I find your statment form another site of interest.

Annie2 wrote: Not only did I "research" Islam, I considered the religion of Islam before I became a Christian. I had two Muslim teachers--very knowledgeble teachers.

Really? So could you tell us who gave them their ijaaza?

I am asking because you seem to be everything but knowledgeable about Islam. What I mean is that your understanding comes straight from polemical sites on Islam. So it is a curious statement.

Andalus,

That is a very correct observation. What site is that?  Would you to able to share that with me? I would like to see Annie in action there.

I believe it is to your credit that you kept an open mind, studied all the religions, and then based on what you studied, who you spoke with, and what you felt to be most accurate in your heart, made your decision.  I'm quite sure you prayed about it, and obviously God led you where He wanted you.

God be with you always Annie.

I have to agree with the esteemed Brothers here. Your insight into Islam is not indicative of having studied, or of having studied with anyone of sincere knowledge.

Annie:

I was a Christian for 36 years. I understand Christianity. Your argument might work with someone who has never been in contact with Christians, never studied Christainity, or never been a Christian, but it doesn't work with me. There is not much that you can tell me here about Christianity that I have not heard before. I may not be extremely knowledgeable about all denominations, but I understand the basics very well. I became a Muslim at the age of 36. I wasn't born one.

 I studied Islam for quite a while before I reverted. I also had everyone in my family thinking I was crazy, and committing a sin, so they were throwing everything they could at me about the evils of Islam.

Do you think that there is some secret stash of information out there about how eveil Islam is that I did not have access to? What could you possibly have studied that I, as a Christian, could not have studied, even it if was something Muslims are not allowed to study?

Islam is the fastest growing religion in the West. All of these people becoming Muslims, were not Muslims first. So, even if there is some great conspiracy to keep Muslims from studying certain materials, these reverts would not be included in that group, would they?

Or, perhaps there's some way that these conspirators can tell ahead of time who might be likely to revert, so these deemed likely are also not allowed to read this secret material...Maybe we are marked from birth, so we just never even know it exists...

Perhaps you know ex-Muslims who hate Islam. I personally know one ex-Muslim. She doesn't hate Islam at all. She just wanted freedom. Freedom to do whatever she wanted and not have to answer to God for it. She admits this. Islam was just too hard for her, no drinking, no boyfriends, no pre-marital sex...

What insight do you have. You have shared nothing here that cannot be found on any anti-Islamic website. In some cases, verbatim...

Mishmish wrote: Annie: I was a Christian for 36 years. I understand Christianity. Your argument might work with someone who has never been in contact with Christians, never studied Christainity, or never been a Christian, but it doesn't work with me. There is not much that you can tell me here about Christianity that I have not heard before. I may not be extremely knowledgeable about all denominations, but I understand the basics very well. I became a Muslim at the age of 36. I wasn't born one.  I studied Islam for quite a while before I reverted. I also had everyone in my family thinking I was crazy, and committing a sin, so they were throwing everything they could at me about the evils of Islam. Do you think that there is some secret stash of information out there about how eveil Islam is that I did not have access to? What could you possibly have studied that I, as a Christian, could not have studied, even it if was something Muslims are not allowed to study? Islam is the fastest growing religion in the West. All of these people becoming Muslims, were not Muslims first. So, even if there is some great conspiracy to keep Muslims from studying certain materials, these reverts would not be included in that group, would they? Or, perhaps there's some way that these conspirators can tell ahead of time who might be likely to revert, so these deemed likely are also not allowed to read this secret material...Maybe we are marked from birth, so we just never even know it exists... Perhaps you know ex-Muslims who hate Islam. I personally know one ex-Muslim. She doesn't hate Islam at all. She just wanted freedom. Freedom to do whatever she wanted and not have to answer to God for it. She admits this. Islam was just too hard for her, no drinking, no boyfriends, no pre-marital sex... What insight do you have. You have shared nothing here that cannot be found on any anti-Islamic website. In some cases, verbatim...

Could not have said it better.

Not to ignite friction between the two opposing sides but...

If one has studied Christianity thoroughly (and studied other monotheistic faiths) and NOT found it to be the most accurate monotheistic faith, they are clearly not studying it accurately enough.

How could one see the Sun rise and still think it was night time?

Aquinian:

Most Muslims feel exactly the same way. After studying Islam and finding the simplicity and truthfulness of the message, who would choose otherwise?

Annie:

It is not that I had bad teachers, but rather that they were teaching impossible doctrine. You cannot logically teach something that has no logic.

I assume you consider yourself a good teacher, yet you cannot explain the Trinity or how Jesus is God. Not REALLY explain it. It just is. Why is it? Why would God go to all of the trouble of sending Messengers and Prophets for thousands of years, then show up on earth in person and keep it a big secret? Just because?

I have already posted an article by a Christian talking about the very real dangers of the numbers of older Western Christians reverting to Isam, and the reason why they revert. I can post it again if you like. Marriage had nothing to do with it. Logic and lack of blind superstition within Islam were the main reasons. You can believe this is not true if you choose, but that doesn't make it not true. Perhaps they all have had poor teachers?

You made a claim that most rapes in Europe are by Muslim men. I would like to see those statistics, because that is a very serious claim.

I have lived all over, been a Christian, now I am a Muslim for 10 years, and in all of this time and travel I have only ever met one true ex-Muslim. It is amazing to me that you apparently have met hoardes of them. Maybe they are hidden away with all of that secret material Muslims are not allowed to study.

The issue at hand is the claim that they have really studied some subject, whatever that subject may be. Yet their polemics and background do not represent someone who has actually studied the subject, their presnetation is someone who studied the anti-thesis to the subject (polemics, etc).

That is the issue at hand.

Peace

Aquinian wrote: Not to ignite friction between the two opposing sides but... If one has studied Christianity thoroughly (and studied other monotheistic faiths) and NOT found it to be the most accurate monotheistic faith, they are clearly not studying it accurately enough. How could one see the Sun rise and still think it was night time?

Mishmish wrote: It is not that I had bad teachers, but rather that they were teaching impossible doctrine. You cannot logically teach something that has no logic.

I don't find the doctrine of the Trinity, if that is what you are referring to, illogical.  I find that God and what He has done completely beyond my understanding, yet I believe.  Like, for instance, how did He make the Universe?  It is illogical to think that He could just do it by saying the words.  I can't do that.  I can't make a chair by saying "be" and it is.  I don't expect to understand God and what He does and how He does it fully.  There are some things that are mysteries.

Mishmish wrote: I assume you consider yourself a good teacher, yet you cannot explain the Trinity or how Jesus is God. Not REALLY explain it. It just is. Why is it? Why would God go to all of the trouble of sending Messengers and Prophets for thousands of years, then show up on earth in person and keep it a big secret? Just because?

No, not "just because."  The problem is that sending the prophets didn't work and the law didn't work. 

Malachi 1. Behold I send My angel, and he will clear a way before Me. And suddenly, the Lord Whom you seek will come to His Temple. And behold! The angel of the covenant, whom you desire, is coming, says the Lord of Hosts.

I believe that this is the story involving Zechariah and the child that God promised him who was John the Baptist.  John was the messenger who would prepare the way for the Promised One, Messiah Jesus, who was God Himself incarnate.

There are some who call themselves Christians who do not believe that Jesus was divine and do not believe in the Trinity, yet they believe that Jesus was the Messiah.  Apparently Muslims reject this and claim that Jesus was "just" another anointed one.

I can easily see that Jesus called God his Father, so we have the Father.  Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, the son of God (a title of the Messiah).  I can also plainly see that Jesus spoke of the Holy Spirit of God.  That is enough for me.  I don't have to know how it all works.

I don't know how electricity works either but I believe it.

Mishmish wrote: I have already posted an article by a Christian talking about the very real dangers of the numbers of older Western Christians reverting to Isam, and the reason why they revert. I can post it again if you like. Marriage had nothing to do with it. Logic and lack of blind superstition within Islam were the main reasons. You can believe this is not true if you choose, but that doesn't make it not true. Perhaps they all have had poor teachers?

No, I haven't had poor teachers.

Mishmish wrote: You made a claim that most rapes in Europe are by Muslim men. I would like to see those statistics, because that is a very serious claim.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21502 - http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=2150 2

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20535 - http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=2053 5

http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/08/rape-nothing-to-do-with-islam.html - http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/08/rape-nothing-to-do-with -islam.html

You can do your own googles.  Rape is a problem in all societies.  I understand from a recent article that in the US rapes have gone down since 1970.

Mishmish wrote: I have lived all over, been a Christian, now I am a Muslim for 10 years, and in all of this time and travel I have only ever met one true ex-Muslim. It is amazing to me that you apparently have met hoardes of them. Maybe they are hidden away with all of that secret material Muslims are not allowed to study.

Annie

Annie:

Yes, I read the stats, apparently despite the huge climb in "Muslim" rape, it's still about 3% of all rapes commited in Europe. Who is commiting the other 97%?  I know, it wouldn't be Christians because TRUE Christians don't commit crimes.

The trinity is not the same as the creation of the earth. The trinity is associating partners with God, no matter how you try to gloss it over. God is One. That is the whole basis of monotheism. One God, not three.

Mishmish wrote: Annie: Yes, I read the stats, apparently despite the huge climb in "Muslim" rape, it's still about 3% of all rapes commited in Europe. Who is commiting the other 97%?  I know, it wouldn't be Christians because TRUE Christians don't commit crimes.

Try not to be sarcastic, Mishmish.  Of course Christians commit rapes.  Look again at the reasons for the Muslim rapes.  Rape is a crime, not of lust, but of violence and disrespect of women.

Mishmish wrote: The trinity is not the same as the creation of the earth. The trinity is associating partners with God, no matter how you try to gloss it over. God is One. That is the whole basis of monotheism. One God, not three.

Three what?  The Shema simply means that there is only one God.  The Shema says nothing about the nature of that one God.  Look at the Old Testament.  How many times do you see that there is only one God?  Many times.  If God wanted to make sure that His nature was not a tri-unity, you would see Him stating it over and over again, but you cannot find it--not in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Don't the Muslims associate "partners" with God when Muslims have to believe not only in God, but also in Muhammad?  What about the rest of us?  What about the Jews?  What about the Christians who are not trinitarians?

I have been told by Muslims that no religion but Islam, the religion of Muhammad, will be accepted by Allah.  How can this be?

You do not understand the Trinity or you would not say that it involves "partners" with God.  Is does not.

Once again, Jesus spoke of the Father, he said that he was the Son/Messiah and he spoke of the Holy Spirit which is the Comforter in the Gospel of John.

Jesus never spoke of a prophet who would come after him and he would have if that was the case.

Jesus is our last chance.

Annie

Annie:

We believe that Mohammed was a Prophet of God. We do not believe Mohammed was God incarnate, nor even divine. There is a HUGE difference in believing a man is a Messenger or Prophet of God and believing a man is God. At least in my mind there is.

To believe that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are three yet all fully God is to associate partners with God. There is God who is God, there is Jesus who is God, and there is the Holy Spirirt who is God. Three, not One.

I think by stating that there is only One God and I am that God, many times, God is stating there is no tri-unity. Otherwise He would have stated I am God, a Triune. At least once, don't you think? Just to make it official?

Even if Jesus said he was the son of God, how do you go from that to Jesus is God? That's a huge leap.

Jesus never said there wouldn't be another Prophet after him. Don't you call that affirmation by silence, or something like that? Jesus never said he had completed God's religion either. Jesus never said he was God. Jesus never said eat pork. So many things Jesus never said.

Mishmish wrote: You cannot logically teach something [Christianity] that has no logic.

This depends largely on the person receiving the teaching material.  If the person has faith, the lesson comes easy.  I never thought it necessary to "teach" religion though, but I digress once again.

If an atheist read the Koran, the atheist would find no logic in the belief system of Islam.  Most religions are not based in logic because, at some point, one must admit that there is something supernatural which cannot be explained by mankind.  The existence of God, or, the "first mover" as Aquinas said, is that which cannot be explained by mankind.  Aquinas' attempt to prove the existence of God was brilliant and bold, but it fails for the simple reason that the most dull thoughts of God are beyond the greatest thoughts man will ever have - we cannot prove His existence with our meager supply of knowledge.  But, why should we need to?

Pure logic deems that things for which we have no proof are irrational to believe.  Because there is no real proof that God created the world, it is irrational to believe in Him, so the argument goes.  We have "more logical" ways of explaining the beginning of the universe than God, the argument goes.

Now, when you open your faith up to the conjecture of logic, you quickly find that faith is illogical.  Belief in Islam is illogical, purely speaking.

This doesn't mean that, once you've accepted that God is the creator and sustainer of the universe, you can't make logical arguments about His purpose for us.  But, this is a difficult place to come to when we consider traditional philosophy - it is very difficult to make a reasoned argument in favor of the existence of God.  Many have been made before and after Aquinas but few have been 100% convincing to all mankind, which is obvious.

Rather than open up God to the reason and logic of this world, logic which He cannot be limited by, I think it is more appropriate to understand His true nature as defined by God on Earth, Jesus Christ.  No other faith makes this claim as convincingly; namely, that God came to Earth and gave us his true nature through the simple words of a carpenter.

"No other faith makes this claim as convincingly; namely, that God came to Earth and gave us his true nature through the simple words of a carpenter."

I believe the faith claims what Jesus did not.

Actually, when you look around, logically it is almost impossible not to believe in God. To believe that a random set of circumstances occurred which caused creation is rather ludicrous. That quite by accident, we just are.

If evolution is a fact, then why aren't humans still evolving from lower forms of life? In the thousands of years that man has been recording history, why has nothing evolved to a point of being recognised as such by man?

Anyway, this topic has strayed and Annie still has not answered the original question...

Mishmish wrote: "No other faith makes this claim as convincingly; namely, that God came to Earth and gave us his true nature through the simple words of a carpenter." I believe the faith claims what Jesus did not.

Well, let's consider what Jesus did claim:

John 14:5 - Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?"

 6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7If you really knew me, you would know^[b] my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."

 8Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."

 9Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.

Aquinian:

I will ask you as I have asked every other Christian I know: show me in the scriptures where Jesus states: I am God. Show me in the scriptures where God states: I am a trinity/triune/Godhead, I will accept any of these.  Just show me in plain language that anyone and everyone can understand: I am God. I am a trinity.

If this is fact, it should be clearly spoken. Not alluded to here or there, or some spiritual mystery that mankind has to figure out by reading between the lines.

That's all I am asking for. The words clearly spoken: I am God. I am a trinity.

Mishmish wrote: Aquinian: I will ask you as I have asked every other Christian I know: show me in the scriptures where Jesus states: I am God. Show me in the scriptures where God states: I am a trinity/triune/Godhead, I will accept any of these.  Just show me in plain language that anyone and everyone can understand: I am God. I am a trinity.

Show me in the Scriptures where God says He is not triune in nature.

Show me in the Scriptures where Jesus says he is not God.

Show me in the Scriptures where Jesus correctly the Jews when they accussed him of being God.

Show me where specifically the in Qur'an that Jesus denies the Trinity in those exact words.

Show me in the Qur'an where Jesus denies that God is three Persons in those exact words.

Mishmish wrote: If this is fact, it should be clearly spoken. Not alluded to here or there, or some spiritual mystery that mankind has to figure out by reading between the lines.

Why?

Annie:

Jesus didn't author the Quran, anymore than he authored any of the scriptures.

The Words of the Quran are from God and God clearly states that Jesus was not God, Jesus was not the son of God and that there is no trinity. These have been posted to you before, so you already know this.

You can not show me this in the scriptures because it doesn't exist in the scriptures.

By stating that just because God didn't deny He is a trinity that it must be so is ridiculous. God also didn't deny that He is Osiris, does that make it so? God didn't deny He is Buddha, does that make it so?

Are you trying to say that Christianity is a religion of lack of denial? As long as God didn't deny something, we should accept it?

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.

