What will you do with me (and others like me?)

[RyanB]

This is far from the truth, in fact its is kind of the reverse of the truth. At least in Judaism and Christianity, we often use the same names but our understanding of who God is, is much different. Jesus told the Pharisees that they didn't know God the Father, because they didn't know Him or where He came from. (He was sent by the Father). Jesus declared that He IS the Truth, and the WAY to God.

Christianity also believes in the Triune God, rejected by Judaism and Islam. So, even when reduced to a basic understanding of the fundamental beliefs, the three you mentioned are quite different. As for the hostility towards Islam, I just don't know what you're talking about. I am a life long church goer and I've never been in a church that expressed hostility towards the people of Islam, not one single time. Westboro Baptist and white nationalists are not representative of the Church. They would be excommunicated from any church I've attended. Their beliefs are not acceptable, and Christianity at its core reaches out to those who serve other Gods. That is fundamental to Christianity. As a matter of fact, we support a Ministry that aids refugees fleeing the hostilities in the middle east and it appeals directly to those of the Islamic faith. Same also for a ministry to the people of India (providing health care), regardless of their belief system.

Spot on my friend.

 

[Hank S]

What "attitude" do you assume I am "copping?"

I enjoy lively discussions, you see.

"Here's what I like and dont like. What're you gonna do with me?" With that attitude, I'll just stay away; I dont need any false drama in my life. Come bother me, I'll run you off or leave myself (depending on where this happens). Talk civilized, you can stay. FYI, we agree on some points, and disagree on others. Personally, I prefer "pitch for speed, power for altitude."

What does any of this have to do with flying? Nothing that I noticed, and I just reread your initial post. There are other places on the Web where you can preach and complain about your aviationless activities, why do it on a Pilot board???

 

[Rushie]

So no follow up questions?

Early manuscript evidence is one of the strongest arguments for the validity of Christianity. Modern findings and discoveries have confirmed the accuracy of the translations, I can cite sources if you're interested.

I can say with confidence that the message is consistent among the major translations. (KJV, NIV, ESV, NASB, NKJV) The Bible has been the subject of intense scrutiny and if it were an unreliable text, you can bet it would be highy publicized. Any disputes among scholars are over semantics, punctuation or otherwise trivial matters when it comes to actual translation. So it is safe to say that you can have confidence that you are reading a reliable representation of the original intent of the authors. If fact, former atheist journalist and lawyer Lee Strobel was convinced of the truth of Christianity and converted to the faith in part because the historical accuracy and textual reliability of the translations. So I don't think it is quite so easily dismissed.

I'll drop the follow up to the originalist question, but it seems like you know where I was going with that. Perhaps part of the reason for confusion among different sects within Christianity is because it's treated like a "living" document. And, why you are bound to accept inconsistencies and contradictions in order to validate the "answers" you have found elsewhere. If it truly is as unreliable as you consider it to be, I don't know why quoting from it adds anything to your already formed opinion.

I don't want my post to come across as filled with animus or ill feelings, I'm just trying to apply logical consistency to the discussion. Sometimes that's difficult to do without sounding grumpy.

I wasn't going to come back but azure's post was so good I broke my own resolution so I'll go ahead and respond to you too. Semantics? Trivial differences? Christians cannot even agree on the apocrypha much less the Nag Hammadi. Not to mention how the three great monotheistic religions and their various offshoots add to and subtract from what they each claim to be the "real" message from God. How do I know the Book of Mormon isn't divinely inspired? For that matter why should I doubt that whatever came to the Buddha sitting under his tree was also grace from the Holy Spirit? If there is only one God what should it matter what name we call Him, or that he manifests himself in 3 ways, or maybe more? All religious disagreement and fighting is over the petty details and all scripture is man's symbolic language which is inherently limited. And there is that pesky time thing again. Before the Council of Trent it was this; after, it was that. That only even makes sense if you confine yourself to the physical world. Isn't that what we're trying to transcend as spiritual beings?

What "attitude" do you assume I am "copping?"

I enjoy lively discussions, you see.

I was wondering the same thing.

FWIW my mention of politics was tongue-in-cheek... hence the *gasp*. Pretty clear the OP was inviting it. I guess I needed an extra emoticon in there to make my meaning clear.

I can be sarcasm challenged at times.

Agree about the religion, now that I've read the entire thread (mostly). It just seemed like flirting with derailing the thread, and getting it locked.

So rushing in where not even angels fear to tread (it seems)... I've never understood the hostility to Islam among so many Christians in this country. Islam, Judaism, Christianity, all monotheistic religions originating in the Middle East. They all worship the same God, even if they may use different names for said God. As I understand it, the Torah is subsumed into the sacred writings of both Christianity and Islam. And both Christianity and Islam have had, and continue to have, their extremist sects dedicated to conversion or extermination of those who worship differently from themselves. It seems totally provincial and intolerant to brand an entire religion as extremist and violent.

