idols that God has a problem with. Jesus exists. Jesus is the Messiah. Jesus is the exalted servant of God. Jesus is the Word of God. Jesus is the Son of God. Jesus is in authority over me. So, if I believe in a triune nature of God, I seriously doubt an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent Creator is going to take exception to the way my brain works. Re: Ishmael and the Arabs. And so Josephus is an anthropology expert? Please. Josephus wrote all sorts of stuff...some of which were blatantly biased and some of which were blatantly forged. If the Arabs want Ishmael as their father, so be it. It still provides no historicity for their claims about the Ka'aba. Do you have any idea what "tu quoque" means? It is a logical fallacy employed to avoid addressing the topic at hand. I brought up the topic that Islam incorporates paganism. In response, you pointed the finger at Christianity. Whether Christianity incorporates paganism or not, it does not negate the fact that Islam does. Please, research "logical fallacies" when you get a chance. Oh no...not the Baca = Ka'aba thing. ((shakes head)) Wow. Talk about begging the question and deliberate distortion of scriptures in favor of making a mountain out of a superficial molehill based on the similarity in names. First of all, are you trying to say that this passage in Psalms is one of the "uncorrupted" ones? If so, then that must mean Allah dwells INSIDE the Ka'aba...and there must be an altar within it where you are to make sacrifices. Secondly, the destination of the pilgrimage was to ZION...not Mecca/Makkah/Bakkah. Thirdly, it must also mean that people dwell INSIDE the Ka'aba. Does anyone dwell inside of it or do they just visit it? Baca has been translated either as �weeping� or �balsam trees� (which grow in dry places). It could be a real place, in which case it was a valley through which the pilgrims passed during their journey. Alternatively, it could be figurative. In this interpretation, even the dry, arid places through which the pilgrims pass are brought alive by their expectant joy as they near their destination. In either case, their pilgrimage is clearly to Jerusalem, as evidenced by the rest of the psalm. Why on earth would Jews, living in Israel and on their way to Jerusalem, take a huge detour through Mecca? ( Toby Jepson ) (By the way, I never claimed that the Bible is the Word of God.) There are no prophesies in the Quran except the one about the Byzantines and Persians...and that one flopped since victory did not happen for 14 years...not the 9 as had been prophesied. The Quran says that Muhammad was just a warner when people asked him to perform miracles. So are you saying that now Muhammad was a miracle worker? That's odd. Which was it? Did he just bring a warning or did he work miracles to help convince people of his prophethood? If that is the case, then why didn't he work miracles for the pagans? Original = first. So, the first sin was committed by Adam and Eve. Fine. They are the ones who brought the Knowledge of Good and of Evil to the rest of humanity. They learned the laws of morality and sin--the laws that condemn humans for their wickedness. When the law is in place, there are penalties for when it is broken. They chose the knowledge of the Law...a Law we, for some reason, can't seem to keep. Crucifixion comes into the picture because we all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I have sinned...many times. The price for my sin is death...eternal destruction. I'm not talking about death of the physical body. I'm talking--no more soul--the cessation of existence for all eternity. And regarding Sodom, are you trying to say that there were no infants or toddlers? And I thought that in Islam, only children who had hit puberty were held accountable for sins. So are you saying that the city of Sodom hadn't propogated in, oh let's say--10 years?! What is my explanation for the slaughter of innocents? A couple of possibilities: 1) God had the foreknowledge that every single one of those children was going to be a sexually immoral, violent, idol-worshipper. (Doesn't this remind you about the story of Musa, Allah's servant, and the boy he killed?) 2) The Israelites used God as validation for the slaughter when He in fact never commanded them to partake in it. Here's the thing...the Israelites never did wipe out all those people. Those tribes rose up later to fight them again. So obviously, IF God had commanded them to slaughter all of them, the Israelites disobeyed and it ended up costing them dearly later. How would we all stand condemned for Christ's death? We stand condemned in our sins. And if we die in our sins, we do not have eternal life. Christ chose to pay a gruesome price in fulfillment of the Law so that we may have eternal life. If you refuse to accept his payment on your behalf, than you will be judged according to everything you've done. And if you have broken the Law, it doesn't matter how many good deeds you've done--you are still a sinner. Killing can be justified by the law. Death is not an evil thing. MURDER is an evil thing. To kill someone breaking into your home to rape your wife is not wrong. Your act is justified in the eyes of God's Law because you love your wife and you seek to protect her. Fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets...that's in Matthew 5, I believe. To go into all of that now is going to take forever. Perhaps start another post on it later? So, what is "salvation" in Islam? What is it salvation from? What is the point of it? So, sin doesn't condemn you to hell? What does? Sin did not come into the world because of Adam and Eve. Knowledge of it did. And it is the knowledge of what is evil and doing it anyway that condemns us. Are you saying that there could be perfect, blameless human beings walking around today? Are you saying that all of us are capable of being perfect but it is the fault of our environment and satan that we are not? Throughout the Tanakh, God says: Be holy for I am holy. New Testament: Be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect. If God did not create us with sin, then He can demand holiness from us. (By the way, I love the Apostle Paul.) You know, the hypocrisy of the early Muslims is amazing. They had no problem executing poets for speaking out against Muhammad. They had no problem killing pagan merchants and stealing their wares. They had no problem executing hundreds of men and boys for the "crimes" of a few. They had no problem threatening violence on Christians and Jews if they did not convert or pay the Jizyah tax...and when one of their own is killed in another nation, they go attack. Amazing. And are you saying that the perfect words of Allah rely on the imperfect words of humans to provide it with proper context? Muhammad didn't escape the clutches of the poisoned meat. He suffered illness for a good three years before dying in his sixties. Muhammad did not tell the truth about the Judeo-Christian stories. They are distorted in the Quran...not to mention his incorporation of Gnostic stories... When Christians are violent, they violate the commands in their scriptures. (Matt. 7:12) When Muslims are violent, they are upholding the commands in their scriptures. (9:5, 9:29) The Spirit of God is a different "person" than the Son of God just as they both are different persons than God the Father. But they are all one God. SALVATION IN ISLAM IS CONTINGENT ON BELIEF IN MUHAMMAD. End of story. The Pericope of Adultera...are you saying that a Holy Spirit-inspired believer could not have included the story to teach a moral lesson? Good grief, the gospels are about Christ's ministry and teachings and the gospel. If you can retain a godly moral lesson from a "fabricated" story...what does it hurt? It's about morality and salvation...not about having a perfect set of documents to follow. How is that story heretical or blasphemous? It follows right along with the teaching of Christ: do not go after the speck in your brother's eye when you've got a plank in your own. Absolute morality: What is good has always been good. What is evil has always been evil. So, is morality in Islam absolute? If something is wrong and evil today, was it wrong and evil 1400 years ago? Humans are physically not like God. However, we are spiritual beings and God is spirit. That is why the scriptures say we have been made in the image of God. |
|
|
|
|
islamispeace
Senior Member 
Joined: 01 November 2005 Status: Offline Points: 2187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 26 July 2009 at 4:16pm |
|
Natassia: Don't you get it?