Your faith should not read like a how-to manual - through the love of God, you should know what is right.  Christ uses figurative language, but it's not rocket science trying to figure it out.  I have a difficult time comprehending how the brilliance of Christ, the apostles, and Paul regressed so much with the texts of Muhammad.  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.  You would think Muhammad would have attempted to take something from the beauty of Christ's message.

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

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?

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.

Also, I would like to see a response to what Jesus actually did say.  How does this jive with what Muslims see him as?

"No one can go to the father except through me."

Wow.  Quite a bold statement.  A complete fabrication by Christians or an insane Jesus?

"Also, I would like to see a response to what Jesus actually did say.  How does this jive with what Muslims see him as?

"No one can go to the father except through me."

Wow.  Quite a bold statement.  A complete fabrication by Christians or an insane Jesus"

Is that what Jesus really said? If Jesus were God, wouldn't he have said: no-one can go to me except through me? Something I believe God has said all along...

Perhaps the Quran reads like the Old Testament because it is the Word of God.

Actually, wasn't the reason for all of the Prophets and Messengers exactly that of a how-to manual? To instruct mankind how to follow the Laws of God and to get back on the straight path?

God can be anything, He is God. But since the purpose, I am assuming with my limited human understanding, of the Word of God throughout history has been to inform us of His Will, and to instruct us on how we can attain salvation, to be a Godhead and not clearly state so would seem counter productive. Would not at least one of God's Messengers or Prophets have been given this message to pass on?  Or the message that God, incarnate, would actually walk the earth? This is very important stuff, at least as important as the Commandments, or the building of the Ark. Surely at least one Messenger or Prophet or scripture would have been sent to tell mankind that God would take human form and walk among us.

Perhaps simplicity is not always the answer. But clarity is crucial, don't you agree? Especially when our eternal souls hang in the balance.

DavidC wrote: God did announce from above that Jesus was his son, and it was heard by everyone.  That to me is more convincing than Jesus claiming his own divinity.

Are you talking about the Transfiguration?

Mark 9:7 - Then a cloud appeared and enveloped them, and a voice came from the cloud: "This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!"

Who should we listen to?  To Jesus:

John 14:9 - Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?

You left something out:

Elijah, Moses, and Jesus were there. As my esteemed colleague BMZ asked, to which was God referring? Did God call Jesus by name?

Mark 9:4 And Elijah appeared to them with Moses, and they were talking with Jesus. 5 Then Peter answered and said to Jesus, �Rabbi, it is good for us to be here; and let us make three tabernacles: one for You, one for Moses, and one for Elijah�� 6 because he did not know what to say, for they were greatly afraid.
7 And a cloud came and overshadowed them; and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, �This is My beloved Son. Hear Him!�

John 14:10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works.

Whose authority would that be if Jesus is God?

Moses and Elijah were never supposed by anyone anywhere at anytime of being God's son.  I am truly flabbergast that you would use that argument.  Of course, I don't know you that well, so I have no idea what you're capable of.

I mean, you can pick and choose which parts you want to bold and which you don't, but if you take Christ's complete sentence (complete thought) and you don't take anything out of context, you can gain a simple understanding of what he is saying.  Christ still claims that the authority he speaks from comes from the father IN HIM.  This is a mystery of the trinity that you are having problems with.  We cannot understand the father being in him but separate from him at the same time.  It is beyond our comprehension, just as the magnitude of God's love is beyond our comprehension.

I am stimulated by this discussion.  Thank you Mishmish.

Mishmish wrote: Are you contending that Jesus is the only one ever mentioned in the scriptures as the son of God?

I am contending that Jesus is the only son of God.  Not Elijah or Moses.

Aquinian wrote: Mishmish wrote: Are you contending that Jesus is the only one ever mentioned in the scriptures as the son of God? I am contending that Jesus is the only son of God.  Not Elijah or Moses.

On what do you base that assertion?

Mishmish wrote: Aquinian wrote: Mishmish wrote: Are you contending that Jesus is the only one ever mentioned in the scriptures as the son of God? I am contending that Jesus is the only son of God.  Not Elijah or Moses. On what do you base that assertion?

There is no evidence that there were other sons of God, in the sense that I am using it.  You might be referring to the other types of meanings that were attributed to "son of God," but these were not regarded as the "messiah."  For instance, angels were called this but were not the messiah.  Only Jesus is the messiah and this is well understood.

Here is a clarification for your slight misunderstanding regarding what "the son of God" really means:

"Son of God" in Judeo-Christian terms

In the Tanakh

In the Tanakh, the phrase "son(s) of god" has multiple meanings:

• The Hebrew phrase Benei Elohim, often translated as "sons of God", describes angels or immensely powerful human beings. See Genesis 6:2-4 and Book of Job 1:6. Many Bible scholars believe that this reflects usage in pre-Biblical near-eastern mythology.

• It is used to denote a human judge or ruler (Psalm 82:6, "children of the Most High"; in many passages "gods" and "judges" seem to be equations). In a more specialized sense, "son of God" is a title applied only to the real or ideal king over Israel (II Samuel 7: 14, with reference to King David and those of his descendants who carried on his dynasty; comp. Psalm 89:27, 28).

• Israel as a people is called God's "son", using the singular form (comp. Exodus 4: 22 and Hosea 11:1).

In the Tanakh the term itself does not connote any form of physical descent from, or unity of essence with, God. The Hebrew idiom conveys an expression of godlikeness or great power.

In Judaism the term "son of God" is rarely used in the sense of "messiah." Psalm 2 refers to God's appointed king of Zion as both God's messiah and like a son of god.

In the Deuterocanon (Apocrypha) and Pseudepigrapha

In Judaism, it is through such personal relations that the individual becomes conscious of God's fatherhood, and gradually in Hellenistic and rabbinical literature "sonship to God" was ascribed first to every Israelite and then to every member of the human race (Abot 3:15, 5:20; Ber. 5:1; see Abba). In one midrash, the Torah is said to be God's "daughter" (Leviticus Rabbah 20).

In the New Testament

The New Testament uses "son of God" to refer to Jesus and to a larger body of followers of Jesus.

DavidC wrote: Mishmish wrote: So, throughout spiritual texts, "son of God" was a figurative phrase, until the advent of Paul? Where it took on a literal meaning? I think Aquinan is sayng it was a figurative phrase until the Advent of Luke.

But didn't Paul REALLY get the whole ball rolling?

"I mean, you can pick and choose which parts you want to bold and which you don't, but if you take Christ's complete sentence (complete thought) and you don't take anything out of context, you can gain a simple understanding of what he is saying.  Christ still claims that the authority he speaks from comes from the father IN HIM.  This is a mystery of the trinity that you are having problems with.  We cannot understand the father being in him but separate from him at the same time.  It is beyond our comprehension, just as the magnitude of God's love is beyond our comprehension."

I would say that ALL of the Prophets and Messengers of God spoke with/from the authority of God. That does not make them God.

I have also heard numerous Christians say they are filled with the Holy Spirit. That does not make them God.

Jesus is stating that the Father, a separate being, is in him and it is by the Father's authority that he speaks. No where in this verse does Jesus identify himself being the Father, a triune of the Father, or of having the authority of the Father. Rather, Jesus is acknowledging the Father's authority over him. The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works.

Annie:

I do not mean biological through sex. Why do you always throw that out there. No Muslim has ever said Jesus was conceived through sex. That is strictly against our beliefs.

If Jesus is the son of God figuratively, then all men are the same as Jesus, as figuratively speaking: "Our Father who art in Heaven" applies to all of mankind.

Why don't you explain the difference between God, the Father of Jesus, and God the Father of all mankind?

Mishmish wrote: "I mean, you can pick and choose which parts you want to bold and which you don't, but if you take Christ's complete sentence (complete thought) and you don't take anything out of context, you can gain a simple understanding of what he is saying.  Christ still claims that the authority he speaks from comes from the father IN HIM.  This is a mystery of the trinity that you are having problems with.  We cannot understand the father being in him but separate from him at the same time.  It is beyond our comprehension, just as the magnitude of God's love is beyond our comprehension." I would say that ALL of the Prophets and Messengers of God spoke with/from the authority of God. That does not make them God. I have also heard numerous Christians say they are filled with the Holy Spirit. That does not make them God. Jesus is stating that the Father, a separate being, is in him and it is by the Father's authority that he speaks. No where in this verse does Jesus identify himself being the Father, a triune of the Father, or of having the authority of the Father. Rather, Jesus is acknowledging the Father's authority over him. The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works.

You are ignoring what Jesus is saying!  Stop that! 

He also says that he is in the father.  "The father is in me and I am in the father."  This is clear and unequivocal.  You are correct that Christians believe the holy spirit is in them, but you would be incorrect if you said that we believe that we are in the holy spirit.  No prophet claimed that they were in the father and the father was in them.  No prophet ever claimed that they existed with God before the world began...

Christ shows deference to his father, but he also says many times that he was with the father long before the creation of the earth:

Before the world began?  Wait a second.  If Jesus was just a prophet, then why would he claim that he existed before the world began?  Mishmish, I would encourage you to adopt a new argument.  Namely, that the bible is not true at all.  One cannot take Christ's words as truth and be a sincere Muslim because his words are blasphemous to the faith of Islam, as I have proven.

I do not see why it is necessary for Muslims to believe that Christ was a prophet.  Muslims can have a good faith without the presence of Christ, considering they receive their direction from the Koran.

He says he was with the Father, not the Father.

There is a lot in the New Testament that we believe has been changed. But we do believe that Jesus(PBUH) was a Prophet. It is necessary because God has told us that Jesus was a great Prophet. Just as we believe in all of the Prophets(PBUT), from Adam to Abraham, to Moses, to Noah, to Mohammed, and those in between. May God show them all  mercy.

2:136 Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam)."

We do not believe that the virgin birth is any more of a miracle than the creation of Adam or Eve, but that God said "Be", and Jesus was:

3:59 The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was.

Nor do we belive that Jesus claimed to be the son of God, nor God incarnate:

5:116 And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus, the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah.?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden.

I have trouble understanding why any of the gospel writers would have changed their writings or someone would have changed them.

It's just as easy to believe in three persons in one God as it is to believe in one person in one God.  What's the incentive to change the beliefs of millions so that they follow a false concept?  So that they all go to hell?  Is confusion - not the devil - the real cause of our loss of salvation?

I guess for 2000 years we've been following a gospel that was rewritten to create a triumvirate Godhead so the Roman empire could fall.

"It's just as easy to believe in three persons in one God as it is to believe in one person in one God"

Apparently it is for many. But, the clear statement from God in Isaiah is that there is One. "I am the first, I am the last"  "I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself"  If Jesus were with God in heaven before the creation of the earth, then why does God adamantly state that He alone, "by myself" created all?

44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

44:7 And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them.

44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

44:24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

Jesus did not state he was God. This is written in none of the Gospels. God did not claim a trinity, this too was not written in any of the Gospels. Where then did this doctrine originate?  

DavidC wrote: Try this syllogism, Mishmish: A) God cannot be compared to his creations. B) God's creations are singular individuals. therefore, C) God cannot be compared to a singular individual.

Although I agree with the conclusion, I don't think the first premise is valid.  The Bible tells us that we come in the image and likeness of God.  In that respect, one could say that we are compared, in a sense, to God.

Also I think the second premise might have to more accurately define a singular individual.  God's creation is numerous and there are many examples of things that are not necessarily singular individuals, water being one.

DavidC wrote: Al-Ikhlas (The Purity)  112:1 SAY: "He is the One God: 112:2 "God the Eternal, the Uncaused Cause of All Being. [112:3 "He begets not, and neither is He begotten; 112:4 "and there is nothing that could be compared with Him.

DavidC, couldn't have posted it better myself. Thanks

DavidC wrote: Try this syllogism, Mishmish: A) God cannot be compared to his creations. B) God's creations are singular individuals. therefore, C) God cannot be compared to a singular individual.

It would depend on who is doing the comparing. If it is God who states: "I am One", and "by myself", then is it not what it seems?

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 - 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 : http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/implied - 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. 

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 - 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 : http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/implied - 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.

Aquinian said:

"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."

The Quran was memorised and written down at the time of The Prophet Mohammed(PBUH). It was not compiled into a complete text until after his death. But the Prophet was there to correct any misunderstandings or additions/subtractions made to the Quran. The same can not be said about the Gospels.

We know exactly what we believe about Jesus. We believe he was one, in a long line, of God's Prophets(PBUH). We believe this because God has stated this in the Quran. We also have the proof of God's own Words through his other Prophets and Messengers that He is One.

I think that your statement would better fit Christianity, as there are Christians who believe Jesus is the Son of God, nothing more, that believe there is a Trinity and that Jesus is son and God, and there are those that believe Jesus and God are one and there is no Trinity, there never was. This discrepancy within Christianity itself would indicate that the nature of Jesus and the doctrine that teaches this nature are not clear.

Aquinian wrote: 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 - 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 : http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/implied - 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.

No. My claim is that the Christian faith is too dependent upon implicit verses for "extraordinary" ideas. The NT was put together by men who had no real clue as to the historical Jesus, due to the fact that they had no real connection through any verifiable chain of narrators or document that would allow them to truly discern fact from fiction. The men who composed your NT simply used narratives, four amongst hundreds, that best represented their theological position, not necessarily the historical Jesus. To futher their positions, they fudged their MSS (this is a fact) so that Gd's word would look closer to their ideas, and they chose implicit text (they a lot to choose from) to further prove their claims.

Aquinian wrote:   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.

Actually you don't. You have four written copies, of copies, of copies of oral narratives, from amongst hundreds of other narratives, without even the slightest clue as to the author, narrators, or historical validity. You simply pass along your trust to "faith".

And even after 300 years from the birth of Jesus, your doctors were still hashing out basics like the "nature of Christ". Why after 300 years were their various sects that could not agree on something as basic as "who is Jesus"?

Because they were without any real facts and they knew it, and they had to find their conjecture hidden in the implicit verses of the hundreds of narratives circulating.

Aquinian wrote:    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.

I would say that Islamic Theology goes against much of Christian creative interpolating with the use of "implicit" statements. In other words, saying that your bible says Jesus is Gd, and when one looks at the passage, it is in the NT, and it is an extremely vague and ambiguous passage that requires circular reasoning in order to render as such due to the fact that there is nothing explicit which can define the implicit verse. We have only Christian belief and faith to guide us on the proof verses and nothing else. Islamic theology simply makes claims about Jesus that not onle make sense, but are also consistant with all other men of Gd.

Aquinian wrote: 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 now trying to superimpose western history onto the rest of the world. Entering an age of enlightement would assume that there was an age of darkness, and that the doctrine was problematic.

In your history, the church, and the faith that it rested upon did not work socially, as the holy ghost was never their to write holy law on the hearts of men. It was the age when men took reason, that they used philosophy to destroy the doctrine of the church. This brought Christendom out of the dark ages. Islamic civilization has reached a low point, but due to its inital high points, one cannot claim tha the doctrine is the cause. Islam is in need of a "re-enlightenment" that occure nearly 1100 years ago.

Aquinian wrote:  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.

Interesting. So the age of enlightenment undermined church theology (that is factual), but it is the second largest church! So what does that tell you?

Are you saying that because it is the second largest church, that it must be correct? Or that the age of enlightenment was wrong?

Aquinian wrote:  Christianity is still the largest religion in the world, with many of its newest adherents coming from strongholds of Islam such has Africa.

Judaism was the smallest religion in the world during the temple period, yet it was the correct faith accoridng to your bible. Since the pagan faiths were larger, in your rational, then they should have been the correct faith?

As far as the droves of Muslims becoming Christians and the growth of the church in Africa...well...this is not something I would brag about.

1) The claim is exagerrated.

2) The adherents are 99.9% of the time desperate people trying to escape poverty. Targeting adherents that are in a desperate situation in life is not something I would be very proud of. Use it if you like, but I would rather show you adherents who made a choice out of thinking, and not out of hunger.

Aquinian wrote:     To say that the enlightenment undermined the theology of Catholicism or Christianity at all is a complete fabrication - it clarified it.