I'm an agnostic myself, but used to work at a university in the inner city of Detroit, where many of the graduate students in my department (and quite a few undergrads as well) were immigrants from Muslim countries and were Muslim themselves. In fact, my dissertation advisor had a Muslim background, though I believe he was non-practicing. Anyway I never met a single Muslim there who professed allegiance to Al Qaeda or ISIL, or attempted to convert me or anyone that I know.

My 2 cents...

Agree 100% about extremist sects. I knew someone who had escaped from Iran when they were torturing to death all who disagreed during the revolution and he told me what was really going on and it was that 90% of people, Muslim or Christian or anything else, did not care a fig about religion and just want to earn a living, have a stable society and survive. He told me the soldiers went door to door and ordered you out in the streets to protest "Satan America" they would give you a flag to burn and said if you didn't come they'd shoot you.

To answer your question about hostility toward Islam among Americans, it is caused by the fact that we see so much of the terrorist atrocities in the news and very little anything else unless you personally have regular contact with "normal" people who happen to be Muslim. It's a very natural reaction, people react to a perceived threat with hostility. So when you see Muslims burning our flag in the streets and you hear the various terrorist sects vow to destroy our country and vow to implement a theocracy here in our homeland and you keep seeing these so called lone wolf attacks but you get little or no counterbalance in the news - little or no peaceful Muslims speaking out against this - they may be speaking but the news isn't covering it! Americans perceive Muslims want to destroy our culture and our way of life. But what we don't see in the news - ever as far as I can tell - are the ones who love America, who believe in our system of democracy with a little d (yes I know we are a representative republic) and who like my friend from Iran think America is the world's best hope for the future and who is disgusted and sickened by the portion of Islam carrying out the violence.

 

[Rushie]

Reading the crossed messages I am concluding two things. One, the "airplane only" types will never approve of off topic discussion. And two, people are going to hold fast to their religious beliefs no matter what.

 

[Ravioli]

Reading the crossed messages I am concluding two things. One, the "airplane only" types will never approve of off topic discussion. And two, people are going to hold fast to their religious beliefs no matter what.

Don't forget us "there is a specific rule about discussing religion and/or politics" types. Non-aviation threads occur here all the time. Many are entertaining and enlightening, sometimes simultaneously.

 

[Cooter]

I wasn't going to come back but azure's post was so good I broke my own resolution so I'll go ahead and respond to you too. Semantics? Trivial differences? Christians cannot even agree on the apocrypha much less the Nag Hammadi. Not to mention how the three great monotheistic religions and their various offshoots add to and subtract from what they each claim to be the "real" message from God. How do I know the Book of Mormon isn't divinely inspired? For that matter why should I doubt that whatever came to the Buddha sitting under his tree was also grace from the Holy Spirit? If there is only one God what should it matter what name we call Him, or that he manifests himself in 3 ways, or maybe more? All religious disagreement and fighting is over the petty details and all scripture is man's symbolic language which is inherently limited. And there is that pesky time thing again. Before the Council of Trent it was this; after, it was that. That only even makes sense if you confine yourself to the physical world. Isn't that what we're trying to transcend as spiritual beings?

Rushie, I sense your irritation so won't press much further. I will say that your confusion over the things you mentioned is your own confusion, not Christianity's. These are quite easily addressed, and the way in which you raise them tells me that you really aren't that familiar with them. A good definition of what it means to be a Christian is a good place to start.

But I will continue to address your reasoning. You've basically said that since lots of people disagree, no one can really be right or at least know that they're right. It's interesting that you treat religion this way, because I'm quite sure you don't follow this reasoning in all areas. Like many other things, clarity comes from increased understanding. If the world's religions seem similar from afar, it is because the details are not understood.

Why do you challenge my label of trivial about questions in translating the text, but then follow up by saying that all differences in religion are petty details? If differences among all religions are trivial, I'm not sure on what basis you think the 98% agreement on biblical text allows for non-trivial substantive disagreement. And, the Apocrypha is not a question of translation but of canon, the Apocrypha is consistent in message with the Bible regardless of its canonicity.

That only even makes sense if you confine yourself to the physical world. Isn't that what we're trying to transcend as spiritual beings?

No. The idea of transcending the physical world is a component of Eastern religions like Buddhism or Hinduism, and possibly some Western religions that have been influenced by Gnosticism. Christianity embraces the physical body and life in this world. Jesus came to earth, walked among men as a man, and died a physical death.

It may be an over broad generalization, but in general, Western religion embraces the mind and rationality, while Buddhism and Hinduism seeks to remove those influences as deceptions. It sounds to me like you want to fit Christianity into an Eastern mold. If you can get it to fit, it's form will no longer be recognizable Christianity.

 

[patrick wentworth]

As a secular humanist I am boggled at the previous 246 posts, but then I was sent to kill folks by merciful believers. I like people, stone carvers, piano players and even pilots. Based on 70 + years of interacting with other folks of many stripes (thank you military) without religion pretty much everyone just wants a job, good life, and have few friends over for a beer. Well, cheap low lead, flying, and foreflight is of course a given.