To require a different price for the same good is not just? That would
be like me walking into a store to purchase a hamburger and the guy
charges me $25.00 because I am wealthy but only charges the poor man
standing next to me $1.25. That is wrong. The sin remains the same and yet the punishment for it differs based on how blessed someone is? What is that?! What I get is that you don't understand that God is both just and fair. He is just because He requires all people, regardless of status, to atone for their sins. He is fair because He allows people to atone based on their abilities. Notice also that in the hadith I quoted, the person was told first to free a slave. Only when he demonstrated that this was beyond his means was he told to do something else. Your version is a mixture of injustice, unfairness and contradictions. It is sort of like a trinity!  Natassia: I apologize. The word I wanted to use was double-SPEAK. You use the word "justice" but mean it differently than the traditional (and modern) definition of the word. You are saying that Allah's justice is limited to the convenience level of humans. Wow. That causes me to lose respect for Allah, to be perfectly honest with you. You really are full of yourself, aren't you? Do you think that Allah cares if He has your respect or not? Like I said before, there is no universal charter on justice. Every society has its own views on it. Therefore, your assertion that I am contradicting the "traditional (and modern) definition" is a petty assumption and nothing more. Natassia: Justice = equal treatment in the eyes of the law. A man is subjected to the same laws as a woman. A believer is subjected to the same laws as a non-believer. Every person is required to atone for their sins, regardless of status. The only difference is that they can do so based on their means. This is both just and fair. And again, every society has its own views on justice. Natassia: Christianity is not a political ideology, nor is it meant to be applied as a governing law or legislation. In other words, the theology of Christianity is based on a personal relationship with God...not the establishment of a State. It teaches the individual believer how to live a righteous life in Christ...and how to treat others. So, Christianity is an incomplete message, not to mention extremely vague. How does one go about establishing "a personal relationship with God". Does He send correspondences to us? How do we know when we have established this relationship? Natassia: Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly. (Leviticus 19:15) Exactly. Judge your neighbor fairly. Since you are quoting the Old Testament, I assume you believe it still applies in full. Well then: 10 " 'If a man
commits adultery with another man's wife�with the wife of his
neighbor�both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10) [the very next chapter!] Natassia: The Torah (along with the Oral Law) was the
Israelite's first constitution and set of moral and criminal laws. They
defined sin as well as provided a penal code for the Hebrews. However,
the crime & punishment laws did not apply to Gentiles. There is no
crime and punishment in Christianity. So what God urges us to do is
administer justice in our courts and in our laws. And justice means
fairness. Separation of Church and State is perfectly compatible with
Christianity. So, God treats Jews differently than Gentiles! So much for justice and fairness! Yet again, you contradict yourself. Somewhere above, you criticized Islam because "Allah's justice is limited to the convenience level of humans". Yet now you say that in Christianity, God limits justice to human justice, based on human laws. Well done, Natassia! Natassia: And yet a Christian cannot atone for his sins. This is not just. There is nothing just about an eternal, physical torture chamber for human beings. Oh he can atone, but if he does not atone for the ultimate sin, that of worshiping the Messiah as God, then he might as well not atone for the other sins anyway. Natassia: No one is good but God. Eternal life is a gift, and the wages of sin is death. You don't want God? He's not going to force Himself on you. You think you can earn your way to heaven? That's an insult to God's glory, perfection, and holiness. You did not answer the question. What happens to those people who do not accept the gift of eternal life? Where do they go? Natassia: So Allah sends people to ETERNAL PHYSICAL TORTURE for their mindset? Another straw-man and another unanswered question. Natassia: Don't get me started on Judaism. I'm not a fan of -isms at all, in fact. However, I could have sworn that the Quran calls Muhammad the best of humanity...and says that believers are the best of all people. So the Jews feel they have a special status for being Jewish, and the Muslims believe they have a special status for being a part of the Islamic Ummah. I see nothing different here except that one is an ethnicity & religion and the other is a religion & political ideology. Yet, any person can join the Ummah. The Ummah is all-inclusive. Yet, the Bible maintains that Jews are God's people and Jesus goes so far as to call a Gentile woman a "dog". Natassia: Ah ah ah. You are making an unsubstantiated claim. If corruption has been added to the Word of God (as you call it), please tell me what it is that is corrupted. Show me which parts have been corrupted and explain why you believe they are wrong. For starters, consider that modern scholarship believes that the Torah was written or edited by more than individual. Yet, tradition states that Moses wrote the Torah. Who edited the Torah and why? And this is just the Old Testament. Don't even get me started on the New Testament! Natassia: Without a Savior, all of us are lost. We cannot earn salvation. To think so is arrogant and insulting to God (considering He is our Savior). I believe all people who would accept the gospel and salvation through Christ will be exposed to it somehow...whether on earth or in the grave. Everyone else will be judged based on the sins they have committed according to the Law of God. So, you have a choice: guaranteed salvation or judgment. Lost how? Be specific. What is your scriptural basis for what you just said? Where is the justice in treating those who believed the Gospel and those who didn't differently? What happens to those who undergo judgment? Natassia: LOL! Oh the double-standard. ROTFL! Oh, the tu quoque! My alleged "double-standard" has nothing to do with the misguided monotheism of Christianity, does it? The fact still remains that Christianity has a skewed version of monotheism. Natassia: Muslims believe in one God...They believe in Muhammad and so on. What is your shahadah? Ah yes, Allah AND Muhammad. What is it the Quran says? "To obey the Messenger is to obey Allah?" Wrong again! The shahada states "I testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is His messenger". There is nothing in there about Muhammad being equal to Allah! The Prophet even warned his followers to not overly praise him as you Christians have done with Jesus: Narrated �Umar: �I heard the Prophet saying, �Do not exaggerate in
praising me as the Christians praised the son of Mary, for I am only a
Slave. So, call me the Slave of Allah and His Apostle.� (Bukhari) My point about Christianity remains unanswered. Let me repeat it: The Christian concept of monotheism is pathetically skewed. God sends Himself in an inferior form (the Son) and prays to His superior form (the Father). Yeah, that's monotheism alright! Natassia: Explain that one...and Zeitgeist doesn't count since it has been debunked more times than I can count. Who or what is Zeitgeist? In any case, for starters consider the similarities between the Eucharist and a comparable ritual in Mithraism. Mithras made a similar analogy with his body and blood as Jesus did. Natassia: And tu quoque doesn't work on me. Islam incorporates paganism. Ironically, it doesn't work with me either! Natassia: Talk about BEGGING THE QUESTION! How were the supposedly "pagan" elements originally monotheistic? You have no proof that there ever was monotheism originally in Arabia until AFTER the birth and spread of Judaism. You have no proof Abraham ever set foot in the Arabian peninsula, and you have no proof that Ishmael was the father of the Arabs or even a monotheist himself. Let us look at the words of Josephus, who wrote almost 500 years before Islam: "But as for the Arabians, they circumcise after the thirteenth year, because Ishmael, the founder of their nation, who was born to Abraham of the concubine, was circumcised at that age; [...] They are an Arabian nation and name their tribes from these (the sons of Ishmael), both because of their own virtue, and because of the dignity of Abraham their father." (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 50, Chapter 12) So, the Arabs did trace their roots to Ishmael and also followed the same customs, such as circumcision, and this was hundreds of years before Islam. Concerning the Kaabah, it had been mentioned by the 1st century BC Greek historian Diodorus as well as Claudius Ptolemy, a 2nd century AD historian. As far as its status as a place of pilgrimage, consider Psalm 84: "1 How lovely is your dwelling place,
O LORD Almighty! [...] 5 Blessed are those whose strength is in you, who have set their hearts on pilgrimage. 6 As they pass through the Valley of Baca, they make it a place of springs; the autumn rains also cover it with pools." It refers to God's "dwelling place" and pilgrimage in the "Valley of Baca". The Jewish Encyclopedia gives interesting information about "Baca": Natassia: No, I'm asking you to back up your claim that the Quran is the Word of God since by it you condemn disbelieving monotheists (and others) to hell. For starters, its challenge for people to imitate it has gone unfulfilled. It makes prophecies which came true. The man who claimed it came from God made many prophecies which came true. He performed many miracles in front of many people. Hmmm. Yeah, you're right. It's not the Word of God!  What is your evidence that the Bible is the Word of God? Natassia: How can original sin be the "key" to the whole crucifixion scenario when the term isn't even in the Bible? Yes, the term "original sin" is not literally in the Bible. But the concept is there. Like I said, Paul was very big on the whole thing. The term itself was coined afterwards. Natassia: I do not believe that humans are born unrighteous/sinful. I believe that humans are born from sinful parents and are born with the ABILITY to sin (aka Free Will.) So then where does the crucifixion come in? Natassia: God knows ALL. However, I don't use it as a cop out for questions I can't answer. No, you just don't answer the questions! Natassia: Woo-hoo. You've quoted Genesis in order to back up your claim that God's actions are not the same as humans' actions. If that's the case...care to explain how there couldn't be ANY righteous people (including small children and babies) living in Sodom if there is no Original Sin? (I have an answer to that question; I'm just curious to hear yours.) Even a five year old would have figured it out by now. Sin comes by choice. It is completely possible that Sodom did not have any righteous people because they all chose to sin. Natassia: So, from what you've said, you cannot determine that the death of a baby or a child is necessarily "evil," correct? Especially if it is the will of God? I am saying that what God does is not your concern. What is your concern is that He says that you should not harm babies and children, even though they die all the time from natural causes which are under God's control. Natassia: Oh, we can talk about Numbers and Judges all day if you'd like. I think the Israelites were just as wicked as many of their pagan neighbors...especially when they started sacrificing their own children to Molech and participating in temple prostitution. You are not answering the question. What is that now , four times? What is your explanation for the slaughter of infants under the supposed orders of God? Natassia: The crucifixion of Christ was an evil act that the Almighty God was able to use to bring good for all humanity. God was not dependent on it. We are. If He had not forgiven us based on what Christ did, then we would all stand condemned on the day Christ died. How would we all stand condemned for Christ's death? Natassia: You don't understand, do you? I'm saying that something which is good may be used for evil, and something that is evil can be used for good. Killing a human being is an evil act; however sometimes it is the right thing to do if you are protecting an innocent child from a rapist. I understand that you like to use illogical analogies to support your premise. You claim that killing a human being can sometimes be a good thing. In other words, in your view, it would be "just". Of course, not everyone would consider that just. There are some people who believe that killing is never justified. This is more evidence that "justice" is not seen in one universal way by all people and that there is no "tradition or modern definition" of the word. Natassia: You keep repeating this point when I have refuted it already. God is dependent on nothing. If God chooses to allow us to exercise our free will and does not want to impede our exercise of it in any way...and yet He wants to provide a means of salvation that MAKES SENSE and fulfills the Law and the Prophets....then He might use the evil actions of humans in His plan. How does the Christian plan "make sense"? How does it fulfill the "law and the Prophets"? This is all very vague. Natassia: Was Allah dependent on the disobedience of Adam in order to ensure that he would be a viceroy for earth? No, but then at that point, there was no need for a plan of salvation was there? Only when Adam was placed on earth did God provide a path to salvation. The plan was not dependent on Adam's sin. Natassia: Ah, see...you claim that we are born imperfect. I claim that we make ourselves imperfect. Free will gives us the ability to be perfect or imperfect. How we exercise free will determines our perfection or imperfection. You say it is impossible to be perfect. Why? Is that because of Original Sin or is that Allah's fault for making us imperfect in the first place (which is the definition of Original Sin! lol) Original sin refers to the belief that sin came into the world through the actions of Adam and