 The age of enlightenment castrated the church! Thats why it has little relevance in the governmental processes of today, in which it exists in "secualr societies". The age of enlightnement not only undermined your theology, but it also removed it from power as anyone could see that the theology was problematic.

Aquinian wrote:   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.

Interesting little list. This is also evidence of your ignorance about Islam. I will not go through each claim. I would happy to go point by point?

Now lets talk about "fruits".

1) Since you believe that Jesus is Gd, then we can know his fruits when he had his chosen people slaughter babies. Now that is a tasy fruit ay? Or no?

2) The Church force converted the people of Europe to Christianity at the edge of a sword. Good fruit?

3) The Church committed atrocities against the natives of the Americas.

4) The Church persecuted Jews, and threw them, along with Muslims, out of SPain, and stole their money. Thats a tasty fruit!

5) The church promoted ignorance and growth for over a 1000 years. How fruity!

6) It was Christian America that first introduced policies of "terrorism" to promote a policy of "containment of communism" at all costs. What is the name of that fruit? It seems the Christian west were excellent teachers to the modern day PLO and Hamas.

7) The Christian US armed regimes such as Sadaam Hussein and even helped with with WMD. They continue to put into power the state of Israel and turn a blind eye to the terrible treatment it emplys against Christian and Muslim arabs.

As usual for many Christians, you suffer from "plank in your eye" syndrom.

Aquinian wrote: 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.

I would prefer a religion that provides solid answers and solutions such that I did not require an age of enlightenment. I would prefer a religion that inspired great innovations in science and math, and encouraged people to learn and read. I prefer a religion that has texts that provide me a with a solid enough foundation so that I would not have to traget the weakest and most desperate of society in order to find converts.

It seems I found a bargain!

Jesus revealed the True God to people and preached the truth.

Instead of revealing what Jesus revealed, the Gospel writers presented, revealing him as:

1. God, the Son

2. Son of God

3. God

4. Presented him in such a manner that priests, wisemen, scholars and others kept on debating and arguing who Jesus really was for 365 years.

5. Even Paul, whom I dislike, did not make a God out of him. Paul just called him a son of God like he, himself was. Mostly, the Jews, after Moses was long gone, were called sons of God or son of man by others. We do not find any "son of God" or "sons of God" or "son of man" or "Son of Man" in the teachings of Moses.

We also know the True Jesus from this 5-Star statement of his:

Mark 29"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: Hear, O Israel. The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength."

Mark 34"When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the Kingdom of God." And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.

(Mind everyone that Jesus was talking about a teacher of law)

What happened later?  How did the foundation change? Just because of statement from two people who never understood what Jesus said and kept asking him silly questions. Peter said,"You are the son of God" and Thomas said,"my Lord, My God!"

The above in Mark 29 confirms the Crux of teachings and what we read later is only opinions of various writers, who expressed their own views, conclusions about him and his teachings, which is quite obvious. The men, who sat and learnt from Jesus, asked him silly questions and in some cases we find Jesus scolding them for not understanding him. Like when he said, "I will be going away from where no one can come." (Something like that) and they said, "We don't know where your are going"?  Were they so dumb?

The best clue, about others inserting their own ideas, thoughts, questions and opinions, can be seen from this, which comes immediately after the The topic of The Greatest Commandment in Mark 28 and this can be seen from Mark 35 in "Whose Son Is the Christ?"

Why would Jesus ask,"Why would the teachers of law say that the Christ is the son of David?" The teachers of law were definitely not talking about Jesus at all. They were talking most likely about their own Messiah, not Jesus.

That is how the writers blended their own thoughts and fitted them into his teachings. One has to read the NT very carefully to find the True teachings of Jesus.

Andalus wrote: Aquinian wrote: 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 - 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 : http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/implied - 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. No. My claim is that the Christian faith is too dependent upon implicit verses for "extraordinary" ideas. The NT was put together by men who had no real clue as to the historical Jesus, due to the fact that they had no real connection through any verifiable chain of narrators or document that would allow them to truly discern fact from fiction. The men who composed your NT simply used narratives, four amongst hundreds, that best represented their theological position, not necessarily the historical Jesus. To futher their positions, they fudged their MSS (this is a fact) so that Gd's word would look closer to their ideas, and they chose implicit text (they a lot to choose from) to further prove their claims. Aquinian wrote:   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.  Actually you don't. You have four written copies, of copies, of copies of oral narratives, from amongst hundreds of other narratives, without even the slightest clue as to the author, narrators, or historical validity. You simply pass along your trust to "faith". And even after 300 years from the birth of Jesus, your doctors were still hashing out basics like the "nature of Christ". Why after 300 years were their various sects that could not agree on something as basic as "who is Jesus"? Because they were without any real facts and they knew it, and they had to find their conjecture hidden in the implicit verses of the hundreds of narratives circulating. Aquinian wrote:    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. I would say that Islamic Theology goes against much of Christian creative interpolating with the use of "implicit" statements. In other words, saying that your bible says Jesus is Gd, and when one looks at the passage, it is in the NT, and it is an extremely vague and ambiguous passage that requires circular reasoning in order to render as such due to the fact that there is nothing explicit which can define the implicit verse. We have only Christian belief and faith to guide us on the proof verses and nothing else. Islamic theology simply makes claims about Jesus that not onle make sense, but are also consistant with all other men of Gd. Aquinian wrote: 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 now trying to superimpose western history onto the rest of the world. Entering an age of enlightement would assume that there was an age of darkness, and that the doctrine was problematic. In your history, the church, and the faith that it rested upon did not work socially, as the holy ghost was never their to write holy law on the hearts of men. It was the age when men took reason, that they used philosophy to destroy the doctrine of the church. This brought Christendom out of the dark ages. Islamic civilization has reached a low point, but due to its inital high points, one cannot claim tha the doctrine is the cause. Islam is in need of a "re-enlightenment" that occure nearly 1100 years ago. Aquinian wrote:  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.  Interesting. So the age of enlightenment undermined church theology (that is factual), but it is the second largest church! So what does that tell you? Are you saying that because it is the second largest church, that it must be correct? Or that the age of enlightenment was wrong? Aquinian wrote:  Christianity is still the largest religion in the world, with many of its newest adherents coming from strongholds of Islam such has Africa. Judaism was the smallest religion in the world during the temple period, yet it was the correct faith accoridng to your bible. Since the pagan faiths were larger, in your rational, then they should have been the correct faith? As far as the droves of Muslims becoming Christians and the growth of the church in Africa...well...this is not something I would brag about. 1) The claim is exagerrated. 2) The adherents are 99.9% of the time desperate people trying to escape poverty. Targeting adherents that are in a desperate situation in life is not something I would be very proud of. Use it if you like, but I would rather show you adherents who made a choice out of thinking, and not out of hunger. Aquinian wrote:     To say that the enlightenment undermined the theology of Catholicism or Christianity at all is a complete fabrication - it clarified it.  The age of enlightenment castrated the church! Thats why it has little relevance in the governmental processes of today, in which it exists in "secualr societies". The age of enlightnement not only undermined your theology, but it also removed it from power as anyone could see that the theology was problematic. Aquinian wrote:   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. Interesting little list. This is also evidence of your ignorance about Islam. I will not go through each claim. I would happy to go point by point? Now lets talk about "fruits". 1) Since you believe that Jesus is Gd, then we can know his fruits when he had his chosen people slaughter babies. Now that is a tasy fruit ay? Or no? 2) The Church force converted the people of Europe to Christianity at the edge of a sword. Good fruit? 3) The Church committed atrocities against the natives of the Americas. 4) The Church persecuted Jews, and threw them, along with Muslims, out of SPain, and stole their money. Thats a tasty fruit! 5) The church promoted ignorance and growth for over a 1000 years. How fruity! 6) It was Christian America that first introduced policies of "terrorism" to promote a policy of "containment of communism" at all costs. What is the name of that fruit? It seems the Christian west were excellent teachers to the modern day PLO and Hamas. 7) The Christian US armed regimes such as Sadaam Hussein and even helped with with WMD. They continue to put into power the state of Israel and turn a blind eye to the terrible treatment it emplys against Christian and Muslim arabs. As usual for many Christians, you suffer from "plank in your eye" syndrom.   Aquinian wrote: 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. I would prefer a religion that provides solid answers and solutions such that I did not require an age of enlightenment. I would prefer a religion that inspired great innovations in science and math, and encouraged people to learn and read. I prefer a religion that has texts that provide me a with a solid enough foundation so that I would not have to traget the weakest and most desperate of society in order to find converts. It seems I found a bargain!

The difference with Christianity is that the faith does not condone, in any possible way, the killing of innocent human beings.  It does not condone recriprocal treatment.  Anytime that Christians have killed the innocent or acted reciprocally to their brothers, they have been in clear violation of the words of Christ.  These are moments when they deviated from their beliefs.

On the contrary, when Muslims become more indoctrinated in their faith, you find that they become avid fundementalists who favor more and more extreme violence against those who oppose them.  The Koran outlines the killing of those who oppose Islam.  The murder of innocent people is supported by the theology of the Quran, and yet you tell me that Christians bear poor fruit.  There is not doubt that Christians have been wrong.  It is due in no part to their faith's teachings.

You cannot say the same about Islam.

So, what if the rational and simple teachings of Islam are correct and you are truly winning the argument?  Defending a theology that supports the murder of innocent people is certainly something to be proud of.

Aquinian wrote: The difference with Christianity is that the faith does not condone, in any possible way, the killing of innocent human beings.  It does not condone recriprocal treatment.  Anytime that Christians have killed the innocent or acted reciprocally to their brothers, they have been in clear violation of the words of Christ.  These are moments when they deviated from their beliefs. On the contrary, when Muslims become more indoctrinated in their faith, you find that they become avid fundementalists who favor more and more extreme violence against those who oppose them.  The Koran outlines the killing of those who oppose Islam.  The murder of innocent people is supported by the theology of the Quran, and yet you tell me that Christians bear poor fruit.  There is not doubt that Christians have been wrong.  It is due in no part to their faith's teachings. You cannot say the same about Islam.

As A Christian Aquinan, I have to say this is completely false.  No where in the Quran does it advocate killing innocent civilians.  There are many verses and Hadiths that are very clear that you cannot kill civilians. 

I won't sit back and let that little one slide...we may have our differences in belief of Jesus Christ, but both religions have had their zealots use obscure scripture to condone the killing of the infidel (which was first used by Christians). 

Go back and look through the Inquisition, the Black Plaque, the Crusades....read the writings of the times and you will see arguements that say their actions are sanctioned by God.

Islam is very clear about it. 

"Defending a theology that supports the murder of innocent people is certainly something to be proud of."

There is nothing in Islam that condones, encourages, or supports in any way the murder of innocent people.

The Quran states if someone attacks you, you may defend yourself. Period. There is no massive blood-letting as in the Old Testament where entire populaces were destroyed, even the buildings and livestock. This type of wholesale slaughter is forbidden in Islam. Period.

Self edited....

Just noticing some of the "clarity" of the Quran:

2:29 He it is Who created for you all that is in the earth. Then turned He to the heaven, and fashioned it as seven heavens. And He is knower of all things.

2:61 And when ye said: O Moses! We are weary of one kind of food; so call upon thy Lord for us that He bring forth for us of that which the earth groweth - of its herbs and its cucumbers and its corn and its lentils and its onions. He said: Would ye exchange that which is higher for that which is lower ? Go down to settled country, thus ye shall get that which ye demand. And humiliation and wretchedness were stamped upon them and they were visited with wrath from Allah. That was because they disbelieved in Allah's revelations and slew the prophets wrongfully. That was for their disobedience and transgression.

2:194 The forbidden month for the forbidden month, and forbidden things in retaliation. And one who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you. Observe your duty to Allah, and know that Allah is with those who ward off (evil).

4:89 They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,

4:91 Ye will find others who desire that they should have security from you, and security from their own folk. So often as they are returned to hostility they are plunged therein. If they keep not aloof from you nor offer you peace nor hold their hands, then take them and kill them wherever ye find them. Against such We have given you clear warrant.

Either the fundementalists of the Middle East are defending their lands, in which case, Muslims would support their actions; or the fundementalists are committing murder.

Are the Osama bin Ladens defending the holy lands from an invasion?  If so, their actions are supported by the Quran, are they not?

DavidC wrote: Aquinian, it is beneath you to take selected verses out of context to fit a predetermined conclusion. One expects that from an uneducated zealot, but you have demonstrated some degree of scholarship.  Did you loan your computer to somebody else? Every verse of Quran has accumulated tasfeer that would take longer than one lifetime to exhaust.  I doubt we can find a verse, somehow "overlooked", that disproves the message .

While I respect my fellow Christians' views, as well as the views of Muslims, and while I admit that I may have been somewhat offensive in my prior comments, I must still disagree.

The greatest scholars of Islam reside in the middle east, not in The United States, and yet it is the U.S. Muslim organizations who feel the need to say that they do not condone terrorism and the koran does not condone terrorism.

I believe that the terrorists make sound arguments when they use the religion to kill innocent people.  They have lived Islam.  They have received instruction all of their lives.  The know the Quran better than any of us here, and they have concluded that suicide bombings are theologically moral:

http://ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=424 - http://ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=424

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11833 - http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1183 3

These clerics are well educated in the ways of Islam.  If any of you were to argue your views to them, they would soundly display a knowledge of the Quran vastly superior to yours, and yet you still claim that your interpretation is correct.

It is my view that Muslims who advocate peace against the infidel are not correctly interpreting the Quran.  Only history will tell us whether these clerics are right, or you guys are right.