 

[spiderweb]

"Here's what I like and dont like. What're you gonna do with me?" With that attitude, I'll just stay away. . . .

I don't understand--you didn't stay away, and you are still posting in a thread which you dislike.

If a thread bores me, I don't read it.

As to why I post here, the reason is that I like most of the people on this board. Look at my join date, and you'll see I am an original member who has liked it here for 12 years.

 

[spiderweb]

Don't forget us "there is a specific rule about discussing religion and/or politics" types. Non-aviation threads occur here all the time. Many are entertaining and enlightening, sometimes simultaneously.

I know that you do not find that this thread is one of your favorites, but there are quite a few who are posting in it.

 

[Ravioli]

I know that you do not find that this thread is one of your favorites, but there are quite a few who are posting in it.

My view of the thread is only that it is against a rule. I've not opined on anything other than it being a clear rule violation.

If discussion of religion and politics is ever allowed on PoA again I'll be happy to participate. Until then... follow the damn rules.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

I know that you do not find that this thread is one of your favorites, but there are quite a few who are posting in it.

He has never stated his opinion of the thread. Just that it is in violation of the house rules. And he is correct. Rules are useless unless uniformly applied.

Personally I love this thread. Great conversation This is a really good example of why I would like a place on POA to have these discussions. But that doesn't exist under the current rules.

 

[redtail]

Agree 100% about extremist sects. I knew someone who had escaped from Iran when they were torturing to death all who disagreed during the revolution and he told me what was really going on and it was that 90% of people, Muslim or Christian or anything else, did not care a fig about religion and just want to earn a living, have a stable society and survive. He told me the soldiers went door to door and ordered you out in the streets to protest "Satan America" they would give you a flag to burn and said if you didn't come they'd shoot you.

To answer your question about hostility toward Islam among Americans, it is caused by the fact that we see so much of the terrorist atrocities in the news and very little anything else unless you personally have regular contact with "normal" people who happen to be Muslim. It's a very natural reaction, people react to a perceived threat with hostility. So when you see Muslims burning our flag in the streets and you hear the various terrorist sects vow to destroy our country and vow to implement a theocracy here in our homeland and you keep seeing these so called lone wolf attacks but you get little or no counterbalance in the news - little or no peaceful Muslims speaking out against this - they may be speaking but the news isn't covering it! Americans perceive Muslims want to destroy our culture and our way of life. But what we don't see in the news - ever as far as I can tell - are the ones who love America, who believe in our system of democracy with a little d (yes I know we are a representative republic) and who like my friend from Iran think America is the world's best hope for the future and who is disgusted and sickened by the portion of Islam carrying out the violence.

Fake news

https://muslimvillage.com/2017/06/05/124154/muslims-need-not-apologize-terrorism-ever/
By: Omar Alnatour

5) If we have to apologize for terrorism, then so should everyone else.
"Ask yourself: Should car manufacturers have to apologize when drunk drivers kill people using their vehicles? Should you be required to apologize to the police if your sibling gets a speeding ticket because you share the same last name? Should every single gun owner in America have to apologize whenever someone is killed by a firearm? Should weathermen have to apologize for cloudy days? Should pharmacists have to apologize for your allergies? Should I have to apologize for the typos of another writer?"

"This last point is especially important. Why are Muslims the only group that are required to apologize for and condemn the actions of criminals that associate with their group?

To put things into perspective, ask yourself: Why aren’t all white males asked to apologize for the slavery that white males endorsed less than two centuries ago? The slavery in which one third of slaves were Muslims. Why aren’t all Buddhists asked to apologize for the radical Buddhist monks in Mynammar that are violently attacking Muslims? Why aren’t all policemen asked to apologize for the racist cops that are dropping the bodies of unarmed blacks like leaves in the autumn?

You must understand that just as you are detached from the heinous crimes mentioned above, I am just as detached from the terrorism that so many keep trying to link me with for no other reason than me being a Muslim.
You must understand that by asking me whether I condemn terrorism, you are questioning my humanity."

 

[Cooter]

Wow, And this is where the train leaves the rails.

Your analogies miss the mark and come across as angry and defensive. But I'll let Rushie answer since it was addressed to her.

 

[azure]

This is far from the truth, in fact its is kind of the reverse of the truth. At least in Judaism and Christianity, we often use the same names but our understanding of who God is, is much different. Jesus told the Pharisees that they didn't know God the Father, because they didn't know Him or where He came from. (He was sent by the Father). Jesus declared that He IS the Truth, and the WAY to God.

Certainly there are differences between the religions in how followers worship God, even conceive of God. If you're going to say that means they don't worship the same God then I think we will be arguing semantics. How similar do different concepts of God have to be in order for them to be considered the same God? This could start getting ridiculous! Is the God of Christians not the same God as the God of the Israelites? Jesus was a Jew who founded his religion on the basis of Judaism. The God of the Muslims is the God of Abraham, in fact I'm pretty sure Abraham is considered a prophet in Islam, as is Jesus. Of course there are differences, otherwise it would be the same religion.