Eve. This is not the same as saying that humans are imperfect creatures who have freewill. Yes, Allah did create us to be imperfect. If it was possible for us to be perfect, then surely in the thousands of years of human history, there would have been many or at least a handful who demonstrated that perfection. Jesus would not count because you believe he is God, and we don't know much about his life prior to his ministry anyway. I believe that we are all born with a clean slate. This contradicts original sin. I believe that since we have freewill, we can choose good or evil. But, because of various factors, such as our environments and of course the whispers of Satan, many of us choose evil. God understands that we are not perfect. That is why He is always ready to forgive. We just have to ask and atone. But, ultimately, we have to have faith in Him and what He has revealed also. Natassia: God said: Be perfect. Humans said: I can't because I don't want to be. Where does He say to be perfect? How could He ask this of us? Natassia: I guess the 1st century Acts of the Apostles was a complete fabrication then...as were the epistles of Paul written before 60 AD. Yep! Paul was a false claimant. He is the one who invented most of the concepts found in Christianity, especially original sin. Natassia: No. The story goes that some non-Muslim Arabs (Jordanian area) executed some Muslim "missionaries." When Muhammad heard about it, he sent like 3,000 soldiers to fight...and they met up with about 100,000 (?) Byzantine soldiers. That was the Battle of Mutah. Yeah, that didn't turn out so good. Get your facts straight. It was a Byzantine official, Sharhabil, who executed the messenger. Instead of punishing this official, the Byzantines sent an army to protect him. That is when the ambush occurred and the Muslims had to withdraw. Yes that was the battle fo Mutah. Natassia: But, see, that story is not in the Quran. Should it be? It doesn't have to be. We have the information at our fingertips. It has always been known that the verse in question was revealed in a particular context. Natassia: How? The Quran says he was just a warner...nothing more. What evidence of divine guidance? For one thing, everytime his enemies tried to kill him or hurt him, he always seemed to escape their clutches. Natassia: How does that make me a liar and a hypocrite? A hypocrite is someone who says, for example, that they don't believe in something and yet they really do...or says they do believe in something and yet they really don't. Because you accuse someone of lying but are lying yourself. That's a hypocrite. Natassia: I say I don't believe in Muhammad, and I really don't. I say I do believe in God, and I really do. How does that make me a hypocrite and a liar? I was referring to your claim that Muhammad was a liar. My point was that your assertions against him are themselves lies. And I don't think you believe in God. You believe in a watered-down version of Him, invented in your mind. In essence, you have developed a belief in God based on your own understandig, and not on what He actually revealed. That is an element of disbelief. Natassia: Wow...spiritual stagnation is quite something to witness. God is spirit. Therefore God can be in someone and yet not BE that someone. The Spirit of God was in Christ. That doesn't mean the Spirit of God is Christ. So, are you saying that Jesus is not God? Hallelujah! Natassia: And Christians would like everyone to be freed by believing in the gospel. However, we won't fight you for rejecting it or kill people for leaving Christianity. Oh no, you Christians are perfect little angels. You would never harm anyone. The 2,000 years of violence and killings were just isolated incidents. Natassia: Whoa-ho-ho. To say that the words you speak are God's words...and the commands you give are God's commands...and salvation is contingent on belief in you...well, you're either God or you're a mad-man. Every prophet said that, including Jesus, except for the "salvation is contingent on belief in you" part. That was just an intentional misquotation on your part. You can either believe it or not. Natassia: And there you go with unsubstantiated claims. Which parts of the gospels and epistles are heretical and blasphemous? Would you doubt the sincerity of Muhammad's companions and earliest followers? I already mentioned one, the Pericope de Adultera. There are many others. Muhammad's companions did not contradict each other. Natassia: How is this vague? It is a yes or no question. Morality is absolute in Christianity. Morality is relative in atheism, nihilism, and secular humanism. So, what about Islam? Again, be specific. What do you mean by "absolute"? Based on your reference to atheism, I would say morality is absolute in Islam, but I would like to know specifically what you mean. If you mean that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, then yes morality is absolute. Natassia: Having to eat is a flaw? That's just the nature of having a physical body. It's not a flaw. To say so is to question the Designer. Are you calling His design flawed? Humans are imperfect when they sin. Feeling pain, sorrow, anguish, etc. are not flaws. God made us the way we are. He did not make us like Him. He does not need to eat. A being that has to eat to keep going is imperfect. A being that feels pain is imperfect. The design is not flawed. He made us that way for a reason. Natassia: P.S. This is getting to be a bit long and tedious. Can we condense it or something? Hey, you are the one who introduced new topics. I am having too much fun now! Actually, when I was writing this, I accidently pushed the wrong button and lost everything (I was about half-way done). I was so ticked off, but I got a hold of myself and rewrote the whole thing again. I still had a lot of fun! |
|
|
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)
|
|
|
|
|
Natassia
Senior Member
Joined: 16 July 2009 Status: Offline Points: 177 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 July 2009 at 10:40pm |
|
@ islamispeace
You wrote: The poor man was not burdened with an act of atonement he could not do. Not only is this justice, it is fairness. Allah will forgive anyone and allows them to atone in ways which are fair and within their means. Don't you get it? To require a different price for the same good is not just? That would be like me walking into a store to purchase a hamburger and the guy charges me $25.00 because I am wealthy but only charges the poor man standing next to me $1.25. That is wrong. The sin remains the same and yet the punishment for it differs based on how blessed someone is? What is that?! You wrote: Double-think refers to accepting two beliefs which are contradictory. I did not do that, nor did I "[change] the definition of justice". It would be injustice if the rich man was not required to atone for his sins whereas the poor man was, or vice-versa. Clearly, that is not the case. Regardless of one's status, they are required to atone for their sins. The only difference is that not everyone is able to atone in the same way. That is a fact of life. A poor man cannot free a slave. It would be unjust to require that from a poor person. So Islam, in its practicality, offers other ways. I apologize. The word I wanted to use was double-SPEAK. You use the word "justice" but mean it differently than the traditional (and modern) definition of the word. You are saying that Allah's justice is limited to the convenience level of humans. Wow. That causes me to lose respect for Allah, to be perfectly honest with you. You wrote: Justice is in the eye of the beholder. Can you provide me with a universal charter on justice? Does every nation, race or ethnic group have the same version of justice? Do you regard the Christian system to be just? Tell me why Jesus released the adulteress? How was that just? (We will not even get into the fact that the story is made up; I am bringing it up for argument's sake). Justice = equal treatment in the eyes of the law. A man is subjected to the same laws as a woman. A believer is subjected to the same laws as a non-believer. Ah yes, the story in John. Nevermind that the point of the story was to address the hypocrisy of sinners who stand in judgment over other sinners. Well, for argument's sake then... Christianity is not a political ideology, nor is it meant to be applied as a governing law or legislation. In other words, the theology of Christianity is based on a personal relationship with God...not the establishment of a State. It teaches the individual believer how to live a righteous life in Christ...and how to treat others. However, throughout the Bible you will find clues as to what justice means to God: Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly. (Leviticus 19:15) It is unthinkable that God would do wrong, that the Almighty would pervert justice. (Job 34:12) It is not good to be partial to the wicked or to deprive the innocent of justice. (Proverbs 18:15) Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow. (Isaiah 1:17) They trample on the heads of the poor as upon the dust of the ground and deny justice to the oppressed. Father and son use the same girl and so profane my holy name. (Amos 2:7) Hate evil, love good; maintain justice in the courts. (Amos 5:15) This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the alien or the poor. In your hearts do not think evil of each other.' (Zechariah 7:9-10) Humans are not to go around punishing people for sin. Sin is a transgression of moral law. Sin is not necessarily a crime. Just as a Muslim is thought to commit a sin if they neglect their prayers, it is not considered a crime under shariah law. The Torah (along with the Oral Law) was the Israelite's first constitution and set of moral and criminal laws. They defined sin as well as provided a penal code for the Hebrews. However, the crime & punishment laws did not apply to Gentiles. There is no crime and punishment in Christianity. So what God urges us to do is administer justice in our courts and in our laws. And justice means fairness. Separation of Church and State is perfectly compatible with Christianity. You wrote: Why not? He will pay for the sins he did not atone for, will he not? However, his eventual saving grace will be his faith in Allah. And yet a Christian cannot atone for his sins. This is not just. There is nothing just about an eternal, physical torture chamber for human beings. You wrote: I assume, by your words, that you believe that every good person goes to Heaven, regardless of religion. Is this correct? So, do you believe that a good Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Sikh, and Atheist will also go to Heaven? No one is good but God. Eternal life is a gift, and the wages of sin is death. You don't want God? He's not going to force Himself on you. You think you can earn your way to heaven? That's an insult to God's glory, perfection, and holiness. You wrote: I never said they did. Obviously, modern Jews had nothing to do with Jesus' attempted execution, for example. But, they do still reject him as a false prophet, don't they? They do still regard the execution as proof that Jesus was a false prophet. Do you believe that they can still go to Heaven with such a mindset? Of course, there were many Jews in Jesus' time who followed him. There were many Jews before Jesus who did not kill the prophets and followed them. They were true believers and they will be in Heaven, inshaAllah. So Allah sends people to ETERNAL PHYSICAL TORTURE for their mindset? You wrote: And this brings up the "chosen people" status. They would like us to believe that God prefers them over all other nations. I just had this discussion with the apocalyptic fanatic Douggg on another thread. By believing that Allah only sent Hebrew prophets, and considers the Jews to be the "chosen people", in effect superior to all other people, they utter yet another lie against Allah. This is another factor of their disbelief. Don't get me started on Judaism. I'm not a fan of -isms at all, in fact. However, I could have sworn that the Quran calls Muhammad the best of humanity...and says that believers are the best of all people. So the Jews feel they have a special status for being Jewish, and the Muslims believe they have a special status for being a part of the Islamic Ummah. I see nothing different here except that one is an ethnicity & religion and the other is a religion & political ideology. You wrote: I am condemning them for the corruption they have added to the Word of God. God does not prefer one race over all others. God sent prophets to all races. It is not up to the Jews to reject them simply because they were not Jews. Ah ah ah. You are making an unsubstantiated claim. If corruption has been added to the Word of God (as you call it), please tell me what it is that is corrupted. Show me which parts have been corrupted and explain why you believe they are wrong. You wrote: So, do you believe that Jews can go to Heaven even if they do not accept Jesus as their savior? Does the same apply for Muslims, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians, who also profess the belief in one God? Without a Savior, all of us are lost. We cannot earn salvation. To think so is arrogant and insulting to God (considering He is our Savior). I believe all people who would accept the gospel and salvation through Christ will be exposed to it somehow...whether on earth or in the grave. Everyone else will be judged based on the sins they have committed according to the Law of God. So, you have a choice: guaranteed salvation or judgment. You wrote: Regarding your claim that Christians worship one God followed by the period, I would actually add ellipses. You know, "Christians believe in one God...They believe in Jesus Christ and so on." The Christian concept of monotheism is pathetically skewed. God sends Himself in an inferior form (the Son) and prays to His superior form (the Father). Yeah, that's monotheism alright! LOL! Oh the double-standard. Muslims believe in one God...They believe in Muhammad and so on. What is your shahadah? Ah yes, Allah AND Muhammad. What is it the Quran says? "To obey the Messenger is to obey Allah?" Why are Jews condemned? For not believing in Muhammad and 'Isa. Why are Christians condemned? For not believing in Muhammad and for believing in Jesus. If Allah chose to raise up a human being to be his exalted servant for all humanity to be subservient to...would you have a problem