Aquinian wrote: Andalus wrote: Aquinian wrote: 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 - 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 : http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/implied - 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. No. My claim is that the Christian faith is too dependent upon implicit verses for "extraordinary" ideas. The NT was put together by men who had no real clue as to the historical Jesus, due to the fact that they had no real connection through any verifiable chain of narrators or document that would allow them to truly discern fact from fiction. The men who composed your NT simply used narratives, four amongst hundreds, that best represented their theological position, not necessarily the historical Jesus. To futher their positions, they fudged their MSS (this is a fact) so that Gd's word would look closer to their ideas, and they chose implicit text (they a lot to choose from) to further prove their claims. Aquinian wrote:   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.  Actually you don't. You have four written copies, of copies, of copies of oral narratives, from amongst hundreds of other narratives, without even the slightest clue as to the author, narrators, or historical validity. You simply pass along your trust to "faith". And even after 300 years from the birth of Jesus, your doctors were still hashing out basics like the "nature of Christ". Why after 300 years were their various sects that could not agree on something as basic as "who is Jesus"? Because they were without any real facts and they knew it, and they had to find their conjecture hidden in the implicit verses of the hundreds of narratives circulating. Aquinian wrote:    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. I would say that Islamic Theology goes against much of Christian creative interpolating with the use of "implicit" statements. In other words, saying that your bible says Jesus is Gd, and when one looks at the passage, it is in the NT, and it is an extremely vague and ambiguous passage that requires circular reasoning in order to render as such due to the fact that there is nothing explicit which can define the implicit verse. We have only Christian belief and faith to guide us on the proof verses and nothing else. Islamic theology simply makes claims about Jesus that not onle make sense, but are also consistant with all other men of Gd. Aquinian wrote: 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 now trying to superimpose western history onto the rest of the world. Entering an age of enlightement would assume that there was an age of darkness, and that the doctrine was problematic. In your history, the church, and the faith that it rested upon did not work socially, as the holy ghost was never their to write holy law on the hearts of men. It was the age when men took reason, that they used philosophy to destroy the doctrine of the church. This brought Christendom out of the dark ages. Islamic civilization has reached a low point, but due to its inital high points, one cannot claim tha the doctrine is the cause. Islam is in need of a "re-enlightenment" that occure nearly 1100 years ago. Aquinian wrote:  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.  Interesting. So the age of enlightenment undermined church theology (that is factual), but it is the second largest church! So what does that tell you? Are you saying that because it is the second largest church, that it must be correct? Or that the age of enlightenment was wrong? Aquinian wrote:  Christianity is still the largest religion in the world, with many of its newest adherents coming from strongholds of Islam such has Africa. Judaism was the smallest religion in the world during the temple period, yet it was the correct faith accoridng to your bible. Since the pagan faiths were larger, in your rational, then they should have been the correct faith? As far as the droves of Muslims becoming Christians and the growth of the church in Africa...well...this is not something I would brag about. 1) The claim is exagerrated. 2) The adherents are 99.9% of the time desperate people trying to escape poverty. Targeting adherents that are in a desperate situation in life is not something I would be very proud of. Use it if you like, but I would rather show you adherents who made a choice out of thinking, and not out of hunger. Aquinian wrote:     To say that the enlightenment undermined the theology of Catholicism or Christianity at all is a complete fabrication - it clarified it.  The age of enlightenment castrated the church! Thats why it has little relevance in the governmental processes of today, in which it exists in "secualr societies". The age of enlightnement not only undermined your theology, but it also removed it from power as anyone could see that the theology was problematic. Aquinian wrote:   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. Interesting little list. This is also evidence of your ignorance about Islam. I will not go through each claim. I would happy to go point by point? Now lets talk about "fruits". 1) Since you believe that Jesus is Gd, then we can know his fruits when he had his chosen people slaughter babies. Now that is a tasy fruit ay? Or no? 2) The Church force converted the people of Europe to Christianity at the edge of a sword. Good fruit? 3) The Church committed atrocities against the natives of the Americas. 4) The Church persecuted Jews, and threw them, along with Muslims, out of SPain, and stole their money. Thats a tasty fruit! 5) The church promoted ignorance and growth for over a 1000 years. How fruity! 6) It was Christian America that first introduced policies of "terrorism" to promote a policy of "containment of communism" at all costs. What is the name of that fruit? It seems the Christian west were excellent teachers to the modern day PLO and Hamas. 7) The Christian US armed regimes such as Sadaam Hussein and even helped with with WMD. They continue to put into power the state of Israel and turn a blind eye to the terrible treatment it emplys against Christian and Muslim arabs. As usual for many Christians, you suffer from "plank in your eye" syndrom.   Aquinian wrote: 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. I would prefer a religion that provides solid answers and solutions such that I did not require an age of enlightenment. I would prefer a religion that inspired great innovations in science and math, and encouraged people to learn and read. I prefer a religion that has texts that provide me a with a solid enough foundation so that I would not have to traget the weakest and most desperate of society in order to find converts. It seems I found a bargain! The difference with Christianity is that the faith does not condone, in any possible way, the killing of innocent human beings.  It does not condone recriprocal treatment.  Anytime that Christians have killed the innocent or acted reciprocally to their brothers, they have been in clear violation of the words of Christ.  These are moments when they deviated from their beliefs.

Two Points:

1)

Yes Aquinian. This is the typical Christian apologetical shuffle.

This shuffle has the following dance moves:

People who were Muslim killed other people.

Therefore, Islam is evil

People who are Christians killed other people.

They were not true or real Christians so Christianity is pure.

 2) Islam does not teach the killing of innocents.

While we are on this subject, could you please explain to me what the babies did that Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit, had murdered as told in the Torah? How were they not innocent?

Aquinian wrote: On the contrary, when Muslims become more indoctrinated in their faith, you find that they become avid fundementalists who favor more and more extreme violence against those who oppose them.

I am "fully" indoctrinated. As are millions of Muslims. I do not see the mass violence.

Your claim is that of a "phobic". Please provide evidence. Not cheap blanket statements.

I did notice that you skipped over the deviant behavior of your brethern over the last 2000 years though.

Aquinian wrote:   The Koran outlines the killing of those who oppose Islam.  The murder of innocent people is supported by the theology of the Quran, and yet you tell me that Christians bear poor fruit.  There is not doubt that Christians have been wrong.  It is due in no part to their faith's teachings.

1) Please provide examples.

2) You are doing the shuffle again. No one here is that stupid not to see the dance moves. Seriously. It is a double standard that missionaries have been using for the last 2000 years. No one buys it.

Aquinian wrote:    You cannot say the same about Islam.

It seems you cannot say anything about Islam that has substance. You are providing charges and assertions that are nothing but cheap shots and baseless accusations, generalizations, etc, etc.

Aquinian wrote: So, what if the rational and simple teachings of Islam are correct and you are truly winning the argument?  Defending a theology that supports the murder of innocent people is certainly something to be proud of.

another assertion. What teaching are you speaking of?

Is it like the one where Jesus orders the slaughter of babies? Or is it another one?

Angela,

Your response to AquinianPosted: 27 June 2006 at 4:44pm 

On a lighter note, those cruel and horrible pagan Meccans who were persecuting, torturing and killing the 'new Muslims' did not know that violence begat violance.

I sincerely appreciate your answers typed in blue.

Best Regards

BMZ

Annie,

Do I have to keep reminding you on the "Glorious" Chapter of Joshua in The Holy Bible?  

Hadith material is full of stories like all of those in the Bible. There is no record of Prophet and Muslims attacking and raiding any people in the night, so you can please disregard that hadith.

Andalus wrote: Aquinian wrote: Andalus wrote: Aquinian wrote: 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 - 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 : http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/implied - 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. No. My claim is that the Christian faith is too dependent upon implicit verses for "extraordinary" ideas. The NT was put together by men who had no real clue as to the historical Jesus, due to the fact that they had no real connection through any verifiable chain of narrators or document that would allow them to truly discern fact from fiction. The men who composed your NT simply used narratives, four amongst hundreds, that best represented their theological position, not necessarily the historical Jesus. To futher their positions, they fudged their MSS (this is a fact) so that Gd's word would look closer to their ideas, and they chose implicit text (they a lot to choose from) to further prove their claims. Aquinian wrote:   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.  Actually you don't. You have four written copies, of copies, of copies of oral narratives, from amongst hundreds of other narratives, without even the slightest clue as to the author, narrators, or historical validity. You simply pass along your trust to "faith". And even after 300 years from the birth of Jesus, your doctors were still hashing out basics like the "nature of Christ". Why after 300 years were their various sects that could not agree on something as basic as "who is Jesus"? Because they were without any real facts and they knew it, and they had to find their conjecture hidden in the implicit verses of the hundreds of narratives circulating. Aquinian wrote:    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. I would say that Islamic Theology goes against much of Christian creative interpolating with the use of "implicit" statements. In other words, saying that your bible says Jesus is Gd, and when one looks at the passage, it is in the NT, and it is an extremely vague and ambiguous passage that requires circular reasoning in order to render as such due to the fact that there is nothing explicit which can define the implicit verse. We have only Christian belief and faith to guide us on the proof verses and nothing else. Islamic theology simply makes claims about Jesus that not onle make sense, but are also consistant with all other men of Gd. Aquinian wrote: 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 now trying to superimpose western history onto the rest of the world. Entering an age of enlightement would assume that there was an age of darkness, and that the doctrine was problematic. In your history, the church, and the faith that it rested upon did not work socially, as the holy ghost was never their to write holy law on the hearts of men. It was the age when men took reason, that they used philosophy to destroy the doctrine of the church. This brought Christendom out of the dark ages. Islamic civilization has reached a low point, but due to its inital high points, one cannot claim tha the doctrine is the cause. Islam is in need of a "re-enlightenment" that occure nearly 1100 years ago. Aquinian wrote:  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.  Interesting. So the age of enlightenment undermined church theology (that is factual), but it is the second largest church! So what does that tell you? Are you saying that because it is the second largest church, that it must be correct? Or that the age of enlightenment was wrong? Aquinian wrote:  Christianity is still the largest religion in the world, with many of its newest adherents coming from strongholds of Islam such has Africa. Judaism was the smallest religion in the world during the temple period, yet it was the correct faith accoridng to your bible. Since the pagan faiths were larger, in your rational, then they should have been the correct faith? As far as the droves of Muslims becoming Christians and the growth of the church in Africa...well...this is not something I would brag about. 1) The claim is exagerrated. 2) The adherents are 99.9% of the time desperate people trying to escape poverty. Targeting adherents that are in a desperate situation in life is not something I would be very proud of. Use it if you like, but I would rather show you adherents who made a choice out of thinking, and not out of hunger. Aquinian wrote:     To say that the enlightenment undermined the theology of Catholicism or Christianity at all is a complete fabrication - it clarified it.  The age of enlightenment castrated the church! Thats why it has little relevance in the governmental processes of today, in which it exists in "secualr societies". The age of enlightnement not only undermined your theology, but it also removed it from power as anyone could see that the theology was problematic. Aquinian wrote:   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. Interesting little list. This is also evidence of your ignorance about Islam. I will not go through each claim. I would happy to go point by point? Now lets talk about "fruits". 1) Since you believe that Jesus is Gd, then we can know his fruits when he had his chosen people slaughter babies. Now that is a tasy fruit ay? Or no? 2) The Church force converted the people of Europe to Christianity at the edge of a sword. Good fruit? 3) The Church committed atrocities against the natives of the Americas. 4) The Church persecuted Jews, and threw them, along with Muslims, out of SPain, and stole their money. Thats a tasty fruit! 5) The church promoted ignorance and growth for over a 1000 years. How fruity! 6) It was Christian America that first introduced policies of "terrorism" to promote a policy of "containment of communism" at all costs. What is the name of that fruit? It seems the Christian west were excellent teachers to the modern day PLO and Hamas. 7) The Christian US armed regimes such as Sadaam Hussein and even helped with with WMD. They continue to put into power the state of Israel and turn a blind eye to the terrible treatment it emplys against Christian and Muslim arabs. As usual for many Christians, you suffer from "plank in your eye" syndrom.   Aquinian wrote: 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. I would prefer a religion that provides solid answers and solutions such that I did not require an age of enlightenment. I would prefer a religion that inspired great innovations in science and math, and encouraged people to learn and read. I prefer a religion that has texts that provide me a with a solid enough foundation so that I would not have to traget the weakest and most desperate of society in order to find converts. It seems I found a bargain! The difference with Christianity is that the faith does not condone, in any possible way, the killing of innocent human beings.  It does not condone recriprocal treatment.  Anytime that Christians have killed the innocent or acted reciprocally to their brothers, they have been in clear violation of the words of Christ.  These are moments when they deviated from their beliefs. Two Points: 1) Yes Aquinian. This is the typical Christian apologetical shuffle. This shuffle has the following dance moves: People who were Muslim killed other people. Therefore, Islam is evil People who are Christians killed other people. They were not true or real Christians so Christianity is pure.  2) Islam does not teach the killing of innocents. While we are on this subject, could you please explain to me what the babies did that Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit, had murdered as told in the Torah? How were they not innocent? Aquinian wrote: On the contrary, when Muslims become more indoctrinated in their faith, you find that they become avid fundementalists who favor more and more extreme violence against those who oppose them.   I am "fully" indoctrinated. As are millions of Muslims. I do not see the mass violence. Your claim is that of a "phobic". Please provide evidence. Not cheap blanket statements. I did notice that you skipped over the deviant behavior of your brethern over the last 2000 years though.   Aquinian wrote:   The Koran outlines the killing of those who oppose Islam.  The murder of innocent people is supported by the theology of the Quran, and yet you tell me that Christians bear poor fruit.  There is not doubt that Christians have been wrong.  It is due in no part to their faith's teachings. 1) Please provide examples. 2) You are doing the shuffle again. No one here is that stupid not to see the dance moves. Seriously. It is a double standard that missionaries have been using for the last 2000 years. No one buys it. Aquinian wrote:    You cannot say the same about Islam. It seems you cannot say anything about Islam that has substance. You are providing charges and assertions that are nothing but cheap shots and baseless accusations, generalizations, etc, etc.   Aquinian wrote: So, what if the rational and simple teachings of Islam are correct and you are truly winning the argument?  Defending a theology that supports the murder of innocent people is certainly something to be proud of. another assertion. What teaching are you speaking of? Is it like the one where Jesus orders the slaughter of babies? Or is it another one?

You asked for evidence:

AnnieTwo wrote: Andalus, You said: Is it like the one where Jesus orders the slaughter of babies? Is the pot calling the kettle black?

No, it is called the "fallacy of special pleading", a common abuse committed by Christian apologests such as yourself. Since you missed the point I will go over it in detail.

1) Christian missionary and the rest of the garbage websites such as answering islam argue that Islam is evil and vilent and sataninc and teaches violence while Christians are pure, Jesus is the Gd of peace, bla, bla, bla.

2) Jesus, as Gd, did order the executions of babies, an act of genocide to cleanse the land for the chosen people.

3) Christian ignores this and simply makes another accusation of violence.

Fallacy of special pleading.

Annie2 wrote:   Muhammad approved the killing of women and children of the pagans because they (the children) are from them�4.52.256 Sahih Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256: Narrated As-Sab bin Jaththama: The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." I also heard the Prophet saying, "The institution of Hima is invalid except for Allah and His Apostle." <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> Sahih Muslim During the night of raids the women and children of the polytheists can be killed �19. 4322 Book 019, Number 4322: It is narrated by Sa'b b. Jaththama that he said (to the Holy Prophet): Messenger of Allah, we kill the children of the polytheists during the night raids. He said: They are from them. In other words, if the parents were infidels, then it was permissible to kill their children. <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> <!--[endif]-->

Actuall, Annie, this is more complete proof that you are dishonest, as you have never studied with anyone of knowledge, nor have you actually studied Islam. This example you raised is a red herring, as yet another way to deflect from the blatant example of hypocracy that I have shown you. I have debated a couple of people from answering islam and they too have found every way to delfect from the problem in yoru theology. ALthough a red herring, I will cover it insha'Allah.

 The hadiths you stated are not about the specific killing of chidren and babies. They are on par to the Christian aspect of warfare when a missle is unleashed against a target of opportunity and the familes or by standards are also killed. The "collateral damage" is considered lawful according to the laws Christian follow because the people were in the way. I can refer you to many counts of Christian war code that is on par with this.

So, the specific ordering of babies by Jesus is an event that completely destroys your attempt to paint Islam as violent and merciless. The narravties do not cover the "specific" killing of children, but in the event when chidren are killed during the attack on the enemies of Muslims during war.

Nice try Annie. You have not studied Islam, you would not know the name of a knowledgable scholar to study with, and your repeated problems with Islam stem from your study of trashy polemical websites and not from anything of substance.

