Interesting Statement by Annie2

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

 Andalus wrote:

 Aquinian wrote:

Well, to be frank, the Quran came 600 years after the time of Christ and yet it reads much like the Old Testament.  To paraphrase, "If this happens, stone this person."  "If that happens, pay this person 50 shillings."  I do not wish to blaspheme the Quran, but it is a regressive text, in terms of philosophical brilliance.

You have made some errneous assumptions.
1) So if the Revelation to Moses came centuries after Noah, then the revelation to Moses is false because it was not the same as that to Noah, and soe not follow the philosophical specualtion of how Gd must work.
2) Perhaps we should compare your "philisophical assumptions" with your own theology. 
-Gd gives a series of commands to Moses
-Christians have these commands in their bible, and the one (Jesus) they follow also followed them. 
-Christianity is not given commands. They have now moved beyond Gd's law, and without any guidance, they have the "option" to create their own laws, 99% of the time is compeltely out of "convenience".
This not an evolved progresion, this is called "pie in the sky" theology based upon the speculation of man. 

 Aquinian wrote:

Your faith should not read like a how-to manual - through the love of God, you should know what is right.

So too bad for Moses, and Noah, and Jesus huh? A crack head ont he street gets a free ride with Gd but not Moses. Now thats certainly rational!
So according to you, a religous manual should not read at all, excapet for a few ambiguous ideas, we can just be free to do whatever the heck we want! Nice. Sign me up!

 Aquinian wrote:

  Christ uses figurative language, but it's not rocket science trying to figure it out.  

Actually, rocket science is a lot easier than using the texts that your church has based its foundations on. 
Your texts support such a wide range of views about Jesus and his very nature. Not like rockte science? You are correct. Rocket science is way easier. This is due to the lack of any solid substance concerning what Jesus actually said and believed. Your faith is defined by men who never actually new him.

 Aquinian wrote:

I have a difficult time comprehending how the brilliance of Christ, the apostles, and Paul regressed so much with the texts of Muhammad.

I have always had a difficult time figuring out how people were duped into following "pie in the sky" theology that has no bases in the Hebrew Scriptures. 
Regression: Moses taught a law, followed the law, and told people they were able to follow it.
Paul said the law was not important. The churc said we are incapable of following the law.
Moses used the mitzvah to walk close to Gd.
Paul taught that we only need to feel Gd. 
All of the prophets brought men close to Gd's law.
Paul took men away from it.
Moses taught to worship Gd alone, with any notion of a triune Gd.
Paul set the foundations for one of the most wicked innovations ever: A Gd with three aspects. 
Moses brought forth truth.
Paul distorted and even lied about the Hebrew Scriptures.

 Aquinian wrote:

  600 years after Christ and he still couldn't get past the idea of "eye for an eye."  Jesus does away with it in favor of a higher understanding of how we treat our neighbor.  Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. 

Actually, Christians inserted portions such as the adulteress woman. It is an added addition. Christian were left with nearly no guidance from Jesus, so they simply interpolated their own ideas and forged them into their own books.
So the ideas that Jesus abolished the laws are based upon a fabrication, and trying to read personal conjecture into ambiguous verses. The Ebionites, Christians who rejected Paul, and thought of him as a lunatic, still followed the law, completely.
How much of the commands thats houdl be followed was uncertain to your own eraly founders, who debated this. It required so much debate because of the lack of supporting evidence from Jesus.

 Aquinian wrote:

 You would think Muhammad would have attempted to take something from the beauty of Christ's message.

The Prophet addressed the core messages from the time of Jesus and beyond. What you mean is that he did not address what the church thought. 

 aquinian wrote:

Even if Jesus did say "I am God," you still wouldn't believe. 

Irrelevant.
The charge is this: You claim Jesus is Gd. An extraodinary claim. So I look for extraordinary evidence from yoru text. And it doeas not give the evidence required for the claim. Whether or not I believe it or not, is not relevant.

 Aquinian wrote:

 He says that if you have seen Him, then you have seen the father.  What else do you need?  This kind of denial only indicates that you do not wish to say what you really think: Jesus' words in John are really not his words.  Say that instead of making this claim that Jesus had to say what you want him to say.

