60 Questions for Christians to Answer |
Post Reply | Page <12345 6> |
Author | ||
buddyman
Senior Member Joined: 26 June 2007 Status: Offline Points: 295 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
|
||
buddyman
Senior Member Joined: 26 June 2007 Status: Offline Points: 295 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Question for Muslims to answer:
Why was my new topic about the Anti-Christ deleted? I never said it was Islam... |
||
Aspiration
Newbie Joined: 09 July 2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 8 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Greetings to all, :) I am not sure if the original poster wrote the questions out himself/herself or if it was a copy and paste of another source. By finishing up the questions it seems the author questionig th bible is true. Is this a fair sumation of these questions? If so then yes it is. Now I will qualify this in that Christianity is not a faith of the book. Here is an example. What bible did Peter read? Or what version did Paul have or lets go further maybe even Ignatius? You see that Christianity started with Faith in the risen Lord and was not based on a book. I hope this helps your understanding.
|
||
islamispeace
Senior Member Joined: 01 November 2005 Status: Offline Points: 2187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
|
||
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)
|
||
Andalus
Moderator Group Joined: 12 October 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Your examples have proven an age old heresy of your church: modalism. There is nothing in nature that actually corresponds to the trinity, which is why your doctors have focused a great deal of effort writing volumes and volumes of work trying to explain why god should be a trinity more than how god actually is a trinity. PS Modalism is a heresy that goes against the trinity.
I have read the bible, and I have already given you my objections and arguments on at least two of the main prophecy evidences used by your faith, and you have simply brushed these off with, "you need to read the whole bible", or, "you just do not understand". With all due respect, taking into account the lack of your own "work", and the use of extremely low level sources to make your claims, I have to conclude that you do not know your bible very well, nor do you understand the more complicated theological ideas, if you did, you would be able to discuss your claims on a very different level. kindest regards |
||
A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
http://www.sunnipath.com http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/ http://www.pt-go.com/ |
||
Aspiration
Newbie Joined: 09 July 2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 8 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Peace Islamispeace, I apologize for my delayed response. I did not realize you replied. You asked me clarify what I meant earlier by the faith not being a religion/faith of the book. Hopefully I can convey what I meant in regards to the question. Not trying to show you how it is correct simply answering the question. Simply put the faith of the early Christians had no book. The faith was passed down by a chain of believers. What chain you ask. The chain of the Apostolic fathers. The bible as we have it was not compiled to a much later date. Of course my Protestant brothers have the same version but with books not deemed inspired by them. The faith was taught. The Church is the Pillar and Foundation. Not vice versa. The faith believes from by scripture and tradition for they stem from the same divine well spring. If you refer to some of the scripture references you can see what I mean. 2 Thes 2:15, 2 Tim 2:1-2, 2 pet 1:20-21 Just a few examples. I hope you this answers your question. I didn't respond to this to see who was right or wrong. I am only giving an answer which is the title of this topic 60 questions for Christians. :) I answered the best I could. Islamispeace, Alaykum Salam. Nice writing and learning from you. In regards to Andalus I would have to agree that Modalism is being described. The view that the Three members of the Blessed Trinity are differnt modes of God is a heretical belief. No offense to you Buddyman. Only stating what the Modalism statement is. Peace be with you brother. Aspiration
|
||
Andalus
Moderator Group Joined: 12 October 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Greetings Aspiration. The latest, and probably the most clever approach to the trinity is entitled "Social Trinitarianism". William L. Craig is a huge proponent of the argument and has brought some strong work into the field. My understanding is that some Christian scholars have objected because the argument moves away from a biblical standpoint and relies too heavily on philosophy. With that in mind, as far as the trinity being rational or not, I have never used the "rational vs irrational" mode to denounce it. The idea of rejecting the existence of somethingbased upon the rationality of something was best summed up by Nietzsche: "The irrationality of a thing is no argument against its existence, rather a condition of it." Kindest regards |
||
A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
http://www.sunnipath.com http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/ http://www.pt-go.com/ |
||
Israfil
Senior Member Joined: 08 September 2003 Status: Offline Points: 3984 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
But in actuality brother Andalus Monarch Modalism is apart of the Christian theology although it remains subtle in its current form now. I remember doing a 20 page paper in my Medieval Philosophy course on Peter Abelard who fused the philosophical thought of Saballianism (i.e. Monarch Modalism) with Aristotlian thought. Like you said brother Andalus the biggest problem was as you said: explain why god should be a trinity more than how god actually is a trinity. The problem with Buddyman's position is he is saying "God is in nature" is the wrong approach. That would be Pan-tri-theism" like God is everything in three. That is illogical. Ascribing God as a hylomorphic compound in asymmetrical fashion is a blasphemous attempt to prove trinity. Edited by Israfil |
||
Post Reply | Page <12345 6> |
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 |