Aquinian wrote: Andalus wrote: Aquinian wrote: Andalus wrote: Aquinian wrote: 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 - 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 : http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/implied - 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. No. My claim is that the Christian faith is too dependent upon implicit verses for "extraordinary" ideas. The NT was put together by men who had no real clue as to the historical Jesus, due to the fact that they had no real connection through any verifiable chain of narrators or document that would allow them to truly discern fact from fiction. The men who composed your NT simply used narratives, four amongst hundreds, that best represented their theological position, not necessarily the historical Jesus. To futher their positions, they fudged their MSS (this is a fact) so that Gd's word would look closer to their ideas, and they chose implicit text (they a lot to choose from) to further prove their claims. Aquinian wrote:   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.  Actually you don't. You have four written copies, of copies, of copies of oral narratives, from amongst hundreds of other narratives, without even the slightest clue as to the author, narrators, or historical validity. You simply pass along your trust to "faith". And even after 300 years from the birth of Jesus, your doctors were still hashing out basics like the "nature of Christ". Why after 300 years were their various sects that could not agree on something as basic as "who is Jesus"? Because they were without any real facts and they knew it, and they had to find their conjecture hidden in the implicit verses of the hundreds of narratives circulating. Aquinian wrote:    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. I would say that Islamic Theology goes against much of Christian creative interpolating with the use of "implicit" statements. In other words, saying that your bible says Jesus is Gd, and when one looks at the passage, it is in the NT, and it is an extremely vague and ambiguous passage that requires circular reasoning in order to render as such due to the fact that there is nothing explicit which can define the implicit verse. We have only Christian belief and faith to guide us on the proof verses and nothing else. Islamic theology simply makes claims about Jesus that not onle make sense, but are also consistant with all other men of Gd. Aquinian wrote: 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 now trying to superimpose western history onto the rest of the world. Entering an age of enlightement would assume that there was an age of darkness, and that the doctrine was problematic. In your history, the church, and the faith that it rested upon did not work socially, as the holy ghost was never their to write holy law on the hearts of men. It was the age when men took reason, that they used philosophy to destroy the doctrine of the church. This brought Christendom out of the dark ages. Islamic civilization has reached a low point, but due to its inital high points, one cannot claim tha the doctrine is the cause. Islam is in need of a "re-enlightenment" that occure nearly 1100 years ago. Aquinian wrote:  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.  Interesting. So the age of enlightenment undermined church theology (that is factual), but it is the second largest church! So what does that tell you? Are you saying that because it is the second largest church, that it must be correct? Or that the age of enlightenment was wrong? Aquinian wrote:  Christianity is still the largest religion in the world, with many of its newest adherents coming from strongholds of Islam such has Africa. Judaism was the smallest religion in the world during the temple period, yet it was the correct faith accoridng to your bible. Since the pagan faiths were larger, in your rational, then they should have been the correct faith? As far as the droves of Muslims becoming Christians and the growth of the church in Africa...well...this is not something I would brag about. 1) The claim is exagerrated. 2) The adherents are 99.9% of the time desperate people trying to escape poverty. Targeting adherents that are in a desperate situation in life is not something I would be very proud of. Use it if you like, but I would rather show you adherents who made a choice out of thinking, and not out of hunger. Aquinian wrote:     To say that the enlightenment undermined the theology of Catholicism or Christianity at all is a complete fabrication - it clarified it.  The age of enlightenment castrated the church! Thats why it has little relevance in the governmental processes of today, in which it exists in "secualr societies". The age of enlightnement not only undermined your theology, but it also removed it from power as anyone could see that the theology was problematic. Aquinian wrote:   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. Interesting little list. This is also evidence of your ignorance about Islam. I will not go through each claim. I would happy to go point by point? Now lets talk about "fruits". 1) Since you believe that Jesus is Gd, then we can know his fruits when he had his chosen people slaughter babies. Now that is a tasy fruit ay? Or no? 2) The Church force converted the people of Europe to Christianity at the edge of a sword. Good fruit? 3) The Church committed atrocities against the natives of the Americas. 4) The Church persecuted Jews, and threw them, along with Muslims, out of SPain, and stole their money. Thats a tasty fruit! 5) The church promoted ignorance and growth for over a 1000 years. How fruity! 6) It was Christian America that first introduced policies of "terrorism" to promote a policy of "containment of communism" at all costs. What is the name of that fruit? It seems the Christian west were excellent teachers to the modern day PLO and Hamas. 7) The Christian US armed regimes such as Sadaam Hussein and even helped with with WMD. They continue to put into power the state of Israel and turn a blind eye to the terrible treatment it emplys against Christian and Muslim arabs. As usual for many Christians, you suffer from "plank in your eye" syndrom.   Aquinian wrote: 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. I would prefer a religion that provides solid answers and solutions such that I did not require an age of enlightenment. I would prefer a religion that inspired great innovations in science and math, and encouraged people to learn and read. I prefer a religion that has texts that provide me a with a solid enough foundation so that I would not have to traget the weakest and most desperate of society in order to find converts. It seems I found a bargain! The difference with Christianity is that the faith does not condone, in any possible way, the killing of innocent human beings.  It does not condone recriprocal treatment.  Anytime that Christians have killed the innocent or acted reciprocally to their brothers, they have been in clear violation of the words of Christ.  These are moments when they deviated from their beliefs. Two Points: 1) Yes Aquinian. This is the typical Christian apologetical shuffle. This shuffle has the following dance moves: People who were Muslim killed other people. Therefore, Islam is evil People who are Christians killed other people. They were not true or real Christians so Christianity is pure.  2) Islam does not teach the killing of innocents. While we are on this subject, could you please explain to me what the babies did that Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit, had murdered as told in the Torah? How were they not innocent? Aquinian wrote: On the contrary, when Muslims become more indoctrinated in their faith, you find that they become avid fundementalists who favor more and more extreme violence against those who oppose them.   I am "fully" indoctrinated. As are millions of Muslims. I do not see the mass violence. Your claim is that of a "phobic". Please provide evidence. Not cheap blanket statements. I did notice that you skipped over the deviant behavior of your brethern over the last 2000 years though.   Aquinian wrote:   The Koran outlines the killing of those who oppose Islam.  The murder of innocent people is supported by the theology of the Quran, and yet you tell me that Christians bear poor fruit.  There is not doubt that Christians have been wrong.  It is due in no part to their faith's teachings. 1) Please provide examples. 2) You are doing the shuffle again. No one here is that stupid not to see the dance moves. Seriously. It is a double standard that missionaries have been using for the last 2000 years. No one buys it. Aquinian wrote:    You cannot say the same about Islam. It seems you cannot say anything about Islam that has substance. You are providing charges and assertions that are nothing but cheap shots and baseless accusations, generalizations, etc, etc.   Aquinian wrote: So, what if the rational and simple teachings of Islam are correct and you are truly winning the argument?  Defending a theology that supports the murder of innocent people is certainly something to be proud of. another assertion. What teaching are you speaking of? Is it like the one where Jesus orders the slaughter of babies? Or is it another one?   You asked for evidence: 9 November 2005 - 2005 Amman bombings, over 60 killed and 115 injured, in a series of coordinated suicide attacks on Hotels in Amman, Jordan. Four attackers including a husband and wife team were involved. 23 July 2005 - Bomb attacks at Sharm el-Sheikh, an Egyptian resort city, kill at least 64 people. 7 July 2005 - Multiple bombings in London Underground, 53 dead killed by four suicide bombers. 4 February 2005 - Muslim militants attacked the Christian community in Demsa, Nigeria, killing 36 people, destroying property and displacing an additional 3000 people. 11 March 2004 - Multiple bombings on trains near Madrid, Spain. 191 killed, 1460 injured. (alleged link to Al-Qaeda) 16 May 2004- Casablanca Attacks - 4 simultaneous attacks in Casablanca killing 33 civilians (mostly Moroccans) carried by Salafaia Jihadia. 12 October 2002 - Bombing in Bali nightclub. 202 killed, 300 injured. 24 September 2002 - Machine Gun attack on Hindu temple in Ahmedabad, India. 31 dead, 86 injured.[19][20] 7 May 2002 - Bombing in al-Arbaa, Algeria. 49 dead, 117 injured 9 March 2002 - Caf� suicide bombing in Jerusalem; 11 killed, 54 injured 3 March 2002 - Suicide bomb attack on a Passover Seder in a Hotel in Netanya, Israel. 29 dead, 133 injured 11 September 2001 - 4 planes hijacked and crashed into World Trade Center and The Pentagon by 19 hijackers. Nearly 3000 dead. 13 October 2000 - USS Cole bombing from a small boat by suicide bombers. Seventeen sailors were killed and 39 were injured. 7 August 1998 - Embassy bombing in Tanzania and Kenya. 225 dead. 4000+ injured 25 June 1996 - Khobar Towers bombing, 20 killed, 372 wounded. 26 February 1993 - First World Trade Center bombing. 6 killed. 18 April 1983 - Embassy in Lebanon bombed. 63 killed.

I asked for evidence of your thesis: Islam teaches the murder of innocents. You failed to provide it and instead gave me a list of acts attributed to some who happened to be Muslim. This is a far different realm than what I asked for, and what you actually claimed.

I can give you a list that will send you into disdain that records the acts of Christians committing atrocities. Of course you would do the usual shuffle and simply claim that they were not really Christian. This list was simply a distraction that stems from your inability to produce substance that backs yoru claim.

Aquinian wrote: I realize you and your ilk would never do these things or think of doing them.  But for every one of the Muslim Clerics that amk gave in his petition post, there are many many more Muslim Clerics that advocate violence.  I showed a post about these Muslim Clerics, which I'm sure you read.

I asked for your proof from what you claimed. You are once more pointing to someone who claimes to be a representative of Islam and then quoting what he says. You are still far from the course of your claim.

Aquinian wrote: You can mention things that happened 500-600 years ago, or you can live in the present.  The west is largely peaceful - the middle east is largely not.  The west is largely christian - the middle east is almost 100% muslim.

I can give exampels of violence by Christians till this century.

Actually it wasn't. Europe was at constant war with itself up until the 20th century. The British and French wanted to spread around the discord, they took their attention to the Muslim world, and even referred to it as the "big game". After the Christians helped create fitnah in Muslim lands, they put forth the very sect of Islam that has influenced the violent methodology of the very people you use as a means to smear Islam. Study your history hypocrite, as you will find that it was the "fitnah" from your own culture that has produced the very regimes that you are trying to use as examples to paint Islam as evil.

Aquinian wrote:   Also, what of Palestine?  Is it okay for them to kill Israelis through Jihad?  That situation seems to fit the requirements for Jihad, does it not?

What of it? Christians took someone elses land, and then gave it away to someone else (charity with someone elses wealth is such a gracious act!) while throwing families off their land to make way for Europeans, the benefactors. What of it? Was that ok?

What of the Jewish terrorist groups who used terrorism to achieve their goal of having land? One Israel's prime ministers was a wanted terrorist! What of the people they killed? What of it?

What of the Kurds that died from Christian technology (WMD), thanks to a Christian president? What of it?  What about the thousands of Iraqis that have died as Christian policy makers try to clean up the first mess they made? What of that? (and westerners demand credit for the toppeling of Sadaam Hussein...freaken clueless cows...mindless cows that move in a herd to the beat of the media) 

Your questions and reasoning are simply convoluted.

Aquinian wrote: By and large, Muslims believe that Israel is an occupier in Arab lands and that Jihad is justified against Israel. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/2063363.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/2063363.stm

And what?

Count me as one of them.

Aquinian wrote: 60% of Palestinian Muslims believe suicide bombings against Jews are okay in that article.  The number was as high as 80% at one point.  Would that number change much if we looked at another state in the middle east?  Probably not, right?

Although yet another red herring which defies your orignial thesis, I will briefly touch on it. (I am now guessing that you are unable to back your claim?)

1) Most Christian think it is ok that Zionist Jew have taken Arab land, thrown Arab familes off of their familial lands, and placed then in ghettos. What of it?

2) Most Christians think it is OK of the method in which the Jews have occupied the land, and treated the Arabs. What of it?

Jesus would agree yes? After all he allowed the Jews to execute babies as a way to cleanse the land to prepare it for the chosen people in the Torah. What of it?

3) Most Christians think it is OK that Israeli Jews have violated any notion of Nuclear proliferation in the middle east, and have illegally stoeln this technology. What of it?

4) Most Christians think it is OK that the Israeli AF killed over 40 US sailors and wounded more, in their attempt to sink the USS Liberty. Nothing was ever done about it, and it was swept under the table.

Aquinian wrote: Just look at this statistic (unbelievable) UK poll: 37% of Muslims in Britain think British Jews are a "legitimate target" (TimesOnline) This is in the west!

And you continue to deflect from your original claim. "This Muslim thinks this".."that Muslim thinks that"....."this Muslim said this".....

This is called generalizing from the particular. This does not prove your thesis: Islam teaches the killing of innocents. Your mind is twsited with dubious notions, and you are unable to bring forth any proof. I can trade lists of atrocities by the Church all day long. This is the rhetoric of the ignorant.

As far as your "red herring": Since the Jews, with the aid of the west, have displaced civilians from their homes, and wiped out villages from the face of the map, then I ask you, what should they think? I tell you what, why don't you live in their shoes for a few months, and then come back and asl this question.

I suppose with the history of the church, the idea of resisting and trying to defend your home is alien, given the church's quick recognition of the Nazis and their constant apeasement to them.

Aquinain wrote:    Violence.  This is not a small faction of Muslims.  There are massive numbers in the middle east who believe that Israel is an occupier and the only way to stop the Jews is to kill them.

Another red herring. Aquinian, you are utrning out to be a dud. You made a claim, and now you are unable to back it up. Irraitonal generalizations do not provide you with anything.

And what if Muslims believe the Jews are occupiers? They are. Because they beleive that does not mean Islam teaches the killing of violence. Please stay focused and try and prove your claims. Not change the toic and throw out red herrings.

Aquinian wrote:  They support Jihad against the Jews.  They kill civilians, women and children.

Christians support the jihad of Jews against Arabs! They kill civilians, women, and children. ANd lets not forget, Jesus also ordered the massacre of babies according to your bible. You always skip thst fact. I wonder why? What of it?

Aquinian wrote: These actions are supported by a vast number of Palestinian Muslims today and it is something that all Muslims should consider: is murder of Jews okay when we are defending Islamic lands?

It seems you have turned this into a strawman. The topic is not about the secular state of Israel, it was about your claim that Islam teaches the killing of innocents. You have a great deal of trouble paying attention. THis has been a great waste of time as your only point is that you think it is OK for Christains to support the Israeli treatment of Arabs, and that Arabs should just sit back and take it to appease Christians. That has to be one of the most ignorant thoughts I have come across.

Here is a question: Is the killing of invaders ok in the defence of your lands? Is the massacre of babies ok as long as Jesus says it is ok? Is Christian violence some how piouse and pure?

lol, you may be right, David.  All I know is, Andalus said that he supports the Jihad against Israel.  That's all I needed to know.

I think it's important to realize who this man is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husayni - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husayni

Husayni met with Hitler and discussed the removal of Jews from Palestine, with full knowledge of how Hitler was removing them from Europe (murdering them in cold blood and without provocation).

Because the arabs collaborated with Hitler, they lost all rights to their land.  That's what happens in a war.  If Hitler had won, the arabs would have gotten what they wanted: annihilation of the Jews.

The Jews now have Israel because 6 million of their people were murdered.  Oh, but I'm sure the holocaust "really didn't happen" right?  I hope to God you don't say that.

So, once and for all: when you lose in a war, you lose.  Your land can be taken and there's nothing you can do about it.

Now, we have this idea of Jihad against Israel, but that's nonsense.  The Muslims will never ever beat Israel.  Israel has the bomb.  Israel has a real military.  I would be surprised if any of the arab countries ever tried to nuke Israel because they would be annihilated.

But to get to the point: jihad against Israel is an offensive gesture, not a defensive one.  Allah allowed the Jews a homeland because of the actions of arab Muslims; namely, their support for the holocaust.

Notice, Israel gives the Palestinians land just recently and what do the stupid bastards do?  They kidnap an Israeli soldier.  Disgusting.

Andalus, by saying you support the jihad against Israel, you are saying that you support suicide bombings.  The only weapon of Palestinians is suicide bombing.  Throwing rocks at soldiers does nothing.  So, if you support suicide bombings and you are a fully indoctrinated Muslim, as you have claimed, then suicide bombings must be okay in the theology of Islam.

If suicide bombings of women and children are okay in the theology of Islam, then Islam is a violent religion.  If suicide bombings are not okay in the theology of Islam, then Islam is not a violent religion.  Which is it?  In order to have Islam be a religion of peace, you must concede the following: the jihad against Israel is being carried out incorrectly.  No suicide bombings should occur.  If you agree with suicide bombings, then Islam is not a religion of peace.

I notice that you immediately reverted to arguments against Israel and the jews when I made arguments against the Palestinians, but that in no way proves me incorrect about your faith.  You have much the same philosophy as the CIA:

Deny everything, admit nothing, and make counter-accusations.  Your consistent counter accusations against Christianity have no relevance.  Your religious beliefs are the ones that we are arguing about.  If Islam does not condone violence, why is the jihad against Israel so violent?  Why the killing of women and children?

The killing of the first born in the Old Testament passover is the work of God.  I suggest that you not question why God did it.  Who are you to question the methods of God?  Only God can judge who lives or dies.