As for the hostility towards Islam, I just don't know what you're talking about. I am a life long church goer and I've never been in a church that expressed hostility towards the people of Islam, not one single time. Westboro Baptist and white nationalists are not representative of the Church. They would be excommunicated from any church I've attended. Their beliefs are not acceptable, and Christianity at its core reaches out to those who serve other Gods. That is fundamental to Christianity. As a matter of fact, we support a Ministry that aids refugees fleeing the hostilities in the middle east and it appeals directly to those of the Islamic faith. Same also for a ministry to the people of India (providing health care), regardless of their belief system.

Nevertheless, the Westboro Baptists (not to mention the KKK, who also profess themselves to be an arm of Christianity) are exactly who I was talking about. Certainly no major Christian church condones what they do and preach; that is why I called them EXTREMIST sects. To my knowledge, there is similarly no branch of mainstream Islam that does anything but condemn in the harshest terms the acts of terrorists who murder in its name.

 

[azure]

To answer your question about hostility toward Islam among Americans, it is caused by the fact that we see so much of the terrorist atrocities in the news and very little anything else unless you personally have regular contact with "normal" people who happen to be Muslim. It's a very natural reaction, people react to a perceived threat with hostility. So when you see Muslims burning our flag in the streets and you hear the various terrorist sects vow to destroy our country and vow to implement a theocracy here in our homeland and you keep seeing these so called lone wolf attacks but you get little or no counterbalance in the news - little or no peaceful Muslims speaking out against this - they may be speaking but the news isn't covering it! Americans perceive Muslims want to destroy our culture and our way of life. But what we don't see in the news - ever as far as I can tell - are the ones who love America, who believe in our system of democracy with a little d (yes I know we are a representative republic) and who like my friend from Iran think America is the world's best hope for the future and who is disgusted and sickened by the portion of Islam carrying out the violence.

Yes, on an intellectual level I know this, I just can't relate to it. I guess it's just that it goes very counter to what I've been taught about the mainstream religions from very young. Of course, I grew up before Islamic terrorism was a "thing" in the news. I would disagree somewhat that ordinary Muslim Americans who love this country aren't seen in the news. It depends on which outlets you follow. NPR and PBS have definitely interviewed mainstream Muslim authors and ordinary folks who are horrified by ISIL and other terrorists who commit terrible acts in the name of Islam. They have also given a fair amount of air time to intellectuals who argue that accepting the notion that we are in a war with Islam is playing directly into the hands of ISIL, both by validating their worldview and by alienating young Muslims and making them more receptive to the crap being spewed by ISIL propagandists trying to recruit people to their cause.

 

[Hank S]

I don't understand--you didn't stay away, and you are still posting in a thread which you dislike.

If a thread bores me, I don't read it.

I quit reading this thread early, but then i get a little red notification when I come to PoA that I have been quoted. It's happened twice in this thread, bht I skipped about 6 pages of non-aviation BS that I don't want to read.

Going away again . . . . Wish there was a way to report this whole thread and not just individual posts. Then we'd see how well the mods enforce the rules.

 

[Cooter]

If you're going to say that means they don't worship the same God then I think we will be arguing semantics.

You couldn't be more wrong. Go back and read the rest of my post. Jesus explicitly says that anyone who tries to serve God apart from doing so through Christ, is serving a false god. He will in the end say them, "away from me, I never knew you". The God of Islam is not the God of the Bible by a long stretch. No serious and informed adherent of Islam or Christianity will dispute that. Each religion holds exclusive claims about who Christ is, they cannot both be right. The question about whether or not Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Redeemer of fallen man, or just one of many man-prophets is not an argument over semantics. Jesus states that He is The Way, The Truth, and The Life and no one comes to the Father but through Him. That is an exclusive claim, not semantics.

 

[azure]

I've read your post, and those claims, many times, from many different people. The interpretations of those statements, however, as of so many similar statements in the New Testament, vary widely. Perhaps semantics is the wrong word, but it is arcane details of theology. And I'm not going to argue about those details as I'm neither a believer nor a theologist.

But I will say that the belief in the exclusivity of Christ as the way to salvation was one of the "compassionate" arguments used to justify one of the bloodiest and most wasteful (of human lives) pursuits in the history of the medieval Church... the Crusades. Which is basically not very different from Jihad as practiced by Islamic extremists today.

And the idea that followers of other religions will never reach Heaven is one of the things that drove me away from Catholicism when I was much younger... that, and the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.

 

[Cooter]

I've read your post, and those claims, many times, from many different people. The interpretations of those statements, however, as of so many similar statements in the New Testament, vary widely. Perhaps semantics is the wrong word, but it is arcane details of theology. And I'm not going to argue about those details as I'm neither a believer nor a theologist.