with it? Of course not, because this is what you believe about Muhammad. He has been exalted above all the other Prophets as the Final Messenger and Seal of the Prophets. He has been exalted as the best of humanity for all people to emulate. By believing in his revelations: the Quran and Hadith, you can go to heaven. By following in his footsteps, you are obeying Allah. You wrote: Those same historians and scholars will admit that Christianity borrowed elements of pagan religions to invent the myth of the savior coming to die for everyone's sins. Explain that one...and Zeitgeist doesn't count since it has been debunked more times than I can count. And tu quoque doesn't work on me. Islam incorporates paganism. You wrote: Islam is pure monotheism. The supposedly "pagan" elements within it were originally monotheistic, but which had been adopted by the pagans when paganism became dominant in Arabia. Of course, they all added some things to those monotheistic elements with pagan elements. For instance, some pagan women used to do tawaf nude. Do you see Muslims doing that? Talk about BEGGING THE QUESTION! How were the supposedly "pagan" elements originally monotheistic? You have no proof that there ever was monotheism originally in Arabia until AFTER the birth and spread of Judaism. You have no proof Abraham ever set foot in the Arabian peninsula, and you have no proof that Ishmael was the father of the Arabs or even a monotheist himself. You wrote: So, whats your point? Are you arguing on behalf of a universalist, "every religion is a path to God," theology? No, I'm asking you to back up your claim that the Quran is the Word of God since by it you condemn disbelieving monotheists (and others) to hell. You wrote: So, do you accept the concept or not? Original sin is the key to the whole crucifixion scenario. If one does not believe in it, then one has no reason to believe that the crucifixion serves any purpose. Paul was big on the whole thing. How can original sin be the "key" to the whole crucifixion scenario when the term isn't even in the Bible? I do not believe that humans are born unrighteous/sinful. I believe that humans are born from sinful parents and are born with the ABILITY to sin (aka Free Will.) Find me one man who has not sinned. Remember that "fabricated" story in John about the adulteress? Guess what, there is truth in it. No man (or woman) is without sin. The only one believed to have lived perfectly according to God's Law is Jesus Christ. You wrote: Well, does He not know best? Do you feel that you know all the secrets of the universe, and what the future holds? Don't you feel that Allah indeed knows best? Careful how you answer. You don't want to elevate yourself to His level. That's dangerous territory. God knows ALL. However, I don't use it as a cop out for questions I can't answer. You wrote: And I'm laughing at your pathetic false analogy. God's actions are not the same as the actions of humans, are they? How many babies were actually there, if any? If you recall the account in Genesis, Abraham asks God if He would spare the city if there were 50 righteous people living there. The number was eventually reduced to 10. So, clearly there were not many babies there, if there were any at all. But, the point is that God knows what He is doing. He has forbidden us to kill babies. But, of course, babies die all the time, whether from disease or other reasons which are under the control of God. Woo-hoo. You've quoted Genesis in order to back up your claim that God's actions are not the same as humans' actions. If that's the case...care to explain how there couldn't be ANY righteous people (including small children and babies) living in Sodom if there is no Original Sin? (I have an answer to that question; I'm just curious to hear yours.) So, from what you've said, you cannot determine that the death of a baby or a child is necessarily "evil," correct? Especially if it is the will of God? You wrote: I think it would have been more appropriate if you had alluded not to when God personally destroyed cities, but to when He ordered His followers to destroy cities and eliminate all within. But then, you would not bring that up, would you? It's in the Bible isn't it? How many nations were eliminated by the Israelites under the supposed orders of God? How many of the victims were babies? To come back to the original point, I am glad you admit that the crucifixion was evil and that God used it for the fulfillment of His plan of salvation. Oh, we can talk about Numbers and Judges all day if you'd like. I think the Israelites were just as wicked as many of their pagan neighbors...especially when they started sacrificing their own children to Molech and participating in temple prostitution. The crucifixion of Christ was an evil act that the Almighty God was able to use to bring good for all humanity. God was not dependent on it. We are. If He had not forgiven us based on what Christ did, then we would all stand condemned on the day Christ died. You wrote: Another false analogy! Sex has infinitely more benefits. Without it, we could not survive. This is a matter of fact Crucifixion was a form of torture and execution, and only once was it supposedly used for the greater good (if you believe that)! This is a matter of faith. They are not the same. You don't understand, do you? I'm saying that something which is good may be used for evil, and something that is evil can be used for good. Killing a human being is an evil act; however sometimes it is the right thing to do if you are protecting an innocent child from a rapist. You wrote: It seems to me that it was unnecessary to even use the evil of people to the benefit of the plan of salvation. The same end could have been achieved through some other means. You keep repeating this point when I have refuted it already. God is dependent on nothing. If God chooses to allow us to exercise our free will and does not want to impede our exercise of it in any way...and yet He wants to provide a means of salvation that MAKES SENSE and fulfills the Law and the Prophets....then He might use the evil actions of humans in His plan. Think about this story: David committed a heinous act when he slept with Bathsheba and had her husband killed...and he was punished for it. However, the product of their marriage was Solomon....the wisest king to rule the earth. Your mind is stuck in that one-way timeline, cause-and-effect thing. God sees all and knows all. How can you think to know the mind of God and determine His "dependence" on things? Perhaps I can provide a Quranic example. Before Allah created Adam, he announced that he was making a viceroy for earth. The angels questioned his judgment because they knew humans would be violent. Allah rebuked the angels because they did not know all that he knows. So, he created Adam and put him in a garden in heaven, not earth. He also placed a tree in that garden and told Adam not to eat of it. Well, Adam did. And when he did, he was thrown to earth to live there in enmity. Was Allah dependent on the disobedience of Adam in order to ensure that he would be a viceroy for earth? You wrote: And every other prophet before him. And it makes perfect sense. Why is it that everything he said is automatically rejected by you? Biased, are we Natassia? I reject someone who preaches one thing and does another. Natassia: But see, Allah shows me that fornication is wrong, and yet he shows me that Muslim men may sleep with their slaves. He shows me that adultery is wrong, and yet he shows me that Muslim men may sleep with their married captives. He shows me that having more than four wives is wrong, and yet he shows me that Muhammad could have nine at one time. He shows me that Jews and Christians will not bear the burdens of anyone's sins but their own, and yet he shows me that a Jew or Christian will take the place of a Muslim in hell as mercy for that Muslim. You wrote: More false analogies. They are not false analogies. They are not analogies at all. You said Allah shows us what is right and wrong. I'm saying he has provided a pretty confusing picture. You wrote: Now this is called double-thinking! You can't be perfect and imperfect at the same time, nor can you have the ability to be perfect and imperfect at the same time. The two contradict each other. None of us can be perfect. It is impossible. Ah, see...you claim that we are born imperfect. I claim that we make ourselves imperfect. Free will gives us the ability to be perfect or imperfect. How we exercise free will determines our perfection or imperfection. You say it is impossible to be perfect. Why? Is that because of Original Sin or is that Allah's fault for making us imperfect in the first place (which is the definition of Original Sin! lol) God said: Be perfect. Humans said: I can't because I don't want to be. You wrote: Obviously, they gave into their unhealthy views just that once. Are you saying that even a male infant has the ability to be a rapist (not that he could because he is so little and not even aware of his surroundings)? After all, male infants have a penis. Are you saying that every woman is therefore a potential whore? Man, do you even know what the definition of "ability" means? It means having the capability to do something. A man is physically capable of raping a woman because he has a penis. He may not necessarily be emotionally or spiritually capable of it. And that's where the goodness of God comes in. You wrote: When you don't have a valid response, you make silly statements. Obviously, those words still apply today since they will remind modern Jews and Christians of their roots, just as they did to those in Muhammad's time. More conjecture. Nothing to back it up. You wrote: When did I say always? I don't think the original followers of Jesus called themselves by the blasphemous term "Christians". This was a later invention. I guess the 1st century Acts of the Apostles was a complete fabrication then...as were the epistles of Paul written before 60 AD. You wrote: Obviously, they would not be able to fight the Jews and Christians of the past! This was a reference to the contemporaries of the early Muslims, who obviously were unbelievers. It was specifically revealed, if my memory serves me correctly, after the Byzantines executed a Muslim messenger and attacked a small Muslim army. No. The story goes that some non-Muslim Arabs (Jordanian area) executed some Muslim "missionaries." When Muhammad heard about it, he sent like 3,000 soldiers to fight...and they met up with about 100,000 (?) Byzantine soldiers. That was the Battle of Mutah. Yeah, that didn't turn out so good. But, see, that story is not in the Quran. Should it be? You wrote: And he proved it in many ways. See, this is why people who reject him as God's messenger are doomed. They disbelieve in him even though he provided evidence of the divine hand that was guiding him. How? The Quran says he was just a warner...nothing more. What evidence of divine guidance? You wrote: Because you would be lying yourself, and thus you are a hypocrite, which is even worse than being an unbeliever. You would be lying about Muhammad and also about God, the latter of which is the worst possible thing to do. How does that make me a liar and a hypocrite? A hypocrite is someone who says, for example, that they don't believe in something and yet they really do...or says they do believe in something and yet they really don't. I say I don't believe in Muhammad, and I really don't. I say I do believe in God, and I really do. How does that make me a hypocrite and a liar? You're changing the definition of words again. You wrote: Nonsense. This is the kind of self-contradictory nonsense Christians want other people to believe. Jesus can't do anything himself, and yet he is still God! The Father is in him, and yet Jesus prays to Him! Wow...spiritual stagnation is quite something to witness. God is spirit. Therefore God can be in someone and yet not BE that someone. The Spirit of God was in Christ. That doesn't mean the Spirit of God is Christ. And Christians would like everyone to be freed by believing in the gospel. However, we won't fight you for rejecting it or kill people for leaving Christianity. You wrote: Wrong again. Jesus (pbuh) never elevated himself to the level of God. That was the work of blasphemours and heretics after him. Muhammad (pbuh) never elevated himself to the level of God. When he said that to obey him is to obey God, he was saying that whatever laws he was bringing, were coming from God. So therefore, to follow those laws which Muhammad (pbuh) had enacted and told the Muslims to follow, was to follow God because they were His laws. Your repeated attempts at twisting the facts exposes how little you know and it also exposes to what lengths you will go to utter lies against God and His last messenger. Whoa-ho-ho. To say that the words you speak are God's words...and the commands you give are God's commands...and salvation is contingent on belief in you...well, you're either God or you're a mad-man. And there you go with unsubstantiated claims. Which parts of the gospels and epistles are heretical and blasphemous? Would you doubt the sincerity of Muhammad's companions and earliest followers? Natassia: One question to start off: Is morality absolute in Islam? You wrote: Could you be more specific? This is a very vague question (perhaps this was intentional on your part). How is this vague? It is a yes or no question. Morality is absolute in Christianity. Morality is relative in atheism, nihilism, and secular humanism. So, what about Islam? You wrote: Flaws as in having no weakness, like God. God has no flaws. He does not need to eat, drink, sleep, rest, go to the bathroom, feel any urges, feel any temptations to commit a sin, feel any pain or weakness, etc. That is perfection. Do you think humans are perfect? What is perfection in the eyes of God, in your view? Having to eat is a flaw? That's just the nature of having a physical body. It's not a flaw. To say so is to question the Designer. Are you calling His design flawed? Humans are imperfect when they sin. Feeling pain, sorrow, anguish, etc. are not flaws. P.S. This is getting to be a bit long and tedious. Can we condense it or something? |
|
|
|
|
islamispeace
Senior Member
Joined: 01 November 2005 Status: Offline Points: 2187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 July 2009 at 8:23pm |
|
Natassia: You've committed a logical fallacy called "begging the question."