God also killed the entire earth except for Noah during the floods.  Why would you question it?  It is God's will: you should submit.

We do not take it upon ourselves to decide who lives or dies.  That is God's will.  I find it interesting how you think that because Jesus is God and God killed human beings, you think you are capable of deciding who should die and who should live.

You attempt to make yourself like God when you claim that Jesus' perception of who should die is equivalent to yours.  His perception is much greater because he is God and I thank you for acknowledging that.

In conclusion, we have make some startling realizations here:

Man is not capable of deciding who should die.  However bloody or violent the method of God killing man, only God can make the judgement.

Those who claim that they have the right to jihad and kill Israelis are making themselves into gods.  They are deciding who lives or dies.

As any good Muslim should, I suggest that you submit to Allah and accept his judgement rather than make your own judgements upon your brother.

Aquinian wrote: lol, you may be right, David.  All I know is, Andalus said that he supports the Jihad against Israel.  That's all I needed to know.

unfortunately, you once again demonstrate that you know little, and assume much. You are transcending into equivocational problems in your thesis. Your discourse has become filled with distortions and slogans. So what does it mean if I am against the state of Israel? What does that tell you about Jihad, and how it relates to the rhetoric of some, and how doe sthat relate to my beliefs? Since not enough has been given to give an accurate reply, this is evident that you are once again filling in your conclusions with more conjecture and wishful thinking than substance.

Aquinian wrote:   I think it's important to realize who this man is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husayni - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husayni Husayni met with Hitler and discussed the removal of Jews from Palestine, with full knowledge of how Hitler was removing them from Europe (murdering them in cold blood and without provocation). Because the arabs collaborated with Hitler, they lost all rights to their land.  That's what happens in a war.  If Hitler had won, the arabs would have gotten what they wanted: annihilation of the Jews.

And now the discussion further detracts from the orginal thesis you claimed. Your course of constant obfuscation is noted, and it is essential that we are all very clear that your intention is not to discuss, but to simply throw out red herrings. Face it, you have failed to prove your original thesis. You failed. Now you resort to dishonest tricks to maintain your bellicose nature toward Islam.

SO what does your above "attempted insult" prove? What does it allow you to conclude? Keep in mind aquinian, you started out with what seemed to be a sincere belief in debate, but ever since I have asked you to come clean and prove your original thesis, you have deliberately used the thread as an opportunity to try and throw daggers (but you are thinking is too convoluted for you to know that you are really throwing water baloons), which is simply maliciouse. I will not allow you to use the forum to throw out "case by case" people who may or may not have been acting in the best cause, and were acting out of personal well being, as a way for you to try and distort my faith.

There is no benefit in this course. The thread is not about people who may or may not have done questionable things, it is about the faith of Islam and your claim that it teaches people to kill innocents.

Your dihonest chicanery now puts me in a position to take heavy swipes at your church, Christians, popes, etc, etc, that would send you out of the forum angry, and I would also, unfortunately, anger some of the Christians here who I like, a lot. And the funny thing is, your history is filled with vile actions taken by your very "ilk", for 2000 years. The Jewish faith derived a halacha on "suicide" due to your "ilk" force converting them. Your willingness to over look your violent actions and racist bigotry so you can bring up individuals with quesiotnable backgrounds in an attempt to malign my faith speaks volumes for your "christian character". Truly. Nothing above that you pasted has anything to do with the thread or your assertion. The next time you do this, without any discourse that connects them to a point, I will edit your thread, and if it continues, I will have your account reviewed. It is that simple. 

Aquinian wrote: The Jews now have Israel because 6 million of their people were murdered.  Oh, but I'm sure the holocaust "really didn't happen" right?  I hope to God you don't say that.

Is that would Jesus would do? 6 million people are killed living in Christian lands, so you kick Arab Christian and Muslims off of their land, give them the crappiest sections, and then hand out the best parts for the Euros?

So when ever people are mistreated, you throw someone else off their land and give it away to the victims? That is completely ignorant, and irrational.

Aquinian wrote: So, once and for all: when you lose in a war, you lose.  Your land can be taken and there's nothing you can do about it.

1) The war is over when one side gives in. I think millions diagree with you.

2) So why did the Catholic church desire to take Spain? You are a hypocrit. So now everyone is evil who resists, except for Christians. Christian violence is piouse and noble.

3) Your world view is rather juvenile, and it tells me you have no clue as to the events that have lead up to the current conflict. Please review your history, and start a new thread as it has nothing to do with your assertion: Islam teaches the killing of innocents.

Aquian wrote: Now, we have this idea of Jihad against Israel, but that's nonsense.  The Muslims will never ever beat Israel.  Israel has the bomb.  Israel has a real military.  I would be surprised if any of the arab countries ever tried to nuke Israel because they would be annihilated.

Oh wonderful! We now have the luxury of recieving Aquianians opinions. I feel much more enlightened about everything, thanks to Aquianian's opinions, Thank you so much. Everything is so much more clear.

Christian war is good. Taking land is good. Once a Christian takes your land, then too bad. Fighting back is bad, for non-Christians, who should just except their plight. Praise Jesus!   Jihad is nonsense, but Israeli persecution is "ok", because Jihad is nonsense.

How old are you Aquinian? Seriously? You are turning out to be more of a waste of time the further I read.

Opinions, assertions, conjecture,.....yaaawn.

Yes, Israel has a real military because the west gave it to them, along with the Nukes. So now what? They are free to do whatever they want to people? I though Christians aborred violence and injustice. Like most Christians, you are simply showing your true colors. Only Christian violence is pure and wholesome!

(by the way, the topic of Israel is in a different section. I will edit your reply if you attempt to further deflect from your claim about the teachings of Islam)

The rest of your convoluted sophistry is nothing more than childs talk about comic book heros, "if spider man ever spun his web against superman, he would do.......". If you want to have an adult discussion, then I ask you to refrain from your games and rantings and contribute substance relevant to the topic. I am still waiting for you to provide evidence that Islam teaches people to kill innocents?

Aquin wrote:   But to get to the point: jihad against Israel is an offensive gesture, not a defensive one.  Allah allowed the Jews a homeland because of the actions of arab Muslims; namely, their support for the holocaust.

The zionists posture was offensive, not defensive, as was the Christian British. Their "jihad" was offensive, and mimicked the slaughter Jesus had ordered them to do in the Torah (according to your faith). It was not defensive. And it still is not defensive.

Amazing. You know what Gd thinks. And what was Gd's punishment to Christains for allowing the holocaust to happen? Afterall, it happened in Christian lands. Your atempt to blame Arabs is extremely funny. More Church posturing.

Aquin wrote: Notice, Israel gives the Palestinians land just recently and what do the stupid bastards do?  They kidnap an Israeli soldier.  Disgusting.

1) Refrain from abusive statements. I realize you are unable to provide proof of your claim, but your abuse of people who are living in poverty and dirt due to your "pious" foriegn policy, and the "pious" actions of the Zionists, will not be tolerated. This is your first warning.

2) You are extremely ignorant and your statement reflects your uneducated position about what was given and what was not given. The problem is that your lack of grey matter has not yet figured out the difference between "propoganda" and truth. Like most westerners, you are intellectually complacent and simply believe whatever you are told to beleive. It is not the Palestinians who are stupid, but they are angry and rightly so, but you are not smart enough to figure out why.

Aquinian wrote: Andalus, by saying you support the jihad against Israel, you are saying that you support suicide bombings.  The only weapon of Palestinians is suicide bombing.  Throwing rocks at soldiers does nothing.  So, if you support suicide bombings and you are a fully indoctrinated Muslim, as you have claimed, then suicide bombings must be okay in the theology of Islam.

No, by supporting the struggle against the opression does not lead to the conclusion you are drawing. Like 99% of everything you put up, you make waaaaay TOO many assumptions. Read my opening reply. If you are unable to answer my questions, then you do not have enough information to draw your conclusions.

Aquin wrote: If suicide bombings of women and children are okay in the theology of Islam, then Islam is a violent religion.

You have not provided evidence to supprt the bases of your conditional statement. This is what you have been avoiding the entire time, and now here you are, trying to make the assumption in a conditional statement.

Look Aquanian, I do not care what you think about Israel, or the PLO, or Madonna, I do not care what you favorite beverage is. You stated that Islam teaches the killing of innocents. I aksed you to provide evidence. You have not provided a schred of relevant evidence.

Please provide proof for your opening of the above conditional. This is what I have been waiting for.

Aquin wrote:   If suicide bombings are not okay in the theology of Islam, then Islam is not a violent religion.  Which is it?  In order to have Islam be a religion of peace, you must concede the following: the jihad against Israel is being carried out incorrectly.  No suicide bombings should occur.  If you agree with suicide bombings, then Islam is not a religion of peace.

See above. You have used an unproven assumption in your conditional. It is therefore erroneous.

Aquin wrote: I notice that you immediately reverted to arguments against Israel and the jews when I made arguments against the Palestinians, but that in no way proves me incorrect about your faith.

Please take a basic course in logic. What I demonstrated was typical Christain hypocrisy: a fallacy of a case of special pleading.

1) In no way did I affirm or deny anything you put forth about individuals who happen to be Muslim. I simply put forth examples of your own "ilk" to see just how intellectually honest you were. You failed.

2) Your charges you provided did not provide any evidence to prove your claim. They were examples of individuals who happen to be Muslim, and not a source of teaching that defines the Islamic faith.

3) If Islam is wrong becuase of the actions of some individuals, then your faith is of the devil due to the examples I provided. Since you do not think so, then this is proof of "special pleading".

I hope this helped?

Aquin wrote:   You have much the same philosophy as the CIA: Deny everything, admit nothing, and make counter-accusations.  Your consistent counter accusations against Christianity have no relevance.  Your religious beliefs are the ones that we are arguing about.  If Islam does not condone violence, why is the jihad against Israel so violent?  Why the killing of women and children?

More empty rhetorical nonsense.

1) You have been caught making a case of special pleading. (hence you are shown to be intellectually dishonest).

2) Your evidences only show that some Muslims can make questionable decisions. Not that Islam teaches the killing of innocents.

Aquin wrote:   The killing of the first born in the Old Testament passover is the work of God.  I suggest that you not question why God did it.  Who are you to question the methods of God?  Only God can judge who lives or dies.

Who said anything about the first born? Jesus ordered the massacre of babies by the sword (according to your bible and theology). And yes, like I said you would say, according to Christians, Christian violence is piouse and wholesome and full of loving goodness. Praise Jesus! (and this is another case of special pleading that you have been caught in)

Aquin wrote: God also killed the entire earth except for Noah during the floods.  Why would you question it?  It is God's will: you should submit.

Jesus also ordered the executions of babies by the sword. Is that the will of Jesus? I though Jesus loved everyone? I always see those funny comparisons that evangelicals love so much to put out: Who is better Jesus or Prophet Muhammad?

They said Jesus could commit no violence? But there were babies who would disagree (according to your bible and theolgy of course, Islam is not violent like that)

Aquin wrote: We do not take it upon ourselves to decide who lives or dies.  That is God's will.  I find it interesting how you think that because Jesus is God and God killed human beings, you think you are capable of deciding who should die and who should live.

Except when you are busy taking land in war? And you are now saying, as I stated you would say, "Violence is piouse as long as Jesus puts his stamp of approval on it". Thats what you are now trying to appeal to. You are simply out of gas.

So you are saying: Muslims commit violence and they are evil. Christains commit violence and "it is all good". Nice Aquinian.

Aquin wrote: You attempt to make yourself like God when you claim that Jesus' perception of who should die is equivalent to yours.  His perception is much greater because he is God and I thank you for acknowledging that.

Now you are rambeling. I have no idea what you are trying to say, and it does not relate to anything I have stated.

Aquin wrote: In conclusion, we have make some startling realizations here: Man is not capable of deciding who should die.  However bloody or violent the method of God killing man, only God can make the judgement.

????????????? And this has to do with the thread????? exactly how???

And Moses gave law that allowed judges to decide who should die. So what of that? You said 6 million people died, so their relatives had the right to kill peopel for land? When did Gd do the killing?

Aquin wrote: Those who claim that they have the right to jihad and kill Israelis are making themselves into gods.  They are deciding who lives or dies.

Like the Jews and Christians who took the land? They decided who died? And yet another case of special pleading.

Aquin wrote: As any good Muslim should, I suggest that you submit to Allah and accept his judgement rather than make your own judgements upon your brother.

I have no idea what you just said?

I have an idea that you also have no idea what you just said?