But I will say that the belief in the exclusivity of Christ as the way to salvation was one of the "compassionate" arguments used to justify one of the bloodiest and most wasteful (of human lives) pursuits in the history of the medieval Church... the Crusades. Which is basically not very different from Jihad as practiced by Islamic extremists today.

And the idea that followers of other religions will never reach Heaven is one of the things that drove me away from Catholicism when I was much younger... that, and the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.

Well Papal infallibility keeps me away from Catholocism as well, so we have that in common.

Your reference to the Crusades is worded in such a way that I can't disagree with it, although the point you are trying to make with it is wrong. An abuse of an idea doesn't necessarily speak against the idea itself. But it also can. So the question becomes, are the abuses consistent with the idea or ideology as a whole. The exclusivity of Christ does nothing to promote forced conversions unless you completely remove it from the teachings of Christ. The Crusades were largely over reclaiming land, not bringing people to a saving knowledge of Christ. But it is interesting and telling that those critical of Christianity are so eager to jump back almost a thousand years to show Christians their marred past. Why don't we do that with Islam? Let's scan back 1000 years and see what atrocities we can find that we're done in the name of Allah. But wait, you don't seem to want to criticize Islam, only Christianity.

Here's a little test, but you have to be honest. Would you rather go to a Christian nation and criticize Christianity or go to a Muslim nation and criticize Islam? Would you rather be a woman in a historically Christian nation, or an Islamic one? Let's use the US and Saudi Arabia, a friend of ours in the Middle East. Now, ask yourself WHY the answer is what it is.

 

[azblackbird]

And the idea that followers of other religions will never reach Heaven is one of the things that drove me away from Catholicism when I was much younger... that, and the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.

The hypocrisy is what drove me away. Course' I was never heavily involved in the first place, but seeing so many people saying or believing in one thing, and then doing another. It didn't take me long to see the fallacy of it all.

 

[Cooter]

And the idea that followers of other religions will never reach Heaven is one of the things that drove me away from Catholicism when I was much younger..

In one sense I can understand your point, but the real question is whether it's true or not. Is Christ the only way? If so, then we need to come to terms with what that means in its entirety. If it's not true, then the words of Christ are not worth following because He was really, really wrong. Wrong to the point of being deluded or a liar.

The hypocrisy is what drove me away. Course' I was never heavily involved in the first place, but seeing so many people saying or believing in one thing, and then doing another. It didn't take me long to see the fallacy of it all.

That's a bummer, but I know what you're saying. I disagree that it's a fallacy, but I don't dispute the hypocrisy that is often present. Finding a good church with sincere people isn't as easy as I would hope and expect.

 

[Ravioli]

And so it is written on 4 September 2017 at 9:58am, in post #258 on the PoA, another religion was called out for disparagement by those who "just want to have a reasoned discussion."

The MC, seeing that it was good and reasonable, did nothing.

 

[azblackbird]

Finding a good church with sincere people isn't as easy as I would hope and expect.

Which is the exact reason I'd rather be out flying thinking about God, rather than sitting in a church thinking about flying.

 

[Half Fast]

Finding a good church with sincere people isn't as easy as I would hope and expect.

Actually, they're easy to spot.

Look for a church that is out in the community and elsewhere in the world doing things to help other people. No one who isn't sincere and committed to his beliefs will be expending huge portions of his personal time and money. Hypocrites sit in a pew, listen to a sermon once a week, drop a few dollars in the collection plate, and act sanctimonius. Sincere believers will be found giving generously and serving eagerly. They freely admit that they're not perfect but they don't let that stop them from serving wherever and however they can.

 

[weilke]

You couldn't be more wrong. Go back and read the rest of my post.

Once a discussion about religion has degraded to this point, there is really nothing to be gained from continuing it.

 

[spiderweb]

. . . .

And the idea that followers of other religions will never reach Heaven is one of the things that drove me away from Catholicism when I was much younger... that, and the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.

I'm not a Catholic, but I should point out that since Vatican II, the Catholic Church no longer holds that non-Catholics cannot "reach Heaven". (Lumen Gentium)

What this means, then, is that whether one is comfortable in one's own religion, many religions, or NO religion, it doesn't matter, but is perhaps nice to know that Catholics don't think you're going to miss out on Heaven.

 

[weilke]

I'm not a Catholic, but I should point out that since Vatican II, the Catholic Church no longer holds that non-Catholics cannot "reach Heaven". (Lumen Gentium)

What this means, then, is that whether one is comfortable in one's own religion, many religions, or NO religion, it doesn't matter, but is perhaps nice to know that Catholics don't think you're going to miss out on Heaven.

Cooter is going to be so ticked off when he gets to heaven and finds Muslims and buddists there.

 

[spiderweb]

Cooter is going to be so ticked off when he gets to heaven and finds Muslims and buddists there.

LOL

 

[Ravioli]

Anyone can reach heaven. They just have to be REALLY ****ING TALL.

Entering seems to have many different rules. None of which are topics allowed in this forum.