One must first assume that Allah says it is justice in order to believe that it is justice. And then you have to assume that the word of Allah is the truth. Uh, I explained further why I think it is justice. I didn't just assume. The poor man was not burdened with an act of atonement he could not do. Not only is this justice, it is fairness. Allah will forgive anyone and allows them to atone in ways which are fair and within their means. Natassia: You've also committed a logical fallacy called "double-think" because you've changed the definition of the word "justice." Double-think refers to accepting two beliefs which are contradictory. I did not do that, nor did I "[change] the definition of justice". It would be injustice if the rich man was not required to atone for his sins whereas the poor man was, or vice-versa. Clearly, that is not the case. Regardless of one's status, they are required to atone for their sins. The only difference is that not everyone is able to atone in the same way. That is a fact of life. A poor man cannot free a slave. It would be unjust to require that from a poor person. So Islam, in its practicality, offers other ways. Natassia: The Islamic system is flawed because it is not just. Justice is in the eye of the beholder. Can you provide me with a universal charter on justice? Does every nation, race or ethnic group have the same version of justice? Do you regard the Christian system to be just? Tell me why Jesus released the adulteress? How was that just? (We will not even get into the fact that the story is made up; I am bringing it up for argument's sake). Natassia: And this is justice? Why not? He will pay for the sins he did not atone for, will he not? However, his eventual saving grace will be his faith in Allah. Natassia: Obviously the afterlife of the believing (yet lying, cheating, fornicating, etc.) Muslim is not completely hellish since it doesn't last forever and eventually the person is rewarded with heaven. Nevertheless, it will be partially hellish. He will be punished for his sins and then he will be freed because he did have faith. Natassia: But the afterlife of the disbelieving (yet not lying, not cheating, not fornicating, etc.) Christian is completely hellish since it does last forever. Because of the lies they uttered against Allah. I assume, by your words, that you believe that every good person goes to Heaven, regardless of religion. Is this correct? So, do you believe that a good Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Sikh, and Atheist will also go to Heaven? Natassia: You are being illogical. Not all Jews kill prophets. I never said they did. Obviously, modern Jews had nothing to do with Jesus' attempted execution, for example. But, they do still reject him as a false prophet, don't they? They do still regard the execution as proof that Jesus was a false prophet. Do you believe that they can still go to Heaven with such a mindset? Of course, there were many Jews in Jesus' time who followed him. There were many Jews before Jesus who did not kill the prophets and followed them. They were true believers and they will be in Heaven, inshaAllah. Natassia: They only reject the prophets of other religions such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. And this brings up the "chosen people" status. They would like us to believe that God prefers them over all other nations. I just had this discussion with the apocalyptic fanatic Douggg on another thread. By believing that Allah only sent Hebrew prophets, and considers the Jews to be the "chosen people", in effect superior to all other people, they utter yet another lie against Allah. This is another factor of their disbelief. Natassia: Now you are condemning them for adhering to Judaism despite the fact that this is what makes them JEWS in the first place. I am condemning them for the corruption they have added to the Word of God. God does not prefer one race over all others. God sent prophets to all races. It is not up to the Jews to reject them simply because they were not Jews. Natassia: Christians believe in one God. Period. They believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Lamb of God, and the Word of God. Whatever they believe about Jesus, it still does not negate the fact that they recognize and worship only ONE God. Their definition of the nature of God simply differs from yours. So, do you believe that Jews can go to Heaven even if they do not accept Jesus as their savior? Does the same apply for Muslims, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians, who also profess the belief in one God? Regarding your claim that Christians worship one God followed by the period, I would actually add ellipses. You know, "Christians believe in one God...They believe in Jesus Christ and so on." The Christian concept of monotheism is pathetically skewed. God sends Himself in an inferior form (the Son) and prays to His superior form (the Father). Yeah, that's monotheism alright! Natassia: And Islam has elements of Arabian paganism. It is undeniable. Any self-respecting historian and scholar will admit this.
Islam is pure monotheism. The supposedly "pagan" elements within it were originally monotheistic, but which had been adopted by the pagans when paganism became dominant in Arabia. Of course, they all added some things to those monotheistic elements with pagan elements. For instance, some pagan women used to do tawaf nude. Do you see Muslims doing that? Natassia: WHAT is the word of God? Muslims believe that the Quran is the word of God. However, other monotheists do not. And why should they? Just because the Quran claims to be the word of God doesn't make it so. The Baha'i claim to have the word of God that Muslims and Christians and Jews reject. Most Christians claim to have the word of God that Muslims and Jews reject. So, whats your point? Are you arguing on behalf of a universalist, "every religion is a path to God," theology? Natassia: I am not a liberal. I am a conservative Republican in fact. The mainstream Christians' definition of "original sin" may not be accurate...but either way, the belief in "original sin" is not a requirement for salvation. All Christians will agree with that. I don't believe babies are automatically sinful. God filled John the Baptist from the womb with the Holy Spirit. How could he also be sinful? So, do you accept the concept or not? Original sin is the key to the whole crucifixion scenario. If one does not believe in it, then one has no reason to believe that the crucifixion serves any purpose. Paul was big on the whole thing. Natassia: It always comes back to that, doesn't it? (And that "begs the question" as well.) Well, does He not know best? Do you feel that you know all the secrets of the universe, and what the future holds? Don't you feel that Allah indeed knows best? Careful how you answer. You don't want to elevate yourself to His level. That's dangerous territory. Natassia: I'm laughing as I read this. Tell me, is the killing of babies evil? Most people would say yes. And yet, Allah utilized such an evil in his plan to eradicate Sodom. You must be careful when you attempt to judge Good and Evil. And I'm laughing at your pathetic false analogy. God's actions are not the same as the actions of humans, are they? How many babies were actually there, if any? If you recall the account in Genesis, Abraham asks God if He would spare the city if there were 50 righteous people living there. The number was eventually reduced to 10. So, clearly there were not many babies there, if there were any at all. But, the point is that God knows what He is doing. He has forbidden us to kill babies. But, of course, babies die all the time, whether from disease or other reasons which are under the control of God. I think it would have been more appropriate if you had alluded not to when God personally destroyed cities, but to when He ordered His followers to destroy cities and eliminate all within. But then, you would not bring that up, would you? It's in the Bible isn't it? How many nations were eliminated by the Israelites under the supposed orders of God? How many of the victims were babies? To come back to the original point, I am glad you admit that the crucifixion was evil and that God used it for the fulfillment of His plan of salvation. Natassia: Sex is a good thing, but it is not always right and it can be used for evil--such as rape or prostitution. Crucifixion is an evil thing, but it can be used for good if God chooses to save humanity through it. Another false analogy! Sex has infinitely more benefits. Without it, we could not survive. This is a matter of fact Crucifixion was a form of torture and execution, and only once was it supposedly used for the greater good (if you believe that)! This is a matter of faith. They are not the same. Natassia: No one should be thankful to people for doing evil. We should be thankful to God for His mercy in forgiving us our sins. If God accepts the offering of someone in the place of others, should we be scornful or grateful? The death of an innocent animal would be deemed as "evil" and yet such a thing was done to atone for Israel's sins. The stoning of a human being would be deemed as "evil" and yet such a punishment is prescribed for adultery in both the Torah and the Hadith. So, the actions of the Jews and Romans was evil, and yet God accepted the offering of the Messiah as atonement for sins. Just because God made something good out of something evil doesn't mean that we should be thankful for the evil. We should be thankful to God for being so good. It seems to me that it was unnecessary to even use the evil of people to the benefit of the plan of salvation. The same end could have been achieved through some other means. Natassia: So saith Muhammad. And every other prophet before him. And it makes perfect sense. Why is it that everything he said is automatically rejected by you? Biased, are we Natassia? Natassia: But see, Allah shows me that fornication is wrong, and yet he shows me that Muslim men may sleep with their slaves. He shows me that adultery is wrong, and yet he shows me that Muslim men may sleep with their married captives. He shows me that having more than four wives is wrong, and yet he shows me that Muhammad could have nine at one time. He shows me that Jews and Christians will not bear the burdens of anyone's sins but their own, and yet he shows me that a Jew or Christian will take the place of a Muslim in hell as mercy for that Muslim. More false analogies. Natassia: I believe we are created with the ability to be perfect...and yet because we also have the ability to be imperfect it creates a state of tension. Humans inevitably choose imperfection...not that God created us that way in the first place. Now this is called double-thinking! You can't be perfect and imperfect at the same time, nor can you have the ability to be perfect and imperfect at the same time. The two contradict each other. None of us can be perfect. It is impossible. Natassia: If you can't have an erection, how can you rape someone? It requires having a physical body part. Otherwise you resort to using other tools of some sort. To be a rapist (as in forced sexual intercourse) you must have the sexual organ with which to do it. And there have been men who have raped only once in their lives and all the other times engaged in normal consensual sex. What happened in their cases? Obviously, they gave into their unhealthy views just that once. Are you saying that even a male infant has the ability to be a rapist (not that he could because he is so little and not even aware of his surroundings)? After all, male infants have a penis. Are you saying that every woman is therefore a potential whore? Natassia: You are having to force context that is not in the Quran into Allah's timeless words. Or are they not timeless? Or are only certain words