IslamiCity.org Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Religion - Islam > Interfaith Dialogue
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Christians are  degrading Islam  What is Islam What is Islam  Donate Donate
  FAQ FAQ  Quran Search Quran Search  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Christians are degrading Islam

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 111213
Author
Message
Angela View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 11 July 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 2555
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Angela Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 June 2006 at 9:30am

Amen David.

These men tend to stir up controversy even among other Christians.  Long before I left mainstream Christianity, I did not find these men very appealing.  Christ taught us to be kind and loving towards all.  Their tirades against homosexuals and other faiths leave me with a sour taste in my mouth.  I honestly believe they are in it for the money and not the religious conviction.

Pat Roberston has also be showing signs of mental illness lately.  I wonder seriously how long he'll be with 700 Club.

Back to Top
Patty View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar
Joined: 14 September 2001
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2382
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Patty Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 June 2006 at 9:36am

Er, hmmmm, I don't judge anyone, it's God's place to do that.  But I wonder if any of you have ever heard what these two gentlemen have to say regarding Catholics and the Catholic Church?  **hint** It ain't pretty.

God's Peace.

Patty

I don't know what the future holds....but I know who holds the future.
Back to Top
AnnieTwo View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 26 May 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 281
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AnnieTwo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 June 2006 at 10:13am
Originally posted by DavidC DavidC wrote:

I deleted the question BMZ.  I tried to query the reference but my search parameters were typo'd.  It is from Luke 3:38

The phrase "children of God" pops up in different places though, usually in reference to Christians or perhaps any of the people of the book.  It will take a while to develop an exegesis comparing those two terms.



David and BMZ,

Luke 3 is the verse I was thinking of.

I think I can understand why we should/would consider Adam a "son of God."

If God created Adam then God is Adam's "father." God "fathered" him. His special relationship with God would be that Adam was created in God's image.  "Adam" means "human."  God showed that He wanted to have a father/son relationship with humans and started with Adam.

Annie
14If you are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are you, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. On their part He is blasphemed, but on your part He is glorified. 1 Peter 4

Back to Top
DavidC View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar
Male Christian
Joined: 20 September 2001
Location: Florida USA
Status: Offline
Points: 2474
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DavidC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 June 2006 at 10:21am
Robertson & Falwell are classic demigogues.  The technique is:

1) Detail a long list of problems, threats and resentments.

2) Convince people that all of these stem from a single root cause.

3) Direct hostility at this target.

Robertson, Falwell, Bush, anti-American Arabs...all share this evil technique as a means to claw their way to power.
Christian; Wesleyan M.Div.
Back to Top
Servetus View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member

Male
Joined: 04 April 2001
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2109
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Servetus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 June 2006 at 10:39am

(DavidC)  �Robertson, Falwell, ... all share this evil technique as a means to claw their way to power.�

 

And real political power they have.  Here, in this article, is a case in point of the effect that they can have on American foreign policy.  After reading this and other articles of its type, one can well understand why some of their critics have called them (the Evangelical bloc in general) a veritable Fifth Column of American Likudniks:

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/03/60minutes/main5242 68.shtml

 

 

Serv



Edited by Servetus
Back to Top
George View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 14 April 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 406
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote George Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 June 2006 at 10:51am

Originally posted by BMZ BMZ wrote:

TO GEORGE 

George,

That is okay. I did understand you.

By the way, what do you think of my suggestion to Annie, in my post at 6:10 am of 4th June 2006, regarding some proposed new words to replace the term "Begoteen"? 

You mean this one?

Originally posted by BMZ BMZ wrote:

Annie,

From you: "amah,

I have run into the same thing with Muslims that George apparently has.  I don't know where it comes from."

Annie, it comes from discussions. It comes when Muslims query on the use of the word "Begotten", which is the past participle of Beget, which in the English language means to procreate, which the Christians cannot explain well themselves. Couldn't there be any better word than that?

I don't think that works.  There are other interpretations of "begat" besides to procreate.  The misunderstanding clearly comes from the Qur'an or interpretations of the Qur'an.  Christians don't have a problem with the term.  If a more accurate interpretation of the Greek word "monogenes" is unique or only then why are most Muslim scholars translating monogenes as "begotten" and why is Allah so upset about it since an all-knowing God knows the meaning of all words in any language?

If Allah knew the correct translation of the word "begotten" shouldn't the following aya:

"They say (the Christians): "Allah hath begotten a son!" Glory be to Him! He is self-sufficient! His are all things in heaven and on earth! No warrant have ye for this!" (Surah 10:68)

Instead be:

 

"They say (the Christians): "Allah has a unique and only son in the figurative sense.  Glory be to Him! He is self-sufficient! His are all things in heaven and on earth! No warrant have ye for this!" (Surah 10:68)

That would have solved the whole "begotten" problem, wouldn't it?  Well, not quite.  We are still left with the words:  He is self-sufficient!  What does the fact that Allah is "self-sufficient" have to do with having a son in the figurative sense?  It sounds like Allah is saying that he doesn't need another God; that he is enough, which true.  Is this another sticky wicket?

Originally posted by BMZ BMZ wrote:

There is another meaning of the word Beget and that is "give rise to" or "cause". Would you consider these better than using "begotten"? 

What is your source for "give rise to" or "cause?"  Provide a link, please.

I think we should leave the translation to those who are experts in the Greek.  As I pointed out to you in another thread a few (most do not) Muslims scholars translate begotten as "taken."  But taken has the same connotation as "begotten."

Originally posted by BMZ BMZ wrote:

Now, I am not suggesting that God procreated Jesus himself. That is the meaning of the word chosen by Christians. Muslims resent that word "Begotten" in English and write to object.

No, BMZ.  Monogenes does not mean that God procreated Jesus.  You must use a word in context with the rest of the sentence.

In The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia in Five Volumes, 1975, Vol A-C, p. 510, we find:

BEGOTTEN (BEGETTING) Various forms of the roots and "beget," are frequent in the OT both in the literal sense (Deut 23:8) and the metaphorical (Job 38:28; of the deposit of dew). Psalm 2:7 uses the word of God's relationship to the Messianic king.

In the Greek translation of the Old Testament the word "monogenes" is also used for Isaac.  It means "only" or "unique."  In the case of Isaac since Abraham already had a son, Ishmael, it cannot mean that Isaac was Abraham's only child.  It means that Isaac was "only and unique" because it was Isaac that God designated to be the bearer of His covenant.

Muslims have no reason to "resent" anything.  What Muslims should do is understand that monogenes means unique and only son and it has nothing to do with a biological son.

Originally posted by BMZ BMZ wrote:

So, if I say that God gave rise to Jesus in his virgin mother's womb or God caused Jesus to be born, would you be willing to throw away and discard the word "Begotten"?

Would you be willing to admit that Jesus' "father" is YHVH in terms of relationship and that Jesus taught us to call YHVH "father" assuring that those who believe in Jesus have a father/son/daughter relationship, a personal relationship?

 

Peace

 

BTW:  Do you still go to the cricket matches?

Back to Top
Servetus View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member

Male
Joined: 04 April 2001
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2109
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Servetus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 June 2006 at 12:49pm

I don�t offer this as a point of contention, or controversy, but thought, with the repeated emphasis upon Jesus as the �only� begotten (monogenes) that it might be worth noting that, according to Revelation 1:5, Jesus is referred to as prototokos, which the KJV translators render as �first� begotten.  Apparently, whether the original wording be (Greek) monogenes or prototokos, it results in �begotten� for the English translators.  Again, though, this is just an aside, or side note, and a possible point of interest for us students of these matters.

Serv

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1149535289-635.html #

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 111213
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.