And I've got to ask: Do you people follow your religions with the same disregard for rules that you display here? Don't answer. Wouldn't want to make a liar out of anyone.

 

[Half Fast]

Cooter is going to be so ticked off when he gets to heaven and finds Muslims and buddists there.

Cooter will have to speak for himself, but I doubt this.

Most Christians I know feel much the way I do. We would be delighted and relieved to find our non-Christian friends and family in heaven. Today we worry about them and fear for them. If we, as Christians, sincerely believe in Christ's deity, we must take as truth His telling us that no one comes to God except through Him. If He lied or was insane in saying that, then He isn't God, and He isn't even a true prophet of God or, for that matter, even a "good man."

As a Christian, I want everyone to reach heaven. I just have to accept Jesus' own words about how that must happen. The apostle Peter wrote, "God does not want anyone to be destroyed, but wants everyone to repent." How could I feel otherwise?

 

[Cooter]

Cooter will have to speak for himself, but I doubt this.

Most Christians I know feel much the way I do. We would be delighted and relieved to find our non-Christian friends and family in heaven. Today we worry about them and fear for them. If we, as Christians, sincerely believe in Christ's deity, we must take as truth His telling us that no one comes to God except through Him. If He lied or was insane in saying that, then He isn't God, and He isn't even a true prophet of God or, for that matter, even a "good man."

As a Christian, I want everyone to reach heaven. I just have to accept Jesus' own words about how that must happen. The apostle Peter wrote, "God does not want anyone to be destroyed, but wants everyone to repent." How could I feel otherwise?

Well said.

Christianity is not about the power of positive thinking, feeling good about yourself, or making others feel good about themselves. It is about the Truth. The reason Christians take it seriously is because we understand that truth matters. And, that there are eternal consequences for disregarding or rejecting the Truth.

One of the main points that I am trying to make here is that Christianity is not like mythology, the Easter Bunny or self-awareness and enlightenment in a New Age sense. Christianity makes historical, verifiable claims and will stand or fall based on those claims. Anyone who is not aware of the scrutiny to which the claims of Christianity have been subjected is simply ignorant of its history.

I embraced the truth claims of Christ because I found them to be true. I set out to find the Truth and found fault with every other worldview that I tested. No other belief system provides the framework for understanding who we are, why we are, and why we are the way that we are. Others may disagree, and that's fine, I don't have hostility for those who disagree with me.

Christ said that "if you hold to my teaching then you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free". Christians want to see people set free from their sin and from the fallenness and brokenness of this world. That is why Christ came, and that is why we share His Word. We share the Gospel because we understand that we are bringing the "godspel", the good story and good news of how God has provided for our sin in Christ. A significant portion of this thread was about racial reconciliation. It is my belief that racial reconciliation will begin when we recognize our need to be reconciled to God through Christ and freed from the power of sin.

So @weilke, no I won't be angry or disappointed. I will rejoice in the good work that God has done to bring me and many others to Himself. I hope to see you there and I hope you'll bring all your friends!

 

[azure]

Your reference to the Crusades is worded in such a way that I can't disagree with it, although the point you are trying to make with it is wrong. An abuse of an idea doesn't necessarily speak against the idea itself. But it also can. So the question becomes, are the abuses consistent with the idea or ideology as a whole. The exclusivity of Christ does nothing to promote forced conversions unless you completely remove it from the teachings of Christ. The Crusades were largely over reclaiming land, not bringing people to a saving knowledge of Christ. But it is interesting and telling that those critical of Christianity are so eager to jump back almost a thousand years to show Christians their marred past. Why don't we do that with Islam? Let's scan back 1000 years and see what atrocities we can find that we're done in the name of Allah. But wait, you don't seem to want to criticize Islam, only Christianity.

You may not be understanding the point I'm making if you think it's wrong. I didn't say and I don't mean to imply that the Crusades were a necessary outcome of Christianity. I'm saying that "saving the heathens" has been used to justify a lot of brutal and imperialistic acts by European Christian nations, including the Crusades (regardless of what they actually were "about") and the invasion and conquest of the Americas, most of Africa, and other regions. Just as uniting the world under Islam has been used to justify jihadism today. My point is precisely that these aggressive acts aren't a necessary outcome of *either* religion, but both religions have been appropriated to motivate and justify war and brutality.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that I "only" want to criticize Christianity. I have nothing really against Christianity, as I said it is the cruel acts committed by certain self-professed Christians in the name of Christ that offend me. Just as similar acts by certain self-professed Muslims in the name of God offend me, and equally as much.

Here's a little test, but you have to be honest. Would you rather go to a Christian nation and criticize Christianity or go to a Muslim nation and criticize Islam? Would you rather be a woman in a historically Christian nation, or an Islamic one? Let's use the US and Saudi Arabia, a friend of ours in the Middle East. Now, ask yourself WHY the answer is what it is.