timeless? When you don't have a valid response, you make silly statements. Obviously, those words still apply today since they will remind modern Jews and Christians of their roots, just as they did to those in Muhammad's time. Natassia: If this is what they have always called themselves, then why would Allah say that at one point they did follow the true religion? When did I say always? I don't think the original followers of Jesus called themselves by the blasphemous term "Christians". This was a later invention. Natassia: And why are translators translating these words falsely Hmmm, I don't know. Maybe for convenience? Natassia: Why would Allah lump all Christians together and all Jews together in 9:29-30? He didn't say "some Christians" or "only those Christians who believe in these things." No, he said "the Jews believe this...and the Christians believe that..." Period. Period nothing. Obviously, they would not be able to fight the Jews and Christians of the past! This was a reference to the contemporaries of the early Muslims, who obviously were unbelievers. It was specifically revealed, if my memory serves me correctly, after the Byzantines executed a Muslim messenger and attacked a small Muslim army. Natassia: Muhammad said that Gabriel said that Allah said that Muhammad is his messenger. And he proved it in many ways. See, this is why people who reject him as God's messenger are doomed. They disbelieve in him even though he provided evidence of the divine hand that was guiding him. Natassia: If I believe that Muhammad was lying but still believe in God and worship God, how can God be angry with me? Because you would be lying yourself, and thus you are a hypocrite, which is even worse than being an unbeliever. You would be lying about Muhammad and also about God, the latter of which is the worst possible thing to do. Natassia: He can't do anything by himself because the Father is IN him and he and the Father are one. Everything he did came from the Father because Jesus came from the Father. That's why Jesus could COMMAND life whereas all other prophets could only pray for it. Nonsense. This is the kind of self-contradictory nonsense Christians want other people to believe. Jesus can't do anything himself, and yet he is still God! The Father is in him, and yet Jesus prays to Him! Natassia: Jesus is elevated to the status of God just as Muhammad elevated himself to the status of Allah when he said: "to obey the Messenger is to obey Allah." Wrong again. Jesus (pbuh) never elevated himself to the level of God. That was the work of blasphemours and heretics after him. Muhammad (pbuh) never elevated himself to the level of God. When he said that to obey him is to obey God, he was saying that whatever laws he was bringing, were coming from God. So therefore, to follow those laws which Muhammad (pbuh) had enacted and told the Muslims to follow, was to follow God because they were His laws. Your repeated attempts at twisting the facts exposes how little you know and it also exposes to what lengths you will go to utter lies against God and His last messenger. Natassia: I never ranted. I simply provided some facts. I'm sorry if you didn't like them.
Natassia: One question to start off: Is morality absolute in Islam? Could you be more specific? This is a very vague question (perhaps this was intentional on your part). Natassia: Flaws? As in physical flaws? Spiritual flaws? Am I flawless because I have two arms, but the child born without any is flawed? I'm talking about perfection in the eyes of God, not the eyes of humans. Can you explain what that is from an Islamic point-of-view? Flaws as in having no weakness, like God. God has no flaws. He does not need to eat, drink, sleep, rest, go to the bathroom, feel any urges, feel any temptations to commit a sin, feel any pain or weakness, etc. That is perfection. Do you think humans are perfect? What is perfection in the eyes of God, in your view? |
|
|
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)
|
|
|
|
|
Natassia
Senior Member
Joined: 16 July 2009 Status: Offline Points: 177 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 July 2009 at 9:07am |
|
You wrote: Each according to his abilities. Its very simple. Who says its not justice? You? Well, I am sorry. We are not here to please you. If Allah says it is justice, then it is. The poor man was not burdened with an act of atonement he could not do. Not only is this justice, it is fairness. Allah will forgive anyone and allows them to atone in ways which are fair and within their means. You've committed a logical fallacy called "begging the question." One must first assume that Allah says it is justice in order to believe that it is justice. And then you have to assume that the word of Allah is the truth. You've also committed a logical fallacy called "double-think" because you've changed the definition of the word "justice." The Islamic system is flawed because it is not just. You wrote: What's amazing is your lack of comprehension. As I have said, Muslims believe in eventual salvation. Period. You can always have an idea about how good a person you are or not. That should offer some insight into your future. Obviously, if someone goes through life lying, cheating, fornicating, gambling, drinking and doing very little if any acts of worship like praying, fasting and helping the poor, that person can be assured of a hellish afterlife. But, even if this person has even a little faith and dies in that state, he can be assured of eventually being saved, InshaAllah. And this is justice? Obviously the afterlife of the believing (yet lying, cheating, fornicating, etc.) Muslim is not completely hellish since it doesn't last forever and eventually the person is rewarded with heaven. But the afterlife of the disbelieving (yet not lying, not cheating, not fornicating, etc.) Christian is completely hellish since it does last forever. You wrote: Are we back on this again? You are truly an amateur at this. We have already discussed this. Jews may believe in God, but what kind of belief is it when they kill the prophets of God and reject others, such as Muhammad? Christians believe in God, but what kind of belief is it when they believe God was a man named Jesus, who ate, drank and went to the bathroom? That is why they are not saved. And don't patronize me by quoting Quranic verses. As I said, you are in no position to give me lessons. You are being illogical. Not all Jews kill prophets. They only reject the prophets of other religions such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. They follow the teachings of the prophets of Judaism--all the way up to Malachi. Now you are condemning them for adhering to Judaism despite the fact that this is what makes them JEWS in the first place. Christians believe in one God. Period. They believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Lamb of God, and the Word of God. Whatever they believe about Jesus, it still does not negate the fact that they recognize and worship only ONE God. Their definition of the nature of God simply differs from yours. You wrote: You should go study the other religions before you make silly statements. Sikhism has elements of Hinduism, which is a pagan religion. I don't find that to be exactly monotheistic. You wrote: Also, belief in God is not just acknowledging that God exists. It also includes following His commandments and believing in everything He has ordained. I agree with this statement. Even the demons believe in the existence of God. So what it comes down to is believing in the word of God. Now, here's the tricky part. WHAT is the word of God? Muslims believe that the Quran is the word of God. However, other monotheists do not. And why should they? Just because the Quran claims to be the word of God doesn't make it so. The Baha'i claim to have the word of God that Muslims and Christians and Jews reject. Most Christians claim to have the word of God that Muslims and Jews reject. You wrote: So, you are one of those liberal Christians. The mainstream Christians read the Bible you do and they believe in original sin. I assumed you were one of them. But, you didn't answer my question. You just answered with more questions. Do you believe in original sin? I am not a liberal. I am a conservative Republican in fact. The mainstream Christians' definition of "original sin" may not be accurate...but either way, the belief in "original sin" is not a requirement for salvation. All Christians will agree with that. I don't believe babies are automatically sinful. God filled John the Baptist from the womb with the Holy Spirit. How could he also be sinful? "Allah knows best." It always comes back to that, doesn't it? (And that "begs the question" as well.) You wrote: God utilized evil in His plan. He could just as easily have not utilized it, but He did. It doesn't sound too good to say that God used evil to make His plan go forward, does it? It sure does not to me, at least. I'm laughing as I read this. Tell me, is the killing of babies evil? Most people would say yes. And yet, Allah utilized such an evil in his plan to eradicate Sodom. You must be careful when you attempt to judge Good and Evil. Sex is a good thing, but it is not always right and it can be used for evil--such as rape or prostitution. Crucifixion is an evil thing, but it can be used for good if God chooses to save humanity through it. You wrote: But it was what they did that allowed the plan to succeed. So, should we not be thankful for their evil? Essentially, you are saying that a little evil was done for a greater good? See my previous answer. No one should be thankful to people for doing evil. We should be thankful to God for His mercy in forgiving us our sins. If God accepts the offering of someone in the place of others, should we be scornful or grateful? The death of an innocent animal would be deemed as "evil" and yet such a thing was done to atone for Israel's sins. The stoning of a human being would be deemed as "evil" and yet such a punishment is prescribed for adultery in both the Torah and the Hadith. So, the actions of the Jews and Romans was evil, and yet God accepted the offering of the Messiah as atonement for sins. Just because God made something good out of something evil doesn't mean that we should be thankful for the evil. We should be thankful to God for being so good. You wrote: Yes, and He teaches that to us through His prophets and messengers. Abraham was not the first prophet. The message was given to humanity from the beginning. As time goes on, some humans forget the message and stray from the true path, such as the people of Abraham. But, he saw the folly of paganism and challenged it. And then Allah chose Him to be His Khalil. SubhanAllah! So saith Muhammad. You wrote: Because He showed them what is right and what is wrong. He then told them to avoid what is wrong. What is so difficult to comprehend here? And once again, you did not answer my question. Are you implying that we were created in a perfect state? But see, Allah shows me that fornication is wrong, and yet he shows me that Muslim men may sleep with their slaves. He shows me that adultery is wrong, and yet he shows me that Muslim men may sleep with their married captives. He shows me that having more than four wives is wrong, and yet he shows me that Muhammad could have nine at one time. He shows me that Jews and Christians will not bear the burdens of anyone's sins but their own, and yet he shows me that a Jew or Christian will take the place of a Muslim in hell as mercy for that Muslim. I believe we are created with the ability to be perfect...and yet because we also have the ability to be imperfect it creates a state of tension. Humans inevitably choose imperfection...not that God created us that way in the first place. You wrote: No, having an unhealthy view on sex and women gives you the ability to rape.