You , like your church fathers, are forcing a single interpretation. 
Keep in mind that your complaint of a religion that has a "how to book", also carries with it "explicit" statements that define the faith, and defined what Gd wants you to do. 
Your book is full of implicit statements, and 99% of your proof texts are based upon implicit statements. The reason the church relies so heaviy on "implicit" statements is the very nature of such statements.
This is from a reputable on line dictionary:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va =explicit
Explicit
1 a : fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intent <explicit instructions> b : open in the depiction of nudity or sexuality <explicit books and films>
2 : fully developed or formulated <an explicit plan> <an explicit notion of our objective>
3 : unambiguous in expression <was very explicit on how we are to behave>
4 of a mathematical function : defined by an expression containing only independent variables 
This is in contrast to "implicit".
1 a : capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed : IMPLIED <an implicit assumption> b : involved in the nature or essence of something though not revealed, expressed, or developed 
Your faith relies too heavily on implicit statments, and this alone should be unsettling to anyone searching for the truth of Gd. This goes to the heart of the complaint that my brothers and sisters are bringing up. Your beliefs do not rest on anything "explicit". "Explicitness" is at the heart of Islam and to a lesser degree in Judaism. In fact, visiting Christians in Mecca once debated with the Prophet (saw) and in the debate they tried to argue from implicit statements in the Quran. The Problem for the Christian delegation was that the implicit are definded by the many explicit.

 Aquinian wrote:

Does God have to be what you want him to be?  Does he have to be one person in one God or can he be three persons in one God if it is his will?

Thats a good question you should meditate on. Your high level of use and dependency on "implicit" statements should cause you to deeply think and ask this very question.

 Aquinian wrote:

Simplicity is not always the answer (negate Occam's Razor) - the brilliance of Christian thought and theology indicates that clearly, as well as the numerous advances made by Christian civilization in the past 2000 years.

So chaos and ambiguity is the answer? Your faith has been redefining itself for 2000 years, with no hope of end in sight, because your faith lacks any texts that have any real information to define your way of life and who Gd is.
Christian civilization has not been proof of "brilliance" that stands out. For the first 1000 years, one could find nothing but ignorance, disease, illiteracy, corruption amongst the clergy, and a completely backward society. Christendom took over a 1000 years to start forming any real civilization, and then by the age of enlightenment, western thinkers began a series of arguments that deflated church theology setting the course for darwinism and athiesm. In effect, the church put all of its eggs in the aristotilean basket, and when CHristendom did achieve learning, it came back to bight them and discredit their theology. 

I disagree completely with your characterization of the Christian faith, but no surprise there.
I'd say your main claim, in all of that redundant text, is that Christianity is based on implicit claims from a Bible that was created by individuals who had no intent to accurately represent Christ's words.
This is clearly false.  We have the actual words of Christ and his direct disciples, and we know what he said - it was written down and passed on just like your Koran.  Muslims have some notions of Christ but have no idea why they believe what they believe about him.  They certainly do not rely on Christ's words in the Bible because his words go against the faith of Islam, as I have proven.
Seeing as how the middle east has failed to enter into its own enlightenment period yet, I would vouch for the west's movement into higher thinking during the Rennaissance.  You are claiming that the enlightenment undermined the theology of the church, and yet the Catholic Church is the second largest church in the world, next to the church of Muhammad.  Christianity is still the largest religion in the world, with many of its newest adherents coming from strongholds of Islam such has Africa.  To say that the enlightenment undermined the theology of Catholicism or Christianity at all is a complete fabrication - it clarified it.
Muslims point to the simplicity of their faith and somehow believe that it makes it more correct.  This is, as I said, an interpretation of Ockham's razor gone wrong.
Christ says that you shall know the tree by its fruit.  When the fruit of Islam brings so much suffering for so many people, including women who are abused and mistreated by a male elite, children who are indoctrinated into hatred of the Jews, teens who willingly blow themselves up to kill Jews, fundementalists who encourage violence and a return to the middle ages (simplicity for sure), torture and mutilation of those who oppose them, court trials for religious converts, and many many other clear indicators of suffering, one must only conclude that the tree is dying.
I would prefer an "enlightenment" that advances and clarifies the views of humanity through science and reason rather than a fundementalist dogma that dominates its people rather than sets them free.