As a woman I'm VERY much aware of the status of women under Islamic law, thank you. And no, I would not want to live in a nation governed by Sharia or any form of Islamic law. But as a gay woman, I wouldn't want to live in any nation governed by laws inspired by fundamentalist Christian ideas either, and I suspect (but can't be 100% sure) that I'd feel much the same way if I weren't gay. And I'm not sure I'd want to criticize the government in ANY kind of theocracy. But yes, if I absolutely HAD to choose I think I'd rather be a straight woman in a Christian theocracy than an Islamic one. I never said I thought conservative Islam was at all socially progressive or compatible with my own personal values. I could never embrace it as my own faith. But that doesn't mean that I can't respect folks who practice it, and refrain from branding the whole religion as violent or inherently supportive of the atrocities committed by ISIL and Al Qaeda.

 

[Cooter]

You may not be understanding the point I'm making if you think it's wrong. I didn't say and I don't mean to imply that the Crusades were a necessary outcome of Christianity. I'm saying that "saving the heathens" has been used to justify a lot of brutal and imperialistic acts by European Christian nations, including the Crusades (regardless of what they actually were "about") and the invasion and conquest of the Americas, most of Africa, and other regions. Just as uniting the world under Islam has been used to justify jihadism today. My point is precisely that these aggressive acts aren't a necessary outcome of *either* religion, but both religions have been appropriated to motivate and justify war and brutality.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that I "only" want to criticize Christianity. I have nothing really against Christianity, as I said it is the cruel acts committed by certain self-professed Christians in the name of Christ that offend me. Just as similar acts by certain self-professed Muslims in the name of God offend me, and equally as much.


As a woman I'm VERY much aware of the status of women under Islamic law, thank you. And no, I would not want to live in a nation governed by Sharia or any form of Islamic law. But as a gay woman, I wouldn't want to live in any nation governed by laws inspired by fundamentalist Christian ideas either, and I suspect (but can't be 100% sure) that I'd feel much the same way if I weren't gay. And I'm not sure I'd want to criticize the government in ANY kind of theocracy. But yes, if I absolutely HAD to choose I think I'd rather be a straight woman in a Christian theocracy than an Islamic one. I never said I thought conservative Islam was at all socially progressive or compatible with my own personal values. I could never embrace it as my own faith. But that doesn't mean that I can't respect folks who practice it, and refrain from branding the whole religion as violent or inherently supportive of the atrocities committed by ISIL and Al Qaeda.

Fair enough.

 

[redtail]

You couldn't be more wrong. Go back and read the rest of my post. Jesus explicitly says that anyone who tries to serve God apart from doing so through Christ, is serving a false god. He will in the end say them, "away from me, I never knew you". The God of Islam is not the God of the Bible by a long stretch. No serious and informed adherent of Islam or Christianity will dispute that. Each religion holds exclusive claims about who Christ is, they cannot both be right. The question about whether or not Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Redeemer of fallen man, or just one of many man-prophets is not an argument over semantics. Jesus states that He is The Way, The Truth, and The Life and no one comes to the Father but through Him. That is an exclusive claim, not semantics.

Yet he also told his disciples to worship none but the father. Thus he was keeping to the teachings of Abraham (pbuh). You can't preach monotheism and then violate the very tenets of such, therefore, the Qur'an confirms that Jesus(pbuh) did indeed teach monotheism and never elevated himself to the status of the God who created him in the blessed womb of his mother Mary (peace be upon her), and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit. Sent him to deliver the message (which is indeed to redeem fallen man) and gave him the power as The Messiah! Isa ibn Maryam, Al Masih. Peace and blessings be upon him. Yes, God (the originator of the heavens and earth) is ONE! It is he who created ALL, NONE is his equal. You can call him "Father", God, Allah, Jehovah, Yahweh. Same Creator.

5:110 When Allah will say: O Jesus, son of Mary, remember My favor to thee and to thy mother, when I strengthened thee with the Holy Spirit; thou spokest to people in the cradle and in old age, and when I taught thee the Book and the Wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel, and when thou didst determine out of clay a thing like the form of a bird by My permission, then thou didst breathe into it and it became a bird by My permission; and thou didst heal the blind and the leprous by My permission; and when thou didst raise the dead by My permission; and when I withheld the Children of Israel from thee when thou camest to them with clear arguments — but those of them who disbelieved said: This is nothing but clear enchantment.

5:111 And when I revealed to the disciples, saying, Believe in Me and My messenger, they said: We believe and bear witness that we submit.

5:112 When the disciples said: O Jesus, son of Mary, is thy Lord able to send down food to us from heaven? He said: Keep your duty to Allah if you are believers."

 

[Cooter]

You can call him "Father",

Does Surat al-Ikhlas not declare that God is not a Father and He has no son?

Lam yalid walam yūlad - He neither begets nor is born.

Contrast:

"For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son" John 3:16

So the question is, can you call Him Father, and call Jesus His Son? I can.

 

[redtail]

Does Surat al-Ikhlas not declare that God is not a Father and He has no son?