If you can't have an erection, how can you rape someone? It requires having a physical body part. Otherwise you resort to using other tools of some sort. To be a rapist (as in forced sexual intercourse) you must have the sexual organ with which to do it. And there have been men who have raped only once in their lives and all the other times engaged in normal consensual sex. What happened in their cases? You wrote: Why not? If Allah was speaking to the Jews and Christians of Muhammad's time to remind them of their roots, it would make sense to refer to their group. It was implied that the Jews and Christians who were referred to as believers were Muslims, since they did submit to the will of God. You are having to force context that is not in the Quran into Allah's timeless words. Or are they not timeless? Or are only certain words timeless? You wrote: That is what they called themselves! So, Allah was referring to them the way they referred to themselves. The Quran refers to the Jews as 'the Children of Israel' and the Christians as "an-Nasariyah", the word Arab Christians used for themselves. Notice that there is nothing in it about Christ. If this is what they have always called themselves, then why would Allah say that at one point they did follow the true religion? And why are translators translating these words falsely? Why would Allah lump all Christians together and all Jews together in 9:29-30? He didn't say "some Christians" or "only those Christians who believe in these things." No, he said "the Jews believe this...and the Christians believe that..." Period. You wrote: Hypocrites think they believe in Allah and yet reject much of what Allah revealed and said. Refer back to the ayat I presented above. If Allah said that Muhammad is His messenger, who are you to reject him? And if you do reject him, despite that Allah chose Him, how can you maintain that you still believe in Allah? Muhammad said that Gabriel said that Allah said that Muhammad is his messenger. If I believe that Muhammad was lying but still believe in God and worship God, how can God be angry with me? You wrote: Jesus said that he can't do anything by himself. That was the same as Ezekiel. Of course, Ezekiel didn't raise the dead himself. None of the prophets performed miracles by themselves. God performed the miracles through them as signs for the people. Jesus was no different and he even said that. He can't do anything by himself because the Father is IN him and he and the Father are one. Everything he did came from the Father because Jesus came from the Father. That's why Jesus could COMMAND life whereas all other prophets could only pray for it. Jesus is elevated to the status of God just as Muhammad elevated himself to the status of Allah when he said: "to obey the Messenger is to obey Allah." You wrote: Oh I can't wait! I have been through this already with dozens of people like you. If your arguments will be as pathetic and weak as your black stone rant, which I refuted in the other thread, then you should quit right now! I never ranted. I simply provided some facts. I'm sorry if you didn't like them. One question to start off: Is morality absolute in Islam? Without knowing this, I cannot proceed. You wrote: What, you have your own rules for what perfection is also? You really like to make up your own rules, huh? What is perfection? It means not having any flaws. Who is perfect? Only God. If you think otherwise, you are a blasphemer and you have no right to tell other people how to follow God. Flaws? As in physical flaws? Spiritual flaws? Am I flawless because I have two arms, but the child born without any is flawed? I'm talking about perfection in the eyes of God, not the eyes of humans. Can you explain what that is from an Islamic point-of-view? |
|
|
|
|
islamispeace
Senior Member
Joined: 01 November 2005 Status: Offline Points: 2187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 23 July 2009 at 9:16pm |
|
Natassia: The hadith you posted made things even more confusing.
Well of course it did! Everything Islam teaches is either wrong or confusing to you! I do not expect you to accept what I show you. I know that you will try to misconstrue it whichever way you can. So, lets see why you are confused, shall we?Natassia: So, if a rich man commits a sin, he has to manumit a slave. If a poor man commits the same sin, he has to feed his family some dates? This is not justice. A poor man is actually being treated differently than a rich man for committing the same sin. Each according to his abilities. Its very simple. Who says its not justice? You? Well, I am sorry. We are not here to please you. If Allah says it is justice, then it is. The poor man was not burdened with an act of atonement he could not do. Not only is this justice, it is fairness. Allah will forgive anyone and allows them to atone in ways which are fair and within their means. At first, you were questioning what happens when a person can't free a slave. You thought this was evidence that the Islamic system is flawed. When I showed you that this was not the case, you found new ways to try to misconstrue the system! Now you question whether this is justice at all! Wow! Natassia: And you told me that only Allah knows how long someone is in torment, and there really is no way for a Muslim to know if they will be tortured in hell...because there is no way to know the individual weight of each good or bad deed. So, you go through life hoping Allah will be merciful...but never really being sure that he will. That's amazing. What's amazing is your lack of comprehension. As I have said, Muslims believe in eventual salvation. Period. You can always have an idea about how good a person you are or not. That should offer some insight into your future. Obviously, if someone goes through life lying, cheating, fornicating, gambling, drinking and doing very little if any acts of worship like praying, fasting and helping the poor, that person can be assured of a hellish afterlife. But, even if this person has even a little faith and dies in that state, he can be assured of eventually being saved, InshaAllah. Natassia: Well, you've not told the whole truth. Jews believe in one God. Christians believe in one God. Are we back on this again? You are truly an amateur at this. We have already discussed this. Jews may believe in God, but what kind of belief is it when they kill the prophets of God and reject others, such as Muhammad? Christians believe in God, but what kind of belief is it when they believe God was a man named Jesus, who ate, drank and went to the bathroom? That is why they are not saved. And don't patronize me by quoting Quranic verses. As I said, you are in no position to give me lessons. Natassia: How about Zoroastrians and Sikhs? How about people who follow the extinct Atenism? They are all monotheists. So, Allah is not central to salvation. Someone else is, and that someone else is Muhammad. You should go study the other religions before you make silly statements. Sikhism has elements of Hinduism, which is a pagan religion. I don't find that to be exactly monotheistic. Also, belief in God is not just acknowledging that God exists. It also includes following His commandments and believing in everything He has ordained. So, if one believes in God but does not believe in angels, whom God has created, that is an act of disbelief in God, because one would be denying what God created. In the same sense, if one rejects some or all the prophets, that is also an act of disbelief, since it was He who sent them. That is why the Quran says: After this it is ye, the same people, who slay among
yourselves, and banish a party of you from their homes; assist (Their
enemies) against them, in guilt and rancour; and if they come to you as
captives, ye ransom them, though it was not lawful for you to banish them.
Then is it only a part of the Book that ye believe in, and do ye reject the
rest? but what is the reward for those among you who behave like this but
disgrace in this life?- and on the Day of Judgment they shall be consigned
to the most grievous penalty. For Allah is not unmindful of what ye do.
(2:85) How can one say that they believe in God but then reject a lot of what God has ordained? That is called hypocrisy, and the hypocrite's place in Hell is eternal and lower than even the disbelievers. Natassia: "Standard Christian doctrine"? Who gets to say what that is? I don't belong to a denomination. Am I supposed to? So, you are one of those liberal Christians. The mainstream Christians read the Bible you do and they believe in original sin. I assumed you were one of them. But, you didn't answer my question. You just answered with more questions. Do you believe in original sin? Natassia: I see. But you told me that Allah was not going to make everyone go to hell...that all some people had to do was confess their sins on the Last Day and they would be automatically forgiven by Allah who would "conceal their sins." Now, where's the accountability in that? Obviously, Allah will decide who gets to walk that path. If He decides to deal with them in that manner, obviously He knows something about them that we don't. Perhaps it will be those people who while their sins were heavy, they did their best to avoid sinning. Perhaps they truly tried but kept falling into temptation. Perhaps, as a result, they were constantly praying for forgiveness. Allah knows best. Natassia: I wonder how it is best to explain this... I wonder if you even truly understand your own explanation. Not that I don't appreciate your efforts. At least you are trying. Some of the others I posed this question to tried to ignore it. Natassia: God is omniscient, so it is like He sees the timeline from the very beginning to the very end all at once. It was never that His plan required that the Pharisees and Romans do evil, it was simply that He incorporated their deeds into His plan because He always knew what they would do. Exactly. God utilized evil in His plan. He could just as easily have not utilized it, but He did. It doesn't sound too good to say that God used evil to make His plan go forward, does it? It sure does not to me, at least. Natassia: You are trying to say that because the Romans did what they did, that is why we are saved. Wrong. We should instead say, because of the mercy and power of God, an evil act was used for good. But it was what they did that allowed the plan to succeed. So, should we not be thankful for their evil? Essentially, you are saying that a little evil was done for a greater good? Natassia: How does someone become worthy of guidance except on their own merit? Therefore, Allah only does things based on the personal strengths of individuals, and the more moral strength a person has, the more Allah will guide them. Yes, that is how Allah rewards them in this life, and ensures that they will also be rewarded in the next life. Its awesome. Natassia: This makes zero sense if all morality comes from Allah in the first place. Yes, and He teaches that to us through His prophets and messengers. Abraham was not the first prophet. The message was given to humanity from the beginning. As time goes on, some humans forget the message and stray from the true path, such as the people of Abraham. But, he saw the folly of paganism and challenged it. And then Allah chose Him to be His Khalil. SubhanAllah! Natassia: Abraham's righteousness made him worthy of Allah's choice or Allah's choice of Abraham made him righteous.One is dependent on the power of Abraham, the other is dependent on the power of Allah. See above. Natassia: And how can a perfect Creator create an imperfect creation and then punish it when it acts imperfectly as it was designed to do? Because He showed them what is right and what is wrong. He then told them to avoid what is wrong. What is so difficult to comprehend here? And once again, you did not answer my question. Are you implying that we were created in a perfect state? Natassia: Having a penis gives you the ability to rape. No, having an unhealthy view on sex and women gives you the ability to rape. Natassia: How can Allah use the titles "Jews" and "Christians" to sometimes mean Jews and Christians and other times to mean Muslims? Why not? If Allah