Andalus wrote: Aquinian wrote: lol, you may be right, David.  All I know is, Andalus said that he supports the Jihad against Israel.  That's all I needed to know. unfortunately, you once again demonstrate that you know little, and assume much. You are transcending into equivocational problems in your thesis. Your discourse has become filled with distortions and slogans. So what does it mean if I am against the state of Israel? What does that tell you about Jihad, and how it relates to the rhetoric of some, and how doe sthat relate to my beliefs? Since not enough has been given to give an accurate reply, this is evident that you are once again filling in your conclusions with more conjecture and wishful thinking than substance. Aquinian wrote:   I think it's important to realize who this man is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husayni - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husayni Husayni met with Hitler and discussed the removal of Jews from Palestine, with full knowledge of how Hitler was removing them from Europe (murdering them in cold blood and without provocation). Because the arabs collaborated with Hitler, they lost all rights to their land.  That's what happens in a war.  If Hitler had won, the arabs would have gotten what they wanted: annihilation of the Jews. And now the discussion further detracts from the orginal thesis you claimed. Your course of constant obfuscation is noted, and it is essential that we are all very clear that your intention is not to discuss, but to simply throw out red herrings. Face it, you have failed to prove your original thesis. You failed. Now you resort to dishonest tricks to maintain your bellicose nature toward Islam. SO what does your above "attempted insult" prove? What does it allow you to conclude? Keep in mind aquinian, you started out with what seemed to be a sincere belief in debate, but ever since I have asked you to come clean and prove your original thesis, you have deliberately used the thread as an opportunity to try and throw daggers (but you are thinking is too convoluted for you to know that you are really throwing water baloons), which is simply maliciouse. I will not allow you to use the forum to throw out "case by case" people who may or may not have been acting in the best cause, and were acting out of personal well being, as a way for you to try and distort my faith. There is no benefit in this course. The thread is not about people who may or may not have done questionable things, it is about the faith of Islam and your claim that it teaches people to kill innocents. Your dihonest chicanery now puts me in a position to take heavy swipes at your church, Christians, popes, etc, etc, that would send you out of the forum angry, and I would also, unfortunately, anger some of the Christians here who I like, a lot. And the funny thing is, your history is filled with vile actions taken by your very "ilk", for 2000 years. The Jewish faith derived a halacha on "suicide" due to your "ilk" force converting them. Your willingness to over look your violent actions and racist bigotry so you can bring up individuals with quesiotnable backgrounds in an attempt to malign my faith speaks volumes for your "christian character". Truly. Nothing above that you pasted has anything to do with the thread or your assertion. The next time you do this, without any discourse that connects them to a point, I will edit your thread, and if it continues, I will have your account reviewed. It is that simple.      Aquinian wrote: The Jews now have Israel because 6 million of their people were murdered.  Oh, but I'm sure the holocaust "really didn't happen" right?  I hope to God you don't say that. Is that would Jesus would do? 6 million people are killed living in Christian lands, so you kick Arab Christian and Muslims off of their land, give them the crappiest sections, and then hand out the best parts for the Euros? So when ever people are mistreated, you throw someone else off their land and give it away to the victims? That is completely ignorant, and irrational.   Aquinian wrote: So, once and for all: when you lose in a war, you lose.  Your land can be taken and there's nothing you can do about it. 1) The war is over when one side gives in. I think millions diagree with you. 2) So why did the Catholic church desire to take Spain? You are a hypocrit. So now everyone is evil who resists, except for Christians. Christian violence is piouse and noble. 3) Your world view is rather juvenile, and it tells me you have no clue as to the events that have lead up to the current conflict. Please review your history, and start a new thread as it has nothing to do with your assertion: Islam teaches the killing of innocents.   Aquian wrote: Now, we have this idea of Jihad against Israel, but that's nonsense.  The Muslims will never ever beat Israel.  Israel has the bomb.  Israel has a real military.  I would be surprised if any of the arab countries ever tried to nuke Israel because they would be annihilated. Oh wonderful! We now have the luxury of recieving Aquianians opinions. I feel much more enlightened about everything, thanks to Aquianian's opinions, Thank you so much. Everything is so much more clear. Christian war is good. Taking land is good. Once a Christian takes your land, then too bad. Fighting back is bad, for non-Christians, who should just except their plight. Praise Jesus!   Jihad is nonsense, but Israeli persecution is "ok", because Jihad is nonsense. How old are you Aquinian? Seriously? You are turning out to be more of a waste of time the further I read. Opinions, assertions, conjecture,.....yaaawn. Yes, Israel has a real military because the west gave it to them, along with the Nukes. So now what? They are free to do whatever they want to people? I though Christians aborred violence and injustice. Like most Christians, you are simply showing your true colors. Only Christian violence is pure and wholesome! (by the way, the topic of Israel is in a different section. I will edit your reply if you attempt to further deflect from your claim about the teachings of Islam) The rest of your convoluted sophistry is nothing more than childs talk about comic book heros, "if spider man ever spun his web against superman, he would do.......". If you want to have an adult discussion, then I ask you to refrain from your games and rantings and contribute substance relevant to the topic. I am still waiting for you to provide evidence that Islam teaches people to kill innocents? Aquin wrote:   But to get to the point: jihad against Israel is an offensive gesture, not a defensive one.  Allah allowed the Jews a homeland because of the actions of arab Muslims; namely, their support for the holocaust. The zionists posture was offensive, not defensive, as was the Christian British. Their "jihad" was offensive, and mimicked the slaughter Jesus had ordered them to do in the Torah (according to your faith). It was not defensive. And it still is not defensive. Amazing. You know what Gd thinks. And what was Gd's punishment to Christains for allowing the holocaust to happen? Afterall, it happened in Christian lands. Your atempt to blame Arabs is extremely funny. More Church posturing. Aquin wrote: Notice, Israel gives the Palestinians land just recently and what do the stupid bastards do?  They kidnap an Israeli soldier.  Disgusting. 1) Refrain from abusive statements. I realize you are unable to provide proof of your claim, but your abuse of people who are living in poverty and dirt due to your "pious" foriegn policy, and the "pious" actions of the Zionists, will not be tolerated. This is your first warning. 2) You are extremely ignorant and your statement reflects your uneducated position about what was given and what was not given. The problem is that your lack of grey matter has not yet figured out the difference between "propoganda" and truth. Like most westerners, you are intellectually complacent and simply believe whatever you are told to beleive. It is not the Palestinians who are stupid, but they are angry and rightly so, but you are not smart enough to figure out why. Aquinian wrote: Andalus, by saying you support the jihad against Israel, you are saying that you support suicide bombings.  The only weapon of Palestinians is suicide bombing.  Throwing rocks at soldiers does nothing.  So, if you support suicide bombings and you are a fully indoctrinated Muslim, as you have claimed, then suicide bombings must be okay in the theology of Islam. No, by supporting the struggle against the opression does not lead to the conclusion you are drawing. Like 99% of everything you put up, you make waaaaay TOO many assumptions. Read my opening reply. If you are unable to answer my questions, then you do not have enough information to draw your conclusions. Aquin wrote: If suicide bombings of women and children are okay in the theology of Islam, then Islam is a violent religion. You have not provided evidence to supprt the bases of your conditional statement. This is what you have been avoiding the entire time, and now here you are, trying to make the assumption in a conditional statement. Look Aquanian, I do not care what you think about Israel, or the PLO, or Madonna, I do not care what you favorite beverage is. You stated that Islam teaches the killing of innocents. I aksed you to provide evidence. You have not provided a schred of relevant evidence. Please provide proof for your opening of the above conditional. This is what I have been waiting for. Aquin wrote:   If suicide bombings are not okay in the theology of Islam, then Islam is not a violent religion.  Which is it?  In order to have Islam be a religion of peace, you must concede the following: the jihad against Israel is being carried out incorrectly.  No suicide bombings should occur.  If you agree with suicide bombings, then Islam is not a religion of peace. See above. You have used an unproven assumption in your conditional. It is therefore erroneous. Aquin wrote: I notice that you immediately reverted to arguments against Israel and the jews when I made arguments against the Palestinians, but that in no way proves me incorrect about your faith.  Please take a basic course in logic. What I demonstrated was typical Christain hypocrisy: a fallacy of a case of special pleading. 1) In no way did I affirm or deny anything you put forth about individuals who happen to be Muslim. I simply put forth examples of your own "ilk" to see just how intellectually honest you were. You failed. 2) Your charges you provided did not provide any evidence to prove your claim. They were examples of individuals who happen to be Muslim, and not a source of teaching that defines the Islamic faith. 3) If Islam is wrong becuase of the actions of some individuals, then your faith is of the devil due to the examples I provided. Since you do not think so, then this is proof of "special pleading". I hope this helped? Aquin wrote:   You have much the same philosophy as the CIA: Deny everything, admit nothing, and make counter-accusations.  Your consistent counter accusations against Christianity have no relevance.  Your religious beliefs are the ones that we are arguing about.  If Islam does not condone violence, why is the jihad against Israel so violent?  Why the killing of women and children? More empty rhetorical nonsense. 1) You have been caught making a case of special pleading. (hence you are shown to be intellectually dishonest). 2) Your evidences only show that some Muslims can make questionable decisions. Not that Islam teaches the killing of innocents. Aquin wrote:   The killing of the first born in the Old Testament passover is the work of God.  I suggest that you not question why God did it.  Who are you to question the methods of God?  Only God can judge who lives or dies. Who said anything about the first born? Jesus ordered the massacre of babies by the sword (according to your bible and theology). And yes, like I said you would say, according to Christians, Christian violence is piouse and wholesome and full of loving goodness. Praise Jesus! (and this is another case of special pleading that you have been caught in) Aquin wrote: God also killed the entire earth except for Noah during the floods.  Why would you question it?  It is God's will: you should submit. Jesus also ordered the executions of babies by the sword. Is that the will of Jesus? I though Jesus loved everyone? I always see those funny comparisons that evangelicals love so much to put out: Who is better Jesus or Prophet Muhammad? They said Jesus could commit no violence? But there were babies who would disagree (according to your bible and theolgy of course, Islam is not violent like that) Aquin wrote: We do not take it upon ourselves to decide who lives or dies.  That is God's will.  I find it interesting how you think that because Jesus is God and God killed human beings, you think you are capable of deciding who should die and who should live. Except when you are busy taking land in war? And you are now saying, as I stated you would say, "Violence is piouse as long as Jesus puts his stamp of approval on it". Thats what you are now trying to appeal to. You are simply out of gas. So you are saying: Muslims commit violence and they are evil. Christains commit violence and "it is all good". Nice Aquinian. Aquin wrote: You attempt to make yourself like God when you claim that Jesus' perception of who should die is equivalent to yours.  His perception is much greater because he is God and I thank you for acknowledging that. Now you are rambeling. I have no idea what you are trying to say, and it does not relate to anything I have stated. Aquin wrote: In conclusion, we have make some startling realizations here: Man is not capable of deciding who should die.  However bloody or violent the method of God killing man, only God can make the judgement. ????????????? And this has to do with the thread????? exactly how??? And Moses gave law that allowed judges to decide who should die. So what of that? You said 6 million people died, so their relatives had the right to kill peopel for land? When did Gd do the killing? Aquin wrote: Those who claim that they have the right to jihad and kill Israelis are making themselves into gods.  They are deciding who lives or dies. Like the Jews and Christians who took the land? They decided who died? And yet another case of special pleading. Aquin wrote: As any good Muslim should, I suggest that you submit to Allah and accept his judgement rather than make your own judgements upon your brother. I have no idea what you just said? I have an idea that you also have no idea what you just said?

Andalus, I suggest you take a course in logic again.  Your failure to follow my thoughts is a clear indication of ignorance of logic.  This "theory of special pleading" is complete nonsense and I would appreciate it if you'd stop using it as a means of not responding to my posts.  That is all you are doing.  You are not making any effective defense of your religion.  It is obvious that you make counter accusations so that the violence of arab Muslims does not look as bad.

I love how you respond to the holocaust by saying "so that makes it okay to steal the arabs' land?"  YES YES YES YES.  It is okay to steal their land because they supported the holocaust.  I'd say that land is a cheap price for the lives of 6 million jews, wouldn't you?  Just admit it: you don't think the holocaust really happened, do you?  If the arabs had not supported the holocaust, they would not have lost their land.  TOO BAD.  I'm sorry you are failing to grasp this simple aspect of war, but maybe when the arabs win a war, they can set terms that are good for them.

Just because the Israelis kill a Muslim does not make it okay for a Muslim to kill Israelis.  OH WAIT, YES IT DOES.  In your religion "eye for an eye" is okay right?

I made the following argument very succintly:

If Jesus is God and God ordered the killing of someone, then it is justified because only God is capable of giving someone life or death.

Because Islam is unprovable and untrue, the Quran does not have justification for representing the will of God in any form.  Therefore, when Muslims kill, they kill because a book that does not represent the will of God tells them to kill.  These killings are then unjustified.

If Christians kill according to the law of the Bible, then they do so justifiably because the Bible is the true word of God.

So, my argument is this: Islam is unprovable; therefore, killings performed in jihad are unjustifiable.

I am not assuming anything, but resting on you to prove that Islam is a real religion and not just a method for arab conquest.

Also, Annie offered evidence that Muhammad encouraged the killing of women and children, but you glossed over that, just as you've glossed over all of my arguments in favor of repetition and mass text.

Here are some quotes from your prophet and Koran.  Go ahead and explain (sidestep) why each and every one is not a clear reason for explaining the violence of Islam:

DavidC wrote: Aquinian, I suggest you adopt your namesake's methodology of 'si et non', and draw up a table of both evidences both or and against your thesis. Your last post was closer to screed than argument.  Nobody could possibly respond intelligently to such a diatribe.

I simply don't have the time nor the desire to do that.  Besides, I'm a simple person, well meaning person who just wants to discuss my faith - this isn't a seminary or anything.

:)