Literal son, correct.
Catholics call their priest "Father". In certain societies men of power are called "Lord". Calling God "Father" doesn't at all conflict with His singularity, Oneness or Uniqueness.

Al-Ikhlas — The Unity:
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
112:1 Say: He, Allah, is One.
112:2 Allah is He on Whom all depend.
112:3 He begets not, nor is He begotten;
112:4 And none is like Him.

3:42 And when the angels said: O Mary, surely Allah has chosen thee and purified thee and chosen thee above the women of the world.
3:43 O Mary, be obedient to thy Lord and humble thyself and bow down with those who bow.

3:45 When the angels said: O Mary, surely Allah gives thee good news with a word from Him (of one) whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, worthy of regard in this world and the Hereafter, and of those who are drawn nigh (to Allah),
3:46 And he will speak to the people when in the cradle and when of old age, and (he will be) one of the good ones.

3:47 She said: My Lord, how can I have a son and man has not yet touched me? He said: Even so; Allah creates what He pleases. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, Be, and it is.
3:48 And He will teach him the Book and the Wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel:
3:49 And (make him) a messenger to the Children of Israel (saying): I have come to you with a sign from your Lord, that I determine for you out of dust the form of a bird, then I breathe into it and it becomes a bird with Allah’s permission, and I heal the blind and the leprous, and bring the dead to life with Allah’s permission; and I inform you of what you should eat and what you should store in your houses. Surely there is a sign in this for you, if you are believers.

3:50 And (I am) a verifier of that which is before me of the Torah, and I allow you part of that which was forbidden to you; and I have come to you with a sign from your Lord, so keep your duty to Allah and obey me.
3:51 Surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so serve Him. This is the right path.

Luke 11:1
1 One day Jesus was praying in a certain place. When he finished, one of his disciples said to him, “Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his disciples.” 2 He said to them, “When you pray, say: “‘Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come. 3 Give us each day our daily bread. 4 Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us. And lead us not into temptation.’

 

[Cooter]

Literal son, correct

Right. Christianity believes that Jesus is God's literal son. If your God has no son and has not begotten, then we do not serve the same God.

We are in agreement that God is One. Where we disagree, is that I believe that 3 persons comprise the One True God.

God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. I serve a Triune God. Apart from the Deity of Christ, Christianity fails. And in my opinion, apart from the Trinity, other religions fail.

We disagree, but I'm thankful for your input. I think it is right that we establish where we differ and make the right distinctions. My understanding of Islam is limited and I will soon be reading some books to deepen my understanding. I hope we can continue the discussion.

 

[Ravioli]

I hope we can continue the discussion.

And for the love of all that is holy, DO IT SOMEWHERE ELSE.

 

[redtail]

Right. Christianity believes that Jesus is God's literal son. If your God has no son and has not begotten, then we do not serve the same God.

We are in agreement that God is One. Where we disagree, is that I believe that 3 persons comprise the One True God.

God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. I serve a Triune God. Apart from the Deity of Christ, Christianity fails. And in my opinion, apart from the Trinity, other religions fail.

We disagree, but I'm thankful for your input. I think it is right that we establish where we differ and make the right distinctions. My understanding of Islam is limited and I will soon be reading some books to deepen my understanding. I hope we can continue the discussion.

Yep, to each his own as the Qur'an clearly states. On that day God will inform us of our errors and judge our hearts. In the meantime, when it comes to worship and prayer to a deity, I will follow the perfect example of Jesus The Messiah/Christ (pbuh). I love him, but I can't worship nor pray to him or his mother as Catholics do.

Three is the very definition of poly-theism. By the way, this argument has been going on for centuries
Peace.

In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.

109:1 Say: O disbelievers,
109:2 I serve not what you serve,
109:3 Nor do you serve Him Whom I serve,
109:4 Nor shall I serve that which ye serve,
109:5 Nor do you serve Him Whom I serve.
109:6 For you is your recompense and for me my recompense.

Yusuf Ali translation: 109:6 "To you be your Way, and to me mine."

5:75 The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a messenger; messengers before him had indeed passed away. And his mother was a truthful woman. They both used to eat food. See how We make the messages clear to them! then behold, how they are turned away!

5:76 Say: Do you serve besides Allah that which controls for you neither harm nor good? And Allah — He is the Hearing, the Knowing.

5:77 Say: O People of the Book, exaggerate not in the matter of your religion unjustly, and follow not the low desires of people who went astray before and led many astray, and went astray from the right path.

Looks like The Messiah knew exactly who to pray to during times of trouble. He wasn't praying to himself, nor his mother. He was praying to the ONE who sent him, (in a moment of doubt as to whether he had forsaken him). At that moment, the Qur'an says God did NOT forsake him.

Matthew 27:45-46, "Now from the sixth-hour darkness fell upon all the land until the ninth hour. 46And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?"

 

[Cooter]

And for the love of all that is holy, DO IT SOMEWHERE ELSE.