was speaking to the Jews and Christians of Muhammad's time to remind them of their roots, it would make sense to refer to their group. It was implied that the Jews and Christians who were referred to as believers were Muslims, since they did submit to the will of God. Natassia: If Jews and Christians (the "real" ones) were always Muslims, then why weren't they just called Submitters (in their corresponding languages)? Why would Jews be named after Judah and Christians named after Christ if they were supposed to be submitting to GOD, not Judaism or Jesus? That is what they called themselves! So, Allah was referring to them the way they referred to themselves. The Quran refers to the Jews as 'the Children of Israel' and the Christians as "an-Nasariyah", the word Arab Christians used for themselves. Notice that there is nothing in it about Christ. Natassia: This is not a pebble. Either salvation comes solely from belief in Allah, or salvation comes from belief in both Allah and Muhammad. You have explained that salvation requires belief in both. Hypocrites think they believe in Allah and yet reject much of what Allah revealed and said. Refer back to the ayat I presented above. If Allah said that Muhammad is His messenger, who are you to reject him? And if you do reject him, despite that Allah chose Him, how can you maintain that you still believe in Allah? Natassia: That is a big deal. You have now placed Muhammad at equal importance to Allah. Like always, you have misconstrued the reality. Natassia: And why are you talking about Ezekial? He's not in the Quran. There's no way to verify that Dhul Kifl is Ezekial (as some Muslims claim), and there certainly aren't any stories about him raising the dead. And according to the Tanakh, God commanded Ezekial to prophesy, and when he did, God raised the dead...not Ezekial. Jesus, however, simply commanded life into dead bodies. There was no praying or begging. Jesus COMMANDED the dead to rise. Jesus said that he can't do anything by himself. That was the same as Ezekiel. Of course, Ezekiel didn't raise the dead himself. None of the prophets performed miracles by themselves. God performed the miracles through them as signs for the people. Jesus was no different and he even said that. Natassia: I really would like to address your "best example of humanity" comment. Maybe in another post. Oh I can't wait! I have been through this already with dozens of people like you. If your arguments will be as pathetic and weak as your black stone rant, which I refuted in the other thread, then you should quit right now! Natassia: (And I really do wonder what your definition of "perfect" is. Oh, and I would really like to know where evil originated. You said Free Will. But that doesn't explain the origin of evil. You speak of it like it is a tangible thing.) What, you have your own rules for what perfection is also? You really like to make up your own rules, huh? What is perfection? It means not having any flaws. Who is perfect? Only God. If you think otherwise, you are a blasphemer and you have no right to tell other people how to follow God. |
|
|
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)
|
|
|
|
|
Natassia
Senior Member
Joined: 16 July 2009 Status: Offline Points: 177 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 22 July 2009 at 10:12pm |
|
@ islamispeace The hadith you posted made things even more confusing. So, if a rich man commits a sin, he has to manumit a slave. If a poor man commits the same sin, he has to feed his family some dates? This is not justice. A poor man is actually being treated differently than a rich man for committing the same sin. And you told me that only Allah knows how long someone is in torment, and there really is no way for a Muslim to know if they will be tortured in hell...because there is no way to know the individual weight of each good or bad deed. So, you go through life hoping Allah will be merciful...but never really being sure that he will. That's amazing. You wrote: Of course what you do determines what happens later. Is that a new concept for you? If you deny God, you will go to Hell. If you believe in Him, you will go to Paradise. Everyone knows that.You save yourself from Hell by believing in Allah. So, Allah is central to salvation. You can try to misconstrue this simple fact any way you want, but the reality is that Islam acknowledges that Allah is the key to salvation. The most important rule to follow is the 1st commandment. There is no other god, but God! Therefore, God is central. Well, you've not told the whole truth. Jews believe in one God. Christians believe in one God. Neither of them can go to Paradise (Quran 3:85, 9:29-30). How about Zoroastrians and Sikhs? How about people who follow the extinct Atenism? They are all monotheists. So, Allah is not central to salvation. Someone else is, and that someone else is Muhammad. You wrote: Well then you are contradicting standard Christian doctrine. Do you believe in original sin? What denomination do you belong to? "Standard Christian doctrine"? Who gets to say what that is? I don't belong to a denomination. Am I supposed to? You wrote: Of course! But, just so you don't misconstrue this and try to justify the crucifixion, atonement is done by the individual. As the Quran states, everyone is responsible for their own actions. I see. But you told me that Allah was not going to make everyone go to hell...that all some people had to do was confess their sins on the Last Day and they would be automatically forgiven by Allah who would "conceal their sins." Now, where's the accountability in that? You wrote: You are going around in circles here and not answering the question. They were evil, yes. But, why did the plan require evil to be done in the first place? How does it sound to say that God's plan was achieved because of evil people? Why, then would we not feel a sigh of relief that the Pharisees and Romans did evil by killing the Messiah? We should be thankful that they committed evil, should we not? I wonder how it is best to explain this...Okay, humans think in terms of timelines. We can't comprehend something that hasn't happened yet because we cannot see the future. We also tend to be restricted to a cause-effect way of looking at things. God is omniscient, so it is like He sees the timeline from the very beginning to the very end all at once. It was never that His plan required that the Pharisees and Romans do evil, it was simply that He incorporated their deeds into His plan because He always knew what they would do. You are trying to say that because the Romans did what they did, that is why we are saved. Wrong. We should instead say, because of the mercy and power of God, an evil act was used for good. You wrote: Your entire premise is a straw man. Allah guides those who are worthy of guidance. Abraham was chosen because he had demonstrated obedience and goodness. And remember that without Allah, Abraham would never have survived in a land of pagans. They did try to kill him, but Allah's power was too much for the disbelievers.
Straw man? Not really. I'm trying to figure out Islamic theology. Either it is Allah that made Abraham good or it was Abraham who made himself good. How does someone become worthy of guidance except on their own merit? Therefore, Allah only does things based on the personal strengths of individuals, and the more moral strength a person has, the more Allah will guide them. This makes zero sense if all morality comes from Allah in the first place. In other words, you have one of two choices: Abraham's righteousness made him worthy of Allah's choice or Allah's choice of Abraham made him righteous. One is dependent on the power of Abraham, the other is dependent on the power of Allah. And how can a perfect Creator create an imperfect creation and then punish it when it acts imperfectly as it was designed to do? How can the perfect Creator torment his own creation for all eternity because it exercised the free will given to it by the Creator in the first place? What's the point of eternally tormenting someone for doing something you always knew it would do before it was even born? That sounds sadistic. Free will gives you the ability to sin. Having a penis gives you the ability to rape. However, having all of these things does not mean you will use them in such a negative manner. That's where God comes in. With God, man can use free will to do good. With God, man can use his body to bring pleasure to his wife, not pain. Without God, man is depraved, selfish, wicked. Without God, man gives in to the desires of the flesh. Free will is not an evil or bad thing. A penis is not an evil or bad thing. It all depends on how you use it...and without God, man is doomed to use things that are good to do evil. We twist and warp and pervert God's gifts. The urge to rape does not come from one's environment. It comes from within. You wrote: No one is suggesting that it was both ways. That is your own assumption. Of course, they were Muslims. They submitted to the will of God. So, the Quran refers to them as "Jews" or "Christians" simply to make a point. How would we know who the Quran was talking about if it referred to them as Muslims? The verse serves to remind the disbelieving Jews and Christians of their roots, the roots of monotheism and service to God, which they have betrayed. Okay, you've made some assumptions here. "the Quran refers to them as 'Jews' or 'Christans' simply to make a point." What? Who said that? Allah? Muhammad? The Quran itself? How can Allah use the titles "Jews" and "Christians" to sometimes mean Jews and Christians and other times to mean Muslims? This sounds warped. If Jews and Christians (the "real" ones) were always Muslims, then why weren't they just called Submitters (in their corresponding languages)? Why would Jews be named after Judah and Christians named after Christ if they were supposed to be submitting to GOD, not Judaism or Jesus? I'm going to underline the contradictions here: Natassia: Not all Jews have killed prophets. Not all Jews have altered the word of God. How about Jews born in the 7th century AD to Jewish parents who never killed anyone and never altered any scriptures? Those Jews believed in God. If they believed in Allah and ALL his prophets, including Muhammad, then they would be saved. The Jews who were born before Islam and who believed in Allah and did not disobey him or alter His word would be saved. Those Jews before Islam who did kill the prophets and disobeyed God and altered His word, and did not repent, would be doomed to Hell. Natassia: So again, it comes down to belief in Muhammad. It is belief in MUHAMMAD that saves a Jew...not belief in Allah. What a sad state of affairs. Not at all. Belief in Muhammad is secondary. If one believed in Muhammad but disbelieved in God, he would be a disbeliever. Conversely, if one believed in God but rejected Muhammad as a prophet, he would also be a disbeliever, since it is God who chose Muhammad. There is nothing complicated about this. You are making a mountain out of a pebble. This is not a pebble. Either salvation comes solely from belief in Allah, or salvation comes from belief in both Allah and Muhammad. You have explained that salvation requires belief in both. That is a big deal. You have now placed Muhammad at equal importance to Allah. And why are you talking about Ezekial? He's not in the Quran. There's no way to verify that Dhul Kifl is Ezekial (as some Muslims claim), and there certainly aren't any stories about him raising the dead. And according to the Tanakh, God commanded Ezekial to prophesy, and when he did, God raised the dead...not Ezekial. Jesus, however, simply commanded life into dead bodies. There was no praying or begging. Jesus COMMANDED the dead to rise. I really would like to address your "best example of humanity" comment. Maybe in another post. (And I really do wonder what your definition of "perfect" is. Oh, and I would really like to know where evil originated. You said Free Will. But that doesn't explain the origin of evil. You speak of it like it is a tangible thing.) |
|
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 23456 10> |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options