Aquinian wrote: Andalus wrote: Aquinian wrote: lol, you may be right, David.  All I know is, Andalus said that he supports the Jihad against Israel.  That's all I needed to know. unfortunately, you once again demonstrate that you know little, and assume much. You are transcending into equivocational problems in your thesis. Your discourse has become filled with distortions and slogans. So what does it mean if I am against the state of Israel? What does that tell you about Jihad, and how it relates to the rhetoric of some, and how doe sthat relate to my beliefs? Since not enough has been given to give an accurate reply, this is evident that you are once again filling in your conclusions with more conjecture and wishful thinking than substance. Aquinian wrote:   I think it's important to realize who this man is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husayni - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husayni Husayni met with Hitler and discussed the removal of Jews from Palestine, with full knowledge of how Hitler was removing them from Europe (murdering them in cold blood and without provocation). Because the arabs collaborated with Hitler, they lost all rights to their land.  That's what happens in a war.  If Hitler had won, the arabs would have gotten what they wanted: annihilation of the Jews. And now the discussion further detracts from the orginal thesis you claimed. Your course of constant obfuscation is noted, and it is essential that we are all very clear that your intention is not to discuss, but to simply throw out red herrings. Face it, you have failed to prove your original thesis. You failed. Now you resort to dishonest tricks to maintain your bellicose nature toward Islam. SO what does your above "attempted insult" prove? What does it allow you to conclude? Keep in mind aquinian, you started out with what seemed to be a sincere belief in debate, but ever since I have asked you to come clean and prove your original thesis, you have deliberately used the thread as an opportunity to try and throw daggers (but you are thinking is too convoluted for you to know that you are really throwing water baloons), which is simply maliciouse. I will not allow you to use the forum to throw out "case by case" people who may or may not have been acting in the best cause, and were acting out of personal well being, as a way for you to try and distort my faith. There is no benefit in this course. The thread is not about people who may or may not have done questionable things, it is about the faith of Islam and your claim that it teaches people to kill innocents. Your dihonest chicanery now puts me in a position to take heavy swipes at your church, Christians, popes, etc, etc, that would send you out of the forum angry, and I would also, unfortunately, anger some of the Christians here who I like, a lot. And the funny thing is, your history is filled with vile actions taken by your very "ilk", for 2000 years. The Jewish faith derived a halacha on "suicide" due to your "ilk" force converting them. Your willingness to over look your violent actions and racist bigotry so you can bring up individuals with quesiotnable backgrounds in an attempt to malign my faith speaks volumes for your "christian character". Truly. Nothing above that you pasted has anything to do with the thread or your assertion. The next time you do this, without any discourse that connects them to a point, I will edit your thread, and if it continues, I will have your account reviewed. It is that simple.      Aquinian wrote: The Jews now have Israel because 6 million of their people were murdered.  Oh, but I'm sure the holocaust "really didn't happen" right?  I hope to God you don't say that. Is that would Jesus would do? 6 million people are killed living in Christian lands, so you kick Arab Christian and Muslims off of their land, give them the crappiest sections, and then hand out the best parts for the Euros? So when ever people are mistreated, you throw someone else off their land and give it away to the victims? That is completely ignorant, and irrational.   Aquinian wrote: So, once and for all: when you lose in a war, you lose.  Your land can be taken and there's nothing you can do about it. 1) The war is over when one side gives in. I think millions diagree with you. 2) So why did the Catholic church desire to take Spain? You are a hypocrit. So now everyone is evil who resists, except for Christians. Christian violence is piouse and noble. 3) Your world view is rather juvenile, and it tells me you have no clue as to the events that have lead up to the current conflict. Please review your history, and start a new thread as it has nothing to do with your assertion: Islam teaches the killing of innocents.   Aquian wrote: Now, we have this idea of Jihad against Israel, but that's nonsense.  The Muslims will never ever beat Israel.  Israel has the bomb.  Israel has a real military.  I would be surprised if any of the arab countries ever tried to nuke Israel because they would be annihilated. Oh wonderful! We now have the luxury of recieving Aquianians opinions. I feel much more enlightened about everything, thanks to Aquianian's opinions, Thank you so much. Everything is so much more clear. Christian war is good. Taking land is good. Once a Christian takes your land, then too bad. Fighting back is bad, for non-Christians, who should just except their plight. Praise Jesus!   Jihad is nonsense, but Israeli persecution is "ok", because Jihad is nonsense. How old are you Aquinian? Seriously? You are turning out to be more of a waste of time the further I read. Opinions, assertions, conjecture,.....yaaawn. Yes, Israel has a real military because the west gave it to them, along with the Nukes. So now what? They are free to do whatever they want to people? I though Christians aborred violence and injustice. Like most Christians, you are simply showing your true colors. Only Christian violence is pure and wholesome! (by the way, the topic of Israel is in a different section. I will edit your reply if you attempt to further deflect from your claim about the teachings of Islam) The rest of your convoluted sophistry is nothing more than childs talk about comic book heros, "if spider man ever spun his web against superman, he would do.......". If you want to have an adult discussion, then I ask you to refrain from your games and rantings and contribute substance relevant to the topic. I am still waiting for you to provide evidence that Islam teaches people to kill innocents? Aquin wrote:   But to get to the point: jihad against Israel is an offensive gesture, not a defensive one.  Allah allowed the Jews a homeland because of the actions of arab Muslims; namely, their support for the holocaust. The zionists posture was offensive, not defensive, as was the Christian British. Their "jihad" was offensive, and mimicked the slaughter Jesus had ordered them to do in the Torah (according to your faith). It was not defensive. And it still is not defensive. Amazing. You know what Gd thinks. And what was Gd's punishment to Christains for allowing the holocaust to happen? Afterall, it happened in Christian lands. Your atempt to blame Arabs is extremely funny. More Church posturing. Aquin wrote: Notice, Israel gives the Palestinians land just recently and what do the stupid bastards do?  They kidnap an Israeli soldier.  Disgusting. 1) Refrain from abusive statements. I realize you are unable to provide proof of your claim, but your abuse of people who are living in poverty and dirt due to your "pious" foriegn policy, and the "pious" actions of the Zionists, will not be tolerated. This is your first warning. 2) You are extremely ignorant and your statement reflects your uneducated position about what was given and what was not given. The problem is that your lack of grey matter has not yet figured out the difference between "propoganda" and truth. Like most westerners, you are intellectually complacent and simply believe whatever you are told to beleive. It is not the Palestinians who are stupid, but they are angry and rightly so, but you are not smart enough to figure out why. Aquinian wrote: Andalus, by saying you support the jihad against Israel, you are saying that you support suicide bombings.  The only weapon of Palestinians is suicide bombing.  Throwing rocks at soldiers does nothing.  So, if you support suicide bombings and you are a fully indoctrinated Muslim, as you have claimed, then suicide bombings must be okay in the theology of Islam. No, by supporting the struggle against the opression does not lead to the conclusion you are drawing. Like 99% of everything you put up, you make waaaaay TOO many assumptions. Read my opening reply. If you are unable to answer my questions, then you do not have enough information to draw your conclusions. Aquin wrote: If suicide bombings of women and children are okay in the theology of Islam, then Islam is a violent religion. You have not provided evidence to supprt the bases of your conditional statement. This is what you have been avoiding the entire time, and now here you are, trying to make the assumption in a conditional statement. Look Aquanian, I do not care what you think about Israel, or the PLO, or Madonna, I do not care what you favorite beverage is. You stated that Islam teaches the killing of innocents. I aksed you to provide evidence. You have not provided a schred of relevant evidence. Please provide proof for your opening of the above conditional. This is what I have been waiting for. Aquin wrote:   If suicide bombings are not okay in the theology of Islam, then Islam is not a violent religion.  Which is it?  In order to have Islam be a religion of peace, you must concede the following: the jihad against Israel is being carried out incorrectly.  No suicide bombings should occur.  If you agree with suicide bombings, then Islam is not a religion of peace. See above. You have used an unproven assumption in your conditional. It is therefore erroneous. Aquin wrote: I notice that you immediately reverted to arguments against Israel and the jews when I made arguments against the Palestinians, but that in no way proves me incorrect about your faith.  Please take a basic course in logic. What I demonstrated was typical Christain hypocrisy: a fallacy of a case of special pleading. 1) In no way did I affirm or deny anything you put forth about individuals who happen to be Muslim. I simply put forth examples of your own "ilk" to see just how intellectually honest you were. You failed. 2) Your charges you provided did not provide any evidence to prove your claim. They were examples of individuals who happen to be Muslim, and not a source of teaching that defines the Islamic faith. 3) If Islam is wrong becuase of the actions of some individuals, then your faith is of the devil due to the examples I provided. Since you do not think so, then this is proof of "special pleading". I hope this helped? Aquin wrote:   You have much the same philosophy as the CIA: Deny everything, admit nothing, and make counter-accusations.  Your consistent counter accusations against Christianity have no relevance.  Your religious beliefs are the ones that we are arguing about.  If Islam does not condone violence, why is the jihad against Israel so violent?  Why the killing of women and children? More empty rhetorical nonsense. 1) You have been caught making a case of special pleading. (hence you are shown to be intellectually dishonest). 2) Your evidences only show that some Muslims can make questionable decisions. Not that Islam teaches the killing of innocents. Aquin wrote:   The killing of the first born in the Old Testament passover is the work of God.  I suggest that you not question why God did it.  Who are you to question the methods of God?  Only God can judge who lives or dies. Who said anything about the first born? Jesus ordered the massacre of babies by the sword (according to your bible and theology). And yes, like I said you would say, according to Christians, Christian violence is piouse and wholesome and full of loving goodness. Praise Jesus! (and this is another case of special pleading that you have been caught in) Aquin wrote: God also killed the entire earth except for Noah during the floods.  Why would you question it?  It is God's will: you should submit. Jesus also ordered the executions of babies by the sword. Is that the will of Jesus? I though Jesus loved everyone? I always see those funny comparisons that evangelicals love so much to put out: Who is better Jesus or Prophet Muhammad? They said Jesus could commit no violence? But there were babies who would disagree (according to your bible and theolgy of course, Islam is not violent like that) Aquin wrote: We do not take it upon ourselves to decide who lives or dies.  That is God's will.  I find it interesting how you think that because Jesus is God and God killed human beings, you think you are capable of deciding who should die and who should live. Except when you are busy taking land in war? And you are now saying, as I stated you would say, "Violence is piouse as long as Jesus puts his stamp of approval on it". Thats what you are now trying to appeal to. You are simply out of gas. So you are saying: Muslims commit violence and they are evil. Christains commit violence and "it is all good". Nice Aquinian. Aquin wrote: You attempt to make yourself like God when you claim that Jesus' perception of who should die is equivalent to yours.  His perception is much greater because he is God and I thank you for acknowledging that. Now you are rambeling. I have no idea what you are trying to say, and it does not relate to anything I have stated. Aquin wrote: In conclusion, we have make some startling realizations here: Man is not capable of deciding who should die.  However bloody or violent the method of God killing man, only God can make the judgement. ????????????? And this has to do with the thread????? exactly how??? And Moses gave law that allowed judges to decide who should die. So what of that? You said 6 million people died, so their relatives had the right to kill peopel for land? When did Gd do the killing? Aquin wrote: Those who claim that they have the right to jihad and kill Israelis are making themselves into gods.  They are deciding who lives or dies. Like the Jews and Christians who took the land? They decided who died? And yet another case of special pleading. Aquin wrote: As any good Muslim should, I suggest that you submit to Allah and accept his judgement rather than make your own judgements upon your brother. I have no idea what you just said? I have an idea that you also have no idea what you just said?   Andalus, I suggest you take a course in logic again.  Your failure to follow my thoughts is a clear indication of ignorance of logic.  This "theory of special pleading" is complete nonsense and I would appreciate it if you'd stop using it as a means of not responding to my posts.  That is all you are doing.  You are not making any effective defense of your religion.  It is obvious that you make counter accusations so that the violence of arab Muslims does not look as bad.

I am sorry that you have not been able to keep up with the basic principles of critical thinking. Not only have you committed the fallacy of speical pleading, but 99% of all evangelical polemics commit the fallacy.

Keep in mind it is not my job to educate your intellectual deficiencies, but I will do it as an act of charity in this case.

Special Pleading:

Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Person A accepts standard(s) S and applies them to others in circumtance(s) C.
2. Person A is in circumstance(s) C.
3. Therefore A is exempt from S.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html - http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.ht ml

You commit this fallacy on such a regular bases that the keys on my key board are becoming worn.

I hope this helps you, and I hope you enrich yourself with a basic logic course. I can refer you to some really good books for beginners. Now that you see that my claim is not only valid, but directly applies to the juvenile diatribe you have tried to sneak forth.

Aquin wrote: I love how you respond to the holocaust by saying "so that makes it okay to steal the arabs' land?"  YES YES YES YES.  It is okay to steal their land because they supported the holocaust.

1) They is a generalization that is the tool of racists, biggots, and all who have beliefs based upon irrational thought. You listed on man who had certain ideas. Since the one man does not define every person who lived in the Middle East, your conclusion is like the 99% of everything else you put forth: illogical, juvenile. sophomoric.

2) Since Christian Germany supported the Nazi party, I ask, who should steal their land? Since the US turned thei rbacks on the Jews, and sent back a great deal of them trying to leave Germany, then who should steal the US? Who should steal the vatican?

Another case of speical pleading.

Aquin wrote:   I'd say that land is a cheap price for the lives of 6 million jews, wouldn't you?

I would say that you are unable to provide even a crude argument that makes any real sense in a normal "forum setting".

Oh, by the way, your question is also a fallacy. Your question is a "complex question". Look it up.

Aquin wrote:  Just admit it: you don't think the holocaust really happened, do you?

Although irrelevant, as everything else is youhave put up, to your original thesis you have failed to prove: Islam teaches the killing of innocents.

I am puzzled at your question. You have been able to deduce my thoughts on the holocaust? Once more, you show your irrational use of thought. Your conclusions all seem to be derived from generalizations. You know that I have some view on the holocaust how?

Aquin wrote:  If the arabs had not supported the holocaust, they would not have lost their land.  TOO BAD.  I'm sorry you are failing to grasp this simple aspect of war, but maybe when the arabs win a war, they can set terms that are good for them.

Arabs did not support anything. Again you use the racist mentality of generalizations. Some did support the Nazis, as a way to get rid of the Christian oppressors, who supported by Holocaust by letting it happen. The holocaust happened in Christian lands. It is amazing that you feel Arabs have so much influence in the politcs of Europe.

So, in conclusion, we have learned from you that:

1) If Arabs have anyone from their population who supported the Nazis, then Christians are allowed to punish them by giving their lands away, and allowing thousands to perish and entire villages to be wiped off the map. (Is that Holy Ghost endorsed? Is that something Jesus, the Lamb, would do?) 

2) If Christians contirbuted to the death of Jews during this same period, then........(of course nothing happens, this was a pious mistake because it is a Christian mistake, or maybe the Christian atoned by giving away land that was not theirs?)

3) If someone wins a war, the loosing party has no rights, and may be wiped out, mistreated, etc, etc. (THis is what Jesus did in your OT yes? According to Christian theology and your bible? Right? This is a CHristian teaching?)

This is too easy Aquinian.

Aquin wrote: Just because the Israelis kill a Muslim does not make it okay for a Muslim to kill Israelis.  OH WAIT, YES IT DOES.  In your religion "eye for an eye" is okay right?

Not at all. This actually stems from Jesus in the Torah. Jesus was the first to initiate such laws. He was a pioneer! So the Jews believe in it also. The Church claims they have gone past it, but their actions differ. 

So lets review again:

According to Aquinian, if someone is oppressed by Israelis, and if that person had someone from their race support the Nazis, then Christians are allowed to give their land away, and any killing and opression that follows must be taken with respect and calm.

Your world is that of a teenager who has experience little of it. Your belief that Palestinians should sit quitely and live the lives they have been put in, and just ignore Israeli opression and injustice, because someone from their race made a deal with the Nazis has to be the most ignorant thing I have vere heard in my life. And that you really beleive it is beyond all rationality.    

Aquin wrote: I made the following argument very succintly: If Jesus is God and God ordered the killing of someone, then it is justified because only God is capable of giving someone life or death.

So you accept violence as long as it it Christian violence, piouse Christian violence. This is called, "special pleading".

Here, lets review again.

Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Person A accepts standard(s) S and applies them to others in circumtance(s) C.
2. Person A is in circumstance(s) C.
3. Therefore A is exempt from S.

You have done this in your attitude about land, about theology, and everything thus far. I suppose you are just a "special pleading" kind of guy!

So lets review: Killing babies is ok, as long as Jesus has said so.

I think we have that covered now.

Aquin wrote: Because Islam is unprovable and untrue, the Quran does not have justification for representing the will of God in any form.

The fallacy of proof by assertion, and more special pleading.

1) Violence is ok for Aquinian as long as Jesus does it because the violence is from Gd.

2) Violence is wrong by Muslims, and Islam is evil, because Islam cannot be proven true.  

Conlcusion: Aquinian accepts the murder of babies, so for him violence is ok. So prove your bible and religion are true? Prove that Islam is false?

And beyond this, for the sake of argument, lets say yoru faith can be proven true. Then your argument against Islam is not that it has vilolence, but that it cannot be proven true, since now you have admitted you accept violence as an appropriate action. WHy you accept it is irrelevant.

So now you only reject Islam because it cannot be proven true?

So now, prove your faith is true, and prove Islam is false.

Aquin wrote:    Therefore, when Muslims kill, they kill because a book that does not represent the will of God tells them to kill.  These killings are then unjustified. If Christians kill according to the law of the Bible, then they do so justifiably because the Bible is the true word of God. So, my argument is this: Islam is unprovable; therefore, killings performed in jihad are unjustifiable.

Lovely special pleading.

Lets review!

Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Person A accepts standard(s) S and applies them to others in circumtance(s) C.
2. Person A is in circumstance(s) C.
3. Therefore A is exempt from S.

Do you get it now?

Prove Christian is true. Prove Islam is false. Proof by assertion is not proof.

Aquin wrote: I am not assuming anything, but resting on you to prove that Islam is a real religion and not just a method for arab conquest.

Actually, you assume a great deal in your posts. You assert a great deal in your posts. You also use the fallacy of generalizations, or "sweeping generalizations", as a way to provde a reason to accept Israeli violence on Palestinians.

This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is not large enough. It has the following form:

1. Sample S, which is too small, is taken from population P.
2. Conclusion C is drawn about Population P based on S.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html - http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalizatio n.html

Everyone has piouse vilence to give out but Christians and those they see fit. Nice Aquinian.

And now you are switiching topics. The topic was your evidence that Islam teaches the killing of innocents. Now you want me to prove the Islam is true?

Since you have made the assertion that Islam cannot be proven true, and your acceptance of violence rests on this point, and you  accept violence by Jesus, then please prove that Christian can a) be proven true and b) is true.

Aquin wrote: Also, Annie offered evidence that Muhammad encouraged the killing of women and children, but you glossed over that, just as you've glossed over all of my arguments in favor of repetition and mass text.

Strange claim you are making. Since my repliy was a "gloss over", then perhaps you can show the forum the problems with it, specifically? I look forward to your input.

Aquin wrote: Here are some quotes from your prophet and Koran.  Go ahead and explain (sidestep) why each and every one is not a clear reason for explaining the violence of Islam:

This is called "dumping". You went to your favorite polemical website, and then copied and pasted this list. You have neither read any of this material, nor are you serious about discussing it. Dumping is a dihonest rhetorical trick. Either I spend a lot of time with each one, or I do not. Usually intellectual cowards appeal to this form of debate because they take the chance that no one will actually cover the whole thing. This allows them to continue pushing it around as factual. Now you have moved into the realm of dishonesty.

None of these verses proves that Islam teaches the killing of innocents. Many of the verses were not historical accounts, some were during war time, etc, etc, some you took completely out of context.

I would be happy to debate any of the points on the list. But at this point, I can only recoginize a person who hates Islam, and will never reply with anything decent or rational. You are now abusing the forum, and so far, you have used every reply to send polemical garbage, which has nothing to do wtith the point ot topic of the thread. Your "dumping" of more polemical garbage, none of which proved your orginal claim, and none of which you actually discussed, is the last straw. Consider your account under review, and this thread closed.  

Aquinian wrote: DavidC wrote: Aquinian, I suggest you adopt your namesake's methodology of 'si et non', and draw up a table of both evidences both or and against your thesis. Your last post was closer to screed than argument.  Nobody could possibly respond intelligently to such a diatribe. I simply don't have the time nor the desire to do that.

Actually, the real reason is that you are an intellectual coward. So far, you are only able to copy and paste items that have not proven your original thesis. You have used the forum to simply hurl garbage at my faith and this forum. I tried to engage you in debate, but you hid behind petty accusations and "red herrings". Your desire is only cheap, parlor sophistry.

Aquin wrote:  Besides, I'm a simple person, well meaning person who just wants to discuss my faith - this isn't a seminary or anything. :)

So far, you have only managed to show yourself as a juvenile intellect, incapable of any serious contribution, having to obfuscate threads with polemics copied and pasted from websites. You may or may not be a simple person, but for sure, you are simplistic person of the mind and of ability.

Your last act of chicanery has drawn the line, as you simply acted with a desperate attempt of cruelty with the list you dumped. I could easily paste lists as a way to strike out, but that is beneath me, and it would offend the many good Christians and Muslims who come here to discourse.